RH bill passage: How your lawmakers voted

3

^-AA⁺A

Monday, December 17, 2012

MANILA -- The Senate and the House of Representatives separately voted Monday night to approve on third and final reading the controversial reproductive health (RH) bill.

In the Senate, 13 sided for the bill's passage while eight voted against it. In the House, 133 members approved the bill, 79 rejected it, while seven others abstained.

Below are names of the House and Senate lawmakers who registered the yes and no votes as well as those who abstained.

Senate

Yes votes

1. Escudero, Francis
2. Pangilinan, Francis
3. Drilon, Franklin
4. Lacson, Panfilo
5. Legarda, Loren
6. Defensor-Santiago, Miriam
7. Cayetano, Allan Peter
8. Cayetano, Pia
9. Marcos, Ferdinand Jr.
10. Guingona, Teofisto III
11. Recto, Ralph
12. Angara, Edgardo
13. Arroyo, Joker

No votes

1. Enrile, Juan Ponce
2. Estrada, Jinggoy
3. Pimentel, Aquilino III
4. Trillanes, Antonio IV
5. Villar, Manny
6. Revilla, Ramon
7. Sotto, Vicente III
8. Honasan, Gregorio II

Absent

1. Osmeña, Sergio III
2. Lapid, Lito

House of Representatives

Yes votes

1. Abad, Henedina R.
2. Aggabao, Giorgidi B.
3. Aglipay, Emmeline Y.
4. Agyao, Manuel S.
5. Albano, Rodolfo B.
6. Alvarez, Mercedes K.
7. Amante-Matba, Angelica M.
8. Amatong, Rommel C.
9. Angara, Juan Edgardo M.
10. Antonio, Patricio T.
11. Apostol, Sergio F.
12. Arquiza, Godofredo V.
13. Bag-ao, Kaka J.
14. Brawner Baguilat, Teddy Jr.
15. Balindong, Pangalian M.
16. Banal, Jorge 'Bolet'
17. Barzaga, Elpidio Jr. F.
18. Batocabe, Rodel M.
19. Bautista, Franklin P.
20. Bello, Walden F.
21. Belmonte, Feliciano Jr. R.
22. Belmonte, Vicente Jr. F.
23. Benitez, Alfredo 'Albee' B.
24. Biazon, Rodolfo G.
25. Binay, Mar-Len Abigail S.
26. Biron, Ferjenel G.
27. Bulut-Begtang, Eleanor C.
28. Cagas, Marc Douglas IV C.
29. Cajayon, Mary Mitzi L.
30. Calixto-Rubiano, Emi G.
31. Canonigo, Ranulfo P.
32. Casiño, Teddy A.
33. Castelo, Winston 'Winnie'
34. Catamco, Nancy A.
35. Celeste, Jesus 'Boying' F.
36. Cerafica, Arnel M.
37. Chipeco, Justin Marc SB.
38. Cojuangco, Enrique M.
39. Cojuangco, Kimi S.
40. Colmenares, Neri J
41. Cortuna, Julieta R.
42. Cosalan, Ronald M.
43. Cruz-Gonzales, Cinchona
44. Datumanong ,Simeon A.
45. Defensor, Arthur Jr. R.
46. Del Rosario, Anthony G.
47. Del Rosario, Antonio A.
48. Dimaporo, Imelda Quibranza
49. Duavit, Joel Roy
50. Dy, Napoleon S.
51. Ebdane, Jun Omar C.
52. Enverga, Wilfrido Mark M.
53. Eriguel, Eufranio 'Franny' C., M.D.
54. Espina, Rogelio J.,M.D.
55. Estrella, Robert Raymund M.
56. Evardone, Ben P.
57. Fernandez, Danilo Ramon S.
58. Ferriol, Abigail Faye C.
59. Flores, Florencio Jr. T.
60. Avance-Fuentes, Daisy
61. Garcia-Albano, Mylene J
62. Garin, Janette L.
63. Garin, Sharon S.
64. Gatchalian, Rex
65. Gatchalian, Weslie T.
66. Go, Arnulfo F.
67. Gonzales, Neptali II M.
68. Guanlao, Agapito H.
69. Haresco, Teodorico T.
70. Hataman-Salliman, Jim S.
71. Herrera-Dy, Bernadette R.
72. Ilagan,Luzviminda C.
73. Jalosjos, Cesar G.
74. Jalosjos, Romeo Jr. M.
75. Jalosjos, Seth F. P.
76. Joson, Josefina M.
77. Kho, David L.
78. Lacson-Noel, Josephine Veronique R.
79. Lagdameo, Antonio Jr. F.
80. Lagman, Edcel C.
81. Lapus, Jeci A.
82. Leonen-Pizarro, Catalina G.
83. Limkaichong, Jocelyn S.
84. Loong, Tupay T.
85. Lopez, Carlo V.
86. Lopez, Carol Jayne B.
87. Loyola, Roy M.
88. Magsaysay, Eulogio 'Amang' R.
89. Maliksi, Erineo S.
90. Maranan, Zeny
91. Marcoleta, Rodante D.
92. Mariano, Rafael V.
93. Miraflores, Florencio T.
94. Mirasol, Alejandro Y.
95. Nava, Joaquin Carlos Rahman A.
96. Ocampo, Rosenda Ann
97. Ortega, Francisco Emmanuel III R.
98. Ortega, Victor Francisco C.
99. Padilla, Carlos M.
100. Paez, Cresente C.
101. Palatino, Raymond V.
102. Palmones, Angelo B.
103. Pangandaman, Mohammed Hussein P.
104. Pichay, Philip A.
105. Ponce Enrile, Juan Jr. C.
106. Primicias-Agabas, Marlyn L.
107. Quimbo, Romero Federico 'Miro' S.
108. Sacdalan, Jesus N.
109. Sahidulla, Nur-ana I.
110. Sakaluran, Raden C.
111. Salvacion, Andres Jr. D.
112. Sambar, Mark Aeron H.
113. Sarmiento, Mel Senen S.
114. Sema, Bai Sandra A.
115. Singson, Eric Jr. G.
116. Sy-Alvarado, Ma. Victoria R.
117. Tañada, Lorenzo III R.
118. Teodoro, Marcelino R
119. Tinga, Sigfrido R.
120. Tinio, Antonio L.
121. Tomawis, Acmad M.
122. Treñas, Jerry P.
123. Tugna, Sherwin N.
124. Tupas, Niel Jr. C.
125. Umali, Reynaldo V.
126. Ungab, Isidro T.
127. Vargas-Alfonso, Baby Aline
128. Villar, Mark A.
129. Villarica, Linabelle Ruth R.
130. Yap, Susan
131. Yu, Victor J.
132. Zamora, Ma. Carmen S.
133. Zubiri, Jose III F.

No votes

1. Abayon, Daryl Grace J.
2. Alcover, Pastor Jr. M.
3. Almario, Thelma Z.
4. Almonte, Jorge T.
5. Alvarez, Antonio C.
6. Angping, Ma. Zenaida B.
7. Antonino, Rodolfo W.
8. Apacible, Tomas V.
9. Aquino, Jose II S.
10. Arenas, Ma. Rachel J.
11. Arnaiz, George P.
12. Arroyo, Diosdado Macapagal
13. Asilo, Benjamin DR.
14. Bagasina, Catalina C.
15. Bagatsing, Amado S.
16. Bataoil, Leopoldo N.
17. Bichara, Al Francis DC.
18. Bonoan-David, Ma. Theresa
19. Cabaluna, Salvador III P.
20. Cabilao Yambao, Jonathan
21. Calimbas-Villarosa, Ma. Amelita A.
22. Castro, Jane T.
23. Crisologo, Vincent 'Bingbong' P.
24. Cua, Dakila Carlo E.
25. De Venecia, Ma. Georgina P.
26. Del Mar, Rachel Marguerite B.
27. Dimaporo, Fatima Aliah Q.
28. Durano, Ramon VI H.
29. Ejercito, Joseph Victor G.
30. Ferrer, Antonio A.
31. Fortuno, Salvio B.
32. Fua, Orlando B.
33. Garbin, Alfredo Jr. A.
34. Garcia, Albert Raymond S.
35. Garcia, Pablo P.
36. Golez, Anthony Rolando Jr. T.
37. Gomez, Lucy T.
38. Gullas, Eduardo R.
39. Javier, Paolo S.
40. Labadlabad, Rosendo S.
41. Lico, Isidro Q.
42. Macapagal Arroyo, Juan Miguel
43. Magsaysay, Ma. Milagros H.
44. Malapitan, Oscar G.
45. Mandanas, Hermilando I.
46. Marañon, Alfredo III D.
47. Mendoza, Mark Llandro L.
48. Mercado-Revilla, Lani
49. Noel, Florencio G.
50. Nograles, Karlo Alexei B.
51. Obillo, Reena Concepcion G.
52. Pangandaman, Nasser C.
53. Panotes, Elmer E.
54. Paras, Jesus Emmanuel M.
55. Payuyo, Ponciano D.
56. Piamonte, Mariano Jr. U.
57. Puno, Roberto V.
58. Rivera, Michael Angelo C.
59. Rodriguez, Isidro Jr. S.
60. Rodriguez, Maximo Jr. B.
61. Rodriguez, Rufus B.
62. Romualdez, Ferdinand Martin G.
63. Romualdo, Pedro P.
64. Romulo, Roman T.
65. Salimbangon, Benhur L.
66. Singson, Ryan Luis V.
67. Socrates, Victorino Dennis M.
68. Suarez, Danilo E.
69. Syjuco, Augusto Boboy, Ph.D.
70. Teves, Pryde Henry A.
71. Tiangco, Tobias 'Toby' M.
72. Ting, Randolph S.
73. Ty, Arnel U.
74. Unabia, Peter 'Sr. Pedro' M.
75. Unico, Renato Jr. J.
76. Valencia, Rodolfo G.
77. Vergara, Bernardo M.
78. Violago, Joseph Gilbert F.
79. Yap, Arthur C.

Abstentions

1. Briones, Nicanor M.
2. Ferrer, Jeffrey P.
3. Golez, Roilo S.
4. Gunigundo, Magtanggol T.
5. Osmeña, Tomas R.
6. Relampagos, Rene L.
7. Remulla, Jesus Crispin C.

Experience a luxurious and comfortable life + affordable rates and plans.

The money factor in the RH bill

FROM A DISTANCE By Carmen N. Pedrosa (The Philippine Star)

The way it looks to me, there is a dead-set intent by Congress to pass the RH bill and it has less to do with the Philippine economy or religious principles and even less, for the sake of the well-being of Filipinowomen. The debate is being fueled by these factors and made to appear as a Church vs. State quarrel with the state taking a stand for economic reasons and the Church for religious principles. But very little has been said about money.

*      *      *

Here is why: It used to be that USAID provided the money for an international population control program. The Philippines was one of the beneficiaries of that program and it included artificial birth control, among other things. The Church’s teaching is against artificial birth control. But as religious teaching, it did not impose sanctions on personal decisions.
As far as the middle classes in the Philippines (mostly Catholic church goers) are concerned family planning is a private matter and many use artificial birth control without giving up their religion. The poor did not have that choice.
USAID funded artificial birth control. Pills, condoms and IUDS were made available to those who could not afford it.
 But in time the USAID stopped funding the program. A reliable report said “the Philippines relied on international organizations, mainly the US Agency for International Development (USAid), to fund its population control program. It gave $3.5 million annually to subsidize artificial birth control like condoms and pills.
Because of limited funding sources, USAid in time was forced “to stop supplying the Philippines with condoms in 2003, birth-control pills in 2007 and contraceptives through injections in 2008,” the report added.
The question arose whether to continue the program in the Philippines and if it was to be continued who or what would fund the program. A new policy had to be found. The solution: let each country fund its own program. If money were to be set aside for the program, a bill would have to be passed to enable the government to allocate funds for it. That is the RH bill. It has to be passed to make sure that there will be funds, local funds to continue the worldwide population control program in the Philippines. There are no two ways about it.

*      *      *

According to an article “US Aid to World Birth-Control Efforts Faces Cuts” the downsizing began in 1996. According to Steven Holmes who wrote for New York Times, the Clinton administration subsequently lifted the ban on aid for international birth control efforts that included abortion and abortion counseling. There was a struggle between the House, the Senate and the White House about the ban that “threatened to block the passage of the $12 billion foreign aid bill.”

*      *      *

So it is not quite true when US Ambassador Harry K. Thomas says that the issue of passing the RH bill does not concern the US government.
There is duplicity too among Church officials. On one hand, Fr. Melvin Castro of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) Commission on Family and Life earlier said he believed the US government had influenced President Aquino’s “abrupt decision” to support population control.
But on the other hand, CBCP media director Msgr. Pedro Quitorio said he did not believe the US government had influenced the President. Aquino committed support for population control even before he visited the US.
Given this background I do not think it is accurate to reduce the RH bill debate as a local issue between the Church vs. the Aquino government.

*      *      *

Sen. Pia Cayetano recently moved to “delete controversial provisions in the Senate version such as the section that provided the care of women who have undergone abortions” as a concession.
She also sought a change in the title of the bill, from “An Act Providing for a National Policy on Reproductive Health and Population and Development” to “An Act Providing for a National Policy on Reproductive Health and Responsible Parenthood.” 
Cayetano, as chairman of the Senate committee on health, changed the title of section 9 of the bill. Instead of family planning supplies it was to be called “essential medicines.” Hmm. She said the title would be changed to “The Philippine National Drug Formulary System and Family Planning supplies.”
Under the section, she added: “The Philippine National Drug Formulary System (PNDFS) shall be observed in selecting drugs including family planning supplies that will be included or removed from the essential drugs list in accordance with existing practice.”
Senator Vic Sotto is not as stupid as some people make him out to be because his speech writer had plagiarized an article from a blog. However, flawed he put the debate on a different direction.

*      *      *

The heart of the issue is whether or not we need to pass the RH bill. It is ironic that while the Church is seen as obstructing the passage of this bill, it is in fact protecting freedom. If passed the RH bill will by nature be coercive using the power and infrastructure of the state. On the other hand, the Church’s teaching as teaching is not coercive. Catholics can take or leave it as they have..
The Church has the obligation to keep to its teachings and members who do not believe it can leave the institution. There are those who believe that the size of their families is a personal decision and that is the primary consideration.
The State will have to seek a new paradigm for helping the poor other than giving them artificial birth control. As it is, the RH bill will institutionalize state coercion focused on cutting the number of poor in the Philippines.
It is unfair not to give them the freedom of choice. I know poor families who think of children as insurance for the family’s future. They believe that the more children they have the better off the family would be when all of them have jobs and contribute to the family kitty.

*      *      *

With this perspective and in order not create more division among the people it might be more prudent not to have an RH bill at all.
Maybe the government should return the problem to the USAID to find the funds to continue their population control program in the Philippines.

When in Cebu City, please visit gregmelep.com for your real estate and retirement needs.
 

Hasty vote will kill RH bill—Enrile

By Cathy Yamsuan, Jerome Aning
Philippine Daily Inquirer

 2share8 6

Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile INQUIRER FILE PHOTO

Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile on Sunday warned Senator Pia Cayetano, principal sponsor of the reproductive health (RH) bill in the upper chamber, that “she will lose” if she insisted on a plenary decision to end the period of debate so the controversial measure could be quickly put to a vote.

Enrile noted that many senators still wanted to ask questions about the bill. He pointed out that the debate had shifted from simple queries about the side effects of contraceptives to deeper and more serious concerns, such as the implications of a controlled population on economic development.

Reports said Cayetano planned to file a motion seeking an end to the period of debate or interpellation so the Senate could move to the period of amendment and, finally, a vote.

Enrile, however, thinks Cayetano may be taking a wrong tack.

“If (Cayetano) files a motion to close the period of interpellation, baka matalo siya (she may face defeat).  If she insists on that motion, she will lose. While I will accept and submit her motion to the floor for a vote, in my view, that motion is likely to lose,” Enrile said in an interview.

As it was, the Senate President said, “at least 10” members were prepared to vote against the RH bill should Cayetano force the issue, noting that the number could be decisive in killing the bill.

Of the “six or seven” others still undecided, Enrile said, “two or three” could be persuaded to side with those against the measure.

“These are just my personal observations,” said Enrile, who chose not to name fellow senators who were likely to vote “nay.”

Simple majority

A simple majority of those present in a session would be enough to decide the fate of the RH bill, the Senate President said. For example, in a quorum of 18 senators, 10 votes would suffice to overturn the measure, he added.

Cayetano suggested last week that Senate leaders were reluctant to tackle the RH bill after the chamber approved the 2012 national budget in record time.

The RH bill seeks to define the government’s policy on reproductive health and involves an endorsement of artificial methods of contraception to aid parents to determine the number of children in their families.

While supporters praise the advantages offered by the measure, especially to women from economically and educationally disadvantaged sectors, those who oppose it argue that the RH bill would promote promiscuity and give global lobbyists a say in determining the size of the country’s population.

Enrile and Majority Leader Vicente Sotto III, in various instances, explained that many questions about the RH were still left unanswered.

Issues other than health

The Senate President echoed fears that the Philippines might replicate the experience of other countries where the diminishing number of younger people could not support an aging population.

“That’s why we need to examine the effects of this bill on our security and economy.  If farmers and other poor people are being targeted so they would not have so many children, who would take over the farms? You see, this can be a pro-elitist bill. Why, is it only the wealthy people who have the right to bear children,” Enrile asked.

“This bill is too important to rush.  Why can’t the proponents understand that? You are dealing with the population of a country, not just the health of the women involved,” he added.

Earlier, Senator Panfilo Lacson warned that the country’s dwindling natural resources would prove inadequate in providing for a continuously growing population.

Pro-lifers claim victory

Pro-life groups on Sunday said they regarded as a “victory” the announcement by leaders of Congress that the RH bill would not be passed before the end of the year.

“The message is we are victorious already in the fight against the RH bill and we are now conducting the house-to-house combat—for the upper and lower houses [of Congress]. The passage of the bill is supposed to end the year; let the people know that we are victorious in our war. But the battle continues to rage,” Pro-Life Philippines Foundation president Eric Manalang told reporters.

Pro-life groups from various parts of the country staged a prayer-rally at Rizal Park Sunday as they ended their National Marian Pilgrimage for Life that began on December 5.

The rally, which had the theme, “Save the World Through Divine Power,” backs the Catholic Church Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines’ opposition to the RH bill and same-sex unions.

Manalang also called on President Aquino not to put pressure on congressmen to approve the bill.  “This kind of pressure is uncalled for. The will of the people should be followed. Let us not force this. The problem [in our country] is poverty and corruption. This is what the government should be spending for,” he said