On Mothers’ Day, 2013

This Sunday, the Church recalls the Ascension. Monday, the Nation goes to the polls. Despite all the media focus on the latter, we still celebrate Mothers’ Day.

The celebration of the Ascension is a celebration of triumph: “God mounts his throne to shouts of joy,” the Responsorial Psalm proclaims, “a blare of trumpets for the Lord!” Having accomplished his mission on earth, Jesus returns to the glory of heaven. He “who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality to God as something to be exploited, but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness; and being found in human form, humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death – even death on a cross…” he returns now “ascended” “exalted” to the rewarding embrace of his Father: “Therefore God also highly exalted him, and gave him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knew should bend, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father” (Phil: 2:6-11). The glory of the Ascension is enveloped in the mystery of the Father’s love for us, his refusal to disavow this love despite our sin, his sending of his Son to manifest this love, a love that freely embraced his “necessary” suffering, death and resurrection. “O necessary sin of Adam… O happy fault” we cry at Easter, “that earned so great and glorious a Redeemer!” (Exultet). It is in this context of Jesus’ “mission accomplished,” that the Ascension is celebrated. It is the guarantee of our redemption, as it is the ultimate promise of our future in oneness with Jesus in heaven.

It is in this context that Jesus gives us his Ascension Day command: “Go into the whole world, and proclaim the gospel to every creature. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned…” (Mk 16:15). Life is not just the drudgery or suffering of today. This is a message those who struggle to remain honest while making ends meet often forget, a message which those who suffer in sickness and old age must always remember: There is a tomorrow in Jesus’ triumph.

What is triumph for Jesus, is hope for us and challenge. What is heaven for Jesus now, is heaven for us, but not yet. Through the Spirit we continue to labor on earth at the side of “the Resurrected Jesus still Carrying his Cross” for the realization of his Kingdom. We continue to take responsibility for our Earthly City – even though we realize its ultimate fulfillment is only in heaven. This is why, in the care for our Earthly City, we care for the structures which allow us to live together in the peace, harmony and dignity of the children of God, even if imperfectly. In the Philippines, insofar as we can discern, our democracy mediates the actual human society that we can realize at this point in history, and it is through free elections that we choose the women and men whom we believe will govern us in pursuit of the common good. That is the common good of a plural society, where many, fortunately, think differently from us, and many, unfortunately, are still selfish and sinful. When we vote, therefore, we do not vote just to advance our private interests, though this is certainly possible. We vote to advance a common, shared, humane society. We vote, and, as circumstances require, we act, often at great price, to ensure that the mechanisms of our free democracy are not undermined by evil.

But today is also Mother’s Day. It is indeed only fitting that there is one day in the year that we set aside to remember our mothers, and give thanks. Our Catholic Church is referred to as “Mother Church,” and the particular bias of our culture refers to our nation not in terms of the Latin “patria” for fatherland, but in terms of mother. Recall the beautiful statue in the Luneta dedicated to “La Madre Filipina”! But in our homes, as in our hearts, “mother” is she who bore us in her womb, who endured for us the pains of childbirth, who fed us from her breasts, who saw to it we were properly and cleanly clothed, who cooked our favorite foods, who encouraged us at our studies, who was always sensitive to our problems, and who in times of crisis listened to our pain from her heart. It was she who plotted and schemed for our birthday surprises, and she who made our Christmases so special. Today, through a Mass, through a whispered prayer of gratitude, through an exquisite waling-waling, a singular rose, or special spray of sampaguita, our message to our mothers is heartfelt: Thank you. We love you. We owe so much to you!

As we pray for La Madre Filipina and resolve to vote on Monday to honor and strengthen her, we remember our mothers in gratitude, and look forward to the day when in Heaven we come face to face with the Heavenly Mother who despite our shortcoming and sins never forgot us, never turned her back on us. In this context, the words of Fr. Manoling’s masterpiece based on Is. 49 15 are most moving:

Malilimutan ba ng ina
ang anak na galing sa kanya?
Sanggol sa kanyang sinapupunan
paano n’yang matatalikdan?
Ngunit kahit na malimutan ng ina
ang anak n’yang tangan

Hindi kita malilimutan
Kailan ma’y hindi pababayaan
Hindi kita malilimutan
Kailan ma’y hindi pababayaan

Can a mother ever forget
her nursing child
or show no compassion for the
child of her womb?
Even if these should forget,
I will never forget you.
I will never forget you.

Disqualifying CMO 46 s. 2012 For Genuine Quality Assurance

[Text of CEAP Ad in PDI, May 6, pg A14]

Disqualifying CMO 46 For Genuine Quality Assurance:
CEAP Position on CHED”s Outcomes- and Typology-Based Quality Assurance

The Commission on Higher Education’s (CHED) Memorandum Order No. 46, s. 2012 (CMO 46) entitled Policy-Standard to enhance Quality Assurance (QA) in Philippine Higher Education through an Outcomes-based and Typology-based QA issued on 11 December 2012 intends to help Philippine Higher Education. It doesn’t. It messes things up. Quite horribly.

The CHED decries the large number of unqualified Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) operating in the country. Instead of just closing substandard HEIs for non-compliance with minimum standards, it has approved a Quality Assurance Mechanism that cannot be equitably implemented, if it can be meaningfully implemented at all. Higher education will not improve through CMO 46. It will only get more confused.

CMO 46 is issued in a higher educational context where CHED’s regulations for private schools (recognized by CHED) cannot apply to state universities and colleges (created by law) and local colleges and universities (created by local ordinance). Accordingly under CMO 46, there is no equal protection before the law. On the basis of CMO 46, CHED can close private universities for substandard performance. It cannot close State Universities and nor Local Universities and Colleges. That’s unfair.

The approval of CMO 46 with its myriad infirmities by the Commission on Higher Education en banc was rushed, despite our pleas to the contrary, allegedly because of international pressure coming from the ASEAN, APEC and the like. But as approved, it cannot be implemented, because essential pre-requisites are not in place: e.g. a legislated Philippine Qualifications Framework (as already accomplished in other countries) and minimum Policies, Standards and Guidelines for all academic programs.

We do not accept that bad policy will eventually improve through serendipity.

CMO 46 moves counter current to the international quality assurance mechanisms now being put in place in the ASEAN. Where ASEAN insists on quality assurance agencies being independent (1) of government, (2) of the universities being monitored, and (3) of the market, CMO 46 offers the government agency CHED as an external quality assurance agency that would subject higher education to the needs of the market.

Where the Constitution and RA 7722 guarantee Philippine Higher Education Institutions academic freedom, i.e., the freedom to determine who teaches, whom to teach, what to teach, how to teach, CMO 46 arrogates to itself the power to state: “Philippine higher education is mandated to contribute to building a quality nation…” Where it gets the power to mandate what is properly left to the HEIs, esp. the private HEIs, to determine in academic freedom, is unknown. This is a violation of the academic freedom to determine WHAT to teach.

That CHED articulates this mandate as a fundamental premise of a CMO on Quality Assurance implies that quality will be co-determined by the manner in which an HEI contributes or does not contribute to the “quality nation,” itself undefined by the CMO. But: HEIs may determine in academic freedom to teach content that CHED may not consider “contributory to the quality nation,” especially if critical of government. The HEI would then be evaluated negatively. CMO 46‘s mandate to contribute to a quality nation, therefore, violates the academic freedom to determine WHAT and HOW to teach.

As part of this Quality Assurance mechanism it has approved the creation of Professional Institutes alongside current Universities and Colleges. The rationale of the professional institutes, however, is seriously questioned, since there is no substantial distinction from the college.

Initially, the impression given was that adherence to CMO 46 is mandatory for all HEIs in the Philippines. The language of the CMO and the set of deadlines in the Implementing Rules attest to this. Now they are saying that CMO 46 is not mandatory. But a reading of the CMO gives the opposite impression.

The good intentions of the CHED commissioners are irrelevant when they are not expressed appropriately in the CMO’s text.

CMO46 doesn’t help Philippine higher education. The CHED should abrogate it. Or, at least, suspend it until its myriad infirmities are cured.

We call on the President of the Philippines and the legislators to read CMO 46 for themselves, consider the issues we have raised, and help return order and rationality to our CHED in pursuit of quality higher education.

In Keeping the Faith, Peace!

My intention is merely to unpack some of the rich content in today’s reading from the Gospel of St. John (14:23-29). I will focus on four points.

First, the declaration of Jesus: “Those who love me will keep my Word, and my Father will love them…” (23). Those who respond to Jesus’ love with love, will “keep his Word.” This “keeping of Jesus’ Word,” I think, is not immediately propositional, the affirmation of or fidelity to this or that speculative or moral truth. It is, rather, personal, whose truth is in our graced recognition of Jesus as “the Word,” the Father’s Word, turned to us, loving us, and redeeming us from our lustful stupidities, our marital infidelities, our loss of integrity, our transgressions against society, our sins. It is his Word expressing itself in its deep fullness as he gazes on us individually from the Cross, and elicits a loving response. It is in this context that we “keep his Word.” We keep to the relationship that he initiates and brings to happy fulfillment, liberating us meanwhile to our own response and to a life of deeper meaning. Those who keep Jesus’ Word are in an abiding relationship with him so prized in the Gospels as faith. For us, keeping his Word is “keeping the faith” – not the preservation of conceptual declarations, but living in having been preserved and uplifted in the Father’s compassion. This is not merely a matter of mind, it is a matter of heart that is faithful in truth, and truth that expresses itself in a faithful heart. It is thus no stranger to deep joy.

Keeping the Word, keeping the faith is strengthened in a vertical relationship to the Father through his Son. From this, horizontal relationships are determined. We are urged not just to be contemplators of the Word, but “doers of the Word” (cf. Ja. 22). It is not only we who are loved by the Father; all are loved, including the poor, the sick, the hungry, the imprisoned, the persecuted (cf. Mt. 5:3-10), including our enemies. That has moral consequence for us: “If a brother or sister is naked and lacks daily food, and one of you says to them, ‘Go in peace, keep warm and eat your fill’, and yet you do not supply their bodily needs, what is the good of that? Faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead” (Ja. 2:15-17). In God’s love for the poor, we are impelled to love the poor. Just as in God’s love for all people, we are impelled to love even our enemies. “Love your enemies,” Jesus mandates, “and pray for those who persecute you” (Mt. 5:44). “Love your enemies, and do them good” (Lk 6:35).

Keeping his Word is keeping the faith – not just in one’s head, but in one’s relationship to God and all those whom he loves; it is palpable in the manner in which one prays, or worships, or provides for a family, or fulfills a contract with integrity, or stands for forgotten values, or accepts persecution in insisting on the common good. To those who keep his Word and keep the faith, Jesus promises the Father’s love.

In fact, faith would not be there without the Father’s love. It is not we who initiate the relationship with the Father; it is he who creates us, he who redeems us, he who loves us first (cf: 1 Jn. 4:10-12). It is already in this context that the second point of this reflection is made. Jesus says, “Whoever loves me will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to make our dwelling with him.” This is, I believe, an overwhelming revelation. To those who keep the word and struggle in keeping the faith, Jesus declares that he and his Father comes to dwell in them. We need time to reflect on this, and silence to understand its significance. The Arc of the Covenant in the Holy of Holies contained the sacred scrolls of the scriptures. It was venerated with great deference and distance. The tabernacle contains the consecrated hosts, the most holy Sacrament of the Body of Jesus. It is venerated with greater deference and respect. But Jesus says, to those who keep his word, he and his Father will dwell in them. The Father pitches his tent not just in sacred vessels, consecrated temples and awesome cathedrals; he and Jesus pitch  tent in the hearts of those who keep his Word, who keep his faith. That is amazing.  In every struggle to find the more loving thing, in every sacrifice to share bounty with the poor, in every decision to make life more humane for the greater number people, Jesus and the Father are present within. This means less that, “I have the Father and the Son in me, I have come to posses them, I have come to control them, I have their truth” but, “From within, I am in the presence of the Father and the Son, who happily possess me in keeping the faith, and who so lead me to do what responding to his love requires.” This is the heart of Christian morality. It is quite different from being driven to merely to greater possessions, greater fame, and greater power.

Our third point is that the Lord promises to us the Paraclete, the Advocate. “the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything and remind you of all that I have taught you. It is impossible that the Lord’s disciples have assimilated all that the Lord has taught them in three years; the Holy Spirit will remind, enlighten, inspire, strengthen, and wisen. That is also true with us – no matter how much we have learned from the La Salle Brothers or the Religious of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, no matter how sophisticated we have become in our exposure to science, technology, and the managerial centers of the world, no matter how much we have immersed ourselves in the thoughts of theists, deists, atheists, pragmatists or hedonists, we have yet to learn of the Holy Spirit who discloses to us in his own time and in his own way the meaning of the Lord’s teachings. That includes the meaning of these teachings when bombs are exploded to injure innocents at a marathon race, when drones are used to drop bombs on military targets despite the collateral damage, when alleged terrorists are forced fed to counter a hunger strike against their controversial detention, when married couples must choose between abstinence, more babies, natural family planning or artificial contraception, and when citizens must make choices for whom they should vote in democratic elections. Discerning the spirits in pursuit of God’s will through the Holy Spirit is challenging. On the other hand, I have this conviction from experience: for those who wish to find God’s will, and dare to do this through serious discernment, they will find God’s will. God does not conceal his will. He communicates it. We must simply not block it.

Finally, Jesus imparts the gift of the resurrection: Peace. “Not the peace as the world gives it” (27b): not the peace that results from conquest, where peace is imposed by domination by a few at the cost of many, nor the peace of the graveyard, where there is no life. This is the peace that comes from the Paschal Mystery, through which our sins are forgiven, and from which we derive hope not only of sinning no more, but of contributing meaningfully to the Kingdom of God at the side of the Risen Christ.

Peace – in keeping the faith in a difficult world! It is possible because the Father and the Son dwell in us, and send the Holy Spirit to teach us how.

The Lethal Bomb in CMO 9 s. 2013

I have worked with the poor for many years. I have learned: if you want them to pay their debts, which are usually many, the debts they owe you must be among their top priorities.

That is certainly the case with housing. If people know they will lose their house if they don’t pay their mortgages, they pay.

That is why housing on credit works, if there is the political will to collect what homeowners, even among the poor, owe for their houses. Many politicians build houses for votes; they tell the people they would have to pay for their houses, but they never collect; they prefer their votes; they have already received their reward. Other caritative housing projects proceed on the assumption that the homeowners cannot pay for their houses; so they get other people, individual and institutional benefactors, to pay. The late Bishop Philip Smith of the Diocese of Cotabato believed the people could pay. And he proved that over and over again. To get people to pay their debts, you have to convince them that negative consequence occur when they do not.

Bishop Smith built thousands of houses for the poor, for which eventually they paid. They paid their mortgages on time, which paid for their houses, which allowed more houses to be built. If they did not pay, they knew they would be evicted. If they did not pay, they were evicted. So rather than be evicted, they paid. On time.

Here, for the good of the sector that needed housing, the “compassionate policy” was to demand that the people pay for what they enjoyed. Absent this form of compassion, the production of houses would grind to a halt. Housing for the poor would remain the hovels in the slums, ovens in the hot season, lakes of slime in the rainy season, depressed in the abiding fear of demolition.

There are important parallels in the educational industry. God may will that all be educated, Filipinos may crave education, or even higher education, and the youth may espouse a right to education. But as admirable as these may be, education does not fall from heaven. You may be able to teach your child the alphabet, how to read “papa” and “mama” and how to count to 100, but alone you would probably not be able to teach a child enough to be able to function productively in society as an architect, an engineer, a social scientist, a biologist, a doctor, a teacher, a philosopher or even a priest. You may even have difficulty giving your child instruction in human sexuality, inter-gender and inter-generational communication, religion and morality, and how to make a living, survive and thrive in today’s world. For that you may need the service of education. Education is a complex social enterprise, which is an “enterprise” not only because it aims at leading persons out of darkness to speculative and practical truth, but also because as a complex human undertaking it must sustain itself. Teachers must be paid, staff must be salaried, researches must be compensated, investors must be rewarded for putting their human and financial capital in education and not in horse racing. At bottom, income must exceed expenses for the long term. Why? Someone must pay for education. Either the taxpayers pay for it, or people pay for it out of their private pockets. When politicians promise “free” education, smile, and say “Yeah! But someone is paying for it!” When students demand “free” education, smile, and say, “Unfortunately, good education doesn’t just fall down from heaven.” When anyone says, “Be compassionate, and forgive them their debts!” Beware: the Kingdom of God may be at hand. But your teachers won’t be able to eat IOUs, your staff won’t arrive without appropriate transportation, and your students will revolt against hungry teachers who eat them up during exams rather than the breakfast due them.

The State Universities and Colleges, created by law, are funded by taxpayers’ money and allocations in the national budget; so too, ultimately, local colleges and universities through budgets funded by local ordinances. Funding them depends on the ability of their administrators to maintain or expand operational budgets; they do this with great political savvy, passionate personal dedication, and great diplomatic cunning. Private colleges and universities do this through contracts made between the HEIs and the students (or their parents). The institution offers an educational good, the students return a monetary good – all in commutative justice. The institution receives the sum of all monetary goods and parlays it to keep the educational service going. When the students or their families have much money, this is less problematic than when students and their families have less money, and the expenses of the family compete fiercely with each other for attention. Working with such families, it is essential that the families put payments for education among their top five priority expenses, just like Archbishop Smith convinced poor homeowners that if they did not pay their mortgages, eviction would follow. They need to know, that if they do not pay, a negative consequence occurs. To avoid the negative consequence, pay. On time. In private colleges and universities, this is effected through the “No permit, no payment” system. It is through this system that the school convinces the students and their parents that without its required cash flow, it cannot survive, and without their monetary goods, they must give way to students who can provide this. The smaller the school, the more important this system is – not just to keep the school alive, but to keep the student studying.

It is most unfortunate therefore that the CHEd, in an apparent outpouring of “compassion” for vulnerable students, but in a total lack of concern for its effect on private HEIs, has issued CMO 9 series of 2013, supposedly on “Student Affairs and Services,” but laden with a killer bomb:

“There shall be mechanisms for HEIs to institutionalize more compassionate policies and guidelines particularly for those students belonging to the vulnerable and/or marginalized sector of our country. The HEIs must provide access on any financial assistance [sic] in cases where the stated students can not pay on the particular moment. In no case shall the HEI implement “no permit, no exam policy” [sic] in case of financial incapacities of the said students” (Sec. 25.3).

Atty. Joseph Estrada, Executive Director of the Coordinating Council of Private Educational Associations (COCOPEA), is livid with the complaint that whereas there were consultations on CMO 9, all of whose sessions he attended, there was absolutely no consultation on this unhappy provision. The issue is one that the COCOPEA and the Catholic Educational Association of the Philippines (CEAP) had consistently rejected under other draft policy incarnations for its necessarily negative impact on small private schools. Nevertheless, in CMO 9 it has appeared – as an insertion. It is inserted in bad faith. It is inserted in skewed rationality. In the end, CHED must take responsibility.

That is what is disappointing. CHED ought to prize rationality and champion integrity. It ought to honor its partners, not deceive them.

Most troubling here is the fact that I am certain CHEd is aware of the importance of cash flow to the smaller private schools. CHEd, I presume, is not obtuse. Why then is it doing what it is doing in such a despicable manner? Is it trying to kill private schools? Is it trying to end the illustrious role private education has played in the history of this nation? Is it steering the country into a national educational system where there are no private universities and few private tertiary institutions? Is it trying to control higher education and form a network of docile government-run HEIs – without the tradition, the diversity, the experience, the wisdom, the creativity and headache of private education?

Sec. 25.3 of CMO 9 certainly gives us this impression.

CEAP Maintains Critical Posture vs. CMO 46 s. 2012

[For the benefit of the PH higher education community and its stakeholders, I am reproducing here the letter of Fr. Gregg Bañaga, President of the Catholic Educational Association of the Philippines (CEAP), to Dr. Paricia Licuanan, Chairperson, Commission on Higher Education (CHED), that maintains the critical stance of the CEAP vs. CMO 46. It was received formally by CHED on 23 April 2013.]

20 April 2013

Dr. Patricia B. Licuanan, Ph.D.
Chairperson
Commission on Higher Education

Dear Dr. Licuanan:

We have your letter dated 5 April 2013 thanking us for the copy of the book “Disqualifying CHED’s Quality Assurance: A Collection of Critical Materials on CMO 46, series of 2012” and expressing regret at not having readily responded to the CEAP board resolution dated 11 December 2012 requesting for postponement of the approval of the proposed CMO on Outcomes- and Typology-based Quality Assurance. However, the CEAP wishes to clarify that its perception of being ignored by CHED was brought about considering that the current formal response prepared by the CHED was made four months after the receipt of the CEAP letter. In addition, the perception that CMO 46, series of 2012 was approved on the same day that CEAP sent its letter to CHED was based on the date published in the CMO. Nevertheless, the matter of whether the approval by the Commission en banc of CMO 46 was actually made earlier but released only on the published date, is of little import as there are more substantial issues raised by the CEAP through its letters and its book. To date, these issues and concerns still remain unanswered.

The CEAP understands the pressure brought about by relevant external factors and feels the urgency with which CHED wants to implement higher education reforms. However, the CEAP believes that these reforms must be measures which bring the country forward, not backward. With the present version of CMO 46 s. 2012 and its implementing rules, the CEAP believes that it cannot successfully deliver the intended objectives.

While CMO 46 s. 2012 seeks to substantiate and operationalize “learning competency based standards within a lifelong learning framework, including the development of qualifications and quality assurance frameworks,” the fact is that all these measures require a condition precedent — it necessitates that the PSGs, as well as the Philippine Qualifications Framework (PQF) already be in place. Currently, these are still in the works. While an Executive Order calls for the creation of a committee to substantiate the PQF, this is yet to be completed. While in other countries their national qualifications framework is threshed out in legislation, in the Philippines the PQF is to be done by means of an executive issuance or administrative order. This, the CEAP believes, has no basis in law and the argument that “time is not on our side” is not sufficient justification to rush such a major reform in higher education.

That this qualifications framework or education in general should be based on learner outcomes is acceptable. This has, in fact, been something which the CHED has been promoting on the program level for many years. CMO issuances since 1996 would attest to this fact. Where it becomes thoroughly confusing is when CMO 46 s. 2012 demands an outcomes-based quality assurance system, giving the impression that the key determinant of quality assurance is outcomes.

With the PAASCU, we believe that assurance for quality cannot be based on outcomes alone, especially when one is dealing with learning areas that involve the subtleties of philosophy, human society, political science and “appropriate outcomes” are not easily set without bias or prejudice. Bias and prejudice can be imposed or arbitrary, and so grate against the academic freedom of HEIs to determine HOW they teach. While we are getting the impression through our dialogues that the CHED now agrees with this, and so has moved from “OBE” to “obe” to “learner outcomes,” it still insists on “outcomes-based quality assurance” in its CMO title. This gives the impression that quality assurance procedures that reject “outcomes based quality assurance” as inoperable are unable to assure appropriate “learner outcomes” and that only explicitly “outcomes based quality assurance systems” can. We disagree. “Outcomes-based” is not a shibboleth of academic quality.

Considering the importance as well as foreseen impact of this reform among higher educational institutions, it only seems reasonable that before this implementation goes on full swing, there ought to be some sort of “pilot testing” so that the perceived and actual flaws in the CMO can be sorted out prior to compliance by all HEIs all over the country. When one takes into account the current higher education landscape in the Philippines, being one that is predominantly comprised of private HEIs , pilot testing is also warranted if only to ensure that vested rights and the exercise of academic freedom, especially of private HEIs, is not compromised by this CMO.

In addition, the discussion on the need to have a legislated level playing field between public and private HEIs in the matter of governmental regulation again becomes relevant. Relative to this CMO 46, Public HEIs remain immune to sanctions by virtue of their respective charters, Private HEIs however are constrained to comply. This violates equal protection, as private HEIs become bridled with this regulation while the public HEIs can simply identify itself as a “university”, “professional institute”, or a “college” by an act of Congress – notwithstanding the lack of their qualification/s to be as such.

While the CEAP understands the sense of urgency by which the CHED issued CMO 46 s. 2012 with the forthcoming referencing of national qualifications to their respective ASEAN frameworks as well as the initiatives toward the comparability of degrees, diplomas and programs (relative to UNESCO, ANZFTA, APEC, et.al.), it has to ask: Is the CHED through CMO 46 s. 2012 really leading the country forward?

Here, we reiterate the following points:

a) Section 9 of CMO 46 s. 2012 defines CHED as an “external agency” along with other private agencies like PAASCU, PACU-COA and other agencies mentioned in the Implementing Rules. When CHED, as a governmental entity sees itself as an external agency for QA purposes, it does not respect the need to disassociate Quality Assurance from government, the university, and the market. The CHED does not seem to be aware of the new paradigm for QA sweeping the Region.

Attached is a copy of the new paradigm which was published in 2009 in the book entitled “Higher Education in Asia/Pacific: Quality and the Public Good”, edited by Terance W. Biglake and Deane E. Neubauer and dedicated to the memory of Victor Ordonez.

It should also be noted that the manner by which CHED identifies itself in sec. 9 of CMO 46 s. 2012 contradicts the basic principles of the proposed ASEAN QUALITY ASSURANCE NETWORK (AQAN) Framework for Higher Education which will be presented in its final form in October 2013 in Bangkok, Thailand.

b) The CEAP also rejects CHED’s denial in its response that CMO 46 s. 2012 violates academic freedom and the mission of Catholic Schools. CHED believes that CMO 46’s mandate to all HEIs to help “build a quality nation” … “presupposes a geographic and imagined community of diverse religions, socio-cultural, political and economic groups.”

Where academic freedom guaranteed by the Constitution and the Higher Education Act guarantees the freedom to determine who can teach, whom to teach, what to teach, how to teach, and therewith the freedom to determine the fundamental mission of the schools. The explicit mandate to contribute to a quality nation in CMO 46, now as the gratis, explicit, undefined, peremptory, and systematic premise of the quality assurance system, imposes itself on the variously formulated missions of the schools autonomously adopted in academic freedom.

In this context, an explanation of a presupposition is of little comfort and pertinence, since the unauthorized “mandate” is being assailed, not the presupposition. The working presuppositions of the current set of CHED administrators, which may be well-meaning, may be totally different from the presuppositions of a future set of CHED administrators, which may be manipulative or hostile.

Even if for the sake of argument the “mandate” were authorized, which it is not, the “quality nation” referred to is dangerously undefined. Where there is a difference between CHED’s understanding of “quality nation” and a school’s, especially when a school that is faithful to its Catholic mission (e.g. as in transformative education) may need to be critical of a national administration, the mandate to contribute to an undefined “quality nation” as the premise of an evaluative system already violates academic freedom in its ambiguity. Schools are being mandated to WHAT to teach, even if this is not clear.

c) Finally, while the CHED response emphasizes that the implementation of CMO 46 s. 2012 is purely voluntary as HEIs are not forced to classify themselves and take part in the incentive schemes, this is not clearly explicitated in the current version of the CMO. The restlessness of HEIs, particularly the small well-performing private HEIs, lies in the possibility of sanctions or dire consequences if they choose not to participate. Any token reassurance given by the CHED means nothing if these provisions remain:

(i) In section 28, the granting of extension up to 31 May 2014 on autonomous and deregulated HEIs and existing COEs and CODs makes no mention of the consequences that will befall on such HEIS or COEs and CODs if they choose not to or are not able to shift to competency based learning standards within the given time frame. In sec. 5.3. of the Implementing Rules however, it says that the CHED shall begin processing applications for COE and COD following the revised criteria and indicators in February 2014. It may very well be the case that the benefits accorded to existing COEs and CODs (which partake of the nature of vested rights) will be adversely affected by CHED’s act of processing applications by February 2014.

(ii) While section 31 makes a guarantee that HEIs recognized as universities before the establishment of CHED or granted such status by the Commission will retain such status notwithstanding the provisions of CMO 46, in section 39, its repealing clause clearly states: “All previous issuances pertaining to the grant of university status, system status, autonomous and deregulated status that are inconsistent with the provisions of this CMO are deemed repealed, revoked or rescinded xxx”

(iii) Section 2.2.2.4 of the Implementing Rules CMO 46 s. 2012 which refer to the time frame allotted to the first cluster of associate degrees complying with the requirement to develop their PSGs by June 2013, as well as sec. 2.4.1. of the same Rules which mandates that existing PSG should have been revised in line with learning competency-based standards and the K to 12 curriculum by the end of June 2013 also provide for deadlines that may be too short for faithful compliance and makes no clear mention of the consequences if HEIs are not able to meet said timeframe.

(iv) For HEIs (public or private) that choose to identify themselves as Professional Institutes, Colleges, or Universities under this QA framework, they remain at the mercy of the market, as sec. 4.3.1., 4.3.2., and 4.3.3. of the Implementing Rules (last part thereof) provide that the minimum requirements for Professional Institutes, Colleges or Universities should be reviewed by 2017, to determine if these are responsive to the development needs of the country. How is quality to be assured only if the identity of such HEIs remains dependent on whether they are responsive to the needs of the country? By what standards will these HEIs be judged, whether or not they truly respond to the development needs of the country? What happens to those HEIs that cannot meet the 2017 deadline?

All in all, what will be the effect of non-participation by the HEIs? – the non-granting of incentives? This is not even clearly explicitated in the CMO and in its implementing rules. What is the effect of not being included in a so-called “list” as identified by the CHED? What is the guarantee by the CHED that the non-granting of incentives or the non-inclusion in the list is already not some form of sanction? The confusion and concern is warranted, considering the deadlines set by the CHED in the CMO provisions as mentioned above.

Clearly, these questions and concerns are not so inconsequential that they can be ignored. We are happy that CHED in its response letter concedes that there is a need to “fine tune” the language of the CMO to address its voluntary nature. We believe, however, that much more needs to be done with the CMO than mere fine tuning – if it is really to bring Philippine higher education forward and not backward. CMO 46 s. 2012 with its IRR needs a serious overhaul not along the way, but now.

Meanwhile because of these issues and concerns reiterated here and raised in our book, “Disqualifying CHED’s Quality Assurance,” the CEAP cannot just readily accept CMO 46 s. 2012. Nor can the CEAP submit to a collective self-correcting, serendipitously self-improving implementation process whose unpredictable outcome may seriously harm the freedom and rights enjoyed not only by its member schools but by all HEIs in the Philippines. Respect for academic freedom is not only guaranteed in the Constitution for all institutions of higher learning, it is clearly spelled out in RA 7722 and must serve as the guidepost for all issuances by the CHED. CMO 46 s. 2012 is not an exception to this rule.

Therefore, the CEAP is of the conviction that CMO 46 s. 2012 and its IR must be temporarily suspended, until such time that these issues are adequately addressed. CEAP is not against reforms in education nor is it against quality assurance. It lives and breathes educational reform towards ongoing improvement of higher education; it understands the value of independent quality assurance. For this reason it cannot accept CMO 46 in its current form nor can it recommend that its members collaborate with it.

Respectfully,

(Sgd.) Father Gregorio L. Bañaga Jr.
President
Catholic Educational Association of the Philippines
No. 7, Road 16 Bgy. Bagong Pag-Asa, Quezon City

/ cc: Commissioner Maria Cynthia Rose B. Bautista, Ph. D.
Commissioner Nona S. Ricafort, Ph. D.
Commissioner Nenalyn P. Defensor, Ed. D.
Commissioner Ruperto S. Sangalang, Ph. D.
Commission on Higher Education
C. P. Garcia Avenue, UP Campus Diliman
Quezon City

Life to the Full

[Homily: HS Chapel. 4.22.13. Based on: John 10: 1-10]

These days we have been considering various texts in our Gospel where Jesus is presented as the Good Shepherd. I think these texts climax in today’s Gospel reading. It has several intertwining images, and we are invited to reflect on each.

The first is the consideration that only the shepherd passes through the gate. The shepherd cares for the flock. Thieves, robbers, and marauders do not. They breach the fence protecting the flock, undermine its defense, in order secretly to plunder the flock. In the absence of the shepherd, they take advantage of the innocence and simplicity of the flock.

The second is that Jesus himself is the Gate. It is an unusual metaphor. It may be helpful to think of security gates in an airport. Jesus is the security Gate that protects the sheep from harm from without. To get to the flock, one must pass through Jesus. This includes “pastors,” some of whom are false. Jesus takes care that they do not approach the flock for selfish purposes, to kill, to hate, to “use”, to mislead. Jesus insists that they do not truncate life, nor diminish it.

The third is that Jesus himself is the Good Shepherd. The legitimate shepherd passes through the gate. Jesus himself is the Gate. He now introduces himself as the Good Shepherd, who comes “to bring life, and to bring life in abundance” (Jn 10:10). He does not come to kill the sheep, as many owners do; he dies for his sheep. He does not come to consume the sheep; he is consumed by the sheep. “Take me, eat me…” (cf: Jn 6) He does not come to ignore the sheep gone astray, but leaves the ninety-nine to find the lost sheep (cf. Mt. 18:12; Mt. 15:24). The Good Shepherd comes “to bring life, and to bring it to the full” (ibid). This truth needs much more appreciation in our community; often, the exact opposite is communicated. Catholic life is characterized as a life ridden with guilt and driven to neurosis; but Jesus did not come to bring guilt, he came to expiate guilt. His message was not: “It is a sin.” His message was, “You are forgiven.” That is a message of relief and liberation. Too often, Catholic life is presented as sad, bereft of pleasure and joy; but the “abundant” and “full” life is filled with joy, even when, in its fullness, it is demanding, and impossible without the Cross. Jesus disclosed his Good News to us that our joy might be full, and that our joy might be complete (cf. Jn 15:11).

The fourth image is that the sheep follow the Good Shepherd because they know his voice. That is a huge challenge that we face in our world today: to recognize the voice of Christ. That begins by listening to him. He speaks of the abundant life. He speaks of the full life – with a credibility that is in fact stronger that that of expensive commercials, persuasive companions, and tempters with luscious apples. It involves searching the Scriptures and being docile to the teachings of the Church. It involves “time wasted” on being with the Lord, where I do not barrage him with my needs, but open myself to his need.

In all these images, we know that human beings are not just stupid sheep. With bombs exploded intentionally in a Boston marathon race, and engineered plants genetically modified so that they cannot be reproduced by the poor, sometimes it seems they are not just stupid, but evil, bringing evil on all. Following the voice of the Shepherd where private interest overpowers the common good takes savvy, courage and grace. Often, certainty is elusive, and commitment to the morally imperative or the discernably more loving is unwelcome in a hostile world. But it is precisely in this context where the Gospel message is so relevant. With all of our brilliance, we are often just like dumb sheep, ready for the slaughter. Or worse, ready from a darkness within to injure, to maim, to slaughter. But the Lord presents himself as the Good Shepherd who comes to bring life, and to bring it to the full.

The Lost Sheep: Rescue or Deny?

[Re: SWS Survey: 9% of Catholics in PH thinking of leaving the Church]

When the State under Bismarck confiscated Church property in Germany during its secularization drive at the end of the 19th century, the State undertook to collect a “Church tax” towards the support of the Church. Today, the Church tax is distributed mainly to the Catholic or Lutheran churches, depending on the proportions of the population which declare themselves Catholic or Lutheran. The tax income of the churches therefore depend on the number of believers who declare themselves for a particular church.

When I was studying in Germany, I remember feeling very disturbed whenever I would hear of a German “leaving the Church.” A personal protest against the manner in which the Church deals with Catholic relief or with certain theologians thinking “out of the box,” could earn the retaliatory protest declaration of an individual Catholic: “Ich trete aus der Kirche aus. I am leaving the Church.” I would be shocked whenever I would hear it. How does one who is a Catholic get to heaven if one chooses to leave the Church? Was it not, “Outside of the Church there is no salvation”? Was this not one of the major tenets that made the bond of the individual Catholic to the Catholic Church inviolable? If I was born into this Church, am I not to stay here forever? Thinking to leave the Church was simply inconceivable! I didn’t think a policy or political position on any temporal issue could warrant exit by choice from the Church if the cost would be eternal salvation.

Even in Germany, leaving the Church is serious business, and the local German Church has not been shy about teaching that. On the other hand, I have met a number of Catholics who have “left the Church” for purposes of protest, but who continue to be in active communion with it, i.e., still going to Church regularly and receiving at least some of the sacraments. When I then would then ask them what the meaning of their “leaving the Church” was, they would reply that their leaving the Church deprived the local German Church of their church tax contribution. However large or small this tax was, withdrawing their tax contribution from the local Church was the purpose of their “leaving the Church.” In this case, I can understand how such “leaving the Church” can be compatible with staying in practical communion with it.

When I was in grade school and in high school in the Philippines, on the other hand, my religious education teachers impressed on me indelibly that it was through the Catholic Church that one received salvation. One was grateful for the grace of being part of the Church, and it was inconceivable to want to leave it. We were also taught that it would please God very much if we could lead someone who was out of the Church to baptism. Led to salvation through the Catholic Church, that person would be grateful for all eternity – literally.

There was a Chinese lady, Ah Kui, who worked in our household when I was a kid. She worshipped Kuan Yin – the Buddhist goddess of mercy and compassion – and every morning she would pray for some two hours in front of her sacred image. I loved Ah Kui very much. She taught me fundamental disciplines in my life: how to wash dishes and polish floors, to be helpful in our family and parish community, and, by example, to pray. She had her prayer beads and prayer books and Joh stick, but so did I, even if our candles had more flame to them than scent. I think I was around ten years old when I took her aside for a very serious conversation. I told her she had to be a Catholic – so that she would not go to hell or live forever in purgatory, missing out for all eternity on heaven. She smiled, grateful for my concern. But she replied, “Joe, you have your God. I have my God. In the end: the same God.” Her reply went against all the good sisters were telling us in school. But she said so with such conviction and love, there was no way I could contradict her.

Fifty years ago, it was inconceivable that a Filipino Catholic think of leaving the Church; that was pretty much the same way it was throughout the Church. Fifty years ago, we were warned against talking to Protestants, no matter the shade of Protestantism, and forbidden to go into their houses of worship. For some reason, even though they believed in Jesus Christ, they had it all wrong. Fifty years ago, we were taught it would be better to die rather than leave the Catholic Church.

What has happened between then and now? While it is still held that God saves us through the Catholic Church, there is a greater appreciation of the fact that God loves all in the world, in its religious and cultural diversity, and wills the redemption of all. He therefore calls all to redemption through his Church in ways our theologians, religious educators, historians and social scientists may never have conceived nor can ever adequately explain. So even though we may consider the Catholic communion to have a fullness of grace and favor in our Scriptures, tradition, and sacraments, we acknowledge the holiness that is present in other communities that recognize Jesus as Savior and revere God’s word in the Sacred Scripture. Similarly, we acknowledge the holiness also present in communities of meditating Buddhists, worshipping Muslims, and praying Lumads. In this context, from within the Catholic Church, there is a disavowal of triumphalism, a drive towards honest humility, a rejection forever of forcing anyone to embrace the faith against his or her will, especially through war and violence, a desire to worship the Father through Jesus through genuine faith, not faith that is coerced, nor impelled by a conscience that is naïve, disrespected and dictated upon, but faith that is authentic, self-possessed and genuinely responsive to God.

What has also happened is sin and failure, which has seriously eroded the credibility of the Church. Where religious are vowed to chastity and priests are promised to celibacy, violations of these sacred commitments militate against the credibility of the Church and of her ministers. Where the holiness of the Church is a good so urgently yearned for in this aggressively secularized world, the scandal of widespread sexual abuse of minors by clergy, wherever it has happened, disfigures this holiness almost beyond repair. At the same time, moral failure is not confined to the clergy and religious. Marital infidelity is arguably more serious than individual failures in sexual morality, as are grievous sins against the name and property of others, egregious corruption in public and private institutions, and utter failure to credibly promote the common good in our plural society. If we are a communion of the disciples of Jesus Christ, why do we still have large numbers among us who are intolerably poor? Why are we still destroying the environment which impacts most seriously on the lowly? Why have we not better addressed the problem of ignorance in our midst, including ignorance of basic tenets of the Church? Why do we still try to settle disputes by deploying soldiers of war? It is in this context, I think, that the local Church’s choice to focus on the issues related to reproductive health emerges as an important concern – but as only one among many truly urgent concerns. Its presentation as the sole litmus test of true Catholicism, true fidelity among the bishops, and true morality among the defenders of the faith, has grated negatively on many. In exasperation, I know of many who have done what for me was at one time inconceivable. They have considered leaving the Church. They have actually left the Church.

Out of the Church, they say they do not miss being in the Church. In their new Christian communities, they have found levels of fellowship that surpass whatever they had experienced in the Catholic Church.

It was in this context that in an earlier blog, I said that many were leaving the Church, and urged Dr. Mahar Mangahas and his SWS Team to use their sociological tools to help us to understand what is happening. His recent SWS survey, he says, showed that my fear that many were thinking of leaving the Church may not be statistically unfounded. Nine percent of some 80 million Catholics in the Philippines, or one out of every eleven, have recently considered what at one time was inconceivable: leaving the Catholic Church.  In terms of persons, that’s some seven million Catholics. Of course, granting the survey is scientifically well founded (as Dr. Mangahas’ sterling track record argues!), it shall belong to future sociological studies to ascertain the validity or non-validity of this survey, and not to casual denials based on Church attendance during the last Holy Week. (We have long admitted that our churches are unable to accommodate all our Catholics were they ever to decide one Sunday all to go to Mass. Loss of Catholics on the fringes would never be captured by observing numbers going to church!) More importantly, we must also delve more deeply into the reasons why so many Catholics have considered leaving. Some may be exasperated with the RH debate. Others may be yearning for more palpable fellowship and experience of Christian communion. Yet others may be searching for greater depth and holiness as they search for God in this difficult world.

Meanwhile, I thank Dr. Mangahas and his SWS team for their important finding, which I accept gratefully.

As Pope Francis suggested in his homily during his first Chrism Mass, pastors of our Church (like myself) may consider “going out” of themselves “to the edges” to bring “the oil of gladness” to our people, and being shepherds “smelling like sheep.” Where Jesus left the 99 to search for the one lost sheep, we may need to accept that if we do not shift gears, as Pope Francis is now shifting gears, we may not at all be able to leave our ten sheep in order to find the one lost sheep. We may simply say: that one lost sheep does not think like us, does not act like us, does not feel like us. Good riddance! Or we may say: the lost sheep is really not lost. Our churches are full. Our routines are healthy. Our nets are bursting. We are content. The Lord is risen. Halleluia!