Gender equality in basic education

IN 2017, the Department of Education (DepEd) under then Secretary Leonor Briones brought our country’s system of basic education closer to more gender inclusivity. It was under the presidency of Rodrigo Duterte that DepEd issued its GenderResponsive Basic Education Policy through DepEd Order 32, Series of 2017, which aimed to integrate the principles of gender equality, gender equity, gender sensitivity, nondiscrimination and human rights in basic education.

The policy protects students in all levels of basic education from gender-related violence, abuse, exploitation, discrimination and bullying. It directed all schools to adopt a gender-responsive framework not only for their students but for all employees.

This policy was reiterated by DepEd under Vice President Sara Duterte in a memorandum issued on Aug. 19, 2022 through the office of the undersecretary for governance and operations. Earlier that year, on June 23, the DepEd of the National Capital Region issued a memorandum reiterating DepEd Order 23, when it allowed transgender graduating students, with permission from their parents or guardians, to attend end-of-school-year rites wearing clothes that were aligned with their gender identity and expressions.

Recently, the DepEd proposed to include topics on the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ) persons in its draft Grade 10 curriculum. To be included in the modules on LGBTQ rights are the laws protecting various genders against discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity, or expression; the gender pay gap and the experiences of LGBTQ children in the Philippines. The draft curriculum will also discuss discrimination in the home, schools and work; gender-based hate crimes; and same-sex union, privileges of same-sex-union, and the difference between same-sex union and same-sex marriage.

The DepEd under Vice President Duterte should be lauded for this proposal. As expected, conservative, theocratic forces are once again riled up. Rep. Eduardo Villanueva, who is also the leader of the Jesus is Lord Movement, vowed to oppose the proposal, and even went to the extent of calling it “anti-God” and “unconstitutional.”

Villanueva should be reminded that it is unconstitutional to give preference to a particular religious faith in the crafting of public policies and legislation, and he should not proselytize any particular religion in the performance of his duty as a government official. The 1987 Constitution clearly stipulated the separation of the church and state in Section 6 of Article II. Section 5 of Article III, or the Bill of Rights, further states that “No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” When legislators like Villanueva express their opposition to a policy on religious grounds, they are in effect grounding their opposition on respect for an established religion. They also prohibit other people from freely exercising their religious preferences, considering that not following a particular religious belief is in itself a form of religious preference.

Villanueva cites Section 13 of Article II of the Constitution but only focused on the State’s commitment to promote the moral and spiritual well-being of our youth. He conveniently omitted the full text of the section, which reads: “The State recognizes the vital role of the youth in nation-building and shall promote and protect their physical, moral, spiritual, intellectual, and social well-being.”

Villanueva should know that spirituality is a totally different species from religiosity. Religion is often practiced in a community like a church or a congregation, is usually based on a specific set of rules and customs, and often focuses on the belief in deities or gods, religious texts and tradition. On the other hand, spirituality can be practiced individually, doesn’t have to adhere to a specific set of rules, and often focuses on a personal journey of discovering what is meaningful in life. While practicing the rituals of a particular religion could be a form of spiritual expression, there are other ways by which spirituality can be expressed. These include asking deep questions about topics such as suffering or what happens after death, deepening connections with other people, experiencing compassion and empathy for others, experiencing feelings of interconnectedness, feelings of awe and wonder, seeking happiness beyond material possessions or other external rewards, seeking meaning and purpose, and wanting to make the world a better place.

Villanueva further states that he does not see the DepEd proposal to include LGBTQ concerns in basic education curriculum as heading toward the direction stipulated in the Constitution. On the contrary, understanding, and respecting the human rights of, the LGBTQ would provide our youth a concrete template to operationalize many of these non-religious expressions of spirituality.

Furthermore, Villanueva conveniently ignores other constitutional provisions. Section 10 of Article II states that “The State shall promote social justice in all phases of national development.” Section 11 further states that “The State values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect for human rights.” Respecting LGBTQ rights is not just in compliance with Section 11, but is also a fundamental step in promoting social justice. Discrimination against LGBTQ children and adolescents is a significant mental health risk, and protecting them against such would be consistent with Section 15 which states that “The State shall protect and promote the right to health of the people and instill health consciousness among them.”

Villanueva should be aware of the existence of the Safe Spaces Act, or Republic Act 11313 passed in July of 2018 to penalize gender-based harassment. The law clearly sets a space for considering assaults against the LGBTQ community even in educational institutions. In Section 33, letter B of Rule VIII of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 11313, schools and educational institutions are directed to ensure equal representation of various sexual orientations, gender identities and/or expressions in the composition of the committee on decorum and investigation tasked to handle genderbased sexual harassment cases in schools.

Villanueva considers the DepEd’s proposal as a threat to the morals of the youth. Morality is not just about following church doctrines. It is about doing what is good and just. The DepEd’s proposal does not violate the Constitution, and it is, in fact, consistent with RA 11313.