Sexual Harassment and Child Abuse Complaints in DepEd

A sexual harassment complaint against a DepEd teacher or school head is referred to a Committee on Decorum and Investigation (CODI). The CODI investigates and sends its findings and recommendation “to the disciplining authority for decision” (2025 RACCS, Secs. 16 and 17). For teachers, including school heads, the disciplining authority is the Regional Director or the Secretary (DepEd Order No. 49, s. 2006, Sec. 1). A child abuse complaint against school personnel goes to the disciplining authority “within forty-eight (48) hours”, and that authority orders a fact-finding investigation “not later than seventy-two (72) hours from submission” (DepEd Order No. 40, s. 2012, Sec. 16(A)). Neither kind of complaint may be mediated or settled, and a child abuse complaint may not go to the barangay.

DepEd has no standalone order on sexual harassment. The nearest thing to a DepEd procedure is an office memorandum, OM-OUOPS-2024-05-01115 of February 7, 2024, which makes each school’s Child Protection Committee its CODI. DepEd’s Region VIII office attached it to its Regional Memorandum No. 210, s. 2024.

The rules below are as of October 31, 2026, and cover cases against school personnel. The court cases are in Harassment, Child Abuse and Hazing: Cases on School Heads, and intake and bullying procedures in DepEd Child Protection and Anti-Bullying: School Head Duties. The examples are fictional, and no complainant or learner is named.

Key findings

• DepEd has no DepEd Order on sexual harassment. Its rules are spread across DO 49, s. 2006, Sec. 2(ee), DO 40, s. 2012, Sec. 16(E) and DO 32, s. 2017; the CSC’s current rules are in the 2025 RACCS, Secs. 16 to 20 and 64(A).
• A school’s CODI is its Child Protection Committee under OM-OUOPS-2024-05-01115 (2024), Sec. 20, which also requires a CODI at the division level (Sec. 11).
• The CODI investigates; the disciplining authority decides (2025 RACCS, Sec. 17(C)(3)). The 2024 memorandum says the CODI will “investigate and decide” but sends its report “to the disciplining authority for decision” (Secs. 21 and 22(5)). A teacher’s formal investigation goes to the RA 4670, Sec. 9 committee (DO 40, Sec. 16(E.2)).
• The “ten days” differ by text. RA 11313 (Sec. 22) says “ten (10) days or less” from receipt; its IRR (Sec. 33) and the 2024 memorandum’s Sec. 21 say “ten (10) working days”, though the memorandum’s Sec. 22(5) says “ten (10) days”; the 2025 RACCS counts 10 days from the end of the CODI’s investigation (Sec. 17). No text reconciles them.
• A child abuse complaint against personnel moves in hours: 48 hours to forward it and 72 hours to order the fact-finding (DO 40, Sec. 16(A)).
• No settlement, no barangay. “Complaints for sexual harassment shall not be subject to mediation and settlement” (2025 RACCS, Sec. 75), and DO 40 complaints “shall not be brought for amicable settlement before the Barangay” (Sec. 17).
• In a sexual harassment case, an exoneration can be appealed. The 2025 RACCS bars appeals from exonerations “Except in cases involving sexual harassment” (Sec. 98).

Which rules apply to sexual harassment and child abuse complaints in DepEd?

DECS Order No. 31, s. 2001, sometimes cited as DepEd’s sexual harassment order, is a “Schedule of Collection of Authorized Voluntary Contributions”. DepEd Memorandum No. 288, s. 2004, despite its title, only transmits a CSC–DepEd agreement of May 12, 2004 on training CODI members and reporting their membership “per District, Division and Regional Office”; it sets no procedure. The 2024 memorandum is not a numbered DepEd Order; DO 006, s. 2026 names it among DepEd’s policies (Sec. I).

The outdated pointers

Four DepEd texts send readers to CSC rules that are not the CSC’s current rules:

• DO 49, Sec. 2(ee): “Sexual Harassment as defined and penalized under CSC Resolution No. 01-0940.”
• DO 40, Sec. 16(E.2): the investigation follows “the rules under Resolution No. 01-0940 of the Civil Service Commission”.
• DO 32, s. 2017: the CODI’s duties follow “CSC Memorandum Circular (MC) 19, s. 1994, DOLE Administrative Order (AO) 68, s. 1992, and other pertinent policies”.
• OM-OUOPS-2024-05-01115, Sec. 16: procedures “may be used including Civil Service Commission (CSC) Resolution No. 210064 [sic] amending certain provisions of the 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RACCS)”.

The 2025 RACCS repealed the 2017 RACCS (Sec. 156) and integrates the CSC’s 2021 sexual harassment rules, CSC Resolution No. 2100064 (Foreword; fn. 37). Each DepEd pointer is best read as leading to the 2025 RACCS, consistent with the IRR’s rule that “The public sector shall comply with the standards set by the CSC” (Sec. 33).

The CODI: who sits on it, and at what level

The 2025 RACCS, the Safe Spaces Act and its IRR, and the 2024 memorandum all require that a woman head the CODI and that at least half its members be women (2025 RACCS, Sec. 17; RA 11313, Sec. 22(c)(2); IRR, Sec. 33(c); OM-OUOPS-2024-05-01115, Sec. 20). They differ on who else sits on it in a school.

Two points need care.

• Who heads it. Sec. 20 of the 2024 memorandum lists “School Head/Administrator - Chairperson”, then states that “the Committee shall be headed by a woman and not less than half of its members shall be women.” It does not say who heads the committee when the school head is a man, though RA 11313 requires the CODI to “Designate a woman as its head” (Sec. 22(c)(2)). Ask the division.
• Impartiality. The school head names permanent alternates (Sec. 20; IRR, Sec. 33(b)). A member who is the complainant or the person complained of “shall inhibit from the investigation, or the complaint may be filed directly with the CSC” (2025 RACCS, Sec. 17(A)). If a CODI member “commits any of the violations stated herein” (best read as including a member who is accused), “the LRPO focal in the Schools Division Office shall designate impartial and competent personnel who shall perform the duties of the CODI” (OM-OUOPS-2024-05-01115, Sec. 20).

Levels. DO 32, s. 2017 orders CODIs “in all levels of governance”. The 2024 memorandum tells each school to “Create a Code of Conduct and a Committee on Decorum and Investigation (CODI)” (Sec. 12(a)) and each division office to “Establish a Committee on Decorum and Investigation (CODI) at the division level” (Sec. 11(a)). It gives gender-based sexual harassment cases in schools to the school committee and has the division’s LRPO focal designate impartial personnel when a member is involved (Sec. 20), but it does not say whether they are the division CODI of Sec. 11, or when that CODI acts instead. Ask the division’s legal unit which committee acts in your division.

What the CODI does not do. It does not impose the penalty; it reports “to the disciplining authority for decision”: the Regional Director or the Secretary for teachers, including school heads, and the SDS for non-teaching personnel (DO 49, Sec. 1); see Who Disciplines DepEd Teachers and School Heads?

A sexual harassment case against a teacher, from complaint to decision

The victim, or the legal guardian of a minor, files a written, sworn complaint with the agency where the person complained of works, and it goes to the CODI (2025 RACCS, Secs. 16 and 19; DO 40, Sec. 16(E)); the Supreme Court series post covers who files and where. A complaint filed with the CSC goes back to the agency; the CSC may keep it only in listed cases, among them that “the disciplining authority is the subject of the complaint”, that a CODI member is, or unreasonable delay (Sec. 18).

The steps and their periods

The RACCS flowchart places the ten-day report after the answer, not after the preliminary investigation. Rows 7 to 9 follow the Administrative Code of 1987, Book V, Sec. 48(4), a statute that governs over both DO 49 and the RACCS. DO 49 sets different periods for the preliminary investigation and the answer; DepEd Preliminary Investigation, Formal Charge and Answer quotes both texts.

Three days or five for the counter-affidavit? DO 40 says the CODI “shall require the person complained of to submit his or her Counter-Affidavit/Comment, which shall be under oath, not later than three (3) days from receipt of the notice” (Sec. 16(E.1)). The 2025 RACCS allows “Requiring the person complained of to submit a counter-affidavit or comment within five (5) days from receipt of the complaint which is sufficient in form and substance” (Sec. 22(a)). DepEd’s 2026 orders treat both as in force, and no rule or decision says which prevails. If the case reaches the CSC on appeal, the CSC applies the 2025 RACCS. A respondent who files within three days of receiving the notice, and within five days of receiving the complaint, meets both texts.

The RA 4670 committee when the respondent is a teacher

The RACCS flowchart has the CODI conduct the formal investigation: “CODI conducts Formal Investigation of the case”, then “CODI submits its Recommendation to the DA or its authorized representative” (items 16 and 17). For a teacher, DO 40 requires something else: “if the respondent is a teacher, the composition of the Formal Investigating Committee shall be in accordance with Section 9 of R.A. 4670” (Sec. 16(E.2)). The Magna Carta’s “teacher” includes “all other persons performing supervisory and/or administrative functions” (Sec. 2), so the rule covers school heads.

Under RA 4670, Sec. 9, charges against a teacher are “heard initially by a committee” chaired by the Schools Division Superintendent or a representative of at least division supervisor rank, with a teachers’ organization representative and a division supervisor; where the superintendent “is the complainant or an interested party, all the members of the committee shall be appointed by the Secretary of Education.” The statute prevails over the flowchart, because the RACCS applies “unless otherwise provided by law” (Sec. 2). DO 49 restates the committee but omits the proviso, which still applies. For non-teaching personnel, RA 4670’s committee does not apply.

The 10-day rule and the RACCS periods

Five provisions set a ten-day period for the CODI, and they do not say the same thing.

They differ on the unit, the starting point, and whether the CODI decides or recommends. The IRR sends the public sector to “the standards set by the CSC” and DepEd’s school heads to “the standards set by them” (Sec. 33). No text or decision reconciles these periods, so the question is unsettled.

Two things are clear. “The ten-day period will not include the period of appeal which shall be available to either party” (IRR, Sec. 33; OM-OUOPS-2024-05-01115, Sec. 21). And the CSC may take over a case when “any of the periods set in these Rules lapsed for a period of more than thirty (30) days without justifiable reason” (2025 RACCS, Sec. 18(e)).

Sexual harassment as an offense: classes and penalties

The 2025 RACCS defines sexual harassment as “an act, or a series of acts, involving any unwelcome sexual advance, request or demand for a sexual favor, or other verbal or physical behavior of a sexual nature, regardless of motive, committed by a government employee or official” in workplaces, schools, public spaces or online (Sec. 4(qq)). It sets three classes (Secs. 63 and 64(A)); the examples below are summarized from Sec. 64(A).

“The penalty next higher in degree will be applied” if, among other cases, “the offended party is a minor” (Sec. 64(A)(5)), and a third conviction means dismissal “regardless of the nature and the imposable penalty”. DO 49 lists sexual harassment as a ground (Sec. 2(ee)) that “may be prosecuted apart from related offenses” (Sec. 58), but its classes are those of the outdated CSC resolution.

Child abuse by personnel is charged differently. The acts DO 40 prohibits “shall be penalized in administrative proceedings as Grave or Simple Misconduct depending on the gravity of the act and its consequences” (Sec. 15), and DM-OUOPS-2024-05-07998 adds that “child marriage and OSAEC shall also be considered prohibited acts in relation to Section 15” (Part IV). Grave misconduct carries dismissal, and simple misconduct suspension of one month and one day to six months, then dismissal, in both DO 49 (Sec. 58) and the 2025 RACCS (Sec. 63); see DepEd Administrative Offenses and Penalties in 2026.

Preventive suspension in these cases

Who may order it. The disciplining authority or its authorized representative; in sexual harassment cases, “the disciplining authority may delegate its power to the CODI for the issuance of a preventive suspension order”, by an order or resolution “duly signed by the disciplining authority clearly stating such delegation” (Sec. 33). A school head has no such power of his or her own; the general rules are in DepEd Preliminary Investigation, Formal Charge and Answer.

On what grounds. DO 40 and the 2025 RACCS put it differently.

• DO 40, Sec. 16(C): “The respondent may be placed under preventive suspension pending investigation, for a period of ninety (90) days, if the injury or abuse committed against a child is so grave, as to render the child unable to attend his or her classes. The respondent may also be preventively suspended to preclude the possibility of influencing or intimidating witnesses.”
• 2025 RACCS, Sec. 34: “Thus, in order for a preventive suspension order to be valid, the following must concur: (1) the formal charge or notice of charge must specify any of the offenses in Item (a); and (2) the appropriate circumstance or justification in Item (b) must be stated and substantiated in the preventive suspension order.”

DepEd’s 2026 orders treat both as in force, and no rule or decision says which prevails. If the case reaches the CSC on appeal, the CSC applies the 2025 RACCS. An order resting on a formal charge for an Item (a) offense, such as grave misconduct, that states and substantiates the risk to witnesses or evidence satisfies both. Grave sexual harassment, being punishable by dismissal, is among Item (a)’s “Other offenses punishable by dismissal from the service”; a less grave or light charge qualifies as a repeat offense that carries dismissal (Sec. 34(a)(6)). Whether a less grave charge also qualifies when the offended party is a minor, which raises the penalty one degree (Sec. 64(A)(5)), is not settled by any text.

How long, and how to challenge it. Ninety days under DO 40 (Sec. 16(C)) and the RACCS (Sec. 37), with automatic reinstatement if the case is not decided in time. DO 40 says: “The respondent may file a Motion for Reconsideration with the Disciplining Authority or may elevate the same to the Civil Service Commission by way of an Appeal within fifteen (15) days from receipt thereof” (Sec. 16(C)). The 2025 RACCS says: “A motion for reconsideration from the preventive suspension order shall not be allowed” (Sec. 38). DepEd’s 2026 orders treat both as in force, and no rule or decision says which prevails. If the case reaches the CSC on appeal, the CSC applies the 2025 RACCS. An appeal to the CSC within 15 days from receipt of the order satisfies both. Pay is covered in Preventive Suspension, Appeals and Back Pay for Principals.

Child protection complaints against personnel

A complaint that school personnel abused, exploited, discriminated against or hurt a learner runs under DO 40, s. 2012, Sec. 16, together with DO 006, s. 2026, which “does not amend or repeal” DO 40 (Sec. III).

These periods “shall be strictly observed, except when justified by circumstances beyond their control” (Sec. 16(A)). DO 006 adds three, in the child protection guide’s timeline table: the incident report goes to the proper disciplining authority “within 48 hours from its receipt”; the fact-finding report reaches the school head “within 10 calendar days”; and the school head submits the results to the SDS and the Regional Director “within 30 calendar days from the receipt of the report or complaint” (Sec. VII.A.2(a)–(c)). Sec. VII.A.2(b) does not say from when its ten days run; the bullying template counts “from their designation” (Annex D, Sec. 15(d)), but it governs bullying, not complaints against personnel. “Failure to submit an incident report or to render a decision involving the case within the prescribed period, without justifiable cause, shall be a ground for administrative action for neglect of duty against the responsible official” (DO 40, Sec. 16(G)).

If the investigation shows a prima facie case, the disciplining authority issues a formal charge (DO 40, Sec. 16(C)), and DO 49 “shall apply in all other aspects” (Sec. 16(D)); DM-OUOPS-2024-05-07998 likewise says: “If the perpetrator is a personnel of DepEd, follow the protocol for administrative cases” (Annex D).

DO 006’s due-process clause. For any case “where a penalty may be imposed”, DO 006 gives the respondent “a written answer within 10 calendar days” and an appeal “to the immediate higher authority (e.g., SDS or RD) within 15 days from receipt”, and it ties late appeals to DO 49 (Sec. VII.A.4(a)). It does not say whether these periods displace DO 49’s and the 2025 RACCS’s answer and appeal periods in a disciplinary case against a teacher, so treat the question as unsettled and follow the periods in the formal charge. Do not tell a teacher that the appeal goes to the SDS; the teacher’s appeal rules are in Formal Investigation and Decision in DepEd Cases.

Not “bullying”. Under RA 10627, bullying is “any severe or repeated use by one or more students” (Sec. 2), so a teacher’s act against a learner is handled under DO 40 and DO 49, as the child protection guide explains. Gender-based sexual harassment, by contrast, includes acts by school personnel “but also by learners against fellow learners or school personnel” (OM-OUOPS-2024-05-01115, Sec. 2).

Who conducts the fact-finding investigation?

• The 2025 RACCS has no fact-finding stage. It has a preliminary investigation, “a mandatory proceeding undertaken by the disciplining authority or its authorized representative” (Sec. 21). In a sexual harassment case, the CODI conducts it (Sec. 20).
• DO 40 has the disciplining authority “issue an Order for the conduct of a fact-finding investigation” within 72 hours; for non-teaching personnel, the SDS causes it (Sec. 16(A)).
• DO 49 has the disciplining authority appoint, “within ten (10) days from receipt of the complaint an investigator(s) who shall conduct fact-finding investigation or preliminary investigation” (Sec. 8(c)).
• DO 006 has the fact-finding report go “to the School Head within 10 calendar days” (Sec. VII.A.2(b)) but does not say who conducts the investigation when the respondent is personnel.

So who conducts DO 006’s fact-finding against a teacher is not settled by the text; what is settled is that the disciplining authority orders it and the school head does not decide the charge. Before anyone at the school takes statements, ask the SDO legal unit who has been designated.

Confidentiality, closed hearings and fictitious initials

A teacher also has RA 4670’s rule that “No publicity shall be given to any disciplinary action being taken against a teacher during the pendency of his case” (Sec. 8), restated in DO 40, Sec. 18 and the 2024 memorandum, Sec. 25; see Formal Investigation and Decision in DepEd Cases. The learner’s identity and the intake records are covered in the child protection guide.

No settlement, no barangay

Four texts close the door to settling these complaints:

• The 2025 RACCS: “Complaints for sexual harassment shall not be subject to mediation and settlement” (Sec. 75); settlement is allowed only for two light offenses.
• DepEd’s mediation order: cases that cannot be mediated include “Sexual harassment cases as provided for in Republic Act No. 7877” and “Child abuse cases as provided for in Republic Act No. 7610” (DO 15, s. 2012, Sec. 4).
• DO 40: complaints under it “shall be within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Department, and shall not be brought for amicable settlement before the Barangay, subject to existing laws, rules and regulations” (Sec. 17).
• DO 35, s. 2004: sexual harassment cases “shall not be acted upon through the grievance machinery” (Part V); see Grievance or Administrative Case? Where to File.

A withdrawn complaint does not end the case either (2025 RACCS, Sec. 14). The Supreme Court held that an affidavit of desistance did not end a sexual harassment case against a public school head in Office of the Ombudsman v. Medrano, G.R. No. 177580, October 17, 2008 (Second Division); the digest is in the Supreme Court series.

Appeals, including from an exoneration

The exception. As a rule, an exoneration, a dismissal for lack of a prima facie case, and a formal charge or other interlocutory order cannot be appealed to the CSC. Sec. 98 of the 2025 RACCS opens with the exception: “Except in cases involving sexual harassment, the following cannot be the subject of an appeal before the Commission”; the CSC hears “Decisions of heads of agencies on Sexual Harassment cases in relation to Section 98” (Sec. 7).

The route. The RACCS flowchart for sexual harassment cases shows the next steps after the decision: “Respondent or Complainant may file a Motion for Reconsideration under Rule 12 of the 2025 RACCS”, and “If the MR is denied by the DA, an Appeal to the CSC may be filed under Rule 13”. Rule 12 sets 15 days from receipt for the motion (Sec. 84), and Rule 13 sets 15 days from receipt for an appeal, in words written for respondents (Sec. 91). The same flowchart lets a complainant appeal a dismissal of the complaint for lack of a prima facie case. A respondent’s appeal routes are in Formal Investigation and Decision in DepEd Cases.

DepEd as a party. DepEd, as disciplining authority, may itself seek reconsideration of an exoneration, but only in time: in Department of Education v. Cuanan, G.R. No. 169013, December 16, 2008 (En Banc), a CSC exoneration in a sexual harassment case had become final before DepEd moved, more than two months later; see the digest.

What this means for school heads

The general steps on receiving a complaint are in What a School Head Does When a Complaint Arrives and the Supreme Court series post. These points are specific to these cases.

• Know your committee. Confirm with the division which CODI receives complaints against your personnel, who the alternates are, and how the committee is headed. Its members must “undergo training and orientation in handling cases of GBSH, sensitivity of cases, and confidentiality of cases” (OM-OUOPS-2024-05-01115, Sec. 20).
• Report what you learn. The 2024 memorandum requires anyone who knows of gender-based sexual harassment in schools to “report the same to the School Head and to the Regional Director and Schools Division Superintendent as the case may be under DepEd Order No. 49, s. 2006” (Sec. 17).
• Forward within 48 hours: a child abuse complaint to the disciplining authority (DO 40, Sec. 16(A)), a sexual harassment complaint to the CODI (IRR of RA 11313, Sec. 25(1)(a)). Date the transmittal.
• Do not investigate a charge on your own. A sexual harassment complaint is investigated by the CODI acting as a committee. For a child abuse complaint, wait to learn whom the disciplining authority designates. Do not suspend or reassign the respondent; only the disciplining authority, or a CODI acting on its signed delegation, may order a preventive suspension.
• Never settle, and forward any affidavit of desistance with the complaint.

When the complaint is against you: step aside from the committee (2025 RACCS, Sec. 17(A)), send the complaint to the division within 48 hours, do not contact the complainant or witnesses about it, and change nothing in the complainant’s assignments or ratings because of it; complainants are protected “from retaliation” (Sec. 17(C)(4)). The complainant may also file directly with the CSC (Sec. 17(A)), which may take a case whose subject “is a CODI member” (Sec. 18(d)); that choice is the complainant’s, not yours.

The PPSSH places these practices in Domain 2 (strand 2.4, management of staff) and Domain 3 (strand 3.6, a “learner-friendly, inclusive and healthy learning environment”).

How the NASH may test this

The two items below are original practice items, scored 3 (Relational), 2 (Multistructural), 1 (Unistructural) or 0 (Prestructural). An option that breaks a rule scores 0.

Question 1

Indicator 1.3.1, Policy implementation and review. Career Stage 1, Conceptual, Moderate.

A learner’s mother filed a sexual harassment complaint against Teacher A. After the CODI’s investigation and a formal investigation, the Regional Director exonerated Teacher A. The mother asks you, the principal, whether anything more can be done under the civil service rules. Which answer is most accurate?

• A. Nothing more can be done, because a disciplining authority’s decision that exonerates the respondent cannot be appealed to the Civil Service Commission.
• B. She may ask the Regional Director to reconsider the decision, and the division’s legal unit can tell her how to file the motion.
• C. She may appeal to the Civil Service Commission, because sexual harassment cases are an exception to the rule that an exoneration cannot be appealed.
• D. She may move for reconsideration and, if it is denied, appeal to the Civil Service Commission, because the bar on appealing an exoneration excludes sexual harassment; refer her to the division’s legal unit for the periods.

Answer and explanation

Best answer: D. Points: A = 0, B = 1, C = 2, D = 3.

• A (0 points, Prestructural). It states the general rule and misses the sexual harassment exception in the 2025 RACCS, Sec. 98, so it misinforms the complainant.
• B (1 point, Unistructural). Reconsideration is open to a complainant in these cases, but the answer stops there and leaves out the appeal.
• C (2 points, Multistructural). It names the exception but gives only one of the two remedies the RACCS flowchart lists, in the order it lists them.
• D (3 points, Relational). It links the exception, the order of remedies and the office that helps her file.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 1 expectations because indicator 1.3.1 asks the aspiring school head to know how issuances are applied consistently with national rules. The 2025 RACCS bars appeals from exonerations “Except in cases involving sexual harassment” (Sec. 98), and its flowchart says the “Respondent or Complainant may file a Motion for Reconsideration under Rule 12”, then appeal to the CSC under Rule 13.

Indicator 1.3.1: Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of policy implementation and review to ensure that school operations are consistent with national and local laws, regulations and issuances.

Sources: 2025 RACCS (CSC Resolution No. 2500357), Secs. 84, 91 and 98, and its flowchart of sexual harassment cases.

Question 2

Indicator 2.4.1, Management of staff. Career Stage 1, Situational, Moderate.

You are the principal of a public elementary school. Under DepEd’s 2024 Safe Spaces Act guidelines, the school’s Child Protection Committee, which you chair, also serves as its Committee on Decorum and Investigation. Teacher B hands you a sworn complaint accusing you of sexual harassment. What is the most appropriate action?

• A. Convene the committee and preside over its meeting on the complaint, but abstain from the vote, so that the complaint is acted on within the ten-day period.
• B. Forward the complaint within 48 hours to the division’s learner rights and protection focal person.
• C. Step aside from the committee for this case, and within 48 hours send the complaint to the division’s learner rights and protection focal person so that impartial personnel can act on it.
• D. Step aside from the committee for this case, and within 48 hours send the complaint to the division’s learner rights and protection focal person so that impartial personnel can act on it. Do not discuss it with Teacher B or possible witnesses, and keep her assignments and ratings unaffected by it.

Answer and explanation

Best answer: D. Points: A = 0, B = 1, C = 2, D = 3.

• A (0 points, Prestructural). A member who is the person complained of “shall inhibit from the investigation” (2025 RACCS, Sec. 17(A)); presiding while abstaining breaks that rule.
• B (1 point, Unistructural). It routes the complaint on time but says nothing about stepping aside from the committee or about the principal’s conduct toward the complainant and witnesses.
• C (2 points, Multistructural). It steps aside and routes the complaint as the 2024 guidelines direct, but says nothing about the principal’s conduct toward the complainant and witnesses.
• D (3 points, Relational). It connects inhibition, timely routing to impartial personnel, and protection of the complainant and the evidence.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 1 expectations because indicator 2.4.1 asks the aspiring school head to know the rules on managing school staff. If a CODI member “commits any of the violations stated herein” (best read as including a member who is accused), the division’s LRPO focal designates impartial personnel to do the CODI’s work (OM-OUOPS-2024-05-01115, Sec. 20), and complaints reach the CODI “within forty-eight (48) hours from receipt therefrom” (IRR of RA 11313, Sec. 25(1)(a)). The CODI must protect the complainant “from retaliation” (2025 RACCS, Sec. 17(C)(4)), and a position to pressure witnesses is one of the two conditions for a preventive suspension (Sec. 34(b)).

Indicator 2.4.1: Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of laws, policies, guidelines and issuances on managing school staff.

Sources: 2025 RACCS (CSC Resolution No. 2500357), Secs. 17 and 34; IRR of RA 11313, Secs. 25 and 33; OM-OUOPS-2024-05-01115, Sec. 20.

Nothing in this guide reproduces or predicts examination content.

Frequently asked questions

Can the school’s CODI dismiss or suspend a teacher?

No. The CODI reports “to the disciplining authority for decision” (2025 RACCS, Sec. 17(C)(3); OM-OUOPS-2024-05-01115, Sec. 22(5)), and for teachers, including school heads, that authority is the Regional Director or the Secretary (DO 49, Sec. 1). A CODI may issue a preventive suspension order only if the disciplining authority delegates that power to it by a signed order or resolution (2025 RACCS, Sec. 33).

Can a sexual harassment or child abuse complaint be settled or withdrawn?

It cannot be settled: the 2025 RACCS bars mediation and settlement of sexual harassment complaints (Sec. 75), DO 15, s. 2012 bars mediation of sexual harassment and child abuse cases (Sec. 4), and DO 40 complaints cannot go to the barangay (Sec. 17). A complainant may withdraw, but withdrawal “does not result in its outright dismissal” of the case (2025 RACCS, Sec. 14).

How fast must a school head act on a child abuse complaint against a teacher?

Forward it to the disciplining authority “within forty-eight (48) hours” (DO 40, Sec. 16(A)), and submit the investigation results to the SDS and the Regional Director “within 30 calendar days from the receipt of the report or complaint” (DO 006, s. 2026, Sec. VII.A.2(c)). Failing to submit an incident report or to decide the case on time, without justifiable cause, is a ground for a neglect-of-duty charge (DO 40, Sec. 16(G)).

Sources

Laws and rules

• Republic Act No. 7877, Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995 (February 14, 1995), Sec. 4(b).
• Republic Act No. 11313, Safe Spaces Act (April 17, 2019), Sec. 22(c); Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 11313 (October 28, 2019), Secs. 25 and 33.
• Republic Act No. 4670, Magna Carta for Public School Teachers (June 18, 1966), Secs. 2, 8 and 9.
• Republic Act No. 10627, Anti-Bullying Act of 2013, Sec. 2.
• Executive Order No. 292, Administrative Code of 1987, Book V, Title I, Subtitle A, Secs. 48(4) and 49(1).
• 2025 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, CSC Resolution No. 2500357, promulgated April 30, 2025, in force August 4, 2025: Foreword; Secs. 2, 4(qq), 7, 14, 16–26, 33, 34, 37, 38, 40, 46, 53, 56, 57, 63, 64(A), 75, 84, 91, 98 and 156; and the flowchart of sexual harassment cases.

DepEd issuances

• DepEd Order No. 35, s. 2004, Revision of the Grievance Machinery of the Department of Education, June 3, 2004, Part V.
• DepEd Memorandum No. 288, s. 2004, Promulgating Rules and Regulations in Investigating Sexual Harassment Cases, July 6, 2004, with the CSC–DepEd memorandum of agreement of May 12, 2004.
• DepEd Order No. 49, s. 2006, Revised Rules of Procedure of the Department of Education in Administrative Cases, December 12, 2006, Secs. 1, 2(ee) and last paragraph, 8(c) and 58.
• DepEd Order No. 15, s. 2012, DepEd Policy Framework for the Implementation of the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) System-Mediation, February 17, 2012, Sec. 4.
• DepEd Order No. 40, s. 2012, DepEd Child Protection Policy, May 14, 2012, Secs. 15–19.
• DepEd Order No. 32, s. 2017, Gender-Responsive Basic Education Policy, June 29, 2017, section on the Committee on Decorum and Investigation.
• Memorandum OM-OUOPS-2024-05-01115, Guidelines on the Implementation of the Safe Spaces Act in Basic Education, Office of the Undersecretary for Operations, February 7, 2024, Secs. 2, 11, 12, 16, 17, 20–22, 25 and 29; attached to DepEd Region VIII Regional Memorandum No. 210, s. 2024 (February 23, 2024).
• Memorandum DM-OUOPS-2024-05-07998, Supplemental Guidelines for the Implementation of DepEd Order No. 40, s. 2012, or the DepEd Child Protection Policy, Office of the Undersecretary for Operations, September 26, 2024, Parts IV, V.E and VII and Annex D; attached to DepEd Caraga Regional Memorandum No. 1159, s. 2024.
• DepEd Order No. 006, s. 2026, Guidelines on Ensuring a Safe and Motivating Learning Environment, March 24, 2026, Secs. I, III, VII.A.2 and VII.A.4, and Annexes A and D.
• DECS Order No. 31, s. 2001, Schedule of Collection of Authorized Voluntary Contributions.

Supreme Court decisions cited

• Office of the Ombudsman v. Medrano, G.R. No. 177580, October 17, 2008 (Second Division).
• Department of Education v. Cuanan, G.R. No. 169013, December 16, 2008 (En Banc).

This guide explains DepEd and Civil Service Commission rules for study and professional awareness. It is not legal advice; for a specific case, consult a lawyer or your Schools Division Office’s legal unit.

The administrative cases and grievances series

• DepEd Administrative Cases and Grievances: DO 49 and DO 35
• Who Disciplines DepEd Teachers and School Heads?
• How to File an Administrative Complaint in DepEd
• DepEd Preliminary Investigation, Formal Charge and Answer
• Formal Investigation and Decision in DepEd Cases
• DepEd Administrative Offenses and Penalties in 2026
• Can a Teacher Be Charged for Unpaid Loans in DepEd?
• DepEd Grievance Machinery: Steps and Time Limits
• Grievance or Administrative Case? Where to File
• Sexual Harassment and Child Abuse Complaints in DepEd (this post)
• What a School Head Does When a Complaint Arrives

Written by Mark Anthony Llego for NASH Reviewer. Sources: RA 7877, RA 11313 and its IRR, RA 4670 and RA 10627; the Administrative Code of 1987; the 2025 RACCS; DepEd Orders No. 35, s. 2004, No. 49, s. 2006, No. 15 and 40, s. 2012, No. 32, s. 2017 and No. 006, s. 2026; DepEd Memorandum No. 288, s. 2004; OM-OUOPS-2024-05-01115 and DM-OUOPS-2024-05-07998.