Congressional Record
PLENARY PROCEEDINGS OF THE 15th CONGRESS, FIRST REGULAR SESSION
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Vol. 4 Tuesday, May 17, 2011
CALL TO ORDER
At 4:00 p.m., Speaker Feliciano Belmonte Jr. called the
session to order.
THE SPEAKER. The session is called to order.
NATIONAL ANTHEM
THE SPEAKER. Please stand for the singing of the
Philippine National Anthem.
Everybody rose to sing the Philippine National
Anthem.
THE SPEAKER. Cong. Ma. Amelita A. Calimbas-Villarosa
will lead us in the Invocation.
Everybody remained standing for the Invocation.
INVOCATION
REP. CALIMBAS-VILLAROSA. In the name of the
Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Dear Father God,
We, in Philippine Congress, are gathered here today
seeking to discharge our legislative mandate with honor,
integrity and a healthy respect for the future.
We stand here, Lord, as the elected Representatives of
the Filipino people, tasked with the responsibility to make
their government more responsive to their needs, to reduce
poverty and to eliminate waste. The legislative branch of
Congress, as a co-equal branch of government, is mandated
not only to legislate laws, but also to safeguard the interests
of the Filipino people by ensuring all laws are in line with the
spirit and letter of the Constitution.
The current agenda includes the proposed Reproductive
Health Act, which touches on many weighty spheres such as
constitutional freedom, legal rights, religion, morality, even
while providing an interesting commentary on the present
tension on our cultural and social norms.
Thus, we ask that You send the Holy Spirit to guide us
and inform our conscience so that our human conscience
may be filled with Your light and not be clouded by our own
unruly human errors, pride, wrong thinking and unruly
passions.
Guide us, Lord, and let us be legislators of Your love,
truth and character. Let us lift up the character of our people
to the level of partners, in the truest expression of public-
No. 70
private partnership, where both are equally responsible and
accountable for nation-building.
Help us to continue to be a beacon of light for all nations
as a strong, moral and family- and God-centered nation of
hardworking, self-sacrificing citizens. Let us be agents of
social and moral change.
We pray as always for Your help so that we can live out
our values not only through prayers like this but more
importantly, as matched by the appropriate work towards a
just and peaceful society in private, corporate and public
realms.
Ora et labore. Our prayer and our work—this we offer to
You and our fellowmen and women, and most especially the
children, along with our hearts.
In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Spirit.
Amen.
THE SPEAKER. Thank you, Congresswoman Calimbas-
Villarosa.
The Floor Leader is recognized.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
REP. ORTEGA (F.). Mr. Speaker, I move that we suspend
the session for a few minutes.
THE SPEAKER. The session is suspended.
It was 4:04 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 4:23 p.m., the session was resumed with Deputy
Speaker Jesus Crispin C. Remulla presiding.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Remulla). The Floor
Leader is recognized.
REP. ORTEGA (F.). Mr. Speaker, may we acknowledge
the presence of some guests in the gallery of the Lady from
the Third District of Pangasinan, Congresswoman Rachel J.
Arenas. We have here from Barangay Turac, San Carlos City:
Barangay Captain Reynante F. Castañeda, Kagawad Henry
Barlaan and Kagawad Danilo Medina.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Remulla). Please stand
up to be recognized. Welcome to the House of
Representatives. (Applause)
2 TUESDAY, MAY 17, 2011

REP. ORTEGA (F.). May we also acknowledge the Ejercito Miraflores

presence, Mr. Speaker, of the guests of the Hon. Jorge Emano Montejo
“Bolet” Banal, the officers of Cubao Lions Club. We have Eriguel Noel
here Lion Jojo Sta. Ana, Lion Nonie Esmedia, Lion Rollie Escudero Nograles
Encarnacion, Lion Manny Cuasay, Lion Santi Lim, Lion Espina Obillo
Angely Lim, Lion Bhoyette Mendiola, Lion Marte Felix and Estrella Olivares
Lion Roger Baoayan. Evardone Ong
Fabian Ortega (F.)
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Remulla). Please stand Fariñas Ortega (V.)
up to be recognized. Welcome to the House of Fernandez Pacquiao
Representatives. (Applause) Ferrer (A.) Padilla
Flores Paez
ROLL CALL Fortuno Palatino
Fua Palmones
REP. ORTEGA (F.). Mr. Speaker, I move that we call the Fuentebella Pancho
roll. Fuentes Pangandaman (M.)
Garay Pangandaman (S.)
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Remulla). Is there any Garbin Panotes
objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is Garcia (P.) Paras
approved. Garcia (P.J.) Payuyo
The Secretary General will please call the roll. Garcia-Albano Piamonte
Garin (S.) Pichay
The Secretary General called the roll, and the result is Gatchalian Ping-ay
as follows, per Journal No. 70: Golez (A.) Ponce-Enrile
Golez (R.) Puno
PRESENT Gomez Quimbo
Gonzales (A.) Quisumbing
Abad Bichara Gonzales (N.) Ramos
Abayon Binay Gonzalez Relampagos
Acharon Bondoc Guanlao Remulla
Aggabao Cabaluna Gullas Rivera
Aglipay Cabilao Yambao Gunigundo Robes
Albano Cajayon Haresco Rodriguez (I.)
Alcover Calimbas-Villarosa Herrera-Dy Rodriguez (M.)
Almario Calixto-Rubiano Ilagan Rodriguez (R.)
Almonte Canonigo Jaafar Roman
Alvarez (A.) Cari Javier Romualdez
Alvarez (M.) Casiño Joson Romualdo
Amante-Matba Castro Kho (A.) Romulo
Amatong Catamco Kho (D.) Sacdalan
Angara Celeste Lacson-Noel Sakaluran
Angping Cerilles Lagdameo (A.) Salimbangon
Antonino Chipeco Lagdameo (M.) Sambar
Apostol Climaco Lagman San Luis
Aquino Co Lanete Sarmiento (C.)
Arago Cojuangco (E.) Lazatin Sarmiento (M.)
Arenas Cojuangco (K.) Leonen-Pizarro Sema
Arnaiz Cortuna Lico Singson
Arquiza Cosalan Limkaichong Socrates
Arroyo (D.) Cruz-Gonzales Loong Suarez
Bagatsing Cua Loyola Sy-Alvarado
Baguilat Dalog Madrona Tan
Balindong Datumanong Magsaysay (E.) Teodoro
Banal Dayanghirang Mandanas Teves
Barzaga Daza Marañon Tieng
Bataoil De Jesus Marcos Ting
Batocabe Defensor Matugas Tinio
Bautista Del Mar Mellana Tomawis
Bello Dimaporo (F.) Mendoza (M.) Treñas
Belmonte (F.) Duavit Mercado (H.) Tugna
Belmonte (V.) Durano Mercado (R.) Tupas
Benitez Dy Mercado-Revilla Ty
TUESDAY, MAY 17, 2011 3

Umali (C.) Villafuerte APPROVAL OF THE JOURNAL

Umali (R.) Villarica
Unico Yap (A.) REP. ORTEGA (F.). Mr. Speaker, I move that we approve
Vargas-Alfonso Yap (S.) the Journal of the previous session, Journal No. 69, Monday,
Velarde Yu May 16, 2011.
Velasco Zubiri
Vergara THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Remulla). Is there any
objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; Journal No. 69 is
THE SECRETARY GENERAL. The Speaker is present. hereby approved.
Mr. Speaker, the roll call shows that 207 Members The Floor Leader is recognized.
responded to the call.
REP. ORTEGA (F.). Mr. Speaker, I move that we take up
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Remulla). With 207 the Reference of Business.
Members present, a quorum is hereby declared.
The Floor Leader is recognized. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Remulla). Is there any
objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is
REP. ORTEGA (F.). Mr. Speaker, may we acknowledge approved.
the presence of a former colleague. Ka Satur Ocampo is here. The Secretary General is directed to read the Reference
of Business.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Remulla). Ka Satur
Ocampo is welcome to the House anytime. (Applause) REFERENCE OF BUSINESS

REP. ORTEGA (F.). Mr. Speaker, we also have other guests. The Secretary General read the following House Bills
May we acknowledge the presence of the members of the and Resolutions on First Reading, Communications and
Secretariat and officials from the House of Representatives Committee Reports, and the Deputy Speaker made the
of the Kingdom of Thailand. We have here Mrs. Chollada corresponding references:
Kunkloy, Mrs. Busrakhum Chaosiri, Miss Sirinyapa
Jantapirak, Mr. Rungroj Sripirom, Miss Napatip Nupoontong, BILLS ON FIRST READING
Miss Phan-Kwan Ming-Kwan, Miss Pichuda Jatu-Prayoon
and Mr. Harin Sutabutra. House Bill No. 4579, entitled:
“AN ACT MANDATING THE COMPLETION OF
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Remulla). Please stand THE CONSTRUCTION OF MAASIN CITY
up to be recognized. Welcome to the House of AIRPORT IN MAASIN CITY, SOUTHERN
Representatives. (Applause) LEYTE”
The Floor Leader is recognized. By Representative Mercado (R.)
TO THE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION
REP. ORTEGA (F.). Mr. Speaker, we also have the guests of
the Hon. Edcel C. Lagman, the Hon. Sharon S. Garin, the Hon. House Bill No. 4580, entitled:
Teddy Brawner Baguilat Jr. and the Hon. Angelo B. Palmones. “AN ACT CREATING A FULL CONSULATE GENERAL
May we acknowledge the presence of the delegates from the OFFICE IN NAGOYA, JAPAN AND
Alliance of Young Nurse Leaders and Advocates, International; APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR”
Aksyon Kababaihan; Bukluran ng Manggagawang Pilipino; By Representatives Ilagan and De Jesus
Democratic Socialist Women of the Philippines; Kapisanan ng TO THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND
mga Kamag-anak ng Migranteng Manggagawang Pilipino; THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Likhaan Center for Women’s Health; Manggagawang
Kababaihang Mithi ay Paglaya; Pinagsamang Lakas ng House Bill No. 4581, entitled:
Kababaihan at Kabataan; REPROCEN; Zone One Tondo “AN ACT REQUIRING ALL TELECOMMUNICATION
Organization; Woman Health Philippines; Young Women’s COMPANIES TO SECURE BUSINESS PERMITS
Choice; and Family Planning Organization of the Philippines. AND LICENSES IN THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT
May we also acknowledge the presence of the UNITS WHERE THEIR RESPECTIVE CELL SITES
representatives from Filipino Free Thinkers; Freedom from ARE LOCATED”
Debt Coalition-Women’s Committee; Kongreso ng Pagkakaisa By Representative Tiangco
ng mga Maralita ng Lungsod; Pambansang Kalipunan ng TO THE COMMITTEE ON INFORMATION AND
mga Manggagawang Impormal sa Pilipinas; Partido Lakas ng COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY
Masa; Partido ng Manggagawa; Sarilaya; Philippine
Commission on Women; and Youth Consortium. They are House Bill No. 4582, entitled:
the guests of the Hon. Mel Senen S. Sarmiento. “AN ACT CREATING THE SPECIAL PROGRAM FOR
THE EMPLOYMENT OF NURSES IN URBAN AND
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Remulla). Please stand RURAL SERVICES (NURSE)”
up to be recognized. The guests are all welcome to the House By Representative Ty
of Representatives. (Applause) TO THE COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND
The Floor Leader is recognized. EMPLOYMENT
4 TUESDAY, MAY 17, 2011
House Bill No. 4583, entitled:
“AN ACT ESTABLISHING A MAGNA CARTA FOR
DAY CARE WORKERS, PROVIDING FUNDS
THEREFOR AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES”
By Representative Quimbo
TO THE COMMITTEE ON WELFARE OF CHILDREN
House Bill No. 4584, entitled:
“AN ACT TO CREATE THE SOCIAL HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT AND FINANCE CORPORATION,
PRESCRIBING ITS POWERS AND FUNCTIONS,
AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES”
By Representative Quimbo
TO THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT
ENTERPRISES AND PRIVATIZATION AND THE
COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT
House Bill No. 4587, entitled:
“AN ACT DECLARING EVERY TWENTY-SIXTH DAY
OF FEBRUARY OF EACH YEAR AS ‘DIA DE LA
CIUDAD DE ZAMBOANGA’AND AS A SPECIAL
NON-WORKING HOLIDAY IN THE CITY OF
ZAMBOANGA TO COMMEMORATE THE
DECLARATION OF THE CITY OF ZAMBOANGA
AS A CHARTERED CITY”
By Representative Climaco
TO THE COMMITTEE ON REVISION OF LAWS
House Bill No. 4588, entitled:
“AN ACT DECLARING EVERY TWELFTH DAY OF
OCTOBER OF EACH YEAR AS ‘FIESTA PILAR’
AND AS A SPECIAL NON-WORKING HOLIDAY IN
THE CITY OF ZAMBOANGA TO
COMMEMORATE, AMENDING FOR THAT
PURPOSE SECTION 1 OF REPUBLICACT NO. 7350”
By Representative Climaco
TO THE COMMITTEE ON REVISION OF LAWS
House Bill No. 4589, entitled:
“AN ACT PROHIBITING THE ACCESS OF MINORS
TO ALCOHOLIC OR INTOXICATING LIQUOR OR
BEVERAGE AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES”
By Representative Cajayon
TO THE COMMITTEE ON WELFARE OF CHILDREN
House Bill No. 4590, entitled:
“AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE MANDATORY
UNIVERSALHEALTHCARECOVERAGEPROGRAM
ANDAPPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR”
By Representative Fortuno
TO THE COMMITTEE ON HEALTH
House Bill No. 4591, entitled:
“AN ACT REQUIRING ALL COLLEGES AND
UNIVERSITIES TO PROVIDE SCHOLARSHIP
GRANTS TO POOR BUT DESERVING STUDENTS
REPRESENTING AT LEAST FIVE PERCENT (5%)
OF THE TOTAL STUDENT POPULATION”
By Representative Fortuno
TO THE COMMITTEE ON HIGHER AND TECHNICAL
EDUCATION
House Bill No. 4592, entitled:
“AN ACT MANDATING BARANGAYS TO DECLARE
A TREE PLANTING DAY DURING THE
BARANGAY ASSEMBLY MEETING,
APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFORE AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES”
By Representatives Co, Batocabe and Garbin
TO THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON REFORESTATION
House Bill No. 4593, entitled:
“AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE INCREASE IN THE
MONTHLY PENSIONS UNDER THE SOCIAL
SECURITY SYSTEM, AMENDING FOR THIS
PURPOSE SECTION 12 OF R.A. 1161, OTHERWISE
KNOWN AS THE SOCIAL SECURITY LAW, AS
AMENDED, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES”
By Representative Cagas
TO THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT
ENTERPRISES AND PRIVATIZATION
House Bill No. 4594, entitled:
“AN ACT REGULATING THE COMPENSATION OF
PUBLIC UTILITY VEHICLE DRIVERS BY
REQUIRING PUBLIC TRANSPORT OPERATORS
TO PAY THEM FIXED MONTHLY SALARIES AND
PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS
THEREOF”
By Representative Ty
TO THE COMMITTEE ON LABORAND EMPLOYMENT
RESOLUTIONS
House Resolution No. 1224, entitled:
“RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE PROFOUND
SYMPATHY AND SINCERE CONDOLENCES OF
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ON THE
DEATH OF FORMER SAMAR REPRESENTATIVE
AND CALBAYOG CITY MAYOR REYNALDO S.
UY AND URGING THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL
POLICE TO CONDUCT A THOROUGH
INVESTIGATION OF HIS ASSASSINATION”
By Representative Sarmiento (M.)
TO THE COMMITTEE ON RULES
House Resolution No. 1225, entitled:
“A RESOLUTION URGING THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES TO CONDUCT AN INQUIRY
ON THE RECENT APPLICATION OF THERMA
MARINE INC. FOR TWO (2) ENERGY SUPPLY
AGREEMENTS WITH AGUSAN DEL NORTE
ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE INC. (ANECO) AND
DAVAO DEL SUR ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE INC.
(DANECO) WHEN CHEAPER POWER SUPPLY
FROM THE AGUS-PULANGUI HYDROPOWER
COMPLEX IS READILYAVAILABLE”
By Representative Mendoza (R.)
TO THE COMMITTEE ON RULES
House Resolution No. 1226, entitled:
“RESOLUTION STRONGLY URGING THE
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION TO
CONDUCT AN INQUIRY ON THE ANOMALOUS
TUESDAY, MAY 17, 2011
PRACTICE OF REQUIRING FERRY PASSENGERS
TO COMPULSORY PURCHASE AND PAY A
TRAVEL INSURANCE PRIOR TO EMBARKING A
VESSEL WHICH IS ALLEGEDLY WITH THE
IMPRIMATUR OF THE PHILIPPINE PORTS
AUTHORITY”
By Representative Romualdo
TO THE COMMITTEE ON RULES
House Resolution No. 1227, entitled:
“RESOLUTION HONORING THE LIFE, RECOGNIZING
THE CONTRIBUTIONS FOR THE
EMPOWERMENT OF FILIPINO WOMEN AND
EXPRESSING PROFOUND CONDOLENCES OF
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TO THE
BEREAVED FAMILY OF THE LATE JUSTICE
LEONOR INES LUCIANO, MAY 8, 1919-APRIL 29,
2011”
By Representatives Ilagan and De Jesus
TO THE COMMITTEE ON RULES
House Resolution No. 1228, entitled:
“RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE COMMITTEE ON
APPROPRIATIONS AND THE COMMITTEE ON
LOCAL GOVERNMENT TO INQUIRE, IN AID OF
LEGISLATION, INTO THE GOVERNMENT’S
FAILURE TO BUILD A SINGLE FIRE STATION IN
613 MUNICIPALITIES NATIONWIDE, AS
REQUIRED BYA 21-YEAR-OLD LAW”
By Representative Ty
TO THE COMMITTEE ON RULES
House Resolution No. 1229, entitled:
“A RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING AND
ACKNOWLEDGING THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF
THE IGLESIA NI CRISTO AND ITS FOUNDING
EXECUTIVE MINISTER BRO. FELIX Y. MANALO
TO PHILIPPINE SOCIETY ON THE OCCASION OF
THE 125TH BIRTH ANNIVERSARY OF BRO. FELIX
Y. MANALO”
By Representative Quimbo
TO THE COMMITTEE ON RULES
House Resolution No. 1230, entitled:
“A RESOLUTION CALLING ON THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES, THROUGH THE HOUSE
COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT
TO CONDUCT AN INVESTIGATION IN AID OF
LEGISLATION OVER THE MATTER OF ALLEGED
CONDUCT AND ACTS COMMITTED BY
COMMISSIONER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS COMMISSION LEADING TO A
CHARGE OF EXERTING PRESSURE AND
INFLUENCE OVER LABOR ARBITER TO DECIDE
A LABOR CASE HEARD BY THE LATTER IN
FAVOR AND TO BENEFIT A CERTAIN PARTY”
By Representative Sy-Alvarado
TO THE COMMITTEE ON RULES
House Resolution No. 1231, entitled:
“A RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY TO CONDUCT AN INQUIRY, IN AID OF
5
LEGISLATION, INTO THE STATUS OF THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 16 MAY 2008
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL OIL COMPANY -
ALTERNATIVE FUELS CORPORATION AND THE
FOURTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF CEBU
FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A JATROPHA
CURCAS PLANTATION IN CEBU, AND
RECOMMEND REMEDIAL MEASURES
THEREFOR”
By Representative Salimbangon
TO THE COMMITTEE ON RULES
House Resolution No. 1232, entitled:
“RESOLUTION URGING THE DEPARTMENT OF
FOREIGN AFFAIRS TO MANIFEST SUPPORT
AND MAKE REPRESENTATIONS TO THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA IN THE INCLUSION OF THE
PHILIPPINES AS ONE OF THE ELIGIBLE
COUNTRIES UNDER THE GUAM-
COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN
MARIANA ISLANDS (CNMI) VISA WAIVER
PROGRAM”
By Representatives Co, Batocabe and Garbin
TO THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
House Resolution No. 1233, entitled:
“RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE COMMITTEE ON
AQUACULTURE AND FISHERIES RESOURCES
TO CONDUCT AN INQUIRY IN AID OF
LEGISLATION INTO THE CONTINUING ILLEGAL
EXPORTATION AND EXPLOITATION OF
PHILIPPINE CORALS, AS WELL AS THE
DEGRADATION OF PHILIPPINE CORAL REEFS”
By Representative Aglipay
TO THE COMMITTEE ON RULES
House Resolution No. 1234, entitled:
“A RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE COMMITTEE ON
LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, TO INVESTIGATE,
AID OF LEGISLATION, THE COMPLIANCE OF
BANGKO SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS CIRCULAR
NO. 268 AND OTHER RELATED ISSUANCES ON
THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF THE
BANKING INDUSTRY WORKERS’RIGHT TO JOB
SECURITYAND ON EXISTING STATUTORYAND
REGULATORY RULES ON PERMISSIBLE JOB
CONTRACTING”
By Representatives Bello and Bag-ao
TO THE COMMITTEE ON RULES
House Resolution No. 1235, entitled:
“A RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE COMMITTEE ON
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, TO IMMEDIATELY
CONDUCT AN INVESTIGATION, IN AID OF
LEGISLATION, THE UNWARRANTED DELAY OF
THE DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS IN
PROCESSING, RENEWING AND RELEASING OF
PASSPORTS TO FILIPINO APPLICANTS”
By Representatives Bello and Bag-ao
TO THE COMMITTEE ON RULES
6 TUESDAY, MAY 17, 2011
ADDITIONAL COAUTHORS
Rep. Winston “Winnie” Castelo for House Bills No. 421,
599 and 617;
Rep. Rufus B. Rodriguez for House Bill No. 938;
Rep. Cinchona C. Cruz-Gonzales for House Bill No. 1504;
Rep. Maria Evita R. Arago for House Bill No. 2471;
Rep. Maria Isabelle “Beng” G. Climaco for House Bill No.
3391;
Rep. Bernadette R. Herrera-Dy for House Bills No. 3469
and 4352;
Reps. Elpidio F. Barzaga Jr. and Bernardo M. Vergara for
House Bill No. 3485;
Rep. Pedro B. Acharon Jr. for House Bills No. 3537, 4365
and 4464;
Rep. Godofredo V. Arquiza for House Bill No. 3933;
Reps. Pastor M. Alcover Jr., Jorge T. Almonte, Jose S.
Aquino II, Diosdado “Dato” M. Arroyo, Nicanor M. Briones,
Teddy A. Casiño, Florencio T. Flores Jr., David L. Kho, Scott
Davies S. Lanete, M.D. and Isidro S. Rodriguez Jr. for House
Bill No. 3977;
Rep. Cesar V. Sarmiento for House Bills No. 3977, 4365
and 4464;
Rep. Ma. Theresa B. Bonoan-David for House Bills No.
4016 and 4044;
Rep. Linabelle Ruth R. Villarica for House Bills No. 4212,
4217 and 4434;
Rep. Daryl Grace J. Abayon for House Bill No. 4276;
Rep. Rodolfo C. Fariñas for House Bills No. 4365 and
4464;
Rep. Sherwin N. Tugna for House Bills No. 350, 351,
1213, 1214, 1482 and 1563 and House Resolutions No. 69 and
178;
Rep. Anthony Rolando T. Golez Jr. for House Bills No.
1980, 2472, 2684 and 4363 and House Resolution No. 1170;
Rep. Rene L. Relampagos for House Bills No. 3046, 3133
and 3200 and House Resolution No. 791;
Reps. Eduardo R. Gullas and Emil L. Ong for House Bills
No. 3475 and 4365 and House Resolution No. 1170;
Reps. Luzviminda C. Ilagan and Raymond V. Palatino for
House Bills No. 3475, 3952, 4365 and 4409 and House
Resolutions No. 858 and 1170;
Rep. Sergio F. Apostol for House Bills No. 3475 and 4365
and House Resolution No. 1170; and
Reps. Romeo M. Acop and Paolo S. Javier for House
Resolution No. 1031.
WITHDRAWAL OF COAUTHORSHIP
Rep. David L. Kho for House Resolution No. 1135.
COMMUNICATIONS
Letter dated April 28, 2011 of Esteban B. Conejos, Jr.
Undersecretary, Office of the Undersecretary for Migrant
Workers’ Affairs, Department of Foreign Affairs,
submitting a soft copy in CD of the Report to Congress
on Assistance to Nationals for the period July to
December 2010, pursuant to Section 33 of Republic Act
No. 8042.
TO THE COMMITTEE ON OVERSEAS WORKERS
AFFAIRS
Letter dated May 10, 2011 of Hitoshi Ozawa, Minister and
Head, Political Section, Embassy of Japan, transmitting
a copy of two (2) resolutions adopted by their House of
Representatives and House Councilors.
TO THE COMMITTEE ON RULES
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Report by the Committee on Labor and Employment
(Committee Report No. 911), re H. No. 4643, entitled:
“AN ACT EXPANDING THE PROHIBITED ACTS OF
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST WOMEN ON
ACCOUNT OF SEX, AMENDING FOR THE
PURPOSE ARTICLES 135 AND 137 OF
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 442, AS AMENDED,
OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE LABOR CODE OF
THE PHILIPPINES”
recommending its approval in substitution of House Bill
Nos. 51, 421, 1452 and 1692
Sponsors: Representatives Ong, Rodriguez (R.), Angara,
Gunigundo and Yap (S.)
TO THE COMMITTEE ON RULES
Report by the Committee on Banks and Financial
Intermediaries (Committee Report No. 912), re H. No. 4655,
entitled:
“AN ACT STRENGTHENING THE TRANSPARENCY
AND DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS IN THE USE
OF CREDIT CARD FACILITIES, AMENDING FOR
THE PURPOSE REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8484,
OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE ‘ACCESS DEVICES
REGULATION ACT OF 1998’ ”
recommending its approval in substitution of House Bill
No. 3675
Sponsors: Representatives Apostol and Romulo
TO THE COMMITTEE ON RULES
Report by the Committee on Housing and Urban Development
(Committee Report No. 913), re H. No. 4656, entitled:
“AN ACT INSTITUTING REFORMS IN THE
GOVERNMENT’S DRIVEAGAINSTPROFESSIONAL
SQUATTERSAND SQUATTING RACKETEER/S OR
SYNDICATES, STRENGTHENING THE
MECHANISMS THEREFOR,AMENDING FOR THE
PURPOSE REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7279, AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES”
recommending its approval in substitution of House Bill
Nos. 2145 and 4101
Sponsors: Representatives Valencia, Bagatsing and
Calimbas-Villarosa
TO THE COMMITTEE ON RULES
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Remulla). The Dep.
Majority Leader is recognized.
CONSIDERATION OF H.B. NO. 4244
Continuation
PERIOD OF SPONSORSHIP AND DEBATE
REP. BINAY. Mr. Speaker, I move that we resume the
consideration on Second Reading of House Bill No. 4244, as
TUESDAY, MAY 17, 2011
contained in Committee Report No. 664 and I ask that the
Secretary General be directed to read the title of the bill.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Remulla). Is there any
objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is
approved.
The Secretary General is directed to read the title of the
measure.
THE SECRETARY GENERAL. House Bill No. 4244,
entitled: AN ACT PROVIDING FOR A COMPREHENSIVE
POLICY ON RESPONSIBLE PARENTHOOD,
REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH, AND POPULATION AND
DEVELOPMENT, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Remulla). The Dep.
Majority Leader may proceed.
REP. BINAY. Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary situation is
that it is now in the period of sponsorship and debate. With
the authority of the Chairman of the Committee, we would
like to move for the recognition of the Honorable Lagman to
defend the bill and the Honorable Bagatsing to interpellate.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Remulla). The Hon. Edcel
C. Lagman is recognized to defend the measure and the Hon.
Amado S. Bagatsing is hereby recognized for the first
interpellation.
REP. BAGATSING. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to thank at the outset, Mr. Speaker, our
Deputy Speaker, Cong. Pabling P. Garcia, for acceding to my
request that I be given the chance to interpellate the honorable
Sponsor of this proposed House bill.
Now, is the Gentleman from Albay willing to clarify some
issues pertaining to his bill?
REP. LAGMAN. Willingly, Mr. Speaker, to the
distinguished Gentleman from Manila, a colleague since the
Eighth Congress, just like the distinguished Gentleman from
Cebu, the Hon. Pablo Garcia.
REP. BAGATSING. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I would just like to be guided by the
honorable proponent/Sponsor of this bill: is there a compelling
reason for us to pursue with his proposed House bill? What
is the compelling reason, Mr. Speaker?
REP. LAGMAN. Definitely, Mr. Speaker, there are a
number of compelling reasons on why we should now enact
the Reproductive Health (RH) Bill. First, it is a poverty
alleviation measure because empirical studies both here and
abroad have documented the linkage between population
development and poverty. It is also a rights-based proposed
legislation wherein we uphold the rights of parents—
particularly women who bear the brunt of pregnancy,
childbirth and childcare—to freely and responsively determine
the number and the spacing of their children. This is pursuant
to international conventions, more importantly, the one which
is known as the Declaration of Teheran to which the
Philippines was a signatory almost 43 years ago. This is also
a health-based or health-oriented legislation. More
7
particularly, it focuses on the reduction of maternal and infant
mortality which is part of our commitments to the United
Nations Millennium Development Goals. The RH Bill is also
sustainable development-oriented since we could not
possibly achieve sustainable development without
addressing the problem of population.
REP. BAGATSING. Yes. Mr. Speaker, that was very
elaborate, from the Gentleman from Albay. First, he mentioned
that it is a poverty alleviation measure, then he mentioned
health. It gives me the impression that this is considered a
be-all and end-all that will eliminate poverty. Para bagang
kapag ipinasa ang batas na ito ay mawawala na ang kahirapan.
Ganoon ba kaganda ang panukalang batas na ito?
REP. LAGMAN. Hindi po. Wala hong RH advocate na
nagsasabi niyan. Ang nagsasabi ho niyan ay iyong mga anti-
RH advocates. Inaamin ho namin na itong RH Bill is not a
magic wand, it is not a magic pill to make poverty vanish from
this earth; it will only help alleviate poverty. Marami hong
kailangang gawin ang gobyerno upang ma-achieve natin ang
pag-alis ng poverty at ang isa po dito ay ang pagpasa nitong
Reproductive Health Bill, which would effectively, as an
outcome, mitigate the population growth rate because an
inordinate population growth rate would aggravate poverty.
Iyan po talaga ang resulta ng pag-aaral dito ho sa bansa at sa
labas ng bansa. Ito rin po ang lumalabas sa pag-aaral ng
United Nations sapagkat halos lahat, except the United
States, in the first 12 most populous countries, sila po ay
mababang-mababa sa human development indicators. Ngunit
iyong tatlong bansa na talagang mataas ang human
development indicators ay masyadong maliit ang populasyon,
and these are empirical data which could not be rebutted.
REP. BAGATSING. Mr. Speaker, it appears that poverty
and health ay parang extra lang sa bill na ito. It appears that
the bill is more centered on depopulating the country, on
population management. Para bagang ang problema ay ang
dami ng tao at ang nais ng panukalang batas na ito ay i-
manage ang ating populasyon. Hindi ba ang mga malulusog
na ekonomiya sa buong mundo tulad ng China at India ay
mayroong mahigit isang bilyong tao? Economically strong
naman sila. So, hindi yata kapani-paniwala na ang dahilan ay
ang ating lumolobong populasyon sapagkat, kagaya ng
sinabi ko kanina, dalawang napakalaking bansa na halos tig-
iisang bilyon o mahigit pa ang dami ng kanilang tao ay hindi
naman masasabing mahirap na bansa. Anytime, China can
overtake the US in terms of economy. So I cannot see the
logic of the population issue in the proposed bill, Mr. Speaker.
Besides, kung population ang pag-uusapan, I can see in this
bill that there are condoms, contraceptives and abortifacients.
Is it not that itong mga contraceptives na inyong nili-legitimize
by way of legislation, ay existing na at nakukuha na sa
anumang tindahan? May nagbibigay pa nga ng libre kaya
bakit kinakailangan pa nating ipasa ito samantalang naririyan
na ang mga iyan? Bakit kinakailangan pang paglaanan ito ng
pondo samantalang ang pondong iyan ay magagamit naman
natin sa mas maraming bagay tulad ng kalusugan at
edukasyon? Iyong mga nais ng Kinatawan na gawing ligal sa
panukalang ito, hindi naman hindi maaabot ng tao ang mga
ito sapagkat sa kasalukuyan, right now, as we speak, may
local government units na nagbibigay ng seminar on
8 TUESDAY, MAY 17, 2011
responsible parenthood. Mayroon din pong mga local
governments at NGOs na nagbibigay ng condom. Mayroon
din pong mga ibang artificial means of contraception na
ibinibigay. Bakit kinakailangan pang paggugulan ng pansin
ng pamahalaan ito at lagyan pa ng pondo ang mga nais gawin
ng Kinatawan samantalang mayroon na at nangyayari na ang
mga ito ngayon?
REP. LAGMAN. Unang-una ho, ito ay hindi nagli-
legitimize ng contraceptives sapagkat sa ngayon ay wala
naman na batas declaring contraceptives as illegal. There is
nothing to legitimize. Ang ating Saligang Batas ay hindi naman
bina-ban ang contraceptives sapagkat ayon sa pagsusuri ng
international and local studies, ang contraceptives ay hindi
abortifacients. Bakit kailangan pa ang ating panukalang batas
na ito kung available na sa mga botika ang contraceptives?
Unang-una, availability is not access.
REP. BAGATSING. Mr. Speaker.
REP. LAGMAN. Kahit na available sa botika ang mga
ito, iyong mga mahihirap, iyong marginalized sectors, iyong
informal sectors ay walang access diyan. Isa pa, kailangan
ang massive information campaign upang mabigyan ng sapat
na impormasyon ang mga magulang at kababaihan hinggil sa
family planning at contraceptive use.
Ngunit gusto ko lang ipaliwanag na ang panukalang
batas na ito ay hindi naman nakasentro sa pills and condoms
or injectables and IUDs. Dito dinadala ang debate ng mga
anti-RH Bill sapagkat itong ating panukala ay malawak ang
coverage. Kasama rito ang family planning. Kasama rito ang
maternal and infant health and nutrition, including
breastfeeding. Kasama rito ang prohibition of abortion but
management of abortion complications. Kasama ho rito ang
prevention and management of HIV-AIDS and other sexually-
transmitted diseases. Kasama rin dito ang prevention and
cure of sexual dysfunction and infertility. Kasama rin dito
ang pag-prevent ng violence against women, encouragement
of participation by men in family planning and giving
reproductive health education sa ating mga estudyante and
the youth. There is generally a default on the part of parents
in giving information about sex to their children and so, there
is a need for formal education on reproductive health and
sexuality.
REP. BAGATSING. Yes, Mr. Speaker. Marami pong
binanggit ang honorable Sponsor. Nabanggit niya ang
tungkol sa abortion at nabanggit niya ang karapatan ng mga
babae pero there are existing laws that can cover those. The
Department of Health can also offer information through the
barangay health workers, or the LGUs, for that matter, can
participate in disseminating this information. In other words,
iyong mga nais gawin ng panukalang batas ay nangyayari
na. It is not that it is totally out of the blue that our people
have no access to information or that they have no access to
free contraceptives. Maski ang mahihirap ay nakakakuha
naman nito. Sabi ko nga kanina, may mga NGOs at mga ibang
bansa na namimigay ng libreng condom. In other words, hindi
na ito bago, ito ay existing na. So, parang nakikita kong wala
namang saysay, wika nga, para ipasa pa ang bill na ito dahil
existing na ang nakasaad diyan. Unless, ang talagang nais
nito ay pondohan ng Kongreso ang pagbibili ng mga
abortifacients o kaya ng mga contraceptives, o ng ano pang
mga alituntunin. Nakita ko sa bill that so many agencies will
be involved and thus, it will need billions and billions of
pesos.
But let me just first go to abortion. Ang feel po ng marami
ay talagang dito ay may nakatago o may deception na
nilalaman ito tungkol sa paglaglag ng unborn child ng isang
nanay na buntis. Na dito ay nakatago ang abortion bagaman
sinasabi ng Sponsor na iligal ito. In the first place, mayroon
akong nabasa rito na ginamit ang word “universal.” Bakit po
natin isinasama ang “universal” dito sa ating panukalang
batas? Ang batas na ito ay para ba sa buong mundo o ang
batas na ito ay para sa Pilipinas lamang?
REP. LAGMAN. Marami hong concerns ang natalakay
doon sa tanong ng ating kaibigan. Sana ay isa-isa lamang
para masagot nating lahat.
REP. BAGATSING. Okey, isa-isahin natin.
REP. LAGMAN. Balikan natin ang unang tanong tungkol
sa Tsina. Alam ho natin na China is the number one most
populous country in the world. Pero kung titingnan natin
ang ranking ng Tsina sa Human Development Index, no. 89
siya. Ang layu-layo ho sa mga nasyon with a lean population.
Bakit kailangan natin ang RH Bill?
Kailangan nating i-institutionalize ang isang nationwide
and comprehensive law on responsible parenthood,
reproductive health and population and development
sapagkat ang lahat ng mga policies natin ngayon ay
intermittently being implemented and are subject to the biases
of the changing administration. Pasulput-sulpot po lamang
ang ating mga polisiya hinggil sa family planning. Sa
katunayan nga, sa nakaraang administrasyon, ang isinulong
lang ng POPCOM ay natural family planning at nakalimutan
na nila na mayroon iba pang methods of family planning
kaparis ng modern methods. Kaya importante talaga na i-
intitutionalize natin ang reproductive health. Ang mga polisiya
ng nakaraang administrasyon ay hinggil lamang sa family
planning ngunit ang reproductive health, nasabi ko na nga,
ang coverage nito ay malawak at hindi lang family planning.
Ang coverage nito, at nasabi ko na ito kanina, ay mga
importanteng concerns from maternal and infant health up to
curing infertility. Ang problema ng hindi nagbubuntis ay
kasama na po rito para mabigyan sila ng pag-asa na maka-
produce ng supling. Hindi po ito covered doon sa mga
sinabing nakaraan na mga polisiya. Ngayon naman sa abortion,
ang lahat hong pag-aaral ng United Nations, ng international
community at dito sa atin sa Pilipinas ay nagsasabi na ang
contraceptives ay hindi abortifacients. Mayroon ho ritong
submission na expert opinion ng UNDP, UNFPA at WHO, at
ito ang binigay na expert opinion sa Mababang
Kapulungan—nakalagay ho rito na ang contraceptives are
not abortifacients. Hindi ho totoo na abortifacients ang mga
contraceptives. Ang katunayan nga ho ay hindi po pro-
abortion ang RH Bill; ito ay anti-abortion sapagkat iyong
regular at tamang paggamit ng family planning methods,
including contraception, will reduce abortion rates by 85
percent. Kung 85 porsyento ang mare-reduce sa abortion
rate ay hindi na kailangan i-legalize ang abortion. Bakit 85
porsyento ang mare-reduce? Sapagkat naiiwasan iyong
tinatawag na mistimed and unwanted pregnancies na pinapa-
TUESDAY, MAY 17, 2011
abort. Ang mga nagpapa-abort naman ay hindi mga teenagers;
ang karamihan dito ay mga may asawa, young Catholic
women who cannot afford another child. Iyan po ang datos
na nakuha mula sa mga pagsusuring empirical dito sa ating
bansa at sa labas ng bansa.
REP. BAGATSING. Mr. Speaker, hindi ko yata tanggap
na ang contraceptives ay hindi nali-link sa abortion. Ang
contraceptives ay humaharang sa pagbubuntis—para huwag
magkita ang egg at ang sperm. We are playing with semantics
here. Ini-stop mo ang pagkikita ng dalawa, sabihin na natin
para mas madaling intindihin ng masa. Pag hinadlangan mo,
sa Ingles, ina-abort mo. Iyon ba ay mahirap bang intindihin?
When you stop something from fulfilling its obligation—
para hindi sila mag-meet—eh di hinaharang mo. Pag
hinaharang mo ang buhay, pinipigilan mo ang buhay, ina-
abort mo ang buhay. Mahirap po bang intindihin iyon? When
we do not want something to happen, we abort it. Ganoon po
ka-simplistic ang interpretation doon.
Ngayon, sa bill po, nakalagay din dito at madalas
banggitin ang mga salitang “universal” at “legal.” Hindi ko
maintindihan kung bakit nababanggit lagi iyon samantalang
ito ay para lamang sa Pilipinas at kapag naging batas ito,
magiging ligal naman talaga ito. Para bagang may nakatago
po, Mr. Speaker. Kagaya rito sa Section 4 on Definition of
Terms, the modern methods of family planning—nakalagay
po rito— “refer to safe, effective and legal methods, whether
natural or artificial.” Kapag po natural, ligal naman iyon.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Remulla). May the Chair
first make an appeal to the Members of the House to please
listen to the debates so that those who wish to interpellate
will not repeat the same questions, as was done in the past.
So, please refrain from doing something else. Please listen to
the debates and give due respect to those who have the
floor.
Thank you. Please continue.
REP. BAGATSING. Let me restate, Mr. Speaker, Section 4
on Definition of Terms, the phrase “modern methods of family
planning” refers to safe, effective and legal methods, whether
natural or artificial, that are registered, to prevent pregnancy.
Now, the natural method is legal. Wala namang iligal sa natural
method kaya bakit isinama sa artificial? Para bang o medyo
may konting deceiving dito, Mr. Speaker. First of all, the
natural method is legal. The artificial method, probably, is
illegal. That is why we are invoking the word “legal” here.
Anyway, I will just summarize all these legal things para isang
sagot na lang po, ano po.
REP. LAGMAN. Hindi. Mabuti yata isa-isa hong itanong
para hindi natin ma-miss.
REP. BAGATSING. O sige. Okey lang.
REP. LAGMAN. Kung hinahalu-halo ho, baka iyong iba
ay hindi ko masagot.
REP. BAGATSING. Okey, sige, Mr. Speaker. Ang tanong:
bakit kinakailangang isama ang natural method as being
“legal” when we all know that the natural method is really
legal? It is the artificial, probably, that is illegal. Why did he
9
couple the words “natural” with “artificial” and invoke the
word “legal”?
REP. LAGMAN. Bago ko ho sagutin iyan, marami ho siyang
tanong na nauna riyan na kailangan ding sagutin. Unang-una,
tama ho kayo, iyong pananaw ninyo tungkol sa contraception
ay very simplistic. Kayo mismo ang nagsabi niyan. The
mechanism of contraception would be two: one, to prevent the
fertilization of the egg by the sperm. Kapag wala pong
fertilization, wala hong buhay at kapag walang buhay, there is
no fetus to abort. The second mechanism is …
REP. BAGATSING. Mr. Speaker, hinarang mo nga ang
buhay, eh.
REP. LAGMAN. Alam po ninyo, ang Saligang Batas ay
nagsasabing “from conception.” Ang ibig hong sabihin, na-
conceive na and so, we need to protect the unborn. Dito ho
ay wala pang conception, wala ngang fertilization.
REP. BAGATSING. Paanong mako-conceive kung
hinaharang nga.
REP. LAGMAN. Teka muna, …
REP. BAGATSING. Papaano magkakaroon ng fertilization
kung hinaharang …
REP. LAGMAN. Puwede po ba ako muna ang sumagot
bago tayo mag-interrupt?
REP. BAGATSING. Please proceed.
REP. LAGMAN. Ang isa pang mechanism ng
contraception is to prevent the sperm from reaching the egg.
Kapag iyong sperm ay hindi na-reach iyong egg, wala ring
fertilization at kung walang fertilization, there is no life to be
aborted sapagkat wala hong fetus. Iyan po talaga ang sinasabi
sa panukalang batas— “to prevent conception,” “to prevent
pregnancy.” Ngayon, bakit sinasabing “universal”?
Sapagkat ang karapatan ng magulang, lalo na ng mga
kababaihan, to responsibly and freely determine the number
and spacing of their children is an international human right.
That is a universal right. Bakit naman sinasabing “legal”?
Sinasabing “legal” upang idiin na ang panukalang ito ay hindi
sumasang-ayon sa abortion sapagkat ang abortion ay iligal.
Bakit isinama ang “natural” doon sa modern methods?
Sapagkat sa panukala ay pino-promote nga ang lahat ng
natural at modern family planning methods which are legal—
hindi ho abortion—which are medically safe. In other words,
ang mga contraceptives ay registered sa gobyerno,
particularly with the Food and Drugs Administration, at ang
pangatlong standard ay, ito ay effective. Kaya iyon ang
sinasabing “legal” at sinasakop ang lahat ng mga family
planning methods from the natural to the modern. Ano naman
ho ang masama riyan? Sapagkat ang principal proposition
dito sa ating panukalang batas ay freedom of informed choice.
Wala hong pilitan. Kung ayaw ay ayaw, kung gusto ay
tutulungan ng gobyerno. Kung gusto ng natural family
planning method, tutulungan ng gobyerno. Kung gusto ng
modern family planning method, tutulungan ng gobyerno.
Neither the State nor the Church has the authority to enforce
10
upon the faithful or the citizens any particular family planning
method. That is the option of parents, of couples and of
women. Ito po ang sentral na panukala rito sa ating RH Bill.
Sino naman ho ang talagang mag-o-object sa freedom of
informed choice na walang pilitan? There is neither
compulsion nor reward in adopting a particular method or in
not adopting a method at all.
REP. BAGATSING. Mr. Speaker, at the right time, I would
go back to the statement na “walang pilitan,” pero may mga
penal sanctions sa Section 29 dito sa mga hindi susunod sa
panukalang batas na ito. Anyway, I will go back to some of
the sections in the proposed bill that this Representation
feels na preparasyon ito para sa abortion. So, please clarify
this again.
Under the same section on the Definition of Terms, under
the phrase “Reproductive Health Care,” letter (c) states
“proscription of abortion and management of abortion
complications.” Ano ba ang ibig sabihin ng “proscription of
abortion”? Pakipaliwanag na lang po kung ano ang ibig sabihin
ng “proscription.”
REP. LAGMAN. Ang ibig sabihin ng “proscription of
abortion” ay prohibition of abortion.
REP. BAGATSING. Okay, it is clear.
REP. LAGMAN. Sapagkat ang nakasulat ho riyan,
nothing in this bill would change the law on abortion…
REP. BAGATSING. Okey iyan.
REP. LAGMAN. … which makes abortion illegal and
punishable. Palagay ko ang pag-uusapan natin ay ang
tinatawag na “management of abortion complications.”
At this juncture, Deputy Speaker Remulla relinquished
the Chair to Rep. Rodolfo C. Fariñas.
REP. BAGATSING. Okay, let me just continue. So, the
Gentleman defines “proscription” as prohibition. Kung
babasahin po natin ang letter “(c) proscription of abortion
and management of abortion complications” —liliwanagin
ko, sa Tagalog, ang proscription of abortion ay bawal ang
abortion, pero dinugtong rito, in the same sentence, the phrase
“and management of abortion complications.” Unang-una,
bawal na ang abortion kaya bakit dudugtungan pa ng pagma-
manage ng abortion complications?
Bakit mo ima-manage iyong kumplikasyon eh bawal na nga
ang abortion? It is redundant, Mr. Speaker. (Applause) Sinasabi
mong bawal ang abortion, pagkatapos, may dugtong na “and
management of abortion complications.” Kung bawal, walang
kumplikasyon dahil bawal. Eh dito, isang sentence iyong buo na
ipinagbabawal mo, pero may kadugtong. So, please clarify this
issue, Mr. Speaker, kaya ako ninenerbiyos dito.
REP. LAGMAN. That can easily be clarified. Alam nating
lahat na maraming ipinagbabawal ang hindi nasusunod.
Ipinagbabawal natin ang abortion ngunit ang data ay, sa
Pilipinas, mayroong 500,000 induced abortions kahit na iligal
ang abortion. Anong gagawin natin dito sa mga kababaihan
who resort to abortion sapagkat napipilitan sila because of
TUESDAY, MAY 17, 2011
unwanted pregnancies or they cannot afford another child,
sapagkat wala silang impormasyon on how to prevent
unwanted and mistimed pregnancies? Sila ba ay pababayaan
natin? Sila ba ay hindi na gagamutin? Sila ba ay itatakwil ng
komunidad? Hindi ho because that is an un-Christian and
inhumane treatment of those who have suffered the trauma
of an abortion.
Kaparis din po ito ng encounter ng Philippine troops, ng
military at iyong mga rebelde Kapag iyong isang rebelde ay
tinamaan, nasugatan, hindi ba obligasyon ng gobyerno na
dalhin iyong rebelde sa nearest medical facility at huwag
naman hayaang mag-hemorrhage siya at mamatay? Hindi ba
ho? Kaya kung ginagawa natin iyan, ng gobyerno, ng military,
na dalhin sa medical facility ang isang nasugatan na rebelde–
hindi nating sinasabi that we are favoring rebellion, hindi ho,
but we are just trying to humanely treat a rebel who needs
medical assistance.
REP. BAGATSING. I agree with the Gentleman from Albay.
Kapag ang sundalo ay nasugatan, gamutin natin siya. Kapag
tinamaan, maski nga hindi tinamaan, gamutin pa rin natin kung
kinakailangan. But this is abortion, Mr. Speaker.
Ito nga, I want to be clarified dahil parang inconsistent
itong “proscription of abortion and management of abortion
complications.” Hindi tugma eh. It should not be here in the
first place. Kaya iyong fear ng marami, iyong agam-agam ng
marami na, eventually, this will lead to the legalization of
abortion, is now being established. Why do we keep saying
“universal”? What do we care about the universe? This bill
is only applicable to the Philippines. Hindi naman ito
rerespetuhin sa ibang bansa. In other words, although we are
a signatory to international declarations, ang batas na ito ay
para dito lamang, Mr. Speaker. Ngayon ako ay naiilang doon
sa “legal” at repeatedly, ang sinasabi ninyong “legal.” Ako
ay may apprehension, Mr. Speaker, and many have shared
that, na baka, probably, at the appropriate time, itong
“proscribe” ay mapalitan ng “prescribe”—prescription—at
sabihing typographical error lang iyan. Baka iyong “o” ay
mapalitan ng “e,” maging “prescription of abortion and
management of abortion complications.” Patay, eh di ligal na
ligal na ito.
REP. LAGMAN. Talagang masyadong …
REP. BAGATSING. Kaya baka naman sa printing nito, sa
final form, maiba. Mr. Speaker, pareho na tayong medyo pumuti
ang buhok dito at pareho tayong nakakita ng “Fourth
Chamber,” kung saan sa printing ay kunyari, conveniently,
nagkamali. Kaya mabuti naman at naliliwanag natin at naa-
address ninyo ito. Now, let me go back again, Mr. Speaker,…
REP. LAGMAN. Let me first answer that apprehension
na baka raw sa “proscription” ay mapalitan iyong “o” ng “e.”
Hindi po mangyayari iyan sapagkat mayroon tayong record
of the proceedings here at mayroong record ho sa panukalang
batas na nakasaad iyan “proscription.” So, the Gentleman’s
apprehension is far-fetched. It is more imaginary than real.
Tungkol naman doon sa “proscription ng abortion and
management of abortion complications,” dalawa pong bagay
iyan. Iyong isa ay pre-abortion at talagang ipinagbabawal
iyon. That is penalized under our Revised Penal Code. Ngunit
itong “management of abortion complications” ay post-
TUESDAY, MAY 17, 2011
abortion, nangyari na ho iyan. So, we have to approach this
in a humane way in order to, most probably, erase or at least
minimize the trauma undergone by a distressed woman.
REP. BAGATSING. So, anyway, Mr. Speaker, the Sponsor
earlier compared it to a soldier who is wounded in battle. Para
bang sinasabi niya kanina, and let me reiterate, na papaano
iyan kung, halimbawa, na-abort, kinakailangang tulungan ng
estado sa post-abortion, hindi ba? In the first place, hindi
dapat mangyari iyon kasi iligal nga ang abortion. Kaya,
matatakot din iyon, hindi ba? Kaya, hindi maalis iyong agam-
agam namin na ito ay preparasyon dahil pinoproteksyonan
na iyong nagpa-abort. Eh, ang aking iniisip, dapat huwag
magpa-abort.
REP. LAGMAN. Alam naman ng Kinatawan na maraming
iligal, ipinagbabawal ito pero ganoon pa man, nagaganap pa
rin ito, kaya mayroong “pre” at mayroong “post.”
REP. BAGATSING. Anyway, Mr. Speaker, para bang
nakikita ko na ng konti iyong half-slip. Para bang may ibang
agenda nga dito and so, please disabuse our minds.
Now, consistent with abortion, sa mga fears po namin,
under Section 8, Mr. Speaker, “Maternal and Newborn Health
Care in Crisis Situations”—medyo madugo po ito, Mr.
Speaker—it is stated:
The LGUs and the DOH shall ensure that a
Minimal Initial Service Package (MISP) for
reproductive health, including maternal and neonatal
health care kits and services as defined by the DOH,
will be given proper attention in crisis situations
such as disasters and humanitarian crises.
Para bang, Mr. Speaker, dito ay ni-ligal na ang abortion,
na kapag may krisis—may disaster o humanitarian crisis—ay
puwede ng ipagamit itong mga MISP kit na, ayon sa aking
pagsasaliksik, kung gagamitin ito sa mga lugar na mayroong,
wika nga, krisis, eh nagkakaroon ng abortion dito. So, please
clarify this, Mr. Speaker, dahil hindi pa nangyayari ay
inuunahan na ng bill na ito.
REP. LAGMAN. Wala pong pagbabago sa batas hinggil
sa pagbabawal at pagpe-penalize ng abortion. Iyan po ang
overriding provision ng ating panukalang batas. Nothing in
this law will change the law on abortion. Tingnan din po
natin iyong elements of the RH Bill. Nandidiyan po iyong
proscription of abortion—prevention and prohibition of
abortion. Tingnan din po natin iyong curriculum sa mandatory
sexuality education, nandodoon din po sa curriculum ang
prevention and proscription of abortion—paulit-ulit nalang
po. Hindi ko lang maintindihan bakit paulit-ulit na rin na
binabasa ng mga anti-RH iyong mga probisyon na wala sa
panukalang batas.
REP. BAGATSING. Eh, baka nakatago nga, Mr. Speaker.
REP. LAGMAN. Naku, wala hong nakatago diyan.
REP. BAGATSING. Baka nakatago nga.
REP. LAGMAN. No.
11
REP. BAGATSING. Kasi hawak-hawak ko itong galing sa
Internet, kung saan sinabi na ito ay ginagamit sa mga disaster
areas, na tuwing may humanitarian crisis ay pinapayagan
nila ang magpalaglag dahil na-rape, halimbawa, sa
Afghanistan. In other words, baka i-abuse ito. Baka ito ay i-
expand ng husto at sabihin noong babae o lalake, “Sige
magpalaglag ka, gamitin mo iyong humanitarian crisis na
dahilan.” O di kaya nagkaroon ng Ondoy, sasabihin nila,
“Teka muna, pasok ito, magpalaglag ka, justified na iyan.”
These things are more real than imaginary because we are
saddled by disasters every year. Baka iyon na ang opportunity
na maging ligal ang abortion. Baka i-invoke ang Section 8 na
ito at sasabihing, “Mayroong humanitarian crisis, mayroong
disaster, ayan, puwede mo nang ilalaglag iyan.”
REP. LAGMAN. Well, kung iyan ang apprehension ng
ating magiting na Congressman from Manila, then at the
proper time, during the period of amendments, he can make a
very categorical amendment na hindi kasama dito ang
abortion.
REP. BAGATSING. Very comforting ang statement na
iyan, Mr. Speaker. Talagang matagal na tayong magkasama,
Mr. Speaker.
Mayroon pa akong tanong sa mga provisions dito on
sex education. Bakit pinagpipilitan natin, Mr. Speaker, na
turuan ang mga estudyante sa Grade V hanggang high school
ng sex education? Bakit binubuksan natin ang mata ng mga,
wika nga, musmos pa, na ang alam lang ay magpiko,
magtumbang preso, magbahay-bahayan? Bakit binubuksan
natin ang mata ng mga batang ito? Bakit hindi natin iwanan
ito sa mga magulang? Kung ang magulang ang siyang
magtuturo sa mga batang ito, unang-una, maniniwala ang
bata. Kaya ang magulang ang turuan natin kung papaano
nila tuturuan ang kanilang mga anak. (Applause)
At this juncture, the Presiding Officer relinquished the
Chair to Deputy Speaker Jesus Crispin C. Remulla.
Eh, kung ang titser o propesor ang magtuturo, baka may
malisya pa iyong titser o kaya iyong propesor. I find it strange
that my son or my daughter will be exposed to somebody
that has no, wika nga, warmth or concern or genuine love.
Mas maganda na ang nanay ang magtuturo sa babae, ang
tatay ang magtuturo sa lalaki. Ngayon, kung hindi kaya ng
nanay at tatay, turuan natin sila, magpa-seminar tayo sa nanay
at tatay, na “ganito, mga tatay at mga nanay, ang ituturo
ninyo sa inyong mga anak.” I am very sure that the children
will listen carefully and will follow dahil punong-puno ng
pagmamahal ang mga advice galing sa kanilang mga magulang.
REP. LAGMAN. Sa ating mga tahanan, statistics would
show that only 10 percent of parents discuss sexuality with
their children. So, that is a default on the part of parents on
their obligation to teach their children about sex and because
of this default, there is a need for formal education. Sapagkat,
sa ngayon ho, saan ba nakukuha ng ating mga anak ang
impormasyon hinggil sa sex? Mula sa polluted sources, sa
peer groups, na hindi ho tama. Kaya kailangan isama natin
ito sa curriculum ng ating mga paaralan.
Ngayon, itong sexuality education naman ay “age-
appropriate.” Nandiyan po sa panukalang iyan: “age-
12
appropriate.” Ang ibig sabihin ho, kung Grade V pa lang ang
isang estudyante ay hindi siya tuturuan ng itinuturo sa mga
fourth year high school students. Nandiyan po ang
curriculum, nandiyan po ang mga subjects, at unang-una po
diyan ay iyong correct sexual values. Iyan po ang kailangan
ituro sa ating mga youth.
Sa lahat pong mga pagsusuri sa mga progresibong bansa
na mayroong sexuality education, ang resulta po nito, may
beneficent results ang sexuality education. Hindi po
mangyayari iyong sinasabi ng mga anti-RH that we are going
to breed sex maniacs out of our youth. Hindi ho totoo iyan.
Ano po ang beneficent effects? Unang-una, nadi-delay
ang entry into sexual relations. Pangalawa, ito pong
pagkakaroon ng multiple sexual partners is discouraged and
avoided. Pangatlo, napo-promote po ang abstinence before
marriage. Pang-apat, dahil po dito ay naiiwasan ang HIV/
AIDS and other sexually-transmitted diseases. Ito po ang
pag-aaral, ito po ang resulta ng empirical studies. Kaya
salungat iyong apprehensions ng mga anti-RH Bill; ang
resulta po dito ay beneficent to our youth. Kaya ito po ay
ating ipino-promote ngunit mayroon po kaming amendment
na kung ayaw ng magulang na pahintulutan ang kanyang
minor child to attend sexuality and reproductive health
classes, karapatan ng magulang iyon. Hindi namin iyon
ipinagkakait sa magulang. They can opt out and that is one
of the voluntary amendments we have suggested to the
Committee on Population and Family Relations.
REP. BAGATSING. Anyway, Mr. Speaker, medyo mahaba-
haba pa ito. Sa aking pananaw, iyang sex education sa America,
malawak, kaya kita naman natin ang daming teenage
pregnancies dahil sinasabi ng mga bata doon, “Wala naman
iyan eh. Kapag ginamit mo iyong condom, wala namang skin
to skin contact iyan, para ka lang nagsaya diyan.” Kaya ayun,
inaabot ng pagkabuntis dahil hindi naman fool-proof ang
condom na iyan. In other words, nagiging cheap ang sex. So,
if that is the intention, hindi kami sang-ayon diyan. Kaya
mabuti pa na ang magulang ang turuan natin, i-guide natin, at
nang maniwala ang bata dahil magulang niya ang nagtuturo
sa kanya.
Now, Mr. Speaker, let me go to another topic.
REP. LAGMAN. Well, let me just make a rejoinder there.
Ngayon na wala pong sexuality education na inuutos, kaparis
ng inuutos dito sa ating panukalang batas, ano po ang RH
realities in the Philippines? Eighty percent of young women
do not know their fertile period. Adolescent pregnancies make
up 30 percent of all annual births. Half of our youth are
unaware that they could get pregnant after only one
intercourse. Almost 30 percent of the youth think that AIDS
is curable. Tingnan ninyo ho ito, these are really aberrations.
The mean age for sexual activity for males and females are 17
and 18, respectively. Sixteen percent of our youth had sex
before age 15, from less than two percent in 1994. Ito po ay
lahat maiiwasan, these adverse statistics, if we have
mandatory sexuality education sapagkat beneficent results
po ang na-document in progressive countries where sexuality
education is taught to the young. Doon po sa ibang bansa,
ay nagsisimula ito at a lower age, pero tayo, we are a
conservative society , that is why we have proposed to have
that starting Grade V when the bodily changes in a girl start
to be very apparent.
TUESDAY, MAY 17, 2011
REP. BAGATSING. Mr. Speaker, ini-invoke ninyo ang
other countries, eh hindi ko ipagpapalit ang ating bansa. In
other countries, pagdating ng 18 anyos, iyong bata ay
pinalalayas ng magulang sa bahay. Dito, may asawa na nga
pero nasa bahay pa ng magulang nakatira eh, kinukupkop ng
magulang. So, it is a different culture; it is a different
environment. If we will talk about statistics, hindi po tayo
matatapos diyan dahil mayroon din kaming mga datos that
say otherwise.
Be that as it may, Mr. Speaker, let me go to another topic.
Bakit ba sa tingin ninyo ngayon eh passions are very high,
emotions are very high, at marami sa atin sa simbahan ay
nagagalit sa RH Bill na ito? Sa pananaw ng ating author eh
mayroon bang dahilan para sila ay magalit dito?
REP. LAGMAN. Sapagkat ho, ang nangyayari ngayon,
nili-limit ang usapin sa condoms, pills, IUDs and injectables.
Dinadala po iyong usapin sa sex and religion. Hindi po tama
iyan. Palagay ko ay kailangan palitan ang pananaw ng mga
anti-RH advocates.
This bill is not about sex and religion. It is about rights—
the right of parents to freely and responsibly determine the
number and the spacing of their children. Ito po ay tungkol
sa kalusugan, the health of mothers and infants, in order that
it will not happen in the Philippines that 11 mothers die daily
from complications in childbirth and pregnancy. Ito po ay
tungkol sa tuloy-tuloy na kaunlaran ng ating bansa.
REP. BAGATSING. In other words, Mr. Speaker...
REP. LAGMAN. Hindi po ito iyong sinasabi ng simbahan
na ito ay tungkol sa sex, tungkol sa relihiyon, tungkol lamang
sa contraceptives. Hindi po tama iyan. Kailangang palitan po
natin ang pananaw na iyan.
REP. BAGATSING. Kaya naniniwala kayo, Mr. Speaker,
na nakikialam ang simbahan sa panukalang batas na ito.Iyan
ang paniwala ninyo.
REP. LAGMAN. Well, walang problema kung makialam
ang simbahan sa diskusyon. Ang problema ay gusto ng
simbahan i-impose ang kanyang dogma sa legislation.
Catholic dogma cannot be legislated.
REP. BAGATSING. But …
REP. LAGMAN. Iyan po ay talagang bawal sa secular
state. The best statement here is from President Kennedy
when he said, “I am President who happens to be a Catholic
but I am not a Catholic President.” Ang gusto pong sabihin,
hindi puwedeng i-enforce ang dogma ng simbahan through
legislation. Iyan po ay usapin ng simbahan, ng obispo at
ng mga Katoliko, pero hindi puwedeng i-enforce iyan sa
buong bansa kung saan hindi lang po mga Katoliko ang
nandidito.
REP. BAGATSING. Again, Mr. Speaker, si Kennedy na
naman ang sinabi. Sinabi ni Kennedy na Katoliko siya pero
sa Amerika, minority ang mga Katoliko. Sa Amerika, very minor
ang Katoliko, wala pa yatang 10 o 15 porsyento. So, the
parallelism again is not applicable to the Philippines, I am
sorry. In other words …
TUESDAY, MAY 17, 2011
REP. LAGMAN. I am really sorry, the Gentleman missed
the point.
REP. BAGATSING. No, …
REP. LAGMAN. I could have said …
REP. BAGATSING. … but let me pursue.
REP. LAGMAN. I am a Congressman who is Catholic,
but I am not a Catholic Congressman. (Applause)
REP. BAGATSING. Well, in this particular case, let me
qualify.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Remulla). The audience
is reminded that they are not allowed to react with applause
or other means of approval or disapproval in the ongoing
debate.
Thank you.
REP. BAGATSING. Naglaro na naman tayo ng semantics.
I am not a Catholic, but I am a Catholic Congressman. Ako ay
Katoliko through and through. As stated earlier, ang sabi ng
Kinatawan ay nakikialam ang simbahan, pinipilit ang dogma
nila sa estado. Is that correct, Mr. Speaker?
REP. LAGMAN. Iyon ho ang nangyayari.
REP. BAGATSING. Well, nire-rephrase ko lang ang
kanyang sinabi na ini-impose ng simbahan ang dogma nila sa
estado.
REP. LAGMAN. Iyan po ang agenda ng simbahan, …
REP. BAGATSING. Well, Mr. Speaker.
REP. LAGMAN. … na mali hong agenda because we
cannot enforce Catholic dogma through legislation.
REP. BAGATSING. Pero ating sariwaing mabuti, let us
put it in the proper context. Ang sabi niya kaya masama ang
loob ng simbahang Katoliko ay dahil pinakikialaman ng estado
ang dogma ng simbahan or vice versa, nakikialam ang
simbahan sa trabaho ng estado o ng lehislatura. Ngayon, Mr.
Speaker, matanong ko lamang: gaano katanda na ba ang ating
Republika? When was this Republic founded? It was founded
in 1898 by General Emilio Aguinaldo. That was the First
Republic. In other words, ang ating bansa ay 113 taon pa
lamang. Ngayon, gaano katanda na ang batas ng Katoliko,
na batas ng Diyos?
Dalawang libong taon na ang Katolisismo sa buong
bansa. Ngayon, sino ang nakikialam? Ang estado, 113 years
old lang. The Church is 2,000 years old. Christianity is 3,400
years old. Now, tell me, who is transgressing on whom? Sino
ang nakikialam? Iniiba natin ang dogma ng simbahang
Katolika sa pamamagitan ng lehislasyon. We are legislating
the beliefs, the teachings of the Church kaya sila kumo kontra
rito. Now, sino ngayon ang nakikialam? Under the principle
of the separation of Church and State, who is interfering? Is
the State interfering with the Church? Yes, because the State
is only 113 years old while the Church is 2,000 years old at
13
hindi naiiba ang batas ng simbahan. Ang batas ng tao,
depende sa Presidente, ay naiiba, nare-repeal, na-a-amend.
Ang batas ng Diyos, nunca napapalitan. With that, my
colleague, I think this is a transgression, a direct attack on
the teachings of our church.
REP. LAGMAN. Unang-una, hindi natin pinag-uusapan
kung how old is the Church or how old is the State. Hindi po
iyan nakukuha sa age or antiquity. Ang uwak po ay matagal
na rito sa mundo pero until now, it has not learned to speak.
So, age is not an indication of wisdom or truth.
Ngayon, sino ang nagta-transgress? Ang estado ay
walang pakialam sa dogma ng simbahan. Bahala ang mga
obispo na ikampanya ang gusto nila sa mga Katoliko. Ang
estado ay gumagawa ng batas for the good of the greatest
number under the exercise of police power. Hindi po nakikialam
ang estado sa simbahan kaya hindi po puwedeng sabihin
that the State is transgressing on the dogma of the Church.
Isa pa po, ano ba ang dogma? Mayroon po kami ritong
nakita—“Levels of Teachings in the Roman Catholic Church”
by Bishop Raymond A. Lucker, The American Catholic. Ito
pong opinyon ng simbahan tungkol sa contraceptives ay
categorized as “Authoritative but non-irreformable.” Dito po
sa category ng teachings of the church, iyan po ay no. 3
lamang. Ang una po ay “Divinely revealed truth; ang
pangalawa, “Definitive Non-Revealed Truths.” Kahit na po
itong tinatawag na Humanae Vitae ay hindi po ito infallible.
Immediately after the release in 1968 of this encyclical which
was based on a Minority Report —let me repeat that, Minority
Report—of the Papal Birth Control Commission and contrary
to the majority position permissive of contraceptive use, Msgr.
Fernando Lambruschini, then official spokesman of the
Vatican, announced:
Attentive reading of the encyclical Humanae
Vitae does not suggest the theological note of
infallibility. It is not infallible.
This is the announcement of the Papacy, through its
spokesman, at the time Humanae Vitae was released. Let me
reiterate, it was based on the minority position. Minority lang
po iyon. The majority was permissive of contraceptive use
and we have still a living member in the Philippines of that
Papal Birth Control Commission who could testify on this
aberration committed by the papacy.
REP. BAGATSING. Mr. Speaker, ang dami po ninyong
kino-quote pero isa lang ang naintindihan ko. Ang sabi ng
Diyos, “Humayo kayo at magparami.”
“Go forth and multiply.” Hindi naman sinabi, “When an
RH Bill is passed in Congress or proposed in Congress, you
consider it.” I cannot be wiser and greater than the Creator.
Hindi naman ako ganoon katalino kaysa sa lumikha sa akin.
Ang sabi, “Go forth and multiply.” Hindi naman pupuwedeng
i-interpret ko pa iyan ng higit pa sa aking Diyos.
So, Mr. Speaker, napakasimple: 2,000 years old na ang
teachings ng Katoliko, hindi naiiba, hindi na-a-amendahan.
Ang batas ng tao, depende kung sino ang nakaupo riyan as
Speaker, depende kung sino ang Presidente, depende kung
sino ang mga Miyembro ng Lehislatura na mag-a-amenda at
magre-repeal. Ngayon, pinakikialaman natin by way of
legislation. Sinasabi natin na ito ay hindi pupuwede. Umaangal
14
ang simbahang Katoliko. Kung iyan ba naman ay hindi
salungat sa kanilang paniniwala ay bakit sila aangal? The
mere fact that they are really very passionate about this—
this is a direct affront to 85 percent of the Filipinos who are
Catholics, to the extent that this bill is in effect marginalizing
the Catholics in this country. This is pure legislation on the
dogma of the Catholic Church.
Let me just restate, Mr. Speaker, in the Declaration of
Policy, Section 2 states “…consistent with their religious
convictions, cultural beliefs .…” In the Constitution,
nakalagay dito, “The separation of Church and State shall be
inviolable.” Under the Bill of Rights, Section 5 states:
No law shall be made respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of
religious profession and worship, without
discrimination or preference, shall forever be
allowed.
Under Section 3 on the Family, it states, “The State shall
defend: (1) the right of spouses to found a family in accordance
with their religious convictions...” So, maski ang Saligang
Batas natin ay kinikilala ito, Mr. Speaker.
I know that my colleague knows where I am coming from
and probably, if the intention is to protect maternal health
and infant health, then let us work on that but let us no longer
pass this bill. Let us go to the Department of Health, let us go
to the DILG, let us pump more funds there, let us put more
nurses, let us build more health centers, let us hire more
barangay health workers, let us have a massive information
campaign, but let us respect also what is stated in the
Constitution. It is the State that is intruding on and assaulting
the teachings of the Church which are protected by no less
than our Constitution.
REP. LAGMAN. Well, let me go back to that biblical
injunction quoted by the distinguished Gentleman from
Manila. He said that the injunction was, “Go forth and
multiply.” He did not finish the quotation. It said, “Go forth
and multiply and subdue the earth. “ In other words, at that
time that this injunction was made, how many people were
there?
REP. BAGATSING. So the Gentleman is questioning
the wisdom of the Creator, of the Lord. So, hindi ko na
kinukwestyon iyon, Mr. Speaker.
REP. LAGMAN. No, I am just interpreting this statement...
REP. BAGATSING. That is why he is interpreting it...
REP. LAGMAN. The problem really is, I allow my good
colleague to speak...
REP. BAGATSING. Please proceed.
REP. LAGMAN. ... and I allow him to ask some questions.
But in my case, he interrupts me when I am answering.
REP. BAGATSING. Okay. Please accept my apologies,
Mr. Speaker.
TUESDAY, MAY 17, 2011
REP. LAGMAN. That is well-accepted, distinguished
Gentleman.
So, the world has to adjust. The United Nations predicted
that there will be 8 billion people in this world by October this
year. That is a tremendous number. That is a multitude, and I
do not think that injunction conceived of a situation like the
present.
Did the distinguished Gentleman say that the Catholic
Church is being marginalized? To a certain extent, it is because
all other religions and denominations are in favor of the RH
bill. It is only the Catholic hierarchy which is against the bill.
So, in that equation, the Catholic Church is marginalized.
Now, again, we go back to the central agenda of this
bill—it is freedom of informed choice. Nobody is being
compelled or enticed by reward to adopt a particular method
of family planning or to embrace contraceptive use. It is the
call, it is the option of parents and women. So, what is wrong
with having an informed choice? It is freedom of choice—no
compulsion, no reward. So, there is no violation of the
Constitution because in the first place, the Constitution says
“… shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of
the unborn from conception.” So, there should be the onset
of conception in order to protect the unborn. In the case of
contraceptives, these preempt conception. There is no
pregnancy to speak of because the main purpose is to prevent
fertilization or to prevent the sperm from reaching the egg. It
does not prescribe that no one should have any child. It says
here that there should be the freedom of parents, particularly
women, to determine responsibly the number and spacing of
their children. That is their goal; that is the exercise of their
right to reproductive health.
REP. BAGATSING. Is the Gentleman now through, Mr.
Speaker?
REP. LAGMAN. Apparently, yes, Mr. Speaker.
REP. BAGATSING. Mr. Speaker, as stated earlier, he said
that age is not a factor. How can it be not a factor when it is
2000 years old and the other one is only 113 years old? Nakita
naman natin na iyong 2000 years old hindi naiba, pero iyong
113 years old, ang daming naiiba. For all we know, ang
panukalang batas na ito—kung saka-sakali, huwag naman
mangyari—ito ay ma-a-amendahan naman ng susunod na
Presidente, ng susunod na Speaker, ng susunod na
Congressmen, pero ang batas ng Diyos ay hindi po na-a-
amendahan.
So, Mr. Speaker, marami pa sana akong itatanong pero
dahil sa passion ng ating diskusyon ay nabali ang aking
ngipin, so I would try to proceed. In the proposed bill, Mr.
Speaker, madami ritong nabanggit about the involvement of
local government units, the hiring of midwives and putting
up ng parang mga family planning offices and then family
planning supplies as essential medicines. Dito lang sa Section
10, Mr. Speaker, sinabi rito:
Products and supplies for modern family
planning methods shall be part of the National Drug
Formulary and the same shall be included in the
regular purchase of essential medicines and
supplies of all national and local hospitals and other
government health units.
TUESDAY, MAY 17, 2011
Alam ba ninyo, Mr. Speaker, kung gaanong kalaking pera
ito? This will involve billions of pesos. Eh, libre na nga
nakukuha ito. Bakit gusto nating bumili ng bumili ng mga
gamot na ito, eh nagbibigay na nga ng libre iyong mga NGO
at ibang bansa? Why do we have to appropriate billions of
pesos for this, Mr. Speaker? Mayroon bang kikita rito?
REP. LAGMAN. Babalikan ko muna iyong tungkol sa
edad ng simbahan at iyong edad ng estado, sapagkat binalikan
ng ating magiting na Congressman from Manila. Gusto ko
lang sabihin dito na ang encyclical Humanae Vitae was
adopted in 1968.
Ngunit, iyong independent Philippine government was
established in 1898. Kaya kung tutuusin natin, in the
chronology of events, eh itong ating gobyerno ay mas
matanda doon sa Humanae Vitae. Hindi natin
pagdedebatehan iyan sapagkat, nasabi nga ng Kinatawan,
hindi naman ito tungkol sa age, hindi naman ito tungkol sa
chronology, sapagkat nga iyong uwak ay nandito since time
immemorial but until now it has not learned to speak.
Now, bakit kailangan na pondohan itong Reproductive
Health Bill?
Unang-una, gusto kong ipaliwanag na iyong United
Nations mismo, iyong WHO, has included contraceptives in
the drug formulary. Dito naman sa atin sa Pilipinas, ang lahat
naman na contraceptives na available in the market have been
registered with the Food and Drug Adminstration to make
them legal and licensed. Ngayon, bakit kailangang pondohan?
Unang-una, itong ating pondo for family planning and
reproductive health is very cost-effective. Hindi ito kaparis
ng ilang mega-projects of the government where the
beneficiaries are few. Ang sabi nga ng UNICEF, “Family
planning will bring more benefits to more people at less cost
than any human technology now known to mankind.” That
was way back in 1992.
Ito namang family planning, including contraceptive use,
will generate multi-billion savings for the government in terms
of reduced expenses for maternal and infant medical care,
which could be channelled to education and other basic
services. Research by the Likhaan and Guttmacher Institute
shows that the government allocates a minimum of P5.5 billion
annually in health care cost for the management of unintended
pregnancies and their complications. This is not cost effective
because the government would only need P2 billion to P3.5
billion annually to fund a comprehensive range of voluntary
family planning services for the entire country, according to
the same study. The P3-billion allocation for family planning
and reproductive health is not solely for the purchase and
acquisition and distribution of contraceptives. It would be
used also for a massive information campaign because the
central idea here is informed choice and there can be no
informed choice if there is no relevant information given to
parents and women. Ito pa, isa pa ho, ito naman ay hindi lang
tungkol sa purchase of contraceptives. Marami pang elements
itong reproductive health na kailangang pondohan at ang
pondo, manggagaling dito sa small amount of P3 billion, pales
in comparison with the budgets of other mega-projects of the
government.
REP. BAGATSING. Well, the P3 billion is the initial budget,
but the way this proposed bill is crafted, ito ay limpak na
limpak na bilyong pera. Mayroon pang procurement ng gamot
15
para sa mobile health care program dito sa bawat distrito. So,
in other words, talagang appetizer lang itong P3 billion na ito,
tip of the iceberg.
Now, the Gentleman said something about being cost-
efficient. It is a common knowledge that when you use the
pill or any other contraceptive, ikaw ay puwedeng magkaroon
ng cancer, like cancer of the breast. Narinig ko nga iyan mula
kay Congressman Golez doon sa harapan nila ni former
Secretary Cabral, at inamin naman ni former Secretary Cabral.
Alam mo na puwedeng magka cancer, bakit bibigyan pa natin
iyong mga tao ng contraceptives? Sinong magpapagamot sa
kanila kung sila ay nagkasakit? Wala namang nakalagay dito
sa panukalang batas na gagamutin natin sila, even the unborn.
I cannot see any provision here that speaks of the unborn. In
other words, Mr. Speaker, madaling sabihin iyong maternal
health care but on the other side of it, kapag pinayagan natin
iyong contraceptives na may mga side effects, mga ill effects,
kawawa naman ang mga kababaihan na gagamit nito.
Natanggal ang kanilang breast pero wala naman silang
ovarian cancer. Aba, mamimimili ka ngayon kung ano ang
gusto mo, ovarian cancer o breast cancer. Ganoon ba iyon?
So, Mr Speaker, the ills of contraceptives are not new.
Contraceptives have not really brought good health to a lot
of people or people who used them. There are many
testimonials that, up to now, women who used these continue
to suffer from side effects. Most of all, itong funding nga,
ang daming pera nito, Mr. Speaker. Iyong bang mobile health
care, saan natin kukunan ang pera para dito? The planning
programs, the procurement and distribution of family planning
supplies aside from the essential medicines—all these will
involve a lot of money. Saan natin kukunin ito, Mr. Speaker?
REP. LAGMAN. Unang-una ho, gustong kong
ipaliwanag—kasi ang dami niyang isinasama sa isang tanong
kaya kailangan sagutin lahat.
REP. BAGATSING. Kaya kailangang sagutin lahat ng
Kinatawan.
REP. LAGMAN. Sasagutin natin lahat.
REP. BAGATSING. Ipinagsasama-sama ko nalang.
REP. LAGMAN. Sasagutin natin lahat. Iyong tunggol
naman sa risk sa contraceptives, eh lahat naman ho na we
take internally ay mayroong risk. Kahit sa pagkain, mayroong
risk.
REP. BAGATSING. No, sa pagkain, wala, Mr. Speaker.
REP. LAGMAN. Sa gamot, mayroong risk. So we have to
weigh the risks versus the benefits. It has been documented
that the benefits of contraception are far more than the risks
involved. Iyon sinabi naman ni Secretary Cabral, sa palagay
ko, was taken out of context at hindi tinapos. Ang sabi niya
lang ay mayroong mga reports na itong contraceptives can
be a contributory factor to breast cancer, but she also said in
the same vein that there are also reports that contraceptives
can be curative for other forms of cancer. Kaya walang
categorical statement ho, sinasabi niya lang iyong mga reports.
Kaya importante na ilagay natin sa proper perspective ang
kino-quote natin na mga statements. Sa karamihan ng mga
16
tanong ho ng ating magiting na Congressman, di ko na lahat
maalala. Pakiulit nalang ho kung ano po iyong gusto niyang
sagutin ko doon sa last question niya.
REP. BAGATSING. Ang sabi ko, Mr. Speaker,
napakaraming perang igugugol para dito. Saan natin kukunin
ang perang iyan? Bakit pinipilit natin na, wika nga, ilagay
itong pera sa artificial family planning methods, iyong mga
condoms, tapos bibili pa ng mobile vans? Hindi naman
nakalagay dito kung saan ang appropriations para diyan. So
eventually, sabi nga ni Senator Sotto, ang mangyayari ay ang
daming pondong ipinasok pero saan napunta? Mukhang
nagkaroon lamang ng kurakutan o corruption, Mr. Speaker.
That is up to the Sponsor to answer, Mr. Speaker, but really,
my central argument is that we should stop legislating on the
dogmas of the Church. We should not interfere. The State
should not interfere as the separation of the Church and the
State is defined in the Constitution. In effect, we are
interfering, Mr. Speaker, and that is why the Catholics are
really up in arms and they are even willing to go to jail. We do
not want our people to be divided. We do not want this to be
a reason for our people to be divided. There are better things
to do. Obviously, the Constitution protects the freedom of
religion. So, I think at the appropriate time, Mr. Speaker, I will
give the distinction to the proponents to just move that this
bill be archived and we should eventually pass another bill
on more information—more on health centers, more on nurses
to take care of those in the provinces or in the far-flung areas.
So, I hope this will be shared by our proponent, that truly,
this is so divisive because there is really a transgression on
the freedom of religion, of choice, of beliefs, especially since
85 percent are Catholics. Does he not think so, Mr. Speaker?
REP. LAGMAN. Well, marami na naman tayong
kailangang sagutin. Unang-una, tungkol sa budget. Ang sabi
namin, ang estimated budget ay P3 billion at ito ay hindi
masyadong malaking halaga compared to the more than one
trillion pesos we appropriate annually. This is just a drop in
the bucket. Tungkol naman doon sa statement ni Senator
Sotto, palagay ko ay hindi niya natingnan mabuti ang mga
dokumento sapagkat sinagot na iyan ni Secretary Ona, na
iyong mga pondo ay ni-release na sa LGUs at ang problema
lamang ay iyong subsequent releases ay hindi magawa
sapagkat some of the LGUs have not liquidated the amounts
they have received.
Kung titingnan natin ang mga surveys na halos dalawang
dekada na, the Catholics have spoken. Lahat ng survey ng
SWS at ng Pulse Asia documents that an overwhelming
majority of the public are in favor of the enactment of this bill
and they are in favor of using public funds for family planning
and contraceptive use, including funding sexuality and
reproductive health education. Iyan po ang survey results.
The Catholics have spoken. As a matter of fact, it has been
documented that there are more Catholics than non-Catholics
who favor the enactment of this bill.
REP. BAGATSING. Well, Mr. Speaker, that is the
impression of the Sponsor. As stated earlier, there are other
religious groups which are not supporting this RH Bill. To my
knowledge, a substantial number of Muslims are also not
supporting this RH Bill. There are other groups. So, that is
highly debatable, but be that as it may, as much as I would
TUESDAY, MAY 17, 2011
like to pursue the interpellation, sabi ko nga, may nakaka-
distract sa akin, Mr. Speaker, and so I will end my interpellation
and yield the floor to the next one who will interpellate. In the
meanwhile, I would like to thank the Gentleman from Albay
for sharing his time with this Representation.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, Gentleman from
Albay.
REP. LAGMAN. I also thank the Gentleman, Mr. Speaker.
At this juncture, Deputy Speaker Remulla relinquished
the Chair to Rep. Janette L. Garin.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Garin, J.). The Floor
Leader is recognized.
REP. ORTEGA (F.). Mme. Speaker, may we now recognize
the Hon. Pablo P. Garcia for his interpellation.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Garin, J.). The
distinguished Deputy Speaker, the Hon. Pabling P. Garcia, is
hereby recognized for his interpellation.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
REP. LAGMAN. Mme. Speaker, may we request for a
five-minute recess.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Garin, J.).The session
is suspended for five minutes.
It was 6:14 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 6:23 p.m., the session was resumed with Deputy
Speaker Jesus Crispin C. Remulla presiding.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Remulla). The session is
resumed.
The Chair recognizes the Hon. Edcel C. Lagman to
continue the sponsorship of the measure, and the Hon. Pablo
P. Garcia from Cebu for his interpellation.
REP. GARCIA (P.). Mr. Speaker, will the distinguished
Sponsor yield to a few hundred questions?
REP. LAGMAN. Willingly, Mr. Speaker.
REP. GARCIA (P.). Thank you.
REP. LAGMAN. I am used to the lengthy interpellations
of the distinguished Gentleman from Cebu during our debates
with respect to the abolition of the death penalty, and with
respect to the institution of the Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Law and its amendment.
REP. GARCIA (P.). I thank the distinguished Sponsor for
knowing me quite well, but before the interpellation, I have a
very brief statement. The various RH bills that were filed with
the House by the four previous Congresses, meaning, the
Eleventh, Twelfth, Thirteenth and Fourteenth Congresses,
TUESDAY, MAY 17, 2011
never failed to see the light of day in spite of the valiant
efforts of the Sponsors and the elaborate and well-funded
support in media and elsewhere by various lobby groups,
domestic and foreign. Nonetheless, Mr. Speaker, these bills
created a lot of noise in media and generated vigorous
controversy amongst our people nationwide. So, as we start
plenary debates on this new and refurbished RH Bill, we are
like a city built on a hill. The eyes of the entire nation are
upon us, watching us and wanting to see if this House of the
Fifteenth Congress will prove to be an exception to the
tradition of “No to the RH Bill.”
Now, on the interpellation, I would like to begin with
propositions, principles and ideas we can agree on. First
proposition, the Philippines is a nation under God. It is a
nation that believes and trusts in God, in His omnipotence, in
His infallible wisdom and in His infinite goodness. That is
why our Constitution starts with an Invocation, “To Almighty
God.” Then, every public official of the land, from the President
down to the last barangay councilor, before he begins to
discharge the functions and duties of his office, have to take
an oath; and at the end of which oath is a supplication, “So
help me God.” This House also, everytime it opens its session,
it begins with a prayer, “To Almighty God.”
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I assume that the distinguished
Sponsor believes in God. Is my assumption correct?
REP. LAGMAN. Let me first say something about the
prefatory statements of the distinguished Gentleman.
While it is true that the RH Bill has a long gestation, we are
certain that, like all gestations, it will come to end; and we are
certain that the RH Bill gestation will end in its approval within
the year. Let me also underscore that despite the previous bills
filed before this august Body, there has been no vote taken
and so, it could not be said that the RH Bill was voted out.
Talking about gestation periods, it should be recalled that the
bill on the abolition of the death penalty, which was opposed
by the distinguished Gentleman and of which I was the principal
author, took two decades and in the end, the death penalty has
been abolished from our statute books.
Now, to answer the question of the distinguished
Gentleman: yes, I believe in God. As a matter of fact, I am a
Catholic. During my elementary and high school years, I was
an acolyte to my uncle who was a parish priest in several
towns in Albay as well as in Catanduanes. At that time, the
mass was conducted in Latin and so, when I answered the
priest, I was parroting Latin words which I did not
understand. I also believe that this nation is under God. But
this nation is not under the bishops or their lay subalterns.
REP. GARCIA (P.). Well, I would like to request the
distinguished Sponsor that we lay aside, in the course of this
debate, our prejudice or animosity against certain groups
especially the bishops. I heard the distinguished Gentleman
say that he is a Catholic—he is a Congressman who happens
to be a Catholic, and not a Catholic who happens to be a
Congressman. Being a Catholic is not a happening.
REP. LAGMAN. I am not a Catholic Congressman. This
is the correct statement.
REP. GARCIA (P.). If he is a Catholic, then he is a Catholic
Congressman.
17
At this moment, I am reminded of St. Thomas More who
was the chief legal counsel, we might say, of the King of
England. The King of England, Henry VIII, wanted to divorce
his wife but Thomas More did not agree. He did not want to
legalize the divorce because that is against the dogma of God
and so, he was sentenced to death. When he was asked,
“Why did you not obey the king?” St. Thomas More
answered, “Yes, I am the king’s loyal servant, but God’s first.”
We may be Congressmen of the Republic, but we are
God’s servants first, because if you are Catholic, you are a
Catholic wherever you may happen to be. You cannot be a
Catholic outside and be something else inside.
Now, may I proceed. Since, at least, the distinguished
Sponsor says that he is a Congressman who happens to be a
Catholic, and we are now in Congress, does the Gentleman
agree that God is the source, the creator of all life in the
universe?
REP. LAGMAN. Let me first say that the distinguished
Gentleman has no authority to admonish me on some
prejudices because he prefaced his interpellation with a
manifest and patent prejudice. Now, when we talk of God, we
do not talk solely of the God of the Catholics. This country
has other religions which have their own adherents and they
may have their own gods. The God of one may not be
necessarily the God of the distinguished Gentleman from
Cebu. I am not here to hear a sermon or a pontification on
religious values. I am here to debate on the merits of the
Reproductive Health Bill.
REP. GARCIA (P.). Does the Gentleman want to make us
believe that there are other gods than the Almighty God?
There is only God—maybe by other names. Our Muslim
brothers and sisters called their God “Allah” but there is only
one God. Does the Gentleman insist that there are other gods
than what the Catholics believe to be their God?
REP. LAGMAN. As I said, I do not want to make a
discourse or a debate on God and godliness. I am here to
cross swords with the distinguished Gentleman on the salient
features and merits of the Reproductive Health Bill. If he wants
to discourse on religion, then, I will take my seat and hear
him, but I will not make any rejoinder anymore with respect to
religious statements.
REP. GARCIA (P.). But, Mr. Speaker, distinguished
Sponsor, this is a bill which cannot be dissociated from God.
That is precisely the reason the Catholic bishops, the
Sponsor’s pet peeves, are very passionate in their opposition
against this bill because this bill offends God.
REP. LAGMAN. Well, Mr. Speaker...
REP. GARCIA (P.). May I finish? The constitutional
implications of this bill also have a connection or relation to
one of our constitutional rights—the freedom of religion. So,
the distinguished Sponsor should not begrudge me for asking
questions about God. Just a simple question: does the
distinguished Sponsor believe that God is the source and
creator of life in the universe? This bill is about life.
REP. LAGMAN. Can I respond?
18
REP. GARCIA (P.). Unless the distinguished Sponsor
would not want to answer questions that will be prejudicial
to the interests of the Sponsors of the bill.
REP. LAGMAN. Can I now respond, Mr. Speaker?
REP. GARCIA (P.). Of course.
REP. LAGMAN. This bill is not about God. This bill is not
about religion. It is not even about sex. This bill is about rights—
the rights of parents, particularly of women, who bear the brunt
of pregnancy, childbirth and child care, to fully and responsibly
determine the number and spacing of their children.
This bill is about the health of mothers, infants and
children. More particularly, it is consistent with our
commitment to the United Nations Millennium Development
Goals on the reduction of maternal mortality and the reduction
of infant mortality and morbidity. Today, 11 mothers die in the
Philippines daily because of complications from pregnancy
and childbirth.
This bill is about sustainable development and the
irrefutable linkage between population, development and
poverty. If the questions of the distinguished Gentleman are
relevant to these aspects of the Reproductive Health Bill,
then willingly, I will answer his questions. But if the questions
are about God and religion, then I would defer from answering
said questions.
REP. GARCIA (P.). Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that the
Sponsor said that this bill is about rights. Does he not believe
that all human rights come from God? They say that this bill
is about health. Does not the distinguished Sponsor believe
that the health of a person also comes from God? That is why
when we are sick, we pray to God to make us well.
I am waiting for the answer.
REP. LAGMAN. Mr. Speaker, we are a secular state and
we have the separation of Church and State. We recognize
religious freedom, but religious freedom, under a litany of
decisions of the Supreme Court, as well as the United States
Supreme Court, has two aspects: the freedom to believe, which
is absolute, and the freedom to act, which can be regulated
by the State. So, I would suggest that the distinguished
Gentleman should go direct to the point and ask his questions
without meandering on religious or dogmatic propositions. I
am ready to answer direct questions.
REP. GARCIA (P.). I am surprised, distinguished Sponsor,
why the distinguished Sponsor would now say that this bill
has nothing to do with religion. The principal objection of
the Catholic Church and even those who are not Catholic is
that this bill is unconstitutional; it violates the constitutional
right to the free exercise of religion. The relationship between
the State and the people cannot be dissociated from
discussion on this bill.
Then, the distinguished Sponsor mentioned decisions
of the Supreme Court on the free exercise of religion in the
Constitution. Does the distinguished Sponsor know about
the prevailing doctrine on the Church-State relationship? In
this jurisdiction, the latest case decided by the Supreme Court
on the relationship between religion and the State—because
if the distinguished Sponsor is not aware of this case, I will
TUESDAY, MAY 17, 2011
be honored to inform him about the prevailing doctrine on
the relationship between State and religion.
REP. LAGMAN. I have here a list of Supreme Court
decisions with respect to the High Court’s interpretation of
the freedom of religion, and I could read for the record some
of these decisions. Discussing further the freedom to act on
one’s belief, the Supreme Court held, in the case and request
of Muslim employees in different courts in Iligan City,
regarding office hours, that:
Where the individual externalizes his beliefs in acts
or omissions that affect the public, his freedom to do so
becomes subject to the authority of the State. As great
as this liberty may be, religious freedom, like all other
rights guaranteed in the Constitution can be enjoyed
only with a proper regard for the rights of others.
Let me underscore then:
As great as this liberty may be, religious freedom,
like all other rights guaranteed in the Constitution,
can be enjoyed only with a proper regard for the rights
of others. It is error to think that the mere invocation
of religious freedom will stalemate the State and render
it impotent in protecting the general welfare.
The inherent police power can be exercised to
prevent religious practices inimical to society. And
this is true even if such practices are pursued out of
sincere religious conviction and not merely for the
purpose of evading the reasonable requirements or
prohibitions of the law.
Justice Frankfurter put it succinctly:
The constitutional provision on religious
freedom terminated disabilities. It did not create new
privileges. It gave religious liberty, not civil immunity.
Its essence is freedom from conformity to religious
dogma, not freedom from conformity to law because
of religious dogma.
I think this is very apt in this discussion if we talk not of
religion but of religious freedom. Let me again go back to the
statement of Justice Frankfurter:
The constitutional provision on religious
freedom terminated disabilities. It did not create new
privileges. It gave religious liberty, not civil immunity.
Its essence is freedom from conformity to religious
dogma, not freedom from conformity to law because
of religious doctrine.
So, this is underscoring the supremacy of the law over
religious doctrine. I can quote for the record several other
decisions of the Supreme Court on this respect, and if the
distinguished Gentleman would allow me to do so, then I would.
REP. GARCIA (P.). It is the Sponsor’s time.
REP. LAGMAN. Therefore, according to Estrada vs.
Escritor, the State, if the government is advancing valid and
TUESDAY, MAY 17, 2011
legitimate interests for the benefit of the public or for the
protection of society, freedom of religion, cannot be used to
oppose the government act.
Let me just say that there is no law prohibiting the
government from using public funds to purchase
contraceptives. Contraceptives are not banned and are not
unlawful items. Likewise, the purchase of such items by the
government cannot be considered as unnecessary
expenditures for such items can be effective tools to protect
the public’s health and safety. Therefore, the exercise of
discretion by the government to purchase contraceptives
with public funds is legal, legitimate and valid.
REP. GARCIA (P.). The Gentleman is through?
REP. LAGMAN. Yes, because I think I will give the
Gentleman that opportunity to ask relevant questions.
REP. GARCIA (P.). The prevailing doctrine of the Supreme
Court on religious freedom and the establishment clause in the
Constitution is one of benevolent neutrality. In other words,
the government is sometimes viewed as being partial or lenient
to religion in order to respect that religion. For example, in the
case of Estrada vs. Escritor, although we have a law, the Civil
Service Law, which would make employees of the government
liable administratively for committing certain acts like
immorality, in this case, the State accommodated the belief of
that particular employee and the harshness of the law was not
applied against that employee. In short, it is one of benevolent
neutrality or even accommodation.
Now, the reason that the Catholics—and not only the
Catholics, the Sponsor also mentioned that the other religions
are not opposed to the RH Bill—the Baptists are also opposed
to the RH Bill, as well as other Protestant denominations...
Now, the Constitution provides, in the Bill of Rights,
that:
No law shall be made respecting an establishment
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
The free exercise and enjoyment of religious
profession and worship, without discrimination or
preference, shall forever be allowed.
Now, the Catholics, particularly the bishops, believe that
this bill is particularly discriminatory against the Catholic
religion. This bill targets the Catholic religion. This bill does
not respect a fundamental tenet of the Catholic Church. It is
not correct to say, Mr. Speaker—I would like to correct the
Sponsor’s statement—that the ban against contraception
started only in 1956 or 1960 with the Humanae Vitae. No. The
Catholic Church, from the first century until now, has not relaxed
its position that contraceptives are against the law of God.
From the first century until now, that belief has not changed.
Now, Mr. Speaker, knowing that that is a fundamental tenet of
the Catholic Church, the bill proposes to spend billions of
pesos in order that Catholics will violate the tenet of their
religion. So, this is discriminatory against the Catholics.
The Sponsor has been repeating that the core principle
of the RH Bill is freedom of choice. My question is: does it
require a bill to allow people to exercise their freedom of
choice? There is no need for a law in order to assure people
the free exercise of their choice because that is guaranteed
19
under the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights provides: “No
person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without
due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal
protection of the laws.” Freedom of choice. You are free to
buy the kind of food you want to eat. Do we need a law in
order to allow you to exercise your freedom? You are free to
choose the kind of house you are going to build. Do we need
a law to allow you to build the kind of house that you want to
build? So, this is unnecessary. This bill is even in violation of
the freedom of choice. Why? Once freedom can be prevented,
it can be defeated either by force, intimidation or by
temptation. Here, as the Gentleman has stated repeatedly, the
users of contraceptives are mostly Catholics. There is no law
that will prevent them from buying contraceptives. But the
evil of this law is that the freedom of choice of the women,
especially the Catholics, is diluted by bribery.
How? Okay, you are free to choose natural or artificial
family planning. You are free to choose, but if you use artificial
family planning, the government will supply you with
contraceptives. The government will supply you with IUDs.
So, the freedom of choice is defeated. Everyday of our lives,
we pray the Our Father:
Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be Thy
name, Thy kingdom come, x x x. Give us this day our
daily bread, and lead us not into temptation x x x.
Now, this bill will lead Catholic women into temptation
because the government will be supplying them, free of
charge, services and materials in order that they can resort to
family planning. That is the evil of this law. That is why this
bill is particularly and especially offensive, discriminatory
against the Catholic Church. There is no freedom of choice
because the freedom is diluted or defeated by bribery, by
temptation.
Suppose the government, in order to improve nutrition
in the Muslim areas, will say, “Okay, the government will
provide free pork in the markets to be distributed by the DOH
or the DSWD.” Can we pass this kind of law when it is
offensive to the tenets or to the beliefs of the Muslim faith?
That is why the Catholic bishops are up in arms against this
bill.
Now, I would like to proceed. With the indulgence of the
Sponsor, if he does not want to answer questions about God …
REP. LAGMAN. There were already questions not related
to God which I would like to answer. The distinguished
Gentleman said that the prevailing doctrine on religious
freedom is benevolent neutrality , but that is only with respect
to religion and personal interest. When it comes to the right
of the State to exercise police power for the protection of the
general welfare, then there is no benevolent neutrality if
religious dogma would transgress the government’s policy
and the exercise of police power. This is the decision of the
Supreme Court in a litany of cases.
We are here, honorable Members of this august Body, to
legislate on the law of man, not the law of God. This is a
secular forum, the Congress of the Philippines.
It is not a congregation of religious people. There is a
need for a law to protect the fundamental rights of parents,
particularly of women, to determine fully, responsibly and
freely the number and the spacing of their children. That
20
might be protected in the Bill of Rights but we all know that the
Bill of Rights is not self-implementing. There has to be legislation
to implement the various provisions contained in the Bill of
Rights. There is no provision in the Reproductive Health Bill
which would transgress the freedom of religion. The Catholics
have spoken, in almost two decades of surveys, that they
want the enactment of a Reproductive Health Bill, and the
government must use government funds in order to promote
family planning including contraceptives. These surveys would
include nationwide, regional and provincial surveys. In the
survey in Cebu involving a number of congressional districts,
there was overwhelming support by the people of Cebu for the
enactment of the Reproductive Health Bill. If we are true
Representatives of the people, then we should be able to
represent the sentiments of our constituents. In the SWS
survey in Cebu in 2009, 75 percent of those surveyed agreed
that there should be a law to distribute contraceptives like
condoms, IUDs and pills; 76 percent were in favor of the RH
Bill; 88 percent agreed that there should be a law on RH and
family planning; 87 percent said there should be a law that
requires the government to teach family planning to the youth.
These are empirical data, and the results in Cebu reflected the
results of the national survey.
Let me refer to the 66 professors of the Ateneo
University, a truly Catholic institution of higher learning,
when they said that the RH Bill is not an affront to the
teachings of the Catholic Church. In their position paper
entitled: Catholics Can Support the RH Bill in Good
Conscience, they said that the provisions of the RH Bill
adhere to the core principles of Catholic social teachings:
the sanctity of human life, the dignity of the human person,
the preferential option for the poor and vulnerable, integral
human development, human rights and the primacy of
conscience. These are Ateneo University professors, a
leading Catholic university in this county. I have also
statements from important church officials who favor the
enactment of the RH Bill. In other words, even the Catholic
hierarchy, even the Catholic Church, is not unanimous in its
assault against the RH Bill.
REP. GARCIA (P.). Okay. Mr. Speaker, it is good the
Sponsor has mentioned the survey in Cebu because I would
like to inform my colleagues that these powerful and well-
funded lobby groups which are behind the RH Bill and
promoting the sale of contraceptives, IUDs, et cetera,
which is a multi-billion dollar industry–these lobby groups,
specifically the Philippine Legislators Committee on
Population and Development (PLCPD), of which I assume
the Gentleman is a member––conducted or targeted the
district of Congressman Del Mar, the Deputy Speaker of
the Fourteenth Congress, the father of Congresswoman
Cutie Del Mar; and my district. The SWS conducted the
survey in my district and the district of Congressman Del
Mar in order to embarrass Congressman Del Mar and this
Representation. When I asked the constituents: how was
the survey conducted? They said the survey asked, “Do
you want to live comfortably? Do you want to choose, et
cetera?” But the reason they targeted these two districts
will show the malice, the bad faith of these lobby groups.
So I delivered a privilege speech in this Session Hall
because this PLCPD was holding office right here in
Congress, taking advantage of the facilities of this office.
TUESDAY, MAY 17, 2011
After that privilege speech, they moved out but these lobby
groups, which are behind this bill and which are funded
by the multinationals and other NGOs, are very active here
in their advocacy, the support for the RH Bill. Even the US
government, with its security, economic and strategic
interests, is interested in limiting the population of certain
countries, and one of them is the Philippines. I have here
declassified information—declassified because this was
classified information before but under American laws, after
a certain period, certain classified documents are
declassified. This is the Kissinger Report, National
Security Study Memorandum (NSSM) No. 200. You can
understand why the USAID, the Millennium Development
Goals, the United Nations Population Fund, et cetera, are
very much interested in this bill because it is to the interest
of the United States. This is the National Security Study
Memorandum No. 200, entitled: “Implications of Worldwide
Population Growth for US Security and Overseas Interests.”
Now, the cat is out of the bag. I will cite one portion of
the report:
Concentration on Key Countries. Assistance
for population moderation should give primary
emphasis to the largest and fastest growing
developing countries where there is special US
political and strategic interest.
The Philippines is one of them. What are these countries?
These are India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nigeria, Mexico,
Indonesia, Brazil, Philippines, Thailand, Egypt, Turkey,
Ethiopia and Colombia. This is a US document and so now,
the people will know why the US government and the agencies
of the United Nations are lobbying not only in Congress but
elsewhere for the passage of this RH Bill.
Does the distinguished Sponsor, having admitted that
he believes in God, that he is a Congressman who happens
to be a Catholic, believe in the words of God? If that is
somewhat embarrassing or incriminatory, I will not press
the question.
REP. LAGMAN. Before I answer the last question, let me
just correct the distinguished Gentleman that the survey made
by the SWS in his district, as well as in the district of former
Deputy Speaker Raul Del Mar, was commissioned not by the
PLCPD but by another NGO. If the distinguished Gentleman
doubted the result of the survey in his district and in the
other district where the result was even better than the
nationwide survey, then, he should have conducted an
independent survey so that the results could be repeated but
he never did. He never did.
Now, he talks about lobby groups supporting this
measure. As far as funding is concerned, I think the anti-RH
Bill groups, including the Catholic hierarchy, are more well
funded. Who funded the series and repeated media
advertisements, the many one-page ads published by the
anti-RH groups, including the Catholic hierarchy in various
national newspapers, prominently in the Philippine Daily
Inquirer and the Philippine Star?
Who funded the Catholic Church-led anti-RH Bill prayer
rally staged at the Quirino Grandstand in Luneta Park on 25
March 2011, with a reported mobilization of attendance from
Metro Manila and the other provinces? Who funded the anti-
TUESDAY, MAY 17, 2011
RH Bill rallies in Cebu, Quezon, Laguna, Leyte, Negros
Occidental, Pampanga, Zamboanga, General Santos City,
Catanduanes and other places nationwide? Who funded the
very recent anti-RH Bill march dubbed as the “Jericho march”?
All of these activities of the anti-RH Bill groups were funded
and needed logistics, and whatever lobby groups the
distinguished Gentleman is saying are supportive of the RH
Bill, would pale in comparison to the massive mobilization
and media advertisements of the anti-RH Bill groups, including
the Catholic hierarchy.
That Kissinger report has never been effectively
implemented. We are not, in anyway, related to that Kissinger
report, and I would make a thorough exposition of this
Kissinger report at the proper time.
Now, with respect to whether I believe in the words
of God, as a Catholic, I do. But let me say that God did
not proscribe the use of contraceptives. God did not
prohibit the legislation of a reproductive health bill and
definitely, God would give His people the freedom of
conscience, which we are following, and the free will to
act accordingly. These are words of God which we
subscribe to.
REP. GARCIA (P.). Mr. Speaker, it is good that the Sponsor
mentioned funding. If the Catholic Church and the Catholic
bishops, if the Catholic hierarchy spent for or funded these
activities, it was and it is in defense of the faith, in defense of
God. But the funding of these lobby groups is for the defense
of billions of dollars of profits. That is the difference; you
cannot equate one funding with another. If the Catholic
bishops and the Catholic hierarchy are conducting these
activities, it is because they are praying to God that those
who are against lives, those who are pro-RH Bill, will see the
light of day and perhaps, just perhaps, would withdraw this
obnoxious RH Bill, which four Congresses had already
rejected. Mr. Speaker, perhaps he failed to read that passage
or read the account in the Bible about Onan who was forced
to marry a widow and did not want to consummate the marriage
and so, he spilled his semen outside. This is onanism, and
this is similar to the use of condoms. What happened to
Onan? He was condemned to death.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to proceed. Since the Sponsor
believes in God and in the words of God, I would like to quote
a passage from the Bible:
So God created man in His own image, in the
image of God He created them; male and female, He
created them. God blessed them, and God said to
them, “Be fruitful, and multiply, fill the earth, and
subdue it, have dominion over the fish of the sea,
and the birds of the air, and every living thing that
moves on the earth.
Are these words of God supportive of the RH Bill?
Before the Sponsor answers that question, I noticed
that—I want to convince as many of my colleagues as
possible but they are not here.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Remulla). The session is
suspended.
21
It was 7:29 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 7:31 p.m., the session was resumed.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Remulla). The session is
resumed.
We would like to recognize the Sponsor of House Bill
No. 4244, the Hon. Edcel C. Lagman.
REP. LAGMAN. Mr. Speaker, before we suspend the
consideration on this measure, which shall be continued
tomorrow, let me just make some brief answers to some
of the questions interposed by the distinguished
Gentleman from Cebu so that they will not be left
hanging.
He said that for four Congresses, the RH Bill has been
rejected. That is not true, Mr. Speaker, because we have
never voted on the RH Bill before and so, there had been no
vote of rejection. This is just to make it very clear that this
advocacy is prevailing and has not been rejected by this
House.
Next, the distinguished Gentleman is imagining a
windfall coming from multinationals. We have nothing
in common with the multinationals. Majority of the RH
advocates, when they were fighting for the enactment
of the Cheaper Medicines Act, were against the
multinationals, and we have no affinity or any relations
with the multinationals. It is most unkind for the
distinguished Gentleman from Cebu to make that
accusation.
With respect to onanism, which was first mentioned in
a meeting between the Catholic bishops and representatives
from Malacañang, let me just make the necessary clarification
that the Bible has virtually nothing to say about birth control
per se. The story of Onan being condemned to death for
practicing coitus interruptus pertains more to his refusal to
father children for his deceased brother as Jewish law
required, than the practice of a form of birth control. As a
matter of fact, coitus interruptus is a traditional method
which, possibly, had been endorsed by the Catholic
hierarchy before.
So, we would like to express our gratitude to the
leadership for allowing us to resume the debates and our
gratitude will be continuing as long as the debate continues
in the next sessions.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Remulla). The Dep.
Majority Leader is recognized.
SUSPENSION OF CONSIDERATION
OF H.B. NO. 4244
REP. BINAY. Mr. Speaker, I move that we suspend the
consideration of House Bill No. 4244.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Remulla). Is there any
objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is
approved.
The consideration of House Bill No. 4244 is hereby
suspended.
22 TUESDAY, MAY 17, 2011

ADJOURNMENT OF SESSION THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Remulla). The session is

adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, at four o’clock in the
REP. BINAY. Mr. Speaker, I move that we adjourn the afternoon.
session until Wednesday, May 18, 2011 at four o’clock in the
afternoon. I so move. It was 7:35 p.m.

Published by the Publication and Editorial Service, Plenary Affairs Bureau

The Congressional Record can be accessed through the Downloads Center of the official website
of the House of Representatives at www.congress.gov.ph
ddc/05242011/1629