Starting 1967. Thus. the USAID started shouldering 80% of the total family planning commodities (contraceptives) of the country. the United States adopted as its policy the National Security Study Memorandum 200: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U. The Philippines agreed that the population problem be considered as the principal element for long-term economic development.BRIEF HISTORY: According to the Senate Policy Brief titled Promoting Reproductive Health. which amounted to US$ 3 Million annually. Security and Overseas Interests (NSSM200). since the "U. the history of reproductive health in the Philippines dates back to 1967 when leaders of 12 countries including the Philippines' Ferdinand Marcos signed the Declaration on Population. including the Philippines to control rapid population growth which they deem to be inimical to the socio-political and economic growth of these countries and to the national interests of the United States.S. economy will require large and increasing amounts of minerals from abroad". It recommends the US leadership to "influence national leaders" and that "improved world-wide support for population- . and these countries can produce destabilizing opposition forces against the United States. The policy gives "paramount importance" to population control measures and the promotion of contraception among 13 populous countries.US National Security Memorandum: paramount importance of world population control through programs of UN and USAID. In 1975.S. the Population Commission (Popcom) was created to push for a lower family size norm and provide information and services to lower fertility rates.

.N. USIA. President Marcos pushed for a systematic distribution of contraceptives all over the country.related efforts should be sought through increased emphasis on mass media and other population education and motivation programs by the U." In 2000. while Arroyo focused on mainstreaming natural family planning." Different presidents had different points of emphasis. and USAID. In 1989. while stating that contraceptives are openly sold in the country. a policy that was called "coercive. In 2003. the Philippines signed the Millennium Declaration and committed to attain the MDG goals by 2015. including promoting gender equality and health. . Aid recipients such as the Philippines faced the challenge to fund its own contraception program. In 2004. arranging for the replacement of these donations with domestically provided contraceptives. The Cory Aquino administration focused on giving couples the right to have the number of children they prefer." by its leading administrator. Estrada used mixed methods of reducing fertility rates. the Philippine Legislators¶ Committee on Population and Development (PLCPD) was established. the Department of Health introduced the Philippines Contraceptive Self-Reliance Strategy. "dedicated to the formulation of viable public policies requiring legislation on population management and socio-economic development. USAID started its phase out of a 33 year old program by which free contraceptives where given to the country. while the Ramos presidency shifted from population control to population management.

HB 1160. On January 31. Janette Garin.BACKGROUND: The first time the Reproductive Health Bill was proposed was in 1998. In the Senate. LuzvimindaIlagan. Sen. Perolina has filed her own version of the RH bill which. . the RH Bills filed are those authored by: (1) House Minority Leader EdcelLagman of Albay. the House of Representatives Committee on Population and Family Relations voted to consolidate all House versions of the bill. HB 96. (4) Muntinlupa Representative Rodolfo Biazon. During the present 15th Congress. HB 101. 2011. (3) Akbayan Representatives Kaka Bag-ao& Walden Bello. which is entitled An Act Providing for a Comprehensive Policy on Responsible Parenthood. (5) Iloilo Representative Augusto Syjuco. (2) Iloilo Rep. Michael Angelo F. will be part of the country¶s commitment to international covenants. HB 513. Reproductive Health and Population Development and for Other Purposes. HB 1520. (6) Gabriela Rep. she says.

Bill. . To be precise and understandable I divided the discussion into two parts concerning the main issue. II. Before us are several versions of a proposed bill. II. Section 12). In this position paper I will discuss the Constitutionality and the Necessity of the Reproductive Health Bill which in my view is unconstitutional and unnecessary. urgency and necessity of this bill. The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution. We are at a crossroads as a nation. Section 11). the second part will delve into the supposed importance. This proposed bill in all its versions calls us to make a moral choice: to choose life or to choose death. namely Constitutionality and Necessity. It shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception (Art.INTRODUCTION: The State values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect for human rights (Art. The first part of this position paper will focus on the constitutionality of the R. I begin by citing the Philippine Constitution. I do so because I intend to write on the basis of the fundamental ideals and aspirations of the Filipino people and not on the basis of specifically Catholic religious teachings. the Reproductive Health bill or sanitized as a Responsible Parenthood bill.H.

As worded the bill allows couples and individuals to choose from and use DepoProvera. IUD. The bill if passed therefore violates the State policy enunciated in the Constitution to ³protect the life of the unborn from conception´ which is an adaptation of the internationally accepted concept that pregnancy occurs from conception before the implantation of the embryo in the uterus. Norplant and the Emergency Contraceptive Pill all of which directly cause abortion because they prevent the implantation of the embryo into the uterus. the RH bill expressly declares that it does not legalize abortion but on the contrary aims to prevent abortion by making family planning information widely accessible.The developer of the contraceptive pill himself has found its adverse effects on virtually every organ system of the human body as it interferes with the normal functioning of the woman¶s vitally important reproductive .CONSTITUTIONALITY: The Constitution says that the ³State shall protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception´ (Section 12 Article II). the bill would make available to couples and individuals a µfull range of family planning methods´ allegedly to enable them to decide ³freely and responsibly the number and spacing of their children´ and to have ³the information and means to carry out their decisions´. if people are well informed in family planning methods. RU 486. So in its proposed family planning program. abortion is lowest. To show that it complies with this policy. The problem however is that the bill opens a full range of family planning methods including the use of all kinds of contraceptives most of which are already known and proven to cause abortion. According to the sponsors.

Article III). The same section of the Constitution also provides that the ³natural and primary right and duty of parents in the development of the moral character´ of their children ³shall receive the support of the Government´.At this stage therefore knowingly enacting the bill after being repeatedly reminded of these violations of our fundamental law is already a clear case of culpable violation of the Constitution. So the State cannot use the family as its tool in implementing government programs like population management. Instead of merely supporting the parents. Our legislators ought to know that determining the size of the family is the inherent right and the exclusive prerogative of married Filipino couples which the State must defend.system with harmful consequences on the infants. The State must defend this right because it ³recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution. . not violate or interfere with. the bill however takes away from them such natural and primary right and duty by requiring grade school children to undergo sex education in the classrooms using modules that undermine or are contrary to the moral and religious convictions of their families. This even violates the freedom of religion (Section 5.

In the ¶70s the average number of children per family was seven. There may be population problems in our country but the solution is not simply to force the reduction of population growth by promoting contraceptives. developing the countryside to avoid concentration of population in the cities. The bill will just promote the undesirable outcome of de-population that is now the problem of ³rich´ countries which adopted the same program where a dwindling number of young people are left to bear the needs of a dying and graying population. passing laws that limit the number of residents in certain areas. there is already a steady deceleration of growth rate even without the passage of said bill.36% last 2000.04% from the previous rate of 2.NECESSITY: The latest National Statistics Office figures show a growth rate of 2. . So while our population is still increasing as expected of any country inhabited by males and females of reproductive age. Indeed the world¶s resources are enough for man¶s need but not enough for man¶s greed. There are countries which are more densely populated than our country yet they have higher standard of living. Population development or demographic regulation may be carried out in many other ways like encouraging the migration of individuals to less populated areas.05%. while the fertility rate has declined to 3. Now it is three. The better solution to poverty is not to reduce the number of poor people but to provide them with good education and decent jobs. The bill is not necessary because our poverty which it seeks to alleviate is not due to our growing population but to many other factors like bad governance and systematic graft and corruption.02% from 3.

which in my view should not be prioritize for we have more pressing problems like education. Further it suggests that women restrain their reproductive capacity using artificial means like contraceptive pills and devices that directly cause abortion or indirectly lead to abortion and other harmful side effects such as breast. The future of our children and of our country is at stake here. Pregnancy is in fact a sign of good health and the beginning of a new life.Funds from the national budget that could otherwise go to programs for farmers. Without legalizing abortion the bill actually promotes it and exposes Filipino women to other serious health problems. liver and cervical cancer. . Our legislators should not succumb to the pressures of well-funded international organizations and multibillion dollar pharmaceutical companies advocating this harmful program solely for their own selfish interests. diabetes and lower chronic respiratory diseases.It is not necessary to pass the bill and appropriate billions of pesos of taxpayers¶ money for artificial contraceptives to prevent pregnancy because pregnancy is not a disease or a health problem. overseas Filipino workers (OFWS). food security. pneumonia. national security and the like. The bill should therefore be voted down. tuberculosis. cancer. these billions of pesos should be spent instead for adequate basic and emergency obstetrics-care facilities and skilled medical services to women and for protecting and curing them of real and more serious illnesses that have higher mortality rates like heart and vascular diseases. potential skilled workers and aspiring college students are being slashed to make way for a reproductive health law. If the purpose is to protect married women¶s reproductive health or prevent or reduce maternal deaths.

population control is not among the five solutions or ingredients found by the 2008 Commission on Growth and Development headed by Nobel prize winner Michael Spence.H. a world leader in research associated with 30 Nobel Prize winners. They based this assumption on the correlation between population growth and economic development. Supporters of the bill argue that the R. because they deemed it important that we control our population so that we consumed less raw materials and our surplus will go to them. including a 2003 study of the RAND Corporation.H. Bill is the panacea to our countries woes. The growth factors are: good governance. investment and savings. this selfish act of the United States is evident on their pronouncement that they . But according to Simon Kuznets a Nobel Prize winner in the science of economics. and not just listen to what the Americans imposed on them in exchange for foreign aid. Is population control one of the ingredients for high economic growth and poverty reduction? No. Bill that America is the main precursor to this population control policy.CONCLUSION: The Reproductive Health Bill. It can be discerned basing on the brief history of the R. ³No clear association´ is his answer. this claim is untenable and without merit. Hence corruption and government mismanagement should first be addressed. market allocation. housing and food security are likewise must be resolve at the soonest and our government should know how to prioritize what is really needed by our country. Our country loses 400 billion pesos to corruption every year.many later studies confirmed this. the Responsible Parenthood Bill or any other name terminology they are all one in the same just with different names or titles. openness to knowledge. The other more important issues like quality education. stable finances.

H. The pressures our Representatives in Congress go through are enormous and seemingly insurmountable. ³To the argument that curbing population is the solution to poverty. Bill is one such pressure. the state or the government have no right to use force or compulsion against any sector or group of individuals in our society.will go to the as far as influencing National Leaders of countries to adopt population control measures. In congress the numbers game will be surely be played when consideration of the bill will commence. They must ensure therefore that this bill will not pass on into law. we all have the right to do whatever we want to do with our own body. The debates on the R. is education. Bill still rages on whether on the floors of congress or on street corners. the well-funded lobbying machinery backing the R.H. I would say that it is not the ultimate solution. public opinion shifts from one side to the other almost every day.´ (Diana Uichanco) (Reacting to the 2011 budget which slashed the funding of state universities and colleges) Ibelieve that everybody in this country has a right of choice. The ultimate solution to poverty alleviation. REFFERENCES: . besides good governance. That is. But nevertheless I am still optimistic that our Congressmen still have the decency to uphold the Constitution and to perform their primordial duty to their constituents which is to promote and protect their welfare. 14. July 2009. Norton. 11.blogspot. PB-09-03. 6.S. Kuznets (1974) Population Capital and Growth.philstar. Senate of the Philippines Economic Planning Office. http://www. 17. World Leaders (January 1968). "Coercive Population Ploys in the Philippines". 2. The Growth Commission (2008) The Growth Report: Strategies for Sustained Growth and Inclusive Development. 1987 Philippines Constitution 8. "Declaration on Population".undp. ³The Demographic Dividend: A New Perspective on the Economic Consequences of Population Change. http://couragephilippines. 4.1. "RH bill OK¶d at House committee level".net. "House panel approves RH bill". Philippine Star February 1.scribd. Studies in Family Planning. Antonio de los Reyes (2002). http://www. "National Security Study Memorandum 200: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.htm politics. World Bank Publication. 5. 9. Canning. Population Research Institute.chanrobles. . Studies of the Asian Development Bank and World 10. 12. Bloom. US Department of National Security (1974). Security and Overseas Interests (NSSM 200)". Philippine Daily Inquirer. www. 3.html 13. 2011. Promoting Reproductive Health: A Unified Strategy to Achieve the MDGs.inquirer. http://www.´ RAND Corporation.

com/reproductive-health-bill-5043/text-ofrh-bill-no-5043/ 18. http://rhbill. http://www.html 21. http://2010presidentiables.16.wordpress. 17. 20. .org/2010/10/reproductive-health-rh-bill-debate-in.facebook.pagasalambat.likhaan.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful

Master Your Semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master Your Semester with a Special Offer from Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.