An important document on the link between abortion and the RH Law

Urgent Joint Manifestation vs RH by CBCP for Life

A UP Diliman student on why the Reproductive Health Law is unconstitutional and should be abolished

Abolish the Unconstitutional Reproductive Law
Position Paper by Mary Minette M. Geñorga (University of the Philippines)

(Source)

Once a bill is passed and it becomes a law, it does not mean that it cannot be abolished anymore. In the Republic of the Philippines, the Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012, a law that gives universal access to methods on contraception, fertility control, sex education, maternal care and family planning was approved by President Benigno Aquino III last December 21, 2012. Prior to the passage of the bill, two groups of people emerged to support and to criticize the bill. Different forums, debates, rallies and other demonstrations took place to express the side of both groups. "When does life begin?" and "Are contraceptives abortifacients?" are some of the questions intensely debated about over the bill. Amendments were proposed to respond to certain criticisms. Some of these amendments were approved and some were rejected. After 13 years of revisions and arguments over a law for responsible parenthood and reproductive health, the law was finally approved by the president. Yet, the commotion over the controversial bill did not stop when it was passed into a law. The implementation of the law is still pending. A status quo ante order was issued by the Supreme Court for the magistrates to assess the merits of the 14 petitions that were filed by various groups stating that the law is unconstitutional. According to an article on philstar.com, the voting for the legality of the said law has been rescheduled to April 2014 wherein the Supreme Court‟s annual summer session will be held (Punay).

It is clear that criticisms of the RH law persisted despite the fact that it has already been passed and approved. Its legality is being questioned mainly because it steps over some rights that are stated on our constitution. This violation on constitutional provisions leads to the need for the abrogation of the said law.

What are these constitutional provisions that the RH law violates? An article on inquirer.net from September 28, 2013 reports that Fr. Melvin Castro, the executive secretary of the Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines Episcopal Commission on Family and Life, asked the Supreme Court to declare the law as unconstitutional following that the Priority Development Assistance Fund or what is commonly known as pork barrel was used to pass the bill through bribery(Uy). The unconstitutionality of the law was again brought up in February 2014. In an article on journal.com.ph, Buhay Hayaang Yumabong party-list Representative Lito Atienza said:

Instead of instilling a contraceptive mentality in our children, our leaders should be cultivating a culture of life as embodied in our Constitution-Article II, Section 12. 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. (Pacpaco)

Another violation is explained by Aquilino “Nene” Pimentel Jr. in a report on sunstar.com.ph. The former Senate President of the country explains that the said law is unconstitutional as it violates the local and regional autonomy of the local government units. He relayed how Muslims, especially the ones from the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao, consider children as their assets and they argued that the central government should not dictate what they will do for the education and health of their people(qtd. in Malalis). The violation of the doctrine of “benevolent neutrality” that is part of the 1987 constitution under the freedom of religion clause is another violation that adds up to the list of unconstitutional provisions of the RH Law which an article on abs-cbnnews.com reports on(Reformina). In relation to this, under the provision in Section five article three, the Constitution says that "[n]o law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" (“The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines”). Moreover, under Section 19 of the RH Law it states “The FDA shall issue strict guidelines with respect to the use of contraceptives, taking into consideration the side effects or other harmful effects of their use.” 

(“ Republic Act No. 10354”)

Why would the use of contraceptives be included in a law if it is already known that its use will bring harmful effects?

Along with stepping over the rights of Filipinos, the RH law institutionalizes risks. One of these risks being the health risk that comes with the use of contraceptives. Many arguments have been made against the use of contraceptives. After the revisions, the specific type of contraceptive that is included in the law is the hormonal contraceptive. An article on rappler.com reports that Luisito Liban, an anti-RH lawyer, argues that the government has arbitrarily declared hormonal contraceptives safe by allowing it in the law (Fonbuena). This institutionalizes the hazards that contraceptives will bring to Filipinos. Another risk that is brought about by the RH law is that through increasing contraception availability it increases the population coverage of failure rate in terms of avoiding sexually transmitted illnesses(STI). Manufactured products have inherent defects. An example of a manufactured product is the latex condom which has pores of five to seventy microns. A human sperm cell has a diameter of five microns and the Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome or AIDS has a diameter of 0.1 microns. Through the presentation of this numerical data, it can be seen that the use of condoms does not completely prevent the transfer of STIs like AIDS. People tend to think that with the use of contraceptives they are protecting themselves from STIs. This is not true because AIDS is not even the top STI but it is Human papillomavirus or HPV. HPV is acquired or transmitted through skin contact. Its spread cannot be prevented with the use of contraceptives. Because people lack awareness about this kind of information, a false sense of security is established by having the wide distribution of contraceptives. Filipinos are made to think that since these condoms are part of the RH law and it is part of our constitution to protect the well-being of a person, these condoms will not bring any harm to them. Contraceptives will harm people through making them more susceptible to STIs which may even lead to death.

Aside from creating hazards to Filipinos as individuals through contraception, the RH also creates hazards to Filipinos as families. According to the studies of Nobel prize winner, George Akerlof, a contraceptive lifestyle paves the way for more premarital sex, more fatherless children, more single mothers, more poverty, more abortions, a decline of marriage, more crimes, more social pathology and poverty.

The said law does not only create risks to Filipinos but also to the Philippine economy. It is based on wrong economics. It seen as a factor that will help in the economic development of our country but that is not the case. An article on cbcpforlife.com states that “There is no clear correlation between population growth and economic development”, according to Simon Kuznets, Nobel Prize winner in the science of economics (qtd. in “7 Point”). It has been presented in anti-RH arguments that population control is not a factor that is needed for a high economic growth unlike governance, openness to knowledge, stable finances, market allocation, investment and savings. 

The desire to improve the economy brings us back to the people. In an address delivered by Carlos Romulo, secretary of Foreign Affairs of the Philippines, before the eighth World Peace Through Law Conference, he reminds the people at the Philippine Convention Center in August 24, 1977 that wherever you may be born and in whatever circumstance, human beings have the right to be treated as human beings. This basic right should be protected so that all the others may be protected as well. Laws are implemented for the good of society. There is no need for a law that does not promote the rights of humans.

The RH Law with its unconstitutional provisions, risks to Filipino individuals and Filipino families and wrong economic basis gives the people something to ponder upon. Is it really just to have this law in our country? Is it even needed in our country? Does it address the top problems faced by the nation? A law that has been long debated upon and now is pending for its implementation, the Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012, violates constitutional provisions which leads to the necessity of abolishing the law.

Works Cited

“1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines.” Chan Robles Virtual Law Library. chanrobles.com, n.d. Web. 26 Sept. 2012.

Fonbuena, Carmela. “Chief Justice Takes Up Cudgels for RH Law”. rappler.com. Rappler. 23 Aug 2013. Web. 12 Mar 2014.

Malalis, Abigail. “Nene Pimentel: RH Law 'Unconstitutional'”. sunstar.com.ph. Sun.Star Publishing, Inc. 10 July 2013. Web. 12 Mar 2014.

Pacpaco, Ryan. “Atienza Believes SC will Declare RH Law Unconstitutional”. journal.com.ph. I-Map Websolutions, Inc. 15 Feb 2014. Web. 12 Mar 2014.

Punay, Edu. “SC Resets Vote on RH to April”. philstar.com. Philstar. 5 Mar 2014. Web. 12 Mar 2014.

Reformina, Ina. “SC Consolidates 14th Petition vs RH Law”. abs-cbnnews.com. ABS-CBN Interactive. 02 Aug 2013. Web. 12 Mar 2014. 

“Republic Act No. 10354”. gov.ph. Web. 12 Mar 2014. 

Romulo, Carlos. The Right to Life is the Basic Human Right. Mandaue City:National Media Production Center. 1977. Print.

“7 Point Manifesto Families Against RH Bill”. cbcpforlife.com. CBCP for Life. 10 July 2011. Web. 12 Mar 2014.

Uy, Jocelyn. “SC Asked to Declare RH Law unconstitutional”. inquirer.net. Inquirer.net. 28 Sept 2013. Web. 12 Mar 2014.

Fr. Melvin Castro on why the RH Law is Unconstitutional

From The Manila Times:

Church praying High Court will ‘kill’ RH law
February 17, 2014 11:44 pm
by Robertzon F. Ramirez

THE Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) is hoping that the Reproductive Health (RH) law or Republic Act (RA) 10354 will go the same way as the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF), which was declared unconstitutional by the High Court.

Fr. Melvin Castro, executive director of the CBCP—Episcopal Commission on Family and Life, said the Catholic Church is hoping that the Supreme Court (SC) will be guided by the Constitution, which respects human life, not by public pressure.

“The commitment of the state to protect family must be their basis to declare the law as unconstitutional,” Castro said.

The RH bill was signed into law by President Benigno Aquino 3rd in December 2012.

In March 2013, the SC stopped the implementation of the RH law when it issued a status quo ante (SQA) order valid for 120 days. The order was extended indefinitely when the SQA lapsed in July 2013.

The SC heard the final oral arguments on the case in August last year.

Senate President Franklin Drilon earlier urged the high tribunal to render a decision so that government can address the increasing concerns on maternal and infant care.

Castro said the Church is praying that the SC justices will rule against the RH law.

“Ang dasal natin na sana itong ating justices sa SC will be guided by wisdom, will be guided by their respect for life and their love for the Lord in this country to declare it [RH Law] as unconstitutional,” he said.

For the record: on why contraception is not a human right

Contraception is not a human right

Jemy Gatdula, Nov. 25, 2012

The news currently being gloated over by the pro-RH Bill advocates (including their too fawning pro-RH media) is the United Nations Population Fund’s declaration in its annual report "The State of the World Population" that: "Family planning is a human right." Unfortunately, aside from playing up the non-news, pro-RH advocates and their media cohorts also distort it.

Notably, the UNFPA’s annual report actually used the term "family planning" as a human right. Not "birth control." Not "contraception." Those are three different things. But pro-RH advocates and media immediately headlined their articles to give the impression that the UNFPA is stating that "birth control" or "contraception" are the human rights. This is outright misleading.

For the record: World Youth Alliance Asia Pacific versus the revised RH bill

For the record: CFC-FFL on the Revised RH Bill

MISSING THE POINT: CFC FFL Statement Against the Proposed Substitute (Amended) RH Bill dated Oct 17, 2012

Scrambling to get the Reproductive Health Bill approved before the Christmas break, its authors in the House of Representatives have dangled an enticing gambit by unveiling a ”tamer, watered-down version” of the controversial measure.

The re-packaged Bill aims to bait acceptance from detractors and approval from the general public, on the strength of compromised amendments.

On surface, the amendments appear to bridge the gap separating the proponents from the objectors. But upon closer scrutiny and beneath the veneer of an attempted compromise, the revisions really do little to save the Bill. The reason is simple: THE AMENDMENTS MISS THE POINT.

On the pro-life principles embedded in the Philippine Constitution

The Sanctity of Family and Life Natural Law Thinking in the Constitution

Jemy Gatdula's responses to Fr. Joaquin Bernas and Fr. Ranhilio Aquino

Again, Fr. Bernas is mistaken. Same with Fr. Aquino

(September 24, 2012)

By this article Fr. Joaquin Bernas (and those from whom he gets his advice) is again sadly mistaken. It is very evident that he compartmentalizes his reasoning, distinguishing the theological, philosophical, and constitutional points from each other. This is wrong. The arguments are actually unified and one. They are all constitutional arguments (and philosophical, and theological). The fact that he can't seem to see that is unfortunate.

His arguments on taxation, the nature of legislation, and the application of natural law are also myopic and, at times, quite fallacious.

Ultimately, how one understands the law, the nature of law, the nature of rights, and the nature of human beings would be determinative of how one ultimately views constitutional law. Though there would be occasions to properly discuss 'pluralism' and 'tolerance', there is still that point when one has to make a consideration of what is the objective standard (or else admit the lack of one) in determining what is constitutional or not and what what is right from wrong.

Far from helping achieve clarity on the issue, Fr. Bernas, I am grieved to say, continues to feed confusion to it.

I still stand on my previous comments on the issue, noting that Fr. Bernas has said nothing new that would give me cause to revise it. For a further exposition on natural law and how contraception violates it, see Catholic Sexual Ethics: A Summary, Explanation & Defense.

Lamentably, another priest, Fr, Ranhilio Aquino, also seems to not "get" natural law (see The Trouble With Natural Law). One can point to so many reasons why this is so. Suffice to say, however, that the fact that he does not seem to grasp that the very authority he mentions (i.e., John Finnis) is actually quite clear on his position that contraception violates natural law (see "Every Marital Act Ought To Be Open to New Life': Toward a Clearer Understanding"; co-written by John Finnis with Germain Grisez and William May) points to his inadequate depth on the matter.

The RH Bill and the Law, 2: A Response by Atty. Cristina Montes to Prof. Florin Hilbay on "Legal Issues on Reproductive Rights"

Critique by Atty. Cristina A. Montes of the UP Primer on Legal Issues on Reproductive Rights - Constitutio...

The RH Bill and the Law, 1: A Critique by Atty. Marwil Llasos J.D.

The Reproductive Health Bill is Unconstitutional
Atty. Marwil N. Llasos J.D.

The Reproductive Health Bill (House Bill No. 4244) in its entirety is unconstitutional because its very premise is at war with the philosophy embodying the 1987 Constitution, dubbed as the Pro-Life Constitution.

The RH Bill proponents hail it as a solution to poverty in our country. They insist that the RH Bill will spare children, especially those who are unwanted, from a life of poverty. The RH Bill will save mothers from emotional trauma brought about by child bearing. These arguments are not new. They were already discussed and voted on the floor of the 1986 Constitutional Commission. The result is the present Article II, Section 12 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution:

“Section 12. 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. The natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral character shall receive the support of the Government.”

Constitutionalist Rev. Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas, S.J., in his annotation on the 1987 Philippine Constitution, expresses the sense of Article II, Section 12 that it “denies that the life of the unborn may be sacrificed merely to save the mother from emotional suffering or to spare the child from a life of poverty.”[1] The commonsensical and constitutional solution to the problem was stated by Fr. Bernas, thus: “The emotional trauma of a mother as well as the welfare of the child after birth can be attended through other means such as availing of the resources of welfare agencies.”[2]

What does Article II, Section 12 seek to achieve? Fr. Bernas answers that the provision was intended “primarily to prevent the state from adopting the doctrine in the United States Supreme Court decision of Roe v. Wade which liberalized abortion at the discretion of the mother any time during the first six months when it can be done without danger to the mother.”[3]

Clearly, the provision constitutionally outlaws abortion. There’s no chance that abortion can ever be legal in this country as long as the 1987 Philippine Constitution stands.

***

To read more, click HERE.

Former Senator Francisco Tatad: RH bill will cause "religious persecution, pure and simple"

An op-ed published today on Manila Standard:

How far will the President go to test the Church?

By Francisco S. Tatad

July 30, 2012

In the biggest international conference ever held, some 50,000 delegates representing 190 countries in Rio de Janeiro last month, and under the leadership of the Holy See, the G-77, and some G-20 countries,  delivered the most stunning  blow against the war on population being waged  by the world’s neo-Malthusians, eugenicists and racial supremacists in the name of  reproductive health.

The United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, otherwise known as the Earth Summit, deleted the term “reproductive rights” from the outcome document after it was shown that it was nothing but a code word for “abortion,” as openly admitted by the US State Department.

It was a global victory for plain common sense.

In most of the First World, beginning with Russia, Japan, and Western Europe, the real emergency today is the ageing and shrinking population, known as the “demographic winter” and caused by falling fertility and birth rates.  Contraception, sterilization, abortion and the introduction of same-sex “marriage,” now championed by many governments, are directly responsible for this.

UN forecasts predict that by 2050 there will be more seniors (65 years old and above) than younger people around the world, with the possible exception of some African countries and perhaps the Philippines, if they are able to escape the sustained attack of the global population controllers.

been spared.  Recent demographic studies using data from the United Nations Population Division and appearing in the June 1 issue of Policy Review show that 48 of the 49 Muslim-majority countries and territories have undergone steep fertility decline over the past three decades.

Many governments now agree that “depopulation” is the next global crisis.  This was pointed out during the Russian government-supported Demographic Summit in Moscow on June 29-30, 2011, and the sixth World Congress of Families in Madrid on May 25-27, 2012.

The Moscow Declaration issued at the end of the summit noted that “42 percent of all humankind live in countries where even simple replacement of old generations is not taking place.  The destructive process of swift drop of fertility and birth rates has swept all the continents on our planet. In the nearest historical period, the negative demographic trends can bring about extinction of whole peoples, destruction of States, and disappearance of unique cultures and civilizations.”

The Declaration called on “the government of all nations and on international institutions to develop immediately a pro-family demographic policy and to adopt a special international pro-family strategy and action plan aimed at consolidating family and marriage, protecting human life from conception to natural death, increasing the birth rate, and averting the menace of depopulation.”

The Declaration called for an end to “State interference in the private life of the family under the pretext of so-called ‘family planning,’ ‘protection of the rights of the child,’ and ‘gender equality.’  We consider it inadmissible to continue to policy of birth control, which is one of the greatest threats to the survival of humankind and a means of incursive discrimination against the family,” the document said.

For its part, the Madrid Declaration of May 27, 2012 affirmed that “our societies need more people, not fewer,” and that “human aging and depopulation is the true demographic danger facing the earth in this century.”

It further declared that “lasting solutions to human problems, including the current economic crisis, rise out of families and small communities,” and “cannot be imposed by bureaucratic or judicial fiat.  Nor can they be coerced by outside force.”

The Philippines has a robust population of not less than 95 million, growing at 1.9 percent per annum. At least eight million work overseas, contributing at least $18 billion to the national economy every year.   The fertility rate stands at 2.3, which means the average Filipino woman is capable of bearing 2.3 children during her reproductive years.

This is a valuable resource that is no longer available to so many other countries.  In Japan, the Philippines’ No. 1 trading partner, investor and source of Official Development Assistance, Deputy Prime Minister Katsuya Okada told Vice President Jejomar C. Binay during their talks in Tokyo on July 17 that their two countries need to complement each other because the Philippines has something which Japan no longer has, namely  its “young labor.”

The median age in Japan is 45 years, while it is 22.7 years in the Philippines.  Provided the Philippines invests properly in its population, and does not throw away its demographic dividend, it will become one of the strongest Asian economies in less than 40 years, predict the economic forecasters.

However, the country’s politicians could still throw away this demographic advantage. After their defeat in Rio, the global population controllers have redoubled their efforts to reduce the population of developing counties. In London, US billionaire Melinda Gates, together with the UK Department for International Development, organized a family planning summit where she raised $4.6 billion to fund population control programs against poor women in developing countries.

Part of that money could end up funding RH activities in the Philippines, not excluding the campaign to enact the population control cum reproductive health bill.  There could be no shortage of NGO- or political takers either.

The House of Representatives has decided to cut short the floor debates on the RH bill and ram it through for immediate passage, after President Benigno S. Aquino III said in this July 23 State of the Nation Address:  “We are ending the backlogs in the education sector, but the potential for shortages remains as our student population continues to increase.  Perhaps Responsible Parenthood can help address this.”

Responsible parenthood, properly understood, is not controversial at all.   Article XV, Section 3 (1) of the Constitution provides, “The State shall defend the right of spouses to found a family in accordance with their religious convictions and the demands of responsible parenthood.”  But it is not for the State to prescribe, regulate or supervise.

Responsible parenthood normally refers to “an attitude toward parenthood—not separated from the practice of virtue—that encompasses God’s plan for marriage and family…” It may be exercised “either by the mature and generous decision to raise a large family, or by the decision, made for grave motives, and with respect for the moral law, to avoid a new birth for the time being and for an indeterminate period.”

This is well explained in Humanae Vitae, a 1968 encyclical by Pope Paul VI, which condemns contraception and sterilization as “intrinsically evil.”  The encyclical marked its 44th anniversary on July 25, the same day the House leadership decided to fast track the RH bill.

Anti-RH advocates like to point out that Paul VI’s prophetic warnings about the ill effects of contraception have all come to pass.   True to his warning, contraception has led to widespread conjugal infidelity and a general lowering of morality; men have ceased respecting women in their totality and have begun treating them as mere instruments of selfish enjoyment rather than as cherished partners; the widespread acceptance of contraception by couples has encouraged unscrupulous governments to intrude into the sanctity and privacy of families.

The Pope, however, had failed to predict that widespread abortion, which follows universal contraception, would kill more unborn children than all the fatalities in all the wars ever waged by man since war began.

No government enacts a law to divide the nation. Thus far, the RH bill has already deeply divided the nation.  But the administration appears hell-bent on enacting this highly divisive measure.  What exactly is the rationale? The ultimate game plan?  Even the highly prestigious Wall Street Journal worries it could derail the country’s economic takeoff.

The RH bill has been promoted as a health measure, but it is in fact nothing but a population control measure.  It prescribes birth control as an essential requirement and component of marriage, which is a natural human institution, not designed nor instituted by the State.  It also prescribes the compulsory sex education of children by the State.

In theory, the bill leaves to the individual the choice of method or means to use, but it prescribes birth control as something all must practice, under pain of certain penalties.    Opponents of the bill liken it to the reproductive laws imposed by communist regimes on their populations or by totalitarian regimes like the Nazis on their helpless captives.

So patent and non-debatable is the constitutional offense.  Sec. 12 of Article II of the Constitution provides: “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.  The natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral character shall receive the support of the Government.”

Under this provision, the State is the constitutional protector of conception, just as parents are the primary educators of their children.  As such, the State cannot be a party to any program of contraception. The RH bill, on the other hand, makes the State the first provider of contraception and sterilization——-the first and ultimate preventer of conception.  It also makes the State the primary educator of children.

To the country’s Roman Catholics, the bill is an undisguised anti-Catholic measure. It savages an important doctrine of their faith, and then requires them to provide the tax money to fund the program that would attack their faith.  The bill is arrogantly telling Catholics not to learn their faith from their Church but to learn it from Congress instead.

It is religious persecution pure and simple, a perversion of Church-State relationship, and the victim is not a small religious minority but rather the overwhelming majority of 95 million Filipinos.

President Aquino has been told not to fear the Catholics. The bishops issue no fatwas, and there are no suicide bombers among the laity, they are not even armed like some Muslim Filipinos.  Neither are they as politically organized as some powerful politico-religious sect, which votes as a bloc during elections. “There is no such thing as a Catholic vote,” Aquino has been told.

Indeed, in a predominantly Catholic country where almost everyone running for office is a baptized (even if lapsed) Catholic, people do not vote as “Catholics.”  But should the Aquino government ever enact a law that attacks a doctrine of the Catholic faith, as surely as the sun rises in the East, there will be a Catholic response. It could be a Catholic vote, a Catholic protest, or maybe even a Catholic revolt.  No one can say, but there will be a Catholic response.

In February 1986, a post-election statement by the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP), questioning Marcos’s continued stay in office after the flawed snap presidential elections, provided the “moral basis” for the Edsa revolt that ultimately installed PNoy’s mother, Cory Aquino, as revolutionary president.  It seems only fair to hope that Mr. Aquino has not forgotten his own history, and that not all the encouragement of his foreign patrons will prompt him to tempt Providence.

fstatad@gmail.com

Former Chief Justice Hilario Davide: "Even with rising population, this is no problem in my view"

The US Catholic magazine National Catholic Register published an interview (conducted by Brian Caulfield) with Hilario Davide on July 2. Davide was Chief Justice of the Philippines from November 30, 1998 to December 20, 2005. The last 3 exchanges in the interview are very relevant to the topics covered by this blog:

From Philippines' Constitutional Framer: More People, More Glory to God

The Philippines stands out as the only nation, besides the Vatican, to prohibit divorce.

Our constitution prohibits divorce and abortion. We are anti-divorce, anti-abortion; we are pro-life, pro-family and pro-marriage under the constitution. The right to life of the unborn from the moment of conception is in the Bill of Rights. But, unfortunately, at one time, the Philippine legislature enacted a bill providing for the implementation of the death penalty for some heinous crimes; but it was repealed much later because it reflected badly on the Philippines, especially among the Catholics.

Has your Catholic faith guided your public service?

I would attribute what I have accomplished to my Catholic faith. I have full confidence in the providence of God. We are told by Jesus how to love our neighbors, and we have to do unto others as we would have them do unto us. It is only by the grace of God that you can say that your life has been fulfilled. Even in our family, our children and our grandchildren are brought up being taught how to pursue this life of faith and service to others.

What do you see as the future of the Philippines, which is often called poor and overpopulated?

I am very hopeful for the Philippines and her people. In a recent survey by the University of Chicago, it was demonstrated that, of all the peoples of the world, the Philippines has the greatest level of belief in God. The people’s faith in divine Providence has sustained them, in time of calamity, in time of adversity. So you can see the Filipino people as the most “smiling” in the world. … Even with rising population, this is no problem in my view. We will have more workers, more people and families to work for the greater glory of God.

More on Congressman Aumentado's opposition to the RH bill

From the Sunday (June 24, 2012) edition of The Bohol Standard Online:

Aumentado slams RH bill

By: JUNE S. BLANCO

UNCONSTITUTIONAL, redundant, unnecessary and just enriches multinationals.

Thus Rep. Erico Aumentado (2nd District, Bohol) describes the Reproductive Health (RH) Bill.

Aumentado is among the speakers of the anti-RH Bill rally slated in the Diocese of Talibon under Bishop Christian Vicente Noel. All towns within the diocese will be sending delegations to the event – up to Jagna to the east, Tubigon to the west and Carmen in the interior.

Why three Boholano congressmen are against the RH bill

(Originally published on this blog on June 21, 2012 at 3:30 AM. Some newer posts below):

From the Bohol Chronicle article Church mounts rally vs. RH Bill with solons' support (the emphases are mine):

Aumentado and 3rd district congressman Arthur Yap were present during the rally. 

In his speech, Aumentado argued that the highly controversial RH Bill is clearly unconstitutional. He added that the experts of the constitution assured that life begins at fertilization, not implantation as the RH Bill proponents would say.

     

"The law guarantees protection of all persons, including the unborn", Aumentado stressed out. 

For his part, Yap warned that if made into law, the RH BILL will take money away from his medical and scholarship programs. 

The anti-RH Bill rally in Blessed Trinity Cathedral was the first venue where Yap made a public pronouncement against the RH Bill. 

Among specific provisions in the RH Bill Yap is critical of is the appropriation on the supplies which is to be taken from the congressmen's Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) once it is enacted into law. 

Yap cited the provision mandating that the congressman's PDAF will be the source of fund for the contraceptives which will then be classified as essential medicine, the free access and distribution of family planning supplies and commodities, as well as the fact that the Mobile Health Care Service van that will distribute these contraceptives and other family planning literature and supplies. 

"That will be disastrous, since half of the population in third district are in class E," according to Yap. 

Presently, thousands are receiving medical assistance, scholarships, farm-to-market roads, livelihood funds, accident and life insurance cards under the Congressman's HEART program. 

If the RH Bill is passed into law, these benefits will be drastically reduced since funds will now be used to fund family planning programs. 

Yap also cited the Filipino nation's common ideals regarding life, protection for the family, mothers and the unborn, as enshrined in the Philippine Constitution. 

Yap reminded the people that these beliefs are shared by all Filipinos and that these beliefs clearly show Filipinos are preferentially pro-life. 

First district congressman Rene Relampagos was not present during the rally. However, in a text message he sent to Uy, Relampagos said that he is with the Church's stand in opposing the RH Bill. In fact, Uy, with the consent of Relampagos, told the crowd that the first district solon is against the RH Bill. It maybe noted that Rep. Relampagos, who is a former seminarian, was the first Bohol solon to openly object the RH Bill.

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.

Videos of the RH Bill Forum in St. Peter's Church, Fairview (May 7, 2012)

Talk by Dr. Rene Bullecer:


Talk by Anna Cosio, a registered nurse:

 

 Talk by Atty. Marwil Llasos Ll.M, legal expert and Catholic apologist:

 

If RH bill is for "choice", then why does it endanger freedom of religion?

From CBCP for Life:

RH bill denies freedom of religion, choice – lawyer

MANILA, April 19, 2012—As pro-lifers in the United States gear up for another nationwide rally for religious freedom in June to protest the birth control mandate, numerous Filipinos still need to open their eyes to the fact that one of the Philippine government’s proposed measures violates the freedom of religion.

Atty. Ma. Concepcion Noche, president of the Alliance for the Family Foundation Philippines Inc. (ALFI) said that the Reproductive Health (RH) bill, which has divided the nation due to contradictory viewpoints and insufficient understanding of its implications, tramples on the people’s religious freedom, a freedom protected by the 1987 Philippine Constitution.

Based on the bill, healthcare workers and medical professionals are forced to provide RH supplies and services or participate in practices that go against their religious convictions — referring patients to others who would provide the services concerned is participation nonetheless. Employers also must either provide RH services to their employees or suffer the consequences as specified by the legislative measure.

“Dangling a criminal penalty of imprisonment and/or fine, believers will find themselves torn between fidelity to God and loyalty to their country. This unjustly limits the right to conscientious objection on the part of health care workers and medical professionals,” Noche explained.

“For the exercise of religious freedom to be truly meaningful, individuals should be allowed to profess and practice their faith by freely seeking and serving God in their hearts, in their lives and in their relationship with others, without fear of persecution or punishment. Only in this way can this right be truly guaranteed,” Noche pointed out.

The current set-up already allows respect for the religious beliefs of everyone, the lawyer said.

“But once a national policy on contraception is legislated, that changes the landscape altogether. Making it a matter of national policy or institutionalizing contraception via RH Bill and allocating billions of our scarce resources, will deprive us of our choice because the government will effectively have made that choice already for the Filipino families,” she explained.

What ‘separation of Church and State’ means

Much as separation of Church and State has been invoked by those who insist that the practice of one’s moral convictions has no place in the public square, this principle has often been misunderstood.

“Under our Constitution, the command against the violation of the separation of the Church and State is directed to the State — not to the Church — which is mandated to steer clear of the religious realm and give utmost respect to the exercise of religion. So, with the RH Bill, is the State poised to breach this wall of separation?” Noche remarked.

“The State exists for persons, as a guarantor and defender of their rights,” she continued. “In the face of ever-changing social conditions that confront us as individuals and as a people, the central question is: What are the requirements that government may reasonably impose upon its citizens and how far should they extend?”

Religious convictions have no place in the political process, some RH bill advocates have said. Noche, on the other hand, disagreed with this notion.

On the contrary, “As demonstrated by St. Thomas More when he defied the sovereign of which he was a “good servant” and chose to serve God first, religion has an important place in the political process. For indeed, it has been proven time and again that for democracy to be stable, it needs a foundation of moral principles based upon faith and religion.” (CBCP for Life)

The right to life, the most basic right of all

The Right to Life - The Greatest of All Human Rights

What's this "Natural Law" and why is it relevant to the debate over the RH bill?

Here's the long answer to these questions: Jemy Gatdula's three-part series on the importance of natural law to legislation and to legal considerations regarding contraception in particular.

Returning to natural law
More on natural law
Contraception and natural law

Is the RH bill opposed to free speech and religious freedom? An Evangelical pro-lifer's view

Coercion and the RH Bill :The State and RH Indoctrination

by Melissa A. Poblete 

January 16, 2012

You have probably heard the RH supporters’ claims that the RH bill will give “informed choice” to the public, that it is for “women’s health” and for “obstetric care”. However behind this benign rhetoric is the heavy hand of the State in RH indoctrination. Section 16 is all about mandatory sex education for ALL students (both private or public schools, regardless of religious affiliation) – from grade 5 to 4th year high school. Section 24 ensures a nationwide RH “mass indoctrination” by “a heightened nationwide multi-media campaign to raise the level of public awareness of the protection and promotion of reproductive health and rights including family planning and population and development.” Far from offering the public informed choice, it actually sets up an RH indoctrination platform, where no one is allowed to express disagreement nor speak their opinions on the intent of the bill under pain of imprisonment.

You see, the RH bill is coercive. Why is it coercive? It punishes those who object to its provisions. It punishes those who will teach something different from its provisions.

How can it be coercive? Look at Section 28, “Prohibited Acts”

1. The RH bill punishes local government officials, regardless of their religious beliefs, budgets, and provinces’ health needs, if they do not implement the RH bill in their local government unit.

2. The RH bill punishes health professionals who withhold information on RH services, and it especially targets those who will do so because of religious convictions. If a pro-life, Catholic nurse or obstetrician chooses to only teach natural family planning to a patient, it is her right to do so and no law should force her to recommend artificial contraception.

3. The RH bill punishes health professionals who refuse to give RH services. And the religious objectors are required to refer. Why should someone who is objecting be forced to refer , against his own conscience, by a law?

4. The RH bill punishes anyone who “will engage in malicious disinformation” about the intents and provisions of the bill. The RH bill dissenters who have different opinions than those who crafted the RH bill are the targets here. Obviously, it will not apply to RH supporters and advocates.

Besides, who determines what it the “correct” information and what is “incorrect” (to determine what is“disinformation”)? The RH sponsors, lobbyists, advocates and their resource persons. YET, in the present RH bill debates in Congress and the social media, RH bill advocates, lobbyists, supporters are ALREADY denying RECENT(dated May 2011) unbiased evidence-based scientific information (from the WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer , no less) that states that “combined oral contraceptives are group 1 CARCINOGENS” and that “there is SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE on the carcinogenicity of combined oral contraceptives”. If these people who wrote the RH bill and are lobbying for it are denying medical facts NOW, how can they be trusted to determine correct information? Medical science is ever-changing, and new researches reveal causes, effects and correlations that were not known before. In this example, carcinogenicity of combined oral contraceptives is established by new findings. How can a proposed law punish “disinformation”, in the ever-changing field of medical science?

Moreover, RH advocates are also denying basic scientific facts like the beginning of life. From high school we are taught that a new human life begins at fertilization, at the moment of zygote formation. We have RH advocates who call the unborn as “not human” or “not persons” and those who arbitrarily, but absurdly, move the beginning of life from the moment of fertilization to implantation. With these absurd unscientific assertions of RH advocates, how can the RH bill determine what is “incorrect” or what is “disinformation” when they themselves deny plain-as-day scientific facts and findings?

To be truly fair, RH advocates denying scientific facts and downplaying cancer risks from oral contraceptives must also be punished because these are all medical disinformation. But if it is ONLY these RH consultants/advocates who will determine what is “correct”, then ONLY pro-life advocates will be punished. This is highly discriminatory and truly biased.

The RH bill is like a giant indoctrination and coercion machine. It violates the principles of free speech, and the freedom to practice one’s religion. These are just more reasons to say NO to the RH bill.