[ad_1]
Updated
Jeffrey Damicog
The Supreme Court (SC) supported the constitutionality of the government's twelve educational programs.
(MANILA BULLETIN)
In a decision on page 94 by Attorney General Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa, the SC denied a unified pleading claiming legality for the implementation of Republic Act 10533 (K to 12 Act), RA 10157 (Kindergarten Education Act) and other government-issued acts. K-12 Basic education program, including memorandum of memorandum 20 of the Higher Education Council (CHED).
"Therefore, the Court announces the Republic Act No. 10533, the Republic Act, the CHED memorandum No. 20, the 2013 edition, the Ministry of Education Education Act No. 31, the 2012 Edition and the Labor Code As stated in the Enforcement Decree 10533, the Constitution, "I read the decision published on October 9, but it became available recently.
The decision was made by the Supreme Chief Justice Tereshita Leonardo-Castro, Colonel Antonio Carpios, Diosdado Peralta, Mariano del Castillo, Estela Perlás-Bernabe, Francis Zardereza, Noel Tiam, Andres Reyes Jr., It was a decision that Leonen unanimously agreed with.
Judges Jose Reyes Jr., Alexander Gesmundo and Lucas Bersamin did not sign the decision.
This meant that the SC on April 21, 2015 violated the Temporary Education Order (TRO) on the CHED Memorandum of Understanding (CMO) 20, which excluded the Philippines and Panetian as core subjects in the curriculum of the university curriculum.
This decision was presented in response to a number of issues raised in seven individual petitions submitted by various organizations and individuals, including students, teachers, parliamentarians, and others.
Among the issues raised by the petitioners were the deprivation of constitutional rights to be consulted on matters of their interests before the law was passed.
"The court argued that the K to 12 law was justified in contradiction to the petitioner's claim.
The High Court noted that even between 2011 and 2012, Congress and the 2011 Department of Education (DepEd) held local public councils with students, parents, teachers, school representatives, and local government representatives.
"Assuming that there was no agreement before K was 12 years old, the penalties for failure to consult with the government were only reflected in the ballot box and would not be nullified," said Enel Rita, spokesman for the Anak Mindanao Party The 2007 ruling on the Ermita case.
The inadequacy of passing legislation emphasized that the SC will always be faithful to the enacted legislation, given that the legislation approved by Parliament is different from the bill signed by President Benigno "Noynoy" Aquino III.
"According to this bill, the bill signed by the House Speaker and the Senator and the approval of the Minister of the House of Representatives is in its legitimate enactment as well as its provisions," SC said.
Because of this, the SC said the petitioners' arguments did not convince the court over the four provisions of the bill.
The High Court also confirmed that "it does not delegate legal authority when enacting the twelve laws."
"Depth, CHED and TESDA (Technical Education and Skills Development Authority) have also passed the provisions of the law from 12 to the B Basic Education Curriculum (BEC), faculty recruitment and training, and changes during the transitional period, From establishing appropriate strategies to deal with,
In addition, the SC did not claim that the government violated the Constitution when exercising police powers to regulate education in adopting the K 12 law with the petitioners.
The High Court is the CMO No. 20, I am confident that the memorandum is constitutional and does not violate any law.
He explained that the founders of the Constitution still depend on the provisions of the law to use Philippine communications as the official communication medium.
"Changes to the General Education (GE) curriculum have been implemented to avoid duplication in grades 1 through 10, high schools, and universities, so CMO 20 addresses GE's curriculum to remove research on the Philippines, Panic and Constitution The petitioner's claim was wrong. "
[ad_2]
Source link
