Republic of the Philippines

Office of the President

COMMISSION ON HIGHER EDUCATION
Press Statement

On the Removal of Filipino and Filipino Teachers

from the New General Education Curriculum
In the past week, two main points were raised about the new General Education
Curriculum (GEC): its alleged failure to intellectualize the Filipino language; and its
supposed displacement of Filipino faculty.
CHED Memorandum Order No. 20, s. 2013, creating, The General Education
Curriculum: Holistic Understandings, Intellectual and Civic Competencies, specifically
provides that the entire curriculum or parts of it may be taught in Filipino or English, in
keeping with Art. XIV, Sec. 7 of the Constitution, which states: For purposes of
communication and instruction, the official languages of the Philippines are Filipino
and, until otherwise provided by law, English. For this purpose, the course descriptions
approved by the CHED are written in both languages.
The CHED, moreover, has approved public consultations on the new recommendation
of the GE Technical Panel that at least nine (9) units of GE courses must be taught in
Filipino, with the choice of courses left to colleges and universities. After the
consultations are completed, the Technical Panel will present the findings to the
Commission, for final action.
With regard to the displacement of Filipino faculty, the new curriculum has been
reduced from 63 units (for humanities and social science majors) or 51 units (for
science, engineering and math majors) to 36 units for all students. The 27/15 units
removed were not all in Filipino. They also include courses in English, Literature, Math,
Natural Sciences, Humanities and Social Sciences. The new GEC, moreover, offers
entirely different courses from the old one.
Hence the displacement is not focused on Filipino teachers but spans all the disciplines,
and therefore the claim that Filipino teachers alone are displaced is inaccurate, just as
the claim that Filipino as the medium of instruction has no place in the new curriculum
is also false.
The more important question is why the old GEC was changed. First, it contained many
remedial courses (in English, Filipino, Math, for example) that will be taught in the new
K-12 curriculum. It would be unfair to have students take academic track courses in

senior high school, only to repeat them in their first years of college.
Second, the old GE curriculum had courses that were discipinal (such as introductory
courses to specific disciplines) rather than liberal education in character. These
disciplinal courses (such as General Psychology, Basic Economics) were also removed;
the CHED then crafted courses reflective of liberal education.
These moves led to the reduction of the GEC from 63/51 to 36 units. By so doing, did
the CHED deny the capacity of the Filipino language for intellectual discourse? No. The
entire GEC may be taught in Filipino if the higher education institution wishes and, if
public consultations so approve, at least nine units can be required to be taught in
Filipino. Research and publication on and in Filipino will continue to be supported in
key institutions to further enhance the capacity of the language for intellectual
discourse.
Were Filipino teachers uniquely displaced by the new GE curriculum? No. When the old
GE curriculum was reviewed, in light of the K-12 program and, guided by the nature and
spirit of liberal education, courses in many disciplines were removed.
The intellectualization of the Filipino language and the displacement of Filipino, Math,
Psychology and other former GE faculty are two entirely distinct matters and should be
addressed accordingly.
The possible displacement of higher education faculty as a result of the new GE
curriculum as well as during the period when students are in Grades 11 and 12 instead
of in College is indeed a serious concern. There are remedies being discussed such as
the assignment of disciplinal courses to former GE faculty, the deployment of some
higher education faculty to senior high school, the grant of research load to deserving
faculty, and others. The CHED, in fact, has a technical working group studying the
challenges posed by the transition to K12 and is working out alternative solutions with
the help of DepEd, DOLE and other concerned agencies.
Issued this 23rd of June 2014 at the Higher Education Development Center Building, C.P.
Garcia Avenue, Diliman, Quezon City.

PATRICIA B. LICUANAN, Ph.D.

Chairperson