There was jubilation on both sides. Cheers from purple-clad reproductive health (RH) lawyers rang out outside the Supreme Court building when the court`s spokesperson announced Tuesday that the Supreme Court had unanimously declared the 2012 Responsible Reproduction and Reproductive Health Act unconstitutional. But the Supreme Court struck down eight of the law`s provisions during its annual summer session here, something Catholic Church leaders and other opponents of the law found commendable. They also claimed victory. The provisions include provisions on minors` access to contraceptives without parental consent; penalize health care providers who refuse or do not disseminate information about reproductive health programs and a minor`s parental consent in non-emergency situations; and punishing officials who refuse to support reproductive health programmes. After considering the various arguments and allegations of the parties in the above-mentioned consolidated cases, consisting of 14 petitions challenging its constitutionality and two interventions seeking to uphold its constitutionality, the [High] Court unanimously held that RA 10354 was not unconstitutional for the reasons stated, except in respect of [eight] points, said Supreme Court spokesman Theodore Te. Read a prepared statement. Opponents have 15 days to ask the court to reconsider its decision, Te said. Associate Judge Jose Catral Mendoza drafted the court`s opinion on the motions. The ruling came more than a year after the laws were suspended following petitions by the Pro-Life Philippines Foundation Inc. and other Catholic religious groups to declare the law unconstitutional. Catholic groups have attacked Republic Act 10354, signed by President Aquino in December 2012, for allowing the state to use public funds to educate young people on reproductive health issues and provide contraceptives to couples. ALSO: Enough funds for RH DBM On April 8, Supreme Court justices declared the controversial Republic Act (RA) 10354 legally important, with a few exceptions, including under Articles 7, 17 and 23.
Section 3 was an additional provision declared unconstitutional by the High Court. Despite opposition from the powerful Roman Catholic Church in the Philippines, key provisions of the controversial Reproductive Health (RH) bill were upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court of the Philippines (SC) on Tuesday, April 8. The long and bumpy road to the Supreme Court`s decision began nearly 14 years ago. After several changes made by the presidencies, Senate and House of Representatives, the Reproductive Health Bill was finally signed into law by President Benigno Aquino III in December 2012, opposing the position of the very vocal Catholic Bishops` Conference of the Philippines (CBCP). Implementation of the Reproductive Health Act was suspended by the Supreme Court in March 2013 after 14 petitions were filed by anti-HR advocates questioning the constitutionality of the law. The reproductive health bill was “illegal,” according to Atty`s first petition, Jo Imbong (as reported by Rappler.com), because it “mocks the nation`s Filipino culture — noble and sublime in its values and possessions above life, motherhood and family life.” Other petitioners argued in the report that the Reproductive Health Act violates the “right to life” provision of the 1987 constitution and undermines local government autonomy “by obliging local governments to promote reproductive health,” according to a court recommendation. The petitioners against the Altered Sexual Health Act also claimed that the law violated constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion and expression, academic freedom and the prohibition of involuntary servitude. They cited provisions in the Reproductive Health Act that impose fines on health care providers who refuse to conduct RH activities and provisions requiring marriage licence applicants to attend reproductive health seminars before licensing is granted.
Another petition argued that the law violates the Organic Law of the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) by requiring the promotion and support of local communities for reproductive health efforts. The long-awaited Supreme Court ruling now gives the Aquino government the power to require public health centers to distribute condoms and birth control pills free of charge, and to make sex education mandatory in schools. The Supreme Court ruling may also require public health officials to receive training in family planning, as medical care is also legalized after an abortion. The provisions deemed “unconstitutional” are as follows, as set out in the Rappler.com: (1) Section 7, only to the extent that: (a) requires private health facilities, specialized clinics other than maternity and hospitals belonging to religious groups to refer patients who are not in an emergency or life-threatening situation to another easily accessible health facility. (b) Minors who are pregnant or have had a miscarriage without their parents` consent. Although these provisions were removed, former Albay Representative Edcel Lagman (who was also the lead author of the reproductive health bill in the House of Representatives) said the fundamental provisions of the law were not affected. These provisions, as set out in Rappler.com, are: article 3 (a) on the Government`s mandate to provide and distribute reproductive health services free of charge to marginalized acceptors; Section 9 on the National Philippine Drug Form Containing Hormonal Contraceptives, Intrauterine Devices, Injectables, and Other Safe, Legal, Non-Abortifacient, and Effective Family Products and Supplies, as Determined by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA); Article 10 on the purchase and distribution of family planning materials by the Ministry of Health (DOH) for distribution to local governments; Article 14 on adolescent age- and developmentally appropriate reproductive health education in all schools; Role of local authorities in the implementation of the Reproductive Health Act, as provided for in various articles of the Act. § 20 on public awareness and national multimedia campaign for the protection and promotion of reproductive health and rights. Do you agree with the Supreme Court`s decision to uphold the constitutionality of key provisions of the Reproductive Health Act? Should the law now be final and enforceable? In general, the Court does not consider the Reproductive Health Act unconstitutional because it seeks to provide access to medically safe, abortion-free, effective, legal, affordable and high-quality reproductive health services, methods, devices and care, the Court said.
President Benigno Aquino III defied pressure from the Catholic Church and signed the law into law in December 2012, but the Supreme Court quickly suspended it after religious groups filed petitions claiming it was unconstitutional. (READ: HR Law: The Long and Difficult Road) CEBU CITY, Philippines The Supreme Court`s decision declaring the Reproductive Health Act constitutional has not deterred the minds of Visayas-based pro-life advocates, who have vowed to continue fighting the law, which they have called immoral. May God forgive them, said Father Amadeo Alvero, spokesman for the Archdiocese of Palo, referring to the judges who voted for the HR law. He stressed that the Supreme Court`s decision would not change their belief that the HR law is not a law willed by God, but a law made by people hostile to life. The Church, he added, will continue to maintain, respect and promote the life God wants. The bishop of Bacolod, Vicente Navarre, said the provisions rejected by the Supreme Court should be seen as a small triumph. We must act and make a careful study and a strategic pastoral response to this, because this struggle is not yet over, he said. In fact, it has only just begun and today`s event only makes us stronger, he added. Navarra stressed that they will continue to speak against the law and condemn it as an immoral measure that constitutes a serious violation of the principles of the right to life and the dignity of the human person in the light of the authoritative teaching of the Catholic Church.
The challenge is to form and inform the conscience of our faithful, because the real battle against artificial methods of contraception, which are not accessible, is taking place in this sanctuary of conscience and where a choice is made, he said. The second challenge for the Church is to strengthen its various family ministries, he said.
