Pro, anti-RH law advocates face off today

MANILA, Philippines - Critics and advocates of the Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act will finally face off today in a debate before the Supreme Court (SC) on the legality of the controversial law.

Two former senators – Aquilino Pimentel Jr. and Francisco Tatad – will lead the petitioners in challenging the constitutionality of Republic Act 10354.

Tatad, who was senator from 1992 to 2001, was tasked to give a five-minute statement for the 15 groups that have asked the high court to strike down the law for allegedly violating the fundamental freedom of religion and expression at the start of oral arguments.

Pimentel, a former Senate president and acknowledged as the father of the Local Government Code, will also face the justices of the SC to present arguments to prove that the law violates the autonomy of local governments and the equal protection clause under Article III Section 1 of the Constitution.

He is expected to assail portions of the law that tasks the local government units (LGUs) to hire nurses, midwives, and other skilled health workers; train village health workers in promoting reproductive health; remove barriers to reproductive health services for persons with disabilities; and lead a nationwide multimedia-campaign to raise awareness on reproductive health.

Pimentel will also contest portions of the law that limit free services to indigent women to reproductive health care providers only; and prioritizes the poor in the provisions of reproductive health care, information and supplies.

Another lawyer arguing against the law is Maria Concepcion Noche, who will try to convince the magistrates that the law violates the constitutional right to life and right to health.

Luisito Liban, on the other hand, will tackle how the law allegedly violates the right to religion, right to free speech, academic freedom, and “proscription on involuntary servitude.”

Lastly, Luis Gana is tasked to tackle how the law violates the Organic Act of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao.

The 15 consolidated petitions 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., Expedito Bugarin, Eduardo Olaguer of the Catholic Xybrspace Apostolate of the Philippines, Philippine Alliance of Ex-Seminarians Inc., Reynaldo Echavez, Tatad and his wife Ma. Fenny, a group of doctors represented by lawyer Howard Calleja, Millenium Saint Foundation Inc., Pro-Life Philippines Foundation Inc., a group of Catholic students represented by the legal office of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines, Catholic lay group Couples For Christ Foundation (CFC), and Almarim Centi Tillah and Abdul Hussein Kashim.

After all counsels for the petitioners have spoken, the respondents will be allowed to argue why the law is constitutional.

Named respondents in the petitions were Executive Secretary Pacquito Ochoa Jr., Budget Secretary Florencio Abad, Education Secretary Armin Luistro, Health Secretary Enrique Ona, and Interior Secretary Manuel Roxas II.

The six intervenors in the case will then present their arguments in support of the RH law.

They are former Akbayan party-list Rep.Risa Hontiveros, former health secretaries Esperanza Cabral, Jaime 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; the Catholics for Reproductive Health and Interfaith Partnership for the Promotion of Responsible Parenthood Inc.; and Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman, author of the law in the House of Representatives.

Under the guidelines released by the SC last week, the magistrates led by Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno would interpellate each counsel.

If the debate does not end today, it would continue in another oral argument on July 23, the SC advisory added.

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

The 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 of the Constitution, 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.

The intervenors, on the other hand, argued that the constitutional rights of couples would not be violated since they are not being compelled by the new law.

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

The pro-RH groups further stressed that under the law, adults are still free to reject information relating to reproductive health provided by the government “for whatever personal reason which may or may not be related to their religious beliefs.”