Lawmakers defend RH law before SC

MANILA, Philippines - The Reproductive Health (RH) law is constitutional and has been thoroughly debated, defenders of the measure have told the Supreme Court (SC).

Former Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman and Sen. Pia Cayetano both told magistrates in the oral argument that Republic Act 10354 or the Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act is constitutional.

Lagman argued the measure he authored passed the scrutiny of the House of Representatives before it was approved into law.

“The duly elected representatives categorically spoke in favor of the RH law. The law has been exhaustively debated and all sides considered, with its opponents heard and, at times, accommodated,” Lagman told the SC, invoking the power of Congress to make laws.

He stressed there was no abuse of discretion on the part of Congress in passing the law to warrant annulment from the SC.

“Congress conducted no abuse of discretion, all deliberated thoroughly. Generally, statutes would convey the intention of the legislature. For this, we’ve endeavored and succeeded to have conveyed intent,” he said.

Lagman also rebutted the claims of 15 petitioners that the RH law violates the fundamental right to life and freedom of choice.

He pointed out that Congress in fact intended to protect the right to life since the law prevents legalization of abortion. Such constitutional right does not intend to prevent contraception.

“Since RH is against abortion, abhors coercion and respects freedom of choice, it is indubitably constitutional,” he argued.

Lagman explained that the RH law also gives couples freedom to choose the method of family planning they prefer and does not impose contraception.

“The State or the Church cannot compel one to use one particular family planning method. There must be freedom of informed choice,” he added.

But Associate Justice Roberto Abad told the lawmaker that if Congress really wanted to just prevent maternal deaths and complications from unwanted pregnancies, it should have promoted natural methods instead.

“There are other options for contraception. Proper withdrawal is 96 percent effective. Abstinence is 100 percent effective... If people really love each other, they should be willing to make sacrifices,” the magistrate commented.

Abad also questioned the RH law’s declaration of certain contraceptives such as hormonal contraceptives and IUDs (intrauterine device) as safe.

Lagman argued that Congress did not make such a declaration and only gave the Food and Drug Administration a standard in assessing the safety of contraceptives to be distributed under the law.

But the SC justice pointed out that Solicitor General Francis Jardeleza already conceded in the earlier oral argument that Section 9 of the law is a “binding legislative declaration of fact.”

Abad then expressed concern over the availability of contraceptive and sex education to minors under the law.

Lagman replied: “I think we are of a wrong notion that the advent of contraceptives promotes promiscuity. Promiscuity has antedated contraceptives.”

Lagman also rebutted the claim of petitioners that contraceptives are abortifacient since fertilized ovum can already be considered a life. He argued that “the fertilized ovum may be a living organism but it’s not a human person.”

Sen. Cayetano supported Lagman’s arguments and tackled how the RH law addresses increasing numbers of maternal deaths in the country.

It was the fourth oral argument conducted by the high court on the RH law. The fifth and final hearing would be held next Tuesday, Aug. 20, when the Office of the Solicitor General closes the case for the government.