Rep. Edcel C. Lagman
Independent – Albay
14 February 2013
0916-6406737 / 0918-9120137

• LABOR AND CAPITAL ARE
• BENEFICIARIES OF RH LAW

                Labor and capital on the same side of the barricade and working together for a common goal - it’s a rare occurrence but it happened on the road to enact the Reproductive Health Law.

              In a symposium sponsored by the Employers Confederation of the Philippines (ECOP), Rep. Edcel C. Lagman, the main proponent of the RH law, stated that “it was truly auspicious that capital and labor momentarily set aside their traditional ‘class antagonisms’ in jointly supporting the enactment of the RH law.”

            Lagman underscored that the common advocacy of capital and labor for the approval of the RH bill arises from an accurate assessment and firm realization that an RH law would be mutually beneficial to them.

              He urged them to comply with the RH law and monitor its full implementation.

           Lagman recalled that at the height of the RH controversy, five of the country’s largest business groups, ECOP, Financial Executives Institute of the Philippines (FINEX), Makati Business Club (MBC), Management Association of the Philippines (MAP) and the Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry (PCCI), issued a joint statement urging the Congress to immediately pass the RH bill.

            A similar call was made by labor groups like the Bukluran ng Manggagawang Pilipino (BMP), Partido ng Manggagawa (PM) and the Trade Union Congress of the Philippines (TUCP) for the enactment of a rights-based, health-oriented and development-driven law on responsible parenthood, reproductive health and population and development.

            He said that the Philippines’ inordinately huge population growth rate of 1.9%, which translates to an annual increase in population of approximately 2 million people, exacerbates unemployment and depresses wages.

             “This is a fatal combination which menaces both capital and labor,” Lagman said.

           He added that among the beneficiaries of the RH Law are the marginalized workers who will be voluntary recipients of free reproductive health information and services, including family planning and contraception by choice, even as covered employers are mandated to  provide such services in the workplace under the Labor Code.

           Lagman emphasized that the RH law will also (1) lessen the gap between wanted and actual fertility rates in the country because of the projected increase in contraceptive prevalence rate (CPR); (2) improve the health and productivity of women workers as they will have the chance to plan and space their children; (3) increase the earning capacity of women workers as less children will afford them greater opportunities for more productive economic activities; (4) result in significant savings for both the government and the private sector as a reduction in the rates of pregnancy and childbirth will translate to lower allocations for maternity and paternity leave benefits; (5) lower unemployment and underemployment rates as it will progressively reduce new entrants into the labor force annually; (6) ease the backlogs in education and help promote quality education and adequate skills development, and eventually produce a qualified and productive reservoir of workers for capital and business; and (7) afford both the government and parents to effectively invest more in human capital, particularly in health, education and childcare.

           Lagman maintained that “the RH law will propel the emergence of a healthy, educated, skilled, and competent workforce which would enhance productivity and output in the workplace.”

          Moreover, he said that as the population growth decelerates, government’s net savings from healthcare and education can be used to finance more infrastructure development to enhance the investment climate.

            Lagman, however, clarified that the RH law is not a magic wand and the benefits will not be instantaneous but “the beneficent effects of the RH law are sure to come with the proper, expeditious and faithful implementation of this historic statute which has long range effects on our economy, the alleviation of mass poverty and the achievement of sustainable human development.”

• Rep. Edcel C. Lagman
• Independent – Albay
• 04 February 2013
• 0916-6406737 / 0918-9120137

           “The historic RH law is not only a statute that will protect and promote the sexual and reproductive health and rights of Filipinos and enhance maternal and infant health. It is also a calamity-risk reduction strategy and a climate change mitigation and adaptation policy.”

            This was underscored by Rep. Edcel C. Lagman in his keynote address during the forum Establishing the Links Between RH, Population and Climate Change sponsored by the Philippine Legislators Committee on Population and Development (PLCPD) and Population Action International.

             The nexus among population, reproductive health and climate change are empirically given as they are well-established and validated.

        “Throughout the long years of campaigning for the enactment of the RH law, I have always maintained that the absence of a comprehensive and national policy on RH also contributed to the level of devastation and impact of climate change on the lives of people”, Lagman added.

         The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) defines climate change as “a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity”.

             This definition truly demonstrates the link between population and climate change.

             The following are the relevant impacts of the RH law on population in relation to calamity-risk reduction and management:

          1. Upholding the basic human right to reproductive self-determination wherein couples and women are empowered to freely and responsibly determine the number and spacing of their children, thus mitigating the population growth rate.

             2. Enabling couples and women to fulfill their fertility goals. Studies have shown that the gap between wanted and actual fertility rates is alarmingly high in women in the poorest quintile. According to the 2006 Family Planning Survey, an average of 44% of pregnancies in the poorest 10% of Filipino women are unwanted.

           3. Increasing the contraceptive prevalence rate (CPR).  Again, the FPS 2006 reveals that contraceptive use remains extremely low among poor women whose families are at greatest risk during disasters. Among the poorest 20% of women, over 50% do not use any form of family planning because of lack of information and access to services and commodities.

           4. Decreasing teenage pregnancies as a result of age and development-appropriate reproductive health and sexuality education. Despite the drop in teen marriages, teenage pregnancies in the country have increased by 65% over a 10-year period from 2000-2010 according to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) and Plan Philippines. Teenage pregnancy in the Philippines is among the highest in the world.

              5. Decreasing migration as fewer children exert less pressure on parents to seek the elusive “greener pasture” in urban centers.

             6. Generating more savings from lesser government intervention and expenditure for pregnancy and maternity-related health services which savings can be channeled to climate change mitigation and adaptation policies and facilities.

            Lagman emphasized that the RH law is much more than just a family planning statute. “It is truly an effective development tool that will simultaneously aid government in addressing problems relating to population, reproductive health and climate change,” he said.

           According to the Albay solon, addressing climate change and putting a halt to the deterioration of the environment need not be costly and must not be limited to investments in green technologies.

           He maintained that “since a huge population and calamities are fatal partners, the mitigation of the population growth rate as a logical consequence of promoting universal access to reproductive health and family planning, will enhance the Philippines’ positive response to climate change mitigation and adaptation.”

          He cited a paper published by the London School of Economics (LSE) in August 2009 entitled Reducing Future Carbon Emissions by Investing in Family Planning: A Cost/Benefit Analysis which asserted categorically that “family planning is considerably cheaper than many low carbon technologies” and that “family planning is a cost effective tool in reducing carbon emissions.”

           The paper emphasized that spending a mere $7.00 in family planning will help reduce carbon dioxide emissions by one ton compared to spending $51.00, $24.00, and $13.00 on solar energy, wind energy and deforestation programs, respectively, to similarly reduce carbon emissions.

            “Truly, lesser emitters mean lesser emissions,” Lagman said.

• Office of Rep. Edcel C. Lagman
• Independent – Albay
• 03 January 2013
• 0916-6406737 / 0918-9120137

          Republic Act No. 10354 or the “Reproductive Health Act of 2012” is completely constitutional and will surmount any attack or test on its constitutionality.

          The RH law has not defiled any constitutional principles on proscription of abortion, protection of the unborn, religious freedom, family life, marriage and responsible parenthood.

         In fact, upon repeated amendments proposed by anti-RH legislators, all relevant provisions of the Constitution are included virtually verbatim in the statute’s declaration of principles.

          Those who challenge the constitutionality of the RH law principally invoke Section 12 of Article II of the 1987 Constitution which provides, among others, that the State “shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn.”

           This challenge is flawed and fallacious for the following reasons:

           1. The genesis of the subject provision shows that the “unborn” does not refer to the “fertilized ovum” which was not given the right to life;

            2. The life of the “unborn” is protected “from conception”, not before conception when there is nothing yet to protect; and

           3. The intention of the framers of the 1987 Constitution is to prevent the Congress and the Supreme Court from legalizing abortion, which criminal act the RH law does not tolerate and in fact prohibits.

           The rejected precursor of the subject provision on the “protection of the unborn” was the proposal to include in Section 1 of the Bill of Rights the proposition that the “right to life extends to the fertilized ovum.” This proposal did not materialize. Its rejection by the Constitutional Commission of 1986 unmistakably evinces that the purported concept that “life begins at fertilization” was not constitutionalized.

           The Constitution mandates the protection of the life of the unborn from conception. In other words, no less than the Constitution acknowledges that life begins when conception sets in, and it is upon conception that there is an “unborn” which is entitled to protection.

             The subject constitutional provision is consistent with nature and is in consonance with medical science. The fertilized ovum is not viable until it successfully implants on the woman’s uterus for sustenance.

              The manifest intent of the aforecited provision is to assure that neither the Congress nor the Supreme Court will legalize abortion. The proponent of the provision, Commissioner Bernardo Villegas, underscored that the “intention … is to make sure that there will be no pro-abortion laws ever passed by Congress or any pro-abortion decision passed (penned) by the Supreme Court.”

               The RH law subscribes to a commendable fealty to the constitutional prohibition of abortion. It does not legalize abortion. In fact, it is anti-abortion as evidenced by the following clear provisions:  1) it “recognizes that abortion is illegal and punishable by Law”; and 2) one of the elements of reproductive health care is the “proscription of abortion and management of abortion complications”.

             Neither the Constitution nor any law prohibits contraceptives, which in the first place are not abortifacients. Contraception prevents conception or pregnancy, while abortion terminates pregnancy. This is the whale of a difference which the detractors of the RH law refuse to see.

              The law, however, concedes that the State shall not promote contraceptives that will “prevent the implantation of a fertilized ovum as determined by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).” In other words, once contraception fails and an ovum is fertilized, no human or medical intervention is authorized to prevent its implantation in the mother’s uterus.

             This provision is consistent with the principal mechanisms of contraception which are to prevent a woman from ovulating and/or prevent the sperm from fertilizing the egg, both of which avoid fertilization.

               The family is a social institution which is not immune from legislation, particularly the State’s police power to enact laws for the general welfare, like the RH law; Civil Code of the Philippines; Family Code of the Philippines (E.O. 209); the Child and Welfare Code (P.D. 603); and the Special Protection of Filipino Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act (R.A. 7610), among others.

                The RH law respects the “rights of spouses to found a family in accordance with their religious convictions and the demands of responsible parenthood”, and it also discharges the constitutionally mandated obligation of the State to support the “natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and development of moral character” by prescribing formal age and development-appropriate reproductive health education considering the default of many parents in imparting sex education to their children since conversation about sex is generally taboo in Filipino homes.

                The RH law is replete with provisions upholding religious freedom and respecting religious convictions consistent with the hallmark of the law on freedom of informed choice.

             The Imbong petition before the Supreme Court is premature because it seeks to prevent the implementation of a law which is not yet effective.