BY JESS DUREZA
WE are misled by the media line that the Catholic Church’s anti-Reproductive Health (RH) campaign lost because the Supreme Court ruled that the Reproductive Health Law (Republic Act 10354) is constitutional.
Many may not realize this but the Supreme Court, in “approving” the RH Law, actually GAVE DUE COURSE to the objections of the Church.
According to former Ambassador Rigoberto “Bobi” Tiglao, what the Supreme Court declared constitutional are the ALREADY EXISTING laws being implemented for decades but consolidated in the new RH Law. These are the population-control laws that have been in effect like Republic Act 6365 of 1971 (creating the National Population Commission and its functions); Presidential Decree 79 of former President Ferdinand Marcos and Republic Act 9710 of 2009 (Magna Carta for Women).
But the main objectionable provisions that the Church raised were DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL, including the controversial implementing rules crafted by the Secretary of Health. I call this government’s ATTEMPT that the Supreme Court ABORTED, legally of course. (This is the type of abortion we all welcome. Hahaha!)
For example, the Supreme Court ruled that the religious beliefs of citizens (those who oppose) be respected and must prevail. Hence, the ruling declared as unconstitutional the provision that required public and private health companies to provide birth control information and means to all even if it is against their religious beliefs.
Another provision declared unconstitutional was that which allows one spouse to make a unilateral decision to avail of birth control methods. The Supreme Court requires that BOTH SPOUSES must approve to do irreversible birth control interventions like vasectomy and tubal ligation.
Another provision is to require parental consent for minors. There are other significant fine points.
But what the Supreme Court significantly STOPPED ON ITS TRACKS was the “ABORTED” attempt of the government, through its Secretary of Health and the pro-RH groups, to insert and SMUGGLE the word “PRIMARILY” (to define abortifacients) in the implementing rules and regulations that was NOT present in the RH Law itself and which would have opened the floodgates of abortions.
If not discovered and stopped and ABORTED by the Supreme Court, it would have allowed the government to undertake wide-scale distribution of devices and drugs for abortion or abortifacients.
Truth to tell, this important Supreme Court ruling upholds the Catholic dogma that is found in the Philippine Constitution (Article 11, Section 12) which provides that the State “shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception.”
This means that any action to stop the fertilized egg from developing is against the Constitution. Scientific studies tell us that IUDs (intra uterine devices) and other contraceptives, while they have the PRIMARY effect of preventing fertilization (the spermatozoa from reaching the egg), they have the secondary or after-effect of weakening the lining of the uterine wall so that the fertilized egg (with the meeting of the sperm and the ova already done) cannot be implanted there and therefore will die. The Supreme Court ruling thus validly challenges legally the use of IUDs and contraceptives.
No doubt, this is a “de facto” rejection of the RH Law. What is interesting is that it makes pro RH proponents seemingly victorious but actually the anti-RH ones also won the day.
This is “judicial statesmanship” of the Supreme Court at its best. Everyone can claim victory. Those who decide to avail themselves of the benefits of the RH Law can do so while those who do not believe can freely reject them without being penalized.
What will be interesting to see hereon is how the implementation of the RH Law will be done and how vigilant are we in seeing to it that what the Supreme Court discovered and aborted in its ruling will be followed and enforced on the ground./PN
