The saga of the Reproductive Health Bill: a blow or an affirmation of representative democracy? (Part 2)

by Ronald Jabal

Wedges and Quirks in RH Bill Passage: The presence of partisan actors

However, current members of both Houses of Congress do not simply wish to reflect the sentiment of the majority. There are various actors and issues that impinge and affect their decisions in adopting RH as part of the agenda.

And we can chart the various “intervening” factors that one way or the other affects the passage of the RH bill using a number of conceptual frameworks and theories in agenda setting and policy formulation.

We can readily see that there are numerous actors in the policy arena not just the general public. There are both visible and hidden actors in policy development.

With the number of actors to contend with and face in the deliberations of the RH bill, surely, Senators and Congressmen are faced with a number of policy options and a wide array of influences that will eventually affect their decisions.

Unfortunately, these actors do not think alike. They compete and offer different solutions. The interplay of national, local and personal interests between and among these actors can surely affect Congressmen and Senators’ decision-making processes in RH bill.


Clearly the indecisiveness and the reluctant support of members of Congress to the RH bill can be probably rooted to the various interests that they have to weigh.

Questions that continually hound Senators and Congressmen include among others:
· If I support/ do not support the RH bill, how would media paint me?
· If I support/ do not support the RH bill, how the Church look at me?
· If I support/ do not support the RH bill, how the President view me?
· If I support/ do not support the RH bill, will my political party like or dislike me?
· If I support/ do not support the RH bill, how would the civil society see me?
· Will my chances in the next election be diminished or improved?

It is this hemming and hawing – the interplay between the initiator and the trigger device plus the resultant event – that continues to pose a huge wedge and stumbling block in the passage of RH bill.

The middle ground: is this the high ground?

Given the seeming stalemate among the actors which has seriously placed a huge cloud of doubt in the passage of the current RH bill, a compromise can be reached and this is where a political operator and/or advocacy specialist can come into play.

A compromise method which accepts the mixture of both mandate and independent theories in representative democracy is being proposed. This means utilizing the survey results (public sentiment/mandate) and aggregating pro-RH bill sentiments from various political and non-political actors in the policy arena can further advance the cause of RH bill in both Houses.

The Pulse survey results plus other surveys and studies that can show groundswell of support from all over the country and various sectors/industries should be highlighted all the time in various forums. While public forums and academic circles help, the media should be used as the perfect conduit to drive/expand support to the RH bill.

It can help if pro-RH Senators and Congressmen come out publicly, declaring their support to the RH bill which is one way of showing all actors (general public, elected and appointed officials, civil society) that congressional support is present, palpable and “countable”.

To date, while NGOs and POs assume they have the support of more than 100 congressmen and a number of Senators, only very few have publicly endorsed the bill. Publishing the names with their signatures in full page advertisements can surely create the buzz and a bandwagon effect to others who may felt “alone” in their struggle against the RH bill.

Numerous surveys and studies have already indicated the absence of Catholic votes and the pitiful support of the laity in CBCP’s pronouncements. The pro-RH bill should capitalize on these and continually air these studies/surveys/sentiments in public – in all forums.

What the Church has is a perception of might and it does not have the numbers. The Pro-RH can simply demystify the Church is mighty myth and even fearful politicians will support the RH bill. If the Church resorts to “dirty tactics”, these should be exposed right away and ventilated in the press. The Church uses the press all the time, why can’t the pro-RH bill tap the press as well.

The pro-RH bill needs a human face. It needs one spokesperson that the press can go to. The current campaign is not as organized as the CBCP. There should be a need to consolidate, regroup and plan specific messages to specific channels of communication. Numbers may/will come when perception is won.

While pro-RH bills groundwork the press, they also need to do more personal visits with pro-RH Senators and Congressmen assuring them public support. Using public support, watered down influence of the Church and expanded support from a number of civil society groups, they should be able to convince Senators and Congressmen to support the RH bill.

The pro-RH bills can also make an effort to make the population/RH proposals an election issue (that is if the current Congress is unable to pass it). Demanding from current prospective candidates through public and media pressure their respective position on the RH bill is one way of letting the public know who is supportive or against RH.