TheTeaching Schedule of Public School Teacher

The Clearing Point

R. CHAM G. ZUÑIGA VI, MLGM, Ph.D.

THE TEACHING SCHEDULE OF PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS

With the ruling of the Civil Service Commission (CSC), public school teachers in the Philippines can breathe a sigh of relief for the CSC had ruled that the two hours of service, in addition to the six hours of actual classroom teaching, may be rendered even within or outside school premises.

Some public school teachers may not be aware of the fact that the Civil Service Commission is out with CSC Resolution No. 080096. While public school teachers were to abide by the maximum six-hour actual classroom teaching pursuant to Republic Act 4670 otherwise known as the Magna Carta for Public School Teachers, however, as a general rule, they are, as government employees, not exempted from the mandate to render eight hours a day service as provided for under Republic Act 1880, otherwise known as An Act To Amend The Second Paragraph Of Section Five Hundred And Sixty-Two And Section Five Hundred And Sixty-Four Of The Revised Administrative Code.

Republic Act 1880 provides, among others, that “such hours, except for schools, courts, hospitals and health clinics or where the exigencies of service so require, shall be as prescribed in the Civil Service Rules and as otherwise from time to time disposed in temporary executive orders in the discretion of the President of the Philippines but shall be eight (8) hours a day, for five (5) days a week or a total of forty (40) hours a week, exclusive of time for lunch: Provided, That any employee or laborer now in the employment of the government who shall suffer a reduction of his weekly or daily wage or compensation because of a reduction of the number of days or hours of labor in a week, as provided by this section, subject to the minimum daily or hourly wage or compensation or pay per piece already fixed under Republic Act Numbered Six hundred and two, shall be given an automatic increase in his daily or hourly wage or compensation or in the rate per piece, whose amount in a week or a day or per piece shall be equal to the diminution which his daily or hourly or per piece wage or compensation at the time this Act went into effect shall suffer on account of the reduction of days or labor to five days a week: And provided, further, That the salaries of employees received on monthly basis shall not suffer any diminution on account of the reduction of the number of days of labor a week."

The above-cited CSC resolution was the upshot of the inquiry of Department of Education for a re-examination of the Commission's guidelines with regard to teachers' working hours. The re-examination of the teacher’s working hours came after several public school teachers complained that they were required by their superiors to be within school premises for straight eight hours, otherwise a corresponding salary deductions were made due to undertime when they fall below the requirement.

The CSC clarified that public school teachers are not actually exempt from the eight hours of work provided for in Republic Act 1880. What is limited to six hours as provided for in Republic Act 4670 is only the work hours devoted to actual classroom teaching.

We have to understand that the nature of work of school teachers is so different from that of other government employees. The six-hour mandatory teaching requirement is already distressing due to heavy teaching load, over-crowded classroom, non-conducive faculty or study rooms, and such other problems that may lead to exhaustion and low morale. Teachers have to stand up most of the time attending to their students while in the classroom, while non-teachers may spend the 8 hours setting. Teachers are easily notice by students, peers or the community if they are not doing their homework, while non-teachers may pretend to be doing something when in fact they are doing nothing. And yet, compare the salaries that both teachers and non-teachers employees received.

As a matter of fact, the flight of the teachers has to be understood for they even render more than eight working hours a day. The two hours are not even enough for the preparation of the lesson plans, school exercises, and participation in school and community-based activities. Teachers should, therefore be allowed to continue the two hours left either in the classroom or elsewhere where they could do their homework.

(for feedback, the author may be reached at chamzun@gmail.com)

The Philippine Flag

The Clearing Point

R. CHAM G. ZUÑIGA VI, Ll.B., MLGM, Ph.D.

The Philippine Flag

It is school opening again, and certainly, students have to line up for the flag raising ceremony in the early hour of the school days.

This writer has serialized the information about the Philippine Flag. May readers find them interesting and educational.

Our law on the Philippine Flag mandates that reverence and respect shall at all times be accorded to our national flag, the anthem, and other national symbols which embody the national ideals and traditions and which express the principles of sovereignty and national solidarity. It also provides that heraldic items and devices shall seek to manifest the national virtues and to inculcate in the minds and hearts of our people a just pride in their native land, fitting respect and affection for the national flag and anthem, and the proper use of the national motto, coat-of-arms and other heraldic items and devices.

But how many of us know our national motto? How about the coat-of-arms? What are this heraldic items and devices mentioned in our Flag and Heraldic Code?

Our Flag and Heraldic Code provides that the National Motto shall be "MAKA-DIYOS, MAKA-TAO, MAKAKALIKASAN AT MAKABANSA." And the National Coat-of-Arms shall have: Paleways of two (2) pieces, azure and gules; a chief argent studded with three (3) mullets equidistant from each other; and, in point of honor, ovoid argent over all the sun rayonnant with eight minor and lesser rays. Beneath shall be the scroll with the words "REPUBLIKA NG PILIPINAS," inscribed thereon.

On the heraldic items and devices, government entity, including the military, are allowed to adopt appropriate coat-of-arms, administrative seals, logo, insignia, badges, patches, and banners; and initiate awards, citations, orders or decorations. This is of course with authority of the Congress or by the Office of the President.

The above-mentioned code provides that the Pledge of Allegiance to the Philippine flag shall be the following:

Ako ay Pilipino
Buong katapatang nanunumpa
Sa watawat ng Pilipinas
At sa bansang kanyang sinasagisag
Na may dangal, katarungan at kalayaan
Na pinakikilos ng sambayanang
Maka-Diyos
Maka-tao
Makakalikasan at
Makabansa.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Such pledge shall be recited while standing with the right hand with palm open raised shoulder high. Individuals whose faith or religious beliefs prohibit them from making such pledge must nonetheless show full respect when the pledge is being rendered by standing at attention.

- o 0 o -

Do you know that ……………….

… our national flag is a rectangular with its maximum length twice its width or its minimum length twice the altitude of the equilateral triangle?

… the white field of our national flag is an equilateral triangle, each side of which is equal to the width of the flag?

… the width of the red and blue stripes of our national flag shall each be one-half the width of the flag?

(for feedback, the author may be reached at mailto:chamzun@yahoo.com

The Philippine Citizenship [Part I]

The Clearing Point

R. CHAM G. ZUÑIGA VI, LL.B., MLGM, Ph.D.

The Philippine Citizenship

This article is presented in series. It is hope that it would guide readers on the concept of Philippine citizenship. This is Part I of the series.

In the case of Fornier versus COMELEC and Ronald Allan Kelly Poe, also known as Fernando Poe Jr., docketed as G. R. No. 161824 and promulgated on March 3, 2004, the Supreme Court of the Philippines pointed out that “citizenship is a treasured right conferred on those whom the state believes are deserving of the privilege. It is a precious heritage, as well as an inestimable acquisition, that cannot be taken lightly by anyone - either by those who enjoy it or by those who dispute it.”

Greek philosopher Aristotle, in the book entitled The Principle of Politics (1946), as edited and translated by Ernest Larker, “gave the earliest concept of citizenship sometime in 384 to 322 B.C. when he described the “citizen” as “a man who shared in the administration of justice and in the holding of an office.” In other words, he defines citizenship as he who has the power to take part in the deliberative or judicial administration of any state. However, he saw significance of it to determine the constituency of the “State”, which he described as “being composed of such persons who would be adequate in number to achieve a self-sufficient existence.”

In the book, The Conditions of Citizenship, (1994) [as edited by Bart Van Steenbergen, Sage Publications, London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi], Aristotle’s concept of citizenship was expanded to include “one who would both govern and be governed, for which qualifications like autonomy, judgment and loyalty could be expected. Citizenship was seen to deal with rights and entitlements, on the one hand, and with concomitant obligations, on the other.”

The concept of citizenship has three main elements. Citizenship as legal status is defined by civil, political and social rights. Under this element, the citizen is the legal person free to act according to the law and have the right to claims with the protection of the law. It need not mean that the citizen takes part in the law's formulation, nor does it require that rights be uniform between citizens. Citizenship as as political agents defined by actively participating in a society's political institutions. Citizenship as membership in a political community that furnishes a distinct source of identity.

The concept of citizenship had undergone several changes. In the 18^th century, the concept of citizenship was confined to civil citizenship. Under this concept, rights necessary for individual freedom were established. These rights refer to rights to property, personal liberty and justice.

In the 19^th century, the same concept was expanded to include political rights. And in the 20^th century, another expansion of the concept was made to include social citizenship.

What is social citizenship? This is the citizenship of an individual, which recognizes the right of the citizen to economic well-being and social security.

History books gave us the impression that Jose P. Rizal, Andres Bonifacio, and other inhabitants of the Philippines who fought against the Spanish government for the independence of the Philippines were citizens of the Philippines. Hence, they were Filipinos. The question is: Were they really citizens of the Philippines? To find the answer, let us take a deeper analysis of the historical events in the Philippines and decision of the Supreme Court.

The Spaniards executed Jose Rizal on December 30, 1898. The mediation that Andres Bonifacio did because of the misunderstanding among those who fight against the Spanish government was rebuffed by the clannish middle class of Cavite as divisive and harmful to unity. Gen. Emilio Aguinaldo, the elected president of the provisional revolutionary government, ordered the arrest, trial, and execution for "treason and sedition" of Bonifacio and his brothers. On May 10, 1897, Bonifacio was executed. Both of them died fighting for the freedom of the Philippines. They have given up their lives in the hope that the Philippines would be free from tyranny. They died before the Spain ceded to the United States their authorities over the Philippines.

(for feedback, the author may be reached at chamzun@gmail.com)

The Philippine Citizenship [Part III]

The Philippine Citizenship

The year 1898 was considered the turning point in history on the Spanish ruling over the Philippines. At this time, the power of Spain declined. She was forced to give up to the clout of the United States.

The United States in April 25, 1898 declared were against Spain. To end the six-month hostilities between Spain and the United States, a treaty was entered into. The treaty was signed on December 10, 1898 and Spain was forced to yield the possession of the Philippines, along with Puerto Rico, Guam and Cuba, to the United States.

This treaty was known as the Treaty of Paris of 1898. Under the treaty, the –

“Spanish subjects, natives of the Peninsula, residing in the territory over which Spain by the present treaty relinquishes or cedes her sovereignty may remain in such territory or may remove therefrom, retaining in either event all their rights of property, including the right to sell or dispose of such property or of its proceeds; and they shall also have the right to carry on their industry, commerce, and professions, being subject in respect thereof to such laws as are applicable to foreigners. In case they remain in the territory they may preserve their allegiance to the Crown of Spain by making, before a court of record, within a year from the date of the exchange of ratifications of this treaty, a declaration of their decision to preserve such allegiance; in default of which declaration they shall be held to have renounced it and to have adopted the nationality of the territory in which they reside.”

Under the Treaty of Paris, both native and Spanish subjects who did not exercise their option to leave the Philippines, but remained in the country and adopted the nationality of the Philippines were considered citizens of the Philippines. However, those Spanish subjects who remained in the Philippines and declared before a court of record their intention to preserve their allegiance to Spain within a year and a half from the date of ratification of the treaty retained their Spanish nationality

Upon the ratification of the treaty on April 11, 1900, the civil rights and political status of the native inhabitants of the Philippines were yielded to the United States thereby ceasing them also to be Spanish subjects. But ceding to the United States did not mean becoming American citizens.

For the first time in the Philippine history, the term "citizens of the Philippine Islands" appeared in the Philippine Bill of 1902, thereafter known as the Philippine Organic Act of 1902. Part of which provides –

".... that all inhabitants of the Philippine Islands continuing to reside therein, who were Spanish subjects on the 11th day of April, 1891, and then resided in said Islands, and their children born subsequent thereto, shall be deemed and held to be citizens of the Philippine Islands and as such entitled to the protection of the United States, except such as shall have elected to preserve their allegiance to the Crown of Spain in accordance with the provisions of the treaty of peace between the United States and Spain, signed at Paris, December tenth eighteen hundred and ninety eight."

Under the said Act, to be considered a “citizen of the Philippines”, one must be an inhabitant of the Philippines, and a Spanish subject on the 11^th day of April 1899. An inhabitant refers to one that is a native-born inhabitant, an inhabitant who was a native of Peninsular Spain, and an inhabitant who obtained Spanish papers on or before 11 April 1899.

How about those children who were born in the Philippines from 11 April 1899 to 01 July 1902? How are they considered in terms of citizenship? It should be noted that during these period no citizenship law existed in the Philippines.

(for feedback, the author may be reached at chamzun@gmail.com)

The First Philippine Flag

The Clearing Point

R. CHAM G. ZUÑIGA VI, MLGM, Ph.D.

The First Philippine Flag

Historians were in disagreement of the location where the Philippine flag was first raised.

There were those who claimed that the Philippine flag was first unfurled on May 28, 1898, in Cavite Viejo and formally raised at the proclamation of independence on June 12, 1898, in Kawit, Cavite.

But Manuel L. Quezon III wrote that one of the historical errors being perpetuated in history textbooks and commemorative rites was the place where the Philippine flag was first displayed. His basis of this error was the signboard in Cavite claiming that the Philippine flag was first raised in Alapan, Imus, Cavite, on May 28, 1898. The source of the claim was Proclamation No. 374, issued by then-President Diosdado Macapagal on March 6, 1965. The proclamation states that our flag was first raised and received its baptism and victory in the Battle of Alapan, Imus, Cavite on May 28, 1898.

However, looking back to the historical accounts of General Emilio Aguinaldo, he narrated in one historical record that on May 28, 1898, at the time when the arms were delivered in Kawit, hundreds of Spanish soldiers surrendered.

Gen. Aguinaldo further narrated that -.

“It was there [in Kawit] where the first fight of the Philippine Revolution of 1898 was started, which we may call the continuation of the campaign of 1896 to 1897, a fight which lasted from ten o’clock in the morning to three o’clock in the afternoon, when on account of lack of ammunition the Spaniards with all their arms surrendered to the Filipino Revolutionaries who entered into Cavite [port] with the prisoners. I took advantage of the glorious opportunity to bring to light and undulate the national flag which was saluted by an immense multitude, with cheers of delirious joy and great hurrahs ‘vivas’ for Independent Philippines and for the generous nation of the United States, all of which was witnessed by several officers and marines of the American Squadron, who plainly showed their sympathy for the cause of the Filipinos by taking part in their great rejoicing.” (italics supplied)

If we are to believe of the above accounts, it could easily be deduced that the first flag-raising took place near the port of Cavite Nuevo. To claim that it happened in Alapan is therefore erroneous. History books revealed that the first Philippine Flag was sighted while prisoners were marching into the Cavite port that prompted Aguinaldo to bring out the flag made in Hong Kong and display the same publicly. Gen. Aguinaldo’s act was considered a festive occasion imbued with patriotism and nationalism.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

The following are insights on the Flag and Heraldic Code of the Philippines that may guide our dear readers particularly the students.

There was one time when one student wondered why the Philippine Flag was flown at half-mast. He uttered, “Perhaps somebody in the government service holding high position is dead.” When and why do we really raise the flag at half-mast?

Our flag law mandates that flag shall be flown at half-mast as a sign of mourning on all the buildings and places where it is displayed on the day of official announcement of the death of any of the president or a former president of the republic, for ten (10) days; the Vice-President, the Chief Justice, the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, for seven (7) days; and such other persons to be determined by the National Historical Institute (NHI), for any period less than seven (7) days.

The flag shall be flown at half-mast on all the buildings and places where the decedent was holding office, on the day of death until the day of interment of an incumbent member of the Supreme Court, the Cabinet, the Senate or the House of Representatives, and such other persons as may be determined by the NHI.

The flag when flown at half-mast shall be first hoisted to the peak for a moment then lowered to the half-mast position. The flag shall again be raised to the peak before it is lowered for the day.

(for feedback, the author may be reached at chamzun@gmail.com)