Senate of the Philippines [PDF]

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

Senate Pasay City

Journal SESSION NO. 44 Monday, December 17,2012

FIFTEENTH CONGRESS THIRD REGULAR SESSION

SESSION NO. 44 Monday. December 17,2012

CALL TO ORDER At 3:35 p.m., the Senate President, Hon. Juan Ponce Enrile, called the session to order.

PRAYER Sen. Vicente C. Sotto III led the prayer, to wit:

nalangin sa Iyong banal na puso. Ipagkaloob Mo sa amin ang Iyong walang hanggang pag-ibig. As we wind up our session for this year, bless us, 0 Lord, with your divine grace and infinite wisdom so that. .. we may understand those who do not understand us,

Panginoong Makapangyarihan, pinupuri at pinasasalamatan Ka namin sa mga biyayang ipinagkaloob Mo sa amino

we may forgive those who do not wish to forgive us,

Pinupuri Ka namin sa biyaya ng buhay. Nawa ito ay patuloy namin pahalagahan gaya ng pagpapahalaga Mo sa amin na Iyong mga anak.

and we may love especially those who hate us.

Pinasasalamatan Ka namin sa karunungan na Iyong ipinahiram upang ito ay aming pagyabungin at nang sa gayon kami ay makagawa ng mga bagay na n'aaayon sa Iyong kalooban. Panginoon, kami ay Inyong patawarin sa mga panahon na kami ay nagkulang sa Inyo, sa mga oras na kami ay nakakalimot at higit sa lahat patawarin Ninyo kami sa mga pagkakataong akala namin ay mas marunong pa kami sa Inyo. Itinataas namin sa Iyo ang aming mga sariti, ang aming mga pamilya at ang aming bansa na sama-samang nana-

we may show compassion even to those who despise us,

As we face the new year and continue to do our mandated task in this august Chamber, we beg of you, 0 Lord, to remove all the hatred in our hearts, all the doubts in our minds, all the worries in our spirits, and all the misgivings in our souls. Lead us, 0 Lord, to the path of uprightness and make us steadfast in our sworn duty to serve our people but always mindful of our weaknesses and limitations. Ang lahat ng ito ay dinadalangin namin sa Pangalan ng Iyong bugtong na Anak na si Hesus, nabubuhay at naghahari kasama ng Espiritu Santo. Amen.

)IP'

r

MONDAY, DECEMBER 17,2012

1272

MESSAGE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINES

NATIONAL ANTHEM The St Mary Magdalene Parish Choir led the singing of the national anthem and thereafter rendered the song, entitled "May Ibong Kakanta-Kanta."

ROLL CALL Upon direction of the Chair, the Secretary of the Senate, Atty. Emma Lirio-Reyes, called the roll, to which the following senators responded: Angara, E. J. Cayetano, A. P. C. S. Cayetano, P. S. Defensor Santiago M. Drilon, F. M. Emile, J. P. Estrada, J. Guingona III T. L.

Honasan, G. B. Lacson, P. M. Legarda, L. Pangilinan, F. N. Pimentel Ill, A. L. Revilla Jr. R. B. Sotto Ill, V. C.

With 15 senators present, the Chair declared the presence of a quorum. Senators Arroyo, Escudero, Marcos, Recto, Trillanes and Villar arrived after the roll call.

Letter of His Excellency, President Benigno S. Aquino Ill, certitying to the necessity of the immediate enactment of Senate Bill No. 3335, under Senate Committee Report No. 487, entitled AN ACT STRENGTHENING THE BUREAU OF CORRECTIONS (BUCOR) AND PROVIDING FUNDS THEREFOR, in order to address the public emergency consisting of our country's deteriorating prison system and the endemic problems of obsolete prison facilities and equipment, inadequate personnel count and employment standards, insufficient agency funding as well as to pursue our commitment towards a restorative penal system and to conform to international standards of inmate safekeeping.

To the Committee on Rules BILL ON FIRST READING Senate Bill No, 3372, entitled

Senators Lapid and Osmefia were absent.

APPROVAL OF THE JOURNAL Upon motion of Senator Sotto, there being no objection, the Body dispensed with the reading of the Journal of Session No. 42 (December 11,2012) and considered it approved.

DEFERMENT OF APPROVAL OF THE JOURNAL

AN ACT ESTABLlSHING PROVINCIAL SPORTS COMPLEXES Introduced by Senator Defensor Santiago

To the Committees on Amateur Sports Competitiveness; and Finance RESOLUTIONS Proposed Senate Resolution No. 915, entitled

Upon motion of Senator Sotto, there being no objection, the Body deferred the consideration and approval of the Journal of Session No. 43 (December 12,2012) to a later hour.

At this juncture, Senate President Enrile relinquished the Chair to Senate President Pro Tempore Estrada.

REFERENCE OF BUSINESS The Secretary of the Senate read the following matters and the Chair made the corresponding referrals:

RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE PROPER SENATE COMMITTEE, TO CONDUCT AN INQUIRY IN AID OF LEGISLATION, ON THE REPORT THAT EMPLOYEES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY AND ITS 19 ATTACHED AGENCIES, HAVE NOT RECEIVED A SINGLE PESO OF THEIR MAGNA CARTA BENEFITS SINCE MAY 2012 Introduced by Senator Defensor Santiago

,r

1273

MONDAY, DECEMBER 17,2012

To the Committees on Science and Technology; and Civil Service and Government Reorganization

Sponsors: Senators Revilla Jr. and Drilon

To the Calendar for Ordinary Business Proposed Senate Resolution No. 916, entitled RESOLUTION CONGRATULATING AND COMMENDING FILIPINO BOXER NON ITO "THE FILIPINO FLASH" DONAIRE JR. FOR SUCCESSFULLY DEFENDING HIS WORLD BOXING ORGANIZATION (WBO) AND THE RING SUPER BANTAMWEIGHT TITLE AGAINST MEXICAN BOXER JORGE ARCE AT THE TOYOTA CENTER IN HOUSTON, TEXAS, U.S,A, ON 15 DECEMBER 2012

Committee Report No, 530, submitted jointly by the Committees on Public Works; and Finance, on House Bill No, 2015, introduced by Representative Del Rosario (A.A.), entitled AN ACT CONVERTING THE STA. FE CASANA Y AN ROAD IN THE MUNICIPALITY OF PILAR, PROVINCE OF CAPIZ INTO A NATIONAL ROAD AND PROVIDING FUNDS THEREFOR, recommending its approval without amendment

Introduced by Senator Lapid

Sponsors: Senators Revilla Jr. and Drilon

To the Committee on Rules

To the Calendar for Ordinary Business

COMMITTEE REPORTS Committee Report No, 528, submitted jointly by the Committees on Public Works; and Finance, on House Bill No, 797, introduced by Representative Cagas, entitled AN ACT CONVERTING THE COGON KAPATAGAN PROVINCIAL ROAD IN THE PROVINCE OF DA V AO DEL SUR INTO A NATIONAL ROAD AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR, recommending its approval without amendment Sponsors: Senators ReviOa Jr. and Drilon

To the Caleudar for Ordinary Business Committee Report No. 529, submitted jointly by the Committees on Public Works; and Finance, on HOllse Bill No, 20 II, introduced by Representative Del Rosario (A.A.), entitled AN ACT CONVERTING THE POBLACION - PAWA ROAD IN THE MUNICIPALITY OF PANAY, PROVINCE OF CAPIZ INTO A NATIONAL ROAD AND PROVIDING FUNDS THEREFOR, recommend ing its approval without amendment

Committee Report No, 531, submitted jointly by the Committees on Public Works; and Finance, on House Bill No, 2150, introduced by Representative Alcala, entitled AN ACT CONVERTING THE JUNCTION MSR - POBLACION - TUMBAGA I - CASTANAS PROVINCIAL ROAD IN THE MUNICIPALITY OF SARIAY A, PROVINCE OF QUEZON INTO A NATIONAL ROAD, recommending its approval without amendment Sponsors: Senators Revilla Jr, and Drilon

To the Calendar for Ordinary Business Committee Report No, 532, submitted jointly by the Committees on Public Works; and Finance, on House Bill No, 3414, introduced by Representative Trenas, entitled AN ACT CONVERTING THE ROAD FROM CARPENTERS BRIDGE TO DIVERSION ROAD AND FROM JALANDONI BRIDGE TO FORBES BRIDGE KNOWN AS EFRAIN B. TRENAS BOULEVARD IN ILOILO CITY INTO A NATIONAL ROAD AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR,

4'l"r

1274

recommending its approval without amendment. Sponsors: Senators Revilla Jr. and Drilon To the Calendar for Ordinary Business Committee Report No. 533, submitted jointly by the Committees on Public Works; and Finance, on House Bill No. 3875, introduced by Representative Cojuangco (E.), entitled

MONDAY. DECEMBER 17.2012

INDUSTRY SAFETY BOARD THEREBY STRENG1'I-IENING THE AMUSEMENT PARKS AND RIDES INDUSTRY, INSTITUTING SAFETY STANDARDS AND PROVIDING FUNDS THEREFOR, recommending its approval in substitution of Senate Bill Nos. 254 and 2255. Sponsor: Senator Pimentel III

AN ACT CONVERTING THE MAYANTOC - SAN CLEMENTE ROAD IN THE MUNICIPALITIES OF MAYANTOC AND SAN CLEMENTE, PROVINCE OF TAR LAC INTO A NATIONAL ROAD AND PROVIDING FUNDS THEREFOR, recommending its approval without amendment.

To the Calendar for Ordinary Business APPROVAL OF SENATE BILL NO. 2080 ON THIRD READING Upon motion of Senator Sotto, there being no objection, the Body considered, on Third Reading, Senate Bill No. 2080, printed copies of which were distributed to the senators on December 12, 2012.

Sponsors: Senators Revilla Jr. and Drilon To the Calendar for Ordinary Business Committee Report No. 534, submitted jointly by the Committees on Education, Arts and Culture; Constitutional Amendments, Revision of Codes and Laws; and Foreign Relations, on Senate Bill No. 3323, introduced by Senator Angara, entitled AN ACT DECLARING THE CHINESE NEW YEAR A SPECIAL NONWORKING PUBLIC HOLIDAY IN THE PHILIPPINES,

Pursuant to Section 67, Rule XXIII of the Rules of the Senate, upon motion of Senator Sotto, there being no objection, Secretary Reyes read only the title of the bi n, to wit: AN ACT DECLARING NOVEMBER 25 OF EVERY YEAR AS "NATIONAL CONSCIOUSNESS DAY FOR THE ELIMINATION OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN." Secretary Reyes called the roll for nominal voting. RESULT OF THE VOTING

recommending its approval with amendment, taking into consideration Senate Bill Nos. 550 and 3289.

The result of the voting was as follows:

In favor Sponsors: Senators Angara, DefensorSantiago and Legarda To the Calendar for Ordinary Business Committee Report No. 535, prepared and submitted jointly by the Committees on Games and Amusement; Local Government; and Finance, on Senate Bill No. 3373, with Senators Trillanes IV, Defensor Santiago and Pimentel III as authors thereof, entitled AN ACT CREATING THE AMUSEMENT

Angara Cayetano (A) Cayetano (P) Defensor Santiago Drilon Enrile Estrada Guingona

Against None

Honasan Lacson Marcos Pangilinan Pimentel Revilla Sotto Villar

1275

MONDAY, DECEMBER 17,2012

With 16 senators voting in favor, none against, and no abstention, the Chair declared House Bill No. 6058 approved on Third Reading.

Abstention None With 16 senators voting in favor, none against, and no abstention, the Chair declared Senate Bill No. 2080 approved on Third Reading.

APPROVAL OF HOUSE BILL NO, 6058 ON THIRD READING Upon motion of Senator Satta, there being no objection, the Body conside~ed, on Third Reading, House Bill No, 6058, printed copies of which were distributed to the senators on December 12, 2012. Pursuant to Section 67, Rule XXIII of the Rules of the Senate, upon motion of Senator Satta, there being no objection, Secretary Reyes read only the title of the bill, to wit: AN ACT CONDONING THE INTEREST ON THE PAID PRINCIPAL ACCOUNT OF FUEL COMPENSATING CHARGE/ INCREMENTAL COST CHARGE (FCCIICC) OF THE ZAMBOANGA DEL NORTE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC (ZANECO) PAYABLE AND DUE TO THE NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION (NPC).

APPROVAL OF HOUSE BILL NO. 6305 ON THIRD READING Upon motion of Senator Satta, there being no obje·ction. the Body considered, on Third Reading, House Bill No, 6305, printed copies of which were distributed to the senators on December 12,2012, Pursuant to Section 67, Rule XXIII of the Rules of the Senate, upon motion of Senator Satta, there being no objection, Secretary Reyes read only the title of the bill, to wit: AN ACT AMENDING CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF REPUBLIC ACT NO, 6958 OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE CHARTER OF THE MACTANCEBU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY, Secretary Reyes called the roll for nominal voting.

RESULT OF THE VOTING The result of the voting was as follows:

Secretary Reyes called the roll for nominal voting,

RESULT OF THE VOTING The result of the voting was as follows:

In favor Angara Cayetano (A) Cayetano (P) Defensor Santiago Drilon Enrile Estrada Guingona

Honasan Lacson Marcos Pangilinan Pimentel Revilla Satta Villar

In favor Angara Cayetano (A) Cayetano (P) Defensor Santiago Drilon Enrile Escudero Estrada Guingona

Honasan Lacson Marcos Pangilinan Pimentel Revilla Satta Villar

Against None

Abstention Against None

Abstention None

None With 17 senators voting in favor, none against, and no abstention, the Chair declared House Bill No, 6305 approved on Third Reading,

MONDAY, DECEMBER 17,2012

1276

MANIFESTATION OF SENATOR SOTTO Senator Sotto informed the Body that Senator Revilla had agreed to forego the Third Reading of the road conversion bills until the following day.

APPROVAL OF HOUSE BILL NO. 1869 ON THIRD READING Upon motion of Senator Sotto, there being no objection, the Body considered, on Third Reading, House Bill No. 1869, printed copies of which were distributed to the senators on December 13,2012. Pursuant to Section 67, Rule XXIII of the Rules of the Senate, upon motion of Senator Sotto, there being no objection, Secretary Reyes read only the title of the bill, to wit: AN

ACT ESTABLISHING THE MOUNTAIN PROVINCE SECOND DISTRICT ENGINEERING OFFICE IN THE MOUNTAIN PROVINCE AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR.

Secretary Reyes called the roll for nominal voting.

RESULT OF THE VOTING The result of the voting was as follows:

In favor Angara Cayetano (A) Cayetano (P) Defensor Santiago Drilon Enrile Escudero Estrada Guingona

Honasan Lacson Legarda Marcos Pangilinan Pimentel Revilla Sotto Villar

and no abstention, the Chair declared House Bill No. 1869 approved on Third Reading.

APPROVAL OF HOUSE BILL NO. 3622 ON THIRD READING Upon motion of Senator Sotto, there being no objection, the Body considered, on Third Reading, House Bill No. 3622, printed copies of which were distributed to the senators on December 13, 2012. Pursuant to Section 67, Rule XXIII of the Rules of the Senate, upon motion of Senator Sotto, there being no objection, Secretary Reyes read only the title of the bill, to wit: AN ACT RECONSTRUCTING THE KALINGA ENGINEERING DISTRICT OFFICE IN THE PROVINCE OF KALINGA INTO TWO (2) REGULAR DISTRICT ENGINEERING OFFICES AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR. Secretary Reyes called the roll for nominal voting.

RESULT OF THE VOTING The result of the voting was as follows:

In favor Angara Arroyo Cayetano (A) Cayetano (P) Defensor Santiago Drilon Enrile Escudero Estrada Guingona

Against

Against

None

None

Abstention

Abstention

None

None With 18 senators voting in favor, none against,

Honasan Lacson Legarda Marcos Pangilinan Pimentel Revilla Sotto Villar

With 19 senators voting in favor, none against, and no abstention, the Chair declared House Bill No. 3622 approved on Third Reading.

, r

1277

MONDAY. DECEMBER 17.2012

APPROVAL OF HOUSE BILL NO. 5600 ON THIRD READING

House Bill No. 1167, printed copies of which were distributed to the senators on December 13,2012.

Upon motion of Senator Satta, there being no objection, the Body considered, on Third Reading, House Bill No. 5600, printed copies of which were distributed to the senators on December 13, 2012.

Pursuant to Section 67, Rule XXIII of the Rules of the Senate, upon motion of Senator Satta, there being no objection, Secretary Reyes read only the title of the bill, to wit:

Pursuant to Section 67, Rule XXIII of the Rules of the Senate, upon motion of Senator Sotto, there being no objection, Secretary Reyes read only the title of the bill, to wit:

AN ACT CONVERTING THE LAND TRANSPORTATION OFFICE (LTO) EXTENSION OFFICE LOCATED IN THE MUNICIPALITY OF DAPA, SURIGAO DEL NORTE INTO A REGULAR LTO DISTRICT OFFICE, APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

AN

ACT TRANSFERRING THE LOCATION OF THE LA UNION SECOND DISTRICT ENGINEERING OFFICE FROM NAGUILIAN, LA UNION TO AGOO, LA UNION, AMENDING FOR THIS PURPOSE REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9033.

Secretary Reyes called the roll for nominal voting.

Secretary Reyes called the roll for nominal voting.

RESULT OF THE VOTING The result of the voting was as follows:

RESULT OF THE VOTING In favor The result of the voting was as follows:

In favor Angara Arroyo Cayetano (A) Cayetano (P) Defensor Santiago Drilon Enrile Escudero Estrada

Honasan Lacson Legarda Marcos Pangilinan Pimentel Revilla Sotto Villar

Angara Arroyo Cayetano (A) Cayetano (P) Defensor Santiago Drilon Escudero Enrile Estrada

Honasan Lacson Legarda Marcos Pangilinan Pimentel Revilla Sotto Villar

Against None

Against None

Abstention None

Abstention None With 18 senators voting in favor, none against, and no abstention, the Chair declared House Bill No. 5600 approved on Third Reading.

APPROVAL OF HOUSE BILL NO. 1167 ON THIRD READING Upon motion of Senator Satta, there being no objection, the Body considered, on Third Reading,

With 18 senators voting in favor, none against, and no abstention, the Chair declared House Bill No. 1167 approved on Third Reading.

APPROVAL OF HOUSE BILL NO. 3734 ON THIRD READING Upon motion of Senator Sotto, there being no objection, the Body considered, on Third Reading, House Bill No. 3734, printed copies of which were distributed to the senators on December 13,2012.

1278

MONDAY, DECEMBER 17,2012

Pursuant to Section 67, Rule XXIII of the Rules of the Senate, upon motion of Senator Sotto, there being no objection, Secretary Reyes read only the title of the bi II, to wit:

being no objection, Secretary Reyes read only the title of the bill, to wit:

AN ACT CONVERTING THE LAND TRANSPORTATION OFFICE (LTO) EXTENSION OFFICE LOCATED IN THE MUNICIPALITY OF PANIQUI, TARLAC INTO A REGULAR LTO DISTRICT OFFICE, APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

AN ACT GRANTING THE OLONGAPO ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY, INC. A FRANCHISE TO CONSTRUCT, INSTALL, ESTABLISH, OPERATE AND MAINTAIN A DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM FOR THE CONVEY ANCE OF ELECTRIC POWER TO THE END-USERS IN THE CITY OF OLONGAPO AND ITS SUBURBS.

Secretary Reyes called the roll for nominal voting.

Secretary Reyes called the roll for nominal voting.

RESULT OF THE VOTING

RESULT OF THE VOTING

The result of the voting was as follows:

The result of the voting was as follows:

In favor

In favor

Angara Arroyo Cayetano (A) Cayetano (P) Defensor Santiago Drilon Escudero Enrile Estrada

Honasan Lacson Legarda Pangilinan Pimentel Revilla Sotto Villar

Angara Arroyo Cayetano (A) Cayetano (P) Defensor Santiago Drilon Escudero Enrile Estrada

Against

Against

None

None

Abstention

Abstention

None

None

Honasan Lacson Legarda Pangilinan Pimentel Revilla Sotto Villar

With 17 senators voting in favor, none against, and no abstention, the Chair declared House Bill No. 3734 approved all Third Reading.

With 17 senators voting in favor, none against, and no abstention, the Chair declared House Bill No. 6650 approved on Third Reading.

APPROVAL OF HOUSE BILL NO. 6550 ON THIRD READING

APPROVAL OF SENATE BILL NO. 3208 ON THIRD READING

Upon motion of Senator Sotto, there being no objection, the Body considered, on Third Reading, House Bill No. 6550, printed copies of which were distributed to the senators on December 13, 2012.

Upon motion of Senator Sotto, there being no objection, the Body considered, on Third Reading, Senate Bill No. 3208, printed copies of which were distributed to the senators on December 12,2012.

Pursuant to Section 67, Rule XXIII of the Rules of the Senate, upon motion of Senator Sotto, there

Pursuant to Section 67, Rule XXIII of the Rules of the Senate, upon motion of Senator Sotto, there

MONDAY, DECEMBER 17,2012

1279

being no objection, Secretary Reyes read only the title ofthe bill, to wit:

RESULT OF THE VOTING The result of the voting was as follows:

AN ACT FORTIFYING THE PEOPLE'S RIGHT OF OWNERSHIP OVER INFORMATION HELD BY THE PEOPLE'S GOVERNMENT. Secretary Reyes called the roll for nominal voting,

RESULT OF THE VOTING The result of the voting was as follows:

In favor Angara Arroyo Cayetano (A) Cayetano (P) Defensor Santiago Drilon Escudero Enrile Estrada

Honasan Lacson Legarda Pangilinan Pimentel Revilla Sotto Villar

Against

In favor Angara Arroyo Cayetano (A) Cayetano (P) Defensor Santiago Drilon Escudero Enrile Estrada

Guingona Honasan Lacson Legarda Pangilinan Pimentel Revilla Sotto Villar

Against None

Abstention None With 18 senators voting in favor, none against, and no abstention, the Chair declared Senate Bill No. 3309 approved on Third Reading.

None

Abstention None With 17 senators voting in favor, none against, and no abstention, the Chair declared Senate Bill No. 3208 approved on Third Reading.

APPROVAL OF SENATE BILL NO. 3309 ON THIRD READING Upon motion of Senator. Satta, there being no objection, the Body considered, on Third Reading, Senate Bill No. 3309, printed copies of which were distributed to the senators on December 12, 2012.

APPROVAL OF SENATE BILL NO. 3341 ON THIRD READING Upon motion of Senator Sotto, there being no objection, the Body considered, on Third Reading, Senate Bill No. 3341, printed copies of which were distributed to the senators on December 13, 2012. Pursuant to Section 67, Rule XXIII of the Rules of the Senate, upon motion of Senator Sotto, there being no objection, Secretary Reyes read only the title of the bill, to wit:

AN ACT PROVIDING FOR A MAGNA CARTA OF THE POOR.

AN ACT AUTHORIZING THE WIRETAPPING, INTERCEPTION AND RECORDING OF COMMUNICATIONS AND SURVEILLANCE OF PUSHERS, MANUFACTURERS, IMPORTERS AND FINANCIERS OF DANGEROUS DRUGS, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

Secretary Reyes called the roll for nominal voting.

Secretary Reyes called the roll for nominal voting.

Pursuant to Section 67, Rule XXIII of the Rules of the Senate, upon motion of Senator Satta, there being no objection, Secretary Reyes read only the title of the bill, to wit:

1280

MONDAY, DECEMBER 17,2012

RESULT OF THE VOTING

RESULT OF THE VOTING

The result of the voting was as follows:

The result of the voting was as follows:

In favor

In favor

Angara Arroyo Cayetano (A) Cayetano (P) Defensor Santiago Drilon Escudero Enrile Estrada Guingona

Honasan Lacson Legarda Pangilinan Pimentel Recto Revilla Sotto Villar

Against None

Abstention None With 19 senators voting in favor, none against, and no abstention, the Chair declared Senate Bill No. 3341 approved on Third Reading.

APPROVAL OF SENATE BILL NO. 2944 ON THIRD READING Upon motion of Senator Satta, there being no objection, the Body considered, on Third Reading, Senate Bill No. 2944, printed copies of which were distributed to the senators on December II and 12,2012. Pursuant to Section 67, Rule XXIII of the Rules of the Senate, upon motion of Senator Sotto, there being no objection, Secretary Reyes read only the title of the bill, to wit: AN ACT EXTENDING THE LIFE OF THE LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, FURTHER AMENDING REPUBLIC ACT NO. 3844, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE AGRICULTURAL LAND REFORM CODE, AS AMENDED. Secretary Reyes called the roll for nominal voting.

Angara Arroyo Cayetano (A) Cayetano (P) Defensor Santiago Drilon Escudero Enrile Estrada Guingona

Honasan Lacson Legarda Pangilinan Pimentel Recto Revilla Sotto Villar

Against None

Abstention None With 19 senators voting in favor, none against, and no abstention, the Chair declared Senate Bill No. 2944 approved on Third Reading.

APPROVAL OF SENATE BILL NO. 3335 ON THIRD READING Upon motion of Senator Satta, there being no objection, the Body considered, on Third Reading, Senate Bill No. 3335, printed copies of which were distributed to the senators on December 13,2012. Pursuant to Section 67, Rule XXIII of the Rules of the Senate, upon motion of Senator Sotto, there being no objection, Secretary Reyes read only the title of the bill, to wit: AN

ACT STRENGTHENING THE BUREAU OF CORRECTIONS (BUCOR) AND PROVIDING FUNDS THEREFOR.

Secretary Reyes called the roll for nominal voting.

MONDAY. DECEMBER 17.2012

1281

RESULT OF THE VOTING The result of the voting was as follows:

In favor Angara Arroyo Cayetano (P) Defensor Santiago Drilon Escudero Enrile Estrada Guingona

RESULT OF THE VOTING The result of the voting was as follows:

In favor Honasan Lacson Legarda Pangilinan Pimentel Recto Revilla Sotto Villar

Angara Arroyo Cayetano (P) Defensor Santiago Drilon Escudero Enrile Estrada Guingona

Honasan Lacson Legarda Pangilinan Pimentel Recto Revilla Sotto Villar

Against None

Against

Abstention

None

None With 18 senators voting in favor, none against, and no abstention, the Chair declared Senate Bill No. 3335 approved on Third Reading.

Abstention None

APPROVAL OF SENATE BILL NO. 3334 ON THIRD READING

With 18 senators voting in favor, none against, and no abstention, the Chair declared Senate Bill No. 3334 approved on Third Reading.

Upon motion of Senator Sotto, there being no objection, the Body considered, on Third Reading, Senate Bill No. 3334, printed copies of which were distributed to the senators on December 12,2012.

APPROVAL OF SENATE BILL NO. 2970 ON THIRD READING

Pursuant to Section 67, Rule XXIII of the Rules of the Senate, upon motion of Senator Sotto, there being no objection, Secretary Reyes read only the title of the bill, to wit: AN ACT PROVIDING FOR REPARATION AND RECOGNITION OF THE SURVIVORS AND RELATIVES OF THE VICTIMS OF VIOLATIONS OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND OTHER RELATED VIOLATIONS DURING THE REGIME OF FORMER PRESIDENT FERDINAND MARCOS, DOCUMENTATION OF SAID VIOLATIONS, APPROPRIA TING FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. Secretary Reyes called the roll for nominal voting.

Upon motion of Senator Sotto, there being no objection, the Body considered, on Third Reading, Senate Bill No. 2970, printed copies of which were distributed to the senators on December 12,2012. Pursuant to Section 67, Rule XXIII of the Rules of the Senate, upon motion of Senator Sotto, there being no objection, Secretary Reyes read only the title of the bill, to wit: AN

ACT REORGANIZING AND MODERNIZING THE NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, PROVIDING FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

Secretary Reyes called the roll for nominal voting.

1282

MONDAY, DECEMBER 17,2012

RESULT OF THE VOTING

bills here in the Senate that are pending with your Committee on Local Government. In

The result of the voting was as follows:

In favor Angara Arroyo Cayetano (P) Defensor Santiago Drilon Escudero Enrile Estrada Guingona

Hanasan Lacson Legarda Pangilinan Pimentel Recto Revilla Sotto Villar

Against None

Abstention None With 18 senators voting in favor, none against, and no abstention, the Chair declared Senate Bill No. 2970 approved on Third Reading.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION Upon motion of Senator Sotto, the session was suspended.

essence, these bills all seek to create a barangay out of an existing barangay that was created by a sangguniang panlalawigan, I am referring to House Bill No, 4551, which seeks to create a barangay to be known as Barangay Navy in the Municipality of Capas, Province of Tarlac; House Bill No. 4550, which seeks to create a barangay to be known as Barangay Ipil in the Municipality of Tabuk, Province of Kalinga; and House Bill No. 4549, which seeks to create a barangay to be known as Barangay Bulanao Norte in the Municipality of Tabuk, Province of Kalinga. As stated in the respective explanatory notes of these measures, which were expounded

and clearly expressed by the respective authors during the committee hearings, the common

purpose of these bills is to seCure entitlement to a share in the Internal Revenue Allotment, and rightly so! To be more specific, the explanatory note of House Bill No. 4550 states: "In view of the fact that Barangay Ipi! was locally created, it could not be shared of the usual Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA) from the national government. The provincial government, however, shares a

measly amount of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P I00,000.00) as aid. Clearly, this amount will not suffice to finance the delivery of basic services, much less provide the funds for infrastructure projects much needed by its residents,"

This sentiment is reflected in the

other above-mentioned pending bills.

It was 4:05 p.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION At 4: 10 p.m., the session as resumed.

PRIVILEGE SPEECH OF SENATOR MARCOS Availing himself of the privilege hour, Senator Marcos urged the Body to look into the state of affairs of barangays that were created after the enactment of the Local Government Code of 1991, particularly to determine their capabilities as well as their perceived drawbacks in relation to the effective delivery of basic services to their constituents.

The full text of his speech follows: My concern was impelled by the ongoing discussions and debates with regard to three

The law in point is the last paragraph of Section 285 of the Local Government Code of 1991, as amended, which provides that, "the financial requirements of barangays created by the local government units after the effectivity of this Code shall be the responsibility of the local government unit concerned."

The power of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan or the Sangguniang Panlungsod to create a barangay, as embodied in Section 385 of the Local Government Code of 1991, as amended, was designed to enhance local autonomy and in recognition that they are in a better position to chart the destiny of their local units. However, the question now arises whether this power is working to the advantage and benefit of its created barangay. Clearly, it has now become a pressing and legitimate issue, in the light of reports of measly budgetary appropriations provided these created barangay to fund their operations from the local government that created them.

MONDAY. DECEMBER 17,2012

Allow me to go back to the case of Barangay Ipil in the City of Tabuk, Province of Kalinga, which is the subject of the House Bill No. 4550 that I earlier meniioned. The said barangay was created under Provincial Ordinance 2002-02, as amended by Provincial Ordinance. No. 2003-013. It is reported that the said barangay is receiving an allocation ofPIOO,OOO as its annual budget from the provincial government of Kalinga. This is far, far lower than, or shall I say grossly incomparable to, the Internal Revenue Allotment received in 2012 by its mother Barangay of Bulanao, in the amount of P4,577,431. Article X, Section I of our Constitution provides that, "The territorial and political subdivisions of the Republic of the Philippines are the provinces, cities, municipalities, and

barangays." Further, Section 2 of the same Article provides that, "the telTitorial and political subdivision shall enjoy local autonomy." Clearly, the autonomy of the barangays, the smallest political units in our system of government and the frontliner in the delivery of basic services, is constitutionally enshrined. It is clearly then our shared .obligation to ensure that such autonomy is reasonably practiced, enjoyed, maintained and protected, especially taking into consideration the innate nature of a

barangay as apolitical in character. Certainly, it could not have been the intention of the framers of our Constitution, as well as our predecessors in this Chamber who enacted the Local Government Code of 1991, that barangays created by local government units would be relegated to another class of barangays. Unfortunately, the enormous disparity between the funding allocations of the creating local government unit to the created barangays on the one hand, and the internal revenue

allocations to the other existing barangays, on the other, could and has indirectly created such a disparate classification. The important, if not indispensable, role of fiscal autonomy in ensuring the enjoyment of the broader concept of autonomy by our local government units need not be over-emphasized. It pains this Representation to think that the measly amount of annual allocations to these barangays has severely compromised their autonomy. Indeed, this Representation is appalled to know that the majority, if not almost all, of the 243 barangays created after the enactment of the Local Government Code of 1991 share the same sad plight resulting in similar cries of inadequate budget. In fact, the officials of the Liga ng mga Barangay, whom I frequently

1283

confer with on barangay concerns, has echoed their same concern of inadequate funding for these created barangays, a legitimate concern which we can no longer ignore. Considering that 243 barangays have been created after the enactment of the Local Government Code of 1991, should we not wonder how many of them are similarly situated and shares the same plight with Barangays Ipil, Bulanao and Navy? It is for these reasons that I urge this august Chamber to join me in looking into the sorry operational conditions of our barangays created after the enactment of the Local Government Code of 1991 with a view of correcting this unconscionable disparities that I have just described for all of us to seriously consider and immediately resolve.

COMMITTEE REPORT NO_ 49 ON SENATE BILL NO. 2865 (Continuation) Upon motion of Senator Sotto, there being no objection, the Body resumed consideration, on Second Reading, of Senate Bill No. 2865 (Committee Report No. 49), entitled AN ACT PROVIDING FOR A NATIONAL POLICY ON REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH AND POPULA nON AND DEVELOPMENT. Senator Sotto stated that the parliamentary status was still the period of individual amendments. Thereupon, the Chair recognized Senator Cayetano (P), Sponsor of the measure, and Senator Sotto for his amendments.

QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE OF SENATOR SOTTO On a question of personal privilege, Senator Sotto stated that he stands finn in the belief that all the arguments, propositions and objections he had propounded during the period of interpellations remain undisputed. He said that his detractors, as correctly pointed out by Cong. Teddy Boy Locsin, have practically proven him right. He recalled that his detractors challenged his credibility by claiming that his statements were mostly lifted from sources that are not his, but he pointed out that given his background, he never claimed to be all-knowing

1284

MONDAY, DECEMBER 17,2012

on the subject. So bearing this limitation in mind, he said that he made references to experts in the relevant fields of medicine, demography and law to come up with logical and well-founded arguments.

generate documents that would be legally binding in Ecuador. 2.

Resolutions produced by committees - the Elimination of All Fonns of Discrimination against Women, whose members are pro-

Senator Sotto underscored that he did not pretend to be a scholar, and that his detractors never said he was wrong, only that he copied; but they never refuted his points on the subject matter. He asserted that his words and pronouncements were based on sound reasoning and hard facts which his detractors failed to contradict.

abortion activists - would be legally binding. Although CEDA W has produced a binding human rights treaty, the recommendations of its New York-based committee are not binding. Its recommendations in favor of the legalization of abortion are even less so,

since the word "abortion" is not mentioned

a single time in the treaty. Yet these CEDAW recommendations in favor of abortion have been accepted in many international "human

SOTTO AMENDMENTS On page I, Senator Sotto proposed the deletion of lines 9 to 16. Senator Sotto stated that the State, pursuant to its commitment to international obligations and the constitutional mandate, adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land. Thus, he said that the Philippines is bound to comply with all international laws and treaties to which it is a signatory, consistent with its existing laws. He explained that he was proposing the deletion of the reference to various conferences, guidelines and recommendations set by foreign entities like the International Conference of Population Development, etc., which is not even a treaty, to avoid confusion and inconsistencies that they may cause to the country's municipal laws. He stated that the Philippines should learn from the experience of Ecuador and he proceeded to quote Carlos Pablo in his article, entitled "News from Latin America:

How to Sell Out Your Country in Just One Word," to wit: To equate "treaties" and "human rights instruments" is to open the door to interest

groups from around the world to impose binding laws on Ecuadorians. "Reproductive rights" organizations in New York City, for example, will

rights instruments." The inclusion of the word "instruments" into the constitution of Ecuador means that such recommendations will now be considered Ecuadorian law. Senator Sotto pointed out that the case of the RH bill, it is being equated with human rights instruments and it even included the names of various international conferences. He feared that if the RH bill is passed using the words "international obligations" and "human rights instruments," the Philippines might suffer the same consequences as what Ecuador suffered. These words, he stressed, would bind the Philippines to obey everything that the above-mentioned international conferences would issue such as documents, instructions, charters, etc., without regard to Philippine sovereignty, culture, religion, morals and laws. He said that his source was www.pop.org/content/news-from-the-Iatinamerica-how-to-sell-out-1607 I. Senator Cayetano (P) stated that the Convention on Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDA W) and the international conventions mentioned by Senator Sotto recognize the fact that abortions do occur in every country, including the Philippines, but she pointed out that their policy is that if it is consistent with the domestic law, they will provide the means for safe abortion. Since it is not allowed in the country, she said that the international organizations have no other measure or recourse, and they do not promote it.

plan and execute such laws. For instance:

1.

Certain international conferences

~

con-

ferences with far-left ideological agendas with no diplomatic consensus - could be organized by the U.N. and NGOs and pass resolutions. Under the new rules, conferences like the 1994 Cairo Population Conference or Beijing Conference on Women could

Accepted by the Sponsor and there being no objection, the Body approved the deletion of lines 9 to 16 of page I. On page 2, as proposed by Senator Sotto and accepted by the Sponsor, there being no objeciton, the Body approved the deletion of lines 10 and II.

r

1285

MONDAY. DECEMBER 17,2012

Explaining his proposal, Senator Sotto observed that said paragraph should be deleted because it is too broad and in order to avoid any possible interpretation that may justify abortion. In response, Senator Cayetano (P) reiterated that under the measure, abortion is not being condoned nor does it intend to amend or repeal the Revised Penal Code that defines abortion as a crime. Nonetheless, she accepted the proposed amendment to put the issue to rest. As proposed by Senator Sotto and accepted by the Sponsor, there being no objection, the Body approved the following amendments: L

On page 2, line 23, after the word "affordable," insert the word NON-ABORTIFACIENT;

2.

On page 2, line 28, after the word "safe," insert the word NON-ABORTIFACIENT;

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF SENATOR SOTTO On page 2, line 29, after the word "medical," Senator Sotto proposed to insert the word RESEARCH and delete the phrase "standards such as those set by the World Health Organizations (WHO)." Senator Cayetano (P) stated that the amendment would remove the basis to consider family planning supplies safe, and she pointed out that there is no other standard than the one set by the WHO and the FDA, and that it cannot be based only on medical research. She agreed with the insertion of the word "research," but insisted that the WHO be retained. Senator Sotto argued that the determination of the safety and effectiveness offamily planning supplies should be given not to foreign organizations but to reputable Filipino medical practitioners and experts who have no interest in the issue of population and abortion. Relative thereto, he cited Section 12, Article XIII of the Constitution which provides that, "The State shall establ ish and maintain an effective food and drug regu latory system and undertake appropriate health manpower development and research, responsive to the country's health needs and on health care problems." He recalled that when she sponsored this provision in the Constitutional Commission, Commissioner Teresa Nieva explained that Section 12 seeks to address the problem of dumping of harmful and adulterated food and drugs in the country from foreign countries. Besides, he stated that it should be borne in mind that foreign

organizations, such as WHO, may have biases when it comes to population and abortion issues, citing National Security Study Memorandum 200, issued by Henry Kissinger, the source of the entire family planning, population and poverty reduction programs of the United States, which requires that all loans, grants and aid coming from the United States and western powers must be based on reduction of population through birth control. Since the US-AID is the principal instrument for the so-called development programs, he noted that there were NGOs and government agencies in the Philippines that were contacted, supported and funded by it. He pointed out that US-AID, World Health Organization, World Bank and all economic agencies were given a directive to gear their policies and programs towards promoting the reduction of the world's population especially in less developed countries (LDCs). Thereafter, he presented the following downloaded document showing that WHO is in favor of abortion: World Health Organization: Safe Abortion: Technical and Policy Guidelines for Health Systems, 2,d Edition. Page 65: 3.3 EVIDENCE-BASED STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES - In many countries, evidence -based standards and guidelines for abortion service delivery, including treatment of abortion complications, do not exist Standards for abortion care refer to the underlying principles and essential requirements for providing equitable access to, and adequate quality of, lawful abortion services, In countries where standards and

guidelines already exist, routine review and updates ensure that they continue to promote women's physical, mental, and social well-

being and reflect new evidence of best practices. Standards and guidelines should be developed and updated with the intent of eliminating barriers to obtaining the highest attainable standard if sexual and reproductive health. Page 64: 3.2 Constellation of Services: WHO declares that health systems should provide abortion on demand without delay. Senator Cayetano (P) said that it would be ignorant of her to deny that abortion is legal in many countries of the world. She pointed out that the Philippines' acting as if it is the only country with a strong opinion on abortion means being oblivious of what is happening around the world. She emphasized

,

r

1286

that abortion is illegal in the country and it is not being changed but in other countries, she said, it is legal because women, at some point in their life, choose to terminate pregnancies and what this international organization decided is to make it safe for them. She pointed out that abortion is not an issue in the Reproductive Health bill, therefore, international organizations, including WHO, will not interfere in the country's local law, and neither will they require the country to permit abortion. She asked if the choices for the family planning supplies would be based simply on the FDA despite the fact that WHO remains to be the technical authority on international health issues. Senator Cayetano (P) stated that Secretary Ona and the two former health secretaries who were in the gallery feel very strongly that the country cannot live without referencing a lot of health issues to the WHO. Senator Sotto appealed to the Body as he argued that the country cannot surrender its sovereignty to the WHO which, he maintained, should not be mentioned in the law. INQUIRY OF SENATOR LACSON Asked by Senator Lacson if the reason why he proposed to delete the phrase "set by the World Health Organization (WHO)" is that other jurisdictions that allow abortion might influence the country's anti-abortion stand, Senator Sotto replied in the affinmative as he confirmed that the phrase "registered and approved by the Food and Drug Administration" would remain. Senator Cayetano (P) clarified that although the WHO is mentioned in the bill, it has no authority to impose abortifacients or any practices that are tantamount to abortion because it is against the law. She stated that the FDA, in making documentary approvals, looks into the recommendations of international organizations, primarily the WHO. She gave assurance that the WHO will not be a part of the decision-making process, stressing that the law is very clear that abortifacients are not allowed in the country. INQUIRY OF SENATOR LEGARDA As regards the standards "set by the World Health Organization," Senator Legarda inquired

MONDAY, DECEMBER 17,2012

whether retaining the WHO in the provision would mean that the WHO can change something illegal to legal without the need to enact a law. Senator Sotto replied in the affirmative as he underscored that since "sovereignty resides in the people" as provided for in the Constitution, they should decide, not the WHO. He stated that the WHO can participate as a consultant but not make the determination on behalf of the country. Senator Legarda believed that the phrase "set by the World Health Organization (WHO)" does not mean that the WHO has the power to change laws. Responding thereto, Senator Cayetano (P) read Section 3(e), to wit: "The State will provide infonmation and access without bias, to all family planning including natural methods which have been proven safe and effective in accordance with scientific and evidence-based medical standards such as those set by the World Health Organization and registered and approved by the Food and Drug Administration." She noted that nowhere in the bill does it say that the WHO would come in and change the laws of the land to introduce abortifacients. She pointed out that the term "nonabortifacient" has been inserted in three provisions, at the instance of Senator Sotto. To settle the matter, Senator Legarda suggested the phrase "respecting the laws of the land" be inserted in the provision to protect the rationale of the Sotto amendment. Senator Cayetano (P) stated that the phrase "in accordance with scientific and evidence-based research" would also protect the people from dangerous supplies. She stressed that it is the WHO that sets the standards and it is the FDA that approves them, and if for some reason the FDA disagreed with the WHO, the judgment of the FDA would prevail. But she said that it could be harmful to the Filipinos not to rely on the WHO. Agreeing with Senator Sotto on the sovereignty issue, Senator Legarda stated that no foreign entity can impose international regulations without an enactment of Congress. Senator Cayetano (P) reiterated that according to the health secretaries, the WHO plays an advisory role in many countries but recognizes their laws. She stressed that the WHO would not insist on what is not allowed in the country so it should not

.rr

MONDAY. DECEMBER 17.2012

be taken out of the provision as though the Philippines wanted to live in isolation from new technologies. Senator Sotto stated that while it is true that the WHO plays an advisory role in many countries and recognizes their laws, its website says otherwise. He said that he was able to download "Unsafe Abortion: The Preventable Pandemic" a pre-print copy of a paper in the journal The Lancet Sexual and Reproductive Health Series, October 2006, which said that "access to safe, legal abortion is a fundamental right of women, irrespective of where they live." He asked what harm it would do if reference to the WHO in the provision is removed.

INQUIRY OF SENATOR DRILON Senator Drilon stated that provision uses the phrase "such as those" which means it is a citation by way of example. Asked to clarify if his proposed amendment would remove the WHO from the whole bill or only from the particular provision, Senator Sotto replied that it should not be put into the law. Senator Drilon observed that even after the Sotto amendment, there is nothing to prevent the use of WHO standards since that proviso uses the phrase "such as those." Senator Sotto agreed. Thereafter, Senator Drilon suggested retaining the phrase "such as those" and then deleting the phrase "set by the World Health Organization" so that line 29 of page 2 and line I of page 3 would read as follows: "accordance with scientific and evidencebased medical standards such as those registered and approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)." He explained that even if reference to the WHO is deleted, its standards can still be used because with the phrase "such as those," the provision becomes non-exclusive. But Senator Cayetano (P) noted that with the exclusion of the WHO, reference can only be made to Philippine authority, meaning there is no international authority. Senator Drilon clarified that reference to international standards is not excluded given the phrase "such as those."

1287

MANIFESTATION OF SENATOR DEFENSOR SANTIAGO Senator Defensor Santiago stated that the debate is of no moment because Article II of the Constitution states that: "The Philippines adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land," She explained that WHO guidelines are considered as generally accepted principles of international law and whether the WHO is mentioned in the law or not, it does not change anything since some of its standards are generally accepted principles. Thereupon, Senator Drilon read paragraph (e), as proposed to be amended, to wit: The State will provide information and access, without bias, to all methods of family planning, INCLUDING NATURAL METHODS which have been proven safe, NON-ABORTIFACIENT AND EFFECTIVE in accordance with scientific and evidence-based medical standards such as those registered and approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

FURTHER SOTTO AMENDMENTS On line 29 of page 2 and line I of page 3, as modified by Senator Drilon and accepted by the Sponsor, there being no objection, the Body approved the Sotto amendment to remove the phrase "set by the World Health Organization (WHO) and", and to change the word "standards" to RESEARCH. Likewise, as proposed by Senator Sotto and accepted by the Sponsor, there being no objection, the Body approved the following amendments, one after the other: •

On page 3, line 10, after the word "them" and the semicolon (;), insert the phrase AND WITH DUE CONSIDERATION TO THEIR RELIGIOUS CONVICTIONS;

•

On the same page, line IS, after the word "equality" and the comma (,), insert the phrase PROTECTION OF MOTHERS AND CHILDREN, BORN AND UNBORN; and

•

On the same page, line 20 after the acronym "NGOs," insert the phrase FAITH-BASED ORGANIZATIONS.

Still on page 3, Senator Sotto proposed to delete paragraph (J) on lines 25 to 27, saying it has already

, r

1288

MONDAY, DECEMBER 17,2012

been addressed in paragraph (L), and he feared that it might be misconstrued as justifYing abortion under the guise of extreme emergency which could circumvent the country's laws against abortion. He said that the deletion would ensure that abortion will not be permitted directly or indirectly. Senator Cayetano (P) stated that paragraph (J) was an original provision which was exhaustively deliberated on during the period of interpellations. She stressed that every woman who has suffered an abortion, whether spontaneous or by any other reason, deserves compassionate post-abortive care. She added that the issue was already subjected to a prior amendment by Senator Lacson and to a clarification by Senator Drilon. She then invoked Section 82 of the Rules of the Senate which provides that only one amendment to the original amendment shall be considered. She stressed that the bill aims to fight for the right of women who may have mistakenly committed an abortion and who have been condemned and ill-treated in hospitals. She reiterated that the bill does not seek to legalize abortion but only to provide women, who may have suffered an abortion, access to proper care in hospitals. She said that it was precisely the reason why a clarification was made by Senator Drilon that abortion is still a crime under the Revised Penal Code. At this point, Senator Sotto withdrew his proposed amendment, stating that it was enough that the Sponsor was able to clarify and spread into the record that abortion is prohibited.

FURTHER SOTTO AMENDMENTS (Continuation) As proposed by Senator Sotto and accepted by the Sponsor, there being no objection, the Body approved the following amendments, one after the other: •

On page 4, line 4, after the word "MANNER," replace the period (.) with a comma (,) and insert the phrase IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND MEDICAL ETHICS.

•

On the same page, lines 7 and 8, after the word "device," delete the phrase "THAT INDUCES ABORTION, OR THE DESTRUCTION OF A FETUS INSIDE THE MOTHER'S WOMB," and in lieu thereof, insert the phrase WHICH PREVENTS OR DESTROY A FERTILIZED OVUM FROM BEING

IMPLANTED OR DESTROYS A FETUS INSIDE THE MOTHER'S WOMB; Senator Cayetano (P) clarified that Senator Sotto's proposed amendment was an amendment to the amendments of Senate President Enrile who was not objecting thereto. For his part, Senator Sotto said that he had already consulted with Senate President Enrile and the other Members of the Senate. He also manifested into the record that some of his proposals and views were borne out of debates on the bill since 1996, when he and former Senator Tatad debated with then Senators Flavier and Biazon about population COl1trol. As proposed by Senator Sotto and accepted by the Sponsor, there being no objection, the Body approved the following amendments, one after the other: •

On page 5, line 1, after the word "effective" and the comma (,) insert the word NONABORTIFACIENT; and another comma (,) thereafter;

•

On page 6, line 10, after the word "effective," insert a comma (,) and the word NONABORTIFAClENT and another comma (,) thereafter;

SUSPENSION OF SESSION Upon motion of Senator Satta, the session was suspended.

It was 5:01 p.m. RESUMPTION OF SESSION At 5:0 I p.m., the session was resumed.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF SENATOR SOTTO On page 6, line 19, after the word "safe," Senator Sotto proposed to delete the words "and satisfYing," even as he said that he was cognizant of the long debates relative thereto. Explaining the rationale of his proposed amendment, Senator Sotto believed that reproductive health, in the context of a true Filipino, does not pertain to a safe and satisfYing sex. He said that when a true Filipina speaks of reproductive health, she means

1289

MONDAY. DECEMBER 17.2012

family, marriage, responsible parenthood, nurturing and rearing her children, and health of the mother. He underscored the need to take into consideration the culture and practices unique to Filipinos, and pointed out that while certain things are permissive in other societies, they are not in Philippine culture. Adverting to Senator Defensor Santiago's argument that the phrase is contained in an international conference, Senator Sotto stated that the phrase "safe and satisfying sex" is merely found in UNFPA's interpretation of a Cairo Conference document which is not binding and definitely not an international commitment. He believed that the word "satisfying" is subjective, so that it would be more appropriate to simply state "safe sex" for legal purposes.

MANIFEST ATION OF SENATOR DEFENSOR SANTIAGO Senator Defensor Santiago stated that the document being referred to was the final act of the International Conference on Population and Development She pointed out that although it was a final document issued by a mere conference, at present international law admits that sometimes even mere phrases contained in a final document of a conference can already ripen into customary international law, one of the requisites of which is that enough time has passed that the repetition already in effect indicates the consensus of the world community.

Concurring with Senator Defensor Santiago, she said that nobody could also question that she is a true Filipina and that she has the right to have safe and satisfying sex. She recalled Senator Legarda expressing the same feeling, thus, there are at least three Filipinas in the session hall who are demanding for their right to have safe and satisfying sex. She said that the provision merely aims to honor every Filipina with the said right Quoting Senator Cayetano (A), she said that sex is not something to be ashamed of because it is part of human nature.

MANIFESTATION OF SENATOR SOTTO Senator Sotto recalled that his proposed amendment was different from the original proposal which sought to remove the entire phrase "safe and satisfying sex." He agreed that every woman has a right to safe and satisfying sex life, but he maintained that it does not have to be expressed in the law since a safe sex life necessarily implies among other things, the capability to reproduce.

REMARK OF SENATOR DEFENSOR SANTIAGO At this point, Senator Defensor Santiago remarked that she is seriously contemplating the passage of a bill that punishes a husband under the Penal Code for the failure to give satisfying sex to his wife, to which Senator Satta retorted that definitely he would not be guilty of that act

REMARKS OF SENATOR CAYETANO (P) As a final point, she emphasized that under the Constitution there is no question about her nationality, that she is a Filipina by birth, by training in the U.P. College of Law, and by inclination, and that she is a married woman who she is entitled to a safe and satisfying sex.

MANIFESTATION OF SENATOR CAYETANO (P) At the outset, Senator Cayetano (P) stressed that the issue has already been laid to rest and that, procedurally, the opportunity to amend has already lapsed as provided for under Section 91 of the Rules of the Senate which states that, "(A)ny Senator who voted with the majority may move for the reconsideration of a measure on the same day it was decided by the Senate or within the next two (2) session days xxx."

Senator Cayetano (P) reiterated that the matter has already been discussed during the debate and that Senator Cayetano (A) had even elaborated that there were many incidents where a woman could no longer enjoy the sexual intimacy with her husband for fear of getting pregnant with a child that they could not afford to have, resulting in an unsatisfying sex life. She said that it was precisely the reason why as part of reproductive health, the measure acknowledges that a woman also has the right to enjoy personal and intimate relationship with her husband.

REMARKS OF SENATOR LEGARDA Concurring with the Senator Cayetano (P), Senator Legarda recognized the existence of painful and forced sex even between married couples as confirmed by officials of the Philippine Commission

.1#'"

r

1290

MONDAY, DECEMBER 17, 2012

on Women. She recalled that during her 20-year stint as a journalist and as the author of the Anti-Domestic Violence Act, she has encountered a lot of instances when married women were forced to have sex with their husbands, some of whom arrive home drunk. She stressed that women have the right to defend themselves. Senator Cayetano (P) said that she could not understand why men would refuse to have the women's right to safe and satistying sex life be expressly provided for in the law.

POINT OF ORDER Senator Drilon noted that the Sponsor earlier raised a point of order on procedural grounds considering that the issue that is subject of the proposed amendment had been previously voted upon. He asked for a ruling of the Chair.

RULING OF THE CHAIR The Chair ruled that the proposed amendment was out of order considering that a similar proposal had already been voted upon.

FURTHER SOTTO AMENDMENTS As proposed by Senator Sotto and accepted by the Sponsor, there being no objection, the Body approved the following amendments, one after the other: •

•

On page 7, line 12, after the word "accurate," delete the word "and," and in lieu thereof, insert a comma (,);

On the same page and line, after the word "relevant," insert a comma (,) and the phrase AND AGE AND DEVELOPMENTAPPROPRIATE;

Senator Sotto said that the amendment would ensure that the information being given is in accordance with the person's physical, emotional and intellectual maturity with due consideration to her age and development. •

On page 6, line 22, after the word "to/' delete the words "full range of' and insert the phrase SAFE, EFFECT!VE, NON-ABORTIFACIENT AND LEGAL; and

•

On page 7, line 18, after the words "reproductive health," insert a comma (,) and the

following proviso: PROVIDED,HOWEVER, THAT REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS DO NOT INCLUDE ABORTION AND ACCESS TO ABORTIFACIENTS.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF SENATOR SOTTO On page 7, line 27, after the word "sexuality" and the period (.), Senator Sotto proposed to delete the sentence "It requires a positive and respectful approach to sexuality and sexual relationships, as well as the possibility of having pleasurable and safe sexual experiences, free from coercion, discrimination and violence." He observed that the definition of "sexual health" was copied entirely from the ICPD, and he pointed out that one of the state policies in the bill already provides that, "The State shall address and seek to eradicate discriminatory practices, laws and policies that infringe on a person's exercise of sexual health and reproductive health and right." Thus, he asserted that the sentence sought to be deleted goes beyond the concept which should remain objective and that it is inappropriate because it reflects bias and opinion. Moreover, Senator Sotto argued that not only is the goal to ensure the individual's "pleasurable and safe sexual experiences" undeniably outside the ambit of the rights guaranteed under the Constitution and existing legislations, it is also physically impossible to attain as there are no universally accepted standards to measure sexual satisfaction. Asked by Senator Cayetano (P) if he would like the definition of "sexual health" to read as "A state of physical, mental and social well-being in relation to sexuality which requires a negative and disrespectful approach to sexuality and sexual relation as well as the possibility of not having pleasurable and unsafe sexual experience full of coercion, discrimination and violence," Senator Sotto clarified tbat he was merely saying tbat the sentence was not necessary in tbe definition of terms. Senator Cayetano (P) said tbat sbe would want the definition retained because every man and woman should have a positive and respectful attitude towards sexual experience as there are many people wbo are hounded by terrible experiences tbat make sex a scary experience. She added that sbe cannot understand why Senator Sotto would not want to

,r

MONDAY, DECEMBER 17,2012

ensure that a positive kind of sexual experience would be made part of sexual health. Senator Sotto pointed out that the first sentence of the definition is already complete but the next sentence, he argued, should not be included as it was part of the articles written by the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) and Margaret Sanger. Since the Filipino culture is conservative, he asserted, the bill should be attuned to it. Senator Cayetano (P) clarified that said provision, did not come from the IPPF but is found in international documents including the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDA W). She allayed fears that simply because the provision is internationally acknowledged, the bill has confonned to the standards offoreign institutions. She asked that the Sotto amendment be put to a vote as she recalled that Senator President Enrile had proposed a similar amendment, in this case, to remove the word "pleasurable" which was voted down. DIVISION OF THE HOUSE Thereafter, the Chair called for a division of the House as it requested those in favor of the Sotto amendment to raise their hands and, thereafter, requested those against it to do the same.

1291

ATiON WITH REPUTABLE MEDICAL ASSOCIATIONS IN THE PHILIPPINES. For the record, Senator Cayetano (P) said that the procedure of the Philippine National Drug Formulary System really includes consultations with the medical associations. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS OF SENATOR SOTTO On page 10, lines 6 and 7, after the words "SUPPLY IS," Senator Sotto proposed to delete the phrase "MADE A V AILABLE ON THE CONDITION THAT IT IS NOT TO BE USED AS AN ABORTIFACIENT," and in lieu thereof, to insert the words NOT AN ABORTIFACIENT. Senator Cayetano (P) recalled that Senator Lacson had a similar amendment but she requested that the phrase "not to be used as an abortifacient" be used instead. She explained that there are drugs used for various purposes - for high blood pressure, for dermatological needs or to save the life of a child if the mother bleeds - but the same drugs could be also used as abortifacients if used in a wrong manner. She stated that such drugs cannot be removed from the formulary and should be used only if prescribed and under strict conditions, She said that for both procedural reasons and substance, the matter should no be debated further.

With seven senators voting in favor, 13 against, and no abstention, the Chair declared the Sotto amendment lost.

Thereupon, Senator Sotto withdrew his proposed amendment.

FURTHER SOTTO AMENDMENTS

On page 11, line 24, after the period (.), Senator Sotto proposed to insert the following proviso:

As proposed by Senator Sotto and accepted by the Sponsor, there being no objection, the Body approved the following amendments, one after the other: •

On page 8, line 27, after the acronym "LGU," insert a comma (,) and the phrase UPON ITS DETERMINATION OF THE NECESSITY BASED ON WELL-SUPPORTED DATA PROVIDED BY ITS LOCAL HEALTH OFFICE;

•

On page 9, line 28, after the word "legal," insert the word NON-ABORTIFACIENTS and the comma (,); and

•

On page 10, line 3, after the word "PRACTICE," insert the phrase AND IN CONSULT-

PROVIDED, THAT FLEXIBILITY IN THE FORMULATION AND ADOPTION OF APPROPRIATE COURSE CONTENT, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY IN EACH EDUCATIONAL LEVEL OR GROUP SHALL BE ALWWED ONLY AFTER CONSULTATIONS WITH PARENTTEACHERS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATIONS, PRIVATE SCHOOLS ASSOCIATIONS, SCHOOL OFFICIALS, AND OTHER INTEREST GROUPS. AS SUCH, NO INSTRUCTION SHALL BE OFFERED TO MINORS WITHOUT ADEQUATE PRIOR CONSULTATION WITH PARENTS WHO MUST AGREE TO THE THRUST AND CONTENT OF THE INSTRUCTION MATERIALS. Senator Sotto believed that parents should be involved and consulted in determining at what age

1292

adolescents should receive age- and developmentappropriate reproductive health education, At this point, Senator Recto noted that the proposed amendment included private school associations, but he pointed out that the bill does not cover private schools, Senator Cayetano (P) clarified that the bill does not make any distinction between private and public schools, But Senator Recto pointed out that in the House version, there was clearly an intent to include private schools which may even include Catholic schools, He recalled that when he interpellated Senator Cayetano (P), it was his understanding that the intent was only to include public schools, that was why for consistency, he took out private health care providers, Senator Sotto said that he would not object to an amendment to remove private schools from the enumeration of those that are supposed to be consulted on the matter. Senator Cayetano (P) said she would not debate the issue as bill never touched on it. Senator Cayetano (P) said that if Senator Sotto was referring to parents' groups, she would accept his proposed amendment but if he was referring to every single parent, she reminded that the Body had already resolved that there will be no individual opt-out clause. SUSPENSION OF SESSION

Upon motion of Senator Sotto, the session was suspended.

MONDAY, DECEMBER 17,2012

EDUCATIONAL LEVEL OR GROUP SHALL BE ALLOWED ONLY AFTER CONSULTATIONS WITH PARENTTEACHERS-COMMUNITY ASSOCIATIONS, SCHOOL OFFICIALS, AND OTHER INTEREST GROUPS. Accepted by the Sponsor, there being no objection, the amendment was approved. PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF SENATOR SOTTO

On page I I, line 28, after the words "reproductive health," Senator Sotto proposed to put a period (.); and to delete the phrase "AND SHALL ENSURE THE PROVISION OF," and in lieu thereof, to insert the phrase THE DOH SHALL PROVIDE THE LGUs WITH. Senator Sotto pointed out that since the LGUs have been granted local autonomy, Congress cannot mandate them to fund the RH bill. In reply, Senator Cayetano (P) pointed out that Senator Recto has proposed an amendment to the same provision which was not approved because deleting the phrase "the LGUs with the technical assistance of DOH" would shift all responsibilities to the DOH. However, she clarified that with the amendments of Senator Recto and Marcos, it was made clear that the DOH will initiate and spearhead all programs and the LGU s are needed to support and accept them. Thereafter, she asked that the provision be retained as it has already been discussed during the period of amendments with Senators Recto, Marcos and Legarda. SUSPENSION OF SESSION

It was 5:35 p.m. RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 5:36 p.m., the session was resumed. SOTTO AMENDMENT

Upon resumption, Senator Sotto modified his earlier proposed amendment on page II, line 24, to read as follows:

PROVIDED, THAT FLEXIBILITY IN THE FORMULATION AND ADOPTION OF APPROPRIATE COURSE CONTENT, SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY IN EACH

Upon motion of Senator Sotto, the session was suspended. It was 5:42 p.m. RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 5:42 p.m., the session was resumed. Upon resumption, Senator Recto recalled that he and Senator Marcos introduced amendments to Section 6, not Section 14. He noted that for consistency and style, as well as for clarity, Senator Sotto was proposing to amend Section 14 by adopting more or less the same amendments to Section 6. Also, he

1293

MONDAY, DECEMBER 17,2012

pointed out that the budget of the national government for 2013 is P2 trillion, while the LGU budget is P300 million which is 15% of the national budget For consistency, Senator Cayetano (P) recommended that the amendment introduced by Senator Marcos to Section 6 be also used in Section 14 considering the fact that there is joint responsibility involved in this undertaking, At this juncture, Senator Marcos read his amendment to the last sentence of Section 6, to wit: PROVIDED, FURTHER, THAT THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT SHALL PROVIDE ADDITIONAL FUNDING AND OTHER NECESSARY ASSISTANCE FOR THE EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS PROVISION, He said that this is to merely ensure that LGUs are given additional funding since they are being given an additional function, Since the passage of the Local Government Code into law, he noted, many of the new functions given to the local governments were not accompanied by funding; thus, it became very difficult for them to implement the same, For her part, Senator Cayetano (P) clarified that the provision stating that "LGUs with the technical assistance of DOH shall be responsible for the training of BHWs and other barangay volunteers on the promotion of reproductive health" would be retained, She recalled that she did not accept the proposed amendment of Senator Recto considering that the BHW was already undertaking the training, and that she was not introducing anything new. She explained that the responsibility of "ensuring the provision of medical supplies and equipment needed by BHWs to carry out their functions effectively," belongs to LGUS but due to lack of funds, she accepted the proposal of Senator Marcos so that the national government would shoulder the funding in case the LGUs lacked the resources to do it

FURTHER SOTTO AMENDMENTS On page 11, at the end of Section 14, as modified by the Sponsor, there being no objection, the Body approved the insertion of the proviso PROVIDED, THAT THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT SHALL PROVIDE ADDITIONAL FUNDING AND OTHER NECESSARY ASSISTANCE FOR THE EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS PROVISION.

Further, as proposed by Senator Sotto and accepted by the Sponsor, there being no objection, the Body approved the following amendments, one after the other: •

On page 12, line 26, after the word "safe" and the comma (,), insert the word NONABORTIFACIENT and the comma (,);

•

On page 14, line 9, after the word "medically safe," insert a comma (,) and the word NONABORTIFACIENT;

•

On page 15, line 17, after the word "appointed" and the comma (,), insert the phrase SPECIFICALLY CHARGED WITH THE DUTY TO IMPLEMENT THE PROVISIONS HEREOF and a comma (,) thereafter;

On page 15, after the word "services" and the semicolon (;) on line 20, Senator Satta proposed to delete the rest of subsection (b). Senator Cayetano (P) explained that the section has already been the subject of amendments proposed by Senators Trillanes and Recto which she rejected, and consistent with parliamentary procedure, it was no longer open for further amendments. Senator Sotto withdrew his proposed amendment Senator Sotto then proceeded to introduce further amendments which the Sponsor accepted and which the Body approved, one after the other, to wit: •

On page 16, line 18, after the acronym "DOH,"delete the phrase "and POPCOM";

•

On page 17, line 4, as modified by the Sponsor, insert a new Section 22, to read

as follows: SEC. 22. CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHTCOMMfTTEE ON REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH ACT. - THERE IS HEREBY CREATED A CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT COM-MITTEE ON REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH ACT COMPOSED OF FIVE (5) MEMBERS EACH FROM THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (HOR). THE MEMBERS FROM THE SENATE AND THE HOR SHALL BE APPOINTED BY THE SENATE PRESIDENT AND THE HOUSE SPEAKER, RESPECTIVELY, BASED ON PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION OF THE PARTIES OR COALITION THEREIN WITH AT LEAST ONE (I) MEMBER REPRESENTING THE MINORITY, THE cae SHALL BE HEADED BY THE RESPECTIVE CHAIRS OF THE COMMITTEE

, r

MONDAY, DECEMBER 17,2012

1294 ON HEALTH AND DEMOGRAPHY OF THE SENATE AND THE COMMITTEE ON POPULATION AND FAMILY RELATIONS OF THE HOR, THE SECRETARIAT OF THE COC SHALL COME FROM THE EXISTING SECRETARIAT PERSONNEL OF THE SENATE AND THE HOR COMMITTEES CONCERNED. THE COC SHALL MONITOR AND ENSURE THE EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS ACT, RECOMMEND THE NECESSARY REMEDIAL LEGISLATION OR ADMINISTRATIVE MEASURES, AND PERFORM SUCH OTHER DUTIES AND FUNCTIONS AS MAY BE NECESSARY TO ATTAIN THE OBJECTIVES OF THIS ACT.

Senator Sotto stated that the House version of the RH bill has the same provision and he underscored that as far as the curriculum is concerned, it is relevant that there should be an oversight committee to review and assess the design of the reproductive health education to be carried out in the future. Senator Cayetano (P) said that Senator Trillanes introduced a similar amendment. But she refused to accept the phrase "DETERMINE THE INHERENT WEAKNESSES AND LOOPHOLES IN THE LA W." Senator Sotto did not insist and accepted the deletion of said phrase. INQUIRY OF SENATOR LACS ON Senator Lacson, Chairman of the Committee on Accounts, asked how much funds would be allocated for the Congressional Oversight Committee as it would not function without a budget. Senator Cayetano (P) stated that consistent with her desire to be mindful of new budgets, having been tasked some time ago to review all the oversight committees of Congress, she precisely took the position not to propose an oversight committee on the bill. For his part, Senator Drilon stated that the funding of the oversight committee need not be specified since this could be discussed when the Body takes up the budget of the Senate which is usually submitted to the President of the Senate and Chairman of the Committee on Finance for approval of the Chamber. However, Senator Lacson expressed concern that unless a budget is indicated, the oversight committee will be left without a budget. Senator Drilon clarified that the budget will be provided

in the General Appropriations Act as part of the Senate's budget. FURTHER SOTTO AMENDMENTS As proposed by Senator Sotto and accepted by the Sponsor, there being no objection, the Body approved the following amendments, one after the other: •

On page 17, line 6, after the word "Chairperson" and the comma (,), delete the phrase "the authorized representative/s of POPCOM";

•

On the same page, line 9, after the acronym "NGOs" and the comma(,), insert the phrase FAITH-BASED ORGANIZAnONS;

•

On the same page, line 2 I, before the word "Any," insert the phrase EXCEPT FOR PREVAILING LAWS AGAINST ABORTION and a comma (,) thereafter.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF SENATOR TRILLANES On behalf of Senator Trillanes, Senator Sotto proposed that a new section be inserted wherever appropriate in the bill to read: CONGRESS SHALL CONDUCT A MANDATORY REVIEW OF THIS ACT AFTER THREE (3) YEARS IMMEDIA TELY PRECEDING ITS IMPLEMENTATION. However, Senator Cayetano (P) stated that the Body has already approved a similar provision proposed by Senator Recto which is found in Section 21. ESCUDERO AMENDMENTS On page 2, after line 4, on behalf of Senator Escudero, as proposed by Senator Cayetano (P), the Body approved, subject to style, the insertion of the following sections, which are provisions of the Consitution, to read as follows: SEC. 2. MARRIAGE, AS AN INVIOLABLE SOCIAL INSTITUTION, IS THE FOUNDATION OF THE FAMIL Y AND SHALL BE PROTECTED BY THE STATE. SEC. 3 THE STATE SHALL DEFEND: (I) THE RIGHT OF SPOUSES TO FOUND A FAMIL Y IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR RELIGIOUS CONVICTIONS AND THE DEMANDS OF RESPONSIBLE PARENTHOOD;

MONDAY, DECEMBER 17,2012

1295

(2) THE RIGHT OF CHILDREN TO ASSIST·

ANCE, INCLUDING PROPER CARE AND NUTRITION, AND SPECIAL PROTECTION FROM ALL FORMS OF NEGLECT, ABUSE, CRUELTY, EXPLOITATION , AND OTHER CONDITIONS PREJUDICIAL TO THEIR DEVELOPMENT; (3) THE RIGHT OF THE FAMILY TO A FAMILY LIVING WAGE AND INCOME;

AND (4) THE RIGHT OF FAMILIES OR FAMILY ASSOCIATIONS TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF POLICIES AND PROGRAMS THAT AFFECT THEM

TERMINATION OF THE PERIOD OF INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENTS There being no further individual amendment, upon motion of Senator Sotto, there being no objection, the Body closed the period of individual amendments,

POLlCY ON REPRODUCTiVE HEALTH AND RESPONSIBLE PARENTHOOD", in order to address the socio-economic and environmental problems brought about by an ever increasing population, by integrating a responsible parenthood and family planning component in anti-poverty and other sustainable development programs of the government, and to promote the people's right to health through he implementation of a comprehensive reproductive health care program. Best regards. Very truly yours, (Sgd.) BENIGNO S. AQUINO III Cc: Hon. Feliciano R. Belmonte Jr. Speaker House of Representatives Quezon City

APPROVAL OF SENATE BILL NO. 2865 ON THIRD READING

APPROVAL OF SENATE BILL NO. 2865 ON SECOND READING

Upon motion of Senator Cayetano (P), there being no objection, the Body considered, on Third Reading, Senate Bill No. 2865.

Submitted to a vote and with 13 senators voting in favor, eight against, and no objection, the Chair declared Senate Bill No, 2865 approved on Second Reading,

Pursuant to Section 67, Rule XXIII of the Rules of the Senate, upon motion of Senator Cayetano (P), there being no objection, Secretary Reyes read only the title of the bill, to wit:

PRESIDENTIAL CERTIFICATION Upon direction of the Chair, Secretary Reyes read the President's certification as to the necessity of the immediate enactment of Senate Bill No. 2865, to wit: Malacafian Palace Manila

AN ACT PROVIDING FOR A NATIONAL POLICY ON REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH AND POPULATION AND DEVELOPMENT. Secretary Reyes called the roll for nominal voting.

RESULT OF THE VOTING

14 December 2012

Hon. JUAN PONCE ENRILE Senate President Philippine Senate Pasay City Dear President Enrile,

Pursuant to the provisions of Article VI, Section 26 of the 1987 Constitution, I hereby certiry to the necessity of the immediate enactment of Senate Bill No. 2865, entitled: "AN ACT PROVIDING FOR A NATIONAL

The result of the voting was as follows:

In favor Angara Arroyo Cayetano (A) Cayetano (P) Defensor Santiago Drilon Escudero

Guingona Lacson Legarda Marcos Pangilinan Recto

1296

MONDAY, DECEMBER 17,2012

Against Enrile Estrada Honasan Pimentel

Revilla Sotto Trillanes Villar

Abstention None With 13 senators voting in favor, eight against and no abstention, the Chair declared Senate Bill No. 2865 approved on Third Reading.

EXPLANATIONS OF VOTE The following Senators explained their vote as their names were called:

Senator Angara I vote "Yes" to this measure because it is an affirmation of our basic human rights, especially the rights of women and the right to reproductive health.

At the moment, we have to respond to the challenges that threaten our country. 1,000 women continue to die yearly during pregnancy and childbirth; about 150,000 children are born from teenage mothers every year,

and women who cannot support their children put them into orphanages or labor work. We have almost two million orphans from zero to 17 years of age, and about four million child laborers ages five to 17. About 9,000 Filipinos are afflicted with HIV/AIDS, and at one hundred million people, we are the 12'" most populous country in the world. These numbers will continue to rise. The RH bill provisions on family planning information and services, emergency obstetric care

and reproductive health education intend to respond to these challenges. We have to consider that maternal deaths due to pregnancy and childbirth are unique, it only happens to women. Without family planning, women will continue to bear children. As they do so, they continue to be exposed to the risks of Iifethreatening complications. And so, they will need to have access to obstetric services. Failure to provide such services constitutes discrimination against women, because it is only women who face this risk of dying once pregnant. We have already discussed the United Nations General Assembly approval of the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination

Against Women (CEDA W) and I will not stress that too much. But it means that we must not discriminate against women and we must do everything to prevent maternal deaths and provide family planning information and services to them. Today, I do not just speak as a long-time advocate of public health regulation and legislation, and the principal author of PhilHealth and the Magna Carta of Public Health Workers. Today, I speak both as a lawyer and a legislator. I acknowledge the grave concerns of my fellow Roman Catholics and our leaders in the clergy. I do not see anything in the RH bill that forgets the moral dimensions of sexual relations which undermine the Filipino family. In the first place, the RH bill does not legalize abortion; secondly, unwanted pregnancies are the leading cause of half a million abortions yearly; thirdly, the RH bill does not impose any family planning method, but leaves the Filipino family free to choose whichever method they want. And finally, to withdraw from enacting the RH bill because one church opposes it is inconsistent with the principle of separation of church and state. We have to consider that not all Filipinos are Catholics. While Catholics comprise 70% of our population, we also have Muslims, Protestants, Buddhists, non-believers and others. Regardless of religion, it is the right of the State to enact the bill for the best interest of our nation, especially of OUf mothers, our wives, our sisters and daughters.

So, today, I vote as a Filipino, a lawyer, a public health advocate, a husband, a father and grandfather.

Senator Arroyo Whether birth control will improve living standards, whether there is a connection between population size and economic progress, I doubt. There was birth control by martial law and the U.N., it did not work. This bill promises more than it can deliver because sex is not the root of poverty, and children, who are our joy, are not the cause of underdevelopment. Bad politics and bad government are more likely candidates for that distinction. The iconic Philippines Free Press fought for birth control since the 1950s when we were just 17 million, already too many for the small economic pie. It has only gotten worse. Another stab at birth control is worth a try. The original provisions of both the House and Senate versions were so onerous and so

MONDAY, DECEMBER 17,2012

provocative that one could not expect the Catholic Church to sun'ender its doctrinal and moral position on such a life-and-death issue without putting up a fight That is freedom of religion, There are statements of policy equating human life with mere economic value that are obnoxious to Christian morals, There are provisions that violate religious conscience and

establish secular humanism as supreme over all other belief systems, For its resistance, the Church has been vilified by those who know that the Church can rage but it cannot hurt anyone or anyone's pocket like government can.

Statesmanship so sorely needed in this controversy was absent from the deliberations, Fifiy-six years ago Claro M. Recto authored a bill that Rizal's novels, the Noli and Fili, be required reading in all schools. The Catholic Church opposed it, arguing that certain passages in the book put the Catholic Church in a bad light To make them required reading pitted state power against religious conscience. Senator Jose P. Laurel proposed a compromise, The expurgated versions would be read in elementary and high school while the unexpurgated text will be read with more discrimination at the college level. No one lost face. None were vilified. And the institution that existed when Grecian eloquence flourished in Antioch was accorded the respect it deserves. No damage to anyone has happened since the Rizal Law was enacted. My other misgiving is that the bill was only lately adopted by the Palace as a demonstration of its power even over churches, first the INC and now the Catholic Church which was a primary force for our liberation not too long ago. Birth control is worth trying again and because I believe that, I worry that the bill without amendments is vulnerable to constitutional challenge especially on religious conscience grounds. The Court may strike down even the good provisions along with the bad. The Senate amendments address those weaknesses. Many

reasonable amendments were introduced to make the measure less dogmatic, less provocative and

more constitutionally accepted. Many of these amendments were mislabeled as killer amendments. I can see none that are, Overlooked in all this acrimony is that public funds would be spent to implement this measure, thus making it everybody's profound concern and not just the pharmaceutical companies', I hope they will be respected in the bicameral conference committee rather than dismissed out

of hand, for I shall change my vote I cast today should that happen. I vote "Yes," conditionally.

1297

Senator Cayetano (Aj

"Kung ana ang ating itatanim, iyon din ang ating aanihin." This is a biblical principle that I live by. May mga pangamba na ang responsible parenthood bill or ang RH 0 Reproductive Health bill try magdudulot ng abortion, ng promiscuity, magpo-promote ng teenage sex at saka ng teenage pregnancy; na ito ay sis ira sa mga marriages at sa ating moral values.

Payagan ninyo po muna ako na magpasalamat sa mga health advocates, sa mga pro at sa mga anti-RH advocates. Natural lamang po na may dalawang panig sa isang issue. Opo, mas nakaka-pressure sa atin, mga lawmakers, kapag ganito na maselan ang bill at aktibong-aktibo po ang dalawang panig. Walang kaibahan ito sa sin tax bill na kung saan gustung-gusto mo pakinggan ang health advocates, gusto rno rin pakinggan ang mga tobacco fanners, But we try to do our best to come up with a bill that will promote the common good. Let me congratulate the bishops and the clergy who have stood their ground and fought for their beliefs, Kasi, para maging successful itong mga ipinapasa nalin, kailangan ng participation ng both sides, whether this bill wins or loses.

Kaya mas maganda na aktibo ang pro at aktibo rin ang anti na sana hindi lamang sa mga bills na katulad nito kung hindi sa lahat ng bills nalin-sa korapsyon, sa ilegal na droga, sa legal man 0 illegal na sugal, sa mga issues tungkol sa presyo, sa trabaho, sa kita. Doon po sa pangamba na magkakaroon tayo ng abortion, promiscuity, teenage sex at teenage pregnancy, very understandable po ang mga pangamba na ito. Pero ang tingin ko po mali na ang pangambang ito ay manggagaling sa RH bill. Walang pang RH bill, narito no po ang mga problemang ito. Ngayon po, we have all of these problems. But it is not because of the RH bill. In fact, the RH bill seeks to address these problems. Ang mga problema 0 suliranin na ito ay bibigyan ng solusyon ng RH bill. But it will depend very much on those who will implement and on the cooperation of both the antis and the pros, kasama ang pagtugon sa problemang pangkalusugan ng ating mga kababaihan. To just give us some statistics, 15 million women die every 24 hours due to pregnancy and childbirth-related complications. Thus, the Philippines has one of the highest maternal

MONDAY, DECEMBER 17,2012

1298

mortality rates in Asia. This is from the 20 II Family Health Survey of DOH. More than 60% of pregnancy in the Philippines is classified as high risk. This is from the 2003 National Demographic Health Survey. And 2.6 million women would like to plan their families but lack the information and access to do so. This is from the Family Planning Survey of 2006. Seventy-three percent of mothers do not want children or would want to delay pregnancy. However, the mean number of children ever born to a Filipino woman upon reaching the age of 40 to 49 is four with an average fertility rate of3.3% in 2008. This is from the National Objectives of Health Philippines 20 II to 2016, citing the NSO. Thirty percent of annual births come from adolescent pregnancies. This is from the DOH, WHO and UNFPA, meaning, may RH bill man a wala, harapin na/in ang katotohanan na nangyayari ito.

Nagkaroon po ng misconception na kapagka ang bata po ay tinuruan sa sex ay tuturuan sila maging promiscuous or iyong kanilang moral values ay sisirain nalin. Baliktad po sa lingin ko. Kung ituturo natin na hindi para sa bala ang sex, iluturo naJin ang

hindi lang aling religious, moral and even family values sa ating mga bala, malalaman nita na

hindi nila kailangang makipag-sex dahil lamang sa mahal nila ang girlfriend or boyfriend nita. Dahil makikita po natin na marami sa teenagers, peer pressure kasi ginagawa noong

iba; kasi sinasabi hihiwalayan ng boyfriend kung hindi makipag-sex. Many of our children go into this without their parents' knowledge, precisely because of lack of information, at dahil hindi nila alam ito, nog-e-engage silo dito. Maraming nabubuntis na alam na hindi naman

ready or hindi nila gusto. So, if I had a daughter who is a teenager now, would I want someone to give her condoms? Of course not. Would I want her to have premarital sex? Of course not. But I can only do so much as a parent. lIan po sa mga parents ang nalulusutan ng mga anak? So, do you want your daughter to have a guidance

at sa training ng BHWs man sa local government, sa mga doctor, sa community at lalo po so mga teachers. Maloking bahagi po ng solusyon ng mga problemang sinabi ko po ay ang RH bill. Bakit po? According to a study made by the United Nations in countries that have programs for sexuality education, the following results are observed among the young people: understanding of proper sexual values is promoted; early initiation into sexual relations is delayed; abstinence before marriage is encouraged;

multiple sex partners is avoided; and spread of sexually-transmitted diseases is prevented. And I think we are all for this, of keeping our values - iyon pong pagiging Maria Clara. Pero, iyong kanina po na pinag-usapan, iyong "pleasurable or satisfying sex," alam naman po nalin na

mayroong mga lenguwahe no bastos 0 malaswa. lyon po, tryaw natin sa bill. So, kung may ibang salita na you can tell a woman na you have a right to enjoy sex, bUIi ngo po "satisf)ring" lang ang nitagay natin. Kasi kung "enjoyable" ang nilagay natin, ay mas malaas

na standard yun. Natatowa ang mga lalaki. Bakit po? Mababaw kasi sa sex ang lalaki. Makaraos lang ang lalaki, nag-enjoy na. Ang babae, not necessarily. And as I explained here before, marami po ring mgo kababaihan ngtryon are treated like a sex slave ng kanilang mga asawa na ang tingin nita karapalan nita

kahit pagod no pagod lyong iba nga, kahit meron iyong babae ay pipilitin. So, it is so important for women and men, iyong onder de strya, to also know that you have a right to enjoy this. We are not talking about premarital sex. We are not talking about sex outside marriage. What we are promoting is sex within marriage,

Now, if in their religion it is only for procreation, nasa kanila iyon. Now, what about the teenagers and others who are not minors?

Well, we are not promoting that but you cannot also stop it. And it is a reality. It is happening. So, how do we address it?

Narinig ko po sa ibang mga kongresista

counselor, or a priest, a teacher, a pastor, an

natin noong nag-i-explain din po sila ng boto at

imam or a health center doctor na puwede niyang puntahan kung so umpisa ay sosabihin lang niya, "pahingi condom." "pahingi contraceptives," pero ang magiging paraan ay magcounseling at sabihan siya na hindi mo man makausap ang parents mo tungkol dito, hindi

nanunuod ako, iyong ilan so kanilo, and with all my respect, ang sinabi, dahil walo silo sa pamilya or sampu, kung may RH dati, wala

ibig sabihin na lama iyang gagawin mo.

So, I believe magiging mahalaga ang religious groups sa kung paano i-implement ito

siguro sila rito.

Let me dispel that notion. Bakit po? Kahit po magkaroon ng RH, puwede pa rin magkaroon ng sampung anak ang pamilya kung gusto nila. It is really up to them. If they want one child, they want two children, they ",'"

I~

1299

MONDAY, DECEMBER 17,2012

want 15 children, 10 children, it is up to them, But this time around, they are given a chance to plan their own fami Iy. Baligtad pa nga. Kung may RH dati, hindi siguro labing-isa or labin-limang babae ang namamatay everyday. Anyway, we can only solve this problem with a sense of community. So let me encourage all religions, all religious groups to please help us train all those who need to be trained. Let me make my personal assurance also that nothing in this bill, especially in the Bicam, will stop any person from following their own religion. The example I can give you is the Code of Muslim Personal Laws. Sa atin pong mga Kristiyano, bawal po ang mahigil sa isang asawa. Ngunit po sa mga Muslim, puwede ito sa kanilang batas. Nirerespeto naUn ang mga kapatid noting Muslim. So, hindi po tayo nagrally, hindi po tayo nag-advocate, hindi po natin sinabing huwag silang bigyan ng ganitong batas. So, nasa so inyo iyon. That is his religion. We will respect that Now, if ituturo naman sa iyo ng religion ma na puwede ito at gusto ",0 gamitin, it will also be made available. And finally, let me assure, as I have seen in

the amendments, that if I am part of the Bicam, we will fight for not only for the right of those who are married or to protect marriages. The law and the bill is not perfect It should reflect an incentive to those who are married and disincentive to those who want to engage in sex who are not married. So, I vote yes to this bill. Senator Cayetano (P)

I need not explain my vote as I have been defending this measure far too long than most of our colleagues care to hear me. But I will use this opportunity to quickly dispel misinformation and concerns that other sectors have had. Now that the RH bill, if I will base it on Second Reading, will pass, I will not gloat because, in fact, my job just begins. My intention is to assist and be able to make sure that my dreams and aspirations for Filipino women are fulfilled through this bill, This is only a measure that will provide women access to the services that they have longed for a long time so deserved. Hindi po magbabago ang buhay ko - my life as a woman, the life of Senator Miriam, the life of Senator Loren, the three of us - this bill is not for us. We, fortunately, have the financial means and I think we have proven that we have the determination and the guts to fight for our right. However, this bill is for every woman who does not have the right; those who wallow in poverty; those who

even do not know as no less than my brother Senator Alan has said, that may right silang hindi mabugbog. No less than in seminars that Senator Alan had attended, he was surprised to hear women just sigh, a sigh of relief na tama pala iyong hinala nila no hindi pala silo dapat mabugbog. And so with that alone, I know that we are heading in the right place by passing this measure. This js for the women who have not had access; women who have had 10 children, two abortions, three miscarriages and, when we

ask them, most of them will say they want to be able to plan their families. This will also address abortion. It will not eradicate it I do not claim that this is the solution to all the problems we have, including abortion. But, with access to family planning supplies, women will not get to the point na mabubuntis sila. Karamihan so kanila pikit-mata, nakikipagsiping so kanilang asawa kahit walang proteksyon dahil wala namang pambili. And as I said before, I had a child who never left the hospital. He was nine months old and I buried him. Years later, I decided to help parents with children similarly situated, I paid them. I took care of all their expenses para mapatahi ang kanilang cleft lip, But I was surprised to find out that even if bayaran mo iyon, a mother does not even have enough money to take the jeep to get free surgery for the child, I have to pay for the mother's jeepney ride, the food of the children she will leave behind. I have to find a way for these women to take care of their children and that is why I realized that the last on the list of every woman would be her family planning supplies. And that is why the State has to come in to provide for this. One other point I would like to address is the issue on education and livelihood before reproductive health. Make no mistake. Mangunguna po ako to fight for a budget for education and livelihood. But let us be real, What job? What education can provide a mother with a means to take care of 10 to 15 children? It is extremely difficult and it will task all her resources, all her mental health to be able to provide for a child despite any skills that will give her. So we have to be realistic when we talk about budget for education. When we talk about budget for health, we need to equip every parent with the means to support her own children, otherwise, they will become wards of the State. To my colleagues who felt strongly against this measure, I hope you can join me in crafting

it to even strengthen it so that the concerns that

MONDAY, DECEMBER 17,2012

1300 you have may be addressed. At the end of the day, I will do my best to preserve the integrity of the Senate version. I would like to take this opportunity to draw attention to the women and some of the men on my right hand side, They have been here daily and they personifY the women who this bill is for. I would like to thank Secretary Cabral, Secretary Romualdez and Secretary Ona, and all our resource persons. I honestly could not do this without all of you into my staff.

My vote is, obviously, "yes." Senator Defensor Santiago

As principal author and cosponsor of RH bill, I vote "yes," The Catholic Church has steadfastly opposed the RH bill for 13 years, but I humbly submit this afternoon that there is no idea, no

force more powerful than an idea whose time has come. And today is the time for RH! In antiquity, the Catholic Church committed certain grave mistakes. Any student of Catholic history will acknowledge that the Church made mistakes because it is not a perfect institution. It is only human. In antiquity, Copernicus opposed the Catholic teaching which demanded that all Catholics must believe that the sun rotated around the earth. Copernicus, on the contrary, thought that it was the earth which revolved around the sun. It was considered a crime at that time, and for that great crime, he was condemned and tortured by the Catholic Church. Years later, another man, also a Catholic, repeated the heliocentric philosophy - that it is the earth which revolves around the sun and not otherwise. Again, the Catholic Church condemned this man. But in 1992, the Catholic Church corrected itself and said, "After all, Galileo is correct. It is the earth which revolves around the sun." So, the Catholic Church has made many mistakes because it is a human institution. But there is no force on earth as powerful as an idea whose time has come. That is why Vatican II came to the lives of all Catholics all over the world. The Pope of the Catholic Church, whoever he might have been, has never issued an ex cathedra pronouncement about reproductive health. In the exercise of his supreme pontifical

authority, when the Pope speaks of ex cathedra, all Catholics are bound, as dogma, to follow that statement. The Pope has never done that. In fact, when the present .Pope, Pope Benedict XVI, the most conservative Pope the Church has seen, was just a mere Father Joseph Ratzinger and a professor of Theology, he said in one of his lectures that, "Over and above the Pope is the conscience of the individual." That was the Pope speaking when he was a young person. That is why I have always emphasized that after Vatican II, the actions of the Catholic Church have been "primacy of conscience." The Catholic Church does not consist of only the Pope, the cardinals, the bishops or the clerics. No, it has been corrected by Vatican II. The Catholic Church consists of all the people of God - meaning to say, all Catholics. The clerics are no longer considered binding ipso facto. Plus, it is a fact in the Philippines, incontrovertible from the view of human senses since our law of evidence is based on what the human can sense - his sense of touch, sight, feeling, etc. It is an incontrovertible fact. Everyday, the surveys have consistently showed a certain number of women die because of birth complications simply because they were too ignorant to control their own bodies. They were terrified that they would go to hell if they control the number of their children. Today, modern medicine teaches that a woman must give birth no earlier than two years between births. They do not know that or their husbands will not cooperate. They do not know where to buy the condom, and if they did, they do not have the money to buy it. I can buy condoms by the ton if I want to, but a single mother in Tondo cannot do that. The ineradicable, irrefragable clear fact is that today's survey shows that from II everyday - it used to be II before - the number is now 13 to 15 women die every single day. When this day closes at twelve o'clock midnight, at least 13 Filipino women would have died because she was too ignorant to know about reproductive health. All that this bill furnishes is the proper information for women who need that information. That is the fact we have to deal with. We cannot pray to our Father in heaven and ignore the people living beside us. If there is anything that Jesus Christ taught, it was this: "Love God with all your heart, with all your mind, with all your soul." Do not attempt to speak for God if one has no direct contact. That, in effect, would be claiming that you know what is in the

r

r

MONDAY. DECEMBER 17.2012

mind of God. As for me, a Catholic, I refuse, pursuant to Vatican 11, to obey when someone says what I should be thinking in my head. God gave me a conscience. He gave me a brain. He expects that I should use that brain for the good of my fellowmen. That was the first teaching, "Love God with all yoUI' heart, with all your mind, with all your soul," and do not presume to speak for Him. The second law that he laid down was this: "Love your neighbour as yourself." Do we love ourselves so much that we prefer 15 Filipino women, or at least 13 Filipino women, die every day and occupy a coffin tonight simply because we were neglectful in helping our neighbour? That is the question. With all of these submissions, I will reiterate that I vote "yes" on third and final reading of this bilL

Senate Presidelll Pro Tempore Estrada On the onset, let me say that I am exceedingly glad that the debate on this controversial measure is over. This measure has divided the Senate and the country as a whole. And now that the conclusion is near, we can all heave a sigh of relief We have all heard the arguments and reasons why this measure should be passed and why it should not be passed. ProRH say that this measure will protect and promote the reproductive health of women which has long been neglected and taken aside. AntiRH, on the other hand, say that this is a mere population control program disguised as a health measure, and that most of what are provided for in the bill have already been covered by numerous laws. Thus, the problem really is not legislation but implementation. Anti-RH proponents are also saying that the measure encourages promiscuous sex and premarital sex. May mga pag-aaral na nagsasabi

na hindi rin naman naging epektibo ang mga condoms at pills 0 iba pang uri ng contraceptives upang matugunan ang paglago ng populasyon sa isang bansa bagkus lumikha pa nga ito ng mas malalang problema lalung-lalo na sa mga kabataan. Minors have been and are being lulled into a false sense of security that it is okay to have sex so long as it is protected sex. Kahit wola ang mga pag-aaral no ito, it would be easy to presume that teenagers or minors are now engaging in sex. Indeed, this is the reality that we have to accept But what is not acceptable is that it seems we are encouraging even more this depressing and disheartening reality by making contraceptives easily accessible to them. Hindi ba ang dapat ay gabayan natin sila, turuan kung ana ang tama? We should be

1301

educating them, instilling in them the consequences of such actions and dissuading or discouraging them from doing so. We should not be propagating the so-called "contraceptive mentality." Let not our attitude be consensual or promotive, but rather preventive. Huwag naman sana nating pahintulutan ang patuloy ng pagbaba ng moralidad sa ating bansa. Gabayan natin sa tama ang mga bata, at palakasin natin muli ang pamilya na siyang pundasyon ng matatag na bansa.

Now, the most compelling reason being forwarded by anti- RH proponents is on moral grounds: that this measure is anti-family, and anti-life, and that it effortlessly tramples on and despoils Filipino culture and family values. It is on this issue that I feel most strongly about Naniniwala aka na lalong bababa ang moraUdad at mawawala ng halaga ang kultura na ating kinagisnan at kaugaliang Pilipino na ating kinalakihan, na sa panahong ito ay nararapat sana nating mas pinahahalagahan. Accordingly, let it not be said that my vote today is Church-influenced or politically motivated. This is my own personal stand. For even at the risk of earning the ire of my parents, former President Estrada and former Senator Loi Estrada, who are for and advocating reproductive health, I am casting a vote against this measure.

Senator Drilon At the instance of Senator Drilon, tltere being no objection, the Body approved the insertion of tlte explanation of his vote into the Journal and Record of the Senate.

Senator Escudero Labis po akong nalulungkot sa hidwaan at bangayan na nagaganap sa ating bansa kaugnay ng RH bill. Hidwaan at bangayan sa pagitan ng simbahan at pamahalaan; Hidwaan at bangayan so pagitan noting mga mambabatas; Hidwaan at bangayan sa pagitan ng mga magkakaibigan, magkakamag-anak, magkakapitbahay, magkakaklase; At Sa pangkalahatan, hidwaan sa pagitan ng pumapabor at kumukontra sa RH bill. Sa kabilang banda, maaaring sabihin na maganda ang debateng ito dahil pinapakita at

, r

1302

MONDAY, DECEMBER 17,2012

pinapalunayan nita na malaya tayo, na

mang isinusulong ng sinumang administrasyon

malakas at malusog ang demokrasya sa ating

kung ito po, sa aking paniniwala, ay mali at hindi naaayon sa mas nakatataas na interes ng ating bansa.

bansa. Subalit ang pagkokaroon ng kalayoang ito, ang pagkakaroon ng demokrasya sa ating

bansa oy hindi lisensya para manghamak, mangyurak at mantra ng kapwa.

Ako po ay pabor sa RH bill dahil naniniwala aka na ito ay para sa kabutihan di

Para po sa akin, hindi masasamang tao ang mga pumapabor at nagtutulak ng RH bill.

lamang ng mga kababaihan kundi ng mas maraming Pilipino, babae man a lalaki, bata

A t hindi nangangahulugang mabuti rin

man

0

malints ang isang tao porke'l siya ay tumututol

0

matanda.

dito. Voting for or against the RH bill does not and will not make a person good or evil.

Sa pagtalapos po ng botohang ito, pro or anti-RH ka man, pro or anti-RH placard man ang iyong dinadala nitong mga nagdaang araw,

Naniniwala po aka na lahat tayo ay may magandang hangarin para sa ating bansa at

linggo at buwan, sana ay hindi naUn kalimutan at isaisip natin na pare-pareho po rin po

mga kababayan, pabor 0 kontra ka man sa RH bill; nagkakaiba lamang siguro tayo ng pamamaraan at pananaw kung paano ito

tayong mga Pilip ina at, higit diyan, parepareho po tayong anak ng nag-iisang Diyos.

makakamit at makakamtan.

Ana man po ang panig na manalo, panig rno man 0 hindi, sana po ay tanggapin at

Sa pagbolo ko po pabor so RH bill, hindi ko sinasabing pabor aka sa abortion. Tutol po aka at hindi aka sang-ayon dito.

matanggap ng lahat ang resulta ng botohang ito at sana matapos ang botohang ito, magsimula na agad ang paghilom ng anumang sugat na nalikha sa pagitan ng Simbahan at pamahalaan at sa pagitan ng mga pro at anti at sa pagitan ng ating mga kababayan.

Pabor po aka sa RH bill dahit nais kong tiyakin ang karapatan at kapakanan hindi lamang ng mga kababaihan, kung hindi ng ating mga sanggol.

I cast an affirmative vote.

Sa pagboto ko po pabor sa RH bill, hindi nangangahulugang sang-ayon aka na makipagtalik ang aking mga anak bago sila ikasal. Hindi po aka sang-ayon diyan bitang ama, at titiyakin kong ituturo ko po iyon sa kanila. Aka po ay pabor sa RH bill dahil nais ko po silang bigyan ng sapal na kaalaman at pagkakataon para magpasya para so kanilang mga sarili kapag sila ay nasa edad na.

Sa pagboto ko po pabor sa RH bill, hindi ko sinisisi ang kahirapan ng ating bansa sa

pagkakaroon ng napakaraming bata, at lalong hindi ko po itinuturing na saki!

0

karamdaman

ang pagbubuntis. Biyaya po at grasya mula sa Diyos ang pagkakaroon ng anak. At karangalon para sa isang babae, para sa akin, ang dalhin sa kaniyang sinapupunan ang isang nitalang. Aka po ay pabor sa RH Bill dahil nais ko pong mabigyan ng pantay na pagkakataong umunlad at gumanda ang buhay ng bawat Pilipinong isisilang dito sa mundo,

Sa pagboto ko po sa RH bill, hindi aka bumigay sa anumang sinasabi miang panggigipit, at hindi ko lamang kinakampihan ang administra;yon sa ngalan ng pangangampi. Makailang-ulit ko pong ipinakita at pinatunayan na kaya ko pong tumutol sa ana

Senator Guingona I believe in two principles that are valued by the Filipino people whom we all represent. I believe that our people wish to exercise their right to plan their families according to their aspirations and beliefs - to give them the right to choose what is the best for their families; to give them the correct infonnation and access to the right medical means and methods that will promote responsible parenthood and protect the reproductive health of every person. If someone in this country cannot afford to access infonnation, if someone in this country cannot afford to access medical means and methods for their own reproductive health, and their desire to be responsible parents, it is only right for the State to ensure that they be given that access. This is the essence of meaningful choices. This is the essence of the bill before us. Secondly, I believe and vote to defend the right of every woman, every mother, every wife. I believe in the right of every woman to control her body and make meaningful choices for her future and the future of her family. With correct information and access to the right medical means and methods, I know that the Filipino people will use this bill for the benefit of their families, for their future, for everything that matters to most, to every Filipino.

MONDAY. DECEMBER 17.2012

This bill is about meaningful choices based on our dreams and aspirations and based on our faith. I vote to defend the Filipinos' right to make meaningful choices and responsible choices. I vote for the Reproductive Health Act. Senator

HOIlQSQlI

I have a wife, a mother, a sister and two

young adult daughters. My family is matriarchal, dominated by liberal, strong-willed women whom I love dearly and care for. Thus, it would be callous and downright foolish of me not to sympathize with such issues as quality of female life, women's informed reproductive choices, the economic disaster that can be brought about by overpopulation, and the security of our children. I worry about marital rape, unwanted pregnancies and the many complex variables that have to be managed by serious, long-term policy intervention. And I am as sure as everybody else that whatever decision we make will impact on

the coming generations of Filipinos. But why can I not be respectful and supportive of such issues, yet remain skeptical of a law that in my eyes remains premature and very difficult to implement? This is not a delaying tactic but a continuing goal for more rational and prioritized policy choices. I acknowledge the time and the years spent on national soul-searching and protracted debates. But because there remain critical questions and serious doubts on the agenda and management of the RH bill, the transparency and accountability of the channelling of public funds that will accompany it and the judicious implementation of such a law and because these issues continue to elicit more emotional, nonsober responses, and relentlessly dividing us as a nation, this is not yet the bill. This proposed law is, to my mind and heart, a band-aid solution. Circumstances warranting, I am committed to support the eventual passage of a Reproductive Health bill and the eventual passage of a Responsible Parenthood bill. But today, I vote against this bill.

Senator Lacson I vote "yes."

This is not an explanation of my vote. Rather I would like to express my admiration and highest commendations to Senate President Juan Ponce Emile and the distinguished Majority Leader, Tito Sotto, for their steadfastness and tenacity in fighting for their beliefs and

1303

conviction even in the face of strong, sometimes harsh adversities. They fought a good fight but this is the true essence of democracy. The rule of the majority in the end shalI prevail and being the true statesmen that they are, they accept and respect it.

Senator Legarda Bilang isang babae at ina, ang aking mga personal na karanasan at mga karanasan ng

mga ina na aking nakilala sa aking paninilbihan bi/ang isang senador ay makaaapekto sa aking desisyon sa mahalagang panukalang batas na ito ukol sa reproductive health. Mahaba at malalim ang naging talakayan tungkol sa RH bill. Marami ang aking naging mga katanungan. Nakapagpahayag ako ng aking mga susog at saloobin, at ikinagalak ko naman na maraming natugunan sa mga ito.

Sa pagtatapos ng yugtong ito, alalahanin po natin na ang demokraysa ay para sa mga pinakamahihirap sa buhay na nagnanais madinig, magkaroon ng karapatan na makamit

ang tunay na kalayaan. Labing-isang ina ang namamatay arawaraw dahil sa kakulangan sa serbisyong pangkalusugan.

Ang mga bagong panganak na sanggol, lalo na sa pinakamalalayong probinsya at sa mga liblib na lugar, ay nahaharap din sa kapahamakan. Bumaba na ang ating child mortality rate, nguni't ang ating hangarin ay hindi lamang ang pagpapababa nito kundi ang pag-aangat ng ating kalidad sa buhay. Maraming nakapagsabing may mga programa na rin naman ang gobyerno upang maibigay ang mga serbisyong pangkalusugan na ito sa mga Pilipino. Kung gayon, bakit tayo natatakot na maisahatas ito? Matapos ang maingat na pagsusuri, napagtanto ka na ang RH bill ay malayo sa pagiging panukalang batas na kikiti! sa buhay ng mga hindi pa naipapanganak. Bagkus, ito ay isang paraan upang maisigurong ang bawat tao ay maaa/agaan mula sa pagkabuo sa loob ng sinapupunan ng kanilang ina.

Sa pagtatapos, hindi tulad ng ibang ni/alang sa ating mundo, ang tao ay binigyan ng Diyos ng karapatan ng malayang pagpili. Ang kaalaman ay mahalagang yaman na makakatulong upang maisabuhay ng mga tao

MONDAY, DECEMBER 17,2012

1304

ang kanllang mga kagustuhan at mithiin ayon sa kanilang mga pananampalataya at paniniwala.

State's concern, it befalls upon the State to look after who have limited access to health information and health care services.

Laws do not define our character and moral convictions as a people.

Moreover, sex has been made taboo in our country, yet it is a part of nature of which our citizens must be infonned so they would know how best to deal with their bodies and physical health. This is especially true of young adults who are prone to temptation and ignore, and

Our sense of right and wrong, good and evil, moral and immoral, are shaped not by laws but by the way we are raised, and by the teachings of our faith. The RH bill offers a small measure of support to make sure that access to information and services is made less difficult for our poor. The RH debate is not about a house divided. It is about a country that struggles to see the truth.

Ito po ay aking boto para so kababaihang Pilipino. Aka po ay pabar sa RH bill. Senator Marcos No question that has been posed before me and before this Chamber has forced me to make so profound and thorough an examination of my conscience. During the deliberation of the RH bill, many approaches were made to me by members of my family, friends, friends in the clergy and lay community who I love and whose opinion I hugely respect. But I come at this question from a very simple point. In my experience in public service, it became clear to me after being a witness to the agony and the hardship of young women and men when they find themselves in a situation they are iIIprepared and often ignorant of. We must do something for them. And it was from this that I promised that I would do anything that I could to improve the pathetic and the heart-rending state of affairs. The RH bill is just such an opportunity. So I grabbed that opportunity with both hands and vote "yes" to the passage of the RH bill.

Sellator Pangilinan

Hereunder is the written explanation of vote of Senator Pangilinan: I vote "yes" to the Reproductive Health bill. My stand on the RH bill has been consistent: I approve of any measure that would give our people infonned choice where their overall health-including their reproductive health-is concerned. While it is true that what couples do in their intimate moments is not the

who often become victims to circumstances that

they did not intend simply because they did not know better. Knowledge is ignored power. As the State, we should ann our citizens with the power to make informed choices that will heavily impact the quality of their lives and those of their children and families.

Senator Pimentel I vote "no" based on the following arguments: I will vote with my conscience that is also anchored on my interpretation of our Constitution and our laws and on what [ believe will advance the general welfare of our people without sacrificing the well-being of women and the unborn children in their wombs. I believe that spending huge amounts of money for condoms, et cetera. is not the solution to the problem that the bill maliciously seeks to solve. Responsible, not free sex, is the answer. What bothers me is the logic of the proposal wrapped in the condom argument. Because pushed to its logical conclusion, if the use of condom fails to prevent an unwanted pregnancy - and there are abundant factual and scientific evidence of such failures even from personal experiences of Members in this Chamber - the next inevitable step is to kill the unwanted unborn child. That, for the life of me, I cannot accept. Neither can I abide by the twisted rationale of the bill that there is a necessity for Congress to legislate on a matter that is better left to the conscience of married people. Why give the government a reason to break the right of privacy of people and intrude into bedrooms? That development could be the beginning of a "Big Brother government" in this country and portend the end of our individual rights and liberties. For the full implementation of the RH bill, we need to spend somewhere from a low estimate of P3.8 billion a year to a high of P 14 to 17 billion. These estimates have been mentioned in the interpellations and exchange of ideas. Why not spend these amounts for scholarship programs to produce more doctors or to upgrade the skills

1305

MONDAY, DECEMBER 17,2012

of our doctors or even to disinfect maternity wards? These alternative expenditures would more directly and certainly reduce maternal deaths. In any case, the money could very well be spent to address the ten most prevalent diseases well-documented by health workers that are suffered by our people. And for all I know, maybe a portion of those funds could even be used to address some of their poverty needs, and certainly not on condoms that are neither medicine nor food, but are merely masks for some people's erotic adventures. The reason for that conclusion is that even if condoms and similar contraceptive devices may not achieve their ultimate purpose to prevent pregnancy, they do promote the culture of promiscuity. I would like to stress at this point that contrary to the insidious propaganda of some proponents of the bill, just because we are opposed to the bill, we are not necessary misogynist or people who hate or do not care for the womenfolk of this country. Nothing can be farther from the truth. What we would rather do is to spend the little money our government has for projects or programs that can truly save the lives of women, children, and other people than fall into the facile and deceptive scheme of certain foreign groups to foist upon us their dubious population control methods without regard to our Constitution and laws. And to make matters more deplorable, these foreigndenominated groups make money on the side by the massive manufacture and wholesale to the government of condoms and similar contraceptives that cater to the promiscuous sexual desires of the prurient and the lascivious at the expense of the taxpayers of the country. We are guaranteeing the Philippine market for the condom, pill and IUD makers to the tune of billions of pesos per year. Why? Why are we doing this? They should be required to market their commercial products just like any other manufacturer of any other commercial products. This bill also gives false hopes. Three out of 23 senators already have confided to us their personal knowledge of the failure of the bill to prevent pregnancy. That is already a failure rate of 13% of3 out of 23. But the actual failure rate is much higher than 23 because not all of us were in the pill, in the case of female senators, andlor had spouses who used the pill, in the case of the male senators. And then we always hear this argument about the reduction in the maternal deaths. From a mathematical point of view, this bill might

give us false hopes again, because if the current rate is that, 200 mothers die out of 100,000 live births, and if because of the RH bill, maternal death is reduced to 100 mothers out of 50,000 live births because the law will reduce the number of pregnancies and live births, that is not an improvement. That is the same percentage of maternal deaths. It will look like an improvement in absolute terms but in real terms, as a percentage, it is not an improvement. So, what is needed urgently by our people today is proper guidance in advancing the cause of responsible parenthood, not irresponsible free sex. I therefore vote "no."

Senator Recto No bill is chiselled in stone. Hindi ito lapida na nakaukit sa bato. Because no bill is perfect, it is polished through debate and discourse, without which the faults and the flaws will never be straightened out. So it was in this spirit that I engaged the Sponsor in an exchange of views, not to cripple the bill but to improve it, not to weaken it but to strengthen it. I believe that if this bill is about responsible parenthood, then we should be responsible midwives of its birthing. Bills are like tapestries, and we collectively weave then into law. Thus, the amendments I introduced were not meant to unravel the bill but to supply it with the threads that will make the finished fabric stronger. I am glad that the Sponsor gladly accepted 20 of my amendments, and the Body affirmed 10 more. Thirty in total, I lost eight. I thank the Sponsor for her consensual stance and her very compromising position. True, I lost a little more than half a dozen proposals but that is the beauty of this Chamber. Disagreements are resolved through a vote, and when you lose one, you bow to the will of the majority. The fact that we spent months debating this bill proved that we are not an assembly that would vote on a bill based on its title nor would we craft policy because we are swayed by its publicity. We appraise a bill not on the barrage of tweets by its supporters or opponents but on merits. We wade through the prose, because no

1306

MONDAY, DECEMBER 17,2012

legislation, especially complex ones, can be distilled in 140-character tweets. As we do not judge a book by a cover, we also do not judge a bill by its title. And at the end of the day, we based our vote on what is not trending but on what we believe is right. As it is written now, I am glad that this bill has been rid of its unpalatable provisions. On education, awareness and access, initially modern methods were a preferred choice. No longer now. Wala na ring pilitan sa pribadong eskuwelahan at pribadong ospital lalo na kung ang may-ari ay ang slmbahan. State-sponsored population control was removed. The sanctions on employers have been expunged.

Parental permission on activities has been restored. The State will no longer promote sexual promiscuity especially of minors.' Equity of national government in RH programs has been required. The last one to me is a very important one as I frown upon mandates this bill will impose on local governments without the corresponding funding. Isipin ninya noong una, sinasabi, nanga-

ngako ang nasyonal na pamahalaan, "Lahat kayo may karapatang magkaroon ng access sa ganito, ngunit ang local government ang gagastos. "

You and 1 know that the budgets of our provinces, cities and towns are under pressure ITom legislated earmarks, ITom climate change mitigation to salary adjustments, with the national government providing only saliva participation. We should avoid putting LOUs in one RH straitjacket. We should recognize local initiative and the flexibility to select ITom a buffet of choices. For after all, RH is not a rubber. Meaning, it is not one size fits aiL So, when a town opts for natural family planning method, then let us respect the choice. When a barangay hit by out - migration dangles incentives for babies born to reverse population decline, then we must support the initiative. When a city installs condom dispensing machines and pill vendos on overpopulated barangays, then we must respect that prerogative. While this bill prescribes a lot, it cannot ordain many of the things that we truly want. By itself, this bill will not create a social Utopia, bring us our economic Shangri-La, and place the nation in a state of Nirvana.

Gusto ko ring sabihin sa ating mga kababayan na basta na lang umanib sa alin mang panig ng pro-RH or anti-RH-this is not a fast-acting poverty reduction tool. Hindi po dadami and bigas sa inyong hapag-kainin,. Hindi po bababa ang presyo ng mga bilihin, gasolina, kuryente, /ubig, renta, pamasahe, tuition, at sine, at hindi rin dadami

ang trabaho. This is but one small bill in a raft of measures that must be implemented for our nation to be prosperous and peaceful. In closing, may I appeal to the Sponsor to maintain fidelity to the version as approved by the Senate, that she enters into bicameral talks hoisting proudly our banner, and not the white flag of surrender. I will vote "Yes" today on the condition that dead provisions will not resurrect like zombies, and newly-birthed ones will not be slaughtered in the third Chamber. If the Senate contingent will watch idly by as our amendments will be subjected to bicameral abortion, that will be returned here will be mangled version beyond recognition, then I will exercise my option to vote in the negative.

Senator Revilla May kanya-kanya po tayong paniniwala at paninindigan sa usaping ito.

Mayroon po

kayong opinyon, at mayroon din po aka. Ang mahalaga, respetuhin natin ang opinyon ng bawa! isa. Magtiwala po tayo sa ating sistema

no ang kalalabasan ng batahang ito ay ang makabubuti para sa ating bansa.

Having said that, I, in my good conscience, cannot vote in favor of the RH bill. Hindi ko po matolanggap na sa pamamagitan ng batas no ito, ang isang sanggol na walang kalabanlaban, na hindi po ipinanganganak ay sisintensyahan na natin ng kamatayan. Life is a gift, a blessing, not a curse. I say this because of experience. Lani and I lost a daughter due to a complication caused by the use of contraceptive pills. Her name is Maria Alexandra. Ipinanganak po siya noong 1990 ngunit 26 no araw lamang pa siyang nabuhay. Ipinanganak po siya na butas ang puso. Before Lani gave birth to her, she was properly and religiously taking pills. Hindi lamang po pumalpak iyong pills, ipinanganak pa siya na may malubhang karamdaman. Up to this point, I still think of what could have been for my daughter Alexandra.

MONDAY, DECEMBER 17,2012

1307

Dito lamang po sa bulwagang ito, tatlo sa 24 na smador ang nawaJan ng anak dahil so kumplikasyon dulot ng kontrasepyon Sa hilang na ito, halos lahat ay dahil so diperensya so puso. I do not believe that the RH bill will deliver any of its promises the way it sends them out. There is a saying that "you can only bring the horse to the water but you cannot force the horse to drink." Gagastos po ng bilyun-bilyong piso para bumili ng contraceptives pero hindi natin mas/siguro na gagamitin ito. At kung gagamitin man Qng mga ito, wala namang kasiguruhan na makakamit ng programa ang nita/ayan nitong pigilan ang pag/ago ng populajyon upang mabawasan ang

kahirapan. Instead of building more schools, procuring more books and hiring more teachers to solve the education backlog, the RH bill sees the solution in simply reducing students para mabawasan daw ang problema sa kalusugan. Imbes na pag-ibayuhin ang serbisyo medikal, bawasan na lamang ang mga nangangailangan ng serbisyo. Para

matugunan

ang

problema

sa

pabahay, sa halip na magpatayo ng bahay, bawasan na lamang ang mga mangangailangan

ng tahanan. Instead of government doing its job to address the needs of the people, let us just eliminate those who have needs. Naiintindihan ko po na kailangan po nating kumilos para tugunan ang mga problema ng bayan. Ngunit kailanman ay hindi aka makapapayag na sabihin na ang problema ng bayan ay ang sarUi niyang mamamayan. Kaya naman tumayo po aka ngayon sa

inyong harapan at so Inang Bayan, bilang tinig ng mga mamamayang nasasapawan ang boses. More importantly, I stand as the voice of the

unborn child. Ang akin pong boto ay dikta ng aking konsensya at sa aking paninindigan ay kung ana ang lama. I vote "no" to RH bill. Senator Sot/o

Marami pong gumugulo sa aking kaisipan ngayon. Pabayaan po ninyong kahit papaano ay aking isa-isang mailabas

ang mga

tumatakbo sa isipan ko tungkol sa tinatalakay noting panukal ang-batas Lumalabas po ngayon, ang gobyerno nat in, dahil dito sa RH bill na ito, sunud-sunuran sa mga international organizations. Kakuntsaba pa ang ibang developed countries. Ang hangad lamang nila, pigilan ang pag-asenso at paglawak ng impluwensiya ng Third World countries katulad

ng ating bansa sa pamamagitan pagbabawas ng populasyon natin.

ng

Kung ana po iyong batas na lubhang humahati sa ating bansa «y siya pa iyong pinaapura ng Malacafiang, imbes na inuna sana iyong mga katulad ng hinihingi ng karamihan ng mga kababayan natin na wala namang kumukontra sa at in. Hindi ko maunawaan kung bakit pahihintulutan ng ating Pangulo ang pagkakawatak-watak ng ating bansa para sa isang panukalang-batas na hindi naman tutugon sa suliranin talaga ng ating bansa. Kawawa naman ang Pilipinas.

Kung nabubuhay lamang po ang ating yumaong mahal na Pangulong Cory Aquino, ni hindi naka-first base itong batas na ito. Ang kailangan natin ay balas na naaayon

sa ating natatanging kultura. Mali namang sumunod tayo sa tema ng mga panukala ng ating mga karatig-bansa kung salungat naman ito sa ating kinaugalian at paniniwa/a bilang

isang bansang nagpapahalaga sa responsableng pagpapamilya no nakapaloob sa sagradong institusyon ng kasal. To top it all, magsasayang pa t«yo ng bilyun-bilyong piso dito so pagpapatupad ng batas na sis ira lamang sa pagkakabukludbuklod ng ating bansa. Pero isa lamong po ang masasabi ko, pagbutihin sana nila dahil tututukan natin ito. Pirmahan man ng Presidente ito, babantayan natin. Mayroon po akong record dito sa Senado. Mula noong 1992, noong natuntong ako dito hanggang sa ngayon, may mga tatlo hanggang apat na batas ang binotohan ko ng "no." Lahat iyong tatlo, apat na iyon, pinagsisihan lahat.

Una iyong GATT/WTO. Ang darning gumagapang sa akin noon, hindi po ako nagpatinag, binutohan ko ng "no" dahil alam kong masama sa mga mags as aka. AnD ngayon? Pinagsisisihan nating lahat. Bumoto ako ng "no" sa EPIRA, tumaas lahat ang kuryente natin. Hindi ba pinagsisisihan din? Ngayon gusto i-repeal. Nilabanan ko rin po iyong Oil Deregulation Law; ngayon gustong ibalik. Ito ho, ganuong-ganoon ang pakiramdam ko rito. Malamang pagsisihan po natin ito. Ang malungkot pa, isang parte, ultimo ang ating mga kasama rito, even our colleagues were

made to believe the marketing strategy being used by these groups, these organizations from abroad.

Iyong pinangangalandakan nilang II mothers a day, ultimo sa Uganda, iyon din ang gamit nila, II mothers die a day. Hiningan namin ng dokumento ang Committee, nanghingi

1308

ng dokumento, walang naibigay sa Committee hanggang ngayon. Ngayon, ang ginawa namin, kami mismo ang nag-research, hindi po ba, binasa ko dito noon iyon. Doon sa 2011 na lamang dahil everyday sabi nila mayroong II namamatay. Nueva Vizcaya Provincial Hospital, ang namatay dalawa sa loob ng 2011, buong taon. Sa Pangasinan Provincial Hospital ang namatay apal lamang. Sa Batangas Regional Hospital, out of 2,584 births, ang namatay pito. Sa Cavite Naval Hospital, wala. 0, hindi ba marketing strategy iyong I I mothers a day para mapaniwala iyong aling mga kababaihan? Nakakalungkot po taloga. Isipin natin no maraming lugar sa bansa, 1010 no sa Metro Manila, ipinagbabawal na iyong paggamit ng plastik, akalain ninyong isabatas natin iyong condom? Hindi ko maintindihan. Masyado silang marurunong.

Upon our election as senators of this Republic, my term started in 20 I 0, we took an oath before performing our functions. An oath is a promise to God. We promised among others, to support and defend the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines. We promised, to support and defend the whole 1987 Constitution, not just the parts we agree to, the parts that suit our temperament, the parts that were convenient. It was a promise that did not have any qualifications. And because we promised to defend the whole Constitution, we must preserve and protect every part thereof. That is only logical and reasonable. Otherwise, we should not have promised if we did not intend to fulfill the import of our promise. Constitutional provisions, binanggil na po natin lahat logi iyan. What is left for us? May Almighty God understand this nation after this vote and forgive us if we do not keep our promise.

I vote "no" to the RH bill, I have kept my promise. And if we approve this measure, may I ask God the Father to forgive us for we do not know what we are doing.

Senalor Trillanes We have arrived at a very important moment where we, as elected senators and representatives of the Filipino people, are called upon to vote on a critical piece of legislation, one which has so divided this august Chamber and our people for more than a decade. Indeed, no singular piece of legislation in the last decade has so polarized our country and our society like this so-called Reproductive Health (RH) Bill.

MONDAY, DECEMBER 17,2012

Having been elected by our people on a shoestring budget even while [ was in detention in 2007, I have no loyalties other than directly to our people. And so, in crafting my position on RH Bill, I have come to the table with no preconceptions, no hidden agenda and no ulterior motives. In the words of U.S. President Abraham Lincoln during his second inaugural address in 1865: "With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gi yes us to see the right."

I have tried my level best to see through the propaganda, the hoopla and the dogma which have inevitably accompanied the debate surrounding the RH Bill, and have sought to vote from the perspective of a policy maker on the basis of what I, in conscience, believe would be in the best interest of our country and our people. I have decided to register a negative vote because of the following reasons: First, contrary to the claims of some of its supporters, the RH Bill will not solve the problem of poverty. Neither will it address the problem of excessive population growth. The passage of the RH Bill and its subsequent implementation will not lower oil prices or the cost of electricity or the cost of living. It will not increase the workman's salary nor will it provide a roof over the head of indigent families. The solution to this problem is to provide more and better educational opportunities for the poor so they can improve their own lot. The interim solution is to find ways and means to provide them with employment opportunities as well as adequate over-all health care and subsidized social housing. If we can do these, a decline in population growth will naturally follow. This is the experience of developed countries and there is adequate empirical evidence to support this claim. There is nothing in the RH Bill that will solve the population problem. The use of contraceptives will promote an increase in the frequency of sex among partners and even casual sex and the chances of unprotected sex and, thus, the frequency of unwanted pregnancies. Likewise, the claim that the RH Bill will necessarily result to better maternal and child health care and lower infant and maternal mortality is misleading. Our health care problems can be addressed by a firm resolve by the

'r

MONDAY, DECEMBER 17,2012

government to pour substantial resources into over-all public health care. The problem can be addressed by hiring more doctors, specialists not only in reproductive health but in all medical fields, hiring more nurses, midwives and allied medical professionals, rehabilitating our public hospitals and building new ones and upgrading their equipment.

Instead of just pushing for better reproductive health care, we should push for better overall primary health care. Instead of the current band-aid mentality, we should push for preventive health care and focus on disease prevention rather than just attempting to cure illnesses as they occur. The problem relating to reproductive health is just one aspect of our multi-faceted health care problem. We should target the entire problem instead of just focusing on just one aspect. President PNoy himself has identified the larger part of the problem. Poverty is, to a great extent, a function of corruption in the society. Sabi nga ng Pangulo: "Kung walang corrupt, walang mahirap."

Ituloy po natin ang laban sa corruption dahil malaki ang maitutulong nita sa paglaban sa kahirapan. In the long run, it will also help us provide for better educational opportunities for the poor; better public health care; better employment opportunities; better public housing and a better and more secure future for our people. Finally, I have reviewed our existing laws on reproductive health and family planning and I have discovered that there are in fact more than twenty (20) laws and executive issuances dealing with this issue. These laws and executive orders provide an adequate policy framework or platform under which any reproductive health program can be pursued by the administration. In short, the RH Bill is not necessary and On the other hand, it is indispensible. unnecessarily divisive and has the tendency to unduly impose upon the personal and religious beliefs of others. For this and a host of other reasons, I vote NO to the RH Bill. Thank you.

Senalor Villar Pabayaan ninyong batiin ko muna iyang mga proponents ng ating panukala dahil sa

1309

kanilang magiting na pakikipaglaban na naging matagumpay. At siyempre, iyon namang mga kasamahan natin na ipinaglaban naman ang kanilang paniniwala. Sa aking palagay ay mahalaga na hindi natin pag-away-awayan ito. Sa akin pong sarili, hindi naman aka naimpluwensiyahan ninuman. Hindi po ng simbahan. Tinanong ko iamang ang aking sarili at tiningnan ko ang aking prinsipyo, ang aking pamilya, ang aking pananampaialaya. AI linanong ko ang aking konsiyensiya at ang lumabas po ay aka po ay bumubata laban sa panukala. Pera, hindi ka po sinasabi na ang nag-propose nita ay mali, hindi po. Natutuwa nga po aka dahil pare-pareho tayo ng hangarin na maitaas ang antas ng kalagayan ng atin pong mga kababayan lalung-Ialo na po ang mga kababaihan. Nalulungkal lamang aka na parang lumalabas na kapag ikaw ay bumata ng laban sa panukala ay parang hindi mo ipinaglalaban ang karapalan ng mga kababaihan. Habang aka po ay nabubuhay ipaglalaban ko po ang karapatan ng mga mahihirap, babae man a lalaki. Pangarap ka po na maitaas ang anlas ng kabuhayan ng lahat ng Pilipina, babae man a lalaki. Naniniwala po aka na !ahat ng problemang lyan na sinasabi po natin na nakakaawang kalagayan ng mga kababaihan, a samahan na natin ng kalalakihan, ay dahll po sa kahirapan. Hindi ka lamang po makita na ang so/usyon ay nar/rita sa panukalang ila. Lahat ng aking ginagawa ngayan, lahat ng aking panukala sa Senado ay para sa pag-ahan natin sa kahirapan. Jyang paggawa namin ng Villar Foundation, iyan ay walang ginawa kundi tumulong sa mga mahihirap at gumawa ng mga hakbangin para maiahon ang ating mga kababayan mula sa kahirapan. Hindi po aka makakapayag na masabi no ang bill na ito lamang ang salusyan diyan. Dumaan na laya sa mga panahon na mayroan layong mga ganyang maleryales, noon po naman ay hindi kino-kantral iyan subali'l wala namang nagawa at hindi naman din bumaba ang population growth natin. Naniniwala aka na kaya natin pasiglahin ang ekanomiya, kaya naling iangat ang kabuhayan ng ating mga kababayan, kaya nating bigyan ng hanapbuhay ang ating mga kababayan, paglulung-tulungan lamang po natin. Naniniwala po aka na hindi maibibigay ng batas na ito iyang pag-ahon na iyan. Kaya inuulil-ulit ka ngayon na isipin natin ang kalagayan ng ating mga kababayan. Diyan taya nagkakaisa. Nakita ko iyong magkabilang panig. Lahal ay nag-lisip, lahat ay iniisip ang kalagayan ng mga mahihirap na mga kababaihan at isama na rin natin ang kalalakihan na napakalaki

;y

r

1310

MONDAY. DECEMBER 17,2012

rin ng mga problema. Pero huwag po nating isipin na dahil sa panukalang ito ay mawawala iyan. Maram; pong gagawin. Iyong pag-angat ng ating ekonomiya, iyong tinatawag na GDP growth natin ay kailangan pataasin pa. iyong per capita income natin ay kailangang pataasin

pa. Iyan ay dapat nating bigyan ng atensyon, bigyan ng focus para naman matigil na ang

kahirapan ng ating mga kababayan. lyon pong sin tax, aka ay bumoto roan. Naniniwala aka na iyon ay makakalutas sa kalusugan, sa problema ng kalusugan ng ating mga kahabaihan at ng ating mahihirap na kababayan. At kung mayroon pang batas na maipapasa tayo para makatulang so paglutas, pag-angat ng kalusugan ng atin pong mga kababayan, boboto ako riyan. Mayroon pa po tayong mga magagawa para ang ating mga kababayan upang magkaroon nang sapa! na gamot, sapa! no

atensyon kapag sila ay nagkakasakit. Naniniwala ako na may mga hakbangin tayo na puwedeng gawin na hindi kailangang may mamamatay 0 magkakaroon ng saki! na kanser na hindi mabibigyan ng atemyon ng ating

pamahalaan. Marami tayong mga lupa na kung soan-soan lamong napupunta kapag pinag-

bibili, iyan po ay puwedeng magamit sa mga bagay no iyan.

Aka naman oy natutuwa at

ngayon ay medyo sumisigla ang ekonomiya natin. Tuluy-tuloy lamang po nating pagtrabahuhan iyan sapagka't naniniwala ako na ang sagot sa suliranin ng ating mga kababayan, ng ating mga kababaihan lalong-lalo na, ay nandoon sa pag-angat ng aNng ekonomiya, sa pagkakal'oon ng mga trabaho, at iyan sa aking palagay ay hindi manggagaling dito sa bill na ito, manggagaling po iyan sa ating pamamahala ng ekonomiya, sa ating pagtutulungtulong dito sa Senado at sa buong Kongreso para nang sa ganaon ay makapagpasa tayo ng batas na makatutulong at makakapag-angat ng antas ng kabuhayan ng ating mga kababayan. Kaya po uulitin ko na pare-pareho ang

ating layunin, pare-pareho na gusto nating magkaroon ng kaligtasan ang ating mga kababaihan, na may pambayad sa ospitallahat po ng ating mahihirap. Gusto po natin iyan. At sana po iyong ating binigay na atensyon dito sa bill na ito ay maibibigay rin natin doon sa

mga panukala na sa aking palagay ay tunay na makolulutas ng ating kahirapan. lyon lamang po at uulitin ko po ang aking bolo na sa akin pong konsiyensiya ay tinanong

ko po, hindi po aka naimpluwensiyahan

ninuman, ng simbahan at ng ating mga kaibigan. Tinanong ka po at hindi po ito ang solusyon sa kahirapan

ng ating bansa.

Senate President Emile I am not going to make a brief to justity the vote that I am going to cast on this measure but allow me to make a few remarks to put into the records my thoughts about it. Of all my years in government since 1966, when I first joined it, and before that time when I was discerning enough to observe the political life of this nation, I have yet to recall a proposed law or measure as divisive as this one that we are now about to finish. This bill, no doubt, has inflicted a very wide chasm in our society. For various reasons, our people could not agree with one another about how to approach the issue covered by the bill we are about to enact. We have seen, in the course of the consideration of this measure, both in the Senate and in the House, that families are even divided. Mother and daughter differing in their views, husband and wife differing in their views, one voted for and the other voted against the measure. And we see the array of social and political forces trying to tear apart the society we all live in. I hope that this bill that we will now dispose tonight will bring the benefit that was sought to be accomplished. Each side gave arguments for or against this measure and each one had a good basis to argue their case. But one cannot predict the future. Maybe in the short tenn the bill will really lessen or reduce poverty to a certain level or wipe it out. I do not know. I hope so. Our women are entitled to their health and we are all for it. I am in favor of that and there is no question about it. And it is the duty of the State to use public funds to minister to the health of each and every segment of our national community. But in my case, I am quite bewildered and uncertain about the future of the country. If we make the correct decision, I hope to God that we did or that we will make it. But the future is unknown, uncertain and unpredictable. And so in the course of the debate here and my studies of this bill, I reflected on its breadth and impact on our society, on me as a person and on me as a man of faith. I hope I am. And I came to the conclusion that there is no certitude. I for one am not in a position to say where the truth lies in this particular measure.

MONDAY, DECEMBER 17,2012

And so with that, I have to be guided by things that have guided me all these years living on this planet and in this nation, and that is my faith, my conscience and my notion of what is the national good, And these are the considerations: my faith, my conscience and my notion of

what is the long-term interest of this country that impelled me to cast the vote of NO on the bill. I hope that my position will not be proven right. I hope to God that those who proposed it are proven right but as I have said, the future is unpredictable, unknown, uncertain and only time

1311

ADJOURNMENT OF SESSION Upon motion of Senator Sotto, there being no objection, the Senate President Pro Tempore declared the session adjourned until three o'clock in the afternoon of the following day.

It was 7:45 p.m, [ hereby certify to the correctness of the foregoing.

will tell where lies the truth. And I hope that the truth will redound to the general good of this country and her people.

Approved on January 28, 2013