08/05/2026
Official Statement of the Philippine History Movement on the Proposed Reframed General Education (GE) Curriculum of the Commission on Higher Education (CHED)
Jose Rizal once wrote in Filipinas dentro de cien aรฑos that, โIn order to read the destiny of a people, it is necessary to open the book of its past.โ This serves as a reminder that, to build a nation with a hopeful future, history must be taken seriously and studied judiciously. Otherwise, we risk raising generations who lack regard for their past and who may repeat the mistakes of their forebears.
In this light, the Philippine History movement, an organization dedicated to advancing Philippine history education across all levels of the countryโs educational system, welcomes needed reforms to the General Education (GE) curriculum in higher education. However, such reforms must not come at the expense of the integrity of existing GE offerings and must remain grounded in the fundamental purpose of higher education: to form informed, critically thinking, and civically engaged individuals.
In particular, the movement vehemently and categorically rejects the proposed merging of The Life and Works of Rizal and Readings in Philippine History into a single course titled โRizal and Philippine Studiesโ. Combining these two courses risks diminishing their distinct learning objectives, disciplinary rigor, and methodological depth.
The Life and Works of Rizal, as mandated by Republic Act No. 1425, requires all higher education institutions in the country to teach the life, works, and contributions of Jose Rizal. This course allows students to engage deeply with Rizalโs major works while examining the evolving interpretations that have shaped his historical significance. It enables students to understand, relate to, and critically interpret Rizalโs ideas in relation to Filipino identity and contemporary issues in the 21st century.
On the other hand, Readings in Philippine History is a course that develops studentsโ historical consciousness through the critical analysis of Philippine History. It emphasizes the use of primary sources as the basis for historical inquiry, training students to evaluate authenticity, credibility, and context. Through this process, students learn that history is not merely the study of the past but an ongoing endeavor to understand the present and inform the future.
Given their respective goals, these two courses are complementary rather than interchangeable. Their separation enables a more robust, multiperspectival engagement with the Filipino nationโs past. Merging them under the justification of avoiding redundancy with the Senior High School subject โPag-aaral ng Kasaysayan at Kulturang Pilipinoโ reflects an oversimplified understanding of historical learning. Retaining a distinct Philippine History course at the tertiary level supports meaningful progression, ensuring continuity and deeper engagement with historical knowledge from basic education to higher education.
While the movement does not take an official position on the proposed streamlining of undergraduate programs from four to three years, or on the overall number of courses in a program, it underscores that such reforms should not significantly diminish General Education. Previous institutional arrangements, such as trimestral systems in some universities, have demonstrated that shorter degree structures can be implemented without compromising the integrity of GE offerings.
Philippine History remains essential in strengthening historical consciousness, ethical reasoning, and civic responsibility, especially in an era marked by disinformation and contested narratives. This remains our principled stance on the matter.
~ Kasaysayan: huwag kalimutan. ~
