Cayetano asks SC to lift TRO on RH Law

MANILA, Philippines - Sen. Pia Cayetano asked the Supreme Court (SC) yesterday to allow the implementation of the controversial Reproductive Health (RH) law.

In a petition for intervention, Cayetano asked the high court to lift the status quo ante order it issued last February that indefinitely suspended the implementation of Republic Act 10354.

Cayetano, who sponsored the measure in the Senate, also asked the SC to dismiss the 10 consolidated petitions questioning the constitutionality of the law.

Through her counsel, UP law professor Harry Roque Jr., the senator said the RH law does not violate the constitutional freedom of choice and right to privacy.

She said under the law, adults are free to reject information relating to reproductive health provided by the government.

She said religious schools would not be compelled to accept what the state schools would teach their students. 

“Contrary to what is envisaged under the constitutional duty of the state, spouses are divested of any ‘real’ or ‘informed’ choice in founding their families, since the petitioners ostensibly favor only the Roman Catholic-sanctioned natural family planning methods,” Cayetano’s petition said.    

The senator filed the petition a few days after three former health secretaries – Esperanza Cabral, Jamie Galvez-Tan and Alberto Romualdez Jr. – filed a similar pleading.

Last April 2, the high tribunal dismissed for lack of merit a similar plea filed by former Akbayan Rep. Risa Hontiveros.

The high court is set to hear the case on June 18.

The consolidated petitions were filed in January by couple James and Lovely-Ann Imbong, lawyer Expedito Bugarin, Eduardo Olaguer of the Catholic Xybrspace Apostolate of the Philippines, former Sen. Francisco Tatad and wife Ma. Fenny, non-profit groups Alliance for the Family Foundation Philippines Inc. (ALFI), Serve Life Cagayan de Oro City, Task Force for Family and Life Visayas Inc., and a group of doctors represented by lawyer Howard Calleja.

The petitioners argued that the RH law negates and frustrates the ideals and aspirations of the sovereign Filipino people as enshrined in the Constitution.

They said at least 11 provisions of RA 10354 violate the Constitution, particularly Article II Section 12.

They added that the RH law violates freedom of religion and expression of those who are against it and creates spurious rights called reproductive health rights.