Public Hearing

There was no way I could have missed a public hearing on the increasingly controversial City Ordinance 01-2011!

The gates of La Salle University were flush with women in yellow shirts, reporters with cameras and notepads, and interested bystanders like me on Saturday morning.

Yellow balloons with "No to B.O. 01" (No to Barangay Ordinance 01-2011) colored the entrance to university. Buttons with the same message decorated T-Shirts and bags.

The registration process divided the crowd into "Pro" and "Anti". Pro meaning pro City Ordinance and Anti meaning opposing it. The "Pro" section helplessly tried to pull visitors to their empty registration table. The "Antis" had a good head start right from the beginning: the better cookies and later the better arguments.

Upon registration the audience was channeled into the auditorium through different doors labeled "Pro" and "Anti" again. This left no room for a private or a neutral opinion. I took my stand and walked through the Anti door.

Inside, a rope divided the auditorium seats right in the middle. This rope alone spoke volumes! I was pleased to see both sides packed with people caring enough about the ordinance to attend public hearing on a Saturday morning.

This second public hearing (the first hearing passed by quite unheard it seems) was initiated by the "Anti" ordinance group, the real "pro-life" crowd. Their goal was not to pass moral judgment over the emotionally and religiously charged topic. The objective was to objectively assess the legality of the ordinance, more specifically:

1. The alleged conflict of the ordinance with the Family Planning Program promoted by the Department of Health (DoH).

2. The assumed right of any individual to access contraceptives allowed by the DoH.

3. Possible infringement of the right of pharmaceutical firms to sell contraceptives not deemed illegal.

Each party was represented by 3 speakers. Each speaker was given 3 minutes to bring forward his or her facts on each issue. The Barangay Council, seated in between the two parties, spelled out the rules for the session. He reminded the audience to refrain from clapping, cheering or passing any inflammatory comments. However, he had to call the audience to "order!" more than once.

The Anti-ordinance representatives stated, in clear terms and supported by facts, that the City Ordinance in question violates the Philippine constitution and several national laws, and summarized that the Barangay has by far exceeded its legal authority by approving this ordinance.

The Pro-ordinance representatives stated... well... cited... no... wait... let me recollect... It's hard to argue without arguments and facts! Chronically exceeding their time limits, they talked about life 2,000 years ago, cited American text books on the use of the pill, and reminded the audience to "not get emotional". At the same time they used the most emotional adjectives to illustrate the effect of a condom on humanity.

A covered "Bu%*l Sh#@t" cough in the "Anti" audience summed it up correctly even if not in the nicest manner.

The "facts" I conclude (since there were no facts stated) from the "Pro-Ordinance" representatives are:

1. They challenge the Philippine constitution.

2. They question the ability and authority of several ministries appointed by the presidential office (including the Food and Drug Administration which among others classifies drugs and devices into contraceptives and abortifacients).

3. They should be given a Merriam-Webster Dictionary to look up the definition of key words, including LIFE (to avoid future confusion between the meaning of "life" and the state of "pre-conception"), EQUALITY (as they claimed the rights of the unborn child are "more equal" than the rights of the mother), and RIGHT (to better grasp the concept of who can claim rights and who cannot).

The Barangay Council turned the floor over to the Anti-Ordinance representatives again, seated on the right hand side of the auditorium, for their closing remarks. The group thanked him to be considered "on the right side". This play of words got the audience cheering again and the Council helplessly tried to call for order.

For their final statements and closing remarks, each side was given the opportunity to call on resource speakers to support their respective cases. The Anti-Ordinance side had an impressive list of supporters, including representatives from:

The Food and Drug Administration, ensuring that "contradictory to what was mentioned here we do base our assessment on state of the art, science-based scientific data. And this is very well validated, in line with our counterpart regulatory agencies all over the world and the WHO."

The Commission on Human Rights, stating the "Commission strongly condemns the enactment of the Barangay Ordinance 01-2011 of Ayala Alabang for endangering the life, health, liberty, education and access to information of its residents."

The Board of Pharmacy stating, that "Pharmacists recognize the Food and Drug Administration to be the only administration mandated an empowered through Republic Act 97-11 (the FDA law) to regulate food, drugs and other devices [..] that will impact public health and safety."

A law professor, reminding the Barangay Council that "what we are talking about are very evident violations of constitutional provisions."

She concluded her speech with a string of logic arguments. Addressing the "Pro" side she said:

"Your title is so wrong! You talk about the protection of the unborn when, what you want to regulate, and in fact what the ordinance talks about, is the requirement for a prescription to buy contraceptives. I think you do not understand the difference between an abortifacient and a contraceptive. An abortifacient terminates pregnancy. That's when you talk about protection of the unborn. A contraceptive device prevents pregnancy. I do not, by any stretch of my imagination, see how regulation of the buying of condoms does anything to the unborn! There is no unborn!"

I wanted to get up and hug her! She voiced what I think. Thank you!

With this, the floor was left to the Pro-Ordinance resource speakers. Who got up was a prepubescent boy, resident of Ayala Alabang, delivering a fabricated speech without facts but with plenty of rhetoric questions such as: "If the constitution is not about life, why was it written?" and "Would you want your children to be doing these acts? (He was referring to the acts of buying condoms without the parents knowing.)

I guess this is a proper display of democracy: Everybody has the right to speak. We will listen patiently and come to our own conclusions.

My observation is this: There are many progressive and informed opinions about reproductive health issues out there. It actually makes me wonder how this ordinance got that far in the first place. The outcome of this "ordinance battle" will show if Ayala Alabang is governed by logic reasoning or if true facts are confined to a university auditorium during a public hearing.