Disabled Filipinos still ignored despite RA 7277

Philippine Daily Inquirer 09/25/2009 Filed Under: Laws, Disabled This is to commend Raul C. Pangalangan for his column. Continuing travails of disabled Filipinos. (Inquirer, 8/28/09) Pangalangan hit the nail right on the head. Filipinos with disabilities continue to suffer from discriminatory acts of their own countrymen, even in their very own country, the Philippines. There is a Magna Carta for Persons with Disabilities (Republic Act 7277), as amended by RA 9442. The Department of Finance, through the Bureau of Internal Revenue, issued Revenue Regulation 1-2009 (dated Dec. 8, 2008) for the benefit of persons with disabilities (PWDs). In my experience as a disabled person, I have not enjoyed any of the benefits I am entitled to under the law, especially the 20-percent discount in drugstores, restaurants and public transport utilities (jeepneys, FXs and buses), even after I have shown them my PWD ID card from the Department of Social Welfare and Development. I hope that through this letter, the concerned people will take the appropriate action for the benefit of people like me: persons with disabilities. I also hope Sen. Edgardo Angara will expand the coverage of Senate Bill 65 (which is primarily intended to benefit senior citizens) to include persons with disabilities. REYNALDO A. CUNANAN,

Job opportunities for handicapped pushed

Manila Bulletin By CHITO A. CHAVEZ June 25, 2011 MANILA, Philippines To provide equal opportunity to the disabled, a Quezon City councilor has proposed a resolution urging the citys business establishments to employ handicapped persons. Councilor Allan Benedict Reyes of the citys third district said in his proposal that qualified disabled persons should be granted the same terms and conditions of employment as qualified able-bodied employees. Reyes proposal would strengthen further the Magna Carta for Disabled Persons (Republic Act 7277, as amended by Republic Act 9442) provides equal opportunity for employment for persons with disabilities. People with physical handicaps should be provided with level playing fields to enhance their expertise. A computer programmer or a market analyst for example need not to look like a hunk or superman to perform their duties well, Reyes said. Under the law, no disabled person shall be denied access to opportunities for suitable employment. Reyes said the objective of Magna Carta for Disabled Persons is not based merely on charity or accommodation but on justice and the equal treatment of qualified persons, disabled or not.

DOH warns buyers, users of banned, oversized firecrackers

The Philippine Star December 29, 2011 By Sheila Crisostomo MANILA, Philippines - An official of the Department of Health (DOH) yesterday said those who threw the Goodbye Philippines firecracker that blew off the right leg of a 21-year-old man are criminally liable. DOH Assistant Secretary Dr. Eric Tayag said those buying or using banned

and oversized firecrackers such as Goodbye Philippines are liable under Republic Act 7183 or An Act Regulating the Sale, Manufacture and Use of Firecrackers and other Pyrotechnic Devices. Tayag said the victim, whom he declined to identify, could choose to file criminal charges against the people who threw the oversized firecracker at him. When I paid him a visit, he (the victim) has an idea who were behind (the act) the victim is a mason so his mother was at a loss on what will (now) happen to him. Well work so that hell have an artificial leg, Tayag said. Reports said the victim was urinating by an electric post outside his house in Bocaue, Bulacan when the giant firecracker exploded nearby shortly after midnight on Christmas Day. Mansueto was rushed to Jose Reyes Memorial Medical Center in Manila where his right leg was amputated from below the knee. Authorities said the firecracker was a Goodbye Philippines, triangular shaped and measuring 10 inches on each side. It has been banned since it was introduced two years ago. Interior Secretary Jesse Robredo said he would conduct an inspection himself on firecracker stores in Bocaue, Bulacan today. Robredo said he is not taking chances on the compliance of firecracker manufacturers on safety regulations. Robredo said the inspection was meant to prevent injuries and untoward incidents similar to 2010 when at least two fireworks factories in Bulacan exploded, one in the town of Baliuag and another in Angat. No one was injured in the Baliuag blast, while one was killed and eight others were injured in the explosion in Angat, which also damaged several houses nearby. Records from the Bureau of Fire Protection (BFP) showed that in 2010, firecrackers caused about 50 fire incidents nationwide, up by 13 percent from the 2009 figures. Robredo ordered the BFP to ensure accident-free revelries by immediately conducting fire safety inspection on all establishments in the country dealing with the manufacture, distribution and sale of firecrackers and other pyrotechnics. Despite the crackdown on oversized firecrackers, the list of revelry-related injuries ahead of New Years Day increases by the day, with a young

housewife wounded by a stray bullet in Caloocan City. Police said Ginalyn Tomarong of Phase 6, Purok 4, Camarin was watching a fireworks display with her family when she was hit in the abdomen late Wednesday. In Laguna, 17-year-old Sheryly Destejoo was also hit and wounded by a stray bullet in front of her house in Barangay Tunhac, Famy town. A one-year-old girl was also hit by a stray bullet on her left foot inside their house in Bayugan City, Agusan del Sur on Christmas Day. Police said Patricia Heart Lumayno Baligo was hit on the foot while she was being carried by her aunt Apple May Abalayan who noticed the victim bleeding. Police said the bullet passed through the roof of the house and hit the victims foot. Authorities in Pangasinan also reported three people, including two children, were hurt in a firecracker blast. The government-owned Region 1 Medical Center (R1MC) in Pangasinan said they have already recorded 49 cases of firecracker-related injuries less than a week before New Years Day.

Firecrackers to avoid
Inquirer Northern Luzon December 29, 2011 MANILA, PhilippinesThe law has always been clear about which firecrackers should be avoided for the dangers these pose to people, whether theyre users or mere bystanders. Republic Act 7183, which regulates the sale, manufacture, distribution and use of firecrackers and other pyrotechnic devices, provides a list of regulated fireworks: * Baby rocketA firecracker with a stick so constructed that lighting of the wick will propel the whole thing to lift a few meters before exploding. The firecracker head is about 1-and-a-half inches in length by 3/8 inch in diameter while the stick is about a foot in length. * BawangA firecracker larger than a trianggulo with 1/3 teaspoon of powder packed in cardboard [which is tied] with abaca strings and wrapped

[to simulate] the shape of [a clove of] garlic. * Small triangguloA [triangular-shaped] firecracker with a powder content [that is] less than the [powder composition of] bawang and usually wrapped in brown paper measuring inch length on its longest side. * Pull-string poppers A firecracker consisting of a small tube about an inch in length and less than half of an inch in diameter with strings on each end. Pulling both strings will cause the firecracker to explode. * Paper capsMinute amount of black powder spread in either small strips of paper on a small sheet used for childrens toy guns. * El DiabloA firecracker tubular in shape [which is] about 1 inches in length and less than inch in diameter with a wick. It is also known as labintador. * Judahs BeltA string of firecrackers consisting of either diablos or small trianggulos that can number up to a hundred and culminating in large firecracker, usually a bawang. * Skyrocket (kwitis)A bigger version of a baby rocket [which is] designed to be propelled to a height of 40 to 50 feet before exploding. The watusi, also known as dancing fire is listed among the regulated pyrotechnics. It was described by RA 7183 as usually reddish in color about 1 inches in length and 1/10 inch in width usually ignited by friction to produce a dancing movement and a crackling sound. Its chemical components, when ingested, could kill especially small children who have a tendency to put things in their mouths. In 2010, the Department of Trade and Industry included the watusi on its list of prohibited pyrotechnics, which include the Piccolo, Goodbye Philippines, Atomic Big Triangulo, Super Lolo, Lolo Thunder, Pla-pla, Giant Judas Belts, the Giant Bawang, and the Atomic Bomb. On the other hand, the government allows the sale of the following pyrotechnic devices: * SparklersPyrotechnic devices usually made of black powder on a piece of wire or inside a paper tube designed to light up and glow after igniting. * LucesAny of several kinds of sparklers. *FountainA kind of [conically-shaped] sparkler which is lighted on the ground and designed to provide various rising colors and intermittent lights upon being ignited.

* Jumbo regular and specialA kind of sparkler similar to a fountain but bigger in size. * MabuhayA dozen pieces of sparklers [bundled together]. * Roman candleA sparkler similar to a fountain but shaped like a big candle. * TrompilloA pyrotechnic device usually fastened at the center and designed to spin clockwise and then counter-clockwise [when ignited to display] various colored lights. * AirwolfA kind of sky rocket shaped like an airplane with a propeller to [enable it to] rise about 40 or 50 feet. It lights up while aloft. * Whistle deviceAny of the various kinds of firecrackers or pyrotechnic designed to either emit a loud, piercing whistle-like sound or explode after the device is ignited. *ButterflyButterfly-shaped pyrotechnic device designed to lift above ground while providing light. * PailawAll kinds of lighting devices.

Organ Donor Card

Philippine Star August 02, 2010 By Maria Eleanor E. Valeros After watching two people get a second lease at life for having their vision restored through the donated corneas of James Lim and Miko Sotto, I feel the great need to take active participation in the advocacy. Celebrity mom Toni Rose Gayda-Lim donated James cornea the way movie/stage/TV personality Ali Sotto agreed to facilitate donation of teen star Mikos eyes after their sons death. The two were reported to have figured in freak accidents falling off from the verandah and window ledge of their condo units, respectively. Giving a part of themselves so that others may live moved me to tears, most especially at the sight of the emotional recipients. From then on, I made a resolve to share healthy/functional organs instead of whining at the thought of decay and uselessness once my body would be rendered brain dead.

About 25 organs and tissues of our body may be donated for transplantation, this was learned. The most common of which is the kidney. Others include major organs heart, liver, lung and pancreas; and tissues bone and cartilage, bone marrow, corneas and skin. Thousands of Filipinos die every year from organ failure and the lack of organ donors. Many lives can be saved if more Filipinos will donate a part of themselves. The survival rate of organ transplants is quite encouraging. According to data gathered by the National Kidney and Transplant Institute, survival rates for kidney transplants during the first year were registered at 90-95 percent for living-related donors and about 80-85 percent for diseased organ donors. These rates are comparable with the survival rates of similar transplants in other parts of the world. New drugs, improved surgical techniques and a deep commitment of todays team of health care professionals help make transplants safer and more successful. The Human Organ Preservation Effort of the NKTI was created specifically for the retrieval, preservation and allocation of organs and tissues for clinical transplantation. Transplant coordinators are on call 24 hours a day to receive and respond to referrals, this was further learned. Because becoming a donor is a personal and emotional decision, it would be of help for you to talk this first with your family. Explain why youre considering becoming a donor. Let them express how they feel. Keep in mind that helping others by donating organs and tissues could be comforting to the family a symbolic way for you to help others continue to live. Ask your physician for information. He or she can answer many of your questions and can suggest other sources of information that may help you to make a sound and firm decision. Discussions with your physician are most helpful during times of good health. Speak with your friends. Some of them may already carry organ donor cards. If so, ask them why they made that choice. If not, share what you know about organ donation as well. Consult a member of the clergy. Many of the major religious organizations support organ and tissue donation. If you have any specific questions or concerns about your religious organizations position on this issue, talk with a member of the clergy.

The organ donor card is important because it identifies your wish to become an organ donor. Republic Act 7170, the Organ Donation Act of 1991, legalizes this through the organ donor card. In case of a brain dead patient, the following legal requirements must be met before retrieval surgery is undertaken: Declaration of brain death by the patients neurologist, neurosurgeon, or attending physician; and consent for donation from the next of kin in the absence of a donor card. By the way, brain death means that the brain is no longer functioning and there is no more chance of recovery. To accomplish the organ donor card, print or type your name. Indicate whether you want to donate all organs or tissues or only those organs and tissues you have listed. Sign your name in the presence of two witnesses (preferably the next of kin). Request them to sign the card.

A new estate planning tool: organ donation

TODAY, Business Section May19,2003 By: Reynaldo G. Geronimo It was Dr. Gene San Juans donation of his body to the UP Medical School that opened, for me at least, a new area of estate planning: organ donation. His unprecedented act, which used to be the exclusive preserve of convicts abandoned by their families and accident or crime victims too poor to be given a proper burial, demonstrates to the well-to-do that ones lifeless body is as precious a resource as ones worldly possessions. Therefore, a complete estate plan ought to have some well-though-of provision on the disposition of the estate planners dead body. Up until recently, the standard clause is an expression of a desire to be interred in the family mausoleum or burial plot in accordance with the rites of the decedents religion. The good doctor tells us there is a better way to prevent what he considered such a waste. The basic law regarding organ donation in the Philippines is Republic Act 7170, popularly known as the Organ Donation Act of 1991. Three years after it was passed, it was amended by RA 7885, an act to advance corneal transplantation in the Philippines. The regulations implementing both laws are found in Administrative Order 11, series of 1995, issued by the

Department of Health. Together they form the legal framework that governs how, to whom, for what, and by whom a organ donation may be made, as well as how the institutional and professional players concerned are to coordinate and cooperate to carry out the laudable intent of the donor. Who may make an organ donation Sections 3 and 4 of RA 7170 list two kinds of donors who may give away the lifeless human body or its parts. The first is the person himself. To be capable to donating his body, a person must be 18 years of age and of sound mind (Section 3). The law makes no definition of what it takes to have a sound mind. But the traditional meaning of the term in the context of the law on wills provides a working guide: one must known (a) the character of his act, i.e. that it is a disposition effective upon ones death; (b) the nature of his estate, i.e. that it is his own body, not his wealth, he is disposing of; and (c) the proper objects or recipients of his bounty. It requires, evidently, minimal sanity and therefore even our politicians may make a donation of their bodies. Some monkey in the Manila Zoo may benefit from their bounty. The second is any one of a list of relatives of the deceased, provided the decedent had not expressed a contrary intention and no member of the immediate family of the decedent registers an objection. In the order of their priority, those relatives are (a) the spouse; (b) son or daughter of legal age; (c) either parent; (d) brother or sister of legal age; or (e) guardian over the person of the decedent at the time of his death. These persons may make the donation after or immediately before the death of the person whose body it is they are donating (Section 4). A third kind is found in Section 9. These donors, who can step in only in the absence of a donation by the decedent himself and of the persons composing the second group of donors, include the physician in charge of the patient, the head of the hospital who had custody of the body of the deceased classified as accident, trauma or other medico-legal cases. How an organ donation is documented On the authority of Section 8 of RA 7170, a person making a legacy of his own body or body part, to take effect upon his death, may do so by (a) making a will; (b) executing any document other than a will. This may be a card or any paper designed to be carried on a person. If the donation is made through a will, the legacy becomes effective upon the donors death without waiting for the probate of his will. If the will is not probated at all or if it is declared invalid for testamentary purposes, the legacy, to the extent it was executed in good faith. This constitutes an exception to the well-known rule that no will effectively transfers property

without first being probated in a court of law. Person making a legacy through a document other than a will, such as a card or any paper designed to be carried on his or her person, must sign it in the presence of two witnesses who, in turn must also sign in his presence. It also, like a will, takes effect upon his death and is to be respected by and is binding upon the decedents executor or administrator, heirs, assignees, successors-in-interest and all members of his family. The relatives of the decedent who may donate his body or body parts, as authorize under Section 4 of RA 7170, must make their donation under the formalities of a donation of movable property, i.e. in writing, not necessarily a public instrument. In the absence of the persons specified in Section 4 and of any document of organ donation on the part of the decedent, the third kind of donors (those authorized under Section 9) may authorize, in a public document, the removal of a body part for purposes of transplantation to the body of a living person. Before authorizing removal, however, the authorizing person must exert reasonable efforts, for at least 48 hours to locate any of the relatives listed in Section 4 or the guardian of the decedent at the time of his death. If the body part that will be removed is the cornea of the corneas of the deceased, the removal may be authorized within 12 hours after death and upon request of the qualified legatees or donees for transplantation. The removal, however, should not interfere with any subsequent investigation or alter the postmortem facial appearance of the decedent. This may be accomplished by placing eye caps after the cornea or corneas have been removed. To whom and for what purpose the body may be given The donation of the body or body part may be given to (a) any hospital, physician or surgeon, for medical or dental education, research, advancement of medical or dental science, therapy or transplantation (for instance, a scientific inquiry on how it is possible that some presumptuous presidentiables can go around which such big heads containing so little cranial matter); (b) any accredited medical or dental school, college or university, for education, research advancement of medical or dental science or therapy (the UP School of Medicine, for instance, whose anatomy students, I was told, are raring to cut up the guts of some university incumbent officials); (c) any organ bank storage facility, for medical or dental education, research, therapy, or transplantation, among which, I presume, are the National Kidney Institute, Heart Foundation and the Eye Bank Foundation of the Philippines; and (d) any specified individual, for therapy or

transplantation needed by him. Thus, one might want to donate testicles to certain bureaucrats who are too petrified to take decisive action in the national interest on account of the threat of a media attack or an Ombudsman accusation. The implementing agency The natural agency to implement RA 7170 as amended by RA 7885 is the Department of Health. Accordingly, as previously stated, the secretary issued his Administrative Order 11 on June 19, 1995 to prescribe the principles, guidelines, procedures and standards to facilitate compliance with the governing laws and achieve their objectives. Some doctorney (a doctor or medicine who later became a lawyer, or, if any, a lawyer who later became a doctor) ought to examine those regulations which, I suspect, were crafted from a nonlegal perspective. Should organ donation go the way of the memorial plans and move from being taboo to a topic of conversation over the dinner table, some fissures and fractures in the set up may give the laudable system a bad name. For instance, Section 9 of Administrative Order 11, dealing with the information drive to raise the level of public awareness of organ donation, talks of a department order requiring health care workers to routinely inquire if patients under their care are card carrying organ/tissue donors. If not, the health care workers should routinely request the family of a decedent to consider the possibility of organ/tissue donation. I am not too sure I would appreciate, when hovering between life and death from a vehicular accident, being asked if I would like to make a donation of any of my body parts. No that anyone would be interested in receiving my malnourished, medical-care denied, stress-abused and alcoholdrenched body and body parts, but encouraging the health care workers who, more often than not, are connected with, if not employees, of the hospitals and clinics that are qualified recipients of organ donation, to routinely introduce the topic of organ donation to their wards at that time may be less than appropriate, if not fraught with conflict of interest. More serious difficulty is found in Chapter VII dealing with the importation of eye bank equipment and reagents. Section 24 speaks of a list of equipment and reagents which are to be allowed to be imported tax-free under the provisions of RA 7885 by accredited eye/tissue banks. I read the provisions of RA 7885 over and over and did not see any provision authorizing the tax-free importation of eye bank equipment and reagents. At the very least, this portion of the regulation is out of place in this regulation (if tax-free importation is indeed authorized by some other law), if not completely unauthorized (if it is not). But, then my eyes are not the

healthiest, and I myself may be in need of corneal transplant.

DOH celebrates Generic Awareness Month this September

IamFilipino.com September 5th, 2011 by Filipino The Department of Health (DOH) celebrates the Generic Awareness Month this September to promote, and ensure the production of an adequate supply, distribution, use and acceptance of drugs and medicines identified by their generic name. Republic Act No. 6675 otherwise known as the Generics Act of 1988, mandates all government and all those employed by government such as retained hospitals and its medical practitioners to use generic terminology in all transactions related to purchasing, prescribing, dispensing, reimbursing, and administering of drugs and medicines. The act also stipulates that physicians, dentists, and veterinarians are required to indicate the generic names of all drugs prescribed whether through a personal prescription pad or a doctors order sheet in the hospital chart. It is required that generic names of all drugs must always be written first before a brand name which is optional and placed in parentheses.

September is Generics Awareness Month

UGNAYAN August 25, 2011 by: Philippine Information Agency This month of September, the Department of Health (DOH) through the Food and Drugs Administration (FDA) will again spearhead the celebration of "Generics Awareness Month" pursuant to through Republic Act No. 6675. This years theme Generics para sa Kalusugan, Gamot Pangkalahatan Mag GENERICS na" underscores the need to increase awareness on the availability of low cost, safe, and quality medicines, Dr. Sonia Cabahit, FDA 8 Supervisor

informed. The month-long celebration aims to promote, require and ensure the production of an adequate supply, distribution, use and acceptance of drugs and medicines identified by their generic name. Generic medicines have been our unsung heroes in the fight against costly, expensive, abusively- priced medicines. All these years, these generic medicine companies have competed against their high-priced innovator counterparts. Such competition has forced some of these high-priced medicine prices to go down to more affordable levels, just as it has further improved the quality of generic medicines through the years. If more and more doctors prescribe generic medicines and more and more people use generic medicines, these offer more competition to further force medicine prices to go down. Under Republic Act 6675 also known as the Generics Act of 1988, physicians, dentist and veterinarians are required to indicate the generic names of all drugs prescribed whether through a personal prescription pad or a doctor's order sheet in the hospital chart. It is required that generic names of all drugs must always be written first before a brand name which is optional and placed in parenthesis. For violation of this act, the Secretary of DOH shall have the authority to impose administrative sanctions such as suspension or cancellation of license to operate or recommend suspension of license to practice profession to the Professional Regulation Commission as the case may be. The Department of Health (DOH) encourages the public to ask for generic medicines to assure themselves of safe, quality medicines and to save money since generic drugs are cheaper than branded ones.

The Agency : Overview

pdeagov.ph by: PDEA For thirty years, Republic Act 6425, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, had been the backbone of the Philippine drug law enforcement system. Despite the efforts of various law enforcement agencies mandated to implement the law, the drug problem alarmingly escalated. The high profitability of the illegal drug trade, compounded by the then existing laws that imposed relatively light penalties to offenders, greatly contributed to the

gravity of the problem. Recognizing the need to further strengthen existing laws governing Philippine drug law enforcement system, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo signed Republic Act 9165, or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, on June 7,2002 and it took effect on July 4, 2002. R.A. 9165 defines more concrete courses of action for the national anti-drug campaign and imposes heavier penalties to offenders. The enactment of RA 9165 reorganized the Philippine drug law enforcement system. While the Dangerous Drug Board (DDB) remains as the policy-making body, it created the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency(PDEA) under the Office of the President. The new law also abolished the National Drug Law Enforcement and Prevention Coordinating Center, Philippine National Police Narcotics Group (PNP Nargrp), National Bureau of Investigation Narcotics Unit (NBI NU), and the Customs Narcotics Interdiction Office (CNIO). Personnelk of these abolished agencies were to continue to perform their tasks on detail service with the PDEA subject to a rigid screenting process.

Republic Act 6425 as Amended by Republic Act 9165The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002: Its Effect on the Volume of Drug Cases in Dipolog City
National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) Year: 2010 by:Arnel M. Cuivillas This study dealt with the effect of the volume of drug cases before and after implementation of the Republic Act (RA) 9165, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The aim of the study was to determine whether RA 9165 differed significantly from RA 6425 during their implementation. Therefore, the study examined the last 5 years of implementation of RA 6425 and the first 5 years of implementation of RA 9165. The study employed a descriptive survey using a questionnaire checklist, which was handed to randomly selected detainees of the Dipolog City Reformatory Center. Documented data on the head counts of drugrelated cases filed in the police station and the volume of detained persons

due to drugs in the city jail and reformatory center also were utilized. The findings of the study revealed that there was a significant increase in the volume of drug cases in each year toward the end of the implementation of RA 6425 in 2002. However, as RA 9165 was implemented in 2003, a slight decrease in volume was observed and a significant decrease continued as the implementation of RA 9165 continued. Data retrieved from the detainees also stressed that the big difference brought out by RA 6425 and RA 9165 in terms of monetary and number of years of penalty is the reason that made the difference. These results imply that penalty counts a lot in controlling and minimizing criminality in society.