15th Congress - Authors' Amendments to HB 4244
15 March 2011
HON. ROGELIO J. ESPINA
Chairman
Committee on Population and Family Relations
House of Representatives
Constitution Hills, Quezon City
Dear Chairman Espina:
The principal authors of House Bill 4244, the consolidated substitute bill on "The Responsible Parenthood, Reproductive Health and Population and Development Act of 2011" met yesterday to formalize voluntary amendments to the bill in order to preclude misconceptions and protracted debates. The authors have also authorized me to inform you that the following amendments be adopted as Committee amendments at the proper time:
1. Section 13 on "Roles of Local Governments in Family Planning Programs" found on lines 9-14, page 12, of the bill, which reads: "The LGUs shall ensure that poor families receive preferential access to services, commodities and programs for family planning. The role of Population Officers at municipal, city and barangay levels in the family planning effort shall be strengthened. Barangay health workers and volunteers shall be capacitated to give priority to family planning work."
should be amended by deleting the phrase "give priority to family planning work." found in the last sentence of the Section, and should be substituted with the phrase "help implement this Act." This would obviate complaints that family planning is given inordinate priority.
2. Section 15 on "Mobile Health Care Service" found on page 12, lines 20-25, and page 13, lines 1-6, reading "Each Congressional District may be provided with at least one (1) Mobile Health Care Service (MHCS) in the form of a van or other means of transportation appropriate to coastal or mountainous areas. The MHCS shall deliver health care supplies and services to constituents, more particularly to the poor and needy, and shall be used to disseminate knowledge and information on reproductive health. The purchase of the MHCS may be funded from the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) of each congressional district. The operation and maintenance of the MHCS shall be operated by skilled health providers adequately equipped with a wide range of reproductive health care materials and information dissemination devices and equipment, the latter including, but not limited to, a television set for audio-visual presentations. All MHCS shall be operated by a focal city or municipality within a congressional district."
should be amended to read as follows: "Each Congressional District may be provided with at least one (1) Mobile Health Care Service (MHCS) in the form of a van or other means of transportation appropriate to coastal or mountainous areas, the procurement and operation of which shall be funded by the National Government. The MHCS shall deliver health care supplies and services to constituents, more particularly to the poor and needy, and shall be used to disseminate knowledge and information on reproductive health. [The purchase of the MHCS may be funded from the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) of each congressional district.] The operation and maintenance of the MHCS shall be operated by skilled health providers adequately equipped with a wide range of reproductive health care materials and information dissemination devices and equipment, the latter including, but not limited to, a television set for audio-visual presentations. All MHCS shall be operated by a focal city or municipality within a congressional district."
The reason for this amendment is to liberate the PDAF without prejudice to Members of the House who may still wish to use a portion of their PDAF for the purchase and operation of the MHCS.
3. Section 16 on "Mandatory Age-Appropriate Reproductive Health and Sexuality Education" found on page 13 from lines 7-25, and page 14 from lines 1-13, which reads: "Age-appropriate Reproductive Health and Sexuality Education shall be taught by adequately trained teachers in formal and non-formal education system starting from Grade Five up to Fourth Year High School using life skills and other approaches. The Reproductive Health and Sexuality Education shall commence at the start of the school year immediately following one (1) year from the effectivity of this Act to allow the training of concerned teachers. The Department of Education (DEPED), Commission on Higher Education (CHED), TESDA, Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD), Department of Health (DOH) shall formulate the Reproductive Health and Sexuality Education curriculum. Such curriculum shall be common to both public and private schools, out of school youth, and enrollees in the Alternative Learning System (ALS) based on, but. not limited to, the psychosocial and physical wellbeing, demography and reproductive health, and the legal aspects of reproductive health.
"Age-appropriate Reproductive Health and Sexuality Education shall be integrated in all relevant subjects and shall include, but is not limited to, the following topics:
- Values formation;
- Knowledge and skills in self protection against discrimination, sexual violence and abuse, and teen pregnancy;
- Physical, social and emotional changes in adolescents;
- Children's and women's rights;
- Fertility awareness;
- STI, HIV and AIDS;
- Population and development;
- Responsible relationship;
- Family planning methods;
- Proscription and hazards of abortion;
- Gender and development; and
- Responsible parenthood.
"The DepEd, CHED, DSWD, TESDA, and DOH shall provide concerned parents with adequate and relevant scientific materials on the age-appropriate topics and manner of teaching Reproductive Health Education to their children."
should be amended by providing a final paragraph which shall read: "Parents shall exercise the option of not allowing their minor children to attend classes pertaining to Reproductive Health and Sexuality Education."
4. Section 20 on "Ideal Family Size" found from lines 5-9 on page 15 which reads: "The State shall assist couples, parents and individuals to achieve their desired family size within the context of responsible parenthood for sustainable development and encourage them to have two children as the ideal family size. Attaining the ideal family size is neither mandatory nor compulsory. No punitive action shall be imposed on parents having more than two children."
should be deleted in its entiretyconsidering that the norm on ideal family size is neither mandatory nor punitive. Its total deletion will preclude further misinformation and misrepresentation as to the import of the provision. Moreover, its deletion will also underscore freedom of informed choice.
5. Section 21 on "Employers' Responsibilities" found on page 15 from lines 10-15 and on page 16 from lines 1-4 which reads: "The Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) shall ensure that employers respect the reproductive rights of workers. Consistent with the intent of Article 134 of the Labor Code, employers with more than 200 employees shall provide reproductive health services to all employees in their own respective health facilities. Those with less than 200 workers shall enter into partnerships with hospitals, health facilities, or health professionals in their areas for the delivery of reproductive health services.
"Employers shall furnish in writing the following information to all employees and applicants:
- The medical and health benefits which workers are entitled to, including maternity and paternity leave benefits and the availability of family planning services;
- The reproductive health hazards associated with work, including hazards that may affect their reproductive functions especially pregnant women; and
- The availability of health facilities for workers.
"Employers are obliged to monitor pregnant working employees among their workforce and ensure that they are provided paid half-day prenatal medical leave for each month of the pregnancy period that the pregnant employee is employed in their company or organization. These paid prenatal medical leave shall be reimbursable from the Social Security System (SSS) or the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS), as the case may be."
should be deleted in its entirety considering that this provision is a restatement and amplification of the existing Article 134 of the Labor Code. This deletion would obviate further objections and debates.
5. Section 28 (e) on "Prohibited Acts" found on lines 24-25 on page 21 which reads: "Any person who maliciously engages in disinformation about the intent and provisions of this Act." should be deleted in its entirety in order to afford widest latitude to freedom of expression within the limits of existing penal statutes.
Thank you and warmest personal regards.
Very truly yours,
EDCEL C. LAGMAN
Download letter in PDF format (330 KB)
- Tags:
- Printer-friendly version
- Add new comment
- 20597 reads

Comments
I Strongly Oppose the Bill
I don't agree that the bill will help solve the problem of poverty nor contribute, protect or promote women's health.
1. Studies do not show that there is a direct correlation between population and poverty. I invite you to see the documentary films "Demographic Winter" and "Demographic Bomb"-- it gives the basics of what you need to know about population, economics and poverty.
2. As a pharmacist, I'm live by the dictum "All drugs are Poison" which the majority-if not all- medical practitioners are familiar with. There is a very thin line that separates the two. Check the medical science journals--or even the basic Pharmacology textbooks--and you'll find an array of side-effects from moderate to severe (i.e. life-threatening). To present and advertise contraceptive drugs and distribute them like they're the safest product in the world is to provide women with false information. This goes against what the RH Bill claims to provide--to allow women to make informed choices--what the RH Bill will allow them to do is to make choices based on FALSE information.
3. 731 Million Pesos. That's too much money involved for an INDIRECT "solution" to poverty and health. You want a healthy population? Start by tackling the top 10 causes of morbidity (sickness) in the country which incapacitates human resource:
1. Diarrheas
2. Bronchitis
3. Pneumonias
4. Influenza
5. Hypertension
6. TB respiratory
7. Diseases of the heart
8. Malaria
9. Measles
10. Chicken pox
NOTE: I wanted to get the DOH figures but the DOH site was down...
Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Top_10_leading_causes_of_morbidity_and_mortali...
have you been at the ground
have you been at the ground level? have you been to slum areas- those thickly populated areas in Manila alone? i suggest that you go see for yourself what i'm saying here.
don't say the RH Bill is spreading FALSE information, read and understand it first.
Philippines is not Manila! If
Philippines is not Manila! If your Manila is thickly populated do not tell the world that it's the Philippines that is thickly populated. And who told you that the comments was saying rhb is spreading false information? What is false is when pros said, it's pro-choice! Because if it's pro-choice, the emphasis would not have been contraceptive medicines as the best but both means must be explained to people as both good and let them decide by themselves! Example: Man and woman can avoid STD by refraining themselves from doing sex other than his/her wife/husband, or girlfriend/boyfriend. Man and woman can avoid pregnancy by avoiding sexual intercourse not in woman's safe period. By so doing, man and woman can never violate God's design. You may if it's okay with your conscience take or use contraceptive medicines or may also use condoms. What is important is you make yourself safe from pregnancy and STD. Then, leave them the choices. That's pro-choice!
And you understand rhb? This commentator does not!And what do you understand? That rhb is pro-choice? That rhb is making contraceptive medicines as essential medicines? That rhb is promoting the use of contraceptive medicines? That no provision in rhb is promoting abortion? That rhb addresses concerns on fast growing population? What do you want this commentator to understand?
By the way, you're intelligent person it seemed (or at least you think you are). And you're pro-rhb of course. This commentator is pro-truth. And for lack of intellectual superiority as you, this commentator will only say, there's no problem with rh, but rhb is not necessary. What is necessary is a bill that would make Philippines a rice-producing giant in Asia if not the world (assuming it is true that agri in the Philippines is rich), a bill that will be making Philippines a marine resource-producing giant in the world, and a marine-resource finished product-producing giant as well, or a bill that would rationally maximizing the Philippines natural resources (assuming that it is true that Philippines is so rich in natural resources). Or better yet, if Philippines (assuming that it's true that it is an archipelago) to make it: Luzon as it is big but not that so rich in natural resources(but rich in calamities) to make it 1 state with 3 substates; Visayas, also 1 state with 3 substates, and Mindanao as it is contributing only about 60% economy to imperial Manila make it 1 state with 4 substates. Decentralize the system both economically and politically. No more "Mala-akin", este "Mala-kanya", este Malakanyang Palace. Kanya-kanyang palace na. Let's make all the people in our own state busy earning a living. Rather than "magparamihan ng ginawang batas". Do you think it's rational for filipinos to get more divided with proposed laws where flaws are the only certain?
I choose to say no To
I choose to say no To RH-Bill, because I believe that any life is a Gift from God no one is allowed to contracept...No Authority to Stop Life!!!
no to rh bill
NO TO RH BILL, as authored by Edcel Lagman.
It is in our constitution, to protect human life. We do not need this bill
to control population, to help the poor, to improve the health services
of women and children, and all the statements which is the goal of this bill. WE DO NOT NEED TO SPEND BILLIONS , in sex education at the age of grade 5 onwards, we do not need to give FREE CONTRACEPTIVES, and condoms,
and educate the masses to other forms of non natural family planning, aside
from the Natural family methods. IT IS AGAINST not only religious and moral,but human rights to PROTECT WOMEN and children, against adverse HEALTH
RISK, brought about by the use of Contraceptives. And condoms, is also not
100% sure. IT IS NOT A SOLUTION TO POVERTY. OUR POLITICIANS, ARE BRAINWASHED, by WHAT THEY WANT, NOT WHAT IS GOOD FOR THE ENTIRE FILIPINO
PEOPLE, WOMEN IN PARTICULAR.
former, Asst. Head, Cultural Center of the Phils. Women's Desk.
Head, National Comm. for Culture and the Arts, Info. and Dissemination
Committee.
FOUNDING Vice President, Phils. Asso. of Museums Inc.
Board of Director, Cultural Center PHils. Employees Association.
Treasurer, Art Asso. of the Phils. founded by P.K. Ledesma since the l950's.
Faculty, Arts Dept. University of Asia and the Pacific, Pearl Drive, Pasig.
No. Life is a gift from god
No. Life is a gift from god
it doesn't mean that we are
it doesn't mean that we are for RH bill, we do not give value to life. LIFE is precious, more than how you think you have valued it. just simple, if you want to correct something, start it right! look at our society where we are now. be compassionate of what our less fortunate brothers and sisters are experiencing. we want to ensure that the state shall look into the comprehensive reproductive health of its statesmen. RH Bill doesn't imposed contraception! RH Bill provide a space for both FP acceptors and non-acceptors to choose and to value more one's life. Read on and bring dictionary beside to check what the bill has stipulated over time! I am a living witness of how important it is to instill in the minds of our people to be aware what is happening to our body or else, you will be rotten because of IGNORANCE. and ignorance has no place in this world of uncertainties!