On the "Position" of the University of the Philippines on the RH Bill

Editor’s Note: Thanks to Twin-Skies for finding the what looks to be the original petition, which looks even more disingenuous than the forwarded email below. Commenters who claim to be from University of the Philippines Student Catholic Action (UPSCA) have come forward to disavow the petition. We would like to clarify that the Filipino Freethinkers site has not made any claim that the petition originated from UPSCA, only that it was forwarded by a UPSCA member. We recognize that some commenters have connected UPSCA to the petition but we do not exercise editorial control on comments.

Author’s Note: The author claims full personal responsibility for the confusion regarding the origin of this petition. Although the author knew well that the petition was not an initiative of UPSCA, he failed nonetheless in correcting other members of the Forum when they made the mistake of attributing it to the said campus organization. As a result, the author removed the name of the aforementioned organization in the introductory part of this article.

A friend of mine sent me this infuriating message through e-mail:
“As faculty members, students and alumni of the University of the Philippines, we state here the bases of our objection to the Reproductive Health bills (HB 96 and its related bills) that are being deliberated under your supervision.

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 it pushes for the promotion of a two-children policy, massive distribution of contraceptives, sex education (to acquaint young people of contraception), and sterilization, all of which using 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 Hanusek and Ludger Wömmann (2007), among others.
  2. The government has to channel limited funds to jobs 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 TFR 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 refer to “risk-compensation” as the reason for higher HIV-AIDS incidences when condoms are promoted.  Moreover, human papillomavirus (HPV), 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 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 state should do is to craft laws that prevent people from harming themselves or more positively phrased, help them develop themselves and society.  We submit that legislators have to dump the contentious and flawed Reproductive Health bills 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,

If you are a graduate or student of any of the campuses of the UP System and would like to join us in forwarding the good cause of our nation as what we have always learned from our alma mater, kindly provide the following data and send them to <[email protected]>.

For teachers and alumni:

Full Name

Course/s Finished in UP (Year of Graduation), College, UP Campus
For those with degrees from other schools, please indicate degree, school, address of school

Sample:
Juan de la Cruz
BS Political Science (1975), CSSP, UP Diliman
PhD in Rocket Science (1990), MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts

For students:

Full Name
Course and Year (in Roman Numeral, e.g., BS Biology IV), College, UP Campus

Sample:
Juana de la Torre
BA Psychology III, CAS, UPLB

Please don’t forget to send your information at <[email protected]> and ask all your other friends from UP to do the same. Should you need more data about the position paper, please send a request through the same email address.

Feel free to pass this position paper to all your friends who are students or alumni of any of the UP campuses.”


As a UP alumnus, I cannot let this pass, so I sent this mail:

The so-called “position” of UP regarding the RH Bill debate is a blatant misrepresentation of the UP community’s stand on this issue. This uncalled for declaration of UP’s “stand” is unjustified to say the least and is even shamefully dishonest. For one, I am a UP alumnus, but I am a staunch supporter of the important legislation, and I know many UP alumni and teachers who support the bill. For us, this declaration of UP’s “stand” on the RH Bill is a disgusting misuse of the name of the University of the Philippines by those who are desperate to give credence to their cause.

Not even the UP President, the Board of Regents or any of its campus Chancellors can declare an “official position” for UP on this sensitive issue. If UP is an institution that values intellectual freedom, it must know that its faculty, students and alumni will take different and often conflicting sides on any issue. Hence, the University of the Philippine must never take an “official” stand on the RH Bill.

And I believe that it has not taken an official side, and that this petition containing UP’s so-called “position” on the RH Bill is a shameless misuse of the name of the University of the Philippines.

I personally find this misrepresentation insulting, for it excludes me from the UP community. I demand that the name of UP in the petition be removed and that members of the UP community who oppose the RH Bill must be clear that their stand is not the stand of “members, students and alumni of the University of the Philippines” but only the stand of some organizations within the UP community.

Pecier Carpena Decierdo

UP Diliman Alumnus, Student number 2005-55311

Graduate of BS Physics, Batch 2010

I really hope that all UP students, alumni and faculty who read this will do the same. Let us fight against this disgusting dishonesty and desperation of the opponents of the RH Bill!

68 comments

  1. Oh thank God I thought the whole U.P. community would go against the RH Bill. There are already groups claiming that U.P. is entirely against the bill. I am so glad that thinking individuals really think deeply, unlike those shallow (_______________________).

  2. Nothing in the position paper says that it's an "official" position, as you claim. It only says it's from 198 signatories who are associated with UP. Considerable number, you must admit. Even the pro-RH bill UP people cannot say it's the official position of UP given this.

  3. I hope it would be okay if I remove the name of UPSCA in the article. If I had seen that this would be a major source of confusion, I would not have put it their in the first place. The article was about my opinion that a certain anti-RH petition is wrongly worded, not about a specific campus organization.

    Are there things which need further clarifications? If there are none, I suggest that we move on to what matters: the debate on the RH Bill. Or, if you want to stick to the contents of the article, we could talk about how the petition should be worded instead.

    Again, to members of UPSCA, I am sorry for the confusion my article caused.

    • I also claim full personal responsibility for the confusion — Bea has nothing to do with it. Other members of the Forum also have nothing to do with it.

      First of all, I guess I shouldn't have put the name of an organization in the article, for it was not essential to the message of the article after all. And second, I failed to correct Bea in her comment when I knew well that the petition was not an initiative of UPSCA.

      I hope these clarifications reach the members of UPSCA.

  4. To everyone. Several clarifications are in order.

    First, I never attributed the petition to UPSCA, I only said that it was sent to me by a member of UPSCA.

    Second, my objections to the petition stems from the fact that it seeks to use the element of ambiguity in order to give its message leverage.

    That being said, I admit that my reaction was exaggerated. For the exaggeration part, I am sorry.

  5. Just a suggestion to guide the discussion here. But to first lay cards out, I signed the petition. Then we proceed.

    Unlike the Ateneo professors letter, this document is a petition and so it is natural to put in an introduction which target signatories can identify with. One cannot expect a petition to begin with, "As some of the students….'
    I saw the site and it puzzled me why some people not from UP signed there. Those are precisely what the petition sought to avoid.

    • It wouldn't hurt for the petition to avoid all ambiguity and, first, remove all UP iconography (especially in so prominent a position as it has on the page), and second, explicitly state that the undersigned are stating their position as individuals who happen to be members of the UP community. As it stands, the petition benefits from being misconstrued as an initiative by the University of the Philippines as a whole. Even the email address of the originator of the petition is arguably misleading, [email protected], as if to say that the petition is the work of a body called UP RH Research, which does not actually exist, to my knowledge.

  6. Hi Pecier. The editor's note is a welcome clarification.

    However, Twin-Skies here has put forward a reasonable thought:
    "Noted, but I think it would be better if Pecier and Bea explained their comments themselves."

    This is in relation to a conversation where Bea attributed the document to UPSCA,
    and you did not clarify the misaccusation but rather expressed rage: :

    Bea:
    … At the very least, they could have been honest enough to state that this petition is an initiative of the UPSCA.

    Pecier Decierdo:
    What enraged me is that they are trying to use the sensationalizing tendency of the media for their ends. If this goes out, the media will eat this up. "UP students and faculty take a stand on the RH Bill!" It's not difficult to imagine such a headline on tomorrow's yahoo! news.

    Perhaps you can explain, as Twin-Skies suggested, and bring clarity to your statement.

  7. UPSCA did not create this Document. And besides, the document does not seek to represent the whole University. As it says, "As faculty members, students, and alumni of the University of the Philippines…". That does not mean the whole University, but as Individuals who study at the University.

    Pls. do Read the document very well next time.

    • [Pls. do Read the document very well next time. ]

      I'd ask you to do the same thing. Pecier only stated that the petition was sent by a member of UPSCA – nowhere did he say it was a petition that was actually endorsed by the organization.

      [And besides, the document does not seek to represent the whole University.]

      Kindly visit the link. The document was marked with the UP centennial (2008) seal
      http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/upiansonrhbill

  8. UPSCA did NOT create this document.
    UPSCA did NOT seek to represent the University through the above statement.
    And UPSCA is NOT Philippines Student Catholic Action.

    Please do research and avoid being hasty.

    • [UPSCA did NOT create this document.]

      We'll have to ask Percier's friend where they found the document then.

      [UPSCA did NOT seek to represent the University through the above statement. ]

      Found the original petition. If the paper doesn't claim to represent UP as a whole, then why does the petition state:
      http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/upiansonrhbill

      "As faculty members, students and alumni of the University of the Philippines…"

      Without indicating that they don't speak for the rest of the campus. Furthermore, the petition was emblazoned with the UP's Centennial (2008) logo, further adding to the confusion. Regardless of whoever wrote this petition, their word structure and their use of the official school logo may lead people to assume it's the university's official stance on the matter.

      [And UPSCA is NOT Philippines Student Catholic Action.]

      Actually, they are, as proven by this prior article regarding the organization:
      http://baray.livejournal.com/tag/upsca

      And UPSCA's own Facebook page:
      http://www.facebook.com/upsca.diliman#!/upsca.dil

      • Ei it's University of the Philippines Student Catholic Action NOT Philippines Student Catholic Action.

        The article cited above is not from UPSCA.

          • @realthinker

            Actually, you're the only one here who keeps accusing us of of misreading it as "Philippines Student Catholic Action."

            Do read the article posted – the first line correctly cited the group as the University of the Philippines Student Catholic Action (UPSCA)

          • read again. UPSCA mem too posted above:

            "Ei it's University of the Philippines Student Catholic Action NOT Philippines Student Catholic Action."

            incidentally, it is in this same thread.

          • Please read again as well.

            Where in the article does the author identify them as the "Philippines Student Catholic Action"?

            If you're referring to justin's post that cited the group "Philippines Student Catholic Action," that looks more like a typo than anything else.

          • yes, that it is a typo is acceptable, and is exactly why it is being corrected.
            you see, there is a philippine student catholic action group which is wholly different from upsca.

          • If I may make a suggestion, we can resolve misunderstandings like this better if you indicate whether you're replying to the article's content, or to a specific comment.

      • If one UPSCAn forwarded a post, does that mean UPSCA as a whole created it?

        IF NOT, then it is surely hasty to say that UPSCA tried to represent UP as a whole.
        The paper MAY, but NOT UPSCA.

        Also, even with the phrase "As faculty members, students and alumni of the University of the Philippines…", a consideration is that it is a sign-up statement.

        UPSCA is UNIVERSITY OF THE Philippines Student Catholic Action. there is a big obvious difference.

      • there's what we call as forwarded message. Nowadays, any one can forward anybody's message. But that doesn't mean that the organization he/she belongs is always the author of whatever documents he/she is forwarding.

        • Regardless of whoever wrote the initial petition, the question is whether or not UPSCA officially endorses it.

          And to that end, may I ask if your organization does? Your answer will hopefully clear up some of the confusion.

          • As far as I know, UPSCA has no stand yet. There are no circulating petitions initiated by the org. But personally, I am AGAINST RH Bill.

    • I suggest you take your own advice and read that this article says nothing about SCA being the creator of the document. Pecier says a UPSCA member sent this to him. It also doesn't support your calls for contemplation that you posted basically the same thing multiple times.

      The document quoted here is at the very least misleading in its lack of a caveat stating that they were individuals who held this position and were independent of UP Diliman as an institution. Unlike the 66 faculty members of Ateneo who made a position paper two years ago stating their support for the RH bill, the document here does not attempt to provide a disclaimer. It says that they were speaking AS members of the UP community without saying that they were not representing UP as a whole.

      Your only valid criticism here is your third point and even that is nitpicking. Justin probably just incompletely copied his comment and accidentally left out "University of the" because he clearly shows the abbreviation directly after as "UPSCA". What do you think UP stands for in the abbreviation?

      • NOWHERE did I write that this article says that SCA is the creator of the document.
        DO REREAD.

        I was referring to those who commented and hastily attributed the statement to upsca:

        Twin-Skies ·
        How convenient that UPSCA's second assertion conveniently left …

        justin ·
        Philippines Student Catholic Action (UPSCA) is saying they Speak for UP?

        Bea ·
        …At the very least, they could have been honest enough to state that this petition is an initiative of the UPSCA.

          • To post in the main thread however sends the message in a more eminent way. That takes care of other people who might also comment hastily.

          • this might help you too:

            Bea posted this:
            … At the very least, they could have been honest enough to state that this petition is an initiative of the UPSCA.

            And the author, Pecier Decierdo, replied this:

            What enraged me is that they are trying to use the sensationalizing tendency of the media for their ends. If this goes out, the media will eat this up. "UP students and faculty take a stand on the RH Bill!" It's not difficult to imagine such a headline on tomorrow's yahoo! news.

          • Those are more criticisms not of the post but of individual commenters. It would be best to direct your comments to them.

          • Atleast for me, I would like everyone, including Pecier, to know that the petition letter above is not from UPSCA. I do not know Pecier's intention for dragging our name. But atleast I think we are now clear.

        • [Twin-Skies ·
          How convenient that UPSCA's second assertion conveniently left … ]

          I apologize for mis-attributing UPSCA in my statement then. Thank you for clarifying that. However, I still think the petition's guilty of shoddy research.

          • Twin-Skies
            Aside from the one above, you also said this:

            "UPSCA doesn't represent the UP academic community as a whole, and I'm willing to wager that when word spreads of their petition, a lot of people on campus are going to be very pissed that this group claims to speak for them on the matter of the RH Bill. "

            But, apology accepted.

          • Well one thing's for sure – A lot of UP residents are not going to like the fact that their school logo was placed on that petition.

            And thank you for accepting the apology. I'll make it a point to be more careful the next time I say anything. I may not agree with you stance on the RH Bill, but I'd rather not be making unnecessary enemies.

      • Sorry for the Miss-Cut and paste.
        I didn't know there was another SCA in UP other than the UPSCA. So UP has a SCA and UPSCA, now I know.

        • Although I DID post this: "Philippines Student Catholic Action (UPSCA) is saying they Speak for UP? Whoah! " So it is clearly the UPSCA I'm referring to.

  9. UPSCA did NOT create this document.
    UPSCA did NOT seek to represent the UP academic community as a whole in this statement.
    And UPSCA is NOT Philippines Student Catholic Action.

  10. UPSCA did not create this statement nor does it claim to represent the UP community. It would be greatly appreciated if you check your sources and reread your email before disseminating this kind of information. Thank you.

  11. We should not that in the past many professors have spoken out for the RH BIll. The University Council of UP Manila endorsed it. So if there is an official position (there is not) it probably is the one of UP Manila.

  12. Philippines Student Catholic Action (UPSCA) is saying they Speak for UP? Whoah!

    I don't think there are enough resources to call them out on this BS and make them retract, all one can do is spread an email pointing out this is a gross violation and that its a conflict of interest.

    Although all it would take is just an Official saying UP can take no side.

  13. How convenient that UPSCA's second assertion conveniently left out the Part II of the ADB paper, titled Millenium Development Goals, and discussed the need for reproductive health and AIDs prevention programs to help reduce women's mortality and the spread of STDs, among other objectives:
    http://www.adb.org/documents/books/key_indicators

    UPSCA basically lifted one section of the study, and chose to ignore the rest that didn't agree with their view.

    • "UPSCA basically lifted one section of the study, and chose to ignore the rest that didn't agree with their view."
      How intellectually HONEST of a Academic Society.

      • UPSCA doesn't represent the UP academic community as a whole, and I'm willing to wager that when word spreads of their petition, a lot of people on campus are going to be very pissed that this group claims to speak for them on the matter of the RH Bill.

    • UPSCA did NOT make this document.
      Just because this document was forwarded by a member of UPSCA doesn't mean that it was made by UPSCA.

      • Percier didn't say that in his article or reply letter either. Percier only cited that the his friend, a member of the UPSCA, sent him a petition letter.

        Percier didn't say that the petition was from the UPSCA, or if it was actively supported by the UPSCA.

        Furthermore, Percier's letter was not aimed at the UPSCA either – it was intended for the author of the petition because of its wording, which would mislead people into thinking it spoke for all UP students.

        And if what UPSCA mem says is true – that UPSCA doesn't have an official stance yet – then there's no need for you to be upset, since your group is not the target of Percier's letter.

        I advise you to please read the article carefully to verify my points.

      • (replying to above) Of course, BUT when the document is sent by an UPSCA member, speaks in this manner how else should anyone think of it as such?

        Only a UPSCA Official can actually say and not just a MEMBER. So you can reply to every comment that UPSCA Did not say this, but only your OFFICIALS can really settle the argument.

        As for the Interpretations of Everyone Else, You sir as guilty in jumping the gun when you are not bringing OFFICIAL Say so.

  14. Thanks for sharing this, Pecier. I agree that the UP community rarely takes a single united, official stand on issues like these. The letter is written in such a way that it does not make that claim explicitly, but it is implied in that very first paragraph. At the very least, they could have been honest enough to state that this petition is an initiative of the UPSCA.

    Anyway. What kind of help do you need with the formatting?

    (Just so you know: Beatriz Torre
    Graduate of BS Psychology, 2005, UP Diliman
    Graduate student and faculty member, 2006-present, UP Diliman Department of Psychology)

    • What enraged me is that they are trying to use the sensationalizing tendency of the media for their ends. If this goes out, the media will eat this up. "UP students and faculty take a stand on the RH Bill!" It's not difficult to imagine such a headline on tomorrow's yahoo! news.

      • Hi Pex! Good day! this is JR from Ground Acropolis (B-13) and also an UPSCAn. I believe UPSCA did not create this article (as some of the commenters here assumed). this is just one of the many circulating in our groups. and just to make it clear, this is not meant to be taken as an initiative for the organization to spearhead an overall stand on RH bill for the UP community. I'd like to think that this is forwarded in the group to be used as reference for some points to consider on the RH bill issue.

        • Thanks for clarifying that JRV 🙂

          I've already told your other members that the article was aimed at criticizing the petition itself, but didn't state that it was a officially endorsed by UPSCA – it just happened to be forwarded by a member of the group.

          • Yes, but if we did not post here a lot of statements that UPSCA did not write the petition, Pecier's commenters, including you, will still be assuming that UPSCA is really behind the petition.

          • If you would read this very post, Twin-Skies, you would find someone named Bea who attributed the document to UPSCA, and the author Pecier, in his reply, did not clarify the misaccusation but rather expressed his rage:

            Bea:
            … At the very least, they could have been honest enough to state that this petition is an initiative of the UPSCA.

            Pecier Decierdo:
            What enraged me is that they are trying to use the sensationalizing tendency of the media for their ends. If this goes out, the media will eat this up. "UP students and faculty take a stand on the RH Bill!" It's not difficult to imagine such a headline on tomorrow's yahoo! news.

Leave a reply

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here