EDITORIAL: Cultural Compatibility

THE ongoing debate over the institutionalization of Comprehensive Sex Education (CSE) in the Philippines has reignited discussions about cultural compatibility, parental authority, and the role of international standards in shaping local policies.

Former Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno’s recent statements, branding CSE as “cultural imperialism” pushed by the United Nations, highlight the tensions surrounding this issue.

Sereno’s critique, supported by the National Coalition for the Family and the Constitution (NCFC), raises valid points about the need for localized approaches to education. However, the outright dismissal of CSE also risks depriving Filipino youth of critical tools to navigate modern challenges.

At the heart of Sereno’s argument is the assertion that CSE, as proposed under Senate Bill No. 1979 or the Prevention of Adolescent Pregnancy Act, imposes foreign ideals that are incompatible with Filipino values.

She describes it as a form of “cultural imperialism” and emphasizes the potential for parental conflict due to insufficient transparency in the curriculum. These concerns merit attention, particularly in a society that prioritizes family ties and parental involvement.

However, the portrayal of CSE as a monolithic, externally dictated program fails to acknowledge the Philippine Department of Education’s (DepEd) efforts to localize its implementation.

DepEd has clarified that international standards serve as references, not mandates, and that cultural context is carefully considered in designing educational materials. This ensures that the program resonates with Filipino values while addressing pressing issues such as adolescent pregnancy, gender-based violence, and sexually transmitted infections.

Sereno’s critique of specific curriculum topics, including Sexual Rights and Gender Identity, touches on broader societal debates about morality, activism, and identity.

While it is valid to question the age-appropriateness and framing of certain subjects, it is equally important to recognize that withholding education on these topics does not shield children from exposure—it merely leaves them unprepared to process and respond to what they encounter.

The reality of adolescent pregnancy in the Philippines underscores the urgency of providing accurate and relevant information to young people.

With the country having one of the highest rates of teenage pregnancies in Southeast Asia, the need for comprehensive, culturally sensitive education is undeniable. CSE, if properly implemented, can empower adolescents to make informed decisions about their health and relationships, thereby reducing the societal and economic costs of early pregnancies.

President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.’s vow to veto SBN 1979 over its “woke absurdities” adds another layer of complexity to the debate. While it is crucial to ensure that policies align with cultural and moral values, dismissing them outright risks neglecting the core issue: the welfare and future of Filipino youth.

Moving forward, stakeholders must engage in constructive dialogue to refine CSE in a way that respects Filipino values while addressing the realities of a rapidly changing world.

Sereno’s suggestion to focus on social protections for adolescent parents through the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) is a step in the right direction but must be complemented by preventive measures like education.

Ultimately, the question is not whether CSE should be adopted, but how it can be tailored to serve the needs and aspirations of Filipino families. By striking a balance between cultural preservation and progressive education, the Philippines can chart a path that empowers its youth without compromising its identity.