RH Bill: Contrary to the Constitution?

Undue interference 

By Jose C. Sison 

June 18, 2012 

One of the topics reportedly taken up in the last “monumental” one on one meeting between PNoy and US President Obama at the Oval Office was the passage of the RH bill by the Philippine legislature. So its proponents and supporters are once more making a lot of noise about the eventual approval of the bill possibly within this year. On the contrary however, precisely because of such meeting where Obama got Aquino’s assurance to push for the passage of the bill, there is more reason now that the bill should be junked.

Atty. Jose Sison reminds Congressmen why the RH bill should not be passed

Equally important

By Jose C. Sison (The Philippine Star) 

January 27, 2012 

The time, effort, and attention given, and public money used by both chambers of Congress to prosecute and try the impeachment charges against the Chief Justice of a co-equal branch of government are definitely taking its toll on their main job of legislation. Our Congressmen and Senators should be reminded that this impeachment business is just a special and extraordinary task imposed upon them by the Constitution and that their primary job is still the enactment of laws. Hence they should continue devoting the same kind if not more attention, deliberation and study, as they have been doing before, on pending bills. They should guard against reported moves to fast track some controversial legislation like the RH bill while public attention is focused on this impeachment thing.

The facts about the RH bill that our citizens need to know

Truths and beliefs

A LAW EACH DAY (Keeps Trouble Away) 

Jose C. Sison (The Philippine Star)

November 07, 2011 

Every time I express my stand against the RH bill I only state the established facts and the laws applicable to those sets of facts.

For instance, as I have repeatedly stressed, the most basic established facts proven by science are: (1) that life begins from the moment of conception or the fertilization of the ovum by the sperm to form a new, unborn baby; and (2) that there are certain chemical products or the so called birth control pills like “morning after pill” and RU 486, and vaccines like “depoprovera” and “norplant”, as well as the intrauterine device (IUD) which impede the implantation of the unborn baby in the uterine wall thus causing abortion or the expulsion and death of the baby.

Based on these established facts, I have likewise pointed out time and again that the laws applicable to these facts clearly provide that the State “shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception (Section 12, Article II, Constitution) and that therefore abortion is a crime punishable by law (Articles 256 and 257 Revised Penal Code).

In view of these established facts and applicable laws, I have thus repeatedly contended that the RH bill violates our Constitution and the Revised Penal Code because it appropriates 3 billion pesos simply to afford women another choice aside from the natural family planning method which cost nothing, by making available to them the entire range of artificial contraceptives including the above mentioned pills, vaccines and IUD that cause abortion.

I have likewise stressed that even if the purpose of the bill is to enable couples especially the poor ones to plan the size of their family so that they can properly raise their children within their means purportedly in the exercise of “responsible parenthood”, such purpose cannot justify or be used as a disguise to hide the unconstitutionality and illegality of the bill.

Unfortunately however, despite sticking only to those facts and applicable laws, supporters of the bill resort to personal attacks against me and my Catholic faith. They always drag the Catholic Church into the controversy to refute my stand. They insist that I am just expressing my belief in the teachings of the Church against contraceptives, which, they say, no person or institution can impose on others with different beliefs especially in a pluralistic society such as ours.

This stance implies that truth depends on the beliefs of particular sects or religions rather than on established facts and applicable laws; and that there are as many truths as there are religions. Apparently this is a dangerous stance that has rendered the bill as controversial as to cause a deep division in the nation; why the bill divides rather than unites us.

Now that the debate on the RH bill has resumed, all sides to the controversy should see to it that they stick to the real issues, meet them squarely and refrain from using diversionary tactics. This is the only way that the people can be properly informed of the true nature and purpose of the bill and why it should or should not be passed. This is the only way to remove the harmful discord besetting the nation because of this bill.

The citizenry will therefore be better informed and united in their search for answers to the issues surrounding the RH bill if:

First, they are not repeatedly told that the bill does not legalize abortion when it has provision appropriating billions of pesos for the acquisition of contraceptives including those already proven to cause abortion, just to give women an alternative choice in the exercise of their reproductive health rights and in planning the size of their family;

Second, they are not misled into believing that contraceptives in general have no harmful effects on the overall health of the women and children when there are already many incidents of serious ailments including cancer arising out of their use.

Third, they are adequately informed that based on what is happening in other countries which allows the use of contraceptives, the contraceptive lifestyle necessarily ensuing with the passage of the bill, weakens marriages and destroys families;

Third, they are not continuously intimidated to favor the bill because of the alleged world population that has reportedly reached 7 billion already. Instead they should be properly advised that the country’s poverty problem is not due to our growing population but mainly to the inequitable distribution of the country’s wealth and resources because of poor governance, graft, greed and lack of adequate education especially of the poor families;

Fourth, it is sufficiently explained to them that while our population is still growing our population growth rate is already declining as will eventually bring us to the same situation of countries that adopted population control where the population is aging and dwindling prompting a complete reversal of their population policy from population control to population promotion; and

Fifth, it is fully disclosed to them that the RH bill is really backed up and supported by foreign countries and international organizations to control the population of developing countries like the Philippines even to the extent of promoting abortion under the guise of reproductive health, for their own economic interest and security; that lobby money in millions of dollars have been put up to pressure our Congress into passing this bill.

As Congress therefore resumes debate on the RH bill, Filipinos should know more about this incontrovertible information which can be considered more as “truths” than mere “beliefs”.

On Malacanang's undue interest in the RH bill

Opposing something wrong

Jose C. Sison (The Philippine Star) 

Malacañang’s undue interest in the RH bill at this stage cannot help but arouse curiosity. The palace spokesman Edwin Lacierda even went out of bounds by telling our legislators to cut short the debate on the bill and vote on it already. As PNoy’s mouthpiece, he is putting his boss in a tight spot because his stance is a clear violation of the principle of separation of powers among the three main branches of the government. The President may be the most powerful official in our system of government but he certainly cannot tell Congress to rush their process of legislation especially on a bill as controversial as the RH bill. He can only certify to Congress the bills which he believes should be passed.

This latest stance of Malacañang further confirms the existence of strong lobby groups pushing for the bill’s passage and the increasing pressure they are exerting. Of course lobbying for legislation is an accepted practice but in this case of the RH bill, the lobbyists allegedly have well funded foreign backers who are known advocates of abortion. With more reason therefore should legislators thoroughly discuss and more deeply look into every nuance in the bill to ensure that it will not eventually lead to recognizing abortion in this country. Indeed even before further debating and discussing the RH bill, Congress should conduct an inquiry on this lobby groups and their funding. This inquiry is definitely “in aid of legislation”.

Meddling in the legislative process by rushing the legislators to vote on the bill provides a stronger reason to further scrutinize the bill because it is an indubitable sign that the bill has many more questionable features which the authors and their backers would not like to be examined and exposed. It cannot really be denied that the original bill was not crafted by our legislators but by the lobbyists. The local authors in Congress only tried to edit it in such a way that it will look like a measure that will be for women’s reproductive health and that it will not appear as a population control measure imposed on this country by developed countries through UN agencies.

Indeed, one of the features of the RH bill which has never been denied is the supposed promotion of the women’s reproductive health by using artificial contraceptives to prevent pregnancy or conception. Obviously there is already something wrong with this feature because it considers pregnancy as a disability or a disease that should be gotten rid of or prevented. Worse yet is that it tries to get rid of pregnancy as a disease through the use of artificial contraceptives that have known adverse effects on life, health, marriage and family.

Another feature in the bill which the authors have not fully disclosed or admitted is that it is a population control measure implementing the population control policy of developed countries particularly the US through the United Nations (UN) and its agencies specially the UN Fund for Population and Development. This is the same policy of the Obama administration promoting abortion to control population in developing countries. In fact no less than Secretary of State Clinton has openly admitted that “Reproductive Health includes abortion”.

Of course, the sponsors of the RH bill in both houses have repeatedly said that it does not allow or legalize abortion; that the RH bill is not about abortion. They claim that while the entire range of artificial methods and contraceptives are made available by the bill, women are still given the freedom to choose what methods to use for promoting their reproductive health.

Free choice is really an accepted and popular notion. But given the facts about some contraceptives that have already been medically proven to be abortifacients like the RU 486, the IUD’s and the “Morning After Pills”, the question we must ask is: should people be given the right to choose to kill innocent children in the womb if that’s what they want to do? As Randy Alcorn said in his book “Pro-Life Answers to Pro Choice Arguments”, “When we oppose the right to choose…abortion, we aren’t opposing a right, we are opposing a wrong. And we are not narrow-minded or bigoted for doing so. We’re just decent people concerned for the rights of the innocent”.

Curiously, one of the new authors of the RH bill in the Senate is Miriam Defensor-Santiago who is aspiring to be a member of the UN International Court of Justice (ICJ). The coincidence is quite noticeable that she is now aggressively pushing for an early vote on the RH bill with the assistance of Malacañang, at the same time that she is campaigning for the ICJ post. Such coincidence inevitably leads to the conclusion that her successful campaign for the post depends to a large extent, on her successful sponsorship of the RH bill.

This conclusion is further bolstered when PNoy, who is supporting Santiago’s candidacy, made a pitch for the RH bill, which he calls more euphemistically as “Responsible Parenthood” (RP) bill, in his recent trip to the US. There, PNoy once more repeated the authors’ “freedom of choice” line” respecting the use of contraceptives that are abortifacients saying that parents should be given the freedom to choose the methods in spacing the births of their children. Again the question should be what choice is he talking about? Does it include contraceptives that cause abortion given the fact that the bill makes available all sorts of contraceptives including those causing abortion?

Quoting the scripture, PNoy says that he is pushing for the passage of the RP bill because on judgment day he will be asked “what he has done for the least of his brethren”. Apparently, PNoy would not want to commit a sin of omission. He or his advisers however must be reminded that a sin of omission is committed when one fails to do something good. The RH bill however which may result in abortion is not something good.

Young Congressmen versus the RH Bill

This declaration against the RH Bill by ten young congressmen (nine of whom have their signatures and pictures at the bottom of the page) has been published in today's Philippine Daily Inquirer (page D-4).

The nine are:

1) Dakilo Carlo E. Cua (Lone District of Quirino)

2) Rachel Marguerite B. Del Mar (Cebu, 1st District)

3) Fatima Aliah Q. Dimaporo (Lanao del Norte, 2nd District)

4) Lucy T. Gomez (Leyte, 4th District)

5) Karlo Alexei B. Nograles (Davao City, 1st District)

6) Gabriel R. Quisimbing (Cebu, 6th District)

7) Irwin C. Tieng (Buhay Party List)

8) Mariano Michael M. Velarde Jr. (Buhay Party List)

9) Lord Allan Jay Q. Velasco (Lone District of Marinduque)

UPDATE: This manifesto is summarized and lauded in Atty. Joe Sison's column for September 30, 2011, The Filipino youth's plea.

Is there a sinister motive behind the RH bill?

Dubious means
By Jose C. Sison

Questionable indeed are the styles used in pushing for the passage of the RH bill. Right now, the glaring ones are the apparent lack of transparency or attempts to conceal or misrepresent its real nature and purpose, and the use of incorrect and outdated statistics.

It is really quite ominous that up to now, there is still a lack of transparency about the bill’s real purpose. Its authors and backers still would not admit categorically that it is designed to impose on our country the population control policy of developed countries, particularly the USA as bared in the declassified National Security Study Memorandum (NSSM) 200, or the 1974 Kissinger Report which is currently implemented by a foreign assistance program dubbed as the Millennium Development Goals (MDG). This is the same policy backed up and funded by private foundations of American billionaires Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Ted Turner and Packard as well as private NGOs particularly the International Planned Parenthood Federation of known abortionist Margaret Sanger, through which the USAID and other UN agencies funnel most of their funds.

Actually the RH bill itself uses the terminology “population management” instead of “population control” to dissimulate or feign its abovementioned purpose. Its authors also realize that population control is no longer necessary as the population growth rate has been steadily declining since the ’70s. But unfortunately in a rare moment of truth, one of its sponsors, Congresswoman Kimi Cojuangco of Pangasinan, nevertheless categorically admitted during an interpellation by Congresswoman Mitos Magsaysay, that the bill is indeed a means of population control, much to the chagrin of her co-authors. While she subsequently tried to play on words and claimed that the bill is not for population control but a “population measure”, its real purpose is now out in the open.

Another aspect of the RH bill where there is utter lack of transparency and obvious duplicity is its link to abortion. While the bill itself categorically provides that abortion is illegal, it is making available all sorts of contraceptives which cannot be totally dissociated with abortion. In fact some of the birth control pills have already been shown to directly cause abortion as they prevent the implantation of fertilized eggs or live embryo into the uterus.

Yet in an apparent attempt to justify the use of contraceptives, Senators Cayetano and Santiago, the sponsors of the RH bill in the Senate, have again revived the issue of when life begins. They are once more advancing the theory that life begins at the implantation of the fertilized egg into the uterus and not from the moment of conception or the fertilization of the egg by the sperm. They claim that this notion of life beginning at the moment of conception is one of religious belief only especially by the Catholic Church which is opposing the use of contraceptives.

Sad to say again that in this controversy, the RH bill proponents always end up dragging the Church and accusing it of trying to impose its rights and beliefs in a pluralistic society like ours. This issue however has nothing to do at all with religion. It is purely legal and has long been settled when the framers of the Constitution themselves accepted the scientific findings that life begins at conception, thus incorporating in our Charter a provision mandating the State to protect the life of the unborn child from the moment of conception (Article II Section 12). It is really unfortunate that Senators Cayetano and Santiago conveniently ignored or (deliberately?) veered away from this constitutional provision in their sponsorship of the RH bill promoting contraception.

For the nth time it has to be pointed out that no less than the US Supreme Court has acknowledged the link between contraception and abortion, not only because certain birth control pills and devices directly cause abortion, but also because the use of any kind of contraceptives invariably leads to or ends up in abortion. In fact, the Obama administration has openly admitted through Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during a US Congressional hearing that the terms “reproductive health, reproductive services and reproductive health rights” which are used in the RH bill, “include abortion or access to abortion”.

Most unfortunate however is the recent move of Malacanang changing the title of the bill to “Responsible Parenthood” Act, apparently to remove the taint of abortion associated with the term “Reproductive Health” and thus make it still look good. The title however is not as important as the contents. If the contents nevertheless provides for the use of contraceptives, then it is still about abortion. “Responsible parenthood” in its real sense does not involve the use of contraceptives.

Likewise dubious is the use of wrong and old statistics in pushing for bill’s passage. Its sponsors and backers repeatedly cite its importance in reducing the maternal mortality rate. They cite statistics showing that an average of 11 mothers die each day while giving birth. These figures however came out last 2004 yet. The latest ones show that only around four to eight women die daily while giving birth. In fact, the WHO statistics even show an average of only 4.6 maternal deaths each day. Moreover, the maternal mortality rate can be reduced by simply improving maternal and child health care which is the function of the DOH. There is no need for an RH bill to achieve this.

These dubious means of pushing for the RH bill’s passage somehow gives validity to the observation that there is some sinister motive behind it. Junking it therefore is the better move on the part of our legislators.

Atty. Joe Sison responds to Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago on the "Right to Privacy" issue

From Mr. Sison's regular Philippine Star column:

Right to privacy above right to life?

A LAW EACH DAY (Keeps Trouble Away) 

By Jose C. Sison (The Philippine Star) 

The confusion is getting worse. There are now three RH bills: the Lagman bill in the Lower House, the Santiago bill in the Upper House and the bill coming from Malacanang called Responsible Parenthood bill which is included among the list of priority bills sent to the Lower House for approval. The stakes must really be getting higher and the “pressure” becoming more and more “irresistible” as more and more people not only from the Legislative but also from the Executive Department are getting into the act. Hence it is really important to identify the groups lobbying and their motives in aggressively pushing for the passage of the bill as called for by Senate Majority Leader Vicente Sotto III.

Apparently the only thing clear at this stage is that the three bills contain provision about the use of contraceptives as a means to limit the size of the family under the guise of exercising responsible parenthood and women’s reproductive health. They are just the same dog with different collars. This is the main objectionable and most controversial feature of the bill because of the effects of contraceptives.

Indeed in her sponsorship speech of the bill, Senator Santiago was quoted as saying that the “state cannot restrict the right of married persons to use contraceptives. The state cannot prohibit the distribution of contraceptives to unmarried persons. And the state cannot require that contraceptives should be sold only by pharmacists”. Readily, something is misleading in this statement because, at present, contraceptives are not prohibited by the state. There is no law prohibiting the sale of contraceptives. In fact the state itself has distributed contraceptives for free during the time of Cabral at the DOH. Anybody can already buy them at the market even without any RH bill. So if Santiago’s purpose is just to make the contraceptives available, there is no need for an RH bill.

Clearly therefore, the real reason behind the RH bill, whether it is the Lagman, Santiago or Malacanang version, is to appropriate taxpayers’ money for the purchase of contraceptives and make them available especially to the poor who cannot afford them supposedly to solve the problem of poverty by preventing the increase in the number of poor people. In this connection, noteworthy is Senator Sotto III’s observation that one of the groups lobbying for the passage of the bill is the Family Planning Organization of the Philippines (FPOP), the largest family planning NGO in the country. FPOP is a member of the International Planned Parenthood Foundation (IPPF) established by Margaret Sanger, “the inventor of eugenics or the scientific strategy of eliminating the poor, the weak, the useless and the uneducated”. Coincidentally, this strategy resembles and jibes with the purpose of the RH bill. Hence there must really be some “sinister motive” in pushing for the RH bill which should be looked into as Senator Sotto III suggested.

Worse still is that Senator Santiago now even uses the right of privacy as justification for passing the bill. She said that “the Reproductive Health measure is an affirmation of the constitutional right to privacy”; that “the right to privacy applies to sex, marriage and procreation”. In using this new angle, Santiago cites the US case of Griswold vs. Connecticut, 381 US 479 (1965). In said case, the US Supreme Court invalidated a Connecticut law prohibiting the use of contraceptives because it violates the “right to marital privacy”.

Offhand, one could readily see the flaws and contradictions in this latest stance of the Senator. First of all, the case cited pertains to a law prohibiting the use of contraceptives. In our case here however, there is no such law involved. Hence the cited case is plainly inapplicable to the present controversy on the RH bill. Secondly, and the irony of it all, is that the RH measure she is advocating precisely intrudes into the most intimate life of a couple as it attempts to influence them on how and when to have sex. It even cheapens sex and leads to marital infidelity because with contraceptives supposedly assuring “safe” sex, being made available, couples may be lured into satisfying their sexual urge with anybody else. So the RH bill is clearly an intrusion into and not an affirmation of the right to privacy. Third, and most importantly of all, by citing Grisworld, Senator Santiago has even confirmed the link between contraception and abortion, that contraception is the cause of abortion. Indeed after the Griswold ruling came the 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision (410 US 113) where the US SC legalized abortion in America and confirmed that “in some critical respects abortion is of the same character as the decision to use contraception”.

Senator Santiago’s stance on the RH bill even places the right to privacy superior to the right to life. This runs counter to the principle enshrined in our Constitution that “all rights are subject and subsequent to the right to life”. In short, the RH measure that Santiago is advocating which encourages and even subsidizes the use of contraception violates the constitutional policy requiring the state to protect the life of the unborn from the moment of conception.

The Fight over the RH Bill: A Battle in the War between Secularism and Catholic Christianity

Ongoing war

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

Updated June 06, 2011 12:00 AM 

The showdown on the RH bill will reveal the identities of politicians who are really concerned about the welfare of our country and people and not of their own selfish interests. It will tell us whether they personally consulted their constituents and not merely relied on surveys before making a stand for or against the bill. It will tell us whether they have adequately studied the bill and explained to their constituents with clear and convincing arguments, not with deceit and mis-informaton, why they voted for or against the bill.

The real purpose of the RH bill

Long lasting impact

A LAW EACH DAY (Keeps Trouble Away)
By Jose C. Sison (The Philippine Star)
Updated June 03, 2011 12:00 AM

Undoubtedly, since the introduction of the foreign sponsored and foreign crafted RH bill, a serious rift and deep division has been created in our nation. Never before have there been such heated discussions and sharp differences among Filipinos on several issues of fact and of law regarding this bill. Before it was introduced, we seemed to be traversing only one and the same road towards a peaceful, just and progressive country. But the bill has distracted us by creating a fork in the said road and dividing us in reaching our goals. (I think this is exaggerated. We've certainly been a bitterly divided nation several times in the past 25 years. - CAP)

Presently, as P-Noy recently asserted, the State is against abortion and does not dictate the number of children a couple must have. It has not imposed birth control methods on anyone but “gives couples a choice of what option to take”. Indeed, there is already a law penalizing abortion as a crime and right now couples are free to plan the size of their family and to choose the method of controlling births. Under the present setup therefore, there is no more need for an RH bill. So why are we really still fussing over the said RH bill? Should we not just forget about it and move on looking for other solutions alleviating the life of our poor people?

Atty. Joe Sison responds to Fr. Joaquin Bernas

A response to Fr. Joaquin Bernas' column, My Stand on the RH Bill

More questions

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

Updated May 27, 2011

In taking a stand on difficult issues, it is always advisable to have an open mind and to consider all angles. The better attitude is to think that there are wiser and more intelligent people who are experts on certain fields and whose views are much respected and often cited. One of them is of course Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas, SJ. His opinions are really persuasive and count a lot to us who are still learning and trying to grasp the correct meaning and answer to certain constitutional questions especially those arising from the highly controversial RH bill that is now being heatedly discussed.

It is thus very fortunate that Fr. Bernas has categorically declared that he “adheres to the teaching of the Church on artificial contraception” even if he is “aware that it is not considered an infallible doctrine by those who know more theology” than he does. This means therefore that to Fr. Bernas, contraception or “any action taken before, during or after the conjugal act which is aimed at impeding the process or the possible fruit of conception”, is morally wrong. It is morally wrong because it “separates the unitive and procreative aspects of the conjugal act.” In other words it is like the spouses telling each other, “I love you as long as we do not give birth.” (Catechism on Family and Life (CFL) December 27, 2009).

Another very helpful clarification from Fr. Bernas is his unequivocal stand that “sacred life begins at fertilization and not at implantation” so that “there is already abortion any time a fertilized ovum is expelled” because the “Constitution commands that the life of the unborn be protected from conception”. This is very important because the principal authors of the bill anchor its legality on an entirely different and contrasting concept that life begins at implantation. Following Fr. Bernas’ pronouncement to which we adhere as we highly value his opinion on this issue, the consolidated bill (HB 4244) entitled “An Act for a Comprehensive Policy on Responsible Parenthood, Reproductive Health, Population and Development” is therefore inherently unconstitutional.

It is inherently unconstitutional because its main purpose as reflected in its title is to depopulate our country by promoting, distributing and making available to the people especially the poor, a full menu of modern artificial methods of family planning that prevent the implantation of the fertilized ova based on the belief and concept espoused by its authors that life begins only at implantation. But in the light of Fr. Bernas’ explanation that is diametrically opposed to the authors’ concept of when life begins, the bill will in effect legalize the expelling of fertilized ova which is nothing but mass murder of innocent babies.

On this specific point alone, the RH bill should be junked. It is not necessary anymore to go into other constitutionally objectionable features of the bill like the provision on the mandatory sexual education in public schools without the consent of parents which is clearly against the constitutional provision recognizing the sanctity of human family and the natural and primary right of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral character as Fr. Bernas said.

We really look up to Fr. Bernas for guidance on this controversy but perhaps because of our limited understanding and intelligence, several questions still came up as we try to discern his stand on the RH bill, more specifically the following:

1. Can the RH bill nevertheless be enacted into law even if its underlying premise – that life begins at implantation – is clearly contrary to the Constitution mandating the State to protect the life of the unborn from conception or, as he said, from fertilization not implantation? This question still cropped up because of his statement that “if we have to have an RH law”, he intends “to contribute to its improvement as much as (he) can”.

2. Is it alright to have an RH law initiated by and originating from foreign countries and International organizations trying to impose a population control (“development”) policy designed to protect their own interest? This question also crops up because up to now the alleged foreign connection and intervention has not been denied or rebutted.

3. Since the bill prohibits abortion because it is an assault against the right to life, should the “question of scientific fact” on what are the abortifacient pills and devices be settled first so that the bill could already specify them or at least set guidelines in determining them before delegating this function to the Food and Drug Administration? How does the bill define abortion? Is it expulsion of fertilized ova at any time or only after implantation?

4. Are not the bill’s “valuable points in its Declaration of Principles and Policies that can serve the welfare of the nation and especially of the poor women who cannot afford the cost of medical service” already part and parcel of existing laws promoting public health and welfare which are, or should be, given by the various departments and government agencies particularly the Department of Health and the Department of Social Welfare and Development?

5. Is it in accordance with the Constitution to spend public money for the promotion of “reproductive health” that entails the use of contraceptives just to have “a safe and satisfying sex” even if it runs counter to the religious beliefs of some sects like the Catholic Church? Can Congress appropriate public money to enforce the use of birth control pills and other contraceptives which is against the religious beliefs and moral convictions of some religious groups?

6. Is the Church or the people of God who merely voice their objection to the RH bill particularly to President Aquino in the exercise of their freedom to act on their religious belief really “compelling the President to prevent people from acting according to their own religious belief”? Are not other sects favoring the bill also doing this?

Indeed this RH bill has only caused deep division and serious rift among our people including some clerics. Our country will be better off without it. It is not so necessary after all. There are more effective and less divisive ways of licking poverty here.

Note: Books containing compilation of my articles on Labor Law and Criminal Law (Vols. I and II) are now available. Call tel. 7249445.

The end does not justify the means

Wrong reason, wrong solution

A LAW EACH DAY (Keeps Trouble Away) 

By Jose C. Sison (The Philippine Star) 

Updated May 23, 2011 12:00 AM 

Once again and for several times already, the poor sector or the “stereo type slice of our society” particularly the Class D which allegedly constitute the largest segment of our population, is being used and cited as reason for the passage of the RH bill. The call is that before making any decision for or against the RH bill we should first interact with them and immerse in their kind of life to find out how they “cope with the challenges of providing for their family” and for the education of their children just to “have a decent life”.

One of the favorites and often cited story is that of a 16 year old girl from Baseco Compound in Tondo, Manila “who went from childhood to motherhood with no decent high school education” and who is now facing the challenge of raising two children. The other more heart rending story now cropping up is that of Dolores who, at 12 years of age stopped schooling and started working as a housemaid to help her parents in providing for the education of her siblings only to find out later that her hard earned money was being squandered on booze by her father. Then when her mother died of TB, the rebelling Dolores married the first man who asked her, a construction worker who wanted sex-on-demand such that she became pregnant every year and at the age of 38 had seven mouths to feed after eight childbirths, two miscarriages and death of a three year old son due to malnourishment.

These stories which are allegedly true, are repeatedly cited to drive home the point that if there is an RH bill that would “give them a full menu of options on family planning”, the sad and almost inhuman situations of these two women would have been prevented from happening; that in the particular case of Dolores, she would have been better off with fewer children had she taken the pill to satisfy her husband without the danger of having another mouth to feed. In other words the RH bill purportedly provides them with means to plan for their family’s future and “planning a family’s future is not really against God’s will”.

But the question here is not whether planning the family’s future is against God’s will. Of course, it is in accordance with God’s will. Every family should really plan for its future. Ensuring a decent life for one’s family by having fewer mouths to feed due to serious economic reasons is a very legitimate purpose and a desirable end. But the end or purpose, no matter how noble and legitimate, does not justify the use of wrongful and harmful means. Therefore the question here should be: are the means or methods made available to the poor pursuant to the bill particularly the pills and other contraceptive devices medically safe, legal and quality reproductive health care services, methods, devices and supplies or do they cause abortion, cancer and other serious ailments?

This is question that is not directly and categorically answered in the bill. It only says that abortion is illegal. Yet time and again as the debate rages, it has already been shown that there are direct and indirect links between contraception and abortion. Depoprovera, RU 486, IUD, Norplant and Morning After Pills have already been medically proven to directly cause abortion (Project Abortifacients, Human Life International, June 1991). Apparently the bill would still make them available to women and is thus abetting or promoting abortion which it considers illegal. Freedom of choice is not involved here because such freedom does not definitely extend to opting for something that is illegal.

The bill also ignores or refuses to recognize what is happening in other countries showing the link between abortion and all contraceptives including condoms. In Canada, “the birth control pill was legalized in 1969. The following year, statistics reported 11,152 abortions. Since then, there is already more than tenfold increase in abortion during a period of unprecedented contraceptive use. Contraception has historically been promoted as a means of women’s emancipation, yet ironically, it has led to much greater objectification of women. Women’s bodies have become a testing ground for pharmaceutical companies to reap profits from the myth that the natural consequences of sex can be avoided; women are put out of touch with their bodies as their fertility cycles become chemically controlled; and contraception can also be used to hide the evidence of abuse that is sometimes perpetrated among the young or marginalized” women (Natalie Hudson, The Contraception Misconception).

In the U.S., this link is best described in the case of Planned Parenthood vs. Casey that upheld the decision in Roe vs. Wade where the US Supreme said that: “In some critical respects, abortion is of the same character as the decision to use contraception. For two decades of economic and social development, people have entered into intimate relationships and made choices that define their views of themselves and their places in society, in reliance of the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail”. From these facts it is clear that contraception may fail and if fails, abortion is resorted to because of unwanted pregnancy.

Besides, by citing or using the unfortunate situations of the poor sector of our society as reason for its passage, the RH bill is actually solving our problem of poverty by reducing the number of poor people. This is like curing a person who has colds by removing his nose. This is definitely a wrong solution. Our poverty can be licked by sound economic policy and management that will promote a more equitable distribution of the country’s wealth, by eliminating or minimizing corruption and by providing our poor people access to well-rounded education. The RH bill does not provide these solutions. Hence it is not necessary.

E-mail us at jcson@pldtdsl.net

Atty. Sison's suggestions for the RH bill - an indirect commentary on this bill's many defects

Suggested provisions

A LAW EACH DAY (Keeps Trouble Away) 

By Jose C. Sison (The Philippine Star) 

Updated May 16, 2011 12:00 AM Comments (15)

Based on the statements originating from the different Malacañang spokespersons and from P-Noy himself, the only things clear at this stage about their stand on the RH bill are: that the government wants to give “complete and accurate information” on the natural and artificial methods of family planning but would not prefer one over the other because the “parents themselves need to be the ones to decide and look after the welfare of their families”; that P-Noy is against abortion; and that “the government would have to consider what would benefit the majority even if it would be unpopular and earn criticism from some groups”.

Admittedly, it is necessary to have a complete and accurate information before deciding and making a choice, more so a “wise” choice. Hence the administration and P-Noy himself should ensure that the RH bill must contain a provision requiring the government agencies concerned, particularly the DOH and the DSWD: to inform the couples or the parents about the adverse effects of artificial contraceptives or modern methods of family planning including condoms; to embark on a massive information drive warning the people that these artificial contraceptives are dangerous to their health and welfare; that certain chemical and mechanical contraceptive devices cause abortion, or have side effects specifically breast cancer, cervical cancer, hardening of the arteries, heart disease/stroke and other serious sexually transmissible diseases.

On the other hand, since the government would not prefer one over the other method, the bill should also have a provision requiring government agencies to equally support the information campaign on natural family planning (NFP). There should be a provision in the bill training the DOH and the DSWD personnel on how (NFP) works and mobilizing them to conduct a program explaining the NFP methods to couples or parents especially the poor ones in the same manner they are required to give the reproductive health care services promoting artificial contraceptives as the modern method of family planning. The bill must require government personnel to inform the people that unlike the modern methods, the NFP does not force them to take anything or undergo any procedure that is dangerous to the life and health of the mother and child because it only entails some form of self control and self sacrifice on their part by abstaining from sex for certain periods.

The bill supposedly gives couples, especially women the “freedom of informed choice” while at the same time declaring that it does not legalize abortion. In fact P-Noy himself said he is against abortion but would also like to give the couples or parents that freedom. Hence the bill should also have a provision requiring the government agencies concerned to issue stern warnings on couples or parents who choose the modern methods of family planning that some of the contraceptives they may pick may render them liable for abortion under Article 257-259 of the Revised Penal Code. Indeed the bill should already specify these abortion causing contraceptives based on well researched medical studies so that couples and parents will really have an “informed choice” and would be ready to suffer the consequences of their choice because “freedom of choice” does not certainly include the freedom to choose something that will result in the murder of an innocent, helpless and defenseless child in the womb of the mother.

The bill should also remove the provisions on sex education for children from grade five up because based on the examples of other countries particularly the US such kind of sex education teaches the wrong values that results in premarital sex and unwanted teen pregnancies that eventually ends in abortion and its legalization. While the bill gives parents the option of allowing or not allowing their children to take such sex education, parents are not well informed of the dire consequences of such sex education, hence they may not really be exercising the freedom of “an informed choice”.

Since the bill repeatedly talks of the freedom of choice, the coercive provisions against those who criticize or attack it, or who do not want to observe some of the practices and procedures it requires, should be removed. These provisions clearly contradict the very freedom that the bill supposedly espouses. More importantly, they actually infringe on the bill of rights enshrined in our Constitution particularly the freedom of speech and the freedom of religious belief and worship (Sections 4 and 5, Article III).

Actually, the bill is not necessary. It is not the solution to the many ills besetting our country especially the problem of poverty allegedly due to overpopulation and the increasing number of maternal death and infant mortality while giving births. In the first place the identified root causes of the problem are wrong hence the solutions are not the proper and effective solutions. Poverty is not due to overpopulation but to the “flawed philosophies of development, misguided economic policies, greed, corruption, social inequities, lack of access to education, poor economic and social services etc.”. Maternal death and infant mortality are not due to increasing number of pregnancies that should be prevented through contraceptives. The bill indeed has several other good provisions addressing this particular problem, but the same could already be implemented even without its passage like upgrading of the facilities and equipment for obstetric care and for prevention of illnesses connected with reproduction or birth.

But if the bill should be passed, it should at least incorporate the above suggestions. This is the only way to prove that the bill is original and not actually a creation of international groups and foreign countries out to implement a hidden agenda of controlling our population for their own selfish interest. Perhaps this is the kind of bill P-Noy should support because it is closer to his description of a bill for the benefit of the majority even if it is unpopular and earn the criticism of some groups”.

Atty. Sison on Abortifacients

The true picture

A LAW EACH DAY (Keeps Trouble Away) 

By Jose C. Sison (The Philippine Star) 

Updated May 09, 2011 12:00 AM 

Today, Congress is supposed to start deliberations on the RH bill. As usual, the public is hoping that our legislators will not spend and waste their time on hearing arguments about the RH bill which are half-truths or complete lies. Indeed Congress will be the harbinger of good news if they can first draw up the real and truthful issues regarding the pros and cons of the said bill. Both sides should first confer and draw the clear battle lines.

The foremost issue here is when life begins. The authors of the bill should explicitly tell the people and their colleagues in Congress whether or not they agree with the proposition that life begins at conception and that conception means the fertilization of the female ovum by the male sperm. As of now it seems they do not agree. They insist that life begins at implantation of the fertilized ovum in the mother’s womb. Indeed this is their reason for repeatedly asserting that the bill does not legalize abortion despite allowing and subsidizing the use of certain pills and contraceptive devices that prevent implantation of a fertilized ovum. So, is it their intention to contradict the framers of the Constitution on this issue? The framers have already affirmed that life begins at the fertilization of the ovum when they draw up that provision in Article II Section 12 requiring the protection of the life of the unborn from conception. If this is their theory of when life begins in pushing for the bill, then this is a real issue that must be raised before the Supreme Court (SC) if the bill is enacted into law. The SC will then resolve whether or not the RH law violates the Constitutional provision mandating the State to protect the life of the unborn from the moment of conception.

Obviously, these differing versions of when life begins create a doubt. In such a case, the accepted rule is that the doubt must always be resolved in favor of life. This rule is illustrated by that classic story of several sportsmen who went hunting for deer one night. One of them got separated from his group and came upon a bush where he heard some rustling sound. As he quietly stalked towards the bush and prepared to shoot what he believed was a deer, he was suddenly seized with doubt that the one making the sound is not his prey after all but one of his companions. So he refrained from firing his gun, shouted at the direction of the rustling sound. And true enough, one of his companions came out of the bush. He resolved his doubt in favor of human life.

The authors of the bill should also specify the “medically safe” artificial contraceptives and devices. Scientific and medical studies and actual experiences in other countries have already established that no artificial contraceptives, whether in the form of chemicals (pills) or mechanical devices, are “medically safe”. They either cause abortion, cancer, sexually transmissible diseases and other sickness on mother and child. Even condoms that are supposed to place artificial barriers between the sperm and the ovum are not fail-safe so that their use has given rise to indiscriminate sex resulting in more HIV/AIDSs cases. Tubal ligation and vasectomy on the other hand distort the natural structure of the human body and therefore demean human dignity.

To be more specific, the authors of the bill must categorically answer this question: Does the bill consider the following contraceptives as medically safe and essential medicines for free distribution to couples who want to plan the size of their family?

(1) Depoprovera has been labeled a long term contraceptive but is in fact an abortifacient, It comes in the form of an injection. The US Food and Drug Administration has deemed this drug unsafe for American women but has not discouraged its producers (Upjohn) from promoting and distributing it in third world countries.

(2) RU 486 (produced by Roussel-Uclaf) prevents the uptake of progesterone, a necessary hormone in the early stages of pregnancy. Expulsion of the baby occurs in about 86 percent of women in 24 hours. It causes severe bleeding, at times lasting up to 42 days.

(3) IUD (intra uterine device) is a plastic device of various shapes that is placed inside the uterus. It alters the lining of the uterus by producing local irritation. It seems to produce inflammation of the uterine mucosa that impedes the implantation of the ovum. Likewise it alters the mechanism of transport of the spermatocytes. The developing child (fertilized ovum) who has come from the fallopian tube cannot implant and thus dies. The IUD has anti-implantation and abortive effects.

(4) Norplant is a series of six non-biodegradable rubber-like rods or capsules that are surgically implanted under the skin in the inside portion of the arm. It can continue its abortifacient activity for up to six years. Its side effects are similar to those of the IUD.

(5) The morning after pill or emergency contraceptive pill (ECP) is a chemical product of hormonal nature. It is increasingly presented and marketed as a contraceptive (i.e. preventing conception) that could be used in emergency situations after sexual intercourse to avoid an unwanted pregnancy. In reality, it is an abortive product. It peevents the fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus by altering the internal wall of this organ, and provokes its expulsion from the uterus. It works the same way as the IUD.

These are only some of the issues that must be squarely met and adequately answered. There are many more but with the answers to these issues, our legislators can already get a clear picture showing that the bill should not be passed.

E mail us at jcson@pldtdsl.net

A foreign-crafted bill

The hidden agenda

A LAW EACH DAY (Keeps Trouble Away) 

By Jose C. Sison (The Philippine Star) 

Updated May 06, 2011 12:00 AM 

Admittedly, one of the subjects most exhaustibly discussed in this column, is the controversial Reproductive Health (RH) bill. Since its introduction in Congress almost 15 years ago under the aegis of foreign groups with seemingly inexhaustible funds, I have written so many articles against it mainly because it is unconstitutional or illegal and unnecessary. While it has been by-passed in several Congressional sessions, its sponsors keep on reintroducing a bill with essentially the same objectionable features.

Indeed there will always be controversy surrounding the RH bill for as long as our legislators, particularly its sponsors, fail or refuse to realize that this is one bill not needed by our country and our people; that it is only needed by wealthy nations and foreign vested interests with sinister hidden agenda of depopulating developing countries like the Philippines so they can continue monopolizing and enjoying the world’s wealth and resources. As Teresa R. Tunay says in her superb article aptly entitled “Reading between the lies”, the RH bill is “coming from a place of fear, the fear of losing worldly power and wealth” So it is really up to Congress to end this very divisive and debilitating controversy. All they have to do is drive the final nail on its coffin and never revive it again.

Actually if the members of Congress sponsoring this foreign crafted bill continue to ignore this hidden agenda and should Congress itself be eventually lured into approving the bill, the controversy will still not end because its legality will now be questioned before our courts. Hence ultimately, it will still be the Supreme Court (SC), the final arbiter of legal issues which will write finis to the controversy by finally nullifying the bill on the ground that it is unconstitutional and unnecessary. Of course at this time, all we can do is hope and pray that the SC Justices will not be lured into siding with Congress that may approve such bill.

There is really a need to continue writing against the bill because its advocates and supporters continue to sidetrack the issues by engaging in personal attacks and by presenting arguments that necessitate replies so as not to mislead the public and so as to properly inform them why the bill should not really be passed.

First of all, in defending the bill and answering the points raised against it, the supporters and advocates have repeatedly attacked the Catholic Church. Even a Catholic American clergy belonging to a religious order who heads a “social institute” blames the Church for dividing the people with its stand.

They also accused the Church of violating the principle of separation of Church and State for taking a stand against the bill. But when the Iglesia ni Cristo (INC) endorsed the bill and even cited and interpreted the scriptures to justify their stand, they never accused INC of violating this principle and even praised this religious sect. As repeatedly pointed out, the issues here are essentially legal not religious. Hence the principle of Church-State separation does not come into play.

Secondly, every time they argue for the passage of the bill, the sponsors and advocates especially in media never fail to cite the situation in depressed areas where families with 7-10 children with unemployed parents live together in one small room. In a year they say that one of those children will die of malnutrition and other diseases.

It is really hard to figure out how the RH bill will be able to help the family get out of such situation. The only thing they can point out here is that if if the RH bill is passed, then contraceptives will be available to the couple so that when the man of the house goes home drunk and cannot resist the urge to have sex, he can do so without danger of having more children. Obviously the situation of the family here still remains in the same deplorable condition. Only the contraceptive manufacturers will get richer at the expense of the taxpayers whose money will be used by the government in purchasing those contraceptives. In effect, the RH bill “steals from the people by using the taxpayers’ money to buy contraceptive devices for the poor who can’t and won’t control their sexual appetites” (Reading between the lines).

Thirdly, it has also been repeatedly emphasized that the RH bill has other elements aside from promoting contraceptives like maternal, infant and child health and nutrition; promotion of breast feeding; adolescent and youth health; prevention and management of reproductive tract infection, HIVs AIDS and STDs; elimination of violence against women; counseling on sexuality and reproductive health; treatment of breast and reproductive tract cancer; male involvement and participation in reproductive health; prevention and treatment of infertility; and Reproductive Health education for the youth.

All these aspects of the bill however can already be carried out even without enacting it into law. These are the jobs of the Department of Health (DOH) and the Social Welfare and Development (DSWD). DOH and DSWD should just improve their services in these areas. There is no need to pass the RH bill which has a different agenda. Indeed, the passage of this bill is one of the strings attached to the more than $300 million Millennium Development Grant awarded last year to our country by the USA represented by State Secretary Clinton who has openly admitted that “reproductive health means abortion”.

Members of Congress, please take note. Don’t lose sight of this hidden agenda when you deliberate on the bill.

* * *

E-mail at: jcson@pldtdsl.net

Advocating freedom without responsibility

Faulty exercise of freedom

A LAW EACH DAY (Keeps Trouble Away) 

By Jose C. Sison (The Philippine Star) 

Updated April 29, 2011 12:00 AM

Malacanang’s call for a halt to the heated debate on the RH bill is rather too late. This call should have been PNoy’s stance in his UP commencement speech. He would have really looked more like a Statesman and the President of all the Filipinos if he just initially declined to make a stand on the issue because there are still “continued discussions on the bill” which are necessary for them “to come up with a very reasonable measure”, as his spokesman now belatedly says. Ironically, his spokesman is now also giving the impression that the Church “looks at the government as an adversary” when it was PNoy who first said in a perceivably belligerent way, that he is willing to be ex-communicated by the Church for essentially favoring the RH bill a.k.a. “Responsible Parenthood (RP) bill. Naturally such assertion will provoke more debate and discussion.

Malacañang should know that the debate will stop only if the issues are presented clearly and truthfully, if they are met head-on with solid and convincing proof, and if the arguments do not ignore the truth or use deceit. Unfortunately, this is not the kind of debate now taking place.

At this stage, the pro-RH advocates and supporters are presenting as core issue, the freedom of choice; that couples or parents, in the exercise of responsible parenthood, have the freedom to choose between the natural family planning and artificial method of contraception to achieve the desired size of their family. This issue obviously assumes that either method can be chosen. But this assumption is contrary to well established fact that the artificial methods of contraception either kill an unborn child or cause various diseases to mother and children some of which are fatal. Hence artificial methods cannot be freely chosen because they violate the law or is harmful to the physical health of individuals and the moral health of society.

Specifically, it has been pointed out time and again that birth control pills directly cause abortion or indirectly lead to abortion. This has long been established by medical science and cannot be denied. Therefore choosing and using them violates not only the Constitution requiring protection of the life of the unborn from conception (Article II Section 12) but also the Revised Penal Code penalizing abortion (Articles 256-259).

But the pro choice advocates brusquely dismiss this point by clinging to the theory used in justifying abortion - that life begins at implantation of the fertilized ovum in the mother’s womb and not at conception. Undoubtedly this theory is clearly contrary to medical findings and scientific reference works consistently declaring that life begins at conception. In fact the framers of our Charter have already recognized and affirmed that human life begins at conception. Hence they provide in the Constitution that the State shall protect the life of the unborn from conception.

Even then, pro-choice advocates still insist on giving the people freedom to choose the birth control pills with a sweeping and bare denial that the RH bill is for abortion and with a curt statement they are also against abortion. Apparently this position is self-contradictory and can only be interpreted to mean that the RH bill advocates are against abortion but they recognize the right of others to choose artificial methods that may cause abortion. So they are actually advocating freedom without responsibility.

And this advocacy is anchored on another form of freedom - the supposed “freedom of conscience”. This is a common expression based on the wrong notion that the so called conscience is “free to create its own laws about good and evil”; that it is autonomous or “totally subjective, which ignores the law and determines by itself what is right and wrong”. Hence we often hear from public officials implicated in various wrongdoings the usual expression “my conscience is clear”, as they make blanket denials of the charges; or the very recent expression made after making a stand on the RH bill that “in the end I will just listen to my conscience and do what is right”.

Conscience is “not a speculative assessment, opinion, or judgment on general principles, or a decision about the usefulness or practicality of an action”. Conscience is the “judgment of the intellect on the goodness or evil of an act performed or about to be performed”. Pope John Paul II explained it with greater clarity when he said: “The judgment of conscience has an imperative character; man must act in accordance with it...it is the proximate norm of personal morality...The authority of its voice and judgments from the truth about moral good and evil...This truth is indicated by the “divine law”, the universal and objective norm of morality. The judgment of conscience does not establish the law; rather it bears witness to the authority of natural law and of the practical reason with reference to the supreme good, whose attractiveness the human person perceives and whose commandment he accepts” (Veritatis Splendor).

Another core issue raised in the RH bill is that it is supposedly intended to protect and promote the women’s reproductive health by preventing pregnancy, as if pregnancy is now a disease. But statistics for the past ten years show that maternal mortality rate due to giving birth is not that high as to be considered one of the ten major causes of death among women in the country today. What is intriguing here is that suddenly, news reports are coming out now allegedly showing that 10 or 11 mothers die every day while giving birth. Obviously this is another attempt at pressuring our legislators to pass the bill.

Actually however, assuming the statistics are correct, the RH bill is not the answer to the problem. Maternal and child health care is presently among the functions of the DOH. This rise in maternal deaths shows that DOH is not properly doing its function. Hence improvement of the services in this regard should be made, not the passage of the RH bill.

Finally, it is also wrong to claim that the RH bill should be passed because it is the popular choice of the people. Truth is not determined in a popularity contest. Truth is an objective reality that remains constant regardless of what people say. The RH bill should be passed because it is based on the truth and is for the common good and not because, the survey says so.

* * *

E-mail us at jcson@pldtdsl.net.

The RH bill: essentially a legal and not a religious issue

Greater risk and more harm

A LAW EACH DAY (Keeps Trouble Away) 

By Jose C. Sison (The Philippine Star) 

Updated April 25, 2011 

P-Noy really has the right or even the obligation as President to endorse for legislation any bill that he believes will promote his program of government. This is true even if the bill is as controversial as the Reproductive Health (RH) bill which he has renamed “Responsible Parenthood” (RP) bill. For taking such an unstinting stand on this issue, he earned praise and admiration as expected, from the RH bill’s backers who immediately claim he is supporting their cause.

But what is very unfortunate here is the seeming arrogance of power P-Noy displayed in dealing with the opposition. Many of those who voted for him in the last election envisioned a President who would unite the nation. But it is not the President they saw and heard in the UP commencement exercises. The public perception is that he just created a deeper fissure among our people in his stand on the controversial RH (RP?) bill, making his holy week appeal to “carry our nation together” sound hollow and empty.

First of all, he is talking about another version of the bill which he calls “RP” bill the contents of which are not yet known or made public up to now. Nobody has read or even seen a version of said bill and therefore cannot intelligently say that he/she is for or against it. Hence it is not quite right for P-Noy to say he knows those who oppose it; nor could he say that “their minds are already closed”.

Indeed the statements of his drumbeaters in Malacanang even vary with his own. One official said that “Aquino’s Responsible Parenthood version of the controversial reproductive health bill in Congress will neither be in favor of the Catholic Church nor Reproductive Health bill advocates”. Another claimed that “The RP bill means that we will not favor one over the other. Wala po talagang papaboran sa family planning method”. But in his UP speech, P-Noy already avowed categorically that his RP bill “has a lot of common grounds” with the RH bill now under plenary debate in the House of Representatives.

P-Noy is just actually reiterating his “pro-choice” stance in his UP speech about the “need to reorient, refocus and empower Filipino couples and provide them with full public information regarding the natural and artificial methods of family planning and consult the individual religious entities where they belong”. This is the principle of the Responsible Parenthood bill which he would like to “isabatas” and to explain to “those who oppose it” even if their “minds are already closed”. This is the very same stance of the RH bill authors and supporters.

Plainly, he would like Filipino couples to exercise responsible parenthood in determining the size of their family by giving them the right to choose between the natural and artificial family planning methods after being properly informed about them. And to enable the couples to exercise this right, the government should make available to them the modern methods of family planning. In short, if the couples choose the artificial method, the government should provide the artificial contraceptives, whether in the form of pills or mechanical devices.

Before espousing this principle, P-Noy should have consulted experts to determine the over-all effects of contraceptives. Had asked, he must have learned of the medical and scientific findings showing that artificial contraceptives not only prevent conception but also render the uterus hostile to a live embryo and thus prevent its the implantation in the mother’s womb. So that when the couple subsequently decides to have a baby by not using contraceptives or when contraceptives fail, abortion also happens. That is why the bill also has provisions on “post abortion” complications.

Indeed actual studies in the US show that artificial contraceptives are not 100% effective. It may also result in unwanted pregnancies forcing women to resort to abortion. In fact the US Supreme Court has already recognized the close causal link between contraception and abortion which led to its decision in Roe vs. Wade, legalizing abortion. Then there are also medical findings about the many harmful effects of artificial contraceptives on the life and health of mothers and children.

So this is not simply a matter of informing the couples and giving them the freedom to choose between artificial and natural family planning methods. Certainly, couples have no freedom to choose something that will violate the law particularly, Article II Section 12 of the Constitution which mandates the State to equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception; and Section 15 which requires the State to protect and promote the right to health of the people.

Moreover, artificial contraceptives also violate natural law or the “norm derived from human nature”. This is so because one of the most natural acts of a human person is to engage in sexual intercourse which has for its natural consequence the possible transmission of life when man’s sperm cell may fertilize the egg released from the woman’s ovaries. Contraceptives however interfere with this natural process by preventing the union of the sperm and the egg.

Hence the controversy here is not so much about whether the RH or RP bill is contrary to the religious beliefs of a particular sect or religious denomination. It is more about whether the bill giving couples the freedom to choose artificial contraceptives violates the law — of man and of nature. It is essentially a legal not a religious issue. Let us not drag the “Padre Damasos” here.

In pushing for the RH or RP bill, P-Noy is therefore not risking his own ex-communication from the Church. He is putting the country to greater risk of being engulfed by a “contraceptive mentality” which according to data gathered by western social scientists and pro choice advocates themselves, “has caused a rise in abortion, infidelity, breakdown of families, trouble in relationship between the sexes, a lessening of respect for women by men, female impoverishment and single motherhood”.

P-Noy should just concentrate in fighting graft and corruption to solve our country’s problem of poverty. He should not push for the RH bill as it may just lead us to a “higher form of corruption” — moral corruption which may probably usher economic prosperity but will certainly cause moral bankruptcy in our society.

During Easter time let’s hope and pray that P-Noy will further deliberate on his RH bill position and will not forget to implore the aid of the Divine Providence, the author of nature, the source and giver of life and the protector of the family.

HAPPY EASTER TO ALL

E-mail us at jcson@pldtdsl.net

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”.

Truth is not a question of numbers

Determining right or wrong by survey

A LAW EACH DAY (Keeps Trouble Away) 

By Jose C. Sison (The Philippine Star) Updated March 28, 2011 

It is quite plain and clear now. The Aquino administration is overly concerned with the “numbers game” – the number of people supporting or opposing a particular stand, a planned move or a proposed measure. It is still on a campaign mode up to now, always watching out for survey results or the size of the crowd turning out for or against the raging issues of the day. Its stance is apparently influenced by popular public opinion. Hence it tends to overlook or refuse to see what is right or wrong, what is good or bad, about the pros and cons on current issues.

This is especially true with regards to the RH bill now pending in Congress. Yesterday’s news reports say that the prayer rally at the Luneta last Friday, March 25, 2011 was not a “cause of concern” on the part of Malacanang despite the number of people participating which media has rigidly fixed at 40,000. Presidential Communications Development and Strategic Planning Office (PCDSPO) Secretary Ricky Carandang said last Saturday at the PNP graduation rites in Silang Cavite, that the “Aquino administration’s position on responsible parenthood would not change despite the rally organized by the Catholic Church”.

Malacanang’s position in this regard calls to mind the Marcos stand following the assassination of Ninoy Aquino when people started street demonstrations demanding “Justice for Ninoy Justice for All Marcos at that time felt safely ensconced at Malacanang despite the demonstrations and refused to listen to the people’s demand. This stance challenged the people who then organized more and bigger demonstrations leading to the EDSA people power revolution in 1986 that toppled his regime.

The point of comparison or the lesson to be learned here is not to challenge the people by refusing to listen and by remaining adamant simply because the over 40,000 attending the rally is not “a cause of concern”. In the first place that figure is merely based on media reports during the early hours of the rally. Anyone who was there up to the end of the rally would attest that attendance swelled to about 200,000-300,000. Besides, other mass demonstrations are also held or will be held in other parts of the country like Cebu, Davao, Bacolod, Tacloban Baguio and other parts of the country. These are definitely enough “causes of concern” for Malacañang.

Actually, two rallies were also held during the Ramos administration in the 90’s with almost the same number of attendance at the Luneta. The first was also about an intended population control program of the Ramos administration that had detrimental effects on family and life. The second was the Ramos plan to change the charter that would mainly extend his stay in Malacanang. Both rallies were spearheaded by P-Noy’s late mother Cory. They were enough to cause Ramos to heed the people’s demands and to abandon his plans. P-Noy should learn from these incidents.

PCDSPO Secretary Carandang said that he was not talking “specifically about the RH bill pending in Congress but the President’s position on modern family planning”. But “modern family planning methods” indubitably refer to no other than the artificial chemical devices like the pills, or mechanical ones like the IUDs. Undeniably, these devices cause abortion or lead to abortion because they prevent the fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus of the mother and thus violate the Constitution mandating the State to protect... the life of the unborn from conception (Article II Section 12) which means from fertilization of the ovum as defined by the framers of the Constitution. They also violate the Revised Penal Code (RPC) which penalizes abortion (Articles 256-259).

But the RH Bill authors still insist that the bill does not violate the Constitution and the RPC. They say that conception or the beginning of life is not upon fertilization of the ovum, but upon the implantation of the fertilized egg in the wall of the uterus. So the use of contraceptives or modern family planning methods before implantation, to prevent implantation, is not abortion. This is however contrary to the meaning adopted by the framers of the Constitution and the medically and scientifically proven fact that life begins at fertilization, that a fertilized egg is already a live human being even before implantation. Apparently when P-Noy’s mouthpiece says that P-Noy is maintaining his position on modern family planning, he is adopting this erroneous position of the RH bill authors. He must thus clarify or change his position on this matter because it is wrong.

Indeed P-Noy’s spokespersons seem to anchor P-Noy’s position on this vital issue only on survey results. Again Carandang explained that P-Noy has not changed his position that as part of responsible parenthood the family should plan its size and that the government has reason to believe that most Filipino couples would like to be educated on how to plan their families. Then he again cited figures and pointed out that “something close to 70% of people surveyed consistently say they want access to modern family planning”.

Of course, couples indeed have the right to determine the number of children they want to have, in the exercise of “responsible parenthood”. This is not wrong. What is wrong here is the use of modern family planning methods that may cause or lead to abortion. Besides, responsible parenthood does not consider sex solely for self satisfaction free from any responsibility of giving birth by using artificial modern methods that supposedly prevent conception but actually cause abortion. Responsible parenthood means that couples should look at sex as always open to the possible transmission of life, so that in planning the size of family, they should not use “modern artificial methods” to prevent such possibility, but practice self control and abstinence for the meantime. Thus the government’s position to provide access to these modern family planning methods with harmful effects will never be right or justified simply because 70% of the people surveyed wants access to them.

Expect more prayer rallies therefore asking God that P-Noy and our legislators obey His will by saying No to RH Bill.