MANILA, Philippines—What is wrong about making methods of contraception, fertility control available to the public and allowing the government to give the public advice on reproductive health? A Supreme Court justice asked this question to anti-Reproductive Health Law advocates.
Associate Justice Marvic Leonen. INQUIRER FILE PHOTO
RH Law have been subjected to a wide debate in Congress and now at the Supreme Court with some calling it violative of the constitutional provision on the right to life.
Associate Justice Marvic Leonen during Tuesday’s oral argument said, “What is wrong about making all these available to the public and allowing government to give advice [to the public]?”
He said while he joins the anti-RH advocate in protecting the life of the unborn, “people are not forced because there is a choice.”
He said it is possible that the petitions against RH Law make the high court a “super agency.”
“The petition against RH Law gives lawmaking power from the Executive and Legislative to the Supreme Court,” Leonen said.
On the other hand, Associate Justice Diosdado Peralta said he does not see anything wrong with Section 7 of the RH law on access to family planning.
“In fact, I think it is good to all,” he said.
Associate Justice Presbitero Velasco, meanwhile said he also does not see anything unconstitutional with Section 9 of the said law.
“Congress put it Section 9 on the use of safe, legal and non-abortifacient family planning products and supplies. What is unconstitutional about that,” he asked.