Review of family planning policies in the Philippines

Alvin Concha, MD
MA Applied Social Research
Ateneo de Davao University

Introduction

Very recently, the Ligtas Buntis Campaign of the Department of Health (DOH)
rekindled an age-old debate between the government and the church around family
planning.1 By DOH definition, “Ligtas Buntis” has two complementing meanings
and scope of concerns. First, “Ligtas Buntis” can be short for “ligtas na
pagbubuntis” or safe pregnancy and childbirth. In this sense, the DOH is referring
to programs promoting regular prenatal check ups to detect high-risk pregnancies
and to facilitate deliveries that are safe for both mothers and babies. Second, and
more controversially, “Ligtas Buntis” may also be short for “ligtas sa pagbubuntis”
or “safety from (high-)risk or unwanted pregnancy.2 In this sense, the campaign is
meant to “to increase the visibility of family planning as an essential public health
service, and to dramatically improve the access of men, women and couples to
family planning.... services.”3 The DOH stresses that family planning as a health
intervention prevents high-risk pregnancies, reduces maternal deaths and prevents
abortion. Family planning also responds to the unmet needs of women (and men)
of reproductive age and could be viewed as a means to attain sustainable
development.4

The nomenclature, of course, carries with it a very wide space for doubts.5 Despite
being very clear about its definition and scope of the program, DOH received
accusations that it has been discretely promoting abortion and is not “pro-life.”
The adamant stand of the Catholic Church has always been against family
planning except by natural means, because it believes that “family planning by
artificial means” is a euphemism for abortion. Shortly after the campaign was
launched, the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines issued a pastoral
letter branding Ligtas Buntis as an “assault to the family.”6 Father Roy Cimagala
has often been quoted for saying that “This Ligtas Buntis campaign, while heavily
sanitized and deodorized, continues to be afflicted with the basic sick idea that
contraception is just okay, especially given the poverty, ignorance, blah, blah, blah
of the people. When a basic moral issue is involved, the Church will not be
silenced, even if it has to be crucified in public opinion.”7

1
For the Catholic Church, any measures supporting family planning necessarily
supports abortion, as well.8 While many Philippine laws in the past have
provisions pertaining to family planning and abortion, no Republic Act on
reproductive health has yet been passed because of the Catholic Church’s efforts to
oppose it. The most controversial points around the reproductive health bills are
the provisions on family planning, because they are often (mis-)construed as
promoting abortion, so I would like to concentrate on this area in this policy
review. In this paper, I will review provisions on family planning in House Bill
No. 16 (HB16), the latest proposed law on reproductive health. Some of these
provisions in the bill necessarily cross-refer to those of abortion and reproductive
health, so I will also tackle on these latter areas.

The short name for HB16 is “Responsible Parenthood and Population

Management Act Of 2005”, and its long name is “An Act Providing For an
Integrated and Comprehensive National Policy on Responsible Parenthood,
Population Management and Human Development, Creating a Responsible
Parenthood and Population Management Council, and for Other Purposes.” The
whole bill is reproduced in Appendix A. The reproductive health bills have really
gone through a lot of repackaging over time. The contents of the bills have also
been revised several times, reflecting the various comments at the time they were
proposed. HB16 could therefore be seen as a highly evolved bill that has its roots
in reproductive health laws in the past. Table 1 shows the provisions in HB16 that
refer to family planning.

2
Table 1. Family planning provisions in House Bill 16, or the “Responsible Parenthood and
Population Management Act of 2005.”

Section and Title Provision

Section 3j. Guiding While the full range of family planning methods, techniques and
Principles devices shall be made available to couples and adults of reproductive
age, abortion shall remain to be penalized under the Revised Penal
Code and relevant jurisprudence...
Section 4a. Definition Responsible Parenthood - the will, ability, and commitment of parents
of Terms to respond to the needs and aspirations of the family and children more
particularly through family planning.
Section 4b. Definition Family Planning - a program which enables couples and individuals to
of Terms decide freely and responsibly the number and spacing of their children
and to have the information and means to carry out their decisions, and
to have informed choice and access to a full range of safe and effective
family planning methods, techniques and devices, excluding abortion
which is a crime.
Section 4g. Definition Reproductive Health Care - availability and access to a full range of
of Terms methods, techniques and services that contribute to reproductive and
sexual health and well-being by preventing and solving reproductive
health-related problems in order to achieve enhancement of life and
personal relations. The elements of reproductive health care include:
(among others) Family planning information and services; prevention
of abortion and management of post-abortion complications...
Section 5. Responsible Pursuant to the herein declared policy, there is hereby constituted
Parenthood and within thirty (30) days from the effectivity of this Act a multi-agency
Population body to be known as the Responsible Parenthood and Population
Management Council Management Council, hereinafter referred to as the Council. It shall be
composed of eighteen (18) members with the Director General of the
National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) as
Chairperson and the Secretary of The Department of Health (DOH) as
Co-Chairperson....
Section 6d. Functions As the central advisory, planning and formulating body of the
of the Council comprehensive and integrated policy on reproductive health relative to
human development and population management, the Council shall
have the following functions: (among others) d. To facilitate the
involvement and participation of non-government organizations and
the private sector in reproductive health care service delivery and in
the production, distribution and delivery of quality reproductive health
and family planning supplies and commodities to make them
accessible and affordable to ordinary citizens....
Section 6e. Functions To fully implement the Reproductive Health Care Program with the
of the Council following components: (among others) Reproductive and sexual health
education including but not limited to counseling on the full range of
legal and medically-safe family planning methods including surgical
methods; Prevention of abortion and management of post-abortion
complications....

3
Section 9. Mobile Each Congressional District shall be provided with a van to be known
Health Care Service as the Mobile Health Care Service (MHCS) to deliver health care
goods and services to its constituents, more particularly to the poor and
needy, as well as disseminate knowledge and information on
reproductive health: Provided, That reproductive health and sexuality
education shall be conducted by competent and adequately trained
persons preferably reproductive health care providers: Provided,
further, That a wide range of family planning methods, both
natural/traditional and modern, shall be taught.
Section 10. Mandatory Reproductive Health and Sexuality Education in an age-appropriate
Reproductive Health manner shall be taught by adequately trained teachers starting from
and Sexuality Grade 5 up to Fourth Year High School. Reproductive Health and
Education Sexuality Education shall commence at the start of the school year
immediately following one year effectivity of this Act. The Council
shall formulate the Sexuality Education curriculum, which shall be
common to both public and private schools, based on the following
subjects and standards: (among others) reproductive health and sexual
rights; reproductive health care and services; attitudes, beliefs and
values on sexual development, sexual behavior and sexual health; d.
proscription and hazards of abortion and management of post-abortion
complications; natural and modern family planning to prevent
unwanted, unplanned and mistimed pregnancies; use and application of
natural family planning methods....
Section 16. Prohibited The following acts are prohibited: (among others) Any health care
Acts service provider, whether public or private, who shall: (among others)
knowingly withhold information, or restrict the dissemination thereof,
and/or intentionally provide incorrect information regarding programs
and services on reproductive health including the right to informed
choice and access to a full range of legal, medically-safe and effective
family planning methods; refuse to perform voluntary sterilization and
ligation and other legal and medically-safe reproductive health care
services on any person of legal age on the ground of lack of third party
consent or authorization: Provided, That in the case of abused minors
as certified to by the Department of Social Welfare and Development,
and pregnant minors, no prior parental consent shall be necessary...

4
Typological analysis

Below are provisions that describe HB16 and categorize proposed family planning
policies within it according to typology. For simplicity, only the section numbers
of the provisions mentioned in Table 1 are placed under the column “Provision” in
Tables 3a to 3d.

Table 2. Profile of House Bill 16.

Short title “Responsible Parenthood and Population Management Act of 2005.”

Long title “An Act Providing For an Integrated and Comprehensive National Policy on
Responsible Parenthood, Population Management and Human Development,
Creating a Responsible Parenthood and Population Management Council, and for
Other Purposes.”
Proponents Representatives Edcel C. Lagman, Josefina M. Joson, Juan C. Ponce Enrile, Jr.,
Loretta Ann P. Rosales, Ferjenel G. Biron, M.D., Eduardo V. Roquero, M.D., Dr.
Janette L. Garin, Renato "Ka Rene" B. Magtubo, Glenda B. Ecleo, Lorenzo R. Ta–
ada III, Ronaldo B. Zamora, Jose Carlos V. Lacson, Emilio C. Macias II, Clavel A.
Martinez, Pedro M. Pancho, Solomon R, Chungalao, Del R. de Guzman, Gerardo
J. Espina, Jr., Gilbert C. Remulla, Jesus Crispin C. Remulla, Antonio M. Serapio,
Jose G. Solis, Nerissa Corazon Soon-Ruiz, Danilo E. Suarez, Rozzano Rufino B.
Biazon, Arthur D. Defensor, Rodolfo T. Albano III, Hussin U. Amin, Antonio H.
Cerilles, Emmylou "Lala" J. Tali–o-Santos, Luis R. Villafuerte, Ma. Amelita C.
Villarosa, Rodante D. Marcoleta, Matias V. Defensor Jr., Rodolfo G. Valencia, Liza
Largoza-Maza, Lorna C. Silverio, J.R. Nereus O. Acosta, Darlene R. Antonino-
Custodio, Arthur "Dodo" Y. Pingoy, Jr., M.D., Carmen L. Cari, Guillermo P. Cua,
Mario "Mayong" Joyo Aguja, Ana Theresia "Risa Hontiveros-Baraquel, Edwin C.
Uy, Mauricio G. Domogan, Elias C. Bulut, Jr., Luis P. Bersamin, Jr., Faysah
Maniri-Racman Dumarpa, Jesli A. Lapus, and Leonila V. Chavez
Read on Thirteenth Congress
Year 2005

Table 3. Typology of policies within in House Bill 16.

5
 A. By intent Provision Description

Substantive Section 3j - declares that family planning methods, techniques and

policies devises shall be made available to intended users
- declares that the bill supports existing stand of the state
on abortion as expressed in the Revised Penal Code
Sections 4a, - the definitions of “responsible parenthood,” “family
4b and 4g planning” and “reproductive health care direct the
interpreters of the law to delimit their interpretations
within the respective descriptions of the concepts
Section 5 - orders for the creation of the Responsible Parenthood
(first and Population Management Council
sentence)
Section 6d - directs the Responsible Parenthood and Population
Management Council to enjoin organizations to
participate in their work
Section 16 - orders the prohibition of specific acts relating to family
planning and other reproductive health care services
Procedural policies Section 5 - stipulates how the Responsible Parenthood and
(second Population Management Council shall be created
sentence) - stipulated who are going to chair and co-chair the
council
Section 6e - specifies how the Reproductive Health Care Program
should be carried out by enumerating its components
Section 9 - describes how a congressional district should carry out
reproductive health services
Section 10 - describes how Reproductive Health and Sexuality
Education should be carried out

6
 B. By function Provision Description

Distributive Section 3j - specifies which particular populations should receive

policies family planning methods, techniques and devices
Section 5 - describes the creation of the Responsible Parenthood and
Population Management Council that can be benefited
from by everyone through its functions
Section 6d - specifies some of the functions of the council that
involves delivery of reproductive health care
Section 6e - enumerates the inclusions of the services to beneficiaries
within the Reproductive Health Care Program
Section 9 - stipulates the provision of Mobile Health Care Service
vans and several other services to each congressional
district
Section 10 - orders for the provision of Reproductive Health and
Sexuality education to certain populations
Regulatory policies Sections 4a, - limits interpretation of rest of policies within the
4b and 4g definitions of certain concepts
Section 16 - prohibits some acts in relation to service provision of
reproductive health care and family planning

C. By form Provision Description

Material policies Section 5 - provides for a multi-agency body that shall oversee the
implementation of the programs within the bill
Section 6e - provides for Reproductive and Sexual Health education
and 10 and specifications on how to carry it out
Section 9 - provides for Mobile Health Care Services to each
congressional district
Section 16 - restricts certain actions in relation to reproductive health
care service provision
Symbolic policies Section 3j - states the principles that guide legislators in making
further stipulations around family planning and abortion
Section 4a, 4b - delineates that scope of some concepts as they relate to
and 49 other stipulations within the bill

D. By scope Provision Description

Local policy Section 9 - stipulates that provision of Mobile Health Care Service
is locally based at the congressional district
National policies Sections 3j, - there is an implied national scope of these provisions
4a, 4b, 4g, 5, because of the absence of clauses that limit the services
6d, 6e 10, 16 locally
Policy trail

7
Since 1970 up to the present, there have been one Republic Act, two Presidential
Decrees, one Executive Order, one Department of Health Circular, one
Department of Health Order, two Department of Interior and Local Government
Memoranda, one Board Resolution and four House Bills that refer to family
planning. HB 4110 was read twice (and therefore had two versions) within the
Twelfth Congress. Table 4 shows the laws and house bills according to
chronology.

Table 4. Laws and house bills with provisions on family planning.

8
Year Type of law and number Title or subject

1970 Department of Health Circular Department of Health's National Comprehensive

No. 16 Maternal and Child Health Family Planning Program
1971 Republic Act No. 6365 Short: Population Act of the Philippines
Long: An act establishing a national policy on
population, creating the commission on population and
for other purposes
1972 Presidential Decree No. 79 Revised Population Act of the Philippines

1988 DILG Memorandum Circular Provision of Support to the Philippine Population

No. 88-47 Program (PPP)
1988 DILG Memorandum Circular DILG Role in the Philippine Population Program (PPP)
No. 88-48
1992 Department of Health Order Management of Family Planning Program
No. 39-B, Series of 1992
1993 Board Resolution No. 02, Operational Guidelines for a Decentralized
Series of 1993 Implementation of the Population Program
1995 House Bill No. 2136 Short: "New Population Act of 1995"
Long: An Act Establishing a New Population Policy,
Strengthening the Population Commission and for Other
Purposes
1996 Executive Order No. 307 Implementing Family Planning Program at the Local
Government Level
1997 Presidential Decree No. 1204 Amending Certain Section of Presidential Decree No. 79
1999 House Bill 8110 Short: "Integrated Population and Development Act of
1999"
Long: An Act Establishing An Integrated Population And
Development Policy Strengthening Its Implementing
Structures and Appropriating Funds Therefor
2001 House Bill 4110a Short: "The Reproductive Health Care Agenda Act of
2001"
Long: An Act Establishing a Reproductive Health Care
Act, Strengthening Its Implementing Structures,
Appropriating Funds Therefor and for Other Purposes
2002 House Bill 4110b Short: "The Reproductive Health Care Act of 2002"
Long: An Act Providing for Reproductive Health Care
Structures and Appropriating Funds Therefor
2005 House Bill No. 16 Short: "Responsible Parenthood And Population
Management Act Of 2005".
Long: An Act Providing For an Integrated and
Comprehensive National Policy on Responsible
Parenthood, Population Management and Human
Development, Creating a Responsible Parenthood and
Population Management Council, and for Other Purposes
Appendix B shows the policies on family planning since 1970. At the start,
policies in family planning started to appear when the Department of Health

9
created the Comprehensive Maternal and Child Health Family Planning Program
in 1970. During that time, family planning was seen solely as a health issue. The
policies in the Department of Health Circular No. 16 ordered for both the
provision of family planning services and family planning education by rural
health units, government hospitals and city health centers. Shortly thereafter, the
Population Act of 1971 (RA 6365) was passed, which started a long history of
family planning policies being subsumed under “population laws.” The Population
Commission was created by virtue of this Republic Act.

Thereafter, issuances that followed were either amendments of RA 6365 or

directives regarding its implementation. Presidential Decree 79 operationalized
“family planning” as the use of contraceptives. Notably, this decree was also the
first to explicitly exclude abortion as a contraceptive method: “...to make available
all acceptable methods of contraception, except abortion, to all Filipino citizens
desirous of spacing, limiting or preventing pregnancies...” (PD 79, Section 4).

In 1995, during the Tenth Congress, House Bill No. 2136 was proposed as the
“New Population Act of 1995.” It was the first bill to mention the concept of
“reproductive health services.”
Purposes and Objectives. In the implementation of the
foregoing policy and in accordance with the provisions of
this Act, the government shall: (among others) invest in
programs specifically directed at women's increased access
to information, education, skills development, employment
opportunities, and high quality reproductive health
services in order to enable them to effectively contribute
to and benefit from economic growth and sustainable
development... (HB 2136, Section 3)

The phrase “family planning” was never mentioned in the draft, but the bill took
on the tradition of the population laws before it. “Reproductive health services”
remained a symbolic pronouncement in the bill and had no operationalized
provisions for it in other sections of the bill, save for the reiteration of the roles of
the Population Commission. What was remarkable, though, was the fact that
“reproductive health services,” along with employment opportunities, increased
access to education and skills development of women, started to be regarded as
necessary elements for “economic growth and sustainable development.” In this
regard, “family planning” (or “reproductive health services,” for that matter)
ceased to be viewed as solely a health issue or a means to control the population,
and came to carry more noble purposes of promoting not only “economic growth”
but, more importantly, “sustainable development” as well.
During the Eleventh Congress, HB 2136 was repackaged as the “Integrated
Population and Development Act of 1999,” or House Bill 8110. The latter bill was
not very different in concept from the previous one in the sense that it “integrated”

10
the principle of “population” with that of “development.” HB 8110 was, however,
elaborated “reproductive health services” by mentioning the components of the
services, which include family planning services.

Declaration of Policy and Objectives. In furtherance of the

above declared principles and policy, the State hereby
adopts the following as its integrated and interrelated
objectives: (among others) to ensure that a full range of
basic health and reproductive health care information and
services, including those that provide and promote safe
motherhood, family planning, responsible sexual behavior to
avoid unwanted pregnancy and abortion... (HB 8110, Section
2)

The mention of abortion in HB 8110 was aimed to stress that it is something that
should be avoided, like unwanted pregnancy. There is an implied (but not explicit)
declaration that abortion is not a method of family planning, but rather, that it is
something that can be prevented through the employment of family planning
methods. In a way, this is an improved depiction of the relationship of family
planning and abortion, compared to that in PD 79.

In the succeeding congress, the Twelfth Congress, the “Integrated Population and
Development Act of 1999” underwent further repackaging and was now called
“The Reproductive Health Care Agenda Act of 2001.” During the second reading
of the bill, the title was shortened to “The Reproductive Health Care Act of 2002.”
At face value, the bill title again portrays a solely health perspective of the
subsumed policies. However, the Declaration of Principles within the bill stated
that reproductive health is actually regarded as a human right.

Declaration of Principles. The State recognizes and

guarantees the human rights of all persons including the
right to equality and equity, the right to development, the
right to reproductive health, the right to education and
the right to choose and make decisions for themselves in
accordance with their religious convictions, cultural
beliefs, and the demands of responsible parenthood. (HB
4110, Section 2 – First Regular Session)

While the first draft of HB 4110 contextualized reproductive health and family
planning within the concepts of “population” and “development,” the second draft
was virtually silent about these concepts.

The policies in the latter draft of HB 4110 could therefore be taken as an aggregate
statement that reproductive health services, including family planning, should be
promoted “not for anything else” but by virtue of its being a human right.

11
Incidentally, it was around this time that the Catholic Church intensified its efforts
in opposing the bill.9, 10

This present repackaging of the reproductive health/family planning bill (HB 16)
really reflects full integration of the health, population, development and human
rights approach to the issue, and more. This time, the concept of “responsible
parenthood” is also capitalized, and could in fact be considered as the “priority”
point of view that the bill takes, as can be noticed in its long title: “An Act
Providing for an Integrated and Comprehensive National Policy on Responsible
Parenthood, Population Management and Human Development, Creating a
Responsible Parenthood and Population Management Council, and For Other
Purposes.” The bill declares that “responsible parenthood” can be obtained
through a family planning program that promotes “family planning methods,
techniques and devices.”

Issues and recommendations

12
The family planning provisions in HB 16 could be summarized as follows: 1.
family planning methods, techniques and devices shall be made available; 2.
education about family planning shall be made available; 3. abortion is not a
family planning method; it is a crime; it should be avoided; should it happen, its
medical consequences must be effectively managed; 4. a Responsible Parenthood
and Population Management Council should be created; 5. locally, a Mobile
Health Care Service should be in-charge of the delivery of services within the
congressional district; and, 6. acts that prevent the attainment of a state of
reproductive health as a human right are prohibited.

Compared to existing laws and previous bills, HB 16 extensively tackles issues

that need to be elucidated for the proper implementation of the policies. The effort
to integrate the multiple approaches to family planning in this latest bill is also
commendable. As illustrated, it combines perspectives of health, population,
development, human rights and responsible parenthood. The effect is the surfacing
of multiple rationales that necessitates a law on family planning. Interpreters of the
law only have to choose which point of view or combinations of such could be
best evoked in justifying the implementation of the law.

While family planning provisions in HB 16 are really multiple and far-reaching,

there is practically just one major problematic issue that it carries, that of the use
of family planning methods other than “natural” ones. The contention of those
who oppose the bill is always that “artificial” family planning methods are
abortifacient. It is indeed notable that, while the bill operationally defines such
terms as responsible parenthood, family planning and reproductive health care, no
effort was ever made to enumerate and describe specific “family planning
methods, techniques and devices” that are repeatedly referred to. There is no
operational definition of abortion, as well, within the bill. In order to clarify doubts
as to how the provisions should be interpreted, clear and explicit definitions and
descriptions of “family planning methods, techniques and devices” and “abortion”
should be integrated in the bill.

The Catholic Church strongly opposes any termination of pregnancy after

fertilization (meeting of sperm and egg) because, then, it will be abortion. If it can
be demonstrated through clear cut definitions that “family planning methods,
techniques and devices” act even before fertilization,11 part of the issue could
probably be resolved.

A more extreme version of opposition to the bill by the church is the rejection of
any form of “artificial” methods of family planning, in support for the “natural”
ones. The reason for such opposition seems to be the fact that “artificial” methods

13
entail the use of devices which are not physically intrinsic, hence they are
unacceptable and consequently, sinful. This area is really problematic because of
lack of explanation from the church regarding the parallelism of “devices” and
“sin.” Is enjoying the pleasure of talking to a friend via cellular phones necessarily
sinful because it entails the use of “devices”?

While HB 16 actually mentions in its guiding principles that family planning

choices should be based on “personal conviction and religious beliefs” (HB 16,
Section 3d), there is probably a need to expound on this, if only to reiterate that
family planning is all about choices, and not about impositions. It is also probably
better if education on family planning be described within the policies as a process
that is sensitive to religious and cultural beliefs and personal convictions.

Apart from minding the drafting of bills, it cannot be overemphasized that the
advocacy arm of a family planning bill holds a very crucial role in passing the bill
through the congress. There needs to be a body of lobbyists who are also capable
of forging alliance and effectively negotiating with those who oppose the bill.
While it is true that the bill needs to be drafted in a manner that ensures effective
implementation of the resulting law, the bill should also prepare the people for law
implementation through an advocacy campaign that highlights the intended
benefits of the proposed law. More importantly, the intended benefits should also
be presented to the people in a manner that espouses respect for cultural and
religious beliefs and personal conviction, as declared in the guiding principles of
the bill.

References

14
1
. Jimenez, C. (2005) Dayrit, the daunted. Internet. Accessed on 2 May 2005, available at
http://partners.inq7.net/newsbreak/istories/index.php?story_id=33567
2

. Department of Health. (2005). Ligtas buntis campaign 2005. Internet [lecture slides]. Accessed on 2 May 2005,
available at http://www.doh.gov.ph/ligtasbuntis/LBC_presentation_files/frame.htm
3

. Department of Health. (2005). Ligtas buntis 2005 campaign. Internet. Accessed on 2 May 2005, available at
http://www.doh.gov.ph/ligtasbuntis/about_LBC.htm
4

. [see reference number 2]

5

. Tan, ML. (2005). Language, context, politics and health. Internet. Accessed on 2 May 2005, available at
http://www.inq7.net/globalnation/col_pik/2005/mar21.htm
6

. [see reference number 1]

7

. Dalisay, B. (2005). Why I left the church. Internet. Accessed on 2 May 2005, available at
http://partners.inq7.net/newsbreak/common/printable.php?site_id=51&story_id=33565
8

. Betonio, TC. (2002). Family planning org urges congress to pass Reproductive Health Care Act. Internet.
Accessed on 23 April 2005, available at http://www.mindanews.com/2002/10/2nd/arn05bill.html
9
Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines. (2003). We must reject House Bill 4110. Internet. Accessed
on 15 December 2004, available at http://www.rcam.org/cbcp/hb4110statement.htm
10
Manar, MC. (2003). Catholics pray for rejection of HB 4110. Internet. Accessed on 23 April 2005, available at
http://www.mindanews.com/2003/10/07nws-candles.html
11
Department of Health. (2005). Family planning myths and misconceptions. Internet. Accessed on 2 May 2005,
available at http://www.doh.gov.ph/ligtasbuntis/myths.htm