C HA PT E R III
SU RV EY OF HUMAN RIGH T S AWAR E N E S S A M ON GS E C O N DARY S TUD E NT S I N S E L E C T E D S C H O O L S

2,001 secondary students from both public and private schools provided anindication of the level and extent of awareness of human rights among Filipino
youth at present. Their responses supplied bases for understanding what theyknow about human rights, and how such knowledge would probably be exercisedin the context of the school and their community. They also provided insights on
the way human rights are taught, respected or violated in the school and in thecommunity.
This section presents the tabulated and statistically analyzed responses of thestudents, and the corresponding comments of the authors. The comments refer tothe results of the focus group discussions to supplement the statistical data. The
survey results reveal many interesting issues that raise questions on theimplementation of the education policies discussed in Chapter II. Though thesurvey has limitations, the results provide significant implications on theimplementation of the human rights education in schools program in thePhilippines.
I. Knowledge and Application of Human Rights Concepts
Knowledge of Human Rights by Variables
Table 3 shows that at least 93% of the respondents, in all variables (Region,
Gender, Ethnicity, Geographic Classification, & Type of School), have heard of or
known human rights. All respondents (100%) from Region VII have heard of or
known human rights.
It is worth asking why not all the respondents in all variables have heard of or
known human rights since they are supposed to be taught in schools. It isparticularly puzzling that a few respondents, some of them from areas wherearmed conflict exists, have not even heard of or known the words "human rights".

Table 3. Percentage of Knowledge of Human Rights by Variables
Variables
Region
NCR
IV
VII
ARMM
GenderMale
FemaleEthnicity
ChristianMuslimGeographic Classification
Urban
Partia lly Urban
Type of School
PublicPriva te

N=

YES

NO

NA

715
548
317
421

98
95
100
93

1
2
0
3

1
3
0
4

805
1160

94
98

3
1

3
1

1505
496

97
93

1
3

2
4

1115
886

97
95

1
2

2
3

1215
786

95
98

2
1

3
1

Legend: NA- No Answer

Sources of Knowledge on Human Rights
The number one source of knowledge of human rights is the School, as opined by
84% of the respondents across all variables (Tables 4, 5 and 6). The other top
four sources of knowledge are Television/Radio (82%), Family/Parents (78%),
Newspapers/Magazines (64%), and Media (60%). Respondents from the NCR
and ARMM however share a similar hierarchy of top answers: Television/Radio(NCR - 85%: ARMM - 82%), Schools (NCR - 83%: ARMM - 82 %), andFamily/Parents (NCR - 80%: ARMM - 79%).

60 Human Rights Education in Philippine Schools

Table 4. Percentage Distribution of Respondents by Source of Knowledge and Region
Sources
Family/parents
Media
Newspapers, magazines
Television, radio
Internet, websites
Gov’t. agencies
Neighbors
Schools
Legal documents
OthersNCR(n=699)
80
71
70
85
29
23
26
83
14
4

RegionVII(n=316)
76
66
70
86
18
25
25
91
9
3

IV
(n=522)
77
57
56
77
20
23
25
81
9
5

ARMM
(n=391)
80
42
57
79
21
36
39
82
19
19

TOTAL
(n=1928)
78
60
64
82
23
26
28
84
13
8

In Region VII, a high 91% of the respondents voted School, and 86% likewiselearned of human rights through the Television/Radio. These percentages, higher
than the summary percentages, may explain why all respondents (100%) in
Region VII have heard of or known human rights as compared to the otherregions. Do these results indicate that human rights education is more extensively
undertaken in Region VII or do the schools in this region use better approach tohuman rights education?
Table 5. Percentage Distribution of Respondents by Source of Knowledge andGender & Type of School
Sources
Family/parents
Media
Newspapers, magazines
Television, radio
Internet, websites
Gov’t. agencies
Neighbors
Schools
Legal documents
OthersGenderType of School
Male
Female
Total
Public Private
Total(n=757) (n=1142) n=(1899) (n=1161) (n=767) (n=1928)
77
62
66
83
25
25
29
84
13
7

79
60
62
81
22
27
28
84
13
8

78
61
64
82
23
26
28
84
13
7

80
59
65
83
21
32
31
86
16
10

76
63
62
79
26
17
24
81
9
4

78
60
64
82
23
26
28
84
13
8

Table 5 attests to Schools as the primary source of knowledge on human rights
by the male/female and public/private respondents (84%). Television/Radio
come as a close second source of knowledge. These figures seem to imply that at

Survey of Human Rights Awareness Among Secondary Students in Selected Schools

61least 80% of the respondents regard Television/Radio to be equally influential
and credible as the Schools in knowing human rights.
The Internet/Website, a popular yet unavailable resource in many places and notalways affordable, is ranked second from last with 23% of the respondents citing
it. Legal Documents rank last with only 13% of the respondents saying they are asource of knowledge of human rights. It can be inferred that teachers generally do
not refer to the human rights documents in teaching human rights. Probably,teachers themselves are not familiar with the documents or find them difficult forthe students to comprehend.
Table 6. Percentage Distribution of Respondents by Source of Knowledge and Ethnicity& Geograph ic Classif ication
Sources

Christian(n=1467)

Ethnicity
Muslim(n=461)Total(n=1928)

Family/parents
Media
Newspapers,
magazines
Television, radio
Internet, websites
Gov’t. agencies
Neighbors
Schools
Legal documents
Others

78
67
65

79
40
59

78
60
64

82
24
23
26
84
11
4

82
21
34
36
82
18
19

82
23
26
28
84
13
8

Geographic Classification
Urban
Partially
Total(n=1082)
Urban(n=1928)(n=846)
80
76
78
67
52
60
69
57
64
84
26
23
26
85
12
4

78
20
29
31
83
14
12

82
23
26
28
84
13
8

Even on ethnicity and geographic classification variables, Schools are ranked
consistently by the respondents as the primary source of knowledge (84%),
followed by Television/Radio (82%). Understandably, only 78% of the partiallyurban respondents selected Television/Radio, perhaps due to their limited
availability in their areas.
Another consistent finding is the choice of Family/Parents in all variables as thethird popular source of knowledge on human rights. This finding underscores therole of the Family/Parents in providing guidance and direction to children.
Most Helpful Source in Understanding Human Rights
The respondents chose Family/Parents (30%) as the most helpful source ofknowledge of human rights, followed by the School (28%). (Tables 7, 8 and 9).
This pattern of responses is true for all variables except for Region VII where 45%
62 Human Rights Education in Philippine Schools

of the respondents chose School as the most helpful source of knowledge,
followed as a far second by Family/Parents with 23%.
Table 7. Percentage Distribution of Respondents by Most Helpful Source of Knowledge
and Region
Sources
Family/parents
Media
Newspapers, magazines
Television, radio
Internet, websites
Gov’t. agencies
Neighbors
Schools
Legal documents
OthersNCR(n=699)
29
15
7
13
2
1
0
26
2
1

IV
(n=522)
34
7
4
17
1
2
1
25
1
1

RegionVII(n=316)
23
10
4
11
1
3
0
45
1
0

ARMM
(n=391)
30
4
4
11
0
3
1
26
0
0

Total
(n=1928)
30
10
5
13
1
2
0
29
1
0

Survey of Human Rights Awareness Among Secondary Students in Selected Schools

63Table 8. Percentage Distribution of Respondents by Most Helpful Source of Knowledge
and Gender & Type of School
SourcesMale(n=757)

Family/parents
Media
Newspapers,
magazines
Television, radio
Internet, websites
Gov’t. agencies
Neighbors
Schools
Legal documents
OthersGenderType of School
Female
Total
PublicPrivateTotal(n=1142) (n=1899) (n=1161) (n=767) (n=1928)

31
10
5

30
10
5

30
10
5

30
11
4

30
9
6

30
10
5

13
1
2
0
31
1
0

13
1
2
1
28
1
1

13
1
2
0
29
1
0

13
1
2
0
28
1
0

14
1
1
1
30
1
1

13
1
2
0
29
1
0

Table 9. Percentage Distribution of Respondents by Most Helpful Source of Knowledge
and Ethnicity & Geograph ic Classif ication
Sources
Family/ parents
Media
Newspapers,
magazines
Television, radio
Internet, websites
Gov’t. agencies
Neighbors
Schools
Legal documents
OthersEthnicity
Christian Muslim(n=1467)(n=461)Total(n=1928)

30
12
5

30
5
4

30
10
5

14
1
2
0
30
1
1

13
1
2
1
25
0
0

13
1
2
0
29
1
0

Geographic Classification
Urban
Partially
Total(n=1082)
Urban(n=1928)(n=846)
29
30
30
12
7
10
5
5
5
14
1
1
0
30
2
1

13
1
3
0
28
0
0

13
1
2
0
29
1
0

At least one-third of the respondents view the Family/Parents as handy sourceof human rights knowledge. This may also mean that the Family/Parents are
deemed more credible and informative in providing human rights knowledge totheir children than the Schools. It would be interesting to find out how humanrights are taught or learned at home. Do parents teach human rights consciouslyor unconsciously?

64 Human Rights Education in Philippine Schools

Knowledge of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Only an average of 30% of the respondents have known or heard of the United
Nations' 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) (Table 10).
Apparently, the high percentage of 93% of the respondents who know humanrights (Table 3) does not necessarily mean that such knowledge is associatedwith the UDHR. If only 30% of the respondents have heard of or known the
UDHR, one wonders what exactly do they know about "human rights" in general,
what human rights principles do they believe in, and is their knowledge of"human rights" correct. The focus group discussion among teachers of the
respondents reveals the lack of formal training on human rights for teachers. The
discussion also seems to indicate that teachers view human rights as a set ofvalues rather than as a set of rules as indicated in the UDHR. In this context, it
would appear that UDHR is not essential in teaching human rights.
Table 10. Percentage of Knowledge of the UDHR by Variables
Variables
Region
NCR
IV
VII
ARMM
GenderMale
FemaleEthnicity
ChristianMuslimGeographic Classification
Urban
Partially Urban
Type of School
PublicPrivate

N=

YES

NO

NA

715
548
317
421

32
20
23
43

65
78
76
53

2
2
1
3

805
1160

31
29

68
68

1
2

1503
496

25
46

73
51

2
3

1115
886

27
34

71
63

2
3

1215
786

35
22

62
76

3
2

Legend: NA- No Answer

Based on regional variable, 43% of the ARMM respondents know UDHR. 46% of
the Muslim respondents said they heard of or know the UDHR as compared to
25% of the Christian respondents. While only one out of five respondents (20%)
from Region IV have heard of or known the UDHR. This is the lowest percentage
of knowledge of UDHR based on regional variable.
More respondents from the partially urban areas (34%), than those from theurban areas (27%), have heard of or known the UDHR. Likewise, more public

Survey of Human Rights Awareness Among Secondary Students in Selected Schools

65school respondents (35%) know about the UDHR than the private school
respondents (22%). Given the reputation that urban schools are "more advanced,
more updated" than partially urban schools, and that private schools are betterschools than public schools, these results are startling. Later findings would
show that students from private schools performed better in terms of knowledge
and comprehension of human rights.
Source of Knowledge of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
At least one-third of the respondents in each variable knew the UDHR becauseof Television/Radio, as indicated in the previous question. (Tables 11, 12 and13) This is the highest percentage of source of knowledge of UDHR.
Table 11. Percentage Distribution of Respondents by Source of Knowledge of the UDHR
and Region
Sources
Family/parents
Media
Newspapers, magazines
Television, radio
Internet, websites
Gov’t. agencies
Neighbors
Schools
Legal documents
OthersNCR(n=232)
10
11
9
22
3
0
0
19
0
0

RegionVII(n=74)
1
15
7
45
1
1
0
20
0
3

IV
(n=110)
8
4
10
38
2
0
1
12
0
4

ARMM
(n=183)
4
1
3
30
0
2
0
10
0
2

TOTAL
(n=599)
7
7
7
30
2
1
0
15
0
2

Note: n= indicates number of respondents who have knowledge of the UDHR as indicated in Table 10.

Table 12. Percentage Distribution of Respondents by Source of Knowledge of the UD HR
and Gender & Type of School
Sources
Family/parents
Media
Newspapers,
magazines
Television, radio
Internet, websites
Gov’t. agencies
NeighborsMale(n=249)GenderFemale(n=340)

Total

8
5
8

6
8
6

7
7
7

5
7
6

11
7
10

7
7
7

29
2
0
0

32
1
1
0

31
2
1
0

32
1
1
0

27
3
0
0

30
2
1
0

66 Human Rights Education in Philippine Schools

Type of School
PublicPrivateTotal(n=425)(n=174)

Schools
Legal documents
Others

18
0
1

14
0
2

15
0
2

13
0
2

20
0
2

15
0
2

Note: n = number of respondents who have knowledge of the UDHR as indicated in Table 10.

Table 13. Percentage Distribution of Respondents by Source of Knowledge of the UDHR
and Ethnicity & Geograph ic Classif ication
Sources
Family/parents
Media
Newspapers,
magazines
Television, radio
Internet, websites
Gov’t. agencies
Neighbors
Schools
Legal documents
OthersEthnicity
Christian Muslim(n=372) (n=227)

Total(n=599)

7
10
10

7
2
3

7
7
7

31
2
1
0
19
0
2

29
0
1
0
9
0
2

30
2
1
0
15
0
2

Geographic Classification
Urban PartiallyTotal(n=299)Urban(n=599)(n=300)
9
5
7
10
3
7
9
6
7
25
3
1
0
20
0
1

36
0
1
0
11
0
2

30
2
1
0
15
0
2

Note: n = number of respondents who have knowledge of the UDHR as indicated in Table 10.

Only an average of 15% of the respondents learned about the UDHR throughSchools. This low percentage again raises the question of the kind of humanrights knowledge that students learn in school. This seems to imply that the
UDHR is not at all perceived as a vital document that students in secondary
schools must learn about. There is a need to revisit the approach used in theteaching of human rights and the UDHR in schools. Apparently, human rights
can be taught and can be learned without referring to this international
document.
Observance of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
For those who have heard of or known the UDHR, an average of 60% of the
respondents in most variables, except those from the private schools (52%),
believe that human rights contained therein are to be observed in "all countries".
(Table 14) The rest believe that the human rights are to be observed only in "somecountries". One out of three respondents considers certain countries as not
obliged to observe human rights. Again, these results reflect the possible
inaccuracy of human rights knowledge of the respondents, especially since theyknew or heard of UDHR through the non-interactive medium of the
television/radio. (see Tables 11 to 13)

Survey of Human Rights Awareness Among Secondary Students in Selected Schools

67

Table 14. Percentage of Knowledge of How the UDHR is to be Observed by Variables
Variables
Region
NCR
IV
VII
ARMM
GenderMale
FemaleEthnicity
ChristianMuslimVariables
Geographic Classification
Urban
Partia l ly Urban
Type of School
PublicPrivateN=

Some
Countries

All
Countries

232
110
74
183

35
37
34
31

61
61
65
67

249
340

36
33

63
63

372
227

37
29

60
68

N=

Some
Countries

All
Countries

299
300

34
34

63
64

425
174

30
45

68
52

Legend: NA - No Answer

Consistent with the data in Table 14 where nearly 60% of the respondents
believe that human rights should be observed in "all countries", Table 15
establishes almost the same opinion: that roughly 60% likewise think that "allhuman beings everywhere in the world" should enjoy human rights.
Approximately 20% agree that "Some people in some countries" should enjoy
human rights and another 20% attest that "All people in some countries" should
enjoy human rights. These results project a foreboding sense that some of the
respondents consider some people in some countries unworthy or unable to enjoy
human rights. Could it be that this is the result of the lack of understanding or
non-teaching of human rights principles like universality, interdependence, andinviolability of human rights? Would this be a reflection of their possible miseducation on human rights?

68 Human Rights Education in Philippine Schools

Table 15. Percentage of Knowledge of How the UDHR is to be Enjoyed by Variables

Variables

N=

Some people in All people in All human beings
some countries some countries everywhere in theworld

Region
NCR

232

18

16

60

IV

110

23

25

49

VII

74

8

23

69

ARMM

183

17

24

54

Male

249

19

24

54

Female

340

16

18

60

GenderVariables

N=

Some people in All people in All human beings
some countries some countries everywhere in theworld

Ethnicity
Christian

372

18

20

58

Muslim

227

16

23

56

Urban

299

18

20

58

Partia lly Urban

300

17

22

57

Public

425

17

21

58

Priva te

174

17

21

56

Geographic Classification

Type of School

Note: n= indicates number of respondents who have knowledge of the UDHR as indicated in Table 10.

Knowledge on the Convention on the Rights of the Child
There are more respondents who are aware of the United Nations' Convention on
the Rights of the Child (CRC) than the UDHR (compare Table 10 with Table 16).
At least half of the respondents in each variable have knowledge about the CRC.
This seems to imply that schools accord more importance/priority to the rightsof the child (Table 17). However, only about 3 out of 4 respondents who haveknowledge on the rights of the child learned about this in school. The rest
obtained their information elsewhere.
Teachers in the focus group discussion conveyed that they were more at easewith the CRC than the UDHR. The CRC is considered to be a “safer” content
than the UDHR, which is often deemed as having more “militant” content.

Survey of Human Rights Awareness Among Secondary Students in Selected Schools

69

Table 16. Percentage of Knowledge of the CRC by Variables
Variables
Region
NCR
IV
VII
ARMM
Variables
GenderMale
FemaleEthnicity
ChristianMuslimGeographic Classification
Urban
Partia l ly Urban
Type of School
PublicPrivate

N=

YES

NO

NA

715
548
317
421
N=

55
51
57
67
YES

42
45
42
31
NO

3
4
1
3
NA

805
1160

55
58

42
40

3
2

1505
496

52
69

45
28

3
2

1115
886

55
59

43
38

3
3

1215
786

64
46

34
51

2
3

Legend: NA - No Answer

Table 17. Percentage Distribution of Respondents Wh o Perceived School as Source ofKnowledge on the CRC by Variables
VariablesN=
YESNO
Region
NCR
394
77
22
IV
278
77
22
VII
181
90
9
ARMM
281
82
13
Gender
Male
444
79
19
Female672
81
17
Ethnicity
Christian790
79
20
Muslim344
84
11
Geographic Classification
Urban
608
78
20
Partia l ly Urban
526
82
14
Type of School
Public775
83
14
Private359
73
26
Legend: NA - No Answer

70 Human Rights Education in Philippine Schools

II. Knowledge and Comprehension of Human Rights Concepts
Section II of the questionnaire is a 21-item test measuring the respondents’knowledge and comprehension of human rights concepts. Specifically, it aims todetermine whether or not the respondents would be able to apply theircomprehension of these concepts to real-life situations. The respondents wereasked to indicate their agreement/disagreement to the test items.
For reference, below is a complete list of the 21 statements with theircorresponding correct responses.
Statements
1. The government gives us our human rights.
2. All human beings are born equal.
3. Children and youth have rights that must be respected.
4. Human rights should be the concern of all.
5. By virtue of being human, we have rights.
6. Men and women are equal.
7. Only the state or government can protect our human rights.
8. Rich people have more rights than the poor.
9. If you want your rights respected, you must respect the rights of others.
10. The use of force by the police to stop a rally is correct.
11. Death penalty is a good way to prevent crime.
12. Indigenous peoples/communities should only be governed by theircustoms and traditions and not by the laws of the state/country.

Correct
Response
Disagree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
DisagreeDisagreeDisagreeDisagreeDisagreeDisagree

13. Friends and neighbors should do something if they think parents are
beating or injuring their children.

Agree

14. Government officials and religious leaders should be given special
treatment because of their stature.

Disagree

15. It is acceptable that immigrants and refugees be allowed to become
citizens of another country.
16. Every man and woman should decide whom to marry.
17. It is the responsibility of the state or government to provide employment.

Agree

18. Killing drug lords and terrorists without being charged in court isnecessary to maintain peace and order.

Disagree

19. Failure to respect the rights of the physically disabled and those withintellectual disability is tolerated.

Disagree20. Human rights means absolute freedom.
21. The media should be allowed to make critical statements about the
government.

Disagree
Agree

Agree
Agree

Table 18 shows the sample’s overall performance in the test as well as theaverage performance per variable. In general, the sample obtained a mean scoreof 14.26 equivalent to almost 68% of the test. This is already consideredsatisfactory from a psychometric point of view as it is more than above a mean
Survey of Human Rights Awareness Among Secondary Students in Selected Schools

71score of 50% correct items (Anastasi, 1988).
By variable, there is seemingly not much difference between the performance ofthe males and the females. The former got a mean score of 14.25 corresponding
to a mean percent score of 67.86% and a standard deviation of 2.65, while thelatter obtained a mean score of 14.34 equivalent to 68.29% with also a standard
deviation of 2.65. The difference in their mean percentage scores seems very
negligible, less than one percent (1%).
The same does not hold true, however, in the other groupings under the othervariables since considerable differences in the mean percent scores were noted,with the highest observed in the variable ‘ethnicity’. The computed mean percent
scores for this variable indicate that the Christian-respondents performed better
than their counterpart, the Muslim-respondents.
In terms of geographic classification, the urban students obtained a higher mean
( x =14.77) than those from the partially urban ( x =13.61). This means thatthose who come from the urban areas have better comprehension of human rights
concepts than those from the partially urban areas do. This finding contradicts
the earlier data that showed more respondents from the partially urban areas
know the UDHR than those coming from the urban areas. It can be surmised thatknowledge of the legal documents such as the UDHR does not automaticallytranslate to application in human rights situations.
Comparing the private and public schools’ average performances, the obtainedmeans showed that the former ( x = 14.72) scored higher than the latter ( x =13.96). This finding contradicts the earlier data that showed more respondents
from the public schools know the UDHR than those coming from the private
schools. It can be surmised that knowledge of the legal documents such as the
UDHR does not automatically translate to application in human rights
situations. This has implication on the methodology of the human rights
education program being implemented.
Table 18 also reveals that among the regions, Region VII got the highest mean ( x= 15.27), followed closely by NCR ( x = 14.73), then Region IV ( x = 13.91) and
ARMM ( x = 13.15). Statistically speaking, all regions performed well since eventhe lowest mean is satisfactory. These results show Region VII consistently
performing very well and follow the same ranking of results by region on thegeneral human rights knowledge question (Table 3). There seems to be a basis forfurther study of the human rights education program in Region VII, particularly interms of content and methodology.

72 Human Rights Education in Philippine Schools

Table 18. Descriptive Statistics for Knowledge on Human Rights Concepts by
Variables
Variables
GenderMale
FemaleEthnicity
ChristianMuslimGeographic Classification
Urban
Partia lly Urban
Type of School
PublicPriva teRegion
NCR
IV
VII
ARMM
OverallnMean Score

Mean % Score

SD

805
1160

14.25
14.34

67.86
68.29

2.65
2.65

1505
496

14.69
12.96

69.93
61.69

2.68
2.59

1115
886

14.77
13.61

70.32
64.83

2.82
2.55

1215
786

13.96
14.72

66.47
70.07

2.77
2.68

715
548
317
421
2001

14.73
13.91
15.27
13.15
14.26

70.12
66.23
72.72
62.61
67.90

2.87
2.62
2.29
2.61
2.76

No. of Items: 21

Looking closely into the performance of the sample by item across variables,
Table 19 shows that in item 1 (the government gives us our human rights),
percentages of correct responses are very low, ranging only from 20-27%, acrossall variables. This clearly indicates that a big majority of the respondents failed
to recognize human rights as inherent in the person. It cannot be concluded,
however, that the respondents lack awareness or understanding of Article 1 (allhuman beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights) of the UDHR because
this conflicts with the findings for item 2 (all human beings are born equal).
The respondents may have learned more about the power of government, andless about their own inherent rights and their (rights) relation to the government.
They may have not learned about the obligation of the government to promote,protect and realize human rights.
In item 2 (all human beings are born equal), the correct response percentages
are much higher, ranging from 62-78%. There is no significant difference between
the correct response percentages of the males and the females, with 74% of theformer providing correct response to the item and 71% of the latter having done
the same. However, the differences in the correct response percentages between
public and private students, between Christians and Muslims, between urban
and partially urban respondents and among the regions seem to be significant,with private, Christian and urban respondents scoring higher than theirSurvey of Human Rights Awareness Among Secondary Students in Selected Schools

73counterparts and with NCR respondents obtaining the highest correct response
percentage (78%) among the regions, followed by Region VII (76%), then Region
IV (70%) and ARMM (62%). Despite the disparity between groupings, the data
still reveal that at least 62% of the sample showed knowledge andcomprehension of Article 1 of the UHDR, which is about equality in dignity andrights among all the members of the human family.
Results for item 3 (children and youths have rights that must be respected)
show very high correct response percentages (91% up) across all variables. Thismeans that almost all of the respondents were completely aware that they, as
young people, do not only have rights but that their rights must also be
respected. Their knowledge of the CRC, with at least half of the respondents ineach variable having knowledge about it (see Table 16), certainly contributed totheir outstanding performance in this item.
Items 4 (human rights should be the concern of all) and 5 (by virtue of being
human, we have rights) also obtained very high correct response percentages inall variables, with a general average of 91-92% per group. Results from ARMM
have lower percentages compared to other regions, but still very high statisticallyspeaking.

74 Human Rights Education in Philippine Schools

Table 19 is in a separate file “Chapter III – Tables19-20”

Survey of Human Rights Awareness Among Secondary Students in Selected Schools

75

Space for Table 19 continued

76 Human Rights Education in Philippine Schools

Item 6 (men and women are equal) results seem to substantiate genderinequality in the Philippines. The percentages of correct responses by region
ranged from 49% to 86%, geographical classification variable has 65% forpartially urban and 81% for urban responses, and the ethnicity variable has
Christians with 81% and Muslims with 53%. The gender variable has not muchdifference of 74% for males and 75% for females. The percentages of correct
responses in all variables seem to suggest that a significant number of young
people do not see equality between men and women. It could also be that their
responses were meant to state what they see in society rather a statement of
whether they believe in the principle or not.
In item 7, at least 80% of the respondents in each grouping across almost all thevariables were correct by disagreeing to the statement that "only the state or
government can protect our human rights." This implies that the respondents
are aware of the existence of other institutions protecting the human rights of thepeople.
In item 8, more than 81% of the respondents in each grouping across variables
were correct by disagreeing that "rich people have more rights than the poor."
This evidently shows that most of the respondents believed in the equality ofrights regardless of one’s economic status in life.
For item 9 (if you want your rights respected, you must respect the rights ofothers), the correct response percentages across variable are very low, ranging
from 0 - 7%, with Region VII surprisingly posting 0% correct answer consideringthat it is the region with 100% of the respondents having heard of or known
human rights. Respecting rights is a proper behavior. However, the respondents
seem to think that it should be a give-and-take arrangement. Human rights
deserve respect from all and to all regardless of background or relationship. It
would be necessary to emphasize in school the intrinsic value of human rights toevery human being, regardless of relationships involved.
Noticeably, the percentage of correct response declined slightly for items 10 (theuse of force by the police to stop a rally is correct), 11 (death penalty is agood deterrent to crime) and 12 (indigenous peoples/tribes should only be
governed by their customs and traditions and not by the laws of thecountry). In item 10, the highest correct response percentage is only 70% posted
by the urban students. Noteworthy is that, in this item, all the regions scoredbelow 50%, a similar 33% for each region, the lowest across variables. These
results indicate low awareness among respondents of the right to freedom ofpeaceful assembly and association (Article 19), and of the right to freedom of
opinion and expression without interference (Article 20), as provided in the
UDHR.
In item 11, the scores across variables range from 59% to 75%. This means thatmany respondents (25% to 40%) still see death penalty simply as deterrence toSurvey of Human Rights Awareness Among Secondary Students in Selected Schools

77crime, contrary to the United Nations view of putting premium to saving the lifeof people who commit serious crimes. Death penalty is seen internationally as acruel and inhuman punishment. It is not considered to be an effective deterrent tocrimes. It seems that the schools need to further emphasize Article 3 of the
UDHR, which speaks about the right to life, liberty and security of a person, as
well as Article 5 on rights against cruel and inhuman punishment, in addressing
the issue of death penalty.
On item 12 about indigenous peoples, the respondents seem to display
insufficient knowledge, with low correct scores ranging from 48% to 68% acrossvariables. The lowest percentage of correct responses comes from Muslim- andARMM-respondents, who probably put more weight on the right to selfdetermination. Admittedly, this item can be seen as a conflict of rights case ifanalyzed without a well-defined context.
Item 13 (friends and neighbors should do something if they think parents are
beating or injuring their children) obtained a relatively high percentage ofcorrect responses. The correct responses range from 78-93%, with NCR posting
the highest percentage of 93. This data clearly support the results gathered for
item 3 (children and youth have rights that must be respected). However,more respondents from private schools correctly agree to the item than thosefrom public schools as reflected in their scores of 91% and 84%, respectively. The
Christian respondents (90%) scored higher than their Muslim counterparts (79%),
and those in urban areas (91%) have higher score over the partially urban
respondents (82%).
The responses for items 14 (government officials and religious leaders should
be given special treatment because of their stature) and 15 (it is acceptablethat immigrants and refugees be allowed to become citizens of anothercountry) reveal a similar trend of low scores as in items 10, 11, and 12 discussed
above. For item 14, correct scores ranged from 48-73%, and 51-61% for item 15.
The highest score is only 73% (for Region VII in item 14). The respondents’performance in item 14 was possibly influenced by the events they see andexperience in their own localities. They seem to view power as an importantconsideration in human rights. They seem inclined to accept that those who are
powerful have certain privileges at the expense of the human rights of those who
are weak. Item 15 presents a complex issue. It relates to Article 13 of the UDHR
on freedom of movement, Article 14 on the right to seek and enjoy asylum inother countries, as well to Article 15 on the right to a nationality. The question is,should immigrants and refugees be allowed to become citizens of their adopted
country? In order to fully protect the rights involved it would be appropriate toallow them to opt for citizenship. But many of the respondents tend to disagreewith this view.
For items 16 (every man and woman should decide whom to marry) and 17 (itis the responsibility of the state or government to provide employment), 82%

78 Human Rights Education in Philippine Schools

and above of the respondents, across variables, got these items correctly.
Noteworthy is the 82% and 86% correct percentages for the Muslim and ARMM
respondents in item 16 regarding freedom to marry one’s choice although theother groupings have 89% and above correct responses. While the correct
responses are generally high, there is probably still a need to further understandthe reason(s) behind these responses.
On "killing drug lords and terrorists without being charged in court asnecessary to maintain peace and order" (item 18), the correct answers ranged
from 52-71%. Considering however that the statement is a very clear violation ofhuman rights, with very grave consequence (death), it is significant that a big
number of respondents agree to it. Could this be reflective of the current situationof the country where suspected criminals are liable to be killed without due
process? Or is this a case of ignorance of specific human rights principles such as
due process, and presumption of innocence? Or is this indicative of the problem
of seeing human rights as values, rather than rules that require strict adherence?
The same trend is seen in item 19 (failure to respect the rights of the physicallydisabled and those with intellectual disability is tolerated) where, at most,only 75% of the respondents provided correct answers. Could this again be acase of ignorance of the principle of equality and non-discrimination applied to aparticular set of people?
Item 20 (human rights means absolute freedom) is another item with very low
correct responses. The highest correct response percentage is only 50%, notedwith Region VII. Clearly, this is an indication of insufficient knowledge of Article
29 (2) of UDHR on the limitation of the exercise of rights and freedom. It would
seem that students equate human rights with license to do whatever one pleases.
This view seems to contradict what the respondents generally agreed to in item 9(if you want your rights respected, you must respect the rights of others). On
one hand, rights are seen as dependent on reciprocity, while on the other hand
they are freedom not hindered by anything. These are two misconceptions
occupying the opposite sides of the pendulum. This is one area that teachers
need to clarify with the students.
Finally, in item 21 (the media should be allowed to make critical statements
about the government), the respondents across variables got relatively higher
correct response percentages, ranging from 58-70%. Muslim respondents scoredhigher (69%) than their Christian counterparts (63%) while ARMM got thehighest percentage (69%) score by region. The usually high scoring Region VII
obtained the lowest core (58%). This may mean that the Muslim and ARMM
respondents are more aware of the right to freedom of opinion and expression as
articulated in Article 19 of the UDHR. This may also mean that they are
influenced by the prevailing armed conflict situation in their region, with thegovernment having a part in the problem.

Survey of Human Rights Awareness Among Secondary Students in Selected Schools

79