11/05/2026
POSITION PAPER OF THE FOUR PROFESSIONAL HISTORICAL ORGANIZATIONS ON THE PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE GENERAL EDUCATION PROGRAM
I. Introduction
This paper expresses serious concern regarding the proposed revisions to the General Education (GE) program, particularly the removal or marginalization of foundational courses such as Rizal and Philippine History, alongside the suggestion to reduce undergraduate education from four years to three.
While curricular reform is necessary in a changing educational landscape, such reforms must remain grounded in a clear understanding of the fundamental purpose of higher education. The proposals under consideration risk undermining this purpose by privileging narrow utilitarian outcomes over holistic intellectual and civic formation.
II. The Purpose of General Education
General Education is not merely a preparatory stage for professional specialization. It is the core of university formation. Its primary purpose is to cultivate informed, reflective, and responsible citizens who are capable of critical thought, ethical reasoning, and meaningful participation in society.
At the center of this formation are the humanities. The humanities provide the intellectual and moral framework that allows students to engage deeply with human experience. Through the study of history, literature, philosophy, and related disciplines, students develop the capacity to think critically, interpret complexity, and exercise sound judgment.
To diminish the role of the humanities within GE is to weaken its integrative function. Without this core, education risks becoming fragmented—reduced to the acquisition of discrete skills without a coherent sense of purpose or responsibility.
III. The Importance of Rizal and Philippine History
Courses such as The Life and Works of José Rizal and Philippine History are essential components of General Education. Their value extends far beyond content knowledge.
The teaching of Rizal, mandated under Republic Act No. 1425, is foundational to the development of national consciousness. It introduces students to enduring questions of freedom, identity, and moral responsibility. Similarly, Philippine History provides a critical framework for understanding the nation’s past and its continuing challenges.
These courses situate students within a broader historical narrative. They foster a sense of belonging, responsibility, and engagement—qualities necessary for meaningful citizenship. To remove or marginalize them is to risk producing graduates who are disconnected from their historical and cultural contexts.
Furthermore, the proposed measure may also run contrary to Republic Act No. 10908, otherwise known as the Integrated History Act of 2016, which mandates the integration of Filipino Muslim and Indigenous Peoples’ history, culture, and identity studies into the teaching of Philippine History. Over the years, Philippine historiography and education have made important strides toward recognizing the diversity, plurality, and complexity of the Filipino historical experience. These gains reflect a more inclusive understanding of nationhood—one that acknowledges voices and communities long marginalized in traditional narratives. It is therefore deeply concerning that current proposals appear to move toward the weakening of Philippine History within the curriculum, potentially undermining these hard-won advances. Rather than retreating from these developments, educational reform should strengthen and deepen the teaching of inclusive and representative histories through meaningful dialogue, careful study, and national reflection.
More importantly, these subjects remind students that they are part of a continuing national story. They deepen awareness of the sacrifices, struggles, achievements, and aspirations that shaped the Filipino nation. At a time when misinformation, historical distortion, and cultural amnesia have become increasingly widespread, the teaching of Rizal and Philippine History becomes even more indispensable. A nation that neglects its history risks weakening its collective memory and losing its sense of direction.
IV. On the Centrality of the Humanities
The humanities are not ancillary to General Education; they are its core. They cultivate habits of reflection, interpretation, and ethical reasoning that cannot be replicated by technical or purely skills-based training.
In an era marked by rapid technological change, global uncertainty, and the erosion of historical memory, the humanities play an even more critical role. They enable students to navigate complexity, assess competing claims, and engage thoughtfully with the world around them.
A GE program that sidelines the humanities forfeits its capacity to form individuals who are not only employable, but also thoughtful, ethical, and socially responsible.
V. On the Employment and Professional Viability of Humanities Educators
The removal or reduction of mandated courses such as Rizal and Philippine History would have serious consequences not only for students, but also for the intellectual and professional community that sustains the humanities in the country.
A drastic reduction in these courses would inevitably lead to a decline in teaching loads for historians, literature instructors, philosophers, and other humanities educators. Such a development would trigger faculty displacement, unemployment, and the gradual de-professionalisation of entire disciplines. The consequences would extend far beyond the classroom.
The weakening of the humanities would erode the country’s capacity to produce high-quality history textbooks, public scholarship, cultural criticism, archival work, museum practice, and heritage conservation—all of which are essential to national identity, democratic citizenship, and even the creative economy. A nation cannot preserve historical memory, cultivate civic consciousness, or sustain cultural institutions without investing in the very disciplines that nurture them.
Equally concerning is the proposal to convert these subjects into optional electives. Such a move would confine the study of history, Rizal, and the humanities to only a small number of students, thereby creating a vicious cycle: lower enrollment would justify fewer faculty positions, leading eventually to the marginalization or extinction of these disciplines within universities.
The state and educational institutions must therefore consider not only student employability or enrollment efficiency, but also the intellectual infrastructure necessary for sustaining civic education, cultural continuity, and national consciousness. The humanities are not disposable academic luxuries; they are foundational to the life of a nation.
VI. On the Proposal to Reduce Undergraduate Education to Three Years
The proposal to shorten undergraduate education from four years to three is based on the assumption that efficiency can substitute for depth. This assumption is fundamentally flawed.
Education is not a process that can be compressed without consequence. Intellectual and personal formation require time—for sustained engagement with ideas, for reflection, and for dialogue. A reduction in time necessarily entails a reduction in depth.
Such a move risks transforming higher education into a transactional process—focused on the rapid delivery of competencies rather than the cultivation of understanding. It undermines the transformative character of education and diminishes its long-term value.
VII. Implications of the Proposed Changes
The combined effect of diminishing the humanities and shortening the duration of undergraduate education would be profound:
• A weakening of students’ historical and cultural grounding
• A decline in critical and ethical reasoning skills
• A narrowing of educational objectives toward immediate employability
• A reduced capacity for civic engagement and national participation
These outcomes run counter to the mission of higher education institutions and to the broader goals of national development.
VIII. Conclusion and Recommendations
In light of the foregoing, this paper strongly recommends:
1. The retention and strengthening of core humanities courses, particularly Rizal and Philippine History, within the General Education curriculum.
2. The reaffirmation of the humanities as the intellectual and moral core of GE programs.
3. The rejection of proposals to reduce undergraduate education from four years to three, in recognition of the importance of time in intellectual formation.
4. A comprehensive review of GE reforms that prioritizes holistic education over narrow utilitarian objectives.
Higher education must remain committed to forming not only competent professionals, but also thoughtful citizens—individuals grounded in history, guided by ethical reflection, and prepared to engage with a complex and changing world.
The question before us is not merely how to produce graduates more quickly, but how to educate them more meaningfully.
ADHIKA ng Pilipinas, Inc.
Bagong Kasaysayan, Inc.
Philippine Historical Association
Philippine National Historical Society
Download: bit.ly/Joint2026PH .
🎨 The gallantry of the Filipino Republican forces in fighting the Americans. Illustrated by F. C. Yohn for Frederick Funston’s Memories of Two Wars (1911). Courtesy of the University of California Libraries.
![[𝘼𝙉𝙉𝙊𝙐𝙉𝘾𝙀𝙈𝙀𝙉𝙏] Update of Date, Time and Venue for 𝙍𝙞𝙯𝙖𝙡 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙀𝙩𝙝𝙣𝙞𝙘𝙞𝙩𝙮 𝙞𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙚 19𝙩𝙝 𝘾𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙪𝙧𝙮 𝙋𝙝𝙞𝙡𝙞𝙥𝙥𝙞𝙣𝙚𝙨 with 𝗗𝗿. 𝗙𝗶𝗹𝗼𝗺𝗲𝗻𝗼 ...](https://img5.glunis.com/740/665/1380735977406657.jpg)
