Pimentel: RH law violates autonomy of LGUs, ARMM

MANILA, Philippines - There is more to the debate over the controversial Republic Act 10354 or the Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Law than the age-old question on when life begins.

Former Senate president Aquilino “Nene” Pimentel Jr. has raised before the Supreme Court (SC) the issue on how the law violates the autonomy of local government units (LGUs) and the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM).

In his 29-page petition filed last week, Pimentel argued that RA 10354 has “devolved” its prescribed health services to the LGUs, which constitutes “invalid invasion on the autonomy of local and regional governments.”

He was one of the 15 petitioners against the RH law.

Pimentel specifically questioned the use of local and regional taxes in the implementation of the law.

For this reason alone he believes the law should be “aborted” and “torched in the crematorium of oppressive policies.”

He said the RH law should be “dumped into the garbage heap in Montalban, Rizal” for being unconstitutional.

Pimentel, who was set to join the oral arguments last July 9 but opted to submit his points in the memorandum instead due to time constraints, stressed that RA 10354 violates the right to religion.

He cited the position submitted by the Philippine Medical Association when the law was still in Congress.

“The PMA condemns the RH law for compelling them as medical practitioners... to service their patients who need abortifacients regardless of their religious scruples,” he said.

But Pimentel could not help but join the debate on when life begins, which was the center of the oral arguments in the SC last week.

The former senator questioned Paragraph 7, Section 2 of the Declaration of Policy of the RH law, which states that life begins not from conception but from implantation of a fertilized ovum in the mother’s womb.

He said the “misleading citations” of pro-life provisions in the Constitution would result in “malevolent implications.”

Pimentel said the law is proactively pursuing population control by its unbridled endorsement of all sorts of harmful abortifacients in the guise of promoting the health of women and unborn children.

He believes the law illegally amended Article II Section 12 of the Constitution with its new definition of conception.

If such provision in the Charter is not amended by Congress through a plebiscite, Pimentel said the RH law cannot legalize the concept that life starts from implantation which occurs when the fertilized egg cell has reached the uterus.

This was the same argument raised by conservatives that sought relief from the high court in seeking to stop the implementation of the RH law.

However, justices hinted during oral arguments that the SC may not be the perfect venue to resolve this issue that even the medical profession has not conclusively answered.

During the debate at SC, lawyer Ma. Concepcion Noche, one of the petitioners representing the Alliance for the Family Foundation Philippines, explained how the law violates the fundamental right to life.

Former senator Francisco “Kit” Tatad, one of the petitioners, went as far as likening the assailed law to “genocide” since it “prevents birth.”

Petitioners were not able to present their arguments completely as the SC decided to resume the debate on July 23.

Lawyer Luisito Liban will tackle how the law violates the right to religion, right to free speech, academic freedom, and “proscription on involuntary servitude.”

Lawyer Luis Gana, on the other hand, is tasked to discuss how the law violates the Organic Act of the ARMM.

After petitioners present their arguments, the Office of the Solicitor General will defend the RH law along with six intervenors in the case who advocate the measure.