Liam Daniel C.

Canlas
199
2010-10061

LIS

Basic Topic Paper

The way we interpret information is inevitably colored by many factors experiences, education, religion, family, media and the like all can affect the
way we interpret information and come to form our opinions.
The assumption is that when presented with information on a topic, we
would be able to set aside these said factors in the formation of our opinion,
yet in a study by Matthew C. Nisbet, he found that: Instead of a fully
informed and deliberative public, past research indicates that it is more likely
that the public by nature is miserly, with individuals relying on their value
predispositions and only the information most readily available to them from
the mass media and other sources in order to formulate an opinion about
science controversy.
A similar trend can be observed in the Philippines in the interpretation or
understanding of legal information, particularly with the hold of the Catholic
Church on the development of values.
A local example wherein this disconnect between the public opinion and the
actual legal holdings can be observed is in discussions of the Responsible
Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012 or the RH Law.
One of the common assertions against the RH Law, supported by the
Catholic Church was that the law is pro-abortion and anti-life. But as

shown in the judicial review by the Supreme Court of the said bill, the RH law
is explicitly anti-abortion, with provisions outright stating the proscription of
abortion and management of abortion complications, and the explicit
exclusion of abortion and access to abortifacients as reproductive health
rights were defined. This disconnect could be remedied by proper
examination of the bill, yet it served as one of the major arguments against
the constitutionality of the RH Law. There is heavy focus on expression of
religious freedom in the public opinion against the law, yet going through the
actual judicial review, religious freedom was only one of many aspects used
in arguing its unconstitutionality.
Another example which has recently come under fire is that of the current
Mining Law. One of the most common misconceptions regarding mining is
that mining leaves the environment devastated, simply draining an area of
the resources it contains there is a failure to realize that mining is a
temporary land use, and that in the Mining Act of 1995, there are provisions
that requires that mines to undertake an environmental and enhancement
program covering the period of the mineral agreement or permit, as well as
require contractors and permittees to rehabilitate, excavated, mined-out,
tailings covered and disturbed areas to the condition of environmental safety.
There is again, clearly stated legal basis against a statement which is one of
the key arguments for deriding the current mining law.

As with Nisbets study regarding stem cell research, the study would aim to
test the relationship between an increase of available information and public
support for the laws in question.

References
Nisbet, M. C. (2005). The Competition for Worldviews: Values, Information,
and Public Support for Stem Cell Research [Abstract]. International Journal of
Public Opinion Research, 17(1), 90-112. doi:10.1093/ijpor/edh058
Rep. Act No. 10354 (2014)
Rep. Act No. 7942 (1995), sec. 69
Rep. Act No. 7942 (1995), sec. 71