The President signed Executive Order No. 12 dated Jan. 9, 2017 giving impetus to the Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Law rendered practically inoperative by a temporary restraining order issued by the Supreme Court. It is something that is needed if we have to somehow manage the high rate of population growth in this country. I went over the executive order and although there is absolutely nothing there about killing the unborn, those against it will again use religion to drive home their point.
It is hard to have a civilized debate in this country when we talk of issues involving religion. The RPRH Act, which was signed into law during the term of President Noynoy Aquino, is a case in point. In the debate leading to its passage in Congress after so many years of attempts, its implementation was immediately embargoed by the Supreme Court when a pro-life group filed for a temporary restraining order which the Court granted.
Was the decision based solely on law or did religion creep into the Supreme Court decision? It is hard to say. The appointment of Supreme Court justices are not based on scrutiny of the would-be appointees that includes their views on law and religion. For instance, would their legal decisions be influenced by their religious moral beliefs? When the RPRH law was being considered for passage, the Catholic Church took such unusual and aggressive actions like displaying posters in church premises proclaiming that the law was tantamount to murder. It was not, of course, but such was the ferocity of the debate (or the non-debate) that there was hardly any intelligent exchange of positions. Discussions were always drowned by the boisterous followers of the church.
The Philippines is 68th in size among the countries of the world but is the 12th most populous. The land area is only 115,000 square miles with a population of about 105 million by the end of 2017. One could immediately see the imbalance between what the country’s environment can realistically sustain and its population. I read one time that the country’s environment can only adequately sustain a population of up to 120M. Beyond that, there will be irreparable damage to the environment and the quality of life of the people.
We are beginning to see this happening. We must be able to strike a balance between population growth and what the environment can adequately support. Even in Italy, which is the seat of Roman Catholicism, the population has been declining for years. The country has one of the lowest birth rates. Yet, we do not see the kind of activism there of the Church and lay leaders as we see in our country. Are the Italians and the Catholic Church there so wrong in not raising hell about the declining birth rate? Are we, on the other hand, so righteous?
As we go around the cities and towns, the one thing constant is the multitude of children in our streets. In Metro Manila, the sight of poor women carrying babies, with toddlers begging and sleeping on the sidewalks, is so depressing that it is hard to understand why anyone would want more of that. But those pro-life groups and church leaders would point out that the church does allow family planning except through abstinence. It is a position that is so unrealistic that it is a joke.
With the prevalence of HIV, the use of condoms that have been scientifically proven to be an effective protection. It should be allowed but church leaders continue to refuse to allow its use. The country is now third after Afghanistan and Pakistan in the rate of HIV infections. If nothing is done, this will become an epidemic which will be hard to stop. Do we have to wait until people start dying by the hundreds or by the thousands before doing something?
This is perhaps the only way to go through the rigors of living without going crazy. If it is true that our country’s environment can only effectively sustain a population of 120 million, then perhaps we should start doing something about it. The problem is, upon the mention of family planning, the so-called pro-lifers immediately translate this to mean population control.
If I understand the RPRH Law correctly, its main intention is to encourage women of reproductive age to have children that they can adequately support and provide for. If a couple can support seven children adequately, so be it. It does not advocate sterilization or abortion. But even I have to admit that family planning is an issue in this country that is divisive and very emotional.
The new executive order of President Duterte will give teeth to the law. If anyone could do it, this President can. Otherwise, we might go the way of Bangladesh with 150M people crowding a land with an area of only about 45,000 square miles.
We are of course a long way from that but striking a good balance is the key to less problematic living.