The ongoing debate on the Reproductive Health bill helps people understand issues behind it. Many debate about the bill without understanding its salient points but it’s important to keep the discussion dispassionate.
I know people who have taken strong positions on the RH bill while many are confused about the bill’s proposals for artificial contraception and whether, according to the Catholic Church, these are considered abortiafacients or substances that cause abortion. Public dicourse hopefully clears up some of the confusion. Whose expert opinion can be accepted by both parties?
On the issue of sanctions on an employer who cannot provide materials required in the RH bill, will these be imposed even though the employer is a Catholic who disagrees with the bill? Are there exemptions especially if compliance would violate a person’s personal beliefs?
I think our newspapers should see to it that there is a deeper discussion instead of name-calling and emotional issues that distracts from a full discussion.
The Catholic Church and its followers should take the issue to a higher level instead of engaging in name-calling. Let’s debate intelligently so that people are enlightened.
* * *
Cebu City Mayor Mike Rama has a problem with his decision to demolish dwellings of illegal occupants on and near the Mahiga Creek.
Creek dwellers, backed by the group of former mayor Tommy Osmeña and his former city administrator Bimbo Fernandez, filed an administrative case against Rama over the mayor’s failure and refusal to provide for a relocation site or financial aid for displaced settlers.
I think the issue can be resolved with Cebu City’s two congressmen Tommy Osmeña and Cutie del Mar helping the city government by providing funds from their pork barrels.
If squatters insist on a relocation site that is accessible to their livelihood, the city government can allocate a portion of the South Road Properties (SRP) as the best site.
Mayor Rama is correct in saying this problem of illegal riverside dwellers has been confronting the city for a while for which he has exhibited the necessary and rare political will to address it.
The action taken by Rama is not for the benefit of any group but for the safety and welfare of the illegal occupants and the rest of the city population.
It is unfortunate though that some personalities are making political hay over the mayor’s decision.
What if the mayor listens to them; will the problem of illegal squatting get solved? A policy of no-demolition is wrong because actually encourages people to squat in land where they are are not supposed to be in order to enjoy a relocation site in the future.
It becomes an incentive for illegal settlers to squat anywhere when they know they can’t be touched even by the government for as long as no relocation sites are provided.
Now that Patambayayong, an urban poor housing foundation, is demanding a relocation site for the Mahiga creek dwellers, why shouldn’t Mayor Rama consider allocating a portion of the SRP?
This addresses the issue raised by Pagtambayayong, whose president is the previous Cebu City administrator, and can help the city with its financial concerns. After all Cebu City is the owner of the reclaimed lands in the SRP.
I think it would be best for all stakeholders to sit down and discuss this to arrive to an acceptable solution. The policy of taking illegal settlers out of the present site is non-negotiable but finding a relocation site is something that can be discussed.