On the RH Bill

The proposed law defines reproductive health as “the state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity, in all matters relating to the reproductive system and to its functions and processes”.

The proponents of the bill cite the following grounds for its enactment into law:

1. Protect the health & lives of mothers;
2. Save babies;
3. Respond to the majority who want smaller families;
4. Promote equity for poor families;
5. Prevent induced abortions;
6. Support and deploy more public midwives, nurses and doctors;
7. Guarantee funding for & equal access to health facilities;
8. Give accurate & positive sexuality education to young people;
9. Reduce cancer deaths, and
10. Save money that can be used for even more social spending.

Those who oppose the bill, the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) in particular, argue that:

1. It does not protect the health of the sacred human life that is being formed or born. The very name “contraceptive” already reveals the anti-life nature of the means that the RH bill promotes;
2. Contraceptives are hazardous to a woman’s health;
3. Many scientific analysts themselves wonder why prevalent contraceptive use sometimes raises the abortion rate;
4. Contraceptives provide a false sense of security that takes away the inhibition to sexual activity;
5. Condoms provide a false security that strongly entices individuals towards increased sexual activity, increasing likewise the incidence of HIV/AIDS;
6. “Safe sex” to prevent HIV /AIDS is false propaganda;
7. Conscience must certainly be enlightened and guided by religious and moral teachings provided by various religious and cultural traditions regarding the fundamental dignity and worth of human life;
8. The causes of our poverty are: flawed philosophies of development, misguided economic policies, greed, corruption, social inequities, lack of access to education, poor economic and social services, poor infrastructures, etc.;
9. Use of public funds for contraceptives and sterilization is objectionable, and
10. Compulsory sex education that would effectively let parents abdicate their primary role of educating their own children, especially in an area of life – sexuality – which is a sacred gift of God is condemnable.

My personal stance regarding this issue is that the State has the responsibility to provide reproductive health services to the citizens, particularly the poor women. However, the State must not commit error by allowing its instrumentalities, particularly the government, to use products and techniques that will lead to a human act that endangers, per se, any human life. Abortifacients (substances that induce abortion) should not be allowed as a State policy.

Stakeholders must therefore come up with a consensus on the socially and morally acceptable birth control techniques and under what conditions should they be allowed. Those who advocate any type of contraceptives must do so within an atmosphere of free market of ideas. They may sell, give, or distribute any contraceptives, but they must ensure that the intended beneficiaries understand the nature and effects of such contraceptives.

On the issue of mandatory sex education, there must be an acceptable formula to make this possible. The State, through the government, should not dictate how this should be done at the classroom level. Parents, teachers, school administrators, and the children should have a say how to best handle this matter.

The health status of families, especially mothers and children, are horrible enough. We cannot solve these problems solely and primarily by birth control. We have to change the conditions that brought about the high maternal mortalities and infant deaths, among others. My humble suggestions on how these should be done include the following:

1. Establish institutions to take good care of unwanted children by providing reproductive services to women who have unwanted pregnancies;
2. Prescribe and maintain minimum standards for communities, especially residential areas, to discourage unplanned and informal settlements;
3. Provide effective information, education and communication programs to change the behaviors of the target audience (spacing birth, breast feeding, etc.);
4. Set up support mechanism for children who are neither sent to school nor treated well, and provide penalty regulatory approaches for irresponsible parents, and
5. Design and implement interventions that will enhance the standard of living of the poor families.

Right to Travel

The denial of Gloria’s right to travel, prior to the issuance of a warrant of arrest, violated the constitution. The executive department during the Gloria-Macapagal administration committed a grave mistake by arrogating unto itself powers, which are supposedly provided by the Administrative Code, but are contrary to the provisions of the Constitution. The Aquino administration is continuing such grave mistake.

I disagree with Fr. Joaquin Bernas on his opinion that the Supreme Court should be obeyed in as far as the TROs are concerned. But I agree with his position that there was no sufficient and reasonable basis, prior to the issuance of the warrant of arrest, to violate a constitutional right (right to travel). The curtailment of such right is based on a reading of the Administration Code, which could not supersede the constitutional provision.

The principle is simple, it was not right to violate Gloria's right to travel on the ground that she may be charged with an offense in court or that she may not return to face the charges. We can never eat the fruits of a poisonous tree without any negative consequence. We were mad when Gloria used the travel ban during her term. We should be mad when anyone uses this travel ban now.

Brouhaha over Gloria

The arrest of Representative Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, former president of the Republic of the Philippines, is a case of a blatant display of intimidation by at least one instrumentality of the State – the executive branch of the government. A reading of the incidents leading to the arrest points to the fact that the Department of Justice was bent on preventing Arroyo from leaving the country. The department ignored the temporary restraining order (TRO) issued by the Supreme Court, which allowed the former president to seek medical attention abroad. To buttress its position, the department partnered with the Commission on Elections in determining the culpability of Arroyo to the charge of electoral sabotage, a non-bailable offense that carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. Although there is no clear evidence to pin the department and the commission for collusion, the bottomline is that the commission filed the charge of electoral sabotage on the same day that the Supreme Court was to decide on the right to travel of Mrs. Arroyo. Before the day ended, the court issued the warrant of arrest for the embattled Arroyo.

A fundamental question that demands to be answered is whether the executive branch is justified in ignoring the issuance of the Supreme Court. The standard response to this question is in the negative. The Supreme Court must be obeyed. However, since the court neither declared how it interprets a law nor decided over a competing legal claim, the court may not be followed. Temporary restraining orders issued by courts are not absolute. They are at the very least temporary and at the very most a mere suspension of judgment. Justices of the courts are not paid to stop the wheels of justice from spinning, which is what TROs are all about. Justices are paid to hear the parties in conflict and to decide on the cases brought before their attention. TROs are unconstitutional.

The Pasay Regional Trial court is perhaps within the bounds of its power to issue the warrant of arrest against Mrs. Arroyo. However, it could not have acted if the Commission on Elections did not file the case.

The hospital arrest of Mrs. Arroyo is a testament of how government could abuse its authority. Mrs. Arroyo should be jailed, just like any other persons issued with a warrant of arrest. By putting her instead on hospital arrest, the government is being selective, in addition to being coercive, and abusive.

First Things First. The President Should Step Down. What If She Won’t Resign?

The perception that she rigged the results of the elections puts a cloud of doubt over Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo's ability to lead this country. The Vice President will then take over the reigns of government, steer the bureaucracy forward and salvage whatever credibility is left of the government. Only then can we go back to the political table and decide on the best way to preside over the destiny of this country.


What about if the President won’t resign?


I propose that we ignore her. Let the politicized sectors of our society engage the President and her ilk in a protracted but non-violent confrontation until a tipping point is reached.
At the same time, the rest of us should focus our remaining energy in solving problems that will benefit the lives of actual and real people by working with the local government units and the communities.


Forest regeneration should be top of the agenda. With less than twenty percent forest cover, we cannot sustain the productivity of our farm lands, we cannot have natural protection against destructive typhoons and heavy rains, and we cannot improve the supply of our fish stock. We should plant native species of trees to re-green all our communities by at least 60 percent.


Rehabilitation of the marine ecological system comes next. Some studies point out that the Philippines is “the center of the center” of the world’s marine biology. We should, therefore, support Atty. Antonio A. Oposa Jr. and his partners in “cleaning up our mess” and then in protecting the Visayan Sea and other marine sanctuaries to ensure a stable and sustainable supply of fish for all Filipinos.


Promotion of ecotourism comes third. Yes, we have natural endowments that have attracted local and international tourists but tourists do not go to these places if their personal safety is threatened, if transportation is difficult, if the ecological systems are degraded, and if our taxi drivers behave like hold-uppers. In other words, there are many things that we need to put in place to make the promise of ecotourism a reality rather than a figment of our imagination.


There are other things that are equally important. Fighting graft and corruption, improving the conduct of our elections, providing basic social services, preventing crimes and punishing criminals, etc. are manifestations of good and effective governance. I propose that we let GMA tackle these issues. Anyway, it will take her entire lifetime to clean up the bureaucracy judging from her performance levels these past years.


Recently, however, GMA has asked the Department of Budget and Management to rate the performance of 17 agencies that have undergone the integrity development review or assessment of their strengths and vulnerabilities to corruption. I am hopeful that she will eventually rate the performance of all government agencies, including the local government units. Soon, she will intensify her earlier pronouncement enjoining government organizations to install their respective quality management systems and have these certified by independent auditors. After that, the National Economic Development Authority will include social and economic indicators or perhaps sustainable development indicators in the government organization performance assessment system.


I am conservative but hopeful that there will be continuous improvement in our governance system. What I am worried about is our ecological system. And this is the area that requires all our talents and energies. We don’t need a president like GMA to rehabilitate our forest. The Boholanos in Tubigon, Bohol won an award for their community-based mangrove plantation despite being neglected in the past by Malacanang occupants. The coastal town of Buswanga in Palawan has also maintained good quality mangroves despite the mediocre performance of the Palawan Council for Sustainable Development. Some of our indigenous communities have successfully opposed mining operations despite the insistence of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources that mining will generate revenue for the country.


Our environment is a matter of life and death, especially for our descendants. Nobody should mess with us as far as ecological health is concerned. If our environment is continuously degraded, we can’t just simply point accusing fingers to GMA or to the bystanders at DENR. We can only blame ourselves, as individuals and as a collectivity. Our descendants will not blame the presidents of our generation for whatever ecological tragedy they will face. They will blame us, their parents.


Come on people. Leave GMA alone. She has left us already. The next administration will go after her. If not, the Firm will.

Bribery, Pay-offs and the GMA Bonus

Sometime this year, the government, through the Office of the Ombudsman and the Presidential Anti-Graft Commission, which are both headed by women who are not on talking terms, issued strong statements in reaction to a banner story of the Philippine Daily Inquirer that big time corruption is on the rise.

After the denials, the Senate of the Philippines conducted hearings, in aid of legislation, regarding the multi-million dollar ZTE project that was supposed to be implemented by the Department of Transportation and Communications, in partnership with a Chinese firm. The investigations turned nasty. At one point, a Senator asked one of those investigated, the Chairman of the Commission on Elections, if the content of a “text” message was true. The message alleged that the person under investigation is the father of the child of a young woman, who is not his wife. There were other twists and turns that marred the investigations. Eventually, the Chairman of the Commission on Elections resigned.

The ZTE investigations were followed by another scandal that rocked the Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo administration. This involved the giving of cash gifts ranging from 300,000 to 500,000 pesos to selected elected officials, such as the provincial governors, who attended a meeting with the President in Malacanang Palace. Non-governmental sectors of society scorned the distribution of money. They said the President used public funds to thank her supporters for killing the impeachment complaint filed against her in the House of Representatives.

No law has been drafted as a result of the ZTE investigations. Nobody is sent to jail after the investigations of the alleged pay-off in the Palace.

A few days ago, after plucking the rebels out of the Manila Peninsula, Malacanang announced the release of the ten thousand pesos bonus for each employee of the government. Seventy percent of this amount will come from the Department of Budget of Management. The remaining amount will be taken from the savings of the respective government organizations. The President directed the Department of Budget and Management to formulate the implementing rules and regulations of the order.

The bonus translates to 833 pesos per month. That is an average of 28 pesos per day, more or less. 


Assuming that the average take-home pay of each government employee in Metro Manila is 15,000 pesos per month, each employee should have received a total of 205,000 pesos by end of 2007. That is inclusive of the 13th month pay and the announced “GMA” bonus.

Divided by 12 months, the 205,000 pesos is 17,083 per month or about 570 pesos per day. If an average government employee has six members in his or her family, and assuming that s/he is the sole bread winner in the family, each member of the family has a budget of 114 pesos daily.

Each member of the family approximately pays 40 pesos per day for water and electric bills. Meanwhile, a minimum of 30 pesos is the per capita budget for food. This is based on the assumption that everyone eats food that is cooked in each household. If the family is renting a room at 2,500 per month, each member of the family pays 14 pesos per day.

After deducting the daily per capita expenses for utilities, food and rent, each family has an excess of 30 pesos, more or less, or five pesos per person. If the bread winner of the family goes to work using public transport, s/he spends a minimum of 15 pesos per day. If at least one child goes to school using public transport, s/he spends 15 pesos per day. 


Assuming that the bread winner and the school child do not leave the house during weekends, the family saves about 240 pesos every month or about eight pesos every day. The savings will then be used to buy soap, shampoo, toothpaste, and perfume, among others, subject to the availability of the saved amount.

Have you wondered why government is prone to corruption? Are you now beginning to see why small bonuses given to hundreds of thousands of government employees are not perceived at all as a form of pay-off in the same manner that the alleged bribery in Malacanang is treated in media? Did you know that any amount saved in government organizations means the non-delivery of a form of public service? Did you know that government organizations, in general, deliberately set aside an amount for savings that can be used as counterpart fund in response, for instance, to a mandatory “GMA” bonus.

It is high time for government to improve the salary structure of its officials and employees. This is not the cure to corruption, for sure. This is just a step forward. This can raise their morale and reduce their indebtedness. This can also encourage competent men and women outside government service to take a career as a public servant.

Let this call be, at the very least, one of the immediate outcomes of the investigations initiated by the Congress of the Republic of the Philippines and the Executive Department.

Sumilao Farmers and Human Rights

Today, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, president of the Philippines, is quoted in newspapers as giving the Sumilao farmers land ownership to the disputed 144 hectares of farm land. The decision came after the farmers marched 1,700 kilometers in a period of two months. The farmer’s representatives met with Arroyo earlier.

The rights-based approach (RBA) to development aims to make people capable of choosing, determining and pursuing the economic, social, cultural and political process by which to fulfill their human rights. Its standards for development initiatives are the established and accepted human rights. RBA is guided by four fundamental principles: One, the human person is the subject, participant, owner, director and beneficiary of development; two, development and its process are based on human rights principles; three,development and its process should respect the normative content of human rights, and, four, development and its process should be coherent with the levels and natures of a state’s human rights obligations.

RBA is premised on the notion of poverty as powerlessness rather than a mere lack of commodities and services. This idea is consistent to Amartya Sen’s definition of poverty as the absence or inadequate realization of certain basic freedoms, such as the freedoms to avoid hunger, disease, illiteracy, and so on. RBA is also attuned to the conclusion of a World Bank study that “development should ultimately increase people’s freedom to live the life they value.”

In Thomistic philosophy, human rights are those that are due to a person; thus the goal of development is the fulfillment of human rights or justice. As such, development is demandable and holds the instrumentalities of the state accountable if the demand of justice is not fulfilled. Poverty, including the denial of the right to own a land to qualified beneficiaries of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program, violates human rights; hence, the instrumentalities of the state that are responsible for such poverty are liable for committing an injustice. Under the Thomistic theory of human rights, RBA demands that the instrumentalities of the state promote development though the heavens fall!

Although human rights can be traced to ancient, medieval, modern and postmodern political theories from the east and the west, the current human rights regime is built on various theoretical foundations. According to Varun Gauri,

Because social rights and, more broadly, human rights are established on several different foundations, there exist disagreements regarding their content and form. A foundation for social rights based on dignity, for example, might suggest a stronger principle of equality than one based on agency, which only requires that individuals enjoy the minimal social infrastructure necessary to articulate and enact a life plan. What people have a right to, whether people can hold rights without a designated person or entity bearing a duty to fulfill or protect those rights, and whether or not rights exist prior to their legal establishment are all controversial topics (Sen 2000). What people have rights to, for instance, has evolved (Varun Gauri, Social Rights and Economics Claims to Health Care and Education in Developing Countries, March 2003).

Given the pluralism of the theoretical foundations of human rights, which one should be applied in the case of the Sumilao farmers? Can we say for certain that Arroyo is morally justified to give the land to the farmers? Is Arroyo telling us that we could only get justice if we demand and fight for it? Should the government not be punished for the delayed delivery of justice?