Abortion in the Philippines and Its Implications to Filipino Women

Bernice Maria Gwynette A. Parayno

Kasaysayan 118 WFU: History of Women

May 08, 2019

 Abortion is often a controversial and sensitive topic, dividing individuals and countries

between pro-abortion and anti-abortion. Those that are for abortion believe that it is ultimately a

woman’s choice whether to terminate the pregnancy or not. There are countries that have

conditional abortion laws, allowing abortion if it saves the mother’s life and health in the

process. On the other hand, those that are against abortion think of it as murdering a baby in the

process. They believe that no matter how early the pregnancy may be, there is a living being

inside the mother’s womb. Some countries that have banned abortion are restricted by their

religious beliefs, taking away a woman’s right to choose for herself.

Once a woman decides that she doesn’t want to deliver the baby in her womb, she can

choose to intentionally terminate the pregnancy or commonly known as abortion (BPAS.org

2015). According to the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (2015), a woman can choose to

either go through medical abortion or surgical abortion. Unlike surgical abortion, medical

abortion is less evasive and doesn’t involve surgical operations. A woman can take the abortion

pill when she is up to 10 weeks pregnant, causing an early miscarriage. A woman can also take

an abortion pill when she is up 10 to 24 weeks pregnant, causing the womb to contact and push

out the pregnancy. Surgical abortion requires a minor operation either through vacuum aspiration

or dilatation and evacuation. Vacuum aspiration is allowed up to 15 weeks of pregnancy, causing

the termination of pregnancy through gentle suction. On the other hand, dilatation and

evacuation is usually done between 15 to 24 weeks of pregnancy. It uses narrow forceps that

pass through the womb and gentle suction.

According to the World Population Review (2019), the Philippines is one of 26 countries

that have considered abortion illegal and banned by law. The Revised Penal Code or Act No.

3815 includes intentional abortion or unintentional abortion caused by violence as punishable by

law. Under Article 256 of the Revised Penal Code, “Any person who shall intentionally cause an

abortion shall suffer:

1. The penalty of reclusion temporal, if he shall use any violence upon the person of the

pregnant woman,

2. The penalty of prision mayor if, without using violence, he shall act without the

consent of the woman

3. The penalty of prison correccional in its medium and maximum periods, if the woman

shall have consented”.

On the same note, under Article 257 of the Revised Penal Code, “The penalty of prison

correccional in its minimum and medium period shall be imposed upon any person who shall

cause an abortion by violence, but unintentionally”. Abortion is not taken lightly by the law

given that there is a grave punishment and lengthy imprisonment for both intentional and

unintentional abortion. The length of incarceration can be categorized into reclusion temporal,

which is 12 years and one day to 20 years of imprisonment, prision mayor, which is 6 years and

one day to 12 years of imprisonment, and prision correccional, which is 6 months and one day to

6 years of imprisonment.

The Revised Penal Code specifies that women who consent their own abortion are not

above the law and thus will be punished accordingly. Under Article 258 of the Revised Penal

Code, a woman who has consented to abortion or shall proceed with abortion herself will have to

serve a minimum of six months to a maximum of six years in prison for her crime. It goes on by

saying that a woman willing to proceed with abortion “to conceal her dishonor” shall suffer the

necessary penalties. The use of the word “dishonor” to describe the pregnancy enables us to take

a look into the stigma a woman faces when pregnant here in the Philippines. Instead of simply
using the word “pregnancy”, there is a negative connotation attached to getting pregnant and to

an extent, getting an abortion because of that unwanted pregnancy. Instead of a law that protects

its constituents, it has uncalled for and unnecessary remarks.

Aside from this, Article 258 doesn’t provide an in-depth explanation of the different

scenarios and conditions in which abortion can take place. It doesn’t take into consideration the

possibility of the effect of delivering the baby on the mother’s health or an unwanted or

unplanned pregnancy. It paints the woman as the lawbreaker for taking matters into her own

hands when the services she needs are not subsidized by the government. Basically, it says that

abortion is not and should not be an option for women in the Philippines.

The Revised Penal Code also specified that medical practitioners that perform abortion is

punishable by law. Under Article 259 of the Revised Penal Code, “the penalties provided in

Article 256 shall be imposed in its maximum period, respectively, upon any physician or

midwife who, taking advantage of their scientific knowledge or skill, shall cause an abortion or

assist in causing the same”.

Abortion is clearly criminalized and banned in the Philippines although this does not

hinder women from seeking abortion services from medical practitioners or inducing abortion

themselves (Juarez, Cabigon, Singh & Hussain 2005). Criminalizing abortion in the Philippines

has definitely not stopped abortion but has indeed made it more dangerous for women because of

the stigma brought on by religious, political and economic barriers. Based on research by Juarez,

Cabigon, Singh & Hussain (2005), the abortion rate was 27 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15-

44 per year. The estimated women who went through abortion was a total of 473,400 while

78,900 of those women were hospitalized for post-abortion care during 2000. In fact, Metro

Manila had the highest increase in number of women hospitalized for induced abortions, induced
abortions and abortion rate. Metro Manila had an increase of women hospitalized for induced

abortion from 1994 to 2000, rising from 20,917 to 23,309. On the same note, Metro Manila also

had an increase of induced abortions and abortion rate from 1994 to 2000, rising from 104, 585

to 139, 853 and 41 to 52 respectively. Given these statistics, Filipino women are still willing to

go through unsafe and unofficial abortions or continue with highly risky pregnancies in order to

terminate their pregnancies since the Philippine government does not provide easy access to safe

and supervised abortion.

The main hindrance to the Philippines legalizing abortion is the influence of the Catholic

Church on the Philippine government and citizens (Gipson, Hirz & Avila 2011). Most Filipinos

are Roman Catholics, making the impact of the Church that much more felt in families and

communities. The Church has always been adamant to its views on modern contraception

methods, pre-marital sex and abortion, limiting the Philippines’ laws to be more rigid and

conservative.

Abortion in the Philippines can be explained by the decreased use of contraceptives, brought

on by religious perspectives (Juarez, Cabigon, Singh & Hussain 2005). Information on

contraceptive methods and procurement of contraceptive services and supplies are limited due to

the opposition of the Catholic Church. Women in poor communities are mostly affected because

of their lack of knowledge in proper contraceptive use and sex education. Aside from this,

women in poor communities are hindered by the expenditure costs of contraceptives and lack of

quality contraceptive services and clinics, much less accessible services and clinics

(Guttmacher.org 2010). The burden of supplying contraceptives has shifted from the public

sector to the private sector (Gipson, Hirz & Avila 2011). This has made procuring contraceptives

more expensive and less accessible for all women, especially those from the poorest sectors.
 Based on facts presented by the Guttmacher Institute (2010), this shift has been caused by

many factors, one of which is the withdrawal of support from the US Agency for International

Development (USAID) in providing quality contraceptive services in the Philippines in 2004.

The public provision of contraceptive services and supplies decreased inevitably as a result of the

removal of funds that were supposedly for the improvement of contraceptive use. The

government is responsible for providing quality healthcare to citizens, but in recent times, it has

failed to achieve this. Based on figures by the Guttmacher Institute (2010), As a result of

USAID’s withdrawal, the pressure on local government to provide for its constituent’s

contraceptive supplies and services has increased significantly as a result of USAID’s

withdrawal. This burden is especially felt more for poorly managed and financially incapable

communities, decreasing contraceptive use of women in these communities, which can result in

their unintended pregnancy and induced abortion.

Filipino women’s trust and dependence on more traditional contraceptive methods has

ultimately led to the possibility increase of unintended pregnancies and abortion (Juarez,

Cabigon, Singh & Hussain 2005). Filipino women trust that withdrawal and periodic abstinence

are enough to stop the chances of getting pregnant in the process. Abstinence can be a reliable

method for women, yet the problem occurs when they don’t know their fertility cycle (Juarez,

Cabigon, Singh & Hussain 2005). There are specific days in a woman’s cycle wherein they have

a lower or higher chance of getting pregnant than other days. Thus, it is definitely imperative for

a woman to be knowledgeable of her fertile period, lessening the chance of pregnancy and by

consequence, abortion. In fact, modern contraceptive methods have lower failure rates while

more traditional contraceptive methods have higher failure rates (Juarez, Cabigon, Singh &
Hussain 2005). Modern contraceptive methods like sterilization and the pill are known to

decrease the probability of pregnancy (Juarez, Cabigon, Singh & Hussain 2005).

The Catholic Church and Philippine government are known to push for a more natural

and conservative way of family planning, discouraging use of more modern contraceptives. This

affects the perception of women on these types of contraceptives, limiting their thinking to only

accepting contraceptives that are approved by political and religious institutions. A more

aggressive approach on disseminating information about contraceptives through informative

seminars and materials is needed yet, this isn’t possible if the government itself doesn’t see the

importance of it. Based on research by the Guttmacher Institute (2010), most Filipino women

fear the effects of opting to get sterilization or use birth pills due to lack of proper dissemination

in communities and municipalities. They fear that taking more modern contraceptives will have

greater unforeseen side effects on their health and way of living than the supposed benefit of

taking these contraceptives (Guttmacher.org 2010).

Another reason for the decrease in contraceptive use is the obvious bias of the Philippine

government in providing more traditional methods of contraceptives. In 2000, Manila was

affected by the ban of contraceptive provision causing the increase in number of women

hospitalized for induced abortions, induced abortions and abortion rate (Juarez, Cabigon, Singh

& Hussain 2005). It seems ironic given that Manila is the capital of the Philippines, making it the

center for economic activities thus health services must be readily available to Filipinos. Natural

family planning was also heavily supported by President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo’s term

(Guttmacher.org 2010). These caused barriers to health services, causing reduction of access to

modern contraceptive methods services and supplies (Juarez, Cabigon, Singh & Hussain 2005).
 The fact that the women’s family members heavily disagreezs with the modern methods

of contraception is a significant factor in deciding which method to use (Juarez, Cabigon, Singh

& Hussain, 2005). If their partners oppose to those methods, it is highly unlikely that the women

will go through those methods alone. Given that Filipinos are known to be family-oriented, the

judgement of one’s family members can change a couple’s mind in continuing which method.

Pressure, especially from family members, is often-overlooked in determining and analyzing

women’s choices in taking a more natural path of family planning.

Many women also believe the unnecessary need for contraceptives due to belief that they

are unlikely to become pregnant easily (Guttmacher.org 2010). They believe that they have low

chances of getting pregnant because of the decrease in sexual intercourse with their partners

(Guttmacher.org 2010). Although, it is a misconception that having sex infrequently lessens the

chance of getting pregnant because frequency doesn’t determine pregnancy chances. It doesn’t

mean that a couple who has sexual intercourse all the time will get pregnant easily since there are

other factors that determine pregnancy. These factors include fertility of the man and woman,

fertility schedule of the woman and others. Women also believe that their infertility lessens their

chances of getting pregnant. In fact, women have been known to be misinformed on the proper

duration of their lactational amenorrhea or being temporarily infertile during the breastfeeding

stage (Guttmacher.org 2010). This causes complacency between the couple, encouraging them to

be sexually active even when the woman is already fertile and thus increasing chance of

pregnancy and abortion.

Modernization has rapidly changed the social and economic customs here in the

Philippines (Gipson, Hirz & Avila 2011). There has been an increase in the rates of premarital

sex and cohabitation, meaning partners are being sexually active outside the union of marriage.
The increasing rates in pre-marital sex and cohabitation means that there is a longer period

between being sexually active in a relationship and getting married in teenagers and young adults

in current times (Gipson, Hirz & Avila 2011). The need for a proper public system for

contraceptive supplies and services has risen due to increasing pre-marital sexual activity among

young adults. According to Guttmacher Institute (2010), pre-marital sex among young adults

aged 15 to 24 has increased by 5% from the year 1994 to 2002. The pre-marital sex rate was at

18% in 1994 yet this increased to 23% in 2002. Women engaging in pre-marital sex increased by

5%, rising from 26% to 31%. On the other hand, men engaging in pre-marital sex increased by

almost the same amount, by 6%, rising from 10% to 16%. Increasing cases of partners engaging

in pre-marital sex and cohabitation can cause teenagers and young adults to have pregnancies at

an unanticipated time of their lives, leading to induced abortion.

The Philippine government criminalizing and banning abortion has created this

atmosphere of judgement for those wanting and, most importantly, needing abortion services and

supplies. It has enabled and encouraged negligence within the local and national government’s

provision of abortion methods. This has also unexpectedly created an atmosphere of judgement

and negligence within medical institutions that are supposed to care for their patients, regardless

of external biases like political and economic climates. The Philippine Law does not allow

abortion although, it has stated that women who have complications due to abortion have a right

to be treated professionally in hospitals. According to Republic Act 10354, or more commonly

known as The Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012, “all women

needing care for post-abortive complications and all other complications arising from pregnancy,

labor and delivery and related issues shall be treated and counseled in a humane, nonjudgmental

and compassionate manner in accordance with law and medical ethics”.

 Based on research by the Center for Reproductive Rights (2010), the ban on abortion has

made it impossible for women not to get stigmatized in hospitals and other medical institutions.

Women are treated unfairly once medical practitioners are informed of their health status due to

abortion. Women are viewed as criminals by medical staff for choosing to go against the law and

doing a procedure that is clearly banned in the Philippines. It has been reported that women are

blackmailed with threats of reporting their crime to the police (Reproductiverights.org 2010).

Women are viewed as incompetent and thoughtless for doing a procedure that, without

the proper staff and supplies, could cause complications and inevitably affect their health.

Women with abortion complications are treated with delayed care, attending to their needs

unusually longer than the other patients, and denied pain medications (Juarez, Cabigon, Singh &

Hussain 2005). The medical staff punish those who go through abortion by letting the patients

suffer the consequences of it (Reproductiverights.org 2010). Instead of being professional and

empathetic to the woman’s cause, they are blatantly abused and judged for doing a method that

may save their life and future.

Restrictive reproductive health policies clearly disregard the choice of the women in

abortion. Women’s sexuality, fertility, reproductive and health needs should be in the forefront

of creating and developing health abortion policies (Jesani & Iyer 1993). Political institutions

and bodies often forget that is the woman that has to go through and live with the benefits and

consequences of having or not having abortion. The law on abortion hasn’t necessarily stopped

all avenues of abortion or discouraged women from seeking abortion treatment, in fact it has the

opposite effect. The law on abortion has forced women to seek unofficial and unsafe abortion

treatment from clinics or self-inducing methods of abortion. No current changes in the outdated

laws regarding abortion is a look into how blatantly the Philippine government ranks the wants
of the Catholic Church over needs of the millions of Filipino women. International bodies have

criticized the Philippine government for its resolute policy on abortion when it violates the right

to life, health, privacy and nondiscrimination of women (Reproductiverights.org 2017). Filipino

women are being discriminated for an option that is readily accessible and given by other

countries. The discrimination against abortion decreases the power and rights of women and

increases the government’s control over health and reproductive concerns of women. When the

government decides to ban provision of contraceptive methods, abortion services and other

health needs of women, this shows that women are only seen as bodies to be controlled over.

Women are seen as baby-making machines born to bred future generations instead of actual

human beings that have a mind and body of their own. Women deserve a government and law

that lists down all circumstances of abortion and the necessary provisions needed to meet all

these circumstances. Women deserve a law that respects and acts on the right of women to an

accessible and non-discriminating public healthcare.

Bibliography

Act No. 3815 An Act Revising the Penal Code and Other Penal Laws, § 8-Section Two (1930).
"Countries Where Abortion Is Illegal." World Population Review. Accessed May 4, 2019.
http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/countries-where-abortion-is-illegal/.
"Criminalization of Abortion in the Philippines Fact Sheet." Center for Reproductive Rights: Igniting
Change Through the Power of Law. March 21, 2017. Accessed May 4, 2019.
https://www.reproductiverights.org/document/criminalization-of-abortion-in-the-philippines-fact-
sheet.
"Facts on Abortion in the Philippines: Criminalization and a General Ban on Abortion." Center for
Reproductive Rights: Igniting Change Through the Power of Law. 2010. Accessed May 4, 2019.
https://www.reproductiverights.org/sites/crr.civicactions.net/files/documents/pub_fac_philippines_
1 10.pdf.
"Facts on Barriers to Contraceptive Use In the Philippines." Guttmacher Institute. May 2010. Accessed
May 4, 2019. https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/factsheet/fb-contraceptives-
philippines.pdf.
Gipson, Jessica D., Alanna E. Hirz, and Josepine L. Avila. "Perceptions and Practices of Illegal Abortion
among Urban Young Adults in the Philippines: A Qualitative Study." Stud Fam Plann 42, no. 4
(December 2011): 261-72. Accessed May 4, 2019.
Jesani, Amar, and Aditi Iyer. "Women and Abortion." Economic and Political Weekly, November 27,
1993, 2591-594. Accessed May 4, 2019. doi:10.1300/J010v11n01_06.
Juarez, Fatima, Josefina Cabigon, Susheela Singh, and Rubina Hussain. "The Incidence of Induce
Abortion in the Philippines: Current Level and Trends." International Perspectives on Sexual and
Reproductive Health 31, no. 3 (September 2005): 140-49. Accessed May 4, 2019.
doi:10.1363/ifpp.31.149.05.
Republic Act No. 10354 An Act Providing for a National Policy on Responsible Parenthod and
Reproductive Health, 5 § 3 (2012).
"What Is Abortion?" British Pregnancy Advisory Service. 2015. Accessed May 4, 2019.
https://www.bpas.org/abortion-care/considering-abortion/what-is-abortion/.