A recent memorandum from the Department of Education’s (DepEd) Schools Division Office (SDO) in San Fernando banning bringing backpacks on campus has drawn sharp criticism online, with netizens calling it “untimely” and “useless” just days before the new academic year begins.
The memo, issued earlier this week, prohibits learners from bringing backpacks to school, instead directing them to use transparent expandable envelopes. The SDO explained that the measure aims to prevent students from smuggling in prohibited items such as cigarettes, vapes, firearms and deadly weapons. This, following multiple incident reports from public schools in the city.
However, despite its name, the policy does not entirely ban backpacks. According to the memo, students may still bring them but only to use as temporary storage, similar to lockers, where school materials can be left inside the classroom.
The policy seeks to improve inspection efficiency at security gates and reduce the need for students to carry heavy bags daily.
Many parents and residents voiced strong objections, arguing the measure shifts the burden of discipline and monitoring onto students rather than addressing the root causes of the problem, such as lax school security and poor enforcement.
“Why not strengthen school security instead?” one commenter wrote in Filipino on DepEd San Fernando’s official Facebook page. “Add more guards to inspect bags properly at the entrance. This just shows the school staff can’t handle monitoring students.”
Another local, a parent of two, noted the memo’s poor timing. “Classes are starting in just two or three days. Many parents have already bought their children’s school bags—some even took out loans for them,” she said.
Others raised concerns over the so-called “locker system”, fearing it could result in misplaced or stolen items. “This will just lead to fights among students if belongings go missing inside the room,” another netizen warned.
However, one netizen hoped others would see the positive side of the policy in protecting children.
“It would be better to understand first why there is such policy before rambling,” the comment read.