MY PETITION TO STRIKE DOWN RH LAW
TO STRIKE
DOWN RH LAW
If you are so minded, you can read this final copy of the Petition for Prohibition seeking to strike down the artificial contraceptives component of the "Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012", otherwise known as the "RH Law" or Republic Act 10354.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Republic of the Philippines
Supreme Court
Padre Faura St., Manila
MILLENNIUM SAINT FOUNDATION, INC.,
ATTY. RAMON PEDROSA, ATTY. CITA
BORROMEO-GARCIA, STELLA ACEDERA,
Petitioners,
- versus - G.R. No. _______________
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT (OP),
OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY (OES),
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH (DOH),
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (DEPED),
Respondents.
x-------------------------------------------------x
Petition for
Prohibition
The Prologue
It
is revolting to give money to buy condoms and pills to see others enjoy sex out
of the money I gave.
It
violates the Constitution for the Congress to make a law to authorize free
distribution of artificial contraceptives that kill fertilized ovum because
fertilization is the beginning of conception that is protected by the
Constitution.
The
law fails to pass the substantive due process test because the means employed
does not substantially advance the ends.
The provisions of the same
law are unconstitutional because they destroy religion and violate the
Constitution’s provision on free speech, on religious freedom and free exercise
thereof, on marriage, family and the right to found a family.
With these opening brief statements,
this Petition for Prohibition is being filed.
The Parties
1.
The petitioners are as follows:
a.
Millennium
Saints Foundation, Inc. – an entity organized under the Philippines laws
whose objective includes promotion and dissemination of Spiritual Childhood as
taught and lived by St. Therese of the Child Jesus of the Holy Face, Doctor of
the Universal Church and Saint of the Third Millennium; work toward the development of traditional
Filipino values rooted in the Catholic faith through education and formation as
inspired by St. Therese; promotion, encouragement and prosecution of activities
such as seminars, convocations and workshops directed toward propagating the
said spirituality.
For the purpose of this case, the board of
Millennium Saint Foundation, Inc. authorized Atty. Ramon Pedrosa, Mrs.
Stella Acedera or Atty. Cita
Borromeo-Garcia to file this petition on behalf of petitioner Millennium
Saints Foundation, Inc., whose place of business and address is located at
St.Therese Compound Manlunas St., Villamor Airbase, Pasay City. But for purposes of this petition, it is
requested that all notices be sent to its counsel that is the undersigned law
firm on its address written below.
For this purpose, a copy of the Board
Resolution is attached hereto as ANNEX
“A.”
b.
Atty. Ramon
Pedrosa, Filipino, a lawyer, taxpayer whose Tax Identification No. Is ____________,
a firm Catholic being an Opus Dei, whose residence is ________________________________,
is joining this petition as a petitioner in his own right;
c.
Atty. Cita
Borromeo-Garcia, Filipino, a lawyer, taxpayer whose Tax
Identification No. is _____________, and
a firm follower of the Catholic faith, is joining this petitions as a
petitioner in her own right, is a resident of Doña Romana BF Homes Subd.,
Capitol District, Quezon City.
d.
Stella Acedera, Filipino, Filipino, a resident of 8
Lirio St., Tahanan Village, Quezon City, loweyr
For the purposes of this petition, it is
requested that all notices intended for all the petitioners be sent to their counsel
that is the undersigned law firm at its address written below;
2.
The respondents are as follows:
a.
OFFICE OF THE
PRESIDENT, for being the Chief Executive Office that is the chief enforcer of
the law that is being challenged in this petition;
b.
OFFICE OF THE
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, for being the Chief Cabinet Secretary that is the
chief alter ego of the President of the Philippines; Both the Office of the President and the
Office of the Executive Secretary can be served with notices at the Office of
the Executive Secretary, Malacañang Palace, Manila;
c.
THE DEPARTMENT
OF HEALTH (DOH), for being the main department that is to enforce the challenged law,
which can be served notices through the Office of the Secretary, DOH, on Jose
Rizal Avenue, Sta. Cruz, Manila; and
d.
THE DEPARTMENT
OF EDUCATION (DepEd), for being the main enforcer of the instructions
and information dissemination among all elementary and secondary schools in the
country, private or public, on all the reproductive health that is one of the
chief contents of the law being challenged.
The
Locus Standi
3.
The petitioners here have locus standi because:
a.
The degree of transcendental importance of the
matters involved in this petition is enormous that its effects even transcends several
generations from now;
b.
There is that paramount public interest in the issue
as demonstrated by the debates in and out of halls of the House of
Representatives and the Senate, where it was seen the voting in the plenary of
the two houses of the Congress was attended by the pro- and anti-RH Bill,
including the believers in the teachings of the Roman Catholic who fought for
the rejection of the Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Bill, as
well as movements and alliances that were formed and the extraordinary activism
that were done;
c.
The passion against the RH Law has never waned and
will never die as demonstrated by the boldness of the posting of “Team Patay”
and “Team Buhay” tarpaulin on San Sebastian Church in Bacolod City, which is
now the subject of intense controversy because it has been defiant of the order
of the Commission on Elections (Comelec) take it down;
d.
The law styled “The Responsible Parenthood and
Reproductive Health Act of 2012,” otherwise known as Republic Act No. 10354,
without doubt has overreaching significance to the society that this will
define the rule of moral conduct in the next generation and beyond;
e.
The degree of offense that the law will cause on the
Catholics that include the petitioners who are entitled to have their doctrine
or religious beliefs protected against acts of intrusion by the State into the
zone of Catholic dogmas and doctrines, that the Constitution even commands that
the separation of the Church and the State shall be inviolable;
f.
A direct injury that would be caused on the
petitioners in the form of the “de-establishment” or blatant assault on the
faith of the petitioners as Catholics;
g.
While the petitioners are conscientiously guarding
their beliefs and exercising their freedom of religion in the form of shunning
against anti-life contraceptives and spread this part of the teachings of their
religion, the State will openly and blatantly espouse the very same devices
that the Catholics religiously object;
h.
That assault by the State that is committed by way
of providing what are a taboo as a matter of the exercise of religious belief,
openly insults the petitioners and put them in a situation as if they are
outcasts;
i.
The RH law also brings direct personal injury to the
petitioners in the form of the sleepless nights, anxieties and revolting hearts
caused on them;
j.
This is because the petitioners cannot stomach the
sight of them having their share of taxes they paid to be given for free in the
forms of condoms, pills, injections and other contraceptives so that others
will enjoy sex;
k.
These also constitute unjust enrichment on the part
of the free beneficiaries of these particulars at the expense of those who pay
taxes;
l.
Also, a direct personal injury that will be caused
on the petitioners come in the form of the appropriation of money from the
taxes and the petitioners are taxpayers, too;
m.
It does not only assault the petitioners as a matter
of tax issue, but also as a matter of torturing the petitioners’ minds to think
that a part of the taxes they pay are used to buy contraceptives to be given to
others so that these lucky beneficiaries enjoy sex at the expense of taxpayers;
n.
Such appropriation is proven by Section 25 if the
same law;
The
Antecedents
4.
On 28 December 2012 the President of the Philippines
signed into law Republic Act 10354, otherwise known as “Responsible Parenthood
and Reproductive Health Act of 2012.”
5.
Among the provisions that are objectionable because
it assaults the Catholic religion of the petitioners is Section 2 (d) of this
law, to wit:
(d) The right of families or family associations to participate in the
planning and implementation of policies and programs
The State likewise guarantees universal access to medically-safe,
non-abortifacient, effective, legal, affordable, and quality reproductive
health care services, methods, devices, supplies which do not prevent the implantation of a fertilized ovum as
determined by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and relevant
information and education thereon according to the priority needs of women,
children and other underprivileged sectors, giving preferential access to those
identified through the National Household Targeting System for Poverty
Reduction (NHTS-PR) and other government measures of identifying marginalization,
who shall be voluntary beneficiaries of reproductive health care, services and
supplies for free.
6.
Other provisions of the law that offends the
religious beliefs of the petitioners as among the Catholic faithful provide
that these artificial contraceptives shall be provided free, one of these
provisions is as follows:
SEC. 7. Access to Family Planning. – All accredited
public health facilities shall provide a full range of modern family planning
methods, which shall also include medical consultations, supplies and necessary
and reasonable procedures for poor and marginalized couples having infertility
issues who desire to have children: Provided, That family planning services
shall likewise be extended by private health facilities to paying patients with the option to grant free care and
services to indigents, except in the case of non-maternity specialty
hospitals and hospitals owned and operated by a religious group, but they have
the option to provide such full range of modern family planning methods:
Provided, further, That these hospitals shall immediately refer the person
seeking such care and services to another health facility which is conveniently
accessible: Provided, finally, That the person is not in an emergency condition
or serious case as defined in Republic Act No. 8344.
No person shall be denied information and access to
family planning services, whether natural or artificial: Provided, That minors will not be allowed access to modern methods
of family planning without written consent from their parents or guardian/s
except when the minor is already a parent or has had a miscarriage.
7.
The petitioners as Catholics feel insulted that
while their religious belief prohibits artificial contraceptives because these
kill life, the State on the other hand insults the Catholics by blatantly
insisting on artificial contraceptives that the Catholic has declared to be
doctrinally evil.
8.
While the law says the use of artificial
contraceptives is optional and the Catholics can opt out of it, still it violates
the Catholic faith of the petitioners because it unwittingly insults them.
9.
Additionally, the petitioners see the law as an act
of destroying the Catholic religion and the petitioners have the right to
defend the existence of their faith.
10.
As such, the petitioners see this as a destruction
of their religion, standing pat that the prohibition of the Constitution for
the State to establish religion also prohibits the de-establishment or
destruction of religion.
11.
The
petitioners also see the law violating the cherished freedom of expression,
particularly in the following provision:
SEC. 23. Prohibited Acts. – The following acts are
prohibited:
(a) Any health care service provider, whether public or private, who
shall:
(1) Knowingly withhold information or restrict the
dissemination thereof, and/or intentionally provide incorrect information regarding programs and services on
reproductive health including the right to informed choice and access
to a full range of legal, medically-safe, non-abortifacient and effective
family planning methods;
xxx xxx xxx
(3) Refuse to extend quality health care services
and information on account of the person’s marital status, gender, age,
religious convictions, personal circumstances, or nature of work: Provided,
That the conscientious objection of a health care service provider based on
his/her ethical or religious beliefs shall be respected; however, the conscientious objector shall
immediately refer the person seeking such care and services to another health
care service provider within the same facility or one which is
conveniently accessible: Provided, further, That the
person is not in an emergency condition or serious case as defined in
Republic Act No. 8344, which penalizes the refusal of hospitals and medical
clinics to administer appropriate initial medical treatment and support in
emergency and serious cases;
(d) Any
person who shall falsify a Certificate of Compliance as required in Section 15
of this Act; and
12.
The
provision of Section 23 (a) (1) violates the freedom of speech of health
providers, including Catholic doctors, in expressing what they believe is
incorrect in the programs or in the ideas being regarded as correct by the
State.
13.
The
petitioners also see the provision of Section 23(a)(3) as a violation of the
religion of the petitioners.
14.
The
petitioners see this as a violation because while Section 23 (a)(3) allows
religious objectors not to administer artificial contraceptives or not make
advices on artificial contraceptives the law requires these objectors to refer
the patient or client to another service provider.
15.
To the
petitioners, the act of referring is the same as an act of compelling religious
objectors to perform what is prohibited in their religious beliefs.
16.
A copy of
the law can be downloaded or found at this Official Gazette site, to wit: http://www.gov.ph/2012/12/21/republic-act-no-10354/.
17.
There has
been no Implementing Rules and Regulations yet that has been published until
this writing, preventing the petitioners from asking for a Temporary
Restraining Order (TRO) because there is no impending danger yet.
18.
The
petitioners see that the new law encompasses almost all what is the future of
the Filipino race, as a State and as a race.
19.
The
petitioners cannot sleep to think that the law appears to be not just another
ordinary law that simply affects acts or conducts because it appears to be more
of making or unmaking what is the cherished Filipino culture, traditions and
dreams as taught to the 80% of the population who are Catholics.
20.
The
petitioners fear that the habit-forming-and-extraordinary law will define lower
moral standards a generation later: that drastically high number of Filipinos
of tomorrow will look at sexual immorality as ordinary or less and less sacred
for the married couples only.
21.
The
petitioners have expressed fears that this habit will be formed by force of
evolution due to the lack of fear of getting pregnant among teenagers
Acts
of Grave Abuse of Discretion
Contrary to life
22.
The Houses
of Congress and the Office of the President of the Philippines blended their
powers to commit grave abuse of discretion on the first count in the making and
signing into law of Republic Act 10354, otherwise known as the “Responsible
Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012.”
23.
It was grave
abuse of discretion because their act of exercising the blending of their
powers violated the command of the Constitution that the State shall equally protect the life of the
mother and the life of the unborn from the time of conception.
24.
The
particular provision of the Constitution that this law violates is Section 12
of Article II thereof, which states:
Section
12. The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and
strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution. It shall equally protect the life of the
mother and the life of the unborn from conception. The natural and
primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic
efficiency and the development of moral character shall receive the support of
the Government.
25.
The
Constitution is clear that the injunction against any danger to the life of the
unborn BEGINS FROM CONCEPTION.
26.
CONCEPTION
OCCURS AT THE TIME OF FERTILIZATION OF AN EGG BY A SPERM but the law expressly
violated this by instructing the FDA to determine and allow only those
contraceptives that prevents implantation of the fertilized egg in the uterus.
27.
That
particular provision of the law, Section 2(d), states:
(d) The right of families or family associations to participate in the
planning and implementation of policies and programs.
The State likewise guarantees universal access to medically-safe,
non-abortifacient, effective, legal, affordable, and quality reproductive
health care services, methods, devices, supplies which do not prevent the implantation of a fertilized ovum as
determined by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and relevant information
and education thereon according to the priority needs of women, children and
other underprivileged sectors, giving preferential access to those identified
through the National Household Targeting System for Poverty Reduction (NHTS-PR)
and other government measures of identifying marginalization, who shall be
voluntary beneficiaries of reproductive health care, services and supplies for
free.
28.
Conception
occurs in the fertilization stage because it is only at the moment a sperm cell
fertilizes an egg or ovum that life can only possibly begin.
29.
It is very
clear that without fertilization, there can be no human life.
30.
And because
it is only at the time of fertilization that there is a possibility of human
life coming full circle, it necessarily follows that fertilization is the very
essence of conception.
31.
Moreover,
the word “conception” comes from the word “concept.”
32.
If it is
to talk about conceptualization of human beings, it is to talk about the
concept of human being.
33.
Further, if
it is to talk about concept, there is no assurance yet of coming to fruition or
realization.
34.
So is in
the concept of making a human being, it is no assurance that with the
occurrence of concept human being is assured.
35.
Now,
concept involves the occurrence of an initial act with the purpose of making
the concept a reality.
36.
So that
when a married couple, a man and a woman, copulate and the sperm cell
fertilizes the egg of the woman, the concept of creating a human being begins
from that fertilization.
37.
This is the
position of the petitioners.
38.
Now, during
the interpellations at the plenary of the halls of Congress, the question of
“where does life begin” was the central issue raised by the lawmakers opposing
the RH bill proposal to make a law giving free artificial contraceptives.
39.
The
determination of when does conception begin, at the time of fertilization or at
the time of implantation of the fertilized egg into the uterus, was
indispensable during the interpellation among the lawmakers.
40.
This was
because there was that apprehension among anti-RH bill lawmakers, led by
Senator Tito Sotto, that the artificial contraceptives that are available today
and those methods that may be made available in the future will operate to kill
the fertilized egg and it was in this concern that the anti-RH solons
vigorously opposed the proposal of RH authors Senator Pia Cayetano and Senator
Miriam Defensor Santiago.
41.
Sotto
stressed that the Constitution protects the life of the unborn from conception.
42.
Senators
Cayetano and Santiago, for their part, rejected the idea that conception occurs
at fertilization, insisting that conception begins at the time of implantation
of the fertilized egg into the uterus.
43.
Senator Tito
Sotto, upon the other hand, insisted that conception occurs at the moment of
fertilization.
44.
While all
lawmakers, both the pro and anti, were in agreement that they should not
violate the Constitution’s proscription against conception in making a law to
provide for free artificial contraceptives, they were not agreeing with each
other as to when does conception occur: during fertilization or during
implantation.
45.
In the
course of the exchange of debates, Santiago admitted that even experts on
reproductive health cannot even agree as to this issue.
46.
There was no
clear scrutiny done as to how each of the available contraceptives operate:
whether each operates to prevent the sperm from fertilizing the egg, or whether
each operates to kill the fertilized egg, or whether each operates to kill the
implanted fertilized egg.
47.
In other
words, the interpellations left hanging the following questions:
a.
Does
fertilization constitute conception?;
b.
Does
implantation constitute conception?;
c.
Does each of the
contraceptives available at the time of the deliberation merely prevent
fertilization?;
d.
Does each of the
contraceptives available today merely prevent implantation to occur?;
e.
Does each of the
contraceptives available now actually prevent pregnancy that should take place
after implantation in the uterus?
48.
Now,
despite these un-answered questions, the Senate and the House of
Representatives voted for the separate bills and ratified the reconciled
versions directing the government to provide free artificial contraceptives.
49.
In other words,
what the Houses of Congress and the President did was that they passed a law
that has the high risk of killing the unborn after conception.
50.
These acts
of the Congress are therefore a very clear case of grave abuse of discretion.
51.
Then
artificial contraceptives must not be allowed because of all those that are
known to be available as contraceptives, only condom was almost sure to be
non-violative as suggested by Senator Ralph Recto during the deliberation.
52.
Condom
stocks the sperm cells inside it so that it prevents sperm cells from being
ejaculated inside the woman during copulation, so that there is no possibility
that fertilization will occur.
53.
As to the
rest of the artificial contraceptives, there is no assurance as when they begin
to operate, before or after the fertilization stage.
54.
And because
the Congress insisted on contraceptives that do not prevent implantation only,
it allows the killing of life right at fertilization, grave abuse of discretion
is very clear.
Violation of Freedom of Speech
55.
Now, the
law also violated the constitutionally-protected freedom of speech spelled out
under Section 4 of Article III of the 1987 Constitution.
56.
For
clarity, let this provision be quoted, to wit:
SEC. 23. Prohibited Acts. – The following acts are
prohibited:
(a) Any health care service provider, whether public or private, who
shall:
(1) Knowingly withhold information or restrict the
dissemination thereof, and/or intentionally provide incorrect information regarding programs and services on
reproductive health including the right to informed choice and access
to a full range of legal, medically-safe, non-abortifacient and effective
family planning methods;
57.
No one has
the monopoly of what is correct and what is incorrect.
58.
The essence
of the freedom of speech is the freedom to express one’s opinion, no matter the
opinion is incorrect.
59.
If this law
is allowed to exist, it will imprison health service providers, including
Catholic hospitals, Catholic doctors and nurses, who would express opinions
contrary to the programs under the RH law.
60.
Section 4,
Article III of the Constitution states: “No law shall be passed abridging the
freedom of expression, of speech, and of the press.
Violation of religious freedom
61.
Now, under Section
23(a)(3) of the law, it compels health service providers, including Catholic
hospitals, Catholic doctors and nurses, who would refuse to render services if
artificial contraceptives are involved.
62.
This is so
because while the provision allows health service providers that are religious
objectors to refuse to render reproductive health services if the services to
be rendered constitutes a violation of their religious tenets the same law
compels them to refer the patient or client to a health service provider that
renders the same.
63.
The act of referring is the same as the
Catholic hospitals and doctors and nurses committing sin against the doctrine
of the Catholic on life.
64.
For clarity,
the same provision, Section 23(a)(3), is hereby quoted as follows:
(3) Refuse to extend quality health care services
and information on account of the person’s marital status, gender, age,
religious convictions, personal circumstances, or nature of work: Provided,
That the conscientious objection of a health care service provider based on
his/her ethical or religious beliefs shall be respected; however, the conscientious objector shall
immediately refer the person seeking such care and services to another health
care service provider within the same facility or one which is
conveniently accessible: Provided, further, That the
person is not in an emergency condition or serious case as defined in
Republic Act No. 8344, which penalizes the refusal of hospitals and medical
clinics to administer appropriate initial medical treatment and support in
emergency and serious cases;
Violation of
marriage rights of Catholics
65.
The
compulsion by the law to require marrying couples to undergo seminar on
reproductive health and other related matters violates the freedom of religion
of couples.
66.
This is
because there is nothing in the objectionable provision that exempts the
religious objectors from receiving instructions on artificial contraceptives.
67.
To be clear,
Section 15 of this law states:
SEC. 15. Certificate of Compliance. – No
marriage license shall be issued by the Local Civil Registrar unless the
applicants present a Certificate of Compliance issued for free by the local
Family Planning Office certifying that they had duly received adequate
instructions and information on responsible parenthood, family planning,
breastfeeding and infant nutrition.
68.
This law
prohibits marrying couples from marrying because the State will not issue a
marriage license of the couple refuses to receive instructions that the couple
would object on the ground of religion.
69.
That
provision of the law therefore constitutes also an act of assaulting the
Catholic religion.
Destruction or
de-establishment of Catholic religion
70.
In the
entirety, because of the fact that the law commands the procurement of
artificial contraceptives to be given for free is more than an insult to the
Catholic religion that has been repeatedly complaining that doing the same
amounts to an assault against the religion.
71.
The
Constitutional prohibition against establishment of religion also goes with the
prohibition against de-establishment or destruction of religion.
72.
The State
destroys the Catholic by officially promoting the doing of acts that are
blatantly against the doctrine of life of the Catholics and the people who
embrace this religion.
73.
Actually,
it does not offend only the Catholic, it also does the same on the Islam
religion exercised by Filipino Muslims.
74.
It is a
doctrine of Islam that its men can marry up to four wives, divorce any or all of
the wives and marry anew.
75.
How then
would this religious freedom be consistent with the unstated but clear
objective of RH Law in reducing the country’s population, considering that with
four wives alone and with only two children per wife would produce a number of
children that is obviously more than the law imagines?
76.
It really
offends the senses of the Catholics like the petitioners to see the State
officially endorsing acts that are prohibited by the Catholic.
77.
The fact
that the law never compels the Catholics to avail of the artificial
contraceptives never removes the assault on the Catholic religion.
The means employed does not
advance the end and is oppressive
78.
The means
employed by the law in achieving its end, reduction in population or the
achievement of responsible parenthood and of desired reproductive health is
oppressive and does not substantially advance the end.
79.
Giving free
artificial contraceptives is oppressive because it offends the Catholic
religion, no matter the fact that it is on a voluntary basis.
80.
It will
also make many Catholic faithful who may have been duped or convinced to avail
of artificial contraceptives that are loath at by the Catholic religion.
81.
It will
therefore diminish the respect and belief of many Catholics to the religion.
82.
It is not
an offense for private persons or other religions to recruit the Catholics into
other religions.
83.
But it is
an offense against the Constitution injunction on the separation of the Church
from the State for the State to officially do those acts that are contrary to
the doctrine of life by the Catholic.
84.
Hence, it
is clear that the same means of giving free artificial contraceptives will
oppress the Catholics and assault the Catholic religion.
85.
But more
importantly, the means employed will actually not advance the purposes of the
law.
86.
This is
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.
87.
When
carried away by passions for love and sex, the couples cannot be expected to
say, “Teka, isusuot mo muna ang condom
(Wait, wear your condom first). Teka,
nakainom ka ba ng pills? (Wait, have you already taken your pills?)”
88.
According to Senator Aquilino “Koko”
Pimentel III, the better ways to achieve responsible parenthood and reproductive
health are to build more hospitals instead of buying artificial contraceptives,
provide health facilities to the citizens even to remote areas, equip schools
with educational curriculum on health, particularly on what foods are healthy
and on how to grow more vegetables for family consumption, educate the children
on reproductive systems focusing on how they work and that the curriculum
should be age appropriate as well as the value of abstinence in marriage and
the sacredness of sex among married couples, and the like.
89.
Another
better way that is not compulsive is the massive education program on natural
contraception, including inculcating the Billings Ovulation Method.
90.
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”[1].
91.
In that Ynot case, a law was struck down because
the means employed cannot substantially advance to achieve the purpose of the
law.
92.
The High
Court said in this Ynot case 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 them can be done.
93.
This is
revolting in the face of the fact that there are better means available and
that the State can rely on the other modes to achieve better results without
offending the Catholic religion.
94.
One better
means is conducting massive educational or information campaign about the
importance of responsible parenthood and that being responsible can be achieved
by natural family planning methods, including the proven-effective Billings
Ovulation Method.
95.
The massive information dissemination shall be
made mandatory in order to ensure 100% absorption by the citizens.
96.
The massive information dissemination can
promote the culture of practicing abstinence so that fewer and more quality
children can be born out of them to a level that can be managed by their
income.
97.
The massive
and frequent flow of information will be implanted into the subliminal minds of
the people, including the poor, and that will be more effective than all
medically-concocted contraceptives.
98.
This
campaign can be done by incorporating reproductive health care and responsible
parenthood through natural methods as subjects in all levels in schools.
99.
The funds that will be used by the law for
buying artificial contraceptives can be used instead in daily five-time-or-more
radio and television commercials and advertisements through online and other
media, and the like.
100.
The
suggested means is not oppressive and not discriminatory to the poor and the
Catholics or Muslims who are allowed to take four wives or divorce some or all
and take new wives.
101.
At the
same time, the law amounts to constructive violation of the privacy of the
couples.
102.
For matters that affect privacy and personal
decisions, the State as a rule is not authorized to interfere with by means of
a law.
103.
The State is not allowed to dictate on the couples
as to how they will bring up their families, including those matters of the
number of children and the like.
104.
All the State can do is to define what acts it will
prohibit, define the policies on certain conducts and provide sanctions for the
doing of those acts or conducts.
105.
The State cannot invade into the privacy of couples
on their beds.
106.
It cannot dictate on how they conduct their
lovemaking, how they enjoy their most intimate moments, and how they celebrate
to the most they can to satisfy their desire for heavenly joy.
107.
Combined with love, sex becomes the bedrock of the
strength needed to keep the young family staying together and this would be
enough to keep them together until their senior years when all lust would be
gone and all they would have to stick to each other would only be the love for
their children and the strong desire not to break up for the children, for
family, and for honor.
108.
If there is something that the State may be allowed
to do if it desires to have a quality family, that is truly in the essence of
what responsible parenthood and reproductive health should be, it is only doing
such acts that will enlighten and galvanize in the minds of the citizens in a
scale massive enough to form a good culture of high moral standards, that in
the process will place back the consciousness on the value of keeping the
family together.
109.
It is therefore awkward for the State to teach the
mothers and the fathers how to enjoy sex by the use of condoms, pills, etc.
110.
Stated in another way, it cannot be seen how the law
would be effective in achieving its stated and unstated purposes.
111.
If practicality dictates that many of the Catholics
will not avail of the free artificial contraceptives on the ground of religion
which is allowed by the law, then how can the State achieve the unstated
purpose of lesser number of children each family?
112.
The State is therefore like prescribing a solution
yet allowing the people to opt out or not follow the prescribed solution.
113.
If that is so, how can the ends be advance
substantially?
Law violates the
primary right of parents on moral
development
114.
The State cannot decide or compel unto the parents on
how to rear their children for moral development.
115.
This is very clear in Sections 12 and 13 of Article
II of the Constitutions, to wit:
Section 12. The State recognizes the
sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic
autonomous social institution. It shall equally protect the life of the mother
and the life of the unborn from conception. The natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of
the youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral character
shall receive the support of the Government.
Section 13. The State recognizes the
vital role of the youth in nation-building and shall promote and protect their
physical, moral, spiritual, intellectual, and social well-being. It shall
inculcate in the youth patriotism and nationalism, and encourage their
involvement in public and civic affairs.
116.
By passing RA No. 10354, the State is unwittingly
creating a system whereby it diminishes the parents’ effectiveness in rearing
their children in developing their moral character.
117.
This is not to say that the moral character that
would be developed among the future citizens will be dictated by the law, for
what is objectionable is for the State to grab from the parents their natural
and primary right and duty to rear their children for the purpose of developing
their moral character.
118.
Educating the young ones on the artificial modes of
contraceptives would demean the teachings of the Catholics that sex is sacred
and it is only for the married couples.
119.
Educating the young ones on the artificial modes of
contraception would give ideas to sex among unmarried couples that can become
massive because of the lack of fear of unwanted pregnancy.
120.
For sure, the State cannot also make any law that
promotes moral deterioration among the people, particularly among the families that
are inviolable social institutions.
121.
The law here in question, if allowed to run its full
course, say ten (10) years, will see the moral values running low: the people
then would look up to sex like goods that can be bought over the counter and
not something that should be worked hard for and to keep as sacred when found.
122.
The effect of the educational system as the device
to be used to teach children of various products that prevent pregnancies through
artificial means would even embolden the teenagers to try premarital sex for they
would be assured that there are modes available and free to be used to prevent
pregnancy.
123.
Gone will be the fear of pregnancy that has played a
major role in keeping young people within the zone of morality.
124.
So that instead of strengthening the family as the
Constitution commands, it weakens its foundations of love between spouses, of
respect for each other between couples, of the dignity of the spouses and their
family, and of high regard to the higher interest of keeping the family as
higher than the pride and anger of each spouse against each other when they
would quarrel or would have envies and other issues between them.
125.
Also, the wives would cope with the extreme
difficulty of how to accept that their husbands would use condoms on them as if
they are prostitutes.
126.
The law promotes crime and immorality rather than
morality.
127.
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.
128.
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.
Law violates equal protection
clause
129.
The law is also unconstitutional because it violates
the equal protection clause.
130.
It classifies the poor from the rich and then gives
them all free contraceptives in queues.
131.
This classification renders prejudice to the
indigent who, wittingly or unwittingly, will be ostracized as “palamunin” and an outcast of the society
for it will appear they are being blamed for the miseries of the country.
132.
Giving free contraceptives is undoubtedly targeting
the poor.
133.
Also, the sight of the poor in queues asking for
condoms, pills or for other contraception devices every day destroys their
dignity as human beings.
134.
Observers will likely say: “Hey, look those maniacs in long queues.”
Oppressive to taxpayers
135.
This law also constitutes unjust compensation to the
taxpayers because a part of the taxes they paid are not giving back the
equivalent value of government service.
136.
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.
137.
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?
138.
It is also revolting to think that some people would
pay and be compelled to contribute in the form of taxes so that others would
enjoy the worldly satisfactions for sex.
The
Conclusion
139.
Taking all the arguments into one make it clear that
the Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012 is
unconstitutional on the aspect of using artificial contraceptives.
140.
Additionally, the grave abuse of discretion is
apparent because the Congress and the President committed in the process violations
against life as defined by the Constitution, the freedom of speech, the freedom
of religion and protection of religion from de-establishment or assault, and
the equal protection clause, as well as the oppressiveness of the means
employed.
141.
Much apparent is the grave abuse of discretion when
the lawmakers officially gives sanctions to the giving of free artificial contraceptives
when they were not even sure on the defination of “conception” as to whether it
is at the stage of the completion of the fertilizaiton process or during the implantation of the
fertilized egg in the uterus and not sure whether the artificial contraceptives
attacks or kills fertilized egg.
142.
The gravest abuse of discretion was committed when
the lawmakers even defined the limits of allowable contraceptives to be those
that would be determined by the Food and Drug Administration as only preventing
implantation to happen in the uterus.
143.
Ergo, the instant law, Republic Act 10354, otherwise
known as the “Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012, must
be struck down.
144.
Specifically, the provisions that must be struck
down are those that provide for the official procurement and distribution for
free of artificial contrceptives, and those that mandate instruction on
artificial contraceptives in schools or elsewhere.
145.
Also being sought to be struck down are the
provisions that:
a.
violate press freedom -- Section 23(a)(1);
b.
violate religious freedom – Section 23(a)(3); and
c.
violate the religious freedom of marrying couples
who are Catholics – Section 15;
The Prayer
WHEREFORE, after due notice and
hearing, it is respectfully prayed that the challenged law, Republic Act 10354,
be declared unconstitutional as discussed above.
RENTA PE CAUSING
SABARRE CASTRO & ASSOCIATES
Unit
1, 2368 JB Roxas St. corner Leon Guinto St., Malate, Manila
By:
BERTENI CATALUÑA
CAUSING
IBP No. 876498 /
Manila IV / 10-01-2013
PTR No. 1435314 / Manila / 10-01-2013
Roll No. 60944 / MCLE No. IV -0007338 / 08-10-2012
PTR No. 1435314 / Manila / 10-01-2013
Roll No. 60944 / MCLE No. IV -0007338 / 08-10-2012
Cc:
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT (OP),
OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY (OES),
Malacañang
Palace, Manila
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH (DOH),
Jose
Reyes Memorial Medical Center
Rizal
Avenue, Manila
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (DEPED),
Meralco Avenue, Pasig City
Comments