5 months ago
21
Upgrade to High-Speed Internet for only ₱1499/month!
Enjoy up to 100 Mbps fiber broadband, perfect for browsing, streaming, and gaming.
Visit Suniway.ph to learn
MANILA, Philippines – Project Dalisay, an initiative by the National Coalition for the Family and the Constitution (NCFC), recently sounded the alarm on comprehensive sexuality education (CSE).
CSE is included in Senate Bill (SB) No. 1979, which seeks to prevent adolescent pregnancy partly by standardizing how sexuality is taught to Filipino youth. CSE is also implemented through Department of Education (DepEd) Order No. 31, series of 2018.
In a nine-minute video, NCFC laid out what it believed were the dangers posed by SB 1979 to the innocence of Filipino youth, and how it was “unconstitutional.” Senate Deputy Minority Leader Risa Hontiveros, principal author of the bill, called these claims “fake news.” Hontiveros later filed an amended bill in response to what she said were legitimate concerns of other groups.
While NCFC insists it is not spreading fake news and not fearmongering, its claims can be misleading or not situated within the proper context. Below, we break down the Project Dalisay claims.
1. Claim: The World Health Organization’s (WHO) Standards for Sexuality Education in Europe will be used as CSE reference.
The Project Dalisay video cites the “shocking” details of a document from the WHO Regional Office for Europe and Germany’s Federal Centre for Health Education. NCFC used this document as an example of how Section 6 of the original SB 1979 provides that implementation of CSE in Philippine schools shall be guided by “international standards.”
Project Dalisay made it appear that based on the Europe document, the Senate bill or CSE for the Philippines would include the teaching of early masturbation to children aged 0 to 4 years old, anal and oral sex to adolescents, sexual rights to children aged 9 years old, and intimate communication and negotiation.
The Senate bill does not mention the Europe document. The keywords “early masturbation,” “anal sex,” “oral sex,” and “intimate negotiation” are also not in the bill. “Rights” are mentioned in the context of promoting and respecting the human rights of adolescents, including their reproductive health rights.
On January 15, Hontiveros clarified that it was the Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act that was referenced in her authored bill.
The bill also details the “age- and development-appropriate” topics that CSE would cover:
- human sexuality
- informed consent
- adolescent reproductive health
- effective contraceptive use
- disease prevention
- HIV/AIDS and the more common sexually transmitted infections (STIs)
- hygiene
- healthy lifestyles and health-seeking behaviors and practices
- gender sensitivity, gender equality and equity
- teen dating
- gender-based violence
- sexual abuse and exploitation
- peer pressure
- women’s and children’s rights
- pornography
2. Claim: SB 1979 diminishes the role of parents in guiding their children.
The group questioned why the original bill’s provision on “accessibility” would allow adolescents to access health facilities, goods, and services without parental consent.
Hontiveros clarified in a January 28 Senate hearing that parental authority would remain. “I have made it clear that there is no removal of parental authority, as far as I understand CSE, or any bill that wants to continue to support CSE, in the spirit of the [reproductive health] law and in the spirit of the department orders of DepEd or programs of the implementing agencies,” she said in Filipino during the hearing.
The senator further explained that the age of adolescents who can access health services and information without parental consent — particularly modern family planning services — will be aligned to 16 years old, in accordance with the law on the age of sexual consent.
Hontiveros reasoned that if the law recognizes the right to consent of adolescents aged 16 and above, they should also be equipped with these services and information.
In the same Senate hearing, former Supreme Court chief justice and NCFC convenor Maria Lourdes Sereno raised a point of confusion in the original bill on acquiring parental consent. The provision on “accessibility” said it was not needed, while another provision said that adolescents below 15 years old “shall require consent from their parent or legal guardians” when obtaining access to sexual and reproductive health information and services.
In her substitute bill, Hontiveros remedied the confusion by clarifying that “adolescents below the age of 16 shall require the consent of their parents or guardian.”
3. Claim: The DepEd’s CSE curriculum includes teaching children aged 6 years old that bodily pleasure can be experienced through the five senses.
The DepEd clarified in a briefer last January 15 that its CSE lesson plans were not developed with an “explicit focus” on encouraging exploration of bodily pleasure in inappropriate ways.
The briefer notes that genitals are discussed in kindergarten, but the discussion is as simple as the difference between male and female genitals. The curriculum also integrates “genital care as part of proper hygiene practices.”
4. Claim: The DepEd order is not compliant with the Constitution.
The Project Dalisay video highlights that the DepEd used a United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization or UNESCO guide on sexuality education as a reference for its 2018 order, and that it supposedly infringes upon a person’s constitutional right to freedom of religion.
But the DepEd explained in its briefer that its CSE curriculum does not follow the standards set by international groups “in total,” as it took into account “local culture and contexts.”
The DepEd also emphasized that its department order states CSE should be “age-appropriate, culturally sensitive, and contextually relevant.”
The CSE curriculum does not intend to “replace or undermine parental guidance” but provides “a baseline of understanding that parents can build upon according to their cultural and religious beliefs,” the briefer further detailed.
5. Claim: The DepEd wants to integrate CSE into all subjects.
“Dito sa bansa natin, ang gustong gawin ng DepEd, i-integrate ang sexual education sa lahat ng mga posibleng pag-uusap, discussions, at topics,” Maloi Salumbides of the Philippine Council of Evangelical Churches says in the video.
(Here in our country, the DepEd wants to integrate sexual education into all possible conversations, discussions, and topics.)
A look at the DepEd order showed that Science; Music, Arts, Physical Education, and Health; Araling Panlipunan; Personality Development; and Edukasyon sa Pagpapakatao are the only subjects that include CSE.
The order also detailed the core topics and subtopics covered in the CSE curriculum:
- Human body and human development – sexual and reproductive body, human development and reproduction, and puberty and adolescence
- Personhood – values, norms and peer influence and life-skills
- Healthy relationships – families, friendships, romantic relationships, long-term relationships, marriage and parenting, and sex and marriage
- Sexuality and sexual behaviors – sexuality and sexual life cycle, sex and sex behaviors
- Sexual and reproductive health – reproductive health, consequences of early pregnancy, STIs, and HIV/AIDS
- Gender, culture, and human rights – gender equality, media and sexuality, human rights
6. Claim: A study found that CSE is not effective in solving teenage pregnancy.
The group cited a 2019 study entitled, “Re-examining the Evidence for Comprehensive Sex Education in Schools,” by the Institute for Research and Evaluation (IRE), which said CSE is ineffective in preventing teenage pregnancy in most schools around the world.
In the January 28 Senate hearing, Hontiveros discredited this, citing a “re-study” by the National Library of Medicine which reanalyzed IRE’s 2019 study, and found inconsistencies and errors in its analytical framework, study selection and inclusion, accuracy of findings, and overall conclusions.
Hontiveros pointed out that the IRE study did not “adhere to standards of a typical scientific review” with 74% of its analysis of studies containing one or more discrepancies.
“The IRE report’s conclusion did not entirely align with the data they themselves or itself presented. They inaccurately portrayed the collective body of evidence that they examined,” Hontiveros said.
SB 1979 was up for second reading at the Senate, while the House of Representatives unanimously approved the counterpart measure in September 2023.
Advocates have said that they will carry on the campaign for the bill, even if it has to be refiled in the 20th Congress. – Rappler.com
