The RH Swindle 2

Editor's Note: This is a shorter version of the previous post, "The RH Swindle."

So many of our congressmen seem inclined to support the Reproductive Health (RH) bill, without regard to the Constitution, the religious beliefs, moral convictions and customs of their own people. They seem undisturbed that its passage could further divide our already divided nation.

They try to justify their stand by talking about every tangential issue, while evading the core issues, which will ultimately decide whether the bill could be enacted into a valid and enforceable law or not.

Contrary to the propaganda, the issue is not whether or not women (and men) should have “the right” to practice contraception and sterilization, and be “free” to use any method of their choice.

No law prohibits contraception or sterilization at all. Everyone is free to do it. They have been doing it since martial law, and the government and foreign donors have been funding it year after year. At least P2 billion is appropriated for RH this year. Some LGUs even have their own foreign-funded RH programs. The nation’s contraceptive prevalence rate now stands at 51 percent.

It is, therefore, one big swindle to say we need an RH law so women (and men) would have the “right” to use contraceptives, many of which are, in fact, abortifacient.

At the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) in Cairo, it was decided that the poor countries finally assume two-thirds of the cost of their RH programs, which until then was being borne mainly by the rich countries. Those costs were estimated at $20.5 billion in 2010, and $21.7 billion in 2015.

That could be one reason for the bill. But not even the ICPD prescribed, as proposed in the bill, that all married couples practice birth control as an integral part of marriage, regardless of their religious beliefs and moral convictions.

The proponents have shied away from all the fundamental questions. For instance, does the State have the right or the duty to organize the intimate private lives of its citizens? Can Congress enact the RH bill into law, or any bill for that matter, without regard to the moral law and the Constitution?

The mandate of Sec. 12, Article II of the Constitution is clear. “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.”

They have tried to dance around this constitutional policy by asking, “when does life begin?” That would be quite relevant if we were discussing abortion. But we are not, and the only relevant question here is this: If the duty of the State is to equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception, does it also have the right or the duty to run a program of contraception and sterilization whose purpose is to prevent conception?

Put differently, can the State be simultaneously the protector and the preventer of childbearing? Clearly, it can only be one or the other, but not both at the same time.

Likewise, if parents are the natural and primary educators of their children, can the State impose, as proposed in the bill, a compulsory sex education program on schoolchildren, from Grade V until fourth year high school, without parental consent? The answer is clear.

Now, Article XV “recognizes the Filipino family as the foundation of the nation,” and marriage “as an inviolable social institution,” “the foundation of the family.” It “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 Catholics and the others come in. They have every right to practice their respective faiths, and the State has the duty to protect such right.

I am a Catholic. I believe, with the Church, that contraception and sterilization are intrinsically evil. I try to practice what I believe. My friend, however, is of a different faith. He believes that contraception and sterilization are good for his health. Non-passage of the bill will not impair his “right” to contracept. It will not hurt the practice of his faith. But its passage will certainly hurt mine.

I do not want the State to act as the enforcer of my Catholic faith and compel my neighbor to believe what I believe. But the State cannot tell me to support, and with my tax money too, a program that attacks my faith. I would feel religiously persecuted, and would have every right, if not duty, to resist.

I may or may not march against the law. Nor call or join any call for civil disobedience. But the law would have no moral or constitutional basis. It would simply turn the Philippines into a totalitarian state. And the government would “lose its moral authority to govern,” in the words of the CBCP in February 1986.

The RH Swindle

We can all probably agree that respect for the Constitution, the moral convictions, religious beliefs, human dignity and solidarity of our people is indispensable to the health and wellbeing of the nation. And that no democratic government ever enacts a law that is certain to divide its people.

Yet never before have we seen so many Filipino politicians trying to savage that view, and further divide an already divided nation. All in the name of a foreign-dictated Reproductive Health (RH) bill.

Many of the debates, arranged or sponsored by the RH patrons and funders, have been one big swindle. Often moderated by the uninstructed and uninformed, they have tried to discuss every tangential issue, while evading the central issue that will ultimately decide whether the bill, if enacted into law, could bind anyone in conscience.

They have tried to scare us with all sorts of doomsday scenario about our birth rate of 1.9 percent, and the country’s population density of 313 per square km, which are quite healthy, without ever mentioning the plunging birth rates and the rapid ageing and dying in the developed countries, which constitute the real demographic crisis of our time.

They have tried to make us feel guilty that ten or so childbearing women are dying everyday for lack of proper obstetrics and maternal care, without showing the least concern for the far greater number of women (and men) dying everyday from cancer, heart disease, respiratory disease, diabetes, tuberculosis, and other diseases, without any medical or burial assistance from government.

Not every congressman or senator has read the RH bill. And not everyone who has read it has correctly understood its whys and wherefores. They say its purpose is “to protect the right” of women (and men) to decide whether or not to practice birth control and what method/s to use. But that is not true at all. It is patently false; a gross deception.

No law prohibits contraception or sterilization. Everyone is free to contracept or get sterilized on their own. No law distinguishes abortifacients from mere contraceptives either. A woman could commit abortion while ostensibly practicing contraception only. This has been so at least for the last 35 years.

Since the 1970s, the government has been funding what it now calls RH every year. At least P2 billion this year. Additionally, some LGUs are now implementing some foreign-funded RH programs. The constitutionality of these things has yet to be ruled on. But the nation’s contraceptive prevalence rate now stands at 51 percent and counting.

So what women’s “right” to contracept are they talking about? What need is there for this RH bill? We have the global population controllers and the contraceptives and abortion providers to thank for this bill.

At the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo, it was decided that the poor countries should finally assume at least two-thirds of the cost of their RH programs, which until then had been borne mainly by the rich countries. This means two-thirds of $20.5 billion in 2010, and $21.7 billion in 2015, which were the cost estimates at the time. But not even the ICPD prescribed the totalitarian approach of the present bill.

The bill seeks to require all married couples to practice birth control as an integral part of marriage, regardless of their religious beliefs and moral convictions. This will revise the very nature and organic laws of marriage, an institution that precedes the State and whose primary purpose is the bearing and rearing of children.

Indeed, the bill will allow individuals to choose what method/s of birth control to use, but it wants all married couples and even unmarried individuals to be part of a state-run program of population control. It also wants to impose a mandatory sex education program on schoolchildren from Grade V until fourth year High School, without parental consent.

However, these points have been muted in the debates. The proponents have tried to dance around the real issues, and many of those against have been lured into joining the dance too. Thus we have discussed the side issues, but left untouched the central issue, namely, Does the State have the right or duty to organize the intimate private lives of its citizens? Can Congress enact the RH bill into law, or any bill for that matter, without regard to the moral law and the Constitution?

The mandate of Sec. 12, Article II of the Constitution is clear. It 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.”

Some people, including some supposed theologians and constitutionalists, have tried to muddle this issue by asking, “when does life begin?” Is it upon “fertilization” of the egg, or upon “implantation”of the fertilized ovum? That would be quite relevant if we were discussing abortion, which we are not.

The only relevant issue here is this: If the duty of the State is to equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception, does it also have the right or the duty to run a program of contraception and sterilization whose purpose is to prevent conception and the birth of children?

Put another way, Can the State be simultaneously the protector and the preventer of childbearing? Clearly, the State can only be the one or the other, but not both at the same time.

Likewise, if parents are the natural and primary educators of their children, the State can only support, but not replace them in that role. It cannot, therefore, impose a compulsory sex education program on schoolchildren, without parental consent.

Now, Article XV “recognizes the Filipino family as the foundation of the nation,” and marriage “as an inviolable social institution,” “the foundation of the family.” It “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 practice their own respective faiths. 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, however, 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 the State cannot tell me to abandon my belief either and support with my tax money a government program that attacks my religious belief. I would feel religiously persecuted, and I would have every right to resist.

I may or may not march against the law. I may or may not call or join any call for civil disobedience. But the so-called RH law would have no moral or constitutional basis and would not bind me or anyone else in conscience. With or without active resistance, the nation would be more deeply divided. It would turn the country into a totalitarian state. And the government would lose the moral authority to govern, in the language of the February1986 CBCP statement.

For these reasons, the House of Representatives would do well to simply archive the RH bill now, reorient and realign the present RH program and appropriation, retool the Department of Health and the Population Commission, and begin to mind our more authentic and pressing national concerns.

On The Passing of Bin Laden

Until we hear the next conspiracy theory, we will have to suspend any disbelief about what US President Barack Obama has said, that Osama bin Laden, the 54-year-old leader of al-Qaeda, was killed on May 2, 2011 (not earlier) by US Navy Seals (nobody else ) in his refuge in Abbotabad, a garrison town north of Islamabad in Pakistan (nowhere else).

It is the end of Osama, though not necessarily of al-Qaeda, nor the myths it had spawned. From 1992 to 2008, al-Qaeda was reported to have staged at least 30 terrorist attacks in various parts of the world with at least 4,396 killed. A list published by The Economist (May 7, 2011) includes an explosion aboard a Philippine ferry vessel, which killed 116 passengers in February 2004, but which the public had been made to believe was pure accident. Shouldn’t Filipinos be told the whole truth about it?

Still by far the biggest incident was the September 11, 2001 attack on the three skyscrapers of the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon building in Virginia, which killed approximately 3,000 people, and triggered the war on terror that made going through US immigration a real experience and got the US deeply enmeshed in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Unconvinced, some conspiracy theorists have dismissed the 9/11 attack as a false flag. One theory online pokes fun at how a 44-year-old former CIA asset, sitting inside a cave in Afghanistan, could have run the operation where four hijacked aircraft, piloted by 19 flight school dropouts, flew around the world’s most secure airspace for nearly two hours, unopposed by any of the 35 in-range US Air Force bases, then brought down the three skyscrapers and rammed a jet into the Pentagon building without drawing any kind of anti-aircraft fire.

Outside of 9/11, no fire of any kind had ever caused a steel-framed high-rise building to collapse, the article says. In 1988, Los Angeles’s worst fire ever destroyed several floors of the First Interstate Bank, but left the main steel structure intact. In 1991, an 18-hour fire gutted eight floors of Philadelphia’s One Meridian Plaza without damaging the granite. In 2005, Madrid’s Windsor Building burned like a torch for 20 hours, reaching temperatures of 1,400 degrees Farenheit, but it took six months after the fire to take apart the burnt structure piece by piece.

By contrast, the WTC skyscrapers, with 58 steel perimeter columns and 25 steel core columns, collapsed simultaneously at 5:20 p.m. (9/11). The third skyscraper was not even hit by a plane, the article notes.

Before 9/11, the problem was how to dismantle the twin towers floor by floor in order to remove the vast quantities of cancer-causing asbestos that had gone into the construction in the seventies. Not only did the expected cost look astronomical, the Port Authority was also prohibited from doing demotion work that would release carcinogenic asbestos dust all over New York. Despite that, Larry Silverstein made a $3.2 billion bid for the building in January 2001, then took out an insurance policy that covered everything, including terrorist attack. Since 9/11 Silverstein has collected $5 billion from nine insurance companies, the article says.

The US Navy buried bin Laden’s body at sea from the nuclear-powered carrier USS Carl Vinson and chose not to overwhelm the world with close-ups of the unarmed Osama shot in the head. They wanted to avoid anything that might rekindle terrorist passion among the surviving jihadis. The next step is to “isolate Mr. bin Laden’s savage jihad,” and “kill his dream,” writes The Economist.

In Manila, the government welcomed the USS Carl Vinson at port. President Benigno Aquino III, accompanied by the secretaries of foreign affairs, defense and finance and the chief of staff of the armed forces, toured the aircraft carrier while it was still in the high seas. Apparently the presidential party and their hosts had fun on board, but nobody else.

Some academics worry that the presidential tour and the ship’s portcall could be viewed as a provocation, which could invite a terrorist response. Given our raging Islamic insurgency in the South, and the possibility that bin Laden might still have a few sympathizers out there, it is not clear what kind of political math was used to show that these things were in the national interest.

For reasons of protocol alone, that presidential tour should not have taken place at all. The aircraft carrier and the cargo plane that took the presidential party to the carrier were both extensions of US territory, and it is not right for the president of a sovereign country, who is not on a US state or official visit, to be there. Any junior DFA officer knew that. Moreover, USS Carl Vinson is a nuclear-powered, possibly nuclear-armed vessel, if not a nuclear weapon itself. And “the Philippines, consistent with the national interest, adopts and pursues a policy of freedom from nuclear weapons in its territory,” according to Section 8, Article II of the Constitution.

These incidents could have created quite a storm in the days of Senators Claro M. Recto, Lorenzo Tanada, Jose Wright Diokno, and even Benigno Aquino Jr. Luckily for President Noynoy, the Senate foreign relations committee and the usual pundits seem completely at sea on the subject, and the sloganeering “nationalists” are just too busy trying to inflict a toxic reproductive health (RH) agenda upon the country at the behest of their foreign patrons and the global suppliers of contraceptives, sterilization agents, and abortion services.

Clustering The Cabinet

On May 13, President Noynoy Aquino issued Executive Order No. 43, “Pursuing Our Social Contract with the Filipino People Through the Reorganization of the Cabinet Clusters.” The Cabinet needs to be organized thematically into smaller groups, or clusters, to achieve “efficiency, effectiveness and focus,” the EO says.

There are five clusters: Good Governance and Anti-Corruption, chaired by the President; Human Development and Poverty Reduction, chaired by the Department of Social Welfare and Development Secretary; Economic Development, chaired by the Finance Secretary; Security, Justice and Peace, chaired by the Executive Secretary; and Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation, chaired by the Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources.

The idea is laudable. Clustering will allow Departments with the same or closely related concerns to work closely together in-between Cabinet meetings, which should take place regularly once a week, as in most governments. There is the danger, though, that the clusters could try to replace the Cabinet itself, and do away with the regular Cabinet meetings. This should not happen. The Cabinet should always function in full, under the control of the President.

Making the President chair one cluster, no matter how important that cluster may be, effectively downgrades the President to the position of a mere Cabinet member. It effectively reduces the Cabinet to that one cluster chaired by the President or raises that particular cluster to the level of the entire Cabinet, at the expense of the other clusters. That can and should be avoided.

Each cluster should be chaired by the Cabinet member with immediate jurisdiction over the cluster’s primary area of responsibility. Its members should be ranked according to their respective jurisdictions and the Order of Precedence followed when listing Cabinet members. This seemingly unimportant detail is not trivial at all.

For instance, the Secretary of Justice and the Secretary of Finance should have precedence over the Budget Secretary in the listing of members of the Good Governance and Anti-Corruption Cluster. Likewise, the Secretaries of Agriculture, Energy, Science and Technology and Tourism, given their inherent responsibilities, should have due precedence in the Economic Development Cluster.

The DSWD Secretary may have a broader responsibility than the Chair of Housing and Urban Development Coordinating Council (HUDCC) for Human Development and Poverty Reduction, given her control of, among other things, the P21.9 billion conditional cash transfer, which is supposed to be an anti-poverty fund.

But since the HUDCC Chair happens to be the Vice President --- the second highest ranking official of the country and the only nationally elected official sitting in the Cabinet---he cannot be made to sit under the DSWD Chair without doing offense to the dignity of the State. The DSWD Secretary could co-chair the cluster of the Vice President.

The Security, Justice and Peace Cluster has, as its primary responsibility, “the protection of our national territory and boundaries.” This should be chaired by the Secretary of Foreign Affairs, possibly with the Secretary of National Defense as co-chair.

The Executive Secretary performs a highly critical function for the President. He should be represented in all clusters so that he could monitor, coordinate and digest all developments for the President, without having to wait for the regular Cabinet meeting, which should never be dispensed with at all.

A particular Department or Cluster may take the lead in proposing or implementing a particular course of action on any given question. But a Cabinet decision is always made by the Cabinet in formal Cabinet meetings. A government can repeal or rewrite this process only at its own peril.

Remembering Blessed John Paul II

Rome--Undaunted by forecasts of foul weather, the mammoth crowd of all nations filled St. Peter’s Square all the way down to the street above the Tiber on May 1, for the beatification of Pope John Paul II. They came prepared for a heavy downpour, but not a drop of rain fell as Pope Benedict XVI beatified his immediate predecessor, who died on April 2, 2005 after a long pontificate of  nearly 27 years.

Many saw it as yet another sign from the new blessed who, as the 263^rd successor to Peter, had tried to spread so much faith, hope and love to billions of people. Most of the pilgrims had come from Poland, where the new blessed was born as Karol Josef Wojtyla on May 18, 1920, and had served the Church until he became pope on October 16, 1978.  But each of the 104 countries he had visited as pope was assuredly represented in the Square.   

From the pope’s death to his beatification, it was by far the fastest such process in modern history. It took but six years and 27 days, surpassing by 17 days that of Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta who died on September 9, 1997 and was beatified by  Pope John Paul II himself on October 19, 2003.  But counted from the start of the process (1999)  to  the beatification itself,  Mother Teresa holds the fastest record of only four years.   

Pope John Paul II had helped to make that possible by waiving (in 1999) the usual five-year waiting period after the holy person’s death before the process could begin. Pope Benedict XVI did the same thing for his predecessor by waiving the five-year waiting period, 26 days after his death.  Then Camillio Cardinal Ruini, vicar general of the Diocese of Rome, formally opened the process on June 28, 2005.   

The speed of the process seemed to correspond to the strong public clamor of “santo subito” (sainthood immediately) heard during the wake and funeral mass at St. Peter’s Square in 2005. But it would not have been possible if John Paul II had not lived the Christian virtues in a heroic way, and if at least one miracle, in this case the inexplicable cure of the French nun Marie Simon-Pierre Normand of Parkinson’s disease, had not been attributed to his intercession.  In any case, so many people had long regarded him as a saint even before his death.  

Throughout the celebration,  the crowd was asked to avoid applause and flag-waving and observe prayerful silence. But people literally choked with emotion and broke into tears as the Holy Father pronounced the words of beatification and the Blessed’s giant portrait was unveiled above him. 

At least 16 heads of state and 87 official delegations were reported to have attended. Even Zimbabwe’s highly controversial President Robert Mugabe came, just as he did in 2005 when he, like then Philippine president Gloria Macapagal Arroyo and so many others, attended John Paul II’s funeral. But this time there was no high-level state representation from the Philippines, which the late Pontiff had visited twice, in 1981 and in 1995.   

Philippine church participation was led by Manila Archbishop Gaudencio Cardinal Rosales and Cebu’s Archbishop Emeritus Ricardo Cardinal Vidal who both concelebrated the Mass with Pope Benedict XVI.  They were joined by  Archbishop Emeritus of Zamboanga Carmelo Morelos, Archbishop of San Fernando, Pampanga Paciano Aniceto, Archbishop Fernando Capalla of Davao, Archbishop Ramon Arguelles of Lipa, Batangas, Bishop Emeritus of Daet Benjamin Almoneda, Bishop Manolo de los Santos of Virac, and Bishop Antonio Tobias of Novaliches, and numerous priests.

At a press conference organized by the Pontificio Collegio Filippino (PCF) rector Father Gregory Gaston on May 2, Cardinal Rosales spoke of the impact of the beatification on the Philippines. Together with Bishop Almoneda, and Father Vicente Cajilig, O.P., a consultant of the Federation of Asian Bishop’s Conference, I was asked to join, and contribute my layman’s perspective on the beatification.

I have the most beautiful personal memories of that great Pope. With my wife, I had the privilege of meeting him at least ten times, and kneeling for over an hour near his catafalque inside St. Peter’s before his funeral. But what moves me most  is his life of holiness as Servant of the servants of God, the work he did and the suffering he bore to prepare the Church for the third millennium. 

Through his 14 encyclicals, 15 apostolic exhortations, 11 apostolic constitutions, 45 apostolic letters, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the reforms of the Eastern and Western Codes of Canon Law and of the Roman Curia, his personal writings, his pastoral visits to 104 countries and to 146 places in Italy, not to mention the 317 of his  333 parishes in Rome, his bold thrust at dialogue with the other religions, and above all his personal witness, he gave us, in Pope Benedict XVI’s words, the strength to believe in---and to be one with---Christ.  

In Tertio Millennio Aveniente (1994) and Novo Millennio Ineunte, he anticipated to us the manifold challenges and opportunities of the new millennium.  

As the pope for human life, marriage, the family, women and the youth, he labored tirelessly to promote the culture of life, breaking new ground in Evangelium Vitae, Veritatis Splendor, Familaris Consortio, Magnum Matrimonii Sacramentum, Mulieris Dignitatem, his World Meetings of Families and World Youth Days.  

He elaborated on the real meaning and value of labor in Laborem Exercens in a way no progressive mind had done before him or since. He enlarged our vision of our social concerns in Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, Centesimus Annus and related utterances and writings.

He deepened the laity’s understanding of their role in the Church in Christifideles Laici; and that of the clergy and the religious in Fidei Depositum, Pastor Bonus, Pastores Gregis, Vita Consecrata, Pastores Dabo Vobis, Misericordia Dei, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis.  

He foresaw the moral relativism that would engulf our materialistic global society, and set the standards by which faith and reason should deal with each other in Fides et Ratio, a theme which Pope Benedict XVI has since carried forward with his eloquent call for the mutual purification of faith and reason.

Many Filipinos recall with profound gratitude that Blessed John Paul II created the first Filipino saint, St. Lorenzo Ruiz, in 1987, and beatified Pedro Calungsod in 2000.  He also created two outstanding Filipino cardinals---Ricardo J. Cardinal Vidal, now Archbishop Emeritus of Cebu, and Jose T. Cardinal Sanchez,  former Secretary of the Congregation of the Evangelization of Peoples, and now Prefect Emeritus of the Congregation for the Clergy----the first and so far only Filipino cleric ever to head a dicastery of the Roman Curia.  At 91, the cardinal has given up his Vatican residence and offered to do whatever he can to help strengthen the pastoral life of the Church in the Philippines.   

My own undimmed memory of the new blessed is that of the immaculately garbed pilgrim pope kissing the ground at the Manila international airport and greeting the Filipinos in his rich booming voice, “I come in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, whose servant I am.” And then proclaiming to the biggest human assembly ever gathered on earth, up to that time, that “you are the light of Asia and the world!”  

It would seem to me an utter lack of gratitude if we fail to make that light burn as brightly as it should, in the face of the savage threat to extinguish it from the reproductive forces of darkness.