Abortion in the Philippines: To do or not to do?

The Reproductive Health Care Act [HB 4110] has been vigorously opposed by the Church and pro-life groups alleging that it may be a backdoor attempt to legalize abortion in the Philippines. I have acquired a copy of the HB 4110 through the internet and after reading it, I could not seem to find an outright provision expressly declaring that abortion will be legalized.However, certain provisions in the bill such as Sections 3(c) and 3(d) on reproductive rights and reproductive health, respectively; Section 4 (a) (2) on the right to make reproductive decisions; and Section 5 (a) (3) on the prevention and management of abortion could somehow be interpreted as giving the Filipino woman the choice to undergo abortion without fear of prosecution.


The proposed Bill is a human rights based legislation. Pro-choice proponents would certainly proclaim it to be a huge move forward for human rights legislation in the country. But is it?


The Philippine Revised Penal Code (R.A. No. 3815 as Amended) prohibits abortion in Articles 256- 259. The 1987 Constitution (Section 5 Article II and Section 1 Article III) protects the right to life. The Right to Life is the most fundamental of human rights. It is the spring from which flow forth all other human rights. The Constitution protects the unborn from the moment of "conception" according to some quarters. But the question remains. At what time do we legally reckon the moment of conception? Is it during the formation of the human embryo or when it has become a human fetus? Who has the legal standing to represent the unborn? When can we say the unborn has legal personality?


United Kingdom abortion law is enlightening. The 1967 Abortion Act mandates that abortion of a fetus may be allowed for up to 24 weeks of pregnancy provided two doctors must decide that the risk to a woman’s physical or mental health or the risk to her child(ren)’s physical or mental health will be greater if she continues with the pregnancy than if she ends it. However, there is no time limit on abortion where two doctors agree that a woman’s health or life is gravely threatened by continuing with the pregnancy or that the fetus is likely to be born with severe physical or mental abnormalities. Further, in the event that an abortion must be performed as a matter of medical emergency a second doctor’s agreement does not need to be sought. The consent of the woman's partner, her own doctor, or her family in the induced abortion of a fetus under the foregoing legal criteria is not necessary.

Technically, abortion is not really allowed in the United Kingdom for the Act only provides legal defences for those doing it. Incidentally there had been a move to lower the upper limit of 24 weeks but it was defeated in the House of Commons.


Aside from legal grounds, pro-life proponents rely on moral and religious arguments in opposing an abortion law. Pro-choice groups on the other hand assert a pregnant woman's right to choose and make a decision for herself to terminate or continue her pregnancy.

A lot had been said, done, talked and written by these groups on the opposite sides of this great divide.

But what about the human embryo? The human fetus? Does a human embryo or a human fetus have human rights before being born? Could a human embryo or a human fetus be fit to be a subject of legal relations? For me, these are the questions crucial to the equation.....

SO THE GENIE IS OUT OF THE BOTTLE

The recent pronouncements by the current Philippine government represented by GMA, if the papers were to be believed that "Federalism" is the way forward" for the future of Philippine governance, decidedly bring out to all and sundry the "modus vivendi" of the Philippine Negotiating Panel in the conduct of the latest GRP-MILF negotiations. The creation and establishment of the Bangsamoro Juridical Entity is a giant step in the grand plan of the Philippine government to change the nature of governance- from democratic republicanism to federalism.

While the idea of federalism is a pleasant wind to arrive in the marketplace of ideas given Manila's stranglehold of national decision making processes that affect the far-flung barangays of the Republic, such a deep and profound constitutional change in the ethos and character of the general Filipino politic demands prudence and circumspection.

Perhaps, "Federalism" would be the Filipino's "Holy Grail" in his dire quest for peace, balance, and equality.

Federalism is probably a most appropriate system of governance for the myriad and often conflicting ideas of how different indigenous peoples in the Philippines politically conduct themselves, merging customs, traditions, and the law. And the best means to effect the change is through a constitutional convention. Measures must also be implemented so that the present governmental dispensation must not in any way benefit from it.

But then, is now the time to do so?

The GRP-MILF Memorandum of Agreement: A Road to Peace?

The draft of the GRP-MILF Memorandum of Agreement between the Philippine Government and the MILF has elicited vigorous objections'reactions from different sectors of the Philippine society. Premature may it be to really determine the ultimate outcome of this latest endeavour to clinch that elusive peace in Mindanao, certain matters in the draft agreement have creased the brows in the face of the Filipino.

Consider these:

1. The Bangsamoro people will have acquired: (a)their own territory comprising the land territory of their ancestral claim as well as the internal and external waters; (b)a practically internal "sovereignty" in governance and management of natural resources and own separate internal security force and police; (c)foreign relations in the guise of economic missions which could be similar to Taiwan's situation.Taiwan has economic missions in other sovereign states that for all intents and purposes could function like a regular embassy of a state.These factors practically give an implied admission of the existence of a "de facto" state of the Bangsamoro people with the BJE undertaking a governmental and administrative functions. A declaration of independence and international recognition by other sovereign states are the last steps to achieve a formal existence as a new state;

2. The provisions in the agreement may contravene the 1987 Philippine Constitution and statutes that confer proprietory rights to private persons affected by the secession of territory by the government to the MILF. It is argued that the rationale of Republic Act No. 8371 [Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997] is stewardship of ancestral domains by qualified indigenous peoples and not outright ownership. Hence, there might be a need to amend the constitutional Charter and repeal of relevant laws that are in conflict with the Memorandum;

3. While there may be a plebiscite in the proposed additional areas of coverage of the BJE as to whether the the local area residents would agree to be part of the BJE, the fact remains that the BJE will have duly existed by then.

Will this agreement be a precursor to the ultimate dismemberment of the Philippines or a step towards federalism?