Senator Pia Cayetano. RYAN LEAGOGO/INQUIRER.NET FILE PHOTO
MANILA, Philippines – The sponsor in the Senate of the questioned Reproductive Health Law dismissed as old hat the arguments presented to the Supreme Court by anti-RH law petitioners during the first round of oral arguments on the constitutionality of the controversial measure.
Senator Pia Cayetano made the remarks on Wednesday, after petitioners presented before the Supreme Court their position that life begins with fertilization and keeping a fertilized egg from getting implanted in the womb through contraceptives made available by the government would be as good as murder.
“I’ve heard [the argument by anti-RH advocates] that for a man to masturbate is ‘murder,’ and so to say that, that (the RH Law) is ‘genocide,’ then it tells us what kind of discussion we have,” Sen. Pia Cayetano said after Wednesday’s proceedings at the high tribunal.
“I’m just saying, let people draw their own conclusions. If these are the kinds of statements that the petitioners make, I leave it up to them to draw their own conclusions,” she added.
Former Sen. Francisco Tatad, one of the petitioners against the RH Law, argued before the Supreme Court that the measure was neither a responsible parenthood law nor a health program but a piece of population control legislation.
By providing contraceptives, Tatad said the Aquino administration would be violating not only the Constitution but also international conventions such as the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide that the country signed in 1950.
To these arguments, Cayetano said, “I have defended the RH Bill, the RH Law when it was still a bill. I’ve heard all the arguments and I’m not really surprised by anything.”
Cayetano said she has stood and would continue to stand by her belief in the RH law’s constitutionality “because the allegation that they have made on equal protection, [that it is unconstitutional] by way of not protecting life, are unfounded.”
“Because first of all, the right to choose is always there. It is written throughout the law that no one is being coerced to do anything, and it is also written throughout the law that only family planning methods that are considered safe, legal and non-abortifacient will be made available,” Cayetano said.
“As far as I’m concerned I defended this bill meticulously and I haven’t heard anything new. And nothing they say is new to me,” she added.
In the view of Sen. Vicente Sotto III, an anti-RH law senator, only doctors that believe no life is formed during fertilization are those involved in planned parenthood programs through the World Health Organization and pharmaceutical firms.
“On the issue of when does life begin, common sense dictates that upon fertilization, on the way to implantation, the fertilized egg is already alive. Prudence dictates that in case of doubt, you decide for life,” Sotto said.
“For example, when you’re hunting, you sense a movement behind a bush, you don’t know if that’s a pig or a man, will you shoot?” Sotto said.
The RH law’s constitutional issues also involve religion, according to Sotto.
“Artificial contraceptives aren’t allowed among Catholics and Muslims, why will you make them available through a law? Where is religious freedom?” Sotto said.
Former Sen. Panfilo Lacson, an ally of President Aquino and one of those who voted for the RH law, said only God would know if after sexual contact, there would be conception.
“Good points raised by Justice Carpio. When does conception start? No member of the Court is competent and qualified to know, he said. I say, only God knows if after sexual contact, there will be conception. So only God can declare the RH law unconstitutional; not Tatad, not the solicitor-general, not the Supreme Court,” Lacson said in a text message.
“What if the members of the Court were wrong about how God interprets the time of conception? Then those who would vote to declare the law unconstitutional become sinners. The same is true for those who’d say otherwise,” Lacson added.