Administrators from Adamson University, Angeles U Foundation, Ateneo de Davao U, Batangas SU, Bulacan State U, Cagayan SU, Cavite SU, Central Luzon SU, FEU, Mariano Marcos SU, Miriam College, National U, New Era U, Our Lady of Fatima U, Pangasinan SU, Philippine Christian U, PUP, Silliman U, St. Paul U, U of Cordillera, UE, UST, and other Higher Education Institutions (HEIs), in a national conference sponsored by the Komisyon sa Wikang Filipino, held in Manila, last October, drafted a resolution in Filipino, which I wish to share in my rough English translation:
“Whereas Article XIV, Section 6-7, of the 1987 Constitution states that ‘the Government shall take steps to initiate and sustain the use of Filipino as a medium of official communication and as language of instruction in the educational system’;
“Whereas the Commission on Higher Education Memorandum Order No. 20, states that Filipino and English may be used as languages of instruction for the courses in the new General Education Curriculum;
“Therefore, be it resolved as it is hereby resolved, that CHED be asked to require that the teaching of all the GE courses be multidisciplinary, rather than disciplinal, which implies that no one department should be allowed to have the exclusive right to teach any of the required courses in the General Education Curriculum;
“Resolved further, that every core subject in the General Education Curriculum that is taught in English should have an equivalent that is taught in Filipino;
“Resolved further, that CHED be asked to revise the General Education Curriculum to add six (6) more units of core subjects, to add to the existing twenty-four (24) units, in order to have thirty (30) units of required core subjects;
“Resolved further, that CHED be asked to recommend that six (6) units of the nine (9) elective units be taught in Filipino, such as Philippine Popular Culture, Philippine Indigenous Communities, and Advanced Filipino Translation;
“Resolved finally, that CHED be asked to circulate a CHED Memorandum Order to this effect to all private and public universities and colleges in order that this Resolution may be fulfilled;
“Approved and signed by delegates to the National Consultation on Tertiary Education held on 2 October 2013 at the BP International Powerhouse Hotel, Ermita, Manila.â€
I am a member of the CHED Technical Panel on General Education, which drafted CMO 20, series of 2013, that the CHED Commissioners subsequently approved. I do not speak for the Technical Panel, nor for CHED itself. I would like, however, to react as myself to the Resolution.
First, I agree completely that we should follow the Constitution. I am sure that, if someone would take the trouble to ask the Supreme Court to interpret the provision on language of instruction, that the Court will have no option but to follow the letter of the law. Therefore, the ideal state is really that all subjects in the entire educational system should be taught in the national language.
Second, it is also true that our Technical Panel is very clear in saying that there is no command to use English (or any other language, including Filipino) as medium of instruction in higher education. Mandating a language of instruction would go against another provision of the Constitution, namely, Section 5 of the same article cited in the Resolution (“Academic freedom shall be enjoyed in all institutions of higher learningâ€).
Academic freedom is generally understood as having the right to choose who to teach (admissions and retention policies), what to teach (curriculum), and how to teach (methods of instruction). The freedom to decide how to teach includes the right to choose the language of instruction, because the language of instruction is a major element of lesson planning and lesson delivery.
This is why I do not agree that HEIs should be forced to teach certain subjects only in Filipino. That would go against the right to choose the language of instruction. Of course, this also means that HEIs should not be forced to teach certain subjects only in English. Choosing the language of instruction should depend on the efficacy of the language in delivering instruction with a specific desired outcome to a specific set of students.
Third, there is no problem about multidisciplinarity. The CMO is very clear that every single subject in the new General Education Curriculum should be multidisciplinary. It would be silly to restrict multidisciplinarity to the content of the subject but not to its form (or language of instruction). The congruence of content and form is a long-tested principle of any human endeavor. (To make it absurd, think of a priest delivering a sermon using four-letter words.)
Finally, I am personally against adding any more units to the General Education Curriculum. No one else in the whole world has as many units of General Education as we do. (The Technical Panel did research on this, before it proposed the curriculum.) 36 units is a good compromise. I am even against adding the so-called mandated topics, but that will have to wait for another column.
In any case, I hope CHED listens to the Resolution, done by a number of private and public universities.