SC urged to lift halt order vs RH law

MANILA, Philippines - Three former secretaries of the Department of Health (DOH) yesterday urged the Supreme Court (SC) to lift the 120-day status quo ante order it issued last March 19 against the controversial Reproductive Health (RH) law.

In a 36-page petition, Esperanza Cabral, Jaime Galvez-Tan and Alberto Romualdez Jr. also asked the high court to dismiss consolidated petitions questioning the constitutionality of the RH law.

They argued the law does not violate the freedom of religion and right to life as claimed by 10 petitioners simply because it “does not impose upon the citizens the mode of family planning or type of contraceptives they would use” and also “does not impose acceptance of a belief.”

“It only prohibits those acts and practices, whether based on belief or whim, which deprive others of their right to reproductive health,” they explained.

The former DOH officials said the RH law is consistent with the constitutional right to privacy and the government’s obligations under international law.

“This freedom of choice in marriage, family, and other forms of relationships lies at the very core of the right to privacy... With the passage of the law, the right of individuals to make fundamental decisions and choices with respect to their reproductive health is actualized,” they stressed.

They also cited the legal obligations of the government under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 1986, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of 1974, Covenant of Rights of the Child of 1990, and Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women of 1981.

The petitioners said all these covenants require the government “to guarantee universal access to medically-safe, non-abortifacient, effective, legal, affordable and quality reproductive health care services, methods, devices, and supplies.”

Last April 2, the SC dismissed a similar plea of senatorial bet and former Akbayan Rep. Risa Hontiveros for lack of merit.

The high court is set to hear oral arguments on the case on June 18.

The consolidated petitions were filed last January by couple James and Lovely-Ann Imbong, non-profit group Alliance for the Family Foundation Philippines Inc., Serve Life Cagayan de Oro City, Task Force for Family and Life Visayas Inc., lawyer Expedito Bugarin, Eduardo Olaguer of the Catholic Xybrspace Apostolate of the Philippines, former senator Francisco Tatad and his wife Ma. Fenny, and a group of doctors represented by lawyer Howard Calleja.

They said at least 11 provisions of the law, which allow couples to choose to suppress life, violate Article II Section 12 of the Constitution, which states: “The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution. It shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception. The natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral character shall receive the support of Government.”