RH Law supporters, opponents meet with SC justices

MANILA, Philippines -Twelve against six.

If only the legal battle over Republic Act No. 10354 or the Reproductive Health (RH) law at the Supreme Court were about numbers, opponents of the controversial law would have easily won, with 12 groups seeking to strike down the controversial measure as unconstitutional while only six groups are defending it.

All 18 parties from both sides met with justices of the Supreme Court (SC) yesterday afternoon in a preliminary conference in preparation for the oral arguments on the case on July 9.

Women’s rights lawyer Claire Padilla, an intervenor in the case representing the Catholics for Reproductive Health and Interfaith Partnership for the Promotion of Responsible Parenthood Inc., said three magistrates sat with them to put many issues raised in the petitions and interventions in order.

“The justices gave parties copies of the three main clusters of issues they want discussed during oral arguments. They gave us time to discuss those issues among ourselves,” she revealed after the closed-door meeting.

She also said that they would again meet at the SC on June 13 at 2 p.m. to finalize the issues to be tackled in the oral arguments. She added that four parties would also identify their respective speakers for the debate in the next conference.

Padilla drafted the earliest version of the law in the House of Representatives (House Bill 4110 of Reproductive Health Care Bill) in December 2001 under consultancy with Philippine Legislative Committee on Population and Development.

Zahria Mapandi, a Muslim mother and executive director of Al-Mujadillah Development Foundation Inc., joined Padilla in filing the motion in the SC.

Apart from Padilla’s group, there are five other intervenors in the case defending the legality of the RH law – senatorial bet and former Akbayan Rep. Risa Hontiveros, former secretaries of health Esperanza Cabral, Jamie Galvez-Tan and Alberto Romualdez Jr.; the group of 2005 Bar topnotcher Joan de Venecia; Sen. Pia Cayetano, sponsor of the measure in the Senate; and Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman, author of the law in the House of Representatives.

The 12 consolidated petitions against the RH law were filed by couple James and Lovely-Ann Imbong, non-profit group Alliance for the Family Foundation Philippines Inc. (ALFI), Serve Life Cagayan de Oro City, Task Force for Family and Life Visayas Inc., lawyer Expedito Bugarin, Eduardo Olaguer of the Catholic Xybrspace Apostolate of the Philippines, Philippine Alliance of Ex-Seminarians Inc., Reynaldo Echavez, former Sen. Francisco Tatad and his wife Ma. Fenny, a group of doctors represented by lawyer Howard Calleja, a group of Catholic students represented by the legal office of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines and Catholic lay group Couples For Christ Foundation (CFC).

The SC issued last March 19 a 120-day status quo ante order enjoining the government from implementing the assailed law.

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

They cited Article II Section 12, which states: “The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution. It shall 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, violate this constitutional provision.

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

Intervenors, on the other hand, argued that the constitutional rights of couples would not be violated since the new law does not compel them.

They said the RH law does not violate the constitutional freedom of choice and right to privacy.