‘Mag-anak’

There is a country whose government has learned to accord high regard, respect and value to family life, marriage, and children.

When a baby is born, the government grants the qualified family a Baby Bonus of $5,437.00 or roughly P235,000.00. The money is meant to help parents defray the costs and expenses of rearing a newborn baby (or a newly adopted child).

For children of school age, there is free public elementary and secondary education. In addition to free laptops given the student, eligible families get School Kids’ Bonus of $410 each year for primary school and $820 each year for secondary school.

There is a Youth Allowance for young people who are studying full-time, undertaking apprenticeship, training, looking for work, or sick. There is also Youth Connections to help young people who have not completed, or are at risk of not completing Year 12 or equivalent qualifications, and have barriers that make it difficult to participate in education, training or employment.

Eligible university students can apply for the HECS-HELP, a loan program to help them pay their tuition and university fees.

For young people with a physical, intellectual or psychiatric disability, there is Youth Disability Supplement to provide them additional financial support. The Career Adjustment Payment is a one-off payment that helps families deal with the increased care needs of a child aged six years or younger who has had a sudden and severe illness or accident.

Other benefits include centrelink/rent-assistance” Rent Assistance and Telephone Allowance, to assist those on income support to manage household expenses. There is even the so-called Extra Assistance for Household Expenses, to help with household expenses such as making the change to digital TV, and LPG conversion for vehicles.

The most amazing are the simple things: the Family Fun Day – a Sunday set aside by the government to encourage families to be together for a fun day. The incentive is unlimited transport use (city bus, train, or ferry boat) for a flat rate of $2.50 per head for a family with a child (anyone under 16 years old). The government also mandates all entities to set aside a day each year for the Family Picnic Day, a company-sponsored picnic for employees and their families.

Why do I know these surprising public entitlements? I googled this government’s Centrelink website. More importantly, I was there for a 20-day stay with a beautiful family, who graciously hosted my family. They showed us around the country, allowed us to immerse ourselves in their daily lives, and pointed out to us their government’s policies which indeed empower them as parents and families. 

The country is Australia and I was there from December 15, 2012 to January 3, 2013.

In this short period of time, I encountered such jargons as “Countering Ageing”, “Couple-ness”, “Pronatalist inducements” and a more scholarly concept of “Marital stability”. And I was astonished to know that all these provide the very bases of the pro-family legislations and policies in Australia (and other countries as well).

I could however note that we also have Filipino equivalents to these jargons. “Countering ageing” is captured by the word “magulang;” “couple-ness” by “magkabiyak;” “pronatalist inducement” by the word “mag-anak;” and marital stability by “tahanan.”

However modest, we also have counterpart government programs. Our DSWD website lists Pantawid Pamilya Pilipino Program where qualified beneficiaries receive P6,000 a year or P500 per month per household for health and nutrition expenses; and P3000 for one school year or 10 months or P300/month per child for educational expenses. A maximum of three children per household is allowed.

CHED has its Student Financial Assistance Program (StuFAP) which consists of scholarship grants for students according to their general weighted average grades (P15,000/semester for those with of 90%; P7,500.00 for 85-89%; and P6,000 for 80-84%). There is OPPAP-CHED SGPRR for former rebels or dependents at P5,000/semester; DND-CHED-PASUC study grant program for dependents of military killed in action at P2,500, and CHED special study grant program for congressional district/senate, also at P2,500/semester. CHED claims to have served 46,751 students beneficiaries in 2012.

Of course, we cannot diminish the importance of the Senior Citizen’s discounts and how this entitlement honors and uplifts our “magulang.”

While in Canberra, I chanced upon the book of Kevin Andrews, a barrister, a member of the Australian parliament since 1991 who serves as the Shadow Minister for Families, Housing and Human Services. He also chaired the Parliamentary Committee that produced the landmark report on marriage and family, “To have and to hold ‑ strategies to strengthen marriage and relationships.”

In his book, “Maybe ‘I do’- modern marriage and pursuit of happiness,” (Connor Court Publishing; 2012”)  Mr. Andrews concluded  that: “Over four decades of social science research across western nations confirms one clear and unambiguous conclusion: A healthy marriage is the best source of physical and mental health, emotional stability and prosperity for adults and children. It is also the best bet for attaining happiness and fulfillment.” He highlighted that “if we desire a stable and healthy society, then the intact family remains our best bet… with practical support and encouragement, we can build strong nations based on a healthy society with stable married life at its foundation.”

This reminded me that there is also a country where those same conclusions were known all along, finding expression even in its Constitution – the Philippines. Marriage is the foundation of the family, and the family is the foundation of our nation. (Art. XV, sections 2 and 1, respectively).  This country too has a solid national family policy with its Family Code, signed into law by President Corazon C. Aquino.

But this reminded me further that just before I left for Australia, I was at the Batasang Pambansa hearing our lawmakers debate on the RH bill.

And just as I was personally experiencing that it is possible – and there are indeed practical ways – for a country to highlight all its learning and lessons on why there must be supreme regard, respect and value for family, marriage, and children, I am now also seeing the present Philippine government starting to intervene in the Filipino family life in a sustained and institutionalized way through the enactment of Republic Act No. 10354, or the Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012.

This law is a very powerful intervention by our government upon marriage and family life. Indeed, “[l]aws do more than distribute rights, responsibilities, and punishments. Laws help to shape the public meanings of important institutions, including marriage and family.” (The Future of Family Law, Law and the Marriage Crisis in North America 2005)  As an authoritative norm, this law “will shape social conduct and relationships.” 

In other words, the struggle now is back to square one. There is an imperative for a fresh wave of movements promoting a public and cultural mindset and attitude that elevates the dignity of tahanan, magulang, and mag-anak. The more fundamental question is not how to be “able to have a responsible, safe, consensual and satisfying sex life,” with “the capability to reproduce and the freedom to decide if, when and how often to do so,” (RA 10354, Sec.4 (p)) but rather how to finally pursue and realize a comprehensive national strategy to promote and strengthen marriage, relationships and  family life.  

It is high time for us to be reminded that when dealing with mag-anak – marriage and family life – “we deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights – older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects.”  (Douglas J in Griswold v. Connecticut,  381 U.S. 479,  No. 496 Argued: March 29-30, 1965 – Decided: June 7, 1965 )