The Supreme Court’s (SC) ruling that the Reproductive Health (RH) law “is not unconstitutional” has sparked a torrent of opinions, mainly on the High Court’s use of a double negative in its declaration.
As if anticipating the public tumult, SC spokesman Theodore Te explained “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. To assert that it is unconstitutional would presume that the law operates on a starting point of unconstitutionality, which is not the situation,” Mr. Te said.
Double negatives abound in daily life, basically to restrain or calibrate the impact of a negative sense.
For example, in reacting to a critical assessment that someone is ugly, one can say, “Dili siya batig nawong” Dili (not) and bati (ugly) are negative elements but the double negative in this case gives the sentence a positive sense: “He or she is not unattractive.”
On the other hand, a more discerning listener will get a sense that the speaker does not mean the person is attractive either. In fact, the speaker could be saying the subject is plain looking.
That is the sense of the SC ruling on the RH law.
It is not unconstitutional in the sense that it passed the legislative mill and High Court magistrates wouldn’t want to question the wisdom of crafting the law. But because the SC rejected eight provisions that would have given the state coercive powers to implement the law, the Court is actually saying that in so far as the “rightness” or practicality of the law is concerned, much is left to be desired, or the results could be even worse than what the pro-RH groups expect to happen.
Hear the SC comment on the assailed legislation.
The law “is a mere compilation and enhancement of the prior existing contraceptive and reproductive health laws, but with coercive measures,” citing the Population Act (R.A. 6365), the Contraceptive Act (R.A. 4729) and the Magna Carta of Women (R.A. 9710), sans the coercive provisions of the assailed legislation.”
In other words, there are at least 3 existing laws that legalize the use of contraceptives and other artificial means of birth control but minus the coercive provisions of the RH legislation. This is the essence of the RH law, to coerce people to use artificial birth control supplies and facilities.
Still, the government scored a win in Section 25 but this is going to be iffy if the state cannot coerce people to follow the law.
“The amounts appropriated in the current annual General Appropriations Act (GAA) for reproductive health and natural and artificial family planning and responsible parenthood under the DOH (Department of Health) and other concerned agencies shall be allocated and utilized for the implementation of this Act,” Section 25 reads in part.
Coercion would be a key element in justifying bigger allocation for the procurement of contraceptive pills, condoms and other artificial means of birth control and related services. Simply put, if the law is not compulsory, what would be the justification for procuring birth control supplies and services?
The government and pro-RH groups actually lost the case and this is the reason RH advocate, Sen. Miriam Santiago urges respondents to file a motion for reconsideration.
In saying that the RH law “seeks to enhance the population control program of the government” the Supreme Court actually assailed the RH law, for masking itself as a reproductive health measure. It’s in fact a population control strategy and on this score the High Court maintained that “population control may not be beneficial for the country in the long run,” citing the experiences of European and Asian countries that embraced artificial birth control means and are now burned with aging populations.
“The number of their young workers is dwindling with adverse effects on their economy. These young workers represent a significant human capital which could have helped them invigorate, innovate and fuel their economy. These countries are now trying to reverse their programs, but they are still struggling,” the Court said.
The High Court also said that the government may be barking up the wrong tree in resolving the perennial problem of poverty and unemployment.
“Let it be said that the cause of these perennial issues is not the large population but the unequal distribution of wealth. Even if population growth is controlled, poverty will remain as long as the country’s wealth remains in the hands of the very few,” it said.
The position of the High Court then may be summed up in the famous triple negative penned by the late comedian and master of quick wit, Groucho Marx: “I cannot say that I do not disagree with you.”
Disclaimer: The comments uploaded on this site do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of management and owner of Cebudailynews. We reserve the right to exclude comments that we deem to be inconsistent with our editorial standards.
