By Robert B. Roque
Discussions around sexual conduct, propriety, disease, and violence are always tricky. Even adults, discussing matters academically, can easily fall into the trap of naughty, inappropriate, or offensive side commentary.
It is no different from the talk about the proposed Comprehensive Sexuality Education (CSE) program. Last week, it sparked debate anew as advocates, including Sen. Risa Hontiveros, lauded CSE as a solution set in the basic education system for teenage pregnancy, sexual abuse, and violence.
However, not all are happy or share the same opinion about the program. In fact, for the National Coalition for the Family and the Constitution (NCFC), the program raises serious cultural and moral concerns.
Let’s not forget that we live and breathe in a country where values are deeply rooted in the teachings of Catholicism, Christianity, and Islam. Relative to the West, Filipino families are largely conservative in many ways.
So, it naturally stokes a reasonable question: Why should an education system, meant to nurture academic growth and character development, introduce topics that challenge traditional family values at such young ages?
Critics of the program tend to take the side of the petition put forward by the group’s Project Dalisay, arguing that the CSE program risks undermining parental authority, desensitizing children to sexual themes, and promoting ideas about gender identity and sexual orientation that contradict constitutional values.
Hontiveros is adamant, of course — being on the side of the liberal tone, something many Filipino families remain misaligned with. While I recognize the statistical and corrective points raised by the good senator, her fiery defense of the program alienates many — especially when accusing the group of misinformation or inadvertently stepping on deeply held cultural and religious reservations.
Let’s face it, change may be necessary, but exposing children to concepts like sexual diversity and contraception at an early age can be a bit too radical. It’s not tailor-fit for all schoolchildren and the families or communities they belong to.
I like the approach of Education Secretary Sonny Angara, whose measured response is more attuned to the general public. He is clearly acknowledging the challenges of teenage pregnancy and the importance of equipping youth with knowledge.
But he also admitted the need for balance, collaboration, and cultural sensitivity. His openness to suggestions and focus on parental involvement demonstrate an approach that fosters dialogue rather than division.
If teenage pregnancy is the pressing issue, the solution should target its root causes, which often stem from family dynamics and societal influences, not the lack of sexual education alone.
I mean, do we all agree that an entire class — many of whom are innocent, well-behaved, or shielded from these issues by choice or upbringing — should necessarily pick up material that may prematurely introduce them to sexual concepts?
Would it not be more prudent to focus on higher grade levels and ensure content is age-appropriate? Thank God we have the MTRCB that sets and categorizes content for audiences based on age propriety.
A similar gatekeeping approach could be adopted for CSE, ensuring lessons align with the maturity and moral sensibilities of students. It can be an elective and done in consultation with parental consent, rather than rush to a faulty generalization that everyone in class is bound to get pregnant or get someone pregnant if they don’t talk about sex.
* * *
SHORT BURSTS. For comments or reactions, email firingline@ymail.com or tweet @Side_View via X. Read current and past issues of this column at http://www.thephilbiznews.com
