ON
HOUSE BILL NO. 4880
entitled "An Act Providing for the Establishment, Operation and Maintenance of a Home for the Aged and Disabled in Every Congressional District of the Philippines and Appropriating Funds Therefor"(Introduced by Congressman Raul Daza)
=====================
The Commission finds House Bill No. 4880 a welcome development in the promotion and protection of the welfare and rights of the elderly and disabled persons.
This bill will implement the provisions contained in Article XIII of the Constitution on Social Justice and Human Rights, particularly Section 11 thereof, which reads:
x x x
"The State shall adopt an integrated and comprehensive approach to health development which shall endeavor to make essential goods, health and other social resources available to all the people at affordable cost. - - - ,"
x x x.
It is, however, observed that Section 5 of House Bill 4880 which provides for admission qualifications is not well defined, and can be further improved as to include the criteria on what is "a disabled, regardless of age, who cannot move freely." As to the sixty-two years old and above requirement, its rationale must be stated as to squelch appearance of discrimination.
Subject to the above-mentioned comment, the Commission supports the passage into law of House Bill No. 4880.
Pasig City , 7 August 1997
ON
HOUSE BILL NO. 8694
entitled
"An Act Amending Republic Act No. 7432 Otherwise Known as an Act to Maximize the Contribution of the Senior Citizens to Nation Building, Grant Benefits and Special Privileges and for Other Purposes by Increasing Penalties for the Violation of Any of the Provisions Thereof"
and
House Bill No. 6018
entitled
"An Act Amending Section 4 of Republic Act No. 7432, Known as an Act to Maximize the Contribution of Senior Citizens to Nation Building , Grant Benefits and Special Privileges and for Other Purposes, to Increase the Discount Privileges"
=========================
This is a consolidated position paper on the afore-mentioned house bills as both treats on related subject matters.
House Bill No. 6018, sponsored by Representatives Vergara and Ramirez intends to increase the discount privileges granted to senior citizens from twenty percent (20%) to twenty five percent (25%), and maintains the original penalty of imprisonment not exceeding One (1) month, or a fine not exceeding One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00), or both, and further provides that in case of erring business establishments, the violation shall cause the revocation of business permits in their operation.
House Bill No. 8694, authored by Representative Leopoldo San Buenaventura fixes a higher penalty ranging from six (6) months and one (1) day to six (6) years or a fine of from Six Thousand Pesos (P6,000.00) to Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00), or both and providing a specific penalty for drugstores which refuse to sell medicine to senior citizens by authorizing the Municipal Mayor or his authorized agents to conduct an inventory of the stocks of medicines of the respondent drugstore and hold the said stocks in custody until the complaint is resolved.
Both house bills are committed to uplift and safeguard the rights and welfare of the elderly. Even with the passage of Republic Act No. 7432, recent developments have exposed the inadequacy of this law to really maximize the contribution of senior citizens including the blatant disregard to special privileges granted them, thus, defeating its very purpose.
Undoubtedly, there is an urgent need for improvement and a need for stricter enforcement of the said law that will serve as a strong deterrence against the machinations of corrupt individuals. The penalty of imprisonment as proposed by Rep. San Buenaventura in House Bill No. 8694 of six (6) months and one (1) day to six (6) years or a fine of from Six Thousand Pesos (P6,000.00) to Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00), or both, shall be adopted.
Subject to the observations and recommendations stated above, the Commission supports the passage into law of House Bills 6018 and 8694.
Pasig City , 5 August 1997
ON
HOUSE BILL NO. 9505
Otherwise known as
"An Act Creating the National Council for the Welfare of Senior Citizens and for Other Purposes"
and
HOUSE BILL NO. 9504
Otherwise known as
"The Magna Carta for Senior Citizens"
=========================
This Position Paper seeks to consolidate House Bill No. 9504 and House Bill No. 9505 both authored by Congressman Edgar Ramones Lara. Considering that the former bill is too encompassing to the extent that the provisions of the latter bill are integral parts thereof, this Commission finds no cogent reason why these two bills should be treated separately.
It will be recalled that Republic Act No. 7432, otherwise known as an Act to Maximize the Contribution of Senior Citizens to Nation Building , Grant Benefits and Special Privileges and for Other Purposes, was passed into law on April 23, 1992 pursuant to the constitutional mandate, which provides:
x x x
"The family has the duty to take care for its ELDERLY members but the state may also do so through just programs of social security." (Article XV Sec. 4)
Noteworthy is Article XIII, Section 13 of the 1987 Constitution which states that:
"The state shall establish a special agency for disabled persons (ELDERLY) for their rehabilitation, self-development, and self-reliance and their integration into the mainstream of society."
The abovementioned provision, however, is not self-executing and therefore, requires the passage of laws to clearly define and effectuate such principles on social justice. Given this shortcoming, House Bills 9504 and 9505, consolidated as proposed, are the answer.
Moreover, the Commission recognizes the necessity to ensure that the provisions of the Constitution and Republic Act No. 7432 are implemented to its fullest through the creation of a Magna Carta for Senior Citizens with special reference to the establishment of the National Council for the Welfare of Senior Citizens (NCWSC).
It is not amiss to remark in this connection, that the government owed greater respect and support from the elderly citizens. In return, the government is bound to protect these people who have less than full capacity to adequately defend and advance their interests. While it may be true that "State protection of the elderly" could be inferred from the doctrine of Parens Partiae, the Commission believes that this is not enough. What we need is a law that would finally promote and protect the rights and welfare of the elderly such as the proposed consolidated bills. All programs and services for the welfare of the senior citizens are without meaning unless this proposed consolidated bill is enacted and executed sincerely.
While this Commission is honored to be a member of the proposed creation of a Council as provided for under Section 6 of House Bill 9505, attention is invited on what particular function will it be performing.
Subject of the abovestated recommendations, the passage of the bill is earnestly sought.
Pasig City , 4 August 1997
ON
HOUSE BILL NO. 9426
entitled
"An Act Prohibiting Sex-Change Operations Known as Sex Reassignment Surgery, and Providing Penalties Thereof"
=========================
Generally, if an individual decides to change his or her sex by surgery it is a private matter of which the state may not interfere. But the right of primacy is not absolute.
The private acts of individual may have its limitation especially when it adversely affect rights of others as in marriage and family relations.
Human rights is defined as the supreme, inherent, and inalienable rights to life, to dignity, and to self-development. It is concerned with issues in both areas of civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights founded on internationally accepted human rights obligations to which the Philippine Government is a state party.
Does change of sex affects one's human rights that is right to life, dignity and self-development.
Does an individual has an absolute right to do anything with his own body?
The contention of many women is that they have the right to abort a conceived child as it concerns their own bodies. The U.S. Supreme Court had ruled in several decisions starting with Roe vs. Wade, (410 U.S. 110, 1973) legalizing abortion of certain stages of pregnancy as right to privacy specially the pro-abortionists. The Philippines considers abortion as a criminal offense because it means the killing of an unborn child. Article 258 of the Revised Penal Code penalizes a woman who practices abortion of her own body. Article 259 likewise penalizes physician or midwife who practices abortion. May the same principle be applied to an individual who changes his or her sex?
It may be conceded that if the individual is unmarried, his or her right to change sex may be interpreted as his or her right to privacy and the state may not intervene. But if the man or woman is married, certainly his change of sex destroys the institution of marriage and the family. Article II, paragraph 12 of the Philippine Constitution provides
"the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution." Article XV section 2 of the Philippine Constitution states that the "Marriage as an inviolable institution is the foundation of the family and shall be protected by the State." Article I of the Family Code reiterates the same principles stated in the Philippine Constitution.
We read in Genesis, 1:27
" male and female he created them." The immediate context of this passage is only concerned with connecting the sexual difference between man and woman with the fruitfulness of God, who gives life, "God blessed them and said to them increase and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it," [Gen. 1:28]. To the idea of increasing and multiplying is joined the idea of the relationship of otherness of the sexes. By these two motivations - increasing the human species and relationship of otherness of the sexes - the individual is set in a social context. This can never happen in a union between one male who has his sexual organs to live with another male whose organs remain intact. God created man and woman that way; no medical intervention shall tamper with the way God created us to his "image and likeness."
Sexuality is ordered to the conjugal love of man and woman. In marriage, the physical intimacy of the spouses becomes a sign and pledge of spiritual communion. Marriage bonds between baptized persons are sanctified by the sacrament. "Sexuality by means of which man and woman give themselves to one another through the acts which are proper and exclusive to spouses, is not something simply biological, but concerns the innermost being of the human person as such. It is realized in a truly human way only if it is an integral part of the love by which a man and a woman commit themselves totally to one another until death." (Quoted from CBCP positions re:House Bill No. 9426).
We have to accept the truth of our biological maleness and femaleness. To allow a surgical sex-change is to perpetuate the delusion of a homosexual who thinks of himself or herself as belonging to the opposite sex. The quotation from the CBCP paper is based on the biblical texts, admonishing an individual on changing his or her sex on religious grounds. Under the principle of the separation of the Church and State and freedom of religion, change of sex is a matter of freedom of choice on the individual who is unmarried. The State may not interfere on one's freedom of conscience and religion.
In view of the foregoing, it is our considered opinion that a change of sex by unmarried persons may be permissible as a right to privacy depending on his or her religious conviction. But if the individual is legally married, change of sex should be prohibited as it will violate the inviolable institution of marriage and the family as ordained by the Philippine Constitution.
It is suggested therefore that House Bill No. 9426 be modified accordingly.
Pasig City , 30 June 1997
|
