Declare truce on RH Law

The 120-day status quo ante order issued by Supreme Court (SC) effectively stopped the Executive Department from implementing the controversial Republic Act (RA) No. 10354, or the Reproductive Health (RH) Law. The order will be in effect for 120 days, or until July 17 while the SC set the oral arguments on the consolidated petitions against the RH Law on June 18. There are at least ten petitions filed that questioned the validity, legality and constitutionality of RH Law.

This is the third law passed by the 15th Congress that they approved but got questioned before the SC. The first two laws were the postponement of the elections in the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao and the Anti-Cyber Crime Law. The SC later upheld the ARMM postponement. The SC first issued also a 120-day status quo ante order on the Anti-Cyber Crime Law. It last lapsed last February 5 but this was extended for an indefinite period pending its resolution.

By the way, all three laws were administration-endorsed measures of President Benigno “Noy” Aquino III who certified them to Congress for legislation.

 The status quo order on RH Law was issued at the end of the SC en banc session last Tuesday. Ten of the 15-man SC voted to suspend the implementation of RH Law. Five of them led by Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno dissented. Sereno is reportedly a “Born Again Christian” and is publicly known as active in Bread of Life. Lately though, Sereno is now seen attending Victory Church.

Those who voted with Sereno were senior associate justice Antonio Carpio and associate justices Mariano del Castillo, Estela Perlas-Bernabe, and Marvic Leonen. Sereno, Bernabe and Leonen are among the four P-Noy appointees to the High Court.

P-Noy’s fourth appointee to the SC, associate justice Bienvenido Reyes voted in favor of status quo order for RH Law. He is a pre-law graduate from the University of Sto.Tomas and law graduate from San Beda College.

The ponente of the status quo order was associate justice Jose Mendoza. A devout Catholic, Mendoza has brothers who are priests. He took up law in San Beda College.

This is not to say the individual religious belief of the SC justices will be a major factor in the resolution of the RH Law.

Coincidentally, the SC status quo order was issued on the same day the approved draft of the implementing rules and regulations (IRR) of the RH Law was sent out to national dailies for publication. The IRR of RA 10354 in four full pages was published at The STAR the next day.

But with this status quo ante order, the IRR was also effectively held in abeyance until the High Court lifts the suspension.

Amid a strong stand by the Catholic Church and pro-life groups pushing for natural family planning methods, pro-RH lawmakers outvoted those in Congress into approving last December 19 the RH law that promotes also the use of artificial contraceptives.

Petitioners cited at least 11 provisions in RA 10354, which allow couples to choose to suppress life, violate the constitutional provision that recognizes the sanctity of life, especially of the unborn from conception. They added that the new law violates constitutional freedom of religion and expression of those who will continue to oppose it.

Two days later, President Aquino quietly inked this into law. Despite being a landmark law, the Chief Executive did away with the traditional signing ceremonies at Malacañang Palace. Rather than continue to stir emotions over this controversial RH measure that has bitterly divided the nation, the unspoken gesture undeniably helped simmer down passions from all sides.

But old wounds were reopened when the SC acted on the pending petitions against the RH Law and issued this status quo ante order. Unfortunately, the SC action came at the height of the ongoing campaign period involving many of the authors of this law in the 15th Congress who are running in the May 13 midterm elections. 

This comes also after the Bacolod Archdiocese won the first round of its legal battle on their support for pro-RH candidates that got them into trouble with Comelec. The controversy was stirred due to the reported illegal over-sized tarpaulin put up at the façade of San Sebastian Cathedral by the Diocese of Bacolod City. The SC issued a temporary restraining order that stopped the Comelec from removing their tarpaulins for this alleged violation.

Describing it as a “Conscience Vote,” the Bacolod diocese tarpaulin listed senatorial candidates from both Teams PNoy and United Nationalist Alliance (UNA) who are grouped together either as “Team Buhay (life)” or “Team Patay (death).”

With a big check mark on “Team Buhay,” the following senatorial candidates who voted against the RH bill presumably are endorsed, namely, San Juan Rep. JV Ejercito (UNA), Zambales Rep. Mitos Magsaysay (UNA); re-electionist Senators Gregorio “Gringo” Honasan (UNA); Antonio Trillanes IV (Team PNoy); Aquilino “Koko” Pimentel III (Team PNoy); and ex-Las Piñas Rep. Cynthia Villar (Team PNoy).

On the other hand, the diocese classified the following senatorial candidates as “Team Patay,” for being identified as “pro-RH.” With a big “X” mark above their names, these were Cagayan Rep. Jack Enrile (UNA); re-electionist Senators Alan Peter Cayetano (Team PNoy); Loren Legarda (Team PNoy); Francis “Chiz” Escudero (Team PNoy); Edgardo “Sonny” Angara (Team PNoy); Bayan Muna Rep. Teodoro “Teddy” Casiño (Independent); and, former Akbayan party-list Rep. Risa Hontiveros (Team PNoy).

When the RH bill was still being deliberated in Congress, the battle for the hearts and minds of the people was done in open and public debate. This won’t be the same with the High Tribunal that holds their sessions behind closed doors and away from the public eye. This is precisely aimed to keep them from being swayed by public opinion and sentiments on cases pending before them.

The only time the SC justices tackle together a case in open session, with the public allowed attendance, is during oral arguments.

In the advent of the Holy Week, both feuding camps should declare a truce in their bitter quarrel over the RH Law, especially now that their battleground is before the High Court.

So anything said and done in public in support or against RH Law, ideally should not matter.