08 April 2014

SC: RH Law Constitutional, But ...

RH Law
Finally, the controversial, but essential, Reproductive Health (RH) Law has been upheld by the country’s highest court.

Expected to transform the lives of millions of poor Filipinos, the constitutionality ruling of the RH Law struck down dozens of petitions against it by church groups and ensured the stunning defeat for the powerful Catholic Church.

"The RH law is not unconstitutional," Supreme Court spokesman Theodore Te told reporters on 8 April 2014.

The law requires government health centres to hand out free condoms and birth control pills, as well as mandating that sex education be taught in schools. It also requires that public health workers receive family planning training, while post abortion medical care is also legalised.

Philippine President Benigno Aquino defied church pressure and signed the law into effect in December 2012, but the Supreme Court quickly suspended it after church groups filed petitions arguing it was unconstitutional.

"This monumental decision upholds the separation of church and state and affirms the supremacy of government in secular concerns like health and socio-economic development," legislator Edcel Lagman, the principal author of the law, said immediately after the verdict.

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

However, some civil society groups expressed a slight disappointment when the SC struck down the following provisions of the law:
  1. Allowing minor parents who have suffered a miscarriage access to modern methods of Family Planning (FP) without written consent from parents or guardians;
  2. Imposing punishment on health care providers who fails or refuses to disseminate information on RH programs and services;
  3. Allowing married individual, not in an emergency or life-threatening case, to undergo RH procedures without the consent of the spouse;
  4. Imposing punishment on health care providers who fails or refuses to refer patients not in an emergency or life-threatening case to another health care service provider;
  5. Imposing punishment on any public official who refuses to support RH programs or hinder the full implementation of RH program;
  6. Allowing pro-bono RH service that will affect the conscientious objector in securing PHIC accreditation;
  7. Using the qualifier "primarily" for contravening Section 4(a) of the RH Law specifically the definition of abortifacient and violating Section 12 on right to life and protection of life from conception, and
  8. Imposing penalty health service provider who will require parental consent from the minor in not emergency or serious situations.
Many are wary that Section 7 of the law will be watered down to appease the Catholic Church. Fortunately, legal experts explained that the unconstitutional provision of Section 7 did not cover this statement: "All accredited public health facilities shall provide a full range of modern family planning methods, which shall also include medical consultations, supplies and necessary and reasonable procedures for poor and marginalized couples having infertility issues who desire to have children."

At this time, many Filipinos here and abroad hailed the decision of the SC after they embraced less conservative views than the one imposed by the Catholic Church.

A recent survey carried by the respected Social Weather Stations (SWS) polling group said about 84 percent of Filipinos agreed that the government should provide free family planning options such as contraceptives.
Because of RH Law