Another “magulang,” therefore, emerges. It is known in law as “parens patriae.” It is pamahalaan becoming, or acting, or asserting itself, as magulang.
Literally translated as “parent/father of the country,” parens patriae, as explained in Nery v. Lorenzo, G.R. No. L-23096 April 27, 1972, means: “To it [the State] is cast the duty of protecting the rights of persons or individuals who because of age or incapacity are in an unfavorable position, vis-a-vis other parties. Unable as they are to take due care of what concerns them, they have the political community to look after their welfare.”
Thus, according to advocates of H.B.No. 4244, “the RH bill is about empowering women to make decisions on family size and family welfare that would allow them to escape poverty and build a brighter future for their children. The micro effects of the RH bill at the family level, replicated in millions of families across the land, would have the effect at the macro level of slowing down population growth, allowing the country to divert more resources from consumption to investment, especially investment in a skilled work force, thus creating the conditions for economic takeoff. At the same time, a lower rate of population growth would significantly reduce stress on the environment and lead to less social conflict.” (Overwhelming case for the RH bill By Kaka Bag-ao, Teddy Baguilat, Walden Bello and Kimi Cojuangco)
With ready access to modern birth control drugs and methods, the generation of life can, and therefore, should be controlled. There lies the so-called empowerment and with it, the exercise of responsibility by the magulang, all for the sake of the future of the country which, with less pressure on resources, will experience voila, development.
* * *
But openness to life is the distinguishing value of an authentic magulang - whether “magulang of the family” or “magulang of the nation.”
The magulang of the family see in children “the crowning of their own love for each other. They want children for the family, as a priceless gift,” and not just someone that they themselves willed. They understand that “God himself is present in human fatherhood and motherhood quite differently than He is present in all other instances of begetting on earth” (GS 9).
On the other hand, the magulang of the nation looks after the common good. And, “Man is a common good: a common good of the family and of humanity, of individual groups and of different communities... He is such not only as an individual who is part of the multitude of humanity, but rather as “this individual”... This man ‘has, in every instance, the right to fulfill himself on the basis of his human dignity’” (GS 11).
As such, in no instance must man be willed by the State into non-existence. Not in conception nor in birth nor ever. For “God “willed” man from the very beginning, and God “wills” him in every act of conception and every human birth.” And “[i]nscribed in the personal constitution of every human being is the will of God, who wills that man should be, in a certain sense, an end unto himself.”(GS 9). This is the very foundation of the concept of “human rights.”
In the papal encyclical Caritas en Veritate or Charity enlightened by Truth (2009), Pope Benedict XVI, speaking about authentic development, states:
“Openness to life is at the centre of true development. When a society moves towards the denial or suppression of life, it ends up no longer finding the necessary motivation and energy to strive for man’s true good. If personal and social sensitivity towards the acceptance of a new life is lost, then other forms of acceptance that are valuable for society also wither away.”
“The acceptance of life strengthens moral fibre and makes people capable of mutual help. By cultivating openness to life, wealthy peoples can better understand the needs of poor ones, they can avoid employing huge economic and intellectual resources to satisfy the selfish desires of their own citizens, and instead, they can promote virtuous action within the perspective of production that is morally sound and marked by solidarity, respecting the fundamental right to life of every people and every individual.”
* * *
“Magulang” has actually another translation and definition. This one is pejorative.
Depending on the usage and context, “magulang” may be used to refer to a scheming, wily or shrewd person who, for selfish reasons and/or personal gain, takes advantage of another’s naiveté, youth, minority, weakness, good faith or inexperience, to maximize benefit or profit in transactions, usually in business or contracts, and/or to ensure winning in a contest or competition, even gambling.
These magulang are the exact opposites of the authentic magulang of the family and the magulang of the nation. These magulang may validly want maximum benefit out of the resources available for consumption. They may be justified at dreaming of development. However, they corrupt the real meaning of “magulang” by undermining the value and basic dignity of the very persons entrusted to them for protection and promotion. Others should not exist so that others may exist better: magulang.
“If we ask where patriotism appears in the Decalogue,” says Blessed John Paul II in his book Memory and Identity, “the reply comes without hesitation: it is covered by the fourth commandment, which obliges us to honor our father and mother. It is included under the umbrella of the Latin word pietas, which underlines the religious dimension of the respect and veneration due to parents.”
Indeed, this nation should honor the magulang (the parents), not the magulang (the shrewd). It is now up to this pamahalaan to choose which kind of magulang to raise.
(Arnel M. Santos is a member of the International Council of Couples for Christ. He is a litigation lawyer, married to Mariter Delfin Santos, with two children: Jose Emilio and Maria Psalma.)