Complaint vs RH premature – Lagman

MANILA, Philippines - The complaint against the Reproductive Health (RH) law filed with the Supreme Court (SC) is premature, Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman said yesterday.

Malacañang, for its part, declared the government is ready to defend the constitutionality of Republic Act 10354.

“The Imbong petition is premature because it seeks to prevent the implementation of a law which is not yet effective,” he said, referring to the petition for a temporary restraining order on RA 10354 filed by James Imbong and his wife Lovely Ann last Wednesday.

Imbong is a son of a legal counsel of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines, which is strongly opposed to the measure. He identified himself as Catholic taxpayer and educator in the petition.

The law takes effect on Jan. 17 after publication in two major dailies.

Lagman said he is confident that RA 10354 “will surmount any attack or test on its constitutionality.”

“The RH law has not defiled any constitutional principles on proscription of abortion, protection of the unborn, religious freedom, family life, marriage and responsible parenthood,” he said.

He stressed that all relevant provisions of the Constitution have been considered in the legislation upon the insistence of anti-RH House members.

Imbong and his wife said the RH law violates several provisions of the Constitution, including Article II Section 12 which stipulates that the state “recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution.”

The constitutional provision also directs the state to “equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception,” they said.

“As regards the value of human life and its sustainance, the Constitution upholds the ideal of an unconditional respect for life and aspires for the establishment of policies that create opportunities to harness the economic potential of every Filipino,” the petitioners said.

They added that the Constitution provides for an “inviolable marriage” and ensures the “right of spouses to found a family in accordance with their religious convictions and the demands of responsible parenthood.”

Lagman said the intention of the framers of the Constitution in protecting the life of the unborn “is to prevent the Congress and the Supreme Court from legalizing abortion, which criminal act the RH law does not tolerate and in fact prohibits.”

“The Constitution mandates the protection of the life of the unborn from conception. In other words, no less than the Constitution acknowledges that life begins when conception sets in, and it is upon conception that there is an ‘unborn,’ which is entitled to protection,” he said.

“The RH law subscribes to a commendable fealty to the constitutional prohibition of abortion. It does not legalize abortion. In fact, it is anti-abortion as evidenced by the following clear provisions: it ‘recognizes that abortion is illegal and punishable by law’ and one of the elements of reproductive health care is the ‘proscription of abortion and management of abortion complications,”’ he said.

He added that the law respects the rights of spouses to raise a family in accordance with their religious beliefs.

Nothing new

At Malacañang, presidential spokesman Edwin Lacierda said Imbong’s SC petition is based on an old argument that the government is prepared to debunk.

“The contention that was raised by James Imbong is not something new. It has already been raised during the debates,” Lacierda pointed out.

“Now that it is before the SC, the government through the OSG (Office of the Solicitor General) will be prepared to defend the RH law,” Lacierda told a news briefing. “So we’ll just wait for the order coming from the SC to ask us to comment.”

Congress passed the final version of the RH bill last Dec. 19 after an acrimonious debate that pitted politicians and non-government organizations against the local Catholic Church and its lay organizations.

President Aquino signed the law two days later.

The Chief Executive said the measure gives couples the tools and information to plan their families.

Proponents of the law also believe it will help moderate the nation’s rapid population growth, reduce poverty and bring down high maternal mortality rate.

The Commission on Population expects the country’s population to reach 97.7 million this year. The United Nations estimates that half of the country’s 3.4 million pregnancies each year are unplanned.

Petition welcomed

The CBCP, for its part, distanced itself from the lawsuit against the RH law but said it was “glad that the ordinary Catholic faithful are taking the initiative to further the discussion on the RH bill.”

“Its enactment into law would not end our opposition to it,” Fr. Melvin Castro, executive secretary of CBCP’s Episcopal Commission on Family and Life, said.

“Any person can file a petition. They have filed it as a family, and it is their right to do so. Being a family member of a CBCP office personnel is purely incidental,” Castro said, referring to the petitioners’ being related to the group’s legal counsel.

For two senators on opposite sides of the RH issue, the SC petition is a welcome development.

“Once in a while, it is good to test the constitutionality of laws passed by Congress. Providing the check and balance in whatever means is healthy for the country’s democracy,”

Sen. Panfilo Lacson, one of the authors of the RH bill, said.

Lacson said he is confident the SC will uphold the constitutionality of the RH law. –With Delon Porcalla, Marvin Sy, Helen Flores