Undue interference

Our country has indeed reached a vital cross-road that will establish whether we are headed towards the supremacy of the laws of the land particularly the Constitution or towards the supremacy of one man who accidentally ascended into power on the crest of the peoples’ overwhelming sympathy for the death of his mother, mythically known as the “icon of democracy”.

After only three years in office as President of the country, this man who wants to be called by a more popular and appealing name of “P-Noy”, is turning out to be exactly the opposite of what he pictured himself to be at the start of his term. Instead of looking up to the people as his “boss”, he has completely ignored them and stubbornly refused to heed their call to junk the pork barrel system that is undoubtedly a major source of corruption.

And to ensure that his own wishes will prevail, he tries to control the other departments of government. So far he seems to have succeeded in holding sway over the Legislative Department by precisely using the pork barrel in its various forms. Then he also sent a message to the Judiciary to “cooperate with him or else” by ousting the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court through the use of the same pork barrel in convincing the members of Congress.

So far, it remains to be seen whether P-Noy can also control the SC as he has controlled Congress. At this stage, there are cases pending in the SC which will prove whether it is still independent and free from P-Noy’s sphere of influence. One of these cases is definitely the various petitions by 14 sectors questioning the constitutionality of the RH law or R.A. 10354 known as “The Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012.

Now that the petitions are already submitted for SC resolution after hearing the arguments of legal luminaries from both sides, it may be useful to hear the voice of the young people. This particular legal research paper submitted by Mr. Oliver Tuason in his legal research class at the UST Faculty of Civil Law may also help the SC especially as it represents the impartial and very thorough research and studies of a student. The main theme of his paper is about reproductive health, contraception and abortion that tackles the issue or whether or not a State sponsored contraceptive program upholds or undermines the Philippine Constitution. His introduction details the questionable circumstances on how the bill was passed. He said:

“The single most divisive issue in contemporary Philippine history was the passage of the controversial Republic Act (R.A.) 10354, also known as “The Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012”. The term reproductive health has officially entered the legal system of the country for the first time.

Although reproductive health (RH) had been defined for the first time in an international consensus document in 1994 during the International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo and the first RH legislation was proposed to Congress a few years afterwards, its incorporation into the country’s laws has been opposed vehemently not only by the Catholic Church — as it is usually portrayed by the government and media — but by various sectors of society. One of the major objections to the incorporation of RH into our legal system is its essential link with the promotion of contraception together with the promotion of the contraceptive lifestyle, and its apparent link to abortion in some countries that implemented it.

The landscape changed, however, upon the election of Benigno S. Aquino III to the presidency in 2010. His support for the RH is widely known, although he prefers using the term Responsible Parenthood (RP) instead. Whether it be RH or RP, the common element is the state-sponsored, romoted and funded distribution of contraceptives and its consequent promotion of a contraceptive lifestyle among Filipinos.

The Chief Executive’s interest on the RH legislation was palpably felt towards the second half of 2012. Accusations of railroading and interference of Malacanang on the Legislative Branch did not deter further involvelment of the Executive Branch in finally seeing the bill pass into law before the end of the same year. Four Cabinet secretaries close to the President — among whom were the budget and local government secretaries — were present during the crucial voting of the bill at the House of Representatives and were accused to have twisted the arms of the members of a separate and co-equal branch of government to clinch a winning vote for the bill.

On top of that, the President waved the constitutional mandate to distribute printed copies of the final form of the bill three days before its passage in order to prevent hasty and improvident legislation and give the legislators time to study the bill before the final vote. The said rule can only be waived when the “President certifies to the necessity of its immediate enactment to meet a public calamity or emergency. Some sectors in society were left in a quandary as to what public calamity or emergency we were experiencing at that time to merit such waiver of a constitutional mandate. The mystery of such urgency was made more unintelligible with the apparent declaration of the presidential spokesperson that the president was not in a hurry to sign the enrolled bill.

The brazenness by which the RH law was passed by the Legislature coupled by the unmitigated interference of the Executive left the people with nobody else to turn to in order to be relieved of their grievances but the Supreme Court, counting on its integrity, independence and wisdom in judging the constitutionality of the law and whether or not there has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the Legislature in passing the law”. 

E-mail: [email protected]