Brief Background: There are 6 bills pertaining to reproductive health and/or population management that have been filed

for deliberation in both the House of Representatives and the Senate for the 15th Congress. The most controversial of these bills is House Bill No. 96 authored by Rep. Edcel Lagman. House Bill No. 96, also known as the proposed "Reproductive Health and Population and Development Act of 2010." The proposed bill is pro-poor, pro-women and pro-life. Its principal beneficiaries will be the poorest of the poor and the marginalized. Reproductive health and family planning significantly improves maternal health and lowers maternal morbidity. Having the ability to plan and space children will afford women more employment and educational opportunities and will significantly lower abortion rates. The bill will also prevent infant and child deaths. Family planning will likewise mean larger investments in children's health and education and better health outcomes for children. With resultant lower maternal and infant deaths and capacity for more investments in health and education, RH is definitely pro-life. (Lagman, House Bill No. 96 2) At the heart of the bill is freedom of informed choice. Neither the Sate nor the Church has the authority to compel

the people or the faithful what family planning method to adopt. The choice belongs to parents and couples, particularly to women who have the inherent right over their own bodies. (Lagman, House Bill No. 96 3) The experience of other Asian countries clearly shows that a government-funded family planning program together with a complete, oriented health-based, policy on rights-anchored and developmentpopulation reproductive health and

management and development are crucial components in poverty reduction programs and a sound and sensible economic policy. Experts all agree that sustainable socio-economic development cannot be achieved if the issue of population is ignored or addressed separately from the issues of development and poverty.

Counterargument: The Roman Catholic Church and other pro-life, pro-family groups opposes the Reproductive Health Bill or House Bill No. 96 because it is a major attack on authentic human values and on Filipino cultural values regarding human life that all of us have cherished since time immemorial. The RH Bill simply does not respect the moral values that are central to the Filipino culture. The position of the Church is based mainly on two core principles which are: 1. Human life is the most sacred physical gift with which God, the author of life, endows a human being. Placing artificial obstacles to prevent human life from being formed and being born most certainly contradicts this fundamental truth of human life. In the light of the widespread influence of the post-modern spirit in our world, we consider this position as nothing less than prophetic. As religious leaders we must proclaim this truth fearlessly in season and out of season. (NEREO P. ODCHIMAR) 2. It is parents, cooperating with God, who bring children into the world. It is also they who have the primary inalienable right and responsibility to nurture them, care for them, and educate them that they might grow as mature persons according to the will of the Creator. (NEREO P. ODCHIMAR)

The Roman Catholic Church expresses its opposition against the bill on many counts, most especially the procurement and distribution of family planning supplies for the whole country, when the available evidence from peer reviewed medical journals supports the hypothesis that when ovulation and fertilization occur in women taking oral contraceptives (OCs) or using intrauterine devices (IUD), post-fertilization effects are operative on occasion to prevent clinically recognized pregnancy. Hormonal contraceptives and/or IUDs directly affect the endometrium. These effects have been presumed to render the endometrium relatively inhospitable to implantation or to the maintenance of the pre-embryo or embryo prior to clinically recognized pregnancy. These make pills and IUDS abortifacient. However, the position of the Catholic Church and the pro-life groups does not mean that they espouse the attitude of "natalism" at all costs, as if the "number" of children, in itself, were the unmistakable sign of authentic Christian matrimonial life. The sexual act, properly exercised within marriage only, is ordained primarily to the propagation of life. If there are reasonable motives for spacing births, such as serious medical conditions in the mother, or extreme poverty, then the Catholic Church teaches that married couples may take advantage of the natural cycles of the reproductive system and use their marriage precisely those times that are infertile (natural family planning).

Very pertinent to the debate about reproduction rights is the right to life. The Philippine Constitution says that the State "shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception (Art. II, Section 12, 1987 Philippine Constitution). If artificial contraceptives are medically proven to induce abortion as one of their mechanisms of action, then procurement and distribution of such family planning supplies are unconstitutional and illegal.

Own Argument: The inclusion of abortion, use of contraceptives, family planning, sterilization and the right to die (euthanasia) among the constitutionally protected rights to privacy has been challenged on moral, spiritual and religious doctrines. The modern trends on the liberal application of right to privacy are threats against human life and promote the "culture of death." The US Supreme Court decision that a "fetus" is not a person and therefore not entitled to full due process of law and equal protection of the law has been seriously attacked on moral grounds. The decisions in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton drastically demolished the constitutional guarantee of the right to life. The development of life before and after birth is a continuous process. Any direct interruption of the guaranteed process of life already begun, and above all, abortion is entirely unacceptable and can never be justified even on the so called grounds of "free choice" and the right of individuals to privacy. The alleged acceptance by a democratic majority or under the freedom of choice is morally unacceptable. (II) While the state has the responsibility to intervene in the problem of demography of population such intervention must always take into account and respect the primary and inalienable responsibility of married couples and families. The state cannot employ methods which fail to respect the person and the person's fundamental human rights, and the right to life of every innocent

human being. It is therefore morally unacceptable to encourage, let alone impose, the use of methods such as contraception, sterilization and abortion in order to regulate births.

Legal Bases: The mandate of Sec. 12, Article II of the Constitution is clear and cannot be obscured. It needs no interpretation. The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution. It shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception. The natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral character shall receive the support of the Government. Article XV recognizes the Filipino family as the foundation of the nation, and marriage as an inviolable social institution, the foundation of the family, which shall be protected by the State. Sec. 3 provides: The State shall defend: (1) The right of spouses to found a family in accordance with their religious convictions and the demands of responsible parenthood. This is where the Catholics and other religious believers come in. They have to defend their basic human right to their own respective religious beliefs. I am a Roman Catholic. I believe, with the Church, that contraception and sterilization are intrinsically evil, and I try to practice what I believe. My friend and neighbor is of a different faith; he believes that contraception and sterilization are good for his health. The absence of an RH law has not impaired, and will not impair, his right to practice contraception and sterilization. It will not hurt the practice of his faith. But the passage of an RH law will certainly hurt mine.

I do not want the State to act as the enforcer of my Catholic faith, and compel my friend and neighbor to believe what I believe. But I cannot allow the State to tell me to abandon my belief either and support with my tax payment a government program that attacks my religious belief. I would feel religiously persecuted, and I will have to respond accordingly. The beauty of democracy is its tolerance for a variety of opinions. Without the RH bill, contraceptives are available so let those to need it use it voluntarily. But the real function of the RH bill is to allow the government or its surrogate NGOs to step up its campaign rooted from fear; The RH Bill proposes to initiate the use of contraceptives at an early and tender age instead of providing patriarchal guidance and protection on the nature of sexual activity which can be an addictive pleasure and counterproductive in the long run. (Tatad)

Conclusion: Every persons right is safeguarded by the Constitution. Moreover, any law which has been proven to be inconsistent with our fundamental law shall be declared void. must bow to. It is because our Constitution is the paramount law to which all the subsequent laws The Constitution is the seed planted by the state This fruit as declared by It is very which embodies their ideals and aspirations, every subsequent law must therefore be a fruit of this seed. natural science must be the by-product of the seed. unlikely for a mango tree to bear fruit to a kamias. Similarly, the Constitution explicit as it is cannot

accommodate within its branches a bill or a law which is not its by product. We are of the view that the under questioned RH Bill is not a by-product of our constitution. It does not embody nor pays respect to the provisions of our constitution. Before discussing the alleged incompatibility of the RH bill to our constitution let us first say that the goal of the bill is worthy. There is definitely no denying of the decline of the quality of healthcare the country is facing. Moreover we are facing an increase of the population of the poorest of the poor who are ending up being dependents and worse unproductive citizens. It is truly important to address this problem. Now the question is, whether the RH bill is the cure to such disease? To put it in another way;

Yes we are in the face of an adversary, but are we drawing the best weapon we have? We could probably in the state of panic that we are actually pulling from our side a bolo in the face of enemies sporting tanks. Yes we have in our hands a sick man, but are we administrating the cure? We may be desperate and rushing too much that we gave only the relief. Let us explore the avenues! It is still a long walk. Lets not overreact, else we might commit an unbearable mistake. We are of the belief that the RH Bill may be a temporary relief but it is not the solution to our problem. Moreover, it presents a threat in the unity of this nation. Worst, it contravened some provisions of the constitution specifically: Sec. 12, Article II of the Constitution The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution. It shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception. The natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral character shall receive the support of the Government. Article XV recognizes the Filipino family as the foundation of the nation, and marriage as an inviolable social institution, the

foundation of the family, which shall be protected by the State. Sec. 3 provides: The State shall defend: (1) The right of spouses to found a family in accordance with their religious convictions and the demands of responsible parenthood. In relation to Art. XV Section 3, the constitutional safeguard embodied in Section 5 Article 3 of our Constitution strengthens our religious freedom. Freedom of religion enshrined in our Constitution should be seen as the rule the zone of protection accorded by the Constitution cannot be violated except upon showing of a clear and present danger of a substantive evil which the state has the right to protect From the aforesaid jurisprudence, we can conclude that religious freedom is a right enjoyed by every person which cannot be easily invaded by the state. It should enjoy every respect that it demands. Moreover, when the state needs to invade this sacred right, the state must satisfy that; it has a compelling interest for it to override such right of a person and that it has used the least intrusive means. We are of the opinion that the RH Bill is too much of an intrusion to our belief. The state may nevertheless satisfy itself with better more effective means to address the problem of the decreasing healthcare and population increase.

The RH Bill, we agree has a beautiful and noteworthy purpose, but the ends does not justify the means. Another thing is, with the means to be employed by the RH Bill, instead of finding a society of productive individuals, we might end up seeing a society of dependents. As much as we would like to see a Philippines that is productive with citizens that are responsible, we do not agree with the passing of the RH Bill. First, for being too intrusive of the religious belief of the people; and secondly, for the possibility of it producing citizens that are too dependent to the government for the healthcare of their family.

Bibliography
II, Pope John Paul. "Evangelium Vitae." (n.d.): 68-69. Lagman, Edcel C. <http://www.edcellagman.com.ph/images/stories/bills/15th_congress/HB _96.pdf>. . "House Bill No. 96." 2010 July 1. http://www.edcellagman.com.ph/. <http://www.edcellagman.com.ph/images/stories/bills/15th_congress/HB _96.pdf>. NEREO P. ODCHIMAR, D.D. "Choosing Life, Rejecting the RH Bill: A pastoral letter by CBCP." 30 January 2011. propinoy.net. <http://www.propinoy.net/2011/02/06/choosing-life-rejecting-the-rh-bill-apastoral-letter-by-cbcp/>. Tatad, Kit. "The Big RH Swindle." http://fightrhbill.blogspot.com. <http://fightrhbill.blogspot.com/2011/05/who-is-being-divisive.html>.