POSITION PAPER ON THE RH BILL

by individual faculty, students and alumni of the University of the Philippines*

As faculty members, students and alumni of the University of the Philippines, we state here
the bases of our objection to the consolidated Reproductive Health bill that is pending in
Congress.

Given the secular background of UP education, we put forward arguments from reason, to
wit:

1. Population is not an obstacle to development. The bills assume that a nation’s population
hinders its development that is why they push for the promotion of a two-child policy, massive
distribution of contraceptives, sex education (to acquaint young people with contraception),
and sterilization, all of which make use of taxpayers’ money. However, as early as 1966,
Nobel Prize winner Simon Kuznets’ research has shown that there is insignificant empirical
association between population growth rates and output per capita (economic growth).
Rather, it is the rate at which technology grows and the ability of the population to employ
these new technologies efficiently and widely that permit economic progress. Kuznets saw
that the basic obstacles to economic growth arise from the limited capabilities of the
institutions (political, social, legal, cultural, economic) to adjust. He argued instead that a
more rapid population growth, if properly managed, will promote economic
development through a positive impact on the society's state of knowledge. His findings have
been confirmed by similar studies by the US National Research Council (1986), the UN
Population Fund Consultative Meeting of Economists (1992), Eric Hanushek and Ludger
Wößmann (2007), among others.

2. The government has to channel limited funds to job creation and education. The latest
report of the Asian Development Bank (ADB) entitled Key Indicators for Asia and the
Pacific 2010 notes that the “middle class has increased rapidly in size and purchasing power
as strong economic growth in the past two decades has helped reduce poverty significantly
and lift previously poor households into the middle class.” Two factors were reported to drive
the creation and sustenance of a middle class: a) stable, secure, well-paid jobs with good
benefits, and b) higher education. And so, why not create more bills that will strengthen these
two factors instead of channeling our limited funds to contraception and sex education?

3. Fertility rates in the Philippines are progressively decreasing. Our Total Fertility Rate (TFR)
has declined by more than 50% in less than 50 years: from an average rate of 7 in 1960 to an
average rate of 3.1 in 2008. Our TFR is expected to reach the replacement level of 2.1 in
2025 without massive government intervention like the passing of a population control or RH
bill. The passing of an RH bill will only accelerate this. The latest November issue of The
Economist entitled “Japan’s burden” spells out the effects of an aging population and it would
be foolhardy for us as a nation to push ourselves deliberately towards that direction. In 2004,
Joseph Chamie, Director of the UN Population Division, reported that 60 countries have TFRs
below 2.1 which means that they will eventually experience decline and aging. He asserted
that the efforts of these countries to raise fertility rates will not be enough to bring them back
to replacement levels. Many of these countries are now asking their people to have more
children. Why then are our legislators thinking of cutting down our best asset, our people?
Should this push through, future generations of Filipinos will be forced to pay for the mistake
of government’s intervention to manipulate a decrease in our population and suffer its ill
effects as already experienced by other countries.

4. The government has to channel limited resources to address the leading causes of death.
In the latest available Mortality Country Fact Sheet (2006) of the World Health Organization
on the Philippines, the following were listed as the main causes of death: lower respiratory
tract infections, ischaemic heart disease, tuberculosis, hypertensive heart disease, perinatal
conditions, cerebrovascular disease, violence, diarrhoeal diseases, diabetes mellitus and
chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Can we not channel our limited resources towards
curbing these diseases—and violence—instead of using them for contraception and
sterilization?

5. Condoms are not a wise investment. We have the lowest incidence of HIV cases after
Bangladesh in the ADB report mentioned above, whereas Thailand, which has been regarded
as the model in condom promotion, has the highest. European epidemiologist Dr. Jokin de
Irala refers to “risk-compensation” as the reason for higher HIV-AIDS incidences when
condoms are promoted. Moreover, human papillomavirus (HPV) infection, by far the most
common STD and a risk factor for cervical cancer among other diseases, is not prevented by
condoms. HPV spreads through skin-to-skin contact, unlike AIDS, and condoms cannot cover
all possible infected skin—a fact that is not commonly known. Why spend millions to buy
condoms when they are shown to increase incidences of STDs? A government-sponsored
nationwide condom distribution will only fatten the pockets of condom manufacturers.

6. Oral Contraceptive Pills (OCPs) have been classified by the International Agency for
Research on Cancer (IARC) as Group 1 carcinogens. OCP use has been associated with an
increased risk of premenopausal breast cancer in general (an increment of 19%) and across
various patterns of OCP use, with the highest risk observed among those who use OCPs for
4 or more years before their first pregnancy (an increment of 52%), according to a 2006 meta-
analysis of over 34 studies dating back to the 1980s. Corroborating these data was the
landmark 2002 randomized controlled trial by the Women Health’s Initiative which pointed to a
26% higher risk of breast cancer for post-menopausal women who had received hormone
treatment in addition to 41% more risk of cerebrovascular disease, 29% more risk of
myocardial infarction, and 112% more risk of pulmonary embolism. Another study by Moreno
et al. in the Lancet also points to an increased risk of cervical cancer with OCP use. And
lastly, OCPs have also been shown to increase the risk of cardiovascular diseases, especially
venous thrombosis and ischemic stroke. Will our government legislate a bill that will use
taxpayers’ money to further expose women to all these risks?

Our main argument boils down to this: that it is the State’s duty to order society by promoting
the well-being of its citizens. Thus, it is a disservice to legislate what constitutes harm to its
people. We pointed but a few of the studies showing the harmful effects of contraception to
society, the family, the youth and women’s health. While it is true that the State cannot stop
people from using contraception, since they may personally choose to expose themselves to
its risks, it is not the State’s job to facilitate access to what is harmful.
What the government should do is craft laws that prevent people from harming themselves or
more positively phrased, help them develop themselves and society. We urge
the legislators to dump the contentious and flawed Reproductive Health bill and to pass
more bills strengthening the Filipino family, protecting its citizens against the risks of
contraception, defending the scientific fact that conception begins at fertilization, providing
essential medicines for the main causes of death, making quality education more accessible
to Filipinos, and providing more jobs.

For the love of our country,

ROMEO MATHEW BALANQUIT

PhD Cand in Game Theory, Jawaharlal Nehru University,

New Delhi, India

MA Economics (2000), UP Diliman

BS Economics (1998), UP Diliman

MARK ROBERT BALDO

BS Political Science III, UP Diliman

JOHNROB Y. BANTANG

PhD in Physics (2006), UP Diliman

JULIE ANN Q. BASCONCILLO

MA Economics (2010), UP Diliman

BS Business Administration (2005), UP Diliman

IRIS V. BUENAVENTURA

MD (2009), UP College of Medicine

BA Anthropology (2004), UP Diliman

DAVID CALOZA

PhD Cand in Environmental Engineering, UP Diliman

MS Environmental Engineering (2008), UP Diliman

BS Chemical Engineering (1992), UP Diliman

CHERRYANNE Y. CRISTOBAL

cycristobal@up.edu.ph

MS Statistics (2008), UP Diliman

BS Statistics (2004), UP Diliman

KURT JUNSHEAN ESPINOSA

kpespinosa@gmail.com

MS Cand in Computer Science, UP Diliman

BS Computer Science (2005), UP Cebu

KARL BRYAN A. LAGMAN

MS Quantitative Economics (2009), Paris School of

Economics-University of Paris1, France

BS Applied Physics (2007), UP Diliman

MIGUEL LORENZO S. LITAO

MD (2010), UP College of Medicine

BS Psychology (2005), UP Diliman

CRISTINA A. MONTES

LLB (2005), UP College of Law

JOSEPH M. PASIA

Dr.rer.soc.oec (2006), University of Vienna, Austria

MS Applied Math (2001), UP Diliman

BS Math (1998), UP-Diliman

ANGELO S. PORCIUNCULA

PhD Molecular Biology, University of Navarra, Spain

MS Molecular Biology (2007), University of Navarra, Spain

BS Molecular Biology (2006), UP Diliman

OLIVER M. TUAZON

MS Microbiology (2003), UP Diliman

BSF Fish Processing Technology (1996), UP in the Visayas