Past deliberations in Congress, particularly within the Committee on Women, concerning House Bill 3773 (more popularly known as the Responsible Parenthood and Population Management Act of 2005) ended February of last year with the bill being passed amidst oppositions inside and out of Congress. The bill garnered 20 votes for its approval while only three voted against it. It has already been transferred since then to the Committee on Rules for its final approval before the bill becomes a law.
          A year after its approval in the committee, the controversial bill still has been receiving objections from various lobbyists, thereby delaying the process of making the proposed bill into a law. 
          Inside the House of Representatives, some lawmakers against the bill are now raising questions and objections to delay the total passing of the bill into law. Even various organizations from the different sectors against the bill have been creating noise to delay the process.
          Even up to the present time, the bill still has been waiting for its fate in Congress - whether it will be successfully passed or it will just go into the wastebin of the lawmakers. 
          Unfortunately, nothing more is currently heard regarding the issue.

New Bill on the Rise

          The House of Representatives already had produced four bills concerning reproductive health and population management prior to the creation of HB 3773, namely House Bills 16, 2029, 2024 and 2550. 
          These bills were consolidated in HB 3773, which is authored mainly by Representative Edcel Lagman. Co-authors of the bill include Reps. Ferjenel Biron, Eduardo Roquero, and the Committee on Women Chairperson Josefina Joson.
          Lagman said the bill talks about a national measure that would "provide free and full access to adequate and relevant information on reproduction health and a full range of family methods and devices."
          The bill promotes a two-child policy to limit Filipino family size and suggests incentives like grants of scholarships to those who will conform to the policy "in order to attain the desired population growth rate," Lagman added.
          Also, the bill orders punishments to any health care worker who will provide incorrect information concerning family planning and other reproductive health issues, or those who will refuse to provide service to the public, "although there is an exception in case of ethical or religious objection," Lagman said. 
          The proposed bill was originally referred to the Committee on Health before being transferred to the Committee on Women near the end of 2004. 

Congress' Delaying Tactics

          A number of lawmakers, usually those against the bill, raised different arguments during various events of deliberations for the bill, which all contributed to the delay of the bill's processing within the Committee.
          At the initial hearing for the proposed bill in 2004, Atty. Jo Imbong of the Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) claimed that the country's 2.36% growth rate cited in the bill was not factual, and that the proposed bill in general was unconstitutional.
          During the second hearing, the issue of whether or not the Committee should sponsor a discussion on the reproductive process was raised, as Rep. Hermilando Mandanas questioned the possibility of including an abortion policy in the bill.
          In response to the issue raised at the second hearing, the Committee invited Philippine Obstetricians and Gynecologists Society (POGS) President Evelyn Palaypayon and University of the Philippines - Manila Chancellor Marita Reyes to answer the queries raised to the Committee.
          It was also along this time that Committee on Women Vice-Chairperson Liza Maza motioned for the consolidation of the already-waiting four bills on reproductive health and population management.
          At the last deliberation of the Committee, the bill has been finally approved and was then transferred to the Committee on Rules.

HB 3773 Supporters

          Aside from the lawmakers responsible for the creation of HB 3772 as well as other lawmakers that campaigns for the approval of the bill, the Commission on Population (POPCOM) has expressed their support for the proposed bill.
          POPCOM is a government agency created in the 1970s which serve as a population policy advocacy arm in the country.
          POPCOM Executive Director Tomas Osias said the commission supports the bill "because it encourages couples to plan their family size without resorting to illegal methods" 
          "We are supporting it because it will further strengthen the implementation of a population management program and because it does not advocate abortion," Osias explained. 
          Osias added the country needs an urgent population policy "to finally chart the direction for population management and stop the worsening maternal and child deaths brought about by unplanned pregnancies."
          "Programs for population management would not be consistent unless you have a national policy. Instead of moving forward to development, we will end up going back to the same challenges that we have been confronted with for many years," noted Osias. 
          Osias presented statistics which shows 2.36 percent annual growth rate of the country, making the Philippines the 12th most populous country in the world. He expressed the danger that "the present number of Filipinos would double in 29 years unless the population momentum is slowed down". 

Opponents in Congress

          The bill developed various opponents that campaigned against the approval and implementation of the proposed bill.
          Buhay partylist Rep. Rene Velarde expressed his objection with how the bill connects overpopulation as being a cause of poverty.
          "Too many people don't cause poverty…Bad governance and policies do," Velarde said.
          Velarde added that he found the bill "absurd that the bill would give families a semblance of choice in planning [yet] puts a limit on the number of children families would want to raise."
          "Instead of busying ourselves with the population debate, we need to exhaust our efforts to pass laws and create a social and economic environment that will ensure health services, access to education and a decent standard of living for every Filipino family," Velarde said in an article explaining his opposition to HR 3773.
          Jo Imbong, an attorney attached to the CBCP, has argued that the bill "defies the state's constitutional mandate to value and protect the institution of marriage, strengthen the family and foster its solidarity and full development."
          Imbong believes the bill works against the teachings of the Catholic Church. She instills the issue of morality regarding the bill as she defended that a couple's right to religious belief "does not only mean the freedom to believe but also includes the freedom to act on one's belief." 

Opposing Organization

          Aside from opponents inside the House, the approval of HB 3773 has drawn strong opposition as well from the Catholic Church, various pro-life groups, and campaigners based in the U.S.
          Sister Mary Pilar Versoza, RGS, head of Pro-Life Philippines, said the bill was sponsored by big international agencies that come up with "anti-people policies, not pro-life ones." 
          "Pro-population control agencies such as USAID (United States Agency for International Development) and UNFPA (United Nations Population Fund) fund the campaign for the bill to be passed into law," says Sr. Pilar. 
          Sr. Versoza also explained how the bill "violates the freedom of religious belief, since it mandates health service providers to implement procedures contrary to their religious beliefs and penalizes them if they refuse."
          Versoza also expressed how the bill "will corrupt the youth through mandatory sex education that emphasizes contraception and population control, and further reduces the time allotment for more relevant subjects, worsening the already ineffective education system."
          International Solidarity and Human Rights Institute, a Catholic rights group, also opposes the bill by saying that "[the bill] did not reflect the cultural and religious values of Filipino Catholics or Muslims."
          Eileen Macapanas Cosby, head of the US-based organization Filipino Family Fund which campaigns against HB 3773, calls the bill "social engineering at its worst."
          "The legislation is coercive, violates religious liberty, and is completely contrary to Filipino values," she said in a statement released after the voting at the Committee on Women.

Left Behind

          With the arrival of the timely issues on taxation and EVAT that lately bombard the Congress, the proceedings regarding the total approval of HB 3773 were temporarily placed out of the limelight. 
          Various arguments, however, currently raised by numerous organizations either pro or against the bill keep the issue on the bill alive.
          It is obvious that the bill is torn between the issue of both economics and of moral. It is said to be an issue of economics, according to the bill itself, for the population management is said to affect poverty alleviation. The issue is also said to be an issue of moral, for the population management is affecting the pro-life stance of the Catholic Church and other pro-life organizations.
          With the bill being left hanging in Congress, the people will remain clueless and guideless on what policy on population and reproductive health to follow.
          At the same time, statistics concerning bad reproductive health and population markings still has to remain as is until the bill has been finalized. 
          For now, the bill, and the whole country, has to wait for its fate within the Congress.