Second petition vs RH law filed before SC

MANILA, Philippines - Another petition for the Supreme Court to issue a halt order on the controversial Reproductive Health (RH) law had been filed on Wednesday by a non-profit organization.

The Alliance for the Family Foundation Philippines, Inc. or ALFI seeks a temporary restraining order (TRO) on the measure, saying it violates constitutional provisions protecting life and health.

Lawyer and ALFI president Maria Concepcion Noche said in a text message to Philstar that the petition is based on the grounds "that (the RH law) allows the use of abortifacient devices (such as intrauterine devices) and the purchase of abortifacient substances using taxpayers' money."

"Abortifacients" refer to contraceptive devices, procedures or medicines that induce the termination of pregnancy or development of the fetus.

ALFI members, an organization that seeks to preserve "the sanctity of life and the family," as well as its trustees and family submitted the request for a halt order to the high tribunal at around 3:30 p.m. on Wednesday, following the first petition filed by lawyer James Imbong last Jan. 2.

"(Republic Act) 10354 violates the right to religious freedom as it mandates health providers to provide reproductive (health) services even if (these are) against their religious convictions," Noche added.

Supreme Court justices resolved on Tuesday to tackle the Imbong petition on the next session on Jan. 15.

The RH law or RA 10354, signed by President Benigno Aquino III last December, is scheduled to be effective starting Jan. 17.

ALFI and the petitioners asked the high court to review the constitutionality of the RH measure as it is seen to post "threats" to the right to life.

"All other rights proceed from (the right to life) and therefore, when life is at stake, nobody can be unmoved," ALFI members said in a summary of the document.

The group cited former Chief Justice Hilario Davide who said that legislation and policies against life are stronger than physical threats such as war and terrorism.

The petitioners, in claiming that RH implementation will endanger future generations, also hoped their argument will be seen in the light of the legal classic Oposa vs. Factoran case when the court struck down an environmental policy adverse to the welfare of posterity.