by Elizabeth Angsioco

National Chairperson

Democratic Socialist Women of the Philippines (DSWP)

Women comprise half of the country’s population and thus, experience all the problems faced by all Filipinos. Ordinary women, those in classes C, D, and E are the hardest hit. Poverty, inferior quality of education, lack of sustainable livelihood and employment opportunities, poor quality of education, limited access to social services, crimes – these are some of the issues affecting most of our citizens, including women. On top of these, women (particularly those in poverty) face specific problems by virtue of their being women such as: gender-based discrimination and abuse, violence against women (VAW), the very high maternal mortality and morbidity rates, lack of access to reproductive health (RH) information and services, and teen-age pregnancies. Poor Filipino women seek solutions to these.

The 2010 elections is deemed as an opportunity to effect significant changes that will make people’s quality of life better. This presumes electing into office candidates who will give paramount importance to the common good and address issues affecting vulnerable and marginalized groups in Philippine society – such as the women. An intelligent electorate is thus, needed.

Voters will be able to choose wisely if candidates focus on making known to people their platforms, credentials and track record. Beyond the propaganda, voters must understand what candidates stand for and the concrete programs they will implement once voted into office.

I.  FILIPINO WOMEN, POLITICS AND ELECTIONS

Filipino women have been politically active since they acquired the right to vote. They form a significant part of candidates’ and political parties’ machinery in every election. They actively campaign, do organizing work, serve as watchers, protect votes of their candidates, etc.

Studies show that historically, the past elections saw more women voting than men. Yet, specific programs for women are most often marginalized, if not totally excluded in candidates’ platforms. This is symptomatic of existing thinking that women are generally less important than men and that women are merely followers.

Women voters need to know what candidates plan to do to address their needs and interests.

II.  WOMEN’S HEALTH AS AN AGENDA FOR THE 2010 ELECTIONS

For decades, women’s organizations have been working so that their issues are significantly addressed by government. Women’s advocacy work has resulted in some success with women-focused legislations like the Anti-Rape, Anti-Sexual Harassment, Women in Nation-building, Anti-Trafficking in Persons, Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children laws. This shows that women are and can be effective advocates for candidates who will be proven to put women’s welfare in their agenda.

The potential of women’s vote has not yet been fully appreciated and tapped by politicians, especially the males. The late Sen. Raul Roco tried and was partially successful. He showed that women will work for those who are mindful of women’s issues and needs. Other candidates who are true in their intentions of looking after women’s needs should follow suit.

THE AGENDA – KALUSUGAN NG KABABAIHAN

A lot more needs to be done.  Putting emphasis on women’s concerns in the ongoing political debates is particularly critical in the urgent need to address health-related issues of women, particularly those on reproductive health (RH).

Women’s health is an urgent issue. This is not only a matter of right, it is a matter of life. The issue of Reproductive Health (RH), despite the strong opposition of the Roman Catholic Church hierarchy is integral to women’s health.

‘No woman should die in giving life,’ is a statement that no one will disagree with. 11 Filipino women, many of them in poverty, dying daily due to pregnancy and childbirth-related complications is not a joke. These are senseless deaths that could have been prevented. This number represents the Philippines’ Maternal Mortality Rate (MMR), which is one of the highest in Asia.

Surely, if candidates to the coming national elections are asked, all will say that this problem must be addressed. It is, therefore, reasonable for voters to expect concrete solutions from these candidates, especially those who are after the highest position of the land – the Presidency.

II.1.  REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH (RH)-  is a state of complete physical, mental & social well-being & not merely the absence of disease or infirmity, in all matters relating to the reproductive system & to its functions and processes. (WHO & ICPD)

RH implies that people are able to have:

• a satisfying & safe sex life;
• the capability to reproduce; &
• freedom to decide if, when & how often to do so.

RH necessitates:

• Rights of women & men to be informed & to have access to safe, effective, affordable & acceptable family planning methods of their choice, as well as other methods for regulation of fertility WHICH ARE NOT AGAINST THE LAW;

• The right to access to appropriate health care services that will enable women to go safely through pregnancy & childbirth & provide couples with the best chance of having a healthy infant.

REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH CARE

• the constellation of methods, techniques & services that contribute to reproductive health & well-being by preventing & solving RH problems;
• also includes sexual health, the purpose of which is the enhancement of life & personal relations, & not merely counseling & care related to reproduction & STDs.

PHILIPPINE RH PROGRAM 10 ELEMENTS (DOH AO 1-A s. 1998)

1. Family Planning
2. Maternal & Child Health & Nutrition
3. Prevention & Management of Abortion Complications
4. Prevention & Treatment of RTIs including STIs & HIV & AIDS
5. Education & Counseling on Sexuality & Sexual Health
6. Breast & Reproductive Tract Cancers & other Gynecologic Conditions
7. Men’s Role & Participation in RH
8. Adolescent RH
9. Violence Against Women (VAW)
10. Prevention & Treatment of Infertility & Sexual Disorders

II.2.  LEGAL BASES FOR RH

International Human Rights Commitments such as: The Convention Against all forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW); International Conference on Population and Development Program of Action (ICPD-POA); Beijing Platform of Action (BPA); and the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) esp. MDG5.

Constitutional Provisions:

• Art. II. Sec. 15. – The State shall protect & promote the right to health of the people and instill health consciousness among them.
• Art. XIII. Sec. 11. – The State shall adopt an integrated & comprehensive approach to health development which shall endeavor to make essential goods, health & other social services available to all the people at affordable cost. There shall be priority for the needs of the underprivileged, sick, elderly, disabled, women & children. The State shall endeavor to provide free medical care to paupers.
• Art. XV. Sec. 3. [1] – The State shall defend the right of spouses to found a family in accordance with their religious convictions & the demands of responsible parenthood.

II.3.   RH: PHILIPPINE SITUATION:

MMR is just one of the burning issues related with RH. Consider the following data:

On marriage, pregnancy and childbirth:

• At 19, 1 of every 5 young women is already married and 90% of them have already given birth (DOH, 1999)
• Adolescent pregnancy is 30% of annual births (DOH/WHO/UNFPA)
• Poor and uneducated women marry and give birth earlier in life, and have more children than women with higher education (2003 NDHS)
• More than 60% of pregnancies in the Philippines is classified as high-risk (2003 NDHS)
• The desired fertility rate of Filipino women is 2.5/woman but the actual rate is 3.5 or a difference of 1 child/woman (2003 NDHS)
• Mean age at having 1st child is 19. (YAFS3, 2002)
• Only about 25% of the poorest women is attended by skilled attendants upon delivery. (NDHS, 2003)
• Almost 10% of young Filipino women aged 15-19 has already given birth. (NDHS, 1998)
• Adolescent pregnancy is 30% of all annual births. (DOH/WHO/UNFPA Training Manual)
• 11 Filipino women die daily due to pregnancy & childbirth-related complications (UNFPA, 2007) & over half (56%) of yearly maternal deaths are unreported.
• The WHO indicates that more than 95% maternal mortality comes from developing countries.
• Poor women have 3 times more children than the rich.

• Population growth rate (PGR) is pegged at 2.04% which translates to about 2 million new Filipinos yearly.
• Poverty incidence is higher among big families.

On sex and contraception:

• Mean age at 1^st sex for males and females is 17 and 18 respectively (YAFS3, 2002)
• 16% of youth had 1^st sex before age 15 (SPPR2, 2002)
• 27% of males and 14.5% of females used contraception during 1^st sex (YAFS3, 2002)
• 60% of women source their Family Planning (FP) supplies/services from the public sector
• Less than 1% of couples using Family Planning methods use Natural Family Planning (NFP) (2003 NDHS)
  • 31.2% of males & 15.9% of females had premarital sex. (YAFS 3, 2002)
  • The lowest rate of contraceptive use is among the 15-19 years age bracket. (NDHS, 1998)
  • The majority of women practicing family planning uses modern instead of traditional (calendar, rhythm, abstinence & withdrawal) methods. (FPS, 2006)
  • Only 0.4% of women uses natural family planning (NFP) methods (Mucus/Billings/Ovulation, Standard Days, LAM) & only 13.2% uses traditional methods. (FPS, 2005)
  • Almost 60% of women source their supply of FP services & supplies from the public sector. The government has been dependent on outside donors for its contraceptive commodities. USAID has completely phased out its donations.
  • 61% of currently married women does not want additional children anymore.  (NDHS, 2003)
  • 50.6% of the youth wants to have only 2 children. (YAFS 3, 2002)
  • 97% of all Filipinos believe it is important to have the ability to control one’s fertility or to plan one’s family. 87% of total respondents are Roman Catholic. (Pulse Asia Survey, February 2004)
  • FP can reduce maternal deaths by 32%. (DOH)
  • The unmet need for contraceptives is 23.15% for poor women (2003 NDHS) and much lower for those who are not in poverty.

On abortion

• Unplanned/unwanted pregnancy causes over 400,000 induced abortions every year (UPPU-AGI, 2006)
• About 16 out of every 100 pregnancies end in abortion (Perez, Aurora et al. 1997)
• The big majority of women having induced abortions are poor (68%), married (91%), with more than 3 children (57%), and Catholic (87%) (UPPU-AGI, 2006)
• Unwanted pregnancy causes over 400,000 induced abortions every year. (UPPU-AGI, 2006)
• Some reasons why women have abortions:
• Too many children
• Birth spacing
• Poverty
• Rape/incest
• Unstable relationship
• Too young
• (Safe Motherhood Fact Sheet: Unsafe Abortion, 1999)

On HIV and AIDS

• Has reached an epidemic level. (DOH)
• At least 30% of young people thinks that HIV & AIDS are curable. (YAFS)

II.4   WHAT FILIPINOS SAY:

About family planning:

• 92% says FP important. (Ulat ng Bayan, Pulse Asia Survey, 2007)
• 97% says it’s important to have the ability to plan one’s family. 87% of respondents is Roman Catholic. (Pulse Asia Survey, February 2004)
• 89% thinks gov’t should provide budgets for FP including contraceptives. (Ulat ng Bayan, Pulse Asia Survey, 2007)

About pro-RH politicians:

• 86% says that candidates for elective positions who advocate a program for women’s health should be supported;
• 82% of the population says that candidates in favor of couples’ free choice of FP should be supported;
• 82% considers candidates supporting a law on population issues worthy of their votes; and
• 83% in favor of candidates supporting  allocation of government funds for FP.

Thus, within the context of the Constitutional provisions on women’s right to health and the State’s international commitments, the State is bound to address RH-related issues.

II.5.   NEEDED RH PROGRAM

To succeed in this, the State needs to implement a rights-based, comprehensive, and integrated national program that includes:

• Training of more skilled birth attendants;
• Upgrading of personnel, equipment, and services of public hospitals, clinics, and health centers particularly on obstetrics and gynaecology;
• Periodic MMR and morbidity review;
• A strong and age-appropriate RH education for the youth;
• Prevention and treatment of: HIV and AIDS, and sexually transmitted infections (STIs), post abortion complications, breast cancer and other reproductive track infections (RTIs);
• Provision of ALL family planning (FP) methods especially to those who want and/or need these;
• A massive and popularized information and education campaign on FP;
• Mobile health clinics in all Congressional districts;
• Strict implementation of RH-related provisions of the Labor Code and VAW-related laws;
• Adequate financing;
• Enactment of an RH law so that the government policy is not dependent on personal positions of national and local officials.

Poor Filipinos have the right to quality life. The youth have the right to a better future, and WOMEN have the right to life. An RH-responsive government will promote women’s rights & save thousands of lives. Healthy women beget healthy children & will result in healthy families. Make women matter….

MAKE RH MATTER IN THE 2010 ELECTIONS!!!

It is a misconception to think that any organization that participates in religious activities is automatically classified as a religious organization. A religious organization is actually a type of non-stock corporation. A religious group must apply for religious organization status with the SEC and BIR.

To register as a religious organization, an organization must participate exclusively in activities with the following nature:

• religious
• charitable
• educational

This condition must be met to qualify as a religious organization and receive tax-exempt status from the BIR.

Participating in partisan politics is a political activity — not a religious, charitable, or educational activity. If a religious organization participates in a political activity, it no longer meets the condition above, and is disqualified from being registered as a religious organization.

It also loses its conditionally-given tax-exempt status.

By actively campaigning against pro-RH candidates, the CBCP is participating in partisan politics, which is a political activity. This disqualifies them from their previous classification as a religious organization. This also disqualifies them from receiving tax-exempt status.

Therefore, the SEC should revoke CBCP’s status as a religious organization, and the BIR should remove the CBCP’s tax-exempt status.

If the CBCP ceases to be a religious organization and loses its tax-exempt status, it may campaign against pro-RH candidates all it wants. It may even run as a party-list candidate.

But they should not be allowed to participate in political activities and receive tax benefits at the same time.

Yet they have been doing so for a very long time, and they will continue to do so until somebody stops them. Ideally, our politicians should, but they are too busy and too scared. Meanwhile, the CBCP continues its political meddling while enjoying tax-exempt status.

When elections are over and our politicians finally have time — not to mention guts, for they can finally stop worrying about the Catholic vote — it will be too late. The CBCP will already have done its damage.

The CBCP may not be able to influence the voters, but they can certainly influence the politicians.

Traditional media helps, but it is not enough, because they, too, are afraid of the CBCP. Some are willing to take a stand, but they are in the minority. Yet with the power of new media, there is something you can do:

• Learn more about how the CBCP is violating our constitution.
• Spread the message through your social networks.
• Speak out against the CBCP’s political meddling.

Let’s not allow the CBCP to violate our constitution and make cowards of our politicians any longer. Keep the church out of politics and politics out of the church!

I was surprised that the whole shebang was not even a dialogue but propaganda, run by the Roman Catholic church to ban the artificial birth control method and family planning. AY NAKU PO! Not again! There were even some foreign guests (I think from Canada) who talked about Philippine poverty, saying it must not be blamed on population growth. Now here we have aliens from another land who in a mere instant knew what was best for Filipino society. MY PAPAYA!

Fortunately I got some distributed literature which showed what this was all about. The article seemed to be a letter intended to be given to the Philippine Congress, urging our respective Congressmen not to support some bills regarding:

• The Reproductive Health Bill
• Anti-Discrimination Act
• Integrated Population Management and Development Bill
• Divorce Bill
• Patients Rights Bill
• Anti-Terrorism Bill (?)
• Philippine Mining Act

And even the issue on Charter Change. Wait a minute there… I thought this is about the life of a child. Why are we dancing the cha-cha in here?

Now since this is a “Pro-Life” issue, I will just tackle the issue concerning Pro-Life. I’ll leave the issue of Anti-Terrorism and the Philippine Mining Act in a more “political” atmosphere.

According to this article, they claim that the cause of poverty is not overpopulation and the solution is not the use of contraceptives. Guess again? Well for your information, over-population is one of the causes of poverty and these entertainers are just keeping their eyes closed on the issue. Well some may use China as an example to justify over-population but let us examine the claim: We know that China is a very large country by territory compared to the itsy-bitsy group of islands called the Philippines.

So what’s the problem? Even with a billion in population, China can still manage their resources and their per capita income, compared to the Philippines. But why go to China if we can talk about reality in our own backyard?

Now the clamors in the issue about the Reproductive Health Bill are not even realistic. Maybe if we’re still living in the time of President Marcos, there is an issue. But today President Arroyo seems too hesitant to enforce the bill. Takot kasi si Ma’am sa simbahan eh.

The church still insists that the use of artificial contraceptives is immoral. Well think about this — there are thousands of sperm cells that leave a male body during coitus. Of the thousands, only one is needed to fertilized the egg cell. Now do you consider it murder, what happened to the unused sperm? It just doesn’t make sense. Here the Roman Catholics are into the sacredness of the sperm cell yet they don’t care about the child. A little common sense can shed some light on this matter. Just observe families around you and you’ll notice that most families that are a little well off have only 2 to 3 children, yet most families that live in depressed areas have a factory of kids. Most family whose parents have some college education insist on having few children with an interval of birth between 3 to 5 years, whereas family who only have an educational attainment of grade school have children as much as a dozen whose birth intervals can be compared to a stairway – every year mayroong birthday – WOAH!

And what happened with these children? Well maybe the staffs from Pro-Life Philippines should have a tour of Recto to Luneta at 1 to 4 AM and count the number of children sleeping in the streets, or sniffing rubber cement for dinner or breakfast. Now, I’m just thinking, these Catholic priests and their cahoots (like Pro-Life Philippines) preach to their adherents that it is a blessing to have many children, but where are they when these children , without the proper guidance of their parents, are now living in the streets, doing petty jobs just to survive or even worse, end up criminals? What is more moral, to save your so-called sacred sperm or to spare a life on misery because of tradition, superstition and ignorance?

Now on another issue, according to Pro-Life Philippines you mustn’t teach sex education to a 10-year old child. Hahaha! Now there is this speaker that says sex is God-given and will just go on naturally. Maybe if you’re still living in 18th century Europe, this is applicable. Before you talk, you have to consider the kind of environment you are living in. Just walk along the streets of Santa Cruz to Divisoria and you’ll be surprised how pornographic DVDs and VCDs are being sold in the streets like fishballs. AHA! And their packages are just lying there for the children to see. Pictures of a 12-year old child without any underpants being molested by a full-grown, pot bellied jerk old enough to be her daddy. Now what is more disgusting is to see this colored VCD label being held by a 7-year old grade school pupil from a nearby elementary school. Or how about this: a porno magazine that can rival Larry Flynn’s Hustler Magazine disguised as tabloids littering the streets of Manila. They’re only worth 15 pesos and can be bought by the average Filipino student. And let us not forget how pornography is now very easily downloaded from the internet and those novelties, double-meaning songs and some rap music being played by the radio, like this song about a lady’s rump. Last but not the least, TV shows and movies that suggestively displays men “beating their meat.”

So by not teaching your child about sex education, a craftier teacher is just waiting outside the gates of your house.

A recent study conducted by the Asian Development Bank, found the main cause of poverty in the Philippines to be:

• Weak macro-economics management
• High unemployment
• High population growth
• Weak agricultural production
• High corruption and weak governance
• Insurgency and violence
• Physical disability

Notice that high population growth is included in the list. A friend of mine once said, “Do you notice that most countries with a high Roman Catholic influence seem never to progress?” I sometimes wonder if population issue is one of the causes.

According to government statistics, three Filipinos are born every minute. That’s 160 Filipinos born every hour; 4,320 every day; 129,600 every month or 1,522,800 new Filipino to feed. Without proper care and guidance, more than half of these new Filipinos will be like animals in the streets of our major cities. Another new batch of “blessed is the poor and the meek and the sinners, etc. etc. etc.”

Until today, the Roman Catholic stand is that the world is not overpopulated and that overpopulation is not the cause of poverty. But what do they know? Naturally, these “men of God” have always relied on fantasy. But reality is very hard to swallow. Just go to Quapo in Manila and see the number of street children that littered the pavement near the church gates. Children without clothes, whose bellies are bloated with parasites, beggars for money. These street children soon become teenagers, without the proper guidance of poor parents, becoming hold-uppers and pick-pockets on Quiapo’s busy intersections. Is this what the Roman Church mean by fixing the poverty problem? As the famed Filipino author, F. Sionil Jose said in an article in Business World in 1997:

The country’s massive problems, basically created by Marcos and an irresponsible elite would faze any miracle worker. First, there is the tremendous population growth – three percent annually, the highest in Asia; almost all the economic gains are eaten up by it. Fueling it is the Catholic Church insisting on doctrinal purity, opposing birth control programs.

Pro-Life Philippines are now telling the audience that the solution is more jobs and to produce more food for the masses. Wait a minute? More food? Or is it more mouths to feed? Which is which? Just make a simple stroll in the streets of Manila and you can see children digging for leftovers in the garbage dumps, a site never heard off 20 years ago. Today the streets of South Harbor in Manila is littered with families living in the streets. Ano ba kayo? Nagbubulagbulagan ba kayo?

The equation is quite simple. Our planet is in a balance. Too many mouths to feed means an over use of natural resources. There is no magic here! For our resources to replenish, it will need time. But our population is too fast for our resources to catch up. Soon population will outrun the resources. It’s that simple. Just take a good look on experiments concerning the rabbit population problem in the United State and Australia. If the resources dwindle, nature will take its course. The situation is uglier compared to the artificial birth control method, when disease due to malnutrition would take its course to control the population.

If this continues, instead of eternal salvation, the Roman Church will be responsible for the eternal starvation of the Filipino.

[Photo by Jonathan McIntosh]

My piece of resentment however, is nothing in comparison with the condition of the poorest families with multiple children. But why did the government stop the supply of the once free-to-access contraceptives available in our local health centers? Has our national leadership been so indifferent and oblivious to the fact that over-population causes more economic misery to our country? Are the UN reports on the Philippines’ over population and all its encompassing ill effects on the society in general becoming irrelevant? Our government officials are presumed more knowledgeable on any issue, and therefore have more access to facts from any national and international researches on population growth in the country.

Few would argue with me that poverty is not a blessing, but it’s a curse. The evils in our society has its roots traced on poverty. Although it may be one’s choice to tread that evil path, his or her decision is one way or another influenced by poverty. Over-population as everyone knows is the main root of poverty. I myself am a living testimony to that. We are ten siblings. As a kid, I dreamed of becoming somebody. But how could I? I was just lucky to have finished high school. Were it not for my determination and untold sacrifice, I would have not graduated from high school. I even came to a point of cursing myself for having been born poor. Why not? How could my parents support us all when we are ten?

Poor families with multiple children can hardly feed their family. Sending all children to school would be a hard task resulting to some children having to sacrifice. And some who have started school, tend to stop and are forced to look for jobs just to help the family get by. But less education and less qualification do not equate with good job; and so the misery goes on. And the cycle continues. Sad to say, this cycle of poverty cannot be alleviated as our population continues to soar.

If our government is determined to improve the quality of life of its citizenry, it will do its utmost to enact and implement laws that would benefit its citizens. According to various researches, poor living condition is rooted in an over-population of a certain country. Our country has a distinction of one of the most densely-congested countries in the world per capita. But all the while, what is our government doing to address this compounding problem of over-population? On the video link below, you will be appalled at how the former Manila mayor Atienza gives his perspective and stand towards the issue of over-population. His confident talks and irrational viewpoint, in a way gave me a sense of embarrassment as a Filipino. And he is only one of those treading the corridors of power with the same stand on this issue.

So much has been written for and against the controversial Reproductive Health Bill. The debates are getting intense and personal in some cases. All media communications are never short of platforms in tackling this issue. Everyone seems hell-bent on getting their voices heard. It is noteworthy though, that even an average citizen is so in-tune with this issue, because so much is at stake- the future of our children and our children’s children. But would this collective voice by many turn out to be futile? A big yes, maybe! Not because of the poor being against it, but because of the sinister force that is behind the improbability of its passing into law. This force is the immensely powerful Roman Catholic Church. This influence-wielding church has dominion over peoples of the earth, and its heirarchy creates its own policies that dictates its church members to obey them.

The Philippines proudly distinguishes itself as the only predominantly ‘Christian nation in Asia’. Our country is a world-renowned bastion of democracy. The rights of every citizen is enshrined in and guarded by the constitution. This very same constitution that stringently commands the inviolability of the separation of the church and the state. But this is regrettably only on paper. The Catholic church for the last century, has been the driving force behind any setup in the country’s political landscape. They are being feared by our leaders. This fear stemmed from what this church is capable of doing. Most politicians would always seek its blessings in any election and therefore would do what pleases the church.

It is a sore truth that the Catholic church will exercise its power and influence to ensure that the Reproductive Health Bill doesn’t get enacted into law. This is the bill that would ensure a better future for an average Filipino family. This is the bill that guarantees a quality of life for each life-loving citizen. This is also the very same bill that would statistically increase the worth and productivity of every citizen, hence a big factor to improving the country’s economy. However pro-poor and pro-family, this bill as the Catholic church would contend is anti-life and in a sense, evil in its entirety. This church asserts that life starts from the stage of fertilization, and that it is tantamount to murder when a couple uses contraceptives, such as condoms or pills and the likes. The use of such contraceptions they further contend, is one way of encouraging pre-marital sex or perversion of any form. And I also contend that their reason is impeccably-dogmatic moronic form of reasoning, that defies any universal law of logical reasoning.

The impasse in Congress regarding this bill is so polarizing, that it is uncertain whether this bill gets enacted into law or not. This early, our legislatures who are vocal with their support of this bill, have been branded by the church as anti-life and are not good Catholics. The pulpit has become a powerful tool to admonish members, to be conscientious and not to vote for these politicians. In here requires a firm resolute, whether you are with them or against them. And this effective bullying has kept the president from interfering with this issue, because her political career is on the line.

Our population explosion needs to be addressed, for it is only a matter of time before everything gets out of hand. It is like a ticking bomb waiting to explode. And the underlying effects could be crucial to the survival of our country, economically and morally. It is the duty of every religious denomination to coax their flock into moral fortitude. And this duty includes instilling in them the virtues of moral propriety and self-control. Sex is a sacred thing that is a gift, meant to be enjoyed by any married couple. Therefore any sex outside of marriage is a sin. This is the domain where the church should be visible. But the choice of how and when to procreate should be dependent upon a married couples’ discretion. Many unwanted pregnancies have caused a family to break apart. Accidental babies have become burden to an already struggling big family.

This is not meant to be a novel. But my disturbed emotions get the better of me. And through this blog, I am able to convey my perspective, my thoughts and my sighs about an issue, not ordinary in scale, but is powerful enough to affect you, myself, and anyone who dreams of a better Philippines. It is high time that we band together, and exercise moral and pragmatic thinking, so that each of us impact one another in a productive way. Let us help support the Reproductive Health Bill pass into law. Contraceptions for married couples do not equate to being anti-life, but it is synonymous to a quality life. Your family and my family rightfully deserve a better future.

Visit my blog, ¡Soy Negrense!

“The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable.”

- Article 2, section 6 of the Philippine Constitution

“There must be no separation between God and Man. Without these conditions, the (RH) Bill if enacted into law will separate our nation from Almighty God.”

- CBCP President Angel Lagdameo

Almost two years ago, Speaker Prospero Nograles proposed a study that could prevent the CBCP from making cowards of our Congressmen.

The study could reveal that the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) has no right to scare politicians with threats to campaign against them, and that the religious organization will lose tax-exempt status if it continues to do so.

As the elections draw near, the results of the study become more relevant. Sadly, it’s because of the timing that the study remains a proposal. As an online reporter for CBCP said, “Politicians tend to be wary of going against Church teachings for fear of losing votes.”

So as long as our politicians are afraid of some priests, the study will not happen. The CBCP will continue to meddle in politics, and our politicians will continue to let them. For instance, three groups will decide the fate of the Reproductive Health (RH) bill: Pro-RH politicians, anti-RH politicians, and anti-RH priests.

By now it should be clear that the CBCP is a critical part of this political debate. They have campaigned against pro-RH politicians, asked them to resign, and even tried to do their job for them, pushing for their own version of the bill. They are doing everything in their power to order politicians to their side and threaten those who don’t obey.

And it’s working. Our politicians are scared. Even our Secretary of Defense is “very afraid.” Before the RH debates resume, pro-RH politicians will try to get the blessings of some bishops. I believe the Church’s favor is a major factor most politicians consider before even hinting that they support the RH bill.

On the other hand, the CBCP is not afraid of our politicians. They wield the Catholic bloc vote (which is a myth, by the way) that got them enough political clout to be invited to a Senate hearing. And when they weren’t pleased with what they heard, they walked out, in disrespect to the privilege they’d been given.

Such political meddling is what motivated Speaker Nograles to propose the removal of their tax exempt status. But the CBCP simply shrugged off the threat. A CBCP spokesman further said that removing their tax-exempt status would require a change in the Constitution. I presume it is out of fear that Nograles later clarified that he was not proposing to remove it, only to study what the Constitution really says about the issue.

So what’s actually written in the Constitution? First, let’s look at how the CBCP understands it.

Should religious leaders choose candidates for their flock? According to Archbishop Antonio Ledesma, “that should be left to the wisdom and conscience of the mature Christian voter.” That answer might have contributed to his losing the CBCP presidency. Because where the CBCP is concerned, it’s the wrong answer.

In 1998, the CBCP released Catechism on the Church and Politics. Here are some excerpts:

What does “separation of Church and State” mean?

Separation of Church and State is strictly defined in the 1987 Philippine Constitution to refer to two points: (1) that no religion may be established as the official religion of the State; and (2) that the State may not favor one religion over others. At the same time, the State shall forever allow the free exercise and enjoyment of religion and shall not require any religious test for the exercise of civil or political rights…

To be noted is the fact that nowhere does the Constitution prohibit Clergy and Religious from partisan politics. What prohibits them from active involvement in partisan politics is the Church’s own laws and traditional wisdom.

Is there any case when the Bishops can authoritatively order the lay faithful to vote for one particular and concrete option?

Yes, there is, and the case would certainly be extraordinary. This happens when a political option is clearly the only one demanded by the Gospel… In this case the Church may authoritatively demand the faithful, even under pain of sin, to vote against this particular candidate…

- Catechism on the Church and Politics Part 2

This tells us two things about how the CBCP understands secularism. First, that they can be involved in partisan politics. Second, that they should be involved and order their flock to vote for or against candidates in cases where it is “demanded by the Gospel.”

One such case is the RH Bill, as emphasized by CBCP President Angel Lagdameo:

Even as we recognize the right of the government to enact laws, we also reiterate that there must be no separation between God and Man. Without these conditions, the (Reproductive Health) Bill if enacted into law will separate our nation from Almighty God.

Now it becomes clear why the CBCP has been so active in politics, especially in opposing the RH Bill. They believe it is their divine obligation and constitutional right.

But in their understanding of the separation of church and state, they don’t see the full picture. What does our Constitution actually say?

“The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable.”

- Article 2, section 6 of the Philippine Constitution

“No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof… No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights.”

- Article 3, section 5 of the Philippine Constitution

“No public money or property shall be appropriated, applied, paid, or employed, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination, sectarian institution, or system of religion, or of any priest, preacher, minister, other religious teacher, or dignitary as such…”

- Article 6, section 29 of the Philippine Constitution

I think they read only this much, but even here they only see half the picture. Secularism means more than the state not interfering with church. It works both ways. The church must not interfere with the state. Religious organizations must not be involved in partisan politics. They totally missed this point even when our Constitution makes it absolutely clear:

“One-half of the seats allocated to the party-list representatives shall be filled, as provided by law, by selection or election from … sectors as may be provided by law, except the religious sector.”

- Art. 6, section 5(2) of the Philippine Constitution

“Religious denominations and sects shall not be registered (as a political party, organization or coalition, by the Comelec)”

- Art. 9, C, section 2(5) of the Philippine Constitution

The last item makes it clear that religious organizations cannot register as political organizations. This is because religious organizations, unlike political ones, receive tax privileges:

“Charitable institutions, churches and personages or convents appurtenant thereto, mosques, non-profit cemeteries, and all lands, buildings, and improvements, actually, directly, and exclusively used for religious, charitable, or educational purposes shall be exempt from taxation.”

- Art. 6, section 28(3) of the Philippine Constitution

This is repeated in the Corporation Code…

Non-stock corporations may be formed or organized for charitable, religious, educational, professional, cultural, fraternal, literary, scientific, social, civic service, or similar purposes, like trade, industry, agricultural and like chambers, or any combination thereof…

- Batas Pambansa Blg. 68 Title 11 Section 88

Any corporation sole may purchase and hold real estate and personal property for its church, charitable, benevolent or educational purposes, and may receive bequests or gifts for such purposes.

- Batas Pambansa Blg. 68 Title 11 Section 113

…and in the National Internal Revenue Code:

The following organizations shall not be taxed under this Title in respect to income received by them as such:

(E) Nonstock corporation or association organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, athletic, or cultural purposes, or for the rehabilitation of veterans, no part of its net income or asset shall belong to or inures to the benefit of any member, organizer, officer or any specific person;

- Republic Act 8424 Chapter 4, Section 30 E

Note that these 3 documents emphasize that religious organizations, who receive tax-exempt status, should be “organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, athletic, or cultural purposes, or for the rehabilitation of veterans.”

Partisan politics is not an authorized purpose. So once a religious group starts politicking, it no longer qualifies for tax exemption, and should be stripped of its tax privileges.

The CBCP’s involvement in politics should put their tax exempt status into question. Which is what Speaker Nograles did in February 2008:

Speaker Nograles said that in the US, tax exempt privileges being accorded to religious organizations, charitable institutions and non-profit organizations has some preconditions under its Internal Revenue Code (Section 501) and among which is the prohibition for any organization or institution which availed of tax privileges from “conducting lobbying activities and in participating and intervening, directly or indirectly, in political campaigns.”

Let me remind you that our Constitution, Corporation Code, and Tax Code do have the same preconditions. But in our case, what’s mentioned is what a religious organization can do. It only says what cannot be done implicitly (by its not being mentioned).

But the US, whose constitution and secularism are the basis of our own, explicitly states what a religious organization cannot do:

All IRC section 501(c)(3) organizations, including churches and religious organizations, are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office…

Religious leaders cannot make partisan comments in official organization publications or at official church functions.

Religious leaders who speak or write in their individual capacity are encouraged to clearly indicate that their comments are personal and not intended to represent the views of the organization.

- IRS Tax Guide For Churches And Religious Organizations

They also elaborate on how churches can avoid politicking when it invites candidates to speak, holds public forums, and releases voter guides. But in every case, they make it very clear that the mere indication that a church supports or opposes a certain candidate is grounds for removal of tax privileges.

Now let’s review:

Does the CBCP support or oppose certain candidates? Do their religious leaders ”clearly indicate that their comments are personal and not intended to represent the views of the organization”?

“If you know of a congressman or senator who voted in favor of the Reproductive Health Bill, my request is not to vote for them in the next elections.” .
- Bishop Arturo Bastes over Radio Veritas

(Cardinal Vidal) is now considering whether Aquino should be included in the Church’s list of politicians who should not be voted.

- Archbishop Ricardo Cardinal Vidal

Castro also said the Church’s family and life ministry with its affiliate groups nationwide might resort to bloc voting in the 2010 elections to ensure the defeat of “anti-life” politicians.

- Fr. Melvin Castro, executive secretary of the CBCP’s Commission on Family and Life

As you can see, CBCP’s politicking has gone beyond mere indication into blatant intervention. These are only three of the many similar cases you can find on their website alone.

What about the thousands of violations that go unchecked when priests give sermons about who Catholics should vote? The pulpits and church buildings, like the website and Radyo Veritas, are tax-exempt properties that should not be used for political, taxable purposes.

The CBCP has to decide what to use their resources for. Either they use it exclusively for religious purposes, or occasionally for political intervention. They can’t have it both ways.

In any case, our lawmakers must require CBCP to stop politicking or lose their tax-exempt status. What’s taking them so long to do this? Maybe they’re not sure whether there are violations in the first place. Or perhaps they just don’t understand what separation of church and state really means. If they did, speaker Nograles wouldn’t think that the issue needed to be studied.

In that case, why don’t they do the study already? I imagine it won’t take much effort. I got all this from a few hours of research online. With their experts, research teams, and related cases in other secular countries around the world (even the cases in the US are more than enough), they have all the resources they need.

More importantly, it’s their responsibility. If there’s the slightest chance that our Constitution is being violated, then our politicians should not put off the study any longer.

Unless, of course, our Congressmen are paralyzed by fear. I’m afraid no Church-fearing candidate would want to follow through and risk losing the Catholic vote. But our Congressmen must not forget. As public servants, it’s not the Church, not the bishops, not even the Catholics they should be afraid of. It’s the Filipino citizens — regardless of religion — that our representatives should respect.

• Require financial transparency and mandatory public auditing on all religious institutions.
• Create and support affordable secular alternatives in quality education.
• Outlaw both religious and scholastic discrimination in employment. Meritocracy demands that we be judged for our work and not for the religion we profess or the school our parents could afford.
• All educational institutions—private or public—must be prevented from discriminating against children of single mothers and others with non-conventional lifestyles.
• Anti-sexual discrimination laws must be implemented in all institutions without exception—including religious organizations. Women must be allowed to rise to all ranks open to men.
• Members of policy-making and cultural bodies such as the MTRCB must be qualified by their artistic and academic credentials. Being a religious leader does not make a person more morally upright than anyone else.
• Any institution that is not democratically and financially accountable to the people should not have a say in a free and democratic society.

American and British laws define the beginning pregnancy and the conception of human life not at fertilization—when sperm and egg fuse to form an embryo—but at implantation—when an embryo adheres to the wall of the mother’s uterus. Implantation occurs about a week after fertilization.
Doctors, bioethicists and law experts define implantation as the beginning of human life for several reasons:

• The ability to create embryos in vitro (such as in test tube baby fertilized outside the womb) has proven that fertilization does not automatically result in pregnancy. Only after implantation does an embryo’s existence have an effect on the mother’s body. It is only upon implantation that a fetus receives oxygen and nutrients from the mother to grow into a human being. It is at this point when the fetus cannot survive except within the woman’s body. Any rights granted to it must come at the expense of the pregnant woman. Note that to be pregnant—which is to be implanted—means risking one’s life for nine months to bear a new one.
• Majority of fertilized eggs do not go on to become infants. With unprotected sex, many embryos are formed yet never undergo implantation. If fertilization were to be defined as the conception of life, then countless souls have been killed without knowledge or intent.
• After fertilization and implantation, an embryo can segment to become identical twins—separate and distinct individuals who, despite their similarities, develop their own personalities, experiences and decisions and possess their own unique DNA, fingerprints, etc. If segmentation defines the start of an individual with an indivisible soul, then an embryo prior to the stage of possible segmentation cannot be defined as an individual.

However, religious conservatives continue to believe that “ensoulment”—the creation of a soul within a human being after which its destruction would be tantamount to mortal sin—begins at fertilization. Because of this, they argue, certain contraceptives such as intrauterine devices (IUDs) and “morning-after pills” that prevent conception even a few days after unprotected sex are abortifacients—substances that induce abortions.

IUDs and morning-after pills work by preventing both fertilization and implantation. Preventing implantation is abortion, so argues religious conservatives.
However, doctors, scientists and legal experts in many countries define the beginning pregnancy and the conception of human life at implantation, hence the classification of IUDs and morning-after pills as contraceptives and not abortifacients under British and American laws.

Tellingly, religious conservatives opposed to the Reproductive Health Act pending in Congress not only oppose IUDs and morning-after pills but also contraceptives that only prevent fertilization and not implantation. They oppose condoms—the only contraceptive device that protects sexually transmitted diseases such as HIV/AIDS as well as accidental pregnancies. They also are against sex education and knowledge empowerment of young adults. Their definition of conception is but one of many arguments against reproductive health, responsible parenthood and gender empowerment.
This Christmas Season, know more about conception and know more about your reproductive health rights.

To know more about reproductive health, visit http://reproductivehealth.com.ph.

On Planet Church, land is limitless and natural resources are infinite, so population growth is never a problem. People there don’t create pollution and cost nothing to feed.
After all, more people mean more offerings and donations as well as more churchgoers and clergymen. A population growth rate that outpaces economic growth ensures more poor people. And it’s the poor that give the most.

There’s a reason why people in advanced, prosperous and democratic countries people hardly go to church. They know something we don’t. More Filipinos forced to work overseas because of local economic conditions also mean more churchgoers the world over.

On Planet Church, people only have sex when they need to procreate—like animals that only rut during mating season. Making love out of tenderness, passion or pleasure is unheard off. This most basic act, responsible for our existence, is still a source of shame and guilt. Abstinence and rhythm method are practical and foolproof. And on their planet, priests are truly celibate and no sacristans are molested.

In their world, consenting adults don’t mind supposedly celibate people meddling in their sex lives. And parents are okay with people who supposedly took a vow poverty charging exorbitant tuition fees for education.

Any other institution that forbids women from holding the same offices as men or discourages the children of single mothers from entering its schools would be charged with sexual discrimination. But on Planet Church, time stands still and the same norms that applied during Spanish Inquisition—when the Philippines was Christianized—still applies.

Any other institution with a massive network of properties and assets would be taxed properly, especially in these difficult times. And any other institution that collected money from its members weekly would be held accountable—literally—with public audits. But that’s too far out for these guys.