The RP Catholic Church is gearing for political Renaissance?

Is the Catholic Church in the Philippines is preparing for a political Renaissance? Seems like it when the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines elected Bishop Soc Villegas as their President. Everyone knows Soc. He's the political activist behind former Manila Archbishop Cardinal Sin. He's very active against the Marcos regime.

The bishops' group recognizes the importance of having someone who knows the dynamics of Philippine state and politics. In this day and age, it is highly necessary for the Church to involve itself in secular matters. Its rationale is simple: the very principles and beliefs of the State are being compromised and are, threatened with extinction. This church is not about to let go of its most cherished possession in the Pacific.

The CBCBP mentioned two controversial political issues: one, the Reproductive Health and two, the 2013 automated elections, both of which involved the Church. The Church says it will use all its powers to pressure the Supreme Court to strike down as unconstitutional the Reproductive Health bill. The other issue, says the CBCP, was the elections. There were many glitches and suspicious things which happened. The church wants the government to rectify those errors.

Carlos Celdran's first round loss against Catholic Church

I have to say that the Catholic Church deftly handled a possible controversy, what with the conviction of Carlos Celdran today by a Manila Regional Trial Court. His highly popular antic last year that made headlines both here and abroad will cost him a month's detention in a filthy cell inside Manila City Jail.

The Church immediately issued a statement, saying that the Hierarchy has forgiven Celdran but respects the decision of the Manila Court.

I remember back in 1896, when a similar court found Jose Rizal, guilty of a more serious crime of rebellion and sedition. Rizal wrote disparaging stories against the Church and the colonial state, and he was being punished for it.

The friars in those times publicly announced their forgiveness. Behind the veneer though, the friars' true sentiments got exposed.

When Rizal was being led to a martyred slaughter, those who yelled and clapped and lustily shouted death to Rizal, were the same Friars who already forgave him.

Such hypocrites! Now,

In our digital age, when the right to express oneself is sancrosanct in every democratic society, such a ruling from a court, shows a very dangerous precedent.

Celdran did what he did for the sake of enlightening the public about alleged dangers of not passing the RH bill. If the Church wants to punish those behind the RH bill, don't shoot the messenger.

And if the Church is really dead serious on forgiving Celdran, then, they should be the ones to tell the Court to stop the proceedings.

The Church is slowly showing its backwardness.

Poverty, not population, is our severe problem

I do not agree with the pro-RH legislators saying that this newly passed RH bill is "devoid of religion." Are they not familiar with the very first commandment of God to men? What is it?

When God was finished with His task of creating Adam and Eve, what is God's first commandment? " Go out and multiply." God will not utter such a commandment if the earth does not have sufficient resources to support the mouths of 8 billion people? :-)

Seriously, for some people, population is an issue which

Besides, why are our government officials so concerned with a population going on 90 plus million? Former president Bill Clinton, in one of his classic speeches, said that the unique feature of the Philippine economy is that it is dependent on internal consumption. Hence, a 90 plus million market is a plus rather than a minus, especially since, if the market is consumerist.

The problem really is not an explosion in population but of poverty. The solution to poverty is not to discourage people from copulating and having children, no. The solution to poverty is effective management of resources. When government admits that it is finding it extremely hard to feed 90 million people, it just means that it is mismanaging the resources of this country.

There is no serious population problem in the Philippines. We have enough islands to support such a population of 90 million. What is our fundamental problem is simply effective governance. Since resources in this country are controlled and managed by a very small fraction of the population, and the status between those who have and those who haven't is extremely lopsided in favor of those who have, then, surely, we will continue to have a problem. Allocation of resources is a governance issue, not something for population control people.

Church won anti-RH fight--substitute bill totally dilutes original one, says legislative source

President Aquino has given the marching orders for the passage of the Reproductive Health bill. This bill, which has been languishing in the halls of Congress for more than a decade already, is now headed towards an event-ful victory. Aquino met with several bishops and pro-life advocates to seek a compromise on the contentious issue. At least four Bishops---Bishops Iniguez, Gabby Reyes, Tony Ledesma and Ted Bacani have already given their thoughts. Reyes, according to some, was even identified as the one who wrote or dictated the workings of a diluted version of the bill.

Congressman Edcel Lagman, the main proponent of the bill, allowed the deletion of some provisions and the insertion of several "words' in the original bill to accommodate the desire of anti-RH bill advocates. The so-called "substitute bill" pales in comparison with the earlier version of the bill which Lagman wrote and were co-sponsored by several other people. It was said that this "substitute bill" was written with the presence of a Bishop. Fact is, several says the bill was written by this bishop, whom others identified as Reyes.

It is interesting to see the wordings and tone used in this bill, and how this "final substitute bill" would eventually impact on the government's desire to control population. What is evident is the fact that, in this fight, the Church clearly won in this.

If you will analyze, the Church stand on this issue is more consistent with the Constitutional provision on the duty of the state to protect the welfare of women and the "unborn child". Section 12, Article 2 of the 1987 Constitution reads that the state has the duty to protect the life of the mother and the unborn child. Senate Bill no. 2635 authored by Senator Bong Revilla defines the term "unborn child" as a "child in any stage of existence, from conception to birth." Conception, in this bill refers to the moment when the sperm cell meets the egg cell, thereupon "fertilization" occurs.

It is thus deemed unconstitutional, a measure which will encourage the use of any artificial methods of preventing the meeting of the egg cell with that of the sperm cell, meaning, use of contraceptives. What is constitutional though, is the stated duty of the State to adequately inform citizens of the Philippines in child rearing, not population control. Population control, as defined, means managing population figures through human intervention. Human intervention, whether artificial or natural, harms the conception of both sperm and egg, thus, unconstitutional.

Why support Reproductive Health Bill: Even Pro-RH advocates admit no correlation between easing poverty and RH

Margaret Greene of USAID in a paper admitted that there is a poor link between poverty reduction and reproductive health. That, even having an RH policy or an increased knowledge in reproductive health, there is really no assurance at all that this will improve or reduce poverty in developing countries.


I will support the Reproductive Health bill because, the bill has very good provisions especially on averting maternal deaths due to pregnancy complications. In developing countries, one out of 65 women die due to complications in childbirth.According to the World Health Organization (WHO), ten million women die due to pregnancies and childbirth.


It is likewise, an excellent measure to protect women belong to the poor and poorest sectors from early death due to early child-bearing. In the research conducted by Greene (2008) it was revealed that:

"Every year, more than half a million mothers in low- and middle-income countries die giving birth, more than 9 million suffer pregnancy-related illnesses, and 10-20 million develop long-term disabilities as a result of complications"

This is true even here in the Philippines. As they say, every pregnant woman's foot is always at death's door. These deaths are preventable.

Most of these deaths and disabilities are preventable, but in many instances, the interventions are either not available to poor women or are too low-quality to be effective. Global, regional, and country-level estimates of maternal mortality show a clear connection between high rates of maternal mortality and poverty. More than 99 percent of maternal deaths occur in developing regions, and more than 85 percent occur in the poorest countries of sub-Saharan Africa and southern Central Asia (AbouZahr & Wardlaw, 2004).

If at all, support the RH bill because it is pro-health for women and children as well.

Maternal mortality and morbidity have an adverse impact on the education of children, but this impact is mediated by other contextual factors. Research in Indonesia and Mexico revealed that children whose mothers died had lower school enrollment and higher dropout rates (Gertler et al., 2003). In Rwanda and Zaire (now the Democratic Republic of the Congo), children who lost a parent often postponed their education—however, this relationship may be hard to untangle from the loss of an adult breadwinner, as poor families are more vulnerable to interruptions in education (D’Souza,1994).

Now, is reproductive health policy and poverty interlinked? Even pro-RH advocates admit that having an RH policy does not necessarily improve economic conditions of countries.

Simple, clear-cut causality between reproductive health and poverty reduction is very difficult to demonstrate. Existing research has not thoroughly addressed the effects of poor reproductive health on household poverty, and further research is needed to clarify these links. Specifically, we need microanalysis to analyze these complex, context-specific householdlevel relationships. (Greene, Poor Health, Poor Women: How Reproductive Health affects poverty", USAID, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, 2008, p.9)

Is the RH bill culturally attuned? And why Filipinos love having big families

Are Filipinos really ignorant of reproductive health that's why most of them suffer from unwanted pregnancies and the like? 


Is it really the lack or inadequate access to contraceptives, particularly condoms, that attribute to our high fertility rates?


Is having a high fertility rate the direct cause of poverty?


For the first question, are majority of our population really ignorant of reproductive health? What aspect of reproductive health do our fellow Filipinos profess not to know? 


Is it about the lack of money of the poor to buy condoms or contraceptives that justify Congress request for the State to allocate billions of pesos for condoms and contraceptives? If this is true, then, isn't it wrong for the State to intervene in the private lives of individuals? 


I think access to safe and medically proven contraceptives is really not the issue here--the issue is its non-use. 


I have a question to RH bill advocates---okey, we procured billions of pesos worth of contraceptives, especially condoms. What now? What if the couple just decides to "let it all hang out" during their sexual encounter? Are we going to require couples to use these condoms during their sexual encounter? No where in the bill does it say that, because it already infringes on an individual's privacy rights.


Educating people about reproductive health is laudable. Forcing them to do what they heard is another thing. How can we, the State, ensure that "ignorant" Pinoys would really use the condom during their sexual encounter?


In the rural backwaters of Filipino society, having huge families is the norm simply because, in an agricultural society, numbers play a very important function in farm work. The more males or females you have, the better since parents require their kids to work in the farm. Of course, we, who live in the cities frown such practices or norms and see it as another form of Juan Tamad syndrome. 


Likewise, in the Filipino machismo culture, using a condom is always perceived as "non-macho". 


How will we change such a mindset? Well, it would take not just an RH bill to do that, but probably an entire generation of teaching and mind-conditioning. If we probably change the economic condition in the rural areas, we will be able also to dissuade parents from siring more and more children. 


Why? Because most Filipinos think of siring children is like to betting in the lotto---the more bets you buy, the higher chances of winning. 


What am I saying? Even in rural areas, the prevalent thinking is, the more kids you have, the better chances of improving your economic condition because the more likely you'll have someone among your kids, becoming successful. Just one success story and it will change every thing.


How can you change that? By a mere law, which says that the better number is 2 rather than 22?


The solution really in effective family planning and population management is more of changing the attitudes and mindsets of people rather than intervening in this highly private sexual thing between couples. 


Condoms are not the end all and be all of things. Condomising traditional thinking is best.


By the way, let me provide a win-win solution.


Pass the RH bill, yet erase sections 9 and 10 from it. 


Pass everything, including increasing maternal care facilities but erase sections 9 and 10.

To Use Or Not to Use a Condom--that's essential to Reproductive Health Bill debate

The Filipino people, says a legislator, have waited nearly fourteen years for a "passable" Reproductive Health bill. Now, House Bill no. 96 of Congressman Edcel Lagman lies before members of Congress. Several members of the minority block who once supported the bill, have graciously backed off, an overt political move. Come August 7, the bill will again be discussed by members of the 15th Congress. With the expressed support of President Aquino, the bill is expected to gain decisive momentum and eventual passage. But, not without a fight, says the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines. 


What is so contentious with House Bill no. 96 that several sectors of our society are up and arms against it? Let us review House Bill 96.


House Bill 96 is known now as " Reproductive Health and Population and Development Act of 2010" which was again changed to "An Act Providing for a National Policy on Reproductive Health, Responsible Parenthood and Population and Development, and for other purposes". This bill is authored by Cong. Edcel Lagman and is being supported largely by civil society and of course, the Aquino administration.


Strongly opposing it is Cagayan de Oro City Rep. Rufus Rodriguez and others, mostly belonging to the minority bloc. 


This House Bill is being supported by another bill, House Bill no. 101 of Congresswoman Garin. 


In Lagman's version, the State guarantees "universal access" to "medically-safe, legal, affordable, effective and quality reproductive health care services, methods, devices, supplies and relevant information and education thereon even if it prioritizes the needs of women and children, among other underprivileged sectors."


This means that the State itself will open the floodgates of free, medically safe, legal and effective and quality reproductive health care services, methods and "devices". These "devices" among others, include condoms or contraceptives.


While the bill recognizes both modern "natural and artificial" methods of reproductive health, section 7 of this bill, mandates all health facilities in the country to provide "modern family planning methods".


Fact is, section 9 of the said law,recognizes family planning supplies as "essential medicines". Meaning, the State shall allocate a specific budget for family planning supplies every year. And what are these supplies again?

" Hormonal contraceptives, intrauterine devices, injectibles and other safe and effective family planning products and supplies"

The question is---does these include abortifacients which other countries have deemed "safe and effective"?


This is one provision which many are opposing. While the objective of the law is laudable, it's solution to the problem of population control is, at best, limited to two things: procurement of contraceptives and educational program.


Why will the people agree on spending huge amounts just to procure billions of pesos worth of condoms or contraceptives or abortifacients disguised as "safe and effective" family planning products and supplies ? 


Is it because of the presumption that poor people do not have the money to buy them, ergo, it should be the State who must provide such things to them? 


Filipinos nowadays are well aware of the effects and non-effects of contraceptives and mind you, many people buy contraceptives without the intervention of the State. However, it is not about the financial capabilities of the poor to buy---it is their use that complicates this issue.


You cannot force a couple to have sex with a condom because it already infringes the individual domain. It is one thing to buy one condom, it is another to use it. 


In many instances, Filipinos do not usually use condoms for personal reasons. Those who do are well aware of the reasons why they ought to use them--mainly to avoid unwanted pregnancies. 


Question---will Lagman guarantee that when the State flood health centers throughout the country with condoms that these will prevent the increase in population? I seriously doubt it.


Again, it is not access to safe and effective family planning products and supplies that is the core problem--it is the use or non-use of these contraceptives that lead to the rise of the population. 


It still all boils down to choice, and not devices, that is central to the success of reproductive health. 


I might agree with the passage of this bill if it eradicates section 9 and 10 altogether. I think that education or information dissemination programs are more effective than allocating or using billions of pesos from the public coffers just to procure contraceptives.


I bet ya that these legislators who push for this bill would eventually back off if those who oppose this bill seeks a compromise saying that they agree on passing this bill only if these legislators eradicate section 8 altogether.

Pro-Life--the true meaning

The Catholic Church will try to flex its political muscle tomorrow. The CBCP is calling on the "faithful" to go out of their homes and show their opposition against the Reproductive Health (RH) bill. The Aquino administration has called on its Congressional allies to ensure the passage of the bill. Analysts say, come August 7, the bill is as good as passed. 


Two things which convinced the Aquino administration to support the passage of the bill: surveys which show 7 out of 10 Filipinos in support of reproductive health and of course, the collective voice of civil society. Various groups have united behind the bill, believing that this bill could improve the quality of life of Filipinos. 


President Aquino even said that he shares the Catholic priests' interpretation of "pro-life". Aquino claims to be "pro-life", which, for him, means improving the economic condition of every Filipino family.


Of course, this slightly differs from the Catholic perspective which is more protecting the life not just of the living but of the unborn. The Church fears that the bill, when passed, would justify abortion. 


What is really the true meaning of "pro-life"? Let's look both in the secular and the non-secular perspectives.


For those who believe in God, being pro-life means respect in the sanctity of life--from the time of conception in the womb until death. Now, what the Reproductive Health advocates want is to give the State the power and authority to intervene in the conception of life. Meaning, the Reproductive Health bill seeks to give the State the power to intervene in someone's life even prior to the conception of life in the womb. 


This intervention is in the form of artificial contraceptives, which RH advocates believe are most effective in managing population. Managing the population means managing the economy. When you manage the economy, you improve the economic condition of families and therefore, allow a broader range of people to seek a better quality of life for themselves. RH advocates believe in the Malthusian view that a bigger population accounts for the poverty that exists in a particular place. 


There is no dispute as to the effects of a big population in the economy, and therefore, in some instances, account for the creation and proliferation of poverty.


However, if we say that population is THE only cause of poverty, that is entirely wrong. 


Poverty is the direct result of the inequality of life created by the very system itself, the Capitalist system. We must accept the fact that the longer this system operates in a particular country or state, the more people become poor. Why? The Capitalist system disallows the creation of wealth from the bottom to the top. IN this system, no large segment of the population controls capital, because in a situation where every single one is a capitalist, who, then, will comprise the larger consumerist segment which is the engine that makes capitalism move? The direct result of capitalism is the concentration of wealth to a few who then manages the entire economic superstructure, creates the conditions to spur trade among people in the consumer markets, and allows a fairly large segment of the population to work in production. The slavish character of capitalism is the direct cause of poverty. And poverty cannot be entirely abolished in a capitalist system because it is by itself, the direct result of its operation. 


Reproductive health, therefore, is just a tool of the capitalists to again provide a fake solution to the issue of poverty. It is an issue which it throws at civil society as an yellowish answer to the issue of poverty.


Poverty cannot be eradicated by a condom. The quality of life of the Filipino individual will remain poor, because the very system where he lives allows and perpetuates this cycle of poverty.


It is not because we are 90 million people that makes 27 million of us poor, no. This 27 million Filipinos and growing, are victims of the system. Even if we grow by 100 million, poverty will still be there inspite of the passage of the RH bill.


Worst, if the RH bill is passed, we allow the State to intervene even in private and personal affairs such as the decision to conceive life. 


If a couple who live in Metro Manila decides to raise ten kids, it is a personal decision. What right does the State has to use its powers to change the decision of the couple? 


The RH bill is a dangerous bill because it gives the State the power to intervene even in sensitive and highly individualist decisions such as child rearing and child bearing.


Likewise, RH advocates say, the bill will stop the rising numbers of maternal deaths. Maternal deaths are caused by inadequate health care, which is the direct consequence of being poor. IN modern and highly prosperous societies, maternal deaths are less than those in underdeveloped societies, because these pregnant women are being taken cared of more than those of poorer ones. 


These are just some of the issues which people are discussing about the Reproductive Health issue.


For a much broader discussion of the RH bill, tune in tomorrow at Ratsada sa Inquirer at Radio Inquirer 990 khz, from 8am to 10 am.   

Why pay for someone else's condom?

The RH bill seeks to spend close to 3 billion pesos for buying contraceptives and condoms. These condoms will be given freely to those who want it. 


Question---how about those with money? Will they be entitled to a condom if they feel the urge to do it with their partner even outside of marriage? According to the bill, yes, the State is mandated to give them free condoms if they feel the urge to do the thing right that moment.


Pro-RH bill advocates say they are for responsible parenthood. Right. That's good. We all believe that the term "responsible" means being "enlightened" or "educated" in the things one must do or accomplish.


So, if I'm educated and I want to exercise my right to "procreate", is it not my personal responsibility to face the consequences of such an exercise of an inherent right? Yes, it is, right?


I am personally responsible for whatever may happen if I exercise my right to procreate, or have sex. It is not the State's. The State is nowhere there in the matrimonial bed or in some bed in Victoria Court right?


When you exercise your right to have sex, the State is actually physically not there. Ideally, the State is in the mind of those who want to exercise that right. Meaning, the person who exercises that right must have heard those family control lessons during his stay in school. He knows that when he uses that free condom, he's safe. There is no responsibility. He will do it with his partner without having that feeling of being responsible shortly thereafter.


That's the problem. When a state interferes with an inherent and inalienable right, the State lifts that responsibility from the individual and the individual now feels not responsible for the consequences of such an act, that is procreation. 


What happens is that the individual perceives procreation as something ordinary, something which he feels not responsible in case of pregnancy and will do it for as many times as he feels the urge to do it, simply because there's contraceptives, it absolves him from all responsibility.


That is a most serious problem. Sex, protected or not, is supposed to have responsibilities. Every right has an inherent responsibility. You, alone, must bear it, not the State. Why is the Philippine government so desirous of bearing that responsibility?


Sex is a right, with an attendant responsibility. It is not merely procreation. When you lift that aspect of responsibility and assures the individual that you are absolved from that responsibility simply by using a contraceptive, you are giving false assurances and promoting irresponsibility. 


Fact is, the State thru the RH bill, will inevitably cause more social problems. Sex will not be as special nor as sacred as what Filipinos see it to be, traditionally. Sex will just be another right among thousands. 


If you do "it", you must be ready of the consequences. You must pay for your own condom, not the State. The State's duty is to ask condom makers to lessen the price of their products, not to be a party to an act which will turn into an irresponsible one just because the State will not make it a policy to tolerate irresponsible sex.


Answer---there is a price tag of 3 billion pesos. Many government officials will earn from this RH bill. This bill will not only promote corruption among Filipinos, it would surely lead to more corruption at the DOH. 


Fact is, millions of pesos worth of lobby money from condom makers are going the rounds.


Really, when you read this bill, even the amended versions, you'll not support it.


I doubt those surveys saying that majority of the Filipinos support that bill. I was privy to another survey which says that 98% of Filipinos do not support the bill.

SCRAP 2 BILLION PHP FROM RH BILL

I will support the Reproductive Health bill being peddled by Congressman Edcel Lagman and Congresswoman Garin if they will agree to scrap the two (2) billion pesos proposed fund of the bill. 


That two billion pesos are intended to buy condoms and contraceptives through a bidding at the Department of Health (DOH). That will be a major source of corruption. 


According to insiders, two groups, one a dummy by a former health secretary, are now preparing for the bidding of the contraceptives. They even hired a PR firm to manage the crisis. 


The group wants to control the bidding and procurement of the contraceptives.


I warn the Filipino People against this bill simply on the basis that several corrupt people will rake in billions worth of profits because of this bill. 


This bill will not lower our population, nor will it solve the present problem of poverty in our country, no.


Poverty is the manifestation of inadequate or mismanagement of our resources and graft and corruption. Do not blame the people if they are poor.


I admit that most provisions of the bill will benefit the women and the Filipino Family. However, what really pisses me off is the FIDUCIARY ASPECT of the bill. 


This proves that lobby money from condom companies are making the rounds. This is unacceptable.

The Great Debate: To RH and not to RH

For RH bill advocates, the logic is simple: to eradicate poverty, eradicate or lessen population. There are abortions here and there, women are not being given the right for their bodies, and poor people are having babies as many as ten per family. Government is helpless in taking care of them, that's why, let's give them condoms and contraceptives. They can have all the sex that they want, for as long as they use condoms. 


Recent studies show that condoms are not effective in population control. Condoms even induce cancer among women. Condoms are not effective in preventing pregnancies. Condoms have a 15% failure rate, according to the Mayo clinic study.


Anti-RH bill advocates believe that population is not the root cause of poverty. They blame the inefficient allocation of the government's resources. They blame graft and corruption. Why not put that 2 billion pesos worth of the people's money in other priority projects, like job generation? Instead of giving it to contraceptive or condom companies, give it to the government so that the money will be used in other purposes.


I am surprised that democratic socialists like Pia Hontiveros believe in the RH bill. This is a US backed initiative and something which is more pro-government than anything. It is like admitting that the problem is not the system but the people. I thought AKBAYAN is pro-people?


Why blame the people, says Congressman Roilo Golez and former Laguna governor Joey Lina when the Philippine population density is one of the best in the world (18th in rank). Golez says that contraceptive companies will only benefit from the bill, since they would be given at least 2 billion pesos by the government thru the Department of Health. Lina, meanwhile said, that in the Philippines, the more populous an area is, the more prosperous it is. So, the population is not the root cause of the problem.


Let's admit it---BEHIND THIS RH BILL IS THE PROGRESSIVE LOBBY OF CONTRACEPTIVE COMPANIES HELL-BENT IN MAKING A KILLING. 


CONDOM COMPANIES ARE FUNDING RH BILL INITIATIVES ALL IN THE NAME OF CAPITALISM--THAT IS WORTH TWO (2) BILLION PESOS. 


I URGE RH BILL PROPONENTS TO MODIFY THE BILL AND SAY THAT GOVERNMENT WILL NOT BE THE ONE WHO WILL SHOULDER THE PROCUREMENT OR BUYING OF CONTRACEPTIVES AND GOVERNMENT WILL IN FACT, ENCOURAGE CONDOM COMPANIES TO EVEN LOWER THEIR PRICES FOR THE SAKE OF THE FILIPINO PEOPLE.


I DARE THEM. OF COURSE, THEY WILL NOT ADMIT THIS NOR WILL THEY EVER STRIKE THIS PROVISION IN THE BILL. WHY?


BECAUSE THIS IS THE "KITA" PORTION OF THE BILL. WHY ARE CONGRESSMEN INTERESTED IN PURSUING A DEFECTIVE BILL WITHOUT CONSIDERATION OF LOBBY MONEY?

Responsible Parenthood is still pro-choice, pro-life

We are overpopulated, that's why we need to manage our population, says Senator Ping Lacson in support of the efforts being made right now by the administration to modify the RH bill and turn it into a Responsible Parenthood bill. This bill, being crafted right now, is a full modification of the RH bill, to make it more acceptable to every sector in Philippine society.


Communications secretary Ricky Carandang says Filipinos live in a democracy, hence, should be given the right to choose which method to use in countering unwanted pregnancy. I agree with Carandang. People should be given the right to choose, as it is now. 


What is so contemptible about the current version of the RH bill is the principle of state intervention  or state interference in that choice. Why is the government so willing to buy billions of pesos worth of condoms to be given for free to people? One would reason that that's the essence of democracy--for people to avail of other options, government or the state should help them gain free access to these other methods.


But, that's just it. If you truly understand the concept of rights and democracy, you'll accept the fact that for every right exercised, there is a corresponding responsibility to it.


You want other methods of contraception available for you, do something to avail them without government buying it for you. Poverty is no reason for the un-exercise of responsibilities. Poverty is also no excuse for you to enlarge your family. In feudal societies, parents want a big family because it's additional hands in tending the land. In a capitalist society, big families are being frowned upon because of the high costs of maintaining such. 


What the Catholic church opposes is the principle of state intervention in family planning. If, say the Palace says that it is amenable to the democratic way of solving the balooning population problem, it has to recognize that it must give people the free hand to choose which method and emphasize that the exercise of such rights entail responsibilities. One of that responsibility is financial.


If condoms and other methods are expensive, the solution is not for government to buy them and distribute them for free. The solution is lower their prices so that a higher number of people would be able to avail of them.

Catholic Church Show of Force Against RH Bill: A Serious Challenge for Pro-RH Bill Advocate and to the Aquino administration

In what could be billed as the very first "big demonstration" against this new administration, the Catholic Church yesterday rallied some 40,000 plus people at the Rizal park against the Reproductive Health bill. 


Three things about this event:


First, this was something of a strong showing of collective force against the RH bill, countering pro-RH bill propaganda that the bill enjoys strong public support. 


Second, this is a political message to the Aquino administration. That figure, 40,000, is best remembered only in EDSAs. There is some subtle message being sent by the Church, and that is, if this administration does not want to be toppled by a popular revolt, it better withdraw its support of the bill. 


And third, this is a challenge to those who support the RH bill---mount a bigger rally than what we did. 


Question--is the pro-RH bill advocates up to the challenge?


The Catholic Church is determined to pursue this issue up to the very end. The question is---does the administration and those who support the bill feel the same thing?


President Aquino has consistently issued support for the Reproductive Health bill. Publicly, he was quoted as having second thoughts about it. However, there are reports that Malacanang is moving its allies and marshalling them to support the RH bill, in  deference to the United States. 


Reports also verified the strong lobby of the makers of condoms and contraceptives. This billion dollar industry is moving its muscles and using its lobby money to make this bill a reality. 


Really, this issue broke the tenuous relationship of the Church with that of civil society, who largely support the bill. Fact is, this bill seems to have split the ranks of civil society so much so that groups allied with the Church, and once populated the ranks of the political and ideological opposition have broken themselves from the coalition. 


Most of the opposition centers on the use of public funds to buy contraceptives and distribute them to the poor. Most of those opposing the bill say the funds have better uses. Most feel that immorality will somewhat rise when the State allows the mandatory teaching of sex education to students as young as ten or twelve years old. 


Use of public funds is not an expression of free choice. Rather, it is a subtle way of the State telling the individual to exercise extreme caution.


Free choice means respecting the right of the individual to engage in sexual activity and the liberal use of any method to avoid contraception, be it natural or artificial.


The State does not have the right to dictate upon an individual what method of contraception he should use. It is up to the individual to determine that.


Using public funds to distribute contraceptives is not an expression of free choice. By procuring these condoms, the State already expressed its preference towards artificial contraception, something which violates the religious beliefs of majority of Filipinos. 

Procurement of condoms and contraceptives should be stricken out of RH bill

To our fellow Legislators, let us reason to each other---how much lobby money did condom companies gave you to consider the passage of the RH bill?


I am in favor of controlling the population of this country. I am in favor of free choice. I respect the reproductive rights of the individual. 


I am, however, not in favor of allowing government to procure contraceptives for free. Why would government intervene with the inherent right of individuals to choose what contraceptive measure they want to use? Why would government even buy billions of pesos worth of condoms and other contraceptives?


We know how government officials conduct themselves during biddings. Definitely, this will eventually result to another bidding anomaly. Why would government buy these contraceptives and give it for free?


Yes, this is a right enshrined in our constitution. But, this does not mean that this right does not have a corresponding responsibility. If you want to exercise a right, you must be responsible for that exercise, including its costs.


If the problem is the high costs of contraceptives, which many see as a reason for government to procure them wholesale, then, the solution is asking these condom companies to lower their prices. 


Rights are definitely not free. Rights are linked to responsibilities. 


Its even like this...


You want to exercise your right to free expression? Then, you must be responsible for its consequences. 


You want to exercise your right to reproduce, then, be responsible for its exercise. If you want to control the number of your children, then, you must at least think of the means by which you need to feed and sustain your family.

Noynoy Aquino is a liar: Noynoy broke promise to prioritize FOI and RH bill implementation

Noynoy Aquino flip-flops

I am directly accusing Noynoy Aquino of reneging his earlier pronouncements supporting the Freedom of Information bill and the Reproductive Health bill. 


Aquino won because of the overwhelming support of the people. One of the causes for popular support is his promise to fast-track the passage of the Freedom of Information bill. 


Now, Aquino flip-flops. He now says that the FOI is not one of the 17 priority bills of his administration. He rationalizes that people might abuse the rights granted in the bill. 


Crap. Sucks.


First, Noynoy Aquino already broke his promise to protect the interests of the people against monopolistic activities of Big Business. After a few months, prices of basic commodities rose. 


Second, Aquino promised to live an austere life. Aquino now rides a Porsche and makes the NLEX his personal race track.


Third, Aquino promised to prioritize actions that will strengthen democracy. For the last eight months, Aquino did nothing but play his favorite Xbox 360 and exchange PSP games with his nephew. Or, if not playing videos, he's seen drinking liquor with his close buddies. 


Fourth, Aquino promised to protect the rights of the people and solve the crimes against journalists. Now, journalists are being killed left and right.

Noynoy Aquino is a liar. How many more lies will he do in his term? 

House Bill 96 or the Reproductive Health Bill and some suspicious provisions

I read House Bill 96 or " An Act Providing for a National Policy on Reproductive Health, Responsible Parenthood and Population and Development and for other purposes" filed by Congressman Edcel Lagman. The bill's rationale is note-worthy of support. The bill, it seems, is all about informed choice. 


What I find rather suspicious is the provision on Section 7 which provides for all accredited health facilities to provide a full range of modern family planning methods. While the bill seeks to promote rights and an enabling environment to exercise those rights, why propose that government buy these "modern family planning methods" only and not include natural family planning methods? This I find a provision also expressed in Section 9 to be that of the benefit of manufacturers of contraceptives. These provisions should not be included in the bill because though government has the right to inform, it should not provide these contraceptives for free. 


The government should probably encourage manufacturers of contraceptives to lower their prices instead of the State using its funds to procure all contraceptives or modern family planning methods from these manufacturers. This will be a clear source of an anomaly since as we all know, bidding processes in our country clearly involve graft and corrupt practices. 


Section 10 is also highly suspicious. Why distribute contraceptives when it is clear in the bill that its use should only be "when needed" or "when selected or chosen by the couple. The State does not need to distribute these contraceptives to the general population. 


These contraceptives should only be given when asked by a couple, or a parent or anybody who wants to plan or rather prevent a pregnancy. 


Again, Section 10 is highly suspicious because it caters to the needs of manufacturers of contraceptives.


The contentious Section 13, which mandates the compulsory teaching of sex education from Grades 5 to High school has been revised, finally. This I think, is really important. 


Another highly contentious provision though, Section 18, requires that companies with more than 200 workers shall provide reproductive health services to its workers. Or, for companies with lower than 200 workers, coordinate with clinics and hospitals. 


Again, the bill's core promise is simply respect the reproductive rights of Filipinos and provide for an enabling environment for its exercise. Why would companies provide for these reproductive health services? If its a right, then those who want to exercise such rights, should know their responsibilities of exercising those rights and one of them is clearly, being financially responsible. 


If the State wants to create an enabling environment, let these natural and modern family planning methods be distributed at lesser cost. Meaning, ask manufacturers of contraceptives to lower their prices, instead of the government procuring their products and using public money to buy all of them.


I oppose the use of public money to buy contraceptives. 


I oppose using public money to distribute contraceptives. If the bill is really about rights, then, it should likewise recognize that every right has its corresponding responsibility. If the couple or person intends to exercise his reproductive health right, then, he should be aware that the exercise of such rights entails cost, albeit, minimalized. 


Why is there no howl about this among RH bill supporters? It is quite evident that we are not being made aware of such provisions in the bill. That, the bill's proponents actually do not want to discuss these provisions simply because these are the provisions which contraceptive lobbyists inserted for their benefit. 


Commercial interests are really behind the passage of this bill because this bill will surely jack up the profits of manufacturers of contraceptives. 

• Global sales of contraceptives in 2008 were $9.9 billion and, with 2% growth, sales reached $10.1 billion in 2009.  This market is expected to rise at a CAGR of 4.8% and reach $13.5 billion by 2015.
  
• The contraceptive market is led by hormonal contraceptives with more than a 78% share. This segment was worth $7.9 billion in 2009 and is expected to increase to $8.2 billion in 2010 and $9.4 billion by 2015, a compound annual growth rate of (CAGR) of 2.8%. 
  
• Barrier contraceptives have a smaller market share than hormonal contraceptives but are expected to grow at a higher rate. This segment was worth $2 billion in 2009 and is expected to be valued at $2.3 billion in 2010 and $3.5 billion in 2015, an 8.5% compound annual growth rate (CAGR).

If the proponent of the bill is really dead serious in his advocacy for reproductive health rights, then, let these provisions be stricken out of the bill immediately. 

FREE CARLOS CELDRAN! FREE OUR SOULS!

Sharing with you this link http://www.thepoc.net/commentaries/9820-free-carlos-celdran-the-uber-subversive.html.


I am writing this from the hills of Tagaytay. 


I am asking the New Patriots of the New Generation to march at the Station 5 of the Western POlice District. Let us join the thousands as we demand the release of Carlos Celdran, a dear friend and uber-Patriot.


He is being kept in violation of his rights as a citizen. He is being kept by the dogs of the clerico-fascists.


After I finish my work, I will go and storm the heavens with my appeals for the freedom of Carlos Celdran.


FREE CARLOS CELDRAN NOW!


LET US EX COMMUNICATE THE FRIAR WHO FILED A CRIMINAL CHARGE AGAINST CARLOS CELDRAN!

Carlos Celdran's arrest and the Core Issue on the Reproductive Health Bill

Carlos Celdran did the right thing--he went out
of his way to express his stand against
Church opposition to the RH bill

To use plastic or not is an environmental question. For a priest though, it's religious. For President Aquino, its just state policy. 


President Aquino has just regained the sympathy of the middle class when he opposed the view of his church on the reproductive health bill. Aquino said that the State has the right to give couples an option to use contraceptives or not. Fact is, the state right now is imposing upon couples to use artificial means of contraception through the propagation of condoms. 


The Church, through the influential Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines, has stated their opposition to Aquino's plan. The government, seeing an opportunity to regain the sympathy of many Filipinos, publicly announced its so-called "plan" which sparked this debate. 


The question really is this--who has the right to impose artificial or natural means of contraception to people or couples? The answer is no one. 


The use of condoms is simply not a religious matter nor a state matter. It is a personal choice. The use of contraceptives is one of the rights given to people under a democracy. You want to use a condom, go ahead. You don't want to use it and would like to exercise natural methods, do so. No law or canon can actually dictate a person's action or choice. 


What is abominable is when the State uses its coercive powers to interfere with personal choice. When a state uses its budget to buy billions of condoms and force its use among its citizenry, that to me, is entirely illegal and un-democratic. When the State uses its enormous clout and money to fund advertisements encouraging couples to use plastics or other contraceptive tools, that to me, is unnecessary and un-democratic. 


This also applies when the Church uses the pulpit to encourage people not to buy or use condoms. The Church only has the right to do so when there is an existing social malady or condition that necessitates its interference. The Church is recognized by everyone as a social influencer and it is within its rights to oppose measures that it thinks borders on the immoral.


When my good friend, Carlos Celdran did his action yesterday, it behooves me to write if he did the right thing. 


Celdran did what he's supposed to do--express his disgust over the apparent or non-apparent interventionist stance of the Church. It is well within his rights to express his opposition to the   Church. And he committed no crime, as far as the public's eye is concerned.


It is different though when you ask a lawyer--Celdran may be charged with violating Article 133 of the Revised Penal Code which imposes jail time for those who will disrupt religious ceremonies such as a mass. Manila mayor Alfredo Lim ordered his arrest.


I texted him to know his condition and he says that he's okey. 


There must be other people who must stand up for or against this RH bill. If you support the bill, then, do a Celdran. If you don't, then, what prevents you from doing the same thing as what my friend did? This is a democracy. We live in a democratic society. If we want change, then, it is up to us to the necessary thing. 

A mouthful from "Education secretary" Bro. Armin Luistro

I was actually amused yesterday when I heard new Education secretary Brother Armin Luistro berating the media for not being "cooperative" or "helpful". Luistro, one of the critics of the former dispensation, which new President Noynoy Aquino described as "unresponsive" or "deaf (bingi)" from the cries and pleas of the Filipino People, asked the prying media with a loud voice, that they are not being so helpful. Luistro, who criticized the Arroyo government for being "deaf and blind" to the outpouring of dissent and anger against the government, got angry when the media asked what he thinks of the appointment of Dr. Ona as health secretary. Earlier, Ona responded that he favors the Reproductive Health bill, a total opposition to the Church stand, which Luistro is expected to adhere to. Surely, there is now a brewing "battle of wits" between Luistro and Ona. How will Aquino resolve this?

Luistro, it seems, is already making himself "unresponsive" and "un-friendly" with the Philippine media. What's so wrong with the question? Instead of addressing the issue head-on, Luistro exhibited a bratty stance. Why, oh, why, my brother? Feeling the heat this early?

Like what I said in my previous entry, public service is servanthood. As servants of the People, Luistro should be forthwith and transparent. What's so wrong with the question? There is nothing into it. Yet, Luistro thought that it was "malicious" on the part of the media to even ask him about it. This early, alter-egos of Aquino are acting like petty magistrates who think they owe the public nothing.

Tsk,tsk,tsk, is this the way Luistro wants us, especially the children, to behave and act? That when you don't like the tone or the way a question was phrased, you'll get angry and accuse people of malice?

Maybe Luistro was not listening when his principal, new Philippine president Noynoy Aquino said before a huge throng of 500,000 that he already ended the era of an unresponsive government. Maybe Luistro was so shocked when he saw sacks and piles upon piles of papers in his desk, the "legacy" of his predecessor.

Luistro needs help. He needs an effective public relations man. He must realize that he is now a public property and such people should behave appropriately.

This early, both Luistro and Lacierda should ever be reminded of their new roles. Luistro, the media is not your ever obedient La Sallian students, oh no.