Archive

Posts Tagged ‘rh bill philippines’

why pinoys who are single or married need family planning in their relationship

February 28, 2012 1 comment

some years ago, a comprehensive research was done on the habits and attitudes of pinoys on family planning.  both qualitative and quantitative researches were done on a nati0nal basis.

first to be conducted were a series of qualitative research, focus group discussions in metro manila, davao and cebu among several groups of women and men with varying age groups. and marital status. the qualitative research was done  to gain possible consumer insights for the development of advertising that will promote family planning use, advocacy work and public relations efforts. equally important, the qualitative researches were conducted to serve as inputs for the design of the quantitative research that was going to be done nationwide.

these charts are only a small portion of the whole research but it is quite telling on where the minds and hearts of pinoys, specially filipina women are in relation to family planning to themselves and their families.

the first part of the FGDs (focus group discussions) was a discussion on values and dreams of the respondents for their families.

an interesting methodology was designed. a drawing of a tree with roots, trunk and leaves were placed on the board. respondents were given post it pads where they were asked to write on them the values they believe  in, those that are important for them or their dreams. they were asked to put the post its on the board, place it anywhere inside or outside the tree. once everyone has done this, their answers were processed and discussed with the moderator.

where the respondents placed the post it in relation to the tree had meaning to them. post its placed outside the tree meant whatever was written there was not very important for them. those placed on the leaves were more important and down to the roots. to the respondents, those they placed on the roots were the most important for them.

these were the findings:

first, everyone in the FGDs said their family is the most important to them. that is true even among singles, specially more for those married or with children,  across all age groups and in both sexes.  in fact most of them even said their family is more important to them than themselves. they are absolutely willing to do anything and everything for their family.

they said that what they are working and living for is to fulfill the dreams of their families as a unit, to secure the future of their children and the family’s  well-being. this is not necessarily just about  money or wealth, in fact those were hardly mentioned.  what was more important to them were the emotional aspect, the joys and happiness that their families felt or aspired for. most of them said it is these priorities that they are presently working for and making such a huge effort for.

after  this  was discussed extensively, the respondents were then asked –  how will you feel when you find out today that you are pregnant? (or for male respondents if their spouses or significant others were pregnant?) the idea was to present to the respondents a simulation of what happens in real life – how an unplanned pregnancy happens to people.

to most of the respondents, pregnancy was something that is planned. for those who were married, they discuss it and plan for it with their spouses. the planning usually is just to agree if they want or do not want to have a child or an additional child at the moment.  for single respondents, it is normally not thought of as it was certain they did not want to have children out of marriage.

while they had these in their minds, the respondents know that getting pregnant was always a possibility as most of them were sexually active, even those who were single. they saw sex as part and parcel of having a relationship with the opposite sex.

to the question how will they feel or what is their reaction if they found out they were pregnant now, these were their answers to that question:

the respondents saw unplanned pregnancy essentially as a major disruption, something that will stop or derail the plans that they have been pursuing and currently working on for their families.  there is nothing else in their lives that had quite the same impact and effect on their lives than an unplanned pregnancy.

all of them considered being pregnant and having a child as a blessing, even among the singles. but they would rather plan it or get pregnant out of a determined, clear and agreed to goal and at the  right timing with their partners. an unplanned pregnancy to them is very unwelcome.

the respondents knew that having a baby at that point in time of their lives mzy not be the best time. they do not take having a baby lightly. they know it is a big responsibility and will involve giving most if not all of  their time and effort for the caring of the baby. that would necessarily take time and effort from their work and the duties and responsibilities they were presently fulfilling. most of them said life at its present state was already difficult, having an unplanned pregnancy will make everything more than doubly difficult.

that was the mindset by which advertising and marketing efforts on family planning will be set on in getting the target audience to use it. this and other researches were conducted to get a good picture of the user mindset.

but over and above the advertising and marketing use, this explains very well the challenges faced by family planning advocates.

~~midscape landmark~~
carlo p arvisu 

A Jesuit Sociologist on RH Bill by John J. Carroll, S.J.

November 4, 2011 1 comment

A Jesuit Sociologist on RH Bill by John J. Carroll, S.J.

A Jesuit Sociologist on RH BillCommentary (Phil. Daily Inquirer, May 5, 2011)“FOR HE IS OUR PEACE” (EPHESIANS 2:14)
John J Carroll. S.J.
John J. Carroll Institute on Church and Social IssuesAs I watched Christ’s faithful gather symbolically in the Upper Room on Holy Thursday, around Calvary’s cross on Good Friday, and at the empty tomb on Easter Sunday, a way of joy flowed over me.

Swept up like a chip of wood on the surface of a boiling wave by the power of the community singing, I recalled the unity in faith and hope of the millions who gathered 25 years ago at Edsa.
But still there was an undercurrent of sadness due to the realization that the official Church no longer stands with a united people but with one part of a nation divided: and that the struggle is carried on, no longer in the respectful manner of the crowds at Edsa, but in an atmosphere of personal animosity and demonizing.The sadness is made deeper by the sense that in the debate over the RH bill, the Church seems to have backed itself into a no-win situation. If the bill passes over the total opposition of the hierarchy, there will be gloating in some quarters and a sense of “Who’s afraid of the big bad Church?” If it is defeated by the opposition of the Church, I fear a powerful backlash at the Church’s “interference in politics” and “reliance on political power rather than moral suasion” — the beginnings of an anti-clericalism such as overwhelmed formerly Catholic bastions such as Spain and Ireland.With all due respect for the position of the Philippine bishops, I do not see that total opposition to the bill necessary, once one gets past the polemics. First of all, the bill does not legalize contraceptives; they are already legal and may be purchased in any drugstore. What the bill proposes to do — rightly or wrongly — is to subsidize the cost of contraception as well as natural family planning to the poor.
Neither does the bill legalize abortion; on the contrary it reaffirms the constitutional prohibition.
It is highly probable in fact that if contraceptives become more available to the poor, the scandalous number of illegal abortions performed annually will be dramatically reduced.On the tricky scientific question whether the IUD and some contraceptive pills may prevent the implantation of a fertilized ovum in the mother’s womb and so destroy a human life, the current draft of the bill passes the responsibility to the Food and Drug Administration, which should ban any such “contraceptives” from drugstores throughout the country.

On the matter of sex education in the schools, the same draft allows parents to “opt out” for their children, i.e., to have them exempted from such classes.

This is an improvement.
Although it would seem better to allow religious schools to develop their own programs. It may be still possible to negotiate for this.
There is a graded set of modules on sex and population education already available, prepared by teachers of Catholic schools under the leadership of the Office of Population Studies Foundation of the University of San Carlos, and bearing the imprimatur of Ricardo Cardinal Vidal.Other improvements may still be possible.
One might be to strengthen the “conscience clauses” protecting health workers and teachers whose religious values conflict with certain aspects of the bill. Another could be representation of religious bodies on an oversight committee to make sure that freedom of conscience is fully respected in the field.A sticking opoint for many is that the bill would subsidize the distribution of contraceptives to the poor.
The Catholic Church, while recognizing the fundamental difference between contraception and abortion, still insists that the former is wrong. It debases the most sacred act which a husband and wife can perform: cooperation with the Creator in bringing into existence a new human person destined for eternity with God.
Here it would seem more consistent for the Church to initiate a vigorous program of family life and natural family planning education for its people, helping them to form their consciences and make responsible decisions on this matter, rather than trying by political means to keep them away from “temptation.”Which brings up what to me seems to be the most important issue here, namely the family and family values.
The charge is made that the RH bill will destroy the Filipino family.
On the basis of more than 25 years of pastoral and social work in Payatas, and some seven years sponsoring natural family planning programs, I can say that the family is already at great risk — and not because of contraceptives.While the dedication of many young people — our scholars and former scholars — to helping their families, and the sacrifices that they are willing to make, are sometimes overwhelming, these are often one-parent families abandoned by the fathers who have gone on to father second and even third families.
Or no-parent families abandoned by both father and mother and being raised by grandparents.
Moreover, one main reason why only some 20 percent of the women who take our seminars on natural family planning actually practice it is precisely the unwillingness of the husbands to cooperate.Our family-life seminars seem to be much appreciated.
If only the effort and resources being now invested in opposition to the RH bill were being used for serious family-life education and family support services, there might be little reason to oppose the bill.
And our Holy Week services might be true celebrations of unity, mutual respect and love.

how anti RHBill proponents fail to reproduce logic, the senator miriam speech

September 19, 2011 Leave a comment

THE REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH BILL: LOGIC 101

(Speech at the inter-university forum on 15 September 2011 sponsored by the UP Law Center Human Rights Institute at the UP College of Law Malcolm Theatre)

Reproductive Rights as Part of Human Rights

Our topic is the nature of reproductive rights as part of the greater sum of human rights.  In legal terms, human rights form the totality of the freedoms, immunities, and benefits that, according to modern values – specially at an international level – all human beings should be able to claim as a matter of right in the society in which they live.

In international law, the basic document is the non-binding but authoritative Universal Declaration of Human Rights, accompanied by the binding documents known as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights.

In national or domestic law, the basic document is the Philippine Constitution, particularly Article 2 on Declaration of State Policies, and Article 3 on the Bill of Rights.  Our Constitution, Art. 2 Sec. 15 specifically provides: “The State shall protect and promote the right to health of the people and instill health consciousness among them.”  This right to health is now viewed as including the right to reproductive health.

Reproductive rights constitute the totality of a person’s constitutionally protected rights relating to the control of his or her procreative activities.  Specifically, reproductive rights refer to the cluster of civil liberties relating to pregnancy, abortion, and sterilization, specially the personal bodily rights of a woman in her decision whether to become pregnant or bear a child.

The phrase “reproductive rights” includes the idea of being able to make reproductive decisions free from discrimination, coercion, or violence.  Human-rights scholars increasingly consider many reproductive rights to be protected by international human rights law.

When we speak of Philippine internal laws and politics, we are speaking of the so-called “horizontal” strand of the human rights movement.  But as constitutionalism spreads among states, we now speak of the so-called “vertical strand” of the new international law, that is meant to bind states and that is implemented by the new international institutions.  Filipino politicians seem to be aware only of the horizontal but not of the vertical dimension of the human rights movement.1

But the truly novel developments of the last half century have involved primarily the vertical dimension.  Thus, contrary to the misimpression of many of our politicians, the national debate on reproductive health is not only limited to the Constitution, but necessarily include Philippine obligations under the legally binding obligations of the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, as well as other treaties to which the Philippines is a state party.

The urgency of enforcing reproductive rights in our country was raised at the 1993 Vienna World Conference, when the UN Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights2 drew attention to:

The shocking reality . . . that States and the international community as a whole continue to tolerate all too often breaches of economic social and cultural rights which . . . would provoke horror and outrage and would lead to concerted calls for immediate remedial action.

In the human rights movement, the mechanisms and processes for the delivery of health services are themselves morally compelling.  Evaluation of health programs emphasizes distribution in outcomes, not only averages.  We are concerned about the entire distribution, because reproductive rights theories take seriously the idea that every human being is worthy of respect.

Advocates of human rights pay particular attention to disaggregated data among women and the poor, because they are particularly liable to practices and prejudices that weaken their agency and the social basis of their self-esteem.  Finally, reproductive rights approaches accommodate adoptive preferences.  Many poor women do not receive information on how to receive reproductive health care.  In addition, our underprivileged women have to accept standards lower than what they need, want, or deserve.

This is the reason why we hold forums like these – to raise consciousness, provide political education, and take measures in civil society to expand the imagination and the demands of the excluded group of women who belong to the poorest of the poor.3

Why the RH Bill is Controversial

The two most controversial provisions of the RH bill are:

Sec. 7.  Access to Family Planning. – All accredited public and private health facilities shall provide a full range of modern family planning methods, except in specialty hospitals which may render such services on an optional basis.  No person shall be denied information and access to family planning services.

Sec. 8.  Maternal Death Review.

Sec. 9.  Family Planning Supplies as Essential Medicines. – The National Drug Formulary shall include hormonal contraceptives, intrauterine devices, injectables and other safe, legal and effective family planning products and supplies in accordance (with FDA guidelines).  These products and supplies shall also be included in the regular purchase of essential medicines and supplies of all national and local hospitals, provincial, city, and municipal health offices, including rural health units.

Miriam on RH symposiumPhoto by archiegonzalez.lens.ph

In brief, the RH bill merely wants to empower a woman from the poorest economic class to march to the nearest facility operated by the Department of Health or the local government unit, to demand information on a family planning product or supply of her choice.  The bill, at the simplest level, wants to give an indigent married woman the freedom of informed choice concerning her reproductive rights.

If the bill is highly controversial, it is not because it is dangerous to humans or to the planet.  It is not subversive of the political order.  It is not a fascist diktat of a totalitarian power structure.  The reason this bill is emotionally charged is because of the fervent opposition of the Catholic church in the Philippines and those who wish to be perceived as its champions.

Read more…

consolidated reproductive health bill full text – House Bill RH 4244

May 16, 2011 13 comments

15 March 2011

HON. ROGELIO J. ESPINA
Chairman
Committee on Population and Family Relations
House of Representatives
Constitution Hills, Quezon City

Dear Chairman Espina:

The principal authors of House Bill 4244, the consolidated substitute bill on “The Responsible Parenthood, Reproductive Health and Population and Development Act of 2011? met yesterday to formalize voluntary amendments to the bill in order to preclude misconceptions and protracted debates. The authors have also authorized me to inform you that the following amendments be adopted as Committee amendments at the proper time:

1. Section 13 on “Roles of Local Governments in Family Planning Programs” found on lines 9-14, page 12, of the bill, which reads: “The LGUs shall ensure that poor families receive preferential access to services, commodities and programs for family planning. The role of Population Officers at municipal, city and barangay levels in the family planning effort shall be strengthened. Barangay health workers and volunteers shall be capacitated to give priority to family planning work.”

should be amended by deleting the phrase “give priority to family planning work.” found in the last sentence of the Section, and should be substituted with the phrase “help implement this Act.” This would obviate complaints that family planning is given inordinate priority.

2. Section 15 on “Mobile Health Care Service” found on page 12, lines 20-25, and page 13, lines 1-6, reading “Each Congressional District may be provided with at least one (1) Mobile Health Care Service (MHCS) in the form of a van or other means of transportation appropriate to coastal or mountainous areas. The MHCS shall deliver health care supplies and services to constituents, more particularly to the poor and needy, and shall be used to disseminate knowledge and information on reproductive health. The purchase of the MHCS may be funded from the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) of each congressional district. The operation and maintenance of the MHCS shall be operated by skilled health providers adequately equipped with a wide range of reproductive health care materials and information dissemination devices and equipment, the latter including, but not limited to, a television set for audio-visual presentations. All MHCS shall be operated by a focal city or municipality within a congressional district.”

should be amended to read as follows: “Each Congressional District may be provided with at least one (1) Mobile Health Care Service (MHCS) in the form of a van or other means of transportation appropriate to coastal or mountainous areas, the procurement and operation of which shall be funded by the National Government. The MHCS shall deliver health care supplies and services to constituents, more particularly to the poor and needy, and shall be used to disseminate knowledge and information on reproductive health. [The purchase of the MHCS may be funded from the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) of each congressional district.] The operation and maintenance of the MHCS shall be operated by skilled health providers adequately equipped with a wide range of reproductive health care materials and information dissemination devices and equipment, the latter including, but not limited to, a television set for audio-visual presentations. All MHCS shall be operated by a focal city or municipality within a congressional district.”

The reason for this amendment is to liberate the PDAF without prejudice to Members of the House who may still wish to use a portion of their PDAF for the purchase and operation of the MHCS.

3. Section 16 on “Mandatory Age-Appropriate Reproductive Health and Sexuality Education” found on page 13 from lines 7-25, and page 14 from lines 1-13, which reads: “Age-appropriate Reproductive Health and Sexuality Education shall be taught by adequately trained teachers in formal and non-formal education system starting from Grade Five up to Fourth Year High School using life skills and other approaches. The Reproductive Health and Sexuality Education shall commence at the start of the school year immediately following one (1) year from the effectivity of this Act to allow the training of concerned teachers. The Department of Education (DEPED), Commission on Higher Education (CHED), TESDA, Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD), Department of Health (DOH) shall formulate the Reproductive Health and Sexuality Education curriculum. Such curriculum shall be common to both public and private schools, out of school youth, and enrollees in the Alternative Learning System (ALS) based on, but. not limited to, the psychosocial and physical wellbeing, demography and reproductive health, and the legal aspects of reproductive health.

“Age-appropriate Reproductive Health and Sexuality Education shall be integrated in all relevant subjects and shall include, but is not limited to, the following topics:

      Values formation;

Knowledge and skills in self protection against discrimination, sexual violence and abuse, and teen pregnancy; Physical, social and emotional changes in adolescents; Children’s and women’s rights; Fertility awareness; STI, HIV and AIDS; Population and development; Responsible relationship; Family planning methods; Proscription and hazards of abortion; Gender and development; and Responsible parenthood.

“The DepEd, CHED, DSWD, TESDA, and DOH shall provide concerned parents with adequate and relevant scientific materials on the age-appropriate topics and manner of teaching Reproductive Health Education to their children.”

should be amended by providing a final paragraph which shall read: “Parents shall exercise the option of not allowing their minor children to attend classes pertaining to Reproductive Health and Sexuality Education.”

4. Section 20 on “Ideal Family Size” found from lines 5-9 on page 15 which reads: “The State shall assist couples, parents and individuals to achieve their desired family size within the context of responsible parenthood for sustainable development and encourage them to have two children as the ideal family size. Attaining the ideal family size is neither mandatory nor compulsory. No punitive action shall be imposed on parents having more than two children.”

should be deleted in its entirety considering that the norm on ideal family size is neither mandatory nor punitive. Its total deletion will preclude further misinformation and misrepresentation as to the import of the provision. Moreover, its deletion will also underscore freedom of informed choice.

5. Section 21 on “Employers’ Responsibilities” found on page 15 from lines 10-15 and on page 16 from lines 1-4 which reads: “The Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) shall ensure that employers respect the reproductive rights of workers. Consistent with the intent of Article 134 of the Labor Code, employers with more than 200 employees shall provide reproductive health services to all employees in their own respective health facilities. Those with less than 200 workers shall enter into partnerships with hospitals, health facilities, or health professionals in their areas for the delivery of reproductive health services.

“Employers shall furnish in writing the following information to all employees and applicants:

1. The medical and health benefits which workers are entitled to, including maternity and paternity leave benefits and the availability of family planning services;

2. The reproductive health hazards associated with work, including hazards that may affect their reproductive functions especially pregnant women; and

3. The availability of health facilities for workers.

“Employers are obliged to monitor pregnant working employees among their workforce and ensure that they are provided paid half-day prenatal medical leave for each month of the pregnancy period that the pregnant employee is employed in their company or organization. These paid prenatal medical leave shall be reimbursable from the Social Security System (SSS) or the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS), as the case may be.”

should be deleted in its entirety considering that this provision is a restatement and amplification of the existing Article 134 of the Labor Code. This deletion would obviate further objections and debates.

5. Section 28 (e) on “Prohibited Acts” found on lines 24-25 on page 21 which reads: “Any person who maliciously engages in disinformation about the intent and provisions of this Act.” should be deleted in its entirety in order to afford widest latitude to freedom of expression within the limits of existing penal statutes.

Thank you and warmest personal regards.

Very truly yours,
EDCEL C. LAGMAN

this is the revised and latest RH Bill version that is up for review in congress. this consolidates all the other RH Bill that have been filed during the current congress to the original RH Bill 5043.

post your comments here.

Page 1 of 24

Republic of the Philippines

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Quezon City, Metro Manila

Fifteenth Congress

First Regular Session

HOUSE BILL NO. _____

(In substitution to House Bill Nos. 96, 101, 513, 1160, 1520 & 3387)

Introduced by

Honorables Edcel C. Lagman, Arnulfo Fegarido Go, Janette L. Garin, Arlene Bag-ao, Walden Bello, Rodolfo G. Biazon, Rodante D. Marcoleta, Augusto Syjuco, Luzviminda Ilagan, Emerenciana De Jesus, Robert Estrella, Mar-Len Abigail S. Binay, Francis Emmanuel R. Ortega, Nur Gaspar Jaafar, Eufranio C. Eriguel, M.D., Ma. Angelica M. Amante-Matba, Catalina Leonen-Pizzaro, Marc Douglas Cagas IV, Salvador Escudero IIII, Napoleon Dy, Nur-Ana Sahidulla, Romeo Jalosjos Jr, Ignacio Arroyo Jr., Carol Jayne B. Lopez, Ronald V. Singson, Abigail C. Ferriol, Jeffrey Padilla Ferrer, Joel Roy Duavit, Jesus “Boying” F. Celeste, Teddy A. Casiño, Teddy Brawner

Baguilat Jr., Simeon A. Datumanong, Seth F. Jalosjos, Josefina Manuel Joson, Raymond Democrito C. Mendoza, Reena Concepcion G. Obillo, Raymond V. Palatino, Carlos Mapili Padilla, Angelo B. Palmones, Philip Arreza Pichay, Jesus Crispin Catibayan Remulla, Mark Aeron H. Sambar, Danilo Etorma Suarez, Susan A. Yap, Jose F. Zubiri III, Antonio L. Tinio, Victor Jo Yu, Ana Cristina Siquian Go, Emmeline Y. Aglipay, David L. Kho, Imelda Quibranza-Dimaporo, Vicente Florendo Belmonte Jr., Rodolfo Castro Fariñas, Eric Gacula Singson Jr., Narciso Recio Bravo Jr., Orlando Bongcawel Fua, Roy Maulanin Loyola, Mary Mitzi Lim Cajayon, Arturo Ompad Radaza, Pastor M. Alcover Jr., Leopoldo Nalupa Bataoil, Victor Francisco Campos Ortega,

Sharon S. Garin, Nicanor M. Briones, Godofredo V. Arquiza, Nancy Alaan Catamco, Acmad Tomawis, Mohammed Hussein P. Pangandaman, Elmer Ellaga Panotes, Aurora Enerio Cerilles, Antonio Chaves Alvarez, Rodel M. Batocabe, Enrique Murphy Cojuangco, Bernardo Mangaoang Vergara, Daisy Avance-Fuentes, Luis Robredo Villafuerte, Cresente C. Paez, Michael Angelo C. Rivera, Antonio Diaz, Jose Ping-ay, Teodorico Haresco, Josephine Veronique Lacson-Noel, Solaiman Pangandaman, Kimi S. Cojuangco, Jerry Perez Treñas, Niel Causing Tupas, Jr., Florencio Tadiar Flores, Jr., Jorge “Bolet” Banal, Rafael V. Mariano, Teddy A. Casiño, Neri Colmenares

AN ACT

PROVIDING FOR A COMPREHENSIVE POLICY ON RESPONSIBLE PARENTHOOD,

REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH, AND POPULATION AND DEVELOPMENT, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the Philippines

in Congress assembled:

Page 2 of 24

SECTION 1. Title. This Act shall be known

1 as the “The Responsible

2     Parenthood, Reproductive Health and Population and Development Act of 2011.”

3    SEC. 2. – Declaration of Policy. – The State recognizes and guarantees the

4    exercise of the universal basic human right to reproductive health by all persons,

5     particularly of parents, couples and women, consistent with their religious convictions,

6     cultural beliefs and the demands of responsible parenthood. Toward this end, there

7     shall be no discrimination against any person on grounds such as sex, age, religion,

8     sexual orientation, disabilities, political affiliation and ethnicity.

9     Moreover, the State recognizes and guarantees the promotion of gender

10     equality, equity and women’s empowerment as a health and human rights concern. The

Read more…

Categories: reproductive health, RH Bill 5043 Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

2M/year added to philippine population, will reach 100M by 2014 – can the country afford it?

January 5, 2011 7 comments

with a growth rate of 2.04%, the country adds 2M to the population every year. ithe population is expected to reach 96M this year and at the current rate, it will reach 100M as soon as 2014.

100M in the philippines is very hard to imagine but it will happen sooner than what we want it to be.

source: http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=644561&publicationSubCategoryId=63

by rank, the philippines has the 12th largest population in the world. bur the story should not end there. size of population per se is not a bad thing. we need to look at other things to see whether the size makes sense or not.

for sure, population growth rate matters.  growth rates show the number of people we add to the population given a specific cycle. it makes sense to conclude that from a population growth standpoint, the slower, the better. after all, we live in a finite world and that includes the philippines. the country has very defined boundaries, it is a finite space. we just can’t pile each person on top of the other when horizontal space runs out.

we should look at other things – one is nominal GDP.

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population

This article includes a list of countries of the world sorted by their gross domestic product (GDP), the market value of all final goods and services from a nation in a given year. The GDP dollar estimates presented here are calculated at market or government official exchange rates.

Several economies which are not considered to be countries (world, the EU, Eurozone, and somedependent territories) are included in the list because they appear in the sources. These economies are not ranked in the charts here, but are listed.

The first list includes 2010 data1 for members of the International Monetary Fund.

The second list shows the World Bank‘s 2009 estimates, and the third list includes mostly 2009 estimates from the CIA World Factbook.

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)

a country is like a family – a family has a size, a specific number of people and it also has income. the family uses this income to support the family’s needs like food to feed it’s members, clothing,  medicine, rent, education, transportation and leisure plus other needs of the household.

the more income you have with the same family members the better. when the number of people in the family increase, then the amount of income needs to increase as well for the family to be able to maintain the same lifestyle and needs. that can be difficult for many families as it is not easy to increase income – one cannot  easily get a promotion or other members of the family take on new jobs or source of income.

“living  within your means” comes to mind as the smart thing to do.

family income is GDP to a country and population of a country is to family size to families. both have expenses.

common sense tells you and it is the smart thing, that since the philippines has the 12th largest population in the world, the country needs to have GDP or income that ranks also 12th in the world. the 12th most populous should have the 12th largest GDP in the world.

that is not the case.  here is the top 20 GDP ranking in the world.

source:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)

okay, the philippines is not among the top 20 in the world in GDP, so maybe it is slighly lower, say to 40.  it is not ideal but at least it is close.

well, not true. the philippines GDP size is not even among the top 40.

the fact is in terms of GDP, the philippines ranks among the top 50 in the world, 47th largest to be specific.

the country has the 12th largest population in the world and yet it only has the 47th largest GDP in the world.

your conclusions and thoughts?

%d bloggers like this: