Prompted by the Current Debate on the Reproductive Health Bills  and an Appeal to the Members of our Legislature

In light of our University Credo, we in the University of Asia and the Pacific reaffirm our mission to contribute to the integral development of human persons that alone can lead to strong families and strong societies. We therefore uphold the following principles:

1. That every man is entitled to the dignity of a person, equal in every human being and inherent in all human life; that human rights are grounded on the dignity of the human person, and are to be defended, not selectively, but universally and integrally; and that the right to life is the first of all human rights, without which no other right can be exercised.

We maintain that the right to life must be respected and protected from conception to natural death. We adhere to the scientific conclusion that the human person’s life begins at the union of male and female reproductive cells.
We maintain that every person born into this world is not a mere census datum, another mouth to feed, a threat to others’ life of ease, but someone whose worth goes beyond any human calculation and who, therefore, from the first instant of his or her existence, deserves our respect and protection.

We therefore strongly reject any attempt at legislation that promotes the use of abortifacients, including those disguised as contraceptive procedures or pharmacological agents that in fact kill the newly conceived human person by preventing its being implanted in the womb, and can moreover lead to the physical and psychological harm of the mother.

2. That the dignity of the human person manifests itself in the cultivation of moral freedom; that male and female, of equal dignity, have differences that are enriching for human life in society and are the indispensable foundation of the human family; and that upholding the moral dignity of human sexuality is essential for strong families as the bedrock of a strong society.

We maintain that the genuine love of husband and wife is expressed through the honorable use of their sexual faculties in an exclusive and lasting relationship that is open to life, andthat the gift of a new life is the crowning point of their mutual self-giving. We maintain that responsible parenthood, to be true to its name, cannot mean negating parenthood by fostering contraceptive practices, or negating responsibility by fostering sexual activity without self-mastery and discipline.

We uphold the right of parents to decide their family size, guided by their morally upright consciences. We further uphold the primary and inalienable right of parents to educate their children on the values of human sexuality and the practice of chastity in all states of life.

We are therefore not in favor of legislation that removes the teaching of sexuality from the intimacy of family relationships and reverence for human life.

We also reject any attempt at legislation that, while proposing to improve the condition of children, women and families, actually fosters short-term enjoyment of free choice without corresponding long-term commitments, thereby eroding the family institution where persons have to grow and mature and, in consequence, generating social conditions that are more oppressive for women and children.

3. That a just social order can become a reality only when moral freedom is directed towards the authentic common good, which puts a premium on the human person and the human family; and that the State pursues the common good by addressing the integral development of all persons in the community and not just of the majority, observing at the same time the principle of subsidiarity.

We believe that it is by sound economic policy, especially investments in rural infrastructure and quality education for all, coupled with good governance, including morality and honesty in the private lives of government officials, that Government contributes to poverty alleviation, not by encroaching on the choices and duties married couples can and should take up on their own.

We are therefore not in favor of any legislation that proposes to spend public funds to regulate births, or allows Government to take upon itself education in human sexuality, without regard for morality and the constitutional protection of the unborn.

We are also not in favor of any legislation that obscures the truth that the best investment we can make is on human capital. We are not in favor of legislation that ignores the prospect of economies stagnating under the burden of fewer young people caring for and supporting a larger pool of the elderly.

4. That the State should protect the freedom of consciences and may not make legal pressure bear on practices contrary to the explicit religious or moral convictions of any of its citizens.

We loyally adhere to the social teachings of the Catholic Church. We recognize its moral positions on the human person, family and State not as religious impositions but as enlightened clarifications about the natural law and the universal values by which all men of goodwill can attain to happiness and the good life.

We maintain that, like other legitimate enterprises and especially because we are an educational institution, we in UA&P have the freedom to adhere to our corporate credo, and our moral and religious values, as long as they do not prejudice the authentic common good.

We are therefore not in favor of any discriminatory legislation that tramples on the right of conscientious objection to practices or programs that in essence promote an anti-life lifestyle, and redefines freedom, the concept of human rights and morality, and the role of Government, in ways and by means that are contrary to our stated principles.

We add our statement to the appeal of many leaders in Government, the private sector, citizens’ groups and the general public, that wisdom, discernment, faith and sobriety prevail and guide our legislators, when they decide for our society, to aim for the good of the human person and the Filipino people.

Signed:

Members of the UA&P Management Committee

• Dr. Jose Maria G. Mariano, University President
• Mr. Ruben T. Umali, Vice President for Development
• Dr. Amado Salvador P. Saquido, Vice President for Academic Affairs
• Ms. Imelda P. Estillore, Vice President for Student and Alumni Affairs
• Mr. Rolando Dr. Sison, Vice President for Administrative Affairs
• Dr. Arwin M. Vibar, University Secretary

*Note: Article from http://uap.asia/news/index.php/2011/07/statement-on-rh-bill/

25 February 201 1

Fr. JOAQUIN BERNAS, SJ

Dear Fr. Bernas,

I was your student in constitutional. law many moons ago. To this day, I continue to regard myself as one and accord with deep academic reverence your opinions on constitutional matters. At t:lhe risk of revealing my “intellectual bankruptcynto a n eminent profes:sor, please allow me to share my thoughts on the RH Bill which is now designated as HB 4244.

For the sake of simplicity and clarity, I will confine myself to the current version of the bill and not venture into the dark unknown by second-guessing what our legislators may decide to do in the future.

Your fearless forecast that RH bill will become a law through the exercise of police power has made me shudder in disbelief.

Police power is that attribute of sovereignty that enables it to prohibit all that is hurtful to the comfort, safety, and welfare of society. It has the most comprehensive embrace among the inherent powers of the State extending as it does to whatever it is that fosters the “common good.” To be valid, its exercise
must have a valid public purpose and the means employed to accomplish such purpose must be reasonable, not oppressive nor arbitrary.

Does that mean that the State, through its agencies, can justifiably interfere with the exercise of the basic human rights to life and liberty and the constitutional rights to free speech and religious freedom under the guise of “general welfare?” Instantly, a glaring discord is obvious here. For how can one
claim to champion the common good when the rights so firmly enshrined in the Bill of Rights are trampled upon and sacrificed? A s jurisprudence puts it, has the existence of a grave and immediate danger of a substantive evil which the
State has the right to prevent been clearly established to warrant the infringement of these rights?

But before I get accused of putting the cart before the horse, let me attempt to engage in a ‘herculean task’ of pointing out some major points.

While the Declaration of Policy of the bill may be replete with defensible objectives, it is simply that — a statement of objectives that are expectedly noble and laudable. But this behooves u s to examine the meat of the bill and
determine if the provisions are faithful to the avowed policies.

The Constitution imposes upon the State the duty to “equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception.” The life of the unborn (equally with that of the mother) is entitled to protection a t and from conception. And conception here refers to fertilization since these terms were
used interchangeably during the deliberations of the 1980 Constitutional Commission. And this protection to be meaningful should be from any form and degree of harm or injury and dea1.h–not only actual but also any risk or threat
thereof. For under our law, a conceived child is endowed with the dignity and worth of a human being from his conception and thus is recognized to have the right not only to be born, but to be born well. This necessarily includes the right of the unborn to develop to its full term and not to be expelled prematurely from the mother’s womb.

An issue h a s been raised with regard to certain contraceptives that interfere with uterine implantation of the developing embryo and precipitate its destruction and expulsion from the uterus which in medical parlance are known as abortifacients. Scientific data and findings have been proffered in this regard.
This issue h a s been dismissed lby some medical doctors who claim that this action is possible only when there is fertilization which does not occur precisely because of the contraceptives. Iri the same breadth, however, they admit that breakthrough ovulation docs occur in women taking contraceptives and such
incidents have in fact been documented; however, they add that these are very rare.

This denial-admission cannot be recklessly ignored or blithely dismissed because this puts the life of the unborn child on the line and strikes a t the very core of the issues heaped against the bill. The adverse effects of contraceptives on the mother’s health which have been supported by data and personal
testimonies of victims and their. families are serious enough to be summarily dismissed. While the bill vows to protect the health of the mother and the child, it shows no respect for life and t:he fundamental right to life. With the aggressive
promotion and widespread dissemination of contraceptives, the bill, in effect, allows and promotes abortion.

Family planning is a matter that concerns and affects the spouses and their families. They have the constitutional right to participate in the planning and implementation of policies and programs that affect them. Part of this right is for them to receive correct, complete and clear information not only about the “availability” of family planning methods and reproductive health services but more importantly, about their nature arid effects. There has to be full, honest, of and transparent disclosure and dissemi~nation information and thorough and
widespread discussion about tlnese methods and services. As a result of this exercise, and not privately, the “safe, effective and legal methods” of family planning should be judiciously and prudently determined and identified. This constitutes the essence of free and informed choice. And considering the f a r -
reaching consequences, this exercise should be undertaken before the passage of the bill, not after.

The issue of disregard of religious freedom is no less important. A healthcare service provider who refuses to provide information or perform health care services on account of religion will nonetheless have to refer the person seeking such care to another provider who is willing to provide the same service or information. Employers are 1ike:wise mandated to provide reproductive health services to their employees, without men tion of religious or ethical
considerations.

There is also imposition on the freedom of speech for a healthcare provider who knowingly withholds information or restricts dissemination thereof, for any reason.

By making reproductive health and sexuality education mandatory for all public and private schools from grade five to fourth year high school, with a common curriculum formulated by designated agencies, the natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the
development of moral character is supplanted by the government which is supposed to assume only a supporting role.

In light of all this, there is no public purpose that justifies the
appropriation of public funds for the implementation of the law. Surely, the government should find better use of my h,ard-earned money.

Will the Bill undergo a n upheaval to pursue a true and genuine public purpose and adopt means that are reasonably necessary to accomplish that purpose, neither coercive nor authoritarian? I wish I knew, but I will be bold enough to state that only if and when our legislators come to regard life as the greatest and most precious gift of their Creator to humanity can they sincerely claim to serve the common good.

Iam proud of and grateful for my eight years of Ateneo education. I am particularly edified by its exhorts-tion for Ateneans to be “men for others.” With Life a t the very core of the issues involved in RH bill, the advocacy to defend and
protect it, I believe, is a singular opportunity to respond meaningfully to that call. For indeed, LIFE is more than just a pig!

Respectfully yours,
Maria Concepcion S. Noche

by: Atty. Maria Concepcion S. Noche

Amidst the ongoing debates in the House of Representatives and the Senate and the continuous discussion on television, radio and in newspapers, let me share with you some nagging thoughts about RH Bill, n0.w designated a s HB 4244.

For simplicity and clarity, I will confine myself to the current version of the bill and not venture into the dark unknown by s’econd-guessing what our legislators may decide to do in the future. I will take off from the statement of Fr. Joaquin Bernas, SJ in his Inquirer column that the bill will become a law through the exercise of police power.

Police power is that attribute of sovereignty that enables it to prohibit all that is hurtful to the comfort, safety, and welfare of society. It has the most comprehensive embrace among the inherent powers of the Sltate extending as it does to whatever it is that fosters the “common good.” To be valid, its exercise must have a valid public purpose and the means employed to accomplish such purpose must be reasonable, not oppressive nor arbitrary.

Does that mean that the State, through its agencies, can justifiably interfere with the exercise of the basic human rights to life and liberty and the constitutional rights to free speech and religous freedon-Lunder the guise of “general welfare?”
Instantly, a glaring discord is obvious here. For how can one claim to champion the common good when the rights so firmly enslhrined in the Bill of Rights are trampled upon and sacrificed? A s jurisprudence puts it, h a s the existence of a grave and immediate danger of a substantive evil which the State h a s the right to prevent been clearly established to warrant the iniringement of these rights?

But before I get accused of putting the cart before the horse, let me point out some major points.

While the Declaration of Policy of the bill may be replete with defensible objectives, it is simply that-a statement of objectives that are expectedly noble and laudable. But this behooves u s to examine the meat of the bill and determine if the provisions are faithful to the avowed policies.

The Constitution imposes upon the State the duty to “equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception.” The life of the unborn (equally with that of the mother) is entitled to protection a t and from conception. And conception here refers to fertilization since these terms were used interchangeably during the deliberations of the 1986 Constitutional Commission. And this protection to be meaningful should be from any form and degree of harm or injury and death- not only actual but also any risk or threat thereof. For under our law, a conceived child is endowed with the dignity and worth a~f human being from his conception and a thus is recognized to have the right not only to be born, but to be born well. This necessarily includes the right of the unborn to develop to its full term and not to be expelled prematurely from the mother’s womb.

An issue has been raised with regard to certain contraceptives that interfere with uterine implantation of the developing enibryo and precipitate its destruction and expulsion from the uterus which in medical parlance are known a s abortifacients. Scientific data and findings have been proffered in this regard. This issue has been dismissed by some medical doctors who claim that this action is possible only when there is fertilization which does not occur pr~eciselybecause of the contraceptives. In the same breadth, however, they admit that breakthrough ovulation does occur in women taking contraceptives and such incidents have in fact been documented; however, they add that these are very rare.

This denial-admission cannot be recklessly ignored or blithely dismissed because this puts the life of the unborn child on the line and strikes at the very core of the issues heaped against the bill. The adverse effects of contraceptives on the mother’s health which have been supported by data and personal testimonies of victims and their families are serious enough to be summarily dismissed. Paradoxically, while the bill vows to protect the health of the mother and the child, it shows no respect for life and the fundamental right to life. With the aggressive promotion and widespread dissemination of contraceptives, the bill, in effect, allows and promotes abortion.
Family planning is a matter that concerns and affects the spouses and their families. They have the constitutional right to participate in the planning and implementation of policies and programs that affect them. Part of this right is for them
to receive correct, complete and clear information not only about the “availability7′of family planning methods and reproductive health services but more importantly,
about their nature and effects. There has to be full, honest, and transparent disclosure and dissemination of information and thorough and widespread discussion about these methods and services. A s a resu.lt of this exercise, and not privately, the
“safe, effective and legal methods” of family planning should be judiciously and prudently determined and identified..This corlstitutes the essence of free and informed choice. And considering the far-reaching consequences, this exercise should be undertaken before the passage of the bill, not after.
The issue of disregard of religious freedom is no less important. A healthcare service provider who refuses to provide information or perform health care services on
account of religion will nonetheless have to refer the person  seeking such care to another provider who is willing to provide the same service or information. Employers are likewise mandated to provide reproduc:tive health services to their employees without mention of religious or ethical considerations. By dangling a criminal penalty
of imprisonment and/or fine, believers will find themselves torn between fidelity to God and loyalty to their country. This unjustly limits the right to conscientious objection on the part of health care and medical professionals.

There is also imposition on the freedom of speech for healthcare providers who knowingly withhold information or restrict dissemination thereof, for any reason.

The abstract proclamations of freedom of religion and expression are insufficient. To be meaningful, individuals s:hould be allowed to profess and practice
their faith by freely seekng and serving God j.n their hearts, in their lives and in their relationship with others. Only in this way can these basic rights be truly guaranteed.

By making reproductive health and sexuality education mandatory for all public and private schools from grade five to fourth year high school, with a common curriculum formulated by designated agencies, the natural and primary right and
duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral character is supplanted by the government which is supposed to assume only a supporting and subsidiary role.

In light of all this, there is no public purpose that justifies the appropriation of public funds for the implementation of the full range of reproductive programs and services. Surely, the government should find better use for our hard-earned money.

Will the Bill undergo an upheaval to pursue a true and genuine public purpose and adopt means that are reasonably necessixy to accomplish that purpose? I wish I knew, but I will be bold enough to state that only if and when our legislators come to
regard life as the greatest and most precious gift of their Creator to humanity can they sincerely claim to serve the common good.

Unquestionably, the State has a responsibility to seek the common good. In this capacity, it is legitimate for it to intervene but. certainly, not through authoritarian and
coercive measures. In the face of ev-er-changing social conditions that confront us as individuals and a s a people, the central question is: What are the requirements that
government may reasonably impose upon its citizens and how far should they extend?

As we seek for a genuine balance between the legitimate claims of government and the rights of those subject to it, we see the need to have a moral approach to the complex and difficult issues that confront our nation and the world today. As
demonstrated by St. Thomas More when he defied the sovereign of which he was a “good servant” and chose to serve God first, religion has a n important place in political
process. For indeed, it h a s been proven time and again that for democracy to be stable, it needs a foundation of moral principles based upon faith and religion.

There is widespread agreement that the lack of a solid ethical foundation for economic activity has contributed to the recent global financial crisis. J u s t as “every economic decision h a s a moral consequence” (Caritas in Veritate, 37)) so too in political
field, the ethical dimension of policy h,as far-reaching consequences that no government can afford to ignore.

In the depth of the heart of every human being is a divine yearning for truth, for goodness and for light. Indeed, a s we, Filipi:nos, implore the “aid of Almighty God, in order to build a just and humane society and establish a government that shall
embody our ideals and aspirations, promote the common good.. .” (the Preamble), how eventually we respond to the challenge that !is the RH Bill will define us as individuals
and as a people.

Pastoral Statement of the Archbishop of Lingayen Dagupan to be read as the homily in all Masses on May 29, 2011, the Sixth Sunday of Easter.

My dear brothers and sisters in Christ:

Love is the core of the message of Jesus in today’s gospel. Love is indeed the trademark of the followers of Jesus. The Lord promises further in the gospel that if we choose the path of love and keep His commandments we will never be orphans.

The past few months have seen many of us who belong to the same Church and who share the same faith in Christ at odds with one another on the issue of the reproductive health bill in Congress. It is indeed sad and perhaps even scandalous for non Christians to see the Catholic flock divided among themselves and some members of the Catholic lay faithful at odds with their own pastors. If we fail to have love, we make ourselves orphans.

BRING BACK CHARITY

It is certainly not our intention to add more flame to the fire but rather to make an appeal for the triumph of reason and sobriety. We want to make a plea for greater charity even as we passionately state our positions on this divisive issue. At the end of the heated debates, we will all be winners if we proclaim the truths we believe in with utmost charity, courtesy and respect for one another. Charity is at the heart of the social doctrine of the Church Pope Benedict XVI reminds us. In the first letter of Peter today, he admonishes us today never to be without gentleness and reverence.

RETURN TO CONSCIENCE

We appeal to our Catholic brethren who stand on opposing sides on the reproductive health bill to return to the voice of conscience, to state their positions and rebut their opponents always with charity. Today’s second reading is a call for clarity of conscience beyond reproach. The moral conscience is man’s sanctuary through which the voice of God is heard, that voice that tells us to embrace what is good and reject what is evil. However, conscience is not the ultimate tribunal of morality. Conscience must be formed in the light of truth. Conscience must be enlightened by the Spirit of God. We appeal to both sides engaged in debate to pray, to seek the light of God and allow the voice of an enlightened conscience to prevail. We pray conscience does now allow itself to be swayed by statistics or partisan political positions. The only voice conscience must listen to is the voice of God. The only way for conscience to speak is through the language of Christ-like charity.

RESTORE UNITY

We appeal to our Catholic brethren to remember that the unity of the Church does not only pertain to the acceptance of a set of doctrines. Our Catholic faith has a moral mandate. It is not enough to recite the Apostles’ Creed; we must show that we are Catholics by living by the norms of Catholic morality. We are Catholics by creed and cult and code. We are Catholics in beliefs. We are Catholics in prayer. We are Catholics with one moral life.

In matters of faith, unity; in matters of opinion, liberty; in all
things charity!

The issue of contraception belongs to the realm of faith not opinions. Blessed John Paul II repeatedly taught us during his papacy that contraception can never be justified. We must not make wrong right by the sheer force of surveys or legislation by the majority or the convenience of some. People in authority who mislead others on the matter of contraception put themselves in open conflict with the law of God and lead others to sin.

FIGHT ALL CORRUPTIONS

The Church holds close to her heart the dream of everyone to rise out of poverty and live the fullness of life. Pope Paul VI correctly pointed out to us that “the causes of underdevelopment are not primarily of the material order. They lie above all in the will, in the mind and, even more so, in “the lack of brotherhood among individuals and peoples”. In other words, the greater cause of underdevelopment is corruption of the soul and corruption of society. Contraception adds to the moral corruption of our society and family.

We all want progress for the nation and for the family of nations. We cannot progress without freedom. Jesus died and rose to set us free. Indeed EDSA 1986 taught us that. But freedom must always be grounded in truth. Freedom is not absolute. Freedom must submit to truth. Freedom without truth is only sentimentalism and will only lead to social laxity.

In fact, ethical relativism eventually leads to totalitarianism.
Ethical relativism destroys freedom. Ethical relativism turns freedom into licentiousness. Licentiousness and laxity has destroyed many great civilizations of history.  Those who ignore the mistakes of history are doomed to repeat them.

CHURCH AS MOTHER

We plead with our officials in government and our friends in media to look at the Church as a partner in the mission of development. The Catholic Church throughout its two thousand year history in the world and almost five hundred years in the Philippines has proven itself as a potent agent for holistic authentic human progress and not an obstacle for development. If the Church issues this stern warning about the reproductive health bill, it is not to impede national progress but to protect our nation from greater harms and tragedies in the generations ahead. On this highly divisive issue, the Church is still a mother protecting her children from greater dangers and moral traps which until now her beloved children are still unable to foresee.

We need God if we want development. Jesus is the only Way, the only Truth, the only Life for us. There is none like Him. We will be lost without Him. Ignoring Him and setting Him aside in pursuing progress we do only at our own peril.

From the Cathedral of Saint John the Evangelist, May 24, 2011, Feast of Mary Help of Christians.

+SOCRATES B. VILLEGAS
Archbishop of Lingayen Dagupan

IN PLAIN LANGUAGE

The world’s leading scientific experts resolve the issues regarding the systematic, nationwide distribution of artificial contraceptives. [Read more...]

SA SIMPLENG PANANALITA

Mga kilalang, pandaigdigang, siyentipikong dalubhasa ay pinagtibay ang mga suliraning hinggil sa pamaraan, pambansang pamamahagi ng mga huwad na kagamitan na pampapigil ng pagbubuntis. [Read more...]

Lissa Poblete posted in Filipinos for Life.

Lissa Poblete created a doc “POSITION PAPER ON THE RH BILL by Christian Pro-life Resources for the Philippines “. [Read more...]

Misconceptions and Clarifications on Issues Related to Humanae Vitae and the Reproductive “Health” Bill in Philippine Congress.
[Read more...]

[Read more...]

Reference link: http://www.c-fam.org/publications/id.1717/pub_detail.asp

Volume 13, Number 44
October 14, 2010
By Seana Cranston, J.D.

MANILA, October 14 (C-FAM) Protests loom in the Philippines as Catholic leaders and lay groups monitor bills that would enact national population control measures.

Two measures pending in the Philippines promote “reproductive health.” They mandate dispensing artificial birth control, including potential abortifacients.  Both bills contain substantially similar language. [Read more...]