Advocates of the questioned Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012 erupted in jubilation as the spokesman of the Supreme Court, Theodore Te, announced that the assailed law was “not unconsitutional”.
While the Supreme Court made its ruling in its annual summer session in Baguio City, it also rejected eight of the law’s provisions, something that Catholic Church leaders and other opponents of the law found laudable.
The High Court struck down provisions on providing minors access to contraceptives without parental consent; penalizing healthcare providers for refusing or failing to disseminate information about RH programs; requiring parental consent from a minor in non-emergency situations; and penalizing public officers who refuse to support RH programs.
“The Court, after a scrutiny of the various arguments and contentions of the parties in the foregoing consolidated cases consisting of 14 petitions challenging its constitutionality and two interventions to uphold its constitutionality, unanimously held that Republic Act No. 10354 is not unconstitutional based on the grounds raised, except with respect to (eight) items,” Te said.
Associate Justice Jose Catral Mendoza penned the ruling.
The verdict came more than a year after the suspension of the law’s implementation following petitions from Pro-Life Philippines Foundation Inc. and other Catholic Church groups to declare the law unconstitutional.
Catholic groups assailed RA 10354, signed by President Aquino in December 2012, because it would allow the state to use public funds to educate the youth on RH matters and provide couples with contraceptives.
Among other things, the law also seeks to improve maternal health care.
A briefer from Te included a footnote explaining the use of “not unconstitutional” in the high court’s decision. It said the double negative was used because “all laws are presumed to be constitutional and the burden of showing that a law is unconstitutional is on the petitioner.”
“Failing that burden, the declaration is in the double negative — not unconstitutional,” the briefer.
“To assert that it is “unconstitutional’” would presume that the law operates on a starting point of unconstitutionality, which is not the situation,” it added.
Te did not release a copy of the decision but during the briefing, read its dispositive portion, saying that the petitions were “partially granted”.
Asked whether the ruling meant that the high court had lifted the status quo ante order it issued on RA 10354 that suspended the law’s implementation, Te told the media to wait for the release of the text of the decision.
The eight provisions (and the provision in the RH implementing rules and regulations) that were declared unconstitutional by the high court were the following:
* Section 7, which (a) requires private health facilities and non-maternity specialty hospitals and hospitals owned and operated by a religious group to refer patients, not in an emergency or life-threatening case, as defined under Republic Act No. 8344, to another health facility which is conveniently accessible and (b) allows minor-parents or minors who have suffered a miscarriage access to modern methods of family planning without written consent from their parents or guardian;
* Section 23 (a) (1) as they punish any healthcare provider who fails or refuses to disseminate information regarding programs and services on reproductive health regardless of his or her religious beliefs;
* Section 23 (a) (2) (i) as they allow a married individual, not in an emergency or life-threatening case, as defined under Republic Act No. 8344, to undergo reproductive health procedures without the consent of the spouse;
* Section 23(a) (3) as they punish any healthcare provider who fails and/or refuses to refer a patient not in an emergency or life-threatening case, as defined under Rep. Act No. 8344, to another healthcare service provider within the same facility or one which is conveniently accessible regardless of his or her religious beliefs;
* Section 23(b) as it punishes any public officer who refuses to support reproductive health programs or shall do any act that hinders the full implementation of a reproductive health program, regardless of his or her religious beliefs;
* Section 17 which renders pro bono reproductive-health service, in so far as they affect the conscientious objector in securing PhilHealth accreditation;
* Section 3.01 (a) and (j) as it uses the qualifier “primarily” for contravening Sec. 4(a) of the RH law and violating Section 12, Article II of the Constitution; and
Section 23(a)(2) (ii) as it penalizes a health-service provider who will require parental consent from the minor in non-emergency situations.
Te told reporters that justices held separate votes on the eight provisions.
For Section 7 a and b, the voting was 11-4 each, with Chief Justice Sereno, Associate Justices Bienvenido Reyes, Estela Perlas-Bernabe, and Marvic Leonen voting for these sub-provisions as not unconstitutional.