A PUBLIC hearing on the Commission on Higher Education’s (CHED) “Policies, Standards and Guidelines on the Reframed General Education Curriculum Component” was scheduled for the afternoon of May 5, 2026. The most important part of this would-be reframed general education (GE) curriculum for me — and the community of historians and collegiate-level history faculty in the country — is Article V (“General Education Structure and Content”) Section 7-A of the CHED draft document where the five courses that constitute the “Core and Mandated GE” were identified. Essentially, the current GE courses: 1) Readings in Philippine History; and 2) Life, Works and Writings of Jose Rizal would be replaced by a new course called “Rizal and Philippine Studies.”
This move is abominable on several levels.
Firstly, the plan of CHED will essentially drive half the historians in the country into unemployment.
Note that practically all the historians in the country are also GE teachers at the collegiate level. What happens when the collegiate-level teaching load for historians is slashed from two courses to one under the reframed GE curriculum?
CHED is being unamusingly cheeky by pointing out that history courses are still going to be offered at the basic education level (i.e., junior/senior high school and elementary). However, that imagined transition by CHED is quite disastrous.
The majority of the country’s historians are collegiate-level instructors — not basic education-level teachers — because the duties of the latter are far more time-consuming and energy-sapping than those of collegiate-level instructors. The free time allows historians-slash-collegiate-level instructors to engage in research and production of historical knowledge.
It is hardly surprising that historians-slash-collegiate-level instructors, particularly in the country’s top universities, are across the board published authors in peer-reviewed academic journals and why most basic education teachers are not. Especially at the top universities of the country, publication in peer-reviewed academic journals is often a requirement for faculty hiring, retention, tenure and/or promotion. In fact, there is a famous adage among collegiate-level instructors [across all disciplines, to be sure]: “publish or perish.”
Forcing historians who are collegiate-level instructors to transition into basic education teaching, with the backbreaking workload that comes with it, practically takes away the potential of these historians to publish more peer-reviewed academic journal articles and produce other forms of historical knowledge.
CHED is most assuredly going to push the country into a deep historical knowledge production deficit by slashing the number of historians who are collegiate-level instructors by half through the reduction of history-oriented/aligned GE courses at the college/university level.
How does CHED propose to fill up that expected shortfall?
Was that not part of the consideration when this reframed GE curriculum was conjured up?
Is CHED smugly comfortable with a looming historical knowledge production deficit for the country?
Secondly, shifting the mandated (via RA 1425) course on the Life, Works and Writings of Jose Rizal into “Rizal and Philippine Studies,” is probably illegal. Have the pencil pushers in CHED read Republic Act (RA) 1425 (“An Act to Include in the Curricula of All Public and Private Schools, Colleges and Universities Courses on the Life, Works and Writings of Jose Rizal, Particularly His Novels ‘Noli Me Tangere’ and ‘El Filibusterismo,’ Authorizing the Printing and Distribution Thereof and for Other Purposes,” otherwise known as the “Rizal Law”)? I have reason to believe that nobody in that institution did so.
In Section 8 (“Course Specification”) of the draft CHED memorandum order, subsection 1-D (“Course 4 – Rizal and Philippine Studies [3 units] *RA 1425-compliant”), the listed course objectives of Rizal and Philippine Studies are:
– Explain Rizal’s life, works and writings in their proper historical context.
– Analyze Philippine issues using Rizal’s ideas and Philippine studies perspectives.
– Demonstrate reflective, values-oriented citizenship with reasoned positions grounded on Rizal’s texts and Philippine realities.
“Explain Rizal’s life, works and writings in their proper historical context” as a course objective is not consistent with the intentions of RA 1425.
“Analyze Philippine issues using Rizal’s ideas and Philippine studies perspectives” as a course objective is equally inconsistent with RA 1425.
Only “demonstrate reflective, values-oriented citizenship with reasoned positions grounded on Rizal’s texts and Philippine realities” somewhat resembles the intentions of RA 1425 outlined in its preamble.
To properly understand the intentions of RA 1425, we must read its preambulatory provisions, to wit:
“WHEREAS, today, more than any other period of our history, there is a need for a rededication to the ideals of freedom and nationalism for which our heroes lived and died.
“WHEREAS, it is meet that in honoring them, particularly the national hero and patriot, Jose Rizal, we remember with special fondness and devotion their lives and works that have shaped the national character.
“WHEREAS, the life, works and writing of Jose Rizal, particularly his novels ‘Noli Me Tangere’ and ‘El Filibusterismo,’ are a constant and inspiring source of patriotism with which the minds of the youth, especially during their formative and decisive years in school, should be suffused.
“WHEREAS, all educational institutions are under the supervision of, and subject to regulation by the State, and all schools are enjoined to develop moral character, personal discipline, civic conscience and to teach the duties of citizenship.”
A careful reading of the preamble of RA 1425 leads us to conclude that the life, works and writings of Jose Rizal is properly a course on “Filipino nationalism/patriotism.” There is a palpable need for the historical discipline because Rizal is a historical figure with a particular historical milieu. However, that should not be construed as the primordial intent of RA 1425; the main objective is to use Rizal as an exemplar of what a nationalistic Filipino youth ought to be or aspire for.
A course on the life, works and writings of Jose Rizal is not supposed to be a springboard for other curious interests, academic or otherwise. The mandate of RA 1425 is very clear: study the life, works and writings of Jose Rizal to instill an unwavering love of country among the Filipino youth.
Are the wishes of RA 1425 reflected in the course objectives of the proposed “Rizal and Philippine Studies” course?
You be the judge.
