SC orders Palace to answer petitions vs RH law

MANILA, Philippines - The Supreme Court (SC) yesterday ordered Malacañang to comment on the petitions questioning the constitutionality of Republic Act 10354 or the Reproductive Health (RH) law signed by President Aquino last month.

In full-court session, justices of the high court agreed to require public respondents in the case to submit comment on the petitions filed by couple James and Lovely-Ann Imbong and Alliance for the Family Foundation Philippines Inc. (ALFI).

The Office of the Solicitor General, which represents Executive Secretary Pacquito Ochoa Jr., Budget Secretary Florencio Abad, Education Secretary Armin Luistro, Health Secretary Enrique Ona, and Interior Secretary Manuel Roxas II, is directed to comply with the order within 10 days.

The SC opted to first seek comment on the petitions before deciding on whether to grant the prayer for a temporary restraining order (TRO) against implementation of the controversial law.

This developed as a third petition against the RH law was filed yesterday before the high court by two Mindanao-based groups led by pediatric surgeon Nestor Lumicao.

In a 25-page petition, medical services company Serve Life CDO and educational institution Rosevale Foundation – both based in Cagayan de Oro City – also sought a TRO and raised arguments similar to those of the earlier petitioners.

The Imbong couple filed the first petition last Jan. 2, followed by the ALFI last Jan. 9.

The case was assigned to Associate Justice Jose Mendoza, reportedly a devout Catholic belonging to archdiocese of Lipa in Batangas. His two brothers are priests and another brother is a parish assistant.

Petitioners argued that the RH law “negates and frustrates the foundational ideals and aspirations of the sovereign Filipino people as enshrined in the Constitution.”

The petitioners cited Article II Section 12 of the Constitution, which states that “the State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution... equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception. The natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral character shall receive the support of government.”

Petitioners said at least 11 provisions in RA 10354, which allow couples to choose to suppress life, violated the constitutional provision.

They also argued the new law violates Article XV of the Constitution, which imposes on the government the duty to “strengthen (family’s) solidarity and actively promote its total development” and provides for “inviolable marriage” and “right of spouses to found a family in accordance with their religious convictions and the demands of responsible parenthood.”

They added the new law violates constitutional freedoms of religion and expression of those who will continue to oppose it and also creates doubtful or spurious rights called reproductive health rights.

Despite strong opposition from the Catholic Church, which only espouses natural family planning methods, Congress passed the law last Dec. 19. President Aquino signed the RH law two days later.