New tack vs RH bill: Slew of amendments

MANILA, Philippines - The Reproductive Health (RH) bill was finally taken up again in the Senate, even taking precedence over the so-called sin tax bill, during yesterday’s plenary session.

But just when the proponents of the bill were expecting to end the period of amendments, their opponents were in no mood to do so, instead introducing a long list of modifications, with more to come.

Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, who had been criticized by RH bill co-authors and sponsors Sen. Pia Cayetano and Miriam Defensor-Santiago for stalling, introduced six of 17 proposed amendments, four of which were accepted.

Sen. Ralph Recto, meanwhile, introduced nine amendments, seven of which were accepted.

Enrile, stung by criticism that he was delaying the RH bill, insisted that his proposed amendments should be taken up before the sin tax measure.

Since last week, the sin tax bill has taken the front seat in the Senate as a priority measure of the administration and practically dominated all of the plenary sessions.

However, Cayetano pushed for the proposed amendments to the RH bill to be taken up alongside the sin tax bill so that the period of amendments could already be closed and the bill approved on second reading.

In a privilege speech at the start of yesterday’s session, Enrile denounced allegations that he and the other opponents of the bill have been employing delaying tactics to thwart final voting on the bill.

“No one in this chamber should be unduly rushed into accepting hook, line and sinker every data or assumption presented to us. We should not impute at all ill motives against those who are opposed to your personal position and issues such as this one, which has far reaching implications on the future of this country and her people,” Enrile said.

Enrile said that he was honestly not ready last Monday to introduce his proposed amendments but after studying the bill again, he was finally prepared to introduce them yesterday.

“It seemed that my honest statement was received with skepticism, or worse, of holding the bill hostage. I was perceived as delaying the final disposition of the measure by the Senate,” Enrile said.

“To put an end to it all, all these baseless accusations, especially coming from two of my lady colleagues, I’m ready to present my amendments if this chamber will allow me, allow the RH bill to be taken first before any pending measure in this house of the Senate,” he added.

As expected, acting ways and means committee chairman Sen. Franklin Drilon objected to this because of his intention to conclude the discussions on the sin tax bill yesterday.

This led to the holding of a vote by the members of the Senate, the majority of whom favored the motion of Enrile to take up the RH bill before the sin tax bill.

Definition of conception

Before he introduced his proposed amendments, Enrile said that he would only need 20 minutes to finish his list.

But because of intense debates that ensued, particularly on Enrile’s insistence on defining conception or when life begins, the 20 minutes stretched to more than an hour.

Under Enrile’s proposed definition, conception “refers to the successful penetration of an ovum by a spermatozoa in the fallopian tube, otherwise known as fertilization, when a new life begins, to form in the mother’s womb.”

Both Santiago and Cayetano strongly objected to the definition given by Enrile, which they argued has not been settled by any of the experts in the scientific field.

“This is a categorical statement that conception takes place at fertilization. I believe it will not serve the interest of clarity, it won’t support scientific evidence,” Santiago said, adding that the definition of Enrile has long been the position of pro-life advocates.

“There will be many complications if we state categorically that life begins at fertilization. Why do our worthy opponents want a statement on the beginning of life included in our RH bill? It might be interpreted to mean that they are laying the groundwork for filing a case against a law, which they believe promotes the use of contraceptives, which they argue are actually abortifacients,” she added.

Santiago said that the Constitution did not give any definition of conception because doing so would be “tantamount to legislating an uncertain and contended position.”

Cayetano, for her part, argued that the legislators cannot take the place of experts and “become scientific gods” by defining something that is contentious.

SC resolution

Enrile said that he also consulted experts in coming up with his proposed definition and that if any question would arise about this, it would have to be settled by the Supreme Court.

“If there is any controversy and if it is true that the theory of one of the sponsors is correct that the State cannot intrude in this domain, then whose opinion will matter and become definitive except the Supreme Court,” Enrile said.

“Let the Supreme Court, at that point, as the final arbiter of legal conflicts in our land, determine when conception begins. But we must, as legislators, in defining the terms of this law, must make it clear in defining when conception starts,” he added.

Enrile was outvoted on this amendment with only nine favoring his proposed amendment and 11 voting against it.

Because of the amount of time taken up by just a third of his proposed amendments, it was agreed that the rest would be taken up at another time.

Recto, for his part, objected to the provision mandating local government units to provide reproductive health services, which was supported with a vote of 13-7 in his favor.

Apart from Enrile and Recto, Majority Leader Vicente Sotto III is also scheduled to introduce amendments to the bill.

Sotto, who is also opposed to the RH bill, said he would introduce his amendments after all of the other amendments have been completed.