What the SC decision on the RH Law means

While it is not yet a landmark decision by the Supreme Court (SC), but last Tuesday the SC extended indefinitely the status quo ante order (SQAO) on the highly-controversial Reproductive Health Law in a vote of 8-7 in favor of indefinite extension. Of course we are jubilant that this news came right during the Feast of Mt. Carmel.

However, while the deliberations will continue on July 23, I wanted to get the correct picture on the implications of this SC extension. So I requested our lawyer Atty. Lito Mahinay to email me his thoughts about this latest issue from the SC and so here is his response in full.

“Last July 9, 2013, the Supreme Court commenced the hearing of the oral arguments of the parties on the consolidated petitions collectively seeking for the declaration of the unconstitutionality of the Reproductive Health Law known as R.A. 10354 with a prayer for temporary restraining order. Petitioners were the first to argue. Central in the arguments and interpellations was the right to life of the unborn from conception as provided for under Section 12, Art. 2 of the Constitution. Petitioners strongly argued that the RH law violates this provision. For lack of material time, the Supreme Court set for continuation of the oral arguments on July 23, 2013.

In anticipation of the expiration on July 17, 2013 of the one hundred twenty-day lifetime of the status quo ante order earlier issued by the Supreme Court, which has the same effect of a temporary restraining order, stopping the government from implementing the RH law.

Engr. Douglas Gacasan as the President of Task Force for Family and Life Visayas Inc. (TFFL) and Valeriano “Bobit” Avila are among the fourteen (14) petitioners seeking for the declaration of nullity of the RH Law, filed a motion last Thursday, July 11, 2013 asking the Supreme Court for the extension of the life of the said status quo ante order until such time that all issues and arguments of the parties are heard and considered.

Last July 16, 2013, the Supreme Court in a vote of 8 to 7, ruled in favor of an infinite extension until its further order. With this latest resolution of the Supreme Court, the Church and the pro-life advocates are assured of respite in the implementation of the subject law until decision is rendered in the consolidated petitions.

Last July 15, 2013, TFFL also filed another motion, this time they seek for the expansion of the issues during the oral arguments on July 23, 2013 to include the issue on the sanctify of the Filipino Family as the foundation of the Filipino nation (as provided for under Section 1, Article 15) and the sanctity of marriage as the foundation of the Filipino family (as provided for under Section 2, Ibid.). TFFL observed that during the July 9 hearing the Supreme Court and the public had the wrong notion that the strongest argument of the petitioners against the RH Law is limited to its perceived violation against the right to life of the unborn. 

TFFL maintain in their motion that the right of the unborn from conception to a “family life” is just one of the many paramount issues joined in their petition. They asserted that the issue on the right to “family life” is inextricably connected and is inseparable from the other equally if not more important issues of whether or not it also violates the constitutional provisions on the sanctify of the Filipino Family (as provided for under Section 1, Article 15) and the sanctity of marriage (as provided for under Section 2, Ibid.). 

In its entirety, their petition exceeds and encompasses other issues far beyond the issue of abortion or when does life begin, TFFL declared. They also believed that there is a deeper meaning and implication of the term “family life” (not just life) as used by the 1986 Constitutional in Section 12, Article II of the constitution.

Distinct from other petitioners, TFFL also unmasked and described RH Law as sexual revolution introduced in the country being “permanent and unbridled population control through CONTRACEPTION principally with the use of the modern methods. To which they argued that it has no room under the protective policies of the constitution in favor of the sanctity of life, Filipino Family and marriage and freedom of religion. Thanks, Atty. Lito Mahinay”

That's what's happening inside the Supreme Court right now coming direct from our lawyer Atty. Makilito B. Mahinay who is a known advocate of the protection and sanctity of life, family and marriage. It's no joke that such a petition entitles a great deal of research and yes, inspiration from the Holy Spirit. We know that this is a spiritual battle and we're greatly blessed that Atty. Mahinay has made this battle his vocation as he is serving us pro-bono and even spends his own money to go to Manila. Having conferred with him on this subject, I dare any pro-RH to debate with Atty. Mahinay for he has everything covered from the legal to the spiritual.

*  *  *

Email: [email protected]