SC ruling a victory for women

In my recollection, no law in the  present times has stirred up so much controversy  and  thrown the clergy and lay into a frenzy of  moral didactics, the most destructive of which was calling proponents as caught in the devil’s snare, than the  Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012. For 14 years,  family planning advocates and legislators shed sweat and tears  and precious time to work for the confirmation of women’s and families’ right to determine the size of their families and the lawful methods by which to do so.  In December 2012, Congress passed such a law — a landmark act by itself  as  majority of the legislators, on instruction of their spiritual leaders and unfounded fear of losing votes in elections — had hemmed and hewed or wanting nothing to do with  it — the President signed it, and in response to the clamor of opponents of the law on the main ground of unconstitutionality, the Supreme Court withheld the implementation of the law  through two  Temporary Restraining Orders. Finally, yesterday, after months of painstaking study and  careful listening to litigants’ oral arguments, the High Tribunal  came out with the decision, albeit with reservation on certain provisions, upholding the  constitutionality of RA 10354.

The decision allows, essentially, the distribution of reproductive health services to marginalized sectors, the  distribution of  hormonal contraceptives and other devices that are legal, non-abortifacient  supplies as determined by the Food and Drug Administration, appropriate health education to adolescents in all schools, and engaging in public awareness and multimedia campaign for the protection and promotion of reproductive  health and rights.

Former Congressman Edcel Lagman, who had experienced long labor pains to see the birth of a reproductive health law, was elated about  the ruling.

The “monumental decision,” he said, “upholds the separation of church and state and affirms the supremacy of government in secular concerns like health and socio-economic development.

“A grateful nation salutes the majority of justices for their favorable ruling promoting reproductive health and giving impetus to sustainable human development.”

 The decision was penned by Associate Justice Jose Catral Mendoza. Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno wrote her decision in Pilipino.

Unbridled appreciation was expressed by Sen. Pia Cayetano in print and television reports. Former Congresswoman Rizza Hontiveros also said, “We won  because the constitutionality  of the RH law has been upheld.”

The feisty Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago issued a press statement, saying “Thank you” and “I love you,” to the High Tribunal for declaring the law as constitutional. (“It) is a triumph of reason over superstition.” She doubted, however, if “the quantum of evidence it considered in tagging . . . eight provisions (of the law) as unconstitutional was enough.”

For Speaker Feliciano Belmonte Jr.  the decision “is a real victory, especially for children, women and their families.”

Organizations working for women’s rights have quickly expressed appreciation of the court ruling. Speaking on behalf of the Women’s Health Care Foundation of which she is executive director, Dr. Helen de Guzman said, “The affirmation of the RH Law by the Supreme Court is a victory of the common people.  It is the common people, particularly the women, who believe that good and sound reproductive health is the key to their growth and advancement. It is also these common people who have been practicing reproductive health all along, even without the RH Law. The implementation of the RH Law will give them the much -awaited support. Congratulations to the pro-RH lobbyists  and the Supreme Court magistrates for giving highest consideration to the needs of the common people.”

 I am aghast by the extent to which anti-RH people (especially priests) have gone to get the law un-passed, and throw by the Supreme Court to the waste basket.  For example, I have worthy friends who lost their congressional bid when bishops and priests circulated pamphlets and denounced them behind the pulpit as evil for supporting the RH bill.  Antagonists have claimed that the bill (now passed and implementable as a law) is for abortion, which it is not, no sir.

For the benefit of readers, eight provisions in the law have been struck down by the Supreme Court. In brief: allowing minors who had miscarriage to access modern family planning methods without the consent of parents;  granting RH services to indigent women before they can claim PhilHealth accreditation; penalizing health workers who refuse to give information on reproductive health programs regardless of religious beliefs;  allowing married couples  to undergo reproductive health procedures without the consent of the spouse; penalizing healthcare provides who refuse to refer non-emergency patients to another facility regardless of religious beliefs; penalizing a health worker who requires parental consent for  a minor in non-emergency cases; punishing a public official who refuses to support reproductive health programs regardless of religion, and defining “abortifacient” as the only contraceptives which “primarily” induce abortion

Eight justices  came up with ten different opinions, but all 15 of them voted to declare “not unconstitutional” all other provisions questioned in the consolidated (14) petitions field by objectors to the RH law.

The court’s  striking down of the eight provisions would not have a drastic impact on the law. “Over and above, the gist of the RH law is intact,” Cayetano said.

Both pro-RH and anti-RH sectors may plan to file motions for reconsideration of the magistrates’ decision.

Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines president and Lingayen-Dagupan Archbishop Socrates Villegas was  mentioned in newspaper reports as saying that the while the high court voted to uphold the RH Law, it has watered it down and affirmed the importance of adhering to an informed religious conscience. “The SC also stood on the side for the rights of parents to teach  their  children,” he said in a statement. He said the SC decided on the RH issue based on the existing laws of the country.

The Church, for its part, he said, must continue to uphold the sacredness of human life, teach dignity of the human person and safeguard the life of every human person from conception to natural death. (My response to this: the above are exactly what the RH-supporters  believe they are advocating.)
 He did say something positive: “We cannot see eye-to- eye with our pro-RH brethren on this divisive issue, but we can work hand -in-hand for the good of the country. Let us move on.”

And  this columnist agrees — let us move on — to ensure  that the  RH law is implemented right, that our people enjoy their right to reproductive health services which the Supreme Court affirmed.

*      *      *

Our deepest condolences to  the families of two friends of media who have gone ahead of us. Don Emilio Yap, owner of several establishments — in shipping, banking and publishing,  including the Manila Bulletin, passed away the other day. I am sure many people have benefited from his generosity, and will miss his friendly, caring personality.  . . .  Our very dear friend Donnie Ramirez, columnist and press relations expert , passed away Tuesday morning.  His remains are at the Manila Memorial Park in Parañaque.

*      *      *

Email: [email protected]