The mayor is not the school calendar

The controversy surrounding the suspension of classes for National Teachers’ Day raises a question that is less political than legal: When does local autonomy end and national education policy begin?

Republic Act No. 10743 declares 5 October National Teachers’ Day and a special working holiday, while directing government agencies and local governments to provide opportunities for personnel to participate in commemorative activities.

But recognition is not synonymous with suspension. RA 10743 does not expressly declare 5 October a nationwide no-class day, nor does it confer upon every mayor unrestricted authority to suspend classes solely for the observance.

A local chief executive may exercise authority only to the extent granted by law, regulation, or valid delegation. An executive order may implement an existing power; it cannot manufacture one.

Republic Act No. 9155 establishes the national governance framework for basic education and recognizes the Department of Education’s (DepEd) authority over national education policies and standards. The school calendar operates within a national framework, while local governments retain specific, defined powers.

To be clear, mayors do possess authority to order localized suspensions under circumstances recognized by law and regulation. Executive Order No. 66, series of 2012, provides mechanisms for class cancellations during disasters, calamities, and environmental hazards.

That authority is necessary. When a typhoon, monsoon flooding, or another hazard places students and teachers in danger, there should be no hesitation to suspend classes. Safety is not negotiable.

But there is another side to the equation: Instructional time is also a public interest.

Repeated weather disturbances regularly consume substantial portions of the academic year. EDCOM 2 reported that a typical public elementary school lost approximately 20 teaching days to hazard-related suspensions during School Year 2025-2026. Between 1 August and 15 September 2026, 12 of 28 class days were canceled across Metro Manila and several provinces.

These figures matter because lost instructional days mean compressed lessons, delayed assessments, postponed remediation, and less time to complete the core curriculum.

DepEd’s adoption of the three-term school calendar for School Year 2026-2027 seeks to address recurring disruptions that compress instructional time and widen learning gaps.

It also has incorporated flexible learning programs, including online and blended instruction, where feasible. Yet digital learning cannot serve as a universal substitute because access remains unequal. Suspension decisions must consider actual local conditions.

This brings us back to local leadership.

The question is not whether a mayor has the power to suspend classes. The law recognizes circumstances in which local suspension is appropriate. The more precise question is whether that authority extends to suspending classes for reasons not identified under the governing framework.

That is where discretion meets legal limitation.

Local autonomy gives local governments room to govern. It does not make every local executive the final authority over matters governed by national policy. Local autonomy is not local sovereignty.

Nor is an executive order self-validating. Its issuance does not, by itself, establish the existence of the power exercised. The authority must precede the order, not arise from it.

Teachers deserve their day. But learners deserve their instructional days, too.

The issue is not whether teachers should be celebrated. They should. The issue is whether every suspension carries a clear legal basis and compelling justification when the education system already faces severe losses in instructional time.

A mayor may be the local chief executive. But a mayor is not the school calendar.