Pacquiao vs Lagman on the RH Bill

By now, you have probably read the articles of different news site regarding the pathetic fight Pacquiao put up against veteran Congressman Lagman. If not, you can read the article of ABS-CBN News, and GMA News about the said debate by clicking on the links provided.

What you’ll find in common on both articles is that it both ended with Lagman saying that Pacquiao may not have been up to date with the latest amendments on the House Bill 4244 or the Reproductive Health Bill.

With that, I think it’s a fair conclusion that Pacquiao was clearly outclassed by the veteran lawmaker. Just basing on the articles made by the 2 giant networks, Pacquiao clearly didn’t know what was going on or was not updated with what was already amended.

On my part, since I have been following the RH bill’s progress in congress, tried to find the amended version of the bill. During my searches, I found this article from the CBCP website.

According to the article, after the part where Lagman stated that Pacquiao has not been updated with the amendments, Pacquiao questioned why there were amendments to the bill when they were still in the period of interpellations. During the 2nd reading of a bill, there is a chance of amending any part of the bill that the lawmakers want to amend AFTER the period of interpellations. See below:

In an unexpected turn in the line of questioning, the pound-for-pound fighter then asked the solon from Albay why there were amendments to the bill when they were still in the period of interpellations. Once a bill has passed the committee level, amendments may only be proposed and accepted during the period of amendments that comes after the period of interpellations.

Lagman responded by relating the March 22 deviation he and ACT-TEACHERS Party List Rep. Antonio Tinio carried out in which the proposed amendments were merely voiced out. This took place after the Committee on Population and Family Relations had already formally approved the Committee Report.

Pacquiao then asked Lagman by what rules these supposed amendments were accepted, as the period of amendments were yet to be reached. Lagman was unable to provide an answer.

In other words, the so-called amendments that Lagman and the bill’s co-authors have been insisting are still proposed amendments. The current version of House Bill 4244—which contains provisions on mandatory reproductive health and sex education (Sec. 16), ideal family size (Sec. 20), and employers’ responsibility to provide RH services to employees (Sec. 21), as well on malicious disinformation under “punitive acts” (Sec. 28)—stands

Unfortunately, I could not verify from other sources this part of the speech as most news network cut their coverage after Lagman said that Pacquiao wasn’t updated.

I have read several claims in the past that the mainstream media usually tailor their coverage or what they show to their viewers to get their desired public opinion. Was Pacquiao a victim of this practice?


About Squared
House of Squared is written by that guy who knows more than the average Duterte supporter, which isn't saying much given that most of them are morons.

One Response to Pacquiao vs Lagman on the RH Bill

  1. Joel says:

    The “liberal” mainstream media usually tailor their coverage or what they show to their viewers to get their desired public opinion. This is true in the Philippines as we ll as in United States.

    Was Pacquiao a victim of this practice? Absolutely!

    Pacquiao may have lots of followers but the RH BILL hawkers manage to entice the public and some celebrities to believed and think that they are well informed. The public’s opinion is obviously tilted in favor for passing the RH Bill.

    I was actually impress with Pacquiao’s interpellations. He earned my respect because of his humility by not reacting to the obvious condescending attitude of Lagman. The tone of his voice in addressing Pacquiao’s query was, in my opinion, inappropriate for a Congressman of his stature.

    Cong. Pacquiao was right when he ask about their claim amendments which should be treated as proposed amendments and therefore subject for acceptance and inclusion into their proposed Bill.

    The public’s negative reaction towards Manny’s seemingly “lack of preparation” was due to the media’s limited coverage. They try to show the side that would make Manny look like an idiot. When in fact his questions we’re relevant and in target.

    This RH Bill we’ll self destruct when the Anti-RH Bill group begins attacking it with Science instead of just focusing on morality.

    Thanks for your article.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: