Advocates of the Reproductive Health law mounted a vigil in front of the Baguio courthouse of the Supreme Court on Monday (Apr. 7) in anticipation of a ruling on the constitutionality of the RH law. PHOTOS BY EV ESPIRITU/ INQUIRER NORTHERN LUZON
MANILA, Philippines—The government cannot force the public to follow its prescribed birth control measure to stop the country’s swelling population, the Supreme Court said in its decision declaring that the Reproductive Health Law is not unconstitutional.
In its 106-page decision, the high court, through Associate Justice Jose Catral Mendoza, declared as unconstitutional the provisions of the law that gives the government coercive powers.
“Indeed, at the present, the country has a population problem, but the State should not use coercive measures (like the penal provisions of the RH law against conscientious objectors) to solve it,” the high court said in the decision.
The high court on Tuesday announced that seven mandatory provisions in the law and a section in its implementing rules and regulations are unconstitutional.
The high court, in the same decision, said RH law is “a mere compilation and enhancement of the prior existing contraceptive and reproductive health laws, but with coercive measures as it enumerated similar existing population control laws- Republic Act (R.A. No. 6365), the Contraceptive Act (R.A. No.4729) and the reproductive health for women or The Magna Carta of Women(R.A. No. 9710) but without the coercive provisions.
The high court added that RH law intends to solve the rising poverty and unemployment in the country.
“Let it be said that the cause of these perennial issues is not the large population but the unequal distribution of wealth. Even if population growth is controlled, poverty will remain as long as the country’s wealth remains in the hands of the very few,” the high court said.
The decision lifted the status quo ante order (SQA) issued by the high court last year, which means the RH law – except the provisions voided – can now be implemented.
Declared unconstitutional were part of section 7 of the law, which require private hospitals owned by religious groups to refer patients to other health facilities and allow minors who suffered miscarriage to access modern family planning methods without the consent of parents.
The high court also struck down Section 17, which requires granting of free services to indigent women as a prerequisite for healthcare providers in securing PhilHealth accreditation.
Also voided were provisions in Section 23 penalizing health workers who fail or refuse to disseminate information on RH programs regardless of religious beliefs, allowing married individuals to undergo RH procedures without the consent of their spouses, healthcare providers who refuse to refer nonemergency patients to another facility regardless of religious beliefs, health workers who require parental consent from a minor in nonemergency cases and public officials who refuse to support RH programs regardless of religion.
Apart from the provisions in the law, the high court also declared unconstitutional section 3 of the law’s IRR, which defined “abortifacient” as only contraceptives, which “primarily” induces abortion.
RELATED STORIES