Anti Condom Ordinance makes Ayala Alabang trend on Twitter (updated)

An affluent village in the Philippines got to trend on twitter today.  Most twitters were shocked to learn of a village ordinance entitled, “An Ordinance providing for the safety and protection of the unborn child within the Territorial jurisdiction of Barangay Ayala-Alabang; Fixing Penalties for its Violations, and for other purposes.”  The ordinance was passed on 3 January 2011.

According to Mulat Pinoy, a site dedicated to population and development,

“The ordinance seeks, among others, to penalize any natural or juridical person to advertise by billboards, brochures, leaflets, flyers or similar means or any manner of form, sell, offer for free or endorse, promote, prescribe or distribute abortifacients. Abortifacients as defined in the ordinance is any device, medicine, substance or practice which may damage, injure, interfere with the natural development, endanger or cause the expulsion or death of an unborn child. It includes intrauterine devices (IUDs) and hormonal contraceptives.”

Full text of the Ordinance was published by Alabang Bulletin.

What did twitters say about the ordinance when word came out about this Ayala Alabang ordinance?

[blackbirdpie url=”″]

[blackbirdpie url=”″]

[blackbirdpie url=”″]

[blackbirdpie url=”″]

[blackbirdpie url=”″]

[blackbirdpie url=”″]

[blackbirdpie url=”″]

[blackbirdpie url=”″]

[blackbirdpie url=”″]

[blackbirdpie url=”″]


UPDATE: The ordinance was struck down by Muntinlupa City.

[blackbirdpie url=”″]


Cocoy Dayao

Cocoy is the Chief Technology Officer of Lab Rats Technica, a Digital Consulting company that specialises in DevOps, iOS, and Web Apps, E-Commerce sites, Cybersecurity and Social Media consulting. He is a technology enthusiast, political junkie and social observer who enjoys a good cup of coffee, comic books, and tweets as @cocoy on twitter.

Cocoy is also the Managing Director and Editor-in-Chief of the ProPinoy Project.

Cocoy considers himself to be Liberal.

  • Nilo Cantonjos ,

    When couples are locked in the marital embrace, that love is suppose to be life-giving, they must be open to life. But if you suppress it, it’s like saying “God stay out of this…all I want from this is pleasure…”

    People tend to forget that using contraceptive is a mortal sin.
    And an unrepented mortal sin seals his one way ticket to hell. I guess nobody believes in hell anymore. But then again, they will have eternity to believe in it once they’re there

    • Bert ,

      “On one hand we have the pro choice who believe that a woman has he right over her own body and can abort her own child.

      I personally do not agree with that but I am a man and believe that that would be between a woman and her God.”-J_AG

      Well, I am a man, too. But, even if I am a woman, I guess I would still think that a woman killing her own child should be a matter between the killer and the law. But that’s just me.

      • Bert ,

        “The right to life and the means to maintaining a decent life is as valuable and sacred as the life of the unborn.”-J_AG

        I have to agree with that.

        But, if the way to a decent life is by killing innocent unborn children by uncaring and unconscientious adults, then I guess I’ll have to pass. I don’t have the stomach nor the heart for that. Kung gusto ninyong patayin ang inyong anak, kayo na lang. Huwag na ninyo akong isali.

        There are many ways to skin a cat. Killing the unborn for no other justifiable reason/s is not one of my options. I’m sorry.

        • Bert ,

          Going to the nitty-gritty, the crux of the matter with this RH Bill is the stipulations that allow the use of contraceptives considered abortifacients when the law presently being followed according to the constitution is that abortion is not allowed.

          Will this bill, if approved, supercedes the the present law? Will this RH Bill be considered an amendment to the constitution?

          I hope I am making sense with my questions, :). Sorry.

          • UP nn grad ,

            The CBCP says it is anti-abortificent but the CBCP doesn’t want a law passed against clotheshangers.

            Now that — a clotheshanger, after you stretch it out and then curve it a little bit — is an abortificent. Why no bishop asking people to get on their knees and pray the rosary so that Lagman and other Pinas senators and congressmen do not work to outlaw the clotheshanger?????

            • UP nn grad ,

              I think the CBCP doesn’t make campaigns against clotheshanger abortificents because the CBCP-bishops hate the sight and thought of bloody messes.

              Especially when, first thinking clotheshanger at work, and then thinking of the IUD and condom will easily sway college students and even grade four students that the IUD and condom make more sense. Mas pulido, in the words of Pinoys-in-Pilipinas.

              • GabbyD ,


                cmon UP, ur smarter than that.

            • J_ag ,

              On one hand we have the pro choice who believe that a woman has he right over her own body and can abort her own child.

              I personally do not agree with that but I am a man and believe that that would be between a woman and her God.

              I would try to convince her to put up the kid for adoption. But the choice would be with her.

              Then you have the other side led by this bunch at Ayala Alabang who believe that government has a right over the personal choices of couples. The head of the Barangay, Burgos, is probably an Opus Dei guy. His religious views have no place in governance. That is when it gets dangerous.

              Then you have the rest who believe that the state should have a role in intervening in the personal choices of couples because it is good for economics and development

              That is where I draw the line. The mal-development of the state is clearly a failure of governance.

              The government itself does not have a culture of state development.

              Look at the gall of this rich enclave. Setting themselves up as the guardians of morality in a country reeking with poverty. The immorality of social injustices they do not see.

              • GabbyD ,

                what are the social injustices they dont see?

                • J_ag ,

                  These guys want to protect the life of the unborn while the Church talks about valuing human life from womb to tomb.

                  The right to life and the means to maintaining a decent life is as valuable and sacred as the life of the unborn.

                  The moral philosopher who came out with that natural order of things is the same guy who said that left alone man’s self interest would redound for the good of society.

                  His name is Adam Smith. The role of maintaining that order necessary for this to prosper lies with governance. The State as provider of public goods which the private sector is wholly inadequate to do so.

                  • GabbyD ,

                    uhm, this is the answer to “what are the social injustices they dont see?”

                    my mind is blown 🙂

                    adam smith came out with the natural order of things?

                    • J_ag ,

                      Yup believe it or not but Smith was influenced a great deal by the natural division of labor in the natural world.

                      The Fable of the Bees became his basis for the division of labor that he postulated using the manufacture of pins. Instead of a workman doing the entire operation by himself he theorized correctly that dividing the work amongst a crew would lead to greater productivity.

                      He called the natural instinct in man the invisible hand that later became what Keynes called the animal spirits.

                      This was years before Darwin. It was Smith who postulated that the property that a man has in his labor is the most sacred of all.

                      He set the basis for we know of today as classical economics and capitalism..

                      “The property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable.”

                      Smith predated Marx.

                      “Every man is rich or poor according to the degree in which he can afford to enjoy the necessaries, conveniences, and amusements of human life.”

                      “But after the division of labor has once thoroughly taken place, it is but a very small part of these with which a man’s labor can supply him. The far greater part of them he must derive from the labor of other people, and he must be rich or poor according to the quantity of that labor which he can command, or which he can afford to purchase. (The capitalist)

                      “The value of any commodity, therefore, to the person who possesses it, and who means not to use or consume it himself, but to exchange it for other commodities, is equal to the quantity of labor which it enables him to purchase or command.

                      “Labor, therefore, is the real measure of the exchangeable value of all commodities.”

                      “The real price of everything, what everything really costs to the man who wants to acquire it, is the toil and trouble of acquiring it.”

                      “What everything is really worth to the man who has acquired it, and who wants to dispose of it or exchange it for something else, is the toil and trouble which it can save to himself, and which it can impose upon other people.”

                      ” What is bought with money or with goods is purchased by labor, as much as what we acquire by the toil of our body. That money or those goods indeed save us this toil. They contain the value of a certain quantity of labor which we exchange for what is supposed at the time to contain the value of an equal quantity.”

                      ” Labor was the first price, the original purchase – money that was paid for all things. It was not by gold or by silver, but by labor, that all the wealth of the world was originally purchased, and its value to those who possess it, and who want to exchange it for some new productions, is precisely equal to the quantity of labor which it can enable them to purchase or command.”

                      “In this popular sense, therefore, labor, like commodities, may be said to have a real and a nominal price. Its real price may be said to consist in the quantity of the necessaries and conveniences of life which are given for it; it nominal price, in the quantity of money. “The labourer is rich or poor, is well or ill rewarded in proportion to the real, not to the nominal price of his labor.” (The basis for the CPI today in monetary policy)

                      “The liberal reward of labor, therefore, as it is the necessary effect, so it is the natural symptom of increasing national wealth. The scanty maintenance of the laboring poor, on the other hand, is the natural symptom that things are at a stand, and their starving condition that they are going fast backwards.”

                      “Servants, laborers and workmen of different kinds, make up the far greater part of every great political society. But what improves the circumstances of the greater part can never be regarded as an inconveniency to the whole. No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable. It is but equity, besides, that they who feed, clothe, and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labor as to be themselves tolerably well fed, clothed, and lodged.”

                      “But in the present state of Europe, when small as well as great estates derive their security from the laws of their country, nothing can be more completely absurd. They are founded upon the most absurd of all suppositions, the supposition that every successive generation of men have not an equal right to the earth, and to all that it possesses, but that the property of the present generation should be restrained and regulated according to the fancy of those who died perhaps 500 years ago.” (Land Reform)

                      The entire basis for liberal democracy had as its basis the liberal economics and moral philosophy enunciated by Adam Smith.
                      He published this in 1776.

              • Bert ,

                I am being confused by this post.

                As far as I understand it, the Brgy. Ayala Alabang ordinance is not an anti-condom ordinance, but more an ordinance against the advertisement and the use of abortifacients.

                Or, am I missing something? Will somebody point out to me what it is that I am missing?

                Having said that, I think that it is just logical to assume that those who oppose the ordinance are pro-abortion, and those who agree with the ordinance are anti-abortion advocates.

                How’s that guys?

                • GabbyD ,

                  i quoted (a) relevant portion in my comment above.

                  • Bert ,

                    Ah, yes, GABBYD, you have the same observation.

                    What confuses me is the title of this post by Cocoy, “Anti Condom Ordinance….”.

                • UP nn grad ,

                  gabbyD: Isn’t Pilipinas constitution about “… at conception”, not at the holding-hands or the kissing-kissing foreplay, not even at the penetration?

                  Now, I don’t know if CBCP says “sanctity…” extends to the holding-hands or kissing-kissing or foreplay, do you know?

                  • UP nn grad ,

                    I ask because if CBCP says that Pilipinas should encourage all things that, in the natural scheme of things, can lead to conception, then parents should get out of the way when their 15-year olds engage in kissing-kissing or foreplay or even penetration. Or did CBCP say “…only when done in a marriage” and to do something to prevent, when done outside a marriage?

                    CBCP teachings — confusing. Especially when you know of priests that have children but are ordered by their superiors to ignore that natural disposition of fathers (biological fathers) to want to be a father to their child.

                  • GabbyD ,

                    i dont even understand Ansioco’s complaints:

                    1) an unborn is not a child?
                    why not? — unless u think an unborn is NOT a person, then its not a child!

                    2) IUD and hormonal contraceptives arent abortifacent?
                    but they DO interfere with the implantation of the embryo.

                    thats a fact! so whats the problem?

                    see, “safety” and “efficicacy” is NEVER the issue. YES, to they mother, they are safe and it works. but to the unborn, they are the OPPOSITE OF SAFE.

                    • Durex ,

                      Yes continue to believe that contraception is a sin…..

                      You guys prepare to see a sperm being born and starved to death.

                      Philippines is already one of the poorest in South east Asia. What else you want? To be the poorest in the world!!!

                    • UP nn grad ,

                      Will Ochoa-Lacierda-Carandang tell deLima and PresiNoynoy to surrender to this baranggay ordinance?

                      • GabbyD ,

                        there is NOTHING here about condoms.

                        i dont get it? where does it say CONDOMS?

                        • GabbyD ,

                          i see it. it quotes the pharmacy ordinance itself:

                          “The pertinent provisions of Republic Act No. 5921 entitled AN ACT REGULATING THE PRACTICE OF PHARMACY AND SETTING STANDARDS OF PHARMACEUTICAL EDUCATION IN THE PHILIPPINES AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES enacted into law June 21, 1969 are hereby incorporated into the Ordinance as an integral part thereof and are reproduced as follows:
                          “Section 37. Provisions relative to dispensing of anti-conceptional substances and devices. No drug or chemical product or device capable of provoking abortion or preventing conception as classified by the Food and Drug Administration shall be delivered or sold to any person without a proper prescription by a duly licensed physician.


                          “Conception or Fertilization – refers to the time that the sperm fertilizes the egg, which starts a new life that has a distinct existence and genetic make-up of its own;”

                          — thus the problem isnt the AAV ordinance. its the pharmacy law.

                          • GabbyD ,

                            btw, the pharmacy law was passed in 1959.

                            i dont think it even agrees with the 1987 constitution. if theres ever a law to be fixed, its the pharmacy law.