STATEMENT ON HOUSE BILL Nos. 31 & 1662 [ COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE "POPULATION BILL" ]

Your Honor:

Greetings of Peace!

The Simbahayan Commission is the Archdiocese of Manila's Commission on Marriage and Family Life Ministries.

We wish to thank you for allowing us to submit to you our statement and position on HB Nos. 31 and 1662, both entitled AN ACT ESTABLISHING AN INTEGRATED POPULATION AND DEVELOPMENT POLICY, STRENGTHENING ITS IMPLEMENTING STRUCTURES, AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFORE, more commonly known as the "Population Bill". We evaluate herein the PopBill in three aspects: (1) The historical context of systematic global depopulation as such; (2) the PopBill as a whole; and (3) the PopBill in its parts.

In the light of the history of population programs and laws, and in view of the current context within which yet another population bill is being proposed; considering as well, the ideological currents underlying the definitions and provisions of the present bill, the position of the Simbahayan Commission is that a "Population Bill" should not even be under deliberation at this time - at least not until the people and their representatives have together and with due diligence, sorted out the truths from fallacies about so-called population activities and population management programs.

In other words, it is not only against the present bill's ambiguous and questionable particulars that we submit our objection. We object to the very idea of systematic depopulation that the present bill represents that has been and still is founded on ideologies and pseudo-sciences (and now even pseudo-religions) whose codes of conduct are manipulated by a numbered few for their own gain, at the expense of the bulk of the peoples of the world.¹ We believe that public servants owe it to their constituents to stand fast against this new form of colonialism, and to summon the nobler strengths of the human spirit in order to advance our economy, culture, our society and politics, rather than take the course of least resistance when faced with difficult situations in our national life.

It is woeful to note that even as this bill is being debated, many of the structures and programs it contemplates are already in place and are actually operational. One should seek to know where the machinery and its fuel are coming from. The passage of a population bill can only aid and abet the unconscionable depopulation efforts fully underway. The UNFPA's own "Inventory of Population Projects in Developing Countries" attests to these depopulation efforts and the organizations/governments behind them.²

We are submitting this position in the backdrop of the following additional observations and facts.

1. That the population programs in the Philippines from their early inception in between 1966-1976 to the present have been the initiative of foreign governments and interest groups that have mandated themselves to depopulate third world countries.³ To this day, they wield effective control, mainly though monetary power channeled through foreign grants and aid packages.⁴
2. That the issues of national sovereignty and security, as well as the bodily integrity of Filipino men and women have been rightly raised in the face of massive and intrusive interventions into a most intimate aspect of national life - that of the reproductive functions, conjugal and family relations of the citizenry - by foreign powers.
3. That the immediate purpose for depopulation of these foreign government and/or interest groups is to maintain access to strategic and other resources beneficial primarily and ultimately to them.⁵ While depopulation can be an easy way to attain short-term economic gratification, it is, however, damaging due to its high social costs, and long-term economic consequences.
4. That programs of population control agencies, both by government and NGOs are overseen and funded by two main international agencies, namely, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID)⁶ and the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA).⁷
5. That the approach to population activities have been and still are totalitarian, i.e., they seek to influence for the goal of depopulation all aspects and all levels of the life of our nation. In other words, anything and everything shall be harnessed in order to control a population.
6. That it is discrete but common knowledge that with the help of and in the wake of the martial law regime, population control, cloaked under euphemism "family planning" flourished as a coercive program.
7. That today, the ideological and programmatic bases for current legislative activity relative to population control are premised on the U.S. National Security Study Memorandum 200,⁸ as updated in United Nations instruments, particularly upon the 1994 Cairo International Conference on Population and Development⁹ and the 1995 Beijing World Conference on Women,¹⁰ and it is to justify these agandæ that our Constitution is presently being neglected, or worse, instrumentalized by those who supposedly drafted the bill in question.¹¹
8. That the anti-natal technologies utilized in pursuit of these goals include various forms of propaganda and psychological persuasion for social, political and cultural re-engineering,¹² combined with biological and chemical technologies designed to destabilize reproductive systems so as to prevent conception and birth.¹³
9. That the application of such technologies has resulted not only in physical and psychological harm, mostly to individual women, but has also inflicted relational side effects between married couples.
10. That the ideologies that underlie the drafting of population policy and legislation have diametrically opposed the Filipino culture and violated the Philippine Constitution. Moreover, these population-related ideologies and programs are essentially and practically incompatible with Judeo-Christian and Islamic tenets, which the majority of Filipinos profess. Indeed, vigorous PR and media campaigns, infiltration and vicious attacks directed at religious opposition have characterized population activities in the Philippines from the beginning.¹⁴
11. That the implementing agencies for population control or "management" - both in government and among NGOs - have been particularly abrasive to religious opposition to contraceptive and abortifacient technologies. The success of social marketing for contraception requires that Filipinos set aside their moral commitments, and Catholics in particular to "reorient" their religious adherence.¹⁵
12. That the human anatomy and physiology has its own built-in mechanism for achieving or avoiding pregnancy, and that the decision to achieve or to postpone pregnancy is understood in Christian belief to be predominantly a process of spiritual and moral discernment¹⁶ by spouses.¹⁷ This process of discernment has been frustrated by an insensitive government, in violation of the Constitution from 1987 onward.
13. That socio-economic development has its own natural dynamic for reducing population. The total fertility rate (TFR) of the Philippines has markedly dropped by an average of 1 every decade since 1955, implying that while the total population is indeed increasing, it is increasing in a declining rate which will eventually hit levels below zero population growth.¹⁸
14. That the United Nations Population Division under the Economic and Social Council has reconsidered its former theory on global population "explosion" and is in the process of retracting therefrom in view of the apparently unanticipated demographic collapse being experienced by over 71 nations. The U.N. Development Program (UNDP) and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) have aligned themselves with the UNPD (see Attachments "A") . It is incumbent upon the committee to study the reasons why population alarmism is unjustified and trace the true causes of poverty.
15. That the Bureau of Food and Drugs (BFAD), with the approval of the Department of Health (DOH), has withdrawn the "emergency contraceptive" pill Postinor-2 (Levonorgestrel), calling it non-registrable due to its abortifacient effects (see Attachments "B").¹⁹ In view of the clarity of the arguments presented by the BFAD and the DOH itself, it is incumbent upon those contemplating a population control law to examine thoroughly, through independent testimony, the abortifacient effects that may ensue from other so-called "contraceptives", including the birth control pill, the IUD, injectibles, implants, and vaccines.

It comes as no surprise that the population control mandate, conspicuous in the extinct 1973 Constitution, was deliberately excluded from the 1987 Constitution, for the following reasons:

(1) There is a wealth of statistical evidence that proves that population growth has been a major stimulus for economic development and progress in countries which are now industrialized.

(2) The major determinants of a country's economic development are economic policies and the political system.

(3) It is very dangerous to give the State a constitutional mandate to determine what is an "optimum" population. This can lead to gross violations of human rights.

(4) In the Philippines, population control programs have been an unmitigated disaster.

(5) It has been proven beyond statistical doubt that economic development and social justice will automatically lead to the slowing down of population growth as increased urbanization and industrialization are achieved. There is no need for the State to take an active role in determining the optimum level of population.

(6) Once the State is wrongly given the mandate to interfere in the basic rights of parents to determine the number of their children they will have, all the qualifying limitations about respecting individual consciences are often more honored in the breach, as can be gleaned from the experiences of developing countries in Asia.

(7) The 1935 Constitution did not include any provisions on population. The only reason why a population policy was included in the 1973 Constitution was that there was a strong lobby supported by the USAID, which at that time was aggressively committed to population control.

(8) Given appropriate policies in economic development and social justice - which have been our concern in this Constitution - the Philippines today can comfortably accommodate as many as 100 million, given present technology. Existing mass poverty in the Philippines can be attributed to unenlightened economic policies and the wrong political leadership in the past.

While no explicit prohibition against population activities is mentioned in the fundamental law, the acknowledgement of the natural rights of married couples and their families compels lawmakers, government and the private sector to be more prudent and circumspect about "PopDev" legislation and programming. There are less flaws in the Constitution than there are in the way we respect its provisions.

Historical Review

The current population control bills have a shady history from which they has not been able to depart. This reinforces our position that there should not be any population control law at this time.

The present HB 31 and HB 1662 are the product of an evolutionary process that originated from the true proponent, writer, and lobbyist for "the PopBill" - the Philippine Population Commission (POPCOM), under the tutelage of its official "population policy consultant", the Washington-based Futures Group International (TFGI).²⁰ The "PopBill" began in the Senate in 1996 as Senate Bill No. 554 (Flavier, Shahani, Webb).²¹ Public hearings, saw the submission of various position papers from a number of sectors, including the Church, after which a Substitute Bill was filed as SB 2012, which however, was never taken up on the Senate floor. The objection of the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila to SB 554 (a copy of which is attached herewith) is no less relevant for the present population bill.²²

Simultaneously with SB 554, the PopBill took several designations in the Lower House: HBs 120, 2136 (S.Acosta), and 2519 (C.Reyes). Technically, these proposals have become dormant. However, in the Eleventh Congress, SB 554 was ostensibly revived in the Lower House as HB 173 (former Senator H.Alvarez), and HB 144 (N.Monfort). These gentlemen have, since September 1999, effectively desisted from advancing "their" bills.

Since then, the Population Commission and their foreign partners lost no time in recomposing the population bill into HB 8110, which in the 12th Congress has been copied and revived as HB 31 and HB 1662.

Totalitarian Scope of Population Bills

From a strategic standpoint, the present bill ambitions to integrate the entire work of governance. We submit that if this can be done with one bill passed into a law that empowers a single institution for the broad undertaking of "population and development", then all other laws and institutions - including the national government - would become effectively moot and redundant. The clear intent to co-opt the whole of government and civil society in all levels reveals a strong totalitarian streak in whoever drafted the bill.

Language and Translation of Population Bills

It does this by invoking the definitions of new terminologies created and canonized through the Cairo ICPD and Beijing WCW - buzzwords which sound innocuous and even impressive to untrained ears, but whose second meanings are rightly alarming to the average person. This new language that has acquired a semblance of social and political acceptability, thanks to mass media. In prolife/profamily circles this is known as "population doublespeak".²³

It must be understood that United Nations instruments DO NOT OBLIGE COMPLIANCE from member states, so as not to jeopardize the sovereignty of the people represented therein. Safety clauses to this effect are found within the documents and action plans. However, since the purpose of UN conferences is to secure a "consensus", the ensuing programs/platforms for action are necessarily crafted with ambiguous terminologies that would allow peoples of varying cultures and beliefs to accept the document according to the manner that is comfortable to them. The problem that arises after the conferences and within the various countries is: Whose definitions will prevail in the implementation of the action plans? As we have noted, there are governments and international interest groups that make it their goal to force their definitions and interpretations of UN instruments down the throats of the developing nations.

We submit that the present population bills HB 31 and HB 1662 are the result of such a process. It has been secured through the intervention of the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), the Futures Group (TFGI), and the Philippine Legislators Committee on Population and Development (PLCPD),²⁴ with the collaboration of Filipino NGOs in the payroll of a string of foreign sources,²⁵ not the least of which is the pro-abortion legal consultancy NGO, REPROCEN.

The doublespeak in the population bills, including the present one, is summarized as follows:

OBJECTIONABLE PRINCIPLES	POP-DOUBLESPEAK
TOTALITARIAN OUTLOOK	"PRE Balance" "Integration" "Synchronization" etc.
INTERVENTIONISM STATISM DICTATORSHIP	"Population Management" "Population & Development" (PopDev) "Population Education" (PopEd) "Special Attention" etc.
ANTI-NATALISM	"Family Planning" "Reproductive Health (Services)" "Fertility Regulation" etc.
RADICAL FEMINISM GENDER AUTONOMY	"Empowerment" "Gender Equality and Equity"
CONTRACEPTIVE MENTALITY ABORTION CULTURE ANTI-LIFE BUSINESS INTERESTS	"Reproductive Health" "Responsible Parenthood" "Family Planning" "constellation of services" etc.
ANTI-PARENTALISM	"Population Education" (PopEd) "Adolescent Program" "Information & Counseling Services for Youth" etc.
ANTI-BIRTH PROPAGANDA	"Information" "Counselling" "Family Plannning Communications" etc.

There being not much difference between SB 554 and present PopBills as regards their overall intent, scope, and principles and language, we have to reiterate our objection to the latter in their entirety. The sugar that was added during recent hearings and technical working group dialogues has not removed the poison that was there from the start.

The following commentary on the specific contents of the current PopBill does not in any way supersede our previously stated positions. We will acknowledge positive elements as "candy coating". Thus, the following commentary reinforces our strongest objection to the passage of a population bill given the present circumstances, as well as our rejection of the (erstwhile) ulterior motivations of the present PopBill.

SEC. 1	"Population and Development" is the work of the entire government, and not just the Population Commission or its affiliated agencies. Is the PopCom being groomed by this legislation to be a shadow executive department?
SEC. 2	The phrase "population, development and environmental factors" used to be "population, resources, and environmental factors". While this is a welcome development since it accepts that people are not separate from resources, it is still the succulent bait or "palaman" of a contraceptive sandwich - to secure the approval of the general public. "All levels of national life" forebodes totalitarianism. "Human beings" rightly includes the unborn citizen from the moment of conception, and therefore precludes any use of abortifacient drugs and devices.26 The Brundtland Commission's definition of "sustainable development" does not exclude abortion as a means of family planning, and logically, it is open to sterilization as well, whether temporary or permanent. About "human rights": Human rights are not conferred by the State, nor by any human agency. It is inherent in human nature and dignity, granted by Almighty God. Furthermore, while the respect for the human rights of others is an obligation for all, the exercise of one's inherent rights is an option, and the waiving of one's rights deserves equal respect of all. Another important point concerning rights is that there is a hierarchy of human rights. They are not all of equal weight. For example, the right to life has priority over the right to privacy. The "right to education" is a function of the "right to know". It is a basic principle in education that the right to know is conditioned by the person's capacity to handle and properly process the truth for his/her personal good and for the common good of society. Error, deception, lies and half-truths are not the object of the right to know, and have no place in the educational endeavor. This means that a correct pedagogy must be observed in the education of children, particularly regarding the subject which population education is obsessed with, namely, sex education. Liberal western sex education that deliberatiely excludes parents from the process is damaging, and cannot possibly be covered by a state-conferred "right to education". "These rights are not only means for attaining sustainable development but ends in themselves." No waivable right can be an end in itself - otherwise, it cannot be waived. The State is obliged, however, to acknowledge the right to free and responsible choice as an end in itself. In absolute terms, however, it must be noted that even individual freedom serves a higher purpose: the common good. Thus, our individual choices are not autonomous of objective, given parameters (laws based on nature) and imposed parameters (human laws). "It shall promote ..." The apprehension of many is that, more often than not, what began as promotion has ended up as enforcement. There is nothing in this bill that will draw the line. There is everything in our present situation that says the line will be crossed!
SEC. 3	The entire bill revolves around its main stated concerns, which are four. There is an exact match between the concerns enumerated here and the foreign policies of the United States Government and the stated goals of the UNFPA. Needless to say, HIV/AIDS has come to be recognized as a potent depopulant.27 This is doable when conjoined with pornography and the commercial sex industry, which at the moment is waxing hot with increasingly permissive attitudes, thanks to the wantonness of western media and of local cinema. Again, we do not see that lines will not be crossed by implementing agencies. Least-resistance ideologies and approaches will lead us to the dead end that Thailand and many African countries are now facing. Natural resources and the environment should be protected. The question is "For whom?". The migration of rural folk (whether by force or enticement) to urban "killing zones" may be viewed as large-scale hamletting to leave our natural resources free for the picking of foreign interest groups and local elites. "To help parents achieve their family size ..." Again, when is "helping" not "persuading"? And what will stop "persuasion" from becoming "coercion" ? Coming from the PopCom and its affiliates, the unacceptable interpretation of "reducing the incidence of teenage pregnancy" can only be with the use of contraceptives and/or abortion. Observing the modus operandi of UN adolescent programs, this provision will be invoked for the establishment of "School-based clinics" following the US model. The handling of "other adolescent reproductive health problems" should not be undertaken independently of parents. "Fully integrate population concerns into development strategies ..." "Ensure participation of civil society, the private sector, ..." These statements substantiate what we have already said about the totalitarian character that population programs have acquired through the years. Population control agents have mastered the art of co-opting not just persons, or governments, but entire societies.
SEC. 4	Previous comments on gender apply here. The UN definition of "reproductive health" does not exclude abortion and sterilization (permanent or temporary). The "rights of couples and individuals". The fact that this is linked up with reproductive health implies that in reproductive affairs, the parties involved need not be married. The terms "gender equality and equity" are correct; unfortunately the UN/USAID officialdom and their contractors read this as gender identity and competition. There is nothing in this bill that draws the line between equality and the perceived identity and even superiority. UN briefing papers in the Cairo ICPD defined FAMILY PLANNING as "achieved through contraception, defined as any means capable of preventing pregnancy, ... The contraceptive effect can be obtained through temporary or permanent means. [...] coitus interruptus; ... the use of reproductive hormones [...]; placing a device in utero; interposing a barrier ... Permanent means include male and female sterilization." Of REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH, it says, "Implicit ... are the right of men and women to be informed and to have access to safe, effective, affordable and acceptable methods of fertility regulation of their choice." It defines FERTILITY REGULATION as "... the process by which individuals and couples regulate their fertility. Methods that can be used for this purpose include, amongst others: delaying childbearing, using contraception, seeking treatment for infertility, interrupting unwanted pregnancies, and breastfeeding." It then defines ABORTION as "Induced abortion, or the voluntary termination of pregnancy, is utilized to end an already established pregnancy (i.e. a method acting after nidation has been completed)." Note how the definition of abortion denies that life begins upon fertilization, which occurs in the fallopian tube about 4-5 days prior to nidation. Under this definition, the termination of the fertilized ovum all the way to the morular stage is not "abortion". "... that people are able to have a satisfying and safe sex life". This again overlooks marriage, since the subject of sex life are just "people", not necessarily married couples. This clause is dangerous, because if these are rights then is the State now being obliged to ensure that unmarried persons, including youths are able to masturbate and experience a "safe sex life"? - even if it is provided that the unborn be upheld ... etc. The definition of responsible parenthood here is nebulous. It was much better in the defunct SB 2012. The use of the clinical definition for abortion is furtive, since, a spontaneous expulsion from the uterus, then it cannot very well be prohibited by law. Thus, through such a technicality, abortion cannot be outlawed. There should be separate definitions for "Spontaneous Abortion", more popularly known as "miscarriage" and "Procured Abortion", which is popularly known simply as "abortion". The obsession with adolescence and adolescent sexuality stems from the agendae of Planned Parenthood. Again, parents need to involved and should not be bypassed. For all we know, they are the ones who need help in parenting their children. The term "gender identity" is the gateway to the inclusion and legal acceptance of homosexual behavior as "normal". The private sector is going to fund this whole thing when the foreign funding agencies suffer from donor fatigue. These lessons were gained from the USAID's "Profit Project". Noticeably, there is no significant mention of family planning methods. From where we stand, any contraceptive-based, or cafeteria-based depopulation program is bound to fail. Artificial methods and natural methods of birth-spacing are mutually exclusive. That is to say, the promotion of one guarantees the failure of the other. This is the reason why, despite all their efforts, both Church and Government have not attained any considerable progress along their respective programs on responsible parenthood.
SEC. 5	Section Five is alarming in that it harnesses the entire machinery of government towards the goals stated in Section 3, already shown above to be ambiguous. This bill mandates the Population Commission to foster in every agency of government and every possible private sector enterprise to an obsession with contraception, sterilization (temporary or permanent) and eventually, abortion. These provisions will create a virtual shadow executive department which will be controlled by whoever controls the PopCom. In a society where a contraceptive mentality is prevalent, abortion is the first alternative to failed contraception. This bill is a wedge that will open the doors of abortion-on-demand in the Philippines.
SEC. 8	The allocations proposed amounting to P5-Billion over 5 years seems staggering, but it merely reflects the resources already being poured into the demographic war that has been and still is being waged in the our country today, taking and destroying lives and relationships with impunity. This is a double-edged provision, since the depopulation program will now be funded out of Filipino taxpayers own pockets. It can either shut the foreign intervenors finally out (not likely) and give the Filipino citizen a stronger voice in population policy and programs (not immediately forthcoming). We are being mandated into hanging ourselves with our own rope.

We rest our case here and refrain from commenting on the organizational provisions (Sections 6) and the perfunctory provisions (Sections 7,9,10,11).

In light of the foregoing, we feel it opportune to reiterate today what His Eminence, Jaime Cardinal L. Sin declared in 1996, and we quote:

The Church shall continue to reject artificial methods and I foresee the failure of Government population programs if the [population bill] is passed and instrumentalized to justify the following "population activities" which we find to be detrimental to moral and spiritual values and to the stability of marriage and family life of the Filipino People:

1. The corruption of youth through Population Education programs/curricula which are based on western liberal sex education programs and incorporate principles, policies and euphemisms derived from the Cairo ICPD, Beijing WCW, and similar action programs;
2. The effective erosion - in the name of children's rights - of parental authority to educate their children;
3. The promotion of artificial methods of contraception and of whatever methods that cause the termination or abortion of a human fertilized ovum;
4. The promotion of said methods for population control purposes, under the guise of women's rights to health, AIDS prevention, and similar justifications;
5. The influx of foreign interest groups promoting contraception, abortion and sterilization among our people - which is a violation of sovereignty and even of national security.

Our final position is summarized thus:

Deliberations on any proposed legislation pertaining to population control/management should be held in abeyance until a Joint Commission of both houses of Congress shall have reviewed and assessed the state of the Filipino family, and thereafter diligently investigated and removed the unconstitutional and otherwise objectionable fundamentals and elements of such proposals.

Thank you, your honor, for your kind solicitude and the precious time you have allotted to consider our modest position. To assist you further, we are attaching herewith a directory of reference documents and evidence accessible through the internet. Since the issues at stake continue to be controverted, let us all remain assured that in an imperfect world such as ours, it is perfectly acceptable to agree to disagree, for as long as we remain open to the source and meaning of authentic human development - Jesus Christ, Who is the same yesterday, today and forever!

In the service of God's Family, [Sgd.] REV.FR. DELFIN S. FELIPE Executive Director, Simbahayan Commission

END NOTES:

¹   Visit http://www.simbahayan.ph/B5-popmotives.html; also http://panindigan.tripod.com/pcns1.html
²   Visit the FLAME Legislative Scoreboard at http://www.simbahayan.ph/flame
³   Visit http://www.simbahayan.ph/B5S-popleghist.html
⁴   National Security Decision Memorandum 76: New US Foreign Assistance Programs, 10 Aug 70; visit http://nssm200.tripod.com/nsdm76kiss.html
⁵   Executive Summary, National Security Study Memorandum 200: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for US Security and Overseas Interests, 24 Apr 74; Visit http://nssm200.tripod.com/nssm200execsum.html; See also NSDM 314, implementing the proposals of NSSM 200, Visit http://nssm200.tripod.com/nsdm314.html
⁶   Visit http://www.usaid-ph.gov/phn/directory.html
⁷   Visit http://www.unfpa.org/links/links.htm
⁸   For a review of US national security policy on population issues, visit http://panindigan.tripod.com/pcns1.html
⁹   For the logic of the Cairo Conference, visit http://www.simbahayan.ph/B5S-cairologic.html
¹⁰   For the logic of the Beijing Conference, visit http://www.simbahayan.ph/B5S-beijinglogic.html
¹¹   For the logic of the Population Bill, visit http://www.simbahayan.ph/B5S-ppmplogic.html
¹²   Visit http://panindigan.tripod.com/panindigan.html. Population control propagandists have used spurious figures to alarm the Filipino public. For example, an alleged Population Growth Rate (PGR) of "2.3% -- one of the highest in Asia" contradicts the C.I.A. World Factbook figure of 2.03% for 1999, in http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rp.html#people.
¹³   Visit http://panindigan.tripod.com/2ndcontrarev.html
¹⁴   Visit http://www.simbahayan.ph/B5-flavierincairo94.html -- an excellent presentation on the conduct of the population control program.
¹⁵   The Futures Group International, Using Public Relations to Solve a Crisis--When Religious Groups Clash with Contraceptive Social Marketing Programs, http://www.tfgi.com/somop20.asp.
¹⁶   Rev. Delfin S.Felipe, NFP: The Golden Mean, http://www.simbahayan.ph/B1-NFPgolden.html
¹⁷   Oscar & Susan Staudt, Creative Continence: the Benefits of Natural Family Planning, http://www.simbahayan.ph/B1-creativecontinence.html
¹⁸   Visit http://www.simbahayan.ph/B5S-tfrphils.html and http://www.simbahayan.ph/B5S-pgrphils.html
¹⁹   The website of TFGI is at http://www.tfgi.com. Cf. UNFPA, Inventory of Population Projects in Developing Countries Around the World (1995).
²⁰   The title of SB 554 was: An Act Establishing a New Population Policy, Strengthening the Commission on Population For That Purpose and for Other Purposes.
²¹   Visit Letter of Cardinal Sin to Senator Freddie Webb, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Health and Demography, http://www.simbahayan.ph/sin961022-popbill.html. The Cardinal clarified the Church's teaching on Responsible Parenthood as against the "family planning" propaganda undertaken through the Ramos Administration, and set the parameters which oblige the Church to continue objecting to the passage of any population bill.
Visit also: Summary Position of the Council of the Laity of the Philippines, http://www.simbahayan.ph/B5S-clpvspopbill.html; and Summary Position of the Catholic Women's League of the Philippines, http://www.simbahayan.ph/B5S-cwlvspopbill.html.
²²   Visit Index of Ambiguous Terms in the Beijing Conference Platform for Action, http://panindigan.tripod.com/beijingpfaindx.html
²³   The Philippine Parliamentarians Committee on Population and Development Foundation was incorporated in 1989 as a result of the 1988 Parliamentarians Conference (PARLCON) on Population and Development sponsored by the UNFPA and USAID. Today, the PLCPD holds office at the North wing of the Batasan, the only NGO with the privilege of doing so. Funded initially by the UNFPA, it is now funded by the Futures Group International, thus serving as the virtual legislative and lobby arm of a foreign interest group right within the halls of the Philippine Congress. It enjoys this unique privilege over Filipino NGOs. Visit its website at http://www.infoteam.com/nonprofit/plcpd.
²⁴   See UNFPA Inventory of Population Projects for Developing Countries Around the World (1993, 1995, 1997) Published every two years, the inventory lists multilateral, bilateral, NGO and other assistance to population projects in developing countries only.
²⁵   See Proceedings of the Constitutional Commission of 1986, Journal of Friday, September 26, 1986, pp. 29-35; and Journal of Monday, September 29, 1986, pp. 52-65.
²⁶   Visit http://www.simbahayan.ph/B5-hivpornodepopulant.html