RH law: A mixed blessing

One could say the Supreme Court decision on the contentious Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Law is the judgment of Solomon. 

Handed down at the eleventh hour after much colloquy and handwringing, both pro-RH and anti-RH claimed success. The decision was hailed as “win-win.”

The pros claim that they won because the law as a whole was upheld. After 15 years of struggling to pass the bill through Congress, finally there is a reproductive health law for implementation. (READ: RH law: The long and tough road)

The fundamental rights to reproductive health and to free and informed choice were upheld. It also affirmed the duty of the state to provide “ethical and medically safe, legal, accessible, affordable, non-abortifacient, effective and quality reproductive healthcare services and supplies.”

The antis also assert that they won because 7 provisions were declared unconstitutional, alluding to the deleted portions as violations of the principle of religious conscience and an incursion on the family. 

Lawyer Romeo Macalintal believes the anti-RH group won the battle, noting the High Court did not say the law was constitutional, but merely used double negative “not unconstitutional.”

Former Albay congressman Edcel Lagman, one of the authors in the previous Congress, believes otherwise. “There was a unanimous decision among the members of the Supreme Court in favor of the RH Law.” (READ: Struck-down provisions do not diminish RH law)

But the hardliners and purists labeled the decision a pyrrhic victory achieved at too high a cost for both sides.

Supreme challenge

A total of 14 petitions were filed to declare the RH law unconstitutional. When it finally passed Congress in December 2012 after 15 years, the Supreme Court issued a status quo ante order in March 2013 for 120 days, then extended it indefinitely.

At the oral arguments last year, the justices wondered if they could rule on the constitutionality of the RH law when the main issue was when life begins. 

Pro-RH advocates claim that life begins when a fertilized ovum is implanted in the woman’s womb while the antis maintain that it begins at fertilization. 

“You are asking the 15 members of this court, none of whom are doctors, to decide when conception happens,” said Senior Justice Antonio Carpio. 

Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno stated that they were not there to answer “metaphysical” and “theological” questions but to weigh the interests of the unborn child with other constitutional values and objectives. 

She added that the petitioners had put the “unelected” High Court in a “difficult” place, especially since the Constitution did not define conception as fertilization. 

The real winner

The Forum for Family Planning and Development commissioned SWS to conduct a survey last March 27-30 with a base of 1,200 respondents nationwide, and a three percent margin of error. 

The findings showed the following:

• 72% of Filipinos are in favor of the reproductive health law
• 68% of the respondents were aware of the RH law 
• The remaining 32% learned about the law during the survey  
• 84% agree “the government should provide free supply or service to the poor who wish to use any family planning method.”
• 77% agree that “the RH Law follows what the Constitution should stand for, so it s only proper for the Supreme Court to allow it.”

According to the Forum for Family Planning and Development, maternal mortality remains high at 221 deaths per 100,000 live births. Fourteen mothers die every day from complications related to pregnancy and childbirth.

The Philippines has the third highest teen pregnancy in the ASEAN region with an increasing trend compared to other countries and a birth rate of 3.54, one of the highest in the world.

Women’s rights groups and other advocates believe the RH Law will help fight poverty. A 2010 World Health Organization report showed more than 30% of Metro Manila’s 14 million population live in slums with no access to proper sanitation. More than 25% live on 62 cents a day. There is an urgent need for free reproductive medical services.

Archbishop Socrates Villegas, president of the CBCP, declared in an interview: “…With or without the SC’s decision, it is the duty of the Church to be teaching life. Our duty does not depend on civil laws. Our duties come from God.”

“Maybe they have the numbers, but that does not mean that they are right because right cannot be determined by numbers. … It remains to be morally wrong,” he added.

The CBCP stance is at odds with Pope Francis who observed that the Church had grown “obsessed” with abortion, gay marriage and contraception; putting dogma before love; and prioritizing moral doctrines over serving the poor and marginalized. 

“We have to find a new balance, otherwise even the moral edifice of the church is likely to fall like a house of cards, losing the freshness and fragrance of the Gospel,” warned Pope Francis.

If the two sides can move on and work together to uplift the health condition of the most marginalized in society, the real winner will be the entire nation. – Rappler.com