C HA PT E R I
E DU CATION P O L ICIE S A ND HUMAN R IGHT S A WAR E N E S S
SU RV EY : SU M MARY OF ANA LY SI S AN D OV E R - A L L
R E C O M M E N DATION SThis research examined two ends of the spectrum of the Philippine experience onhuman rights education in schools – the policy component and the resultscomponent (human rights knowledge and practice). Another research will have to
examine the in-between components of program implementation andmechanisms, and roles of the stakeholders. The full reports in Chapters 2 and 3
provide the details of the research, while this chapter provides a summary of the
major findings, and the recommendations of the authors on how to further
improve human rights education in Philippine schools.
I. EDUCATION POLICY ANALYSISThe analysis of educational policies reveals several characteristics of the policy
environment in the Philippines relating to human rights education. The
educational policies are first of all numerous, and varied in terms of purpose andcoverage. Their development reflects the changing political and social contexts inthe country over a period of almost 20 years. They provide frameworks andtasks, which are useful in institutionalizing or mainstreaming human rights
education in the formal education system.
The educational policies, along with the current basic education curriculum, areparticularly noted for the following characteristics:
a. Teaching of human rights as a requirement for all educational institutions
The educational policies require the teaching of human rights at all types andlevels of educational institutions in the Philippines. The DepEd policies require
human rights education in all primary and secondary schools in urban and ruralcommunities. Some policies are meant for particular projects and thus limited inscope. These are mainly related to foreign-assisted projects that cover schools
identified as deprived, depressed and underserved schools (DDUs). These
projects are meant to support the teachers, students and their parents throughthe introduction of innovations in school management and programming. Other
projects (based on national action plans) deal with specific issues such as
gender, development and children, and indigenous peoples. The lessons learned
from these projects should be useful for the rest of the schools in the country.
b. Identification of human rights content

The first executive order of 1986 on human rights education requires thediscussion of issues that reflect the then major human rights concerns such as
prevention of illegal arrest, arbitrary detention, and torture. Under the newConstitution in 1987, the subsequent laws, and the national action plans(including both human rights and human rights education action plans), thehuman rights content widened to cover sectoral issues such those of women,children, and indigenous people.
The current school curriculum provides the space for teaching human rights. At
the primary school level, human rights are assumed to be equivalent to thediscussion of "rights and responsibilities" under the MAKABAYAN subject.
Human rights are likewise assumed to be included in values education, which
also comes under MAKABAYAN subject. For the secondary school level, theSocial Studies subject includes the study of the 1987 Philippine Constitution,some laws, and a number of United Nations human rights instruments such as
the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), the Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), and theInternational Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). Other
subjects in secondary schools are also considered to contain human rights
concepts. In Science, human rights can be taught in relation to laws onenvironment, food and technology. The English subject can focus on the rights ofindividuals in human interaction, while the Filipino subject can emphasize
democratic processes. In Mathematics, human rights can be taught through groupdynamics: how students should deal with each other in group projects andactivities.
c. Prescription of various forms of human rights education
The executive orders, DepEd memorandums and national action plans explicitly
provide for the integration of human rights into the school curriculum. They
require that the values and concepts of human rights be integrated into the fivelearning areas, namely, Science, Mathematics, Filipino, English and
MAKABAYAN.
There are also policies for extracurricular activities that support human rights
education such as celebration of Human Rights Day/Week. The emphasis on the
involvement of the local community in education also provides space for extracurricular activities on human rights.
At the tertiary level, human rights values and concepts are subsumed under thePhilippine Government and Constitution course. This is a required course for all
tertiary students. Other institutions offer human rights as an area ofspecialization in teacher education institutions. For instance, the Philippine
Normal University offers human rights course for Social Science and Values
Education Majors. Other human rights values and concepts are learned throughthe training programs offered by human rights centers in other universities.

2

Human Rights Education in Philippine Schools

The possibility of teaching human rights as a separate course in the university
does not seem possible because CHED limits the learning areas or courses inorder to de-clog the curriculum. The curricular restructuring is due also todecreasing budgetary allocation for education by the government.
d.

Provision of mandate to develop components of human rights education

The educational policies support human rights education through thedevelopment and distribution of teaching materials (particularly the humanrights teaching exemplars), training of teachers and supervisors, provision of
textbook development requirements (particularly on gender and diversity issues),
and the setting up of child-friendly school environment (particularly the
UNICEF-supported projects).
e. Promotion of human-rights-based school ethos
Some DepEd memorandums aim to raise the human rights awareness of students
to enable them to internalize human rights values and concepts. Following are thememorandums involved:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

DECS Memorandum No. 467, s. 1998: School-Based Activities toCommemorate the 50 th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights (November 20, 1998)
DECS Memorandum Order No. 487, s. 1998: Second National
Conference on Peace and Human Rights Education (December 3,
1998)
DepEd Order No. 31, s. 2003: An Act Declaring December 4 to 10 as
National Human Rights Consciousness in the Country and for other
Purposes (April 28, 2003)
DepEd Memorandum No. 303, s. 2003: Fifth Youth Summit on
Human Rights (August 21, 2003)
DepEd Memorandum No. 458, s. 2003: National Human Rights
Consciousness Week (December 3, 2003).

The DepEd memorandums issued in 2003 implemented the requirement of the
National Human Rights Consciousness Week Act of 2002 to engage in activities that
promote "human rights culture". A memorandum was issued to inform and guidethe DepEd Bureau Directors, Directors/Heads of Services, Centers and Units,
Regional Directors, School Divisions, City Superintendents and Heads of Publicand Private Primary and Secondary Schools about the law. Anothermemorandum provided the theme and suggested activities to observe the
National Human Rights Consciousness Week in 2003.
f.

Identification of responsible government agencies

Summary of Analysis and Over-all Recommendations

3

The educational policies identify the government agencies responsible for
implementing the different programs and projects related to human rights
education. While the DepEd is generally considered to be the lead agency, it isrequired in several policy documents to work with other government agencies andthe Commission on Human Rights (CHR).
There are memorandums that require schools to collaborate with the CHR, NGOs
(such as Amnesty International Pilipinas and Diokno Foundation), and theacademe. There are projects that provide DepEd with very rich avenues for
networking with other institutions to make them (projects) viable. During 1990s,
the Diokno Foundation and Amnesty International-Pilipinas trained teachers inmany parts of the country on human rights. Faculty members from the academe
like the University of the Philippines and Philippine Normal University assisted
these NGOs in training the teachers.
One important achievement of human rights educators in teacher training
institutions is the inclusion of human rights education in the Licensure
Examination for Teachers. This is an improvement over the general provision in
the 1986 Executive Order 27 on the inclusion of human rights in the civil service
examination. Necessarily, teacher-training institutions should have human rights
education in the pre-service programs. To be able to do this, however, certain
requirements should be undertaken such as the development of instructional
materials and learning standards for human rights.
g. Provision of logistical support for the implementation of the activities
The 1986 executive order explicitly provides for the use of the regular budget of
the DepEd for human rights education. Subsequent policy documents andprojects support the use of funds outside the DepEd such as those of the CHR
and international organizations. Additional logistical support is made available
through the inter-agency/institution approach in implementing programs andprojects.
Weaknesses
Overall, the policies provide the ground for institutionalizing human rights
education within Philippine school system. But there are weaknesses in thepolicies as a whole that should be noted.
It is quite evident that the education policies related to human rights education
are disparate, lacking in explicit link among them. While the 1997 National
Human Rights Education Decade Plan put together the plans for several sectors,
there is no indication that subsequent policies followed the inter-linked
approach. The initiatives for poor communities (such as the Multigrade Programin Philippine Education and the Third Elementary Education Project) and special

4

Human Rights Education in Philippine Schools

projects such as the child-friendly school system of UNICEF are not mentioned
as supporting elements in the main human rights education policies.
Most of the human rights education policies focus on teacher training andteaching material development. They do not extend to other areas of the school
system. This probably explains the lack of policy for textbook
review/development (except on the gender and diversity issues) and curriculum
development based on general human rights framework.
As a result, human rights education appears as a supplementary school activity
instead of being integrated into the whole school curriculum.
The 2006 guideline for content evaluation of proposed textbooks and teacher’smanuals looks for balanced “treatment of gender in terms of roles, occupations,and contributions in the text and illustrations” as well as consideration of“diversity of cultural, religious, economic and family backgrounds of Filipino
target learners.” Its Annex 7 refers to respect for the rights of “children, elderly,
differently-abled, and other vulnerable sectors of society.” While these issues
relate to human rights, there could have been more human rights principles
included in the guideline.
The Basic Education Curriculum – Elementary Learning Competencies –MAKABAYAN has a weak reference to human rights. The human rights content
of MAKABAYAN learning area and other learning areas tends to mean legal“rights and responsibilities as citizens” (karapatan at pananagutan bilang
mamamayan), and not necessarily reflecting international human rights
standards.
The human rights education policies also lack reference to the child-friendly
school system and the piloting of active learning in multigrade schools. Thismisses out major resources in developing appropriate learning environment for,and pedagogical approach in, human rights education.
While it is noteworthy that several memorandums have been issued towardbuilding human rights culture in schools through extra-curricular activities, they
do not present a systematic and consistent approach. They are meant to coverparticular years and activities rather than policy guidance on the implementationof the National Human Rights Consciousness Week Act of 2002 through the years.
The absence of such supporting policy makes the implementation of the law
dependent on the commitment and training of the school heads.
The educational policies examined do not have particular focus on private
schools. While the DepEd has less control over private schools, it has the
mandate to promote human rights education to all types of schools under theearlier executive orders. There could have been subsequent policies for thestrengthening of human rights education in the private schools in terms of

Summary of Analysis and Over-all Recommendations

5

support for the continued participation of their teachers in teacher training,teaching material development, and other activities.
The provision for financial support for human rights education does not seem tobe consistent among the educational policies examined. To ensure thesustainability of human rights education in schools, supporting budgetaryprovisions have to be clearly and consistently stated in the policies.
Moreover, the system of accountability and evaluation of programs is notincluded in the various policy documents of the DepEd. Hence, the mechanism
for determining the effective implementation of the human rights education
program or projects is uncertain.
Challenge
While human rights education is clearly getting support from Philippine
education laws and policies, there are significant weaknesses that should be
addressed. New policies are needed to consolidate the substantive experiences
gained and link human rights education to other education programs andprojects of the government.
Human rights education has to be defined in relation to the over-all objective of
quality education. It has to address its role in achieving teacher effectiveness,increased level of learning, improved teaching and learning tools and processes,
developed school-based management, and increased involvement in the school ofparents and the community.
In other words, the major challenge for human rights education in Philippine
schools is in finding ways and means of making it an important component of
every aspect of the school system. This is needed in making human rights
education an important part of the mainstream formal education system in thePhilippines.
II. FIELD SURVEY
Do secondary Filipino students know human rights? In the context of education
policies that support human rights education, are students learning humanrights? Do the policies lead to human rights understanding and practice?
The following highlights of the responses of 2,001 secondary Filipino students
who participated in the field survey provide some answers to these questions.
Knowledge of human rights and the documents

6

Human Rights Education in Philippine Schools

A high percentage of respondents (96.4% or 1,928) heard of or know humanrights, while a mere 1.5% of respondents do not know human rights. But only
29.9% (599) of the respondents know the Universal Declaration of Human Rights(UDHR), a basic United Nations human rights document. The majority of them
(67.8% or 1,356) said that they are not familiar with the document.
It appears that the apparent high percentage of 96.4% of the respondents
claiming knowledge of human rights does not mean that such knowledge isassociated with UDHR. If only close to 30% have heard of or known UDHR, it
brings to question what the respondents know of “human rights” in general andwhether such knowledge is right or wrong.
On the other hand, 56.7% (1,134) of the respondents heard of or know theConvention on the Rights of Children (CRC). But this still leaves a high 40.6%(813) of them lacking knowledge of CRC. Nevertheless, this may indicate that
schools accord more importance to child rights. The teachers said during the
focus group discussions that they were more at ease with CRC than with UDHR.
General sources of knowledge on human rights
When asked where did they get their knowledge of human rights, 1,928
respondents identified the three major sources: schools (83.8% or 1,615),
parents/family (78.3% or 1,510), and media (60.4% or 165). Media refer tonewspapers, magazines, television, radio or combination of these. It appears thatthe schools are most influential in terms of acquisition of human rights
knowledge.
But on the question of most helpful sources of knowledge on human rights, theparents/family (29.8% or 575) got slightly higher responses than schools (28.9%
or 558). While 28.5% (549) of the respondents identified the media as the third
most helpful source of knowledge on human rights.
Of those who said they know the UDHR, the media is a major source ofknowledge at 44.6% (267). A much lesser number of 15.2% (91) of these
respondents knew it from school and 7.0% (42) from family/parents/ peergroup. A high 28.7% (172), however, did not indicate any answer.
Of those who said they know CRC, 80.2% (909) learned it from school, while
17.6% (200) did not learn it in school. Twenty-five respondents or 2.2% did not
reply.
It seems that human rights knowledge based on CRC is learned more in school,
while human rights knowledge based on UDHR is learned elsewhere (such as themedia).
Observance and enjoyment of UDHR

Summary of Analysis and Over-all Recommendations

7

Given that only a small percentage of respondents have heard of or known the
UDHR, it is still valid to probe into their understanding of the human rights
principles contained in this basic human rights document. It is important to findout how basic human rights principles such as universality, equality and nondiscrimination are understood.
Out of the 29.9% (599) of the respondents who have heard of or known the
UDHR, 63.3% (379) said that the human rights contained therein are to beobserved by “all countries”. The rest (34.1% or 204) believed that human rights
are to be observed only in “some countries.” This data reflects the possible
inaccuracy of the knowledge of some respondents regarding human rights,
especially since they heard of or knew UDHR through non-interactive mediums
like television, radio, newspaper, or media in general.
Of the same 599 respondents, 57.3% (343) believed that human rights are to beenjoyed by “all human beings everywhere in the world”. 21.0% (126) indicatedthat these rights are enjoyed by “all people in some countries”, and 17.4% (104)were of the opinion that they are enjoyed by “some people in some countries”.
The data project a foreboding sense that some of the respondents consider somecountries, and some people in some countries, unworthy or unable to enjoy
human rights. It can be surmised that perhaps principles of universality,interdependence, and inviolability of human rights are not generally taught.
Perhaps this is also a reflection of students’ mis-education of human rights.
Process of learning, materials and school ethos
The survey also probed the learning process as well as the school environmentthat may determine the extent of understanding and practice of human rights.
Much of the questions tried to find out how the students perceive human rights
education taking place in schools.
1. School curriculum
94.1% (1,883) respondents said that human rights are taught in schools, 4.7%
(94) disagreed and 1.2% (24) did not give an answer. The data would mean that
almost all schools included in the survey teach human rights to their students.
Of the 1,883 respondents who said yes, 70.1% (1,320) indicated that humanrights are taught as part of the subjects they study in school, while 16.4% (308)said human rights are taught as part of the extra-curricular activities. 13.2%(248) said that human rights are taught as a separate subject.
The students revealed in the focus group discussions that their concept of
separate subject is similar to a separate topic taught within the subject. On the8

Human Rights Education in Philippine Schools

other hand, those who said that they were taught human rights as part of theirsubjects meant that human rights are integrated in the different lessons withindifferent subjects.
From these results, it can be said that the teaching of human rights in the Philippines
is dominated by integration approach where human rights concepts are integrated in
identified entry points in the school curriculum. The integration of human rights
concepts and values are determined by the specific lessons being taught.
Of the 1,568 respondents who said they were taught human rights either as partof their subjects or as a separate subject, 49.2% (771) believed they were taught
frequently; 30.3% (475) said occasionally, and 19.8 % (310) said very frequently.
The focus group discussions revealed that a significant number (40%) of the
respondents who answered “very frequently” were from the Autonomous Regionof Muslim Mindanao (ARMM). The conflict situation in this region may haveprovided the impetus for a more frequent exposure of students to human rights
lessons. It is surprising to note that 35.04% of the respondents from the National
Capital Region (NCR) where Manila and other metropolitan cities are locatedanswered that they were taught human rights occasionally despite the existenceof more human rights resources in their area, being the central region of thecountry.
Of the 1,320 respondents who claimed that they were taught human rights aspart of their subjects, 80.6% (1,064) said that the teaching of human rights is
integrated in social studies/social sciences, 38.0% (501) claimed it is in history,
while 26.4% (348) indicated it is taught in language subject (English). Other
subjects mentioned were music, arts, physical education (19.3%), science (14.5%)
and mathematics (6.8%). The 27.2% (359) who mentioned other subjects listed
moral/civic education and character education.
Respondents who claimed that they were taught human rights as part of theirsubjects cited the following materials used: textbooks (61.4% or 811); newspaper
and magazine clippings (49.5% or 654); essays, novels and stories (50.1% or661); copies of laws (25.7%or 339); and audio and visual aids (22.7% or 300).
Only 7.7% (101) used United Nations documents. This corroborates earlier
finding that only a few respondents knew the United Nations’ Universal
Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).
These responses also show that respondents in private schools cited textbooks
the most, while those in public schools mostly cited newspaper clippings andarticles and stories in magazines. This reflects the perennial problem of lack of
textbooks in the public school system. The focus group discussions revealed thatteachers in public schools had to be creative in their teaching aids amidst theutter lack of teaching materials in government-owned schools.

Summary of Analysis and Over-all Recommendations

9

The respondents cited debate (55.6% or 1,047), group work (48.5% or 914) anddiscussion with resource persons (48.3% or 910) as the three most common
human rights education activities inside the classroom, part of curricular
activities. Other activities included research/library work, projects, games, andproject development.
Most respondents cited engagement in community field work (34.7% or 695),
celebration of human rights week (29.3% or 586), and making newsletters,
pamphlets (26.8% or 537) as outside the classroom, extra-curricular, activities. A
number cited joining human rights club (22.0% or 440) and rallies for humanrights (17.9% or 359).
The focus group discussions revealed that debates were not often used asteaching strategy in ARRM schools to avoid conflict between Christian andMuslim students, and even among Muslim students. Christian students mostly
engage in debates, while Muslim students were exposed the most to discussion
with resource persons. These are true for both public and private schools.
The respondents saw rally for human rights as an unpopular activity andperceived it as a negative concept. Joining human rights organization is also an
activity least cited by respondents. In the focus group discussions, joining rallies
and becoming members of human organizations were perceived as a form ofstudent activism, because human rights advocacy is associated with activism
and activism is equated with opposing the government.
When asked how often do they participate in human rights activities 45.3% (906)of the respondents answered “once in a while”, 30.5% (611) said “often”, and12.5% (251) claimed “always.” However, 11.6% (233) respondents did not givean answer.
Focus group discussions with the students revealed that majority of the Christian
students participated “once in a while” in human rights activities, while Muslim
students participated “often.” This can be explained by the perception that
Muslim students would most likely experience human rights violations because of
the conflict situation in their area. It can also be inferred that knowledge ofhuman rights does not automatically translate into participation in human rights
activities specifically for the Christian students.
A great number of the respondents (42.2% or 845) would like the schools to
integrate human rights in all subjects to help young people understand their rights
and responsibilities. Some respondents wanted human rights to be a separate
subject (34.2% or 684), while others wanted the schools to become a humanrights education laboratory (22.5% or 450). 1.1% (22) of the respondents did notgive any suggestion. These results indicate that students want to learn andunderstand human rights in schools through any of the three ways, or even all of
them: integrating human rights in all subjects, making it a separate subject, andtransforming the school into a human rights education laboratory.

10

Human Rights Education in Philippine Schools

2.

School atmosphere and human rights

When asked whether schools accept the idea that students may hold views thatare different from those of school authorities, 72.9% (1, 459) believed that
schools do so “sometimes”, only 13.7% (275) believed schools “often do so”,
while 11.4% (228) were of the opinion that schools “never” accept students who
may hold different views from school authorities.
On the other hand, 62.1% (1,242) of the respondents believed that students
could also “sometimes express their views about human rights openly in school”,
8.4% (169) believed that they were “never allowed” to do so, while 2.5% (570)
believed they are “often allowed”. 1.0% (20) of the respondents did not give ananswer.
This would seem to mean that the teaching of human rights in schools wasallowed as long as it did not make students more vigilant and action-oriented
about human rights. Teaching human rights, in this context, becomes conceptual
rather than experiential. Teachers were satisfied that students knew humanrights but were afraid that students would practice what they know. Humanrights are therefore taught as a theory rather than as a practice.
56.4% (1,129) of the respondents thought that their school “sometimes” respects
the human rights of students, 36.8% (737) believed that the school “often”
respects human rights, while 5.6% (113) said their school “never” respects therights of students.
These results relate to the finding that schools “sometimes” accept different
views of students, and they (students) could “sometimes” openly express theirviews on human rights.
On the other hand, 62.2% (1,244) of the respondents said that students“sometimes” respect human rights, 31.4% (628) said they “often” do, and 5.4%
(109) believed they “never” do.
Majority of the respondents (58.1% or 1,162) thought that everyone in school“sometimes” work together to ensure that students understand their humanrights and the responsibilities that go with them. 33.7% (674) of the respondents
were of the opinion that they “often” work together, while 7.0% (141) said they“never” do it.
In terms of school rules that promote human rights, 50.6% (1,013) of the
respondents believed that their school rules “sometimes” promote human rights;
39.7% (795) believed school rules “often” promote such rights and 8.2% (165)
believed that their school rules “never” promote human rights.

Summary of Analysis and Over-all Recommendations

11

Acts of indiscipline by students were mostly dealt with by teachers throughdiscussion with students (50.5% or 1,010), discussion with parents (33.3% or667) and punishing the students (14.7% or 295).
When problems of students or among students occur, respondents pointed as theusual ways of resolving them the following: teachers talking to students (68.6%
or 1,373); school investigation and punishment for students who committed theact (15.9% or 319); and resolving the problems among themselves (14.3% or 286).
3. Effects of human rights education
Majority of the respondents (55.4% or 1,108) perceived that teaching students
about human rights would “sometimes” make them become activists; aconsiderable number (30.7% or 614) believed that it “often” makes them become
activists. 12.4% (249) believed they would “never” become activists.
It can be inferred that human rights are often equated with activism. The focus
group discussions showed that teachers were ambivalent about teaching humanrights to students. On one hand, they wanted them to know human rights so thatthey would be protected from abuse. On the other hand, they feared that theirstudents might become militant and vigilant. Moreover, teachers believed that
their young minds might not be able to fully grasp the complexity of humanrights.
41.9% (838) also believed that the teaching of human rights would “sometimes”
result to decrease in human rights violations. A considerable number of
respondents (39.8%or 797) believed, however, that human rights education
would “often” result in decrease in human rights violations. 16.9% (338)
respondents believed it would never decrease such violations.
The focus group discussions revealed that those from Muslim Mindanao believedthat teaching human rights would never result to decrease in human rights
violations. This cynical view may be a result of continuing armed conflict in the
area.
Most of the respondents believed that they would exercise their rights andresponsibilities when taught about human rights (59.4% or 1,189). A considerable
number (29.1% or 582) replied that they would invoke their rights to defend
themselves, while 10.5% (210) believed teaching human rights would lead toabuse of the rights of others.
It can be deduced from the foregoing, that teaching human rights to teachers andstudents would increase the chance of lessening human rights violations because
students would become more confident about their rights and responsibilities.
4. Students’ knowledge and comprehension of human rights concepts

12

Human Rights Education in Philippine Schools

Do students understand the proper meaning of human rights? Would they beable to apply human rights on particular situations?
A question on the application of human rights has 21 statements that respondents
had to agree or disagree with. All 2,001 respondents answered this question.
Analysis of the number of correct responses revealed that 95.1% (1,903) of the
respondents were correct in agreeing to the statement “Children and youths haverights that must be respected.” This means that almost all the respondents were
aware about their rights, as youngsters, and expected others to respect them.
Their knowledge about the Convention of the Rights of the Child may havecontributed to their very high percentage of correct responses to this statement.
They also had a very high percentage of correct responses (93.1% or 1,863) to thestatement “Human Rights should be the concern of all” as well as the statement“Every man and woman should decide whom to marry” (91.9% or 1,839). The
high performance here could mean that students are aware of the universality ofhuman rights and the right to choose one’s spouse. This may not be surprisingsince these students are in their early teens, ages 12-15, and the concept of
courtship and marriage are beginning to be formed and understood.
Respondents were very much aware that “By virtue of being human, we haverights” (91.4% or 1,829). This again shows high awareness of the universality ofhuman rights. This is ranked fourth among the highest responses.
They were also very much aware of the equality principle when they disagreed
with the statement “Rich people have more rights than the poor” (89.4% or
1,789). The respondents possibly believed that everybody has rights regardlessof economic status.
These five statements have the highest ranking correct answers. The otherstatements with correct answers, ranked 6 th -10 th, are the following:
6 th – Friends and neighbors should do something if they think parents are
beating or injuring their children (86.71% or 1,742)
7 th – It is the responsibility of the state government to provide
employment (87.4% or 1,749)
8 th – Only the state or government can protect our human rights (82.7% or
1,654)
9 th – Men and women are equal (73.8% or 1,477)
10 th – All human beings are born equal (72.4% or 1,448)
There are statements that received very low number of correct responses
indicating misconception of human rights. For the statement “If you want yourrights respected, you must respect the rights of others” only 3.1% (63) got thisSummary of Analysis and Over-all Recommendations

13

item correct. This is one big misconception that must be corrected. Respect forhuman rights should be based on their being inherent in people rather than on
reciprocal relationship.
For the statement “The government gives us our human rights” 22.7% (454) got
this item correct. It would seem that most respondents believed that the
government, being powerful, has also the power to determine human rights andfailed to recognize the inherent nature of human rights (which they agreed to inanother statement). Governments have no power to deprive people of their
human rights.
Among the lowest correct responses is the statement “Human rights means
absolute freedom” with 36.8% (736). It would seem that many respondents
equate human rights with license to do whatever one pleases. This is an issue
that teachers need to clarify in teaching human rights.
5. Students’ Awareness on Proper Action to Take in Human Rights Situations
How do students react to real-life situations, in human rights terms?
The respondents were given ten situations to react on relating to drug addiction,
child labor, the World Trade Organization, child rights, rights of indigenous
people, peaceful assembly, right of abode, terrorism, criminal acts and right tofair trial. They chose what action to take from three suggestions. One of thesuggested actions is considered to be correct. This is the basis for determining
whether or not the respondents’ answers are correct.
The correct answers took the form of the right action to take, or the appropriate
behavior, in situations involving human rights. This is also in the form of correct
notion of what the government, person in authority, or other organizations
should do about situations involving human rights.
Among the situations presented, the respondents gave the highest percentage ofcorrect responses in the following:- What the police should do if he catches someone running away withgoods taken from a store (89.1% or 1,783 answered "bring the person to
the police station for questioning")- What the government should do to illegal logging on the ancestral landsof the indigenous people (87.8% or 1,757 answered "respect the right ofthe [indigenous] community to their ancestral land by stopping thelogging activities")- What the local government should do to suspected drug pushers in thecommunity (85.8% or 1,716 answered "arrest them and put them totrial").

14

Human Rights Education in Philippine Schools

On the other hand, the respondents provided the lowest percentage of correct
answers in the following situations:-

What the government should do to combat terrorism (9.6% or 192
answered that "rights can be limited by threats to peace")
What the government should do in a rally that is peacefully held (10.8%
or 217 agreed to "allow the group to continue with the rally")
What the government should do about the homeless people’stents/shanties that were along the routes that an important visitor willpass by (18.7% or 375 answered "they should be left as they are").

Of the 10 items only 4 items received correct scores of 73% to 87%. While lowscores where received by the remaining 6 items, with correct answers ranging
from 9% to 41%.
6. Students’ correct understanding of human rights violations
Would the students be able to know whether or not certain situations constitutehuman rights violations?
The respondents reviewed nine statements to measure their understanding of
human rights violations. They were asked to identify if each of the situations
constitutes a violation of human rights or not by choosing between yes and no
options: yes for "violation" and no for "not a violation".
Generally, the respondents scored well, with correct scores ranging from 46.4% to72.6%. One of these items got only 46.4% of correct answers, while eight otheritems got above 50% correct answers.
Ranked in the order of highest correct answers (i.e., "violation") the following 3
items got the highest scores:- “teachers beat the children because they are quarrelsome” (72.6% or
1,452)- “a person is kept in jail for a long period without trial” (71.0% or 1,420)- “a person is jailed for criticizing the government” (64.2% or 1,285)
This means they were very much aware that these are situations of human rights
violations.
The rest of the items have the following scores:- “a large number of children cannot go to school because they have toearn their livelihood” (63.4% or 1,268)- “women not given jobs because they are for men” (63.2% or 1,264)- “allowing only one political party to participate in elections” (62.7% or
1,254)

Summary of Analysis and Over-all Recommendations

15

- “wages are kept low to encourage foreign investments” (60.5% or 1,211)- “a house owner refuses to rent the house to a family from anotherprovince/region/country” (56.6% or 1,133)- “people in a country die because they have no money to buy food”(46.4% or 928)
General comments on the variables of the study
The analysis of the survey results using the variables of gender, type of school,
ethnicity, geographic classification and region reveal a number of general features:
A. On the process of teaching-learning, materials and school ethos:
1. Respondents in all the regions surveyed regardless of gender, ethnicity, andgeographic classification were taught human rights in school as part of, or
integrated in, the different subject areas.
2. Gender was not an issue in the selection of activities in teaching human rights.
3. The lack of textbooks as materials in the teaching of human rights was mostfelt in the public school system.
4. Respondents from the ARMM were frequently taught and have participatedthe most in human rights activities.
5. Respondents regardless of region, geographic classification, gender, ethnicity
and type of school, would like schools to teach human rights either as aseparate or integrated in the subjects, and would also like the schools to
become human rights laboratory to help young people understand their rights
and responsibilities.
B. On knowledge, comprehension and application of human rights concepts
1. In terms of gender, the male respondents performed comparably with thefemale respondents in knowledge, comprehension and application ofhuman rights concepts.
2. Type of school, ethnicity, geographic classification were significant
factors in respondents’ knowledge, comprehension and application ofhuman rights concepts with private schools, Christian and urban students
performing better than their counterparts.
3. Among the regions, Region VII had the highest percentage of performancein terms of human rights knowledge, comprehension and application.
III. RECOMMENDATIONS

16

Human Rights Education in Philippine Schools

While institutional policies on human rights education are well placed, they haveno defined implementing mechanisms. Hence these policies are not articulated or
operationalized in the teaching-learning processes.
The following recommendations are directed to each of the key users of thisstudy - human rights educators, the Department of Education (DepEd), theCommission on Human Rights (CHR), and the Commission on Higher Education(CHED). The three government agencies are responsible for the implementationof the human rights education commitment of the Philippine Government.
A. For Human Rights Educators
On Reaching the Target Audience1.

Use the triumvirate approach in educating students about human rights.
As revealed by the study, the school, family, and media are the three mostinfluential institutions in the students’ understanding of human rights. For
human rights education programs in schools to be more effective, strategicand holistic, it is necessary that the parents, media practitioners, theteachers, and school administrators are likewise educated about humanrights along with the students. This approach avoids conflicting
understanding about human rights between students and the people aroundthem.

On Defining the Indispensable Content of Human Rights Education

2.

Include in the content of human rights education for students the following
topics:2.1. Human rights principles of universality, interdependence, indivisibility,
and inviolability of human rights
2.2. Human rights as both a set of rules and values
2.3. Human rights issues relating to, among others, death penalty, childlabor, gender inequality, terrorism, globalization and the World Trade
Organization.
2.4. Human-rights-related concepts such as multiculturalism, democracy,
gender equality, peace, and responsibility.
2.5. Human rights concepts such as non-discrimination, freedom, right todue process, state obligations, right to asylum, conflict of rights, humanrights violations, justifications for limiting rights.

3.

Give equal emphasis on the teaching of civil-political rights and economic,
social, and cultural rights. The latter rights are found to be less discussed atpresent.

Summary of Analysis and Over-all Recommendations

17

On Human Rights Education Approach and Appropriate Methodology

4.

Introduce students to varied approaches to human rights (e.g. legal,
political, sociological, psychological, etc.). These approaches would give
students different ways of defining, analyzing, interpreting, and applying
human rights.

5.

Use a more experiential approach to supplement the conceptual teaching of
human rights. This means that students’ experiences in the home,community, school, country, and probably the world are used to identify
human rights issues.

6.

Use problem-based or case-based teaching to make students more familiar
with how human rights principles can be applied in certain situations.

7.

Introduce the international human rights documents using strategies
appropriate to the abilities and skills of students. This will help thestudents understand that human rights are a set of written rules orstandards that they can refer to anytime.

8.

Provide opportunities for students to engage in activities that will
demonstrate the exercise of human rights. This will help bridge the gap
between concept and action.

On Practicing Human Rights in School

9.

Organize human rights clubs in the schools.

10. Include a weeklong celebration of human rights and other rights-relateddays such as Women’s Day and Children’s Day as part of the calendar of
school activities.

11. Review school policies based on human rights standards.

18

Human Rights Education in Philippine Schools

On Enhancing Skills as Human Rights Educator

12. Search for relevant information on human rights education experiences

including those from websites of human rights organizations andinstitutions such as the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for
Human Rights, Amnesty International, etc.

13. Network with schools, government agencies, and non-governmentalorganizations to make use of their instructional, material, human, and otherresources to promote human rights education.

14. Establish professional organizations of human rights educators.
15. Attend human rights seminars, conferences, and workshops.
B. For the Department of Education
On enhancing the teaching of human rights

16. Review the basic education curriculum and identify the strengths andweaknesses of the curriculum in integrating human rights across subject
areas. The review should also lead to the formulation of human rights
learning standards that students at every grade level must learn. This will
help in assessing the human rights performance expected of students per
grade level.

17. Conduct a research of the schools in Region VII to make an inventory of bestpractices in the teaching of human rights.

18. Monitor the implementation and evaluate the quality of human rights
education program in schools.

19. Prioritize schools that will be supplied with human rights materials. Local
NGOs can also be requested to donate human rights materials to priority
schools. Schools with access to the Internet should be given a list of
websites that provide materials for human rights education.

20. Teacher training should include discussion on how human rights concepts

relate to authority, power, and social change to address the ambivalence ofteachers in teaching human rights. The deeply held value systems of school
administrators, teachers, students, and parents should be reviewed basedon human rights principles.

21. Formulate policies that enhance the teaching and practice of human rights inschools. These include, among others,a. Allowing students to form human rights clubs
b. Mandatory celebration of human rights day, women’s day,children’s day, etc.

Summary of Analysis and Over-all Recommendations

19

c. Teaching of human rights concepts or values every December 10 th
in all subject areas.

22.

Formulate policies that will develop education related programs which arerights-based.

23. Create a national/regional human rights educator award as an incentive toteachers to become human rights educators.

C. For the Commission on Human Rights
On Lobbying for Policies and Laws Implementing Human Rights Education

24. Lobby Congress to enact a law barring educators, who have pending humanrights violation case(s) in their schools, from getting promotion and otherwork-related benefits.

25. Lobby Congress to require State Universities and Colleges to allot 5% of

their Maintenance and Other Operating Expenses for the conduct of humanrights education extension services.

On Implementing HRE Programs

26. Develop and implement human rights education programs targeting media

practitioners, parents, and other key actors such as community leaders,etc., to supplement human rights education in schools. The CHR shouldtake the role of pioneering human rights education programs in areas thatare relatively unexplored e.g. pedagogy, community-school partnershiprights-based school system while monitoring the human rights education
programs of other government agencies such the DepEd and CHED.

27. Develop human rights accreditation system for schools.
28. Help make human rights materials available to schools.
29. Explore alternative ways to deliver human rights education such as thehosting of radio programs for the purpose, use of Information andCommunication Technology (ICT) materials, distance learning modules, etc.

D. For the Commission on Higher Education
On Enhancing the Curriculum

30. Review teacher education curricular programs to find entry points forhuman rights education. Tap Teacher Education Institutions (TEIs) andState Universities and Colleges (SUCs) to conduct pre-service and inservice human rights education for teachers. Their support will supplement

20

Human Rights Education in Philippine Schools

the efforts of the Department of Education and make the human rights
education program for teachers more sustainable.
On Sustaining Effective Teacher Training on Human Rights

31.

Identify a teacher training institution that can be made as a center for
excellence (COE) in human rights education. The COE will be expected to
conduct annual in-service human rights training.

32. Provide for human rights education research grants.
33. Formulate policies for accrediting associations like Philippine Associationof Accreditors of State Colleges and Universities (PAASCU), and theAccrediting Agency for Chartered Colleges and Universities in thePhilippines (AACCUP) about the incorporation of human rights into theirsystems of accrediting Teacher Education Institutions (TEIs) to ensure theintegration of human rights in the school policies, curriculum, programs,mechanisms, and practices.

Summary of Analysis and Over-all Recommendations

21