Thank you for your honesty!

From Rina Jimenez-David's latest pro-RH article, "In Alabangistan", where she describes a public meeting in Barangay Alabang regarding its ordinance on contraceptives:

SETTING the issue aside, the barangay council, after giving oppositors the run-around, refusing to release copies of the ordinance even, finally agreed to a larger public meeting so that residents could be fully informed about the controversial ordinance. 

Residents inform me that the auditorium in La Salle Zobel was literally divided into two sides (a rope delineated the boundary) and everybody was asked to register. Initially, barangay officials refused to allow non-residents (mostly for the “No” side) to enter but were prevailed upon by residents who said they were their “visitors.” 

Speaking for the “Yes” side were lawyer (and non-resident) Louie Sison, former Sen. Aquilino “Nene” Pimentel Jr., and Dr. Angelita Miguel Aguirre. Speaking for the “No” side were lawyer Frank Chavez, former congressman Ruffy Biazon, and lawyer Mario Aguinaldo. The “No” side also brought in representatives from the Department of Health, the DILG and the Food and Drug Administration, while the “Yes” side had for its resource person 13-year-old Paolo P. who asked the audience: “Would you like your children to be doing these dirty acts?” In reply, said a blogger and tweeter covering the event, the audience erupted: “Yes, but with condoms!”

Judge for yourselves.

Aquilino Pimentel versus DILG Secretary Robredo on Barangay Alabang's anti-contraception ordinance

(H/t to Manny Amador)

Nene Pimentel replies to Secretary Robredo

1. Sorry to say, the Secretary talks out of turn when he warns LGUs especially the barangay not to enact ordinances that “prohibit the promotion, sale, distribution and purchase of contraceptives such as condoms and pills.”(a) The powers of the DILG which he heads have been emasculated by the adoption of the Local Government Code.

As secretary, he can no longer order LGUs around especially the barangay.

The LG Code provides for a seriated power structure that empowers a higher local government unit to supervise the next lower government unit.

To be a little more direct, the DILG has no power to sanction or even threaten any barangay for passing any measure to ban abortive drugs, chemicals or devices that may cause injury to the unborn or impair the health of his or her mother.

And to be even more direct, what will the Secretary do to punish the barangay officials who do not follow his unlawful “directives”?

(i) Suspend them?

That he cannot do. The barangays are not under his supervision or much less under his control.

(ii) Punish them for insubordination?

Neither can he do that. We are no longer living in the Roman Empire where Tribunes had certain powers to stop legislation and punish certain recalcitrant lower government officials.

(iii) Withhold their Internal Revenue Share?

That is certainly outside his power to do so.

(iv) Make it difficult for them to perform their functions?

By pulling strings with other government agencies which are following the anti-life agenda, he may succeed in making the barangay officials feel ostracized by the central government.

But that if implemented in the concrete that would be illegal, unlawful and unconstitutional.

2. Why illegal?

Because it would be an act that is outside of the powers of the DILG to perform.

3. Why unlawful?

Because it would be an act that is in violation of the devolution of powers mandated by the Local Government Code?

4. Why unconstitutional?

Because it would be an act that in effect bars the barangay and other local government officials from implementing in the concrete what the Constitution mandates in principle: “Protect the Life of the Unborn from conception” as well as the health of the Mother.

The recent outburst of the DILG Secretary follows on the heels of his illegal, unlawful and unconstitutional order for the barangays to conduct their barangay assemblies last December 11.That is a function that the Secretary usurped from the powers granted to the barangays under the LG Code.

5. It is not correct to insinuate that the Barangay Ayala Alabang Ordinance No. 1 that seeks to uphold the life of the unborn from conception and protect the mother from harm grabs the power of the FDA from its primary function to ensure the sale, distribution and delivery of drugs, chemicals, devices or medicines to the public.

A reading of the Ordinance in fact cites the FDA in its adoption of a provision of Republic 5921 that requires a duly licensed physician to prescribe the use of what might be drugs, chemicals, devices or contraceptives that cause or lead to abortion or acts that harm or injure the health of the mother.

(Section 37. Provisions relative to dispensing of abolifecients or 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.)

If the Ordinance appears to have taken its concern for the protection of the unborn from conception and the shielding of the mother from harm a step ahead of the FDA, its ban on abortives or contraceptives that may cause harm or injury to the unborn and the mother is not arbitrary but is based upon available medical and scientific studies such as those complied by the MIMs, a duly recognized “hallmark” of information on drugs, chemicals, devices and medicines for the guidance of doctors in this country and, indeed, even by pharmaceutical companies in many parts of the world as authoritative.

6. The statement attributed to the Secretary that the FDA may permit the sale of drugs, chemicals, devices or medicines even without the prescription of a duly licensed physician runs counter to a provision of a law that is still extant in our statute books and that is Republic Act 5921.

(Section 25. Sale of medicine, pharmaceuticals, drugs and devices. No medicine, pharmaceutical, or drug of whatever nature and kind or device shall be compounded, dispensed, sold or resold, or otherwise be made available to the consuming public except through a prescription drugstore or hospital pharmacy, duly established in accordance with the provisions of this Act.) 

(Section 37. Provisions relative to dispensing of abolifecients or 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.)

That is the reason why some legislators are desperately trying to repeal the law.

7. As to the Secretary’s intimation that the Pharmacy Law (Republic Act 5921) intends to guide pharmacists alone, that is not so.

Section 37. Provisions relative to dispensing of abolifecients or 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.

This provision sanctions “any person” who delivers or sells to any person a drug or chemical or device capable of provoking abortion or preventing conception as classified by the FDA without a proper prescription by a duly licensed medical doctor.

8. It is illusory for the Secretary to assert that for barangays to enact ordinances that cause a more realistic regulation of the use, sale or distribution or abortive drugs, chemicals, devices or medicines to be valid, the barangays need a delegation of power from the Pharmacy Law.

Nothing can be a more bizarre rationalization of the “warnings” issued by the Secretary.Barangays do not need a delegation of power from the Pharmacy Law to do their duty to ensure the implementation of the Constitutional mandate to uphold the life of the unborn from conception and protest the health of the mother.

They only need to follow what the Local Government Code mandates them to do such as for example to advance the general welfare of their constituents and prevent them from harm or injury from the use of toxic, harmful and noxious substances as defined by the FDA, scientific experts and medical studies as mentioned above.

Moreover, the FDA is not yet in position to implement fully its mandate.

The Secretary of Health only a week ago announced the adoption of the Implementing Rules and Regulations to govern the new FDA law.And it has yet to upgrade its equipment and the training of its personnel to cope with the massive influx of all sorts of drugs, chemicals, devices and medicines that have the potential to kill the fetus in the womb of the mother and in the process injure the health of the latter.

9. What does the Secretary want the people in the barangay to do? Wait for eternity to deliver their constituents from harm? Barangay officials just like the rest of our officialdom have duties to perform while they are in office.And what higher duty is there than to uphold the life of the unborn from conception and in the process protect the life of the mother, too.

10. Finally, it must be remembered that “life” is the highest among the values that the Constitution upholds and protects.

That is why even in the sequencing of those values in the Constitution, life goes ahead of liberty and property.Indeed, without life, who can have liberty or property.

Even Patrick Henry could not have delivered his famous “Give me liberty or give me death speech” if he did not have life in the first place.

In defense of the Ayala Alabang ordinance

Forwarded from  Ricky Presa and BAA St. James Parish ProLife Council

                                                                                                          April 8, 2011

WHY I SUPPORT BAA 01-2011

1.       First of all, I believe any legislation on the important matters of ‘reproductive health, responsible parenthood,  population and development’  must stand squarely on the values and principles of the Filipino people and on current realities and needs. I do not favour legislation on the basis of any particular religious doctrine despite media’s current depiction of the ongoing debate as a case of the ‘Catholic Church imposing its doctrine on other people’. I believe we need to stand solidly on basic laws,  values and principles which all Filipinos hold dear regardless of religion or ethnic origin. These are the laws, values and principles articulated in our present Philippine Constitution.

2.    I do not deny the need for public education and access to reproductive health services but I favour only such programs and remedies consistent with our Constitution and existing laws.  I deny the myth of population control as critical to national development because modern scientific studies have already debunked this economic theory and  the elimination of corruption, the practice of good leadership and governance ( “ang daang matuwid” )  are identified now as more important concerns in enhancing development.  I also don’t buy the advocacy of absolute freedom or choice for women with respect to their bodies because our Constitution balances this freedom with respect and equal protection for “the life of the unborn from conception” unlike the laws of other lands which legalize abortion.

3.       What key Constitutional provision anchors my ProLife advocacy? 

Section 12 Article 2 Declaration of Principles and State Policies says “The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution. It shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception. ” Although I had believed our Constitution was anti-abortion, I didn’t fully realize our Constitution had this clear and strong declaration in defense of the unborn child.

4.      Our Constitution defines life as beginning “from conception”, i.e.,  at fertilization when the egg and the sperm combine to form a new life, a new human being.  Because of this clear declaration, the State must not allow, promote or the use any drug or device which endangers much less kill the life of the unborn child. Any drug, device or method which is abortive or an abortifacient is a direct violation of our Constitutional principle on life. This Constitutional provision is the primary reason Barangay Ayala Alabang has banned the sale,  distribution or use of HORMONAL DRUGS and the IUD’s because they are abortifacients. 

5.      Are HORMONAL DRUGS  and the IUD’s really abortifacients?

Medical and scientific literature explain that hormonal drugs and the IUD’s work in a similar way. The American Pregnancy Association website says “Hormonal methods work in one of three ways: 1) preventing a woman's ovaries from releasing an egg each month; 2) causing the cervical mucus to thicken making it harder for sperm to reach and penetrate the egg; and 3) thinning the lining of the uterus which reduces the likelihood that a fertilized egg will implant in the uterus wall.

The US National Library of Medicines and National Institutes of Health say: “Combinations of estrogen and progestin work by preventing ovulation (the release of eggs from the ovaries). They also change the lining of the uterus (womb) to prevent pregnancy from developing and change the mucus at the cervix (opening of the uterus) to prevent sperm (male reproductive cells) from entering. Oral contraceptives are a very effective method of birth control.”

The American Pregnancy Association says this about IUD’s: “The IUD does not stop the sperm from entering into the uterus, but rather it changes cervical mucus decreasing the probability of fertilization and it changes the lining of the uterus preventing implantation should fertilization occur.”

In simple language, in case fertilization occurs or human life is formed ( sometimes technically referred to as ‘breakthrough ovulation’ ), hormonal drugs and the IUD create an abortive environment for the embryo and thus, prevent pregnancy from continuing. So many well-intentioned people do not realize the foregoing facts either because like me, they knew and experienced  these drugs or devices as effective birth control means and they were not known  as abortive.

By what authority does our Barangay ban hormonal drugs and the IUD? Isn’t the Philippine FDA the only authorized ‘classifier’ of drugs in the country and the only entity that can ban certain drugs?

Many people in our country including eminent doctors and lawyers do not fully realize the implications of what they know as separate facts in their own fields of knowledge. The first fact is this strong principle “ to equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception” written in our present Constitution, the highest law and the foundation of all laws, acts and regulations in the land. The second fact is the preponderance of medical and scientific literature that hormonal drugs and the IUD’s are clear and fatal threats to the unborn child. In this so serious and grave issue of life and not even just of health of the mother and the unborn child, I commend  Barangay Ayala Alabang for  this unprecedented and bold step of banning hormonal drugs and the IUD as contraceptives in its territory by authority of the Philippine Constitution.  I understand  the Barangay is fully authorized to enact legislation for the general welfare of its constituents under the Local Government Code of 1991 (R.A. 7160) despite the negligence, incapacity or inability of the duly delegated government entity to do so.

I have realized that abortifacient drugs and devices are not banned in the USA and so many other countries because their Constitution and laws do not protect the life of the unborn child and actually condone abortion. In a sense, our country is blest by our Constitution which has been promulgated with the “aid of Almighty God” ( this phrase is stated explicitly in the Preamble of our Constitution unlike the Constitution of the USA and many other countries which do not even acknowledge God much less seek His help) that we are protected against killing our unborn babies. Although we encourage and respect the rights of multinational pharmaceutical forms to do business and sell their drugs here, we nonetheless believe that they should adhere strictly to our principles and laws especially regarding the life of our unborn.

7.      Has the BAA Ordinance banned  contraceptives which are non-abortive?

Contrary to the misguided impressions of some, the BAA Ordinance does not ban non-abortifacient contraceptives in the barangay. An existing law RA 5921 ( called the Pharmacy Law ) enacted in 1969 says under Section 37 that drugs/devices “preventing conception” require “proper description by a duly licensed physician”. This law is still in effect. The BAA Ordinance has incited outrage because it has reminded people about the law. Although Catholic teaching views condom usage as “not moral”, condoms are actually classified as ‘barrier birth control methods’ and are non-abortive because their action is to prevent conception. We acknowledge that condoms can also protect against STD and AIDS. However, we also note studies showing that indiscriminate and unregulated distribution of condoms have actually contributed to  increase in HIV and AIDS. I agree our people especially the poor should be educated on the various methods for birth control so they can plan their families properly. Other family planning methods which are non-abortifacient include abstinence, other barrier drugs like the diaphgram and spermicides, natural family planning, withdrawal and sterilization. 

8.       Why do I oppose mandatory sex education in the RH Bill and what sex education do I advocate?

In the first place, our Constitution upholds the “the natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral character” (Section 12 Article 2 ).  The sex education modules used in our country which have been imported from international modules teach our youth different values about the meaning of sex and  have degraded the sanctity of family life and the institution of marriage. This lack of moral values in sex education has formed the foundations of the abortion movement in the US and has significantly contributed to the gradual breakdown of the institutions of marriage and family life, the proliferation of divorce and broken marriages so prevalent and widely accepted in the US and other westernsocieties.  I strongly advocate sex education that is rooted on our Filipino moral values and which will strengthen the institution of marriage and family life as articulated in our Constitution.  Article 15 ( The Family ) of our Constitution says: “Section 1. The State recognizes the Filipino family as the foundation of the nation. Accordingly, it shall strengthen its solidarity and actively promote its total development.  Section 2. Marriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the foundation of the family and shall be protected by the State. “

GOD BLESS US ALL!  

GOD BLESS ALL OUR FAMILIES!     

GOD BLESS OUR BELOVED PHILIPPINES!

Not the "Daang Matuwid"

Inconsistent moves

A LAW EACH DAY (Keeps Trouble Away) 

By Jose C. Sison (The Philippine Star) 

Updated April 11, 2011 12:00 AM 

The bad news is that HIV/AIDS cases are rising to epidemic proportions in this country despite the availability of condoms and other contraceptives and the aggressive marketing of their manufacturers promoting their use. This means that more people especially the “machos”, as exemplified by the products’ principal celebrity endorser, are duped into believing that they can engage in safe sex with anybody as long as they use condoms and contraceptives. No one, especially in the government charged with safeguarding public health, has warned them that HIV/AIDS virus is smaller and can thus penetrate the minutest holes of the condoms, as established by rigid tests conducted in the US.

Hence using condoms and other contraceptives is not a guarantee for “safe and satisfying sex” especially the latter. Having “satisfying sex” through the use of condoms is beyond the stretch of the imagination. Such practice not only contributes to the spread of HIV/AIDS but also promotes sexual infidelity and promiscuity. This is a fact long established in other countries.

More alarming here is that last year, no less than the former Health Secretary Esperanza Cabral openly distributed condoms for free at a bus station. She encouraged their extensive use supposedly to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases. The latest statistics however confirm in no uncertain terms the opposite of what she said. Like what is happening in Thailand, condom use only increases HIV/AIDS cases and other sexually transmitted diseases.

Yet in the proposed RH bill, billions of pesos will be appropriated for the purchase of condoms and contraceptives so that any couple who would like to plan their family through implementation of “two-child policy” under the guise of “responsible parenthood”, can avail of them for free. While the bill supposedly guarantees freedom of choice, the availability of these contraceptives for free courtesy of the taxpayers, plus the deceptive assurance that they are “safe and satisfying”, practically gives them no other choice.

Actually, several provisions of the RH bill are already being implemented by the Department of Health (DOH) although it has not yet been considered and passed even by the Lower House. The (DOH) budget for 2011 supposed to cater to “Maternal and Child Health Care and Population Development” totals more than P12 billion (P12,073,264,000 to be exact). It contains items where contraceptives and condoms use can be promoted. More specifically, these are: the P731,349,000 for “Service Delivery Programs on Family Health and Responsible Parenting”; and P290,660,000 for the Commission on Population Programs. Undeniably, the DOH can justify the purchase of contraceptives especially condoms under any of these items and it cannot be questioned for such move. In fact Cabral had done it before. She personally distributed condoms for free with impunity.

Furthermore the DOH can also use the budget for “Health Care Assistance” amounting to P 3,589,804,000 for this purpose. The DOH can always say that the purchase of these contraceptives are necessary to prevent pregnancies that may have adverse effect on the mothers’ and the children’s health. The DOH is not telling the people involved that contraceptives do not only prevent conception or the beginning of life but also the implantation of a fertilized ovum or conceived life, in the womb of the mother which is nothing but abortion. Then to assure that the distribution of condoms and other contraceptives will be nationwide, the DOH can also use its budget for “Doctors to the Barrios Program Rural Health Programs” amounting to P123,284,000 and “Health Promotion” in the sum of P153,975,000.

This administration indeed knows that even without an RH bill, some of its provisions can already be implemented particularly the use of contraceptives to manage population growth especially of poor people. Hence when several Barangays passed ordinances thwarting the implementation of these RH bill provisions, the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) stepped in and warned them not to enact ordinances that “prohibit the promotion, sale and purchase of contraceptives such as condoms and pills”.

The DILG reaction is actually triggered by the Ayala Alabang Ordinance that seeks to uphold the life of the unborn from conception and protect the mother from harm by requiring duly licensed physicians to prescribe the use of what might be drugs, chemicals, devices or medicines that cause or lead to abortion or acts that harm or injure the health of the mother. When several other Barangays particularly in Balanga Bataan followed suit, DILG Secretary Robredo came up with that warning.

But as former Senator Aquilino P. Pimentel Jr, the principal author of the Local Government Code (LGC), “the DILG has no power to sanction or even threaten any Barangay” for passing such measure because it would be “an act in violation of the devolution of powers mandated by the LGC. Furthermore, Senator Pimentel said that it is not correct for Robredo to insinuate that the Ordinance grabs the power of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to ensure the sale, distribution and delivery of drugs, chemicals, devices or medicines to the public. On the contrary the Ordinance in fact cites the FDA in the adoption of the provision of R.A. 5921.

According to the former Senator, Robredo’s statement that the FDA may permit the sale of those drugs etc without the prescription of a duly licensed physician runs counter to Section 38 of R.A. 5921 which provides that: “Every pharmacist who dispenses, sells or delivers any drug which falls under the classification of the FDA as potent drugs shall do so only upon prescription of a duly licensed physician, dentist or veterinarian”.

Pimentel said that this Pharmacy Law (RA 5921) is not intended to guide pharmacists alone. Section 37 bans the sale of “drugs or chemical products or device capable of provoking abortion or preventing conception as classified by the FDA, without a proper prescription by a duly licensed physician”. Then Section 40 speaks of the responsibility of the manufacturer, or the importer, distributor, representative or dealer on the quality or purity of drugs, pharmaceuticals or poisons sold in their original packings. Then there is Section 40 that penalizes “any person” violating the provisions of RA 5921 or Section 41 imposing penalties on “any person other than citizens of the Philippines” for violating the law.

Finally, Pimentel said that Barangays do not need a delegation of power from the Pharmacy Law to do their duty to ensure the implementation of the Constitutional mandate to uphold the life of the unborn from conception and to protect the health of the mother because “life” is “the highest among the values that the Constitution upholds and protects”.

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.

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

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

CITY OF MUNTINLUPA

SANGGUNIAN BARANGAY OF AYALA ALABANG

BARANGAY ORDINANCE NO. 01

SERIES OF 2011

AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE SAFETY AND PROTECTION OF THE UNBORN CHILD WITHIN THE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF BARANGAY AYALA ALABANG; FIXING PENALTIES FOR ITS VIOLATIONS, AND, FOR OTHER PURPOSES

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE

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

SECTION 2. DECLARATION OF BARANGAY POLICIES

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).

SECTION 3. OBJECTIVES

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.

SECTION 4. DEFINITION OF TERMS

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.

SECTION 5. HEALTH SERVICE DELIVERY

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.

SECTION 6. PROHIBITED ACTS

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.

SECTION 7. REGULATED ACTS

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.

SECTION 8. PENALTIES

(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.

SECTION 9. EXCLUSIONARY PROVISION

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.

SECTION 10. SEPARABILITY CLAUSE

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

SECTION 11. EFFECTIVITY

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.

PASSED AND APPROVED, JANUARY 3, 2011.

SIGNED

ALFRED A. XEREZ-BURGOS, JR.

Punong Barangay

SIGNED

JOANNA CALUGCUG ALICE A. BACANI

Barangay Kagawad Barangay Kagawad

SIGNED SIGNED

MARIA CARMEN G. REYES MA. SOLEDAD M. TUGADE

Barangay Kagawad Barangay Kagawad

SIGNED SIGNED

MARIANO S.MANAS, JR. APOLINARIO R. DE LOS SANTOS III

Barangay Kagawad Barangay Kagawad

SIGNED

GIANCARLO A. NAZARIO JUAN ENRICO A. PARFAN

Barangay Kagawad SK Chairman

Attested by:

SIGNED

SANTOS A. RANCUDO

Barangay Secretary