It is a trying time for Sen. Risa Hontiveros, the principal author of Senate Bill No. 1979 which aims “to educate, support and protect our children and students against early pregnancy” through such means as comprehensive sexuality education.  

Hontiveros has introduced last-minute changes to the measure in an effort to bring more clarity to it and to address the concerns raised by certain sectors. She is confident that she will gain the majority support of her colleagues in the Senate in passing the bill that, she says, has been the target of “deliberate” misinformation and disinformation by those opposed to it.

Health Assistant Secretary Albert Domingo recently described the numbers concerning teenage pregnancy in the Philippines as “nakakabahala” (disturbing). CoverStory.ph sought out Hontiveros to answer questions on the measure that seeks to address what is now deemed a national and social emergency. 

You have amended the original Senate Bill No.1979 in response to criticisms raised. The amendments concern the nature of comprehensive sexuality education (CSE); allowing minors under 16 years old access to sexual and reproductive health services only with the parent or guardian’s consent; and a guarantee of parental authority and religious freedom in the measure. How would you describe these amendments, and do you think they address the questions and doubts raised by the groups opposed to the bill?  

Sen. Risa Hontiveros (SRH): These are amendments that make the provisions in the earlier version even clearer. For example, the substitute bill takes out the phrase “guided by international standards” in relation to CSE—a fundamental objection raised against the bill—so that it will no longer be interpreted or weaponized to mean that CSE will only follow international guidelines, which was not true in the first place. CSE in the Philippines will always conform to the cultures and context of the Philippines. 

The common reason of the seven senators who withdrew their signatures from the committee report had to do with the backlash generated by the bill. Do you think that was a good enough reason for rejecting the measure? 

SRH: They are entitled to their considerations for withdrawing their signatures, but I trust that they read the substitute bill.

But with the last-minute changes in the substitute bill, do you think it can be saved? 

SRH: It has provisions from Senate President Francis Escudero himself, taking into account various apprehensions of our colleagues, so I am hopeful that the measure can still be steered to passage so long as we go through the proper legislative process. 

Should senators also help in educating the public about SB 1979?  

SRH: Yes, I do hope all of us throw our weight behind fighting the misinformation and disinformation about the measure not only because it might muddle our debates in the plenary, but also for the sake of the Filipino public. 

Have you received any feedback on the amended measure from the senators who withdrew their signatures? Has anyone changed their mind? 

SRH: Not yet.

Have you spoken to Senate President Escudero about the substitute bill?  

SRH: Yes. The Senate President’s suggestions were included in the substitute bill before I even filed it. 

In the letter to the Senate President of four of the senators who withdrew their signatures, they stated the need for “further dialogues with stakeholders” on “objectionable portions of the bill.” Also, it was reported that former chief justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno is urging the Senate to either return the bill to the committee for more hearings or conduct an inquiry into it. Is there a need for new committee hearings or even a Senate inquiry to tackle the bill, as they are now suggesting? Or is it better for the Senate to return to the plenary interpellations and amendments on the measure?  

SRH: This matter is already in plenary. The bill is now in its second reading and it has already been interpellated by the Minority and Majority Leaders.

In fact, the substitute bill was already part of the agenda of our Senate session last Monday (Jan. 27).  Any clarifications or objections by other senators should be expressed in plenary through questions or other proposed amendments. 

Congress is scheduled to take a break starting Feb. 8 for the election campaign. With suggestions for the bill to undergo new hearings or even an inquiry—although it is now on second reading—is there still time for it to be passed during the 19th Congress? Will you meet with the senators to explain the amendments to the substitute bill?  

SRH: If the Senate has the political will to prioritize this law so desperately needed to curb the rising cases of teen pregnancy, then the Senate should make time before the campaign season. We also still have a couple of sessions—albeit short—even after the elections, so I’m hopeful that there is still a chance to push this bill into law.

Do you think there was a misreading or overreading of the substitute bill by the groups opposed to it? For one, those opposed voiced alarm over the possibility that the CSE to be adopted would be using European standards. 

SRH: It seems there was a deliberate campaign to misinform the public. There is nothing in the bill that says what they claim. There will never be a possibility for CSE just mindlessly using European or other international standards because our CSE—as deemed constitutional through the RPRH (Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health) Law passed over a decade ago—will always be cognizant of Filipino culture and values. 

Was the original bill too vague and open to misinterpretation and, hence, amendments needed to be introduced to bring more clarity?  

SRH: Along with numerous child rights advocates, civil society organizations, teachers, and fellow parents, I stand by the original bill. It has always been clear—not vague—that our CSE should be accurate, age- and development-appropriate, and culturally sensitive. The amendments were introduced to give even more clarity and address the genuine concerns of my colleagues and some sectors. 

How important is the bill in arresting the problem of teenage pregnancy? 

SRH: The bill, through various preventive measures stipulated in the measure, will oblige the government to direct our attention and resources to addressing this crisis. Teen pregnancy is an ongoing national and social emergency. Like in any emergency, it is crucial that we act urgently; otherwise, we will fail to protect and support adolescents, particularly women and girls, who will bear the brunt of early pregnancy. This affects not just their future but the collective future of our country. 

Apart from educating young students and their parents about responsible sexual and reproductive health through stronger legislation, how can the government curb the rise of teenage pregnancy in the country?  

SRH: Access to reproductive health and services is crucial. Whether we like it or not, the data show us that there are sexually active adolescents, who should not be deprived of reproductive health services and information that can help them protect their health. 

What do you think of the statement of President Marcos that he will first read the amendments to the substitute bill, especially after his public opposition to the original bill resulted in the withdrawal of the signatures of his Senate allies from the committee report? 

SRH: I hope the President does read the substitute bill so he is clarified about any misinterpretations or false information that may have reached his office. 

Will you appeal to him to give the measure a chance? 

SRH: I already made a statement saying that I am open to amendments so we can pass this measure into law. 

You seem to have an ally in the President’s sister, Sen. Imee Marcos, who was quoted as saying that it would be premature for her to withdraw her signature to the committee report when the bill is still under plenary interpellations and amendments. Will you seek her help in easing the fears of those opposed to the measure?  

SRH: I do appreciate that Senator Marcos has not withdrawn her signature from the committee report. While I will not impose on her the responsibility to help ease the fears of those opposed to the measure, I will not be surprised if she does so on her own platforms. 

Should the measure be placed on the back burner, what are the chances of such a bill being filed again in the Senate, especially when there will be a new composition in the chamber after the May elections?

SRH: As with any other measure, we follow the legislative process. If it is part of the agenda, it should be open to interpellation and/or amendments. If this does not pass in the 19th Congress, as author, I will file it again. It’s too early to talk about chances when we don’t know who our new colleagues will be. But with the substitute bill as it is right now, I am positive that it will gain majority support. 

Read more: Risa, Leni show the way