Romeena Minor

Who does not want a good laugh?

Filipinos are molded by society to be such big people pleasers in a harrowing environment where standing up for themselves is more brazen than throwing gut-wrenching insults in the guise of a good ol’ joke. 


A 2018 Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) survey found that 68% of Grade 10 students experience incidents considered to be bullying—being made fun of, physically targeted, and subjected to rumors and gossips—although the word itself had not been directly mentioned, nor did the learners dub themselves as victims of the act. To say this is alarming is perhaps a grave understatement, so is negligent in terms of describing the schools where these occurrences have taken place.

The same PISA study dubbed the Philippines as the Bullying Capital of the World. Undoubtedly, the high incidence of the deed implies only one of two things: either Filipinos have, by now, developed a deliberate acceptance of bullying, or the phenomenon has just prevailed so much that it has lost its distinctive traits, making us less likely to identify and reject such an act. Either way, immediate action must be called for, lest we embrace the title we had just been given. 

But just how well can we condemn a wrong we do not know?

The Second Congressional Commission on Education (EDCOM II) last February pointed out the Philippines’ outdated definition of the concept of bullying as stipulated in the Republic Act 10627, or the Anti-Bullying Act of 2013. Since the legislation was made over a decade ago, it is not surprising that it falls short in coping with the evolving landscape of bullying in the country, hence its dire need for refurbishment and follow-ups. Not enough emphasis is being given on the matter, but it is one that requires the soonest action possible, as failure to construct a more comprehensive and updated framework on the definition of bullying results in the incompetence and inefficiency of school administrations’ interventions on the prevalence of bullying. 

It can be recalled that the world-famous Greek philosopher Socrates profoundly believed that no man is voluntarily evil, only ignorant. Perhaps such is our case, too. EDCOM II researcher Dr. Allen Bernardo of De La Salle University found in his study that another probable factor in the prevalence of bullying in the Philippines is that there is no Filipino equivalent for ‘bullying’. Panunukso, pang-aasar, pangungutya, and more are terms used to describe the specific acts under the umbrella of bullying, but none for the word itself. Because language is the mirror of our culture, this hole has a significant impact on shaping Filipinos’ grasp on the concept of bullying. Furthermore, renowned clinical psychologist Dr. Maria Canandang also claims that incidences of bullying among families and immediate communities contribute to Filipinos’ subsequent acceptance of the act in extended environments. All these point out one thing: ignorance. 

How, then, can Filipinos rectify a trait they did not understand was wrong? How will they condemn a sin unbeknownst to them?

This ignorance among the people could have been dealt with, had our mental health workforce been sufficient in numbers, or better said, had our society been more appreciative towards the field, or more sincere towards the matter. The Philippine Mental Health Association reported having only one mental health worker for every 100,000 Filipinos. This evident scarcity of professionals all the more contributed to the dearth of means to combat bullying, as it is a leading factor for mental health problems.

In schools, the Philippines has a ratio of one counselor for every 14,000 students—far below the global standard of one counselor for every 250 learners. These are affected by numerous factors, such as low salaries, high educational requirements, workload, and more. Nevertheless, it is crucial for the national government to address this dearth for the better. Allowing schools to operate without a registered guidance counselor, or at least a professional guidance advocate, only deprived learners of measures necessary for their safety and welfare. The Department of Education would best acknowledge the fact that bullying affects the learners’ quality of education. Studies show that victims of the various forms of bullying are more likely to exhibit absenteeism. Thus, constructing a comprehensive and efficient framework to be disseminated across schools nationwide should be prioritized in order to take into account the students’ learning experiences. 

Culture, too, is another one to blame. Because Filipino families have bullying tendencies, endurance has become a tool for survival. But here is a pill that may be difficult to swallow for our Filipino clowns: the widespread acceptance and tolerance towards bullying does not make it any less of a destructive mechanism than it is. It is high time that we actively advocate against the act, starting by educating the people on what it is and what it may bring.

The only real cure for this endemic problem is the full integration of both law and education, not—and never—tolerance and desensitization. Unless our lawmakers improve RA 10627, or our government addresses the nationwide shortage of mental health workers, or families and immediate communities learn the wrong in bullying, the phenomenon will remain prevalent, and Filipinos will forever be cast in the dark, elusive of the light—bullies and victims alike. 

We can take a joke, and we most definitely can make one. But a joke is a joke, and bullying is bullying. There is a fine line that needs to be drawn, a boundary never to be crossed. Until then, Filipinos will only ever be too close, but never really there, to a good, genuine laugh.