Why I shoot RH law before Supreme Court?

Why I shoot RH law
before Supreme Court?

Author of the book entitled “Simplified Libel Law in the Philippines”

Some of the points:

·         RH law de-establishes Catholic Religion -- the Constitution’s prohibition against establishment of religion also prohibits “de-establishment” of religion

·         The means employed comprising of giving free contraceptives cannot achieve the purpose of the RH law – once the couples are inside the bedroom and already carried by their passion for love and sex, who will think of calling a timeout to wear condoms or drink pills?

·         If the purpose is to achieve substantial economic progress or reduction of poverty incidence, there is no proof that reduction in population of the poor will achieve that end

·         RH law compels taxpayers to pay more to buy condoms, etc, so that others will enjoy sex worry-free

·         RH law amounts to invasion of privacy of couples in their most intimate moments

·         RH law constitutes a discrimination against the poor, they being the target makes them ostracized in the society and they being giving out dole outs to impress upon they are “palamunins”

·         RH law dictates on families how they would up-bring and mold their family

I beg your pardon, to my friends who believe in RH Law, otherwise known as Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012 or Republic Act No. 10354.

The State cannot invade into the privacy of couples on their beds. It cannot dictate on how they conduct their lovemaking, how they enjoy their most intimate moments, and how they celebrate to the most their desire for heavenly joy.  Combined with love, sex becomes the bedrock of the strength of each family to keep staying together.

Neither the State can do any act that wittingly or unwittingly destroy or de-establish a religion.  The Constitutional prohibition against establishment of religion also goes with the prohibition against de-establishment of religion.  The State destroys the Catholic by officially promoting the doing of acts that are against the doctrine of life of the Catholics and the people who embrace this religion.  As will be shown in the petition, Republic Act No. 10354, otherwise known as the Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012, destroys the Catholics that is the religion of about 80% of the populace.

The State cannot make any law that promotes moral deterioration among the people, particularly the family as the inviolable social institution.  As will be argued in the petition, it will be shown that for the law to teach how to use contraceptives it violates that order that says, “The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution.”

RA No. 10354 is unconstitutional on the ground that the major means employed cannot achieve an unstated-but-otherwise-clearly-implied purpose to reduce the population of each of the families among the poor because the poor’s big families are pointed at as the cause of economic problem of the country.

Giving free contraceptives will not advance the purpose of the law because the government cannot be assured that when the couples go to bed the couples will use the condoms and other contraceptive drugs or devices or instruments they availed from the government.    When carried away by passions for love and sex, the couples cannot be expected to say, “Teka, isusuot mo muna ang condom.”

The unconstitutionality is similar to what was expressed by the State through the Supreme Court in a “carabao” case officially named “Ynot vs Intermediate Appellate Court” (G.R. No. 74457, March 20, 1987).  In that case, a law was struck down because the means employed cannot substantially advance to achieve the purpose of the law.  The High Court said that to prohibit the transport of carabaos from one province to another cannot achieve the purpose of preserving carabaos because slaughtering carabaos first before transporting can be done.   This will be explained further in the petition.

The law violates the equal protection clause that it classifies the poor from the rich and that this classification renders prejudice to the indigent who will be wittingly or unwittingly ostracized as “palamunin” and an outcast of the society for it will appear they are being blamed for the miseries of the country.  Giving free contraceptives is undoubtedly targeting the poor.

The law promotes crime and immorality rather than morality.  The regard by the people to sexual intercourse will be less and less sacred as it was originally intended and as taught by the Divine teachings that these are only for the legitimate and married couples.    

At any urge of sexual desires the low-moral individuals easily give in to the desire for heavenly pleasures that they would not mind having sex with another not their spouse because there are condoms or pills anyway that can cover their covert acts.   This will also be discussed in more details in the petition.

This law constitutes unjust compensation to the taxpayers because a part of the taxes they paid are not giving back the equivalent value of government service.   

Imagine that the persons who would avail of contraceptives to enjoy the worldly desires are to use the contraceptives paid for by others, the taxpayers.  Is this enjoyment by others constitutes a public purpose to justify as a compensation to the taxpayers for a part of the monies they paid to the government as taxes?  This will be enlightened further in the discussions.

This law is also unconstitutional because it prohibits free speech when speech happens to be contradictory to the provisions of the law and the programs and implementing rules and regulations that will be crafted out of the law.   It will be discussed with details in the petition.

The law is unconstitutional because it constitutes assault on the doctrines of the Catholics on life, a violation of the Church and the State separation clause of the Constitution.

The law also constitutes an assault on the Islamic religion considering alone that its doctrine allowing men to have four wives and divorce any or all of the wives.
Post a Comment

Popular Posts