Shocking, immoral, ill-timed
“Shocking,” “immoral,” and “an attack on women” are just some of the reactions to the recent act of Congress removing the entire P1 billion budget meant for the purchase of family planning supplies from the overall budget of the Department of Health.
“We did not fight for the RH Law just to see it become an unfunded mandate of the government,” declared RH advocate, senatorial candidate and former congresswoman Risa Hontiveros. “We will fight for its full implementation for the sake of women and Filipino families.”
Indeed, without a new budget for 2016 for purchasing supplies, the family planning program seems to have been effectively scuttled. Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago, presidential candidate and cosponsor in the Senate of the Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Law, said “the P1 billion budget cut threatens to deprive some seven million women of [RH] services. This abandonment is immoral in a country where some 200 out of 100,000 women who give birth die.”
Equally “shocked” was Sen. Pia Cayetano, who said the budget cut was effectively a slap on her face since it was she who led the charge for the passage of the RPRH Law in the Senate.
Cayetano called the action a “breach of trust,” adding: “We work on a basis of trust—that the chair of the finance committee would not make significant changes without informing the body, or in the case of RH, no major changes will be made without informing me, knowing that I sponsored the measure.”
* * *
But in her defense, Sen. Loren Legarda, chair of the Senate finance committee that oversaw the budget preparation, said “the decision to cut the allocation for family planning was done after assessing its possible impact on the program.”
Legarda cited the finding that as of June 2015, of some P3.27 billion allocated for family planning, “only P955 million (29 percent) had been obligated. For the remaining six months, P2.3 billion or 71 percent has yet to be obligated.” Thus, she pointed out, the DOH is perfectly free to use the remaining amount from the 2015 budget and “the agencies may augment deficient items from their savings.”
The senator also said the P1 billion cut was used to augment the funds of other agencies: for the air assets upgrading of the Department of National Defense, an increase in the budget of some state universities and colleges, and even realigned within the DOH to “provide for the health facilities and medical assistance to indigent patients.”
But Sen. Tito Sotto, who had vocally (and vociferously) argued against the RPRH bill on the Senate floor, said the budget for family planning was cut in response to the ongoing case being heard in the Supreme Court. But the TRO issued by the high court covered only the use of implants to which some groups had objected. There was no mention of all other forms of contraception.
* * *
The senators (Budget Secretary Butch Abad says the DOH budget cut was made in the Senate) might have overlooked the fact that, aside from the one-year delay in the implementation of the RPRH Law due to the numerous suits filed against it at the high court, the program suffered months of further delay when the DOH conducted a national assessment to see in what areas the family planning program could be more effective—whether in the construction of more clinics or birthing centers, the hiring and training of health personnel, or the purchase and distribution of more effective contraceptives.
The situation has not been static, either, as our population increases each year, with the momentum seeming to be speeding up.
“Access to contraceptives is an essential condition for exercising the basic human right to health as well as the right to reproductive choices,” declared Yoriko Yasukawa, regional director for Asia and the Pacific for the UN Fund for Population. “Global evidence clearly shows that universal access to family planning is essential to prevent maternal and newborn deaths; is vital to achieving gender equality; and contributes to poverty reduction and inclusive development. We strongly encourage the reversal of the budget deletion.”
* * *
The UNFPA acknowledged that the Aquino administration has shown increasing resolve to implement the family planning program. For one, the population growth rate slowed down from 1.9 percent in 2010 to 1.7 percent in 2015. Modern contraceptive use, for instance, increased from 34 percent in 2008 to 38 percent in 2013, and this, said the UNFPA, “contributed to a decrease in the maternal mortality ratio from 129 in 2013 to 114 in 2015.” Still, this decline is still much slower than the rate the country sought to achieve as part of the Millennium Development Goals.
“While the situation is still far from ideal, initial steps undertaken by Government to ensure greater access to family planning for the poorest of the poor who need it most have begun to show positive, beneficial results,” said the UNFPA. “Failure to sustain this commitment can swiftly reverse gains and put the country in a more difficult position to achieve its vital development target to reduce maternal deaths.”
The budget deletion, it said, “comes at an especially critical time as the country is seeking to strengthen efforts to battle the crisis of increasing teen pregnancy.” It also pointed out that “for a country with a large population of young people, important investments should be made on comprehensive sexual and [RH] care, including access to contraceptives, to achieve a more educated and healthy population, more productive workforce, and growing economy to maximize the potential of the huge population.”
