Fr. Nebres' Statement on Reproductive Health Bill 5043

This is Ateneo President Fr. Nebres' response to some faculty's support of the RH bill. Of course the Jesuits will toe the line. But read the university memo carefully. Is it me or does he not endorse the continued debate on the bill?

Fr. Nebres is a wise, wise man :) 

Statement on Reproductive Health Bill 5043

Yesterday, the Manila Standard had a headline story entitled “Ateneo profs defy bishops, back family planning bill.” The article is based on an October 15, 2008 position paper issued by individual faculty members of the Ateneo de Manila, “Catholics Can Support the RH Bill in Good Conscience.” A shorter version of this position paper is attached.

In reply to a request for clarification from His Excellency Most Rev. Angel N. Lagdameo, D.D., President of the CBCP, I wrote him yesterday, October 22, as follows:

First, that “the faculty members clearly state that they are not speaking for the Ateneo de Manila and that this is their personal position.”

Second, that I was asked to respond to this concern a few weeks ago by Archbishop Paciano Aniceto and Bishop Gabriel Reyes and I wrote them on October 2, 2008 regarding our position on the Reproductive Health Bill 5043:

As in all matters that are connected with faith and morals, the Ateneo de Manila, as a Jesuit and Catholic university, stands with the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) and the Philippine Province of the Society of Jesus.

I am familiar with the considered opinion of our moral theologians that, although there are points wherein the aforesaid bill and the Catholic moral tradition are in agreement, there are certain positions and provisions in the bill which are incompatible with principles and specific positions of moral teaching which the Catholic Church has held and continues to hold.

I trust that this will help clarify our position. At the same time, together with the CBCP and the Philippine Province, we favor and encourage honest, sincere and mutually-respectful dialogue on the important issues taken up in the bill.

In my letter to Archbishop Lagdameo yesterday, I also said that several Jesuits would be meeting with the Ateneo faculty members yesterday in a dialogue on this important matter. The dialogue yesterday was forthright and mutually respectful and we pointed out that, while we respect their deep concern for the poor and appreciate our mutual dialogue with them, it is necessary for the Ateneo de Manila as a Jesuit and Catholic university, to state clearly our position on RH Bill 5043. The position of the Ateneo de Manila is as follows:

1) We appreciate the efforts of these members of the Ateneo faculty to grapple with serious social issues and to draw from Catholic moral teaching in their study of the bill.

2) We acknowledge their right to express their views as individual Catholics and appreciate their clear statement that their views are their own and not that of the University.

3) However, the Ateneo de Manila University does not agree with their position of supporting the present bill. As I said in my letter of October 2 to Archbishop Aniceto and Bishop Reyes, it is “the considered opinion of our moral theologians that, although there are points wherein the aforesaid bill and the Catholic moral tradition are in agreement, there are certain positions and provisions in the bill which are incompatible with principles and specific positions of moral teaching which the Catholic Church has held and continues to hold.”

We thus have serious objections to the present bill in the light of our Catholic faith.

4) Ateneo de Manila thus stands with our Church leaders in raising questions about and objections to RH Bill 5043.

5) It is also the responsibility of the Ateneo de Manila as a Jesuit and Catholic university to ensure that, in our classes and other fora, we teach Catholic faith and morals in their integrity.

6) At the same time, as I also wrote on October 2, we support continuing efforts on the critical study and discussion of the bill among Church groups including the University and in civil society.

BIENVENIDO F. NEBRES, S.J.
President

Migrant Workers are Not Commodities

To add to the official discourse of governements meeting in the Global Forum on Migration and Development kicking off today, this is the declaration of the parallel civil society forum I attended last week, the People's Global Action on Migration, Development and Human Rights. Also read the Madrid Declaration during the 3rd World Social Forum on Migrations.

Peoples’ Global Action Declaration

on Migration, Development and Human Rights

Submitted to the Global Forum on Migration and Development - Manila, Philippines, 27 October 2008

A world of migrants

There are over 250 million people in the world today that are in various conditions of being a migrant. Throughout human history people have been migrants or descended from migrants – with the exception of indigenous peoples residing in their ancestral lands.

There are many root causes of migration, including armed conflict, persecution, discrimination, poverty, underdevelopment, forced displacement, environmental destruction, and a search for family unity. And in the last decades, migration flows have been intensified because of neoliberal, corporate-centered globalization such as that promoted by the World Trade Organization (WTO), including free trade agreements, reduction in publicly-provided social reproductive services, and the expansion of the rights of business, have created wealth for economic elites but have consistently widened the gap between rich and poor and deepened vulnerabilities of individuals and communities.

While hugely profiting from the labor of migrants, the majority of countries in the world, have continuously adopted anti-migrant policies through scapegoating migrants for all social ills and perceived threats to national security. The adoption of simultaneous policies of being ‘open’ but at the same time ‘closed’ to migrants have led to the increased fragmentation of the working class, heightened insecurities for all migrants especially those in the grey zones like exiled peoples, amplified racial discrimination, and worsened the vulnerability to abuse and exploitation by organized crimes and corrupt officials, especially among women migrants. Meanwhile, the re-emergent emphasis on state-centered security as developed states secure their economic privilege has sharpened territorial divisions and pre-border surveillance as well as strengthened inward looking governance especially since the so-called ‘war on terror’ was unleashed.

The GFMD’s “migration and development” paradigm does not go far enough in affirming the human dignity of migrants and migrant workers, firmly placing their inalienable rights at the center of development and addressing their myriad insecurities. Moreover, such paradigm calls for the rendering of female migrant labor in specific gendered ways and is thus likely to reinforce inequalities between men and women.

Instead, the GFMD seeks to create an international migration regime that manages temporary workers for the benefit of global production and profit while at the same time institutionalizing more coercive and restrictive migration policies that penalize and lump together as one undesirable group all so-called ‘irregular’, ‘undocumented’ workers and all other migrants who fall in the grey zone.

As well, civil society including migrants’ organizations, trade unions, women’s organizations, and others have been severely restricted in their participation in GFMD debates, while the role of banks, financial intermediaries, and the corporate sector has been enhanced.

Obviously, the GFMD is not about respecting migration as a human activity in all of its varied forms, nor is it about protecting the rights of migrants and of workers. It is certainly not about realizing development for the majority of the world’s poor. Simply put, the GFMD is about protecting the security of states and markets. The GFMD and other new forums have been vigorously promoted, funded and controlled by developed countries together with a handful of developing countries. The result has been to further undermine an already weakened United Nations system where developing countries at this time stand a better chance of representation and participation.

Our challenge to governments attending the GFMD

Governments hold mutual obligations and responsibilities to respect, protect, fulfill, and promote the human rights of all peoples, migrants and workers everywhere included. In this regard, governments must ensure that the core UN and ILO conventions, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and human rights treaties, including the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families, ILO Conventions 97 and 143,and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women and ILO rights-based Multilateral Framework on Labor Migration are enforced at every level.

Governments have also been called on “to protect the vital core of human lives in ways that enhance human freedoms and human fulfillment” especially in dealing with issues of conflict, poverty and migration (Commission on Human Security 2003).

Governments must not deviate from but rather build upon the normative rights-based framework-approach to development. We recall Chapter 1 of the Declaration on the Right to Development (UNGA Resolution 41/128, 4 December 1986) - “The right to development is an inalienable human right by virtue of which every human person and all peoples are entitled to participate in, contribute to, and enjoy economic, social, cultural and political development, in which all human rights and fundamental freedoms can be fully realized.”

Governments must ensure the genuine and meaningful participation of migrants and other stakeholders in international discussions on migration policy, and migration and development.

Governments must not differentiate between ‘regular’ or ‘irregular’ migrant workers in respecting migrants and workers rights. Regardless of their status, migrants are participants in contributors to and members of the community and country in which they live and work.

Governments must ensure that migrants enjoy equality of rights and non-discrimination in the places where they live. Discrimination based on any status, including national origin, nationality, migration status, race, gender, sexual orientation, religiousbelief and language, is prohibited by international law and human rights principles. Governmental policy must also address de facto discrimination (unequal conditions), and promote empowerment and equity for migrants.

Governments must protect and uphold the human rights of women migrants as subjects within a gendered history and context of migration. The vicious cycle of ‘poverty – human trafficking – poverty’ denies poor women their basic rights including the right to decent work and the right to security and justice. Policies aimed at curbing trafficking must address its myriad root causes and avoid pushing vulnerable women into deeper exploitation and abuse.


Governments must cease its implementation of state migration policies that constitute or cause violations of human rights. These include policies that: deny migrant workers decent work and the protection of their basic rights as workers; criminalize migrants, including the criminalization of migrants with irregular status; militarize borders and externalize migration control in international waters or in countries of origin and transit; discriminate against migrants based on nationality or migratory status; enforce collective deportations and deportations which violate any human right, including right to protection of the family, due process of law, right to security of person, and the principle of non refoulement; allow for arbitrary detentions and arrests, and all other deprivations of liberty of migrants in contravention of international standards on detention including on the reasons, conditions, procedures, and allowable time period of detention; and policies that fail to prevent and eliminate the exploitation and abuse of migrants, including trafficking of persons.

Governments must institute a functioning international system with migration and development policies that guarantee the human rights of migrants, workers, and all peoples, and promotes sustainable, rights-based development. This requires that forums for multilateral discussions on migration and development policies ensure genuine civil society participation. It also requires that all developing country governments have equal participation and voice.. Governments in the South should not adopt policies or enter into agreements with Northern countries that increase forced migration of its population, such as free trade agreements, Neither should they make any multilateral or bilateral agreements that that does not fully respect and protect the human rights of migrants, such as many repatriation, border control, and temporary labor agreements. We call on governments to respond to these challenges and fulfill its obligations, and create new global mechanisms and processes that are genuinely democratic, transparent and accountable and which will meaningfully ensure each individual’s human rights, freedoms and sustainable development.

Endorsed by the Philippine Working Group

Akbayan, Alliance of Progressive Labor (APL), ASEAN Trade Union Council (ATUC), Asian Migrant Center (AMC), Asian Migrant Domestic Workers Alliance (ADWA), Atikha, Batis Center for Women, Building and Wood Workers International, Bukluran ng Manggagawang Pilipino (BMP), Center for Migrant Advocacy (CMA), Asia Pacific Forum on Women Law and Development (APWLD), Coalition Against Trafficking in Women-Asia Pacific (CATW-AP), Coalition for Migrants Rights (CMR), Daughters of Charity, Focus on the Global South, Freedom from Debt Coalition (FDC), Global Alliance Against Traffic in Women (GAATW), Global Network Asia, International Gender and Trade Network-Asia (IGTN), Jubilee South-Asia Pacific Movement on Debt and Development, KAKAMMPI, Kanlungan Center Foundation, Migrant Forum in Asia (MFA), National Union of Building & Construction Workers/BWI, Philippine Consortium on Migration and Development, Public Services International (PSI/PSLINK), Save the Children-UK, Solidaritas Migran Scalabrini-Philippines, Stop the New Round, UNI-PLC/UNI-APRO, Unlad Kabayan Migrant Services Foundation, Women and Gender Institute-Miriam College (WAGI), Women Legal Bureau (WLB).

The Core UN Conventions are:

International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) 1965
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) 1966
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) 1966
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW)1979
Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT) 1984
Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) 1989
International Convention on Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families (ICMRW) 1990
International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance (ICPAPED) 2005
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) 200

Ateneo Faculty Declaration of Support for the Reproductive Health Bill

To those who left comments expressing their misgivings with regard to the prohibited acts provision of the bill, please read the Response to the Couples for Christ Ad. If you do not want your kids to attend sex ed class, you will NOT be jailed.

--------

Declaration of support for the Reproductive Health Bill’s immediate passage into law from individual faculty of the Ateneo de Manila University

* This declaration of support is based on the 15 October 2008 position paper entitled “Catholics Can Support the RH Bill in Good Conscience” by individual faculty of the Ateneo de Manila University, namely Marita Castro Guevara (Department of Interdisciplinary Studies), Raymond B. Aguas (Department of Theology), Liane Peña Alampay (Department of Psychology), Fernando T. Aldaba (Department of Economics), Remmon E. Barbaza (Department of Philosophy), Manuel B. Dy, Jr. (Department of Philosophy), Elizabeth Uy Eviota (Department of Sociology-Anthropology), Roberto O. Guevara (Department of Theology), Anne Marie A. Karaos (Department of Sociology-Anthropology), Michael J. Liberatore (Department of Theology), Liza L. Lim Department of Sociology-Anthropology), Cristina Jayme Montiel (Department of Psychology), Mary Racelis (Department of Sociology-Anthropology), and Agustin Martin G. Rodriguez (Department of Philosophy).

We, individual faculty of the Ateneo de Manila University, speaking for ourselves and not for the University, strongly support House Bill 5043 on “Reproductive Health and Populatio Development,” and call for its immediate passage in Congress. After studying the bill’s provisions in the light of the realities of Filipino women, poor families, and our youth, we have reached the conclusion that the Philippines urgently needs a national policy on reproductive health and population development, as provided by the RH Bill.

A consistent, integrated, and comprehensive population framework guarantees budgetary support from the national government for reproductive health initiatives, and ensures their sustainability across local government units regardless of changes in national and local leadership. While curbing our rapid population growth rate of 2.04 percent will not, by itself, solve poverty in our country, addressing the population problem is crucial to overall economic growth and poverty reduction, along with asset redistribution, employment and livelihood opportunities, combating corruption, improving governance, and strengthening institutions.

We further believe that it is possible for Catholics like ourselves to support HB 5043 in good conscience, even as we recognize, with some anguish, that our view contradicts the position held by some of our fellow Catholics, including our bishops. Those who oppose the RH Bill have denounced it as “pro-abortion,” “anti-life,” “anti-women,” “anti-poor,” and “immoral.”

However, our reason, informed by our faith, has led us to believe and say otherwise. The RH Bill is pro-life and pro-women. HB 5043 categorically rejects abortion, which it deems a “crime,” in consonance with the 1987 Constitution. What it, in fact, wants to do is prevent abortions by offering couples an array of “medically-safe, legal, affordable and quality” family planning methods, from which they can choose the one that will work best for them. In so doing, the RH Bill seeks to avert unwanted and mistimed pregnancies, which cause mostly poor and married women despairing over yet another pregnancy to seek an induced abortion. We are alarmed that an estimated 473,400 Filipino women went for an abortion in 2000, and that some 79,000 of them wound up in hospitals for abortion complications. We consider it our guilt and our shame that so many of our women should be driven to such dire straits as to make abortion a family planning method, for want of information on and access to an effective means to prevent an unplanned pregnancy.

We believe in the sanctity and dignity of human life, whether that life is the mother’s or the unborn child’s. It is for this reason that we support the RH Bill’s intent to expand couples’―but especially women’s―access to safe, legal, and reliable family planning methods,whether modern natural or modern artificial. The United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA)says that women’s access to effective contraception would avert 30 percent of maternal deaths, 90 percent of abortion-related deaths and disabilities, and 20 percent of child deaths. Thus, the RH Bill is not only pro-life (in that it aims to prevent the termination of an unborn child’s life), but also pro-women, because it enables them to plan the number and spacing of their children so
as to avoid frequent and closely-spaced pregnancies that imperil their health and lives. Moreover, given that our maternal mortality rate is a staggeringly high 162 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births, the RH Bill aims to improve maternal and infant health by enjoining cities and municipalities to provide an adequate number of skilled birth attendants and hospitals rendering comprehensive emergency obstetric care.

In sum, because reproductive health is central to women’s overall health, fundamental aspects of women’s wellbeing are compromised when reproductive health is ignored. The conditions under which choices are made are as important as the actual content of women’s choices: the right to choose is meaningful only if women have real power to choose.

The RH Bill is pro-poor. Based on the Pulse Asia 2007 survey on family planning, an
overwhelming majority (92%) of Filipinos believe that it is important to plan their family, and most (89%) say that the government should allocate funding for modern artificial methods of family planning, including the pill, intrauterine devices (IUDs), condoms, ligation, and vasectomy. And yet only 5 out of 10 married women (50.6%) use any family planning method, whether modern natural or modern artificial. This suggests a significant unmet need for reproductive health services.

By treating contraceptives as “essential medicines,” HB 5043 makes contraceptives (including those requiring hospital services like tubal ligation, vasectomy, and IUD insertion) part of the National Drug Formulary, and therefore more accessible and cheaper for Filipinos.

This is a decidedly pro-poor measure, considering that the majority (58.1%) of those who use modern artificial family planning methods rely on the government for their supply of contraceptives. Our Catholic faith calls on us to embrace the preferential option for the poor and marginalized. We therefore support the RH Bill, which we believe will be especially beneficial for our poorest 20 percent who cannot afford family planning services, and therefore have the highest unmet need for family planning (26.7%), and 2.5 children more than they desire.

Furthermore, we uphold the principle of integral human development, which is why we want couples to be able to have only the number of children that they want and can adequately feed, clothe, care for, and send to school, so that they can attain their full potential as human beings, and contribute to the development of Philippine society.

The RH Bill is pro-youth. As teachers of our young people, we are deeply concerned that, over time, more of them are getting initiated into sex at increasingly younger ages. Based on the 1994 and 2002 Young Adult Fertility and Sexuality surveys of the UP Population Institute, not only did the proportion of youth aged 15-24 who are engaged in premarital sex increase (from to Declaration of support for the Reproductive Health Bill’s immediate passage into law 17.8% in 1994, to 23.4% in 2002), but the average age for their first sexual encounter declined (from 18 in 1994, to 17.5 in 2002). Even more worrisome is how their premarital sex act is often
unprotected, with three in four of them (75.1%) admitting to not using any kind of contraceptive during their most recent premarital sex act, primarily because of lack of knowledge on contraception. Our young people’s premarital and unprotected sex therefore places them at high risk for early pregnancies, and contracting HIV-AIDS and sexually-transmitted diseases.

We favor the RH Bill’s provision of mandatory age-appropriate reproductive health
education, believing as we do that much of our youth’s risky sexual behavior is linked to their lack of information and values formation on their reproductive and sexual health. We take exception to the opinion that teaching them about sex will make them prurient and promiscuous.

Rather, we hold the view that by providing our young people the information and values they would need to take care of their reproductive health, and by creating opportunities for them to articulate and clarify their questions and feelings about sex, we are empowering them to make responsible decisions regarding their sexuality and sexual behavior, whether now or in the future.

After all, Catholic social theology teaches us that the principle of human dignity requires us to uphold human rights, which include the right to education and appropriate information (Gaudium et Spes, 1965) and the right to develop one’s intelligence and freedom in seeking and knowing the truth (Centesimus Annus, 1991).

The RH Bill is pro-informed choice. In seeking to promote both modern natural and
modern artificial methods of family planning (with “no bias for either”), HB 5043 recognizes105 that couples, especially women, have the right to choose the family planning method that they consider to be the safest and most effective for them, provided that these are legally permissible.

Although natural family planning (NFP) which the Catholic Church promotes offers many
benefits, it is important to realize that pursuing an NFP-only population policy will be a disservice, if not a grave injustice, to women and couples for whom NFP simply cannot work.

We are thinking of women who find it impossible to predict their infertile periods; or couples who see each other on an irregular basis; or women who are trapped in abusive relationships with men who demand sex anytime they want it. Why is it morally wrong for such women and couples―and even others not encompassed by the above situations―to use a modern artificial family planning method that has been pronounced safe and non-abortifacient by health authorities, if their discernment of their particular situation has led them to conclude that such a method will enable them to fulfill the demands of marital love and responsible parenthood?

Catholic social teachings recognize the primacy of the well-formed conscience over wooden compliance to directives from political and religious authorities. Gaudium et Spes (1965) tells us: “In the depths of his conscience, man detects a law which he does not impose upon himself, but which holds him to obedience. Always summoning him to love good and avoid evil, the voice of conscience when necessary speaks to his heart: do this, shun that. For man has in his heart a law written by God; to obey it is the very dignity of man; according to it he will be judged” (no. 16).

We respect the consciences of our bishops when they promote natural family planning as the only moral means of contraception, in adherence to the teachings of Humanae Vitae (1968). In turn, we ask our bishops to respect the one in three (35.6%) married Filipino women who, in their “most secret core and sancturary” or conscience, have decided that their and their family’s interests would best be served by using a modern artificial means of contraception. Is it not possible that these women and their spouses were obeying their well-informed and well-formed consciences when they opted to use an artificial contraceptive?

We therefore ask our bishops and fellow Catholics not to block the passage of HB 5043, which promotes women’s and couples’ access to the full range of safe, legal, and effective modern natural and modern artificial family planning methods, from which they can choose the one most suitable to their needs and personal and religious convictions. To campaign against the bill is to deny our people, especially our women, many other benefits, such as maternal and child health and nutrition; promotion of breastfeeding; adolescent and youth health; reproductive health education; prevention and management of gynecological conditions; and provision of information and services addressing the reproductive health needs of marginalized sectors, among others. In pursuit of the common good, or the “sum total of social conditions which allow people... to reach their fulfillment more fully and more easily” (Gaudium et Spes 1965, no. 26), we call on the Catholic Church to let the RH Bill pass in Congress, and to consider forging a principled collaboration with the government in the promotion of natural family planning which Humanae Vitae deems morally acceptable, and in the formation of consciences with emphasis on the value of responsible sex and parenthood.

To our fellow Catholics who, in good conscience, have come to conclude, as we have, that we need a reproductive health law: we ask you to declare your support for HB 5043.

Finally, we call on our legislators in Congress and in the Senate to pass the RH Bill. Doing so upholds the constitutional right of spouses to found a family in accordance with their religious convictions; honors our commitments to international covenants; and promotes the reproductive health and reproductive rights of Filipinos, especially of those who are most marginalized on this issue―our women, poor families, and youth.

We sign this declaration as individual faculty of the Ateneo de Manila University, and speak for ourselves and not on behalf of our colleagues nor the University.

15 October 2008
Signatories (as of 15 October 2008)

Raymond B. Aguas (Department of Theology)

Liane Peña Alampay (Department of Psychology)
Fernando T. Aldaba (Department of Economics)
Remmon E. Barbaza (Department of Philosophy)
Manuel B. Dy, Jr. (Department of Philosophy)
Elizabeth Uy Eviota (Department of Sociology-Anthropology)
Marita Castro Guevara (Department of Interdisciplinary Studies)
Roberto O. Guevara (Department of Theology)
Anne Marie A. Karaos (Department of Sociology-Anthropology)
Michael J. Liberatore (Department of Theology)
Liza L. Lim (Department of Sociology-Anthropology)
Cristina Jayme Montiel (Department of Psychology)
Mary Racelis (Department of Sociology-Anthropology)
Agustin Martin G.
Rodriguez (Department of Philosophy)

-------

ETA: Apparently this is not the final list. More signatories to come.

Cinemanila 2008 Screening Schedule

Hat tip to Pelikula76 who helmed the camera of one of the entries: The Amazing Truth About Queen Raquela. Please do see it. After 3 years, Raquela has come home to the Philippines.

DEKADA CINEMANILA
Oct. 16-29, 2008
Gateway Cineplex 10
Araneta Center

SCREENING SCHEDULE OCT. 17 - 21
Friday, Oct. 17, 2008

Cinema 1
6:00 p m West 32nd (Korea)
8:30 pm Evangelion 1.0: You Are (Not) Alone (Japan)

Cinema 2
1:00 pm You, the Living (Sweden)
3:00 pm Sparrow (Hong Kong)
5:00 pm Sukiyaki Western Django (Japan)
7:30 pm I'm a Cyborg but that's OK (South Korea)
9:30 pm Love of Siam (Thailand) SEA Competition

Cinema 4
12:00 pm 12 Lotus (Singapore) SEA Competition
2:30 pm The Band's Visit (Israel) Main Competition
4:30 pm Noise (Australia)
6:30 pm California Dreamin' (Romania)

Cinema 7

12:30 pm Shahida: Brides of Allah (Israel) Docs in Competition
2:00 pm Dreams from the Third World (Singapore)
4:00 pm Sita Sings the Blues (USA)

Saturday, Oct. 18, 2008

Cinema 1
Digital Lokal Competition Films
6:30 pm Ala Pobre Ala Suerte (Briccio Santos)
9:00 pm Sisa (CJ Andaluz)

Cinema 2
12:30 pm Confessional (Philippines) SEA Competition
2:00 pm Invisible City (Singapore) (Q&A with director)
3:30 pm United Red Army (Japan) Main Competition
7:00 pm Love of Siam (Thailand) SEA Competition



Cinema 4

12:00 pm 10 Canoes (Australia) Part of 6th Australian Film Festival
2:00 pm Sukiyaki Western Django (Japan)
5:00 pm Evangelion 1.0: You are Not Alone (Japan)

Cinema 5

Young Cinema Night: Shorts in Competition (7:00 pm)

* Amihan (Joanna Vasquez Arong)
* Bunot (Ivy Universe Baldoza)
* Esbat (Carlo Obispo)
* Frou Frou… Shh, Wag Mo Sabihin Kay Itay (Michael Juat)
* Inday Wanda (Nelson Caliguia Jr.)
* Kalawang na Ginto (Vic Acedillo Jr.)
* Kamera (Mikhail Red)
* Surreal Randon MMS Texts Para Ed Ina, Agui, Tan Kaamong Ya Makaiiliw Ed Sika: Gurgurlis Ed Banua (Christopher Gozum)
* Tumbang Preso (Antoinette Jadaone)
* Undertakers (Emmanuel Quindo Palo)

Cinema 7

1:00 pm Vanished Empire (Russia) Main Competition
3:00 pm Sparrow (Hong Kong)
5:00 pm Noise (Australia)
7:00 pm I'm A Cyborg But That's OK (South Korea)
9:00 pm Night Bus (Iran) Main Competition

FILM SYNOPSES CAN BE VIEWED AT THIS PAGE :
http://www.cinemanila.org.ph/films.htm

Sunday, October 19, 2008

Cinema 1
Digital Lokal Competition Films
6:30 pm Ang Manghuhula (Paolo Herras)
9:00 pm Carnivore (Ato Bautista)

Cinema 2
12:00 pm Storm Boy (Australia) Part of 6th Australian Film Festival
2:00 pm Sukiyaki Western Django (Japan)
4:30 pm 4 Minutes (Germany)
7:00 pm Blind Pig Who Wants To Fly (Q&A with director) SEA Competition
9:00 pm West 32nd (South Korea)

Cinema 4
12:00 pm The Photograph (Indonesia) SEA Competition
2:00 pm It's A Free World (UK)
4:00 pm Youth Without Youth (USA)
6:30 pm Lucky Miles (Q*A with director and actor) (Australia) Main Competition
9:30 pm Diving Bell & the Butterfly by Julian Schnabel (France)

Cinema 7
1:00 pm Sita Sings the Blues (USA)
3:00 pm Adela (Philippines) SEA Competition
5:30 pm PVC 1 (Colombia)

Monday, October 20, 2008

Cinema 1
12:30pm With A Girl of Black Soil (South Korea)
2:30 pm Boxing Day (Australia)
4:30 pm Shahida - Brides Of Allah (Israel)
6:30 pm Be Like Others (Iran)
8:30 pm The Amazing Truth About Queen Raquela (Iceland/Philippines/France/Thailand) Main Competition

Cinema 2
1:00 pm Sparrow (Hong Kong)
3:00 pm Diving Bell & the Butterfly (France)
5:30 pm Night Bus (Iran) Main Competition
7:30 pm Evangelion 1.0: You Are (Not) Alone (Japan)
9:30 pm I'm A Cyborg But That's OK (South Korea)

Cinema 4
12:00 pm Love Of Siam (Thailand) SEA Competition
3:00 pm The Mirror (Russia)
5:00 pm Not Quite Hollywood (Australia)
7:00 pm Susuk (Malaysia)
9:00 pm It's A Free World by Ken Loach (UK)

Tuesday, October 21, 2008

Cinema 1
Digital Lokal Competition Films
7:00PM Next Attraction (Raya Martin)
9:00 pm Imburnal (Sherad Anthony Sanchez)

Cinema 2
12:00 pm California Dreamin' (Romania)
3:00 pm God Man Dog (Taiwan)
5:00 pm Noise (Australia)
7:00 pm Diving Bell and the Butterfly (France)
9:30 pm Youth Without Youth by Francis Ford Coppola (USA)

Cinema 4
11:30 pm The Amazing Truth About Queen Raquela Main Competition
2:00 -5:00 pm Master Class In Script Writing (Bing Lao)

Cinema 7
1:00 pm Vanished Empire (Russia) Main Competition
3:00 pm West 32nd (Korea/USA)
5:00 pm The Photograph (Indonesia) SEA Competition
7:00 pm Noise (Australia)
9:00 pm The Bands Visit (Israel) Main Competition

MASTER CLASSES

Tuesday, Oct. 21 Scriptwriting Master Class with Bing Lao
2:00 – 5:00 pm
Wednesday, Oct. 22 SEA Indie Filmmaking: With Lav Diaz (Philippines)
Amir Muhammad (Malaysia) and Raymond Red (Philippines)
2:00 - 5:00 pm
Thursday, Oct. 23 Cinematography Master Class
2:00 – 5:00 pm
Monday, Oct. 27 Editing Master Class with Miranamedina
2:00 – 5:00 pm

OTHER EVENTS

Saturday, October 25 Young Cinema Night II: Shorts in Exhibition 7:00 – 9:00 pm

* #cafe (Leo Valencia)
* Bulong (Pedro Valdes)
* Pass (Vicente Garcia Groyon)
* Walong Linggo (Ana Isabelle Matutina)
* Trails of Water (Sheron Dayoc)
* Pagtakas sa Kawalan (Richard Soriano Legaspi)

On Prostitution

Corollary to the BBC brouhaha, Jeg writes a post on the world's oldest "profession":

Not one to pass on the chance to defend scantily-clad women, I asked why is it sexploitation. Those dancers were not being coerced. They freely chose their profession and are being paid for it. And with that I think it is time to come to the defense of what is called the World's Oldest Profession, the prostitutes, those purveyors of venereal services that society has maligned; indeed our legal system considers their profession illegal. A prostitute is here defined as one who engages in sexual services for a fee.

A slippery slope we have here. I can only think of more questions in response to this post. Does anyone willingly choose to become a prostitute? As a worker who engages in the labour market, what does a prostitute offer? Sex as a service? Her body as a commodity for consumption? Both? Can we compare services rendered by, say, a call centre agent to that of a prostitute? A call centre agent sells his time, his expertise, his skills as service. This does not include his body for exploitation (i.e. use) and consumption.

A prostitute's body is a fictitious commodity. It is is not "produced" for consumption in the market. Like bags and tupperware. When her body is consumed - like agriculture, her value is "renewable." Her body as commodity does not disappear. However it "depreciates" because her customers put value in pliable, wrinkle-free flesh. Is her body a public good then? Like clean air and public order? A private good by definition must only be consumed by one.

And what about the value of her service? Why do societies around the world normally equate prostitution with women? Do women not require sexual release without strings attached as men? There is a stastic somewhere that in the US at least as many as 60 percent of men who hire prostitutes do not engage in intercourse. They talk. He confides in her. She listens. In this case, what kind of service is she offering? Care? Attention?

We go back to the issue of motivation - is it her own free will to engage in prostitution? Can anyone think of any other work where a human being sells both his service (i.e. labour) and the use of his body in a transaction? Hm...acrobats maybe?

Cross-posted at Filipinovoices.

Speak for the Subaltern

It's a short clip, but devastating nonetheless. In less than sixty seconds the BBC comedy show Harry & Paul normalises, even trivialises the hardships, indignity and abuses suffered by many Filipina migrants abroad.Domestic helpers have rights too. Speak for the subaltern. Sign this petition.

RH Bill Sponsorship Speeches

See the speeches here.

How not to deliver a speech, c/o Rep. Antonino-Custodio.
How to deliver a good speech, c/o Rep. Baraquel.

Global Conspiracies on Reproductive Health, Population and Development: What It Means for Filipinos

A well-meaning historical account of the supposed global population control movement threads together eugenics, racism, imperialism, feminism and humanitarianism gone wrong. There is a supposed global conspiracy, which began over a hundred years ago and which, as certain Filipinos now suggest, continues today. It is then suggested that those who support the Philippines' Reproductive Health Bill be made aware of such a history, of "how the reproductive rights movement began and where it would lead." Is this the "hidden agenda" of a national policy that would consolidate already-existing government initiatives? A national policy which would provide the services for which Filipinos express a need? A national policy which is not in any way coercive, but would provide choices for Filipino families to take control of their own lives?

If we go by accounts of how movements and ideas are born, then history is replete with examples of what we now deem as heinous and unjust practices perpetrated by humans to each other. The birth of modern medicine, as well as a host of other sciences, has seen numerous inhuman experiments conducted in the name of modernity and progress.

The introduction of Christianity in the Philippines, and the role played by the Catholic Church can likewise be seen in a problematic light. The early nationalist movements and our very own national hero, Jose Rizal, recognized this. Once the concept of an all-seeing, all-knowing God was introduced to pagan and animist Filipinos in the 16th century, this became a mechanism of control over the native population. The fear of offending the Christian God, and enduring eternal damnation in hell was a more effective weapon than wielding swords or firing muskets. Indeed the expansion of the Christian faith worldwide is a history as bloody as any.

And yet today we think not of doing away with doctors or scientists and the contributions that modern medicine and science have made to improve the quality of life. We think not of condemning Christians and the Catholic clergy for the sins committed in name of ideas and institutions of the past.

Historian Michael Connelly, author of Fatal Conception: The Struggle to Control World Population, focuses his archival research on the supposed confluence of interests of Malthusians, racists, eugenicists, imperialists, environmentalists, feminists, public health advocates and international organizations in a global conspiracy to control global population. If this shadowy network, in operation for more than a hundred years and funded by multibillionaires and rich-country donors, were truly bent on keeping non-whites from reproducing, then two-thirds of the world's population in 2008 will not be either Indian or Chinese.

In the latest surveys, 92 percent of Filipinos think it is important to plan a family. Almost 9 in 10 think it is important that the government provide budgetary support for modern methods of family planning. Filipino families are having more children than they can support with the respect required of a truly dignified life. Risky abortions, committed mostly by married mothers in their thirties, occur because there are no options and information on safe and reliable family planning methods.

The economic and developmental exigencies aside, Filipino families have expressed the need for family planning services as a first step to lead a just and quality life. Those who choose to ignore the glaring reality of this need and who insist on global conspiracy theories to mar the simple and functional purpose of the Reproductive Health bill need to take off their ideological blinders and take note of Mr. Connelly's advice; the fatal misconception is "to think that one could know other people's interests better than they knew it themselves."

I Heart Craig Ferguson

Yin, Yang. Thesis, Antithesis. Here's Scottish-American Craig Ferguson's take on the US financial meltdown, capitalism and democracy.

Response to Couples For Christ Ad

The Couples for Christ ad which came out Monday, September 22, put the Penalty provisions of the RH bill completely out of context. It was effective in scaring people into thinking that the bill would intrude into their individual right to manage family life as they see fit. The CFC ad is reproduced by WillyJ on his blog.

I am sure there are lawyers among the leadership of the CFC and so this ad was not crafted in ignorance. I can only surmise that they mean to sow misinformation. I am truly disappointed by the un-Christian tactics being used by those against the bill. Their surrogates in Congress are prime examples of how the sacred have been more than willing to get in bed with and roll in the dirt of the profane.

I think some clarifications are in order.

CFC: 1. As employers, do you agree to be compelled to provide free reproductive health care services, supplies, devices and surgical procedures (including vasectomy and ligation) to your employees, and be subjected to both imprisonment and/or fine, for every time that you fail to comply? Section 17 states that employers shall provide for the free delivery of reproductive health care services, supplies and devices to all workers more particularly women workers. (Read the Definition of Reproductive Health and Rights Section 4, paragraph g, Section 21, Paragraph c and Section 22 on Penalties)

CLARIFICATION: The bill complements already existing provisions in the Labor Code which mandates employers to provide family planning services and incentives to their employees. The labor code also prohibits employers to deny these benefits to women employees to avoid having pregnancy be a reason for employment termination. The bill expands on these provisions by mandating free RH services and commodities to their employees providing of course that employees request them (Labor Code Article 134 (a-b) and Article 137(a1-a3).

CFC: 2. As health care providers, do you agree that you should be subjected to imprisonment and/or fine, if you fail to provide reproductive health care services such as giving information on family planning methods and providing services like ligation and vasectomy, regardless of the patient’s civil status, gender, religion or age? (Read Section 21 on Prohibited Acts, Letter a, Par 1 to 5 and Sec 22 on Penalties)

CLARIFICATION: The bill's penalties are primarily geared towards preventing health care providers from refusing to offer RH services based on the client’s personal circumstances.

Those who refuse to render services on account of religious convictions will not be penalized provided that they immediately refer clients to others with the same facilities. Provided also that the client is not in an emergency or serious case as defined by RA 8344.

CFC: 3. As a Spouse, do you agree that your husband or wife can undergo a ligation or vasectomy without your consent or knowledge? (read Section 21 on Prohibited Acts, Letter a, Paragraph 2)

CLARIFICATION: The bill does penalize those who refuse to perform vasectomy or ligation on a person of legal age on the ground of lack of spousal consent or authorization. Once a spouse has sought these services, it is assumed he or she has done so in consultation with his or her partner. It is no longer within the purview of the law and the state whether he or she has decided to undergo these procedures without the express consent of the partner.

A husband does not own his wife's body and vice versa.

CFC: 4. As parents, do you agree that children from age 10 to 17 should be taught their sexual rights and the means to have a satisfying and “safe” sex life as part of their school curriculum? Reproductive Health Education will be mandatory from Grade 5 to the end of High School (see Sec 12 on Reproductive Health Education and Sec 4 Definition of Family Planning and reproductive Health, Par b,c and d)

CLARIFICATION: The bill endorses age-appropriate sexuality education to ensure that young Filipinos have the right information while instilling values for them to exercise responsible decision-making in matters of sex and reproductive health. Section 12 lists the main elements of the proposed sexuality education to be incorporated in school curricula. The bill does not contain specifics on having a “satisfying and safe sex life.”

The following are the general topics to be taken up in sexuality education class mentioned in the bill:

1. Reproductive health and sexual rights
2. Reproductive health care and services
3. Attitudes, beliefs and values on sexual development, sexual behaviour and sexual health
4. Proscription and hazards of abortion and management of post-abortion complications
5. Responsible parenthood
6. Use and application of natural and modern family planning to promote reproductive health, achieve desired family size and prevent unwanted, unplanned and mistimed pregnancies
7. Abstinence before marriage
8. Prevention and treatment of HIV/AIDS and other STIs/STDs, prostate cancer, breast cancer, cervical cancer and other gynecological disorders
9. Responsible sexuality
10. Maternal, peri-natal and post-natal education, care and services

So, yeah. No details on kama sutra.

Also, only teachers who agree to teach sexuality education will undergo training.

CFC: 5. Do you agree that you should be subjected to imprisonment and/or pay a fine, for expressing an opinion against any provision of this law, if such expression of opinion is interpreted as constituting “malicious disinformation”? (See Sec 21 on Prohibited Acts, Par f and Sec 22 on Penalties)

If you answered NO to any of the questions above, then you are not for RH Bill 50433. Read the bill. You will find more objecrtionalble provisions such as losing our parental authority over a minor child who was raped and found pregnant (sec 21, 1, no. 3), reclassifying contraceptives as essential medicines (Section 10) and appropriating limited government funds to reproductive services instead of basic services (Section 23).

CLARIFICATION: In accordance with the law, the bill does not curtail every individual’s right of free speech. To express disagreement or dissent against the merits of legislation is the cornerstone of any democratic society.

HB 5043 does penalize any person who maliciously engages in disinformation about the intent or provisions of the Act. This includes such acts as claiming that the bill will punish parents who, in good conscience, disallow their children to attend sexuality education class.

Sponsorship Speech for the Reproductive Health Bill

I thought this was the best of all the sponsorship speeches for the RH bill. Delivered September 22, 2008.

--------------

Sponsorship Speech for the Reproductive Health Bill
by AKBAYAN Rep. Risa Hontiveros-Baraquel

Pro-life. Pro-abortion. Anti-Marriage. Anti-family. Mr. Speaker, the danger of reducing each other into labels is that it obscures the clarity that is always direly needed amidst division and confusion. When applied deliberately, with the intention of establishing borders or building walls, labels become instruments of fundamentalism and dehumanization, as if those who do not agree with us are less than human, impure, and mere targets of resentment.

We have begun our plenary deliberations for the National Policy on Reproductive Health, Responsible Parenthood, and Population Development Bill, a controversial but crucial measure. Inflicting our tantrums upon this chamber and the public in general will gain us nothing. Sobriety, Ginoong Speaker, and the triumph of reason should govern our conduct as members of the House. Huwag natin idaan sa galit o pagmamaktol ang ating pagpahayag ng ating posisyon sa isyu na ito.

What happened last week must not be repeated. The integrity of the process was put into question as a means to delay the process: there was an allegation of signature-forging, and the authors of the bill in question were labeled "magnanakaw" . It was not just decorum that was abandoned, Ginoong. Speaker, but something more basic: decency, respect for dissent, willingness to engage in debate, and the ascendancy of rules.

To reduce a constitutional mandate to appropriate public funds for a health program as mere 'pagnanakaw' is not just insulting, Ginoong Speaker, but a travesty of Congress's mandate. It shows supreme ignorance of why this institution exists. As AKBAYAN represetative, I am a proud author of the reproductive health bill; the public funds appropriated for the programs proposed went through a vote in the Appropriations Committee and were subsequently approved. To call that act 'pagnanakaw' insults the committee, the members of the House who went through a legitimate process, and the entire chamber itself.

The proponents of the measure are accused of being interested only in the appropriated funds for the program. This is entirely untrue. The appropriation will directly go to DOH and the Population Commission to finance services and products needed to implement the program. Mauuna ang AKBAYAN sa pagsisiwalat ng anumang katiwalian sa pag-gamit ng pondong ito dahil ito ay dapat mapunta sa mga pamilyang Pilipino, sa mga kababaihan at hindi sa bulsa nino man, o sino man sa mga mambabatas na nandito ngayon at kung sino mang opisyal ng pamahalaan.

Democracy entails healthy debates and respect for differences. Kung gusto ng mga sumangsang-ayon o kumokontra sa panukalang ito na mag-rally, maari nila itong gawin. Pero wag natin i-derail o hadlangan ang proseso, Ginoong Speaker. This achieves nothing, a great disservice to the Filipino people who expect Congress to do its job, and to do it well. Let those who oppose the bill lay down their arguments, and let those who support it present their points. Let us not fan the flames of confusion, but instead be instruments of reason.

Let us not lose track of why this debate is happening in the first place. AKBAYAN calls on legislators, members of the Catholic and other faith communities, fellow women, fellow feminists, husbands and partners of women, and the public in general to step back from this climate of antagonism and listen with an open mind as to why this bill is relevant, important, and why it must be urgently enacted.

We need this bill because of abortion, and not for it. Right now, the Philippines is in the midst of an abortion crisis, according to various media institutions, with World Health Organization putting the number of abortions at 800,000 annually. Walong daang libong abortion, walong daang libong kababaihan, Ginoong Speaker. Binibigyan tayo ng numerong ito ng ideya kung gaano kalala ang problema, pero hindi nito kayang maipakita ang sanhi kung bakit ganito ang nangyayari.

Kahit doblehin o triplehin pa natin ang walong daang libo, hindi nito kayang ipakita kung ilang beses nabibiyak ang puso ng isang teenager na babae na nabuntis nang wala sa kanyang kagustuhan. Forty-five percent of the pregnancies in the country are unwanted, according to the same global organization; if only wanting and not wanting could indeed be truly divided in percentage and decisions parceled into solid numbers, then perhaps it would have been simple to subdivide and process this issue so that choices can easily be made.

Unfortunately, a pregnant teenager without a choice cannot indulge in such calculated decisions. Ang alam lang nya ay dapat syang tumigil sa pag-aaral dahil sa kahihiyan o dahil di pwede at di tinatanggap ang pagiging buntis ng isang babaeng di kasal sa ilang paaralan. She will probably be forced to marry the father of the unborn child, or to marry someone else, anyone, just to avoid the disgrace and humiliation. Her mind would most likely try imagine the hundreds of thousands of pesos that would need to support the child, compute it against the salary and support that she would ever get. While the amount may not exceed figures that we have, it would be the most insurmountable and difficult number that she would ever encounter.

Tatakbo na lang ba sya, pupunta ng probinsya at magpapakupkop sa kung sino man na nakakaintindi? Kung hindi, papaano kung sya ay palayasin? How is the act of uprooting or rejection measured, Ginoong Speaker? Is it in terms of the number of times that she would miss a family celebration, like a birthday, or the certainty of not being able to speak to one's parents ever again?

Should she just resort to abortion, just like others before her? Hundreds of thousands of pregnant women have taken this path, and we pass judgment on them as if they made an easy choice. Nothing is easy for a woman facing an unwanted pregnancy. Those who have chosen to abort an unwanted pregnancy would most likely end up undergoing unsafe procedures, would probably swallow hazardous potions and unsafe pills sold right in front of the Quiapo Church, and suffer from abortion-related illnesses. They will forever be scarred as criminals, accused of violating our moral standards, our laws, and even the constitution.

If our pregnant teenager ends up bleeding from an unsafe abortion procedure and encounters a doctor who decided to perform a postabortion dilation and curettage without anesthesia to punish the sinful woman, would statistics be able to tally the number of times that the thought of death had crossed her mind? Could it scope the width of each cry, every whimper, that she has to swallow just so she could retain her sense of dignity and self-worth?

The Department of Health said that 100,000 abortion cases end up in the hospital annually, while other experts have said that the data is underestimated. Kaya bang bilangin ng ilang numero ang sakit at kahihiyan? Hundreds have died out of post-abortion complications, some of them were refused treatment by doctors while others refused to go to hospital out of fear. If it were only ten, would it be more acceptable?

No easy choice, Ginoong Speaker, not even for those who opted to bear the child. There are those who resort to unsafe abortion, then there are mothers who are forced to take desperate measures. Last week, a mother, Janeth Ponce, forced her children to drink a bottle of toilet bowl cleaner, and then later drank the poison herself. Her suicide note revealed her family's wretched situation. We can always cull up numbers to know how many potential Janeth Ponce's are out there – an SWS survey says that this year alone, the number of food-poor families rose to 7 million, families who are living, if such a word still applies, with less than P60 a day. We don't need to crunch numbers to know that poverty is most brutal among unplanned families.

Janeth must have earned enough the previous day to be able to purchase a bottle of liquid toilet cleaner, the cheapest of which costs less than P40. She and her children will join other symbols of poverty – Mariannet Amper, the 11 – year old child who committed suicide in Davao City, Mang Pandoy, and many others – and their names will probably land in next year's State of the Nation Address. Gagamitin ang pangalan ni Janeth Ponce at ng kanyang mga anak para bigyan ng mukha ang statistics ng kahirapan, pero di nito kaya ipakita kung papaano nilason ng desperasyon at kawalan ng pag-asa ang kaibuturan ng isang ina. One could never approximate what she must have felt when she was buying that bottle of toilet cleaner unless one realizes that her anguish began much earlier, that her hopelessness began when she was deprived of a choice to live a life of dignity.

"Go forth and multiply" – we authors of the bill are often reminded of this biblical phrase to question our support for the measure. Surely, we are being asked by our faith to multiply the vastness of the life's beauty, and not the desperation of mothers who face each childbirth with dread, with worry, with hopelessness.

No numbers, no statistics, can ever measure the complexity and hardship encountered by mothers facing an unwanted and unplanned pregnancy. And no labels like anti-life or pro-abortion, Ginoong Speaker, can correct the dehumanization of women facing this condition.
Ginoong Speaker, for AKBAYAN, the primary goal of the bill that we are about to tackle is to restore the dignity of our women, especially poor women. Ang gusto lamang ng bill na ito ay bigyan ng patas na karapatan ang mga mahihirap na babae at pamilya na mamuhay ng marangal. Life is about choice, exercising the free will endowed by the Creator, in order to achieve fullness of life and human dignity. And the choice before our House is to cast our votes in conscience on this secular matter of public policy. Yes, public policy, as borne out by a Pulse Asia survey this year, in which more than 40% of respondents said: I am Catholic and I want reproductive health policy.

Reducing this bill as a pro-abortion measure renders invisible the harsh realities that we seek to address. AKBAYAN recognizes that we all come from different religious or ideological persuasions, but we must at least unite that families must be given a choice to plan their families according to methods that suit their faith and condition.

The bill aims to ensure that the national government has the central responsibility to provide reproductive healthcare and family planning services and information. It creates a Commission on Population that has the mandate to coordinate and implement reproductive health and population management programs. It also hopes to make several reproductive health programs available, such as: hospital-based family planning in all national and government hospitals; provision of reproductive health products and supplies, which shall be considered as essential medicines and supplies and shall be part of the National Drug Formulary; inclusion of age-appropriate reproductive health education for students and young Filipinos; provision of Mobile Health Care Service (MHCS) to deliver health care goods and services in each congressional district; and encouraging private practitioners to join their colleagues in non-government organizations in rendering such services free of charge or at reduced professional fee rates to indigent and low income patients.

The bill likewise affirms that abortion remains illegal under our laws and our constitution. We appeal to all to stick to the text of the bill, without embellishments. In our division we must not lose our integrity and our sense of truth.

Many of us in Congress have decided to vote on this measure according to our own conscience. Indeed, this is one contentious issue that would cut across party lines and partisanship. But a conscience vote need not be a vote made with the mind closed. We can disagree, but let us disagree according to the principle of truth. Let us unite where we can, compromise if possible, divide the House if necessary, but let us take the bill for what it truly is. Ginoong Speaker, nawa'y sa kabila ng ating pagkakaiba-iba, magsama-sama tayo na manindigan para ibalik ang dangal ng mga kababaihan at ng pamilyang Pilipino. Maraming salamat po!

Vox Populi, Vox Dei

The Catholic Bishop’s Conference of the Philippines has been vocal in opposing the passing of the RH Bill. The Church hierarchy has called for denial of communion and even the excommunication of members of Congress who have authored or are supportive of the proposed legislation. They have also called on the electorate to punish these legislators at the polls come 2010.

As Filipinos and as a social institution, the Church hierarchy is entitled to voice its position in matters which they deem involve morality. However the issue on reproductive health is one that is not merely moral, defined as the authoritative delineation of what is right and wrong, but also touches on what is socially just for those subsumed by such authority.

The Philippines is a republic. Its people have elected members of Congress to whom they have entrusted representation, or voice, in government. The Philippine Constitution is the highest manifestation of Filipinos’ collective voice. One of the reasons why the constitution deems the separation between Church and State “inviolable” is to remain true to the republican social contract which places sovereignty on the will of the People. Filipinos exercise their sovereign right to self-determination by electing representatives in government who are tasked to make manifest their constituents’ collective voices. As a Republic, the Philippines’ legislators, unlike the Catholic hierarchy, must also be answerable to those not of the Catholic faith.

In 2004, Filipino Muslims issued a fatwah (official ruling) which expressed support of family planning. The ruling endorses the use of “all methods of contraception” given that they are safe, legal and in accordance with the teachings and principles of their religion. This is a direct response to higher maternal and infant mortality rates in the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao as compared to other regions. A genuine democracy aggregates the interests and values of the minority along with the majority.

Plurality of Catholic Voices: Unity in Diversity

The Philippines, and five others, are the only remaining Catholic countries of 42 which do not have a clear policy on population management and reproductive health.

The plurality with which the Catholic faithful practices the minutiae of religion is reflected in the varying stances of practitioners world-wide. A region with which we share cultural and historical similarities, Latin America, has long called for the need to put reproductive health issues into a developing-country context.

Immediately after its release in 1968, Latin American bishops expressed support for Pope Paul VI’s De Humanae Vitae, with some caveats that placed the Catholic faith in the context of developing countries. The Second Latin American Bishop’s Conference held that same year admitted that “population growth in Latin America exacerbated economic, social and ethical problems, such as low nuptiality, single parent families, out-of-wedlock births, and housing shortages.” By the late 1960s the Latin American Catholic Church affirmed that population growth caused unjust suffering for many families.

There is clearly no single voice speaking for all Catholics on matters of reproductive health and population management.

Disinformation in the Media Regarding ‘Abortion’

In accordance with the Constitution, RH Bill 5043 clearly upholds the sanctity of family life by continuing to deem abortion illegal.

There is no evidence to support the claims of the CBCP that Representative Lagman’s RH bill “opens a door for abortion to be recognized as a population control method.” In fact, Western Europe, where abortion is legal, experiences the lowest rate of abortion in the world with a rate of 11 per 1,000.

Whether we admit it or not, abortion is a fact in the Philippines. Based on data gathered in the late 1990s, some 473,000 abortions occurred in 2000. 1/3 of women who experience an unintended pregnancy end it in abortion. Unintended pregnancy is therefore the root cause of abortion. Preventing unplanned or unintended pregnancies by providing women access to comprehensive family planning and reproductive health services, including access to complete and accurate information, would enable women and couples to make informed decisions and, consequently, help prevent abortions and save women’s lives.

It is true that in Philippine context the Church hierarchy perhaps holds a monopoly of authority on things ‘moral’ and not-of-this-world. They are shepherds who must tend to the spiritual needs and well-being of their flock. However their flock is also made of flesh-and-bone and must subsist on material things – clothes, food, shelter, all of which are finite. It is in the dominion of the laity – to ensure that the people’s physical well-being is able to sustain spiritual well-being.

While there may be no interest groups who loudly campaign for a comprehensive national reproductive health program, some important facts indicate that Filipino families need such policies. According to the NSO's Family Planning Surveys, 15.7 percent of married women who do not want any more children or who want to wait before having their next birth currently have no access to any method of family planning.

36 out of 100 married women are already using modern family planning method. Pills are the most popular form of contraception, followed by female sterilisation or ligation. More than half of those who use contraceptives are married women aged 35 to 39 years old.

Reproductive rights are also human rights. Reproductive rights do not merely address issues on abortion. Reproductive rights address issues of maternal mortality, discrimination and a host of other gendered health issues. It is the struggle of women and men to decide on when and whether they want to have children and to have access to family planning services to achieve greater control over decisions which affect their own bodies.

There is a strong need for national legislation addressing the need for a pragmatic reproductive health policy. Legislators must answer to their mandate by enacting legislation which will lead to sustainable population and reproductive programs. Legislators are also mandated to speak on behalf of those who cannot.

Facts, Evidence and Empirical Reality

Our website is up. Please check out Reproductive Health Dot Com Dot Ph.

In Response to Expectorants' Condominiumized

In response to Resty O's Condominiumized series. All data culled from official documents published by the NSO, NSCB, PopCom and UPPI.

On "overpopulation."

The number of people inhabiting a finite space with finite resources only matters when the finite space and resources are not managed well. The Earth can only be called "overpopulated" when it can no longer sustain the population. Even regenerating resources, such as agriculture, can fail due to mismanagement or natural calamities. Given that the Philippines' annual population growth rate of 2.06 (average 2000-2007) remains constant, it is projected our population will rise to over 140 million. This is not a problem if along with the population growth we experience a sustainable growth in the economy that would support this number of people. But the economy has been very sluggish in comparison to our neighbors. If we look at the agriculture sector alone, which employs 36 percent half of the working-age population, the future looks grim.

Nowhere does it say in HB 5043, that the Philippines is "overpopulated."

"Our population growth rate of 2.04% is extremely high. The CIA gives a much lower estimate of 1.728% (World Factbook Country Listing of 2008, available on the internet)."

And of course we will believe the estimates of the CIA over Filipino demographers and statisticians who are working here.

"We should aim for a Zero Population Growth Rate."

The bill does not suggest a target population growth rate. Our lobby's budget advocacy aims to eliminate "unmet need," i.e. the number of mothers who say they want to space children or stop having children but are unable to because they do not have access to family planning methods and commodities and/or do not have resources to acquire them.

There is a 15.7 percent "unmet need" among married/in union women of reproductive age (15-64) in the Philippines.

On the number of children

The Philippines' total fertility rate, i.e. the average number of children per couple is 3.5. Desired fertility rate on average is 2.5. What difference can one more child make? According to studies a lot. The table below is taken from "Poverty, Vulnerability and Family Size: Evidence from the Philippines" by Aniceto C. Orbeta, Jr. ADB Institute Discussion Paper No. 29, June 2005.



This table shows that the more children there are in the family, the higher the higher the incidence of poverty.

You can read the rest of Orbeta's analysis here.

While the bill suggests having 2 children, this suggestion is in no way coercive. If a couple think they can support 10 kids, they will not be penalized for their choices.

FACT: 20.1 percent of currently married/in union women of reproductive age are already having 2 kids anyway. 17.9 of them have 3 (NDHS 2003).

On Poverty

This country is poor (by poor I mean 1 in 4 Filipinos is going hungry involuntarily). A growing population is not the cause of poverty. Poverty is caused by many, many things. I believe my search for these factors are well-documented in this blog over the years. However a growing population makes those who are already poor suffer more. It also perpetuates the cycle of poverty from once generation to the next. Once you are born into a family with scant resources, what are the chances of you making out of poverty yourself?

Picture a family of 10, the young couple with 8 kids living on the father's minimum wage. P300++/ day divided by 10 = P30 per person? In this instance, how can the mother not make her children work as well? That is why you see them begging on the streets instead of studying in schools. Should the mother work as soon after giving birth to her youngest, who will take care of the brood? If she does not work, then she has no money of her own and is completely at the mercy of her husband. What if their marriage is less than ideal?

On Development

I am re-posting my response from part of my latest entry at Filipino Voices.

What is the impact of the reduced population growth of other countries on economic development?

Reduced population growth coupled with an outstanding development policy environment produced the “East Asian miracle” something that has eluded the Philippines, even while it is geographically in the region. Lower dependency ratios, a large working-age population and a growing economy resulted in rapid economic development.

South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, and Thailand are among the first group of less-developed countries (LDCs) to achieve low total fertility rate (TFR) in the world. From the 1960s onward, these countries abandoned the idea that a large population was a source of strength. This assumption was replaced by the idea that population growth was an impediment to development goals.

Between 1975 and 2000, Thailand’s per capita income grew to eight times, Indonesia 6.5 times and South Korea 10 times. The Philippines could only manage 2.6 times but it had the highest population growth rate among the three at 2.36 percent a year on the average.

The East Asian miracle can be attributed to these countries taking advantage of their ‘demographic dividend’ or the rise in the rate of economic growth due to a rising share of working age people in a population. The demographic dividend was made possible by reduced fertility.

The East Asian demographic transition of the past fifty years is the fastest demographic transition to date. Modern transitions are faster because countries gain the benefit of knowledge, experience, or technology developed by others.

The Philippines has a large working-age population, but why does this not translate into economic growth?

While the Philippines has a large working-age population, the dependency ratio is equally high. Moreover, not all who belong to the working-age group are gainfully employed.

For every 10 working adult, there are 7.2 dependents. There are 51 million Filipinos of working age (15-64 years old). Of these 4.1 million are unemployed and 10 million are underemployed.

“Demographic dividend” (or the rise in the rate of economic growth due to a rising share of working age people in a population) does not occur automatically. It is achieved through the right combination of national policies. Without the right policy environment, it is possible that the Philippines will miss the opportunity to secure growth.

The demographic dividend is delivered through three main mechanisms - labor supply, savings and human capital.

As long as the labor market can absorb the labor supply, per capita production increases. Sluggish economic growth unable to absorb new labor will lead to a large unemployed/underemployed working-age population.

A large working population encourages the growth of savings, improving the overall prospects for investment and growth in the country. However an economy unable to generate wages that exceeds subsistence levels is not likely to generate savings.

A working population able to save will invest in education and health - essential investments in human capital. The long-term gain is a society that is more productive, promoting higher wages and a better standard of living.

The three mechanisms of demographic dividend – labor supply, savings and human capital – are all highly dependent on the national policy environment.

On the role of the Church

"The Catholic Church is not concerned with the plight of the poor in the country."

Mary Racelis to Bishop Bacani, Ateneo Development Society Forum, 2 Fridays ago: "If the church is so supportive of natural family planning father, why are there no services teaching them in parishes?"

Bishop Bacani: (stoic face.)

On the safety of pills, condoms etc.

This is the WHO report quoted by CBCP when they say pills are carcinogenic. In bold caps the report reads "ORAL CONTRACEPTIVES INCREASE RISK OF SOME CANCERS AND
DECREASE RISK OF OTHERS."

I don't know if Resty has ever bought condoms. They usually say they are only 96% or so effective. The instruction leaflet also informs the user of how the condom might be damaged etc.

On Thailand. In 1991, HIV/AIDS infection among the adult population peaked at 143,000. The aggressive promotion of condom use initiated by the government was a direct response to the epidemic focusing on the country’s prostitution industry. At one point condom use among sex workers was at 96 percent. At present there are an estimated 580,000 adults who are infected with HIV/AIDS.

Strong government support decreased the prevalence of HIV/AIDS significantly among adults, reducing the rate from 30 percent in 1994 to 12 percent in 2003.

On Semantics

The motive of couples of practice natural family planning as well as modern methods is one and the same. Prevent pregnancy.

At this point I'm getting more and more annoyed with what Resty, an old blog buddy, has posted on his blog.

I will finish this post once I have cooled down some.

But on the point of age-appropriate sex education for young adults from Grade 5 and up, this is what I have to say.

I went to the committee hearing discussing the proposed Anti-Child Pornography bill. Horror of horrors, child porno, filmed here and starring Filipino children, are openly sold in places where anyone can buy DVDs.

Pro-life solon Rep Zialcita, in a sneering and condescending voice asked "Sa tingin n'yo makakatulong ba ang sex ed ng Rh bill na yan?"

Rep. Custodio-Antonino responded by saying they are actually considering lowering the age for much younger kids. To teach them not about the intricacies of kama sutra but to teach them what sex is. To teach them about their sensitive body parts and about what is inappropriate interaction with adults.

We are dealing here with realities other people live through. Let's pull our heads out of our asses and open our eyes. Please.

To be continued....

Popcorn Na Lang

This is just a small preview of the exciting events happening in the HOR now that the RH bill ha finally reached the floor for debate. Kung pwede lang magbaon ng popcorn sa loob ng session hall. Hehehe.