Contact Details

Rm. N-411, House of Representatives, Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines
+63 2 931 5497, +63 2 931 5001 local 7370

Reproductive Health

THE RH ADVOCACY: THE TASKS AHEAD

By: Rep. Edcel C. Lagman

(Message in response to his conferment as the 7th Eminent Person of the Forum for Family Planning and Development, Inc. on 29 January 2013 at the Rockwell Center)

 

 

I am deeply and truly humbled by this conferment of honor and recognition as the 7th Eminent Person of the Forum for Family Planning and Development, after President Fidel V. Ramos, Prime Minister Cesar EA Virata, National Scientist and demography icon Dr. Mercedes B. Concepcion, industrialist Mr. Washington Z. Sycip, philanthropist and business leader Mr. Oscar M. Lopez, and internationally known civic leader and entrepreneur Atty. Loida Nicolas-Lewis.

 

          The Latin ēminēre means “to project, stand out”, akin to the word “eminent” in the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language which means “towering or standing out in character or performance.” I have to confess I must strive much more to approximate the full import of an “eminent person”.

 

          I humbly accept and shall forever cherish this accolade which I am sharing with the countless RH advocates who collectively toiled for the passage of the RH bill, the overwhelming majority of whom are unsung and unrecognized.

 

           I also share this recognition with my wife, Cielo, and my seven children who have inspired me to tenaciously pursue and sustain the RH crusade despite all obstacles.

 

          The saga of the reproductive health advocacy continues even as the RH law is now enshrined in our statute books as Republic Act No. 10354. However, the travails ahead are hopefully not as turbulent and arduous as the 13-year gestation period leading to the passage of the RH bill.

 

            But before surmounting the problems ahead, it would be best to take stock of what has transpired to buoy up our spirits and to buttress our resolve to realize the enabling objectives of the RH law.

 

           First, in our euphoria, let us not forget the authors of the precursor bill which set the stage for our relentless advocacy. I particularly refer to former Congresspersons Bellaflor Angara-Castillo and Krisel Lagman-Luistro, among others, who authored House Bill No. 8110, entitled “Integrated Population and Development Act of 1999”. This prototype bill became in subsequent Congresses the reproductive health bill.

 

Second, let us also remember the numerous co-authors in five Congresses, from the 11th Congress to the 15th Congress, who remained steadfast in their authorship despite threats and intimidations like excommunication, hellfire and reprisal at the polls from the Catholic hierarchy, the severest critic of the bill.

 

Third, let us also recognize the silent RH advocates who during the crucial second and third readings voted for the approval of the bill.

 

Fourth, we congratulate the leaders of the vast NGO community and civil society who earnestly and tirelessly supported the passage of this progressive measure.

 

Fifth, we likewise share our victory with the tri-media and social media for having been enduring partners in our long advocacy.

 

Sixth, we salute the overwhelming number of Filipinos who clamored for the enactment of the bill in survey after survey.

 

Seventh, we also give thanks to the House leadership, particularly Speaker Feliciano Belmonte, Jr. and Majority Leader Nepatali Gonzales II, for delivering their commitment to have the bill voted upon and for resoundingly voting for the bill.

 

Eighth, we truly appreciate the continuing support of President Benigno Simeon Aquino III for the enactment of the RH bill, which he calls the Responsible Parenthood Bill, from the presidential campaign in 2010, to the prioritization of the bill in the Legislative-Executive Development Advisory Council (LEDAC), to the certification of the bill as urgent and his eventual signing of the bill into law.

 

But we must never forget that the convergence of these favorable factors did not diminish and overshadow the inherent merits of the RH bill which in no small measure assured its passage.

 

THE RH LAW IS NOT WATERED-DOWN

 

I would also like to take this opportunity to underscore that the RH law is not a “watered-down” measure. As a matter of strategy, I did not dispute the claim of critics as well as the news accounts in media that the RH bill has been “watered-down” due to the various amendments the authors have accepted during outside plenary consultations which were incorporated in the substitute bill in the House of Representatives.

 

By my silence, I wanted the critics to believe that the bill has been “watered-down” so that they would desist from further opposing the measure. On hindsight, I have realized that the critics would persist in opposing the RH bill even if only a comma or exclamation point remained of the bill.

 

The truth is, in its final form, the RH law has retained its pristine formulation and original policy orientation. We have not accepted any amendment which would derogate or diminish the essence of the bill. In the House of Representatives, we have not succumbed to any “killer amendment”.

 

The following are the salient features of the law which are consistent with the original provisions:

 

1. The State is mandated to promote universal access to reproductive health and family planning services, supplies and information, including voluntary contraception, which are medically-safe, non-abortifacient, quality, effective, legal and affordable with priority to acceptors from poor and marginalized sectors who shall receive for free RH services and commodities (Section 2 on Declaration of Policy).

 

In this regard, an amendment was accepted that the contraceptives to be promoted must not prevent the implantation of a fertilized ovum as determined by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). This is simply consistent with the dual mechanism of contraceptives which are to inhibit ovulation and prevent fertilization, both of which forecloses the existence of a fertilized ovum.

 

2. The hallmark of the RH law is freedom of informed choice which shall not be subject to any form of coercion (Section 3-a of the Guiding Principles for Implementation).

 

3. Massive nationwide information campaign on reproductive health and rights is mandated (Section 20 on Public Awareness).

 

4. The implementation of the Act shall be the joint responsibility of the national government and the local government units with the national government extending financial and technical support to needy local government units (LGUs) (Sections 5, 6, 8, 16 and 20).

 

5.  The principal elements of RH are intact and even improved (Section 4-q).

 

6. Services for pregnant women and safe motherhood are enhanced and assured (Sections 5, 6 and 18).

 

7. Women suffering from post-abortion complications shall be “treated and counseled in a humane, non-judgmental and compassionate manner” (Section 3-j).

 

8. Inclusion in the Philippine National Drug Formulary of hormonal contraceptives, intrauterine devices, injectables and other safe, legal, non-abortifacient family planning products and supplies is mandated (Section 9).

 

9. Mandatory age and development-appropriate reproductive health education is assured for adolescents enrolled in public elementary and secondary schools with the curriculum prepared by the Department of Education adoptable by private schools (Section 14).

 

10. PhilHealth benefits for serious and life-threatening reproductive health conditions are guaranteed (Section 12).

 

11. The provisions on prohibited acts and penalties have been retained to assure compliance with the law (Sections 23 and 24).

 

12 With the exception of hospitals owned by a religious group, private health facilities and hospitals are mandated to provide a full range of family planning services to paying patients with the option to grant free care and services to indigents (Section 7).

 

            13. A Congressional Oversight Committee is created to monitor the full and correct implementation of the RH law (Section 22).

 

14. Initial funding comes from the respective budgets of the Department of Health and allied agencies as provided for in the 2013 General Appropriations Act (GAA) and a continuing yearly budget is authorized for inclusion in the subsequent years’ GAAs (Section 25).

 

THE TASKS AHEAD

 

Now, on the tasks ahead. There are four major concerns we have to contend with.

 

(1) Promulgation of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR).

 

(2) Surmounting the constitutional issues raised against the RH law before the Supreme Court.

 

(3) Appropriation as a continuing battleground.

 

(4) Assuring and monitoring the effective and faithful implementation of the RH law.

 

IMPLEMENTING RULES AND REGULATIONS

 

The RH law has been effective since 17 January 2013. Is it now enforceable pending the promulgation of the Implementing Rules and Regulations?

 

I submit it is, with due respect to Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonio Carpio’s lone and contrary obiter dictum in the 2008 case of Abakada Guro Party List vs. Purisima (562 SCRA 251). The absence of the IRR must not preclude the enforcement of the law. The pendency of the IRR’s promulgation, which is an executive function, is not a temporary administrative veto of an effective statute. There are instantly implementable provisions of the law without the need of a prior IRR.

 

In the absence of a temporary restraining order or a writ of injunction issued by the Supreme Court, the implementation or enforcement of an effective law cannot be frustrated or temporized.

 

However, in order to obviate any challenge to the enforceability of the RH law, there is need for the promulgation of the IRR within sixty (60) days from the effectivity of the Act or on or before 18 March 2013.

 

The IRR is to assure the effective implementation of the RH law. Let us guard against the possibility that the IRR may dilute the provisions of the Act. With DOH Secretary Enrique T. Ona at the helm of the IRR drafting committee and with four members from kindred NGOs, I think the possibility that the IRR will depreciate the Act is far-fetched.

 

However, we must not relax our guard because even the most formidable fortress is not impregnable from insidious assaults.

 

BATTLE IN THE SUPREME COURT

 

The six petitions before the Supreme Court contesting the constitutionality of the RH law is a compendium of the usual anti-RH homilies and tirades.

 

From the repetitious, almost ludicrous, verbiage of the petitions, the following common arguments are incanted:

 

  1.  The Reproductive Health Act violates the “right to life”.

  2. The Act infringes on the people’s “right to health”.

  3. It is offensive to the freedom of religion.

  4. It negates the basic and primary right of parents to develop their children’s moral character.

 

          All controversial measures end in the Supreme Court. We expected these petitions. We will prevail in the Highest Tribunal because the RH law is absolutely constitutional. We made sure that the provisions and the intendment of the Act are in harmony with constitutional mandates.

 

             Let me debunk briefly the issues raised.

 

RIGHT TO LIFE IS NOT DEFILED

 

             The very constitutional provision invoked by the petitioners, which is Sec. 12 of Art. II, provides that the State shall protect “the life of the unborn from conception.” Clearly, before conception, there is no life to protect. Conception has been defined by medical authorities as the implantation of the fertilized ovum in the woman’s uterus. Conception is synonymous with pregnancy.

 

              Verily, in the earlier stages of the reproductive process like ovulation and fertilization, there is no life to protect.

 

             It is in these prior stages before conception where contraception plays its role by preventing ovulation and fertilization. Accordingly, no life is impaired. No human life is imperiled.

 

           The genesis of Sec. 12 of Art. II of the 1987 Constitution started with the proposal to include in Section 1 of the Bill of Rights the provision that the “right to life extends to the fertilized ovum.” This proposal was not constitutionalized. It was rejected in favor of the present provision which guarantees the life of the unborn from conception, not before conception where there is no life yet to safeguard.

 

           The explicit intention of the framers of the 1987 Constitution in protecting the life of the unborn from conception is to prevent the Congress and the Supreme Court from legalizing abortion. The RH law does not legalize abortion. In fact, it acknowledges that abortion is illegal and punishable and is not a family planning option or method.

 

RIGHT TO HEALTH IS NOT INFRINGED

 

            Far from infringing the people’s “right to health”, the RH law promotes, protects and enhances the right to health, particularly of mothers and infants because the promotion of reproductive health and family planning will considerably decrease maternal and infant mortality rates since high-risk, unwanted and unintended pregnancies are avoided.

 

              Moreover, the promotion of reproductive health and family planning would assure the birth of healthy infants and empower parents to give fewer children proper sustenance, health care and education.

 

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IS UPHELD

 

            The accusation that the RH law is offensive to religious freedom is a patent aberration. The Act is replete with provisions upholding the freedom of religion and respecting religious convictions. The guarantee of freedom of informed choice is an assurance that no one would be compelled to violate the tenets of his religion or defy his religious convictions against his free will and own discernment of his faith.

 

            The option to be a beneficiary of RH care and services and be an acceptor of a particular family planning method is solely the decision of a couple or woman with due regard to one’s religious beliefs and convictions. Good conscience is the anchor of one’s choice.

 

PARENTAL ROLE IS SUPPORTED

 

            Section 12 of Article II is among the 22 provisions constituting the State Policies or a “Bill of State Obligations” as distinguished from the Bill of Rights as found in Article III. Accordingly, the last sentence of Sec. 12 provides: “The natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and development of moral character shall receive the support of the Government.”

 

           More than a recognition or grant of a right, this provision is an imposition of an obligation upon the State. Accordingly, the operative phrase in this provision is “shall receive the support of the Government.”

 

          The prescription of a mandatory age and development-appropriate reproductive health education for adolescents enrolled in public elementary and high schools is not an abridgement of the role of parents in the rearing of their children. It is in compliance with the bounden duty of Government to support the role of parents in the development of their children’s moral character, among others.

 

           This prescription on RH education assumes more relevance when we consider that the majority of parents default in teaching their children proper sexual values because of the prevailing taboo on conversation about sex in Filipino homes.

 

           Section 14 of the RH law is no different from the constitutional obligation of the State “to establish, maintain and support a complete, adequate and integrated system of education relevant to the needs of the people and society” (Sec. 2[1] of Art. XIV) which is not an impairment of the parent’s right and duty in the rearing of the youth. It is supportive and complementary.

 

          Similarly, the Constitution unequivocally provides that “Without limiting the natural right of parents to rear their children, elementary education is compulsory for all children of school age.” (Sec. 2[2] of Art. XIV). Clearly, no less than the Constitution mandates compulsory elementary education without violating parental right in the rearing of the youth.

 

REQUISITE APPROPRIATION

 

            Funding will always be a contentious battleground in the implementation of the RH law. Without adequate appropriation, the RH law will be reduced to a fossilized policy, a Jurassic shibboleth.

 

          Accordingly, it is our common concern to have pro-RH legislators elected to the House of Representatives and the Senate to assure a continuing and requisite appropriation for the RH law. The threat of rejection at the polls must be obliterated by a positive campaign for electoral mandate for kindred and qualified candidates.

 

SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION

 

             Having said all of these, the bottom line is to ensure an effective, speedy and faithful implementation of the RH law.

 

         We have an outstandingly good law which deserves a successful and errant-less implementation. We, who have shepherded the enactment of the Reproductive Health Law, must oversee its faithful implementation.

 

           Finally, let me reiterate my thanks to the Forum for Family Planning and Development led by the indefatigable RH advocate Ben de Leon, the “eminent person-maker” himself.

 

            The name of the Forum is truly appropriate because the empirical and logical linkage between family planning and development is truly well-established and beyond debate.

 

            Thank you.

 

Reproductive Health
  • CHALLENGES TO RH
  • (Speech delivered by Rep. Edcel C. Lagman during the Launching
  • of the Primer on Legal Issues in Reproductive Health
  • at the UP Law Center on 09 December 2011)

 

           The variations of the RH bill have been stalled in the legislative gauntlet for over 12 years now since the first comprehensive bill was filed in 1999 during the 11th Congress.

 

            The travails of the RH bill continue despite favorable and enabling indicators like:

 

            1)          Survey after survey --nationwide, regional and local--document the peoples’ vast and continuing support for the measure with (a) 71% of the respondents saying nationwide that it must be enacted without further delay (with higher percentages registered in areas where the Congressmen are opposed to the bill, like 86% in Manila, 89% in Parañaque and 88% in Cebu); (b) 68% responding that the government has authority to use public funds for family planning, including the procurement and distribution of contraceptives to voluntary acceptors (64% in Manila, 70% in Parañaque and 75% in Cebu); (c) voters prefer candidates who have an agenda on family planning; and (d) the vast majority of the respondents are Catholics.

 

           2)           The Philippines is a signatory to relevant international conventions promoting and protecting reproductive health, like: (a) the Tehran Convention on Human Rights which upholds the right of parents to freely and responsibly determine the number and spacing of their children; (b) the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) Programme of Action; (c) Convention on the Rights of the Child; (d) Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW); (e) Universal Declaration of Human Rights; (f) International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights (ICECSR); and (g) International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

 

               3)          President Aquino has endorsed to the Legislative-Executive Development Advisory Council (LEDAC) and to the Congress the enactment of the RH bill as a priority administration measure.

 

               In this connection, it is pertinent to ask whether the President is doing enough to assure the passage of the RH bill? Maybe prioritization is not sufficient. The President has to do more to convince his congressional allies that the enactment of the RH bill is imperative as an indispensable tool to achieve sustainable human development.

 

              The arsenal of the Presidency to rally support for a measure or agenda is legendary. This time, the weaponry of power can be used by the President for the good of the greatest number—the multitude of the marginalized and disadvantaged, particularly women and children who are the direct and immediate beneficiaries of the RH bill.

 

              The challenges to the RH bill are not cerebral. They are mundane and parochial. They cannot even be elevated to “challenges”. They are just plain “obstructions”, like the following:

 

              1)  Problem of quorum;

              2)  Repetitive questions or recidivist interpellations and absentee interpelators;

              3)  Political equation; and

              4)  Fear factor

 

              Quorum – It is a truism that the act of legislation is a numbers game. The numbers could be herded, mob-like, unthinking, ambivalent or sparse. But they are numbers just the same. Numbers are needed to enact. And lack of numbers is useful to delay legislation.

 

              The lack of a quorum is a convenient excuse to stall legislation. The absence of a quorum can even be contrived or intentional.

 

              It is for this reason that we have continuously reminded RH authors and advocates to be present at all times. But even they could not subscribe to this strict discipline.

 

              The solution is for the leadership of the House to take the bold initiative and enforce the rules, including sanctions for absenteeism. Leniency must be jettisoned. It is a bane to policy-making.

 

              Recidivist Interpellations – After 12 years of debate inside and outside the Halls of Congress, all relevant and irrelevant questions have been asked about the RH bill. There is absolutely no new argument or novel misconception.

 

              Questions are asked repeatedly not to debate or inform but to cause delay.

 

              Many registered themselves as interpellators but when their time comes to confront the sponsors, they either conveniently absent themselves or feign not being prepared.

 

              We call again on the leadership of the House of Representatives to adopt, issue and enforce the rules of engagement which ban repetitive questions and limit the interpellator’s time to not more than one (1) hour in order to foreclose inordinate delay.

 

              Political Equation – Politics is addition. To a politician, every vote counts, even the vote of the devil. Hence, a politician reaches out to all. Although there is no Catholic vote, an ordinary politician, as much as possible, will not dare displease his Bishop or get the ire of the Church. Consequently, he usually defers or succumbs to the importuning of the clergy.

 

              The solution is a strong political will and steadfast commitment to a cause. This should be buttressed by a full realization that the RH advocacy is supported by the people and there is popular rejection of the undue interference of the Church hierarchy in secular affairs.

 

             Fear Factor - The macabre instruments of torture and terror employed for ages by despots and ecclesiastics are merely secondary to the pervasive and malevolent instigation of fear to secure blind adherence and break principled resistance.

 

             The Catholic Church has long perfected the policy and practice of instilling fear in both the faithful and prospective converts.

 

            The fear of sin has been conceptualized and propagated by clerics in order to make their ministry continually relevant as they intercede on behalf of sinners for God’s pardon and mercy. The fear of eternal damnation and hellfire has coerced or frightened people to obey Church dogma and has subdued crusading dissenters against the teachings of the faith.

 

             Nowhere in recent years has the Church’s mastery of the fear factor been put to much exploitative use than in the current debates on the reproductive health bill – fear of contraceptives, fear of a demographic winter and fear of promiscuity, among others.

 

            The Catholic Church peddles the fear and lie that contraceptives like pills, IUDs and injectables induce abortions or are abortifacients, and will definitely lead to cancer; a demographic winter, which is a scare tactic, will lead to the decimation of the Filipino race; and sexuality education will create a breed of sex maniacs.

 

             The solution to fear is to foster the truth. Those who capitalize on fear are bankrupt in reason. They cannot compete in the free market of ideas. Fear has to be confronted and dismantled because it is the antithesis of truth and free choice.

 

            These “challenges”, more appropriately “obstructions”, are not insuperable. They are feeble posturing and mainly dilatory tactics. But delay is not victory. It just temporizes the eventual and certain triumph of a progressive and much-needed RH law.

 

            In our inevitable victory, we truly count on the unwavering support of the NGO community which prominently includes the ReproCen, and the steadfast advocacy of the academe like the UP College of Law, UP Institute of Human Rights, UP Institute of International Legal Studies and Center for International Law.

 

             This Primer on Legal Issues in Reproductive Health is a welcome addition to the increasing positive literature on reproductive health. And more importantly, it will be our veritable ammunition when we venture to the next battlefield—the judicial forum where the opponents of RH vow to contest the constitutionality of the RH law.

 

             Let me underscore that the detractors of the RH bill are the ones going to the Supreme Court. This means that they have conceded that eventually there will be a Reproductive Health Law, whose constitutionality they will challenge, albeit vainly and perfunctorily.

 

             Whether these “challenges” are real or contrived, your RH advocates inside and outside the Congress are always ready to confront and vanquish the oppositors, now in the Congress and subsequently in the Supreme Court.

Reproductive Health

“ENACT THE RH BILL NOW”

(SPONSORSHIP SPEECH ON HOUSE BILL 4244

delivered by REP. EDCEL C. LAGMAN on 08 March 2011)

  

        March is the month we celebrate worldwide Women and Womanhood. The centenary of International Women’s Day falls on March 8 this year. It is only fitting that today, March 08, 2011, we begin the sponsorship and eventual plenary debates on the reproductive health bill – a measure that will help safeguard the future of millions of Filipino women and their families and will have a host of positive multiplier effects on the health of women and children, and enable sustainable human development for our country and people.

         This is the third time in as many Congresses that I have stood before this August Chamber to deliver my sponsorship message on the RH bill. I am confident that the saying, “third time’s the charm”, will abide with us.

         The 15th Congress will be remembered as the Congress that passed the RH bill.

         The country needs an RH law because:

         First, it will protect and promote the following basic rights:

         (a) It will afford parents the opportunity to exercise their right to freely and responsibly plan the number and spacing of their children as enshrined in the Declaration of Tehran to which the Philippines was a signatory almost 42 years ago. The RH bill is rights-based, and central to the measure is freedom of informed choice.  Consistent with freedom of choice, this bill has no specific demographic targets. It is not a population control measure. The moderation or deceleration of population growth is consequential to the promotion of reproductive health and sustainable human development.

             The bill mandates the access to all forms of family planning, both natural and modern, by women and couples, who are voluntary acceptors as long as they are legal and medically-safe, and truly effective.

             It is important to underscore 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. That choice primarily and ultimately belongs to the couple, but most especially to women who bear the brunt of pregnancy, childbirth and child care.

        (b) It will enhance the right to health as it improves maternal, newborn and child health and nutrition, and reduces maternal, infant and child mortality.

             With all the talk about sex and religion that unfortunately dominates discussions about RH, people tend to overlook the fact that notwithstanding its positive impact on population and development, the bill is also a health measure.

             The death of 500,000 women worldwide annually due to complications related to high risk pregnancies which could be prevented by access to effective family planning, and lack or absence of skilled attendance at childbirth is both an aberration and a gross social injustice.

 

             Multiparity or having many children is positively associated with maternal mortality because with each additional pregnancy, a woman’s lifetime risk of dying from pregnancy or childbirth-related causes progressively increases.

             Effective contraception leads to better spacing of pregnancies, helps women avoid unwanted pregnancies, reduces the chances of malnutrition for mothers and therefore contributes to their overall well-being.

         (c)  We need an RH law to effectuate the people’s right to sustainable human development.

               It is beyond debate that an exploding population impacts negatively on all indicators of human development like education, health, employment, housing, food security and the environment.

               Development experts affirm that population and development are inextricably linked. The Asian Development Bank, in a 2004 review entitled “Poverty in the Philippines: Income, Assets, and Access,” listed an expanding population as one of the major causes of poverty in the country.

              Local economists have also declared that there is greater incidence of poverty in larger families and that large family size is a significant factor in perpetuating poverty across generations. (Orbeta and Pernia)

             The annual UN Human Development Reports also show that countries with higher population growth invariably score lower in human development.

             The Philippines is the 12th most populous country in the world and placed 97th out of 169 countries in quality of life in the UNDP’s latest Human Development Report.

             China, the world’s most populous country ranks 89th; India, which is on the heels of China, is 119th; and Pakistan and Bangladesh which rank 6th and 7th, respectively, in terms of population, are 125th and 129th in human development.

             On the other hand, the top three countries in human development, Norway, Australia and New Zealand, all have extremely lean total populations and low population growth rates.

             Second, an RH law will definitely help lower the incidence of abortion by preventing unplanned, mistimed and unwanted pregnancies – the very unintended pregnancies which are terminated through abortion principally by young, Catholic and married women who could not afford another child.

             (a) There is an inverse relationship between contraception and abortion. Studies conducted by the Guttmacher Institute reveal that correct and regular use of contraceptives can reduce abortion rates by a staggering 85%. Truly, the RH bill is an anti-abortion measure.

             (b) A pregnancy that is planned and wanted will not be aborted. It is therefore only logical to conclude that the more women can avoid unintended and mistimed pregnancies through effective family planning, the less the incidence of abortion will be.

             (c) If the incidence of abortion is considerably diminished by appropriate, legal and effective contraception, it stands to reason that there is no justification for the legalization of abortion. The RH bill will not lead to the legalization of abortion.

         Third, an RH law enhances the ability of the Philippines to meet the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), whose common denominator is reproductive health and family planning.

         Virtually all the MDGs, but especially the goals which pledge elimination of gender-based discrimination; decrease in infant deaths; safe motherhood; and the prevention of the spread of HIV and AIDS, are closely related to reproductive health and family planning.

         Fourth, an RH law will buttress the country’s anti-poverty agenda. The authors of the RH bill do not claim that it is the panacea to underdevelopment or a universal remedy to poverty. It is not a magic pill.

         However, I would like to emphasize that without a clear policy on RH, government’s anti-poverty strategies will continue to be undermined by a ballooning population as an inordinately huge population growth rate aggravates existing poverty.

          The Philippines’ very own Rafael Salas, the first Executive Director of the United Nations Population Fund emphasized that there are “crucial links between population and development and (there is) need to take population factors into account in development plans.”

         Fifth, the promotion of reproductive health is cost effective. It is much cheaper than the mega projects of government which have much lesser beneficiaries and riddled with corruption. The improvement of maternal and infant health and reduction of maternal and infant mortality and morbidity also generates multi-billion savings for the government in terms of reduced expenses for maternal and infant medical care which could be channeled to education and other basic services.

         Research by Likhaan and the Guttmacher Institute shows that government allocates a minimum of P5.5 billion in healthcare costs each year for the management of unintended pregnancies and their complications.

         This kind of health management is not a cost-effective public health spending because only P2.0 to P3.5 billion annually is needed to fund a comprehensive range of voluntary family planning services for the entire country according to the same study.

         Investing in family planning services would then mean savings of several billion pesos which can be used for other badly needed social services.

         The UNICEF way back in 1992 asserted that “family planning could bring more benefits to more people at less cost than any other single technology now available to the human race.”

         Sixth, the RH bill goes beyond family planning. RH is all- encompassing. Aside from family planning information and services, its expansive coverage includes:

  • Maternal, infant and child health and nutrition, including breastfeeding;
  • Prohibition of abortion and management of  abortion complications;
  • Adolescent and youth reproductive health and sexuality education;
  • Prevention and management of sexually transmittable infections (STIs), like HIV-AIDS;
  • Elimination of violence against women;
  • Treatment of breast and reproductive tract cancers and other gynecological conditions and disorders including infertility and sexual dysfunction in both men and women; and
  • Male responsibility and participation in reproductive health;

         Seventh, the RH bill is constitutional. It maintains unconditional fealty to Section 12 of Article II on State Policies which pertinently provides: “It (the State) shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception.”

         The overriding purpose of this provision is to preempt the Congress and the Supreme Court from legalizing abortion.

         House Bill No. 4244 is indubitably against abortion. It unequivocally provides that “nothing in this Act changes the law against abortion”.

        The genesis of the aforequoted constitutional provision shows that the proposal to include in the Bill of Rights that the “right to life extends to the fertilized ovum” was rejected by the Constitutional Commission of 1987. The phrase “fertilized ovum” was never constitutionalized, just like the phrase from “the moment of conception” because the Commissioners were unable to determine when the precise moment of conception is.

         Contraceptives are not banned by the Constitution. This is so because contraceptives like pills, injectables, condoms and IUDs are not abortifacients.

         The principal purposes of contraceptives are: (1) to prevent ovulation, in which case there is no egg to be fertilized and no fetus to abort; and (2) to prevent the sperm from reaching the egg, in which case there is no fertilization and no fetus is formed.

         Medical authorities define abortion as “termination of pregnancy after implantation and before the conceptus has become independently viable.” [International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO)]

         Legal jurisprudence defines abortion as “the expulsion of the foetus before it has acquired the power of sustaining an independent life.” [Philippine Legal Encyclopedia]

         Clearly, there can be no abortion before the onset of pregnancy or conception when the blastocyst is implanted in the uterine lining or the woman’s womb.

         A couple or a woman who uses contraceptives or a physician who prescribes contraceptives cannot be accused of the crime of abortion because contraceptives do not expel or detach the fetus from a pregnant woman’s womb. Contraceptives prevent conception or pregnancy but do not pre-terminate pregnancy. Verily, contraceptives are contra-conception.

         The reason why the issue of RH is almost always linked exclusively with family planning – especially the use of condoms, pills and IUDs – is because the Catholic hierarchy, which is the main critic of the bill, is not against the elimination of violence against women or the treatment of breast cancer or maternal and child health and nutrition and other elements of RH. It is only against making modern family planning methods available to women and couples and the teaching of sexuality and RH education to the youth.

          Therefore, the most vocal critics of the bill conveniently want the issue to be limited to the so-called evils of modern contraception.

           Verily, reproductive health transcends family planning as the full range of RH attests.

           We must be unwavering in the campaign to protect and promote every Filipino’s right to reproductive health, and the right of every woman over her own body and be liberated from unremitting pregnancies.

           We must not allow religious intolerance to consign mothers into early death because family planning services are not available to them so they could avoid high risk pregnancies.

           We will not allow antediluvian precepts to doom a progressive measure which promotes choice, not compulsion or even reward.

           We must all remember that the Catholic hierarchy’s stance against modern contraceptives is not categorized as an “infallible dogma”.

           Immediately after the release in 1968 of the encyclical Humanae Vitae, which was based on a minority report of the Papal Birth Control Commission and contrary to the majority position permissive of contraceptive use, Monsignor Fernando Lambrouschini, the then official spokesman for the Vatican, announced: “attentive reading of the encyclical Humanae Vitae does not suggest the theological note of infallibility… It is not infallible.”

           Honorable colleagues, I earnestly entreat you to join and help us pass the RH bill so that every Filipino child will be born wanted and the miracle of life will not mean death for 11 Filipino mothers daily.

           Help us enact the RH bill so that we can give premium to life and make every woman and child truly count.

Reproductive Health

SPONSORSHIP REMARKS

(Delivered by REP. EDCEL C. LAGMAN, Principal Author of House Bill No. 96, at the public hearing on the RH bills by the Committee on Population and Family Relations on 24 November 2010)

 

If the oppositors to the RH bills can be true and candid to the public and to themselves, they would admit that they are objecting not because the bills are health measures but because the bills are basically family planning and population measures.

 Verily, the referral of the bills to the Committee on Population and Family Relations is correct and consistent with the jurisdiction of the committee on “all matters directly and principally relating to population growth and family planning” as provided by Section 27 (mm) of the Rules of the House.

 Family planning and population and development are interlinked with reproductive health.

 The RH bills aim to ensure an enabling environment for people to choose freely and responsibly the number and spacing of their children and the method of family planning best suited to their needs and personal convictions – which are basic human rights. They seek to help women and couples meet their fertility goals and guarantee the reproductive health of all Filipinos.

 Neither the Church nor the State has the right to dictate on the faithful or citizens which form of family planning they should use. That choice primarily and ultimately belongs to the couple, but most especially to women who bear the brunt of pregnancy, childbirth and childcare.

 The central concept of the RH bills is freedom of informed choice. There is neither compulsion or reprisals for non-acceptors nor rewards or incentives for acceptors.

A comprehensive, rights-based, health-oriented and development-driven law on reproductive health and population development will also:

 1.  Improve maternal, newborn and child health and nutrition, and reduce maternal, infant and child mortality, consistent with the Millennium Development Goals whose common denominator is reproductive health and family planning;

2.  Effectuate the people’s right to sustainable human development;

3.  Help lower the incidence of abortion by preventing unplanned, mistimed and unwanted pregnancies – the very pregnancies which are terminated through abortion;

4.  Enhance the success  of the country’s poverty alleviation agenda; and

5.  Enable government to confront the challenges of climate change and environmental despoliation. I am positive that the enactment of a national statute that upholds the right of every woman to safe motherhood; the right of every Filipino to reproductive self-determination; and the right of every child to be born wanted, is nearing its ultimate realization.

 The people have spoken in favor of the RH bills in numerous surveys with consistent results; the leadership of the House is committed to prioritize consideration of the bills and put to a vote a consolidated version; the President is steadfast for responsible parenthood and voluntary contraceptive use; and the Holy Father has moderated the Church’s prior total ban on the use of condoms in favor of their use for health reasons.

I earnestly urge the approval of House Bill 96 together with the five allied bills.

Reproductive Health

                                                                Keynote Speech of
                                                             Hon. Edcel C. Lagman
                                                   Representative, 1st District of Albay
                                            Minority Floor Leader, House of Representatives
                                                Co-Chairperson, PLCPD Board of Trustees

                                                                 on the occasion of
                                         The Third National Multisectoral Policy Conference
                                                           on Human Development
                                                 17-18 August 2010, Crowne Plaza Galleria

 

              It was only yesterday afternoon when the Office of the President sent its regrets to PLCPD that President Benigno Aquino would be unable to come to deliver the Keynote Address. And no administration official was deputized to represent the President.

              President Aquino must be preoccupied with pressing matters of State. This we can fully understand, although we would have appreciated an earlier demurrer.

              When I agreed at the eleventh hour to deliver the Keynote Address, I made it categorical that I was not pitching in for the President. Neither do I have the authority nor inclination to do just that.

              The National Multi-Sectoral Policy Conference on Human Development, now on its third conference after the March 2005 and August 2007 sessions, is of overriding importance in our common and continuing pursuit of the population and development agenda. A conference of this import should not be missed by policy initiators, makers and implementers as well as by civil society and non-government organizations representing the disadvantaged beneficiaries of progressive policies.

              It is significant to note that each Conference is convened proximate to the opening of a new Congress, as much as possible. This is so because the output of the Conference, which is the people’s legislative agenda, is submitted to the Congress as the national policymaking department of the government.

              The Conference in August 2007 can claim a laudable measure of success with the enactment of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program Extension with Reforms (RA 9700), Magna Carta of Women (RA 9710), Anti-Torture Law (RA 9745), Renewable Energy Law (RA 9513), and the Cheaper Medicines Act (RA 9502).