Disability Rights 101 for Parents of Children with Disabilities: Legal Protections and Remedies Against Discrimination and Bullying in School Settings

June has arrived: it is, once again, enrolment season. Parents are all abuzz getting their children ready for school. One group of parents, however, bear a considerably weightier load – parents of children with disabilities. Data from a study led by UNICEF shows that it costs 40-80% more to raise a child with disability, than a child without.[1] The reason is plain to see. Having a disability entails additional expenses tied to giving a child the necessary assistance they need to adapt to their environment in consideration of their disability. For example: a blind child needs screen readers, a child with developmental delays needs therapy, and a child who is hard of hearing needs hearing aids.

The abovementioned, however, are just examples of material costs. However, children with disabilities also bear additional social costs in the form of being discriminated against. This week’s entry thus focuses on giving parents a brief 101 on legal protections and remedies they can resort to if their child experiences discrimination and bullying in the school setting.

Q: Can a private school deny admission to my child on the basis of disability?

A school may not hide under the defense of exercising “academic freedom” to deny admission to a child on the basis of disability. Section 32, RA 11650 (Inclusive Education for Learners with Disabilities Act) unequivocally provides: “All schools, whether public or private, shall ensure equitable access to quality education to every learner with disability, such that no learner shall be denied admission on the basis of disability.” The language is explicit and leaves no room for doubt. And this provision under the law is one of those that fall under the police power of the State; thus, compelling even private institutions in this regard is a valid exercise of such power.

Q: Does RA 11650 apply to all levels?

RA 11650 only applies to basic education (i.e. up to senior high school).

However, even if there is no explicit prohibition against denying admission to persons with disabilities in higher educational institutions (HEIs), RA 7277 (Magna Carta for Persons with Disabilities) still offer safeguards. In particular, Sec. 12, RA 7277 (as amended) provides that “It shall be unlawful for any learning institution to deny a disabled person admission to any course it offers by reason of handicap or disability.” The use of the word “any” before “learning institution” clearly shows that this prohibition against denial of admission on the basis of disability cuts across the board.

CHED Memorandum No. 23, s. 2000 further requires all public HEIs to admit all learners with special needs across various courses. Private HEIs, on the other hand, are encouraged but not required. Nevertheless, disability-based denials of admission would still be prohibited, meaning that a learner with disability who otherwise meets the criteria for admission may not be denied admission, even by private HEIs, for reasons relating to their disability.

Q: So what can a college/university do and not do in terms of admission policies for learners with disabilities?

Q: Can you expound more on the rule that HEIs can impose “uniform” academic requirements for admission?

Following RA 7277, this is still subject to the provision of reasonable accommodations. RA 7277 specifies that reasonable accommodation in the educational context includes: “qualified readers, taped tests, or other effective methods of delivering materials to individuals with visual impairments”; “qualified interpreters or other effective methods of delivering materials to individuals with hearing impairments”; “acquisition or modification of equipment or devices”; and “other similar services and actions or all types of aids and services that facilitate the learning process of people with mental disability.”

The “minimum admission requirements” proviso in RA 9442 cannot be read in isolation from RA 7277’s own definition of reasonable accommodation. Requiring a blind applicant to sit a standard-format entrance exam without Braille or a screen reader, or a student with autism to sit in a standard exam hall without sensory accommodations, does not actually test “minimum academic requirements” — it tests the disability itself. An unadapted exam measures the impairment, not the ability. That is precisely what the reasonable accommodation framework is designed to prevent.

“Meeting minimum admission requirements” must be read to mean meeting those requirements under accommodated conditions appropriate to the disability. A blind student who would pass the entrance exam with a Braille version has met the minimum requirement. Denying the accommodation is not neutrally applying an academic standard — it is using the exam as a disability screen in disguise, which is exactly what RA 7277 Section 12 prohibits.

In short: the standard can be uniform, but how it is measured may vary. A university  has the right to require that an applicant understand advanced algebra, logic, or reading comprehension to get in. Nevertheless, they must accommodate and adjust how that understanding is measured.

Q: Does a parent have the right to provide their own input to the school’s educational plan for their child with disability?

YES. RA 11650 is designed to give a participatory role to parents in the development and review of the individual education plan (IEP) for their child with disability. Parents have the right to be given a copy of the IEP and have it reviewed or revised.

As noted in Section 4(h): An IEP “refers to the systematic, purposive, and developmental educational programming of curricular and instructional priorities and contents designed to meet the educational requirements of a learner with disability and ensure mastery learning of skills and behaviors. It includes the services to be provided and the duration and frequency of such services, describes the learner’s present level of performance, how the learner’s disabilities affect academic performance, and specific accommodations and modifications. An IEP shall be designed to meet the unique educational needs of a learner with disability who shall receive appropriate services, have real opportunities for equality, and fully participate in the general education system and the community. It shall likewise aim at developing the learner’s strengths and talents to achieve the greatest possible self-sufficiency and independent living.”

Q: Can a parent demand that their child be included in the classroom together with other children without disabilities? Can parents of other children without disabilities block the inclusion of children with disabilities in the same classes as their children?

This is one of the most contentious issues parents face. The law is clear: the default is inclusion in the regular classroom. Inclusive Education refers to the process of addressing and responding to the diversity of needs of all learners by moving towards the end-goal of full participation, presence and achievement in learning cultures and communities, which involves accommodation, modification, adaptation, and individualization in content, approaches, structures, and strategies. It involves equitable opportunities for learners with disabilities to receive educational services, and the needed support and related services with their age-appropriate peer groups and, as far as practicable, in such schools or ILRCs nearest their homes or residences (see Section 4(d) and (e)).

The multidisciplinary team determines placement. Segregation into a “special class” is not the default — it must be based on a proper assessment. If a school unilaterally puts a child in a special class without going through the IEP process and without parental participation, that is a procedural violation (see Section 8(b)).

What parents can demand: Participation in the placement meeting; a copy of the IEP; written justification for any segregated placement; and periodic review of placement decisions.

Q: What recourse does a parent have if their child is bullied or discriminated against in school – by a classmate, a teacher, or some other member of staff – on the basis of the child’s disability?

In the Philippines, parents have a powerful, multi-layered arsenal of local laws to hold bullies, teachers, and school administrators legally and financially accountable.

1. Recourse Under RA 11650 (The Inclusive Education Act)

RA 11650 completely strips away any excuses school staff might use to minimize the bullying of a learner with a disability.

• Systemic Mandate (Section 15 & 16): The law mandates that all schools must implement a safe, inclusive, and non-discriminatory learning environment. School administrators are legally required to actively prevent and address any form of exclusion, marginalization, or harassment of learners with disabilities.
• The Administrative Remedy: Parents can file a formal complaint directly with the Department of Education (DepEd) Schools Division Office (SDO) against the school administration if the principal or teachers fail to act, hide the incident, or fail to protect the child. Under RA 11650, public and private school officials who neglect their duty to provide a safe environment face administrative charges for Gross Neglect of Duty, which carries penalties ranging from suspension to dismissal from service.

2. Criminal Recourse: RA 7277 (Magna Carta for PWDs, as amended by RA 9442)

This is the most potent weapon against disability-specific bullying. RA 9442 inserted strict criminal provisions specifically targeting the psychological and verbal abuse of PWDs.

• Public Ridicule (Section 39-A): The law strictly prohibits Public Ridicule, defined as making fun of, mocking, or intimidating a person with a disability because of their impairment, in a manner that degrades their human dignity.
• Vilification (Section 39-B): It prohibits Vilification, which includes any activity, utterance, or action in public that bounce back to incite hatred, serious contempt, or severe ridicule against PWDs.
• The Recourse: Parents can go straight to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) or the Philippine National Police (PNP) to file criminal charges against the perpetrators.
• The Penalties: Anyone (including classmates’ parents, teachers, or staff) found guilty faces severe criminal penalties:
  • First Violation: A fine of ₱50,000 to ₱100,000 and/or imprisonment of 6 months to 2 years.
  • Subsequent Violations: A fine of ₱100,000 to ₱200,000 and/or imprisonment of 2 to 6 years.
  • If the bully is a corporation or entity (like a private school management that tolerated it), its license to operate can be revoked.

3. If the Bully is a Teacher or Staff Member: RA 7610 (Special Protection Against Child Abuse)

When a teacher, principal, or security guard mocks, isolates, or berates a child because of their disability, it is no longer a school discipline issue—it is a criminal act of Child Abuse.

• Psychological Abuse & Discrimination (Section 3c & 10a): Under RA 7610, any act by an adult that debases, degrades, or demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child as a human being constitutes child abuse.
• The Recourse: Parents can file a criminal case for Child Abuse under RA 7610 with the Prosecutor’s Office, alongside an Administrative Complaint before the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC) to permanently revoke the teacher’s professional license.
• Aggravated Penalties: Philippine courts treat abuse by educators with extreme severity because teachers stand in loco parentis (in place of a parent). Conviction carries a penalty of Prision Mayor in its minimum period (typically 6 to 8 years of prison time).

4. Institutional Recourse: DepEd Child Protection Policy (DO 40, s. 2012)

While the national Anti-Bullying Act of 2013 (RA 10627) covers standard peer-to-peer bullying, DepEd Order No. 40 specifically singles out disability-based harassment.

• Protection from Discrimination: It explicitly prohibits “Prohibited Acts” which include teasing, bullying, or humiliating a student based on their physical, mental, or developmental condition.
• The Recourse: Parents can force the school’s Child Protection Committee (CPC)—which every school is legally required to have—to convene immediately.
  1. If the bully is a classmate: The CPC must mandate immediate disciplinary sanctions (suspension/expulsion), separate the bully from the victim, and provide a mandatory intervention program.
  2. If the CPC fails to act: Parents can escalate the matter to the DepEd Regional Director. A school’s failure to implement DO 40 can lead to the suspension or revocation of a private school’s permit to operate.

Step-by-Step Action Plan for Parents

If a child with a disability is facing targeted bullying in school, parents should ideally take action in this order:

1. Document Everything: Secure medical certificates if the bullying caused psychological distress or regression. Document the dates, what was said/done, and any witnesses.
2. Trigger DO 40: File a formal, written complaint to the school Principal and demand a meeting with the Child Protection Committee.
3. File DepEd Administrative Charges: If the school drags its feet, file a complaint with the DepEd Schools Division Office against the school administrators for violating RA 11650 and DO 40.
4. File Criminal Charges: If the harassment is severe, or if a teacher/staff member was the perpetrator, bypass the school entirely and file criminal charges for Public Ridicule (RA 9442) or Child Abuse (RA 7610) through the PNP Women and Children Protection Desk (WCPD).

[1] https://www.unicef.org/philippines/reports/cost-raising-children-disabilities-philippines

The post Disability Bullying Laws in the Philippines: A Guide for Parents appeared first on Peralta Jimenez Law Firm.

Obstruction of Justice

Frequently Asked Questions

Q. What exactly is “obstruction of justice” under Philippine law?

In plain terms, it is any deliberate act that interferes with the government’s ability to catch, investigate, or prosecute criminal offenders. The primary law covering this is Presidential Decree No. 1829, signed in 1981, which expressly declares as State policy the discouragement of “public indifference or apathy towards the apprehension and prosecution of criminal offenders.” (PD 1829, Whereas Clauses)

The Revised Penal Code (RPC) also covers related offenses such as bribery of witnesses (Art. 184), falsification of public documents (Art. 171), and perjury (Art. 183), all of which can overlap with PD 1829 charges.

Q. What specific acts does P.D. 1829 actually prohibit?

The law lists nine (9) punishable acts. A citizen can be charged for any of the following, done knowingly and willfully:

Q. What is the penalty?

Imprisonment ranging from prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum period (approximately 4 years, 2 months and 1 day to 8 years), and/or a fine of ₱1,000 to ₱6,000.

If the offender is a public official or employee, the law imposes an additional punishment: perpetual disqualification from holding any public office. This means a government official convicted under PD 1829 is permanently barred from public service — a career-ending consequence beyond the prison term itself.

While PD 1829 itself prescribes imprisonment and/or a fine, the decree expressly provides that when the obstructive act is punished more severely under another law, the higher penalty governs. In modern practice, obstruction-related conduct may therefore expose a person to substantially heavier penalties under specialized statutes (e.g. violations involving drug evidence under Republic Act No. 9165; cyber-related destruction or manipulation of electronic evidence under Republic Act No. 10175)

Q. If someone has a court-issued warrant of arrest, can a person legally shield them from being taken into custody?

No. When a judge has issued a valid warrant of arrest, anyone who knowingly hides the subject, provides them refuge, or takes steps to prevent their apprehension is committing a crime under Section 1(c) of PD 1829 — often called the “harboring” provision.

The keyword is knowingly. The prosecution must prove that the person shielding the fugitive knew the arrest warrant existed or had reasonable ground to believe the individual was wanted by the law.

Food for thought: in this day and age of social media where news travel fast, what do you think are examples of instances when it can be easily shown that someone knows or has reasonable ground to believe that someone else is wanted, for them to be guilty of this?

Q. What if the arrest attempt itself is unlawful — done without a valid warrant and without proper grounds?

The Supreme Court has ruled that P.D. 1829’s harboring provision does not apply when the attempted arrest is itself illegal.

Q. Can a sitting public official be charged with obstruction of justice?

Yes. P.D. 1829 applies to all persons, and public officials face harsher consequences than private citizens, including perpetual disqualification from office on top of imprisonment.

The law explicitly recognizes the heightened duty of public officials. The Supreme Court has noted that public officials who misuse their office to shield offenders “may be held liable under P.D. 1829” and that they carry “the duty to enforce justice impartially.” No position, elected or appointed, provides immunity from this law.

Q. What counts as “tampering with evidence” under the law?

Under Section 1(b) of PD 1829, it is unlawful to alter, destroy, suppress, or conceal any object, document, or record — or induce another person to do so — when that material is relevant to a criminal investigation or proceeding.

The Revised Penal Code adds further liability. Under Article 171 (Falsification of Public Documents), any public officer who falsifies an official document — such as a police report, an autopsy record, or a sworn affidavit — faces up to 12 years of imprisonment and perpetual disqualification from public office.

Although PD 1829 predates the digital era, its prohibition against altering, suppressing, concealing, or destroying evidence may logically apply to electronic records relevant to a criminal investigation — including text messages, CCTV files, emails, or other digital data.

Related Legal Framework: P.D. No. 1829, Sec. 1(b); R.A. No. 10175 (Cybercrime Prevention Act); Rules on Electronic Evidence.

Q. In summary, what is the key principle a citizen should remember?

The overarching principle is this: a validly issued and lawfully enforceable warrant of arrest is a judicial command that citizens and public officials alike are generally not permitted to obstruct. Knowingly harboring fugitives, concealing evidence, intimidating witnesses, or otherwise interfering with criminal investigations may give rise to criminal liability under PD 1829.

Remember: staying silent in the face of obstruction, while not a crime for ordinary citizens in most cases, leaves justice unserved. The declared purpose of P.D. 1829 is precisely to counter public indifference to criminal accountability.

The post What is Obstruction of Justice under Philippine Law? (PD 1829) appeared first on Peralta Jimenez Law Firm.