“Unintended consequences” is a phrase policy makers, legislators, and those in the academe should get to know intimately. That certain measures may cause effects not fully comprehended. Hence why it’s said that the road to Hell is not only paved with good intentions; it’s lighted, gilded, and fully furnished with it.
Take Republic Act No. 11210, which provides for 105 days of full paid maternity leave, regardless of whether the birth is normal or cesarean (the previous law allowed for 60 and 78 days paid leave, respectively), for private and public sector women employees, plus the option to take an additional unpaid 30 days off.
The question is: who’s paying for all this?
For private sector women, it’s the SSS and employers (the latter also responsible for differentials between the SSS cash benefits and the employee’s regular wages). For government employees, it’s ultimately the government, which (of course) means taxes.
Hence, effectively this: private employers and taxpayers that had nothing to do with the pregnancy of the women involved are paying and caring for the pregnancies and births.
For government employees, such is within the context of a P560 billion budget deficit, with the budget ballooning to P3.7 trillion for 2019 and a national debt of P7.2 trillion. For context, the budget in 2009 was merely P1.426 trillion, the national debt then P4.4 trillion.
But if the government is that generous in allocating taxpayer money for childbearing, then why did government push for the Reproductive Health (RH) Law, the purpose of which is to limit childbearing?
And remember, the RH Law already allotted tax money for the purpose of giving free contraceptives to married and single people. So why further burden Philippine businesses and citizens with the costs of somebody else’s child?
Why shouldn’t the married couple or single woman take responsibility for the decision to be pregnant and care for their own children?
Notably, single mothers — whether private or public sector — also have the option of an additional 15 days fully paid leave. That’s 120 days. Not even the US, with a $319 billion budget deficit and $22 trillion public debt, is that generous: all the federal government mandates is 90 days unpaid leave.
Our present tax system also contradicts RA 11210. Single? Family with dependents? No difference. All first P250,000 incomes are tax exempt.
The law effectively discourages taxpayers from having children.
Add the legislative pushes for same-sex marriage and divorce.
Yet the Philippine fertility rate is falling: 2019 registering 2.87 births per woman, compared to 3.21 in 2009. The population is ageing: senior citizens in 2019 are expected to make up 8.2% of the population, compared to 6.8% in 2012. This for a country that was optimistically hoping to take advantage of the “demographic sweet spot” in relation to the ageing populations of China and other rich countries.
Then there is RA 8972 (the “Solo Parent Act”), which provides for taxpayer-funded housing, education, and health benefits for single mothers.
This is really either confused policy or misplaced charity: the government is discouraging Filipinos from having kids; but if you do become pregnant, you need not take full responsibility as many other random people will do that for you.
The government should be encouraging responsible whole families, not broken ones.
We need fathers and mothers to do their duty together and not coddle them when they run away from it.
Barack Obama famously said: “We know the statistics — that children who grow up without a father are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime; nine times more likely to drop out of schools and twenty times more likely to end up in prison. They are more likely to have behavioral problems, or run away from home, or become teenage parents themselves. And the foundations of our community are weaker because of it.”
Or as education expert Joy Pullman puts it: “Babies don’t generate spontaneously. They are made by a man and a woman together, and they are owed provision from that same man and woman. There is simply no other way to have a well-functioning society. All the other mothers and fathers owe provision to their own children, and prudent families should not be plundered to subsidize imprudent families.”
An argument proffered is that extended paid leaves make women happier and more productive, thus strengthening gender equality.
Ironically, such leaves harm women rather than empower them.
If indeed the leaves helped productivity, companies would have long ago voluntarily offered that in their compensation packages. Yet government has to force people to do so.
Government-mandated leaves actually encourage workplace discrimination, attitudinally relative to hiring and promotion, particularly as it removes women longer from their careers. It also further promotes a culture of women exclusively taking care of children rather than in full partnership with the fathers.
Hopefully, our people wake up and elect a Congress that places more value and importance in family, self-reliance, and personal responsibility.
Jemy Gatdula is a Senior Fellow of the Philippine Council for Foreign Relations and a Philippine Judicial Academy law lecturer for constitutional philosophy and jurisprudence.
jemygatdula@yahoo.com
www.jemygatdula.blogspot.com
facebook.com/jemy.gatdula
Twitter @jemygatdula
