Starting September 8, 2012, anonymous comments -- whether for or against the RH bill -- will no longer be permitted on this blog.

Saturday, February 26, 2011

TV Maria on the RH Bill

Ano ang RH Bill?

Reproductive Health Bill at ang Populasyon:

Epekto ng RH Bill sa Pamilya at Lipunan:

Implikasyong Legal ng Reproductive Health Bill:

Pangangalaga sa mga Sanggol sa Sinapupunan

Ekonomiya at ang Pag-Kontrol ng Populasyon

Masamang Epekto ng Kontraseptibo

Reproductive Health ay Humahantong sa Aborsyon

More videos can be seen in the Youtube Channel of TV Maria

Michael Voris against the RH Bill

(Originally posted in the morning of February 25, 2011)

UPDATE: Here's a transcription of Mr. Voris' talk of this video, thanks to Mr. Rommel Lopez, a Knight of Columbus:

Hello everyone and welcome to the Vortex where lies and falsehoods are trapped and exposed . I’m Michael Voris coming to you for the next week from beautiful Manila in the Philippines.

We left Detroit in a blizzard and landed to a very welcome 82 degrees after 22 hours of flying and not much sleep.

We came to the Philippines because of a series of pro-life talks going on in the country’s capital centering. I’m happy to say I’m one of the invited speakers to the various conferences sponsored by faithful Catholics in cooperation with their bishops who are unafraid to battle against the culture of death. Being in Manila reminds me of an event that happened here more than 30 years ago. It was THE world heavyweight championship boxing match between Mohammed Ali and Joe Frazier that took place in September 1975. It was a slugfest still seen as the most brutal of all. Because of its ferocity it was dubbed the Thrilla’ in Manila! 

It might be apropos then that another epic battle is shaping up in this capital city. Another slugfest of epic proportions – but this one will have results that last much longer than some yellowed sports pages and old movies. This one is a fight to the death  -- physically and spiritually -- and it’s over contraception, which of course will ultimately mean abortion as well. In this corner Jesus Christ and the infallible teachings of His One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. In the other corner Satan and all his usual allies: the secular media Planned Parenthood, the Center for Reproductive Rights. At issue? The nation’s current laws which in general forbid or greatly restrict contraception. 

The Philippines is an overwhelmingly Catholic country 85 percent of the population. But little by little through the insidiousness of the secular media, movies, TV, news reporting, the creeping culture of death is getting a foothold. They actually established a beachhead and gotten to all the right kind of people: lawmakers and celebrities. And now a legislative war of titanic proportions is being fought in the halls of the nation’s government.

If this all sounds like “Back to the Future” to you, don’t be alarmed. You’re right. This is the same war that happened in the United States and Europe right about the time that Ali and Frazier were pounding each other’s brains out here in the Philippines back in the mid-1970’s.

Contraception used to be illegal in the United States and not that long ago. Certainly within living memory of many of our viewers. But in the mid 1960s a public relations campaign that proved very effective at the end of the day was waged in the media and the courts.

Eventually the US Supreme Court ruled that a “right to privacy” existed in the US Constitution which permitted married couples to use contraception. That was the camel’s nose under the tent. Soon the right to privacy was extended to unmarried couples, then a right to kill an unborn child which resulted from failed contraception then further extended to homosexuals having sex. It’s a tried and true plan on the part of the secular atheist crowd. They talk about over population and poverty and how large families and unintended pregnancies keep a country in economic slavery. How the poor will always be poor as long as they are getting pregnant.

That the only solution is the humane one of “family planning and contraception”. They produce charts and graphs and enlist the help of TV and radio and newspaper journalists, all who support these positions , to lie about them and slowly over a period of months and years of never-ending beating of the drum through TV shows and editorials and advertisements and clever marketing campaigns and news reports focusing on one individual’s problems and woes . Through all these methods they slowly get into the minds of the populace who begin to believe the hype and the lies. With having planted enough doubt into people’s minds they also focus on politicians who accept money from the Planned Parenthood type groups. International pressure is brought to bear through UN studies and recommendations and reports and committees’ findings.

Foreign aid by the billions is dangled in front of them to sweeten the deal. A tsunami of disinformation, propaganda, lies, money, celebrity and glamour is presented and soon the tide begins to turn in their favor. Once all the groundswell work has been put in place the secularists and Planned Parenthood turn their attention to the courts and lawmakers. The Philippines has a government system much like the US ,with two houses (an upper and a lower), a President and a Supreme Court. Right now, a  huge battle is being waged in the lower house to pass what is called the RH bill -- Reproductive Health. Coverage of it has been extensive not only in the Philippines but also in of all places the New York Times and other western media. We’ve attached a few links to these stories and reports which details the efforts of the anti-life crowd right over here including the propaganda from Planned Parenthood that is widely quoted in the Philippines .. most of it lies or distortions. But the again .. Planned Parenthood makes a handsome living off its lies so no surprise there.

Within the next couple of weeks the lower house of government is expected to vote on whether to pass the RH bill and thus pave the way for contraception to become legitimate in this vastly Catholic country. Unlike many of their counterparts in the US and Europe the Catholic bishops in the Philippines are speaking out strongly and loudly and boldly about the evil of contraception. Some are on record as saying that if this becomes law they will oppose it so strongly that they will go to jail. Talk about a night and day difference between many US and European bishops and these champions of the Faith.

Bishops in the west barely make a peep about contraception, much less threaten to go to jail over the issue or any issue for that fact; but the Filipino bishops have the deep faith and love of Our Lord and his teachings that they know what this will all lead to and they love their people enough to not want the evil of contraception, and then abortion and homosexuality, to be unleashed on them.

We’re going to be meeting with and being introduced to a number of these bishops during the coming week and we will be certain to send them these heroes of the Faith all your greetings and warmest wishes and prayers for their success in the coming battle. The Ali-Frazer battle can’t hold a candle to this upcoming Thrilla in Manila. Keep these men and their faithful flock who are fighting hard to turn back the forces of death in your prayers. We’ll have more for you all this week as we report from The Philippines. GOD Bless you.

Friday, February 25, 2011

Fr. Bel San Luis SVD on why the Church must maintain a hard-line stance against the RH Bill

Word Alive
February 5, 2011

MANILA, Philippines – This Sunday is Pro-Life Sunday. A few years ago, there was a very touching photo reproduced and widely circulated around the USA.

The picture was that of a 21-week-old unborn baby named Samuel Alexander Armas, who was being operated on by a surgeon named Joseph Bruner.

* * *

The baby was diagnosed with “spina bifida” and would not survive if removed from his mother’s womb. Little Samuel’s mother, Julie Armas, was an obstetrics nurse in Atlanta.

She knew of Dr. Bruner’s remarkable surgical procedure. During the procedure, the doctor removed the uterus via Caesarian section and made a small incision to operate on the baby.

* * *

While doing the surgery on little Samuel, the little guy reached his tiny, but fully developed, hand through the incision and firmly grasped the surgeon’s finger.

The photograph captured the amazing event with perfect clarity. The editors titled the picture, “Hand of Hope.”

* * *

The article explained, “The tiny hand of 21-week-old fetus Samuel Alexander Armas emerges from the mother’s uterus to grasp the finger of Dr. Joseph Bruner as if thanking the doctor for the gift of life.”

Little Samuel’s mother said she “wept for days” when she saw the picture. She said, “The photo reminds us that my pregnancy isn’t about disability or illness, it’s about a little living person.”

* * *

The event is a powerful reminder on the value of life, especially on Pro-Life Sunday.

In the documentary film “Silent Scream,” you can see how a tiny fetus is deliberately sucked out of the uterus by the abortionist. The living fetus senses the instrument of death. It squirms and struggles to defend itself but the poor helpless creature is overpowered.

* * *

The maker of the documentary is a former abortionist-doctor and director of the world’s largest abortion clinic in the USA, Dr. Bernard Nathanson, MD. From being an atheist and top abortionist, he was converted to Catholicism and is now making reparation by lecturing on the evil of abortion. His journey from death to life is beautifully written in his book, The Hand of God.

* * *

Today, a Reproductive Health Bill is being promoted vigorously in Congress ostentatiously to protect women from harm to their health, but with all those chemicals and artificial contraceptives imposed, it is actually endangering their lives and even killing the unborn children by abortifacient contraceptives.

* * *

If the Church has, time and again, maintained a hard-line stand against the RH Bill, it comes out of its reverence and respect for the enormous gift of human life which comes from God. We are only stewards and caretakers of life.

Thursday, February 24, 2011

A handy summary of some of the major arguments against the RH bill

(For a slideshow version, please scroll down this post.)

1. The Reproductive Health Bill undermines the human rights it seeks to advance.

The government cannot, on the one hand, guarantee the “universal basic human right to reproductive health” with its concomitant “right to make free and informed decisions,” and on the other hand advocate a policy that tells parents—especially women—what their choices should be. Such an approach is an unjustifiable affront to the dignity and capacity of the poor.

The bill also claims to give equal importance to natural and artificial methods of family planning. This claim does not hold. While mention is given to natural methods of family planning, no funding is provided for the promotion of these methods in the budgetary provisions of the bill. Natural methods rely on investments in the education of women and increased knowledge, in order to enable women to manage their health, and make informed decisions. Budgetary allocations must be inserted to the bill to provide funding for the training of knowledge-based reproductive health care providers, and the promotion of necessary information to women in order to enable informed choice.

2. Maternal Health requires access to healthcare facilities and reproductive health education, not contraceptives.

Improved access to basic health care, nutrition, medicines and technology are the additional means by which maternal mortality and morbidity can be reduced and eliminated.

The mandate of the RH bill to increase obstetric care and skilled birth attendants, is not emphasized in this bill. The causes of maternal mortality and morbidity are limited: hemorrhage, infection, obstructed labor and hypertensive disorders. These causes can be significantly addressed through investment in skilled birth attendants, and provision of health education for women and families.

There is probably no more important step the Philippines could take toward improving reproductive health. The UNFPA states that three-fourths (¾) of all maternal deaths could be averted by the presence of skilled birth attendants. By contrast, family planning is likely to reduce maternal deaths only by one-third. The RH bill’s current provisions for maternal care are important, but underdeveloped in comparison with other parts of the bill.

3. It does not protect the rights of conscience of those that will be responsible for implementing new measure.

All reproductive health care workers should “provide information and educate” and “render medical services” consistent with the new provisions in this bill. This bill does not include measures that protect conscientious objections for healthcare workers or institutions that refuse to provide services due to religious or cultural beliefs and practices. In addition, through state-imposed reproductive health curriculum in schools, this bill undermines the rights of parents to be the primary educators of their children. Likewise, denying couples the right to marry without first receiving “adequate instruction” on family planning and responsible parenthood violates their individual freedom conscience and discriminates against those who would refuse such training in religious or cultural grounds.

4. It violates freedom of expression.

The bill’s criminalization of speech that “maliciously engages in disinformation” (an undefined category) about the substance or even potential motives behind the RH bill violates the constitutional right to free speech and expression. The provision should be eliminated in its entirety.

5. Increase in Contraceptive use leads to higher abortion rate

Dr. Malcolm Potts, abortion and contraceptive advocate and past medical director of the International Planned Parenthood Federation, said that “As people turn to contraception, there will be a rise, not a fall, in the abortion rate.” Dr. Judith Bury of the Brook Advisory Center chimed in a few years later that “There is overwhelming evidence that, contrary to what you might expect, the provision of contraception leads to an increase in the abortion rate.”

The reason for this is twofold: First, contraceptives fail a certain percentage of the time. A 5% failure rate means that 5% of the couples using a certain method will be pregnant at the end of the year. Second, the use of contraceptives gives a false sense of security that leads to risky sexual behavior. The result is more “unplanned” pregnancies and hence more abortions.

6. It fails to reaffirm the Philippines’s protection of the unborn.

Filipino law has long defended the right to life of all persons, whether born or unborn. The Reproductive Health Bill makes only an ambiguous statement of principle (“While nothing in this Act changes the law against abortion...”) as part of a care provision for post-abortion complications. Additionally, the bill’s guarantee of “reproductive health care services,” as opposed to the defined term “reproductive health care,” as well as a “universal basic human right to reproductive health” according to international legal custom, could eventually open the door to undermining Philippines national law protecting unborn persons.

7. Recent reports emphasize the problems with widely used family planning programs that fail to meet the needs of the poorest populations.

“Strategies that seek to increase contraceptive use rapidly by improving services and access in convenient or well-resourced areas are likely to increase observed inequities in contraceptive use.” Maternal mortality and general reproductive health problems also remain high because the unique issues facing poor populations are not addressed. (Nuriye Ortayli and Shawn Malarcher, “Equity Analysis: Identifying Who Benefits from Family Planning Programs.”) In this way family planning programs, by focusing on contraceptive use rather than an integrated, comprehensive approach to population development, fail to address the needs of the poor.

8. There has never been a direct link connecting high population with high poverty rates.

Correlation is not causation. It is short-sighted to think of declining population growth as a goal in of itself. Population control, as an economic policy, has proven to be unsustainable. Across Europe and Asia, countries that saw steep declines in fertility in the past generation are now bracing themselves for the future consequences of an aging population, when a large number of elderly can no longer be supported by the smaller and younger working class. During the 1970s and 1980s, Singapore instituted an aggressive two-child policy, which led to a situation of labor shortages and the difficulty of supporting an aging population. In an effort to recover, Singapore now pursues a pro-fertility policy.

In the case of Hong Kong, the country’s dense population has had no debilitating effects on its economic development. Hong Kong has experienced a great economic boom and high levels of economic prosperity largely due to a sound banking system, no public debt, a strong legal system, and a rigorously enforced anti-corruption regime. This case provides a clear example that economic development is not synonymous with small population size, and that a large population is not only sustainable but an asset to development.


Slideshow version:

Tuesday, February 22, 2011

A teenager's open letter against the RH bill

I saw this being shared on Facebook.


Letter from 16-year old High School student, expressing her concern against the RH Bill.

February 14, 2011

Dear Sir or Madam,

The Reproductive Health Bill is a breach in collective national reason. It is common knowledge that this country has stumbled over many bad decisions over the span of its existence, but the Reproductive Health Bill is on a par all its own. While it is true that the Reproductive Health Bill does have some good points and intentions, my reason has led me to believe that the RH Bill will lead us nowhere but miserable failure. Unfortunately I am an underage student in high school with no political power whatsoever, and what I can do to influence the decisions made in this country is infinitely smaller compared to the power held by you. That is the reason why this letter is being written, because I know you yourself would encourage a young citizen like me to take action, although my opinion and yours seem to contradict each other. I do not see anyway around that problem so you might as well deal with it and read what I have prepared for you in this letter.

In the Reproductive Health Bill, with its paragraphs and statements and endless definitions, one simple goal is blatantly expressed: to curb national overpopulation. This dilemma of ours is supposedly an obstacle in the way of national progress, because apparently a country only needs a certain number of people to succeed. This country, so it is said, has too many mouths to feed, too little space to build houses on, and too little money to accommodate everybody. It is a very simple concept that seems true. We need a fewer amount of people so that we can make the most out of the money we have. We will not try to make more money. We will try to have fewer people.

Obviously there is a lot of fallacy in this. First of all, poverty is not caused by overpopulation. Poverty is caused first and foremost by inefficient leadership. If you take the root of it all you will see that the ruin of a society has never been caused by the people. It is atrocious how people, especially the poor ones, are seen as the stumbling block to this country’s progress. Is it the poor who steal billions of pesos of taxpayer’s money? Is it the poor who do not provide sufficient infrastructure? Is it the poor that continually makes one bad decision over another? Maybe instead of blaming the innocent, you should be pointing your finger in the other direction. It is so easy to manipulate words to justify one’s actions and incapability, and then put the blame on the victims, instead taking the responsibility for one’s own.

In fact, the single most important resource in a country is the human resource. It is the Filipino people who make up this country’s workforce. The bigger the population, the more people there will be to work. The more people there will be to consume. Correspondingly, if you have nobody to work, there will be less output. There will also be less people to consume products. Consumers are needed for this country to thrive. What will happen if there are not enough Filipinos?

Overpopulation is nothing but a myth used as a scapegoat by powerful people as a way to continue their inefficient agenda. The mentality of overpopulation will destroy the Philippines just as it is destroying the world as we speak. When perhaps we have a population that is suitable enough for you, you will realize that you actually need people to work and to produce in order to keep a country on its feet. Perhaps maybe then it would be too late, and the economy is struggling to keep alive because the small population of young workers is also trying to handle the burden of large aging population. Then you would have to switch things around and do what countries like Singapore are doing, and that is to actually pay a couple to have children. But does the Philippines have enough budget for that kind of plan?

I would also like to take this opportunity to inquire if the government is actually doing something to assess the high density of people in the urban centers. The reason that the cities are so cramped is because there no jobs to be found in the rural areas. Is the government looking for ways to make new jobs so that people would not go to the city? Perhaps the problem of overpopulation would not be so bad if the Filipinos could be more spread out. This is just a suggestion.

Second of all, I am against this bill because it states that I will go to jail if I say anything bad about it, supposing that it is passed. Never in my life have I encountered a bill with such insecurity. What is so wrong about speaking out against some law? If you have an answer, then please enlighten me. I do not understand. I thought that our Constitution defends my right to express my opinions. Apparently I can express my opinions about anything except this certain topic. I did not realize that such things are allowed. Of course I would not know about these very well, since I am only in high school. However, you are politicians and you should know a lot about laws and rights. Please reply back so that I can settle this in my mind and tell my friends about it.

Thirdly, the Reproductive Health Bill speaks a lot about defending women by giving them access to artificial birth control methods. I understand how having clinics is good for women, as it is mentioned in the RH Bill, but what are you defending them from when you give them birth control? From babies? Since when have babies become vicious pests that women need defense from? As a young woman myself, I personally find condom use degrading. Artificial birth control methods encourage men to see women not as persons but as objects to derive pleasure from. Widespread condom use will raise the number of prostitutes in this country. Now that young girls know how not to get pregnant, they can sell their bodies as much as they wish without the risk. How does this empower womanhood? That is one more thing I do not understand.

One’s stance on the Reproductive Health Bill is not an opinion. This Bill is not something that I can compare to a favorite color or a favorite pop tune. Your stance on the RH Bill is yes or no, wrong or right. Perhaps for simple folks like me, the say on the RH Bill has no consequence. But for you, it is a matter of progress or regress for this country. Important Political Person, I am pretty sure that you know more than I do, and you have very good tastes and opinions on a vast array of subjects. But on this issue I am afraid to say that you are wrong. You have been deceived by the popular opinions of the western world and you are leading everyone in a dangerous direction. When you are making your decision you are not siding with the church or state, the masses or the elite. You are making a decision as a service to your country, which is what your occupation demands you hold in utmost.

I have brought forth what my mental power can come up with, and hopefully it has caused you to think about the Reproductive Health Bill even just a little bit.

Yours patriotically,

Maria Inez M. Barrameda

A model law to protect unborn children, courtesy of Bgy. Ayala Alabang




Be it enacted by the Sangguniang Barangay of Ayala Alabang, Muntinlupa City:


This Ordinance shall be known as the Protection of the Unborn Child Ordinance of 2011.


A. BARANGAY AYALA ALABANG (hereafter, the BARANGAY) upholds (a) the State’s recognition of the sanctity of family life and its obligation to protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution (Article II, Section 12 of the Constitution); (b) the duty of the State “to equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn child from conception” (Ibid.) since the unborn is the family’s most vulnerable member, and, (c) the State’s identification of the Filipino family including the unborn child as “the foundation of the nation” and its pledge to “strengthen the family’s solidarity and actively promote its total development” [Article XV, Section 3 (1)];

B. The BARANGAY also adheres to (a) the State’s declared policy of “full respect for human rights” (Article II, Section 11), the most basic of which is the right to life for without it all other rights become meaningless; (b) the implicit Constitutional principle that the people’s right to life (Article III, Section 1) like that of the unborn child is an absolute value and norm that cannot be repealed by ordinary legislation;

C. The BARANGAY likewise supports the State’s recognition of (a) the right of children to proper care and nutrition, protection from all forms of neglect, abuse, cruelty, exploitation and other conditions prejudicial to their development [Article XV, Section 3 (2)]; (b) the vital role of the youth in nation building, and (c) its commitment to promote and protect their physical, moral, spiritual, intellectual and social well-being, and, (d) the role of women in nation-building, and, its pledge to ensure the fundamental equality before the law of women and men (Article II, Sections 13 & 14);

D. The BARANGAY as well (a) endorses the view that contraceptive pills and hormonal contraceptives and the IUD may kill children and injure the health of women who use them; (b) condemns the irresponsible and indiscriminate use of contraceptives as they undermine the solidarity of families by promoting premarital sex, giving rise to more fatherless children, more single mothers, more poverty, and more abortions when the contraceptives fail to prevent conception, and by causing a decline of legitimate marriages, and, (c) denounces the use of condoms as far as they promote and sanction immoral sexual congresses among the unmarried and especially among the young, thereby contradicting the Constitutional injunction that the State “shall promote and protect … the physical, moral, spiritual, intellectual and social well-being” of the youth;

E. The BARANGAY (a) acknowledges that the unborn possesses and enjoys all human rights like other persons by nature and by law and that he or she shall be entitled first and foremost to the right of life, safety and protection even as he or she may still be in his or her mother’s womb; (b) follows the mandate of the Constitution that the unborn child shall be protected from the moment of conception from all outside interventions, interferences or intrusions, including, but not limited to, intentional acts that may be medically considered as abortive whether through the use of chemicals, surgical or abdominal massage during the natural process of growth of the fertilized ovum, and (c) backs up the principle that the right of the parents over their minor daughters with unborn children is superior to that of the State in instances involving the safety, protection and welfare of the said unborn children and their mothers of minor age; and,

F. The BARANGAY lastly deduces from pertinent Constitutional tenets that since life begins at conception there is no place for the so-called “free choice” argument to justify compulsory sex education in the schools within its territorial jurisdiction that, among other things, disregards “the right of families or family associations to participate in the planning and implementation of policies and programs that affect them” [(Article XV, Section 3 (2)] or that insidiously allows the State to take over “the natural and primary right and duty of parents” to rear their children “for civic efficiency and the development of (their) moral character” (Article II, Section 12 last sentence).


The ordinance has the following objectives:

(a) to promote the safety, protection, and, welfare of the unborn child from the moment of conception or fertilization and during all stages of development while inside the mother’s womb;

(b) to acknowledge the unborn child as a human being with human personality and to extend the mantle of legal protection to the child from the moment of his or her conception or fertilization;

(c) to mandate that the delivery of health services to the mother during pregnancy shall be done without prejudice to the unborn child;

(d) to ensure the continued well-being and good health of the mother by protecting her from any act or threat that may adversely affect the viability of the unborn child in all stages of the mother’s pregnancy and even after the child’s delivery;

(e) to encourage the legal, moral and healthy sexual relationships among those entitled thereto under the laws of the country and pursuant to the religious convictions of the couples concerned as mandated by the Constitution; and

(f) to support the Constitutional precept that the total development of the child is a primordial duty of both the parents and the State and its agencies, including the BARANGAY.

(g) to promote and provide effective and scientifically proven Natural Family Planning (NFP) services to married couples and those engaged to be married, because NFP, unlike contraceptives, strengthens rather than weakens the marriage bond between husband and wife, which is the foundation stone of the family, the foundation of the nation.


For purposes of the Ordinance, the following terms are defined as follows:

Unborn – refers to a child at any stage of his or her existence and development beginning from the union of the sperm and the egg until the birth stage;

Conception or Fertilization – refers to the time that the sperm fertilizes the egg, which starts a new life that has a distinct existence and genetic make-up of its own;

Implantation – refers to that stage of development of the fetal life which takes place around five days after fertilization when the fertilized egg is implanted in the ovum.

Fetal development – refers to the development process of human life from the union of the sperm and egg until the birth of the child.

Abortion – any act or practice whether done intentionally or unintentionally to endanger, cause or bring about the death, injury, damage, expulsion or interference in the natural development of the fetus or the unborn child such as through “hilot” (abdominal massage), administration of certain medicines or herbal concoctions, suction, hysterectomy, saline injection, hormonal contraceptives, intra-uterine devices (IUD’s) or other similar means or devices like vacuum aspirators or abortifacient substances whether used singly or in combination with other substances.

Abortive acts – abortion practiced by the woman herself or by her parents or guardians, physicians or midwives or pharmacists who dispense abortives in violation of the provisions of the Revised Penal Code (Articles 256-259).

Contraceptive – any device or drug that is intended or has the purpose or effect of preventing conception as a consequence of sexual intercourse.

Abortifacient – is any device, medicine, substance or practice which may damage, injure, interfere with the natural development, endanger or cause the expulsion or death of an unborn child; except for such devices, medicines, substances or practices which are standard medical treatments for medical conditions which threaten the life or physical health of a pregnant woman or an unborn child, when used to treat such medical conditions, and neither the primary effect nor purpose of such device, medicine, substance, or practice is to cause the termination of a pregnancy or prevent conception. Abortifacients include Intrauterine Devices (IUD’s), and hormonal contraceptives, as well as any and all other devices, medicines, substances or practices which fall within the foregoing definition, including but not limited to the list hereto attached as Annex A entitled as List of Hormonal Contraceptives. This list shall be updated from time to time as the need arises.

Human personality – refers to the status that is gained and attaches to an unborn child from the moment of conception.

Parental Right – refers to the right of parents to give or withhold consent when minors are involved in any decision or disposition relating to unborn children at any stage of their development in the wombs of their minor mothers.


All health services performed within the territorial jurisdiction of the BARANGAY including any other institution or person, whether natural or juridical, the Barangay Health Centers and any domestic health care institution, which is duly licensed and accredited and devoted primarily to the maintenance and operation of facilities for health promotion, prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and care of individuals suffering from illness, disease, injury, disability or deformity, or in need of obstetrical or other medical and nursing care shall use only safe, ethical, effective, legal and non-abortifacient medicines or drugs or machines, devices or methods of treatment that do not cause abortion intentionally or unintentionally.

For the protection of the unborn and the institutions of marriage and family, no abortifacients shall be prescribed by health care providers within the territorial jurisdiction of the BARANGAY.
All funds which are budgeted or disbursed by the BARANGAY for programs to support responsible parenthood shall be used exclusively to promote and provide effective and scientifically proven Natural Family Planning (NFP) services to married couples and those engaged to be married.
The BARANGAY shall encourage, and where possible support, financially and otherwise, the establishment of one or more crisis pregnancy centers within the Barangay, to provide assistance in the form of counseling, and, if possible, medical and material support to women who are experiencing a crisis pregnancy.


It is hereby declared illegal and unlawful for:
1. Any natural or juridical person to advertise within the territorial jurisdiction of the BARANGAY by billboards, brochures, leaflets, flyers or similar means or in any manner or form, sell, offer for free or endorse, promote, prescribe or distribute abortifacients as defined in Section 4. Definition of Terms.
2. Any person to subject an unborn child or his or her mother to acts that may endanger or expose the unborn child or mother to injury or death.

3. Any person to hold, conduct or teach compulsory sex education without prior consultation with, and written permission of, the parents or guardians of minor students in any school, public or private within the territorial jurisdiction of the BARANGAY;

4. Any funds of the BARANGAY to be used for the purchase or provision of contraceptives as defined in Section 4. Definition of Terms; and,

5. Either the BARANGAY or its employees or its agencies to solicit, accept or dispense contraceptives as defined in Section 4. Definition of Terms.


The pertinent provisions of Republic Act No. 5921 entitled AN ACT REGULATING THE PRACTICE OF PHARMACY AND SETTING STANDARDS OF PHARMACEUTICAL EDUCATION IN THE PHILIPPINES AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES enacted into law June 21, 1969 are hereby incorporated into the Ordinance as an integral part thereof and are reproduced as follows:

“Section 37. Provisions relative to dispensing of anti-conceptional substances and devices. No drug or chemical product or device capable of provoking abortion or preventing conception as classified by the Food and Drug Administration shall be delivered or sold to any person without a proper prescription by a duly licensed physician.

The pharmacist in charge of a drug store or pharmacy after filling a prescription containing abortive or anti-conceptional substance or devices shall record in a separate register book for abortives and anti-conceptionals, the following data;

(a) Number and date of the prescription;

(b) Name and address of the physician;

(c) Name, quantity and manufacturer of the drug;

(d) Name and address of the purchaser;

(e) Date of filling the prescription; and

(f) Signature of the pharmacist filling the prescription.

“Section. 41. Other penalties. Any pharmacist who shall violate any of the provisions of Sections twenty-eight, thirty, thirty-one, thirty-two, thirty-three, thirty-four, thirty-five, thirty-seven and thirty-eight of this Act or any pharmacist after his certificate of registration has been lawfully suspended or revoked, who continues to engage in the practice of pharmacy, shall, upon conviction thereof, be sentenced to a fine of not less than one hundred pesos but shall not exceed five hundred pesos or to an imprisonment of not less than thirty days but not more than four months, in the discretion of the court.

Any person other than citizens of the Philippines having been found guilty of any violation as provided for in this and the preceding section shall, after having paid the fine or having served his sentence or both when so required be also subject to deportation.”

In addition to the above provisions of Republic Act No. 5921, classifications of drugs or chemical products or devices that are abortifacients as defined in Section 4. Definition of Terms shall also fall under the regulatory provision of this Section.


(a) Any person found guilty for the first time of violating any provision of Section 6 of the Ordinance shall be fined in an amount not less than P1,000 but not exceeding P5,000; for the second offense, he or she shall be fined in the amount of not less than P5,000 and be imprisoned for not less than one month but not exceeding six months; and for the third and succeeding offenses, he or she shall be sentenced to an imprisonment for not less than six months but not exceeding one year. Violators of the Ordinance shall also be held civilly liable to the offended party.

(b) If the person violating any provision of the Ordinance is an employee of the BARANGAY, he or she shall also be dismissed from his or her office and shall thereafter be barred from holding any public office.

(c) If the person violating any provision of the Ordinance is a business enterprise, firm, company or corporation or an educational institution, its president, chief executive officer or any other person responsible for the management and/or operation of the enterprise in the BARANGAY, shall suffer the penalties provided for in Section 7. In addition, the BARANGAY permit to engage in business of the said business enterprise, firm, company or corporation or to operate a private educational institution in the Barangay shall be declared null and void.


Acts already proscribed by the revised penal code or by any special law are excluded from the purview of the ordinance and shall be penalized pursuant to the provisions of the code or the applicable special law.


If any provision of this Ordinance or part thereof is declared invalid or unconstitutional, the remaining provisions shall remain valid and subsisting.


Within three (3) days from the enactment of this Ordinance, the Sangguniang Barangay shall furnish copies thereof to the Sangguniang Panlungsod of the City of Muntinlupa for review. If the Sangguniang Panlungsod fails to take appropriate action on the Ordinance within thirty (30) days from receipt hereof, the same shall be deemed approved. The Ordinance shall take effect upon the approval by the Sangguniang Panlungsod or as herein provided and after its posting at two conspicuous places, one at the entrance of the Barangay Hall of Ayala Alabang and another at a visible place accessible to the public in the BARANGAY for three (3) consecutive weeks and its publication in a newspaper of general circulation for one (1) week.


Punong Barangay

Barangay Kagawad Barangay Kagawad

Barangay Kagawad Barangay Kagawad

Barangay Kagawad Barangay Kagawad

Barangay Kagawad SK Chairman

Attested by:

Barangay Secretary

Filipino Seminarians' detailed critique of the RH Bill

The Seminarians’ Network of the Philippines, Inc.


1. More than a decade has passed since the very first “Reproductive Health Bill” was filed in Congress, a long period which is a testimony of how divided we have become as a nation on this issue. This issue has ripped us apart, set each of us up as either pro-RH or anti-RH, each against the other.

2. At present, no less than six such bills are pending in the two houses of Congress. And most widely known of them is HB 96 which is currently being studied by the appropriate legislative committees. Once more, we have become divided among ourselves. We hear and read various data and opinions said and written on television, radio, newspaper, and now, the internet.

3. Having read the bill and carefully listened to all sides of the issue especially that of the poor, having rigorously studied the insights of ethics and theology and the data from scientific research, and having discerned in our individual seminary communities and as one network, we, The Diocesan Seminarians’ Network of the Philippines, Inc. (SemNet), comprising Catholic theology seminarians who are preparing to take up leadership roles in our local Churches, wish to offer the following thoughts and sentiments.

Protecting Life

4. We call on everyone to pay attention to the fact that the principle that life is of fundamental value is not only upheld by Judaeo-Christian tradition (Evangelium Vitae, 1, 47) but also protected by the Constitution of our land, which defends it from the time of conception up to its natural end (Art. II Sec. 12). This provision set in our fundamental law stands as the testament to the commitment of the Filipino to care for life. As a nation, we believe that we will never attain true development if the right to life is violated in our society.

5. We therefore call the attention of our lawmakers to the knowledge about the micro-abortifacient nature and effects of some contraceptive medicines and devices like the IUD and some pills. We condemn the proposal in HB 96 (Sec. 4, 15 and Sec. 7) to use public funds for the procurement and free-access distribution of such abortifacients. Such a move is not only un-Christian, but also beyond doubt un-Filipino. Preserving the Family

6. We seek to defend the integrity of the family. We must not forget that we Filipinos are family-oriented. And we recall that good family life is the foundation of a stable and progressive society, for it is primarily in the family that mind, morals, and faith are formed (cf. Familiaris Consortio, 2) so that citizens may productively serve the society at large. Therefore, the integrity of the family must be one of the aims of any program for public health and responsible parenthood.

7. We believe that the couples must remain open to the gift of procreation, i.e. use natural means. Responsible parenthood—which includes family planning—is integral to ensuring family health (Humanae Vitae, 10). But the Church has always stressed the use of natural means in planning the number and spacing of children (Humanae Vitae, 14). Scientific research has developed many such natural means which when properly used prove to be highly effective. We fault the Department of Health for the disregard of and mere “lip service” to Natural Family Planning (NFP). Greater promotion of this morally superior option for the NFP must be done.

8. We are also against the proposal of HB 96 (sec. 9) to consider as “essential medicines” the devices and medicines for artificial methods of contraception. Such move promotes the mentality that pregnancy is a disease. We believe that such a mentality is largely based on the view about the sexual act that robs it of its loving and life-giving ends but instead reduces it to mere recreation.

9. We also believe that the most effective means to educate children and youth towards sexual integrity is through the family, especially the proper care and guidance of the parents (Gaudium et Spes, 49). This is also the best way to ensure that the youth grow in sexual awareness and maturity. To just disseminate to the youth “value-free” information about sex and contraceptives simply increases the risk of unwanted pregnancy and venereal diseases because they experiment with their sexual faculties.

10. We thus hold fast to the fact that education in sexuality is the primarily the right and duty of the parents, not of the school or the State. The parents’ exercise of their educative role must not be bypassed by any institution but rather be supported and enriched in implementing a program for sex education. Defending the Conscience

11. We staunchly oppose the provisions in HB 96 that violate the basic right of every person to live and proclaim one’s faith, i.e. according to his conscience (Dignitatis Humanae, 1) such as the following:

a. Obliging healthcare institutions and professionals to prescribe or provide to their patients artificial contraception or direct micro-abortion even if they consider it as immoral by reasons of faith (cf. HB 96 sec. 22).

b. Demanding employers to include provisions for artificial contraception or direct micro-abortion among the benefits of their employees (cf. HB 96, sec. 18).

c. Requiring schools, parents, and students to participate in sex education programs which partly or entirely violate the teachings of their religious affiliation (cf. HB 96, sec. 13).

d. Penalizing believers who speak out their conscience against a wide-scale program that includes micro-abortion and has insufficient regard for family integrity (cf. HB 96, sec. 22, e).

12. We also call on all Catholics to boldly defend their conscience, to heed faithfully the truths taught by the Church, and to eagerly proclaim these teachings to everyone. Let us not allow ourselves to be carried away by the culture that views sex as mere recreation and children as mere burdens. We urge spouses not to be afraid to witness to others about the benefits of responsible parenthood through the natural family planning. We also encourage our fellow youth not be ashamed of attesting to your fellow young ones the beauty of self-discipline and marital commitment. 

Realizing Democracy 

13. We acknowledge that a responsible parenthood program is essential to achieving national progress as long as it does not depart from the long-standing values of our nation. But we must also realize that we can only arrive at this goal through reasonable dialogue and responsible democracy. 

14. We urge those engaged in academic work, especially priests and our fellow seminarians to be more rigorous in studying and teaching ethics according to reason and faith. And as we do our learned ministry, let us not fail to attend to all angles of the discussion. Let us make it a point to listen especially to those most affected by this issue: the poor and the women. 

15. We also call on media companies to be responsible heralds of the facts. Do not editorialize the news. Do not misquote individuals or take the statements they make out of context. Do not sensationalize the news for the sake of ratings or profit. Inform the public of the whole truth. Deception of the public is grave treason to the nation! 

16. We urge every Filipino to learn the art of engaging in reasonable dialogue. The recent manner of discussion has been marked by exchanges of foul language and offensive words. Acts like these done by both “pro” and “anti” parties only bring about further unnecessary division among us. Let us not be narrow-minded. Let us read and listen so that we all may learn more about the issue and make well-grounded opinions. Only then can we exercise bayanihan. Only then can we be agents of significant development for holistic healthcare in our beloved country. 

Achieving Integral Development 

17. We firmly believe that overpopulation is not the root cause of poverty in the Philippines. It may be an actual concern, but it should not cover up the real deeper problems of inequitable distribution of the resources of our nation and the rampant corruption in our government. 

18. We likewise believe that instead of allocating large portions of our budget to the proliferation of contraceptives and abortifacients, it is much wiser to use our funds for more indispensable priorities like basic health services, free education for all, livelihood for the poor, better job opportunities, and infrastructure development. 

19. We acknowledge the nobleness of the principles enshrined in the first parts of HB 96: alleviation of poverty, education of the young, happy and healthy family life, safety of women, informed conscience, and development of the nation. 

20. However, reading the bill makes us conclude that its authors are careless with nomenclature when it comes to formulating methods to apply these principles. “Poverty alleviation” seems to mean means looking at persons as mere burdens. “Education” ends up introducing young minds to corrupt sexuality. “Family health” accommodates materialistic comfort and contraceptive mentality. “Women’s safety” could open the doors to libertine sexuality. “Informed conscience” effectively allows violation of the conscience. And “national development” could mask justifying the inability of the government to efficiently provide jobs and social services. 

21. The righteous path (daang matuwid) is necessarily constituted by respect for life, integrity of the family, reverence to the conscience, and responsible democracy. The Church has always offered both her criticism and her collaboration to the State to achieve these ends. We who will share leadership in the same Church in the future commit ourselves to the same. 

Calling for Self-Examination 

22. We also humbly admit that very few dioceses or parishes have effectively implemented programs for promoting the natural methods. It is a sad fact indeed that much of our advocacy for this cause are merely preaching and not positive concrete actions. 

23. We understand that promoting family integrity and family health are constitutive parts of the mission of the Church. (Familiaris Consortio, 3) While healthcare is first and foremost a task of the State, the Church must also contribute her part. Throughout the world, our Church has championed holistic healthcare. Our healthcare institutions render not only physical care but also psycho-social and spiritual. Let us not fail here in the Philippines when it comes to the health of our people. 

24. We therefore urge our bishops and priests, religious and laity to make real concrete measures for the promotion of natural family planning in all ecclesial communities in our nation. We cannot just keep on speaking against the evil that is happening. We have to make a more effective proactive response to make real our aims. 


25. In the end, we call on everyone not to drown in the details and debate. Let us not to lose sight of our ultimate aim: the realization of the kingdom of God, the kingdom of justice, peace, truth, and love. Thus, we offer a prayer: 

Loving Father, you have called every person to life through the love of a family. Grant us steadfastness in protecting these lofty gifts you have given us. Give us courage to champion the good you have instilled in us. And make us one nation in working for genuine progress. Mary, Mother of Life, Protectress of the Family, and loving Advocate of every Filipino, lead us to the path that is your Son. Amen. 

January 9, 2011, Sunday 
Solemnity, Baptism of our Lord 
Feast Day, Black Nazarene