The RH Law and the Promotion of Unnatural "Rights" - An Important Position Paper

A Two-part Critique of the RH Law 

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.

For the record: Pro-Life Philippines versus the revised RH bill

Other position papers versus the revised RH bill:

1) CBCP - ECFL (see first document in this post)
2) CFC-FFL on the Revised RH Bill
3) World Youth Alliance Asia Pacific on the Amended RH Bill

Pro Life Philippines Foundation, Inc.

Position Paper on the New RH Bill Version

Filed at the House of Representatives

                

Greetings of Peace!

We have received a copy of the new RH bill version which was filed at the House of Representative  last October 23, 2012. For the education and information of our friends and all those who support us, we are releasing this statement in order to shed light on this new proposed RH Bill and it’s implications.

1. There simple is no need for an RH Law. As Senator Tito Sotto has mentioned in his Turno en Contra speech, there are 23 existing laws that mimic the RH bill, and close to 8 billion pesos given to the DOH by the government to fund RH-like programs and projects. Then there is the Magna Carta of Women. The RH bill is simply redundant and unnecessary.

2. The RH bill is a population control measure that masquerades as a bill that will empower women. True women empowerment happens when there are enough jobs for women to support their families as well as education for their children. The funds to be used in purchasing contraceptives can be utilized in projects that directly alleviate poverty and empower women, like building classrooms and schools, roads, bridges, ports, and other infrastructure.

3. The provisions that will allow adolescents to have access to contraceptives are still present. Not that taking them off will convince us to accept this bill, but the presence of these provisions only reinforce our convictions that the RH bill is for population control. Aside from this fact, adolescents should not be given contraceptives as this would only reinforce teen-age sexual activities and lead to teen-age pregnancies.

4. The provision for sex education of adolescents is still present. The important points in sex education are already included in our present curriculum via our biology classes; what the youth need is education and formation geared towards the discovery and enrichment of their talents and skills, and personality development and self-mastery, which are all necessary in preparing them to be efficient members of the workforce. A student who is prepared both physically and emotionally for work will be an asset in any workplace, and if he is poor, he has more chances to bring himself and his family out of poverty.

5. The bill propagates the misconception of poor women needing contraception because they want to limit the number of children born to them, but are too poor to afford contraceptives. Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government professor Lant Pritchett says parents who have large families want large families, meaning parents want the children that they beget. It is also a misconception that poor women cannot afford contraceptives, hence the need for the RH Bill. According to the 2008 National Demographic Health Survey, only less than 1% of women cannot afford contraception.

6. The RH Bill has been a highly divisive issue, with both sides hardly yielding any ground. However, there are certain bills that are not as divisive as the RH bill but will also help this country move forward by curbing graft and corruption. We are referring to the Freedom of Information bill, and the Anti-Dynasty bill. Both the congress and senate would have taken the country a step forward in the right direction had they passed these two bills. Instead they chose to dwell on the RH bill, and because of this our politicians look like they are only after their own selfish interests.

The framers of the RH Bill presented this revised version of the RH bill hoping that they could pass it with the amendments in place. They are sadly mistaken. We still oppose the RH bill, and there shall be no compromise. We value life and the true dignity of women. No to the RH Bill!

Sincerely

Mr. Eric Manalang

President, Pro Life Philippines

(SOURCE) 

This paper was originally posted last week (November 7, 2012) on the website of Pro-Life Philippines

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.

Diocese of Talibon's Position Paper versus the RH Bill

From the blog of Fr. Abet Uy comes the following position paper, published by the Diocese of Talibon earlier this month:

Position Paper of the Diocese of Talibon Concerning the RH Bill (English Version)

We honor God. We respect human life. We value our family. We love our children. These are the main reasons why we, the People of God in the Diocese of Talibon, strongly oppose the passage of the Reproductive Health Bill.

We believe that the RH Bill is not in consonance with the will of God. The sacrament of marriage, authored by God, has two inseparable meanings, namely: the unitive – which serves the good of spouses; and the procreative – which serves the good of the human race. These noble purposes of marriage are being undermined by the RH Bill when it promotes artificial contraception, an act which holds couples from giving themselves fully to each other and which aims to close the possibility of conceiving a new human life.

We believe that the RH Bill lacks respect for life. Human life is most sacred because it is made in the image and likeness of God. We need to protect and care for it from the moment of conception up to its natural death. The RH Bill claims to be for reproductive health. However, by promoting artificial contraception, it can be dangerous not only to the health, but even to the life, of unborn babies. It can also be harmful to the physical and spiritual well-being of men and women.

We believe that the RH Bill does not truly care for the family. The family is called the “Domestic Church” because it is here that the love of God and neighbor can be taught and put into practice. By encouraging artificial contraception, the RH Bill puts the family in a precarious situation. Studies have shown that countries which promote artificial contraception consequently have higher incidence of adultery, divorce, premarital sex, teenage pregnancy and abortion.

We believe that the RH Bill has little love for children. Children are gifts from God. We treasure them because they give meaning to our Christian lives and inspire parents to work hard. The RH Bill considers children as hindrance to development. It presumes that the Philippines would be better off if there are fewer mouths to feed and fewer children to educate and to care for. It turns a blind eye on the fact that children can be our great assets or treasure.

Instead of supporting the RH Bill, we humbly ask our countrymen, our leaders and lawmakers to:

1) Promote and practice Natural Family Planning (NFP). NFP is part of God's wise design for human sexuality. It is free, highly effective and has no side effects. Importantly, it encourages mutual respect, shared responsibility, self-discipline and self-control, which are essential values for a permanent and happy marriage.

2) Defend the right to life of the unborn child. The baby inside the womb is the most powerless of all God's children. We need to secure its well-being by putting a strict ban on abortifacient contraceptives and a better enforcement of the law against abortion.

3) Use government resources for poverty alleviation, not for contraception. Most of the coffers of the government come from the hard-earned money of its people, majority of which are Catholics. It is therefore proper to use such funds for life-giving projects that benefit the people, not those things which offend or harm them.

4) Continue the hard fight against corruption, which is the main cause of our people's poverty and misery. Bring thieves to jail and oblige them to return stolen money to the government.

And so, we join the genuine voice of the Filipino nation as we say, “No to the RH Bill, Yes to God's will.”

University of Asia and the Pacific Students Versus the RH bill

Stand Up for Life Edited

University of Asia and the Pacific's official statement on the RH Bills

A Statement of the University of Asia and the Pacific Prompted by the Current Debate on RH Bills and an Appeal to the Members of Our Legislature

Updated Version of the CFC-FFL Position Paper versus the RH Bill

The earlier version can be found HERE.

CFC FFL Position Paper Against RH Bill

"The RH Bill is Evil and Stupid"

10 Reasons Why We Should Kill RH Bill

Posted: May 16, 2011 by Joanne E. Constantino

Today, May 16, 2011, six days before the public debate about Reproductive Health (RH) Bill will be set on national television. This controversial bill has divided the nation- those who were pro and anti has already presented their sides: Iglesia Ni Cristo have come out with its decision in support of the RH Bill. Government officials (e.g. Duterte), celebrities (e.g. Dingdong Dantes and Lea Salonga), academic professors (e.g. UP and Ateneo), ex- Cabinet members, and P-Noy, himself, were also in favour of the said bill. While the Catholic Church and other Christian sectors stood firm against it.

Upon reading blogs, news and other sources of information about RH bill, I have come out a position paper- to go against it. I have realised that this has many loopholes and lawmakers must be very careful in pursuing for its passage. That any supporter must also look the other side of the coin and think the many possibilities that will happen if this bill will become a law.

(Read more HERE)

In defense of the Ayala Alabang ordinance

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

                                                                                                          April 8, 2011

WHY I SUPPORT BAA 01-2011

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

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

3.       What key Constitutional provision anchors my ProLife advocacy? 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GOD BLESS US ALL!  

GOD BLESS ALL OUR FAMILIES!     

GOD BLESS OUR BELOVED PHILIPPINES!

CFC FFL's Position on the RH Bill

CFC FFL’s Position re: the Consolidated RH Bill (HB 4244)

COUPLES FOR CHRIST FOUNDATION FOR FAMILY AND LIFE (“CFC-FFL”) respectfully submits this

POSITION PAPER

in opposition to House Bill No. 4244 (“An Act Providing for a Comprehensive Policy on Responsible Parenthood, Reproductive Health, and Population and Development, and for other Purposes”) (the “RH Bill”).

A.     Legal Objections

1.  The RH Bill is inherently unconstitutional

The underlying premise of the RH Bill is that life begins at implantation. It is this fundamental assumption that breathes life to its cause—the cornerstone upon which it builds the legal framework supporting its mandate for the promotion and distribution of “artificial methods of family planning”, particularly all forms of contraceptives. Without this foundational anchor, the RH Bill collapses under its own weight, deprived of legal moorings.

CFC-FFL humbly submits that the premise of the RH Bill is wrong.

Life begins at conception, not implantation. Both the Philippine Medical Association and renowned embryologists concur that life begins at conception, when the male sperm fuses with the female egg cell. At that point, the number of chromosomes necessary to create a human being (i.e., 46) becomes complete, resulting in the creation of a unique human being. However, for this human being to grow and develop to full term, he/she needs to be implanted on the mother’s uterus, which serves as his/her source of sustenance and habitation.

The framers of the Constitution had the same notion about the onset of life when they adopted Article II, Section 12 of the 1987 Constitution, which pertinently provides that “[t]he State . . . shall equally protect the life of . . . the unborn from conception.” Thus, during their deliberations to clarify this provision, the authors adopted the medical definition of the term “conception” (i.e., fertilization of the ovum).

Since life begins at conception, then any post-conception act that prevents or stops the natural development of the fertilized ovum—an essential element of which is its implantation on the uterus–is an attack against that life. If the assault is done deliberately—and succeeds–it may well qualify as murder. In any case, the act falls squarely within the legal meaning of abortion.

Many contraceptives exist for this specific purpose. They prevent the fertilized ovum from implanting itself on the uterus, depriving the ovum of its natural habitation and life support.  Except for the relative degree of helplessness, the effect is no different from where an assailant kills an infant by means of starvation and suffocation.

By indiscriminately promoting all types of contraceptive devices and services, the RH Bill violates Article II, Section 12 of the Constitution. In terms of effect, it will legalize the mass murder of innocent babies.

2. Specific Infirmed Provisions of the RH Bill

• a.   Section 16 of the RH Bill

The referenced provision would force students starting from Grade Five up to fourth Year High School to undergo “mandatory age-appropriate Reproductive Health and Sexuality Education”. The RH Bill defines “Reproductive Health and Sexuality Education” as a life-long learning process of providing and acquiring complete, accurate and relevant information and education on reproductive health and sexuality through life skills education and other approaches (Sec. 4). Parenthetically, the term “Reproductive Health Care” includes “sexual health, the purpose of which is the enhancement of life and personal relations” (Ibid.)

CFC-FFL objects for several reasons.

First, since matters of sex raise issues of morality, the provision contravenes the State’s principle that “the natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth . . . for the development of moral character shall receive the support of the State.” (Constitution, art. II, sec. 12). The RH Bill would snatch from parents their sacred right and duty to teach morality and sexuality to their growing children within the privacy of their home and in accordance with their religious beliefs.  Yet, the RH Bill would declare as a policy that “the State recognizes and guarantees the exercise of the universal basic human right to reproductive health . . . particularly of parents . . . consistent with their religious convictions (and) cultural beliefs . . .”—one of several examples of the RH Bill’s self-contradiction.

Second, because of its intrusive effect, the provision runs counter to the State’s commitment to “protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution” (Ibid.) It also conflicts with Article 149 of the Family Code, which provides that “the family, being the foundation of the nation, is a basic social institution which public policy cherishes and protects.” If allowed to pass, the RH Bill would invade the sanctity of family life by imposing behavioural patterns that will undermine family values. To this extent, it would violate the family members’ basic right to privacy.

Third, the prescribed sex education wrongly assumes that children as young as 10 years old have the discernment and emotional/psychological maturity to handle properly the delicate topic of sex and its ramifications. Under Republic Act No. 9344, otherwise known as the “Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006”, a child 15 years old or below at the time of the commission of the offense is exempt from criminal liability, because the law assumes that a child of such age has no discernment. Without the ability to discern, how could students between the ages of 10 and 15 be expected to process such a complicated topic as sex correctly and responsibly?

Fourth, Section 16 of the RH Bill—to the extent that it forces families and their children to comply with the requirement on sex education–contradicts the RH Bill’s own guiding principle in Section 3(a) guaranteeing freedom of choice. Compulsion is anathema to an individual’s right to make free and informed decision.

• Penal Provisions of the RH Bill

By way of general opposition, CFC-FFL respectfully submits that the penalties imposed in the RH Bill represent a discriminatory bias in favour of contraceptives and against natural family planning methods, in wanton disregard of the equal protection clause. Worse, the prohibitions ignore Constitutionally-protected personal and property rights of individuals.

One example is Section 28(a)(1), which penalizes any health care provider who shall “knowingly withhold information or restrict the dissemination thereof, and/or intentionally provide incorrect information regarding the programs and services on reproductive health, including the right to informed choice and access to a full range of legal, medically-safe and effective family planning methods”.  By forcing the health care provider to speak the line of contraception–and punishing him for expressing his own opinion and beliefs against it–the provision clearly impinges on the individual’s freedom of speech and religion. To the extent that it restrains his desire to speak his mind, the prohibition constitutes unlawful prior restraint.

Section 28 (a)(2) is objectionable to the extent that it allows the beneficiary of reproductive health services to proceed with the procedure despite protest from his/her spouse. Such evident bias for population control promotes division and disunity in the family, at the expense of the Constitutional dictum recognizing “the Filipino family as the foundation of the nation” and directing the State to “strengthen its solidarity and actively promote its total development.” (See art. XV, sec. 1 of the Constitution).

Section 28(a)(3) is defective because it would force the health care provider to extend health care services even to a minor.

For stifling dissent and legislating prior restraint, Section 28(e) violates free speech and religious freedom. The provision would penalize any person who “maliciously” engages in disinformation about the intent or provisions of the law. The threat of imprisonment and/or fine—found in Section 29–would create a chilling effect among those who disagree with the law for any reason, effectively muzzling their opinion. It would also open the floodgates for crackdowns and the filing of harassment suits. By all legal yardsticks, the provision constitutes a direct affront to the Bill of Rights.

• Section 7 of the RH Bill

This provision would require PhilHealth to “pay for the full cost of family planning” if the beneficiary “wishes to space or prevent her next pregnancy”. Why is family planning given special attention?  There are thousands of destitute citizens afflicted with tuberculosis, diabetes, dengue, cancer and other kinds of illness, who need the support of Government. Who will provide the cost of their medicine? Why are they left out? Why are beneficiaries of family planning singled out for a guaranteed financial support? CFC-FFL sees no valid classification for this warped sense of prioritization, and opposes it on the ground that it violates the equal protection clause enshrined in the Constitution.

• Section 10 of the RH Bill

Article II, Section 15 of the Constitution obligates the State to “protect and promote the right to health of the people . . .” The RH Bill would undermine this obligation by classifying “products and supplies for modern family planning methods” as “essential medicines”, in the process diverting scarce funds that would otherwise go to the purchase of truly essential medicines and equipment necessary for the treatment of cancer and other deadly ailments.

3.  Provisions of the RH Bill are self-contradictory

The RH Bill is mired in fatal inconsistencies and contradictions. To cite some glaring examples:

1. Section 3(a) of the RH Bill guarantees the right of every individual to make free and informed decisions, and to be free from any form of restraint or coercion. This is contradicted by the subsequent Penal Clauses in Section 29, which would imprison or fine any person for expressing an opinion contrary to the law or for refusing to perform reproductive health services. Another contradiction to Section 3 is the provision on sex education (Section 16 of the RH Bill), which would compel parents and their children to comply with mandatory sex education.
2. The RH Bill purportedly aims to protect the rights of adolescents and children (see Section 3(b and c). However, they would expose these hapless individuals to the sensitivity and complications of sex through mandatory sex education, and would even allow them to decide for themselves whether or not to ask for and accept any form of reproductive health services, despite scientific findings that children fifteen years old and below are without discernment. CFC-FFL respectfully submits that the duty to protect these youth includes the obligation to protect them against themselves.
3. Section 3(c) concedes that “human resource is a principal asset of the country”. Yet, practically all the provisions of the RH Bill seek to stunt the growth of this valuable resource through a well-orchestrated and funded promotion of contraceptives and other forms of artificial family planning. The RH Bill would also “encourage” couples to limit their children to just two (see Sec. 2).
4. In Section 3(f), the RH Bill proclaims that “the State shall promote, without bias, all modern natural and artificial methods of family planning”. But considering that practically all of the important provisions relate to the promotion, implementation and funding of artificial family planning, e.g., Section 10 (“Family Planning Supplies as Essential Medicines”), Section 11 (“Procurement and Distribution of Family Planning Supplies”), Section 15 (“Mobile Health Care Services”), Section 16 (“Mandatory Age-Appropriate Reproductive Health and Sexuality Education”), Section 19 (“Capability Building of Barangay Health Workers”), Section 21 (“Employers’ Responsibilities”), Section 25 (“Implementing Mechanisms”), Section 26 (“Reporting Requirements”), Section 28 (“Prohibited Acts”), Section 29 (“Penalties”), and Section 30 (“Appropriations”), there is hardly any doubt that the RH Bill is tilted heavily towards contraceptives and other forms of reproductive health services.
5. The RH Bill claims that it is not changing the law against abortion (Section 3(j)), but the fact that it would allow the use of contraceptives that prevent implantation of the fertilized ovum negates such gratuitous claim.
6. Section 3(m) admits that the State has “limited resources”, and that the same cannot be “suffered to be spread thinly”. If so, why then would the RH Bill appropriate scarce resources for the propagation of contraceptives, instead of channelling these resources to the containment of killer diseases?

B.     Other Objections

1. The Filipino race will become extinct

For a nation to continue its existence, it must maintain a Total Fertility Rate (“TFR”) of 2.1 per woman of reproductive age. This is the rate needed to replace inevitable human loss. In the 1960’s, the country’s “TFR” stood at a healthy 7 children per woman. By 2008, it had plummeted to a mere 3.1. Without an RH Law, the TFR will decline to just 2.1 by 2025, after which it will continue its downward spiral, resulting in the aging and eventual extinction of our race similar to what is happening in Japan, Singapore, Italy and France.

The RH Bill correctly proclaims that human resource is a principal asset of the country. The two most populous countries — China and India — are now the world’s second and fourth largest economies, respectively. They achieved this distinction principally because of their huge population, which gave them natural advantages in terms of having a broader pool of scientists, engineers and other skilled people, a wider base of productive workers, and an expansive consumer market.  No less than the former U.S. President Bill Clinton recognized the benefit of a huge population during his recent visit to the Philippines. Indeed, if harnessed properly through the adoption of sound government policies that attack corruption and promote people’s training, the country’s population has the potential of extricating us from poverty and elevating the Philippines to the league of developed countries.

2.  Children will become “sex experts”

Section 16 of the RH Bill obligates students, starting in grade 5 until 4th year high school—a total of 7 straight years—to undergo sex education that will teach them about the purpose and use of condoms, pills, IUD, and other contraceptives, ovulation periods, and other aspects of sexuality. Bombarding them with these birth-control methods increases the risk of these children believing that it is okay to have pre-marital sex, especially if the natural deterrent to engaging in sex (e.g., pregnancy) is perceived to have been removed.

3.  Morality will deteriorate

Seven years of continued exposure to contraceptives–and the notion that the use of contraceptives removes the natural deterrent to pre-marital sex (i.e., pregnancy)—inevitably erodes such traditional values as “virginity before marriage”, marital fidelity, and chastity. The sexual act becomes a mere biological necessity, devoid of its spiritual dimension.

4.  Parents will lose part of their parental authority

By compelling children to undergo sex education even against their parents’ wishes, Section 16 of the RH Bill would force parents to surrender (i) their Constitutional right to raise and develop the moral character of their children (see Art. II, Sec. 12 of the Constitution) and (ii) their statutory right to care and rear their minor children for the development of their moral, mental and physical characteristics and well-being (see Article 209, Family Code). Moreover, Section 28 (a)(2) of the RH Bill removes the requirement on parental consent in cases where a minor is abused by another member of the family, e.g., brother. Finally, Section 28 (a)(3) of the RH Bill forces a health care provider to extend health case services, e.g., dispensing contraceptive pills, to a minor even without parental consent.

5.  Parents will surrender the right to raise their children according to their faith and the law

The Catholic Church prohibits the use of contraceptives. The RH Bill ignores and nullifies this prohibition by promoting the use of contraceptives (through mandatory sex education under Section 16) and by enabling a minor to demand reproductive health services even without parental consent under Section 28 (a)(3)(4).

6.  Families will be divided

By empowering children to decide for themselves matters of reproductive health without involvement from, and even against the will of, their parents, the RH Bill would seek to destroy the unity of the family by driving a wedge between the children and the parents. The law will promote the independence of children, ultimately resulting in their rebellion, disobedience and defiance.

7.  The poor will lose the opportunity to have more jobs, public schools, public hospitals, and free medicine

A significant segment of the poor has no access to medical services and vocational education. They cannot afford to see a doctor, buy medicine, or go to college. The funds that would otherwise go to the purchase of contraceptives would be better used for generating more jobs, providing free medicine, and building more public schools and hospitals.

8. People will pay more taxes

The RH Bill requires enormous funding for the acquisition of contraceptives and the delivery of reproductive health services, running in billions of taxpayers’ money as provided in Section 30. The escalating financial requirement will inevitably translate to more taxes.

9.  A new source of corruption will be created

Quoting Renaud Meyer, the United Nations Development Program country director, the Phil. Daily Inquirer reported that the Philippines lose P1.92 billion to corruption every year. In 2000, the cost of corruption was 10% of GNP. A more recent estimate puts it at close to 20% of the national budget.

10.  Women will be exposed to a higher risk of contracting deadly diseases

The International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies oral contraceptive pills as Group 1 carcinogens. This means that the use of these pills increases the consumer’s risk of contracting breast cancer. Findings of the Women’s Health’s Initiative have confirmed this risk, and have added the conclusion that their use also exposes women to the risk of acquiring cerevascular disease, myocardial infarction, and pulmonary embolism.

11.   No Compelling Need for the RH Bill

At this day and age, contraceptives and other kinds of artificial family planning are readily available in the market. Condoms and birth-control pills can be purchased over the counter or through third parties, invariably without need of medical prescription. There are even herbal concoctions sold in the corners of Manila, and practices of “mang-hihilot, that produce the same effect. Truth be told, there is no cogent need for the RH Bill.

Authors of the RH Bill claim that their goal is to give women the right to space their children and to choose the kind of family planning method. At present, such rights exist even without the RH Bill. There is no law that deprives them of the right to space or determine the number of their children, or that prohibits them from choosing artificial family planning as their preferred method.

There is also the proponents’ argument that the RH Bill will reduce pregnancy-related deaths. Such contention is flawed. First, the correct solution to this problem is not the promotion and distribution of contraceptives, but the legislation of programs that will provide free pre-natal care to poor pregnant women. Second, there is no clear proof that flooding the country with contraceptives will lower the incidents of pregnancy. On the contrary, because this strategy naturally encourages promiscuity and promotes sexual adventurism, the risk of pregnancy and abortion increases in proportion to the established failure rate of contraceptives.

If it becomes law, the RH Bill will do nothing more than force or condition the mind of people to use contraceptives and other forms of reproductive health services—this, at the expense of the fundamental rights of the people. With the liberties of the citizenry trampled, and the national coffers poorer–only the manufacturers and distributors of these artificial family planning devices and services—and others with their own hidden agenda—stand to benefit from this proposed legislation.

For the foregoing reasons, CFC-FFL humbly asks that the RH Bill be recalled, withdrawn, or rejected by the Honorable House of Representatives.

NOTE: AN EARLIER VERSION OF THIS PAPER CAN BE FOUND HERE.

POSITION PAPER ON THE RH BILL

by

Christian Pro-life Resources for the Philippines

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Melissa A. Apolinario-Poblete, DMD, MHPEd

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

Director,Christian Pro-life Resources for the Philippines

39 Miami cor. Columbia St. Cubao QC

URL: http://www.proliferesources.com

Email: proliferesources@gmail.com