“THE SUPREME Court should not be thought of as having been tasked with the awesome responsibility of overseeing the entire bureaucracy. Unless there is a clear showing of constitutional infirmity or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, the Court’s exercise of judicial power, pervasive and limitless it may seem to be, still must succumb to the paramount doctrine of separation of powers.
Further, the courts accord presumption of constitutionality to legislative enactments, not only because the legislative if presumed to abide by the Constitution, but because the judiciary, in the determination of actual cases and controversies must reflect the wisdom and justice of the people as expressed through their representatives in the executive and legislative branches of government.” – Supreme Court
***
We do not have representatives in the executive branch of government.
Nobody voted for Armin Luistro, secretary, Department of Education (DepEd) 2010-2016. He was not our representative.
Theorists of propaganda have identified five basic rules:
- The rule of simplification: reducing all data to a simple confrontation between ‘Good and Bad’, ‘Friend and Foe’.
- The rule of disfiguration: discrediting the opposition by crude smears and parodies.
- The rule of transfusion: manipulating the consensus values of the target audience for one’s own ends.
- The rule of unanimity: presenting one’s viewpoint as if it were the unanimous opinion of all right-thinking people: drawing the doubting individual into agreement by social pressure, and by ‘psychological contagion.
- The rule of orchestration: endlessly repeating the same messages in different variations and combinations.
***
Most of the propaganda techniques shown above were applied by DepEd, particularly Armin Luistro, in support of K-12.
But at a Malacaang press briefing held in July 2018, DepEd Secretary Dr Leonor Briones said that her department will conduct a ‘thorough review’ of its K-12 program. We have not heard of any results from this review. I hope we shall soon.
***
There were several petitions submitted to the SC in 2013 which assailed RA 10157 which made one year of Kindergarten compulsory, and RA 10533 which made six years of high school compulsory in order to permit students to enter tertiary education. Parents find this unnecessary. The additional two years of high school have not had an impact on tertiary courses. This means that these extra two years are a waste of time and money.
The SC does not consider the high-handedness of RA 10157 and RA 10533 in forcing three extra years of schooling to be either unconstitutional or indicate a grave abuse of discretion.
Constitution: Art XIV Sec 2(2)
‘Without limiting the natural right of parents to rear their children, elementary education is compulsory for all children of school age’
Yes Grades 1-6 are compulsory. Kindergarten is not. Nor is six years of high school.
Grave abuse of discretion. I consider imposing an extra three years of mediocre education before students are eligible for tertiary education to be a grave abuse of discretion. Sophist lawyers my not.
What would Plato have said?/PN
