MANILA: Report—Representative Edcel Lagman, principal author and loudest advocate of the Reproductive Health Bill version of the House, says the “Catholic Vote is pro-RH” (banner headline, Jess Diaz, 27 November 2012,

The Philippine Star, print version). He believes the figures supplied by local survey groups. Is he credible? Same report: Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago, co-author and loudest advocate of the Senate version of the RHB, says there is separation of Church and State, meaning the Catholic Church should not be declaring its opinion on the RH Bill, pro or anti. Is she credible? Neither Lagman nor Santiago is credible, because they contradict themselves, and each other!

Santiago contradicts Lagman, saying that in the past, the Catholic Church campaigned against Juan Flavier, but he won as senator. That means there is no Catholic Vote, which means the survey groups are all wrong, which means Lagman is wrong!

Santiago contradicts herself when she “lamented that only the Catholic Church, among all of the major churches in the Philippines, is against the RH Bill. “Woman, damn if you do, damn if you don’t!”

We do have funny legislators. Let us then humor them further.

Lagman says, “The Catholic Vote is for the enactment of the RH Bill. This (has been) consistently validated and documented in all nationwide surveys for many years now.” Lagman says that according to the Social Weather Stations (SWS), “71% of Catholics favor the enactment of the RH Bill.” The SWS is saying that out of 100 Catholics, 71 are pro-RH and only 29 pro-life. “The percentage of those in favor of the Bill is even higher among weekly churchgoing Catholics at 73%, which means that the pulpit as a platform for anti-RH homilies is a failure.”

If you believe the surveys. I don’t. I’ve edited enough technical manuscripts based on data gathered by survey questionnaires, to know about surveys. It is very easy to frame leading questions so that you get the answers you want without the ones you are interviewing realizing it.

Lagman says, “RH advocates should not fear a negative Catholic Vote because the alleged backlash has no empirical basis. Fear is bankrupt of reason and should not be allowed to deter legislation and policy making.” You mean, Sir, the RH advocates should be afraid of their fear but not morality?

Santiago warns “the Catholic clergy against issuing more threats against the proponents of the RH Bill in Congress, which she said could constitute a violation of the Constitution.” She considered the threats “borderline violation” of the constitutional provision on the separation of Church and State. The “threat” was in the form of Lipa Archbishop Ramon Arguelles urging Catholics not to vote for pro-RH senators and representatives in the May 2013 elections because they are anti-life. You mean, Lady, the legislators have their own higher morality not dependent on any religion?

Santiago says, “The separation principle includes what is called the establishment clause, as well as the free exercise clause.” No State religion can be established, and everyone is entitled to the free exercise of his religious belief. Lady, the Catholic Church is not the State religion, and it is in fact exercising its religious belief!

The lady says, “The so-called Catholic Vote is a political myth.” So what’s the lady’s problem? The lady protests too much!

Santiago is co-author and sponsor of the RH Bill along with Senator Pia Cayetano, another loud defender of the RH position. The ladies protest too much!

Arguelles says the constitutional provision on the separation of Church and State is binding only on the State and not the Church; such provision “does not mean that the Church cannot comment or speak on moral issues.” The fact is, “The Reproductive Health Bill is a moral issue.” Yes, Father.

Cagayan de Oro Rep Rufus Rodriguez says of his colleagues at the House who are pro-RH: “They now realize it violates the Constitution, is coercive in nature, is morally incorrect; it assaults the Catholic religion, is medically unsafe, and is an unsound policy for a developing country.” Very well put, Sir!

Budget Secretary Florencio Abad says, “First of all, if the position taken by any politician, any candidate is based on his own appreciation of his conscience, I think that has to be respected by anybody including the Church.” Abad is trying to say that a citizen’s conscience is the appropriate enlightener on what is right and wrong. Politically correct. As Abad puts it, “In a democracy, it’s the competition in a marketplace of ideas that brings out the best.” Spiritually wrong. In matters of Christian morality, there cannot be a separation of Church and State. It must be Church+State.

The State can neither dictate nor pronounce what is the highest morality. If the State is without the moral impulsion of the Church, then the State becomes the judge of the highest morality, and that would be funny. I do not wish to live in a morally sterile society, especially when it’s that funny!