CHAPTER 5
CONSTITUTIONAL, LEGISLATIVE AND JUDICIAL
BASES OF EDUCATIONAL POLICY
INTRODUCTION
The Philippines has one of the highest literacy rates in Asia and a
collegiate enrollment that is second or third highest in the world in proportion
to population. But why are we behind our progressive Asian neighbors in
economic development and in science and technology? We obviously have an
educational system that has failed to eradicate mass poverty, or to lessen the
yawning gap between the rich and the poor.
Could a more efficient policy-making process have changed the course of
our development?
This chapter will treat the student to provisions of the Constitution
which serve as bases of policy making in education, discussions on the
legislature and the policy-making process, and the role of the judiciary in
policy-making.
Objectives
At the end of this chapter, the student is expected to:
1. Enumerate and explain provisions of the Constitution which serve as
bases in educational policy making.
2. Identify the role of the legislature in the policy-making process as
well as enumerate legislative milestones in Philippine education.
3. Explain the role of courts of law in policy-making.
THE CONSTITUTION AND POLICY-MAKING
Major Constitutional Bases of Educational Policy
The primacy of education as a national concern has been reestablished
by the 1987 Constitution and by subsequent acts of Congress.
54
The Constitution is the basis of all policy-making in the field of
education. Section 5 (1), Article XIV, of the fundamental law provides:
“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.”
Our fundamental laws over the years have uniformly dictated
government policy on education. A review of past and present constitutions
reveals a consistent policy of State control and supervision over the education
of its citizens.
Thus, Sec. 5, Art. XIV of the 1935 Constitution asserted that “All
educational institutions should be under the supervision of and subject to
regulation by the state.” The Article further provides that the government shall
establish and maintain a complete and adequate system of public education,
and shall provide at least free public primary education, and citizenship
training to adult citizens.
Section 8, Article XV of the 1973 Constitution, on the other hand,
mandated that “All educational institutions shall be under the supervision of,
and subject to regulation by the State. The State shall establish and maintain a
complete, adequate, and integrated system of education relevant to the goals of
national development.”
In the 1987 Constitution the pertinent provision is embodied in Section 4,
Article XIV:
“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.”
The charter lays down the basic responsibility of the State in promoting
the rights of all citizens to enjoy the benefits of a complete, adequate and
integrated system of education (Sections 1 and 2 of the same Article), as follows:
“Section 1. The State shall protect and promote the right of the all citizens to
quality education on all levels and shall take appropriate steps to make such education
accessible to all.”
“Section 2. The State shall:
(1) Establish, maintain, and support a complete, adequate, and integrated
system of education relevant to the needs of the people and society;
55
(2) Establish and maintain a system of free public education in the elementary
and high school levels. Without limiting the natural right of parents to
rear their children, elementary education is compulsory for all children of
school age;
(3) Establish and maintain a system of scholarship grants, student loan
programs, subsidies, and other incentives which shall be available to
deserving students in both public and private schools, specially to the
under-privileged,
(4) Encourage non-formal, informal, and indigenous learning systems, as well
as self-learning, independent, and out-of-school study programs,
particularly those that respond to community needs, and
(5) Provide adult citizens, the disabled, and out-of-school youth with training
in civics, vocational efficiency, and other skills.”
Other Constitutional Bases of Educational Policy
There are various other provisions of the 1989 Constitution that define
the boundaries of policy-making. The most significant ones are:

Art. XIV, Sec. 5 (2) guaranteeing academic freedom “in all institutions
of higher learning.”

Art. XIV, Sec. 4 (2) providing that the “control and administration of
educational institutions shall be vested in citizens of the Philippines,”
with certain exceptions.

Art. XIV, Sec. 6 prescribing Filipino as the national language and
directing the government to “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.”

Art. XIV, Sec. 4 (3) and Sec. 11 granting exemptions from taxes and
duties “all revenues and assets of non-stock, non-profit educational
institutions used actually, directly, and exclusively for educational
purposes,” and authorizing Congress to provide “incentives,
including tax deductions, to encourage private participation in
programs of basic and applied scientific research.”

Art. XIV, Sec. 10 identifying science and technology as “essential for
national development and progress” and giving “priority to research
56
and development, inventions, innovation, and their utilization, and to
science and technology education, training and services.”
Our present and past constitutions thus established the parameters of
State authority aside from delineating principles on which our educational
system operates. The legislative process takes over from this point. Laws and
resolutions are passed to implement the Constitutional provisions. The
Members of Congress reflect the sentiments and aspirations of the electorate in
translating educational policy into concrete action and in laying the legal bases
for executive action through the Department of Education (DepEd),
Commission on Higher Education (CHED), and Technical Education and Skills
Development Authority (TESDA).
THE LEGISLATURE AND THE POLICY-MAKING PROCESS
The Legislative Department and Educational Policies
The legislative department of government bears the responsibility of not
only orchestrating the process of interaction among government and nongovernment entities which results in policy, but in giving concrete
manifestation to the results of such action through the enactment of appropriate
legislation.
There is no permanent policy. There is only a permanent need to address
the emerging problems of a dynamic society, and to associate policy with the
values and aspirations of the people. In this sense, legislation is merely a
convenient instrument for social transformation.
There have been a number of significant legislative acts in the past 60 or
70 years. These laws have formed part of Philippine educational policy; some
have become obsolete or have been superseded by subsequent legislation. The
acts of Congress which represent milestones in the educational development of
our nation are worth mentioning:
 Act. No. 2706 providing for the inspection and recognition of private
schools and colleges (1917);
 Commonwealth Act No. 570 making the Filipino national language
an official language (1940);
 Commonwealth Act No. 184
Language (1936);
creating the Institute of National
57
 Commonwealth Act No. 586 known as the Education Act of 1940
(1940); and
 Republic Act. No. 1124 creating the Board of National Education
(1954).
The other significant legislative acts on education are:
 Republic Act No. 4670 creating the Magna Carta of public schools
teachers (1966);
 Presidential Decree No. 6-A (1972) as amended by Presidential
Decree No. 162 (1973), Presidential Decree No. 364 (1974) –
Educational Development Decree of 1972;
 Presidential Decree No. 146 instituting the National College
Entrance Examination for high school graduates (1973);
 Batas Pambansa Blg. 232 providing for the establishment of the
integrated system of education (1987); and
 Republic Act No. 6655 establishing and providing for free public
secondary education (1988).
In addition, various laws have been promulgated regulating professional
practice and prescribing certain curricular requirements, such as the obligatory
teaching of Spanish (Republic Act No. 709 passed in 1952, as amended by
Republic Act No. 1881 passed in 1956), and Republic Act No. 1425 (1956)
prescribing the teaching of the life, works and writings of Jose Rizal.
These laws formed part of that “transaction” between the government
and the governed in the process of policy-making. They have shaped over the
last seventy years the structure of our educational system, prescribing executive
action, revising and amending previous decisions, directing government as well
as private effort toward necessary activities – in essence, articulating the
mandate of the electorate. At this point in the policy process we have not only
an agenda of government but the necessary legal authority for implementing
policy.
The executive branch, as represented by DepEd, CHED, and TESDA, is
charged with the task of managing and supervising the program.
Congress exercises authority over the policy-making process in several
ways. The most important factor, of course, is Congress’ control over the
budget of DepEd, CHED and TESDA as well as of the state colleges and
58
universities. This is a tremendous power which, unfortunately, may not always
be wielded wisely by Congress. Similarly, the legislative department can and
does intervene through the passage of bills that may support special interests
and clientele.
Laws on Education Passed by Congress
Our own Congress, regardless of the current administration or regime,
generally passes two categories of laws on education:
 laws which set up administrative structure or establish educational
policy; and
 laws which create schools, colleges and universities.
The first type is not only legitimate but desirable; it reflects a function
that carries the mandate of the voters. The second category has sometimes led
to abuse. There are over a hundred bills pending in Congress proposing to
create more state colleges and universities.
Wirt, et al. writing in the Peabody Journal of Education, Vol. 62, No. 4,
and speaking of the American experience, says: “What leaders decide about
policy may depend less on what resources the States have than how leaders
expect the political system to operate.” The political culture of a country
decides in the long run the kinds of education laws enacted. Our own DepEd,
CHED and TESDA are only as strong or effective as the national administration
allows it.
In other words, the implementation of policy not infrequently becomes
subject to a power play between the executive and the legislative branches of
government, with the private sector playing a relatively minor role. This is
unfortunate because the private education sector in our country accounts for
80% of higher education. It is rendering a public service that should be
discharged by government. Yet, this sector often has to plead, implore or fight
for a share in government resources.
In socialist countries, such problems do not arise simply because the
political culture is different. Education is the responsibility of the State on all
levels. Policy-making in this regard could be much simpler.
Role of the Academe in Educational Policy Formulation
The elected representatives of the people are expected not only to
perform their duty but to perform it well. The reason for this is obvious. They
59
were chosen instead of others in the belief that they could and would do better.
The people’s mandate not only authorizes but commands, and if the
representatives fail to deliver, they are changed by the same electorate.
In its work, Congress seeks the advice and assistance of experts and
technical people. This is standard practice. Legislators are not expected to
possess expert knowledge in all matters that are the subject of legislation.
In the field of education, and particularly in the formulation of policy,
the practice in more advanced nations is to engage specialists and experts in
such fields as administration, curriculum-making, science and technology,
higher education, legal matters and financial administration. The participation
of academe in this regard is important. In all ideal situations, there is
continuing research in educational policy independent of government control
and supervision. Such research and study centers, which are usually attached
to leading universities, are a continuous wellspring of ideas for policy makers.
Let us now assume that an education bill is proposed in Congress in
response to a particular need, or to the clamor of constituents. Theoretically,
such a bill had undergone careful study, data gathering, and expert advice. The
author or authors had taken into account not only available government
resources but as importantly the socio-political implications of the bill.
A public hearing or series of hearings are then called to validate the
concepts and ideas of the legislative proposal, and not to test the popularity of
the bill itself. To these hearings are invited leading professionals and heads of
associations and pertinent government agencies. Position papers are also
requested from these parties. The process fosters, perhaps even forces, rational
debate and sharpens the focus of the real issues.
The bill is next endorsed by the proper committee to the floor for debate
and possible amendment. The presence of the academe during the hearings can
make a difference. It is in responding to the legislators’ “back-to-the-people”
approach that the universities as a community – the academe in short – can play
a significant leadership role. It is in this light that the opportunity of interaction
with the best and the brightest in the field is welcome.
The academe has the most intellectual and experienced people in the
field and is generally unhampered by parochial and political interests. It also
has a ready-made dynamic organization with a built-in-process for decisionmaking and self-correcting mechanisms.
60
Therefore, at every stage of the policy process, the academe’s
participation is invaluable. The legislature and the academic community
should forge a productive relationship that can be harnessed in the service of
Philippine society. The academe should, therefore, assume a stronger
leadership role in educational policy and legislation. This can be done through
the following:
 First, the academe could assist as one body in reviewing existing
legislation and judicial decisions with policy implications and match
them against the educational policies of the 1987 Constitution.
 Second, the academe could agree on determining which Constitutional
provision needs immediate legislative enactment and proceed to
undertake the necessary steps leading to congressional action.
 Third, the academe could identify pressing educational problems and
agree on the issues that must be attended to by government.
 Fourth, the academe could further examine other problems related to
education for the purpose of determining whether legislation for
education can contribute to their solutions.
Agenda-setting is not the monopoly of those in high government offices.
The impression that all policies, planning and programs start at the top and go
down only for implementation must be changed. The academe must take a
visible initiative in helping set the government’s agenda on education.
Congress cannot but heed the voice of educators. What is needed is a
forceful voice, a unity of purpose, and a sincere common desire to improve our
educational system.
There are two areas where the assistance of academe in educational
policy-making is needed.
One is examining the obvious lack of coordination between the country’s
educational system and its manpower needs. We are producing college
graduates by the thousands who cannot find jobs because the graduates are not
adequately prepared for the employment they seek.
Another is the strengthening of science and technology courses. There
must be a way, by which enrollment can be redirected to courses that will
contribute directly to economic development.
61
The law on free public secondary education being implemented has
enlarged the democratic access to education. It has given the poor and the
underprivileged an opportunity to acquire secondary education. Ironically, the
law may be a reminder of the magnitude of the educational task facing us
today.
The problems of quality, inadequate teacher salaries, and the
articulation of our curriculum with the manpower and development needs of
the country still remain, but which must be addressed.
Educational policy must respond to these needs. If, indeed, one of the
failures of our policy-making is the tendency to formulate temporary and
piecemeal measures as problems arise, then it is time that a comprehensive and
enduring solution to educational problems be prescribed. We should look far
ahead to anticipate the next century and we formulate specific policies that will
make our country catch up in science and technology to cope with a new age of
transformed values and advanced technology.
ROLE OF COURTS OF LAW IN POLICY-MAKING
Under the democratic system the third co-equal branch of the
government - the judiciary - has a critical role in the formation of educational
policy. Parties adversely affected or who feel aggrieved by certain acts of the
executive sometimes take the case to court. In this sense, judicial action affects
policy.
The judiciary intervenes, when called upon, to settle legal disputes
arising out of policy decisions. A review of significant Supreme Court decisions
shows judicial intervention in cases involving:
1. Academic freedom
(Garcia v. The Faculty Admission Committee, Loyola School of
Theology, G.R. No. 40779, November 28, 1975; Laxamana v.
Borlaza, G.R. No. l-26965, September 20, 1972; Magtibay v. Garcia,
G.R. No. L-28971, January 28, 1983; Montemayor v. Araneta
University Foundation, Inc., G.R. No. L-44251, May 31, 1977;
Tagonan v. Pano, G.R. No. L-45157, June 27, 1985; University of
the Philippines v. Auditor General, G.R. No. L-19617, October 31,
1969).
2. Power of the Secretary of Education
(Philippine Association of Colleges and Universities v. the
Secretary of Education, 95 Phil. 806 (1955).
62
3. Security of Tenure
(Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila v. Court of Appeals, G.R.
No. 65439, November 13, 1985; Sta. Maria v. Lopez, G.R. No. L30773, February 18, 1970).
4. Student discipline
(Arreza v. Gregorio Araneta University Foundation Inc., G.R. No.
L-62297, June 19, 1985; Ateneo de Manila University v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. L-56180, October 16, 1986; Guzman, et al v.
National University, G.R. No. L-68288, July 11, 1986; Malabanan v.
Ramento, G.R. No. L-62270, May 21, 1984; University of the
Philippines v. Fernandez, G.R. No. L-61231, June 18, 1985).
5. Tuition Fees
(Saint Louis Faculty Club v. National Labor Relations
Commission, G.R. No. L-65585, September 28, 1984; University of
the East v. University of the East Faculty Association, G.R. No. L57387, September 30, 1982; Cebu Institute of Technology v. Ople,
and other cases, G.R. Nos. 68870, 68345, 68224-5, 70832, 76521 and
76596, December 18, 1987; University of Pangasinan Faculty
Union v. University of Pangasinan, G.R. No. 63122, February 20,
1984).
6. Salaries and Wages
(Jose Rizal College v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R.
No. 65482, December 1, 1987).
The check-and-balance function of the judiciary establishes guideposts
for policy makers. Knowing that controversial decisions are reviewable by a
final authority, the implementors of policy are apt to be more careful in
discharging their duties.
But Congress is primarily responsible for educational planning in a
democratic state. Congress cannot shirk such a responsibility.
Summary
Educational policy-making needs both theory and reality. The best
minds, the experienced, and the most highly informed in and out of
government service must work together to produce positive results. In this
63
endeavor the legislative branch of government plays a central role. The
representatives in Congress must keep going back to the people who put them
in power, listen closely to their plaints and formulate laws for their benefit.
Theory is the beginning, but the final test is how a particular policy or piece of
legislation will benefit the people.
Activities

Make an account of a very recent court decision or a legislative act
(from 1995 and up) that affects education or one that is about
education and report it in class.

Identify a constitutional provision on education that requires
immediate implementation through a legislative act of congress.
Justify the need for legislative action.