INQUIRER FILE PHOTO
MANILA, Philippines—The Supreme Court might not be the right venue for the grievances of the anti-RH Law advocates, high court justices said Tuesday.
During Tuesday’s oral argument, Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno said “by your responses, it is clear that you are grappling with your answers which make me think this court might not be the right venue.”
Sereno told lawyer Maria Concepcion Noche that the high court is in a very difficult situation.
“This court may exercise judicial restraint unless you have to show us a way out. You have to provide us tools,” Sereno said adding that petitioners should not make premature conclusions.
“The complexity of this question [constitutionality of the RH law] is that may be beyond this court to address,” she said.
“We are not going to answer a theological or a metaphysical question here. We are more humbled than wishing to go into the area of ultimate morals,” Sereno said adding that “are we in a position to supplant Congress in a policy direction.”
Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio, meanwhile said textually the [RH Law] protects fertilization,” same as your position, then why are you here?”
Associate Justice Marvic Leonen also asked the petitioners what is wrong about making methods of contraception, fertility control available to the public and allowing the government to give the public advice.
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.
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 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.
The high court justices also noted that the RH law is for the poor.
Associate Justice Bienvenido Reyes said statistics show that poorer families have more children and that children of poor families have less access to food and other needs.
However, Noche said “while poverty is a problem, population control is not the solution.”
The high court justices grilled Noche for almost five hours.
The part 2 of the oral argument will be on July 23.