Why TRO Against K to 12 Should Be Issued

BRILLANTES, ET. AL. vs. Aquino III, ET. AL. (Petition Against K to 12 of the Manila Science Parents, Teachers and Students. They will file a 4^th Motion to Resolve their prayer for a TRO on February 15, 2016).

4^th Most Extremely Urgent Motion to Forthwith Resolve Without Further Delay Prayer for the Immediate Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order; To Hear Case on Oral Arguments & to Include These Motions in the 2/16 Agenda of the Honorable Supreme Court En Banc.

When they filed their  instant  Petition  last  June 23, 2015, they already prayed for the ex parte issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order, which will direct Respondents (DepEd) to immediately stop the implementation of the two (2) additional years of senior high school and allow the Grade Ten Students among them (as well as the class they represent) to take College Entrance Tests, lest the reliefs they are praying for in their instant Petition for said senior high school to be declared unconstitutional and thus for them to be allowed to enter college after four (4) years of high school be rendered ineffectual.

They pointed out that colleges and universities are already about to conduct their Entrance Tests. Thus, the  matter is of extreme urgency, such that unless a TRO is issued ex parte, grave injustice and irreparable injury will be caused to them before the matter can be heard on notice, since said Grade Ten Students will not be allowed to take said test. Most  sadly,  notwithstanding  said  extreme  urgency and grave injustice which provide valid grounds under the Rules, for the Honorable Court to issue said TRO ex parte, all that the Honorable Court did was to direct  Respondents to Comment on their Petition and their said prayer for a TRO within ten (10) days from notice thereof. To aggravate matters, the June 30, 2015 Resolution of the Honorable Court which issued said directive, was sent by registered mail to the parties only last July 13, 2015, thus further delaying compliance thereto by the Respondents, when the Honorable Court taking cognizance of the urgency of the situation, could have directed that it be served in such manner that it will reach Respondents the fastest possible time. 

Considering that the University of the Philippines as well as the other universities were already about to conduct their College Admission Tests, they filed last July 28, 2015 a Most Urgent Motion for Early Resolution of their said prayer for a TRO, arguing that the extreme urgency for its issuance is already beyond dispute, considering that without said TRO, Petitioner Students, a number of whom are poor but most deserving, will be denied the chance to qualify and thus avail of the quality education that the State University and other colleges and universities offer. They added that the very records of the Department of Education and the law itself show beyond dispute that the requirement for them to attend two (2) additional years of senior high school is unconstitutional and thus void. Most   sadly,  despite  the  fact  that  the  Honorable Court could already resolve their said most meritorious Motion for the ex parte issuance of a TRO, all that it did in its August 04, 2015 Resolution was to merely NOTE it.

Respondents however did not comply with the ten (1) day period given to them by the Honorable Court. They (through the Office of the Solicitor General)  instead asked for a one (1) month extension for the filing of their Comment to the Consolidated Petitions (or until September 05, 2015). In asking for that extension, they must certainly have already considered their alleged “heavy pressure of work” (which incidentally is not a valid justification, as it will only encourage needless delays) and thus could not use that as an excuse to ask for another extension.

Thus, herein Petitioners filed last September 17, 2015 a Vehement Opposition to Respondents’ 2^nd Motion for Extension of Time to File Comment with 2^nd Motion Urgent Motion for Early Resolution (of their prayer for the Immediate Ex Parte Issuance of a TRO). They added that even in the absence of said Comment, the Honorable Court will be able to judge based on the arguments they have advanced, that there is indeed sufficient and convincing proof beyond reasonable doubt and according to the rules of evidence, of the clear and unequivocal breaches of the Constitution, not only by DepEd Order No. 31, s. 2012 and Republic Act No. 10533 but also by their implementation. Having overcome their presumption of validity and constitutionality, justice but demands that their Motion for a TRO be forthwith resolved and be so resolved in their favor.

Most sadly, their plea still remained unheeded by the Honorable Court, with their said Vehement Opposition and 2^nd Most Urgent Motion for Early Resolution, again merely NOTED by the Honorable Court in its October 06, 2015 Resolution. Notwithstanding the fact that the Honorable Court in its September 15, 2015 Resolution, already issued a warning that no further extension will be given by it to Respondents and thus its Second Motion for Extension will be the last, Respondents in utter disregard of said warning, still asked for a third extension which the Honorable Court, most sadly granted just the same in its November 24, 2015 Resolution. It was only last October 30, 2015 or more than four (4) months since they filed their instant Petition that Respondents were able to file their Comment thereto.

Last  December  02,  2015,  they filed their Reply to Respondents’ Comment With 3^rd Most Urgent Motion to Resolve Prayer for a TRO, beseeching the Honorable Court that since Respondents’ Comment has already been filed and thus they have already been heard on the instant Petition, their prayer for the issuance of a TRO should already be acted upon[1], forthwith resolved and be so resolved without further delay in their favor.

While they were fully aware that the issuance of a TRO rests on the sound  discretion  of the  Honorable  Court, there was absolutely no more reason for the Honorable Court not to act on their said Motion, considering that Respondents have already been heard on their Petition through their Comment and they have already complied with the Order of the Honorable Court to file a Reply thereto.[2] They were expecting that at the very least, their 3^rd Most Urgent Motion for Issuance of a TRO will be included in the agenda of the Honorable Court’s remaining En Banc sessions last December 2015 and be deemed submitted for Resolution. They subsequently sadly learned however that it was only last January 12, 2016 that it was heard by the Supreme Court En Banc.

They eagerly waited for the Resolution of said January 12, 2016 session to be released, expecting that finally their Motion for the issuance of a TRO will already be resolved. Considering that the school year is about to end, indubitably establishing the most extreme urgency for the Honorable Court to already act on their said Motion and making the grave injustice and irreparable injury which they will suffer most imminent, they saw no valid reason why the Honorable Court may still suspend action on their said Motion for the issuance of a TRO.

Most sadly, notwithstanding the sense of urgency which is already tormenting them no end, the Honorable Court remained unmoved. As before, it simply NOTED without any action their said Reply and 3^rd Most Urgent Motion in its January 12, 2016 Resolution (which to this very late date, they still have to formally receive). They respectfully and humbly manifest that they are completely baffled by the continued inaction of the Honorable Court, despite the fact that their Motion for the issuance of a TRO is already most ripe for resolution and long overdue.

They  respectfully  wish  to  call  the  attention of the Honorable Court that since the school year is about to end, if it still does not resolve their prayer for a TRO, the Grade Ten Students among them, will suffer the grave injustice and irreparable injury of not being admitted to College next school year, despite the utmost merit of their said Motion for a TRO, thereby rendering ineffectual the judgment and reliefs they are praying  for in their instant Petition, among which, is for the two (2) additional years of senior high school to be declared unconstitutional and thus void. They beseech the Honorable Court to finally feel the extreme sense of urgency of the situation and to forthwith and without further delay, resolve their said Motion for issuance of a TRO no later than the first week of March 2016 or before the end of the current school year of 2015-2016, pursuant to their sacred constitutional rights to due process of law and for the speedy disposition thereof.

They  would  not  have  been   placed   in  this  most  dangerous situation and the Honorable Court would have resolved their Motion for a TRO much earlier, were it not for the most inordinate and unreasonable delay of Respondents in  filing their Comment to their instant Petition. With an Associate Solicitor assigned to Comment on each of the herein Consolidated Petitions and with the entire machinery of the executive and legislative departments at their disposal, there was absolutely no valid justification for their repeated Motions for Extension of Time to File Comment, considering that their instant Petition was filed way back in June 2015 and the other Petitions were filed much earlier in March 2015.

Most  sadly,  the  Honorable  Court has itself allowed said most inordinate and unreasonable  delay committed by the Respondents, considering that notwithstanding its warning that Respondents’ Second Motion for Extension will be the last, it still subsequently granted Respondents’ Third Motion for Extension of Time to File Comment. Moreover, the Rules allow the Honorable Court to issue orders expediting proceedings. Thus, it could have directed that its Resolutions be immediately served on the parties and be so served by personal service, considering that said Rules specifically direct that prayers for TRO be speedily acted upon in a summary hearing. As it stands now, it is already more than seven (7) months and their prayer for the issuance of a TRO has not even been submitted for Resolution. The earliest Petitions against K to 12 which were filed way back in March 2015, will in fact be celebrating already their first anniversary, with no clear resolution in sight as regards their similar prayers for issuance of a TRO.

Under   the  circumstances, by reason  of  extreme  urgency  and most imminent danger of the herein Grade Ten Students suffering the aforementioned grave injustice and irreparable injury, they respectfully beseech and appeal to the Honorable Court to forthwith and without further delay finally resolve their Motion for Issuance of a TRO and so resolve it in their favor. Their said Motion is no less important that the other Motions for a TRO that the Honorable Court expeditiously acted upon. As it now stands, if the Honorable Court still does not act on their said Motion, it will be most inevitable that millions of Grade Ten Students will be forced to attend senior high school in blatant violation of their sacred constitutional rights, which if not prevented, will likewise inevitably lead to the catastrophic unconstitutional massive displacement of College Teachers and Personnel and the equally catastrophic unconstitutional massive dropping out from school of high school students who will not be able to afford the further added expense of senior high school.  

They  were  fully  aware  that  they who are just ordinary parents, teachers and students are ranged against powerful forces, namely, the combined machinery of the executive and legislative departments which have colluded with private school interests in imposing on them this despotic and oppressive education program. In filing their Petition, they prepared for the worst, that is, for their prayer for a TRO will be denied and they, the Grade Ten Students among them, condemned to suffer two (2) additional years of Senior High School. They however dared to file their instant Petition and join the ranks of fellow parents, teachers and students who have long been fighting against this unconstitutional K to 12 education program as they remained hopeful, that the Honorable Court, pursuant to its solemn and sacred obligation under the Constitution will come to their aid and without further delay finally issue the TRO that they have been praying for.

It is now time for the Honorable Court to decide as there is no more other time: condemn them to two additional years of senior high school by denying the TRO that they have long prayed for or free them of said unnecessary and most unconstitutional burden by issuing said TRO and eventually granting their Petition to declare the K to 12 Basic Education Curriculum and the two (2) additional years of senior high school they are assailing as well as the DepEd Order and law which serve as their bases to be unconstitutional.

They respectfully submit that  they have  more  than  adequately established facts for the Honorable Court to make a conclusive determination that they are entitled to the provisional reliefs they are praying for, particularly, undisputed facts (even admitted by Respondents) of material  and  substantial invasion of  their clear and unmistakable rights protected by the Constitution, which are directly threatened  (and in fact already violated) by the acts of Respondents, which they are seeking to enjoin and thus of the urgent and paramount necessity for the TRO to be issued to prevent serious and irreparable damage to them,[3] particularly the following:

Respondents, in a most brazen and arrogant manifestation of abuse of power, usurped legislative power, in utter disregard of the will of the people which has vested said power in the Congress of the Philippines only, by commencing through the assailed DepEd Order, to implement the K to 12 Basic Education Curriculum in 2012, even if there was no enabling legislation yet for the implementation of said new curriculum [as the then existing law defined the system of education as consisting only of a ten (10) year basic education cycle and the bill proposing to extend said cycle to twelve (12) years was still being deliberated in Congress].

Respondents continued to encroach on the power of the legislature, by persisting to implement its K to 12 Basic Education Curriculum (which by its own admission, was formulated in consultation only with a pool of experts), without complying with the law’s very requirement to formulate the enhanced basic education curriculum, in consultation with national students organizations, national teachers organizations and parents-teachers associations. Without a valid curriculum, neither can the two (2) additional years of senior high school be implemented.

But even if Respondents eventually comply with said consultation requirement, the implementation of Senior High School cannot apply to herein Petitioners Grade Ten Students. This is for the reason that their right to complete only four (4) years of high school, has already been vested, since that was the law in place when they started their high school in 2012. Thus, to impose on them the added burden of going through two (2) additional years of senior high school is to divest them of their said right and in effect apply the law retroactively (which is unconstitutional).

In fact, the assailed Law cannot be implemented at all even prospectively, for being violative of the constitutional right to substantive due process of herein Petitioner Students, considering that, it is not reasonably necessary to decongest their curriculum nor to lengthen their basic education cycle, since by reason of their  higher mental capabilities as gifted students, they can master their heavier in scope and more advanced special science curriculum within four (4) years. Thus, to require them to attend two (2) additional years of senior high school is most arbitrary and oppressive, likewise violative of their constitutional right to be admitted to college free from any unfair and unreasonable admission and academic requirement.

It is violative too of the constitutional right to substantive due process of all Filipino students and thus is unduly oppressive too and an unwarranted intrusion into their right to education, particularly to be admitted to College free from any unfair and unreasonable admission and academic requirement, considering that it is not reasonably necessary to decongest their curriculum nor to lengthen their basic education cycle in order to improve student performance as studies show that some countries which have short cycles have high scores in Math, Science and English while others with longer cycles have low scores. The law fails to consider that there are other causes of lower educational outcomes, like poverty, lack of good teachers, classrooms and books. Thus, there is another alternative and less intrusive way of accomplishing the objective of the law rather than lengthening the basic education cycle, which is, to pour government funds to better learning materials, better teachers (through the increase of their salaries), more classrooms and thus as a whole, a better learning environment, instead of unconstitutionally wasting government funds to private schools, who are pushing for K to 12 solely for their purely private interests. Hence, it is unduly oppressive and an unwarranted intrusion into the right to education of the Filipino students.

Instead however of decongesting the curriculum which is the law’s avowed purpose, in order to give students more time to master the desired basic learning competencies, it made it more congested, by transferring general education subjects offered in college to Senior High School, thus defeating the very purpose of the law, thereby undermining the right of high school students to quality education. What the law authorizes is only the enhancement of the basic education curriculum and not to transfer general education to high school, which education is the exclusive obligation of tertiary education to provide. So burdening high school with general education subjects, thus, likewise amounts to an executive usurpation of legislative power.

There is thus no reasonable necessity to transfer college general education subjects to senior high school, which thus violates likewise the right to substantive due process of College Teachers. That such is not reasonably necessary is further evidenced by the fact that high school teachers have no competence to teach them and thus College Teachers will just the same be relied upon to teach them.  Worse, it will inevitably and necessarily result in the massive displacement of College Teachers in the hundreds of thousands, violative of the constitutional mandate on the State to afford full protection to labor, particularly their constitutionally guaranteed right to security of tenure.

The law itself admits that DepEd does not have the capacity to offer Grade 11 to all public school students. Thus it provides funding for them to enroll in private schools. The funding however will not cover the entire cost of private education, which is clearly violative of the constitutional mandate on the State to provide for free public secondary education (and thus of its duty to make education accessible to all). Thus, even with government funding, majority of the Filipino students will just the same not be able to afford private education and thus be forced to drop out from school. This is another reason why the law is unconstitutional as it violates the very purpose it seeks to achieve.

They sadly note that while the February People Power Revolution which is being commemorated this month, has supposedly ended dictatorship and restored democracy with its principle of separation of powers as a safeguard against abuse, an equally reprehensible virtual dictatorship exists today, namely, the collusion of the executive and legislative departments, together with private school interests, in the implementation of the unconstitutional K to 12 Basic Education Program.

These actions of Secretary Luistro, which are clearly violative of the Constitution and thus are void are all over the papers. Yet, neither the Senate nor the House of Representatives, ever registered any protest, over the encroachment of their constitutional prerogatives by the executive department, notwithstanding the fact that the law itself provides for the creation of a Joint Congressional Oversight Committee to monitor the implementation of the law. Herein Petitioners have never imagined that such tyranny of the executive and legislative departments, which evidently are in collusion with each other, in perpetrating the grave injustice which the Filipino youth are being subjected to, would still befall them, many years after this country, in the words of a Chief Justice, has experienced “the wrenching pain of dictatorship” and has supposedly returned already to democracy.

The dictatorship at least exerted efforts to function under a cloak of legitimacy, no thanks to a Supreme Court then which in the words of a Chief Justice , did not have the moral courage to remind the dictator of his mortality and the inevitable historical damnation of despots and tyrants. Secretary Luistro however, perhaps certain that he can get away with it without any protest from the Legislature, in a most brazen and arrogant manifestation of abuse of power, proceeded to blatantly violate the Constitution, by implementing his K to 12 Basic Education Curriculum, without waiting for the law to be passed and persisted in implementing it in contravention of the very law he was supposed to merely enforce.

In the face of this grave injustice, the Honorable Supreme Court is their only hope, “as the last bulwark of democracy being the administrator of justice and the legitimate recourse of their grievances”. They  have  no  one  to  turn  to  and  seek aid from but from the Honorable Supreme Court. They thus implore and beseech the Honorable Supreme Court to come to their aid, pursuant to its solemn and sacred obligation under the Constitution. They implore and beseech the Honorable Supreme Court to forthwith and without further delay, immediately issue the Temporary Restraining Order they have long been praying for, so that the implementation of the K to 12 law be stopped, thus allowing the current Grade Ten students to take College Entrance Tests and eventually enter College next school year.

After the issuance of said TRO, so that they may be able to answer whatever questions or clarifications the Honorable Court may wish to propound and to definitively establish the merits of their Petition as well as to indubitably rebut Respondents’ vacuous arguments, they respectfully pray that their instant Petition be heard on oral arguments.

Finally, for purposes of expediting proceedings, they pray that the Honorable Chief Justice direct the immediate inclusion of the herein Motions in the agenda of the Honorable Court En Banc, to be held on February 16, 2016 and for all Resolutions of the Honorable Court to be personally served on herein parties. They cannot understand why it takes so long [some as long as two (2) months] for very simple Resolutions to reach them. In fact, to this very late date, they have not yet received the January 12, 2016 Resolution of the Honorable Court, whose directives they learned only of, as their undersigned counsel asked to have an advanced copy of it. 

---