At last—a consensus bill on population

SOME MAY deride the “affluent” business sector as just thinking of themselves and of profit. This time, a business initiative may be crafting the most acceptable consensus bill on population, family planning and development. Led by respected leaders of the Management Association of the Philippines, Makati Business Club, Bishops-Businessmen Conference and the Philippine Center for Population and Development in close collaboration with the Population Commission, it is a signal project given the same research and review as due diligence studies.

Consultations have been made with theologians, economists, sociologists, population and development leaders, civil society leaders. Six regional forums in Baguio, Cebu, Naga, Cagayan de Oro, Cotabato City and at the NCR have been held with “an average of 45 sectoral representatives per forum.” The 1971 National Policy on Population, RA 6365, amended by PDs 79 and 1204, was reviewed. Objectives, Guiding Principles, Implementing Mechanisms have been spelled out. Begun on Nov. 18, 2009, the bill is to be finalized by mid-August.

From these efforts, premises for a population bill have shifted and surfaced with a broader view and a new focus.

First, the new focus. The decline in family size has already taken place. From 6 children per mother and a population growth rate of more than 3 percent in 1971, figures dropped to 3.28 and 2.04 percent respectively by 2007. But the decline has taken place “mainly among the wealthier and better educated, not so much among the poor,” where “Actual FR” (fertility rate) remains at 5.2 children per, against their “Wanted FR” of 3.3. This bill will shift its focus on the poor and less educated and help them get their desired family size.

As for the “broader view,” the bill does not stop at population. It addresses three interlocking concerns as in a triangle: poverty—population—development. A correlation (not equation) among the three is plain to see but which causes what and how strong is the push and pull is the great debate between defenders and opposers of population management. Meanwhile “the country’s biggest problem continues to be poverty.” (“Aren’t 50 Hunger Surveys Enough?” Inquirer, 7/24/10) And the poor make up the massive part of our population. One can begin with that.

A democracy can hardly work amidst real and surreal sights of vagrants beneath overpasses and bridges, bakal boys dirty-river diving for scrap metal, scavengers staking territories in Smokey Mountain replicas, fires ripping through squatter colonies pouring refugees in street and school, congested hospital halls and rooms, hordes of schoolchildren in smelly classrooms with how many chairs and books, 60 water lines with 1,000 illegal connections “like spaghetti.” Each is a flashpoint for an anarchic incident—too much for any leader.

In other words, our poor are in “a poverty trap,” an “intergenerational cycle of poverty” that must be broken with every possible “poverty reduction strategy.” Do what can be done for population to lighten poverty and free the poor for development.

The bill also expresses a point deferentially evaded till now. “The bill is meant for all Filipinos, not only for Catholic Filipinos.” Thereby hangs a touchy tale. Consultations and consensus have been deliberately sought regionally, interfaith, ecumenical, interdisciplinary, to serve a wide variety of Filipinos in an inclusivist bill.

It should please the Church that many bend over backward to listen to her position (even if the favor is not returned). In fact, those behind this bill have “steered the bill away from those controversial points” to which the Church objects.

But they cannot sacrifice the bill’s objectives to “promote family planning among the poor and give them access to their free and informed choice of means to plan their families be it through ‘natural family planning’ or use of artificial contraceptives” allowed by others. “Education on sexuality and reproductive health” is an integral part of the bill.

Moreover with “all Filipinos” in mind, to mold a bill according to the tenets of one religion may be “favoring one religion” and therefore violative of the separation of Church and State; not Cardinal Sin’s call to Edsa, or Archbishop Cruz’s stand on jueteng or a priest naming a specific corrupt deal and its political dealer in the pulpit.

In a psychological test, a picture is shown a patient who then says what comes to his mind. Is it time to change our mindsets? “Sex,” “population,” “reproductive health.” Instead of snapping “abortion,” “promiscuity,” “pills,” “sin,” “condoms”; maybe we should think “education,” “health,” “livelihood,” “human capital,” “social justice.”

Anyone who still won’t be pleased with this bill, doesn’t want to be pleased. –Asuncion David Maramba, Philippine Daily Inquirer

(Asuncion David Maramba is a retired professor, book editor and occasional journalist. Comments to marda_ph @yahoo.com, fax 8284454)