Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC

COTESCUP, et al., Petitioners, - versus SECRETARY OF EDUCATION, et. al.

G.R. No. 216930

Respondents. x--------------------------x DR. BIENVENIDO LUMBERA et al., Petitioners, - versus PANGULONG BENIGNO SIMEON “NOYNOY” AQUINO, et. al.

G.R. No. 217451

Respondents. x--------------------------x ANTONIO “SONNY” TRILLANES, et al., Petitioners, G.R. No. 217752 - versus HON. PAQUITO N. OCHOA, et. al. Respondents. x--------------------------x EDUARDO R. ALICIAS, et al., Petitioners, - versus DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, et. al. Respondents. x--------------------------x

G.R. No. 218045

RICHARD TROY COLMENARES, et al., G.R. No. 218098 Petitioners, - versus DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, et. al. Respondents. x--------------------------x CONG. ANTONIO TINIO, et al., Petitioners, - versus -

G.R. No. 218123

PRESIDENT BENIGNO SIMEON “NOYNOY” AQUINO, et. al. Respondents.

x--------------------------x MA. DOLORES M. BRILLANTES, et al., Petitioners, G.R. No. 218465 - versus PRESIDENT BENIGNO SIMEON “NOYNOY” AQUINO, et. al. Respondents. x--------------------------------------------------x MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

The Petitioners in G.R. No. 217451 (TANGGOL WIKA), by counsel, most respectfully beg the reconsideration of the Honorable Court on the following points:

The constitutional provisions relied upon are self-executing 1. The TANGGOL WIKA Petitioners submit that the constitutional provisions they relied upon in their Petition are self-executing. 2. Particular to the constitutionality of CHED Memorandum Order 20, the Court in its decision stated that “Section 6, Article XIV on the use of the Filipino language as a medium of instruction is also not self-executory.” 3.

The Constitution states that: The national language of the Philippines is Filipino. As it evolves, it shall be further developed and enriched on the basis of existing Philippine and other languages. Subject to provisions of law and as the Congress may deem appropriate, 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. 1

4. The language of our fundamental law is mandatory, with its use of “shall,” which leaves neither Congress nor any part of government to which the mandate is directed any choice as to whether to “take steps” or not. The word “sustain” is itself self-executing as it presupposes the mere continuation of a step previously executed. This is so especially considering that the government has already initiated the use of Filipino as the language of instruction in the educational system, through the issuances and acts of the Commission on Higher Education (with its previous general education curricula), the Komisyon sa Wikang Filipino, the National Commission for Culture and the Arts, among others.

1

SEKSYON. 6. Ang wikang pambansa ng Pilipinas ay Filipino. Samantalang nalilinang, ito ay dapat payabungin at pagyamanin pa salig sa umiiral na mga wika ng Pilipinas at sa iba pang mga wika. Alinsunod sa mga tadhana ng batas at sang-ayon sa nararapat na maaaring ipasya ng Kongreso, dapat magsagawa ng mga hakbangin ang Pamahalaan upang ibunsod at puspusang itaguyod ang paggamit ng Filipino bilang midyum ng opisyal na komunikasyon at bilang wika ng pagtuturo sa Sistemang pang-edukasyon. SEKSYON 7. Ukol sa mga layunin ng komunikasyon at pagtuturo, ang mga wikang opisyal ng Pilipinas ay Filipino at, hangga’t walang ibang itinatadhana ang batas, Ingles. Ang mga wikang panrehyon ay pantulong na mga wikang opisyal sa mga rehyon at magsisilbi na pantulong na mga wikang panturo roon. Dapat itaguyod nang kusa at opsyonal ang Kastila at Arabic.

5. We take exception to the resort to the Records of the 1986 Constitutional Commission to support the conclusion that any part of the Constitution is ineffective until Congress or the government says so. 6. First, the entirety of the Constitution is still presumed to be selfexecutory. Exceptions to that rule must be declared only with extreme caution and as a last resort in order to prevent the wrong impression that there are, as Justice Leonen puts it in his dissent, “second-order rights.” Exceptions, where declared, must also be limited and strictly construed against government and more favorably interpreted in favor of the rights denigrated. 7. A contrary position will leave the constitutionally declared rights of the people, such as the right to education and labor rights, vulnerable to being diminished or defeated at the hands of a government or any part thereof which fails, whether deliberately or otherwise, to act on the mandates of the Constitution. 8. Such a possibility is not mere speculation of the Petitioners. It is, as will be enunciated later, a matter of historical record and recognized by the Framers as the very reason why the mandate of Filipino as the language of instruction is there in the first place. 9. Second, the rule remains that deliberations of the Framers of the Constitution or statute may be resorted to where the plain text thereof is clear. Should any such resort be had at all, it should be to support and reinforce the clear meaning of the text of the Constitution or statute, and not to diminish or defeat it. 10. This is so because the people who ratified and promulgated the Constitution in February 1987 did so upon reading and understanding its plain text. The people ratified and promulgated the Constitution not being privy to any or all of the committee and plenary debates of the Commission in 1986. 11. The people in February 1987 were presented with the mandate that “the Government shall take steps to initiate and sustain the use of Filipino x x x as language of instruction in the educational system.” As such, they ratified and promulgated the Constitution relying on the meaning of the text as they understood it in the plain and everyday sense of its words—that is, that government has the duty to act to begin and, having begun, maintain Filipino or keep using Filipino as the language of instruction in the educational system.

12. True, the mandate is “subject to provisions of law and as the Congress may deem appropriate.” But, per the clear text of this clause and the entire sentence, this qualifies the parameters of those steps or the manner by which those steps are to be taken. These are the matters up to Congress, not the matter of whether government will take steps to initiate and sustain the use of Filipino as language of instruction in the educational system. The clause cannot be interpreted to qualify whether Congress should take those steps or not. 13. The Court may have cited an exchange in the constitutional deliberations to declare that Section 6 is “not self-executory.” However, there are multiple references in the debates to support the conclusion that the Framers intended not to leave the matter entirely to Congress or government. Several Commissioners enunciated the position of the committee and the plenary that the mandates in the language provisions are to be self-executory. 14. It emerged from the deliberations on the constitutional provisions on language (footnote) (1) that Filipino has been declared as the national language since the 1935 Constitution but government has not acted to make such declaration more than empty words of “mere rhetorics,” (2) that, to prevent history from being repeated, government has to be mandated categorically to act “to initiate and sustain the use of Filipino x x x as language of instruction in the educational system,” and (3) that the qualifying clause was inserted as a directive to government to indicate how it can do just that: MR. BENNAGEN. Madam President. THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Bennagen is recognized. MR. BENNAGEN. Let me just respond very briefly to the observation of Commissioner Bernas on the provision on Section 2 and the steps that shall be taken. I think the sentence in Section 2 merely underscores the status of Filipino and English as official languages, but our observation is that Filipino, as an official language, has been mostly practiced in stationeries and in government buildings as names and in titles as well as in posts of offices. We are saying on lines 3, 4, 5 and 6 down to line 10 that it should be actually utilized in government as well as in communications and in all levels of the educational system. When we go into the discussion of the sentences in detail, we will underscore the need for this by reference to other studies that already clearly show that unless we mandate

government to implement this call for Filipino as a national language, it shall be nothing more than rhetoric. MR. OPLE. Madam President. THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Ople is recognized. MR. OPLE. May I just take issue with some of the members of the committee who have tended to underrate the significance of the decision already taken by the committee and the Commission declaring Filipino as the national language of the Philippines. There is a sense in which having made this decision the rest follows. I do not want the committee to denigrate its own achievement in putting forward this historic proposal which the Commission has approved. It is not empty rhetoric; it is the settlement of a long, pending and nagging issue on the historical agenda of the Filipino people. I think we should not deny the committee and the Commission the credit for that. xxx MR. VILLACORTA. Madam President, may I just point out that in the 1935 Constitution, Section 3 states that: The Congress shall take steps towards the development and adoption of a common national language based on one of the existing native languages. And we know that since then there were a few advances in the development of Filipino as the medium of instruction but from our point of view it was not; these steps were not adequate. In the 1973 Constitution, Section 3 subparagraph 2, says that: The National Assembly shall take steps towards the development and formal adoption of a common national language to be known as Filipino. And as expressed in the deliberations of this body, it was agreed that hardly anything significant was done by the government to develop Filipino. In our formulation[,] Madam President, we used the same expression — “steps shall be taken” — but it is more forthright in the sense that we are not just talking about steps to be taken in developing the national language but in using it or reinforcing it as a medium of communication and as the

language of instruction. As we had pointed out, the development of a national language becomes empty if we do not use it eventually as a medium of instruction. xxx MR. BENNAGEN: What we are saying, in fact, is that the first sentence of Section 1 provides us the essence of the provision on the national language. But because of the rather sorry experience that we have had on the development of the national language and more importantly its actual use, we feel that the subsequent sentences are absolutely necessary to put flesh into the intent of the first section. MR. SARMIENTO. May I address a few questions to Commissioner Ople who fathered the first two lines. MR. OPLE. I did not father the first two lines; I had a very modest contribution in the term “SUBJECT TO PROVISIONS OF LAW.” MR. SARMIENTO. May we know from the Gentleman the meaning of “SUBJECT TO PROVISIONS OF LAW AND AS CONGRESS MAY DEEM APPROPRIATE” because I think this is the new amendment to the committee’s formulation. MR. OPLE. Yes. I consider the mandate for the use of Filipino as the national language now categorical, both as a medium of official communication and as language of instruction. However, in order to be absolutely sure, the pace at which this mandate will be implemented, together with the budgetary requirements, will be determined more carefully. And in the light of future consensus among the lawmakers, we just say that this is subject to provisions of law and as Congress may deem appropriate. MR. SARMIENTO. If that is the intent, does not the Gentleman think the first line will suffice? MR. OPLE. Yes. Those who conferred, including all the members of the committee, as well as the previous proponents of amendments of these lines, came to the conclusion that this is not really redundant at all. Besides, it helps to forge a compromise that will permit this Commission to vote hopefully as one on this

amendment which the committee is now putting forward as the collective sense of those who have conferred on this matter. MR. SARMIENTO. I have nothing against the first two lines. My only reservation is that as in the past, the first line would cover the two, leaving Congress to appropriate budgetary measures. MR. OPLE. Yes. Of course, we do not disregard existing laws, Madam President. They will continue to govern if they are consistent with this constitutional provision, until Congress in the future amends or changes or repeals some of these laws.2 15. It is clear therefore that the qualifying clause pertains to the details with which Filipino shall be used as language of instruction, such as matters of budget, teachers, institutional materials, and other issues. It does not refer to whether Filipino will be used as language of instruction—which is already a non-issue for the Framers. 16. The interpretation that “the medium of official communication among branches of government cannot as yet be Filipino until subject to provisions of law and as Congress may deem appropriate” is directly contrary to the plain text of the second paragraph of Section 6. 17. Furthermore, such an interpretation waters down the mandate that “The national language of the Philippines is Filipino,” a reading that will take us back to the failures under the 1935 and 1975 Constitution as recognized by the Framers of the Constitution. No “duplication” 18. The TANGGOL WIKA Petitioners maintain that it is erroneous to say that the “duplication” of Filipino subjects in 19. First, it has no factual basis. The Filipino subjects previously required under CMO 54, series of 2007 are the following: Filipino I (Komunikasyon sa Akademikong Filipino) – “isang metalingwistik na pag-aaral ng wikang Filipino. Nakatuon ito sa estruktura, gamit, katangian, at kahalagahan ng wikang Filipino sa akademikong larangan. Sa lapit multidisiplinaryo at paraang interaktibo, inaasahang matututkoy at matatalakay ang mga 2

September 10, 1986. Emphases supplied.

pangunahing kaalaman sa wikang ito. Malilinang dito ang mga kasanayan sa paggamit ng wikang Filipino tungo sa lalong mataas ng komunikasyon at sa kritikal na pagdidiskurso.” Filipino II (Pagbasa at Pagsulat Tungo sa Pananaliksik) – “higit na pagpapalawak ng kaalaman at lalo pang pagpapataas ng antas ng kasanayan sa kritikal na pagbasa at lohikal na pagsulat tungo sa pagsasagawa ng pananaliksik” Filipino III (Masining na Pagpapahayag) – “pag-aaral ng mga prinsipyo ng masining na pagpapahayag sa Filipino. Nakatuon ito ang malayang pagtuklas at pagpapakita ng kakayahan at kahusayan sa pagdidiskursong pasulat at pasalita tungkol sa mga paksang pangkomunidad, pambansa at pandaigdig.” 20. The TANGGOL WIKA Petitioners showed in their Petition that when Filipino in the core curriculum of basic education (senior and junior high school, in particular) is put side-by-side with Filipino in the general education curriculum at the tertiary level, it can be seen that there are matters covered in the latter which are not covered in the former: Coverage of College-Level Filipino and Senior High School-Level Filipino3

Topics Covered by Topics Covered by Subjects in Topics in The Curr Senior High School5-Level College Curriculum N College-Level Filipino4 Covered by The Sen Filipino High School Curriculu Filipino Subject 1 in College: Komunikasyon sa Filipinolohiya (Communication on Philippine Studies)

Filipino Subject 1 in SHS: Komunikasyon at Pananaliksik sa Wika at Kulturang Pilipino (Communication and Research on Filipino Language and Culture)

Mga Konseptong Batayang Kaalaman sa (Language Concepts) Komunikasyon at Wika

Pagsulat Reaksyon/Repleksyon (Writing Reaction/Reflection Papers)

Isyu sa Filipino (Issues Pangwika Filipino Language)

Based on the refereed journal article “Kapit sa Patalim, Liwanag sa Dilim: Ang Wika at Panitikang Filipino sa Kurikulum ng Kolehiyo (1996-2014)” which was attached to the Tanggol Wika petition (G.R. No. 217451, Lumbera et al. vs. Aquino III et al.). 4 Based on De La Salle University’s pre-K to 12 college syllabi. Many colleges and universities feature the same coverage of subject matter/content. 5 http://deped.gov.ph/index.php/resources/curriculum-guides/shs-core-subjects 3

(Basic Knowledge Language Communication)

on 1. Wika (Language) Paghahambing at Pagsu and ng Sampling ng Register 2. Wikang Pambansa (National Wika Batay sa Heograp Language) (Comparative Analysis 3. Wikang Panturo (Medium of Sampling of Langu Register Based Pagsulat ng Instruction) Geography) Reaksyon/Repleksyon 4. Wikang Opisyal (Official (Writing Language) Reaction/Reflection Papers) 5. Bilinggwalismo (Bilingualism) Introduksyon Filipinolohiya 6. Multilinggwalismo (Introduction to Philipp (Multilingualism) Studies) Kasaysayan, Kahulugan, Isyu, at Anyo ng Filipino 7. Register/Barayti ng wika (History, Meaning, Issues (Language Register/Variety) Paglalahad ng M on, and Forms of Filipino) 8. Homogenous Pangunahing Ideya/Argumento 9. Heterogenous Sanaysay Paghahambing at Pagsusuri 10. Linggwistikong komunidad (Expressing/Explaining ng Sampling ng Register ng Main Ideas/Arguments Wika Batay sa Heograpiya (Linguistic Community) (Comparative Analysis of a 11. Unang wika (First Language) the Essay) Sampling of Language Register Based on 12. Pangalawang wikaat iba pa (Second Language etc.) Pagbuo ng Iba’t Ib Geography) Pagpapakahulugan/Pagb sa Teksto (Meani Gamit ng Wika sa Lipunan Making) Introduksyon sa (Functions of the Language in Filipinolohiya (Introduction to Philippine Society): Ang Papel ng Wika Studies) 1. Instrumental Edukasyon (Languag 2. Regulatoryo (Regulatory) Role in Education) Paglalahad ng Mga 3. Interaksyonal (Interactional) Pangunahing Ideya/Argumento ng 4. Personal Pagtukoy sa Tesis Sanaysay Sanaysay at Pagbub 5. Hueristiko (Heuristic) (Expressing/Explaining the (Identifying the Essa Representatibo Thesis Main Ideas/Arguments of 6. Point, (Representative) the Essay) Summarizing)

Pagbuo ng Iba’t Ibang Pagpapakahulugan/Pagbasa sa Teksto (MeaningMaking)

Kasaysayan ng Wikang Pambansa Sa Panahon ng Kastila Hanggang sa Kasalukuyan (History of the National Language From the Colonial Era To The Present)

Ang Papel ng Wika sa Edukasyon at Lipunan (Language’s Role in Mga Sitwasyong Pangwika sa Pilipinas (Language Situations in Education and Society) the Philippines) Pagtukoy sa Tesis ng Sanaysay at Pagbubuod Kakayahang Komunikatibo ng (Identifying the Essay’s mga Pilipino (Communicative Thesis Point, and Skills of Filipinos) Summarizing) 1. kakayahang linggwistiko/ istruktural/ gramatikal (linguistic/structural/grammatical Ang Bukal at Kahulugan ng skills) Pilipinong Identidad sa Loob ng Pilipinas (Sources 2. kakayahang sosyolingwistik and Meanings of Filipino (sociolinguistic skills) Identity in the Philippines) 3. kakayahang pragmatik (pragmatic skills) Pagsusuri Simbolong (Analyzing Symbols)

ng

Mga 4. kakayahang Kultural (discourse skills) Cultural

Ang Bukal at Kahulugan Pilipinong Identidad Loob ng Pilipinas (Sour and Meanings of Filip Identity in the Philippine

Pagsusuri Simbolong (Analyzing Symbols)

ng

M Kult Cult

Pilipinong Identidad Labas Pilipinas/Diaspora (Filip Identity Outside Philippines/Diaspora)

Pagsulat ng Tesis Pagbabalangkas (Th Point Writing Outlining)

diskorsal Pag-oorganisa ng Lekty Forum (Organizing Lecture-Forum)

Introduksyon sa Pananaliksik sa Wika at Kulturang Pilipino Pag-unawa sa Kultur Pilipinong Identidad sa (Introduction to Research on Popular (Understand Labas ng Filipino Language and Culture Popular Culture) Pilipinas/Diaspora (Filipino Identity Outside the Philippines/Diaspora) Diskors ng Kasa (Gender Discourse)

Pagsulat ng Tesis at Pagbabalangkas (Thesis Point Writing and Outlining)

Pagsulat ng Sanaysay Nangangatwiran Naglalahad (Writ Argumentative Illustrative Essays)

Pag-oorganisa ng LektyurForum (Organizing a Lecture-Forum)

Pag-unawa sa Kulturang Popular (Understanding Popular Culture)

Diskors ng Kasarian (Gender Discourse)

Pagsulat ng Sanaysay na Nangangatwiran o Naglalahad (Writing Argumentative or Illustrative Essays)

Filipino Subject 2 in College: Filipino: Pagbasa at Pagsulat sa Iba’t Ibang Disiplina at Larangan (Filipino: Reading and Writing in Various Disciplines and Fields)

Pundasyon Pagpapahayag-Akademi Pagbasa at Pagsusuri ng Iba’t (Foundation of Acade Ibang Teksto (Reading and Expression) Analyzing Various Texts Towards Research) Filipino Subject 2 in SHS:

1. Impormatibo (Informative) 2. Deskriptibo (Descriptive) 3. Persuweysib (Persuasive)

Pundasyon ng 4. Naratibo (Narrative) Pagpapahayag-Akademik

Wika at Ang Wika Akademya (Language The Language in/of T Academe)

(Foundation of Academic 5.Argumentatibo Expression) (Argumentative) 6. Prosidyural (Procedural) Wika at Ang Wika sa Akademya (Language and Pagsulat ng Pananaliksik The Language in/of The (Writing a Research Paper) Academe) • Pagpili ng paksa (Choosing a Topic) Intelektwalisasyon ng • Pagsulat ng tentatibong Filipino (Intellectualization balangkas (Writing a Tentative of the Filipino Language) Outline)

Intelektwalisasyon Filipino (Intellectualiza of the Filipino Language

Pagsasalin Pagpapayaman ng Regi (Translation Enriching/Expanding Language Register)

Ang Documentary Fi Bilang Ris • Pagbuo ng tentatibong (Documentary Films Pagsasalin at bibliograpi (Preparing a Research) Pagpapayaman ng Register Tentative Bibliography) (Translation and • Pagbuo ng konseptong papel Enriching/Expanding the Pagpapayaman (Drafting a Concept Paper) Bokabularyo sa M Language Register) • Pangangalap ng datos (Data Disiplina (Enriching/Expanding Collection) Vocabulary in Vari Pagbuo ng Term Paper para • Pagsulat ng unang draft Disciplines) sa Larangan/Disiplina (Writing the First Draft) (Drafting a Disipline-Based Term Paper) • Pagsasaayos ng dokumentasyon (Organizing the Documentation) Leksikograpiya sa M Disiplina (Lexicography • Pagbuo ng pinal na draft Various Disciplines) Ang Documentary Films (Preparing the Final Draft) BilanG Riserts (Documentary Films as Pagsasalin: Simul Research) Proseso, Kritiking Pagsasalin, at Works (Translation: Principles Pagpapayaman ng Process, Critiquing Bokabularyo sa Mga Workshop) Disiplina (Enriching/Expanding Vocabulary in Various Disciplines)

Leksikograpiya sa Mga Disiplina (Lexicography in Various Disciplines)

Pagsasalin: Simulain, Proseso, Kritiking ng Pagsasalin, at Worksyap (Translation: Principles and Process, Critiquing and Workshop)

Imersyon sa Disiplin Inhenyeriya (Immersion the Engineering Discipli

Imersyon sa Ekonom (Immersion in Economic

Imersyon sa Agh Panlipunan (Immersion Social Sciences)

Imersyon sa Disiplinang Inhenyeriya (Immersion in the Engineering Discipline)

Imersyon sa Ekonomiks (Immersion in Economics)

Imersyon sa Agham Panlipunan (Immersion in Social Sciences)

21. The third column details the matters which students, both college and in basic education, will no longer learn if the current Honorable Court’s decision as to the validity of CMO 20 is not reversed. 22. Second, government can also apply the reasoning that Filipino is already “part of the basic education curriculum”—granting that it is correct— to mathematics and the natural and social sciences. It does not, as these subjects remain in the general education curriculum of the tertiary level, albeit trimmed down—unlike Filipino which was reduced by CMO 20 from nine mandatory units to zero.

23. It can be seen from the third column above that higher level studies into Filipino are foregone by CMO 20. It is like Mathematics in the Modern World which is still present in the general curriculum in tertiary education—“nature of mathematics, appreciation of its practical, intellectual, and aesthetic dimensions, and application of mathematical tools in daily life.” 24. At least with higher mathematics, there are similar subjects as part of the applied tracks in senior high school (none in the core curriculum which is required to be studied by everyone). However, not the same can be said about Filipino, which is now non-existent in the tertiary level per CMO 20. 25. At most, there are 54 hours each of communication in Grades 11 and 12 and 54 hours for literature from the regions in Grade 12.6 This is a far cry from the Filipino and Panitikan subjects previously taught in colleges and universities. 26. Petitioners note that students cannot be left with just basic bokabularyo and balarila. Mandated Filipino units in college aim to develop and enrich our national language, propagate it by instilling in the youth higher order mastery and practice of the Filipino language: pagpapayaman ng Filipino gamit ang Bisaya, Waray, Cebuano, Maranao, at iba pang rehiyunal na wika; speech and technical writing such as research; the Filipino language in culture and the arts; and so on. 27. Third, the use of Filipino cannot be sustained by leaving it to the whims of higher educational institutions, whether public or private. While it is true that CHED has “done its job” just by setting the minimum or the standards for general education, it has not done the other half of its job for anything that is outside the minimum or beyond the standards will be left to the discretion of HEIs or will be merely voluntary upon them. And “discretion” or “voluntary” is not what is comprehended by the Constitution. 28. Fourth, the exclusion of Filipino in the college curriculum reverses the decades of efforts of trying to put Filipino in higher education, from six to nine mandatory units by combined virtue of CHED’s previous issuances and those of the KWF, NCCA, and others. 29. To conclude, the TANGGOL WIKA Petitioners maintain that Filipino must remain in the general education curriculum of tertiary education in compliance with the mandates of the 1987 Constitution. CHED Memorandum Circular 20, series of 2013 is unconstitutional.

6

Appendix D, CMO 20

30. To borrow the words of University of the Philippines Diliman Chancellor Michael Tan, the proof of the bibingka is still in the eating.7 We might recognize that indeed, the “The national language of the Philippines is Filipino,” but we leave the practice of that to the will of higher educational institutions by saying that “The general education courses maybe [sic] taught in English or Filipino.” 31. The TANGGOL WIKA Petitioners fear that with this, we’re back to rhetoric.

The constitution mandates inclusion of the study of the Constitution in the curriculum in all levels 32. The Supreme Court in its decision ruled that the inclusion of the study of the Constitution in just the basic education curriculum satisfies the constitutional mandate, as the same is “general and did not specify the educational level in which it must be taught.” 33. Petitioners maintain that such is not the case. The mandate is not “general.” It is in fact very specific, as the Constitution states that “All educational institutions shall include the study of the Constitution as part of the curricula.” 34. The Constitution does not provide any distinction as to which level. Where the Constitution does not distinguish, we must do the same.

PRAYER

PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Petitioners respectfully pray that this Honorable Court partially reconsider its decision in the consolidated cases of COTESCUP, et al. vs. SECRETARY OF EDUCATION, et. al. and render CHED Memorandum Circular 20, series of 2013 is unconstitutional. They also pray that the Temporary Restraining Order issued in favor of Petitioners in the TANGGOL WIKA Petition be reinstated and be made temporary. Other relief just and equitable are also prayed for.

7

Practicing Filipino, The Philippine Daily Inquirer, November 4, 2016

Respectfully submitted. City of Manila, November 26, 2018.

MANEEKA ASISTOL SARZA IBP LR No. 011274- 12/17/2012 PTR No. 7103607C- 10/23/18 – Quezon City Roll of Attorneys No. 57897 MCLE Compliance Number V-0022570/07-01-16 Teacher’s Center Mines cor. Dipolog Sts., Vasra, Quezon City

Notice of submission and copies furnished:

CLERK OF COURT En Banc Supreme Court

OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL 134 Amorsolo St., Legaspi Village, 1229 Makati City

ATTY. JONATHAN SALE Counsel for Petitioners in G.R. No. 216930 18 Bronson St., Fairmont Park Subdivision North Fairview, Quezon City

ATTYS. REYNALDO BUSTOS ROBLES Counsel for Petitioners in G.R. No. 217752 The Law Firm of Chan Robles and Associates 22nd Flr., Phil. Stock Exchange Center Tektite East Tower, Exchange Rd., Ortigas Center, Pasig City

EDUARDO ALICIAS, JR. Counsel for Petitioners in G.R. No. 218045 Loyola Student Center, 321 Torres Bldg.

ATTYS. CHERYL DAYTEC-YANGOT, ET AL. Counsel for Petitioners in G.R. No. 218098 The National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers 55 Bengao Rd, Marcos Highway

Bakakeng Norte, Baguio City

ATTY. SEVERO BRILLANTES Counsel for Petitioners in G.R. No. 218465 6300 San Pablo St., Poblacion, Makati

Greetings! Please submit the foregoing Motion for the consideration of the Honorable Court immediately upon receipt hereof.

MANEEKA ASISTOL SARZA

EXPLANATION Due to time, personnel, and distance constraints, copies of this Reply to sent by registered mail to the other parties in accordance with the requirements of Section 11, Rule 13 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Court.

MANEEKA ASISTOL SARZA

DECLARATION

I hereby declare that the documents hereto submitted electronically in accordance with the Efficient Use of Paper Rule are complete and true copies of the documents filed with the Supreme Court

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me on this 26th day of November, 2018, affiant exhibiting his ___________ as competent evidence of identity.

NOTARY PUBLIC

Doc. No. __ Book No. __ Page No. __ Series of 2018