Group joins RH law battle

MANILA, Philippines - A group pushing for the implementation of Republic Act 10354 or the Reproductive Health (RH) Law has joined the legal battle in the Supreme Court (SC).

This developed as the high court set a preliminary conference on June 6 for the oral argument on the case on June 18.

In a motion, the Catholics for Reproductive Health and Interfaith Partnership for the Promotion of Responsible Parenthood Inc. led by women’s rights lawyer Claire Padilla sought intervention in the consolidated petitions questioning the constitutionality of the RH Law.

Specifically, they asked the high court to dismiss the petitions and instead declare the assailed law as constitutional.

“Contrary to the claims of the petitioners, the RH Law does not compel couples and individuals to use particular types of contraceptive methods. The petitioners cannot claim irreparable damage since there is no violation of their religious freedom, hence, their petition for injunction and TRO must be dismissed outright,” the group said.

Intervenors also appealed to the SC not to succumb to “conduct of imposition of religious morality prejudicial to public service.”

“There being no rational or constitutional basis and no medical and scientific evidence to prohibit access to modern contraceptives and to reproductive health education, the petitions should be immediately dismissed,” they said.

They further argued that petitioners have not shown valid proof against the RH Law.

On the contrary, they said scientific evidence would establish the necessity for such measure.

“Researches have shown that prevention of fertilization is the dominant mode of action of IUDs (intrauterine devices). The WHO (World Health Organization) cited that the anti-fertility effects of IUD take place before the ova reach the uterine cavity. Evidence show that the pre-fertilization action of IUDs by interfering with sperm motility and survival, hindering ascent of sperm to the fallopian tubes (where fertilization occurs), and impeding egg development,” read their comment-in-intervention.

Padilla drafted the earliest version of the law in the House of Representatives (House Bill 4110 of Reproductive Health Care Bill) in December 2001 under consultancy with the Philippine Legislative Committee on Population and Development.

She was joined by Zahria Mapandi, a Muslim mother and executive director of Al-Mujadillah Development Foundation Inc. in filing the motion.

Similar intervention pleadings were filed earlier by five groups: senatorial bet and former Akbayan Rep. Risa Hontiveros; former secretaries of health Esperanza Cabral, Jaime Galvez-Tan and Alberto Romualdez Jr.; the group of 2005 Bar topnotcher Joan de Venecia; Sen. Pia Cayetano; and a group of Catholic students represented by the legal office of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines.

The consolidated petitions were filed as early as January by couple James and Lovely-Ann Imbong, non-profit group Alliance for the Family Foundation Philippines Inc. (ALFI), 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 Fenny and a group of doctors represented by lawyer Howard Calleja.

The high court issued last March 19 a 120-day status quo ante order enjoining the government from implementing the assailed law and also set an oral argument on the case on June 18.