Setting the record straight

During this period when the Supreme Court (SC) is hearing the oral arguments of the opposing parties in the case involving the constitutionality of the RH law, extreme care must be observed by all concerned in reporting and commenting on the statements made, the points raised and the arguments advanced by both sides to the controversy and even by the SC justices themselves. Such care is necessary to avoid further confusion on this highly controversial case while it is being heard and deliberated upon by the SC. It is important that the issues be properly set forth so that the SC as the court of last resort can conclusively resolve the case beyond suspicion or doubt that it has been pressured by public opinion or influenced by well-known experts in the field and/or by powerful officials of the land.

Thus whenever confusing comments or inaccurate and incomplete reports on the proceedings are published or aired, it becomes necessary to rectify, or complete and clarify them so that the public may not be misled or deceived that would only result in more dissensions even after the SC has already issued a decision.

In this connection I really found myself at a loss when I came across a recent opinion of Fr. Joaquin Bernas, SJ, a well respected constitutional expert and member of the Constitutional Commission that drafted the present Charter which is to be used in determining the validity of the RH law. Being a Catholic clergy belonging to the same religious order as Pope Francis, Fr. Bernas already affirmed quite categorically that “he adheres to the teaching of the Church on artificial contraception” and that “sacred life begins at fertilization and not at implantation.” But now as this case is being heard he is pointing out that this issue on artificial conception provided in the bill involves a moral and not a constitutional issue. So Fr. Bernas seems to be telling the SC Justices that it is beyond the SC to rule on such issue as it can only rule on a constitutional question.

Even with my limited knowledge about this matter, common sense tells me that our Constitution also upholds and maintains what is good as against what is evil, or what is right as against what is wrong which is what morality is all about. Hence there is really no difference between a constitutional and a moral issue; a resolution of the constitutional issue necessarily entails a resolution of a moral issue. This is especially true in the light of the preamble of our constitution declaring that it was drafted “with the aid of the Divine Providence” who is Himself the Supreme Good.    

That artificial conception is evil or wrong is not a matter of religious belief but a matter of fact. It is a fact established not only by medical science but by the happenings and experiences in other countries where artificial contraception has been adopted. In the US where artificial contraception originated, 500 million babies are aborted every year. This link between artificial conception and abortion is recognized by the US Supreme Court itself in Planned Parenthood vs. Casey when it declared that “abortion is of the same character as the decision to use contraception because contraception may fail and if it fails abortion is resorted to because of unwanted pregnancies. In Canada where the birth control pills was legalized in 1969, statistics reported 11,152 abortions the following year. And since then, there was already more than tenfold increase in abortion during a period of unprecedented contraceptive growth (Natalie Hudson, the Contraception Misconception). In Spain surveys conducted every two years from 1997 of about 2,000 Spanish women aged 15 to 49 show the number using contraceptives increased from 49.15 to 79.9%, and within the same time frame, abortion rate more than doubled from 5.52 per 1000 women to 11.49. Obviously the claim that contraceptives do not endanger the life of the unborn because it is used only when “there is no life yet” to prevent is good only on paper but not in actuality.

Some reports on day 2 of the hearing are also full of misrepresentation and inaccuracies to show the alleged weaknesses of the arguments advanced by the Petitioners’ lawyers particularly Atty. Luisito V. Liban who spoke for almost 41/2 hours. His strong arguments about the serious constitutional flaws of the RH law have been described as weak in the face of the alleged questions thrown by some Justices trying to punch holes on his arguments.

Atty. Liban however was able to parry those “punches” by convincingly establishing among others, the following:

(1) The bill infringes on the religious freedom as Section 7 and 23 (a) (3) thereof forces a Catholic health worker to disobey the teachings of his faith which considers artificial contraceptives as inherently evil and immoral. In reply to Chief Justice (CJ) Sereno’s question If he is aware that there are many Catholics who do not consider the use of contraceptives to be a sin, Atty. Liban stressed that the free exercise clause in the Constitution may be invoked only by true Catholics who believe in and obey Church teachings. He also clarified that Petitioners are questioning said provision not because it is anti-Catholic but because their implementation will offend free exercise of religion which the Constitution protects. Thus the CJ even expressed openness to remove the mandated referral duty in said Sections.

(2) Section 23 (a) (1) violates the freedom of expression as it punishes any health worker who withholds information or provides incorrect information about reproductive health services. He argues that this section forces a person to speak up about contraceptives even if his conscience tells him not to. On the other hand he said that the rule against incorrect information creates a “chilling effect” that deters a person from uttering a word. None of the Justices was able to punch any hole on his arguments about violation of free speech.

(3) Section 14 making sex education mandatory in public schools but optional in private schools violates the equal protection clause. Such compulsion likewise usurp on the parents’ primary right and duty to rear and educate their children (Section 12 Article II,Constitution) and the right to found a family in accordance with their religious beliefs under Section 3, Article XV.

These points and many others have to be brought out to set the record straight in the interest of truth and justice.

*      *      *

E-mail: [email protected]