Neglected and deteriorating

People are really wondering why our country still has to waste lots of time and money on this yearly ritual called the state of the nation address by the President. Aside from being merely an occasion showcasing how rich and pompous our governmental officials have become since they came into power, it has not really served any purpose at all. It has not actually provided our countrymen with the necessary information on the true state of the nation. More so with respect to the present president who has used it as just another opportunity to trumpet his alleged achievements, to justify all his actions and to lash out at his critics.

Unfortunately, such unnecessary and expensive affair cannot just be done away with. We simply have to endure it every year unless we change our Constitution because as provided in Section 23, Article VII thereof: “The President shall address the Congress at the opening of its regular session. He may appear before it at any other time.” Perhaps, the only thing we can do at this time is to refrain from listening and giving so much importance to it. In fact the true state of our country can be determined by us from actual day to day happenings and from the lives of people in the streets wallowing in poverty.

Indeed one thing noticeable about this yearly address is that it is purely concentrated on the alleged material progress of our country and people, especially our economic growth. Yet the very preamble of our Constitution itself invokes the Almighty God in… promoting the “common good.” According to one of the framers of the present Constitution and well recognized authority in Constitutional Law, Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas S.J.,  “common good projects the idea of a social order that enables every citizen to attain his or her fullest development, economically, politically, culturally and spiritually.” In fact, Fr. Bernas says that the use of the phrase “Almighty God” in our preamble is… more consonant with “personalist Filipino religiosity.”

Yet in every state of the nation address, nothing much or nothing at all is mentioned about how we are faring in our spiritual development, about how the State or government has instilled into the minds of our people the “purest principles of morality.” This is very noticeable especially in our incumbent president who may be leading us into a graver moral decay when he actively pushed for the passage of the RH law geared towards a reduction of our population, a reduction of births in our country through the use of contraceptives.

This observation is not just pure speculation but based on actual happenings in other countries where the use of contraceptives are legalized. In said countries particularly in US and Europe, broken marriages and separated families are rampant. Eventually abortion, divorce, same sex marriages have also been legalized. Right now in fact, bills have also been introduced here on divorce and same sex marriages and other measures affecting marriage and family life. Indiscriminate and thrill killings are also rampant in those countries because of their people’s low regard for human life. And all these things are happening there now because of the contraceptive mentality instilled among their citizens especially the young ones.

We are still fortunate however because somehow, our Supreme Court (SC) has still found certain portions of the RH law contrary to our Constitution, more specifically the right to life of the mother and the unborn from the moment of conception or from the moment of fertilization, when life begins. Thus the SC has ruled that “Section 3.01 (a) and Section 3.01 (j) of the RH law-IRR which added the qualifier “primarily” in defining abortifacients and contraceptives are ultra vires and therefore null and void for … violating Section 12, Article II of the Constitution.” According to the SC contraceptives that have the “primary” and “secondary” action of causing abortion are not allowed.

What is worrisome now is that the Department of Health (DOH) appears to be implementing the RH law and in fact propagating in media, health information on “modern natural family planning methods” before the IRR has been published and has taken effect. Such move may run counter to the SC decision. In fact according to the SC in its decision, not a single contraceptive has yet been submitted to the Food and Drug Administration which is given the authority to determine which of these hormonal contraceptives, intra uterine devices, family planning products and supplies are safe, legal and have no abortive effects. Up to now the public has not been informed if the FDA has already a list of these contraceptives. This seems to be the style of this administration. They are not announcing their moves until it is discovered. We must guard against this practice.  

The other provisions of the RH law found by the SC as unconstitutional are:

1) Section 7 and the corresponding provision in the RH-IRR insofar as they: a) require private health facilities and non-maternity specialty hospitals and hospitals owned and operated by a religious group to refer patients, not in an emergency or life-threatening case, as defined under Republic Act No. 8344, to another health facility which is conveniently accessible; and b) allow minor-parents or minors who have suffered miscarriage access to modern methods of family planning without written consent from their parents or guardian/s;

2) Section 23(a)(1) and the corresponding provision in the RH-IRR, particularly Section 5.24 thereof, insofar as they punish any healthcare service provider who fails and or refuses to disseminate information regarding programs and services on reproductive health regardless of his or her religious beliefs;

3) Section 23(a)(2)(i) and the corresponding provision in the RH-IRR insofar as they allow a married individual, not in an emergency or life-threatening case, as defined under Republic Act No. 8344, to undergo reproductive health procedures without the consent of the spouse;

4) Section 23(a)(2)(ii) and the corresponding provision in the RH-IRR insofar as they limit the requirement of parental consent only to elective surgical procedures;

5) Section 23(a)(3) and the corresponding provision in the RH-IRR, particularly Section 5.24 thereof, insofar as they punish any healthcare service provider who fails and/or refuses to refer a patient not in an emergency or life threatening case, as defined under Republic Act No. 8344, to another health care service provider within the same facility or one which is conveniently accessible regardless of his or her religious beliefs; 

6)Section 23(b) and the corresponding provision in the RH-IRR, particularly Section 5.24 thereof, insofar as they punish any public officer who refuses to support reproductive health programs or shall do any act that hinders the full implementation of a reproductive health program, regardless of his or her religious beliefs; and 7) Section 17 and the corresponding provision in the RH-IRR regarding the rendering of pro bono reproductive health service in so far as they affect the conscientious objector in securing PhilHealth accreditation.

We must see to it that these provisions are not implemented.

*      *      *

Email: [email protected]