Giving and taking

He giveth and he taketh away—or at least he merely refuseth to act for now. P-Noy pleased many when he included the Reproductive Health bill—or his and Malacañang’s toned-down version of it—among the priority bills that he will ask Congress to “expedite” in the next few months.

But there was also a lot of disappointment with his failure to include the much-anticipated Freedom of Information bill, which would have been passed by the previous Congress—with the Senate version hurdling all preliminary stages—were it not for some last-minute dilatory motions in the House.

And so it’s mixed-emotions time, especially for those who basically support the Aquino administration but remain mystified by its slow moves down the daang matuwid toward reform and renewal.

For one, the FOI bill was viewed as key to the establishment of a regime of transparency and accountability in government. With public records and transactions open to scrutiny by the public, but especially by the media and public interest groups, it was believed that officials and government employees would feel compelled to hew to the strictest standards of ethical behavior and responsibility.

There have been explanations offered as to why Malacañang is still reluctant to expedite the passage of the FOI bill. In fact, P-Noy announced that he was appointing Communications Undersecretary Manolo Quezon to lead a technical working group to “balance the contentions of all stakeholders.” Who are the unnamed stakeholders still resisting the passage of an FOI bill? Were it not for last-minute hurdles thrown up by the leadership of the last Congress (suspected to be acting as proxy for former President Gloria Arroyo who had a lot to cover up), the FOI would by now have been passed into law. What interested party has not been heard from on this matter, and what are the “contentions” that have yet to be addressed?

* * *

Reports have it that Malacañang wishes to set up a “clearing house” to determine the validity of all requests for the release of public documents. Civil libertarians understandably look askance at the creation of yet another layer of bureaucracy which could further delay the release of documents or information—or else give time for these documents to be doctored or to conveniently disappear.

As I understand it, safeguards against the premature release of sensitive documents that have to do with national security have already been incorporated into the previous version of the law. But even without these safeguards, government offices and agencies could go to court to block the release of documents they deem dangerous in unauthorized hands. Why the need for an agency or body to filter out what documents can and cannot be released?

Indeed, if P-Noy wishes the country to speed down the road of true democracy, he should realize that the passage of the Freedom of Information measure is crucial. It is not only an important spur to the bureaucracy to keep honest; it is also an essential tool in informing the public about government matters. An informed public makes for an informed, intelligent electorate.

* * *

As for the changes made to the proposed “Responsible Parenthood” bill, I understand that there are about 10 revisions suggested, including the deletion of the provision on the “ideal family size” of two children, raising the minimum age for the provision of sexuality education from 10 years (Grade 5) to 11 years (Grade 6), and exempting “faith-based” hospitals from the requirement to provide family planning services.

When Rep. Edcel Lagman first submitted the original version of his RH bill, the “two-children” limit on family size was a requirement. But lobbying by women’s health and rights groups convinced the congressman that setting up a maximum family size violated the human rights and right to choice of couples. Although I understand that Lagman chose to keep the provision—re-wording it as the “ideal” family size—as a bargaining chip in the event of more contentious debates. I don’t think anyone seriously believes the State has the right to dictate family size, though all surveys show that Filipino couples have long decided on their own “ideal” family size, choosing to have only two, though for reasons beyond their control most families end up with three or four.

As for providing mandatory age-appropriate sexuality education a year later than originally intended, I would be curious to find out how many children will thus be deprived of this necessary information. As everyone knows, out of every 10 children who enter Grade 1, almost half will have dropped out of school by the time they reach Grade 5. How will the children who leave school before they reach Grade 6 be informed about sexuality and responsible parenthood? And would they not be among the most in need of family planning services as teens and adults owing to their poverty and ignorance?

* * *

Certainly, the personnel and management of “faith-based” hospitals and clinics should be allowed to exercise their conscience as they see fit. But should they be accorded the right to violate the consciences and choices of their patients?

I would think that at the very least, if a nurse or doctor in a “faith-based” hospital feels it is against his or her fundamental belief to dispense a pill, insert an IUD, or perform ligation or vasectomy, then he or she should refer that patient to another health provider. And that health provider should provide accessible, affordable and safe services. After all, the patient must have thought long and hard first before seeking family planning advice or service, and must have needed it badly to make the trip. Why privilege the conscience of one above another?