Why the Constitution used the phrase "from the moment of conception" and not "from the moment of fertilization" was not because of doubt when human life begins, but rather, because: Mr. Tingson: x x x x the phrase from the moment of conception" was described by us here before with the scientific phrase "fertilized ovum" may be beyond the comprehension of some people; we want to use the simpler phrase "from the moment of conception." 152 Thus, in order to ensure that the fertilized ovum is given ample protection under the Constitution, it was discussed: Rev. Rigos: Yes, we think that the word "unborn" is sufficient for the purpose of writing a Constitution, without specifying "from the moment of conception." Mr. Davide: I would not subscribe to that particular view because according to the Commissioner's own admission, he would leave it to Congress to define when life begins. So, Congress can define life to begin from six months after fertilization; and that would really be very, very, dangerous. It is now determined by science that life begins from the moment of conception. There can be no doubt about it. So we should not give any doubt to Congress, too.153 Upon further inquiry, it was asked: Mr. Gascon: Mr. Presiding Officer, I would like to ask a question on that point. Actually, that is one of the questions I was going to raise during the period of interpellations but it has been expressed already. The provision, as proposed right now states: The State shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from the moment of conception. When it speaks of "from the moment of conception," does this mean when the egg meets the sperm? Mr. Villegas: Yes, the ovum is fertilized by the sperm. Mr. Gascon: Therefore that does not leave to Congress the right to determine whether certain contraceptives that we know today are abortifacient or not because it is a fact that some of the so-called contraceptives deter the rooting of the ovum in the uterus. If fertilization has already occurred, the next process is for the fertilized ovum to travel towards the uterus and to take root. What happens with some contraceptives is that they stop the opportunity for the fertilized ovum to reach the uterus. Therefore, if we take the provision as it is proposed, these so called contraceptives should be banned. Mr. Villegas: Yes, if that physical fact is established, then that is what is called abortifacient and, therefore, would be unconstitutional and should be banned under this provision.