No TRO vs RH law
Apparently, the Supreme Court feels no urgency to act on a petition for a temporary restraining order (TRO) on the new reproductive health law.
The tribunal on Tuesday held its first full court session for the year but did not take any action on the petition filed last week by lawyer James Imbong and his fellow lawyer-wife Lovely Ann opposing the Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012.
At a press briefing, acting SC public information chief Gleo Guerra said Imbong’s petition assailing the reproductive health law and seeking a TRO on its implementation, “will be taken up again by the court en banc in a future session.”
Asked how soon the full court would tackle the Imbong petition, Guerra said: “The date has not yet been specified.”
Last week, the Imbong couple filed the petition before the high court on behalf of their two minor children and the Magnificat Child Development Center Inc., asking the law not to be implemented because it was unconstitutional and “mocks the nation’s Filipino culture—noble and lofty in its values and holdings on life, motherhood and family.”
Imbong’s mother is Jo Aurea Imbong, the legal counsel of the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP). The CBCP lawyer is also a “collaborating counsel” in the case.
President Aquino signed the Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act into law last month following heated debates in Congress. Opposition to the proposed law was mounted by the Catholic Church.
In a 24-page petition for certiorari and prohibition, the petitioners specifically cited two grounds for their appeal. First, the law “introduces policies that negate and frustrate the foundational ideals and aspirations of the sovereign Filipino;” and second, it “cannot be implemented without exceeding the boundaries of government action as established in the Constitution.”
