Against the odds

Monday, June 8. Three days after Congress went on its mid-year recess. Over lunch, Ernesto Almocera Jr., program manager for the Center for Advocacy and Policy Development of the Philippine Legislators’ Committee on Population and Development Foundation Inc., and Roda Avila, Secretary General of the Democratic Socialist Women of the Philippines, make no secret of their frustration at what happened actually, how nothing happened—to Republic Act 5043, otherwise known as the Reproductive Health and Population Development Act, which would make family planning tools available to poor families and would mandate age-appropriate sex education in schools, during the remaining working days of Congress.

In the House of Representatives, for instance, the bill is on second reading and is up for plenary debates. But 22 lawmakers have been lined up for interpellation and only two have spoken so far. Of course these are thinly veiled efforts to delay the voting on the matter until it is perhaps impossible for Congress to get any real work done aside from boosting their chances in next year’s elections. As a result, Speaker Prospero Nograles and Majority Floor Leader Arthur Defensor have said that a panel of 10 representatives, composed of five pro and five anti congressmen, would be formed to deliberate on the matter. Nonetheless, Almocera and Avila do not sound convinced that anything substantial would be done.

After all, Almocera says, this is not anymore a question of convincing lawmakers on the merits of the bill. The moral and practical issues have all been taken up and the people in Congress have long ago formed their personal positions on the proposal. Now it is just plain politics. And that’s what makes the battle tougher.

At least this is the first time such a measure has gone this far in the legislative mill. A bill filed in the 9th Congress was focused on family planning in relation to the management of the population. A more integrated approach, rights-based and in the context of national development, was introduced in 2001. Still, the unprecedented progress is hardly any consolation. Almocera and Avila are aware they are up against formidable odds, and neither time is on their side. They see their window between July after the President’s State-of-the-Nation Address and September. They must have the approved bill on the President’s table by October. (They don’t expect her to sign it, but at least she could do nothing and let it lapse into law anyway.) Why October? Congress will take another break then, and upon resumption will be focused on the national budget. Lawmakers will also then be rushing to beat the deadline for the filing of the certificates of candidacy. By the turn of the year, everybody would be busy with the elections. The bill’s advocates may just as well begin from scratch and hope that they would get even farther next time around.

***

But if voting at the House were done today, and everybody voted according to his or her commitment, the reproductive health bill would just sail through. So far, there are 130-132 authors plus 12 supporters, bringing the total number to a little short of 142-144. The advocacy has even benefited from the increase in number of party-list representatives from that Supreme Court decision a few months ago. Out of the 32 newcomers, 18 have signed the bill.

So what’s the problem, one asks, when only 50 percent plus one of the standing quorum on any given day usually between 190 and 200—is needed to push the proposal forward?

The problem is that even some of those who have expressed support for the bill would not go to town with their preference, Almocera says. These lawmakers have a very real fear of backlash from the Church. It does not help that elections are practically around the corner. The same is true for those publicly against the bill but are in reality inclined to support it, or at least allow themselves to be convinced.

Those against the measure, which Almocera estimates at 78, are of different levels. Roughly 28 of this number are genuinely opposed to the bill. These are the ones whose stand is a product of religious and moral conviction. These hard-core oppositionists take active steps such as speaking out against the bill and recruiting other congressmen to their side. Then there are about six are who are known as “low opposition.” The rest are deemed neutral about 10 of which are “workable.”

The numbers, if the estimates are close, tell us the coast seems clear for the bill. In truth, the next few months are murky for the advocates, primarily because the House leadership could not even have the willpower to say “let’s get this matter over with and vote on it now.”

And it’s not as though occasioning a vote were impossible; our honorable representatives have shown us, just two weeks ago in passing the resolution that would convene them into a constituent assembly, that they would gladly move heaven and earth if they deemed an issue important enough.

Apparently, lawmakers’ priority lies elsewhere.

***

Avila laments that the essence of representation has been conveniently set aside in favor of political expediency. She should know; her job takes her to various communities all over the country. She has talked to countless families, women and mothers especially, about the bill. These people have expressed bewilderment why lawmakers would block such a sound and practical measure. Surveys have shown more Filipinos favoring the passage of the reproductive health bill so why aren’t their representatives acting on their behalf?

The bill,if passed, would only give a more structured approach to pockets of reproductive health initiatives ALREADY BEING DONE in local governments through various agencies of the executive department: Health, Education, Social Welfare and Development, Science and Technology, Interior even Trade. These initiatives are also endorsed by international organizations such as USaid and the European Commission.

Avila wonders whether the long-held view that the Church could make or unmake a politician is still true. Most lawmakers, paralyzed by this belief, think they cannot afford to alienate the almighty Church hierarchy (not really the Church, because the faithful are included here) if they are serious about getting themselves re-elected, or their wives, brothers or children elected in their place.

This is where the problem lies, Almocera says. Religious leaders have all the right to speak out against any matter, be it moral or political. They can use the pulpit. They can preach to the young and old alike. They can slam the government’s measures all they want. But they should do so only in the confines of the church. The state and politicians are at at fault for allowing the Church (not just the Catholic Church) to throw its weight around by dangling support, or threatening its absence, during elections. The electorate, too, must be enlightened.

Between now and the resumption of Congress late next month, Almocera’s and Avila’s respective organizations have lined up activities designed to sway lawmakers into supporting the bill. The program is called “The Big Push for the RH Bill.”

They face great odds and do not have much time. But advocates of the reproductive health bill are not giving up just yet. –Adelle Chua, Manila Standard Today

adellechua@gmail.com