SB 1979 Endangers Family’s Function
This article may now be obsolete because of the substitute bill.
In a time of deadly glazes, rallies, and intrigues; it may come as a pleasant surprise to some that two seeming political enemies - a Marcos and a Hontiveros - would find common ground. But when this means a policy that may damage the right of parents to be the first guides for their children, this makes us ask: what does this mean for us?
The Constitution stipulates that “[t]he natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral character shall receive the support of the Government” (Philippine Constitution, art. II, sec. 12). Second, “[t]he State recognizes the Filipino family as the foundation of the nation. Accordingly, it shall strengthen its solidarity and actively promote its total development” (art. XV, sec. 1). This means that the State’s role in supporting the family does not allow it to categorically replace it. Parents, more so than the State or the schools, are the primary guardians of their children - at least while they still live under the same roof.
For this reason, the State - among other things - recognizes the spouses have the right to “found a family in accordance with their religious convictions and the demands of responsible parenthood” (art. XV, s. 3). This allows parents to morally safeguard their children from things which may violate their conscience - be it a Christian family from pornography or a Muslim family from pork. The Family Code also recognizes the “rights and duties” of parents to “support, educate and instruct” children “by right precept and good example”; to “provide them with moral and spiritual guidance”; and “furnish them with good and wholesome educational materials, supervise their activities, recreation and association with others, protect them from bad company, and prevent them from acquiring habits detrimental to their health, studies and morals” (art. 220).
With this in mind, the proposed bill tries to square the circle. It professes to “[r]ecognize and promote the rights, duties, and responsibilities of parents, teachers, and other persons legally responsible for the growth of adolescents to provide in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the adolescent, appropriate direction and guidance in sexual and reproductive matters” (SB 1979, sec. 2). But when contraceptive services, subtly called “health facilities, goods, and services”, are made “known and easily accessible…to all adolescents, without discrimination and without the need for parental consent” (sec. 5), one can wonder whether this builds on or simply disregards parental rights.
Defenders may cite the following provision: “all health facilities, goods, and services should respect cultural values, be gender sensitive, be respectful of medical ethics, and be acceptable to both adolescents and the communities in which they live; Provided that in all cases the best interest of the child shall prevail” (ibid). But this is ambiguous, for who gets to determine “cultural values” the “best interests of the child” if not his or her own parents? Should it be a government worker or an “expert”?
It seems to be so, given the next provision which stipulates: “Adolescents shall be allowed to access SRH information and services. Provided that adolescents below 15 years old shall be required to obtain consent from their parents or legal guardians except when they have engaged or are engaging in sexual activity or are survivors of sexual abuse, Provided further that consent can alternatively be obtained from a licensed social worker or a doctor and in the absence of the two, a medical professional accredited by the DOH, a LSWDO, or in the case of indigenous cultural communities, a trained healthcare representative designated by their respective Indigenous Peoples mandatory representative (IMPR)” (sec. 12).
In other words, parents can restrict access to their child’s birth control unless they start having sex, and then they lose their effective say in the matter. And even if their child doesn’t engage in sexual activity, they can bypass their parents if some doctor or a guy with a certificate says so. How, then, would parents fulfil their duty to “prevent [children] from acquiring habits detrimental to their health, studies and morals” (Family Code, art. 220), if the State provides ways to bypass the need for their consent? And how can parents exercise their rights to “represent [their children] in all matters affecting their interests” and “demand from them respect and obedience” (ibid), if the State provides ordinary means for disobedience?
There are more issues that can be raised about this bill, which I shall discuss in a future article. But it is clear that this bill - as it stands now - is both legally and morally inadmissible. If our leaders pass this bill, it would only show that they do not believe in their own country’s founding principles - and would be glad to replace the natural institution of the family with a bureaucratic leviathan in matters so intimate as the sexual behavior of their own children.
Daniel Tyler Chua is the founder and president of the Collegium Perulae Orientis. He is also a contributor to the Philippine Daily Inquirer and The Sentinel PH.
