VICE-Governor Dionisio Victor A. Balite of Bohol has persuaded his members of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan he chairs for a ceasefire in voting for a controversial Ordinance for the sake of Christmas this year.
He effectively put the brake for a near-clash in voting of the Proposed Provincial Ordinance No. 017-2023 sponsored and defended by Board Member Vierna Mae Boniel-Maglasang after Board Member Gloria B. Gementiza manifested her objection to said measure during the second reading.
For without the vice-governor stopping it, the said ordinance would have been rejected considering that the ruling majority of the board allied with the vice-governor and governor had the numbers, plus Lawrence Xavier Ancla, the newly-installed Sangguniang Kabataan provincial federation president of Bohol.
The said legislative measure is entitled, “An Ordinance Prohibiting Any Act of Discrimination Based on Sex, Age, Gender, Disability, Race, Status, Sexual Orientation and Religious Affiliation and Penalizing the Same.”
The vice-governor ordered for the tackling of the said measure during the first SP session of next year (2024).
As this developed, Gementiza withdraw her objection to the proposed ordinance, and thereafter, Boniel and BM Arcamo also retracted their motions for approval and second, respectively.
The ceasefire will give ample time for the opposition to present their rebuttal on the proposed ordinance, like to prove if is it really a duplication or redundant, or not, during the protracted second reading.
Gementiza, who represents the Philippine Councilor’s League of the Philippines (PCL)-Bohol chapter, said that the said Maglasang-sponsored measure is a duplication of the Gender and Development (GAD) Code of Bohol.
She said, “For example, Mr. Chair, Section 2, declaration of policy, letter A, it is already in GAD Code Section 2.1.3. Also Section 2b, it is already in GAD Code Section 2.1, Section 2.14, Section 2.24 in Article XI. And also C, it is also in GAD Code, Section 2.1.5 and Section 2.2.4 and also the definition of discrimination and gender is also in GAD Code and in Section 4, act of discrimination and employment is also in GAD Code. Sections 30, 40, 60, 62, 63, and 71. The discrimination and education also in GAD Code, Section 49 and Section 62. Then, also in No. 5, it’s in GAD Code and in Section 73. So, that is why, Mr. Chair, the reason why I object on the said ordinance, it’s because we have much laws in the national level.”
Gementiza also said that in tackling the said Ordinance, some key persons, GAD focal person and Office the Provincial Social Welfare and Development (OPSWD) were not invited during the committee meeting. Both said that “the ordinance has a duplication of our GAD Code.”
Boniel appeared to be standing firm on her pet measure. “On the contrary, it has undergone extensive support and preparation before reaching the stage of its second reading. The fact that the ordinance has made it this far suggests that it has been subject to careful consideration. This step is crucial to ensure that the ordinance is well-informed, evidence-based and effective in combating against discrimination.”
She added that “delaying the proceeding risks undermining the existing support, enthusiasm, or change.”
BM Arcamo came in rescue of his ally Boniel. He had this to say, “The GAD Code concerns more on the rights of women because women now ask for equality, gender sensitive. We should not disregard or consider women as a second kind or inferior to men. We should be equal, that’s the concern of the GAD Code. Whereas, the concern of this proposed provincial ordinance is to arrest, prohibit, and penalize discrimination based on sex, age, gender, disability, race, sexual status and sexual orientation and religious affiliation. Both ordinance can co-exist because their objectives are different.”
“So, by adopting some of the definitions of the GAD Code, we will not hinder this ordinance’s repetition or redundant because it’s just adopted some of the provisions and the declaration of principles of the GAD Code. It harmonizes with the provisions of the GAD Code, not conflict with the GAD Code,” he added. (ricobedencio@yahoo.com)
