Philippines Faces Alarming Gap in School Anti-Bullying Committees

A staggering revelation from the Department of Education (DepEd) has exposed a critical shortfall in the implementation of anti-bullying measures across Philippine schools. According to data presented at a recent public hearing, only 966 out of over 45,000 schools nationwide have a functioning Anti-Bullying Committee, also known as a Child Protection Committee (CPC). This figure, representing a mere 2% of schools, has sparked outrage among lawmakers and raised urgent questions about the enforcement of the country’s Anti-Bullying Law.

A Troubling Statistic

The alarming data came to light during a Senate panel discussion on basic education, chaired by Senator Sherwin Gatchalian, who expressed deep concern over the low number of functioning CPCs. These committees are mandated by law to prevent, detect, and address bullying in schools, a responsibility that appears to be largely unmet. “In other words, this committee is tasked to prevent, detect, and address bullying in schools. But what you’re saying now is only 966 schools out of 45,000 plus schools have a functioning Child Protection Committee or Anti-Bullying Committee?” Gatchalian questioned during the hearing.

DepEd Assistant Secretary Dexter Galban clarified that the figure of 966 is based on an evaluation of just 3,210 schools, with over 48,000 others yet to be assessed. However, this explanation did little to assuage concerns. Gatchalian pressed further, asking, “That’s such a huge gap — 966 out of 45,000? No wonder bullying still happens. Isn’t it the responsibility of our principals to ensure they have a functioning CPC or Anti-Bullying Committee?”

Galban acknowledged the policy mandate requiring all schools to have a CPC and noted that DepEd has introduced mechanisms, such as the CPC Functioning Personality Test, to verify compliance and identify areas of deficiency. Yet, the scale of the gap suggests systemic challenges in translating policy into practice.

Legal Violations and Accountability

The absence of CPCs in the vast majority of schools is not just a policy failure but a direct violation of the Anti-Bullying Law, which explicitly requires the establishment of such committees in all public elementary and secondary schools. Gatchalian highlighted this breach, stating, “That’s a violation of the law because the law calls for the creation of the CPC in all public elementary and secondary schools. What is the liability of the principals if they do not implement this? It’s shocking that only 966 out of 45,000 — that’s only 2 percent of our total schools.”

In response, Galban indicated that DepEd is exploring administrative sanctions for schools failing to operationalize their CPCs. However, specifics on enforcement or timelines for addressing the shortfall remain unclear, leaving lawmakers and advocates frustrated by the lack of immediate action.

The Scale of Bullying in Philippine Schools

The urgency of addressing this gap is underscored by DepEd’s own data on bullying incidents. Between 2019 and 2022, a staggering 79,819 cases of bullying—both physical and digital—were recorded across the country. This figure likely underrepresents the true scale of the problem, as many cases go unreported, particularly in schools lacking mechanisms like CPCs to identify and address such incidents.

Bullying has long-term consequences for students, impacting their mental health, academic performance, and overall well-being. In a country where education is seen as a pathway to social mobility, the failure to protect students from harm in school environments is a significant barrier to equitable development. The absence of functioning anti-bullying committees exacerbates this issue, leaving countless children vulnerable to harassment and abuse without institutional support.

Systemic Challenges in Implementation

The reasons behind the low number of functioning CPCs are multifaceted. Resource constraints, lack of training for school administrators, and inconsistent monitoring by DepEd may all contribute to the problem. Many schools, particularly in rural or underfunded areas, struggle to meet basic operational needs, let alone establish and maintain specialized committees. Principals and teachers may also lack awareness of their legal obligations under the Anti-Bullying Law or the capacity to implement them effectively.

Moreover, the sheer number of schools yet to be evaluated—over 48,000—suggests that DepEd’s oversight mechanisms are overwhelmed. While the introduction of tools like the CPC Functioning Personality Test is a step in the right direction, it remains to be seen whether such measures can be scaled effectively to address the nationwide gap. Without targeted interventions, including funding, training, and accountability measures, the policy mandate risks remaining an unfulfilled promise.

Public and Political Reaction

The revelation has sparked widespread concern among parents, educators, and child rights advocates. On social media platforms like X, users have expressed frustration with the government’s apparent inaction, with many calling for stronger enforcement and support for schools. Posts from accounts tracking educational policy in the region highlight a shared sentiment that the DepEd must prioritize student safety as a core component of its mandate.

Politically, the issue has placed pressure on both DepEd and lawmakers to act swiftly. Senator Gatchalian’s pointed questions during the hearing reflect a broader push for accountability within the education system. As chair of the Senate panel on basic education, he has signaled an intent to hold school administrators and DepEd officials responsible for non-compliance, potentially paving the way for legislative reforms or stricter enforcement mechanisms.

Broader Implications for Child Protection

The gap in anti-bullying committees is symptomatic of larger challenges in child protection within the Philippine education system. Beyond bullying, students face a range of risks, from physical abuse to online harassment, that require robust institutional safeguards. The Anti-Bullying Law, enacted to address a specific facet of this problem, is just one piece of a larger puzzle. Without comprehensive policies and resources to support child protection at every level, the most vulnerable students remain at risk.

International comparisons offer a sobering perspective. In countries with stronger child protection frameworks, such as Singapore or Malaysia, schools are often equipped with dedicated counselors, mandatory reporting systems, and regular audits of safety protocols. While the Philippines faces unique economic and logistical constraints, advocates argue that prioritizing student welfare must be non-negotiable, even in resource-scarce environments. Collaborative efforts between government, civil society, and international partners could provide models for scalable solutions.

Looking Ahead: A Call to Action

As the DepEd grapples with the fallout from this data, the path forward remains uncertain. Immediate steps, such as expediting evaluations of the remaining 48,000 schools and imposing clear consequences for non-compliance, are essential to restore public trust. Longer-term strategies, including capacity-building for school staff and increased funding for child protection initiatives, will be critical to addressing the root causes of the gap.

For now, the statistic of 966 functioning anti-bullying committees out of over 45,000 schools stands as a stark reminder of the work ahead. As lawmakers, educators, and communities push for change, the question looms: can the Philippines bridge this gap before more students suffer the consequences of systemic neglect?