THE Department of Education (DepEd) is against the lifting of constitutional restrictions on the ownership of basic education institutions, saying it would allow foreign entities to gain full control and administration over schools.
DepEd Usec Omar Romero told the House Committee of the Whole’s hearing yesterday on Resolution of Both Houses (TBH) No. 7 that 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.”
“In this light, the scope and limits of control and administration are put into question, including processes defining who, what, and how education shall be administered,” he said. “The most basic question is: Will it allow foreign entities to teach? For this, the Department respectfully and strongly objects to the amendment.”
The proposal to amend the “restrictive” economic provisions is only limited to the public service sector, education, and the advertising industry, which lawmakers said should be open to 100 percent foreign ownership to attract more investors and create more jobs for Filipinos.
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).
Romero warned that the proposed amendment to Paragraph 2, Section 4, Article 14 of the Constitution has “far-reaching consequences and serious implications” to the department’s mandate and functions.
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.”
Commission on Higher Education (CHED) chairman Prospero de Vera III, however, said that by opening the ownership and control of the educational institutions in higher education, other ASEAN countries have become “more competitive in their internationalization efforts,” citing Malaysia and Singapore.
He said these two countries not only allowed foreign companies to participate in their higher education but also gave incentives to attract foreign schools.
Under the phased implementation of the revised K to 10, or the DepEd’s Matatag curriculum, there will be five competencies, namely, Language, Reading and Literacy, Mathematics, GMRC and Makabansa, which aims to inculcate patriotism among students.
Romero said it is essential the Philippine curriculum is exclusively implemented by Filipino citizens because this “ensures alignment with the specific needs and context of the country.
“Having foreign entities control and administer basic education in the Philippines may run contrary to this undertaking. This begs the question: How can foreign entities who are not citizens of the Philippines and therefore may lack first-hand experience with Filipino culture and values effectively impart a sense of patriotism and nationalism to learners?” he said.
He further warned this may result in the possible “dilution of the fundamental aspects of Filipino identity, cultures, and values to be taught and worse, endanger national security.”
Romero also questioned removing the limits on the number of foreign students and allowing the establishment of exclusive educational institutions for foreigners, saying it would pose great risks to national security “due to the lack of provisions for proper supervision and control over aliens.”
He said this “significantly diminishes the Department’s oversight of school supervision and management, including but not limited to curriculum offerings, roster of faculty, policies, programs, and matriculation.
“This susceptibility to external and foreign influence raises concerns regarding national security as it may expose these educational institutions to infiltration and compromise,” he said.
SENATE HEARING
The Senate sub-committee on Constitutional Amendments and Revision of Codes will conduct today, Tuesday, its fourth hearing on the Resolution of Both Houses No. 6, with the discussions still focusing on the implications of allowing foreign ownership of higher educational institutions in the country.
The sub-committee chaired by Sen. Juan Edgardo Angara will specifically continue discussions on whether there is a need to amend Paragraph 2, Section 4, Article XIV of the Constitution.
The said provision states that “Educational institutions, other than those established by religious groups and mission boards, shall be owned solely by citizens of the Philippines or corporation or associations at least six percent of the capital of which is owned by such citizens. The Congress may, however, require increased Filipino equity participation in all educational institutions.”
“The control and administration of educational institutions shall be vested in citizens of the Philippines… No educational institution shall be established exclusively for aliens and no group of aliens shall comprise more than one-third of the enrollment in any school. The provisions of this subsection shall not apply to schools established for foreign diplomatic personnel and their dependents and, unless otherwise provided by law, for other foreign temporary residents.”
The possible points of discussion include the impact of restrictions on foreign ownership in education, comparing the effects on the economy to increasing foreign ownership, and current statistics on foreign-owned higher educational institutions.
The sub-committee will also determine the pros and cons of having foreign equity restrictions, and tackle what incentives the government can offer to attract foreign investments to the domestic higher education industry.
Last February 20, the sub-committee held its third hearing on RBH 6, focusing primarily on various issues surrounding the potential increase in foreign ownership and control of higher educational institutions in the county.
Angara clarified that it is not the intention of the authors of RBH 6 (Senate President Juan Miguel Zubiri, Senate President pro tempore Loren Legarda, and Angara) to amend the basic education setup but to keep its ownership and control under Filipinos.
Several resource persons invited during the third hearing voiced their opposition or willingness to open the country’s higher educational institutions to foreign ownership.
Senate deputy minority leader Risa Hontiveros yesterday said the minority is confident that the Charter change will not be approved in the Senate.
She said that based on the minority bloc’s “political mapping” and statements of senators in past discussions on RBH 6, at least seven of their colleagues will vote “no” on RBH 6.
“We need at least seven (votes). They need 18 to approve RBH 6. So, we just need seven (no votes) to stop RBH 6),” Hontiveros said in an interview with the Senate media.
Based on the rules, both chambers of Congress need to have the approval of at least three-fourths of its members for Charter change to prosper. In the case of the Senate which has 24 members, it needs at least 18 affirmative votes to approve RBH 6.
Hontiveros said the situation is still “fluid” but based on the other senators’ statements, RBH 6 will be voted against by at least seven senators.
Aside from the minority bloc (composed of Hontiveros and Senate minority leader Aquilino Pimentel III), the senators who are likely to oppose RBH are Senators Grace Poe, Nancy Binay, and Cynthia Villar.
In past hearings, Poe said Cha-cha is not needed this time since the upper chamber has already remedied the so-called strict economic provisions of the Charter by amending the Public Services Act, Trade Liberalization Law, and Foreign Investments Act.
Binay earlier said the amendments to the economic measures passed in the 18th Congress were sufficient enough to encourage investors and help revitalize the economy.
Villar said that several business groups in the country oppose Cha-cha, saying what they want is the strict implementation of the Ease of Doing Business Law.
Hontiveros said the statements of their colleagues and that of the business sectors are “strong signals” that Cha-cha is not needed this time.
“So, those are parts of the very strong signal from various sectors. The (position of the) private sector and business sectors are even echoed by their counterparts in the foreign chambers of commerce. Across domestic to foreign business persons and organizations, they are saying that Charter change is the least we need. That [strict economic provisions] are not the core problems to attract more domestic and foreign investments),” she said.
“It’s the ease of doing business, minimizing until we eliminate corruption, address the high cost of electricity in the country, and many more,” she added.
Hontiveros said the discussions on RBH 6 should be suspended until the rules on how the Senate would convene to tackle the resolution have been resolved.
Sen. Francis Escudero last week cautioned his colleagues against proceeding with future hearings on RBH 6 without a clear set of guidelines contained in the Rules of the Senate.
Escudero said the Rules of the Senate does not have a specific section on procedures on constitutional amendments unlike the House of Representatives which are categorically stated in Sections 143 and 144 under Rule XXI.
Section 143 of House Rule XXI states that “the Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths (3/4) of all its Members, may propose amendment(s) to or revision of the Constitution.”
On the other hand, Section 144 prescribes that “Proposals to amend or revise the Constitution shall be by resolution which may be filed at any time by any Member. The adoption of resolutions proposing amendments to or revision of the Constitution shall follow the procedure for the enactment of bills.”
“Until the issues are resolved about this Cha-cha, about con-ass (constitutional assembly) in particular, and whether these hearings we are conducting embody con-ass, the discussions [on RBH 6] should be suspended,” she said.
Hontiveros said the proponents of Cha-cha will still push for it even if the Senate votes against its approval since President Marcos Jr. and Commission on Elections Chairman George Garcia have made statements that the plebiscite for Cha-cha can be held simultaneously with the 2025 midterm elections.
Another indicator, she added, is that the Comelec has not yet issued specific guidelines on how people would withdraw their signatures which were submitted to the poll body on the PI signature campaign. — With Raymond Africa