A poem versus the RH Bill

RH BILL, HINDI PARA SA ATING BAYAN

ni: John B. Juat

Bilang isang anak at isang mamamayan

Ng ating minamahal na bayan

Mayroon akong mumunting kahilingan

Sana, kahit papaano, ako ay mapakinggan

Tingnan natin mabuti ang kapaligiran

Ano ba ang nakikita? Ano ang namamasdan?

Marami ang naghihirap, nakararanas ng kagutuman

Bakit kaya hindi parin natin sila matulungan?

Ang ating mga kapatid, ano ba ang kanilang kalagayan?

Ano ba talaga ang kanilang tunay na kailangan?

Edukasyon, pagmamahal, kalusugan at tirahan

Iyan ang dapat natin ibigay. Lahat naman ay may karapatan

Sobra na ang ating pagbubulag-bulagan

Halata naman, nararapat na sila ay ating tulungan

Para isang araw, maiahon sila mula sa kahirapan

At mabigyan sila ng magandang kinabukasan

Ngunit bakit ang RH bill patuloy na ipinaglalaban?

Hindi naman ito ang solusyon, marami naman paraan

Hindi naman nito kaya punuin ang kanilang mga tiyan

Ang tanging tinuturo nito ay maling kamalayan

Purkit malaki ang pamilya, ito na ba ay kasalanan?

O sadyang ang sarili lamang ang laman ng isipan?

Isipin natin ang kapwa natin, sila ay dapat protektahan

Hindi dungisan at mas lalong sirain ang kanilang pangalan

Ano ba ang mangyayari kung ating turuan

Ng tungkol sa seksualidad ang ating kabataan

Pamilya ang dapat magturo, huwag natin sila pangunahan

Dahil disgrasya kung ang impormasyon ay mali ang pinaggalingan

Ano na ang mangyayari sa mga kababaihan?

Sinisira ng RH bill ang kanilang katauhan

Sila ay may dignidad, hindi naman sila kagamitan

Sila ay dapat lamang na alagaan at suportahan

Itinuturo din ang pag-abuso sa ating kalayaan

Pati na rin ang sobra at maling kaalaman

Itinuturo na ang pagbubuntis ay isang sakit na dapat iwasan

Ang buong bill na ito ay puro kasinungalingan

Kung susuriin natin ng mabuti ang nilalaman

Hindi naman talaga ito ukol sa kalusugan

Hindi ito nakabubuti para sa karamihan

Kaya sana… ang bill na to ay itapon na sa basurahan

Marami na ngang problema ang kailangan solusyonan

Huwag na natin intaying lumala, huwag na natin dagdagan

Bigyan natin sila ng edukasyon at gumawa ng kabuhayan

Para sila’y makaipon kahit mumunting puhunan

Kung ang habol ng ating bayan ay kaunlaran

Ang ating kapwa mahihirap hindi dapat pinababayaan

Huwag natin isakripisyo ang moralidad para sa kayamanan

Kung hindi, ang Pilipinas ay walang patutunguhan

JOHN WALTER BROWN JUAT

3rd Year, BA PSYCHOLOGY

UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES, DILIMAN

The Ayala Alabang Ordinance: Better than the RH Bill!

Better than the RH bill A LAW EACH DAY (Keeps Trouble Away) By Jose C. Sison (The Philippine Star) Updated March 07, 2011 12:00 AM

In the government hierarchy, it does not necessarily follow that those higher in rank are brighter, more sensible, more competent and qualified than those occupying lower (or lowly) positions especially the elected ones. Some Barangay councilors may deserve to be in Congress much more than some of those now sitting there who may really be fit for the Barangay council position only. Usually, this is shown by the products of their job as legislators.

This truism comes to mind especially in the light of an ordinance recently passed by the Barangay Council of Ayala Alabang in Muntinlupa, briefly and aptly titled “Protection of the Unborn Child Ordinance of 2011”. Between this ordinance and the proposed HB 4244 otherwise known as an “Act Providing for a Comprehensive Policy on Responsible Parenthood, Reproductive Health, and Population and Development and for Other Purposes” introduced by 91 members of the Lower House, the ordinance is undoubtedly much better as it is more based on reason and for the sake of the common good.

There are two subjects common to both the ordinance and the RH bill: the use of contraceptives and sex education in schools. It is readily noticeable that the provisions of the ordinance regarding these subjects are not only in accordance with the Constitution. They also protect the people from possible damage or injury to their health and from danger to their very lives and the life of the unborn from moment of conception.

It may be true that hormonal contraceptives or pills and the IUDs primarily work to prevent conception, the beginning of a new life or the fertilization of the egg to form a human embryo. But medical science has also proven that these contraceptives “render a mother’s womb hostile to the embryo”. Hence when women constantly resort to contraceptives to prevent pregnancies for family planning purposes, then later on stop using them and decide to have a baby, the fertilized egg or human embryo “will be unable to implant itself in the wall of the mothers’ womb thereby terminating the biological development of the fertilized egg” which in effect is also abortion. Moreover, it has also been shown that women in other countries who use contraceptives have incurred various sicknesses including cancer.

On the other hand, the widespread use of condoms has resulted in more HIV/Aids cases as shown by the Thailand experience. Condoms therefore do not ensure protection from HIV/AIDS to those who are using them allegedly for safe and satisfying sex. In fact it has also been indisputably shown that the HIV/AIDS virus is much smaller than and thus can still penetrate the condom holes.

Given these well established facts about the dangers of using hormonal contraceptives, IUDs injectables and condoms, the Ayala Alabang Council decided to pass that ordinance which, bans the sale of these items within its jurisdiction without doctors’ prescription. It also requires pharmacies to take note of the customer’s contact details when buying contraceptives. The regulation of the sale of these items and the measures taken by the Ayala Alabang Council are really necessary to protect the life of the unborn and promote the health of the citizens as mandated by our Constitution.

It is wrong to argue that contraceptives in general are neither outlawed nor regulated by the government and therefore it is illegal to require any person to secure prescription for contraceptives first before any establishment could sell the products. While these products are not really outlawed by the government and are openly marketed, their sale should be regulated because of the many dangers they pose on the life of the unborn and the health of the mother. In fact there is already an existing law (R.A. 5921) requiring doctors’ prescription for the purchase of these products which, like many other laws, are not being properly and fully implemented. Thus the ordinance is just a way of requiring the people in their village to comply with said law. Other Barangays in the country should even emulate the move taken by the Ayala Alabang Council.

Apparently the critics of the ordinance are the advocates of the RH bill which is actually aimed at making the State the principal if not the lone provider of these dangerous contraceptives to the public. They are raising a howl now because the ordinance will somehow derail this RH bill agenda.

One of their arguments against the ordinance is that the council is using coercion to sabotage women’s efforts to prevent pregnancy. This is wrong. It is only regulating the sale of the contraceptives by requiring doctor’s prescription. In fact it is actually assisting women to make an “informed choice” by seeking the doctors’ advice on the use of contraceptives. The advocates themselves repeatedly insist that one of the purposes of the RH bill is to enable women to make an informed choice on the use of contraceptives. Hence there is no reason for them to object to this ordinance as it really enables women to make such informed choice through the doctors’ advice and prescription.

Another argument of the critics is that by requiring contact details of the customers when buying contraceptives, the ordinance violates their right to privacy and the doctor-patient confidentiality. These rights however are not absolute and may yield to superior rights promoting the public interest and general welfare. As previously shown contraceptives may result in the killing of an unborn child or may endanger the health of people in the community. Hence individuals cannot invoke their right to privacy as against this more superior right. Individuals cannot use the privacy of their bedrooms to commit acts against the law and the common good.

There is also nothing wrong with the provision of the ordinance prohibiting public and private educational institutions from implementing compulsory sex education without prior consultation and written permission from the parents or guardians of minors. Experience in other countries, particularly in the US, shows that this kind of sex education has led to premarital sex and unwanted pregnancies that resulted in more abortions. The ordinance is just trying to prevent this situation from happening here. It is just also upholding the Constitutional provision giving the primary right and duty to parents in the rearing and education of their children.

It can thus be said that this ordinance is better than the RH bill.

POSITION PAPER ON THE RH BILL

by

Christian Pro-life Resources for the Philippines

These are the reasons why we say NO to the RH bill:

1. The RH bill carries with it an oppressive punishment for people who will not comply with it, making disagreeing with it and teaching something contrary to it a crime. Section 21 of the RH bill says that "the ff. acts are prohibited: any health care service provider, whether public or private, who shall knowingly withhold information or impede the dissemination thereof, and/or intentionally provide incorrect information regarding programs and services on reproductive health including the right to informed choice and access to a full range of legal, medically-safe and effective family planning methods" BUT- who defines what is correct or incorrect here? The RH bill and its proponents. If the RH bill proponents says that an IUD is not abortifacient, and abortion is not wrong, and that life does not begin at conception, all of which are totally wrong and against Christian principles, so when Christian health workers will teach about the sanctity of life and that life begins at conception, and that sex should only be between married couples, we will be violating the RH bill and committing crimes once it becomes law.

2. The RH Bill undermines the institution of marriage. As Christians do not have any doctrine prohibiting ligation, you may think it may not be of concern to many Christians, but the RH bill considers a prohibited act (Sec 21) if a health worker " refuses to perform voluntary ligation and vasectomy and other legal and medically-safe reproductive health care services on any person of legal age on the ground of lack of spousal consent or authorization". The Catholic and Muslim nurses and doctors who refuse to perform ligation or vasectomy, will be committing a crime. We do not malign or disdain Catholics on this matter. It is against their doctrine. BUT, for us, the RH bill terribly undermines marriage : the Bill puts into law that a woman or man does NOT have to have spousal consent or authorization to have a ligation or vasectomy. And if a health worker refuses to perform this procedure, on this particular ground of lack of spousal consent, he or she will be committing a crime. Christian, Catholic and Muslim marriages will be affected by this.

3. The RH bill undermines parental authority and undermines the family, which are against Christian principles. The RH Bill will punish those health workers (Sec. 21) who "refuse to provide reproductive health care services to an abused minor, whose abused condition is certified by the proper official or personnel of the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) or to a duly DSWD-certified abused pregnant minor on whose case no parental consent is necessary". What does it mean by “reproductive health care services to an abused pregnant minor”? Pregnant young women all the more need parental guidance and consent is necessary for whatever "reproductive health services" will be done on these young abused women! Why doesn't the bill specify what "reproductive health services" will be done on such minors, who are already pregnant? Is this bill trying to hide the use of abortion or the use of abortifacient chemical contraceptives like the “emergency contraceptive” as "solutions" offered to an abused minor who is already pregnant? And all without a parent's consent, which is totally unacceptable to Christian doctrine.

4. The RH bill has a conscientious objection provision, BUT, it negates it by REQUIRING by law "that the conscientious objector shall immediately refer the person seeking such care and services to another health care service provider within the same facility or one which is conveniently accessible". (Sec. 21) So even if a Catholic or Muslim doctor refuses to perform a ligation, they are required to refer. People who conscientiously object must NOT be required to refer. They are already objecting.

5. The RH Bill will require Christian churches and schools to provide reproductive health care services to its employees. All abortifacient forms of birth control, those that prohibit the conceived embryo from implanting in the uterine wall, are unacceptable to Christian teachings. The RH Bill will require employers to provide “reproductive health care services, supplies and devices to all workers, more particularly women workers.” The RH bill will punish employers for not following section 17, which states: “all Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBAs) shall provide for the free delivery by the employer of reasonable quantity of reproductive health care services, supplies and devices to all workers, more particularly women workers. In establishments or enterprises where there are no CBAs or where the employees are unorganized, the employer shall have the same obligation.” So employers are required to provide reproductive health care to its employees! Remember, this will become a law. This will affect Christian, Catholic and Muslim employers, even Christian churches and schools, because our churches and schools have employees. Remember, intrauterine devices and some birth control pills are abortifacient, meaning they prevent implantation of an already-conceived embryo. Life begins at conception, therefore anything that kills an embryo or prevents it from implanting causes an abortion or death of the human embryo. As Christians, we know that life begins at conception. We reject any form of any birth control that kills a conceived life.

6. Contrary to claims by RH bill proponents in Congress that abortion is not mentioned, the bill specifically mentions abortion in Sec. 4 in its definition of terms: It lists as the fourth element of reproductive health care the "prevention of abortion and management of post-abortion complications". You may say, but it prevents abortion, what's wrong? But why must "management of post-abortion complications" be part of reproductive health? Abortion is a crime. Why must the RH bill specifically mention management of post-abortion complications? It specifies "abortion" as the cause of the complication. What this does is that it sets apart induced, illegal, morally wrong, criminal abortion as a procedure or cause necessitating management. Why not just make it a more general "provision of emergency obstetric care to everyone who needs it"? The very fact that abortion is specified as the cause of the complication means that the RH bill condones abortion and gives it special treatment. Abortion is murder of the unborn baby and a grievous sin before God. It is the shedding of innocent blood. It is a crime under Philippine laws.

7. The RH bill will teach the entire nation, especially the young people, its definitions of human sexuality, sex, sexual identity, interpersonal relationships, affection, intimacy and gender roles. They will also define contraception and abortion. In Section 4, the RH bill defines “Reproductive health education” as “the process of acquiring complete, accurate and relevant information on all matters relating to the reproductive system, its functions and processes and human sexuality; and forming attitudes and beliefs about sex, sexual identity, interpersonal relationships, affection, intimacy and gender roles. It also includes developing the necessary skills to be able to distinguish between facts and myths on sex and sexuality; and critically evaluate. and discuss the moral, religious, social and cultural dimensions of related sensitive issues such as contraception and abortion.” Once again, who decides what is correct and What are facts? The Bill and its proponents determine that. And once it is a law, whatever they (the proponents and the Population Commission) define these things to be, will be what is correct and anyone who teaches otherwise will be committing crimes. And once again, abortion is mentioned. Abortion has nothing to do with “responsible parenthood” and “family planning”.

8. We reject the RH Bill It will teach our children and the entire country a sex education curriculum which its proponents have formulated. The RH Bill says in Sec. 12, “Mandatory Age-Appropriate Reproductive Health Education.”– “Reproductive Health Education in an age-appropriate manner shall be taught by adequately trained teachers starting from Grade 5 up to Fourth Year High School….The POPCOM, in coordination with the Department of Education, shall formulate the Reproductive Health Education curriculum, which shall be common to both public and private schools and shall include related population and development concepts in addition to the following subjects and standards : Reproductive health and sexual rights; Reproductive health care and services; Attitudes, beliefs and values on sexual development, sexual behavior and sexual health; Proscription of the hazards of abortion and management of post-abortion complications; Responsible parenthood.. Use and application of natural and modern family planning methods to promote reproductive health, achieve desired family size and prevent unwanted, unplanned and mistimed pregnancies; Abstinence before marriage; Prevention and treatment of HIV/AIDS and other, STIs/STDs, prostate cancer, breast cancer, cervical cancer and other gynecological disorders; Responsible sexuality; and Maternal, peri-natal and post-natal education, care and services.” While prevention of AIDS and STDs, abstinence before marriage and responsible parenthood are good, there is nothing good with the government teaching “Attitudes, beliefs and values on sexual development, sexual behavior and sexual health” to our children! Plus, once again they have managed to insert “abortion” again. What will be taught about the “hazards of abortion” ? Abortion is 100% fatal and 100% hazardous to the unborn baby who has been aborted! Why must “management of post-abortion complications” be taught in sex education?

9. We reject the RH bill because it’s really about money for contraceptive manufacturers and suppliers. The RH bill puts into law that contraceptives will be made into essential medicines . Sec. 10 says “Hormonal contraceptives, intrauterine devices, injectables and other allied reproductive health products and supplies shall be considered under the category of essential medicines and supplies which shall form part of the National Drug Formulary and the same shall be included in the regular purchase of essential medicines and supplies of all national and local hospitals and other government health units.” The RH bill only lays the groundwork for government purchases of contraceptives, including some contraceptives that are abortifacient, which we reject.

10. We reject the RH bill because it encourages a two-child policy. In Sec. 16, “Ideal Family Size” it says: “The State shall assist couples, parents and individuals to achieve their desired family size within the context of responsible parenthood for sustainable development and encourage them to have two children as the ideal family size. Attaining the ideal family size is neither mandatory nor compulsory. No punitive action shall be imposed on parents having more than two children.” While it says that it is not mandatory or compulsory, it will still become a law, meaning, the law will encourage this two-child policy. If it is written in the law, it will be part of legislated health policy. Previous versions of the RH Bill (the past HB 3773) even had a provision that government scholarships will only be extended to the first two children in a family. Surprisingly, it is no longer in the present bill. But what if this is put into the implementing rules and regulations? And people who will have large families will be stigmatized even if they are not punished.

Whatever is good in the bill is already legal and is being done. Yes, women who aborted/killed their children must not be refused emergency obstetric care. But RA 8344, already penalizes the refusal of hospitals and medical clinics to administer appropriate initial medical treatment and support in emergency and serious cases. Women who have aborted/killed their babies are already given emergency obstetric care through this act. HIV-AIDS programs are already in place through RA 8504,the "Philippine AIDS Prevention and Control Act of 1998". The RH bill tries to encompass so many health issues under it such that people who reject the RH bill are viewed as anti-women, anti-health, anti-HIV prevention and anti-development.

But now we have shown you what is definitely worth rejecting in the RH bill-it is the hidden agenda tucked into the RH bill, the oppressive nature of the bill toward those who reject it, the values it undermines and the questionable “values” it will try to teach.

Melissa A. Apolinario-Poblete, DMD, MHPEd

Member, Board of Trustees, Pro-life Philippines Foundation Inc., 2011-2013 and

Director,Christian Pro-life Resources for the Philippines

39 Miami cor. Columbia St. Cubao QC

URL: http://www.proliferesources.com

Email: proliferesources@gmail.com

Manifesto of "Families Against the RH Bill"

7 Point Manifesto FAMILIES AGAINST RH BILL

Whereas, there is a proposed RH Bill being deliberated in Congress that threatens the very foundations of the Filipino family as an institution.

Whereas, we the undersigned families as the most affected stakeholders must take an active part in discussions relating to the welfare of the family.

Whereas, we as citizens of the Republic are opposed to the passage of the proposed bill known as "The Responsible Parenthood, Reproductive Health and Population and Development Act of 2011" for the following reasons:

1. The RH Bill is anti Family. The contraceptive lifestyle destroys the very foundations family. Contraceptives bring about the downgrading of marriage, disrespect for one’s spouse, usually the wife; leads to more extramarital sex, more fatherless children and single mothers – as proven by Nobel prize winner, George Akerlof.

2. Parents are the primary educators of their children. As parents, we do not agree that children from age 10 to 17 should be taught sexual “rights” and the means to have a satisfying and "safe" sex life as part of their school curriculum (Sec. 16, Mandatory Age-Appropriate Reproductive Health and Sexuality Education). We also oppose other provisions such as losing our parental authority over a minor child who was raped and found pregnant (Section 28a. No. 2).

3. As citizens, we do not want to be subjected to imprisonment and/or pay a fine, for expressing an opinion against any provision of the proposed RH law, if such expression of opinion is interpreted as constituting "malicious disinformation" (Sec. 28, Prohibited Acts, Par. e and Sec. 29, Penalties).

4. As spouses, we do not agree that our husband or wife can undergo a ligation or vasectomy without our consent or knowledge. (Sec. 28, Prohibited Acts).

5. As taxpayers, we are against the misuse of our money that the proposed RH Bill will do. If Filipino families are too poor to afford artificial contraceptives, they are also too poor to afford essential medicines that can cure real killer diseases. “HB 5043 places an overwhelming emphasis on contraception at the expense of all other values, including medical care for the sick and the dying. Top 10 causes of Morbidity/Death in the Philippines lists Pneumonia, Bronchitis, Diarrhea, Influenza and Hypertension as the highest ranking causes of death among women. There is a distortion of human values if we prioritize the prevention of procreation over saving lives.”

6. The RH Bill lies about science facts on the use of artificial contraceptives.

• The pill and the IUD kill babies: human life begins at fertilization, when the male sperm penetrates the female egg. The pill has a secondary “post-fertilization effect”, according to the American Medical Association. The American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology has declared that the intrauterine device brings about “destruction of the early embryo.”

• The pill causes cancer. The International Agency for Research on Cancer in 2007 reported that the pill causes cancer, giving it the HIGHEST LEVEL OF CARCINOGENICITY, THE SAME AS CIGARETTES AND ASBESTOS. It also causes stroke, and significantly increases the risk of heart attacks.

• The condom has been blamed for the increase in the incidence of HIV/AIDS in countries that resorted to it, notably Africa and Thailand.

7. The RH Bill is based on wrong economics.

“There is no clear correlation between population growth and economic development”, according to Simon Kuznets, Nobel Prize winner in the science of economics.

Population control is not an ingredient for high economic growth, as found by the 2008 Commission on Growth and Development headed by Nobel Prize winner Michael Spence. The growth factors are: governance, openness to knowledge, stable finances, market allocation, investment and savings.

The RH Bill is based on flawed data on population growth rates and fertility levels. In 1960, the average number of children per Filipina in her lifetime was seven. By 1980 it was five. By 2000 it was 3.5. In 2010 the NSO projected in at 3.0 and about 2.65 by 2020 – near the replacement level of 2.25. The RH Bill ignores the negative impact on the economy and society of an ageing population

PH’s Population Growth Rate has declined since the Year 2000 Census of 2.36%. UN states it at 1.8%, whilst the NCSO reports 1.94% for 2005-2010. RP’s – without the benefit of government-funded contraceptives envisioned by the RH Bill.

Therefore based on the aforementioned facts, we, concerned Filipino Familes, enjoin the national government, particularly our legislators, to SCRAP THE RH BILL pending in the Congress.

Furthermore, We enjoin our fellow countrymen to know the facts about the arguments in this national issue seriously affecting families, and to make a stand and protect the right of the Filipino families.

More on the issue of Overpopulation vis-a-vis Poverty

This study was written in 2008 but remains perfectly relevant to today's discussions regarding the RH bill.

Economic, Historical and Demographic Evidence vs RH Bill

A Medical Primer on the Consolidated RH bill

Medical Primer on RH Bill

Archbishop Socrates Villegas on how contraception betrays the spirit of EDSA 1

An excerpt from the homily delivered by Archbishop Socrates B Villegas during the Mass on the occasion of the twenty fifth anniversary of Edsa People Power on February 25, 2011 at the Edsa Shrine at 12:15 pm:

The twenty fifth year of Edsa gives us reason to thank the Lord and thank the millions of Filipinos who brought four shining days of glory to the history of our beloved country. But our joy and thanksgiving are mixed with frustration and disdain. As we say Salamat, we also shake our heads and strike our breasts with heads bowed and say: Sayang!

Sinayang natin ang Edsa! In 1986, the people came together to defend our soldiers from the revenge of the President who cheated the elections. The election cheating of 1986 was not the last. Many more cheatings happened after—massive, systematic and brazen and the guilty just refused to resign. Sinayang natin ang Edsa!

In 1986, the military was the darling of the people. AFP was armed forces of the people. With the dizzying magnitude of corruption among our military officials, shall we still gather together at Edsa if they seek our help and protection? The pre-Edsa military corruption that we rallied against in the 1980’s is chicken feed compared to the corruption we have been hearing about lately. Nakakasuka! Sinayang natin ang Edsa!

In 1986, we saw the power of millions of people coming together for freedom and peace. The more people, the more secure we felt. Now on its twenty fifth year, we say the opposite—the less people the better! In 1986, we said Tama na! Sobra na! Palitan na! Now, we say, Tama na ang isa! Sobra na ang dalawa! Mag pills ka na! Bakit nagkaganito? Contraception and corruption belong to same family. Contraception is corruption of the soul. Sayang.

In 1986, we raised our rosaries in prayer and stopped with our bare hands the tanks sent to crush us. I can still remember the billboard that stood on this street corner twenty five years ago. The family that prays together stays together. A world at prayer is a world at peace. Are will still a nation in prayer? If we want peace, pray. If we want unity, pray. If we want healing, pray. Tita Cory taught us that. Did we bury prayer power when she died? Sayang.

"Let us not allow the RH bill to distract and divide us. Rather, let us unite and focus on realizing the long-delayed Philippine economic miracle"

This article was published in November of last year, but I've read it only today thanks to Atty. Jose Sison's latest column ("Useless Bill").

No to reproductive health; yes to reproductive wealth

By Willy E. Arcilla

Philippine Daily Inquirer

First Posted 21:57:00 11/25/2010

MANILA, Philippines—The Philippine economy is booming—GDP growth rate is accelerating while inflation remains benign. The stock market is on a bull run and the real-estate sector is soaring. OFW remittances, BPO and export revenues are reaching record heights. Unemployment is falling as the job market grows and employee compensation rises.

Interest rates remain low, encouraging investments in high-potential industries like real estate and tourism, manufacturing and BPO, agriculture and mining. The consensus of local businessmen and economists, foreign investors and MNCs is the future is very bright. Based on the latest independent surveys, even the percentage of people claiming hunger and poverty is retreating—all these positive news despite the absence of a Reproductive Health (RH) bill.

Should we not all pause and reflect if the RH bill will help rather than hurt the country?

Let us learn from the errors of the Western countries saddled by aging and shrinking populations, and closer home, even from Asian economic tigers that have regretted their aggressive population-control policy, which are now scrambling to correct their impending crisis of depopulation—Japan and Korea, China and Taiwan, Thailand and Singapore.

No less than US past president Bill Clinton found himself an unlikely spokesman for the anti-RH bill advocates when he categorically admonished political and business leaders at a recent visit to Manila, “You have a large and young population that is a boon.”

A country’s people can be harnessed to become its strongest asset and greatest wealth—both as a market base and a labor force. This is evident in the four BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India and China), touted as emerging dynamos not only because of their high growth rates but their absolute size and strength, in which population is a vital ingredient. These four countries alone combine for 2.9 billion people, 48 percent of the world’s population. Even the 10-member Asean’s attractiveness lies not just in being a low-cost production hub, but also in becoming a potentially lucrative market of over 600 million consumers.

Let us not allow the RH bill to distract and divide us. Rather, let us unite and focus on realizing the long-delayed Philippine economic miracle. Let us undertake a structural transformation in our economy, starting with revitalizing agriculture and fisheries to attain self-sufficiency in food production and drive high-value agricultural exports; investing massively in infrastructure; reviving industry to provide gainful employment and export world-class quality products instead of world-class Filipino talent (whom we should safeguard as our competitive advantage in the global economy); promoting the country as an investment haven and a tourism destination. All this will help transform the economy from an over-reliance on OFW remittances and consumption spending so that our people may grow in productivity as workers and in affluence as consumers.

Let us learn from host countries and foreign employers of 11 million overseas Filipino workers (OFWs) and emigrants, who have discovered that Filipino workers are of world-class caliber, but paid in Third World wages in their home country—and rewarded them financially more than we have.

I dread to imagine how our Almighty God and heavenly Father will punish our leaders and our people not just for our collective greed and lust, but our ingratitude for the blessings of a nascent Philippine economic miracle if we insist on legalizing a contraceptive mentality (“more people=more poverty”), and sex without consequence.

Instead of sex education, let us promote “love education”; a culture of life, not a culture of death. Instead of reproductive health, let us promote what I would call “reproductive wealth,” as practiced by the early Christian communities when the faithful worked according to their ability, and consumed only according to their need. “Reproductive wealth” that begets more wealth calls for the rich helping the poor and the poor helping themselves. Once the millions of poor Filipinos can reach middle-income status through better compensation such as profit-sharing, then rich Filipinos can become even richer.

When companies practice profit-sharing, the nation’s 38 million employees will feel more empowered by a real sense of ownership. Workers who are part-owners are more productive. They will drive revenues, cut costs and conserve cash without being told. Such companies will expand further, create more jobs and, collectively, help the country achieve economic growth that will be faster, more inclusive and therefore sustainable.

Here lies the secret to eliminating poverty and corruption. P-Noy (Aquino) says, “Pag walang corrupt, walang mahirap.” The RH bill implies, “Pag walang tao, walang mahirap.” But the truth is the poor do not need more sex and artificial contraception. Rather, they need better-paying work. The rich need to give the poor not more condoms, but more rewards for work to motivate their performance. As someone once said, “We need to put a condom on greed.” Given a chance to reach middle-income status, the poor will not find time to get drunk or gamble, nor enough energy for irresponsible sex. No to Reproductive Health. Yes to Reproductive Wealth. “Pag walang suwapang, walang mahirap.”

(The author is president of Business Mentors Inc. Feedback at willyarcilla@yahoo.com.)

Is the Church to blame for maternal deaths?

From Willy Jose's Random Thoughts and Musings:

The major cause of maternal deaths, really.

Group to bishops: Deal maternal deaths issue 

MANILA, Philippines – A women’s group backing the controversial reproductive health (RH) bill called on the Catholic bishops to deal on the issue of maternal deaths in the wake of their opposition in the hotly-debated bill.

In a statement, the Democratic Socialist Women of the Philippines (DSWP) hit the Catholic bishops for issuing statements protesting the bill but none on arresting maternal deaths. 

“Our group alone have lost quite a number of poor women due to lack of access to reproductive health services,” said DSWP Chairwoman Elizabeth Angsioco.

“The nation loses if we do nothing and allow the death of 11 mothers every day, due to pregnancy and pregnancy-related complications,” she added.

“The Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines’ (CBCP) stubborn rejection of the RH bill is a major reason why women die,” she pointed out.

The statement came after the CBCP vowed to relentlessly fight against the passage of the measure, even urging President Benigno Aquino III to veto the bill if it pass in Congress.

/

“The Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines’ (CBCP) stubborn rejection of the RH bill is a major reason why women die”.

Really?? What a preposterous claim. This kind of sneaky argument has been going around for a quite a while and I guess there must be a law penalizing "malicious disinformation", irony intended.

Official DOH figures (here) shows that the leading cause of maternal mortality is post-partum hemorrhage, followed by retained placenta, eclampsia, etc. Nowhere in the top 10 causes does it even remotely say that the CBCP's stubborn rejection of the RH bill is the major reason (!)

Ah, I see. Direct inference. IF contraceptives were freely available, then these mortality deaths WILL BE avoided (GUARANTEED!) because ALL those who suffered maternal deaths, in the first place, had unwanted pregnancies (yes, all of them) AND they sought out absolutely EFFECTIVE and SAFE contraceptives which were inaccessible, AND the root causal and direct culprit being the CBCP's stubborn opposition to the RH bill. It is giving me a migraine just trying to wrap my head around this convoluted cause-and-effect analysis.

A pregnancy happens because two people engage in sex, irresponsible or otherwise. The AFP, NBI, KofC, CWL, and CBCP for that matter, is not a causal that these people decide to engage in sex. Health complications arise out of pregnancy simply because of a lack of professional medical care. The DFA, DOH, AirForce, DSWP, and CBCP for that matter, is not a direct causal if there is a lack of maternal care. Wait...maybe the DOH is. Maternal and Child health is already an existing mandate of the DOH, and it must see to it to the best of its ability that there are accredited medical professionals that provides care to pregnant women.

In relation to this, there is this study made by NCSB-NSO (circa 2002) investigating the "Factors Affecting Maternal Health Utilization in the Philippines". According to NSO statisticians Elaine B. Rogan and Virginia R. Olveña:

"The use of professional assistance during delivery is generally low for the Philippines. Only sixty percent of women who delivered in the last five years preceding the survey were assisted by a health professional for their most recent pregnancy while seventy percent of women received postnatal care. Utilization of maternal care is lowest in the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) with only eighty-five percent for prenatal care, twenty-one percent received professional delivery assistance and forty-eight percent obtained postnatal care. Meanwhile, the National Capital Region (NCR) accounts for the highest percentage of maternal health utilization with ninety-seven percent for both prenatal and delivery care and seventy-six percent for postnatal services..."

The study concludes in part:

"The quality of health care remains wanting in many areas. Some health facilities have deteriorated and poor quality services exists. Low quality drugs and medicines are present in the market. These have been attributed partly to the weak enforcement of health regulations..."

So it appears there is severe lack of accredited health professionals, and that utilization of maternal health services is very, very low (only at an average of 60%). It means 40% of pregnant women were not attended to during their deliveries, the high figure attributable to the rural areas.

And that, my dear DSWP Chairwoman Elizabeth Angsioco, is what should get your goat when you say "our group alone have lost quite a number of poor women due to lack of access to reproductive health services". Eksakto yun. If there was a law right now which penalizes "Any person who maliciously engages in disinformation...", you could be in trouble...

A lawyer responds to Fr. Joaquin Bernas regarding the RH Bill

The following is a response to Fr. Joaquin Bernas' article of February 14, 2011 entitled, Burn the RH-Bill house to roast a pig?

Dear Fr. Bernas,

I was your student in constitutional law many moons ago. To this day, I continue to regard myself as one and accord with deep academic reverence your opinions on constitutional matters. At the risk of revealing my "intellectual bankruptcy" to an eminent profes:sor, please allow me to share my thoughts on the RH Bill which is now designated as HB 4244.

For the sake of simplicity and clarity, I will confine myself to the current version of the bill and not venture into the dark unknown by second-guessing what our legislators may decide to do in the future.

Your fearless forecast that RH bill will become a law through the exercise of police power has made me shudder in disbelief.

Police power is that attribute of sovereignty that enables it to prohibit all that is hurtful to the comfort, safety, and welfare of society. It has the most comprehensive embrace among the inherent powers of the State extending as it does to whatever it is that fosters the "common good." To be valid, its exercise must have a valid public purpose and the means employed to accomplish such purpose must be reasonable, not oppressive nor arbitrary.

Does that mean that the State, through its agencies, can justifiably interfere with the exercise of the basic human rights to life and liberty and the constitutional rights to free speech and religious freedom under the guise of "general welfare?" Instantly, a glaring discord is obvious here. For how can one claim to champion the common good when the rights so firmly enshrined in the Bill of Rights are trampled upon and sacrificed? As jurisprudence puts it, has the existence of a grave and immediate danger of a substantive evil which the State has the right to prevent been clearly established to warrant the infringement of these rights?

But before I get accused of putting the cart before the horse, let me attempt to engage in a 'herculean task' of pointing out some major points.

While the Declaration of Policy of the bill may be replete with defensible objectives, it is simply that -- a statement of objectives that are expectedly noble and laudable. But this behooves us to examine the meat of the bill and determine if the provisions are faithful to the avowed policies.

The Constitution imposes upon the State the duty to "equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception." The life of the unborn (equally with that of the mother) is entitled to protection at and from conception. And conception here refers to fertilization since these terms were used interchangeably during the deliberations of the 1980 Constitutional Commission. And this protection to be meaningful should be from any form and degree of harm or injury and death ---not only actual but also any risk or threat thereof. For under our law, a conceived child is endowed with the dignity and worth of a human being from his conception and thus is recognized to have the right not only to be born, but to be born well. This necessarily includes the right of the unborn to develop to its full term and not to be expelled prematurely from the mother's womb.

An issue has been raised with regard to certain contraceptives that interfere with uterine implantation of the developing embryo and precipitate its destruction and expulsion from the uterus which in medical parlance are known as abortifacients. Scientific data and findings have been proffered in this regard. This issue has been dismissed by some medical doctors who claim that this action is possible only when there is fertilization which does not occur precisely because of the contraceptives. In the same breadth, however, they admit that breakthrough ovulation docs occur in women taking contraceptives and such incidents have in fact been documented; however, they add that these are very rare.

This denial-admission cannot be recklessly ignored or blithely dismissed because this puts the life of the unborn child on the line and strikes at the very core of the issues heaped against the bill. The adverse effects of contraceptives on the mother's health which have been supported by data and personal testimonies of victims and their. families are serious enough to be summarily dismissed. While the bill vows to protect the health of the mother and the child, it shows no respect for life and t:he fundamental right to life. With the aggressive promotion and widespread dissemination of contraceptives, the bill, in effect, allows and promotes abortion.

Family planning is a matter that concerns and affects the spouses and their families. They have the constitutional right to participate in the planning and implementation of policies and programs that affect them. Part of this right is for them to receive correct, complete and clear information not only about the "availability" of family planning methods and reproductive health services but more importantly, about their nature arid effects. There has to be full, honest, and transparent disclosure and disseminationof information and thorough and widespread discussion about tlnese methods and services. As a result of this exercise, and not privately, the "safe, effective and legal methods" of family planning should be judiciously and prudentlydetermined and identified. This constitutes the essence of free and informed choice. And considering the far-reaching consequences, this exercise should be undertaken before the passage of the bill, not after.

The issue of disregard of religious freedom is no less important. A healthcare service provider who refuses to provide information or perform health care services on account of religion will nonetheless have to refer the person seeking such care to another provider who is willing to provide the same service or information. Employers are 1ike:wisemandated to provide reproductive health services to their employees, without mention of religious or ethical considerations.

There is also imposition on the freedom of speech for a healthcare provider who knowingly withholds information or restricts dissemination thereof, for any reason.

By making reproductive health and sexuality education mandatory for all public and private schools from grade five to fourth year high school, with a common curriculum formulated by designated agencies, the natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral character is supplanted by the government which is supposed to assume only a suppoirting role.

In light of all this, there is no public purpose that justifies the appropriation of public funds for the implementation of the law. Surely, the government should find better use of my hard-earned money.

Will the Bill undergo an upheaval to pursue a true and genuine public purpose and adopt means that are reasonably necessary to accomplish that purpose, neither coercive nor authoritarian? I wish I knew, but I will be bold enough to state that only if and when ou:r legislators come to regard life as the greatest and most precious gift of their Creator to humanity can they sincerely claim to serve the common good.

I am proud of and grateful for my eight years of Ateneo education. I am particularly edified by its exhortation for Ateneans to be "men for others." With Life at the very core of the issues involved in RH bill, the advocacy to defend and protect it, I believe, is a singular opportunity to respond meaningfully to that call. For indeed, LIFE is more than just a pig!

Respectfully yours,

Maria Concepcion S. Noche

The Philippine Bishops on Population and Poverty

This statement is more than a month old by now, but has scarcely been disseminated in religious circles, let alone among the lay faithful in general. CAP

A Press Statement on Population and Poverty

AFTER almost 38 years of population control from the massive machinery of the bureaucracy, the unfortunate plight of poor families and their difficulties in providing for their basic needs continues to hound the country. Even as the Church and private initiatives of its laity attempt to narrow the gap between “the haves” and “the have nots,” many Filipinos continue to suffer. The government has been claiming that this continuing poverty is caused by our robust population growth. The Church cannot accept this postulate, proceeding as it does from a flawed view of the human person as merely “a mouth to feed”. Everyone knows how our young and educated population has provided the primary force behind the robust performance of the Philippine economy. This makes us the envy of more developed countries that have contracepted and aborted themselves into the demographic winter.

It is his rational nature that makes every person capable of work, of aspiration to improve his lot. He uses this gift to transform his aspirations into reality. The wholesome upbringing and educational opportunities from generous parents provide the environment that allows him to grow and flourish in his human development to become a productive citizen. Good governance, just structures, a level playing field, solid family ties, wholesome upbringing, quality education, opportunities provide the social mobility to allow the children of the poor to get out of poverty and move to the ranks of the middle class.

The Church is not unmindful of certain realities. For instance, many families continue to be deprived from the right to earn a just living wage that will provide beyond the basic needs of food, clothing and shelter, the wherewithal to send their children to school. This is a grave social imbalance for no one dismisses the chance at acquiring knowledge and skills, and the possibility of a bright future for himself and his children. The Church insists that the government should take a closer look at these marginalizing factors. Formidable as they are, they are not insurmountable if government channels the rightful funds to the rightful needs.

The Church also desires to point out that though contraception seemingly solves the problem it merely mitigates the strain that additional children would pose on an already large family; it does not add to the material wherewithal for the family’s survival. Moreover, it fails to consider the long run impact of small families. The smaller families by a contracepting generation may reduce the economic burden of child rearing but they will face an uncertain economic future in the old age with very few children sharing the heavier burden of health and medical care when they become elderly.

A government that pursues the short-sighted policy of contracepting the present generation is committing the resources of future government to provide for the social security requirements of this contracepted generation. This is precisely the problem faced worldwide by countries that have contracepted and aborted their next generation labor force. From an advantaged position of having a huge labor force of young people we should learn from their experience.

+NEREO P. ODCHIMAR, DD

Bishop of Tandag

CBCP President

January 29, 2011

Michael Voris on why the Philippine RH Bill is WORSE than similar American or European legislation

"For poor countries with large young populations, growing fast should be easy"

Not directly about the RH bill, but still relevant. Emphases mine.

'Population a headache but part of 3G index'

By Ding Cervantes (The Philippine Star) 

Updated March 01, 2011 12:00 A.M.

CLARK FREEPORT, Pampanga , Philippines – A runaway population may be a headache (lame attempt to insert the anti-population agenda - CAP) but for Citigroup it’s part of the global growth generator or 3G index, which can signal huge growth potential for the Philippines and 10 other countries.

“Using that index the nations to watch over the coming years are Bangladesh, China, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Mongolia, Nigeria, the Philippines, Sri Lanka and Vietnam,” said Citigroup chief economist Willen Buiter in an article written by Patrick Allen of CNBC.com for USA Today. Buiter called 3G a “measure of economic progress.”

“They are our 3G countries,” he said, referring to the 11 nations.

“For poor countries with large young populations, growing fast should be easy: open up, create some form of market economy, invest in human and physical capital, don’t be unlucky and don’t blow it. Catch up, and convergence should do the rest,” Buiter added.

“The world is going to become richer and richer as developing economies play catch up over the coming years,” he said.

“Occasionally, there will be growth disasters, driven by poor policy, conflicts, or natural disasters. When it comes to that, don’t believe that ‘this time it’s different’,” he said.

“There are some easy wins for poor countries with big, young populations,” he said.

“We expect strong growth in the world economy until 2050, with average real GDP growth rates of 4.6 percent per annum until 2030 and 3.8 percent per annum between 2030 and 2050,” Buiter added.

“As a result, world GDP should rise in real PPP-adjusted terms from $72 trillion in 2010 to $380 trillion in 2050,” he said. PPP is purchasing power parity.

“As the world watches oil prices rise sharply amid unrest in the Middle East, Buiter’s analysis of the world’s long-term prospects offer some hope that better times are ahead but if he is right, power will shift from the West to the East very quickly,” Allen said.

“Developing Asia and Africa will be the fastest growing regions, in our view, driven by population and income per capita growth, followed in terms of growth by the Middle East, Latin America, Central and Eastern Europe, the CIS, and finally the advanced nations of today,” he wrote.

“China should overtake the US to become the largest economy in the world by 2020, then be overtaken by India by 2050,” Buiter said.

Two gentlemen on the RH bill

More persuasive insights

A LAW EACH DAY (Keeps Trouble Away) By Jose C. Sison (The Philippine Star) 

Updated February 28, 2011 12:00 AM

More views against the RH bill are pouring in. Apparently they have not been considered by the Lower House Committee before the bill was endorsed to the entire body for approval in the plenary session. Hence for the enlightenment of our legislators and the entire citizenry, presented here are some more of these views, one of them coming from a lawyer Atty. Rex A. Salvilla who clearly and ably refutes some stand of the bill’s advocates:

“First, the advocates say that the opponents of RH bill are anti-poor for allowing population explosion. This is not true because the opponents, like the advocates are also for population control. Both differ only on the method of control – the advocates thru condom which cost money while the opponents thru natural family planning which costs not a single centavo but only mere discipline on the part of the spouses So, who is anti-poor? It is the advocates.

Second, the advocates say that they are pro-choice. This is not also true. The draft bill contains a penal clause punishing by imprisonment and/or fine those obstructing the use of condoms and promoting family planning. Is this not like tying a person to a post and telling him, “You are free”? So, where is “pro-choice” here? In fact, the bill is a “no-choice” piece.

Third, the advocates say that the Pope supports condom use. This is interpreting the Pontiff out of context. The Pope simply provided an exception in the same way that God has also provided exceptions to His own commandments. Take this command “Thou shall not kill!” There are many instances in the Bible that God allowed the Hebrew to kill. Remember David and Goliath? Remember the many wars between the Hebrew and their enemies?

Fourth, the advocates say that because the surveys show majority support of the people, RH bill should be passed. This is a very misplaced argument. Granting arguendo that the surveys despite the doubtfulness of their validity are true, the majority is not always right. Remember the Jewish popular vote to release Barabas instead of Christ? Remember, too, the case of the two sin cities of Sodom and Gommorah? Before their destruction, Lot surveyed the population on how many favor gayism and lesbianism and Lot could not even get ten people against the almost thousands of supporters of sin in these cities. God destroyed the two cities. In other words – God does not always respect the majority especially when they are wrong.

Fifth, God strongly and clearly mandated Adam and Eve to be “fruitful and become many and fill the earth.” He reiterated this to Abraham when He said: “I will make your descendants as many as the stars in heaven.” And still later to Jacob – son of Abraham, “I will make your descendants as many as the grains of sands on the shores.” God in His infinite wisdom also knows that the world can only accommodate a very limited population. So, He provided a solution which is right in the “danger and safe periods” of a woman, with the safe period much longer than the danger period. This is the “will of God”. Why don’t we follow it? By not following the solution God offers, the advocates, (I resume they are Christians) in praying the Lord’s Prayer are really twisting it by praying “my will be done” instead of “Thy will be done”.

Sixth, the advocates say that the opponents are violating the constitutional principle of separation of Church and State. This is not true. In all our Constitutions (Malolos, 1935, 1973 and the present), we invoke the aid of Divine Providence (God) in the Preambles to establish an ideal State for us. Hence our laws must conform to the laws of God. So, when the opponents simply ask that the RH bill shall be in conformity with the laws of God is that violating the principle of separation of Church and State? In fact, it is the advocates of RH bill themselves who are guilty of violating the Constitution by revolting against the will of Divine Providence in preventing the Church from supporting the law of God.

Seventh, in the long run, eventually our true God will be replaced by the false god of the advocates – PLEASURE. The use of condom is a strong temptation to use it on other than one’s spouse. This will result in broken families which is the basic social unit. Eventually the advocates will clamor for legalization of divorce and abortion. The teaching of sex to the minors in school will result in teaching of pornography. Personal discipline will collapse and spread to all aspects of life – social, economic, political educational, moral and spiritual. Lack of personal discipline thus will result in disrespect for authority and law, corruption in the government, criminality, and other societal evils. Yes, the promise of the advocates for a better society is like the false promise of the serpent to Adam and Eve in Paradise for them to acquire knowledge after eating the forbidden fruit”.

Other revealing insights come from Mr. Reuben Abante. He also pointed out that the bill is not really pro-choice as shown by its Section 17 and 18 which provide that before a couple can be issued a marriage license and legally get married, they should first get a Certificate that they have been given instructions on family planning, responsible parenthood… and other aspects of this Act”. This is giving couples no choice but to take those instructions particularly on the use of family planning methods and contraceptive supplies, otherwise they could not get married. Besides, Mr. Abante said, “if we allow this bill, we are allowing our government to teach the next generation of children and unmarried people to learn and to do what should be within the confines of marriage – who would then be interested to get married”?

Visayan Catholic leaders versus the RH Bill

Marian Groups release statement opposing RH Bill 

February 28, 2011

MEDIA RELEASE

For immediate release

Task Force for Family and Life Visayas, Inc. (TFFL)

Marian Groups release statement opposing RH Bill

A national convention of leaders from Marian groups throughout the Philippines recently released a strongly-worded omnibus resolution opposing the RH bill. The statement was signed by over 1,400 leaders and members of the various Perpetual Dawn Rosary and Cenacle organizations that met in Carcar, Cebu, on February 12-13.

The Task Force for Family and Life Visayas, Inc. (TFFL) in turn forwarded copies of the resolution to President Aquino, Senate President Juan Ponce Enriel, CBCP President Nereo Odchimar, and newly-installed Cebu Archbishop Jose Palma. The TFFL called on all parties to heed the heartfelt sentiments of ordinary Filipino citizens expressed in the resolution.

The Marian convention’s statement noted that the RH bill “has caused a deep division among our people,” and that the proposed measure now pending in Congress “in its entirety is about contraception.” It warned that its passing would bring about the propagation of a culture of death, promiscuity, and breakdown of families.

The attendees at the convention concluded that they fully agree and support all the points taken up by the Bishops in their recent Pastoral Letter entitled “Choosing Life, Rejecting the RH Bill,” including the rejection of the RH bill.

To back up their call, the signatories vowed to support the actions recommended by the CBCP, including civil disobedience should the RH bill be passed, and possible excommunication of legislators and national leaders who endorsed the RH bill.

In addition, the resolution also called for an Oratio Imperata against the RH bill to be read in all churches during every Sunday Mass all over the country, and a Church-led educational initiative on Natural Family Planning (NFP) and issues concerning the protection and nurturing of human life and the family.

The convention gathered together leaders and members of the Marian movement from all over the country, under the theme, “Marian Pro-Life Witnesses of Hope, Reconciliation and Peace in Our Times.”

About Task Force for Family and Life Visayas, Inc. (TFFL)

The Task Force for Family and Life Visayas, Inc. (TFFL) is an association of men and women who are committed to the protection of family and life, as mandated by the Constitution and specific legislations and by the teachings of the Holy Scriptures. It is juridical entity duly registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

###

Media contact

DOUGLAS GACASAN

President

Task Force for Family and Life Visayas, Inc. (TFFL)