Skip to main content

Bullying

By: Atty. Karissa Tolentino


A School is every student’s second home. It is a place where they get to meet new friends and acquaintances. It is a place where they meet their teachers, who are their second parents while they are away from home.

Ultimately, a School is where students are taught to read, write and count. It is a place where they are taught of many things: from Science and Mathematics, to English and Filipino. It is also a place where they are taught of Filipino values like patriotism and nationalism, to name a few. A School is a place where students get to learn some of the lessons they need to bring with them when they grow old.

A School must then be a friendly zone where our children are safe while they are away from their parents. But are schools still safe for our children now? A

Almost every day, a lot of elementary and secondary students are being bullied by their fellow students at the school premises, and most of them are silent about this. They are afraid to speak up, that is why they are continuously being bullied by these [bad***] bullies. As a result, they no longer attend their classes almost every day for fear of retaliation or getting bullied and abused again and again. No less than our Constitution warrants the right of every child to “special protection from all forms of neglect, abuse, cruelty, exploitation and other conditions prejudicial to their development.” Our society can no longer stay blind to what is happening to our children at school.

In 2013, R.A. 10627, otherwise known as Anti-Bullying Act of 2013, was signed into law by President Benigno Aquino III. The said law was passed into law to address and eventually end bullying in school premises – which has always been a problem to parents, guardians, and teachers, especially to children who are victims of such. Under this Law, bullying has been clearly and broadly defined as “any severe or repeated use by one or more students of a written, verbal or electronic expression, or a physical act or gesture, or any combination thereof, directed at another student that has the effect of actually causing or placing the latter in reasonable fear of physical or emotional harm or damage to his property”.

Moreover, the definition has also included the condition where the act being done by the bully creates a hostile environment at school for the other student. And if it infringes on the rights of the other student at school – “which materially and substantially disrupts the education process or the orderly operation of a school,” and the development of the students, then it is bullying in its broader sense.

Aside from clearly and broadly defining bullying, the Law has also provided for the schools’ obligation in fighting bullying in schools and protecting their students from the threat of such. The school administration is obligated to pass or simply adopt a policy against bullying, and disciplinary measures to be taken against the bully, such as community service, suspension, exclusion or expulsion, which depends also upon the gravity of the offense committed. But of course, the bully is given the opportunity to answer the complaint against him in writing, which is an important aspect of due process of law.

The law has also provided that the school must educate parents and guardians about bullying and its possible consequences or its effect on their children.

xOn the other hand, while the law provides for measures and certain procedures to eradicate bullying in school premises, the law has also provided a provision, that is, when the school, or any of its personnel, fails to comply with the act, they are subject to administrative disciplinary proceedings as provided under the rules of the Civil Service Commission or the Department of Education.

Clearly, the law was designed strictly to advance protection to all students and to provide measures and procedures to combat bullying in schools, by mandating the school administration to faithfully implement it. Hence, the law subtly conveys that this should have been the obligation and responsibility of the school and the school administration in the first place. If schools have already adopted policies against bullying long-long time ago, there would have been no need of passing this Act into law.

Without need of saying, therefore, passing a law to combat bullying in schools and protect our children from this threat to their safe and sound education is not enough to win the battle. There is, rather, a need for political will on the part of the school administration and the government to seriously fight back this problem.

In almost every aspect of our society, political will is what is needed to achieve real changes. Our society has shrugged off these basic problems to address bigger problems. But as Former US President Abraham Lincoln once said: The philosophy of the school room in one generation will be the philosophy of the government in the next. Otherwise said, an apple tree will not bear an orange, but an apple. Whatever is the culture that children have experienced in the school will probably be the culture that they will be bringing with them in the next stages of their lives.

Even how small a problem is, the initiative of addressing it would mean a political will of addressing even much bigger problems out there. By the passing of this law against bullying, the hope of building a safer and friendly school for our children is likened to be a hope of building a safer and friendly society for our people – if only schools and the government have the will to make it happen.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Senate vs. Ermita , GR 169777, April 20, 2006

Senate vs. Ermita , GR 169777, April 20, 2006 FACTS: This is a petition for certiorari and prohibition proffer that the President has abused power by issuing E.O. 464 “Ensuring Observance of the Principles of Separation of Powers, Adherence to the Rule on Executive Privilege and Respect for the Rights of Public Officials Appearing in Legislative Inquiries in Aid of Legislation Under the Constitution, and for Other Purposes”. Petitioners pray for its declaration as null and void for being unconstitutional. In the exercise of its legislative power, the Senate of the Philippines, through its various Senate Committees, conducts inquiries or investigations in aid of legislation which call for, inter alia, the attendance of officials and employees of the executive department, bureaus, and offices including those employed in Government Owned and Controlled Corporations, the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), and the Philippine National Police (PNP). The Committee of the Senate issued inv

Pimentel vs. COMELEC GR 161658, Nov. 3, 2003

Facts: Congress passed RA 9165, Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, and makes it mandatory for candidates for public office, students of secondary and tertiary schools, officers and employees of public and private offices, and persons charged before the prosecutor’s office with certain offenses, among other personalities, to undergo a drug test. Hence, Senator Pimentel, who is a senatorial candidate for the 2004 synchronized elections, challenged Section 36(g) of the said law. Issue: is the mandatory drug testing of candidates for public office an unconstitutional imposition of additional qualification on candidates for Senator? Held: Yes. Section 36 (g) of RA 9165, requiring all candidates for public office whether appointed or elected both in the national or local government undergo a mandatory drug test is UNCONSITUTIONAL. Under Sec.3, Art. VI of the Constitution, an aspiring candidate for Senator needs only to meet 5 qualifications: (1) citizenship, (2) voter registration, (

oblicon digests

MAGDALENA ESTATE VS. MYRICK 71 PHIL. 346 FACTS: Magdalena Estate, Inc. sold to Louis Myrick lots No. 28 and 29 of Block 1, Parcel 9 of the San Juan Subdivision, San Juan, Rizal. Their contract of sale provides that the Price of P7,953 shall be payable in 120 equal monthly installments of P96.39 each on the second day of every month beginning the date of execution of the agreement. In pursuance of said agreement, the vendee made several payments amounting to P2,596.08, the last being due and unpaid was that of May 2, 1930. By reason of this, the vendor, through its president, notified the vendee that, in view of his inability to comply with the terms of their contract, said agreement had been cancelled, relieving him of any further obligation thereunder, and that all amounts paid by him had been forfeited in favor of the vendor. To this communication, the vendee did not reply, and it appears likewise that the vendor thereafter did not require him to make any further disbursements on acc