When does life begin? 3 justices leave it to experts

MANILA, Philippines—The Supreme Court declined calls by both the petitioners for and those against the reproductive health (RH) law to settle the contentious question of when life begins, saying that this was something for medical scientists and ethicists to decide.

Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno, Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio and Associate Justice Marvic Leonen expressed this opinion during oral arguments on the controversial law last year and reiterated the point in separate opinions they issued last week after the high court declared the controversial RH law “not unconstitutional.”

The main challenge against the law had centered on the question of when life begins.

Opponents of the RH law cited the Constitution which recognizes the need for the government to “protect life from conception,” and contended that life begins with fertilization or with the union of the egg and the sperm. That was why they had wanted the high court to stop the implementation of the RH law, arguing that hormonal contraceptives or birth control pills were “abortifacient.”

Pro-RH advocates, on the other hand, contended that life begins upon implantation or when the fertilized egg embeds itself in the uterus of a woman.

Sereno, Carpio and Leonen, however, said the 15-member high court was not the body to settle the matter.

No definition of conception

In her opinion written in Filipino, Sereno noted that the Constitution did not define “conception.” At what point conception begins, she said, “is a question for the experts in science and not the Supreme Court.”

She said it was not the high court but the Bureau of Food and Drugs that had prime authority to determine which reproductive health methods or drugs would cause abortion.

For his part, Carpio agreed the Supreme Court was “not competent” to determine when human life begins as this was a “scientific and medical issue” that required a proper hearing and evidence. He pointed out that the matter had not yet been settled in the scientific and medical community.

“Republic Act 10534, however, protects the ovum upon its fertilization, without saying that life begins upon fertilization. This should be sufficient for purposes of resolving this case—for whether life begins upon fertilization or upon implantation of the fertilized ovum in the uterus wall—(the law) protects both asserted starting points of life. Absent a definitive consensus from the scientific and medical community, this Court cannot venture to pronounce which starting point of human life is correct,” Carpio said in his concurring opinion.

Also of the opinion that the high court cannot declare when life begins was Leonen, who noted that such a declaration was “not necessary and a dictum that would unduly confuse future issues.”

Leonen agreed the question of the beginning of life would be best answered by scientists or ethicists.