Sorry folks, no fireworks
April 9, 2008 — PeterRia was correct in her comments. There were no fireworks at the City Council yesterday over the controversial Development Plan for Children.
The expected verbal clash was toned down by the move to defer consideration of the issue until next week. Its proponent Councilor Angela Librado-Trinidad told our colleagues no less than the Mayor himself wants to talk the matter with members of the City Council before its final voting next session.
The principal oppositor Councilor Teresita Mata-Maranon delivered her final speech to appeal to our colleagues to reject the proposal.
The Development Plan for Children indeed appears innocent at first glance. However, a large portion of it deals with reproductive health issues opposed by pro-lifers, family crusaders and the Catholic Church. Neophyte Councilor Kaloi Bello on a number of occasion sought clarification if the title of the measure fits with its content.
Had the proposed plan been solely for the development of children, I have no doubt this measure would have long been approved. It has dragged on this long - over a year now - due largely to provisions regarding the contentious reproductive health programs of the government.
My own take of it is that having failed to pass legislation at the national level, RH programs are being pushed at the local level. Quezon City passed a measure last year which met stiff opposition from the Catholic Church.
A number of us suspect that this so-called Development Plan for Children is a Trojan Horse. Hidden by the gift wrappings are highly divisive reproductive health provisions.
April 16, 2008 at 3:12 am
Hi Councilor Peter! Can I say something? Although most of us believe that development is a top priority for any government, I believe that it is equally important to find a compromise with the Church on this issue. Being a democratic society, we cannot just reject nor set aside the views of religious people simply because they are “religious”. The Church, being a part of civil society, is integral to the will-formation of the people. Moving forward without considering the valid objections from the Church is perilous for our democratic institutions. After all, the government and the Church are one in making our society a better place to live in. This is a ground with which a “NO” to the proposal in its current form and substance is the morally and politically the reasonable thing to do.
April 21, 2008 at 5:09 pm
[...] a no-brainer for most has become an exercise in philosophical contortion for others. Peter Laviña, one of the councilors who voted against the resolution, warns that “this so-called Development [...]
April 21, 2008 at 9:57 pm
I’m sorry to hear you got outvoted, Councilor, but perhaps in future you might consider that what’s good for the Catholic Church isn’t necessarily what’s good for Davao’s mothers and children.
PDO, I totally, absolutely disagree that listening to the Church in this case is good for our democracy - indeed, I believe that toeing the Church line on this issue is perilous for our democratic institutions, for reasons I hope I’ve fully explained here.