SC ruling on RH law: A "Solomonic" decision

The much-awaited cliff-hanger decision by the Supreme Court ended with the High Court magistrates unanimously declaring the highly controversial Reproductive Health Law or Republic Act No.10354 or the Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act as "not unconstitutional." Naturally, those that supported the RH Law are elated and are literally dancing on the streets, joyous that the SC gave them a stunning victory.

But if you clearly read the High Court magistrates decision, you will immediately see that many sections of the RH Law were literally considered void or should I say unconstitutional? Section 7 was declared void as it was a provision that would have required private hospitals, especially those owned by Catholic or other religious groups, to get the consent of parents especially on those minors who are suffering from a miscarriage. We fought to remove this proviso vigorously, and so you can say that the SC heard our pleas.

Another section thrown out of the RH Law is Section 17 that requires any healthcare provider to grant free services to indigent women as prerequisite to securing PhilHealth accreditation. Then there's Section 23 that the High Court struck down as void which penalizes health workers who refuse to disseminate information on RH programs regardless of his or her religious beliefs or those who refuse to refer non-emergency patients to another facility. Another section that was voided by the SC was the provision where during an emergency procedure on RH cases, there was no need for the permission of their respective spouses, something that we found to be very wrong.

Perhaps the biggest issue that many of us in the anti-RH groups vigorously fought for was Section 3 of the RH Law's Implementing Rules & Regulations, which defined "abortifacient" as contraceptives that "primarily induced abortion". So one can't say that the High Court magistrates did not give the arguments of the Anti-RH any consideration. In fact, the SC threw out these provisions that they considered to be "unconstitutional."

Here's an analysis of why the Supreme Court used the term "not unconstitutional" in making its ruling on the RH Law. I got this excerpt from legal luminary, my good friend Atty. Romulo Macalintal who sent me his thoughts about the SC decision.

Atty. Mac said, "Let it be noted that the SC did not say that the law is "unconstitutional". It used the double negative term "not unconstitutional" because it said that it is "assumed" that it is constitutional. In other words, its constitutionality is merely assumed by the SC. But the SC was very clear and emphatic in declaring seven (7) significant provisions of the RH law as "unconstitutional" which clearly demonstrates the triumph of the Anti-RH groups.

Atty. Macalintal adds, "This is so because it is not the "constitutionality" of the RH law that was in issue at the SC. The substantive issues as defined by the SC in its guidelines before the oral arguments and as enumerated by the Solicitor General were limited to whether or not certain provisions of the law violated the right to life and health; freedom of religion and speech; right to protection against hazardous products; rights of parents in caring for their children, and right of families to participate in family planning."

At the end of his very lengthy analysis of the SC ruling on the RH Law, Atty. Macalintal said, "In other words, nothing of sort was mentioned as to whether or not the RH Law in its entirety is constitutional, which is an admission that its constitutionality is not really the crux of the case. Perhaps what the decision conveys is the recognition of the constitutional right of Congress to enact a law, but that does not automatically guarantee that all its provisions are constitutional until it is so declared by the SC when their constitutionality is questioned."

So the question at hand is, "Who really won in this case?" If you ask me, it was some kind of "Solomonic" decision by the SC by giving Pres. Benigno Aquino, III and his "liberal-minded" nearly atheistic supporters of the RH Law. But the SC still gave the Filipino people their assurance of certain rights under the 1987 Constitution, which could never be violated.

Meanwhile, Archbishop of Lingayen, Dagupan and Catholic Bishops of the Philippines (CBCP) President Socrates B. Villegas issued a statement saying "Although the Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of the RH law, it has truly watered down the RH law and consequently upheld the importance of adhering to an informed religious conscience even among government workers. It has also stood on the side of the rights of parents to teach their children. We cannot see eye-to-eye with our pro-RH brethren on this divisive issue but we can work hand-in-hand for the good of the country. Let us move on." Yes, we must move on… but with the Laity leading the charge in an era where the Catholic Clergy was clearly divided on the RH issue.

*  *  *

Email: [email protected]