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. 

---

WHY THE K TO 12 LAW IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

WHY IS THE K TO 12 LAW UNCONSTITUTIONAL? It was put into effect in 2012 by Secretary Luistro when there was no enabling legislation yet for the implementation of its new curriculum and the corresponding two (2) additional years of senior high school. This was a clear usurpation of legislative power, in utter disregard of the will of the people, which has vested said power in the Congress of the Philippines only.

K to 12 Law is Unconstitutional

URGENT CALL TO JOIN THE NOVEMBER 13, 2015 PROTEST ACTION (2PM) AT THE SUPREME COURT, TO URGE OUR HONORABLE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES TO STOP THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL K TO 12 LAW, THUS ALLOW OUR GRADE TEN STUDENTS (AND THOSE WHO WILL FOLLOW THEM) TO ENTER COLLEGE BEGINNING NEXT SCHOOL YEAR.

We have supposedly ended dictatorship and restored democracy with its principle of separation of powers as a result of the February People Power Revolution. Most sadly, an equally reprehensible virtual dictatorship exists today. Instead of checks and balances, we witness the collusion between the executive and legislative departments in the implementation of the unconstitutional K to 12 Basic Education Program.

It was put into effect in 2012 by Secretary Luistro when there was no enabling legislation yet for the implementation of its new curriculum and the corresponding two (2) additional years of senior high school. This was a clear usurpation of legislative power, in utter disregard of the will of the people, which has vested said power in the Congress of the Philippines only.

The law was eventually passed in 2013. The law itself however required DepEd to formulate the enhanced basic education curriculum, in consultation with national students organizations, national teachers organizations and parents-teachers associations. DepEd however, in utter disregard of the law, which it was supposed to enforce and administer only, continued to encroach on the power of the legislature, in violation of the principle of separation of powers, by persisting to implement the K to 12 Basic Education Curriculum as well as Senior High School, which by its own admission, was formulated in consultation only with what it calls a pool of experts.

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. We 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 us, 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.

But even if DepEd eventually complies with the consultation requirement of the law, its implementation cannot apply to the current 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 said right and in effect apply the law retroactively (which is unconstitutional). Such in fact is contrary to the very intent of the law which adopts for the very first time not only an entirely new education program which begins with kindergarten and ends with six (6) years of high school, in that sequence but also a new teaching methodology (the spiral progression approach) where knowledge and skills are mastered after each level. That sequence and spiral, most evidently, cannot start at the end with senior high school but must start with those who were in kindergarten in 2013 when the law came into effect.

In fact, the assailed Law cannot be implemented at all as it is per se unconstitutional, for being violative of substantive due process. The  objective  of  the   law is  to  decongest  the  basic  education curriculum and at the same time lengthen the basic education cycle for the purpose of giving students more time to master the desired learning competencies. Studies, like that of the Senate Economic Planning Office, however show that lengthening the learning time did not necessarily lead to better performance. In fact, some countries with short cycles have high scores in science and mathematics while other countries that have long education cycles have low scores. The K to 12 Law thus fails to consider other factors, like poverty, lack of teachers, classrooms and books. Given adequate instruction, armed with sufficient books and a conducive learning environment, the Filipino student does not need at all two (2) additional years of senior high school. Hence, it is not reasonably necessary to add two (2) years of senior high school to accomplish the objective of improving student performance and thus is violative of the right of the Filipino student to substantive due process.

There is another alternative and  a less intrusive way of accomplishing the objective of improving student performance.  Rather than funding private schools which will offer Grade 11 (the ones who are actually behind the drafting of the bill and lobbying for its passage, to advance their self-serving private interests and which is an admission that government is incapable of fulfilling its constitutional mandate of providing free public secondary education), said funds should be poured to better learning materials, better teachers (by increasing their salaries) and more classrooms and thus a more conducive learning environment for the Filipino student. After all, even with government funding, majority of the Filipino students will just the same not be able to afford private education and thus the mandate on the State to make education, particularly free public secondary education accessible to all will not really be accomplished. This is another reason why the law is unconstitutional as it violates the very purpose it seeks to achieve.  

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 are 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.

CONCERNED PARENTS OF MANILA SCIENCE HIGH SCHOOL

MANILA SCIENCE HIGH SCHOOL FACULTY & EMPLOYEES CLUB

Indeed "Never Again" but "The Struggle Continues"

THE STRUGGLE CONTINUES (please help us enlighten the public on the unconstitutionality of the K to 12 Law)              

Indeed “Never Again” as the PDI editorial says. But should we not add, “The Struggle Continues”? Life under the Marcoses was not better but neither was life before his Martial Law. That is why some gave Marcos the benefit of the doubt that he will indeed reform that old corrupt society which was ruled by elitist politics and which did not truly serve the genuine interests of the people. Most sadly, it turned out that Marcos simply wanted to establish dictatorial rule in order to perpetuate himself in power. The hated Marcos dictatorship was toppled by the Filipino people at EDSA. Equally sad however is that it did not turn out to be the revolution that it was described to be but a mere restoration of the corrupt elitist politics of pre-martial law days.

We have supposedly restored democracy and its principle of separation of powers. But instead of checks and balances, we witness collusion between the executive and legislative branches of government. A case in point is the K to 12 Law. It was implemented in 2012 by Secretary Luistro when there was no enabling legislation yet for the implementation of its new curriculum and the corresponding two (2) additional years of senior high school. This was a clear usurpation of legislative power, in utter disregard of the will of the people, which has vested said power in the Congress of the Philippines only.

The law was eventually passed in 2013. It however required DepEd to formulate the enhanced basic education curriculum, in consultation with national students organizations, national teachers organizations and parents-teachers associations. DepEd however, in utter disregard of the law, which it was supposed to enforce and administer only, continued to encroach on the power of the legislature, in violation of the principle of separation of powers, by persisting to implement the K to 12 Basic Education Curriculum and will implement Senior High School next year, which by its own admission, was formulated in consultation only with what it calls a pool of experts.

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. I 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 us, 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 him steadfastly of his mortality and the inevitable historical damnation of despots and tyrants” . Respondent Luistro, 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.

Yet, most sadly, we who are opposed to the K to 12 Basic Education Program are like voices shouting in the wilderness, which not even the PDI, my favorite newspaper gives attention to. As we should enlighten our youth of the evils of Martial Law and the Marcos dictatorship, we should likewise make them realize that the struggle continues against the unjust and exploitative social order which existed before Martial Law and which was simply restored after the dictator Marcos has been ousted from power.

Righteous Anger Against Injustice

Like Christ we should learn to weep as counselled by our Holy Father. But like Him we should learn also to get angry at the prevailing injustice in our society, no thanks to the Philippine clergy which hardly has been a Church of the Poor.

UST said the Pope’s meeting with the Youth is open to the public. It however also forewarned that the area reserved for them is limited and not everyone could be accommodated. Being instructed that the designated gates for the public will open at 4AM, I and my family woke up as early as 2AM during that morning of January 18, 2015 and had to walk distances considering that the roads were closed.

I like millions of Filipinos have been following the Holy Father wherever he goes on TV and on the streets for that chance even for a fleeting moment to see him as he passes by on his way to his different engagements. But  we hoped that we would have a better look of him that morning. I was specially interested to hear him as I and my wife have  five young people with us, our children whose ages range from 14 to 21. Surely I said to myself, my alma mater, after years of being away, will welcome me back and allow me to set foot on its hallowed grounds and give me and my family the opportunity to see and hear the Pope longer and closer.

When we arrived at the designated Dapitan gate at UST at about 4:15AM, we saw the faithful already lined up in the hundreds of thousands. Nobody and absolutely nobody from UST was there to give instructions. There was great confusion where to line up and many ended up finding out that they where in the wrong line, reserved only to participants with IDs. I was greatly perplexed why if the gates opened at 4AM, the line reserved for the public was not moving for hours.

Shortly before the Bishops arrived, the lines began to move  little, which gave us much hope that we will be able to pass through UST’s gates. But it suddenly stopped. I thus decided to inquire. After walking and passing so many of us still patiently waiting in our designated line, I reached the gate and asked who was in charge. Yet no one and absolutely no one was there at the gate who could give me a response. At that point, I began shouting in anger, “Who is in charge? Who is in charge? If you will not let us in, at least have the courtesy and Christian Charity to tell us so that we can just wait for the Holy Father along the streets on his way to UST.

But no one and absolutely no one inside UST had the compassion and mercy to attend to us and just abandoned us outside. Responsible people of my beloved alma mater knew many of us in the hundreds of thousands were waiting outside of the gates. Yet no one and absolutely no one among them had the compassion of a Good Samaritan to attend to us. When my wife saw the Bishops being allowed in, she asked, “Were they not able to meet the Pope already and even shook his hand twice? Had they not had their meeting with the Pope already at the Manila Cathedral? Yet there they are again, surely to be given choiced seats inside UST.

I saw a priest among them and said to myself that I could at least request him to ask who is in charge so that we may be given the courtesy of knowing if we can no longer go in. Yet the priest who was most undeserving of his sutana, concentrating on the anger I felt, did not even bother to give me any assistance and told even the police around to arrest me. That very moment I came to the realization what most of the Filipino clergy are to us. Like the Levite in the parable, most of the Filipino clergy and even our Bishops, have seen us millions of us poor, exploited and oppressed Filipino Christians and just passed on the other side of the road and even have been in complicity with our oppressors and exploiters, by blessing their alms, the scraps that fall from the table of the rich who treat us like Lazarus, promising them heaven, when what the poor need as the Holy Father has well said is to reform the unjust social structures which perpetuate our people’s poverty. For how does one explain after hundreds of years of being a Christian nation, no significant change has taken place in our coutry.

Most sadly, the Philipine Church or at the very least, the dominant Philippine Church was never a Church of the poor. Cardinal Tagle has issued the call to go to the peripheries as our Holy Father has counselled us to do. But should not that have been done long time ago? Did not our Lord Jesus proclaim himself that it was his mission to preach the gospel to the poor, that he was sent to heal the brokenhearted, preach deliverance to the captives, recovering sight to the blind and setting at liberty them that are bruised?

Greatly frustrated, I and my family went to a friend’s house, nearby to wait again patiently in the street, so that we could at least see the Holy Father, even for a fleeting moment again as he goes back to the Apostolic Nunciature. It was at our friend’s house that I heard the Holy Father on TV speaking before our young people telling them that they have to learn to cry. Too bad, he has spoken too late. Had the people at UST heard him earlier, they would not have left us and abandoned us in the cold as it was beginning to drizzle already that early morning. Indeed, it is only with a compassionate heart that we shall see the sufferings of our brothers and be a Good Samaritan to them, taking care of them.

Indeed we should be like Christ who wept and was moved to compassion so many times. But as I exhibited that morning, we like Christ should learn also to get angry, like the righteous anger He exhibited when he overthrew the tables and drove the people out of the temple who transformed his Father’s house into a den of thieves. The Holy Father’s visit in Manila and Tacloban has shown the great faith of the Filipino Christian, that not even rain or storm could prevent them from hearing the Holy Father’s message of hope. Indeed Filipino Christians have great faith that the Lord Jesus will not abandon them and He is one with them in their sufferings. Sadly, this great faith, aggravated by the erroneous teaching of many of our priests for salvation only in the afterlife, has been exploited.

I however hope and pray that the Holy Father’s message will indeed sink deep and move us Filipino Christians not only to compassion but to righteous anger and collective action at the prevailing injustice in our society, which has kept the majority of our people  poor. We have the numbers and we can surely effect change. I hope and pray that Cardinal Tagle will lead us and put to realization the age old message of our Lord Jesus Christ which the Holy Father has challenged us to act on when he spoke at the Palace, to hear the voice of the poor, to "break the bonds of injustice and oppression which give rise to glaring, and indeed scandalous, social inequalities" and to reform "the social structures which perpetuate poverty and the exclusion of the poor".

Christian Mission

In a news item today January 12, 2015, Pope Francis was quoted as saying that the concern for the poor is the touchstone of the Christian faith. Indeed Christ himself proclaimed his mission as that of preaching the gospel to the poor, that he was sent to heal the brokenhearted, preach deliverance to the captives, recovering sight to the blind and setting at liberty them that are bruised. We who call ourselves Christians must have too the same mission, to whom, in the day of judgment, God will ask us, when I was hungry, did you give me food to eat; thirsty water to drink; naked and you clothe me.This however, we often understand to be simply almsgiving. While the poor, the victims of typhoon Yolanda, whom Pope Francis will meet when he arrives int Philippines, need immediate help, they will remain poor, hungry and naked, unless we Christians address the root causes of their hunger and poverty, the unjust social structures which perpetuate their dehumanizing conditions. If we Christians do not work for justice in our country, our almsgiving as exemplified by our politicians, will just be an instrument to perpetuate their unjust and dehumanizing condition, an opiate for them to forget their true condition, a means to cover their exploitation. Most sadly, we and our church leaders have utterly failed in this respect.  

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

While Pope Francis challenges us to reform the social structures which perpetuate poverty and the exclusion of the poor, he qualifies it by saying that it first requires a conversion of mind and heart. The Christian then in his fight against injustice should not lose sight of the fact that man's misery caused by unjust social structures can be rooted further in the evil heart of man or sin. A call then to work for justice, to change the unjust social structures is a call for a change in the very heart of man; a call to conversion. Genuine conversion which to the Christian can only be brought about through Christ Jesus, who came to the world to save us from sin and in whose power we should put our trust on, means however that it must eventually affect our relations with others: not only that we live a life of service to others but that we hold firmly to our Christian faith and refuse to cooperate with injustice, by working for the transformation of society and its unjust social structures. Sadly after centuries of being a Christian nation, we Christians and our church and political leaders who calla themselves Christians have utterly failed, which is revealing of the kind of faith that we claim to hold.

Propaganda and Fallacies

Proganda in its negative sense as we understand it today refer to deceptive persuasive techniques. How do they deceive? A Common way of deception is by diverting our attention to something else or evading the issue. In logic, they are called fallacies or deceptive arguments, more particularly, sophism or deceptive argument intentionally committed.

There are many ways of diverting our attention or evading the issue in order to deceive us. One is name-calling, which in logic corresponds to ad hominem arguments: arguments which evade the issue by attacking the person, i.e calling him a terrorist, instead of what the person said. For instance, when Marcos is called a plunderer or corrupt, his defender will say, but those who oppose Marcos are also corrupt, instead of attacking the argument as to whether or not Marcos is corrupt.

The bandwagon effect as well as glittering generalities correspond to what is logic is called ad populum argument: an argument that evades the issues and appeals to popular prejudices instead. One for instance would campaign for a candidate because he is against corruption which is popular, without showing if he has a clear program of government against corruption. Our commercials, which dwell on popular interests like a white skin or being tall use this kind of propaganda.

Plain folks techniques corresponds to what in logic is called ad verecundiam argument: one that evades the issue and appeals to misplaced authority instead. This is how movie stars win elections or advertise products. A certain movie star for instance speaks of dental hygiene when he or she has no competence on the matter, but which induce people to believe because of their being good actors or actresses.

Propaganda may also be based on fear, which corresponds to what in logic is called ad baculum argument: one that evades the issue and appeals to fear instead. Misuari may say for instance that if you do not agree with my proposal, then I will start a war.

Common among all propaganda is the appeal to emotions. By appealing to our fear, respect for a certain person, popular prejudices. They are deceptive, because they appeal only to emotions and not to reason at all.

Contrary to propaganda is rhetorics, which is the true art of persuasion. According to Aristotle, it has three (3) elements: logos: appeal to reason; ethos: appeal to the credibility of the person and pathos: appeal to emotions. This is propaganda taken positively: one that does not only appeal to emotions alone but to reason as well. We have to appeal to emotions to move people into action. But we have to appeal also to reason, to truly convince and not to deceive. Finally, we must also look at who is speaking. Is he credible or has competence in the field he is speaking on?

This is propaganda taken positively. That is why. Rizal and the other reformers during the Spanish Regime were called propagandists. They spouse the welfare of the people by appealing to the reason of the Spanish authorities. Propaganda or rhetorics however will only succeed if the listener is open to reasonable arguments, which the Spanish rulers were not. Thus, reform failed and gave way to the revolution or armed struggle of Bonifacio.