|
HB 5403 is assailed by, among many other lawyers, Mrs. Jo Imbong,
the executive secretary of the Legal office of the Catholic
Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines and consultant to the CBCP
Episcopal Commission on Family and Life, Atty. Alan Paguia and Atty.
Romulo Makalintal.
Death Penalty Law
“It is inconsistent with the law that
abolished the death penalty,” asserts Atty. Makalintal.
He writes to The Manila Times, “When Leo
Echegaray was convicted for the crime of raping his 10-year-old
daughter in April 1994 and meted out the supreme penalty of death
under R.A. 7659, the Death Penalty Law, most of our lawmakers
realized that death penalty is not in accordance with God’s plan
for men and society. Thus, on June 24, 2006, Congress passed R.A.
9346 prohibiting the imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines
even on heinous crimes.”
“Surprisingly, however,” he continues,
“some of these legislators are now pushing for the passage of the
‘Reproductive Health [RH] Bill’ which would allow the use of
family planning or birth control methods through the use of
contraceptives, some of which, based on some medical tests, could
cause abortion.”
“If such contraceptives or birth control
methods introduced in the bill could cause abortion or could kill
the unborn child, then how could these legislators easily forget
their position against the imposition of death penalty even to
criminals who committed heinous crimes? In other words, why spare
the life of and allow these criminals to enjoy the gift of life, but
deny the same right to the innocent and sinless unborn child or
prevent the seed of life that God gave to mankind to grow and
multiply?” writes Atty. Makalintal.
5 constitutional points
Atty. Paguia asks lawmakers to consider “5
points on the Reproductive Health Bill.” These are:
“1. Under the Preamble of the Constitution,
the general objective of the Philippine legal system is ‘to build
a just and HUMANE SOCIETY.’ Such humaneness includes both the born
and the unborn. Therefore, it would not be humane for Congress to
promote the use of contraceptives since it is directed against the
life of the unborn.
“2. The life of the unborn constitutes the
process of PROCREATION. It has its alpha and omega.
“3. Procreation begins with the SEXUAL ACT.
It ends when the unborn is born. Under Article 41 of the Civil Code,
the unborn is considered BORN if it is alive at the time it is
completely delivered from the mother’s womb. Why is the sexual act
the alpha of procreation? Because without it, generally speaking, NO
sperm would enter the female body. If no sperm enters the female
body, conception becomes a physical impossibility. Therefore,
procreation or reproduction begins with the sexual act and ends with
the complete separation of the unborn from the mother’s womb. It
follows that any discussion on procreation or reproduction—to be
complete—must include the sexual act.
“4. Under the Constitution, the FAMILY is the
foundation of the nation, and MARRIAGE is the foundation of the
family. These are the foundations of responsible parenthood.
Clearly, marriage LEGITIMIZES the sexual act between the husband and
the wife [Art. XV]. In other words, under the Constitution, any
sexual act outside marriage is ILLEGITIMATE or IMMORAL.
“5. May Congress properly pass a law that
would make the life of the unborn a physical impossibility? NO. It
would be unconstitutional as it would violate the ‘guidelines for
legislation’ set out in Article II of the Constitution [Oposa v.
Factoran, 224 SCRA 792; Kilosbayan v. Morato, 246 SCRA 540; Tañada
v. Angara, 272 SCRA 18].”
Prohibited acts
Section 21 of HB 5403 is titled “Prohibited
Acts.”
“The following acts are prohibited:
“a) Any health care service provider, whether
public or private, who shall:
“1. Knowingly withhold information or impede
the dissemination thereof, and/or intentionally provide incorrect
information regarding programs and services on reproductive health
including the right to informed choice and access to a full range of
legal, medically safe and effective family planning methods;
“2. Refuse to perform voluntary ligation and
vasectomy and other legal and medically safe reproductive health
care services on any person of legal age on the ground of lack of
spousal consent or authorization.
“3. Refuse to provide reproductive health
care services to an abused minor, whose abused condition is
certified by the proper official or personnel of the Department of
Social Welfare and Development [DSWD] or to duly DSWD-certified
abused pregnant minor on whose case no parental consent is
necessary.
“4. Fail to provide, either deliberately or
through gross or inexcusable negligence, reproductive health care
services as mandated under this Act, the Local Government Code of
1991, the Labor Code, and Presidential Decree 79, as amended; and
“5. Refuse to extend reproductive health care
services and information on account of the patient’s civil status,
gender or sexual orientation, age, religion, personal circumstances,
and nature of work; Provided, That all conscientious objections of
health care service providers based on religious grounds shall be
respected: Provided, further, That the conscientious objector shall
immediately refer the person seeking such care and services to
another health care service provider within the same facility or one
which is conveniently accessible: Provided, finally, That the
patient is not in an emergency or serious case as defined in R.A.
8344 penalizing the refusal of hospitals and medical clinics to
administer appropriate initial medical treatment and support in
emergency and serious cases.
“b) Any public official who prohibits or
restricts personally or through a subordinate the delivery of legal
and medically safe reproductive health care services, including
family planning;
“c) Any employer who shall fail to comply
with his obligation under Section 17 of this Act or an employer who
requires a female applicant or employee, as a condition for
employment or continued employment, to involuntarily undergo
sterilization, tubal ligation or any other form of contraceptive
method;
“d) Any person who shall falsify a
certificate of compliance as required in Section 14 of this Act; and
“e) Any person who maliciously engages in
disinformation about the intent or provisions of this Act.
“SEC. 22. Penalties. – The proper city or
municipal court shall exercise jurisdiction over violations of this
Act and the accused who is found guilty shall be sentenced to an
imprisonment ranging from one [1] month to six [6] months or a fine
ranging from Ten Thousand Pesos [P10,000] to Fifty Thousand Pesos
[P50,000] or both such fine and imprisonment at the discretion of
the court. If the offender is a juridical person, the penalty shall
be imposed upon the president, treasurer, secretary or any
responsible officer. An offender who is an alien shall, after
service of sentence, be deported immediately without further
proceedings by the Bureau of Immigration. An offender who is a
public officer or employee shall suffer the accessory penalty of
dismissal from the government service.
“Violators of this Act shall be civilly
liable to the offended party in such amount at the discretion of the
proper court.”
In its campaign against the RH bill, the
Couples for Christ organization has published ads (not in The Manila
Times, though) to alert the public.
“Should you support Reproductive Health Bill
No. 5043?” CFC asks readers. Then it tells them to take a simple
test to find out.
1. As employers, do you agree to be compelled
to provide free reproductive health care services, supplies, devices
and surgical procedures (including vasectomy and ligation) to your
employees, and be subjected to both imprisonment and/or a fine, for
every time that you fail to comply?
Section 17 states that employers shall provide
for free delivery of reproductive health care services, supplies and
devices to all workers more particularly women workers. (read the
Definition of Reproductive Health and Rights Section 4, paragraph g,
Section 21, Paragraph c and Section 22 on Penalties)
2. As health care service providers, do you
agree that you should be subjected to imprisonment and/or a fine, if
you fail to provide reproductive health care services such as giving
information on family planning methods and providing services like
ligation and vasectomy, regardless of the patient’s civil status,
gender, religion or age?
(Read Section 21 on Prohibited Acts, Letter a,
Paragraph 1 to 5 and Section 22 on Penalties)
3. As a spouse, do you agree that your husband
or wife can undergo a ligation or vasectomy without your consent or
knowledge?
(Read Section 21 on Prohibited Acts, Letter a,
Paragraph 2)
4. As parents, do you agree that children from
age 10 to 17 should be taught their sexual rights and the means to
have a satisfying and “safe” sex life as part of their school
curriculum?
Reproductive Health Education will be mandatory
from Grade 5 to the end of High School (See Section 12 on
Reproductive Health Education and Section 4 Definition of Family
Planning and Productive Health, Paragraph b, c and d)
5. Do you agree that you should be subjected to
imprisonment and/or pay a fine, for expressing an opinion against
any provision of this law, if such expression of opinion is
interpreted as constituting “malicious disinformation”?
(See Section 21 on Prohibited Acts, Paragraph f
and Section 22 on Penalties)
CFC then says, “If you answered No to any of
the questions above, then you are not for Reproductive Health Bill
No. 5043. Read the bill.
“You will find more objectionable provisions
such as losing your parental authority over a minor child who was
raped and found pregnant [Section 21, a, no.3], reclassifying
contraceptives as essential medicines [Section 10] and appropriating
limited government funds to reproductive services instead of basic
services [Section 23].”
|
