How the Philippine Catholic Church and affiliated political leaders have undermined family planning and human rights.

1. The Church, the State and Women’s Bodies
in the Context of Religious Fundamentalism
in the Philippines
Carolina S Ruiz Austria
Executive Director, Womenlead Foundation, and Senior Lecturer, College of Law, University of the Philippines,
Quezon City, Philippines. E-mail: ksra@wlead.org
Abstract: After almost 500 years of Spanish colonial rule, Canon law and laws of Spanish origin
continue to dominate Philippine family, civil and penal law. Most if not all of these laws place
serious limitations on the realisation of women’s sexual and reproductive rights. Since 2002,
the current president, Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, has increasingly substituted church dogma for state
policy, i.e. revoking the reproductive health and family planning policies of her predecessor,
rejecting all modern contraceptive methods as forms of abortion, limiting government support for
family planning to providing natural methods to married couples, and restricting access to
emergency contraception. This article reflects on which advocacy methods will best serve the goals
of sexual and reproductive rights when conservative church interests dominate state policy, as is
currently the case in the Philippines. Religious fundamentalists, at one and the same time, argue for
religious accommodation of their views by the state on the grounds of religious freedom but
refuse to entertain, let alone accommodate, a plurality of views on women’s sexuality. Thus, it is not
enough to base a case in support of sexual and reproductive rights on the separation of church
and state since, even though the State claims it is secular, it still manages to impose restrictions
and control over women’s bodies. A 2004 Reproductive Health Matters. All rights reserved.
Keywords: contraception, reproductive rights, law and policy, separation of church and state,
fundamentalism, Roman Catholic church, Philippines
W
HAT sets the Philippines apart from many
of its predominantly non-Christian neigh-
bours in Southeast Asia is Roman Catholi-
cism. Despite the diversity of indigenous and
ethnic groups and the presence of a sizeable
Muslim population in the South, more than 80%
of the population are Roman Catholic.1
The gov-
ernment still excludes single and unmarried
women and adolescents from family planning ser-
vices, hospitals still require husband consent for
sterilisation procedures (even in the absence of a
law requiring it),2
and condoms have no place in a
government sex education module on HIV/AIDS.3
In the Philippines, the most lasting norms
about women’s sexuality and the double stan-
dards of sexual morality are not necessarily just
imposed through Catholic Church teaching,
Sunday mass sermons, or even in Catholic-run
schools for girls. After almost 500 years under
Spanish colonial rule, Canon law and laws of
Spanish origin continue to dominate Philippine
family, civil and penal law. Most if not all of
these laws pose continuing and direct limita-
tions on the realisation of women’s sexual and
reproductive rights.4
Among others, the penal
code, which continues to categorise consented
abortion as a crime,* as well as legally defines
‘‘prostitutes’’ as women, is a remnant of the orig-
inal Kodigo Penal enacted under Spanish colo-
nisation. Yet even a relatively recently enacted
www.rhmjournal.org.ukwww.rhm-elsevier.com
A 2004 Reproductive Health Matters.
All rights reserved.
Reproductive Health Matters 2004;12(24):96–103
0968-8080/04 $ – see front matter
PII: S0968-8080(04)24152-0
96

2. law like the Philippine Family Code of 1987
draws influence from Canon law in defining
the ground of ‘‘psychological incapacity’’y
for
the nullification of marriage (in the absence of
divorce law, which is always hotly contested).
The confluence of traditional Catholic sexual
morality with the ends of Philippine penal law is
bestreflectedinthecategoryofsexualcrimes,which
are still referred to as ‘‘crimes against chastity’’:
‘‘In sum, the controlling concepts that thread the
penal provisions on Crimes against Chastity are
the following:
. Virginity raises the penalty. As mentioned
earlier, ‘‘robbing a woman of virtue’’ defined
as the hymen (proof of sexual inexperience) is
the core or essence of the crime committed.
. Consent lowers the penalty but does not cancel
out criminal liability in the crimes of seduction
and abduction.
. Force raises the penalty. It is not enough to say
that one was raped but one has to be able to
allege that she put up a fight.
. Good reputation is a pre-requisite in the
absence of virginity for widows or single
women but not married women.’’4
While certainly not the only institutions that
perpetuate sexual stereotypes and the double
standard of sexual morality in the Philippines,
the historic role of church and state in shap-
ing prevailing concepts of ‘‘womanhood’’ is
well established:
‘‘Traditionally there has been a diminution of the
status of women associated with both institu-
tionalized hierarchical religions and the forma-
tion of the State. In the Philippine Archipelago,
the introduction of Spanish colonialism came
inextricably linked with Catholicism. Indeed the
two were co-determining factors that brought
about and delivered a concomitant concentration
of power, authority and control into male hands.
In this process, male supremacy and the ration-
alism of Catholicism provided the logic that insti-
tuted a transformation of sexual relationships.’’5,6
Today, as 600 years ago, the conservative church
and state still work in tandem, pushing back
decades of gains led by women’s rights advocates.
The fundamentals of Catholicism in the
Philippines: which Catholics?
While the term ‘‘fundamentalist’’ was first used
to describe Christian (not necessarily Catholic)
movements against modernity sometime in
the 1920s, the term has since acquired other
meanings and has been widely used to refer
to the most conservative elements of a number
of organised religions. The Philippine Catholic
hierarchy not only affirms Vatican authority as
holistic and absolute, it is collectively demand-
ing legal enforcement of many major tenets of
Catholic dogma, especially in regard to women’s
sexuality and reproductive rights.
Bruce Lawrence7
defines fundamentalism as
‘‘the affirmation of religious authority as holistic
and absolute, admitting of neither criticism nor
reduction; it is expressed through the collective
demand that specific credal and ethical dictates
derived from scripture be publicly recognised
and legally enforced’’. Lawrence argues that
fundamentalism is a worldwide phenomenon,
with a specific form of religious ideology which
is anti-modern, but not anti-modernist. In other
words, it rejects the philosophical rationalism
and individualism that accompany modernity,
but it takes full advantage of certain techno-
logical advances that also characterise the
modern age. The most consistent denominator
is opposition to Enlightenment values.
Today the influence of the religious right holds
sway over the Arroyo administration, merging
*Apart from the penal law, a host of laws single out
induced abortion as an exclusion in medical benefits
coverage, curiously only for Public Health Employees
under Republic Act 7305, March 26, 1992 and sugar
plantation workers under Republic Act 6982, May 1,
1991. Other government-run social security benefits do
not contain such exclusions. A legal exception to
intentional abortion are so-called therapeutic abortions,
which was established under Republic Act 2382, June 20,
1959. However, the Philippine Midwifery Act Republic
Act 7392 April 10, 1992, and Philippine Pharmacy Act
Republic Act 5921 June 21, 1969 consider the perfor-
mance of abortions and assisting in the performance
thereof as grounds for the cancellation of licenses. The
Philippine Medical Act and Philippine Pharmacy Law
use the term criminal abortions but the Philippine
Midwifery Act makes no such distinction.
y
Taken from New Code of Canon Law issued in 1983 by
Pope John Paul II under Canon 1095.
CSR Austria / Reproductive Health Matters 2004;12(24):96–103
97

3. state and church interests in putting up fierce
opposition to the Reproductive Health Care Act,
which establishes quality reproductive health
care services as part of primary health care.
The same policy was in fact in place under
Administrative Order No. 43 in 2000 and the
National Family Planning Policy, which pro-
vided ‘‘universal access’’ to the range of family
planning methods, under Administrative Order
No. 50 in 2001.
Less than a year after assuming office in
2001, Philippine President Gloria Macapagal
Arroyo’s administration began adopting a series
of policies, that had the effect of restricting
access to modern contraceptive methods such
as emergency contraception, and even infor-
mation regarding these methods. Yet Arroyo is
not the first Philippine President who has dem-
onstrated her allegiance to the conservative
Church hierarchy. Like Corazon Aquino in 1986,
Arroyo first came to power through a ‘‘popular
uprising’’ in 2001 that deposed her predecessor,
Joseph Estrada. Like Aquino, Arroyo acknow-
ledges a debt of gratitude to the Catholic church
and often cites her traditional Catholic reli-
gious beliefs.8–13
The ban on emergency contraception:
pushing the procreation frame
On 7 December 2001, the Department of Health
imposed a ban on the emergency contraceptive
pill Postinor through Memorandum Order
No.18. The pill had been registered with the
Bureau of Food and Drugs in April 1999 and
enjoyed legal approval by the Department of
Health. It was already supposed to be avail-
able in government-run women and children
protection units for cases of sexual abuse.
Before the pill could actually be imported,
however, the ban was imposed following a
petition filed by a conservative Catholic group,
Abayfamilya, claiming that it was an aborti-
facient.14
In a reversal of earlier findings by the
previous administration’s Health Secretary,* the
Bureau of Food and Drugs issued a decision
based on Abayfamilya’s argument, claiming
that the 1987 Constitution defined pregnancy
as beginning at ‘‘the moment of fertilisation’’.
In May 2002, the Womenlead Foundation,
representing the Reproductive Health Advocacy
Network, filed a petition and a position paper to
re-open the Department of Health (DoH) case on
Postinor, arguing that women wanting to use
the method and women’s reproductive health
advocates had been denied due process of law in
the hearing on the original petition that had
led to the ban.
The administrative case is pending before
the Secretary of the DoH, and can be appealed
to the Supreme Court if the Secretary insists on
categorising Postinor as an abortifacient, despite
the medical, scientific and even constitutional
basis for rejecting this claim. At the core of the
case is the attempt by Catholic conservatives to
re-interpret a Constitutional clause which dis-
courages the legalisation of abortion in the
Philippines as applying to contraception.
This is not the first time the merger of Catho-
lic dogma with policy has been attempted by
Catholic conservative groups. In fact, since
1987, right-wing lawmakers have tabled and
re-tabled bills in Congress to ban modern con-
traceptives, based on the same Constitutional
clause. Yet the Constitutional Commissioners
themselves have interpreted the clause differ-
ently, and even Catholic Constitutional Com-
missioner Father Joaquin Bernas, who is both a
Jesuit priest and Dean of the Catholic law school
Ateneo de Manila, takes a different position
in books he has authored. He maintains that
there was not a clear agreement during the Con-
stitutional Convention that pregnancy begins
at the point of fertilisation and that a vote was
never taken on the issue.15
In 2002–03, during the
hearings on emergency contraception, the Bureau
of Food and Drugs made several attempts to
summon Father Bernas to testify on this matter,
but he never appeared.
This anti-contraception position, literally
equating all modern family planning methods,
including birth control pills, injectables, IUDs
and even barrier methods with abortion, is in
fact central to the conservative Catholic posi-
tion, which also says acceptable sexual rela-
tions can take place only within the frame of
marital procreation. During the hearings, even
DoH physicians, who originally mistook emer-
gency contraception to be the same as mifepris-
*Citing the World Health Organization on the efficacy
and safety of emergency contraception, the former Health
Secretary Dr Alberto Romulo issued the original DoH
position, which led to the registration of Postinor.
CSR Austria / Reproductive Health Matters 2004;12(24):96–103
98

4. tone (used for early abortions), were aghast
when Catholic conservatives categorically stated
their opposition to all modern methods of
family planning and said that procreation and
abstinence were the only allowable options.
In July 2002, President Arroyo made her first
public statement against family planning,16
in
which she rejected modern methods and said
that her administration would not make up for
the impending funding deficit after the phase-
out of USAID support for the provision of
modern methods of contraception in 2004.
Both she and her DoH Secretary Manuel
Dayrit, have since made several public state-
ments against modern family planning methods.
Echoing the disdain of the Catholic Bishops’
Conference for contraceptive use, Arrroyo spoke
out against oral contraception usage (despite
having previously admitted to using it herself),
claiming it had made her cranky later in life.
The Health Secretary (a medical doctor) came out
in the news categorising the IUD as an aborti-
facient17
and later even appeared in the news
to suggest the use of birth control pills as fer-
tilisers for flowering plants and condoms as
balloons by health workers.18
Reneging on the commitments to reproduc-
tive health and family planning by the previous
administration, Arroyo introduced a National
Natural Family Planning Strategic Plan in
June 200219
and soon afterwards, the Depart-
ment of Health created a Committee on Natural
Family Planning, appointing the President of
the Couples for Christ Medical Mission Foun-
dation as its chairperson. Couples for Christ is
a well-known Catholic NGO, recognised by
Papal decree.20
On 8 March 2003, during the celebrations for
International Women’s Day, Arroyo announced
that her administration was going to focus
exclusively on natural family planning.8
Then,
on 24 August 2003, the Department of Health in
the Philippines signed over a 50 million peso
grant in public funds to Couples for Christ, for
implementation of the government’s natural
family planning programme. By this time, the
President and the DoH Secretary were actively
promoting exclusive natural family planning as
government policy.
The USAID phase-out plan, entitled the Con-
traceptive Self-Reliance Initiative, is outlined
in Department of Health Administrative Order
No. 158, 8 July 2004. As part of decentralisation
of responsibility for public health services more
broadly, the Order encourages Local Govern-
ment Units to shoulder responsibility for con-
traceptive provision at local level. In the absence
of a national law and policy on reproductive
health which sets out standards of care and ser-
vice delivery, however, many local government
officials do not consider themselves obliged
to follow the plan. At best, the administrative
order is seen as a mere exhortation.
In fact, many conservative Catholic local
government chiefs have already opted not to
provide modern contraceptive methods any longer
and have banned single people and adolescents
from accessing public family planning services or
receiving family planning information from
barangay (local government) health workers.21
Pending reproductive health
care legislation
The Reproductive Health Care Act (House Bill
4110) was tabled in the 12th Congress in 2003
and would establish a national policy more
permanently in law, not only in an executive
or administrative order. The bill is actively being
supported by the Reproductive Health Advocacy
Network, which collaborated in the creation of
the text. The Reproductive Health Advocacy
Network is the largest national coalition of
reproductive health advocates, composed of
women’s NGOs, community-based organisa-
tions, service provider organisations and advo-
cacy organisations with branches, offices,
partners and a network all over the Philippines.
In her State of the Nation address in July 2003,
President Arroyo labelled the Reproductive
Health Care Act as ‘‘the abortion bill’’ and vowed
to veto it if it was passed. However, the bill does
not even contain a clause to amend the current
penal law on abortion; rather, it establishes the
integration of post-abortion care into the health
services and sets standards for humane treatment
in public hospitals of women with complications
from unsafe abortions.
But in a country where, as Pangalangan says,
‘‘politicians shamelessly seek the benediction of
religious leaders, the better to win the vote of
loyal flock, and clerics dispense their blessings
upon candidates and issue edicts on secular
matters’’,22
the bill, while it was still before the
CSR Austria / Reproductive Health Matters 2004;12(24):96–103
99

5. House Committee on Health, began losing
sponsors. It was the eve of an election year in a
context of growing fundamentalist influence
in government.
Reproductive rights advocacy where
church interests dominate the state
In taking on the emergency contraception case,
advocates from the Reproductive Health Advo-
cacy Network recognised the potential threat
that a ban on this method could pose for a host
of other contraceptives which also contain pro-
gestogen. Yet beyond the practical question of
whether to couch legal actions in the language
of protection of rights or assertion of rights,
there is a need to reflect on which methods will
actually best serve the purposes of advocacy. In
order to be strategic, the legal methods used
should effectively reflect the actual issues being
contested through public advocacy.
A case in point is the principle in the Philippine
Constitution of the separation of church and
state, and the non-establishment of state reli-
gion, in the context of policies against women’s
reproductive rights. Will a case filed on the basis
of ‘‘non-establishment and separation’’ be suffi-
cient to challenge the growing state restrictions
on women’s reproductive rights? Can a case
which questions the granting of public funds
to a religious organisation adequately articulate
the problem? While it is by all means relevant,
framing the issue solely on the basis of the
separation of church and state does not accu-
rately address the problem and, more often than
not, can sidetrack the real issues.
Recent cases before the Philippine Supreme
Court on ‘‘separation’’ demonstrate the shaky, if
not totally incoherent, foundations of the
principle with which to launch direct challenges
to state actions that result in the de facto
establishment of a state religion. Last year, for
example, the Philippine Supreme Court encoun-
tered a case where previously unchallenged
standards of women’s ‘‘sexual morality’’ were
framed as issues relating to the principle of
‘‘separation of church and state’’ for the first
time. The case involved Soledad Escritor, a
court stenographer, who was the subject of an
administrative complaint, filed in court, over
her alleged immorality for living with a man
who was not her husband, and having a child
by him.* Escritor was married to another man
and her live-in partner was also married.23
While admitting the factual circumstances of
her first marriage, as well as the first marriage
of her current ‘‘husband’’ in her defence, she
claimed that she and her partner were in fact
validly married under the code of the Jehovah’s
Witnesses. She further alleged that for the state
to adjudge a marriage sanctioned by Jehovah’s
Witnesses as immoral was a violation of her
religious freedom. Needless to say, the investi-
gating judge found the respondent liable for
immorality and unabashedly discussed Catholic
standards of ‘‘morality:’’
‘‘(B)y strict Catholic standards, the live-in rela-
tionship of respondent with her mate should fall
within the definition of immoral conduct, to wit:
’that which is willful, flagrant, or shameless, and
which shows a moral indifference to the opinion
of the good and respectable members of the com-
munity’...[T]he more relevant question is whether
or not to exact from respondent Escritor, a member
of ‘Jehovah’s Witnesses’, the strict moral stan-
dards of the Catholic faith in determining her
administrative responsibility in the case at bar.’’24
In what has proved to be, thus far, its most
comprehensive review of jurisprudence on the
non-establishment and separation clauses in a
single case, the Supreme Court distinguished
between the application of the clauses in the
United States and in the Philippines, claiming
that unlike the US, which has a tradition of
strict neutrality in guarding the secular state,
the Philippines and Filipinos are by nature
religious. Yet the ‘‘religious nature’’ described
by the court is dangerously close to being
equated with Catholicism.
‘‘Recognising the religious nature of the Filipinos
and the elevating influence of religion in society,
however, the Philippine Constitution’s religion
*Cases of this nature are common in the civil service,
where women are barred from claiming maternity
benefits if the reported father is not their legal husband.
While draft legislation has been tabled to amend the law,
the Civil Service Commissioner, who is a known women’s
rights advocate, has found a way around the law by
asking women not to make any reference to (name) the
biological father in their claim. (Interviews with Civil
Service Commission Chairperson, Karina David, 2002)
CSR Austria / Reproductive Health Matters 2004;12(24):96–103
100

6. clauses prescribe not strict but benevolent neu-
trality. Benevolent neutrality recognizes that gov-
ernmentmustpursueits secular goals and interests
but at the same time strives to uphold religious
liberty to the greatest extent possible within flexible
constitutional limits. Thus, although the morality
contemplated by laws is secular, benevolent neu-
trality could allow for accommodation of morality
based on religion, provided it does not offend com-
pelling state interests.’’23
In this particular case, what was actually at
stake was the Supreme Court’s understanding
of Catholic sexual morality as applied to a ‘‘non-
Catholic’’ woman. Yet in the end, the Supreme
Court still could not decide whether the issue
called for an enforcement of the ‘‘immorality’’
provisions or justified carving out an exemption
for the respondent. Despite its lengthy treatise on
the history of US and Philippine jurisprudence, the
Court ended up remanding the case to the Deputy
Court Administrator and requiring the Solicitor
General to receive additional evidence on (a) the
sincerity and centrality of the respondent’s claimed
religious belief and practice; and for the State (b)
to present evidence on the State’s ‘‘compelling
interest’’ to override the respondent’s religious
beliefs and practice; and (c) to show that the means
the State adopts in pursuing its interest is the least
restrictive of the respondent’s religious freedom.23
To date, the administrative case is pending.
Not surprisingly, the oftentimes very Catholic
Philippine Supreme Court, when asked to con-
front conventional Catholic interpretations of
‘‘morality’’, steered clear of reviewing existing
standards for marital sex. Treating Jehovah’s
Witnesses as ‘‘the (religious) Other’’, it held that:
‘‘Respondent Escritor does not claim that there
is error in the settled jurisprudence that an illicit
relation constitutes disgraceful and immoral
conduct for which a government employee is held
liable. Nor is there an allegation that the norms
of morality with respect to illicit relations have
shifted towards leniency from the time these
precedent cases were decided. The Court finds that
there is no such error or shift, thus we find no
reason to deviate from these rulings that such illicit
relationship constitutes ‘‘disgraceful and immoral
conduct’’ punishable under the Civil Service Law.
Respondent having admitted the alleged immoral
conduct, she, like the respondents in the above-
cited cases, could be held administratively liable.
However, there is a distinguishing factor that sets
the case at bar apart from the cited precedents, i.e.
as a defense, respondent invokes religious freedom
since her religion, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, has,
after thorough investigation, allowed her conjugal
arrangement with Quilapio based on the church’s
religious beliefs and practices. This distinguishing
factor compels the Court to apply the religious
clauses to the case at bar.’’23
In effect, while the respondent Escritor was for
all intents and purposes already adjudged
immoral by the court, the issue of whether or
not to hold her liable for her faith’s divergent
standard of morality was left open.
Religious liberty, free exercise and
women’s bodies: an ideological divide
Given that women’s sexual and reproductive
rights are currently being violated by Catholic
proscriptions in the form of government policy,
is it enough to base a case in support of sex-
ual and reproductive rights on the separation of
church and state and non-establishment? More
importantly, will such a challenge allow the
other side to claim the right to free expression
of religion? Indeed, free exercise of religion
vs. non-establishment of religion or separation
of church and state have often been character-
ised by the Supreme Court of the Philippines
as competing interests, represented on one
side by religious institutions and on the other
by secularists.
On the face of it, treating the secular and the
non-secular exactly the same seems consistent
with principles of religious tolerance and plu-
ralism. And indeed, in the absence of funda-
mentalism,7
such an ideal may be possible. But
where fundamentalism exists in the context of
liberalism on the part of the state, morality is
likely to be equated with religiosity (i.e. as non-
secular), and the situation can be fraught with
dangerous consequences.
Clearly, secularism, having arisen as a basic
tenet of classic liberalism, has often been
articulated in the historical context of abuses
of power by the church. In a context of such
abuse of power, however, it is impossible to
expect secular (i.e. non-religious and non-
institutionally-backed) policies to be treated
on the same level as the policies of a powerful
CSR Austria / Reproductive Health Matters 2004;12(24):96–103
101

7. church with a track record like that of the
Catholic church in the Philippines.5
Thus, it is
religious fundamentalists who at one and the
same time argue for religious accommodation
of their views by the state on the grounds of
religious freedom and refuse to entertain, let
alone accommodate, a plurality of diverging
beliefs on women’s sexuality.
A variety of views and faiths, and the co-
existence of different religions and non-religion
should ideally not be a threat to secularists, but
rather the ideal. Yet ironically, while secularists
are generally on the side of separation of church
and state, and the religious right on the side of
accommodation vis-a`-vis the state, when it
comes to women’s bodies, control over women’s
bodies and women’s loss of decision-making
power may be the result in either case. Why?
Because secularists often use the approach of
expunging all signs and forms of religious
expression from the public sphere in battles over
the control of women’s bodies. For example, it
has been decreed in France that Muslim girls are
banned from donning the hijab (headscarf)
in public schools, which they do in accordance
with religious practice. Thus, secularists can
end up mistaking the separation of church and
state as an end itself.24
Both free expression of religion and choice
of family planning method, based on grounds
of conscience, are Constitutional rights in the
Philippines.25
By itself, the continuing sexual dis-
crimination against women perpetrated by legal
standards modeled on religious edicts makes for
a most compelling indictment, disproving the
purported neutrality of the Philippines as a liberal
and secular state. Even though the State claims it
is secular (notwithstanding whether it is strict in
separation or leaning towards accommodation), it
still manages to impose restrictions and controls
over women’s bodies.
Given these considerations, in the realm of
legal advocacy strategies, a narrowly framed
legal debate around the separation of church
and state poses more problems than solutions
for women’s reproductive rights.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Ms Hiyasmin
H Lapitan, Ms Chrissie Ann L Barredo and Ms
Maria Karmela J Franco of UP Law for doing
initial research as interns of the Womenlead
Foundation, Inc. The author also wishes to
acknowledge Dr Sylvia Estrada Claudio of
Likhaan for often lengthy comments on the ideas
that started this article.
References
1. Bakker JW. Main features of the
nation and people. In: The
Philippine Justice System.
Leiden: Center for the Indepen-
dence of Judges and Lawyers,
Leiden University, 1997. p.1–13.
2. International Reproductive
Rights Research Action Group –
Philippines. From Sanas to
Dapat: negotiating entitlement in
reproductive decision-making in
the Philippines. In: Negotiating
Reproductive Rights: Women’s
Perspectives Across Countries
and Cultures. Petchesky R, Judd
K (editors). London: Zed Books,
1998. p.217–55.
3. Cohen J. Unprotected: Sex,
Condoms and the Human
Right to Health. International
Human Rights Watch
Monograph, 2004. At: <http://
www.hrw.org/reports/2004/
philippines0504/6.htm>.
Accessed 22 August 2004.
4. Austria CSR. The construction
of Filipino women’s sexuality
and gender roles in the Philippine
legal system. Womenlead
Journal on Law and Culture
2001;(December):25–54.
5. Brewer C. Holy Confrontation:
Religion, Gender and Sexuality
in the Philippines, 1521–1685.
Manila: Institute of Women’s
Studies, St. Scholastica’s
College, 2001. p.30–31.
6. See also Eviota EU. The Political
Economy of Gender, Women and
the Sexual Division of Labour in
the Philippines. London: Zed
Books, 1992. p.33–62.
7. Lawrence B. Defenders of God:
The Fundamentalist Revolt
Against the Modern Age. Studies
in Comparative Religion.
Charleston: University of South
Carolina, 1989. 2nd ed. 1995,
cited in: Religious Movements.
University of Virginia
homepage. At: <http://
religiousmovements.lib.virginia.
edu/nrms/fund.html>. Accessed
22 August 2004.
8. Sison M. Arroyo steps into birth-
control minefield. At: <http://
www.atimes.com/atimes/
Southeast_Asia/EA31Ae02.
html>. Accessed 22 August 2004.
9. Arroyo used pills but is against
birth control. At: <http://www.
pcij.org/stories/2003/
population.html>. Accessed
22 August 2004.
10. Macapagal rules out funds for
contraception. Financial Times
(UK), 2 February 2001.
11. Deutsche Press-Agentur. Arroyo
backs Philippine Catholic stand
CSR Austria / Reproductive Health Matters 2004;12(24):96–103
102

8. on reproductive health.
15 February 2001.
12. Paez C. Thermometers only.
Newsbreak Magazine. 14 April
2004. At: <http://www.inq7.net/
nwsbrk/2003/apr/14/nbk_8-1.
htm>. Accessed 22 August 2004.
13. Casuyaran M. Senators bare
positions on population ques-
tion. 30 July 2004. At: <http://
www.mb.com.ph/issues/2004/
07/30/MAIN200407 3015190.
html>. Accessed 22 August 2004.
14. Serafica P. Government’s
creeping conservatism in family
planning. 12 August 2002. At:
<http://www.filnurse.com/
greymatter/archives/00000045.
shtml>. Accessed 22 August
2004.
15. Bernas J. The 1987 Constitution
of the Republic of the
Philippines. Manila. 1996
edition. p.78.
16. Jimenez DR. Interview with
President Macapagal Arroyo.
Philippine Daily Inquirer.
7 July 2002. p.7.
17. IUD use could result in mis-
carriages – DoH. 4 March 2003.
At: <http://www.manilatimes.
net/national/2003/mar/04/top_
stories/20030304top9.html>.
Accessed 22 August 2004.
18. US-supplied contraceptives
used as fertilizer and party
balloons in Philippines. Asso-
ciated Press. 15 January 2003.
At: <http://www.aegis.com/
news/ap/2003/AP030111.html>.
Accessed 22 August 2004.
19. National Natural Family
Planning Strategic Plan
2002–2006. Administrative
Order No.125, 5 June 2002.
20. Papal Vatican Decree.
Pontificium Consilium Pro
Lacis 470/00/S-61/B-91a,
11 March 2000. At: <http://
simbahayan.tripod.com/B3-
cfcvaticandecree.html>. Accessed
22 August 2004.
21. Brashaw S. Sex and the Holy
City. BBC World News.
10 December 2004. At:
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/
shared/spl/hi/programmes/
panorama/transcripts/
sexandtheholycity.txt>.
Accessed 22 August 2004.
22. Pangalangan RC. The Constitu-
tion’s original sin [Opinion].
Philippine Daily Inquirer.
25 April 2004. At: <http://www.
inq7.net/opi/2004/apr/25/text/
opi_rpangalangan-1-p.htm>.
Accessed 22 August 2004.
23. Alejandro Estrada vs. Soledad S
Escritor, en banc [A.M. No.
P-02-1651. 4 August 2003].
24. Head scarf bill mooted in
France. BBC News. 29 November
2003. At: <http://news.bbc.co.
uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/europe/
3248614.stm>.
25. Section 5, Article 3 and
Section 3, Article 15, Philippine
Constitution. 1987.
Re´sume´
Apre`s cinq sie`cles de colonisation, les lois d’ origine
espagnole continuent de dominer le droit pe´nal,
civil et familial philippin. Toutes ces lois limitent
gravement la re´alisation des droits ge´ne´siques des
femmes. Depuis 2002, la Pre´sidente philippine
Arroyo remplace souvent la politique de l’E`tat par
le dogme de l’E`glise, re´voquant les politiques de
sante´ ge´ne´sique et de planification familiale de son
pre´de´cesseur, rejetant toutes les me´thodes
modernes de contraception comme formes d’
avortement, limitant l’appui public aux me´thodes
naturelles de planification pour les couples
marie´s, et restreignant l’ acce´s a` la contraception
d’ urgence. Cet article re´fle´chit aux me´thodes
de plaidoyer qui peuvent servir les droits
ge´ne´siques quand les inte´reˆts conservateurs de
l’E´glise dominent la politique de l’E´tat. Les
fondamentalistes religieux demandent a` l’E´tat d’
utiliser leurs ide´es au nom de la liberte´ religieuse,
mais refusent de tenir compte d’ une pluralite´
d’ide´es sur la sexualite´ fe´minine. Il ne suffit
donc pas de soutenir les droits ge´ne´siques en se
fondant sur la se´paration de l’E´glise et de l’E´tat
puisque, si l’E´tat affirme qu’ il est laı¨que, il impose
ne´anmoins des restrictions et un controˆle sur le
corps des femmes.
Resumen
Despue´s de siglos de imperio colonial, leyes de
origen espan˜ol au´n limitan el cumplimiento de
los derechos sexuales y reproductivos de las
mujeres en Filipinas. Desde 2002, la presidenta
actual Arroyo ha sustituido el dogma eclesia´stico
por las polı´ticas del estado, revocando polı´ticas
de salud reproductiva de planificacio´n familiar
de su predecesora, rechazando me´todos anti-
conceptivos modernos como modalidades de
aborto, limitando el apoyo gubernamental para
los programas de planificacio´n familiar para
suministrar me´todos naturales de planificacio´n
a las parejas casadas, y ha restringido el acceso a
la anticoncepcio´n de emergencia. Este artı´culo
reflexiona sobre los me´todos de gestorı´a que
cubrira´n las metas de los derechos sexuales y
reproductivos cuando los intereses eclesia´sticos
conservadores dominan las polı´ticas del estado.
Los fundamentalistas argumentan que el Estado
respete sus puntos de vista, pero rehu´san con-
siderar una pluralidad de opiniones sobre la
sexualidad de las mujeres. No basta con basar un
caso por los derechos sexuales y reproductivos en
la separacio´n de la Iglesia y el Estado ya que, a
pesar de que el Estado dice ser secular, au´n impone
restricciones y control sobre el cuerpo de la mujer.
CSR Austria / Reproductive Health Matters 2004;12(24):96–103
103