A STAND FOR WOMEN. Theology Department faculty member Roberto Guevara joins Ateneans in showing support for the RH bill in a prayer vigil and noise barrage last August 6 in front of the Ateneo Gate 2.5.

UNIVERSITY PRESIDENT Fr. Jose Ramon Villarin, SJ appealed to the Ateneo community to continue in its discernment of the issues surrounding House Bill 4244, more popularly known as the Reproductive Health (RH) bill.

“Let’s continue this discernment, this intellectual work which everyone needs,” he said. “It’s a service; it’s also how we serve the faith by using our reason.”

Villarin recognized the intellectual efforts of the 192 faculty members who signed a declaration of support for the passage of the RH bill. He said that he appreciated that their efforts were brought about by their love for the poor, but warned that different conclusions may branch out from the same vantage point.

Interdisciplinary Studies Assistant Professor Marita Guevara, PhD, the principal writer of the said declaration of support, commended Villarin for encouraging the community to go deeper into the issue.

Villarin saw the good in the situation: “What our teachers have done is to stimulate critical thinking among our students.” He said that he was open to having a dialogue with the faculty and students regarding the issue.

The declaration of support was released on August 18, initially signed by 159 faculty members of the Ateneo. In the next few days, 33 more signed it as well.

Two days after the statement’s release, Villarin released a memo wherein he stressed that the Ateneo as an institution does not support the bill.

Bishop Leonardo Medroso, a ranking official of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines’ (CBCP), called for an investigation of the faculty members, saying that they could be fired should there be proof that they are teaching ideas not aligned with the teachings of the Church.

However, Villarin and Vice President for the Loyola Schools John Paul Vergara saw no reason to sanction the faculty members.

Seeking the truth

Theology instructor Michael Liberatore said that the CBCP has the right to investigate the faculty. “My hope is that their desire is really to clarify,” he said. “I hope that it’s not a witch hunt, not to destroy, manipulate or coerce… but an honest search for truth.”

Liberatore was one of the 192 professors who signed the declaration of support.

Meanwhile, Villarin said, “We can come together as colleagues and friends in search of the truth.”

“What is important is that there is respect not just for the positions, but there is respect even for the process—the process which we go through to get to the truth, to get to our positions.”

In line with Villarin’s memo, Guevara said in an email interview that she believes that the “ability and willingness to provide space for the respectful, critical, and intelligent exchange of views” is one of the special marks of “a true and great university.”

Meanwhile, in his article in the Philippine Daily Inquirer’s website posted on August 20, Fr. John J. Carroll, SJ said that the bigger issue is not of contraception “but the loss of family values.”

Carroll is a senior research associate and program head of the Church and Family Life Program at the John J. Carroll Institute on Church and Social Issues, based on campus.

“I would suggest that the prayer-rallies and lobbying efforts being engaged in by the pro- and anti-RH bill groups be aimed not at a total victory but at a negotiated compromise ‘equally objectionable to all parties,’” Carroll wrote.

“Negotiation and compromise can lay the public issue to rest, avoid further alienation of potential allies in future debates over abortion, allow the Church to concentrate on natural family planning and strengthening family values among its people, and clear the decks for more constructive action by the State,” Carroll added.

Myriad perspectives

Both Villarin and Liberatore separately mentioned that looking at the RH bill more carefully necessitates taking into account different angles on the issue.

“In the university, I don’t think it is effective to just say ‘This is it.’ We need to help you wrestle with the truth, with the issue,” Villarin said.

“[We] help you arrive at certain positions with you appropriating this position honestly, effectively. I don’t think you can just impose the truth.”

Villarin added that considering the position of the Church is also important. “It is a wisdom of an institution that has lasted for so many centuries. We cannot just discount that perspective.”

He said that there is reason behind the position of the church whose voice he described as “considerate” and “compassionate.” He also believes that the faculty members of the Ateneo recognize the side of the Church.

However, Villarin added that the “position has to compete with other worldviews… Jesuit spirituality embeds us in the world and sees reason as a pathway in giving glory to God.”

On the other hand, Liberatore said that he finds the polarization of the issue, wherein one is either for or against the bill, problematic.

He said, “I think there’s a multitude of frames around this issue, and we have to be mindful of that. And I think the more that we can focus on the different aspects of the issue, the more we realize that it’s multifaceted, the more effective we’ll be at crafting a piece of legislation.”

Polarizing tendencies

Though he acknowledged the faculty members’ right to express their views on the issue, Carroll wondered if they had read the Humanae Vitae, a landmark Church encyclical issued by Pope Paul VI in 1968 on marriage and parenthood.

“People who are against the bill often haven’t read [the bill], and the people who are for the bill haven’t read Humanae Vitae,” Carroll said. “And hardly anybody has ever read both. This [debate on the RH Bill] is not an intellectual discussion; it’s a basketball game.”

“I am very much disturbed by the fact that the debate has gotten polarized into either for or against. People can’t understand that you’re neither totally for nor totally against the bill. It’s becoming like an Ateneo–La Salle basketball game, with one against the other—which, to my mind, is very harmful to the common good of society,” Carroll added.

For Guevara, the polarization of the issue is brought about by the “difference in the starting point of the two sides in analyzing the issues surrounding the RH Bill.” She cited the different ways of framing the issue, as well as the evidence and reference materials that are used to argue for or against the bill, as factors leading to the differing views.

“Given how differently the two groups frame the RH bill issue, and how passionately they feel about their respective views, it is inevitable for [polarized]—if not irreconcilable—positions to emerge,” Guevara said.

She added that she believes individuals and groups have the right to express their opinions on the issue, with the use of arguments backed by scientific evidence and an “assessment of and desire for the common good.”

“What I would not like to see from either side, however, is the use of half-truths, lies, intimidation, or threats in the debates on this issue.”

“After 14 years of the RH bill being stalled in Congress… we do believe that it is time to vote on and pass the RH bill now,” Guevara said.

Guevara and Liberatore said that they believe the RH bill is not the ultimate solution to the country’s problems.

“It is not a panacea for poverty,” Guevara said. “However, the passage of this measure can help in alleviating some of the serious problems afflicting our people today.”

Students taking a stand

On August 21, a group called “Ateneans for RH” released its own declaration of support for the measure. The document has gathered almost 2,000 signatures from the different Ateneo universities, mainly from the Ateneo de Manila.

Sanggunian President Gio Alejo and Alliance of Student Leaders Chairperson Moses Albiento signed the said declaration of support.

Alejo said, “A lot of Filipino mothers also die daily due to childbirth complications, something which I believe the RH bill can greatly reduce.”

While Alejo cited reasons pertaining to health, Albiento focused on social welfare. The latter said, “I personally see the RH bill as a means to assert people’s rights to be provided by the state the rights to reproductive health.”

For Vinno Lee, an economics senior, while proper implementation is a potential problem, the RH bill will benefit the country.

“I find it constitutionally sound and necessary given the plight of the poor,” he said. “To deny the need for it… is to be foolish and out of sync with the realities of today.”

Villarin said he respected the decision of the students who signed the declaration of support and enjoined the students to further search for the truth.

Leo Abot, a political science sophomore, said that although there are provisions in the bill which he found reasonable, his stand against its passage takes root in his being a devout Catholic.

“I am just really afraid for sectarian institutions, [which] might be coerced to teach things that are against their own religious beliefs,” he said.

Abot said that he did not necessarily agree with the faculty members and students who signed the different declarations of support, but he found their reasons logical.

He added, “I don’t like the way that many sectors in society are now blasting them or that the CBCP is threatening to remove the title of Catholic from the Ateneo de Manila University, because I think it is a God-given right to express individual will.”

Abot also said that those who oppose the bill have been struggling to air out their thoughts, unlike those who are for the bill.

“I have many anti-RH friends who are afraid to speak their views because they think people will be intolerant of what they have to say. They think people will just immediately go out, set forth and destroy their arguments,” said Abot.

“[There] is this common notion now that anti-RH people are zealots—[that] they are people who just blindly adhere to the Church’s belief. They’re just those who speak foul language against people, calling them heretics, demons or Satan or anything of that sort.” He said that it is wrong to view individuals against the RH bill this way.

Student groups react

Students from various organizations and political parties held a prayer vigil and noise barrage in support of the RH bill in front of Ateneo Gate 2.5 last August 6, a day before the House of Representatives was supposed to vote on terminating the debates on the measure.

For former Crusada Premier Miguel Rivera, the prayer rally served as “a call for other Catholics to look inside their consciences and to not merely decide based on doctrines.”

He added that this declaration of support for the bill should not be a problem for the administration. “I think it’s actually very healthy for the administration since Ateneans are now—instead of being docile students within the university—are now coming out [and] giving their opinion.”

Enterteynment para sa Tao, Bayan, Lansangan at Diyos, commonly known as the student theater company Entablado, released a statement in support of the bill last August 28.

On September 4, the Sanggunian also released its statement of support for the swift passage of the RH bill.

“The bill, by its nature, offers freedom of choice for its citizens, as it supports both natural and artificial family planning methods, making both more accessible without mandating that either one be used, and therefore leaving this choice up to each individual citizen,” part of the statement reads.

The Sanggunian called on Ateneans to be proactive during the process of amendments for the said bill.

The GUIDON has also expressed support for the RH bill in an editorial published in the current issue.

PRO-RH ATENEANS. Students and teachers of the university mobilized in front of Gate 2.5 last August 6 to show their support for the RH bill. Photo by Christella D. Soriano