• Office of Minority Leader Edcel C. Lagman
• 0916-6406737 / 0918-9120137
• 25 January 2011

          The “responsible parenthood bill” reportedly being drafted by Malacañang parallels and complements House Bill No. 96, the principal proposed measure on reproductive health which is pending in the House of Representatives along with five (5) other allied bills.

           This was stressed by Minority Leader and Albay Representative Edcel C. Lagman, who is the principal author of HB No. 96, in a letter dated January 25, 2011 to President Aquino.

           Lagman pointed out that HB No. 96 prominently includes responsible parenthood as it is even entitled “An Act Providing for a National Policy on Reproductive Health, Responsible Parenthood and Population and Development, and For Other Purposes”.

           The Lagman bill defines responsible parenthood as “the will, ability and commitment of parents to adequately respond to the needs and aspirations of the family and children by responsibly and freely exercising their reproductive health rights.”

           The basic human right of parents to freely and responsibly plan the number and spacing of their children was enshrined in the Tehran Convention on Human Rights to which the Philippines became a State Party almost 43 years ago.

           Lagman underscored that the RH bill and the projected “responsible parenthood bill”, seemingly favored by Malacañang, have the following common major features:

           1)   No demographic or population target is espoused.

           2)   Poverty reduction or alleviation is a principal agenda.

           3)   Voluntary family planning based on freedom of informed choice is promoted.

           4)   All kinds of family planning methods from the natural to the artificial which are legal, medically safe and effective are made accessible to acceptors.

           5)   Abortion remains to be prohibited and penalized.

          Lagman said that nowhere in the bills which are pending in the House of Representatives is there a provision setting either a definitive or even loose population growth ceiling.

          “The RH bill is not intended to be a population control measure. The reduction of the population growth rate is incidental to the promotion of reproductive health and human development”, Lagman added.

          Lagman also said that “while an RH law is not a panacea to poverty, without a clear policy on RH, government’s anti-poverty strategies will continue to be undermined by a ballooning population, high rates of unwanted fertility and equally alarming maternal and infant mortality and morbidity.”

           “Central to the pending RH bills and the Malacañang-proposed responsible parenthood bill is the freedom of informed choice,” Lagman also stressed.

           Lagman emphasized that “neither the Church nor the State has the right to dictate on the faithful or citizens which form of family planning they should use. The choice primarily and ultimately belongs to the couple, especially to women who bear the brunt of pregnancy, child birth and child care.”

           “The bottom line is women and couples are not compelled to plan their families. However, should they decide to do so, the State will empower them with the information and opportunity to have only the number of children they can care for,  educate, feed and shelter adequately,” Lagman also added.

           The Bicol solon likewise stated that both the RH bill and the projected responsible parenthood bill are against abortion, and “will definitely help lower the incidence of abortion by preventing unplanned, mistimed and unwanted pregnancies, the very pregnancies which are terminated through abortion.”

           Lagman also said that “there is an inverse relationship between contraception and abortion. Studies conducted by the Guttmacher Institute reveal that access to contraceptives can reduce abortion rates by a staggering 85%.”

           Lagman disclosed that “both the World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) have consistently declared that contraceptives like pills, injectables, IUDs and condoms are not abortifacients. They either prevent ovulation and/or prevent the sperm from reaching the egg. Consequently, there is no resultant fertilized ovum. Hence, there is nothing to abort.”

           “Reproductive Health” is the more comprehensive term which has been internationally accepted since the Program of Action of the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) was adopted in Cairo, Egypt 17 years ago in 1994 which the Philippines signed along with 188 other countries.

           “Reproductive Health” is defined by the ICPD as “a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity, in all matters relating to the reproductive system and to its functions and processes.” HB No. 96 adopts this definition.

           The ICPD Program of Action categorically provides that “In no case should abortion be promoted as a method of family planning x x x Any measures or changes related to abortion within the health system can only be determined at the national or local level according to the national legislative process.”

           In other words, with respect to abortion the ICPD defers to the supremacy of the domestic or national laws of the country concerned.

           Moreover, Lagman explained that responsible parenthood is limited to family planning whereas RH is more all encompassing to cover maternal and child health and nutrition; breastfeeding; and treatment of infertility, breast and reproductive tract cancers and HIV/AIDS, among others.

           He added that except for sexuality education for the youth, the rest of the elements of RH are not contentious.

           He also underscored that during the ICPD, the Philippines committed to the promotion and protection of the right to overall reproductive health, not merely the right of women and couples to be responsible parents through voluntary family planning.

           Lagman has also requested the President to certify HB No. 96 as a priority measure given that it is virtually identical to the proposed “responsible parenthood bill” even as HB 96 is more comprehensive as reproductive health measure and is already in the final stages of committee action.

• Office of Rep. Edcel C. Lagman
• 0916-6406737/0918-9120137
• 21 January 2011

          Proposals to raise from the dead the death penalty law because of the recent wave of crimes in the country is an “unthinking, knee-jerk reaction” and does not consider the fact that in the years when capital punishment was in force in the Philippines, it did not deter the commission of heinous crimes according to Minority Leader and Albay Rep. Edcel C. Lagman.

           Lagman is the principal author of RA 9436 or “An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines”.

           He cited a study conducted by the Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG) which showed that a great majority of those in death row were aware that capital punishment was in force and effect in the country when they committed their crimes.

           Lagman also underscored that there are no studies to show there is a conclusive relationship between death penalty and the increase or decrease of the incidence of crimes. Moreover, current research and studies have not isolated death penalty from other factors that contribute to the increase or decrease in the incidence of crimes.

           According to the Bicol solon the following are the factors that deter commission of crimes: (1) crime prevention programs in coordination with the members of the community; (2) the certainty of arrest when crimes are committed; (3) the certitude of prosecution and the certainty of conviction once warranted by evidence; and (4) a fair and effective criminal justice system.

           “Justice should not elude the victims of heinous crimes and their families. But justice does not reside in the lethal injection chamber and neither is it enhanced by taking away another human life.” Lagman said.

           He also asserted that “the death of a criminal in the hands of the State will diminish rather than uplift the human spirit. Capital punishment bloodies everyone’s hands.”

           Lagman has lost two brothers to violent crimes with the involuntary disappearance of Atty. Hermon Lagman, a labor and human rights lawyer, during the Marcos dictatorship and with the brutal assassination of labor leader Ka Popoy Lagman in 2001 and yet he is staunchly against the death penalty.

• Office of Minority Leader Edcel C. Lagman
• 0916-6406737 / 0918-9120137
• Official Website: http://www.edcellagman.com.ph
• 12 January 2011

NO LAW AUTHORIZES SALE

OF AGUINALDO AND CRAME

No executive official, including the President, can sell, lease or encumber Camp Aguinaldo and Camp Crame or portions thereof without any authority from Congress through an enabling statute or law.

           Section 48 of Book I of the Administrative Code of 1987 provides that conveyance of real property of the government should be authorized by law.

The Supreme Court in a number of cases has ruled that legislative authority is necessary for the Executive to sell, alienate or encumber erstwhile properties of the public dominion after they have been declared as disposable patrimonial properties of the State.

It is not for the President to convey valuable real property of the government on his own sole will or judgment in the absence of an appropriate law.

 It is for this reason that the sale of portions of Fort Bonifacio and Villamor Airbase was authorized under Republic Act No. 7227 or the Bases Conversion and Development Act of 1992.

 RA 7227 creating the Bases Conversion and Development Authority (BCDA) did not specifically include Camp Aguinaldo and Camp Crame among the Metro Manila military camps or properties for disposition.

• Office of Minority Leader Edcel C. Lagman
• 0916-6406737 / 0918-9120137
• Official Website: http://www.edcellagman.com.ph
• 31 December 2010

CONSTITUTION AND MEDICAL SCIENCE

CONFIRM LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION

          The issue on whether life begins upon fertilization or at the onset of conception has long been resolved by the 1987 Constitution and reputable medical authorities worldwide in favor of conception or when the fertilized ovum implants in the uterus.

         The following genesis of the constitutional provision on the obligation of the State “to equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception” (Section 12, Article II of the Constitution) confirms that life does not begin with the fertilized ovum:

 1. Father Joaquin Bernas, who was a commissioner of the Constitutional Commission, initially proposed for inclusion in the Bill of Rights the following provision: “The right to life extends to the fertilized ovum.” This proposal did not materialize, and its non-adoption unmistakably shows that the concept that life begins at fertilization was not constitutionalized for lack of concurrence from the commissioners.

 2. After the deletion of the Bernas proposal, another formulation was proposed to be included in the Declaration of Principles which originally read: “The State shall protect human life from the moment of conception.” The new draft abandoned the concept that human life begins from the fertilization of the ovum, but from the “moment of conception”. It also showed that “fertilization” is not synonymous with “conception” as they constitute different stages of the reproductive process.

 3. Since the commissioners could not determine when the moment of conception occurs, the phrase “the moment of” was also deleted and the phrase “the life of the mother” was included so much so that the final provision which was adopted reads: “It (State) shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception.”

 The deletion of the phrase “the moment of” before the word “conception” was the result of the Commissioners’ uncertainty and lack of consensus as to the precise beginning of conception. Hence, they decided to defer to medical science the determination of the start of conception.

 The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists asserts that “conception is the implantation of the blastocyst (the egg several days after fertilization). It is not synonymous with fertilization.”

 The National Institute of Health and the US Food and Drug Administration state that “pregnancy encompasses the period of time from confirmation of implantation until expulsion or extraction of the fetus”.

 The foregoing medical definitions of conception or pregnancy show that the fertilized egg has no sustainable viability outside of the uterine wall. It has to implant in the uterus to have sustainable life and for gestation to progress or pregnancy to begin.

 A fertilized egg implants on the uterine wall five to 12 days after fertilization.

 Consequently, the International Federation of Gynecologists and Obstetrics (FIGO) defines abortion as “the termination of pregnancy after implantation.”

 The proceedings of the Constitutional Commission establish that the purpose of protecting “the life of the unborn from conception” is to prevent the Congress and the Supreme Court from legalizing abortion.

 The RH bills definitely do not legalize abortion and repeatedly provide that abortion is illegal and punishable.

 The Constitution does not prohibit the manufacture, distribution and use of contraceptives because they are not abortifacient.

 In fact, the RH bills provide that contraceptives for distribution and use as methods of family planning must be “medically safe, legally feasible and effective”.

 The purpose of contraception is to prevent ovulation and/or prevent the sperm from reaching the egg, and consequently, neither fertilization nor conception occurs and no unborn is imperiled.

 A fertilized egg implants on the uterine wall five to 12 days after fertilization. Fertilized eggs that do not implant disintegrate, and a high percentage of those which implant are naturally lost without any external intervention.

 The Department of Reproductive Health and Research of the World Health Organization (WHO) in an expert opinion submitted to the House of Representatives as early as 7 November 2006 categorically stated that “contraceptives are not abortifacients”.

 The same report cited research showing that “the hypothesis that the primary mechanism of copper-bearing IUDs in women is destruction of embryos in the uterus (i.e., abortion) is not supported by available evidence” and firmly maintains that “an IUD does not cause an abortion.”

 Moreover, the medical textbook Contraceptive Technology (Hatcher, et. al) states that the risk of dying within a year of using the much-maligned IUD is 1 in 10 million, compared to the worldwide risk of dying from maternal causes which is an alarming 1 in 10,000 of pregnancies.

 The RH bills do not offend constitutional intent proscribing abortion. They are even anti-abortion measures because they respect the option of women and couples to use legal and medically-safe contraceptives which reduce abortion rates by 85%.

 The State of the Philippine Population Report (SPPR) of 2001 documents that majority of those who undergo induced abortion in the Philippines are not teenagers or single women. They are married catholic women with ages ranging from 21 to 29 who do not want another pregnancy or could not afford another child because of poverty or lack or resources.