Back to top
List of Pro-RH Bill Candidates Released by Democratic Socialist Women of the Philippines
Published on: Jan 30, 2010 - 9:44pm
Share this Article

Elizabeth Angsioco,  National Chairperson of the  Democratic Socialist Women of the Philippines (DSWP), sent Spot.ph a list compiled by her organization of 2010 candidates with "observable favorable positioning on the Reproductive Health (RH) issue."

The DSWP paper  explains: "The listing is largely based on the years of advocacy for the passage of the RH Bill and specifically: the political mapping in the House of Representatives (HOR) done by advocates principally by the Philippine Legislators Committee on Population and Development Foundation, Inc. (PLCPD), observations and direct dealings with candidates and/or people closely working with them, track record of candidates on the issue and lastly, their public pronouncements.

This listing is by no means intended to be exhaustive particularly for the HOR where party list groups are not included. Also, only considered are incumbents whose position have been obvious or stated whether in Congress records, articulation and/or actions. Only a few local candidates who have strong RH track record are included primarily because of lack of information about other candidates.

This list is NOT intended to convince voters to only vote on the basis of candidates' RH position but rather, to encourage people to significantly consider pro-RH candidates in choosing their bets. Lastly, the list should be taken within the context of a political/electoral environment perceived to be influenced by the Catholic Church hierarchy, and thus, some candidates' positions may still change before the elections."

Position

Names

Remarks

President

Aquino, Noynoy

 · Prior to becoming a presidential candidate, he had no articulated position.

 · NOT a signatory to the Senate Committee Report on RH BUT mistakenly said that he was. Initially, was openly clashing against the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) on the issue.

 · Keen on providing RH information BUT at best, wary about providing budget for services

 · Recent pronouncements on RH are vague.

Estrada, Joseph

 · Pro-family planning but unclear on other important RH-related matters

Gordon, Richard

 · Known as pro-RH but has not CLEARLY articulated his detailed position on key RH matters such as: budget, family planning, RH education

Perlas, Nicanor

 · Articulated support for RH BUT no concrete position on critical RH matters.

Teodoro, Gilbert

 · Initially a strong RH supporter and openly clashed against the CBCP. Wife, Rep. Nikki Prieto among co-authors of RH Bill in this Congress.

 · Reported to have backed out from RH but recent pronouncements while softer and vaguer than before are still pro-RH.

 · Nikki Prieto HAS NOT officially withdrawn her RH co-authorship of the Bill.

Vice-President

Legarda, Loren

 · Senate RH Bill only moved significantly when she took over as Chair of Comm. On Health. She organized Sub-Comm on RH headed by RH author Sen. Biazon. She signed Comm. Report.

 · NO direct articulation of RH support.

 · Authored a dangerous bill – SB No. 2324 that provides MANDATORY PREGNANCY TESTING for women undergoing cosmetic procedure. This Bill is deemed by women's groups as violative of women's right to privacy.

Roxas, Mar

 · Those who know him say he is pro-RH but so far, has not articulated any clear position.

Yasay Perfecto

 · His wife has been visible in a few RH-related affairs and has said that Yasay is also pro-RH. However, the candidate has yet to issue a position in public forums.

For Senator

Acosta, Neric

 · Has been consistently and strongly pro-RH through his 3 terms as Representative.

 · Principally authored RH Bills in House of Representatives (HOR)

Biazon, Ruffy

 · RH Bill co-author

 · Has been publicly vocal about his position.

Cayetano, Pia

 · Chaired the Senate Comm. On Health and was the first to make the RH Bill move by calling for Committee Hearings.

 · Has issued pro-RH statements in public forums and media.

Estrada, Jinggoy

 · Principally authored RH-related bill in Senate

 · Signed the Senate Comm. On Health RH Report

Hontiveros, Risa

 · RH Bill co-author

 · Has been visible in pro-RH activities & issued statements on her position.

Marcos, Bongbong

 · RH Bill co-author

 · Known to the RH advocates as pro-RH but is not known to have issued any public statement

Maza, Liza

 · RH Bill co-author

 · Has been visible in pro-RH activities & issued statements on her position

Santiago, Miriam

 · Principally authored RH-related bill in Senate

 · Signed the Comm. On Health Report

 · Issued strong pro-RH statements in media interviews

 · Responsible for the progressive framework provisions of the Senate version of the Magna Carta of women (MCW)

For HOR

Ilocos Norte, 1st District

Ablan, Roque R.

Co-author

Pangasinan, 2nd Disrict

Agbayani, Victor Aguedo

Co-author

Isabela, 4th District

Aggabao, Giorgidi

Co-author

Kalinga, Lone

Agyao, Manuel

-do-

Isabela, 1st District

Albano, Rodolfo

-do-

Camarines Sur, 4th District

Alfelor, Felix

-do-

Negros Occidental, 6th District

Alvarez, Genaro

-do-

Palawan, 1st District

Alvarez, Antonio

-do-

Agusan del Norte, 2nd District

Amante, Edelmiro

-do-

Aurora, Lone District

Angara, Juan Edgardo

RH Bill co-author but has not issued public statement on the issue.

Agusan del Norte, 1st District

Aquino, Jose II

Co-author

Sulu, 2nd District

Arbison, Munir

Co-author

Pangasinan, 3rd District

Arenas, Ma. Rachel

-do-

Cavite, 2nd District

Bargaza, Elpidio

-do-

Lanao del Norte, 1st District

Belmonte, Vicente Jr.

-do-

Makati,2nd District

Binay, Abigail

-do-

Iloilo, 4th District

Biron, Ferjenel

-do-

Masbate, 1st District

Bravo, Narciso Jr.

-do-

Apayao, Lone

Bulut, Elias

-do-

Davao del Sur, 1st District

Cagas, Marc Douglas

-do-

Caloocan, 2nd District

Cajayon, Mary Mitzi

-do-

Pangasinan, 1st District

Celeste, Arthur

-do-

Zamboanga del Sur, 2nd District

Cerilles, Antonio

-do-

Laguna, 2nd District

Chipeco, Justin Marc

-do-

Ifugao, Lone District

Chungalao, Solomon

-do-

Pangasinan, 5th District

Cojuangco, Mark

-do-

Benguet, Lone

Dangwa, Samuel

-do-

Maguindanao

Datumanong, Simeon

-do-

Batanes, Lone

Diasnes, Carlo Oliver

-do-

Zambales, 2nd District

Diaz, Antonio

-do-

Sharif Kabunsuan, Lone

Dilangalen, Didagen

-do-

Lanao del Norte, 2nd District

Dimaporo, Abdullah

-do-

Baguio City

Domogan, Mauricio

Co-author and actively involved in the Bill's promotion. Has publicly articulated his position.

Rizal, 1st District

Duavit, Michael John

Co-author and helped in the Bill's promotion in the HOR.

Lanao del Sur, 1st District

Dumarpa, Faysah

Co-author

La Union, 2nd District

Dumpit, Thomas

-do-

Isabela, 3rd District

Dy, Faustino

-do-

Dinagat Islands

Ecleo, Glenda

-do-

Sorsogon, 1st District

Escudero, Salvador

Co-author and has been involved in defending the RH Bill on the HOR floor. Also active in authors' meetings.

Pangasinan, 6th District

Estrella, Robert Raymund

Co-author

Negros Occidental, 4th District

Ferrer, Jeffrey

-do-

Surigao del Sur, 2nd District

Garay, Florencio

-do-

Iloilo, 1st District

Garin, Janette

One of the main champions in the HOR and has been publicly promoting and defending the Bill.

Valenzuela, 1st District

Gatchalian, Rexlon

Co-author

Sultan Kudarat, 2nd District

Go, Arnulfo

-do-

Iloilo City, Lone District

Gonzales, Raul

Co-author and actively participated in authors' meetings on the Bill.

Mandaluyong, Lone District

Gonzales, Neptali

Co-author and went against Rep. Susano when she was objecting to discussion in the Plenary.

Tawi-Tawi, Lone

Jaafar, Nur

Co-author

Sulu, 1st District

Jikiri, Yusop

-do-

Nueva Ecija, 1st District

Joson, Josephine

Former Chair of HOR's Committee on Women and championed several pro-women laws. Also played critical role for the RH Bill when she was in HOR. Again running for an HOR seat after resting for I term.

Masbate, 2nd District

Kho, Antonio

Co-author

Zamboanga del Norte, 2nd District

Labadlabad, Rosendo

-do-

Negros Occidental, 3rd District

Lacson, Jose Carlos

Co-author and very visible in authors' and other strategizing meetings for RH.

Davao del Norte, 2nd District

Lagdameo, Antonio Jr.

Co-author

Albay, 1st District

Lagman, Edcel

The RH Bill's principal author and champion.

Tarlac, 3rd District

Lapus, Jesi

Co-author

Albay, 3rd District

Lim, Reno

Co-author

Cagayan, 3rd District

Mamba, Manuel

Co-author

Sultan Kudarat, 1st District

Mangudadatu, Datu Pax

-do-

La Union, 1st District

Ortega, Victor

-do-

Nueva Vizcaya, Lone

Padilla, Carlos

-do-

Bulacan, 2nd District

Pancho, Pedro

Co-author but no public pronouncement.

Surigao del Sur, 1st District

Pichay, Philip

-do-

South Cotabato, 2nd District

Pingoy, Arthur

Led the Bill's passage at the Committee on Health where he was Chair.

North Cotabato, 2nd District

Pinol, Bernardo

Co-author

Tarlac, 1st District

Prieto-Teodoro, Monica Louise

Co-author and actively involved in authors' meetings. Contrary to reports, she has not withdrawn authorship of Bill.

Cavite, 3rd District

Remulla, Jesus Crispin

Co-author

San jose, Del Monte, Lone district

Robes, Arturo

-do-

Pasay City, Lone District

Roxas, Jose Antonio

Co-author but had no public pronouncements.

Cebu, 4th District

Salimbangon, Benhur

Co-author

Malabon-Navotas, Lone District

Sandoval, Alvin

Co-author

Abra, Lone

Seares Luna, Cecilia

-do-

Bulacan, 3rd District

Silverio, Lorna

Co-author and actively involved on the issue

Ilocos Sur, 1st District

Singson, Ronald

Co-author

Ilocos Sur, 2nd District

Singson, Eric

-do-

Sorsogon, 2nd District

Solis, Jose

-do-

Quezon, 3rd District

Suarez, Danilo

-do-

Iloilo, 2nd District

Syjuco, Judy

-do-

North Cotabato, 1st District

Talino-Mendoza, Emmylou

Co-author and has been very visible in several pro-RH activities including authors meetings. Public articulation has been consistently pro-RH.

Marikina, 1st District

Teodoro, Marcelino

Co-author

Negros Oriental, 3rd District

Teves, Pryde Henry

-do-

Iloilo, 5th District

Tupas, Niel

Co-author and visible in authors' meetings

Davao City, 3rd District

Ungab, Isidro

Co-author

Isabela, 2nd District

Uy, Edwin

-do-

Western Samar, 1st District

Uy, Reynaldo

-do-

Cagayan de Oro City, 1st District

Uy, Rolando

-do-

Cagayan, 2nd District

Vargas, Florencio

-do-

Camarines Sur, 2nd District

Villafuerte, Luis

-do-

Tarlac, 2nd District

Yap, Jose

-do-

Zamboanga del Sur, 1st District

Yu, Victor

-do-

San Juan, Lone District

Zamora, Ronaldo

-do-

Bukidnon, 3rd District

Zubiri, Jose Ma.

Co-author and actively involved in authors' and other strategizing meetings. Also active in advocating with his co-HOR members.

SELECT LOCAL CANDIDATES

For Mayor

Quezon City

Bautista, Herbert

Played a critical role in the passage of the QC RH Code.

Defensor, Mike

Said that he is for RH in ANC debate.

Manila

Lim, Alfredo

DID NOT REVOKE Atienza's anti RH EO 003 BUT 'allowed' NGOs to work and provide RH services in Manila

Makati

Aquino, Agapito

Clearly said that he favors providing public funds for artificial contraceptives.

Cebu

Soon-Ruiz, Nerissa

Co-author and one of the leading HOR champions of the RH Bill

Davao City

Duterte, Sara

Very visible in RH activities and played a leading and critical role in the recent passage of the City's RH Code version.

General Santos City

Custodio-Antonino, Darlene

Co-author and one of the strongest champicxzons of the RH Bill at the HOR.

Tabaco City, Albay

Lagman-Luistro, Krisel

For reelection. Championed RH Bill when she was in HOR and has implemented RH programs in her city.

Cavite, Rosario

Ricafrente, Nonong

For reelection. Has been supportive of RH and implemented various important RH programs especially for those in poverty.

FOR GOVERNOR

Aurora Province

Angara-Castillo, Bellaflor

For reelection. Championed RH Bill when she was in HOR. She led the passage of the very first local RH Code in the country. Known as an RH champion nationally and internationally.


Albay

Salceda, Joey

For reelection. Has been openly and publicly articulating his pro-RH position defying GMA's anti-RH line even as he is known to be her ally.


How do you feel about this article?
Win  
0
Yum  
0
Want!  
0
LOL  
0
Yuck  
0
WTF  
0
0
Total Votes
Related Articles
Username   * required
Security Code Security Code  * required
 
NOTE: SPOT.ph editors reserve the right to moderate and delete comments, without notice, that contain abusive or threatening behavior, contain advertising, spam, profanity or malicious comments.
35 Comments
  • The System has failed
    walng popularidad sa galit na boss
    10 months ago     Reply  
  • The System has failed
    Malinaw na mailnaw 'di ang populasyon ang ugat ng kahirapan. ang mga Pulitiko ang ang walang habas na paglustay sa pondo ng bayan.
    Pdaf=Pnoy drilon abad freak
    tama sya atty. roy archbishop arguelles mas sagad sa kuraopsyon ngayon. e, 'di tama rin si former sen tatad. sa sulat nya kay JLN.
    Mas maraming taoAT ANAK MAS MARAMING BUWIS mas maraming panggigilan at kakabigin ang pamahalaan. its more fund in the Phl.
    lamierda patong patong na ang kasinungalingan mo.
    10 months ago     Reply  
  • Thomism.
    Sana si Mang Romeo Orbito na lang ang tumakbo sa pagka Senator kaysa kay Socio-Political turn Fashionista.Para syng si Tadeo/Ben-zayb sa El fili ni rizal.may paiyak-iyak pa nung second reading sa batasan.akala mo sya yung nag pressure.kung 'di ka epal bakit? ka may tarpulin na bumabati na Happy Fiesta Malolos Bulacan.Filipino mag isip 'wag kolonyal.eto sigurado na sa magic twelve. sen.mitos magsaysay.ayan galing aming mga botante.'di tulad nung isang tumatakbo pa lang. pagbati lang may naka lagay na sen.

    In a day when government is often severely criticized, let us remember that "there is no authority except from God,and the authorities that exist are appointed by God" (Romans 13:1

    Bakit naman tatahimik ang mga militante? nasa demokrasyng bansa tayo ho.ngayon sana gumana ang tong-pats kickback overprice.pag nagmulta sa mga corals reef. uncompromise pa rin 100 hundred years pa lilipas bago bumalik sa dati.

    Agro-industrial food production malabnaw. perfect failure reprivatetization of the phils.(y.u.p)
    Jan 28 2013 @ 02:40pm     Reply  
  • anonymous
    i'm sad and disapointed to all pro RH.
    Dec 21 2012 @ 02:22pm     Reply  
  • bodywonders
    Hi everyone, we would like to share a poll survey regarding this RH Bill issue. We are youth that cares about our community. Share your thoughts if you are favor or not for RH bill. Please feel free to vote here: http://bodywonders.com/rh-bill Thanks.
    Jun 09 2011 @ 01:36pm     Reply  
  • bodywonders
    Hi everyone, we would like to share a poll survey regarding this RH Bill issue. We are youth that cares about our community. Share your thoughts if you are favor or not for RH bill. Please feel free to vote here: http://bodywonders.com/rh-bill Thanks.
    May 27 2011 @ 03:30am     Reply  
  • rsantos
    The Bible’s ViewpointrnIs Contraception Morally Wrong?rnrnrnrnrnrnWHAT do you think? Is it wrong for married people to use contraception? Your answer may well depend on your religious convictions. The Catholic Church teaches that every action designed to impede procreation “is intrinsically evil.” Catholic dogma promotes the idea that each act of sexual intercourse between marriage mates must remain open to pregnancy. For the Catholic Church, then, contraception is “morally unacceptable.”rnMany people find this point of view difficult to accept. APittsburgh Post-Gazette article on the subject noted that “more than three-quarters of Catholics in the United States say the church should allow the use of artificial birth control. . . . And millions ignore the ban every day.” One of them, Linda, a mother of three, freely admits to using contraceptives but says: “I don’t really believe in my conscience that I’m sinning.”rnWhat does God’s Word have to say on this issue?rnLife Is PreciousrnGod considers the life of a child to be precious, even in the very earliest stages of development. King David of Israel wrote under inspiration: “You kept me screened off in the belly of my mother. . . . Your eyes saw even the embryo of me, and in your book all its parts were down in writing.” (Psalm 139:13, 16) A new life begins at conception, and the Mosaic Law indicates that a person could be called to account for injuring an unborn child. In fact, Exodus 21:22, 23 specifies that if a pregnant woman or her unborn child suffered a fatal accident as a result of a struggle between two men, the matter had to be brought before the appointed judges. They were to weigh the circumstances and the degree of deliberateness, but the penalty could be “soul for soul,” or life for life.rnThose principles are relevant to contraception in that some methods of birth control appear to be abortive. These methods of contraception are not in harmony with the divine principle of respect for life. Most contraceptives, though, are not abortive. What about the use of such methods of birth control?rnNowhere does the Bible command Christians to procreate. God told the first human couple and Noah’s family: “Be fruitful and become many and fill the earth.” But this command was not repeated to Christians. (Genesis 1:28;9:1) Hence, married couples may decide for themselves whether they will raise a family, how many children they will have, and when they will have them. The Scriptures, likewise, do not condemn birth control. From a Biblical point of view, then, whether a husband and wife choose to use some nonabortive method of contraception is really a personal decision. Why, though, does the Catholic Church condemn contraception?rnHuman Wisdom Versus Divine WisdomrnCatholic sources explain that it was in the second century C.E. that professed Christians first adopted a Stoic rule according to which the sole lawful purpose for marital intercourse was procreation. The reasoning behind this position was thus philosophical rather than Biblical. It was based, not on divine wisdom, but on human wisdom. This philosophy persisted down through the centuries and was elaborated on by various Catholic theologians.* The logical outgrowth of this teaching, however, was the idea that sexual pleasure as an end in itself is sinful and, consequently, that sexual relations that exclude the possibility of procreation are immoral. But this is not what the Scriptures teach.rnGod told the first human couple and Noah’s family: “Be fruitful and become many and fill the earth.” But this command was not repeated to ChristiansrnUsing poetic language, the Bible book of Proverbs describes the joy that can result from appropriate sexual intimacies between husband and wife: “Drink water out of your own cistern, and tricklings out of the midst of your own well. . . . Let your water source prove to be blessed, and rejoice with the wife of your youth, a lovable hind and a charming mountain goat. Let her own breasts intoxicate you at all times. With her love may you be in an ecstasy constantly.”—Proverbs 5:15, 18, 19.rnSexual relations between husband and wife are a God-given gift. But procreation is not their sole purpose. Sexual relations also allow a married couple to express tenderness and affection for each another. So if a couple should decide to exclude the possibility of a pregnancy by using some form of contraception, that is their choice to make, and no one should judge them.—Romans 14:4, 10-13.rnrn*  It was only in the 13th century that Gregory IX enacted what the New Catholic Encyclopedia calls “the first universal legislation by a pope against contraception.”
    May 13 2011 @ 05:32pm     Reply  
  • papaUMmamaw
    thanks for posting PRO RH BILL. di ko po iboboto yang mga yan! sana ipost din po yung mga prolife...
    May 09 2010 @ 10:19pm     Reply  
  • Neigyl R. Noval
    Reply to:

    ****************************
    harmlezz
    March 18, 2010 at 3:08 pm

    bakit ba kc nakikialam ang simbahan sa goyerno kaya nga merong separation of church and state so church should stay with the bible and teach it to the ones who want to listen and stay away to politics
    ****************************

    Indeed there is this Separation of Church and State; and indeed the Church has obeyed that. The Church only deals with moralities of human being and never with politics, etc--only moralities and moral matters (spiritual, etc) alone.

    What happen is that this RH Bill destroys human morality. That is why, the Church is against the RH Bill because it involves morality of man. The Church is against the RH Bill (because of moral matters), but the Church is not against the State and does not involve in any matters in it.

    Thank you
    May 06 2010 @ 07:47pm     Reply  
  • Skinnydoc
    Kapag andyan lang ang pills, IUD at condom, puwede na makipag sex kahit kelan, puwede din sa hindi mo asawa.. puwede din kahit hindi pa nag-aasawa... Saan pupunta ang bansa kung ang mga bill tulad ng RH bill ay para wala na tayong DISIPLINA? Yung mga nagagalit sa simbahan, galit sa disiplina... Hindi tinuturo ng simbahan na mag anak nang mag anak.. ang tunay na tinuturo ng simbahan ay magisip nang magisip... Sa skin clinic ko, madaming teen ager ang nagpupunta, mga lalaking nagkakasakit dahil nakipag "one night stand"... bibigyan ko lang ba sila ng condom? Ang t*ng* ko naman kung hindi ko tuturuan MAG-ISIP at hindi gumawa ng KALASWAAN dahil hindi naman dapat nakikipagtalik ang walang karapatang makipagtalik.. Sabi nila, marami ang naghihirap dahil marami ang anak... Marami din naman ang maraming anak dahil marami ang pamilya dahil walang DISIPLINA. Ito ang mas mabigat na SALOT sa bayan.. sa RH bill na ito, puwede na kahit walang disipline - basta may pill, may condom at kung anu ano pa... Sa halip na maging TAO, para na tayong aso...
    Apr 30 2010 @ 09:21am     Reply  
  • PABLO09
    Ang pagiging tunay na KATOLIKO ay hindi nagsisimula at natatapos sa pagluluhod at pagpupunas ng mga Santo sa loob ng simbahan.

    It is our duty to be INFORMED and decide according to moral reasons.

    Our decisions must not be tainted by blind obedience but by reasonable options to choose what is right according to our faith guided by the
    teaching magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church.

    FAITH WITHOUT WORK IS DEAD!!!

    IF YOU ARE CATHOLIC, DARE TO STAND FOR YOUR FAITH!!!
    Apr 30 2010 @ 12:54am     Reply  
  • Neigyl R. Noval
    There are good things about this bill. But, there are also bad things in it. However, the
    bad things prevails--that is the reason why I will present the bad things. You need to
    have a copy of the RH Bill on sight for you to be guided accordingly.
    Here are the irregularities of the RH Bill. Please read this carefully so that you may be
    aware of this:

    Section 2. First paragraph: "...respect for life in conformity with internationally
    recognized human rights standards."
    --> Why not in conformity with the Philippine standards? Why international? Do we need to follow other countries way of population control and reproductive health? Or are we undermined or enslaved by the first world countries? Philippines is known for its good and kind people like being hospitable, which other countries are seeking to learn. We have our own standards.

    Section 2. Third paragraph: "...sustainable human development is better assured with a manageable population of healthy, educated and productive citizens."
    --> If you love our country, or if you love other people, you will see that this
    statement may promote euthanasia, divorce, etc. If you don't see it, seek more of its
    meaning. It lies beneath the underneath. There will be an unequal distribution of wealth. Don't you see it?

    Section 3. (a): "In the promotion of reproductive health, there should be no bias for
    either modern of natural methods of family planning;"
    --> Nothing in this bill that promotes the natural family planning.

    Section 3. (e): "The limited resources of the country cannot be suffered to be spread so thinly to service a burgeoning multitude that makes the allocations grossly inadequate and effectively meaningless."
    --> Whoa, more money for the rich! If you look at this bill only on its presented
    purpose and overlooking its effects, then we have a problem. You see? This promotes more wealth for the rich.

    Section 3. (f): "Freedom of informed choice, which is..."
    --> What is meant by informed choice? Does it mean everyone is free to watch x-rated films? How about the kids? How about a demonstration in class? Oh, it's our choice! We are free to be informed of it. Really?

    Section 3. (g): "While the number and spacing of children are left to the sound judgement of parents and couples based on their personal conviction and religious beliefs..."
    --> This statement is contradicted by Section 10.
    Continued: "...such concerned parents and couples, INCLUDING UNMARRIED INDIVIDUALS, should be granted..."
    --> This includes minors, and lovers not capable of being a parent. This promotes
    pre-marital sex, non-marital sex, abortion, promiscuity, fornication, incest, etc.
    Anyway, we are free to do it!
    Continued: "...and should be guided by qualified State workers and professional private practitioners;"
    --> Why are church leaders not included? Why do priests, bishops, nuns, etc not
    involved?

    Section 3. (j): "Development...that seek to uplift the quality of life of the people,
    more particularly the poor, the needy and the marginalized;"
    --> What assurance will the poor benefits? Please reflect on this. Is it really for the
    quality of life?

    Section 3. (l): "Respect for, PROTECTION and FULFILLMENT of REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH RIGHTS...not only the rights and welfare of adult individuals and couples BUT THOSE OF

    ADOLESCENTS' AND CHILDREN'S AS WELL;..."
    --> What reproductive health rights for the adolescents and children? Children are
    included, whose mind are not yet mature enough! This may promote a dirty knowledge about this to the children. Parents will be responsible for this.

    Section 3. (m): "...as abortion remains a crime and is punishable, the government shall ensure the women seeking care for POST-ABORTION COMPLICATIONS shall be treated...and compassionate manner."
    --> This is again contradicted in Section 10. The bill doesn't only contradicts the Law
    of Nature but violates the bill itself as well. Post-abortion complications in this
    statement is only an admission that abortion really has complications.

    Section 4. "Definition of Terms"
    --> This may not be that heavy but redefining the common understanding of everyone does not need to be defined.

    Section 4. (b): "...which enables couples and INDIVIDUALS to decide freely and
    responsibly the NUMBER and SPACING OF THEIR CHILDREN..."
    --> "Individuals." Does this mean that unmarried couples have the right to have
    children? I'm using my common sense here. You should use yours also.

    Section 4. (c): "Reproductive Health - refers to the state of physical, mental and social
    well-being..."
    --> Why spiritual and moral well-being not included here?
    Continued: "This implies that PEOPLE are able to have a SATISFYING and SAFE SEX LIFE, that they have the CAPABILITY TO REPRODUCE and the freedom to DECIDE if, WHEN AND HOW OFTEN TO DO SO, provided that these are not against the law."
    --> Take note of the phrases that are in UPPERCASE. People to have satisfaction includes the youth, unmarried, homosexual, etc. And, they may decide when and how often to do so? How about teenagers doing it every minute on the grassland? It is not against the law as long as no one saw them.

    Section 4. (d): "Reproductive Health Rights - refers to the rights of INDIVIDUALS and
    couples to DECIDE FREELY AND RESPONSIBLY the number, spacing and timing of their
    children."
    --> Again, the 'individual' word. Does this bill really promotes population control in
    which I can decide freely and responsibly the number of children? Suppose I receive great pay, I can raise about 15 children. What a population control! This bill is too vague.

    Section 4. (g): "10. Male involvement and participation in reproductive health."
    --> Number 1 to 8 of this section may be considered okay. But on 10, how will I be
    involved and participate with reproductive health? Isn't it obvious that this refers to
    sex? Take note that on Section 4 (c) doesn't include the spiritual well-being.

    Section 4. (h): "...relevant information on all matters relating to the reproductive
    system its functions and processes and human sexuality..."
    --> This may promote promiscuity in education.
    Continued: "...developing NECESSARY SKILLS to be able to distinguish between facts and myths on sex and sexuality..."
    --> How? Doing actual sexual intercourse in class? What necessary skills? Does it mean the techniques, the positions and the likes? Does it mean the class will have a film showing on pornographic films?

    Section 10: "Contraceptives as ESSENTIAL MEDICINES - hormonal contraceptives,
    intrauterine devices, injectables and other allied reproductive health products...shall
    be considered under the category of ESSENTIAL MEDICINES..."
    --> This is the most interesting part. Contraceptives are now considered as ESSENTIAL MEDICINES--not only an ordinary medicine but an ESSENTIAL medicine. We can buy condoms the same way we buy Biogesic. Teenagers can buy those too at an affordable price. Better advertise it so that small children will learn too and if possible imitate it through experiments and practice for better reproductive health learning and to master the NECESSARY SKILLS as depicted in Section 4, h.

    Section 12. (g): "Abstinence before marriage"
    --> How can this be promoted when the unmarried are allowed to have sex and reproduction (See Section 4)?

    Sections 22 - 27:
    --> If this become a law, people like me who loves humanity will have no choice to obey it. One reason for peoples immorality may be from this law.


    I know you are tired of reading my sharing. That only proves that this Bill has many
    irregularities. Erase all those above mentioned parts on the Bill, and the Bill may
    become better for the people and will be logical too.
    Apr 28 2010 @ 10:53pm     Reply  
  • Abraham v. Llera
    Anybody here would like to discuss with me the RH bill? I assume everyone who speaks about the bill here knows what he's talking about.

    I'm doing this because from experience, people who attack the Church in their support of the RH bill do so from ignorance.
    Apr 14 2010 @ 05:01pm     Reply  
  • harmlezz
    bakit ba kc nakikialam ang simbahan sa goyerno kaya nga merong separation of church and state so church should stay with the bible and teach it to the ones who want to listen and stay away to politics
    Mar 18 2010 @ 03:08pm     Reply  
  • anne
    please note that ruffy biazon's position on sexual and reproductive health and rights is inconsistent at best. he has co-authored a bill amending the family code in order to limit marriage between "natural born males" and "natural born females" (say what?). this bill has been decried by human rights advocates for being uneducated and discriminatory against sexual minorities such as lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transgenders, and intersex people.
    Feb 18 2010 @ 01:08pm     Reply  
  • Solomon King
    @Leviticus,

    SCREW CLERICO-FASCISM!
    To hell with the Vatican!
    Down with Right -Wing Fundamentalist Morons!

    Go Socialist!
    Feb 13 2010 @ 05:08pm     Reply  
  • harold
    Thanks for letting us know who to vote!

    Go Socialism!
    Feb 07 2010 @ 10:31pm     Reply  
  • Leviticus 20
    The Catholic Church as spread no lies, rather it is the socialist communist statists like The Edcel Lagman, Risa Hontiveros, Liza Maza, Hillary Clinton, who are spreading lies about this rh bill.

    This RH bill is clearly a totalitarian bill that will violate the rights and freedoms of anyone who opposes the utak-condom agenda.

    It will force everyone to pay for the contraceptives of others, there is a word for such behavior, SOCIALISM!!

    And socialism = theft.


    So it is no surprise at all that these socialist organizations are supporting this immoral anti-Christian bill.
    Feb 07 2010 @ 07:35pm     Reply  
  • Leviticus 20
    If people want condoms and other contraceptives,they must pay for it with their own money.

    Taxpayers money must never be used to provide anything for anyone, most especially not condoms or contraceptives.

    NO TO SOCIALISM!!!

    NO TO THE TOTALITARIAN COMMUNIST/SOCIALIST STATIST RH BILL!!


    YES TO CAPITALISM!!

    YES TO CHRISTIANITY!!!
    Feb 07 2010 @ 07:31pm     Reply  
  • Reason
    Some essential reading/viewing with regards to the RH bill:
    1. Full Text:http://jlp-law.com/blog/full-text-of-house-bill-no-5043-reproductive-health-and-population-development-act-of-2008/

    2. Reproductive health bill: Facts, fallaciesBy Rep. Edcel Lagman(author of Rh bill): http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/talkofthetown/view/20080803-152296/Reproductive-health-bill-Facts-fallacies

    3. An example of misinformation by the Catholic Church:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtAvf4sPqgE&feature=related

    4.Rh Bill debate on ANC: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPfvTFFVPQc&feature=related
    Feb 02 2010 @ 02:11pm     Reply  
  • zildjian
    Clearly, not everyone is aware of the RH Bill. And CLEARLY, almost everyone is blinded (or even brainwashed) on what the church is spreading regarding the RH Bill.
    Feb 02 2010 @ 09:33am     Reply  
  • iya
    kung sinusuport nila RH o hindi will matter to me. i want a president na tutulong matulungan yung mga mahihirap o mainform sila kung pano mag manage ng pamilya. may isang anak ako at hirap na ako what more pa if i have 3 or more. yung mga mahihirap kahit gusto nila na kaunti lang anak wala magawa kasi di sila matulungan ng gobyerno. bakit yang simbahan na ba na yan kaya pakainin lahat ng ipapanganak dito sa pilipinas. shut up!di nyo na sila tinutulungan pinagkakaitan nyo pa sila ng pagkakataon umunlad at makapamuhay ng marangal.
    Feb 02 2010 @ 12:58am     Reply  
  • uberVU - social comments
    Social comments and analytics for this post...

    This post was mentioned on Twitter by bvergara: List of Pro-RH Bill Candidates, executive and all houses. http://bit.ly/a7o36S...
    Feb 01 2010 @ 09:47pm     Reply  
  • gecko
    Thanks! I will not vote for these people. I will also spread the list.

    Thanks SPOT, for the public service on who NOT to vote.
    Jan 31 2010 @ 10:12pm     Reply  
  • Wellie
    I wouldn't trust anything Socialists would say either, they haven't done anything constructive to society since 1986. Rizal era church bashing is getting to be really old and boring too, hardly progressive at all. The only truly active successful popular movement in the Philippines these days is Wowowee.
    Jan 31 2010 @ 07:36pm     Reply  
  • igeramos
    Looks like the 1950s McCarthy communist witch hunt.

    3 things this country needs:
    1. Benevolent dictatorship
    2. Strong Family Planning Program
    3. Divorce
    Jan 31 2010 @ 05:53pm     Reply  
  • No To Church Intervention
    The Catholic Church is the root cause of social discrimination in the Philippines.

    Go to the top exclusive Catholic schools and you will immediately feel the social divide. What has the Catholic Church done towards the marginalized sector? WALA.
    Jan 31 2010 @ 01:27pm     Reply  
  • Tililing
    Democratic Socialist Women of the Philippines - sounds like heavy duty lesbos
    Jan 31 2010 @ 01:21pm     Reply  
  • Alipio Santiano
    It's the REACTIONARY CHURCH again spreading lies about the RH BILL. It's an EGREGIOUS MANIFESTATION of CLERICO-FASCISM! We cannot afford to feed 100 Million Filipinos, nor provide education & job, & housing for them! If the Church wants this size, they should be ready to spread the awesome WEALTH OF THE CHURCH. The RH BILL is threatening the Business of the Church which is: KBL, Kasal, Binyag, Libing. The more people, the more moolah for the Church's coffers. RELIGION/FAITH is a very good business. Ask Brother Mike, Brother Ely,Brother Manalo, Sister Techie and a host of other denominations. They are all offering SALVATION/REDEMPTION to the Sinful Masa. Come on People, Wisen Up!
    Jan 31 2010 @ 01:19pm     Reply  
  • Nena
    I want the government and the Church OUT of my reproductive system.

    I will decide what I want to CHOOSE.

    Ang isang bansa ay parang pamilya. Dumadami ng dumadami ang anak mo pero ang trabaho at suweldo ay pareho pa rin. Saan kukunin ang ipang tutustos sa dagdag na anak?
    Jan 31 2010 @ 01:12am     Reply  
  • Nena
    I want the government and the Church OUT of my reproductive system.

    I will decide what I want to CHOOSE.
    Jan 31 2010 @ 01:11am     Reply  
  • Benito
    Keep this list updated as the candidates tend to change their minds.
    Jan 30 2010 @ 11:19pm     Reply  
  • Janina
    Not just disheartening, it has made me very disillusioned about the Church's concern for the plight of the poor. Sila ba ang nagpapakain sa milyung-milyong pinanganganak na patay gutom minu-minuto? Thank you for this list. It will really help me make informed. intelligent choices on May 10. Spread the word!
    Jan 30 2010 @ 10:34pm     Reply  
  • trevor826
    It's disheartening how much misinformation the Catholic Church has spread towards the RH bill.
    Jan 30 2010 @ 10:22pm     Reply  
1 to 20 of 35