AN administration lawmaker has taken the Department of Education (DepEd) to task for opposing the lifting of constitutional restrictions on the ownership of basic education institutions under the proposed economic Charter change.
For Iloilo Rep. Janette Garin, a House deputy majority leader, the DepEd’s opposition to the liberalization of education is a tacit admission that only the wealthy, the powerful and the privileged can receive better education abroad.
“Does this mean that if you are in position, if you have the means, or if you had somebody fund your schooling, you can study in foreign schools?” she told the House Committee of the Whole late Monday afternoon.
Garin said many cabinet officials, including undersecretaries, assistant secretaries and even senators and congressmen study abroad, particularly in “Harvard, Stanford, Berkeley, Boston College, Boston University, and other Ivy League schools.”
The DepEd earlier told the Committee of the Whole’s hearing on Resolution of Both Houses (TBH) No. 7 that it is against the lifting of constitutional restrictions on the ownership of basic education institutions because it would allow foreign entities to gain full control and administration over local schools.
Education Undersecretary Omar Romero has said adding the phrase “unless otherwise provided by law and its underlying rationale could potentially serve as a gateway to expand the scope of control and administration over educational institutions not solely by citizens of the Philippines but by other entities as well.”
He also cited Article 14 Section 3 of the Constitution which states that all education institutions shall “inculcate patriotism and nationalism, foster love of humanity, respect for human rights, appreciation of the role of national heroes in the historical development of the country, teach the rights and duties of citizenship, strengthen ethical and spiritual values, develop moral character and personal discipline, encourage critical and creative thinking, broaden scientific and technological knowledge, and promote vocational efficiency.”
Romero also warned that the proposed constitutional amendment may result in the possible “dilution of the fundamental aspects of Filipino identity, cultures, and values to be taught and worse, endanger national security.”
Garin, however, said Filipinos “cannot live in hypocrisy, Mr. Chairman, because if we remain as hypocrites, saying that the Philippines is only for Filipinos, we’ll all sink.
“We’re talking about here pure Filipino, we’re talking about here patriotism, but does it make you less of a Filipino kung hangarin mong magkaroon ng mas magandang edukasyon (if you aspire to have better education)?” she said.
Garin, a former health secretary under the last Aquino administration, said the DepEd representative to the House hearings “cannot justify their claim that this RBH No.7 will serve as a national security threat.”
Proponents of the bill seek to lift the 40 percent limit on foreign ownership in the three sectors to attract more foreign direct investments (FDI) to the country and create more jobs for Filipinos.
They aim to do this by adding the phrase “unless otherwise provided by law” to three constitutional provisions, Articles Section 11 of Article XII (National Patrimony and Economy), Section 4 of Article XIV (Education, Science and Technology, Arts, Culture, and Sports) and Section 11 of Article XVI (General Provisions).
Reacting to Garin’s statement, Romero said the DepEd is not objecting to the entry of foreign teachers, which is already happening under the 1987 Constitution, for as long as “it is consistent with the command of the Constitution that we teach our students patriotism and nationalism and other similar values.”
Anna Marie Abad, a legal counsel for the Philippine Accrediting Association of Colleges and Universities (PAASCU), yesterday expressed concern over the chances of Filipino students to get accepted in foreign schools, particularly high-standard colleges and universities, citing the “crisis in basic education” in the country.
“The question now is whether or not our Filipino students will be able to attend [these] foreign universities here because of that particular, apparent lack (of competence) in Sciences, Math and English,” said Abad, the dean of the Adamson University College of Law.
The lawyer-educator was referring to the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) also reported in its 2018 assessment that the Philippines scored the lowest in Reading and second lowest in Science and Mathematics.
“Sino po ang makakapasok kung mataas nga po ang standards (who will be admitted if these schools have high standards)? And the world rankings, we are at the bottom rung?” she said. “It is unfortunate, but this is something that the educational institutions have been really trying to correct, to the credit of our local universities and colleges, as well as the basic education sector.”
‘HARVARD EDUCATION IN PH?’
During the daily press briefing of the House of Representatives, the consensus among Deputy Minority Leader Erwin Tulfo of ACT-CIS Partylist, House Assistant Majority Leaders Mikaela Angela “Mika” Suansing of Nueva Ecija and Raul Angelo “Jil” Bongalon of Ako Bicol Partylist, and House Committee on Labor and Employment Fidel Nograles of Rizal was to allow the entry of foreign education institutions into the Philippines.
Other House members said an important educational achievement such as a Harvard University diploma can be within reach of many Filipinos if amendments to the restrictive economic provisions of the 1987 Constitution would happen.
Rizal Rep. Fidel Nograles, chair of the House Committee on Labor and Employment, who graduated from Harvard Law School in 2016, said students aspiring to study abroad will not have to raise travel funds if foreign education institutions such as Harvard are allowed in the country.
“On a lighter note, ang Harvard po ay nasa Cambridge, Massachusetts, wala po ito sa Cubao (Harvard is in Cambridge, Massachussetts, not in Cubao, Quezon City). Napakalayo, mahal po ng pamasahe du’n, kaya kung may Harvard na ho dito, e di dito na po tayo mag-aral. Kaya sang-ayon po ako sa access to education (It’s so far, the fare is too expensive so if there’s a Harvard branch here, then we should just study here. That’s why I’m for access to education),” he said.
Nueva Ecija Rep. Mikaela Angela Suansing, a House assistant majority leader who earned her Harvard Master’s degree in Public Policy in 2021, said Filipino teachers and students will also benefit a lot “in terms of being able to train our faculty, being able to adopt the curriculum of these institutions for the Philippine context.”
She also allayed fears the Filipino identity or culture would slowly be forgotten if foreign education institutions were allowed in the Philippines, saying there are safeguards against these concerns.
“Once (their) curriculum is brought to the Philippines, it doesn’t dilute the way that we inculcate the Filipino culture, the Filipino identity, among the Filipino students. There are a lot of safeguards around that, once we allow these institutions to come in, hindi po natin dini-diminish ‘yung oversight functions ng DepEd nor the CHED,” Suansing said.
SICAT’S TAKE
Economist Gerardo Sicat yesterday said that easing strict provisions in the education sector of the 1987 Constitution can be done by mere legislation, just like what other countries are doing.
“I have looked at a lot of Constitutions of different countries. I noticed, one, although education is oftentimes mentioned in their Constitutions as a responsibility or the rights of the citizens, it is not the subject of strictures within the Constitution,” Sicat said during yesterday’s resumption of discussions on Resolution of Both Houses No. 6 which calls on both houses of Congress to introduce amendments to the economic provisions of the Charter but limited only to public services, education, and advertising.
Sicat said he finds it “strange” that discussions are being undertaken to amend the education provisions of the Constitution since most countries just pass legislation to improve them.
“This is really strange that we were doing it in our country. This is my first point because the education policies, the running of education, is a matter for general legislation in most of these countries,” he said.
Sicat said the Philippines has been left by its ASEAN neighbors in terms of education since the country still needs to amend the Constitution if the government wants the entry of foreign investments in that sector.
He said the issue of relaxing the strict education provisions in the Charter could have been easily solved if the framers of the Constitution had not used too much wording on it.
The US Constitution, he said, had around 4,700 words, unlike the Philippine Constitution which has more than 21,000.
Jose Ramon “Toots” Albert, of the Philippine Institute of Development Studies, said lawmakers should be cautious in introducing amendments to the Charter as there might be “unintended consequences to whatever changes that we propose.”
He said amendments to the Charter “would be important” but should be done with utmost caution, adding amendments should benefit the students to “upskill.”
“And while reload the efforts of our senators or legislators, we’re trying to think of ways to try to solve all our problems but at the same time we need to take a step back and recognize that the solution to one problem may carry the seeds of the next problem,” Albert said.
He said the “barriers to entrance in higher education” do not stop in ownership but involve other factors, including the appointment of competent faculty members.
Ferdinande Ferrer, executive vice president of the Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry, said their group is in favor of amending the Constitution limited only to the economic provisions to “enhance the competitiveness of the Philippines and attract more local and foreign investors.”
“When it comes to education, it’s always been our advocacy to generate quality jobs, but quality jobs need quality workers which all stem from the educational system,” Ferrer said.
He said easing the restrictions on foreign ownership will help uplift the quality of higher education to the country’s 3.4 million students and around 750,000 graduates a year.
Professor Alizedney Ditucalan, chancellor of Mindanao State University-Iligan Institute of Technology, said they are also in favor of introducing amendments to the education provision of the Charter which he believes will address the “gaps” in the sector.
He said amendments to the Public Services Act, Foreign Direct Investments Act, and Free Trade Liberation Law only allowed the entry of foreigners into certain businesses in the country.
The Commission on Higher Education (CHED), Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA) and Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) expressed their support for the opening of Philippine higher education institutions (HEIs) to foreign investments.
During the hearing, CHED Chairman Prospero De Vera said the commission “interposes no objection to the proposal to amend the Constitution to open up control and administration of (HEIs) to foreign nationals.”
De Vera emphasized the potential benefits, like providing more options for students, internationalizing higher education, facilitating university-to-university linkages between local and foreign universities, and increasing foreign student enrollment.
However, De Vera stressed the importance of an enabling law to provide incentives for foreign universities and ensure complementarity between Philippine and overseas institutions.
Both TESDA and DOLE underscored the need to reframe the country’s economic policy to align with the demands of globalization while upholding the “Filipino First” policy.
TESDA Deputy Director General Rosanna Urdaneta said the agency supports the proposed amendment to allow foreign participation in higher-level Technical Vocational Education and Training (TVET), which is a source of skills, knowledge and technology needed to drive employment and productivity.
ANGARA’S TAKE
Sen. Juan Edgardo Angara assured that lawmakers will not open the basic education sector to foreign investments.
“You can rest assured we will not open up basic education. That was touched on by several resource persons. Many resource persons said that it should be opened,” Angara said.
Angara, chairman of the sub-committee on Constitutional Amendments and Revision of Codes, made the assurance after the Department of Education expressed opposition to allowing foreign ownership in basic education.
“At the outset of the educational institutions session, we already said the intention was not to open up basic education (because of the) importance of values formation, nationalism, among others, exactly what you said,” Angara told DepEd Assistant Secretary Francis Cesar Bringas during yesterday’s hearing.
Angara clarified during the previous hearings that the committee would focus on the proposal to open up the country’s higher educational institutions to foreign investment, as he advocates for full Filipino ownership of basic education.
Bringas said that DepEd opposes the proposed amendment to allow foreign entities to control and administer educational institutions in the Philippines, citing its “far-reaching consequences and serious implications for the Department’s mandate and functions.”
DepEd cautioned that the proposal to include the phrase “unless otherwise provided by law” in the constitutional provision “could potentially serve as a gateway to expand the scope of control and administration over educational institutions, not solely by citizens of the Philippines, but by other entities as well.”
The Education Department expressed concern that such amendments may expand the scope of control over education, potentially allowing foreign entities to teach, which could affect the implementation of the curriculum and the cultivation of learners’ sense of nationality and identity as Filipinos.
It also highlighted risks to national security, as the proposed amendments may diminish oversight and expose educational institutions to external influence. — With Raymond Africa