“What do you think about the Supreme Court’s issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) on Commission on Higher Education Memorandum (CHED) Order No. 20 (CMO), series of 2013, which will implement the removal of Filipino and Philippine Literature as core courses in the new college curriculum?”
“The TRO is a welcome development, since it buys us more time to discuss the importance, not only of Filipino, but also of literature, both devolved to the senior high school curriculum by the CHED CMO 20. It is an important intervention of the state, a counter-checking as it were, of this reform legislation. We really have to review the implementation and priorities, especially now that we are facing the challenges of the ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) integration. Culture should never be compromised despite globalization. It should always be at the core of ou-nation=building agenda.”
Louie Sanchez, PhD
Instructor, English Department
“Well in my opinion, I think it’s good that there is a [TRO] on the [CMO] No. 20. It would be better if they permanently suspend or do not approve the CHED Memo because I think learning Filipino and Philippine literature is necessary for the makeup of a Filipino. I know that many people complain about it not being relevant to their courses or feeling that they should remove it because they weigh down their grades. Honestly, I think that it’s necessary because students won’t be able to patronize their culture, national pride, and develop a passion for our national language. How can we face the world if we do not have a strong sense of identity?”
Katrina Sinamban
2 BS-HSc
“Well, my stance is that [the CMO No. 20] is preposterous. I believe that it’s taking out something vital to our culture and education, which is our national language. People say that they should remove [Filipino classes from the college curriculum] for practical purposes because of the English language and globalization. But I believe that it should be kept for cultural, almost patriotic purposes—to keep national pride, identity and continual fostering of passion for the Filipino language and culture. Maybe they can revise it to lessen its impact on the core curriculum because of said practical purposes, but I believe that they shouldn’t take it out of the curriculum because of local identity and culture.”
AJ Garcia
2 BS-ME
“The mere fact that legislators and individuals are positing the do-or-die argument if this bill were to be passed, that if we were to deprive college students of the mandate to study these subjects would lead to the degradation of our culture, already speaks of how weak our cultural values are. If you were to compare the Philippines’ educational system with other nations, it is rather evident that the average Filipino student is bombarded with subjects pertaining to Filipino culture from [the] first grade up until the [Jose] Rizal subjects in college, unlike students from other nations who are merely taught the basics of history rather than the nitty gritty of an individual such as Rizal. Our evident lack of a national identity [makes us] compensate through this unjust burden to the youth. If we cannot address the issue head on through a deeper form of cultural introspection, then we cannot afford to be sentimental.”
Saje Molato
2 AB POS
“I am curious [as to] what will happen in the duration of this delay. As a student, I want to see how this TRO will improve or possibly stop CHED’s memorandum. In my opinion, CHED and the other institutions that are handling the situation should find a way to remove or at the least soften the blow caused by Memorandum Order No. 20, given that a considerable number of Filipino professors will lose their jobs. In the end, I do not want to ask the question ‘why [did we] have the TRO if the results were the same and progress was not achieved?’”
Matthew Tayag
3 BS HS
“It’s a great relief that the Supreme Court has made a move to preserve an important part of our culture. The Filipino language and Philippine literature are integral to solving our nation’s identity crisis, and an appreciation of the importance of our language and literature is manifested most in tertiary institutions, where the students are mature enough to understand more complex and pressing issues.”
Justin Yturzaeta
2 BS MAC
“I was delighted when I found out that the order to remove Filipino from the college core curriculum was given a TRO by the Supreme Court. This issue needs more time for proper discourse, for the educators to voice out the importance of this subject in forming the Filipino youth. Even as a Math major, I find great value in the Filipino core subjects as the stories and values that make Filipino Literature enrich my experience as a Filipino citizen.”
Jurel Yap
4 BS MA, AB DS
“I accept the implementation of the TRO against the memorandum because Filipino is an essential language to our home country, the Philippines. If we keep focusing [on how to] improve [greatly on English], we might be obliterating what history has built on Philippine grounds. Focusing on English may [appear good] when dealing with other countries but Filipinos must also remain patriotic to their own native tongue.”
Francis Anwell Tordecilla
2 BFA ID
“Well, I’m honestly happy that the Supreme Court did something sensible for once because while the CHED Memorandum No. 20 may have been written with good intentions in mind, it simply just won’t work. Aside from the thousands of teachers who would be displaced with this memo, it could also result in irreparable damage to our nation’s culture.”
Juan Gabriel Felix
2 AB COM
“For me, it is a nice move because the collegiate Filipino [subject] is different from the Filipino that is taught in high school. The professors, as well as the students, are different. Also, the Filipino that the memorandum may have removed—if not for the TRO—is not just about grammar, but also [about] the Filipino culture.”
Ma. Rufina Salas
2 II AB SOS
“I am a current member of the CHED Technical Panel for Literature and I speak in that capacity. The TRO is part of the legal process and it should take its course, whatever the outcome. As members of the Technical Panel for Literature, we had made a recommendation last year to the Board of Commissioners regarding the issue wherein we stated our unconditional support for the use of Filipino as an intellectual language. But we also maintained that the teaching of Filipino as [a] language belonged properly to basic education, not to higher education where the discussion is expected to be much more complex. Whatever our position is on the matter, we must not forget the spirit behind the K-12 [program], which is to reform Philippine education so that it can create global citizens imbued with a strong Filipino perspective.”
Charlie S. Veric, PhD
Instructor, English Department
“I’m actually quite happy about it. Personally, I don’t think removing Filipino is a step towards “better education.” Filipino and Philippine literature speaks a lot about our country’s identity and that’s something students fail to appreciate. I think no matter how much we complain about our Filipino class, at the end of the day we still gain a little from it.”
Licianne Go
2 BS LM
“One the one hand, cultures offer human groups sufficient stability and predictability for social interactions to take place. Changing basic cultural norms on a daily basis might simply lead to a chaotic society, devoid of identity. Language and knowledge of one’s national literature plays a great role in preserving a country’s cultural identity. In this line of thought, keeping the Filipino language and literature as core subjects in colleges makes sense, thus supporting the Supreme Court’s TRO. On the other hand, cultures undergo continuous change because human beings, creators of cultures, are themselves evolving every day. There always comes a time when cultural identities change and languages are modified (such as Taglish) or replaced (Brazilians all now speak Portuguese). This dynamic perspective of culture may support the move by CHED. However, the question that needs to be answered is whether Filipinos have reached the point where local language and literature are no longer relevant in forming Filipino cultural identities.”
John Gappy
Part-time lecturer, Sociology and Anthropology Department
