The ALERT says:
The Lagman amendments have been approved
after an orchestrated interpellation from Cong.
Tinio.
Tinio.
If the ALERT refers to the provisions on PROHIBITED ACTS, IDEAL FAMILY SIZE, opting out of parents from MANDATORY SEX EDUC, and the OBLIGATION OF EMPLOYERS, proposals to delete these provisions from 4244 and discussions thereon took place LONG BEFORE at the hearing of the bill in the Appropriations Committee where Cong. Nograles and Cong. Bagatsing took made the initiatives for removal of these provisions. The latter also brought up the additional burden of MOBILE HEALTH SERVICES being charged against congressmen/s PDAF. This led also to the idea not to charge MHS to PDAF. These were the "amendments" taken up in that Committee.
Strictly speaking, for our purposes of tracking the bill, it would be more apt to refer to these changes as, well, CHANGES. Or PROPOSALS FOR AMENDMENTS to the bill which amendments can only be taken up during the period of amendments in the plenary, which comes much much later . The process of Interpellation has in fact been agreed to start in May. After Lagman and co. are interpellated, the opponents of the bill will have their time to speak in the Turno en Contra. Another interpellation follows, this time, by the proponents of the bill. The period of amendments follows.
Yesterday's spiel of Tinio and Lagman was, strictly speaking, not an Interpellation in the real sense and in the context of the regular plenary process. It was more of a clarification/presentation of what CHANGES were taken up in the Appro Committee. The "script" of the interchange between Tinio and Lagman was like so (in essence):
Tinio: Is it correct, Mr. Speaker that the provision on prohibited acts in HB 4244 has been take out from the bill?
Lagman: That is correct, Mr Speaker, hence, oppositors to the bill have nothing to fear.
And so on, and so forth, in that pattern.
The exchange was obviously meant to "sell" the bill to their colleagues who were still weighing their options vis-a-vis the bill and win them over with the illusion that the bill has shed off the "objectionable" provisions.
According to the ALERT:
Lagman pulled out the RH bill and
requested for a discussion. This approval did
not require a vote.
they had asked our allies to be allowed two speakers, in fact. Our allies let them have only one, and so Tinio took the floor. As to why this was allowed, in light of the "gentleman's agreement" not to take up the bill until May--I leave that to our allies who know what they are doing--at that moment-- and have been in huddles all along in the floor.
Our allies had also prepared for every possible (even grim) scenarios for last night's session, having met in two caucuses within the day--one after the Cathedral mass, and another, I was informed, in Congress prior to the afternoon session.
There was no approval of amendments on floor, as there cannot be approvals. There were no votes called on the floor on those "AMENDMENTS."
In fact, after the Tinio-Lagman exchange, Lagman's closing statement was roughly, wala nag dapat ikabahala and mga tumututol sa panukalang batas na ito.
A motion followed by the Majority Leader, Garin, not to approve the "amendments" but a motion to suspend deliberations on 4244. There were no objections to that motion.
And so what followed was that deliberations on third reading started on several local bills and some other in the business of the day for second reading.
The session ended with a Statement from Speaker Belmonte reciting the sessions' overall accomplishments in the last 8 months.
WHAT SHOULD BE OUR NEXT STEP DURING THE RECESS?
You will have to inform the public that the bill has remained malevolent, in fact, MORE malevolent in its present modified form, shorn of those contentious provisions.
For a start, look at how the Conditional Cash Transfer is now connected to family planning.
This is a departure from what Sec. Soliman said in the "Dialogue" that ther is no effort to suggest a smaller family size in the CCT's reference to beneficiary families up to the third child.
Then look at the inclusion of the MISP in the bill. MISP is a lethal package of many kits used in disaster areas like they did in my city of Marikina after Ondoy. It is supposed to contain emergency contraception and condoms--in disaster areas! Not water, nourishment, medicines--but condoms among others-- and considering the mention in the bill of "the whole range of services and devices", it will also contain the dreaded Manual Vacuum Aspirator - MVA- as the foreign aid agencies brought in Bosnia. (Ask Joseph Meaney who monitored this, or Dra. Acosta who will tell you the different kinds of MISP kits. You can also google this.)
Then you may want to look closer at the poverty household "surveys" to be conducted as added in the bill. Poverty surveys? This is reminiscent of the door-to-door surveys of Ligtas Buntis.
You also have the centralized procurement of "essential medicines".
AND MANY MORE.
AND OF COURSE, "universal access" is still there; "the full range of devices . . " is still there. Even if parents can opt out their children, the schools will still be teaching what is mandatory to be taught.
This continuing and worsening malevolence is what we should be ALERTING our allies in Congress about.
LET US TURN ON THE LIGHT.
- Atty Jo
