EN BANC

[G.R. No. 216930. March 5, 2019.]

COUNCIL OF TEACHERS AND STAFF OF COLLEGES AND

UNIVERSITIES OF THE PHILIPPINES (CoTesCUP), ET AL. , petitioners,
vs. SECRETARY OF EDUCATION, ET AL. , respondents.

[G.R. No. 217451. March 5, 2019.]

DR. BIENVENIDO LUMBERA (PAMBANSANG ALAGAD NG SINING AT

PROFESSOR EMERITUS, UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES/UP), ET
AL. , petitioners, vs. PANGULONG BENIGNO SIMEON "NOYNOY" C.
AQUINO III, ET AL. , respondents.

[G.R. No. 217752. March 5, 2019.]

ANTONIO "SONNY" F. TRILLANES IV, ET AL. , petitioners, vs. HON.

PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., IN HIS CAPACITY AS EXECUTIVE
SECRETARY, ET AL. , respondents.

[G.R. No. 218045. March 5, 2019.]

EDUARDO R. ALICIAS, JR. AND AURELIO P. RAMOS, JR. , petitioners,

vs. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (DepEd) AND THE SECRETARY OF
THE DepEd , respondents.

[G.R. No. 218098. March 5, 2019.]

RICHARD TROY A. COLMENARES, ET AL. , petitioners, vs.

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION SECRETARY ARMIN A. LUISTRO, ET
AL. , respondents.

[G.R. No. 218123. March 5, 2019.]

CONGRESSMAN ANTONIO TINIO (REPRESENTATIVE, ACT

TEACHERS PARTY-LIST), ET AL. , petitioners, vs. PRESIDENT
BENIGNO SIMEON "NOYNOY" C. AQUINO, ET AL. , respondents.

[G.R. No. 218465. March 5, 2019.]

MA. DOLORES M. BRILLANTES, ET AL. , petitioners, vs. PRESIDENT

BENIGNO SIMEON C. AQUINO III, ET AL. , respondents.

NOTICE
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution dated MARCH 5,
2019 , which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 216930 — Council of Teachers and Staff of Colleges and
Universities of the Philippines (CoTesCUP), et al. versus Secretary of
Education, et al.
G.R. No. 217451 — Dr. Bienvenido Lumbera (Pambansang Alagad ng
Sining at Professor Emeritus, University of the Philippines/UP), et al. versus
Pangulong Benigno Simeon "Noynoy" C. Aquino III, et al.
G.R. No. 217752 — Antonio "Sonny" F. Trillanes IV, et al. versus Hon.
Paquito N. Ochoa, Jr., in his capacity as Executive Secretary, et al.
G.R. No. 218045 — Eduardo R. Alicias, Jr. and Aurelio P. Ramos, Jr.
versus Department of Education (DepEd) and The Secretary of the DepEd
G.R. No. 218098 — Richard Troy A. Colmenares, et al. versus
Department of Education Secretary Armin A. Luistro, et al.
G.R. No. 218123 — Congressman Antonio Tinio (Representative, ACT
Teachers Party-List), et al. versus President Benigno Simeon "Noynoy" C.
Aquino, et al.
G.R. No. 218465 — Ma. Dolores M. Brillantes, et al. versus President
Benigno Simeon C. Aquino III, et al.

RESOLUTION

Before the Court are Motions for Reconsideration 1 (Motions) led by TANGGOL
WIKA in G.R. No. 217451 and petitioners in G.R. No. 218465 , seeking reconsideration of
the Court En Banc's Decision dated October 9, 2018 raising the following grounds:
In G.R. No. 217451 , TANGGOL WIKA claims that the Constitution mandates the
inclusion of the study of Filipino and the Constitution in the curriculum in all levels; thus,
CHED Memorandum No. 20, Series of 2013 (CMO 20) fell short of complying with this
provision when it removed the study of these subjects in the general education
curriculum at the tertiary level. On the other hand, in G.R. No. 218465 , petitioners insist
that additional two (2) years of senior high school is arbitrary and oppressive as it fails
to consider the needs of students of Science High Schools, who have higher mental
capabilities.
T h e Motions are unmeritorious. The Court reiterates the following points
discussed in its Decision:
1. While the Constitution mandates the inclusion of the study of the
Constitution, Filipino and Panitikan in the curriculum of educational
institutions, the mandate was general and did not specify the educational
level in which it must be taught. Thus, CMO 20 did not violate the
Constitution when it merely transferred these subjects as part of the
curriculum of primary and secondary education.
Moreover, it must be emphasized that CMO 20 only provides for the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 minimum standards for the general education component of all degree
programs. It does not limit the academic freedom of universities and
colleges to require additional courses in Filipino, Panitikan and the
Constitution in their respective curricula; and
2. The K to 12 Law, as a police power measure, is intended to promote the
interest of the public and not only of a particular class. It does not violate
substantive due process of petitioners in G.R. No. 218465 because the
means employed are commensurate with its objectives — particularly: to
improve the quality of basic education and to make the country's
graduates more competitive in the international arena.
It is also erroneous for petitioners to assume that the K to 12 Law does
not serve the interest of the students of Science High Schools. In fact, the
K to 12 Law explicitly recognized the right of schools to modify their
curricula subject, of course, to the minimum standards prescribed by
DepEd. The K to 12 IRR further con rmed the inclusiveness of the design
of the K to 12 Basic Education Curriculum by mandating the inclusion of
programs for the gifted and talented and allowing acceleration of learners
in public and private educational institutions.
WHEREFORE , failing to offer any substantial argument, the subject Motions for
Reconsideration are hereby DENIED WITH FINALITY . No further pleadings or motions
shall be entertained in this case. Let entry of nal judgment be issued immediately."
Perlas-Bernabe, J., on official leave. (adv57)

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETA

Clerk of Court

Separate Opinions
LEONEN , J., hiwalay na opinyong pagsang-ayon:

Sumasang-ayon ako sa Resolusyon ng Hukumang ito na tanggihan ang mga

Motions for Reconsideration na inihain ng Alyansa ng mga Tagapagtanggol ng Wikang
Filipino (TANGGOL WIKA) sa G.R. No. 217451 at ng mag-asawang Ma. Dolores M.
Brillantes at Severino L. Brillantes, et al. sa G.R. No. 218465.
Bukod sa mga natalakay sa orihinal na pasya 1 ng Hukumang ito, at ng hiwalay
kong opinyong pagsang-ayon, 2 nais ko muling bigyang diin ang masalimuot na
kaugnayan ng wika at ng konseptong kalayaang pang-akademiko (academic freedom)
sa ating Saligang Batas.
Ayon sa TANGGOL WIKA, ang CHED Memorandum Order No. 20 ay labag sa
Saligang Batas. Iginigiit nito na batay sa Saligang Batas, nararapat pa ring isama ang
pag-aaral ng Filipino sa kurikulum ng mga matataas na pamantasan at dalubhasaan.
Katwiran nito, ang pagbibigay sa mga matataas na pamantasan at dalubhasaan ng
layang magpasya kung ituturo ang Filipino ay hindi sapat, at nagpapawalang-bisa pa
nga sa mga pagsisikap upang tuparin ang mandato ng Saligang Batas.
Alinsunod sa batas na nagpapatupad ng K-12, 3 nakabalangkas sa CHED
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 Memorandum Order No. 20 ang mga pamantayan sa lahat ng kurso sa mga matataas
na pamantasan at dalubhasaan. Binawasan nito ng 36 yunit ang General Education
Courses: (1) 24 para sa mga core courses; (2) siyam (9) para sa elective courses; at (3)
tatlo (3) para sa buhay at akda ni Jose P. Rizal.
Ang 24 yunit, na hinati pa sa walong (8) core courses, ay ang mga sumusunod:
( 1 ) Understanding the Self (Pag-unawa sa Sarili); (2) Readings in Philippine History
(Mga Babasahin Hinggil sa Kasaysayan ng Pilipinas); (3) The Contemporary World (Ang
Kasalukuyang Daigdig); (4) Mathematics in the Modern World (Matematika sa
Makabagong Daigdig); (5) Purposive Communication (Malayuning Komunikasyon); (6)
Art Appreciation (Pagpapahalaga sa Sining); (7) Science, Technology, and Society
(Agham, Teknolohiya, at Lipunan); at (8) Ethics (Etika).
Ayon sa CHED Memorandum Order No. 20, ang mga kursong ito ay maaaring
ituro sa wikang Ingles o Filipino.
Hindi sang-ayon ang TANGGOL WIKA sa CHED Memorandum Order No. 20 dahil
hindi na isinama ang Filipino I (Komunikasyon sa Akademikong Filipino), Filipino II
(Pagbasa at Pagsulat Tungo sa Pananaliksik), at Filipino III (Masining na
Pagpapahayag) sa core subjects para sa baccalaureate degree programs sa kolehiyo.
Katwiran nito, tinanggal ng CHED Memorandum Order No. 20 ang Filipino na dating
siyam (9) na yunit, gayong hindi pa nga sapat ang Filipino na itinuturo sa elementarya
dahil hindi nito sakop ang mga paksang dapat na itinuturo sa kolehiyo.
Sa aking palagay, hindi nilalabag ng CHED Memorandum Order No. 20 ang
Saligang Batas.
Ang mga bahaging pinagtatalunan sa Saligang Batas ay ang mga sumusunod:
ARTICLE XIV
Education, Science and Technology, Arts, Culture, and Sports Education
xxx xxx xxx
Language
SECTION 6. 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 o cial communication and as language of instruction in the
educational system.
SECTION 7. For purposes of communication and instruction, the
official languages of the Philippines are Filipino and, until otherwise provided by
law, English.
The regional languages are the auxiliary o cial languages in the regions
and shall serve as auxiliary media of instruction therein.
Spanish and Arabic shall be promoted on a voluntary and optional basis.
(Emphasis supplied)
Itinatadhana ng Seksyon 6 na panatilihin ng pamahalaan ang paggamit ng wikang
Filipino bilang "medium of o cial communication and as language of instruction in the
educational system (daluyan ng opisyal na komunikasyon at wika ng pagtuturo sa
sistema ng edukasyon)."
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 Gayunpaman, hindi isinasaad sa Saligang Batas na ang wikang dapat gamitin sa
pagtuturo sa kolehiyo ay Filipino. Hindi rin nabanggit kung sa aling antas ng edukasyon
ito dapat ituro. Sa halip, nakahayag lamang dito na dapat panatilihin ng pamahalaan ang
paggamit ng wikang Filipino sa pagtuturo sa ating sistema ng edukasyon.
Nakasaad sa CHED Memorandum Order No. 20 na maaaring ituro sa wikang
Ingles o Filipino ang core subjects na nakasalin sa alinman sa dalawa (2). Ang
pagsunod dito ay sapat nang pagtalima sa mandato ng Saligang Batas, na naglalayong
gumawa ng "steps to initiate and sustain the use of Filipino as a medium of o cial
communication and as language of instruction in the educational system (mga hakbang
upang simulan at panatilihin ang wikang Filipino bilang daluyan ng opisyal na
komunikasyon at wika ng pagtuturo sa sistema ng edukasyon)." 4
Dapat unawain ang bawat bahagi ng Saligang Batas sa kanyang kabuuan. Ayon
sa Civil Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary: 5
It is a well-established rule in constitutional construction that no one
provision of the Constitution is to be separated from all the others, to be
considered alone, but that all the provisions bearing upon a particular subject
are to be brought into view and to be so interpreted as to effectuate the great
purposes of the instrument. Sections bearing on a particular subject should be
considered and interpreted together as to effectuate the whole purpose of the
Constitution and one section is not to be allowed to defeat another, if by any
reasonable construction, the two can be made to stand together. 6 (Citations
omitted)
Samakatuwid, ang mga nakasaad sa Saligang Batas ukol sa wika ay dapat na
nagtutugma sa mga nakasaad sa Saligang Batas ukol sa edukasyon.
Ayon sa Artikulo XIV, Seksyon 4 (1) ng Saligang Batas, sumasailalim ang mga
institusyong pang-edukasyon sa kapangyarihan ng Estado:
SECTION 4. (1) The State recognizes the complementary roles of
public and private institutions in the educational system and shall exercise
reasonable supervision and regulation of all educational institutions.
Gayunpaman, nararapat lamang na ang kapangyarihang ito ay nasa katwiran at
may limitadong pamamahala. Hindi nito binabanggit ang pagkakait ng karapatan sa
mga institusyong pang-edukasyon. 7
Isa (1) sa mga karapatan ng mga matataas na pamantasan at dalubhasaan ay
ang kalayaang pang-akademiko. Ayon sa Artikulo XIV, Seksyon 5 (2) ng Saligang Batas:
SECTION 5. (1) The State shall take into account regional and
sectoral needs and conditions and shall encourage local planning in the
development of educational policies and programs.
(2) Academic freedom shall be enjoyed in all institutions of higher
learning.
(3) Every citizen has a right to select a profession or course of study,
subject to fair, reasonable, and equitable admission and academic
requirements.
(4) The State shall enhance the right of teachers to professional
advancement. Non-teaching academic and non-academic personnel shall enjoy
the protection of the State.
(5) The State shall assign the highest budgetary priority to education
and ensure that teaching will attract and retain its rightful share of the best
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 available talents through adequate remuneration and other means of job
satisfaction and fulfillment. (Emphasis supplied)
Ang kalayaang pang-akademiko ay ang karapatan ng bawat mataas na
pamantasan at dalubhasaan na magpasya para sa sarili nito kung: (1) sino ang
maaaring magturo; (2) ano ang maaaring ituro; (3) paano ito ituturo; at (4) sino ang
maaaring turuan. 8 Sa madaling salita, binibigyan sila ng kapangyarihan upang tuklasin
ang kanilang mga pang-akademiko at hindi pang-akademikong patakaran, layunin, at
kurikulum nang may kalayaan mula sa pangingialam o panghihimasok ng ibang
institusyon. 9
Ayon sa Miriam College Foundation, Inc. v. Court of Appeals: 1 0
Section 5 (2), Article XIV of the Constitution guarantees all institutions of
higher learning academic freedom. This institutional academic freedom
includes the right of the school or college to decide for itself, its aims and
objectives, and how best to attain them free from outside coercion or
interference save possibly when the overriding public welfare calls for some
restraint. The essential freedoms subsumed in the term "academic freedom"
encompasses the freedom to determine for itself on academic grounds:
(1) Who may teach,
(2) What may be taught,
(3) How it shall be taught, and
(4) Who may be admitted to study. 1 1 (Citations omitted)
Ang kalayaang pang-akademiko ay nakalathala sa Saligang Batas ng 1935, 1973,
at 1987. Kung titimbangin ang nakasaad sa Saligang Batas ng 1987, mahihinuhang
layunin nito na palawakin ang sakop ng kalayaang pang-akademiko. Ipinauubaya sa
mga hukuman kung paano ito bibigyang kahulugan. 1 2
Sa iba't ibang kaso, ipinaliwanag ng Hukumang ito ang prinsipyo ng kalayaang
pang-akademiko.
Sa Camacho v. Coresis, Jr. , 1 3 kinatigan ng Hukumang ito ang karapatan ng mga
guro na piliin ang sarili nilang paraan ng pagtuturo, ayon sa ipinagtibay ng kanilang
pamantasan:
Finally, we agree with respondents' position on the primacy of academic
freedom in regard to higher institutions of learning. Dr. Daleon's, teaching style,
validated by the action of the USP Board of Regents, is bolstered by the
constitutional guarantee on academic freedom. Academic freedom is two-tiered
— that of the academic institution and the teacher's.
Institutional academic freedom includes the right of the school or college
to decide for itself, its aims and objectives and the methods on how best to
attain them, free from outside coercion or interference save possibly when the
overriding public welfare calls for some restraint. It encompasses the freedom
to determine for itself on academic grounds: who may teach, what may be
taught, how it shall be taught, and who may be admitted to study." The right of
the school to con rm and validate the teaching method of Dr. Daleon is at once
apparent in the third freedom, i.e., "how it shall be taught."
Academic freedom also accords a faculty member the right to pursue his
studies in his particular specialty. It is de ned as a right claimed by the
accredited educator, as teacher and as investigator, to interpret his ndings and
to communicate his conclusions without being subjected to any interference,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 molestation, or penalty because these conclusions are unacceptable to some
constituted authority within or beyond the institution. As applied to the case at
bar, academic freedom clothes Dr. Daleon with the widest latitude to innovate
and experiment on the method of teaching which is most tting to his students
(graduate students at that), subject only to the rules and policies of the
university. Considering that the Board of Regents, whose task is to lay down
school rules and policies of the University of Southeastern Philippines, has
validated his teaching style, we see no reason for petitioner to complain before
us simply because he holds a contrary opinion on the matter. 1 4 (Emphasis in
the original, citations omitted)
S a University of the Philippines v. Civil Service Commission , 1 5 idiniin ng
Hukumang ito na nangingibabaw ang kalayaang pang-akademiko sa patakaran ng Civil
Service Commmission ukol sa patakaran ng pagliban nang walang paalam. Dito,
ipinakitang may kalayaan ang mga pamantasan na piliin kung sino ang mga maaaring
magturo sa kanilang institusyon:
We have held time and again that "the University has the academic freedom to
determine for itself on academic grounds who may teach, what may be taught,
how it shall be taught, and who may be admitted to study." Clearly, this freedom
encompasses the autonomy to choose who should teach and, concomitant
therewith, who should be retained in its rolls of professors and other academic
personnel. This Court declared in Ateneo de Manila University v. Capulong : "As
corporate entities, educational institutions of higher learning are inherently
endowed with the right to establish their policies, academic and otherwise,
unhampered by external controls or pressure. Similarly, Vicente G. Sinco, a
former UP president and delegate to the 1973 Constitutional Convention,
stressed that the Constitution "de nitely grants the right of academic freedom
to the University as an institution as distinguished from the academic freedom
of a university professor." 1 6 (Emphasis in the original, citations omitted)
Sa Ateneo de Manila University v. Capulong , 1 7 pinagtibay ng Hukumang ito ang
karapatan ng mga pamantasang magtanggal ng mga mag-aaral bilang kaparusahan, at
ipinanatiling mayroon silang kalayaang pang-akademiko upang piliin kung sino ang nais
nilang turuan:
No one can be so myopic as to doubt that the immediate reinstatement of
respondent students who have been investigated and found by the Disciplinary
Board to have violated petitioner university's disciplinary rules and standards
will certainly undermine the authority of the administration of the school. This
we would be most loathe to do.
More importantly, it will seriously impair petitioner university's academic
freedom which has been enshrined in the 1935, 1973 and the present 1987
Constitutions.
xxx xxx xxx
Since Garcia v. Loyola School of Theology , we have consistently upheld
the salutary proposition that admission to an institution of higher learning is
discretionary upon a school, the same being a privilege on the part of the
student rather than a right. While under the Education Act of 1982, students
have a right "to freely choose their eld of study, subject to existing curricula
and to continue their course therein up to graduation," such right is subject, as
all rights are, to the established academic and disciplinary standards laid down
by the academic institution.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com

 "For private schools have the right to establish reasonable rules and
regulations for the admission, discipline and promotion of students.
This right . . . extends as well to parents . . . as parents are under a social and
moral (if not legal) obligation, individually and collectively, to assist and
cooperate with the schools."
Such rules are "incident to the very object of incorporation and
indispensable to the successful management of the college. The rules may
include those governing student discipline." Going a step further, the
establishment of rules governing university-student relations, particularly those
pertaining to student discipline, may be regarded as vital, not merely to the
smooth and e cient operation of the institution, but to its very survival. 1 8
(Emphasis in the original, citations omitted)
Sa Lupangco v. Court of Appeals, 1 9 kinatigan ng Hukumang ito ang karapatan ng
review schools at centers na tiyakin ang pinakamainam na paraan upang makapasa ang
mga mag-aaral nito sa accountancy licensure examinations:
Another evident objection to Resolution No. 105 is that it violates the
academic freedom of the schools concerned. Respondent PRC cannot interfere
with the conduct of review that review schools and centers believe would best
enable their enrolees to meet the standards required before becoming a full-
edged public accountant. Unless the means or methods of instruction are
clearly found to be ine cient, impractical, or riddled with corruption, review
schools and centers may not be stopped from helping out their students. At this
juncture, We call attention to Our pronouncement in Garcia vs. The Faculty
Admission Committee, Loyola School of Theology, regarding academic
freedom, to wit:
. . . It would follow then that the school or college itself is
possessed of such a right. It decides for itself its aims and
objectives and how best to attain them. It is free from outside
coercion or interference save possibly when the overriding public
welfare calls for some restraint. It has a wide spread of autonomy
certainly extending to the choice of students. This constitutional
provision is not to be construed in a niggardly manner or in a
grudging fashion. 2 0 (Citation omitted)
Maliwanag na tinatamasa ng mga matataas na pamantasan at dalubhasaan ang
kalayaang pang-akademiko. Sakop ng kalayaang ito ang kalayaan nilang lumikha ng
kanilang mga kurikulum, at magpasya kung aling mga paksa ang nais nilang ituro.
Maliwanag din na hindi inuutos ng Saligang Batas na ituro ang Filipino sa mga matataas
na pamantasan at dalubhasaan. Batay rito, hindi paglabag sa Saligang Batas at sang-
ayon sa kalayaang pang-akademiko kung payagan ang mga matataas na pamantasan
at dalubhasaan na piliin kung sila man ay magturo o hindi ng Filipino bilang core
subject.
Samakatuwid, hindi maituturing na labag sa Saligang Batas ang CHED
Memorandum Order No. 20.
Sa aking palagay, ang pasya ng Hukumang ito tungkol sa CHED Memorandum
Order No. 20 ay walang kinalaman sa pagpapahalaga sa wikang Filipino. Tulad ng
nasabi ng ilang naghain ng Petisyon, hindi matatawaran ang kapangyarihan ng pag-aaral
ng balarila at panitikan ng sarili nating mga wika na humubog sa ating kultura at pag-
unawa sa ating kasaysayan.
Maaaring totoo na para sa mga dayuhang sumakop sa atin noon, ang paggamit
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 ng wikang Ingles ay naging paraan upang mapaamo ang ating mga ninunong nagpumilit
sa kanilang paghihimagsik. Ngunit hindi lamang ito ang kinahinatnan ng paggamit ng
dayuhang wika. Sa pamamagitan ng kakayahang umunawa ng dayuhang wika,
napayaman ang ating kaalaman sa agham, pilosopiya, at iba pa. Gamit ang panitikang
isinulat at binigkas sa dayuhang wika ng mga Pilipinong makata, naiparating ang yaman
ng kalinangan ng magkakaiba nating mga komunidad. Sa ganitong paraan, hindi
napipigilan ang pagyabong ng ating kultura; bagkus, ito'y lalong pinagyayaman.
Halimbawa, ang Noli me Tangere ay sinulat ni Rizal sa wikang Español. Ang
nobelang Woman with Two Navels ni Nick Joaquin, at ang Ilustrado ni Miguel Syjuco, ay
parehong isinulat sa wikang Ingles. Hindi rin naman matatawaran ang pagkamakabayan
ng mga tula nina Gemino Abad (Abad) at Conchitina Cruz (Cruz).
Ang alingawngaw ng kaluluwang Pilipino ay maliwanag sa tulang, "I Teach My
Child," ni Abad:
I teach my child
Gemino Abad
I teach my child
To survive.
I begin with our words,
The simple words first
And last.
They are hardest to learn.
Words like home,
Or friend, or to forgive.
These words are relations.
They are difficult to bear;
Their fruits are unseen.
Or words that promise
Or dream.
Words like honor, or certainty,
Or cheer.
Rarest of sound,
Their roots run deep;
These are words that aspire,
They cast no shade.
These are not words
To speak.
These are the words
Of which we consist,
Indefinite,
Without other ground.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com

 II.
My child
Is without syllables
To utter him,
Captive yet to his origin
In silence.
By every word
To rule his space,
He is released;
He is shaped by his speech.
Every act, too,
Is first without words.
There's no rehearsal
To adjust your deed
From direction from its words.
The words are given,
But there's no script.
Their play is hidden,
We are their stage.
These are the words
That offer to our care
Both sky and earth,
These same words
That may elude our acts.
If we speak them
But cannot meet their sound,
They strand us still
In our void,
Blank like the child
With the uphill silence
Of his words' climb.
And so,
I teach my child
To survive.
I begin with our words,
The simple words first
And last.
Sa bawat pagbasa ng akda ni Cruz, sumasagi sa alaala ang mga bukod-tanging
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 karanasan ng ating mga pangkaraniwang buhay. Halimbawa, sa tula niyang "Signals:"
Signals
By Conchitina Cruz
I took the amaretto to mean there was no beer in the house.
I took the bassline to mean a particular addressee was in the crowd.
I took the clairvoyant weather to mean I could dismiss your unappealing
conclusions.
I took the dry run to mean the echo was unreliable.
I took the elevated appeal of allusions to mean the fever had no fangs.
I took your fury to mean there was grass in the basement.
I took the gelatinous substance to mean a diminished generosity toward
herbivorous endeavors.
I took happiness to mean I had the right syllable in mind.
I took the initials to mean just leave the front door unlocked.
I took the jelly sh scuttling by the reef to mean the kleptomania was the least of
my concerns.
I took the kiss to mean a potentially inconsequential lesson.
I took the lesion barely hidden by your sleeve to mean you had no wish to mimic
the tragedies of your flawed heroines.
I took the marionette on the clothesline to mean there was hope for the
unsuspecting neighbor.
I took no to mean it was the only answer.
I took the oppressive serendipity to mean that panic might or might not send us
straight into an emergency.
I took the paprika to mean quiz the cook, not the gardener.
I took the imperious quill to mean the repetition was intentional.
I took the sly reference to mean the substitute had surpassed the preference.
I took the song to mean you took the necessary pill.
I took the tricky decimal to mean I should unsay the speech I made over dinner.
I took the unexpected uni cation to mean veer away from condescending
middlemen.
I took the violinist's lisp to mean it was imperative to wait in line.
I took the waiver to mean there was a xenophobe in the building.
I took the third x-ray to mean you had nothing more to lose.
I took the yapping from the room below to mean the token zorroing was a far
more appropriate gesture.
I took the zero dangling from the headline to mean the aphorism was a spell in
disguise.
Mahalaga ang pagpili ng wikang gagamitin. Ngunit mali ang paniniwalang kapag
hindi natin ipinilit sa ating mga matataas na pamantasan at dalubhasaan ang paggamit
ng Filipino, hindi tayo nagiging makabayan at nagiging kasangkapan sa pagbenta ng
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 ating kaluluwa.
Mahalagang igalang ang kalayaang pang-akademiko ng bawat mataas na
pamantasan at dalubhasaang pumili ng sariling paraan ng pagtuturo. Ipinakikita ng
ganitong pag-unawa ang paggalang sa kakayanan ng mga Pilipino na isulat at bigkasin
ang nilalaman ng kanilang kalooban sa alinmang wika. Ito ang hinihingi ng pagtalima sa
demokrasya.
Higit sa lahat, ito ang makatwiran at mapagpalayang laman ng ating Saligang
Batas.
ALINSUNOD DITO , sumasang-ayon ako sa pagtanggi sa mga Motions for
Reconsideration.

Footnotes

1. Rollo (G.R. No. 217451), Vol. 2, pp. 1567-1591; rollo (G.R. No. 218465), Vol. 3, pp. 2034-2059.
LEONEN

1. COTESCUP v. Aquino, G.R. No. 216930, October 9, 2018,

<http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?
file=/jurisprudence/2018/october2018/216930.pdf> [Per J. Caguioa, En Banc].
2. J. Leonen, Separate Concurring Opinion in COTESCUP v. Aquino, G.R. No. 216930, October 9,
2018, <http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?
file=/jurisprudence/2018/october2018/216930_leonen.pdf> [Per J. Caguioa, En Banc].

3. Rep. Act No. 10533 (2013). Enhanced Basic Education Act of 2013.
4. CONST., art. VIII, sec. 6.

5. 272 Phil. 147 (1991) [Per CJ. Fernan, En Banc].

6. Id. at 162.

7. See Miriam College Foundation, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 401 Phil. 431 (2000) [Per J.
Kapunan, First Division].

8. See Miriam College Foundation, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 401 Phil. 431 (2000) [Per J.
Kapunan, First Division].

9. Ateneo De Manila University v. Capulong, 294 Phil. 654, 673 (1993) [Per J. Romero, En Banc].

10. 401 Phil. 431 (2000) [Per J. Kapunan, First Division].

11. Id. at 455-456.

12. Ateneo De Manila University v. Capulong, 294 Phil. 654, 671 (1993) [Per J. Romero, En
Banc].
13. 436 Phil. 449 (2002) [Per J. Quisimbing, Second Division].

14. Id. at 460-461.

15. 408 Phil. 132 (2001) [Per J. Panganiban, En Banc].

16. Id. at 145.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com

 17. 294 Phil. 654 (1993) [Per J. Romero, En Banc].
18. Id. at 671-675.

19. Lupangco v. Court of Appeals, 243 Phil. 993 (1988) [Per J. Gancayco, First Division].
20. Id. at 1006.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com