DESPITE opposition from the mighty Roman Catholic Church in the Philippines, key provisions in the controversial Reproductive Health(RH) Bill have been upheld by the Philippine Supreme Court (SC) as constitutional on Tuesday, April 8.
The long and bumpy road to the SC’s decision started almost 14 years ago. After several presidencies, senate and house representation changes, the RH Bill was finally signed into law in December of 2012 by President Benigno Aquino III, defying the position of the very vocal Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP).
The implementation of the RH law was put on hold by the SC in March 2013, after 14 petitions were filed by anti-RH advocates, who questioned the law’s constitutionality.
The RH law was “illegal,” according to the first petition filed by Atty. Jo Imbong (as reported by Rappler.com) because it “mocks the nation’s Filipino culture – noble and lofty in its values and holdings on life, motherhood, and family life.”
Other petitioners, in the said report ,argued that the RH law violates the “right to life” provision of the 1987 Constitution, and undermines the autonomy of local governments “by requiring LGUs to promote reproductive health,” according to an advisory issued by the Court.
Anti-RH law petitioners also contended that the legislation violates constitutional guarantees on freedoms of religion and speech, academic freedom, and proscription of involuntary servitude.
They cited RH law provisions, which impose fines on health providers who refuse to perform RH activities, and provisions which require marriage license applicants to undergo RH seminars before the issuance of license, among others.
Another petition argued that the law violates the Organic Act of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) by requiring LGUs’ promotion and support for RH efforts.
This long-awaited decision of the SC now gives the Aquino administration the power to require government health centers to hand out free condoms and birth control pills, as well as mandate sex education in schools.
The SC ruling can also require that public health workers to receive family planning training, with post-abortion medical care also legalized.
Provisions that have been ruled as “unconstitutional” are the following, as outlined by Rappler.com:
1.) Section 7, only insofar as it: (a) requires private health facilities, non-maternity specialty hospitals, and hospitals owned by religious groups to refer patients not in an emergency or life-threatening situation to another health facility which is conveniently accessible (b) provides access to family planning and RH services to minors who have been pregnant or had a miscarriage without a parental consent.
The rest of Section 7, however, which provides access to family planning, was upheld by the court, notably this line: “All accredited public health facilities shall provide a full range of modern family planning methods, which shall also include medical consultations, supplies and necessary and reasonable procedures for poor and marginalized couples having infertility issues who desire to have children.”
2.) Section 23-A-1, which punishes RH providers, regardless of their religious belief, who fail or refuse to disseminate information regarding RH services and programs;
3.) Section 23-A-2-i, which allows a married individual not in a life-threatening case to access RH procedures without the consent of the spouse;
4.) Section 23-A-3, insofar as it punishes an RH provider who fails to refer any non-life-threatening case to another RH provider;
5.) Section 23-B, insofar as it punishes any public officer who refuses to support RH programs;
6.) Section 17, which mandates a 40-hour pro bono service by private and nongovernment RH service providers, including gynecologists and obstetricians, as a prerequisite for PhilHealth accreditation;
7.) Section 3.01-A and J of the RH law Implementing Rules and Regulations, which defines abortifacients as “primarily” inducing abortion instead of simply inducing abortion;
8.) Section 23-A-2-ii, which prohibits RH service providers from refusing to perform legal and medically-safe reproductive health procedures on minors in non-life-threatening situations without parental consent.
Despite these provisions being struck down, former Albay Representative Edcel Lagman (who was also principal author of the RH law in the House) said core provisions of the law were left untouched. These provisions, as outlined by Rappler.com are:
Sec. 3(a) on the mandate of the government to provide and distribute for free to marginalized acceptors reproductive health services and supplies;
Sec. 9 on the Philippine National Drug Formulary which shall include hormonal contraceptives, intrauterine devices, injectables and other safe, legal, non-abortifacient and effective family product and supplies as determined by Food and Drug Administration (FDA);
Sec. 10 on the procurement and distribution of family planning supplies by the Department of Health (DOH) for distribution to local government units;
Sec. 14 on the provision on age- and development-appropriate reproductive health education to adolescents in all schools;
Role of local government units in the implementation of the RH law as provided in various sections of the law.
Sec. 20 on public awareness and nationwide multimedia campaign for the protection and promotion of reproductive health and rights.
DO YOU AGREE with the SC’s decision, upholding the constitutionality of the key provisions of the RH law? Should the law now be final and executory?
* * *
Gel Santos Relos is the anchor of TFC’s “Balitang America.” Views and opinions expressed by the author in this column are are solely those of the author and not of Asian Journal and ABS-CBN-TFC. For comments, go to www.TheFil-AmPerspective.com, https://www.facebook.com/Gel.Santos.Relos
