CotesCUP v.

Sec

Facts

Before the Court are consolidated petitions under Rule 65, assailing the
constitutionality of Republic Act (RA) No. 105332 (K to 12 Law), RA No. 101573
(Kindergarten Education Act), and related issuances of the Department of Education
(DepEd), Commission on Higher Education (CHED), Department of Labor and Employment
(DOLE) and Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA)
implementing the K to 12 Basic Education Program.

Petitioners argue that the use of the MT or the regional or native language as
primary medium of instruction for kindergarten and the first three (3) years of
elementary education contravenes Section 7, Article XIV of the 1987 Philippine
Constitution, which expressly limits and constrains regional languages simply as
auxiliary media of instruction.

WN the use of mother tongue is a violation of Section 7, Article XIV of the 1987
Philippine Constitution

Ruling: No,

Concom deliberation

The deliberations of the Constitutional Commission also confirm that MT or regional

languages may be used as a medium of instruction:
MR. SUAREZ. Thank you, Madam President. When the Commissioner speaks of auxiliary
official languages in their respective regions, what exactly does he have in mind?
MR. BENNAGEN. In addition to Filipino and English, they can be accepted also as
official languages, even in government and in education.
MR. SUAREZ. So that not only will they be a medium of instruction or communication
but they can be considered also as official languages.

It is thus clear from the deliberations that it was never the intent of the framers
of the Constitution to use only Filipino and English as the exclusive media of
instruction. It is evident that Congress has the power to enact a law that
designates Filipino as the primary medium of instruction even in the regions but,
in the absence of such law, the regional languages may be used as primary media of
instruction. The Congress, however, opted not to enact such law. On the contrary,
the Congress, in the exercise of its wisdom, provided that the regional languages
shall be the primary media of instruction in the early stages of schooling. Verily,
this act of Congress was not only Constitutionally permissible, but was likewise an
exercise of an exclusive prerogative to which the Court cannot interfere with.

Petitioners further contend that the MTB-MLE is counter-productive, anti-

developmental and does not serve the people's right to quality of education, which
the State, under the Constitution, is mandated to promote.
Petitioners' arguments are again misplaced. While the Constitution indeed mandates
the State to provide quality education, the determination of what constitutes
quality education is best left with the political departments who have the
necessary knowledge, expertise, and resources to determine the same. Clearly, when
the government, through the K to 12 Law and the DepEd issuances, determined that
the use of MT as primary medium of instruction until Grade 3 constitutes a better
curriculum, it was working towards discharging its constitutional duty to provide
its citizens with quality education. The Court, even in the exercise of its
jurisdiction to check if another branch of the government committed grave abuse of
discretion, will not supplant such determination as it pertains to the wisdom of
the policy.