Paalam, Filipino? Unanswered Questions on CHED Memo 20

 

ON NOVEMBER 10, the Supreme Court (SC) lifted the 2015 temporary restraining order (TRO) on the implementation of Commission on Higher Education (CHED) Memorandum 20. It upheld the removal of Filipino, Panitikan (Literature) and the Constitution as core subjects in the college curriculum.

The coverage reported the decision and provided excerpts of the ruling as well as from the minority dissenting views of the members of the Court. But coverage failed to reflect the deeply felt unease of the removal of subjects in language, literature and culture from the basic education curriculum in universities. Clearly, the decision reflects the many issues involved in our language dilemma.

Some reports touched on these and some sources questioned the impact it would have on the formation of national values and other social questions. But the media did not break out of the box which encased the decision to lift the TRO; which in effect supported the paradigm shift away from core courses that used to belong to the basic general education of Filipino students attending university. These included history and culture to insure a more comprehensive foundation for all learning.

Because of the criticism and the plans of various stakeholders to appeal the court’s decision, CHED has postponed its implementation. On November 14, CHED Chairperson Prospero De Vera III said the Commission would wait for the SC’s final decision before removing the said subjects from the core college curriculum.

Unfortunately, reports tended to treat the decision as a two-sided debate, with the views limited only to pros and cons.

CMFR monitored reports from the three leading broadsheets (Manila Bulletin, the Philippine Daily Inquirer and The Philippine Star);  primetime newscasts 24 Oras (GMA-7), Aksyon (TV5), News Night (CNN Philippines) and TV Patrol (ABS-CBN 2); as well as selected news websites from November 10 to 20, 2018.

The court said that by removing these subjects “there would be no duplication of subjects in Grade 1 to 10, senior high and college,” because of  the changes in the general education curriculum (GE) that were made with the implementation of the Department of Education’s (DepEd) K-12 program.

Most of the coverage on the high court’s ruling merely recorded the wording of the decision and those of the dissenting views. But the decision provoked a wave of protest and criticism which the media failed to follow.

Experts say that college-level Filipino and Panitikan are more advanced compared to high school and grade school. Reports did not delve into the benefits of this advanced learning.

Despite its grave implications, media let slip the discussion of critical issues. Whatever coverage there was focused on the SC ruling and dissenting views.

Coverage did not draw from other expert views evaluating the removal of these courses from the college curriculum and the implications on the sense of nationalism among the youth in universities. No reports explored how this would create further divide between Tagalog-speaking “imperial Luzon” and non-Tagalog speaking Visayas and Mindanao.

Only a few reports looked into the broader impact of the memorandum on those teaching college-level Filipino and Panitikan who may lose their jobs in its implementation.

“Unconstitutional and anti-youth”

Media dropped the issue shortly after the announcement of SC’s ruling and picked it up again only when some lawmakers took up the issue. Rep. Edcel Lagman (1st District, Albay) called the court ruling “unconstitutional and anti-youth.” In separate reports, both Lagman and Senate President Vicente Sotto III cited Article XIV, Section 6 of the 1987 constitution categorically mandating Filipino as the national language.

Reports also cited Tanggol Wika, a group of university and college professors, national artists and lawmakers, which argued that the CHED directive violated the Organic Act of the Komisyon sa Wikang Filipino, the Education Act of 1982 and the Organic Act of the National Commission for Culture and the Arts.

Unexplored leads

Dissenting views opened up leads to be explored, but media fell short of following up on these issues. For instance, there is a need to evaluate the inclusions in the proposed curriculum which limits core subjects to only 36 units.

Media should have also taken their cue from some advocates and questioned CHED’s plans for the 10,000 college professors who may lose employment in the transition.

CHED memo 20 is a broad issue that requires a lot of context. By limiting the narrative to a debate, important issues are sidelined.