Bar topnotcher, law students defend RH law

MANILA, Philippines - A group headed by the 2005 Bar exam topnotcher has defended the assailed Reproductive Health (RH) law before the Supreme Court (SC).

Bar topnotcher and law professor Joan de Venecia and University of the Philippines law students Korina Ana Manibog and Jan Robert Beltejar filed a motion for intervention asking the high court to dismiss the 10 consolidated petitions questioning the constitutionality of the law.

They asked the SC to declare Republic Act 10354 valid and constitutional and to be allowed to participate in the oral argument on the case set on June 18.

De Venecia is the niece of former House speaker Jose de Venecia Jr. and re-elected Pangasinan Rep. Gina de Venecia, who are against the RH law. The younger De Venecia is practicing law at the Sycip Salazar Hernandez & Gatmaitan law firm.

De Venecia’s group is the fourth group to fight for the legality of the RH law before the high tribunal.

Similar pleas were earlier made by former Akbayan party-list Rep. Ana Theresia Hontiveros; former health secretaries Esperanza Cabral, Jamie Galvez-Tan and Alberto Romualdez Jr.; and Sen. Pia Cayetano.

Like the others, De Venecia’s group argued that the RH law would not violate constitutional freedom of choice and right to privacy because it does not require people to use artificial contraception but only gives them an option to do so.

They pointed out that petitioners have a misconception that the RH law forces all “Catholics to commit or perform acts that are contrary to their faith.”

Citing the 1999 study “Truth & Consequences,” the intervenors said that 80 percent of Catholics believed they could be a good Catholic “without obeying the church hierarchy’s teaching on birth control.”

They also contended that there is nothing in the Old Testament stating that sex is only for procreation. And in history, such ultra-conservative belief came from Pagan Greek stoics.

The group further argued that records of Vatican show a division within the Catholic Church on the issue.

A majority in a commission created by the Holy See in 1963 recommended the use of modern birth control method. But Pope Paul VI upheld the ultra-conservative minority opinion and issued Humanae Vitae in 1968, which rejected artificial forms of contraception.

For these reasons, intervenors asked the SC to consider the practical justifications for the RH law and “act in a manner consistent with its record of environmental protectionism.”

The country’s current population of 92.43 million, the group said, is expected to balloon to 141.67 million by 2040 at a rate of 1.9 percent per year without the assailed measure.

“It is a critically urgent population control and environmental sustainability measure without which the country will not have a chance to address and solve its linked and dire overpopulation, crippling poverty and environmental degradation crises,” they stressed.

“(The Court) must uphold the obvious constitutionality of RA 10354 if the country is to take on the most fundamental step to environmental sustainability and survival,” they added.

The consolidated petitions against the RH law were filed in 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 Sen. Francisco Tatad and his wife Ma. Fenny, and a group of doctors represented by lawyer Howard Calleja.

The petitioners argued that the RH law “negates and frustrates the foundational ideals and aspirations of the sovereign Filipino people as enshrined in the Constitution.”

They cited Article II Section 12 of the Constitution, which states that “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.”

Petitioners said at least 11 provisions in RA 10354, which allow couples to choose to suppress life, violate this constitutional provision.

They added that the new law also violates constitutional freedom of religion and expression of those who will continue to oppose it and also creates doubtful or spurious rights called reproductive health rights.