‘No homework’ policy is no good

BY THE MANILA TIMES

AUGUST 31, 2019
WE do not agree with the position of the Department of Education (DepEd) that a “no homework”
policy, prohibiting teachers from assigning academic work to be completed by students outside of
regular school hours, is beneficial to Filipino students.
Education Secretary Leonor Briones recently engaged in a public pitch for the policy, which is now the
subject of a couple of pending bills in Congress. We have a great deal of respect for Secretary Briones’
knowledge and experience as an educator, and her arguments in favor of the policy should be given
careful consideration. Doing just that, however, leads to the conclusion that a solution other than what
she and supportive legislators are proposing is in order.
The arguments for a “no homework” policy ostensibly take into account the welfare of students, their
families and teachers. Excessive homework — or to state the argument more accurately, any homework
at all — is physically taxing on students, many of them very young, after they have already spent a full
strenuous day in the classroom. Projects that students are expected to complete at home often pose a
burdensome expense on parents, who may not have a ready budget for the last-minute purchase of
needed materials. Assigning homework also adds to the workload of teachers, who must grade these
assignments in addition to their everyday work of preparing lessons.
By banning homework, all these problems are avoided. Students are afforded proper time for rest and
relaxation, and families are spared the burden of unforeseen expenses, or time spent shopping for
required materials that may be difficult to find on short notice. Teachers are also spared the extra time
and effort to check homework assignments, and can devote more time to classroom preparation and
work. Secretary Briones has also suggested the policy would be beneficial in allowing more time for
children and parents to bond socially.
Those are all very reasonable considerations. Unfortunately, they completely overlook the trade-offs
that may be more harmful in the long run by eroding the quality of education, and as a consequence,
the future competitiveness of young Filipinos.
Homework is a vital part of education, because it gives students the opportunity to apply knowledge
gained in the classroom. This occurs in two ways — not only by creatively applying the educational
content, but also in giving students practice in developing good work habits and methods. From a
practical point of view, homework allows “more education” than can be fit into a few hours of a school
day. And far from preventing families from bonding, homework encourages parents to become more
involved in their children’s educational activities.
Although the concern for the welfare of students and their families is appropriate, that welfare will be
hurt in the long run if the students fall short of the volume of educational content they can access,
developing problem-solving and creative thinking skills, and parental awareness and involvement in
their educational activities. As a result of a “no homework” policy, Filipino students will be less prepared
for higher education or the workforce, and ultimately the entire country will suffer the consequences.
We suggest that, rather than a “no homework” policy, DepEd should review and modify existing policies
regarding homework to ensure that they meet productive goals. Homework should have clear
educational objectives, and certainly should not pose undue physical and financial burdens on students
and their families. Those standards can be achieved, however, without resorting to banning homework
entirely, and still ensure that our youth are adequately prepared to take on the challenges of a
competitive world.
 Position Paper on Bullying
While there is no legal definition of bullying, in general terms bullying is the intentional
tormenting of another person or persons. Bullying can take on many forms, both direct and
indirect. Direct forms may include verbal, physical abuse and/or assault. Indirect kinds of
bullying are more subtle, and take the form of coercion and/or manipulation. Combating
bullying is needed in order to insure that students have a safe and secure learning
environment. Experts agree that such an environment is needed in order for learning to occur.

Students, parents, teachers, and administrators need to be mindful of bullying and its
effects on the target, the perpetrator, and the climate of the learning community. Prevention
initiatives need input from all stakeholders, so that policies which address bullying can be easily
adopted and implemented. Continued research in this social phenomenon is a key component
to helping communities change behavioral patterns and instill civility.
Sensitivity awareness to aspects of bullying is the starting point for all stakeholders –
students, parents, and school officials. Schools are uniquely qualified to provide educational
training in this area by hosting conferences, workshops, and extracurricular activities devoted to
bully/victim problems and advocacy. Conferences should be open to the public, with advance
notice going out to all parents and guardians. The objective of this training would be to
disseminate that bullying is never acceptable, that there are consequences to hurting others,
and there exist extracurricular activities within the school system to develop positive peer
relations and team building.
Schools can improve communication among school administrators, teachers, parents and
students. Disciplinary action can be consistent with immediate consequences for aggressive
behaviors. Adult supervision can be increased in the school, particularly in areas where bullying
is known to take place – PE classes, recess, hallways, bathrooms, and in the lunchroom. Using
parent volunteers and other adult community groups to assist with this supervision in the school
would be ideal way to involve the community. Another area which could be pursued by
students, teachers, and administrators, would be to form an Anti-Bullying Club in the school
(Craig, 1999). The club could hold monthly meeting, and invite experts from the community to
conduct workshops/lectures.

Research suggests that 20% of school children have been victims of bullying, and 15% of
school children engaged in bullying. Seventy five percent of bullies are boys, and bullying peaks
in the age group between 11 and 12 years old. A dis-aggregation of data suggests that 38% of
special education students compared to 18% of other students reported being bullied (Ziegler,
Rosenstein-Manner, 1991). Bullying incidents lasted an average of 37 seconds, and 79% of the
episodes were direct bulling, 18% were indirect bullying, and 3% were both direct and indirect
forms of bullying. Weapons were visible in 4% of the episodes. Peers intervened in 11% and
school staff intervened in 4% of bullying episodes.
Causes of bullying are varied as the individuals who engage in it. Some of the reasons
include: trying to get things (property) for themselves; being impulsive and active in
temperament; impressing others; needing social influences; getting attention; needing power
over other people; experiencing lack of warmth and attention at home; modeling aggressive
behavior form home; having poor supervision at home; and, viewing violence as a way to settle
problems.

Victims of bullying tend to be quiet, shy, lack friends and social support, lack confidence,
feel isolated and helpless, and are reluctant to report offenses because they think it will get
worse. N.M. Floyd, in his article, Pick on somebody your own size, summarizes the bullying cycle
in a succinct manner:
“Bullying tends to start off in a tentative way, with some trial and error as the bullying
settles on a victim. At first, the incidents may be playful consisting of pranks, jokes, and
some rough and tumble. As victims succumb to this treatment and prove submissive, the
incidents be come more hurtful, escalating from criticizing the victim, to name-calling
and taunting, then to personal attacks and public humiliation. In response to this
increasingly hostile treatment, the victims change and become more accepting and
submissive. The rough and tumble plays give way to slapping, punching, kicking, and
beatings. The attacks become more systematized as victims are scapegoated.”
Possible actions for the victims of bullying are: stay calm without looking like a victim;
ignore the bully by keeping quiet and walk away; if the aforementioned are not possible,
maintain good eye contact and use a calm voice, and try to get help. It goes without saying that
school staff should intervene in bullying episodes immediately. Officials should talk to the bully
and the victim separately. Involve the administration so that a wider reading on the problem can
be obtained, and school polices are followed.
 A Position Paper on Legalizing Divorce in the Philippines
Marriage is sacred and a must. Marriage is the process by which two
people make their relationship public, official, and permanent. It is the
joining of two people in a bond that putatively lasts until death, but in
practice is increasingly cut short by separation. Over the course of a
relationship that can last as many as seven or eight decades, a lot
happens. Personalities change, bodies age, and romantic love waxes and
wanes. And no marriage is free of conflict. What enables a couple to
endure is how they handle that conflict. It is lawful which should be
follow and taken care by a married people or a family. In addition, it is
necessary in general. But if a marriage is not working anymore that only
leads to fighting then it only becomes an abuse, it requires a legal
separation to any of the spouses. This process undergone legally and has
a sanction of the court. It could be an annulment just like here in our
country, the Philippines, we allow it.

People who say that divorce is not advisable for the Philippines forget or
ignore our history. The ethno-linguistic communities of the Philippine
archipelago before the Spanish conquest practiced divorce. We had a
divorce law from 1917 until August 30, 1950, when the Civil Code of 1950
took effect. The latter law prohibited divorce for Filipinos, and the
prohibition continues under the present Family Code. But Muslim
Filipinos have always practiced divorce, which Philippine law allowed.
Today, divorce continues to be available to Muslim Filipinos under the
Code of Muslim Personal Law of the Philippines (Presidential Decree No.
1083), promulgated in 1977.

In the Philippines as well as the other states such as Vatican City and
British Crown Dependency of Shark the thing called ‘Divorce’ is not
applicable now a day in the said countries. But a bill recently filed in
Congress provides hope for thousands of couples trapped in failed and
often abusive marriages, by legalizing divorce. It is now the fight to make
divorce legal in the Philippines. The dissolution of a marriage is almost
always an unhappy event, at the very least marked by disappointment
and the loss of dreams and expectations. In addition, there are usually
many legal, financial, parental, emotional, and practical aspects that
require changes in responsibilities and routines, and it can take people
years to regain equilibrium. Nevertheless, divorce serves an important
function in legally and emotionally freeing people to form a more stable
relationship.

A divorce law will provide a remedy that Article 36 does not. Divorce
does not concern itself with validity or invalidity of a marriage. It
terminates a marriage based on a ground that occurred during the
marriage, which makes the marital relationship no longer tenable,
regardless of the spouse’s psychological constitution. A divorce law will
provide a straightforward remedy to a marital failure. It will benefit
Filipinos wherever they are.

It is time to give the remedy of divorce to those who need it, even as we
respect the decision of those who want to stay married despite their
miserable marital life. First thing is that a couple’s conflicts often lead to
maltreatment and the women are the most affected in the situation.
Simple, because compare to women men are more aggressive and
stronger when it comes to strength. Another is that a man has a power to
rule the house even in a wrong way, so a woman was set aside because of
its poor capability. Lastly, a woman is more emotional so if its trust will
be misuse it leads to overthinking and makes a woman struggle a
depression which is really unhealthy.

The Catholic Church need not worry. To be sure, the Catholic Church will
be the staunchest opponent of the divorce bill. It will once again argue
against the bill on moral grounds. It will appeal the constitutional
provision directing the State to protect marriage and the family, and
another that refers to the sanctity of family life. But these constitutional
provisions were never intended to prohibit Congress from legalizing
divorce. First, we are a secular state, where no religious group has the
right to define law or policy for the entire population. The law should
only give people a choice, to be exercised according to their own personal
beliefs. Second, non-divorced Catholics need to be careful of
assumptions, to discard any trace of judgment toward the divorced.
Since most the Filipinos have “been there, done that” when it comes to
being judgmental, we can address this issue personally. It is too easy for
those who have never experienced the desperation and sorrow of a failed
marriage to believe that “they could have done something to save it.”
They really have no idea at all. Lastly, not every marriage was joined by
‘God’ even it took place in church. This may seem like a rationalization,
but Jesus’ statement in Matthew 19:6 (“Therefore, what God has joined
together, no human being must separate”) does not apply to all
marriages.

Divorce should be legalized to avoid adultery. It is a voluntary sexual

intercourse between a married man and someone other than his wife or
between a married woman and someone other than her husband. First, a
man or a woman does not need to be trapped in a horrible marriage. If
they do not have the love for each other anymore in a way that they tend
to cheat, they can have the answer for now and do not need to break the
law or even the God’s Ten Commandments. A divorce is an open door for
every individual to escape for. Then, every individual could have the
power to decide for their own good just like marrying other people whom
they really love. It made them set aside their spouse but at least they only
think on what is right than to cheat. Lastly, people will get nervous on
the consequences and will only do their best in avoidance in committing
adultery.

As been stated above it is better to legalize divorced because first it only

leads to maltreatment, stereotyping, and depression which may affects
women the most. Second, because not all marriage was joined by God,
which makes sense that any of the religious beliefs do not have the right
to hinder our country in legalizing divorce which is beneficial otherwise.
Lastly, it could promote a healthy marriage and family through the
succession of finally approving or legalizing divorce in the Philippines.

We are the only country that does not allow divorce now a days it was
once a law during American colonial. A divorce law will provide a remedy
that Article 36 does not; it terminates a marriage based on a ground that
occurred during the marriage, which makes the marital relationship no
longer tenable, regardless of the spouse’s psychological constitution. A
divorce law will provide a straightforward remedy to a marital failure. It
will benefit Filipinos wherever they are.

Every day people bear children, they get married, and die after all. It is a
big breaks again to us Filipinos the enactment of divorce that serves
important function in legally and emotionally freeing people to form a
more stable relationship.
POSITION PAPER IN DEATH PENALTY

The Philippines is one of 140 countries that have abolished the death penalty either in
law or in practice, as part of a global trend away from capital punishment (Amnesty
International, 2015, cited in “The Death Penalty Worldwide”). Yet there have been
repeated calls for the Philippines to reinstate capital punishment, with current Philippine
President Rodrigo Duterte wanting to restore it. (see Andolong, CNN Philippines, 2016).

The Psychological Association of the Philippines (PAP) articulates its position on

capital punishment from the point of view of evidence-based social science,
psychology in particular, as well as of ethics. We are convinced that the Philippines
has made great strides in humanitarian development by abolishing the death
penalty. We are not in favor of reinstituting it in our penal system. Capital
punishment does not deliver on its hopes for better justice, closure for all parties
concerned, and better crime prevention. It does not give full cognizance of the
implications of its irreversible effect, the reality of the limits and inevitable class
discrimination of the judicial process, and the misconception of closure and justice
itself. The PAP advocates for the much better alternative of informed and
rehabilitative justice, where both offender and offended get the best chance for a
more positive process of closure and redemption.

We present the following arguments to support our position:

Observations about the practice of capital punishment point to its discriminatory nature.
In the Philippines, it is typically the poorer sector who get this ultimate penal sanction.
The majority of those sentenced to die have incomes below minimum wage (FLAG,
2000), unable to afford the legal services to defend themselves in a long process (CHR,
2007). Poorer, less educated Filipinos would not have the intellectual preparedness to
think through ways of defending themselves (Te, 1996). This places them at a serious
disadvantage.

Judicial flaws compromise the validity of the death penalty. These may include
incompetent counsel, inadequate investigatory services, or even outright police and
prosecutorial violations of judicial procedures. In the Philippines, torture or ill treatment of
suspects to coerce confessions or to implicate others is commonplace. Victims often fail
to lodge complaints against the police due to intimidation, fear of reprisals, and lack of
funds (Amnesty International, 2002).

History also points to gross misapplications of the death penalty law, with
vulnerable individuals protected by Philippine law from capital punishment finding
themselves on death row. In 2003, there were 7 children in death row along with adult
convicts (Amnesty International, 2003). The year 2000 saw 5 persons aged 70 or over in
death row (FLAG, 2000, cited in Amnesty International, 2002). These examples show that
it is not always certain whether the right person is convicted and, in this light, the death
penalty is too high a price to pay when innocent people are convicted.

The death penalty, and the legal proceedings leading up to it, could exact a huge
toll on the psychological wellbeing of victims, offenders, and their families. Majority
of those on death row in the Philippines have been convicted of rape, with incestuous
rape as the most common form. Victims of incestuous rape rarely seek the death of their
offender but simply desire cessation of abuse, re-establishment of safety, and
rehabilitation of their family member. A possible death penalty sentence for these cases
has been noted to keep victims from pursuing charges, and a death sentence for the
offender can bring guilt to the victim, further sorrow, and conflict within affected families
(Madrid et. al., 2001; People v Agbayani, 348 Phil. 368, 1998; Jamon and Bautista, 2016).
In fact, majority of groups representing women and children in the Philippines, who are
common victims of death penalty crimes, have taken a stance against capital punishment
for rape and incest because they believe it would not solve the problem (Kandelia, 2006).
A common argument for the death penalty is that it brings closure to victims and their
loved ones. Indeed, research shows that some families do experience relief or peace
upon imposition of the death penalty on their offenders. Yet in significant number of
cases, the death penalty did not bring healing or closure to the offended (Vollum
and Longmire, 2007). Instead, what seem to be therapeutic for victims’ families are to
make sense of what happened to their loved one, to make meanings out of their
unpleasant experience, and to construct an empowering and restorative narrative
(Armour and Umbreit, 2012).

The judicial system’s primary goals should be the rehabilitation of those who have
erred and the restoration of a sense of dignity in those robbed of it. This is more in
line with the human right to dignity and the absolute value of all human lives, including
the lives of those who commit crimes. The PAP’s position on the death penalty is
consistent with its Code of Ethics, particularly the principle of Respect for the Dignity of
Persons and Peoples, consonant with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (PAP,
2010).
Extending the human rights logic, the right to life prevails over the principle of lex
talionis (i.e. an eye for an eye). Even retributive justice, which posits that offenders must
be punished and that the degree of punishment should be proportionate to the
seriousness of crime, does not automatically and necessarily indicate death as the
ultimate penal sanction (Carlsmith, Darley, and Robinson, 2002), leaving a key question
for research about the appropriate maximal penalty for the most serious crimes. Moral
proportionality (Carlsmith et al., 2002) need not be deemed opposed to principles of
restorative justice and therapeutic jurisprudence (see King, 2009). It is the task of
research to help illumine how multiple perspectives representing both abstract principles
and people’s everyday sense and decision-making (Carlsmith et al., 2002) could guide
practices of prevention and rehabilitation.
Given all these, we oppose the reinstatement of the death penalty. Furthermore, we
resolve to support efforts to:
• disseminate evidence-based information on capital punishment, especially its effects on
psychological health;
• protect the rights and promote the welfare of vulnerable individuals especially against
police and prosecutorial violations of judicial procedures;
• conduct psychological research on alternative maximal sanctions and therapeutic
dimensions of judicial processes for victims, offenders, and their loved ones; and
• develop programs that aid in the redemptive rehabilitation of offenders, that support
victims and their loved ones through and in the aftermath of judicial processes, and that
foster the psychological wellbeing of these persons.
A POSITION PAPER ON THE LEGALIZATION OF SAME SEX MARRIAGE IN THE PHILIPPINES

Same-sex marriage is defined as the union of two individuals of the same sex in a marital relationship with full legal
rights and responsibilities given to this contract in a specific jurisdiction. It is the subject of debate and controversy
of numerous experts as of today. . The practice of homosexual marriage is not a recent event as it has been around
during the Greek and Roman periods.This type of marriage is only limited to a minority of jurisdictions at a few
countries in which it is available. Countries in which same-sex marriage is allowed include Norway, South Africa,
France, England, and the most recent countries are Ireland and the United States of America. Now there is the issue
in whether Philippines should also legalize same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage should be prohibited in the
Philippines as is it clearly contradicts with its culture, especially as the country is dominated by the Catholic religion
and its teachings.
It is a common view for the society to see marriage between heterosexual couples, there are others who would want
to argue. Equality of rights is usually the argument of same-sex marriage supporters. They believe that homosexual
and lesbian couples should have the same rights of marriage as those of heterosexual couples. Supporters of the
LGBT community have argued that by giving them the right to marry promotes equality as the government has finally
recognized their rights, and thus dissolves discrimination.
The Philippines, however, is a Catholic country. Legalizing same-sex marriage here clearly contradicts the teachings
and doctrine of the Church. Rev. Fr. Jose Glicerio Geremia defines marriage as the union of man and woman.
God Himself instituted marriage by stating that man is made for woman and woman is made for man. In Genesis
2:18-25, there are lines in which support it. “The Lord God said, ‘It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a
companion for him who corresponds to him.’” And there is also the line, “Then the man said, ‘This one at last is bone
of my bones and flesh of my flesh; this one would be called woman, for she was taken out of man.’”
So when a man is married to a man or woman married to a woman, this violates the Church’s doctrine. It will weaken
the respect and value of marriage, since marriage is considered sacred and almost every society views marriage as
a union between men and women only. Whereas same-sex- marriage promotes partnership, it is not, however, the
normal type of partnership.
Fr. Geremia mentions that the main purpose of the said union or the marriage is for men and women to reproduce
offsprings. Therefore, in this sense, same-sex marriage is not beneficial as homosexual and lesbian couples are
incapable of reproduction and cannot be considered as a full-fledged family. Even with the choice of adoption, or
having surrogate mothers or sperm donors, it is still not the same case.
Then there is the concept of family. Families are commonly composed of a father, a mother and a child or children.
Although LGBT supporters argue that what children need are not biological male and female parents but the
masculine and feminine roles of the parents. Most of the Filipinos are Catholics and they are usually family-oriented.
In their perspective, having this kind of marriage would break their Filipino values.
Then there is the issue regarding of the acceptance of the Filipinos to same-sex couples. A survey conducted by
Rappler shows that seventy percent of the Filipino population “strongly disagrees” with the legalization of the said
marriage. This shows the fact that most citizens of the Philippines are not yet ready for it and that they clearly
disapprove.
“The Church says that homosexuals should be trated with love and respect, but redefining the natural and divine
institution of marriage is simply something we are not able to do,” these are the words of Father Marcos Gonzales
of St. John Chrysostom, a Roman Catholic parish in Inglewood, California. In conclusion, reasons why same-sex
marriage is not to be legalized to the reasons: it contradicts the catholic doctrine, it is not beneficial, it weakens the
respect for marriage, and that the Filipino mindset is still not ready for it. But while people oppose the thought of
this kind of marriage, it is hoped that homosexuals and lesbian should still be considered with compassion and
respect.