Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive

Health Act of 2012

The Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012(Republic Act No. 10354),
informally known as the Reproductive Health Lawor RH Law, is a law in the Philippines, which
guarantees universal access to methods on contraception, fertility control, sexual education, and
maternal care.
While there is general agreement about its provisions on maternal and child health, there is great
debate on its mandate that the Philippine government and the private sector will fund and undertake
widespread distribution of family planning devices such as condoms, birth control pills, and IUDs, as
the government continues to disseminate information on their use through all health care centers.
Passage of the legislation was controversial and highly divisive, with experts, academics, religious
institutions, and major political figures declaring their support or opposition while it was pending in
the legislature. Heated debates and rallies both supporting and opposing the RH Bill took place
nationwide.
The Supreme Court delayed implementation of the law in March 2013 in response to challenges. On
April 8, 2014, the Court ruled that the law was "not unconstitutional" but struck down eight provisions
partially or in full.[2]

History[edit]
According to the Senate Policy Brief titled "Promoting Reproductive Health", the history of
reproductive health in the Philippines dates back to 1967 when leaders of 12 countries including the
Philippines' Ferdinand Marcos signed the Declaration on Population.[3][4] The Philippines agreed that
the population problem should be considered as the principal element for long-term economic
development. Thus, the Population Commission was created to push for a lower family size norm
and provide information and services to lower fertility rates.[5]
Starting 1967, the USAID began shouldering 80% of the total family planning commodities
(contraceptives) of the country, which amounted to $3 million annually. In 1975, the United States
adopted as its policy the National Security Study Memorandum 200: Implications of Worldwide
Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests (NSSM200). The policy gives
"paramount importance" to population control measures and the promotion of contraception among
13 populous countries, including the Philippines to control rapid population growth which they deem
to be inimical to the sociopolitical and economic growth of these countries and to the national
interests of the United States, since the "U.S. economy will require large and increasing amounts of
minerals from abroad", and these countries can produce destabilizing opposition forces against the
United States. It recommends the U.S. leadership to "influence national leaders" and that "improved
world-wide support for population-related efforts should be sought through increased emphasis on
mass media and other population education and motivation programs by the UN, USIA, and USAID.
[6]

Different presidents had different points of emphasis. President Ferdinand Marcos pushed for a
systematic distribution of contraceptives all over the country, a policy that was called "coercive", by
its leading administrator.[4] The Corazon Aquinoadministration focused on giving couples the right to
have the number of children they prefer, while Fidel V. Ramos shifted from population control to
population management. Joseph Estrada used mixed methods of reducing fertility rates, whileGloria
Macapagal-Arroyo focused on mainstreaming natural family planning, while stating that
contraceptives are openly sold in the country.[5]
In 1989, the Philippine Legislators Committee on Population and Development (PLCPD) was
established, "dedicated to the formulation of viable public policies requiring legislation on population
management and socio-economic development".[citation needed] In 2000, the Philippines signed
the Millennium Declaration and committed to attain the MDGs by 2015, including promoting gender
equality and health. In 2003 USAID started its phase out of a 33-year-old program by which free
contraceptives were given to the country. Aid recipients such as the Philippines faced the challenge
to fund its own contraception program. In 2004 the Department of Health introduced the Philippines
Contraceptive Self-Reliance Strategy, arranging for the replacement of these donations with
domestically provided contraceptives.[5]
In August 2010, the government announced a collaborative work with the USAID in implementing a
comprehensive marketing and communications strategy in favor of family planning called May Plano
Sila.

Bill content[edit]
Sections[edit]

Philippine Population Density Map. Darker areas mean more population.

The basic content of the Consolidated Reproductive Health Bill is divided into the following sections.
[7]

Summary of major provisions[edit]

The bill mandates the government to promote, without biases, all effective natural and modern
methods of family planning that are medically safe and legal. [8]
Although abortion is recognized as illegal and punishable by law, the bill states that the government
shall ensure that all women needing care for post-abortion complications shall be treated and
counseled in a humane, non-judgmental and compassionate manner. [8]
The bill calls for a multi-dimensional approach integrates a component of family planning and
responsible parenthood into all government anti-poverty programs.[8] Age-appropriate reproductive
health and sexuality education is required from grade five to fourth year high school using life-skills
and other approaches.[8]
The bill also mandates the Department of Labor and Employment to guarantee the reproductive
health rights of its female employees. Companies with fewer than 200 workers are required to enter
into partnership with health care providers in their area for the delivery of reproductive health
services.[8]
Employers with more than 200 employees shall provide reproductive health services to all
employees in their own respective health facilities. Those with less than 200 workers shall enter into
partnerships with health professionals for the delivery of reproductive health services. Employers
shall inform employees of the availability of family planning. They are also obliged to monitor
pregnant working employees among their workforce and ensure they are provided paid half-day
prenatal medical leaves for each month of the pregnancy period that they are employed. [8]
The national government and local governments will ensure the availability of reproductive health
care services like family planning and prenatal care.[8]
Any person or public official who prohibits or restricts the delivery of legal and medically safe
reproductive health care services will be meted penalty by imprisonment or a fine. [8]

Support[edit]
Free choice regarding reproductive health enables people, especially the poor, to have the number
of children they want and can feasibly care and provide for. There are several studies cited by those
who support the bill:

Economic studies, especially the experience in Asia, [9] show that

rapid population growth and high fertility rates, especially among the
poor, exacerbate poverty and make it harder for the government to
address it.[10][11]

Poverty incidence is higher among big families.[10][12] Smaller families

and wider birth intervals could allow families to invest more in each
childs education, health, nutrition and eventually reduce poverty
and hunger at the household level[5][9][10]

Studies show that 44% of the pregnancies in the

poorest quintile are unanticipated, and among the poorest women
who would like to avoid pregnancy, at least 41% do not use any
contraceptive method because of lack of information or access [9]
[10]
and "among the poorest families, 22% of married women of

reproductive age express a desire to avoid pregnancies but are still

not using any family planning method"[9]

Use of contraception, which the World Health Organization has

listed as essential medicines,[13][14] will lower the rate of abortions as it
has done in other parts of the world, according to the Guttmacher
Institute[15]

An SWS survey of 2008 showed that 71% of the respondents are in

favor of the bill[16]

Criticism[edit]
Opponents of the bill argue that:

People's freedom to access contraceptives is not restricted by any

opposing law, being available in family planning NGOs, stores, etc.
The country is not a welfare state: taxpayer's money should not be
used for personal practices that are harmful and immoral; it can be
used to inform people of the harm of BCPs.

The penal provisions constitute a violation of free choice and

conscience, and establishes religious persecution[17]

President Aquino stated he was not an author of the bill. He also stated that he gives full support to a
firm population policy, educating parents to be responsible, providing contraceptives to those who
ask for them, but he refuses to promote contraceptive use. He said that his position "is more aptly
called responsible parenthood rather than reproductive health". [18][19]

Economic and demographic premises[edit]

The Philippines is the 39th most densely populated country, with a density over 335 per squared
kilometer,[20] and the population growth rate is 1.9% (2010 Census),[21] 1.957% (2010 est. by CIA
World Factbook), or 1.85% (20052010 high variant estimate by the UN Population Division, World
Population Prospects: The 2008 Revision) coming from 3.1 in 1960.[citation needed]
The 2013 total fertility rate (TFR) is 3.20 births per woman, from a TFR of 7 in 1960.[22] In addition,
the total fertility rate for the richest quintile of the population is 2.0, which is about one third the TFR
of the poorest quintile (5.9 children per woman). The TFR for women with college education is 2.3,
about half that of women with only an elementary education (4.5 children per woman). [23]
Congressman Lagman states that the bill "recognizes the verifiable link between a huge population
and poverty. Unbridled population growth stunts socioeconomic development and aggravates
poverty".[15]
The University of the Philippines School of Economics presented two papers in support of the
bill: Population and Poverty: the Real Score (2004), and Population, Poverty, Politics and the
Reproductive Health Bill (2008). According to these economists, which include Solita
Monsod, Gerardo Sicat, Cayetano Paderanga, Ernesto M. Pernia, and Stella Alabastro-Quimbo,
"rapid population growth and high fertility rates, especially among the poor, do exacerbate poverty
and make it harder for the government to address it", while at the same time clarifying that it would
be "extreme" to view "population growth as the principal cause of poverty that would justify the
government resorting to draconian and coercive measures to deal with the problem (e.g., denial of
basic services and subsidies to families with more than two children)". They illustrate the connection
between rapid population growth and poverty by comparing the economic growth and population
growth rates of Thailand, Indonesia, and the Philippines, wherein the first two grew more rapidly than
the Philippines due to lower population growth rates.[10] They stressed that "the experience from
across Asia indicates that a population policy cum government-funded [family planning] program has
been a critical complement to sound economic policy and poverty reduction". [9]
In Population and Poverty, Aniceto Orbeta, Jr., showed that poverty incidence is higher among big
families: 57.3% of Filipino families with seven children are in poverty while only 23.8% of families
who have two children live below the poverty threshold.[12]
Percentage of population living below poverty line (2003). Darker areas mean more poverty.

Proponents argue that smaller families and wider birth intervals resulting from the use of
contraceptives allow families to invest more in each childs education, health, nutrition and eventually
reduce poverty and hunger at the household level.[9] At the national level, fertility reduction cuts the
cost of social services with fewer people attending school or seeking medical care and as demand
eases for housing, transportation, jobs, water, food, and other natural resources. [5][10][24] The Asian
Development Bank in 2004 also listed a large population as one of the major causes of poverty in

the country, together with weak macroeconomic management, employment issues, an

underperforming agricultural sector and an unfinished land reform agenda, governance issues
including corruption.[11]

Criticism of premises[edit]
Opponents refer to a 2003 study of Rand Corporation, which concluded that "there is little crosscountry evidence that population growth impedes or promotes economic growth...population
neutralism has in fact been the predominant school in thinking among academics about population
growth for the last half-century". For example, the 1992 study ofRoss Levine and David Renelt,
which covered 119 countries over 30 years (versus a University of the Philippines study of 3
countries over a few years). The RAND study also said that a large population can promote growth
given the right fundamentals.[25] Thus, they refer to the HSBC 2012 projection for 2050 that the
Philippines will be 16th largest economy due to its large growing population, and those whose
populations are decreasing will suffer decline.[26]
In a recent development, two authors of the Reproductive Health Bill changed their stand on the
provisions of the bill regarding population and development. Reps. Emerciana de Jesus
and Luzviminda Ilagan wanted to delete three provisions which state that "gender equality and
women empowerment are central elements of reproductive health and population and development",
which integrate responsible parenthood and family planning programs into anti-poverty initiatives,
and which name the Population Commission as a coordinating body. The two party-list
representatives strongly state that poverty is not due to over-population but because of inequality
and corruption.[27]
The Wall Street Journal in July 2012 said that Aquino's "promotion of a 'reproductive health' bill is
jarring" since it could lead to "a demographic trap of too few workers. The Philippines doesn't have
too many people, it has too few pro-growth policies".[28]
Opposing the bill, Former Finance Secretary Roberto de Ocampo wrote that it is "truly disingenuous
for anyone to proceed on the premise that the poor are to blame for the nations poverty:. He
emphasized that the government should apply the principle of first things first and focus on the root
causes of the poverty (e.g., poor governance, corruption) and apply many other alternatives to solve
the problem (e.g., giving up pork barrel, raising tax collection efficiency).[17]

Maternal health and deaths[edit]

Maternal deaths in the Philippines, according to the World Health Organization, is at 5.7 per day,
[29]
not 1011 deaths a day, as per the proponents who repeated these numbers "to drive home the
point".[30][31]
The proponents state that the passage of the RH Bill would mean:

Access to information on natural and modern family planning

Improvement of maternal, infant, and child health and nutrition

Promotion of breast feeding

Prevention of abortion and management of post-abortion

complications

Improvement of adolescent and youth health

Prevention and management of reproductive tract infections,

HIV/AIDS and other STDs

Elimination of violence against women

Counseling on sexuality and sexual and reproductive health

Treatment of breast and reproductive tract cancers

Male involvement and participation in reproductive health issues

Prevention and treatment of infertility

Reproductive health education for the youth

The Department of Health states that family planning can reduce maternal mortality by about 32%.
[13]
The bill is "meant to prevent maternal deaths related to pregnancy and childbirth", said Clara

Padilla of Engender Rights. She reported that every day, "there are 11 women dying while giving
birth in the Philippines. These preventable deaths could have been avoided if more Filipino women
have access to reproductive health information and healthcare". [citation needed]
The key to solving maternal deaths, according to the Senate Policy Brief on reproductive health, is
the establishment ofbirthing centers.[5]
The Philippine Medical Association (PMA) stated in their Position Paper that the goal of reducing the
rise of maternal and child deaths "could be attained by improving maternal and child health care
without the necessity of distributing contraceptives. The millions of funds intended for the
contraceptive devices may just well be applied in improving the skills of our health workers in
reducing maternal and child mortality in the Philippines".[32]

Magna Carta for Women[edit]

Senator Majority Floor Leader Tito Sotto said that the RH Bill is redundant to a 2009 law referred to
as the Magna Carta for Women, which contains reproductive health provisions, asking the Senate to
drop the bill.[33]

Unmet need[edit]
Using data from the 2008 National Demographic and Health Survey, Lagman stated that "Twentytwo percent of married Filipino women have an unmet need for family planning services, an increase
by more than one-third since the 2003 National Demographic and Housing Survey". "Our women are
having more children than they desire, as seen in the gap between desired fertility (2.5 children) and
actual fertility (3.5 children), implying a significant unmet need for reproductive health services", state
some Ateneo de Manila University professors. The Bill provides that "the State shall assist couples,
parents and individuals to achieve their desired family size within the context of responsible
parenthood for sustainable development and encourage them to have two children as the ideal
family size."[9][24]
Writing against the bill, Bernardo Villegas wrote about the Myth of Unmet Family Planning Needs,
citing development economist Lant Pritchett who said that the term "unmet need" is an elitist
construct, an imposition of a need on the poor, disrespectful of their real preferences. Pritchett said
that it is "based on a discrepancy...identified by the analyst through the comparison of responses to
items in separate blocks of the questionnaire" and is "an inference on the part of the researcher, not
a condition reported by the respondents themselves". Pritchett argued this term is applied to women
who are not sexually active, are infecund, whose husband is absent, etc., thus bloating the numbers
to favor the pharmaceutical companies and those with a population control agenda. Villegas
stressed: "Because [the poor] have been deprived of the infrastructures they need, such as farm-tomarket roads, irrigation systems, post-harvest facilities and other support services that the State
neglected to provide them, the only economic resources they have are their children". He also
challenged that he is willing to bet that if the government will provide cash money to the poor to buy
condoms, the poor will use the cash for food and basic needs, thus exploding the myth. [34]

Access[edit]
One of the main concerns of the proponents is the perceived lack of access to family planning
devices such as contraceptives and sterilization. The bill intends to provide universal access through
government funding, complementing thus private sector initiatives for family planning services, such
as those offered by the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) which supports the
Family Planning Organizations of the Philippines and the 97 organizations of the Philippine NGO
Council.[citation needed]

Birth control pill

The UP School of Economics argues, in contrast, that there is lack of access especially for poor
people, because contraceptive use is extremely low among them and "among the poorest families,
22% of married women of reproductive age express a desire to avoid pregnancies but are still not
using any family planning method".[9] They say that lack of access leads to a number of serious
problems which demand attention: (1) "too many and too closely-spaced children raises the risk of
illness and premature deaths (for mother and child alike)," (2) "the health risks associated with
mistimed and unwanted pregnancies are higher for adolescent mothers, as they are more likely to
have complications during labor," (3) women who have mistimed pregnancies are "constrained to
rely more on public education and health services and other publicly provided goods and services",
further complicating limited public resources, (4) families are not able to achieve their desired family
size. Thus the UP economists "strongly and unequivocally support" the thrust of the bill to enable
"couples and individuals to decide freely and responsibly the number and spacing of their children
and to have the information and means to carry out their decisions.[9] Proponents argue that

government-funded access is the key to breaking the inter-generational poverty that many people
are trapped in.[9][24]

Natural family planning[edit]

Proponents of the bill contend that "natural family planning methods have not proven to be as
reliable as artificial means of birth control".[35]

Abortion[edit]
Abortifacient issue[edit]
According to the RH bill, one of its components is "prevention of abortion and management of postabortion complications". It provides that "the government shall ensure that all women needing care
for post-abortion complications shall be treated and counseled in a humane, non-judgmental and
compassionate manner". It also states that "abortion remains a crime and is punishable", as the
Constitution declares that the State shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the
unborn from conception.[36]
The position of the Philippine Medical Association (PMA) "is founded strongly on the principle that
'life or conception begins at fertilization' at that moment where there is fusion or union of the sperm
and the egg and thus a human person or human being already does exist at the moment of
fertilization". The PMA condemns abortifacients that "destroys the fertilized egg or the embryo" and
"abhors any procedure...or medication that will interrupt any stage of fertilization and prevents its
normal, physiological, uninterrupted growth to adulthood". [32]
Jo Imbong, founder of the Abay Pamilya Foundation, reported that "Lagman said in a House hearing
that the bill would protect human life 'from implantation' ", [37] and not from fertilization, noting at the
same time that the Records of the Constitutional Commission state that Human life begins at
fertilization.[37][38]

Contraception and abortion relationship[edit]

Proponents argue that research by the Guttmacher Institute, involved in advancing international
reproductive health, reveals that the use of contraceptives can reduce abortion rates by 85%.
Proponents such as 14 Ateneo de Manila University professors, argued thus: "Studies show that the
majority of women who go for an abortion are married or in a consensual union (91%), the mother of
three or more children (57%), and poor (68%) (Juarez, Cabigon, and Singh 2005). For these women,
terminating a pregnancy is an anguished choice they make in the face of severe constraints. When
women who had attempted an abortion were asked their reasons for doing so, their top three
responses were: they could not afford the economic cost of raising another child (72%); their
pregnancy occurred too soon after the last one (57%); and they already have enough children
(54%). One in ten women (13%) who had attempted an abortion revealed that this was because her
pregnancy resulted from forced sex (ibid.). Thus, for these women, abortion has become a family
planning method, in the absence of information on and access to any reliable means to prevent an
unplanned and unwanted pregnancy".[24]
The bill, said Clara Padilla of EnGender Rights Inc, will "help reduce the number of abortions by
providing increased access to information and services on modern contraceptive methods, that in
turn will reduce the number of unwantedand often abortedpregnancies". [39]
Both sides of the debate accuse the other side of deception and misleading the public. The pro-RH
people accuse the anti-RH group of misleading the public by calling the bill an abortion bill, when the
bill states that abortion remains a crime and is punishable. The anti-RH advocates accuse the RH
supporters of hiding from the public the international population control agenda which includes
abortion and they refer to U.S. Secretary Hillary Clinton who said that RH includes abortion. [40][41][42]

Contraceptives[edit]
Morality and social effects[edit]
The neutrality of this section is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page.
Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.(January 2013)
14 professors from Ateneo de Manila University, a prominent Catholic University, considering the
empirical evidence of the dire socioeconomic conditions of the Filipino poor, urged that the bill be
passed to help them. They argued: "As Catholics and Filipinos, we share the hope and mission of
building a Church of the Poor. We are thus deeply disturbed and saddened by calls made by some
members of the Catholic Church to reject a proposed legislation that promises to improve the
wellbeing of Filipino families, especially the lives of women, children, adolescents, and the poor".
They announced that "Catholic social teachings recognize the primacy of the well-formed
conscience over wooden compliance to directives from political and religious authorities", urging
Catholic authorities to withdraw their opposition the bill.[24] Citing Catholic documents and scientific
studies, they reasoned that "the RH Bill is pro-life, pro-women, pro-poor, pro-youth, and pro-informed
choice". They emphasized that the bill "promotes quality of life, by enabling couples, especially the
poor, to bring into the world only the number of children they believe they can care for and nurture to

become healthy and productive members of our society". [24] Thus, they called their paper "Catholics
Can Support the RH Bill in Good Conscience".[24]
In response, the Ateneo administration announced its unity with Catholic teaching and that it had
"serious objections to the present bill".[43]
Proponents such as Lagman also stressed that official Catholic teaching itself, expressed in the
Encyclical Humanae Vitaeissued only forty years ago in 1964, is not infallible. [15] He said that the
Papal Commission on Birth Control, which included ranking prelates and theologians, recommended
that the Church change its teaching on contraception as it concluded that the regulation of
conception appears necessary for many couples who wish to achieve a responsible, open and
reasonable parenthood in todays circumstances. The editorial of the Philippine Daily Inquirer,
moreover, stated that Catholic teaching is "only" a religious teaching and should not be imposed with
intolerance on a secular state.[citation needed]
Opponents argue that misery is not the result of the church which they say is the largest charitable
organization in the world, but of a breakdown in moral sense that gives order to society, nor does
misery come from parents who bring up children in faithfulness, discipline, love and respect for life,
but from those who strip human beings of moral dignity and responsibility, by treating them as mere
machines, which they believe contraception does.[44]

Health reasons[edit]
Stating that contraception is a lie and "against the beginning of new life", the Philippine Medical
Association also stressed that the "health risks of contraception to women are considerable; the list
of side effects is long, and includes high blood pressure, strokes, increased incidence of some forms
of cancer".[32]

While the World Health Organization acknowledges the possible negative side effects of the pill, it still defines it as
an essential medicine.

Proponents such as E. Ansioco of Democratic Socialist Women of the Philippines argued that "The
World Health Organization (WHO) includes contraceptives in its Model Lists of Essential Drugs" and
thus are safe medicines.[13][14] "Medical and scientific evidence," says the main proponent, "shows that
all the possible medical risks connected with contraceptives are infinitely lower than the risks of an
actual pregnancy and everyday activities...The risk of dying within a year of using pills is 1 in
200,000. The risk of dying from a vasectomy is 1 in 1 million and the risk of dying from using an IUD
is 1 in 10 million...But the risk of dying from a pregnancy is 1 in 10,000." [15]

HIV/AIDS[edit]
The RH bill provides for "prevention and treatment of HIV/AIDS and other, STIs/STDs", especially
since the number of HIV cases among the young nearly tripled from 41 in 2007 to 110 in 2008.
[39]
Proponents emphasized that RH will help in stemming the AIDS epidemic that is worsening in the
Philippines. Lagman explained that "Globally, the new number of reported cases of HIV infections
and deaths has dropped by nearly 20 percent. It is therefore both ironic and tragic that the
Philippines trajectory is towards the other direction. Our countrys HIV/AIDS statistics have
increased by 30 percent!"[45] Primary among the means is distribution of condoms. The proponents
applauded government efforts last February 2010 when it distributed condoms in some areas of
Manila.[citation needed]

Opinion polls and TV debates[edit]

Proponents refer to many surveys conducted by two prominent locally based organizations (SWS
and Pulse Asia) which show majority support for the bill. A survey conducted in 2008 by the Social
Weather Stations, commissioned by the Forum for Family Planning and Development (FFPD), a
non-government advocacy group, showed that 68 percent of Filipinos agree that there should be a
law requiring government to distribute legal contraceptives. [46] SWS President and RH Bill
proponent, Mahar Mangahas reported that the "survey found 71 percent in favor [of the RH Bill], 21
percent undecided, and a mere 8 percent opposed. Among those who originally knew of the bill, the
score is 84 percent in favor, and 6 percent opposed. Among those who learned of the bill for the first
time because of the survey, the score is 59 percent in favor, versus 11 percent opposed. [16][46] Pulse
Asia reported that in an October 2008 survey "most Filipinos are aware of the reproductive health bill
pending at the House of Representatives (68%) and are in favor of the bill (63%)". [47] In December
2010, Pulse Asia announced based on the results of an October 2010 survey, 69% of the Filipinos
are in favor of the bill.[citation needed]

President of Prolife Philippines, Lito Atienza, said that the surveys conducted by SWS and Pulse
Asia were misleading, because the participants were not fully informed of the bill, were merely aware
of it, and informed that it was about health and "modern methods". Instead he referred to the Filipino
Family survey of December 2009 conducted by the HB&A International (an affiliate of Louis Harris &
Associates) together with the personnel of Asia Research Organization (the Philippine affiliate
of Gallup International). The survey concluded that 92% of people in metropolitan Manila rejected
the bill, "85 percent are not aware that once passed the RH bill would allow teenagers to secure
'abortifacient devices and substances' without their parents knowledge and consent....90 percent do
not agree that Congress should appropriate P2 billion to the detriment of other essential medicines
for free childrens vaccinations, treatment of dreaded diseases and other more important health and
medical concerns."[48] Mangahas acknowledged that the SWS surveys did not include the penalties. [49]
A TV Debate was also hosted by ABS-CBN last May 2011. Leaders of both sides, including Rep.
Lagman and Rep. Golez were present. According to the ABS-CBN news which reported on the
results: "In the SMS poll, 69.58% of votes cast reject the RH bill while 30.42% support it". [50] In the
separate online poll held on the Harapan microsite that livestreamed the debate, majority voted
against the bill at the very end of the debate.[dubious discuss]
On TV5's Debate Hamon sa Pagbabago on August 21, 2011, the studio audience voted 100%
against the bill, while 58.7% of the viewers voted against the RH Bill via text messaging, versus
41.3% in favor.[51]
The online poll conducted by the Philippine Star published on May 18, 2011, showed that 56% were
against the RH Bill, while 44% were in favor.[52]

Rallies[edit]
Beginning in late 2010, there were rallies for and against the bill. [53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62]

Penalties[edit]
There is mandatory sexuality education starting grade 5, and "malicious disinformation" is penalized.
[63]
All health care service providers which provide reproductive health services, including faith-based
hospital administrators, may be imprisoned or fined if they refuse to provide family planning services
such as tubal ligation and vasectomy. The same may happen to employers who do not provide free
services to employees.[63] Imprisonment ranges from one to six months or a fine ranging from ten
thousand pesos (P10,000.00) to fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00). [63] Former Finance
SecretaryRoberto de Ocampo stated that these punitive provisions "are tantamount to an affront to
civil liberties and smack of religious persecution".[17]
Defending the bill, Felipe Medalla, former dean of the University of the Philippines School of
Economics, said that "although the poors access to family planning services can be improved even
without the law, the absence of the law makes it easier to block the program". [citation needed]

Separation of church and state[edit]

The head of the Roman Catholic Church in the Philippines, Archbishop Luis Antonio Tagle opposes
the Reproductive Health Bill, along with abortion and contraception. Because 81% of Filipinos are
Catholics, the Catholic Church exerts a strong influence in public and moral life. Its staunch
opposition to the bill has drawn the controversy among non-Catholics and Catholics alike who
support the bill whereby many invoke the principle of separation of church and state.[64]
Fr. Joaquin Bernas, S.J, one of the drafters of the Philippine Constitution and a prominent lawyer
and writer, explained that the concept of separation of church and state is directed towards the state,
rather than the church, as it is a political concept. Technically it means non-establishment of
religion, as the Constitution stated that No law shall be passed respecting an establishment of
religion. It means that the state should be guided by the principle that it should support no specific
religion. This means that government funding should not be allocated for building churches or
mosques, and not favor any particular religion. It does not prevent the church, parents, supervisors,
teachers and other moral educators from expressing their views and educating their wards on the
morality of their personal and social actions. The Catholic church also states that their stand is based
on secular reasons and natural law that are both acceptable to non-Catholics too. Proponents, on
the other hand, state that the church should not meddle in matters of the state, and should focus on
religious matters, not political matters.[65]

Culture war and its implications[edit]

Millennium Development Goals at the UN

The national debate is seen as part of a wider culture war.[66] Passage or non-passage of the bill
have negative implications depending on the views. Proponents state that the non-passage of the
bill will mean keeping the Philippines in a backward state and unable to achieve the Millennium
Development Goals, especially the points on poverty alleviation and maternal health. It will mean
reneging on international commitments and will slow down modernization. Also the poor will not have
free access to family planning support that many have expressed desires to have, and thus will have
more children than they can care for, and will not have the money to invest in education to break the
intergenerational poverty they are trapped in. Proponents also accuse the Catholic Church of holding
the Philippines "hostage" and violating the separation of church and state.[67] They argue that a
decreased population growth will lead to improved quality of life and economic development.

Financials[edit]
Department of Health is proposing 13.7 billion pesos to be fund the RH Bill if it is passed in 2012,
according to Senator Pia Cayetano.[68]
Filipinos for Life, an anti-abortion organization, claimed that the bill was funded by foreign population
control groups, a claim that Rep. Edcel Lagman denied as "an old yarn which is destitute of factual
basis", saying that the lobby opposing the bill was the one which was backed by the "wealthy
Catholic hierarchy with the aid of dozens of lay organizations.[69]
Young Nine Legislators (Y9L)including Aliah Dimaporo, Lucy Torres-Gomez, Karlo Alexei Nograles
said that The proposed P3 billion appropriation for the RH bill, if put towards education, can help
secure the future of young Filipinos. That amount can build 4,644 new classroomsor it can
subsidize the college education of 300,000 scholarsa chance for underprivileged student
achievers to earn their diploma.[70]
Lagman on the other hand said that both these priorities are important but with a burgeoning
population the budget will become even tighter, thus population growth is a major issue. [citation needed]

International reactions[edit]
European Union[edit]
European Union Ambassador to the Philippines Alistair MacDonald said "We have all seen the
figures on illegal abortion a year in the Philippines and I very much hope that both Houses of
Congress will take these issues into account in producing a reproductive health legislation which will
really help people make their own choices and to provide for their families". [71]
MacDonald said that lack of effective access to reproductive health services in the Philippines was
"antithetical" to the countrys struggle against poverty and "It seems to me extremely unlikely that the
Philippines will be able to meet its commitment under the MDGs under the present policy".
[71]
MacDonald noted that the total fertility rate for the richest quintile of the population is 2.0, while the
total fertility rate of the poorest quintile is 5.9. The total fertility rate for women with a college
education is 2.3, about half that of women with only elementary education (4.5). He mentioned that
the lack of access to RH services is anti-women, citing the slow decline in the maternal mortality
ratio in the Philippines. He also said surveys suggest that the total wanted fertility rate for the
Philippines is 2.4 children, or below the actual TFR of 3.3 children. [71]

Status[edit]
Legislature[edit]
On January 31, 2011, six different bills were consolidated into a single RH Bill which was then
unanimously approved for plenary debate by the House Committee on Population and Family
Relations. On February 7, 2011, the bill was scheduled to go before the House Appropriations
Committee. On February 16, 2011, the bill was endorsed by the House Appropriations Committee
with amendment and referred back to the Population Committee for finalizing the language. [citation needed]

President and Cabinet[edit]

President Noynoy Aquino during the presidential campaign said that it confounds him why he is
always associated with the RH Bill and reiterated that he is neither an author nor a co-author, much

less did he sign the committee report regarding the bill. He said that "he will fully support the crafting
of a firm policy that will address the serious problem on population"[18] At the same time, Aquino said
that "artificial contraception was a matter of choice and conscience and that health professionals
who fool people into using artificial contraceptives should be penalized. As a Catholic, Aquino said
he himself was not promoting artificial contraception but believes that the government should be able
to provide it to Filipinos who ask for it". Aquino stressed: "Im a Catholic, Im not promoting it. My
position is more aptly called responsible parenthood rather than reproductive health. [19]
According to Rina Jimenez David who is pro-RH, during the Women Deliver Philippines
Conference held September 2010,Dinky Soliman, Aquino's Secretary of Social Welfare and
Development, said that "choice and access constituted the keystone of the Aquino governments
policy, reiterating the administrations support for the pending reproductive health bills. [72]
On December 2010, the Cabinet and the CBCP agreed to have a joint campaign providing full
information on the advantages and risks of contraceptives, natural and artificial family planning and
responsible parenthood. They have established a technical working group for this purpose. They
also agreed that government will not be an "instrument to enforce or violate the conscience of the
people about these issues".[73]
However, by April 2011 the President has given his full support to the entire RH Bill in a speech at
the University of the Philippines and promised to push for its passage even at the "risk of
excommunication".[74]

Compromise and alternatives[edit]

Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, Congressman Roilo Golez and Buhay party-list separately filed
bills that seek to restrict abortion and birth control use. These bills have been seen either as a
nullification of the RH Bill, its alternative, or as a way of achieving unity among the populace, since
the RH Bill proponents have stated their concern in preventing abortion.
Presidential candidate Gilbert Teodoro or Gibo suggested a cash transfer from the government to
individuals wanting access to family planning methods, whether natural or artificial. The individuals
can then make use of the cash they receive to purchase birth control devices they may choose, thus
guaranteeing freedom of choice.[75]
The Loyola School of Theology and the John J. Carroll Institute on State and Church Issues issued
nine talking points on the RH Bill. Among other points, they proposed a study on the meaning of
conception in the Constitution, and if it means fertilization, abortifacients "are to be banned even now
and regardless of whether the RH Bill is passed". They also proposed "parallel programs for
providing information and training, one for Natural Family Planning (NFP) and another for artificial
methods of family planning".[76] Columnist Jose Sison of the Philippine Star criticized this: a Catholic
School of theology has actually proposed in public, the use of tax payers money to train Filipinos to
employ methods that are objectively and intrinsically evil and cites "empirical evidence and scientific
proofs confirming the harmful and evil effects of contraceptives to individuals and to society." [77]

Other events 20102012[edit]

In September 2010, Aquino during this visit to the United States reiterated his stand that he is in
favor of responsible parenthood and respects the decision of each couple as to the number of
children they want, and if they need the government support for contraception, then the government
will provide it. This statement has created a furor as Catholic church leaders say that Aquino has
sold out the Filipino soul in exchange for some "measly" aid from the United States. The President of
the Catholic Bishops Conference said that there can possibly be an excommunication of the
President if he continues on with his stance. Pro-RH Bill Senators encouraged the President to be
steadfast to do his duties towards the state. The President's spokesperson Edwin
Lacierda explained that the President "has not changed his stand" and is reaching out to the prelates
and said that the President himself has not made any decision in support of the Reproductive Health
Bill as he is still studying the document. Lacierda said that the Executive Branch "is not involved in
the passage of the RH bill, saying the measure's fate rests solely on the legislative branch".
Filipino Freethinkers, an association of agnostics, atheists, progressives, etc., who have been very
active in the fight in favor of the RH bill, stepped up the pressure, creating more controversy that
fired up renewed interest in the bill on both sides. On September 30, 2010, one of the
freethinkers, Carlos Celdran staged a protest action against the Catholic Church, holding a sign
which read "DAMASO"a reference to the villainous, corrupt clergyman Father Dmaso of the
novel Noli Me Tangereby Filipino revolutionary writer Jose Rizaland shouting "stop getting
involved in politics!" A fan page, Free Carlos Celdran was created in Facebook, which generated
23,808 fans in 24 hours. Francisco Montalvan of the Inquirer said that in the end the Damasos are
the scheming, corrupt and deceptive people, implying that the "pro-death advocates" are these,
while the Cardinal Rosales who started a nationwide fund for the poor is very far from Damaso.
Meanwhile, the Imam Council of the Philippines, the top leaders of the Moslem population which at
4.5 million constitutes 5% of the Philippine population, declared that they are against contraceptives
since using them "underestimates God", and "makes one lose morality in the process".
During the first public hearing on 24 Nov, the chair of the Committee on Population handling the bill
said that there is no instruction from the Speaker of the House to expedite the bill. Upon the call of

anti-RH congressmen, the Committee Chair decided to refer the bill also to the Committee on
Health, since the bill is about Reproductive Health. Leader of the pro-RH group, Elizabeth Ansioco,
said that the bill is doomed if it is referred to the Committee on Health. Anti-RH Deputy Speaker
Congressman Pablo Garcia said the members of the Committee on Health know of the WHO
announcement on the carcinogenicity of combined estrogen-progestogen oral contraceptives.
House Speaker Belmonte said that Congress is not likely to rush the legislation of the bill and will
tackle it in plenary early next year. Belmonte said it is better that highly contentious bills be given
more attention.
On 3 December, the Senate cut the proposed budget of P 880M for contraceptives down to P 8M for
condoms since other contraceptives violated the Constitution's ban on abortifacients, and Senator
Tito Sotto III said that his constituents never asked for contraceptives.
On 27 July 2012, the Speaker of the House decided to put to a vote by August 7, 2012, whether the
debates have to be terminated. Meanwhile, six co-authors of the bill withdrew support, with the head
of the minority group of the house declaring that 8 of their group are withdrawing their previous
support for the bill.[78]

Congressional approval and presidential assent[edit]

At 3 in the morning on December 13, 2012, the House of Representatives voted on second reading
in favor of the bill with 113109, while five representatives abstained. In the upper house, the Senate
voted on December 18, 2012 to pass the bill on second reading with 138, while Senators Sergio
Osmea III and Lito Lapid were absent.[79]
On the same day, both houses passed the bill on the third and final reading. Members of the House
of Representatives voted 13379, while seven representatives abstained. The Senate registered
138, the same result as the second reading.[80]
On December 19, 2012, both versions of the bill were passed to the Bicameral Committee to
produce a final version to be signed by the President Aquino. The committee quickly passed the bill
in just one session. It was transmitted back to the House of Representatives and the Senate, which
both ratified the bill, with the Senate voting 115 in favor of ratification, and the House of
Representatives voting via voice vote[81][82]
On December 21, 2012, President Aquino signed the bill into law, codifying the bill as Republic Act
No. 10354, otherwise known as the "Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012".
News of the signing was announced by House Majority Leader Neptali Gonzales II on December 28,
2012.[83]

Supreme Court challenge and delay of implementation [edit]

In response to petitions challenging the law's constitutionality, the Supreme Court voted 15-5 on
March 19, 2013 to issue a status quo ante order halting the implementation of the law for four
months.[84] Oral arguments were set for June 18, but postponed until July 9 after the Supreme Court
received additional petitions and interventions.[85]
During oral arguments, several justices indicated that the court "does not seem to be the right
forum--at least for now"; it could not settle medical issues, such as whether any contraceptives to
be made available were actually abortifacients. Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno said the court
might have no choice but to exercise "judicial restraint" on the 15 petitions opposing the law.[86]
On July 16, the justices voted 8-7 to extend the status quo ante order, which would have expired the
next day, "until further orders effective immediately."[87] Oral arguments concluded on August 27, with
the petitioners against and for the law being instructed to submit memorandums within 60 days. [88]
On April 8, 2014, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the law. The justices, however,
struck down eight provisions of the law partially or in full. [2]