Pro-Life Phil vs. Office of The President

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila PRO-LIFE PHILIPPINES FOUNDATION INC., represented by Lorna Melegrito, as Executive Director, and in her personal capacity, JOSELYN B. BASILIO, ROBERT Z. CORTES, ARIEL A. CRISOSTOMO, JEREMY I. GATDULA, CRISTINA A. MONTES, RAUL ANTONIO A. NIDOY, WINSTON CONRAD B. PADOJINOG, RUFINO L. POLICARPIO III, Petitioners, - versus G.R. No. _________________
For:
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, HON. PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., Executive Secretary, HON. FLORENCIO B. ABAD, Secretary, Department of Budget and Management; HON. ENRIQUE T. ONA, Secretary, Department of Health, HON. ARMIN A. LUISTRO, Secretary, Department of Education and HON. MANUEL A. ROXAS II, Secretary, Department of Interior and Local Government Respondents. x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
CERTIORARI and PROHIBITION with a prayer for a TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER and/or WRIT OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
for Certiorari and Prohibition PREFATORY STATEMENT Knowledge of law amounts to little if it overlooks the persons for whose sake law is made. Justinian, Roman Emperor While the legislature therefore enjoys a wide latitude of discretion in the exercise of its functions, such discretion is not absolute. It cannot, under any circumstance, exercise that discretion in a capricious, whimsical, and arbitrary manner. And, in the enactment of laws, it must bow to an objective standard of morality based on reason and proper respect for human nature. Thus, it should not
PETITION
enact laws that offend the fundamental rights of citizens, such as the right to religious freedom. Finally, it must comply with the demands of a democratic government, as well as certain principles and policies held sacred by the Filipino people as embodied in the Constitution. Failing these requirements, any such act of the legislature must be declared constitutionally infirm and stricken down. The Case & Nature of the Proceeding Herein Petitioners, through counsels, come before this Honorable Supreme Court, by way of Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with prayer for the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction against the Office of the President of the Republic of the Philippines, and its instrumentalities, under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, seeking to annul the enactment, and prohibit the implementation of Republic Act No. 10354 for having been enacted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack and/or excess of jurisdiction. This petition is filed as an original special civil action because there is no remedy of appeal from the assailed acts of Congress and the President. Neither is there any other plain, speedy and adequate remedy available to petitioners in the ordinary course of law. Republic Act No. 10354 is unconstitutional for being a law that constitutes a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of or excess of jurisdiction by the Congress, for being contrary to natural law and thus whimsical, capricious, and arbitrary; for containing significant provisions that violate the constitutionally protected religious rights of the Catholic Church and its faithful, as provided for under Article III.5 of the Constitution; and for grossly violating the inherently pro-family and democratic nature of the Constitution. Accordingly, this Honorable Supreme Court is well authorized, mandated, and justified in declaring RA 10354 unconstitutional and without further cause and effect. LOCUS STANDI Petitioner PRO-LIFE PHILIPPINES FOUNDATION,INC. is composed of a group of Filipino citizens, professionals, i.e. doctors, lawyers, educators, sociologists, businessmen & some priests & religious whose primary objective is to promote, enhance and uphold the basic rights, welfare and dignity of the unborn, the aged, the sick, the disabled, and other disadvantaged members of society. It also seeks to strengthen and protect the rights and welfare of the Filipino family, advance and increase respect for human life in our Philippine society. It files this petition in representation of its members who, because of their convictions regarding respect for human life and the value of the Filipino family, suffer violation of their fundamental rights as a result of RA 10354.
Pro-Life Philippines Foundation Inc., et.al. vs. Office of the President, et.al .
Herein individual Petitioners are all Filipino citizens, taxpayers, professionals in various fields of endeavor, members of the Philippine Bar, and educators. They file this petition as ordinary citizens, and taxpayers, of the Republic of the Philippines whose sworn duty is to uphold, support and defend its Constitution xxx. They are suing in their capacities as tax payers who will be severly prejudiced by the illegal and immoral disbursement of public funds for the purpose of implementing the mandates of the assailed RA 10354 They have also filed this petition as parents, and as a class suit in representation of other parents and individuals similarly situated. The RH Law is oppressive, unjust, confiscatory and discriminatory specifically against herein petitionersas parents, professionals, and faithful of the Catholic Church. Thus, it must be declared unconstitutional. Petitioners raise novel issues of transcendental importance, dealing as they are with the fundamental rights of citizens and the fundamental principles enshrined by the Constitution. The PARTIES Herein Petitioner, PRO-LIFE PHILIPPINES FOUNDATION, INC., hereinafter referred to as Petitioner PRO-LIFE PHIL is a non-stock, non-profit corporation, duly organized in accordance with Philippine laws as shown by the Certificate of Registration issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission bearing No. 123099, dated January 6, 1995, a photocopy of which is hereto integrally attached as Annex A with principal offices located at San Lorenzo Ruiz Student Catholic Center, 2486 Legarda st., Sampaloc, Manila, where it may be served processes of the Honorable Supreme Court, represented herein by its President Eric Manalang, and Executive Director, Lorna Melegrito, as shown by the Corporate Secretarys Certificate of Board Resolution dated January 14, 2013, a photocopy of which is hereto integrally attached as Annex B. Herein Petitioner, JOSELYN B. BASILIO, is a Filipino, of legal age, and a resident of JSB Bldg. Tomas Morato Corner Scout Delgado, Quezon City, M.M. where she may be served processes of this Honorable Court. He files this petition in his personal capacity. Petitioner, ROBERT Z. CORTES, is a Filipino, of legal age, and a resident of Unit 111 Champagne Condominium, Escriva Drive, Pasig City,where he may also be served processes of this Honorable Court. He is an educator from the University of Asia & the Pacific, Pearl Drive, Ortigas Center, Pasig City and likewise files this petition in his personal capacity. Petitioner, ARIEL A. CRISOSTOMO, is a Filipino, of legal age, married and a resident of No. 4 Cebu Street , Alabang Hills Village , Cupang , Muntinlupa City, M.M., where he may also be served processes of this Honorable Court. He is an
educator from the PAREF Southridge School in Alabang, Muntinlupa. He likewise files this petition in his personal capacity and as a parent. Petitioner, JEREMY I. GATDULA, is a Filipino, of legal age, married and with office address at 6/F APEC Bldg., University of Asia & the Pacific, Ortigas Center, Pasig City, M.M., where he may be served processes of this Honorable Court. He is a member of the Philippine Bar, and an educator from the University of Asia & the Pacific, Pearl Drive, Ortigas Center, Pasig City. He likewise files this petition in his personal capacity and as a parent, and serves as counsel of record herein. Petitioner, CRISTINA A. MONTES, is a Filipino, of legal age, and with office address at 26/F The Orient Square Bldg., F. Ortigas, Jr. Road, Ortigas Center, Pasig City, M.M., where she may be served processes of this Honorable Court. She is a member of the Philippine Bar, counsel of record herein, and likewise files this petition in her personal capacity. Petitioner, RAUL ANTONIO A. NIDOY, is a Filipino, of legal age, and a resident of 119 Aguirre Corner Salcedo Avenue, Legazpi Village, Makati where he may also be served processes of this Honorable Court. He is an educator from the Parents for Education Foundation (PAREF) Inc.. He likewise files this petition in his personal capacity. Petitioner, WINSTON CONRAD B. PADOJINOG, is a Filipino, of legal age, married and office address at 6/F APEC Bldg., University of Asia & the Pacific, Pearl Drive, Ortigas Center, Pasig City, M.M., where he may also be served with processes of this Honorable Court. He is an educator and Dean of the School of Management of the University of Asia & the Pacific. He likewise files this petition in his personal capacity and as a parent. Petitioner, RUFINO L. POLICARPIO III, is a Filipino, of legal age, married, with office address at 903 Richmonde Plaza, San Miguel Ave. Corner Lourdes Drive, Ortigas Center, Pasig City, M.M. where he may be served processes of this Honorable Court. He is a member of the Philippine Bar, and an educator from the University of Asia & the Pacific. He also serves as counsel herein, and files this petition in his personal capacity and as a parent. All the above named Petitioners may be served notices and other processes of this Court through undersigned counsel of record, at this address: 903 Richmonde Plaza, San Miguel Ave. Corner Lourdes Drive, Ortigas Center, Pasig City, M.M. 1605. The Respondents:
The OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, Malacanang Palace, Manila; the SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES, GSIS Complex, Roxas Blvd., Pasay City; and the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Batasan Hills, Quezon City which are impleaded for passing and approving the assailed law. HON. PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., Executive Secretary, Office of the President of the Philippines, Malacanang Palace, Manila; HON. FLORENCIO B. ABAD, Secretary, Department of Budget and Management (DBM), Malacanang Palace, Manila; HON. ENRIQUE T. ONA, Secretary, Department of Health (DOH), San Lazaro Compound, Cityy of Manila; HON. ARMIN A. LUISTRO, FSC, Secretary, Department of Education (DepEd), DepEd Complex, Meralco Avenue, Pasig City; and HON. MANUEL A. ROXAS II, Secretary, Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) EDSA, cor. Mapagmahal St., Diliman, Quezon City; they are all public officials in-charge of the enforcement and administration of the Act and all laws relative to the conduct of their respective duties and functions; for these reasons, respondents are being sued herein in their official capacities and may be served summons and other processes at their respective offices as above indicated and through their statutory counsel, the Solicitor General, at 139 Amorsolo Street, Legaspi Village, Makati City. ANTECEDENT FACTS On December 21, 2012, Republic Act No. 10354, otherwise known as The Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012, was passed by Congress, and subsequently signed by President Benigno C. Aquino on December 28, 2012. The assailed law seeks to facilitate the practice of artificial contraception or birth control among Filipinos, and aims to provide free family birth control services, supplies, or drugs and devices to them. Accordingly, the law provides, among others, that:
a) hormonal contraceptives, intra uterine devices, injectables and other family planning products and supplies shall be included in the regular purchase of ESSENTIAL MEDICINES and SUPPLIES of ALL national hospitals (Sec. 9) b) The DOH shall procure, distribute to LGUs and monitor the usage of family planning supplies for the whole country. The DOH shall coordinate with all appropriate LGU bodies to plan and implement this procurement and distribution program. The supply and budget allotments shall be based on, among others, COST OF FAMILY PLANNING SUPPLIES. (Sec. 10) c) 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
instructions and information on responsible parenthood, family planning, breastfeeding and infant nutrition. (Sec. 15)
Our present Constitution of 1987, however, mandates the State: a) to promote the common good, conserve and develop our patrimony, and secure to ourselves and our POSTERITY the blessings of independence and democracy under a rule of law and a regime of truth, justice, freedom, LOVE, equality, and peace (Preamble); b) to protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution, and to equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception (1st and 2nd sentences, Sec. 12, ART. II); c) to pass no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, and to allow forever the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship without discrimination or preference ( Sec. 5, ART. III); and d) to defend the right of spouses to found a family in accordance with their religious convictions and the demands of responsible parenthood Sec. 3 (1), ART XV). And finally, under the same 1987 Philippine Constitution:
a) The State recognizes the SANCTITY of FAMILY LIFE (1st sentence, Sec 12. ART II). b) The FAMILY is the foundation of the NATION (Sec. 1, ART. XV). c) MARRIAGE is the FOUNDATION of the FAMILY (Sec. 2, ART. XV).
ISSUE
WHETHER OR NOT THE CONGRESS OF THE PHILPPINES COMMITTED A GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OF OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT APPROVED AND PASSED R.A. 10354? OR
WHETHER
OR
NOT
R.A.
10354
SHOULD
BE
DECLARED
UNCONSTITUTIONAL?
ARGUMENTS
A. R.A. 10354 is unconstitutional for being a law that constitutes grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of or excess of jurisdiction by the Congress, which the Supreme Court is authorized to review under Article VIII.1 of the Constitution. RA 10354 is unconstitutional for violating religious freedom provided for under the Bill of Rights and international law. RA 10354 is unconstitutional for violating the inherently pro-family nature of the Constitution,and being void-for-vagueness, in violation of the due process clause of the Constitution.
B. C.
DISCUSSION
A. RA 10354 is unconstitutional for being a law that constitutes grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of or excess of jurisdiction by the Congress, which the Supreme Court is authorized to review under Article VIII.1 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has authority to rule as unconstitutional any law that constitutes a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of or excess of jurisdiction, as provided for under Article VIII.1 of the Constitution. 1. At the outset, it must be emphasized that Article VIII Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution has broadened the scope of judicial review. Traditionally, constitutional theory has distinguished between political and justiciable questions. Political questions refer to questions of policy, those questions which, under the Constitution, are to be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity; or in regard to which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the legislative or executive branch of government.1 In other words, a political question is a question regarding the wisdom, not the legality, of a particular measure.2 On the other hand, a justiciable question implies a given right, legally demandable and enforceable, an act or
1 2
Casibang v. Aquino, G.R. No. L-38025, August 20, 1979. Ibid., citing Taada v. Cuenco, G.R. No. L-10520, February 28, 1957.
ommission violative of said right, and a remedy, granted or sanctioned by law, for said breach of right.3 2. Political questions have been traditionally held to be beyond the reach of judicial review.4 However, while this doctrine still holds, the scope of justiciable questions has expanded with the adoption of Article VIII, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution, which defines judicial power as the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of Government. (Underscoring supplied.) 3. In his separate opinion in Integrated Bar of the Philippines v. Zamora,5 then member of this Honorable Court Reynato Puno briefly recounted the background of the subject portions of Article VIII, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution: It is now history that the improper reliance by the Court on the political question doctrine eroded the people's faith in its capacity to check abuses committed by the then Executive in the exercise of his commander-in-chief powers, particularly violations against human rights. The refusal of courts to be pro-active in the exercise of its checking power drove the people to the streets to resort to extralegal remedies. They gave birth to EDSA. Two lessons were not lost to the members of the Constitutional Commission that drafted the 1987 Constitution. The first was the need to grant this Court the express power to review the exercise of the powers as commander-in-chief by the President and deny it of any discretion to decline its exercise. The second was the need to compel the Court to be pro-active by expanding its jurisdiction and, thus, reject its laid back stance against acts constituting grave abuse of discretion on the part of any branch or instrumentality of government. Then Chief Justice Roberto Concepcion, a member of the Constitutional Commission, worked for the insertion of the second paragraph of Section 1, Article VIII in the draft Constitution, which reads: Sec. 1. x x x.Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.
3 4
Ibid., citing Tan v. Republic, G.R. No. L-14159, April 18, 1960. See Taada v. Cuenco, G.R. No. L-10520, February 28, 1957. 5 G.R. No. 141284, August 15, 2000.
The language of the provision clearly gives the Court the power to strike down acts amounting to grave abuse of discretion of both the legislative and executive branches of government. (Underscoring supplied.) 4. Thus, in Daza v. Singson,6 this Honorable Court, in passing on the justiciability of the issue of whether Representative Raul Daza may be removed from the Committee on Appointments following the political realignment in the House of Representatives, pronounced: To summarize, then, we hold, in view of the foregoing considerations, that the issue presented to us is justiciable rather political, involving as it does the legality and not the wisdom of the act complained of, or the manner of filling the Commission on Appointments as prescribed by the Constitution. Even if the question were political in nature, it would still come within our powers of review under the expanded jurisdiction conferred upon us by Article VIII, Section 1, of the Constitution, which includes the authority to determine whether grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction has been committed by any branch or instrumentality of the government.7 5. The same constitutional provision was cited by this Court in Taada v. Angara8 in holding that the issue of whether the Senate concurrence to the World Trade Organization Agreement was constitutional is justiciable: In seeking to nullify an act of the Philippine Senate on the ground that it contravenes the Constitution, the petition no doubt raises a justiciable controversy. Where an action of the legislative branch is seriously alleged to have infringed the Constitution, it becomes not only the right but in fact the duty of the judiciary to settle the dispute. "The question thus posed is judicial rather than political. The duty (to adjudicate) remains to assure that the supremacy of the Constitution is upheld." Once a controversy as to the application or interpretation of a constitutional provision is raised before this Court (as in the instant case), it becomes a legal issue which the Court is bound by constitutional mandate to decide. The jurisdiction of this Court to adjudicate the matters raised in the petition is clearly set out in the 1987 Constitution, as follows:
6 7
G.R. No. 86344, December 21, 1989. Ibid. 8 G.R. No. 118295, May 2, 1997.
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government. The foregoing text emphasizes the judicial department's duty and power to strike down grave abuse of discretion on the part of any branch or instrumentality of government including Congress. It is an innovation in our political law. As explained by former Chief Justice Roberto Concepcion, "the judiciary is the final arbiter on the question of whether or not a branch of government or any of its officials has acted without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction or so capriciously as to constitute an abuse of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction. This is not only a judicial power but a duty to pass judgment on matters of this nature." (Citations omitted.)9 6. Likewise, this Court, in Francisco v. House of Representatives,10 invoked the same principle in refuting the argument that the Senates sole power to try impeachment cases entirely excludes impeachment proceedings from the power of judicial review: The major difference between the judicial power of the Philippine Supreme Court and that of the U.S. Supreme Court is that while the power of judicial review is only impliedly granted to the U.S. Supreme Court and is discretionary in nature, that granted to the Philippine Supreme Court and lower courts, as expressly provided for in the Constitution, is not just a power but also a duty, and it was given an expanded definition to include the power to correct any grave abuse of discretion on the part of any government branch or instrumentality.11 (Emphasis in the original.) 7. In the same case, this Court enumerated other instances wherein it exercised its power of judicial review over acts of the legislature, thus: There is indeed a plethora of cases in which this Court exercised the power of judicial review over congressional action. Thus, in Santiago v. Guingona, Jr., this Court ruled that it is well within the power and jurisdiction of the Court to inquire whether the Senate or its officials committed a violation of the Constitution or grave abuse of discretion in the exercise of their functions and prerogatives. In Taada v. Angara, in seeking to nullify an act of the Philippine Senate
9
Ibid. G.R. No. 160261, November 10, 2003. 11 Ibid.

10
10
on the ground that it contravened the Constitution, it held that the petition raises a justiciable controversy and that when an action of the legislative branch is seriously alleged to have infringed the Constitution, it becomes not only the right but in fact the duty of the judiciary to settle the dispute. In Bondoc v. Pineda, this Court declared null and void a resolution of the House of Representatives withdrawing the nomination, and rescinding the election, of a congressman as a member of the House Electoral Tribunal for being violative of Section 17, Article VI of the Constitution. In Coseteng v. Mitra, it held that the resolution of whether the House representation in the Commission on Appointments was based on proportional representation of the political parties as provided in Section 18, Article VI of the Constitution is subject to judicial review. In Daza v. Singson, it held that the act of the House of Representatives in removing the petitioner from the Commission on Appointments is subject to judicial review. In Taada v. Cuenco, it held that although under the Constitution, the legislative power is vested exclusively in Congress, this does not detract from the power of the courts to pass upon the constitutionality of acts of Congress. In Angara v. Electoral Commission, it ruled that confirmation by the National Assembly of the election of any member, irrespective of whether his election is contested, is not essential before such member-elect may discharge the duties and enjoy the privileges of a member of the National Assembly.12 (Citations omitted.) 8. Accordingly, it is clear, from the provisions of the Constitution and by long history of jurisprudence, that this Honorable Court is well authorized and mandated to correct any grave abuse of discretion committed by any government branch or instrumentality, including the legislature. 9. Grave abuse of discretion is frequently defined as "capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction."13 In addition, explanations of the concept of grave abuse of discretion frequently state that, [t]he abuse of discretion must be patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion and hostility.14 In explaining the concept of discretion, De Leon and De Leon wrote: When anything is left to any officer to be done according to his discretion, the law intends it to be done with a sound discretion and according to law.
12 13
Ibid. See, for example, De Vera v. De Vera, G.R. No. 172832, April 7, 2009. 14 Ibid. Citation omitted.
11
Hence, although the terms of the law creating the authority confer upon the officer general discretionary power without qualifications, his authority is not deemed to be an unlimited one. The exercise of the officers discretion is still limited, by legal construction, to the evident purposes of the act, and to what is known as a sound and legal discretion, excluding all arbitrary, capricious, inquisitorial and oppressive proceedings. xxx"15 10. Applying these principles to the legislature, the broad discretion that the legislature enjoys in enacting laws is not absolute, but must follow, among others, the standards being sound, of fairness and reasonableness. When an act of Congress exceeds the bounds of right reason, instead acting with passion and hostility, such act is tainted with grave abuse of discretion, and aggrieved parties are entitled to have it nullified by this Court. 11. Petitioners posit that the legislature, in enacting Republic Act 10354, committed a grave abuse of discretion by funding, guaranteeing, and ordering under the pain of penal sanctions, acts which are contrary to the natural law, an objective standard of right and wrong based on the use of right reason. The Supreme Court has consistently and correctly ruled that natural law plays a significant part in our constitutional and legal system 12. The concept of natural law a universal, objective standard of right and wrong based on right reason, independent of man-made laws16 has existed throughout the history of ideas, and has constituted the foundation of most legal institutions including that of the Philippines. In his separate opinion in Republic v. Sandiganbayan,17 then member of this Court Reynato Puno cogently and methodically traced the history of the concept of natural law and elaborates on the central position it holds in the Philippine legal system. 13. It must be emphasized that natural law is not a religious concept, more so should it not be considered as something exclusively within the domain of any particular religion. It is a secular, universal concept imposing, as mentioned above, an objective standard through the use of right reason. Furthermore, natural law, which deals with human actions and decisions, is to be differentiated from the law of nature (i.e., physics, ecology, etc.).
15
De Leon, Hector S. and De Leon, Hector M. The Law on Public Officers and Election Law. Rex Book Store, Inc.: Quezon City, 2003, pp. 134-135. 16 This is a commonly accepted definition, sometimes attributed to Javier Hervada (see Criticial Introduction to Natural Law, 2006) 17 G.R. No. 104768, July 21, 2003.
12
14. Furthermore, it must be emphasized that to analyze issues, such as in the present case, is not merely to dwell in academics or theoretical exercises. As law professor and legal philosophy commentator Emmanuel Fernando (in his book Natural Law Theories, 2011) correctly posits: ... the skill of rational justification has practical value. For rational justification is nothing but the use of moral and other persuasive arguments in justifying ones position towards normative issues. This skill can be applied to the legal context, since moral and persuasive arguments are definitely important ingredients in courtroom advocacy and in adjudication.18 15. Thus, to emphasize: natural law, aside from being simply a guide to individual conduct, also serves as a standard for the laws enacted by the State19 (Underscoring supplied). 16. Natural law finds as its basis a correct understanding of human nature and dignity. By the use of right reason and taking into consideration such proper understanding of human nature, natural law declares objective moral norms, including certain exceptionless norms (moral absolutes), as well as the fact that human beings, as free and rational agents, possess a profound, inherent, and equal dignity.20 17. As to the fact that reason and human nature serve as the basis and source for natural law, such has been emphatically stated by another natural law expert, Martin Rhonheimmer: natural law is therefore a law that is intrinsic to man as a rational creature."21 He again asserts natural law as structured around reason and not theology (or religion) as follows: Because man is by nature a reasonable being, there exists also a law of reason, which are acts ordered by his practical reason in which man distinguishes good and evil, feeling himself bound to do the good, based on the rational understanding of what is good for man. This function of practical reason, natural in man, constitutes therefore a natural law.22 18. Thus, the concept of natural law has existed as early as the time of the Greek dramatist Sophocles, centuries before Christ. In his play Antigone, the heroine
18 19
Natural Law Thoeries, Emmanuel Fernando, 2011, p.44 50 Questions on the Natural Law, Charles Rice, 1999, p.33
20
ISI's American Studies Center (http://faculty.isi.org/), An Interview with Professor Robert P. George, By Laura Inglis, 12 Sept 2011
21 22
Ethics of Procreation, Martin Rhonheimmer, 2010, p.5 Ethics of Procreation, Martin Rhonheimmer, 2010, p.128
13
justified her defiance of the kings edict prohibiting the burial of her brother by invoking laws higher than that of the State: CREON : And thou didst indeed dare to transgress that law?
ANTIGONE : Yes; for it was not Zeus that had published me that edict; not such are the laws set among men by the justice who dwells with the gods below; nor deemed I that thy decrees were of such force, that a mortal could override the unwritten and unfailing statutes of heaven. For their life is not of to-day or yesterday, but from all time, and no man knows when they were first put forth. x xx23
19. Aristotle, too, spoke of the natural law in the Nichomachean Ethics when he observed that one part of what is politically just is natural, and the other part legal. What is natural has the same validity everywhere alike, independent of its seeming so or not. What is legal is what originally makes no difference xxx one way or another, but makes a difference whenever people have laid down the rule, e.g. xxx that a goat rather than two sheep should be sacrificed.24 The same philosopher believed that there is in nature a common principle of the just and unjust that all people in some way divine, even if they have no association or commerce with each other.25 20. In ancient Rome, Cicero described law as the highest reason, implanted in Nature, which commands what ought to be done and forbids the opposite.26 He also wrote that right is based, not upon mens opinions, but upon Nature. 21. It is well worth pointing out the obvious fact that Sophocles, Aristotle, and Cicero were not even members of the Christian faith. 22. The middle ages saw several natural law thinkers, the most prominent of whom was St. Thomas Aquinas. It was because of St. Aquinas that natural law sometimes is linked to the Catholic Church. Such a belief, however, is inaccurate. As we have seen in the paragraphs above, non-Christians centuries before Aquinas have elaborated on the idea of natural law. And it must be emphasized that Aquinas himself, in discussing natural law was not really discussing law in a theological sense but employed reasoning he adopted from Aristotle. Aquinas himself would therefore define the natural law as the rational creature's participation of the eternal law.27
23
Sophocles, Antigone, downloaded from http://classics.mit.edu/Sophocles/antigone.html, January 16, 2013. 24 Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics Book V, (Terence Irwin, transl. 1985), 133; quoted by Rice, Charles, 50 Questions on the Natural Law, Ignatius Press: San Francisco, 1996, p. 31. 25 Aristotle, On Rhetoric, Book 1, Chap. 13 (George A. Kennedy, transl. 1991, 102; quoted by Rice, 50 Questions on the Natural Law, p. 31. 26 Cicero, Laws, in Great Legal Philosophers (C. Morris, ed., 1959), pp. 44-45; quoted by Rice, 50 Questions on the Natural Law, p. 31. 27 Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, First Part of the Second Part, Question 91, Articles 1 and 2. Downloaded from http://www.ccel.org/a/aquinas/summa/FS/FS091.html, January 16, 2013.
14
23. Yet, the reason based essence of natural law, one that cuts across religion or cultures, must be repeatedly emphasized. The Maturidi, a major school of Sunni theology, declares that "the human mind could know of ... the major forms of good and evil without the help of revelation." This is illustrated by its proscription on stealing, murder, and adultery.28 24. Hugo Grotius, the Father of International Law and a Protestant pastor, was also a natural law theorist who defined it as a perceptive judgment by which things are good or bad by their own nature.29 To emphasize the fact that natural law is a secular concept detached from the religious or theological, Grotius was once reported to have said that: Natural law would maintain its objective validity even if we should assume the impossible, that there is no God or that he does not care for human affairs. 25. The reason for Grotius statement above is to emphasize the fact that natural law is based on reason, the reason of man, drawing from human nature. 26. In the Enlightenment, although theories of natural law shifted in emphasis, the notion of immutable human nature which is the basis of natural rights independent of any statute remained in the writings of thinkers like Hobbes and Locke. These ideas influenced the American revolution and sowed the seeds of constitutionalism.30 The American Declaration of Independence embody natural law thinking: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. (Underscoring supplied.) The United States Supreme Court, especially in its early years, has invoked natural law in its decisions such as Calder v. Bull,31 Chilsholm v. Georgia,32 Terrett v. Taylor,33 the Legal Tender Cases,34 Loan Association v. Topeka,35 among others. For a further (and more extensive) discussion on the US Supreme Courts use of natural law in its decisions, a concise resource is The U.S. Supreme Court and Natural Law (published on Natural Law, Natural Rights, and American Constitutionalism).36
27.
28
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law#Islamic_natural_law; 20 January 2013 http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/philosophers/grotius.html, downloaded January 16, 2013. 30 See Separate Opinion of J. Reynato Puno in Republic v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 104768, July 21, 2003. 31 3 US 386 (1798). 32 2 US (2 Dall) 419 (1793). 33 13 US 43 (1815). 34 79 US 457 (1870). 35 87 US 655 (1874). 36 See http://www.nlnrac.org/american/u.s.-supreme-court
29
15
28. Natural law likewise has been the driving force behind the movement against slavery and racial segregation in the United States.37 As it has been explained, When Abraham Lincoln said in 1858 that the real issue in the slavery controversy was the eternal struggle between right and wrong throughout the world, he spoke the language of natural law. The natural law tradition posits the existence of an objective and universal moral order external to subjective human intellect and will that gives direction to human beings and provides for their flourishing.38 29. This fact, however, must be emphasized: The reliance of the US legal system on natural law is notable because its courts are not empowered in the same way that the Philippine Supreme Court is, the latter having greater and wider authority (i.e., greater leeway) due to the provisions of Article VIII Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution and as acknowledged in a plethora of cases (including Francisco v. House of Representatives39). 30. The notion of a universal, objective norm of conduct established by right reason has also been considered by scholars to be the foundation of international law (hence the concept of jus cogens, for example) and the key to harmonizing laws governing transactions in a globalized world.40 31. To illustrate, in history, natural law has been successfully invoked against war criminals during the Nuremberg Trials. As explained by Jorge Coquia, natural law was: ... resorted to when other philosophies fail in given situations. Thus in the trials of war criminals during after World War II, natural law was cited in answer to the defense of the accused that the war crimes charged were not previously defined and no specific penalties were imposed by competent authority.41 32. That the natural law occupies a prominent place in the Philippine legal system is merely to state a fact. As early as the Malolos Constitution of 1899, there was a
37 38
Rice, Charles, 50 Questions on the Natural Law, pp. 23-27. Abraham Lincoln and Natural Law Tradition, Witherspoon Institute, Herman Belz, University of Maryland, 2013. 39 G.R. No. 160261, November 10, 2003. 40 See O Connor, J.F., Good Faith in International Law, Dartmouth Publishing Company, Ltd., UK, 1991; Manrique Nieto, Carlos, La Moderna Concepcin de la Buena Fe Objetiva como Regla Universal Para Los Contratos in Revista de Derecho Privado, no. 38, pp. 27-37, 1-6; Valpuesta Gastaminza, Eduardo, La Propuesta de Derecho Privado Unificado de Obligaciones y Contratos para Europa: el Draft Common Frame of Reference and Libro I. Disposiciones Generales in Valpuesta Gastaminza, Eduardo, Unificacion del Derecho Patrimonial Europeo: Marco Comun de Referencia y Derecho Espaol, Bosch, Barcelona, 2011, pp. 61-87 and 89-98. 41 Coquia, Jorge, Around The World In Seventy Days: On The Beam Of Natural Law, A Program For Peace, 1976.
16
recognition of the Sovereign Legislator of the Universe.42 Subsequently, Philippine constitutionalism was heavily influenced by American constitutionalism, whose ius naturalist orientation had already been discussed.43 The 1935, 1973, and 1987 Constitutions of the Philippines incorporated the Bill of Rights, which is essentially an embodiment of natural rights.44 The 1987 Constitution enumerates other instances of adherence to natural law: from "truth," the proscription against aggressive war, the preservation of the family, to taking care of the environment, among others.45 33. The Constitution is not the only area of Philippine law with a iusnaturalist orientation. For example, the Civil Code of the Philippines bases its provisions on abuse of right,46 acts contrary to morals,47 and natural obligations on natural law. 48 Furthermore, Article 10 of the Civil Code provides, In case of doubt in the interpretation or application of laws, it is presumed that the lawmaking body intended right and justice to prevail, thus making reference to an objective order of right independent of written laws. 34. Thus, it can be said that the Philippine Constitution (and, in fact, the Philippine legal system as a whole) institutionalizes natural law thinking. 35. As far as the Congress is concerned, it is axiomatic that it should be acting in accordance with right reason. Which is another way of saying that legislators should always ensure that they are acting and legislating in accordance with the wisdom and reason of natural law. Thus, legislators should always be guided in their deliberation, judgment, and action by principles of natural justice. Their exercises of prudence in protecting and advancing the common good, must always be shaped by their grasp of what is due to citizens as a matter of right and wrong, a matter of justice.49 For Congress to fail to do so would logically and clearly be considered an act of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of or excess of jurisdiction. 36. Definitely, this Honorable Court has unfailingly been aware and always acted in propriety in invoking natural law in its decisions, such as in People v. Asas (recognizing the right against forced confessions as part of the natural law),50 People v. Agbot (recognizing that the natural law forbids killing)51, Mobile Oil Philippines, Inc. v. Diocares (the element of promise as the basis of contracts as an influence of natural law),52 Manila Memorial Park Cemetery v. Court of Appeals (estoppel as part
42 43
Preamble, Malolos Constitution of 1899. See Separate Opinion of J. Reynato Puno in Republic v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 104768, July 21, 2003. 44 See Sales v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 143802, November 16, 2001, citing Allado v. Diokno, G.R. No. 113630, May 5, 1994. 45 See, for example, 1987 Constitution Preamble; Articles II, XIII, XV. 46 Article 19. 47 Article 22. 48 Article 1423. 49 ISI's American Studies Center (http://faculty.isi.org/), An Interview with Professor Robert P. George, By Laura Inglis, 12 Sept 2011 50 G.R. No. L-47104, November 20, 1940. 51 106 SCRA 325 (1981). 52 G.R. No. L-26371, September 30, 1969.
17
of natural law),53 Yu Con v. Ipil (on natural law in maritime law),54 In Re Testate Estate of Narciso Padilla (on the prohibition of unjust enrichment in the natural law),55 Moncado v. El Tribunal del Pueblo y Juan M. Ladaw (statement on the innate human sense of justice),56 Laurel v. Misa (on the natural law and positive law prohibition of wars of aggression),57 Ansay v. The Board of Directors of the National Development Company (on natural obligations),58 Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank v. NAMAWU-MIF (on the natural law basis of certain labor code provisions),59 De La Llana v. Alba (on the role of natural law in judicial decisions),60 Marquino v. Intermediate Appellate Court (on the natural law basis of property rights),61 and Uniwide Sales Realty and Resources Corporation v. Titan-Ikeda Construction and Development Corporation (on natural obligations),62 among others. 37. It must be emphasized that when this Honorable Supreme Court invoked the natural law in the above cases, it wasnt referring to any theological or religious argument but instead stemmed from the correct understanding by this Honorable Supreme Court that there are indeed objective standards that must be adhered to arising from the use of right reason. 38. The most recent decision in which this Court touched on natural law is Estrada v. Escritor.63 In the said decision, this Court referred to an authority higher than the state to which man is accountable. While the case specifically refers to religious rights, the phrase authority higher than the state is broad enough to encompass any moral order which pre-exists that of the State. Interestingly, even the dissenting opinion of then-Justice Consuelo Yares-Santiago, who reached a conclusion different from her Honorable Colleagues, nevertheless expressed recognition of the concept of natural law. Thus: With due respect, I am unable to agree with the finding of the majority that in this particular case and under these particular circumstances, respondent Escritors conjugal arrangement does not constitute disgraceful and immoral conduct and its decision to dismiss the administrative complaint filed by petitioner against respondent Soledad S. Escritor. The issue in this case is simple. What is the meaning or standard of disgraceful and immoral conduct to be applied by the Supreme Court in disciplinary cases involving court personnel?
53 54
344 SCRA 679 (2000). G.R. No. L-10195, December 29, 1916. 55 G.R. No. L-48137, October 4, 1943. 56 G.R. No. L-824 , January 14, 1948 57 G.R. No. L-409, January 30, 1947 58 G.R. No. L-13667, April 29, 1960. 59 G.R. No. L-50402, August 19, 1982. 60 G.R. No. L-57883, March 12, 1982. 61 G.R. No. 72078, June 27, 1994. 62 G.R. No. 126619, December 20, 2006. 63 A.M. No. P-02-1651 June 22, 2006.
18
The degree of morality required of every employee or official in the public service has been consistently high. The rules are particularly strict when the respondent is a Judge or a court employee. Even where the Court has viewed certain cases with human understanding and compassion, it has insisted that no untoward conduct involving public officers should be left without proper and commensurate sanction. The compassion is shown through relatively light penalties. Never, however, has this Court justified, condoned, or blessed the continuation of an adulterous or illicit relationship such as the one in this case, after the same has been brought to its attention. Is it time to adopt a more liberal approach, a more modern view and a more permissive pragmatism which allow adulterous or illicit relations to continue provided the job performance of the court employee concerned is not affected and the place and order in the workplace are not compromised? When does private morality involving a court employee become a matter of public concern? The Civil Service Law punishes public officers and employees for disgraceful and immoral conduct. Whether an act is immoral within the meaning of the statute is not to be determined by respondents concept of morality. The law provides the standard; the offense is complete if respondent intended to perform, and did in fact perform, the act which it condemns. The ascertainment of what is moral or immoral calls for the discovery of contemporary community standards. For those in the service of the Government, provisions of law and court precedents also have to be considered. The task is elusive. The laymans definition of what is moral pertains to excellence of character or disposition. It relates to the distinction between right and wrong; virtue and vice; ethical praise or blame. Moral law refers to the body of requirements in conformity to which virtuous action consists. Applied to persons, it is conformity to the rules of morality, being virtuous with regards to moral conduct. That which is not consistent with or not conforming to moral law, opposed to or violating morality, and now, more often, morally evil or impure, is immoral. Immoral is the state of not being virtuous with regard to sexual conduct. The term begs the definition. Hence, anything contrary to the standards of moral conduct is immoral. A grossly immoral act must be so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree.
19
Anything plainly evil or dissolute is, of course, unchangingly immoral. However, at the fringes or boundary limits of what is morally acceptable and what is unacceptably wrong, the concept of immorality tends to shift according to circumstances of time, person, and place. When a case involving the concept of immorality comes to court, the applicable provisions of law and jurisprudence take center stage. Those who choose to tolerate the situation where a man and a woman separated from their legitimate spouses decide to live together in an ideal and yet unlawful union state or more specifically, those who argue that respondents cohabiting with a man married to another woman is not something which is willful, flagrant, or shameless show a moral indifference to the opinion of the good and respectable members of the community in a manner prejudicial to the public service.64
39. Justice Consuelo Yares-Santiagos opinion is trenchant and incisive: it characterized the meaning, point, and nature of an objective universal standard based on right reason that cuts across and even overrides differences of religious or cultural beliefs. Philippine laws (and international laws) concept of human rights is based on and necessarily connected to natural law. 40. The concept of human rights in Philippine law has a natural law orientation. And this has been emphasized repeatedly by numerous Supreme Court rulings (please see paragraph 33 above for examples of such). 41. The basis of human rights is objective human nature independent of any man-made instrument and that the function of any such instrument is to affirm and protect that which exists in reality. For example, in Philippine Blooming Mills Employment Organization v. Philippine Blooming Mills Co., Inc.65, this Court ruled that to uphold procedural technicalities at the expense of human rights is not only incompatible with the basic tenet of constitutional government that the Constitution is superior to any statute or subordinate rules and regulations, but also does violence to natural reason and logic66 (underscoring supplied). The cases of Philippine Blooming Mills and Floresca vs. Philex Mining Corp.67 in fact are illustrative of our legal systems acknowledgment of the dignity and inherent dignity of the human being and thus further recognition of natural law. In Allado v. Diokno,68 this Court pronounced:
64
Dissenting opinion of Justice Consuelo Yares Santiago, Estrada v. Escritor, A.M. No. P-021651 June 22, 2006. 65 G.R. No. L-31195, June 5, 1973. 66 Ibid. 67 G.R. No. L-30642, 30 April 1985 68 G.R. No. 113630, May 5, 1994.
20
The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to protect the people against arbitrary and discriminatory use of political power. This bundle of rights guarantees the preservation of our natural rights which include personal liberty and security against invasion by the government or any of its branches or instrumentalities. Certainly, in the hierarchy of rights, the Bill of Rights takes precedence over the right of the State to prosecute, and when weighed against each other, the scales of justice tilt towards the former. Thus, relief may be availed of to stop the purported enforcement of criminal law where it is necessary to provide for an orderly administration of justice, to prevent the use of the strong arm of the law in an oppressive and vindictive manner, and to afford adequate protection to constitutional rights.69 (Underscoring supplied). 42. In one extraordinarily scholarly discussion on Philippine constitutionalism and natural law, Justice Puno says this: In sum, natural law and natural rights are not relic theories for academic discussion, but have had considerable application and influence. Natural law and natural rights theories have played an important role in the Declaration of Independence, the Abolition (antislavery) movement, and parts of the modern Civil Rights movement. In charging Nazi and Japanese leaders with crimes against humanity at the end of the Second World War, Allied tribunals in 1945 invoked the traditional concept of natural law to override the defense that those charged had only been obeying the laws of the regimes they served. Likewise, natural law, albeit called by another name such as substantive due process which is grounded on reason and fairness, has served as legal standard for international law, centuries of development in the English common law, and certain aspects of American constitutional law. xxx Clearly then, at the core of constitutionalism is a strong concern for individual rights as in the modern period natural law theories.70 43. International law itself recognizes the significance of natural law in relation to the matter of rights. One can easily see this in the creation of the United Nations, as well as important documents on human rights such as the 1948 UN Declaration on Human Rights, the 1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, amongst
69 70
Ibid. Justice Puno, Separate Opinion, Republic vs Sandiganbayan, GR No. 104768, 21 July 2003; citing (amongst others) Bix, B., Natural Law Theory, p. 224 in D. Patterson, A Companion to Philosophy of Law and Legal Theory (1996); Jones, T., Modern Political Thinkers and Ideas (2002); Fernando, E., Government Powers and Human Rights (1973)
21
others.71 Thus, one basis of international law is said to be the natural law, upon which our concepts of jus cogens (as well as erga omnes) is rooted. 44. It must be considered that in the Philippine legal system, we considered the United Nations instruments to which the Philippines is a signatory, namely the UDHR which we have ruled in several cases as binding upon the Philippines, the ICCPR and the ICESCR.72 This is significant because in the case of Republic vs Sandiganbayan,73 it was ruled that during the interregnum between the 1973 Constitution and the Provisional (Freedom) Constitution, even though a person may not invoke the exclusionary right under the Bill of Rights because there was neither a constitution or a Bill of Rights at that time, yet the protection afforded under the ICCPR, ICESCR, and UNDHR remained in effect. 45. Such is significant because it expresses the truth about the Philippine legal system: that our concept of human rights stem from natural law. Note that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is essentially an embodiment of natural rights. This can be seen from the preamble thereof, asserting that rights are inalienable: "recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world." Note that the Commission on Human Rights, a then standing body of the United Nations, was constituted to undertake the work of preparing what eventually became the UNDHR had the Philippines as a member.74 46. Human rights are therefore the "inalienable fundamental rights to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being."75 Human rights, as in natural law, are universal (applicable to everyone and everywhere), and exist in both national and international law.76 47. It is indeed axiomatic that the idea of human rights is closely related to that of natural rights.77 As Jacques Maritain pointedly declared: The philosophical foundation of the rights of man is natural law and that the true philosophy of the rights of the human person is based upon the true idea of natural law.78
71 72
Justice Puno, Separate Opinion, Republic vs Sandiganbayan, GR No. 104768, 21 July 2003 Justice Puno, Separate Opinion, Republic vs Sandiganbayan, GR No. 104768, 21 July 2003; citing Fernando, E., Perspective on Human Rights: The Philippines in a Period of Crisis and Transition (1979), pp. 1-2, citing Borovsky v. Commissioner of Immigration, et al., 90 Phil. 107 (1951); Mejoff v. Director of Prisons, 90 Phil. 70 (1951); Chirskoff v. Commissioner of Immigration, et al., 90 Phil. 256 (1951); Andreu v. Commissioner of Immigration, et al., 90 Phil. 347 (1951). 73 GR No. 104768, 21 July 2003 74 Morsink, Johannes (1999). The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: origins, drafting, and intent . University of Pennsylvania Press. ISBN 978-0-8122-1747-6 75 See Seplveda, Magdalena; van Banning, Theo; Gudmundsdttir, Gudrn; Chamoun, Christine; van Genugten, Willem J.M. (2004). Human rights reference handbook (3rd ed. rev. ed.). Ciudad Colon, Costa Rica: University of Peace. ISBN 9977-925-18-6. 76 See Nickel, James (2010). "Human Rights". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2010 ed.). 77 Jones, Peter. Rights. Palgrave Macmillan, 1994, p. 73. 78 Man and the State, Jacques Maritain, University of Chicago Press, 1951, Chap. IV, pp. 76-107.
22
48. Accordingly, as human rights is based on natural law, then it can be fairly said that there can be no human right contrary to natural law: The moral absolutes give legal reasoning its backbone. xxx These moral absolutes which are rationally determined and essentially determinate, constitute the most basic human rights.79 49. Verily, natural law expert Javier Hervada says it at his concise best: Outside the fulfillment of natural law, there is no right.80 Our legal system is therefore clear and consistent: a law that goes against natural law goes against reason, is arbitrary and despotic, and thus constitutes an act of grave abuse of discretion on that which made the law. 50. Having thus demonstrated the nature of natural law as an objective standard of right and wrong based on reason, and the central position it occupies in the Philippine legal system, petitioners submit that for a law to be reasonable and not arbitrary or whimsical, it has to conform to natural law (and, thus, conforming to right reason). As Jorge Coquia explains, natural law is the standard which protects positive law from arbitrariness: One standard that can serve as a guide for courts in resolving concrete cases involving conflicts of the fundamental freedoms of speech, press, property and religion is Natural Law. xxx Positive law needs the enduring critic provided by Natural Law. It must be confronted by objective justice.81 "Most who reject the validity of natural law claim themselves as 'liberal' or 'progressive'. But in its essence, it is a reaction and an easy road to totalitarianism".82 Contraception has long and consistently been held as violative of natural law. 51. The prominent and decisive position that natural law has in the Philippine legal system having been established, the next question that arises is whether or not
79 80
Natural Law Theory, Natural Law and Legal Reasoning, John Finnis, 1992, pp.148 Underscoring supplied; Criticial Introduction to Natural Law, Javier Hervada, 2006, p.137 81 Coquia, Jorge, Church and State Laws and Relations, 4th Edition, 2007, p.160. 82 Coquia, Jorge, Readings In Legal Philosophy And Theory, For A Revival of Natural Law Doctrine In Philippine Jurisprudence, 2005, p.239.
23
contraception violates the natural law. In this, the answer is clear, consistent, and conclusive: contraception violates the natural law. 52. Every prominent thinker on the natural law, such as Germain Grisez, John Finnis, Janet Smith, and Martin Rhonheimer, to name a few, have clearly, consistently, and conclusively held this fact: contraception violates the natural law. On the other hand, no natural law thinker of note has ever even attempted to argue that contraception is in conformity with natural law. 53. Recognized and authoritative natural law expert Germain Grisez explains how contraception violates natural law: the initiation of a human life is a fundamental human good distinct from that of human life as such, because the procreative good is the object of an action whose end is a person distinct from the agent, and because procreation is object of the ultimate function of all human organisms insofar as they are organisms. Furthermore, a whole domain of human action such as the entire institution of marriage is devoted to procreation. Grisez then explains that every human act, to be good, must not set itself against fundamental human goods which are participations in Goodness Itself. Contraception, by its very nature, is a choice to act in a way opposed to the initiation of human life, which, to repeat, is a fundamental human good. It is calculated to prevent the initiation of the good that would otherwise come about as a result of the sexual act. In short, contraception is an act of setting ones will against a fundamental human good.83 54. In a paper he co-authored with other established and recognized authorities on legal thought and natural law (John Finnis, Joseph Boyle, William May), Grisez writes: Insofar as contraception is contralife, it is similar to deliberate homicide. If contraception is similar to homicide, the first question is: What is wrong with homicide? In sketching out the answer to this question, we are not concerned with killing which may be justified, such as killing in war, but with the intentional killing of the innocent, which certainly is wrong. Part of the reason why deliberate homicide is wrong is that it is wrong to harm people, and love does no harm. Killing people is an extreme case of harming them. Moreover, in this case the harm to the person is direct and sure, unlike harms which one does to people whenfor example, by stealingone violates certain of their other rights, only indirectly harming the person. One's life is one's very reality. Thus, laying down one's own life for another is the greatest sacrifice one can make.
83
See Grisez, Germain, A New Formulation of a Natural Law Argument against Contraception, The Thomist, XXX, 4, October 1966, pp. 343-361.
24
However, killing someone is not morally wrong only because the person who is killed loses the good of life. If that were the case, it also would be morally wrong to kill anyone by accident, since accidental killing also results in loss of life. An essential condition of the immorality of deliberate homicide is that it involves a contralife will. Although the goodness of the life which is destroyed provides the reason why deliberate killing is wrong, the moral evil of killing primarily is in the killer's heart. xxx In short, contraception is similar to deliberate homicide, despite their important differences, precisely inasmuch as both involve a contralife will. Our thesis is that the contralife will which contraception involves also is morally evil.84 55. Long time commentator and expert on the contraception debate Janet Smith argues the immorality of contraception by proceeding from the inherent nature of the sexual act as geared towards procreation. Contraception is a deliberate act that frustrates the inherent purpose of the sexual act. Furthermore, contraception is contrary to the nature of the sexual act as an expression of total self-giving between spouses.85 56. William May, on the other hand, gives his own take on contraception and the natural law, and why the same is an issue not merely for Catholics but for all human beings: ... one contracepts when one chooses to impede the beginning of new human life. Contraception is intelligible behavior, it has a point or a purpose. A couple does not choose to contracept if they are playing tennis or holding hands or kissing because contracepting then makes no sense. But they choose to contracept when they are also choosing to engage in genital sex, the kind of bodily behavior they reasonably believe is the kind of behavior through which new human life can be given, and for some ulterior reason, perhaps a good one (e.g.., to express their love for one another or perhaps their doctor has told the wife that she better not get pregnant because if she did she could possibly die), they therefore choose, here and now, to contracept, i.e., to impede the beginning of new human life. If, despite their precaution to do so, the wife should get pregnant, the child initially comes to be against their wills: in this sense the child is
84
Grisez, Germain, Finnis, John, May, William, and Boyle, Joseph. Every Marital Act Ought to be Open to New Life: Toward a New Understanding, The Thomist, 52, 3, July 1988, pp. 372374. 85 See Janet Smith, Contraception Why Not, lecture delivered at Olympia, WA, August 2005; see file:///C:/Users/Jemy/Dropbox/faith/natural%20law/contraception/smith%20contraception.htm, viewed 28 January 2013
25
unwanted, even if the couple does not resort to abortion but rather quickly accepts the child.86 57. Another natural law expert, Martin Rhonheimmer declares contraceptions violation of natural law as follows: Contraception is wrong because it involves a type of sexual behavior that is inconsistent with procreative responsibility; this inconsistency is due to the fact that contraceptive sexual behavior destroys the behavioral unity of body and spirit. Destruction of this unity implies both the withdraw of sexuality from its procreative meaning and therefore the disintegration of sexuality so that it can longer be a true expression of personal love. Thus, contraceptive behavior includes features specific to other forms of disintegrated sexuality such as petting, onanism, and masturbation. Because of this partial similarity to these forms of sexual self-gratification, contraceptive intercourse is not an authentic expression of the mutual selfgiving of persons, but rather a principle that undermines the communion of persons. Insofar as it is practiced within marriage, contraceptive behavior additionally opposes the union in one flesh of the two persons committed to responsibly serving the transmission of human life.87 Contraception not only signifies acting against some determinate precept of natural law, as in the case of someone who, knowing the serious need to avoid a conception, nevertheless simply follows the dynamism of his sexual impulses; such a person would act against reason and against virtue, that is, intemperately.88 (Underscoring supplied) 58. More importantly and what must be emphasized is that, far from being a mere academic or theoretical discussion, this Honorable Supreme Court itself wisely and correctly recognized the inherent procreative and unitive nature of the sexual act ((similar to that discussed by the natural law experts mentioned above) when it ruled in the case of Chi Ming Tsoi v. Court of Appeals89 While the law provides that the husband and the wife are obliged to live together, observe mutual love, respect and fidelity (Art.
86
Contraception: A Matter of Concern Not Only For Catholics But For All Human Beings, William E. May, 2009, Culture of Life Foundation
87 88
Ethics of Procreation, Martin Rhonheimmer, 2010, p.124-125 Ethics of Procreation, Martin Rhonheimmer, 2010, p130 89 G.R. No. 119190, January 16, 1997.
26
68, Family Code), the sanction therefore is actually the spontaneous, mutual affection between husband and wife and not any legal mandate or court order (Cuaderno vs. Cuaderno 120 Phil. 1298). Love is useless unless it is shared with another. Indeed, no man is an island, the cruelest act of a partner in marriage is to say I could not have cared less. This is so because an ungiven self is an unfulfilled self. The egoist has nothing but himself. In the natural order, it is sexual intimacy which brings spouses wholeness and oneness. Sexual intimacy is a gift and a participation in the mystery of creation. It is a function which enlivens the hope of procreation and ensures the continuation of family relations.90 (Underscoring supplied.) 59. Finally, we reiterate the fact that there can be no human right contrary to natural law. This is definitively illustrated by the fact that (and contrary to what its advocates claim) no right to contraception exists in international law. No international custom exists making contraception a human right. The international law instruments cited in an attempt to prove that contraception is allegedly human right, such as the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the Convention on Persons with Disabilities do not even mention contraception at all.91 Contraception is not a human right. No international custom exists making contraception a human right. And as Meghan Grizzle (in her White Paper on Family
60. Planning,March2012;seehttp://www.wya.net/advocacy/research/WYA%20Reproductive%2 0Health%20White%20Paper.pdf) shows:
No international human right to any particular form of family planning supply or method is enumerated in international human rights treaties. The only international human rights treaties that explicitly mention family planning are the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), and the Convention on Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). Despite claims from UNFPA and the World Center for Reproductive Rights that there is a right to contraceptive information and services, no international human rights treaty even mentions contraception. 61. Ms. Grizzle rightly emphasizes: International law clearly does not create a right to contraception; States are thus not required to provide contraception.
90 91
Ibid. Instead, what is mentioned is family planning or reproductive health. These concepts and terms, it must be clear, are not synonymous with or should be interpreted as referring exclusively to contraception. Another oft-cited document, the UNFPA annual report, also mentions family planning instead of contraception, and is not even a source of international law. See World Youth Alliance, Reproductive Health White Paper, February 2012, available at http://www.wya.net/advocacy/research/WYA%20Reproductive%20Health%20White%20Paper.pd f , downloaded January 23, 2013.
27
Furthermore, while family planning has indeed been mentioned in some international instruments, we refer again to Ms. Grizzle: Family planning is not synonymous with contraception, and calls for family planning methods and services should not be construed as calls for contraceptives alone. 62. Accordingly, as can be seen from the facts mentioned above, from the provisions of the Constitution, the tenets of international law, the precepts of natural law and very importantly from the wisdom of this Honorable Supreme Court itself: That contraception violates the natural law is clear and conclusive. For the Congress to have made a law whose core provisions revolve around contraceptives, is an act of grave abuse of discretion that this Honorable Court is well authorized and mandated to rule as unconstitutional. Congress committed an act of grave abuse of discretion in ignoring the dire sanctions that violation of the natural law brings. 63. Contrary to what most people assume, violation of the natural law has sanctions in the form of the physical, social, economic, and environmental harms brought about by such violations. As natural law expert Javier Hervada puts it: There is a certain parallelism xxx between physical laws and Natural Law. Breaking physical laws causes injury, illness, and even death. Breaking Natural Law degrades the man who breaks it and, regarding the social aspects of that law, causes a disturbance and dehumanization in social life. A man and a society that live disregarding certain precepts of Natural Law are degraded in the same proportion. Concerning what interests us, this is particularly important in social life: not following Natural Law is automatically introducing a real factor of social disturbance. Fraud and deception cause social disentegration, divorce weakens the family, permissiveness engenders a spiral of violence, injustice is the source of poverty and marginalization, etc. They are real effects well-known through experience and which can be proven statistically. 92 64. Contraception, which violates natural law, brings with it dire, harmful, and oftentimes calamitous consequences that make up the sanctions imposed when society transgresses natural law. These consequences take several forms, among them medical, womens psychological health, environmental, economic, and social. Medical conseqequences
92
Hervada, Javier, Critical Introduction to Natural Law, by Mindy Emmons, trans. Wilson & Lafleur Ltee, Canada: 2006, p. 130.
28
65. In the case of contraception, the medical harm caused by contraceptives are well-documented. Strong links have been established, for example, between the pill and cancer, stroke, and heart attacks,93 while the availability of condoms has been statistically shown to spread AIDS, rather than suppress it.94 66. Thus, among just some of the specific dangers alleged are neural tube defects (from a study by the Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, China Medical University; 2011), childhood strokes (Christerson, Stromberg, Acta; 2010), and a disturbing hypothesis regarding hypoplastic left heart syndrome and gastroschisis (by Waller, DK., et. al., University of Texas, Houston Health Science Center; 2010). 67. To women themselves, the dangers arising from contraceptive use are apparently endless: breast cancer, cervical cancer, high blood pressure, heart attacks, venous thrombosis (or blood clotting), excessive bleeding, menstruation difficulties, permanent infertility (making even artificial insemination ineffective), migraines, and bone damage.95 Jenn Giroux (longtime commentator on contraception and with decades of experience in health service), writing for the Washington Times (Killer Compromise: Plan to give birth control to women will raise the body count; 13 February 2012) found: Since 1975 there has been a 400% increase in in situ breast cancer among pre-menopausal women under 50 years old. This mirrors the increased use of birth control over these same years. A Mayo Clinic study confirms that any young girl or woman who is on hormonal birth control for 4 years prior to their first full term pregnancy increases their breast cancer risk by 52%. Women who use hormonal birth control for more than 5 years are four times more likely to develop cervical cancer.
93
See, for example, "Combined Estrogen-Progestogen Contraceptives" IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans 91. 2007; D. Hunter, et.al, Oral Contraceptive Use and Breast Cancer: a prospective study of young women, Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention 2010 Oct;19(10):2496-502; Kemmeren, et al. (2002). "Risk of Arterial Thrombosis in Relation to Oral Contraceptives (RATIO) Study: Oral Contraceptives and the Risk of Ischemic Stroke". Stroke (American Heart Association, Inc.) 33: 12021208; Baillargeon, McClish, Essah, and Nestler (2005). "Association between the Current Use of Low-Dose Oral Contraceptives and Cardiovascular Arterial Disease: A Meta-Analysis". Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism (The Endocrine Society) 90 (7): 38633870, among others. 94 See, for example, Green (2003) Rethinking AIDS Prevention. Praeger; Hefron, et. Al, (2011) Use of hormonal contraceptives and risk of HIV-1 transmission: a prospective cohort study, Lancet Infect Dis 2011 Oct 4. 95 The foregoing can be seen from various sources, such as the International Agency for Research on Cancer, US National Cancer Institute, American Association for Cancer Research, and the Mayo Clinic, as well as established publications like the British Medical Journal, Japanese Journal of Clinical Oncology, and the Lancet. These studies are all fairly new, released or published from 2002 up.
29
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a research arm of the World Health Organization, classifies all forms of hormonal contraception as a Group 1 carcinogen. This group of cancer causing agents also includes cigarettes and asbestos. In October 2010 the NY Times carried an article about Hormone Replacement Therapy drugs. It quoted the America Medical Association (AMA) as warning women that these post-menopausal drugs which were originally marketed as keeping a women young and sexy were discovered instead to be more likely to cause advanced and deadly breast cancer. It stopped short of making one other startling revelation: The only difference between hormone replacement therapy drugs which cause deadly breast cancer and the hormonal birth control drugs (now mandated by the Obama administration) is that the birth control drugs are six times the dosage---and are the very same drug! 68. Lori Chaplin reported (Want to Find a Good Husband and Have a Family? Dont Use the Pill, National Catholic Register, 10 November 2012; citing a 2009 U.K. study Does the Contraceptive Pill Alter Mate Choice in Humans?) that, aside from making women less attractive (due to the contraceptives prevention of ovulation, thus interfering with a womans appearance, odor and voice pitch to which men are sensitive), contraceptives also unquestionably cause harm to womens bodies. 69. Chaplin describes such serious dangers to include "increased likelihood of breast cancer, heart attack, stroke, blood clots, high blood pressure, liver tumors and gallstones. The pill also heightens infertility. When a hormone is chronically changed, it actually changes the entire system of hormones. It changes the master hormones and how they excrete. The result of this is that when a woman does want to become pregnant and stops the pill, the body continues to act as if the contraceptive is still being taken. That is one of the reasons why women who have been on contraceptives for a long period of time cant get pregnant. 70. The aforementioned UK study further noted contraceptives' detrimental effects on future generations, stressing that more studies need to be conducted. They predict that offspring of pill users will be more homozygous (possessing two identical forms of a particular gene), which can be related to impaired immune function, an increase of genetic diseases, as well as decreased perceived health and attractiveness. 71. Reuters (7 November 2011) also reported on studies indicating that the risk for venous blood clots was 43 percent to 65 percent higher with drospirenonecontaining pills, compared with older, so-called second- and third-generation pills.
30
72. Contraceptives are seemingly so dangerous to health that the US Federal Drug Agency, within the last year alone, had to either oversee the recall of or order increased warnings on two separate oral contraceptive brands due to the possible serious adverse health problems that they could cause. It is a fact that numerous lawsuits have been filed against manufacturers of contraceptives over the health problems they caused.96 They are of such grave medical concern that numerous doctors in the United States (see the group One More Soul, for example) have already decided not to prescribe contraceptives to their patients.97 73. As mentioned in the immediately foregoing paragraphs, the perils accompanying contraceptives are such that liability lawsuits involving it are a growing industry in the West. Legal aid group Lawyers and Settlements reported that as of March 2012, approximately 12,000 lawsuits have been brought against the manufacturer of widely used contraceptives Yasmin, Yaz, Beyaz and Safyral, alleging an increased risk of blood clots (deep vein thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE)) and gallbladder problems. NuvaRing Resource Center, a patient advocacy group, also reported that the FDA has received over 1,000 reports of blood clot injury or death in patients using NuvaRing. On October 27, 2011 they released a report titled, Combined Hormonal Contraceptives (CHCs) and the Risk of Cardiovascular Disease Endpoints, which showed vaginal ring contraceptives could increase the risks of blood clots by as much as 56%.98 74. The irony of it is, with all the health risks attached to contraceptives, its success rate isnt even that assuring. As the Illinois Right to Life Committee99 pointed out: The effectiveness of contraceptives is not as high as often claimed. Contraceptive drugs are often claimed to be 99% effective. In fact, statistics show closer to a 7% failure rate for contraceptive drugs. The condom has a 15% failure rate. In contrast, NFP that many critics claim is not effective has a success rate of 98%. Actually, Mother Teresa trained over 20,000 women in India to use NFP with a 0% failure rate. 75. In fact, applying international law, contraception would not, should not, even pass muster: considering the precautionary principle100, which essentially says that
96
See, for example, Feeley, Jeff and Cronin, Margaret, Bayer Said to Pay $110 Million in Yaz Birth-Control Cases, available at http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-04-13/bayer-said-to-pay110-million-in-yaz-birth-control-cases.html, downloaded January 23, 2013; Voreacos, David, J&J Paid $68 Million to Settle Birth-Control Cases (Update 3), available at http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=amZT0X84_8zU&refer=home, downloaded January 23, 2013; Keahey, Michelle, Denton Woman Blames DVT on NuvaRing, Sues Maker for $10M, available at http://setexasrecord.com/news-3224/240991-denton-womanblames-dvt-on-nuvaring-sues-maker-for-10m, downloaded January 23, 2013; among others 97 See http://onemoresoul.com/, viewed 30 January 2013 98 See http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/lawsuit/yasmin-side-effects-yaz-blood.html#.UQkd3_LL1U, viewed 30 January 2013 99 See http://www.illinoisrighttolife.org/2002_1_ContraceptiveHealthRisks.htm, viewed on 30 January 2013 100 The principle essentially mandates for "caution in advance," "caution practised in the context of uncertainty," or informed prudence. The precautionary principle is most often applied in the context of the impact of human actions on the environment and human health, as both involve complex systems
31
if theres a measure suspected of possibly causing harm to the population or environment, then the State should act according to its duty to protect its citizens or territory (unless substantial evidence can later on reasonably or conclusively prove that the possible dangers have been precluded), then RA 10354 should not have been passed at all. Womens psychological health 76. As mentioned above, Lori Chaplin reported (Want to Find a Good Husband and Have a Family? Dont Use the Pill, National Catholic Register, 10 November 2012; citing a 2009 U.K. study Does the Contraceptive Pill Alter Mate Choice in Humans?) noted that that contraception makes women less attractive (due to the contraceptives prevention of ovulation, thus interfering with a womans appearance, odor and voice pitch to which men are sensitive). Unfortunately, it doesnt end there. 77. Contrary to feminist claims regarding the benefits of contraception and the sexual revolution for women,101 Mary Eberstadt (writing for the Wall Street Journal)102 wrote, the sexual revolution wasnt actually good for women: What of the fact, widely reported earlier this week, that 26% of American women are on some kind of mental-health medication for anxiety and depression and related problems? Or how about what is known in sociology as the paradox of declining female happiness? Using 35 years of data from the General Social Survey, two Wharton School economists, Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers, made the case in 2009 that women's happiness appeared to be declining over time despite their advances in the work force and education. 78. Helen Alvar, associate professor at George Mason University School of Law, points out: the US sexual revolution has had: ... four to five decades to prove itself. There has been a massive expansion of sexual liberty on a nationwide scale. Consequently, by this time, observers (and policymakers) with an
where the consequences of actions may be unpredictable. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle, viewed 2 February 2013; see also Principle No. 15 of the Rio Declaration: where decision makers are not certain as to the consequences of a proposed activity on the environment, doubts should be resolved on the side of caution. 101 This argument, at least in its most intelligent form, was expressed by author Hanna Rosin (in an article for the Wall Street Journal): the sexual revolution has deepened into a more permanent kind of power for women. Young women in their sexual primethat is, their 20s and early 30sare generally better off than young men. They are better educated and earn more money on average. What made this possible is the sexual revolutionthe ability to have temporary, intimate relationships that don't derail a career. Or to put it more simply, to have sex without getting married. 102 See http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304724404577297422171909202.html, viewed on 30 January 2013
32
objective bone in their bodies who believe in the scientific method, would now be searching for a net improvement in the reported happiness and freedom of women. And yet, women are less happy than they were fifty years ago, but less happy relative to men, as well over the same time period. Were increases in sexual liberty for women a key determinant of happiness (sufficiently key to raise birth control above even life-saving medicines for federal favor), a simple timeseries graph correlating the percentage of women using contraception in the United States with the percentage of women reporting themselves as happy would show a direct relationship. Instead, we have more women accessing birth control but less female happiness as described above. Environment 79. There are also studies documenting environmental problems caused by birth control pills as toxins from such pills seep into water.103 80. Other research effects of contraceptive policy on the environment are detailed as follows: a. The study of Dr. Joanne Parrott of the Canada Centre for Inland Waters inBurlington, Ontario claims that as little as three parts-per-trillion of syntheticestrogen (used in birth control pills) mutate certain fish rendering them incapable of reproducing This amount of synthetic estrogen is equivalent to dropping a single birth control pill into 10,000 L of water. A human female using the birth control pill willexcrete this amount in her urine over the course of a single day. (Unger, 2012) Peat (1997) asserts that estrogenic pollution kills birds, panthers, alligators, old men,young women, fish, seals, babies, and ecosystems Many tons of synthetic and pharmaceutical estrogens, administered to menopausal women in quantities much larger than their bodies ever produced metabolically, are being added to the rivers.
b.
103
See , for example, McKie, Robin, 30bn Bill to Purify Water System after Toxic Impact of Contraceptive Pill, available at http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jun/02/watersystem-toxic-contraceptive-pill, downloaded January 23, 2013; Fish Study Proves The Pill is Not Mans Best Friend, available at http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/newscience/EE2-changes-trout-chromosomenumber, downloaded January 23, 2013, among others.
33
c.
Beckman (2008) likewise says that the UK Environment Agency confirmed thecontraceptive pill as a pollutant back in 2002. The Agency warned then that fish stocksin British rivers were showing signs of gender ambiguity as a result of high levels of estrogen in the water. Several mutations were likewise found in Colorado (USA) and New Brunswick, Canada. Aside from affecting animals, Beckman (2008) claims that studies are also showingsignificant evidence for a link between environmental estrogens, and estrogen-likechemical pollutants, and the earlier onset of puberty in girls Studies from theUnited Kingdom, Canada, and New Zealand have shown similar results.104
d.
Economy 81. Well-documented is the fact that problems brought about by declining birth rates due to contraceptive policies of several countries such as Singapore, Japan and others have to led to serious concerns about shrinking workforces and markets.105 82. Furthermore, Forbes reported (The Biggest Beneficiary of the Contraception Mandate? Drug Companies, 6 March 2012), Obamas HHS Mandate will dramatically inflate the price of contraceptives. Contrary, therefore, to the theory that subsidizing contraceptives will make it more available to the poor (a theory the RA 10354 works on as well, with its reported allotment of at least millions, perhaps even billions, of Philippine Pesos), such laws will actually make contraceptives more expensive, diverting funds from needed education and employment generation measures, all at the cost of the general public and all for the pocket of contraceptive big business. Forbes concludes that, since contraceptives are legal anyway (as in
104
See Handbook of Truths Behind the Reproductive Health Bill, 2012, pp.17-18 See, for example, Lee Kuan Yew, Warning Bell for Developed Countries: Declining Birth Rates, available at http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2012/0507/current-events-population-globaldeclining-birth-rates-lee-kuan-yew.html, downloaded January 21, 2013; Last, Jonathan V., Demography is Destiny: The Perils of Population Loss, available at https://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/demography-destiny_636998.html?page=1 , downloaded January 21, 2013; Into the Unknown, availab le at http://www.economist.com/node/17492860, downloaded January 21, 2013; Wheatley, Alan, Analysis: Ageing, Indebted Japan Holds Lessons for Others, available at http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/12/us-economy-demographicsidUSTRE80B1FN20120112 downloaded January 21, 2013; S. Korea to Spend Billions of Dollars to Boost Birthrate, available at http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5i97IozUY1vx3LoG_YqrOtFdnpSZQ?docId =CNG.1c29e0b64ef02ac621d8a8911f61ba89.3a1, downloaded January 21, 2013; Anderson, Carl, Italy: Population Decline Catalyst for Economic Decline, available at http://www.seniorsworldchronicle.com/2011/11/italy-nations-population-decline-is.html , downloaded January 22, 2013; Kotkin, Joel, Whats Really Behind Europes Decline? Its the Birth Rates, Stupid available at http://www.forbes.com/sites/joelkotkin/2012/05/30/whats-reallybehind-europes-decline-its-the-birth-rates-stupid/, downloaded January 22, 2013; Zeller,Frank , Low Birth Rates Threaten Asias Top Economies, available at http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/business/low-birth-rates-threaten-asias-topeconomies/413375#Scene_1, downloaded January 22, 2013; among others.
105
34
the Philippines), then a more efficient measure actually is to just leave people to buy birth-control pills by themselves. 83. Unfortunately, not only will contraceptive policies espoused by RA 10354 be detrimental, economics-wise, according to William McGurn, journalist and current columnist at the Wall Street Journal, the idea that development requires poor nations to limit their populations directly results in the horrors of population control in Asiaforced abortion, sterilization, and infanticide.106 84. Finally, inasmuch as the Philippine competitive advantage lies in its demographics, it is sad to note that a contraceptive policy has a proven history of causing demographic winters, as can be seen as follows: ... societies that have aggressively pushed for contraception arenow suffering from a demographic winter and serious demographic imbalancewith daunting consequences, and are desperately trying to reverse it. They are failing because of the contraceptive mentality that has pervaded their societies. a. SinceSingapore now has the 4th lowest Total Fertility Rate (TFR), with 1.25, next only to Hongkong, Macao, and Bosnia & Herzegovena (World Population Prospects, 2010) its former Prime Minister Lee Kwan Yew (2011) stated in speech: At these low birthrates, we will rapidly age and shrink So we need young immigrants. Otherwise our economy will slow down, like the Japanese economy. We will have a less dynamic andless thriving Singapore . This is not the future for our children and grandchildren. He repeated the same idea again in a speech in 2012. b. Civil Service College (Singapore) Senior Visiting Fellow and Forbes Magazine journalist Joel Kotkin (2010) predicted that one of these consequences would clearly be economic: a catastrophic plunge in the country's birth rate--a problem plaguingmany of the world's affluent economies-- could undermine Singapore's success. Thiswas admitted by Lee Kwan Yew himself in the article above. c. The TFR of Japan is already below replacement level, the 6th lowest in the world: 1.32 asof 2010 (World Population Prospects, 2010). Paraphrasing Cornelius (1994) Kyoto Sangyo University Lecturer Julian Chapple (2004) affirms that Japan is fast becoming the worlds oldest ever human population (by 2025, 27.3%, or 33.2 million people,
106
William McGurn, Population and the Wealth of Nations, FIRST THINGS, Dec. 1996, available at http://www.first things.com/article/2007/11/004-population-and-the-wealth-of-nations-10; cited in WYA White Paper on Sustainable Development
35
will be aged over 60). He further says, Coupled with the aforementioned lowbirth rate, the problems Japan faces in the immediate future are acute. WithJapans labour force expected to decrease by 10% in the next 25 years, the economicoutlook is far from bright. d.The TFR of Russia is already below replacement level: 1.45 as of 2010. Joe Jackson of Time (2012) reports that Russia's population is undoubtedly in long-term decline. U.N. projections showing continued falls throughout the century to an eventual population of 111 million by 2100. This has serious implications for the country's future economicgrowth. (Experts are already predicting a labor shortage of 14 million skilled workers by2020.) e. Victor Yasmann (2006) likewise affirms that the demographic crisis has not onlyeconomic, but geopolitical implications. In the future, Russia, whose land makes up 30percent of Eurasia, may simply have too few people to control its territory. f. The TFR of Canada is already below replacement level: 1.65 as of 2010. According tothe website of the Real Women of Canada (2002), The sharp decline in Canada'spopulation will inevitably result in an acute labour shortage, beginning with skilledtechnical and trades workers. Next, teachers, health-care workers, information technology experts and academics will be in short supply ... The biggest impact of our agingpopulation , however, will be on government services. Today, there are four workers forevery one retiree, but in another 25 years, there will be only two workers for every retiree. g. The TFR of Korea is already below replacement level, the 5th lowest in the world: 1.29as of 2010. Chief U.N. representative of the American Family Association of NewYork, Vincenza Santorino (2010) reports that Korea has the lowest fertility rate among the 30 OECD (most developed) nations: 1.19 in 2008, its population has started to declineand the population is aging rapidly. This has to be put into perspective. The Korean Government has had a very strong family planning policy since 1962. Now they are concerned about the consequences they have wrought. One of the officials, in his opening remarks stated outright that the current population situation is not sustainable. Notice the upward trend from 2008 to 2010: this suggests that Korea couldbe attempting to reverse the trend, learning from its previous mistake. The question is,will they succeed? h. The TFR of Iran is already below replacement level: 1.77 as of 2010. Journalist VahidSalemi (2012) reports that in a major reversal of
36
once far-reaching family planningpolicies, authorities (of Iran) are now slashing its birth-control programs in anattempt to avoid an aging demographic similar to many Western countries that arestruggling to keep up with state medical and social security costs. i. The TFR of China is already below replacement level: 1.54 as of 2010 (Index Mundi, 2011). In February 2008, Zhao Baige, Vice Minister of the National Population andFamily Planning Commission of admitted that the government is planning to shift from aone-child to a two-child policy because it is damaging the economy and creating ademographic time bomb (The Times Online, 2008 as quoted by Jill Stanek).107 Society 85. Also well-documented are the social ills promoted by the contraceptive mentality, such as surge in premarital sex, more fatherless children, more single mothers, more poverty, more abortions; and also a decline of marriage, less domesticated men.108 86. The use of contraceptives is inextricably linked to a degradation of morals in individuals and in society: Wide use of contraceptives in disparate places in the world inevitably lead to premarital and extramarital sex due to reduced cost or responsibility for child-bearing. This was the conclusion of peer-reviewed journals109 and leading social
107
See Handbook of Truths Behind the Reproductive Health Bill, 2012, pp.33-37 See, for example, Lee Kuan Yew, Warning Bell for Developed Countries: Declining Birth Rates, available at http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2012/0507/current-events-population-globaldeclining-birth-rates-lee-kuan-yew.html, downloaded January 21, 2013; Last, Jonathan V., Demography is Destiny: The Perils of Population Loss, available at https://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/demography-destiny_636998.html?page=1 , downloaded January 21, 2013; Into the Unknown, available at http://www.economist.com/node/17492860, downloaded January 21, 2013; Wheatley, Alan, Analysis: Ageing, Indebted Japan Holds Lessons for Others, available at http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/12/us-economy-demographicsidUSTRE80B1FN20120112 downloaded January 21, 2013; S. Korea to Spend Billions of Dollars to Boost Birthrate, available at http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5i97IozUY1vx3LoG_YqrOtFdnpSZQ?docId =CNG.1c29e0b64ef02ac621d8a8911f61ba89.3a1, downloaded January 21, 2013; Anderson, Carl, Italy: Population Decline Catalyst for Economic Decline, available at http://www.seniorsworldchronicle.com/2011/11/italy-nations-population-decline-is.html , downloaded January 22, 2013; Kotk in, Joel, Whats Really Behind Europes Decline? Its the Birth Rates, Stupid available at http://www.forbes.com/sites/joelkotkin/2012/05/30/whats-reallybehind-europes-decline-its-the-birth-rates-stupid/, downloaded January 22, 2013; Zeller,Frank , Low Birth Rates Threaten Asias Top Economies, available at http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/business/low-birth-rates-threaten-asias-topeconomies/413375#Scene_1, downloaded January 22, 2013; among others. 109 Dian He, You Zhou, Ning Ji, Shizhong Wu, Zhijin Wang, Peter Decat, Eileen Moyer, Meile Minkauskiene, Cheng Pang, Yimin Cheng (2012). Study on sexual and reproductive health behaviors of unmarried female migrants in China. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research, Volume 38, Issue 4, pages 632638.
108
37
scientists such as Nobel Prize laureate George Akerlof;110 former director of the AIDS Prevention Research Project at Harvard University Edward Green,111 and researchers at the University of Pennsylvia,112 who although liberals who personally espouse use of contraceptives, have given empirical scientific evidence for this phenomenon. In Akerlofs words: As we have documented, the norm of premarital sexual abstinence all but vanished in the wake of the technology shock.113 Contraception (contra=against; conception=beginning of human life) leads to more abortions. The empirical link between the two has been observed by leaders of the abortion industry themselves.114 Malcolm Potts, the first medical director of International Planned Parenthood: As people turn to contraception, there will be a rise, not a fall, in the abortion rate.115 Judith Bury, coordinator of Doctors for a Womans Choice on Abortion: There is overwhelming evidence that the provision of contraception leads to an increase in the abortion rate.116 Why does this happen? In the first place, promoting contraception, especially among the young, condones and even encourages immoral sexual activity. Even if contraceptives are provided and used, this activity will lead to many pregnancies, since all methods of contraception have a failure rate. Moreover, the children who come to be as unwanted are likely to be aborted, or neglected and abused, because, unlike children who are unplanned by people open to new life, they were rejected in advance.117
87. Accordingly, it is clear and conclusive that contraception, which violates natural law, brings with it dire, harmful, and oftentimes calamitous consequences (among them medical, womens psychological health, environmental, economic, and social ) that make up the sanctions imposed when society transgresses natural law. That the Congress chose to ignore this fact in enacting RA 10354 is an act of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of or excess of jurisdiction, which this
110 Akerlof, Yellent and Katz (1996), "An Analysis on Out-of-Wedlock Childbearing in the United States", Quarterly Journal of Economics (The MIT Press) 111 (2): 277317; Akerlof, Men Without Children, The Economic Journal 108 (1998) 111 Green (2011) Broken Promises: How the AIDS Establishment has Betrayed the Developing World. Left Coast Press; (2003) Rethinking AIDS Prevention. Praeger. 112 Jeremy and Nezih Guner. 2009. Social Change: The Sexual Revolution.Greenwood. University of Pennsylvania 113 Akerlof, Yellent and Katz, Ibid. 114 See list here: http://www.hli.org/index.php/cloning/578?task=view; and in this article written former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Education Kenneth Whitehead: http://catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/se0035.html 115 Malcolm Potts. "Fertility Rights." The Guardian, April 25, 1979. 116 Judith Bury, M.D., Brook Advisory Centre. "Sex Education for Bureaucrats." The Scotsman, June 29, 1981. 117 Germain Grisez, Living a Christian Life (The Way of the Lord Jesus, Volume 2), (Quincy, Ill: Franciscan Press: 1993), 515-516.
38
Honorable Supreme Court is fully authorized and mandated to correct by rendering such RA 10354 as unconstitutional. RA 10354 contains significant provisions that espouse the use of contraception. 88. Considering that contraception is contrary to natural law and violation of natural law brings with it dire consequences, petitioners submit that any law which promotes, guarantees, funds, and even mandates access to contraceptives is an contrary to reason, whimsical and despotic, and is thus an act of grave abuse of discretion. 89. Unfortunately for the country, Republic Act No. 10354 promotes, guarantees, funds, and even orders access to contraceptives. 90. In Section 2, Republic Act No. 10354 commits the State to guarantee:
... 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 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.
91. In Section 3 of RA 10354, Guiding Principles for Implementation, the law provides:
(d) The provision of ethical and medically safe, legal, accessible, affordable, non-abortifacient, effective and quality reproductive health care services and supplies is essential in the promotion of people's right to health, especially those of women, the poor, and the marginalized, and shall be incorporated as a component of basic healthcare: (e) The State shall promote and provide information and access, without bias, to all methods of family planning, including effective natural and modern methods which have been proven medically safe, legal, nonabortifacient and effective in accordance with scientific and evidence-based medical research standards such as those registered and approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the poor and marginalized as identified through the NHTS-PR and other government measures of identifying marginalization:
39
(g)The provision of reproductive health care, information and supplies giving priority to poor beneficiaries as identified through the NHTSPR and other government measures of identifying marginalization must be the primary responsibility of the National Government consistent with its obligation to respect, protect and promote the right to health and the right to life;[.]
92. That these provisions refer to contraceptives is revealed by the definition of terms in Section 4:
(e) Family Planning refers to a program which enables couples and individuals to decide freely and responsibly the number and spacing of their children and to have the information and means to do so, and to have access to a full range of safe, affordable, effective, non-abortifacient modern natural and artificial methods of planning pregnancy; xxx (l) Modern methods of family planning refers to safe, effective, nonabortifacient and legal methods. whether natural or artificial, that are registered with the FDA. to plan pregnancy xxx (p) Reproductive Health (RH) refers to the state of complete physical, mental and social wellbeing and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity, in all matters relating to the reproductive system and to its functions and processes This implies that people are able to have a responsible, safe, consensual and satisfying sex life, that they have the capability to reproduce and the freedom to decide if, when, and how often to do so. This further implies that women and men attain equal relationships in matters related to sexual relations and reproduction; xxx (q) Reproductive Health Care refers to the access to a full range of methods, facilities, services and supplies that contribute to reproductive health and well-being by addressing reproductive health-related problems. It also includes sexual health, the purpose of which is the enhancement of life and personal relations. The elements of reproductive health care include the following: (1) Family planning information and services which shall include as a first priority making women of reproductive age fully aware of their respective cycles to make them aware of when fertilization is highly probable, as well as highly improbable; Maternal. infant and child health and nutrition, including breastfeeding; Proscription of abortion and management of abortion complications; Adolescent and youth reproductive health guidance and counselling;
40
(2) (3) (4)
(5)
Prevention, treatment and management of reproductive tract infections (RTls), HIV and AIDS and other sexually transmittable infections (STls); Elimination of violence against women and children and other forms of sexual gender-based violence; Education and counseling on sexuality and reproductive health; Treatment of breast and reproductive tract cancers and other gynecological conditions and disorders; Male responsibility and involvement and men's reproductive health;
(6)
(7) (8)
(9)
(10) Prevention. treatment and management of infertility and sexual dysfunction; (11) Reproductive health education of the adolescents and (12) Mental health aspect of reproductive health care. xxx (s) Reproductive Health Rights refers to the rights of individuals and couples, to decide freely and responsibly whether or not to have children; the number, spacing and timing their children; to make other decisions concerning reproduction, free of discrimination, coercion, and violence; to have the information and means to do so; and to attain the highest standard of sexual health and reproductive health: Provided. however, That reproductive health rights do not include abortion. and access to abortifacients;
93.
Section 7 of the Act also provides:

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,
41
That the person is not in an emergency condition or serious case as defined in Republic A ct 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 modem 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. (Underscoring supplied)
94. Availability of contraceptives is further guaranteed by the State in the following provisions of the Act:
SEC. 9. The Philippine National Drug Formulary System and Family Planning Supplies. - The National Drug Formulary shall include hormonal contraceptives, intrauterine devices, injectables and other safe, legal, nonabortifacient and effective family planning products and supplies. The Philippine National Drug Formulary System (PNDFS) shall be observed in selecting drugs including family planning supplies that will be included or removed from the Essential Drugs List (EDL) in accordance with existing practice and in consultation with reputable medical associations in the Philippines. For the purpose of this act, any product or supply included or to be included in the essential drug list must have a certification from the FDA that said products and supply is made available on the condition that it is not to be used as an abortifacient. These products and supplies shall also be included in the regular purchase of essential medicines and supplies of all national hospitals. Provided, further, That the foregoing offices shall not purchase or acquire by any means emergency contraceptive pills, postcoital pills, abortifacients that will be used for such purpose and their other forms or equivalent. SEC. 10. Procurement and Distribution of Family Planning Supplies. The DOH shall procure, distribute to LGUs and monitor the usage of family planning supplies for the whole country. The DOH shall coordinate with all appropriate LGU bodies to plan and implement this procurement and distribution program. The supply and budget allotments shall be based on, among others, the current levels and projections of the following: (a) Number of women of reproductive age and couples who want to space or limit their children; (b) Contraceptive prevalence rate, by type of method used; and (c) Cost of family planning supplies. Provided, That LGUs may implement its own procurement, distribution and monitoring program consistent with the overall provisions of this Act and the guidelines of DOH . (Underscoring supplied)
42
95. The guarantee of access to contraceptives is even under the pain of penal sanction, thus:
SEC. 23. Prohibited Acts. - The following acts are prohibited: (a) Any healthcare service provider, whether public or private, who shall:
l. 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; 2. Refuse to perform legal and medically-safe reproductive health procedures on any person of legal age on the ground of lack of consent or authorization of the following persons in the following instances: (a) Spousal consent in case of married persons: provided, that in case of disagreement the decision of the one undergoing the procedure shall prevail; and (b) Parental consent or that of the person exercising parental authority in the case of abused minors, where the parent or the person exercising parental authority is the respondent, accused or convicted perpetrator as certified by the proper prosecutorial office of the court. In the case of minors, the written consent of parents or legal guardian or, in their absence persons exercising parental authority or next of kin shall be required only in elective surgical procedures and in no case shall consent be required in emergency or serious cases as defined in Republic Act 8344; and 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: (a) Provided, That in the conscientious objection of a healthcare 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 RA 8344, which penalizes the refusal of hospitals and medical clinics to administer appropriate initial medical treatment and support in emergency and serious cases. (b) Any public officer, elected or appointed, specifically charged with the duty to implement the provisions hereof. who, personally or through a
43
subordinate prohibits or restricts the delivery of legal and medically-safe reproductive health care services, including family planning; or forces, coerces or induces any person to use such services; or refuses to allocate, approve or release any budget for reproductive health care services, or to support reproductive health programs; or shall do any act that hinders the full implementation of a reproductive health program as mandated by this Act. (c) Any employer who shall suggest, require, unduly influence or cause any applicant for employment or an employee to submit himself/herself to sterilization, use any modern methods of family planning, or not use such methods as a condition for employment. continued employment, promotion or the provision of employment benefits. Further pregnancy or the number of children shall not be a ground for non-hiring or termination from employment (d) Any person who shall falsify a certificate of compliance as required in Section15 of this Act: and (e) Any pharmaceutical company, whether domestic or multinational, or its agents or distributors, which directly or indirectly colludes with government officials, whether appointed or elected, in the distribution, procurement and/or sale by the national government and LGUs of modern family planning supplies, products and devices. SEC. 24. Penalties. Any violation of this Act or commission of the foregoing Prohibited acts shall be penalized by imprisonment ranging from one (1) month to six 6) months, or a fine of ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00) to One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) or both such fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the competent court: Provided, That, if the offender is a public officer, elected or appointed, he/she shall also suffer the penalty of suspension not exceeding one (1) year or removal and forfeiture of retirement benefits depending on the gravity of the offense after due notice and hearing by the appropriate body or agency. If the offender is a juridical person, the penalty shall be imposed upon the president or any responsible officer. An offender who is an alien shall, after service of sentence, be deported immediately without further proceedings by the Bureau of Immigration. If the offender is a pharmaceutical company, its agent and/or distributor, their license or permit to operate or conduct business in the Philippines shall be perpetually revoked, and a fine triple the amount involved in the violation shall be imposed. (Underscoring
supplied.) 96. It must be emphasized that the foregoing quoted provisions constitute the core, significant, fundamental provisions of RA 10354. Thus, merely severing such provisions will not cure RA 10354 of its inherent unconstituionality. This Honorable Court is therefore well within its rightful authority in rendering and nullifying the entire
44
RA 10354 for being unconstitutional, it constituting an act of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of or excess of jurisdiction. RA 10354 provide for huge but unnecessary funding and subsidizing of contraceptives, when the same is legally available and affordable, and there are many other more urgent areas for which funding is really needed. 97. A bulk of the Republic Act No. 10354s force comes from the funding that it allots for the distribution of contraceptives. Section 25 of the law provides:
SEC. 25. Appropriations. - 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 and other concerned agencies shall be allocated and upgrading of facilities necessary to meet BEMONC and CEMONC standards; the training and deployment of skilled health providers; natural and artificial family planning commodity requirenrents as outlined in Sec. 10, and for other reproductive health and responsible parenthood services, shall be included in the subsequent years' general appropriations. The Gender and Development (GAD) funds of LGUs and national agencies may be a source of funding for the implementation of this Act.
98. With this provision, the government is assured of significant funding for the distribution of contraceptives in the General Appropriations Act for the years following the laws enactment. 99. This is tragic and constitutes a grave abuse of discretion on the part of Congress. The fact that contraceptives violate natural law already being proven, as well as the dire and calamitous medical, psychological, environmental, economic, and social problems that accompany contraceptive use brings. However, it must also be emphasized that, sadly still, contraceptives are already widely available and at prices that are truly afforadable. That the Congress and the government is to allow significant funding for the purchase of contraceptives, as provided for RA 10354, thus diverting away significant funds for areas that are truly urgent and necessary merely confirms and makes make conclusive the fact that RA 10354 constitute such grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of or excess of jurisdiction. Contraceptives are already available and affordable 100. It must be emphasized that contraceptives are legal, not banned, in the Philippines. And, whats more, they are very available and affordable to anyone.
45
101. Contraceptives are so cheap and available that they are even more affordable than cellphone loads. According to a CNN article by Lichauco de Leon , Sunshine (In Philippines, a 14-year Fight for Birth Control), a pack of condoms costs allegedly Php50 and upwards, while birth control pills allegedly start at Php100. Even then, such aforementioned prices are apparently inflated. There are condoms available at Php9.00 a piece118. Other prices are as follows: 3 pcs of Trust Condoms Price: PhP15/pack Frenzy flavored Condoms P25/pack other brands P45 (about $1)119 102. Contraceptives are cheaper than cellphone loads. The price of cellphone loads can come in denominations of Php30, Php100, Php300, Php500, and Php1,000 and yet almost every Filipino has and uses a cellphone: According to the report Information and Communications for Development: Maximizing Mobile, which was released on Monday, there were 101 mobile cellular subscriptions for every 100 people in the Philippines in 2011, a jump from 41 subscriptions for every 100 people in 2005. The report defined mobile cellular subscriptions as subscriptions to a public mobile telephone service using cellular technology, which provided access to the public switched telephone network. Postpaid and prepaid subscriptions were included. But it said that mobile subscriptions did not reflect actual mobile phone ownership since there could be multiple subscriptions. Worldwide, the number of mobile subscriptions grew from one billion in 2000 to more than six billion in 2011, of which nearly five billion were in developing countries, the report said. In 2011, 96 percent of the total mobile cellular subscriptions in the Philippines were prepaid. In 2010, mobile cellular network in the Philippines covered 99 percent of the population and 80 percent of households reported ownership of a mobile telephone.120 (Underscoring supplied)
118
See Trust Condoms, Sulit.com.ph, http://www.sulit.com.ph/index.php/classifieds+directory/q/trust+condoms, viewed 29 January 2013 119 See Backpacking Philippines, http://www.backpackingphilippines.com/2006/02/sex-condoms-birthcontrol-in.html, viewed 29 January 2013 120 See Philippines Cited For Mobile Phone Use, Philippine Daily Inquire, http://technology.inquirer.net/14162/philippines-cited-for-mobile-phone-use, 17 July 2012
46
RA 10354 deprives funding from truly urgent concerns 103. RA 10354s focus on contraceptives and the significant funding it gives the same diverts and deprives such significant funding from other and more urgent and necessary areas. Such areas are easily identifiable: education, killer diseases, infrastructure and transportation, employment, and welfare. 104. Verily, it is admitted that the program or areas that the Congress (as well as the Executive Branch) decide to focus on is given to their discretion. However, that discretion should be exercised with sound and legal discretion, with reason, and not capricious and whimsical. Because if so, then our Constitution wisely authorized and mandated this Supreme Court to strike down such acts by the other Branches of government as unconstitutional. 105. One recent study, the 2012 WYA White Paper on Sustainble Development declares that, rather than contraceptive policies, the following is needed to address poverty: Efforts to achieve sustainable development must put the needs of the human person first. In order to meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs, these efforts must focus on eliminating poverty in order to enable people to live in conditions in which they can flourish. To do so, people must have access to the resources they need to utilize their ingenuity and to make the best decisions for themselves. These resources include access to education, health care, and skills training, and there must be policies that promote the creation of the seven forms of capital, particularly reinvesting gains from lower forms of capital to create higher forms of capital.121 (Underscoring supplied) 106. On the matter of education, for example, it was said by a group of respected economists and academics that: Government should divert whatever is budgeted for contraceptives to improving the quality of basic education among the poor. Poor households, especially in the rural areas, choose to have more children because human beings are their only resources, especially considering the failure of the state to provide farmers with infrastructure.122
121 122
See World Youth Alliance 2012 White Paper on Sustainable Development, p.24 NoneedforanRHbill,noworever,Bernardo Villegas, Evelina Atienza Frank Padilla Anthony Lumicao and 15 others, Philippine Daily Inquirer, September 15, 2012
47
107. And to further show the utter lack of necessity (in fact, harm) of RA 10354, it was must also be pointed out that: Considering that the competitive advantage of the Philippines in the global economy is its young, growing population, a really propoor economic strategy should allow the poor to choose to have as many children as they wish and then to generously support them with infrastructure, educational and technical skills training, and microcredit support, among other things, so that they can turn their children into truly productive resources.123 Thus: THE Philippines is nearing its entry to the demographic window in which the population would be a source of economic growth. The United Nations (UN) Population Department defines demographic window as the period when more people or a prominent portion of the population is of working age. It is the time when the proportion of population aged 15 years old and younger falls below 30 percent and when proportion of population aged 65 years old and above drops to less than 15 percent. The Philippine demographic window is expected to begin in 2015 and last until 2050. The National Statistical Coordination Board (NSDB) projected a population of 102.9 million Filipinos by 2015, of which 65.3 million will be aged 15 to 64. By 2040, the NSDB said, Philippine population will reach 141.7 million, of which the 15-64 age bracket will comprise 94.7 million. The Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) sees 2015 as the demographic sweet spot when Filipinos will increase their purchasing power and capacity, which can drive consumption, investments, and a faster economy. The period will attract businesses as labor supply and income-earning consumers are abundant and the economy is productive. The over 500,000 young Filipinos in the Business Process Outsourcing sector could be the precursor of the demographic window concept as they partly prime the economy. This demographic window three years from now would be realized only if certain requirements, led by improved human capital, are met, the BSP said. The government is being urged to spend more on education and skills training, and to keep granting Conditional Cash Transfers to the poor in the run-up to 2015. A 2010 UN study, World Population Prospects, sees the Philippines as joining strong Asia economies that had previously entered the demographic window. It said Japan, Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea, China, and Thailand experienced growth rates following their entry into the window. Three Asian nations Indonesia, Malaysia, and India entered the window just recently. The
123
NoneedforanRHbill,noworever,Bernardo Villegas, Evelina Atienza Frank Padilla Anthony Lumicao and 15 others, Philippine Daily Inquirer, September 15, 2012
48
average growth rate of countries for 10 years following their entry to the window was 7.3 percent.124 108. To focus on the area of health and diseases, for example, one finds that the areas of urgent concern for Filipinos are not contraceptives but instead are as follows:125:
MORTALITY: TEN (10) LEADING CAUSES NUMBER AND RATE/100,000 POPULATION Philippines 5-Year Average (2001-2005) & 2006 5-Year Average 2006* (2001-2005) CAUSES Number Rate Number Rate 1. Diseases of the Heart 69,741 85.5 83,081 95.5 2. Diseases of the Vascular System 52,106 64.0 55,466 63.8 3. Malignant Neoplasms 39,634 48.6 43,043 49.5 4. Accidents** 33,650 41.4 36,162 41.6 5. Pneumonia 33,764 41.5 34,958 40.2 6. Tuberculosis, all forms 27,017 33.2 25,860 29.7 7. Chronic lower respiratory diseases 19,024 23.3 21,216 24.4 8. Diabetes Mellitus 15,123 18.5 20,239 23.3 9.Certain conditions originating in the perinatal period 13,931 10. Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome and nephrosis 9,785 17.2 12,334 14.2 12.0 11,981 13.8
109. The notion that contraception can address the fatalities caused by heart disease, vascular disease, neoplasms, accidents, pnuemonia, and tuberculosis is obviously ridiculous. 110. The government itself, through the Department of Health, may have even inadvertently shown the lack of rationality in putting contraceptives over other more important and urgent areas. Thus, in listing the DoHs list of priority legislation, the following is noticeable: Achieving universal health care for all Filipinos will require the following priority legislation: 1. 2. 3. 4.
124 125
Amendment of the National Health Insurance Act; Laws for corporate governance of hospitals; Restructuring of Sin Taxes (Alcohol and Tobacco); Law on Responsible Parenthood; and
Philippines entry to demographic window, Manila Bulletin, September 12, 2012
See Department of Health, Leading Causes of Mortality, http://www.doh.gov.ph/node/198.html, viewed 29 January 2013
49
5. Amendment of selected laws governing practice of health professionals.126 111. Responsible Parenthood comes in at 4th and this has come with the consideration, as we discussed above, that responsible parenthood is not synonymous with contraception. And, as we shall see below, there are already many other laws dealing with responsible parenthood or reproductive health, and all such needs is better implementation of such laws. 112. RA 10354 is even inutile in relation to the issue of population. The present size in population has less to do with more babies being born but that older people are staying healthy and living longer: The worlds population has reached 7 billion. The Population Estimates and Projections Section of the Population Division of the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs predicts that the worlds population will reach 10 billion by 2083. This is largely due to an increase in the average lifetime expectancy, and has occurred even though the fertility rate has declined. Between 1950 and 2010, life expectancy in more developed countries grew by 11 years, by 26 years in less developed regions, and by 19.5 years in the least developed countries. One economist considers this decrease in the worlds death rate our victory against death, our advancing march toward life being ended mainly by the diseases of old age and a triumph of human mind and organization over the raw killing forces of nature.127 (Underscoring supplied) 113. Whats ironic (and tragic) is that while contraceptive policies espoused by RA 10354 is not only unnecessary and harmful, it actually even deprives the Philippines of the needed focus on remedies that would lead to sustainable development. 114. The point here is this: RA 10354 sadly views people (and babies) as problems rather than solutions. But as recent research has already confirmed what common sense tells us: the solution cannot simply be to reduce the number of people on Earth, whether through the provision of family planning services or through other means. Furthermore, population-reduction policies reject the reality that it is poverty, not population, that causes problems. As noted in the 2012 Millennium Development Goals Report, poverty eradication is possible if the conditions in which extreme poverty thrives continue to be addressed: poor health and lack of education that deprive people of productive employment; environmental resources that have been depleted or spoiled; and corruption, conflict and bad governance that waste public resources and discourage private investment.
126
See DoH Priority Legislative Measures, http://www.doh.gov.ph/sites/default/files/10%20Annex.pdf, viewed 29 January 2013 127 See World Youth Alliance 2012 White Paper on Sustainable Development, pp.12-13
50
Reducing the population does not address and ameliorate the root causes of poverty outlined by the report. It only provides a simple equation that does not add up: reducing the number of poor people does not necessarily reduce poverty or its causes.128 115. In short, RA 10354 ignores the simple and uncontrovertible fact that the most important economic effect of population size and growth is the contribution of additional people to our stock of useful knowledge. And this contribution is great enough in the long run to overcome all the costs of population growth.129 116. Accordingly, the fact that contraceptives violate natural law already being proven, as well as the dire and calamitous medical, psychological, environmental, economic, and social problems that accompany contraceptive use brings, adding the fact that contraceptives are already widely available and at prices that are truly afforadable, the Congress and the government, by allowing significant funding for the purchase of contraceptives, as provided for RA 10354, has diverted away significant funds for areas that are truly urgent and necessary and thus is an act of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of or excess of jurisdiction. RA 10354 is unnecessary as there are many other laws already dealing with 'Reproductive Health'. 117. The most common argument used to justify Republic Act No. 10354 is the promotion of womens health and welfare, particularly the prevention of maternal deaths. However, a law which institutionalizes state-guaranteed, state-funded, statesanctioned access to contraception is unnecessary to achieve such laudable goals. In fact, several laws already address such concerns without offending the natural law, such as: 1.
2. 3. 4. R.A. 9710 or An Act Providing for Magna Carta for Women Republic Act No. 9262 or Anti-Violence against Women and Children Republic Act No. 8504 or Philippine AIDS Prevention and Control Act of 1998 Republic Act No. 6615, or An Act Requiring Government and Private Hospitals and Clinics to Extend Medical Assistance in Emergency Cases (which notably does not exclude abortion complications from emergency cases PD No. 965 or A decree requiring applicant for marriage license to receive instructions on family planning and responsible parenthood
5.
128 129
See World Youth Alliance 2012 White Paper on Sustainable Development, p.15 See World Youth Alliance 2012 White Paper on Sustainable Development, p.17
51
6. 7. 8. 9.
R.A 7883 or the Barangay Health Workers Benefits and Incentives Acts of 1995 R.A. 7160 or The Local Government Code of the Philippines Republic Act No. 7875 or the National Health Insurance Act of 1995 Republic Act No. 9502 or the Cheaper Medicine Act
118. The superfluity of state-guaranteed, state-funded access to contraception is further highlighted by the fact that childbirth is not even one of the top ten causes of death in the Philippines (see above). In addition to the data given, even older data shows that the top causes of death in the Philippines, according to 2008 statistics, are disease of the heart, cerebrovascular diseases, malignant neoplasm, pneumonia, tuberculosis, diabetes mellitus, chronic lower respiratory diseases, certain conditions originating in the perinatal period, nephritis, nephritic syndrome and nephrosis (relating to kidney disease), and assault.130 119. Accordingly, Congress, by enacting RA 10354, which contains provisions espousing contraception (which violates natural law), as well as pouring funding into such when there are other urgent areas that need funding, and considering that the provisions therein that do not deal with contraception are already covered by existing laws, has committed an act of grave abuse of discretion for which this Supreme Court is fully authorized to render unconstitutional. B. RA 10354 is unconstitutional for violating religious freedom provided for under the Bill of Rights and international law. 120. RA 10354 violates Article III of the Constitution for discriminating against the Catholic Church and its faithful. 121. It must be noted that Article II, Section 6, which declares that "The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable[,] should be read together with Article III, Section 5 of the Constitution which states that "No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights."
130
Cuarto, Precie Catherine C., Renal Failure Ranks 9 Leading Cause of Death among Filipinos NKTI, available at http://www.pia.gov.ph/news/index.php?article=2111338537076, downloaded January 25, 2013. See also http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/world-rankings-total-deaths#instructions, downloaded January 25, 2013, which lists the following as the top ten causes of death in the Philippines: coronary heart diseases, influenza and pneumonia, stroke, tuberculosis, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, violence, lung disease, kidney disease, and asthma.
th
52
122. There is, therefore, nothing in the said provision that says citizens, including government officials, should not be guided by the tenets of their faith. The Constitution, rather than discouraging religions, actually supports religions by mandating tolerance for all religions. Hence the prohibition on discriminatory treatment against or preference for any single religion. 123. However, it must be emphasized that the right to religion is not limited to practicing such faith in private. The right to religion extends to the public square, of proselytism, and in public discussions (the latter a right protected as well under the right to freedom of speech). 124. Thus, the Supreme Court elaborated on the right to proselytize (American Bible Society vs. Manila131) as meaning that one has the right to advocate ones religious views or disseminate information regarding the same. The Constitution also bars the government from interfering in the conduct of purely religious affairs. Thus, in Austria vs. NLRC, the Supreme Court stated that the government cannot intervene in matters relating to the administration of sacraments. This need to respect religious rights by the State has been consistently upheld by this Honorable Supreme Court in a long line of cases (including, but not limited to, Islamic Dawah132, Seventh Day Adventists133, and Ebranilag134 cases). 125. Our constitutional system does not even require government officials to do away with their religion while in government service. From the very first day of their service, our laws recognize that public officials, elected or appointed, could indeed adhere to their religious beliefs while working in government. The president of our Republic, for example, upon taking his oath of office asks for the help of God in the fulfillment of his duties. This plea for divine help is contained in the oaths of practically all government officials (including private citizens in the performance of public functions, such as testifying in court). 126. The US Supreme Court also defines religious right to cover instances when a person performs or abstains from performing a wide range of actions. This is to emphasize that religious rights is not merely limited to praying in private. 127. Thus, to illustrate, in Sherbert v. Verner135, an individual's religious beliefs forbade her from working on Saturdays. In Wisconsin v. Yoder,136 the parents of teenaged children had religious beliefs that prohibited them from sending their children to high school. In Thomas v. Review Board137, a worker's religious beliefs barred him from participating in the production of armaments. These cases are illustrative as to what are essential parts to the free exercise of religion.
131 132
101 Phil. 386 G.R. No. 153888, July 9, 2003 133 G.R. No. 124382, August 16, 1999 134 G.R. No. 95770, March 1, 1993 135 374 U.S. 398 (1963) 136 406 U.S. 205 (1972) 137 450 U.S. 707 (1981)
53
128. While the Court's decision in Employment Division v. Smith138 altered the standard for assessing which laws will be deemed to "prohibit the free exercise of religion" it reaffirmed that "the exercise of religion' often involves not only belief and profession but the performance of or abstention from physical acts: assembling with others for a worship service, participating in sacramental use of bread and wine, proselytizing, abstaining from certain foods or certain modes of transportation." 129. Indeed, one has to consider that our very own Constitution recognizes that religion strongly runs through its veins and the operation of the Republic. The very first sentence of the Constitution, in fact, actually contains a fervent appeal to the Creator: "We, the sovereign Filipino people, imploring the aid of Almighty God ..." The Catholic Church has consistently and clearly taught that it considers contraception immoral and against the tenets of its faith. 130. At the outset, it must be stated that the Catholic Church teaching on contraception has been consistent, established, and clear through the centuries. It is definitely a teaching or catechism of the Catholic Church for which its believers are all encouraged to adhere to. 131. Thusly, from From Pope Pius XIs Casti Connubii, Second Vatican Councils Gaudium et Spes, Pope Paul VIs Humanae Vitae, Pope John Paul IIs Familiaris Consortio and Theology of the Body lectures, and as recently as Pope Benedict XVIs Caritas in Veritate, take this along with the Catholic Churchs theologians such as Giovanni Montini, Karol Wojtyla, Joseph Ratzinger, Steve Ray, John Murray, John Hardon, William Most, Jimmy Akin, Scott Hahn, Janet Smith, Mike Aquilina, Mark Shea, and Charles Chaput (to name but a few) all declare, in quite clear and unconditional language, that the teaching of the Catholic Church is that contraception is immoral. 132. To discuss further the Catholic Churchs consistent stand against contraception, note that in 1968, Pope Paul VI issued the abovementioned landmark encyclical letter Humanae Vitae (Latin, "Human Life"), which re-emphasized the Churchs constant teaching that it is always intrinsically wrong to use contraception to prevent new human beings from coming into existence. 133. Contraception is "any action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act [sexual intercourse], or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation
138
494 U.S. 872 (1990)
54
impossible" (Humanae Vitae, 14). This includes sterilization, condoms and other barrier methods, spermicides, coitus interruptus (withdrawal method), the Pill, and all other such methods: Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreationwhether as an end or as a means. Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, or that such intercourse would merge with procreative acts of past and future to form a single entity, and so be qualified by exactly the same moral goodness as these. 134. The Church also, fulfilling the role given it by Christ as the identifier and interpreter of apostolic Scripture and apostolic tradition, has constantly condemned contraception as gravely sinful. in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (hereafter referred to as CCC): "[E]very action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible is intrinsically evil" (CCC 2370). "Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means . . . for example, direct sterilization or contraception" (CCC 2399). 135. The Church also has affirmed that the illicitness of contraception is an infallible doctrine: "The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable. Contraception is gravely opposed to marital chastity, it is contrary to the good of the transmission of life (the procreative.aspect of matrimony), and to the reciprocal self-giving of the spouses (the unitive.aspect of matrimony); it harms true love and denies the sovereign role of God in the transmission of human life" (Vademecum for Confessors 2:4, Feb. 12, 1997). 136. Acknowledging the role that conscience plays for the Catholic faithful, the Catholic Church nevertheless teaches that deliberate acts of contraception are always gravely sinful, which means that it is mortally sinful if done with full knowledge and deliberate consent (CCC 1857). 137. In Pope John Pauls Familiaris Consortio, it is shown how the Church deplores not only the use of contraceptives but State and international initiatives that enforce and promote their use. The said Encyclical declares: Thus the Church condemns as a grave offense against human dignity and justice all those activities of governments or other public authorities which attempt to limit in any way the freedom of couples in deciding about children. Consequently, any violence applied by such
55
authorities in favor of contraception or, still worse, of sterilization and procured abortion, must be altogether condemned and forcefully rejected. Likewise to be denounced as gravely unjust are cases where, in international relations, economic help given for the advancement of peoples is made conditional on programs of contraception, sterilization and procured abortion. 138. Thus it has been more than just a mere preferential practice for the Catholic Church to teach its members to refrain from the use of contraception. The stand of the Catholic Church against contraception is definitely more than just an optional teaching of the Church. Its teachings against contraception are core, fundamental, and sincere religious beliefs and doctrines of the Catholic Church. Having established that the doctrine of the Catholic Church against contraception is a fundamental religious belief, this doctrine should then fall within the ambit of religious freedom protected by the Constitution (as well as international law). 139. Having established that the doctrine of the Catholic Church against contraception is a fundamental religious belief, this doctrine should then fall within the ambit of religious freedom. As mentioned in the decision fo the Supreme Court in Estrada v. Escritor,139 Religious freedom is seen as a substantive right and not merely a privilege against discriminatory legislation. This in turn would mean that the use of contraception and its forced funding coming from the people as based on RA 10354 would violate the free exercise clause of the Constitution. It would force Catholics and members of other religions to fund a government program that is inherently against ther religious beliefs. 140. RA 10354, however, not only violates the Constitution but also violates international law. As the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (adopted by the UN General Assembly on 10 December 1948) declares: Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance140 141. The abovementioned right to religious freedom, to be exercised alone or in a community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in
139 140
492 SCRA 1 ; 22 JUN 2006 Article 18
56
teaching, practice, worship and observance was later affirmed and confirmed in the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the 1981 Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief. RA 10354, which would necessarily force Catholics, particularly through the payment of taxes, to support an act against their beliefs is violative of the right to religion provided for under Article III.5 of the Constitution and international law. 142. RA 10354 forces the members of the Catholic Church to go against and violate their intrinsic religious beliefs. 143. As mentioned in Part A above, significant portions of RA 10354 clearly sets aside public funds for the procurement of contraception. The following sections of the law shows how public funding is to be used for contraceptives distribution:
SEC. 10. Procurement and Distribution of Family Planning Supplies. The DOH shall procure, distribute to LGUs and monitor the usage of family planning supplies for the whole country. The DOH shall coordinate with all appropriate local government bodies to plan and implement this procurement and distribution program. The supply and budget allotments shall be based on, among others, the current levels and projections of the following: (a) Number of women of reproductive age and couples who want to space or limit their children; (b) Contraceptive prevalence rate, by type of method used; and (c) Cost of family planning supplies. Provided, That LGUs may implement its own procurement, distribution and monitoring program consistent with the overall provisions of this Act and the guidelines of the DOH. SEC. 13. Mobile Health Care Service. The national or the local government may provide each provincial, city, municipal and district hospital with a Mobile Health Care Service (MHCS) in the form of a van or other means of transportation appropriate to its terrain, taking into consideration the health care needs of each LGU. The MHCS shall deliver health care goods and services to its constituents, more particularly to the poor and needy, as well as disseminate knowledge and information on reproductive health. The MHCS shall be operated by skilled health providers and adequately equipped with a wide range of health care materials and information dissemination devices and equipment, the latter including, but not limited to, a television set for audio-visual presentations. All MHCS shall be operated by LGUs of provinces and highly urbanized cities.
57
SEC. 17. Pro Bono Services for Indigent Women. Private and nongovernment reproductive healthcare service providers including, but not limited to, gynecologists and obstetricians, are encouraged to provide at least forty-eight (48) hours annually of reproductive health services, ranging from providing information and education to rendering medical services, free of charge to indigent and low-income patients as identified through the NHTS-PR and other government measures of identifying marginalization, especially to pregnant adolescents. The forty-eight (48) hours annual pro bono services shall be included as a prerequisite in the accreditation under the PhilHealth.
144. RA 10354 therefore constitutes an undue and illegal burden on the free exercise of religion for Catholics. Catholic citizens who believe against contraception are forced to fund, through the payment of taxes and other such moneys, the very thing that they are against. 145. Although it is acknowledged that the government can burden and restrict the free exercise of religion, it is alleged that such burden and restriction must be of limited and narrow scope. As decided in Estrada v. Escritor, the strict scrutiny test must be the test used to regulate the free exercise of religion. This test would look at: the the sincerity and centrality of the religious belief and practice; the states compelling interest to override respondents religious belief and practice; and that the means the state adopts in pursuing its interest is the least restrictive to the exercise of religious freedom. The Catholic Church sincerly and seriously believe in contraceptions immorality 146. As earlier mentioned, the stand against contraception is not merely a religious practice for Catholics (such as the Eucharistic fast and abstaining from meat on Fridays of Lent) but a belief of Catholics that something is intrinsically immoral. As previously cited, various encyclicals and papal letters have stated that contraception is immoral as based on catholic teachings. 147. The Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines has issued various pastoral letters against contraception. In a pastoral letter entitled Contraception is Corruption, Archbishop Socrates Villegas states: On behalf of the President of the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines, I reiterate the collective discernment of the Philippine bishops that the RH Bill if passed into law can harm our nation. Contraception corrupts the soul. The RH Bill is being gift
58
wrapped to look like a gift for maternal health care. It is not so. It will lead to greater crimes against women. The poor are being promised a better life through the RH Bill. It will not be so. The poor can rise from their misery through more accessible education, better hospitals and lesser government corruption. Money for contraceptives can be better used for education and authentic health care. The youth are being made to believe that sex before marriage is acceptable provided you know how to avoid pregnancy. Is this moral? Those who corrupt the minds of children will invoke divine wrath on themselves. The Reproductive Health Bill, if passed into law in its present form, will put the moral fiber of our nation at risk. As we your bishops have said in the past, a contraceptive mentality is the mother of an abortion mentality. The wide and free accessibility of contraceptives, even to the youth, will result in the destruction of family life and in greater violence against women. 148. Clearly, the stand of the Catholic Church against the use of Contraception is an intrinsic part of the religious teaching and doctrine of the Catholic Church. 149. RA 10354 is a substantial burden to the free exercise of religion. The law discriminates against Catholics because it places undue burden against their faith. The burden is that Catholics are forced to support a measure clearly against their faith through their duty to pay taxes. 150. What actually constitutes a burden on religious beliefs can be seen from the rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court in Sherbert v. Verner . There, the U.S. Supreme Court made clear that the question is not limited to whether a law "directly compel[s]" a person to act contrary to his religious beliefs but extends as well to "indirect" burdens. Adell Sherbert was denied unemployment benefits because she refused to work Saturdays. The State was not directly compelling her to work on Saturdaysor to seek employment at all. Nevertheless, as the Court put it: The [agency] ruling forces her to choose between following the precepts of her religion and forfeiting benefits, on the one hand, and abandoning one of the precepts of her religion in order to accept work, on the other hand. Governmental imposition of such a choice puts the same kind of burden upon the free exercise of religion as would a fine imposed against appellant for her Saturday worship.
59
151. RA 10354 forces Catholics to abandon one of the precepts of their religion in order to be law-abiding citizens. Because by paying their taxes and funding the programs under RA 10354, they are forced to violate a basic tenet of their religion. Catholics are knowingly being forced to pay for a measure (designed to provide subsidies for contraceptives reportedly costing Five Billion Pesos a year) that is against not their mere opinion but their constitutionally protected religious beliefs. 152. Contraceptives are legally and widely available. Theres no law banning the private purchase of contraceptives. The Constitution does, however, prohibit discriminatory treatment against any single religion. RA 10354 discriminates against Catholics by forcing them to support, by mandatory promotion of contraceptives or through the duty to pay taxes, something they believe is immoral and against their religious beliefs. 153. Taxes are enforced proportional contributions from persons and property levied by the law-making body of the State by virtue of its sovereignty for the support of the government and all public needs. Taxes are the lifeblood of the Government and their timely and assured availability are an imperious need.141 The primary purpose of taxation on the part of the government is to provide funds or property with which to promote the general welfare and the protection of its citizens and to enable it to finance its multifarious activities. American jurisprudence has described the nature of taxes as follows: They are obligations imposed upon citizens to pay the expenses of government. They are forced contributions, and in no way dependent upon the will or contract, express or implied, of the persons taxed.142 (Underscoring supplied.) 154. This would mean that any payment made by a citizen for his or her tax obligation goes into the general fund that in turn would fund the programs of the government. It is the unavoidable duty of every citizen to bear his aliquot share of the cost of maintaining the Government. To make all citizens share the burden of taxation equitably, the Constitution expressly provides that "the rule of taxation shall be uniform.143 155. The argument that since it goes into the general fund of the government, taxes paid by Catholics are not to be directly used in the procurement and distribution of contraceptives ignores the fact that once part of the general funds of the government, the contributions made by Catholics, as provided for under analogous provisions and principles of our legal system, is jointly liable144 for the
141 142
CIR v. Pineda, G.R. No. L-22734, September 15, 1967. Footnote 27 of Villanueva v. City of Iloilo, G.R. No. L-26521, December 28, 1968, citing 26 R.C.L. 25-26. 143 Perfecto v. Meer, G.R. No. L-2348, February 27, 1950 144 Article 1208 of the Civil Code:
60
expenses incurred by the government for its programs part of which is the program being implemented by RA 10354. 156. The fact that citizens, including Catholics, are obliged jointly to pay any government measure (including that of RA 10354) can also be seen in the fact that the Philippines does not adhere to the Tax Choice Theory. Adherence to such a theory would have allowed Filipino taxpayers to have a greater say in how their individual taxes are allocated. This theory, which is based on the benefit principle, applies the same concepts of consumer choice theory to taxpayers.145 Clearly, such a theory is not applied in this country. 157. The underlying point is this: Catholics, having no say in how their tax contributions are to be allocated, are thus clearly jointly liable and responsible for any government measure. Inasmuch as Catholics are therefore jointly made liable and responsible for RA 10354, this is clearly an instance of an undue burden placed on Catholics as they are being made to support a measure definitely against their religious beliefs. 158. Inasmuch as the Catholic taxpayer has no say as to how his tax contributions are allocated, when the choice of the government program to be funded violates the intrinsic religious belief of a person then that persons religious freedom is being violated. 159. RA 10354 imposes a substantial burden on the exercise of religion of those individuals and organizations who, for sincere religious reasons, oppose the use of contraceptives. This therefore constitutes a violation of the rights of the Catholic Church and its faithful to the free exercise of religion and to not be subjected to discrimination. There is no compelling State interest 160. There is no compelling interest as there are, as was proven above, contraception is legal and very much available and affordable to everyone. 161. Furthermore, rather than a compelling interest for the State to deal in contraceptives (because no such compelling interest exists), there are clearly other pressing needs related to health, malnutrition of children, dengue, tuberculosis, malaria, and other prevalent diseases are a more pressing need specially because, as previously mentioned, there are already existing laws to address reproductive
Art. 1208. If from the law, or the nature or the wording of the obligations to which the preceding article refers the contrary does not appear, the credit or debt shall be presumed to be divided into as many shares as there are creditors or debtors, the credits or debts being considered distinct from one another, subject to the Rules of Court governing the multiplicity of suits. 145 See Wiki, Tax Choice, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_choice, as of 28 January 2013
61
health. Furthermore, as stated earlier, statistically, reproductive health related causes are not even among the top causes of death in the Philippines. There is no need for any legislation that guarantees universal access to contraceptives, the socalled reproductive health (RH) care devices. This petition does not want to declare contraceptives illegal since that would be tantamount to infringing on the separation of church and state. What should be prevented is the institutionalization of the distribution of contraceptives through the government. As earlier stated, contraceptives are readily available, are legal and cheap, and there are other far more urgent concerns that should be addressed rather than providing subsidies on contraception. There are less restrictive means 162. First, There are already various laws and governmental regulations that already deal with reproductive rights. Below are the list of laws and that address the various concerns raised in the RH bill: 1.
2. 3. 4. 5. R.A. 9710 or An Act Providing for Magna Carta for Women Republic Act No. 9262 or Anti-Violence against Women and Children Republic Act No. 8504 or Philippine AIDS Prevention and Control Act of 1998 PD No. 965 or A decree requiring applicant for marriage license to receive instructions on family planning and responsible parenthood Republic Act No. 6615, or An Act Requiring Government and Private Hospitals and Clinics to Extend Medical Assistance in Emergency Cases (which notably does not exclude abortion complications from emergency cases R.A 7883 or the Barangay Health Workers Benefits and Incentives Acts of 1995 R.A. 7160 or The Local Government Code of the Philippines Republic Act No. 7875 or the National Health Insurance Act of 1995 Republic Act No. 9502 or the Cheaper Medicine Act
6. 7. 8. 9.
163. The gamut of laws addressing reproductive health shows that there are other means less restrictive and readily available to address reproductive health. 164. Indeed, if the objective of RA 10354 is to address poverty, quality of life, or even health (which, as we mentioned already, are the subject of many other existing laws waiting to be properly implemented), there are an almost infitinite other measures that can be undertaken that will not violate the religious rights of Catholics. As mentioned above, the 2012 WYA White Paper on Sustainble Development declares that, rather than contraceptive policies, the following is needed to address poverty:
62
... people must have access to the resources they need to utilize their ingenuity and to make the best decisions for themselves. These resources include access to education, health care, and skills training, and there must be policies that promote the creation of the seven forms of capital, particularly reinvesting gains from lower forms of capital to create higher forms of capital.146 (Underscoring supplied) 165. Other such measures that can be undertaken that will not offend Catholics religious rights are, for a start, to focus on corruption (as suggested by Transparency International in its recent Corruption Perception Index147), improve manufacturing competitiveness (as suggested by the 2013 Global Manufacturing Competitiveness148), improve business competitiveness, particularly infrastructure, diversion of public funds, bureaucratic nightmares involved in starting a business, dispute settlement, science research and innovations, and deaths relating to tuberculosis and malaria (as suggested by the World Economic Forum's Global Competitiveness Report 2012-2013), and even economic freedom, particularly the fact that heavy bureaucracy discourages dynamic growth in investment (as suggested by Heritage Foundations Economic Freedom Index149). All such measures are useful, helpful, studied, and will not violate the religious rights of Catholics. RA 10354 fails the strict scrutiny and neutral and general tests 166. In the landmark case, Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, the U.S. Supreme Court did away with strict scrutiny analysis for Free Exercise Clause challenges to facially neutral laws that substantially burden religion. However, in the Philippines, it is alleged that it is still the strict scrutiny test that should be applied in deciding on religious freedom. Although the Employment Division v. Smith case eliminated the strict scrutiny analysis for free exercise of religion, it is enlightening to see that in that case what is examined is an act of a person based on his or her religious belief. It is based on a positive act, which is not compelled by the government but is compelled by his or her religious beliefs. In the issue of RA 10354, what is being asked is that persons be not compelled to do an act against their religious beliefs. More importantly, the decision gives an implied exception to the rule that, if a statute is general and neutral, it can overrride religious rights. It is when the the Free Exercise Clause is invoked in conjunction with other constitutional protections. The U.S. Supreme Court impliedly stated that if it were a hybrid situation then strict scrutiny can still be used. 167. RA 10354 cannot be considered as neutral and general in application. It legislates morality and belief by going straight against an established fundamental
146 147
See World Youth Alliance 2012 White Paper on Sustainable Development, p.24 http://www.transparency-ph.org/2012/12/understanding-the-philippines-cpi-2012-score-rank/ 148 http://www.deloitte.com/assets/DcomGlobal/Local%20Assets/Documents/Manufacturing/dttl_2013%20Global%20Manufacturing%20Competiti veness%20Index_11_15_12.pdf 149 See http://www.heritage.org/index/country/philippines
63
belief of a religion. It negates the idea of neutrality because of the fact that it is in direct contradiction to a particular religion. The standards of allowing an established religious belief to trump a governmental act are considerably low due to the fact that the free exercise of religion enjoys a high regard in our country. This is further evidenced by the tests that we use in order to judge acts based on religious belief. The requirement of compelling state interest is necessary in determining if there has been a valid governmental intrusion.150 In Ebralinag vs. Division of Superintendent of Schools of Cebu,151 the Supreme Court granted an exception to members of the Jehovahs Witness for saluting the flag. The Court further stated that: Religious freedom is a fundamental right which is entitled to the highest priority and the amplest protection among human rights, for it involves the relationship of man to his Creator. The right to religious profession and worship has a two-fold aspect, freedom to believe and freedom to act on one's belief. The first is absolute as long as the belief is confined within the realm of thought. The second is subject to regulation where the belief is translated into external acts that affect the public welfare. Since they do not engage in disruptive behavior, there is no warrant for their expulsion. The sole justification for a prior restraint or limitation on the exercise of religious freedom is the existence of a grave and present danger of a character both grave and imminent, of a serious evil to public safety, public morals, public health or any other legitimate public interest, that the State has a right (and duty) to prevent." Absent such a threat to public safety, the expulsion of the petitioners from the schools is not justified. 168. This decision is illustrates that the Court has high regard to religious freedom and that government action which limits this exercise comes to court with great burden. In Estrada v. Escritor, the Court stated that ... although religiously grounded conduct must often be subject to the broad police power of the State is not to deny that there are areas of conduct protected by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and thus beyond the power of the State to control, even under regulations of general applicability. The state must create exceptions to laws of general applicability when these laws threaten religious convictions or practices in the absence of a compelling state interest. 169. RA 10354 cannot be excused by saying that it applies generally (i.e., not targetting specifically against a particular religion) as it will surely harm and discriminate against the faith of most Filipinos. The Philippines is predominantly Roman Catholic. According to the official 2000 census data on religious preference,
150 151
Estrada v. Escritor, A.M. No. P-02-1651, August 4, 2003 G.R. No. 95770, March 1, 1993.
64
over 82 percent of citizens claim membership in the Roman Catholic Church.152 In a more recent news , around 92% or about 85.9 million out of 90 million are said selfproclaimed Roman Catholic. It is ranked third as the most predominantly Catholic nation globally, following Brazil and Mexico.153 170. Even if it is recognized that RA 10254 is a law of neutral and general application it must still be struck down since it is not the least restrictive means of furthering the governmental interest. As mentioned in Escritor, If the plaintiff can show that a law or government practice inhibits the free exercise of his religious beliefs, the burden shifts to the government to demonstrate that the law or practice is necessary to the accomplishment of some important (or compelling) secular objective and that it is the least restrictive means of achieving that objective. If the plaintiff meets this burden and the government does not, the plaintiff is entitled to exemption from the law or practice at issue. 171. By making contraception a matter of national policy and allocating billions of taxpayers money for its implementation, RA 10354 violently and unnecessarily disregards the Catholic teachings and unduly and illegally tramples upon the religious beliefs and convictions of the Catholic faithful. Indeed, it is not right to ask Catholics or any group of believers to forcibly pay for practices they deem sinful and against their religious belief. To do so is tyrannical and destructive of democracy. 172. RA 10354, which would necessarily force Catholics, particularly through the payment of taxes, to support an act against their beliefs is violative of the right to religion provided for under Article III.5 of the Constitution. RA 10354 forces Catholics to commit or perform acts that are contrary to their faith. 173. There are other dangers found in RA 10354. Catholics are forced to commit acts that are contrary to their religious beliefs. The law dangles a criminal penalty of imprisonment and/or fine to compel compliance with its provisions. Believers will find themselves torn between fidelity to God and loyalty to their country. This unjustly limits the right to conscientious objection on the part of health care workers and professionals and employers who take their religion. 174. Section 23 of RA 10354 provides that:
SEC. 23. Prohibited Acts. The following acts are prohibited:
152 153
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/rp.html http://www.asianapearlvision.net/stories/voyage-philippines-roman-catholicism/
65
(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 (2) Refuse to extend quality health care services and information on account of the persons 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;
175. Catholic doctors and other medical practicioners are forced to indirectly violate their religious belief. By forcing the Catholic doctor to refer his or her patient to another doctor, the State enforces complicity with the methods which the referred doctor would conduct. Even if the conscientious objector is allowed not to to give out information favorable to contraception, he or she is still open to being punished by law if he or she refuses to refer his or her patient to another doctor. This provision also implies that the doctor is restrained from giving his or her anti-contraceptive stand to his or her patient. The law unduly burdens the doctor into promoting contraception directly or indirectly. 176. The law also criminalizes the practice of faith and religion as well as other acts that are not inherently evil or against public policy or morality. For example, a religious institution or a conscientious Catholic healthcare provider who withholds information regarding programs and services on reproductive health may be held liable under the law. Section 7 of RA 10354 provides that:
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
66
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.
177. RA 10354 also violates the right to the freedom of speech of the healthcare provider to not be coerced in sharing information about contraceptives. It forces a Catholic doctor or healthcare provider to go against or her faith by dessiminating information on contraceptives. 178. Accordingly, RA 10354 forces Catholics, through the payment of taxes, and by forcing them to commit or perform acts, and prohibits them to speak of their faith, violates religious freedoms provided for Article III.5 of the Constitution and is therefore unconstitutional. RA 10354 discriminates against Catholics because it removes from them their right to choose regarding responsible parenthood in a manner consistent with their faith. 179. Ironically, one of the repeated claims by those supporting passage of RA 10354 is that it gives people the right to choose. However, such claim is completely misleading, wholly inaccurate, and definitely wrong. Griswold and Eisenstadt have no relevance to the present case 180. At the outset, it must be emphasized that the well known US Supreme Court cases of Griswold vs. Connecticut154 and Eisenstadt vs. Baird155 have no application, utterly of no relevance, and is completely without need to be considered in the present case. Those cases, it must be pointed out, were ruled on the basis of allowing contraceptives to married and unmarried couples on the ground of their right to privacy. And even then, significant legal experts consider Griswold and Eisenstadt to be wrongly decided and may have even perhaps led to the more controversial Roe vs. Wade.156 In any event, Griswold and Eisenstadt finds no bearing in this present case because, as we've repeatedly stressed, contraceptives are legally available, at prices quite affordable, to practically anyone. The issue is therefore
154 155
Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972) 156 Robert George and David Tubbs, The Bad Decision That Started It All, National Review (July 18, 2005), pp.39-40.
67
obviously not whether certain people should be allowed contraceptives because contraceptives are indeed legal (as well as very affordable). Rather, the issue is the grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of excess of jurisdiction in enacting a law that supports and significantly subsidizes contraceptive use when contraceptives are against natural law (and therefore could cause considerable harm or damage to the country), unnecessarily diverts much needed funds from other more important areas of concern to the nation, and all done in a manner that violates the religious freedoms enshrined in our Constitution. RA 10354 removes right to choose 181. As weve seen above, contraception is already available, very much so, and at prices that are quite affordable to anyone. To claim that RA 10354 would only now be giving that right of choice to use contraception is engaging in deception: the right to choose and use contraception has always been there all along. RA 10354 did not provide anything substantially new insofar as the citizens ability to avail of contraception. 182. However, what RA 10354 does is precisely to remove the right to choose not to support contraception. The reason is obvious: as weve seen above, RA 10354 demands substantial funding to subsidize its contraceptive policy and measures. This funding will require dipping into the national budget which is taken from the tax contributions of citizens. A substantial number of those taxpayers are Catholics and others whose faith (as was discussed above) considers contraception as immoral. A significant portion of the tax money allotted for RA 10354 will be used to purchase contraceptives. At that point, it doesnt matter anymore whether or not individual citizens actually make use of the subsidized contraceptives offered by the government or whether or not local governments effectively implement RA 10354. It doesnt matter anymore because the contraceptives would have been purchased already by the national government, using tax money that certainly would include contributions from devout and practicing Catholics. In short, the mere implementation of RA 10354 will result in Catholics being forced to support a measure that is contrary to their faith through their duty to pay taxes, the subsequent moneys of which have have been allocated through the national budget. 183. Therefore, contrary to the allegations of pro-RH advocates, considering that contraception has always been legally available and has been demonstrably shown to be quite affordable, RA 10354, rather than providing choice actually removes that right of choice, particularly for the Catholic faithful, precisely because they are forced to endorse contraception, thus supporting a measure that is clearly against their faith, through their duty to pay taxes. That this is so is a clear instance of discrimination against Catholics, in violation of their rights to religious freedom provided for under Article III.5 of the Constitution.
68
RA 10354 imposes a belief that intolerantly discriminates against Catholics, in gross violation of Article III.5 of the Constitution and international law. 184. RA 10354 blatantly, grossly, and intolerantly imposes a belief system that discriminates against Catholics, in violation of Article III of the Constitution and international law. 185. As mentioned above, the right to religion is protected by the 1948 UN Declaration on Human Rights, 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the 1981 Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief. 186. In particular, Article 2 of the 1981 Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief profoundly declares:
1. No one shall be subject to discrimination by any State,institution, group of persons, or person on grounds of religion or other beliefs. 2. For the purposes of the present Declaration, the expression intolerance and discrimination based on religion or belief means any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on religion or belief and having as its purpose or as its effect nullification or impairment of the recognition, enjoyment or exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms on an equal basis. (Underscoring supplied)
187. Unfortunately, RA 10354 provides a preference for and imposes a religion or belief, thus discriminating against Catholics and violates their human right to the free exercise of religion provided for under the Constitution and international law. 188. Thus, Section 2 paragraph (d) of RA 10354 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.
69
The State shall eradicate discriminatory practices, laws and policies that infringe on a persons exercise of reproductive health rights. The State shall also promote openness to life; Provided, That parents bring forth to the world only those children whom they can raise in a truly humane way. (Underscoring supplied)
189. The foregoing quote is highly illustrative of the Utilitarianism School of Thought . Utilitarianism is a modern form of the Hedonistic ethical theory which teaches that the end of human conduct is happiness, and that consequently the discriminating norm which distinguishes conduct into right and wrong is pleasure and pain.157 It puts emphasis on pleasure and happiness. According to utilitarianism the moral worth of an action is determined only by its resulting outcome. Utilitarianism has often been considered the natural ethic of a democracy operating by simple majority without protection of individual rights.158 190. Applied in Section 2 (d), children are placed as an unwanted byproduct of sexual intercourse. The section espouses a view against pro-life. Morality and ethics in this case, is defined by its consequences. This view directly contradicts the pro-life stand of the Church. It also gives the mentality that children are the mere excess of sexual conduct and should be avoided for better pleasure and happiness. Pope John Paul II, considered that a danger of utilitarianism is that it tends to make persons, just as much as things, the object of use. "Utilitarianism is a civilization of production and of use, a civilization of things and not of persons, a civilization in which persons are used in the same way as things are used."159 191. It also espouses a relativist belief. By providing that The State shall eradicate discriminatory practices, laws and policies that infringe on a persons exercise of reproductive health rights., the law imposes acceptance of any and all methods of family planning as if all methods were equally moral. 192. The Catholic Church, especially under John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, has identified relativism as one of the most significant problems for faith and morals today.160 193. John Paul II in Veritatis Splendor stressed the dependence of man on God and his law. "Without the Creator, the creature disappears and the "dependence of freedom on the truth". He warned that man "giving himself over to relativism and skepticism, goes off in search of an illusory freedom apart from truth itself".
157 158
Utilitarianism, Catholic Encyclopedia, http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15241c.htm Utilitarian Ethics and Democratic Government, Jonathan Riley, Ethics, Vol. 100, No. 2 (Jan., 1990), pp. 335-348 159 http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/letters/documents/hf_jpii_let_02021994_families_en.html 160 World Youth Day Coverage, http://www.nationalcatholicreporter.org/word/wyd082105.htm
70
194. In Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life), he says: The original and inalienable right to life is questioned or denied on the basis of a parliamentary vote or the will of one part of the people-even if it is the majority. This is the sinister result of a relativism which reigns unopposed: the "right" ceases to be such, because it is no longer firmly founded on the inviolable dignity of the person, but is made subject to the will of the stronger part. In this way democracy, contradicting its own principles, effectively moves towards a form of totalitarianism. The State is no longer the "common home" where all can live together on the basis of principles of fundamental equality, but is transformed into a tyrant State, which arrogates to itself the right to dispose of the life of the weakest and most defenceless members, from the unborn child to the elderly, in the name of a public interest which is really nothing but the interest of one part. 195. In his homily during Mass prior to the conclave which would elect him as Pope, Pope Benedict XVI talked about the world "moving towards a dictatorship of relativism": How many winds of doctrine we have known in recent decades, how many ideological currents, how many ways of thinking. The small boat of thought of many Christians has often been tossed about by these waves thrown from one extreme to the other: from Marxism to liberalism, even to libertinism; from collectivism to radical individualism; from atheism to a vague religious mysticism; from agnosticism to syncretism, and so forth. Every day new sects are created and what Saint Paul says about human trickery comes true, with cunning which tries to draw those into error (cf Ephesians 4, 14). Having a clear Faith, based on the Creed of the Church, is often labeled today as a fundamentalism. Whereas, relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and "swept along by every wind of teaching", looks like the only attitude acceptable to today's standards. We are moving towards a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as certain and which has as its highest goal one's own ego and one's own desires. However, we have a different goal: the Son of God, true man. He is the measure of true humanism. Being an "Adult" means having a faith which does not follow the waves of today's fashions or the latest novelties. A faith which is deeply rooted in friendship with Christ is adult and mature. It is this friendship which opens us up to all that is good and gives us the knowledge to judge true from false, and deceit from truth.161
161
Homily Of His Eminence Card. Joseph Ratzinger Dean Of The College Of Cardinals, Vatican Basilica, Monday 18 April 2005
71
196. Interestingly, this discrimination affects not only Catholics but also even other religions. Thus: A Muslim group has joined the opposition to President Benigno Aquino IIIs open policy towards the use of artificial contraceptives for family planning. The Iman Council of the Philippines (ICP) said it is against the use of birth control pills and condoms even among married couples. Sa contraceptives, hindi tayo pabor diyan para bawasan ang populasyon ng Pilipinas. Kontra po diyan ang Islam dahil bakit natin iunderestimate and plano ng Panginoon, ICP head Ibram Moxir said in an interview on Church-run Radio Veritas. (We do not favor contraceptives to control the Philippine population. Islam is against contraception because that will be underestimating Gods wisdom.) Moxir added the Islam community is one with the Catholic hierarchy in opposing the passage of the Reproductive Health bill.162 197. The foregoing was later bolstered by a declaration by an inter-faith group (composed of Catholics, Evangelicals, and Muslims): In a July 15 press conference at the Club Filipino, San Juan, which gathered representatives of Catholic, evangelical Christian and Muslim groups as well as speakers from the education and youth sectors, former congressman Dr. Benny Abante expressed the interfaith Pro-Life Coalitions call. xxx We, the Prolifers, strongly oppose and will vehemently resist any or all moves by any individual, group or institution to enact the RH bill into law, particularly the senseless spending of billions of pesos on contraceptives in the guise of responsible parenthood and safe sex, the inclusion of sex education in the curriculum for children and
162
see Muslim group joins protest vs artificial contraception; http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/202450/news/nation/muslim-group-joins-protest-vs-artificialcontraception; 02 October 2010
72
minors, virtually usurping the divine responsibility of parents to teach their own children.163 198. By imposing utilitarianism and relativism, both of which Catholic teachings reject, RA 10354 provides a preference for and imposes a religion or belief, thus discriminating against Catholics and violates their human right to the free exercise of religion provided for under the Constitution and international law. 199. Accordingly, RA 10354, because it forces Catholics through the payment of taxes to support a measure contrary to their faith, by forcing them to commit or perform acts contrary to their faith, and by imposing a contrary belief upon the Catholic faithful, violates the constitutionally protected right to religious freedoms provided for Article III.5 of the Constitution. RA 10354 therefore constitutes a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of or excess of jurisdiction, which this Supreme Court is fully authorized and mandated to render unconstitutional.
C. RA 10354 is unconstitutional for violating the inherently pro-family and democratic nature of the Constitution. RA 10354 is unconstitutional for violating the inherently pro-family nature of the Constitution. 200. The 1987 Constitution is decidedly pro-family by nature. Its provisions clearly and unequivocally express the original intention of the framers of the Constitution to enshrine therein the protection of the family and the life of both the mother and the unborn from conceptiona principle which was ratified by a great majority of the Filipino people164. 201. Previously, under Article XV, Section 10 of the 1973 constitution, it was provided that: "It shall be the responsibility of the State to achieve and maintain population levels most conducive to the national welfare."
163
See Interfaith Pro-Life Coalition calls for decency, supports govt fight vs. corruption ; http://cbcpforlife.com/?p=2633, 16 July 2011
164
Article II Sec. 12, 1st & 2nd sentence to protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution, and to equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception (1st and 2nd sentences, Sec. 12, ART. II);
73
202. This same above quoted provision is no longer found in the present 1987 Philippine Constitution. It was, for all intents and purposes, deleted as a provision by the Constitutional Commission. Hence, the clear intention of the framers to make the present Constitution one that is unequivocally pro-family and pro-life. Moreover, it logically means that the Constitutional Commissioners had concluded that the population measures implemented during the Marcos era were ineffective and did not merit to be included in the new Constitution. It is a principle of statutory construction that an act which purports to set out in full all that it intends to
contain, operates as repeal of anything omitted which was contained in the old act and not included in the amendatory act.165
203. The record of the deliberations of the 1986 Constitutional Commission clearly show the original intent of the Commissioners to delete Section 10 of the 1973 Constitution, including the phrase population development which was found in the same 1973 Constitution. To wit:
R.C.C.No.95 09-29-1986 ...MR. RAMA: Madam President, may I call on Commissioner Uka to present an amendment. THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Uka is recognized. MR. UKA: Madam President, Commissioner Treas and I are co-sponsors of this motion to delete Section 13. There are valid and strong arguments against inserting the provisions of Section 13 of Proposed Resolution No. 531 in the new Constitution, the most cogent among which are the following: (1) There is a wealth of statistical evidence that proves that population growth has been a major stimulus for economic development and progress in countries that are now industrialized. (2) The major determinants of a country's economic development are economic policies and political system. Very densely populated countries like Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Hongkong and Singapore reached heights of economic progress much before any organized population programs. (3) It is very dangerous to give the State a constitutional mandate to determine what is an optimum population. This can lead to a gross violation of human rights like in the case of some Asian countries that implemented forced sterilization programs, such as the more recent attempt of an Asian leader to limit childbearing only to the educated women, making the extremely objectionable assumption that poor women give birth to less intelligent babies. (4) In the Philippines, population control programs have been an unmitigated disaster. Hundreds of millions, as a matter of fact, close to P340 million, have been spent for these population control programs from 1981 to 1986. And, of course, hundreds of millions of pesos have gone down the drain without any real impact on alleviating mass poverty. As the current Minister of Social Services, Mita Pardo de Tavera has recently declared, funds for population control are better utilized in providing social services to the existing population. Population policies should be exclusively population welfare
165
People v. Adillo, G.R. No. L-23785, November 27, 1975.
74
policies. It has been proved beyond statistical doubt that economic development and social justice will automatically lead to the slowing down of population growth as increased urbanization and industrialization are achieved. There is no need for the State to take an active role in determining the optimum level of population. Once the State is wrongly given the mandate to interfere in the basic rights of parents to determine the number of children they will have, all the qualifying limitations about respecting individual consciences are often more honored in their breach as can be gleaned from the experience of developing countries in Asia. The 1935 Constitution did not include any provisions on population. The only reason why a population policy was included in the 1973 Constitution was that there was a strong lobby supported by the USAID, which at that time was aggressively committed to population control. Since that time under the new policy of President Reagan, American aid programs have been focused on such positive solution as food productivity and the development of small-and medium-scale industries. Very recently, America stopped all financial support to the U.N. Fund for Population Activities because of the latter's involvement in China's population program, which the United States has reason to suspect, contains the widespread use of compulsory abortion. The new Reagan doctrine on population was first announced in the 1984 Population Meet in Mexico. It states that the most effective solution to the population problem is economic development and social justice. Given appropriate policies in economic development and social justice which have been our concern in this Constitution, the Philippines today can comfortably accommodate as many as 100 million Filipinos given the present technology. The Philippines is far from being overpopulated. Existing mass poverty in the Philippines can be attributed to an unenlightened economic policies and the wrong political leadership in the past. THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Uka, I am sorry I have to interrupt you because your three-minute time has expired. MR. UKA: One minute more, Madam President. What is one minute among friends. THE PRESIDENT: The Commissioner is granted a one-minute extension. MR. UKA: Thank you, Madam President. Today, every major nation is both modern and free; it is also on a fertility trap, which will lead to a substantial loss in population. Why should we target our CPG when other nations want to have more babies? In fact, President Francois Miterrand of France recently argued that the decline in birth rate constitutes a grave menace to the West. So we can see that the modern nations in Europe are even having a problem of decline in population. And some of them are even sending their people here to adopt Filipino children. What does this mean? If Rizal said that the youth, the conceived child in the womb included, is the fair hope of the Fatherland, then the Western contraceptive is already preventing that to happen in our country. There will be no more hope children or youth for our Fatherland. I cannot resist the temptation to quote Jesus on this subject when he said: Suffer little children and forbid them not to come unto me for such is the Kingdom of Heaven. We should welcome children, not kill them...
75
204. In her closing remarks166, Hon. Cecila Munoz-Palma, President of the 1986 Constitutional Commission, herself emphasized the pro-family and pro-life nature of our present Constitution, when she said: "Very close to my heart are the provisions on the family. For the first time, the Constitution devotes a separate Article on the Family thereby giving due recognition to the fact that the family is a basic autonomous social institution and, therefore, the State shall uphold the sanctity of family life, protect the stability of marriage and the right to found a family in accordance with ones religious beliefs and convictions, and responsible parenthood. At this time in the history not only of our country but of all mankind when the institution of the family is subjected to assaults against its inherent dignity as an instrument to Gods creation, constitutional provisions which give protection and guarantees to rights and duties of parents are safeguards against the erosion of moral and spiritual values." RA 10354 is unconstitutional and void-forvagueness, in violation of the due process clause of the Constitution. 205. Article III, Section 1. of the 1987 Constitution states: No person shall be deprived of life, liberty and property without due process of law. This due process clause, as it is also referred to, makes operative our democratic rights, and serves as a counter-balance against encroachments and abuses by the government or its agents. It is a right and a principle which must be respected by the State, and upheld by the Courts of law. 206. Thus, any legislation which imposes a penalty or sanction on life, liberty or property must always be in accordance with due process of law. The scope of due process includes the principles of equity, prudence, humaneness and fairness. It is intimately related to the principles of Natural Law earlier discussed above. 207. We submit that Sec. 24 of R.A. 10354, in relation to the other sections of the same law, particularly, Section 2 (Declaration of Policy); Section 3 (Guiding Principles for Implementation); Section 4 (Definition of Terms); and Section 7 (Access to Family Planning) is vague and ambiguous, and thus, violative of the due process clause of the Constitution. Under the doctrine of void-for-vagueness, it must be struck down as unconstitutional in its entireity. 208. Sec. 24 of the assailed R.A. 10354, states: SEC. 24. Penalties. Any violation of this Act, or commission of the foregoing prohibited acts shall be penalized by imprisonment ranging
166
http://www.gov.ph/1986/10/15/closing-remarks-of-the-president-of-the-constitutional-commissionat-the-final-session-october-15-1986/ Official Gazette

76
from one (1) month to six (6) months or a fine of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) to One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00), or both such fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the competent court: Provided, That, if the offender is a public officer, elected or appointed, he/she shall also suffer the penalty of suspension not exceeding one (1) year or removal and forfeiture of retirement benefits depending on the gravity of the offense after due notice and hearing by the appropriate body or agency. If the offender is a juridical person, the penalty shall be imposed upon the president or any responsible officer. An offender who is an alien shall, after service of sentence, be deported immediately without further proceedings by the Bureau of Immigration. If the offender is a pharmaceutical company, its agent and/or distributor, their license or permit to operate or conduct business in the Philippines shall be perpetually revoked, and a fine triple the amount involved in the violation shall be imposed. (underscoring supplied for emphasis)
209. The generic words ANY VIOLATION, in the above quoted penal provision, effectively criminalizes those acts which are not clearly defined, nor intended by the authors of the same statute to be criminalized. 210. Void-for-vagueness, according to the Supreme Court in Sps.Carlos S. Romualdez vs. Commission on Election G.R.No.167011, April 30, 2008,167 derives from the basic tenet of criminal law that an act or conduct must be clearly defined before it may be treated as criminal, by a competent authority, even before it has taken place. A legislative definition of a criminal act must be meaningfully precise. A statute or act may said to be vague when it lacks comprehensible standards that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application.168 It is repugnant to the Constitution in two respects: (1) it violates due process for failure to accord persons, especially the parties targetted by it, fair notice of the conduct to avoid; and (2) it leaves law enforcers unbridled discretion in carrying out its provisions and becomes an arbitrary flexing of the Government muscle.169 211. To simply state Any violation of this Act....xxx... is vague because it does not define with meaningful precision the type of conduct to be treated as a violation of R.A. 10354, and thus, penalized with imprisonment and fine, or both. 212. The catch-all words Any violation dangerously oversimplify, and provide a vague and ambiguous proviso which is anathema to the due process clause of the Constitution. It does not specifically refer to a definite provision of law, or any human act or conduct, which would constitute a criminal offense. Instead, it refers to, or can actually refer to any of the 30 Sections, of the said statute as a source of any violation.
167 168
Dissenting Opinion, Justice Tinga People v. Nazario, G.R. No. L-44143, August 31, 1988. 169 Ibid.
77
213. Its overly broad and ambiguous terminology (i.e. Any violation), does not provide fair notice to the citizenry, and neither does it provide any standards for enforcement of adjudication. Thus, this section violates the due process clause, and thus deserves to be struck down. 214. Verily, each crime or offense currently defined in our penal laws consists of elements which provide the judge a clearly defined standard for conviction or acquittal. This would certainly be impossible when the penal provision (Sec. 24 above) is predicated on the generic words, Any violation of this Act. 215. The catch-all provision unjustly criminalizes the so-called violation of any one right, duty or prohibition, among so many contained in one statute. And, any one of this right, duty or prohibition, whether forseen, defined or otherwise, could be a legal cause for imprisonment. 216. What will result is a great confusion among the law enforcement agents, and the judges who will left to their own arbitrary interpretation of the vague penal statuteto the utter detriment of the citizenry. This destroys our system of administering justice. 217. The vagueness of Sec. 24, renders it a potential tool for political harassment and other forms of State oppression. It is very likely that both activitist and overzealous law enforcement officers will apply this Section 24, to suppress religious or moral expressions of belief, policies, or practices that tend to violate any provision of this assailed Act. 218. To illustrate: Sec. 2 (last sentence) states: The States shall also promote openness to life: Provided, That parents bring forth to the world only those children whom they can raise in a truly humane way. What constitutes a truly humane way to raise children is not even defined in the same law. Thus, parents can be fined or imprisoned for violating this obligation under Sec. 2? 219. Similarly, under Sec.4 Definition of Terms, sub-par. (p) Reproductive Health (RH), provides:
Reproductive Health (RH) refers to the state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity, in all matters relating to the reproductive system and to its functions and processes.
This implies that people are able to have a responsible, safe, consensual and satisfying sex life, that they have the capability to reproduce and the freedom to decide if, when, and how often to do so. This further implies that
women and men attain equal relationships in matters related to sexual relations and reproduction. (underscoring supplied)
220. Again, there is no legal definition of responsible, safe, consensual and satisfying sex life. Thus, it is possible to fine or imprison those men or women who can not provide safe, consensual, and satisfying sex?
78
221. The same is true for any of the enumerated Guiding Principles under Sec. 3 (a) to 3 (p), and any of the enumerated rights & definitions under Sec. 4 (a) to 4(w), of the same assailed law. There is obviously no set or clear standards or guidelines as to what will constitute a violation of this provisions to guide law enforcement officers and judges. Any one of this enumerated rights and definitions is a potential or actual cause for imprisonment or fine for any person who, in the first place, was never informed of this unforseen legal consequence, or given any prior notice of this penalties for any violation of R.A. 10354. 222. Consequently, this vague and ambiguous situation is an open invitation for arbitrary and discriminatory application or interpretation by law enforcement agents and judges which the due process clause of the Constitution abhors. There will never be any fair and consistent application and enforcement of this vague statute. Hence, it must be struck down as unconstitutional in its entirety void for being vague. ALLEGATIONS IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, STATUS QUO ANTE ORDER, AND/OR WRIT OF PRELIMINARY MANDATORY INJUNCTION 223. Petitioners incorporate and replead the allegations of the foregoing paragraphs insofar as they are relevant and material hereto; 224. The Honorable Court can take judicial notice of the fact that that the assailed law was signed by the President last December 2012, and is currently being implemented by herein Respondents. Should there no timely resolution of this instant Petition, grave and irreparable injury will be inflicted upon and suffered by herein Petitioners and all those similarly situated. There is a great possibility that all those who continue to oppose R.A.No.10354, will be subject to criminal prosecution for Any violation of this Act. Moreover, Catholic schools will be forced to offer sex education even if it is contrary to their religion, physicians who are Catholics will be forced into involuntary servitude, contraceptives with abortive effects will proliferate the market, public funds will be used to buy contraceptives which actually abortificientsall to the damage and detriment of the Filipino nation.
CONCLUSION
Republic Act No. 10354 is unconstitutional for being a law that constitutes a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of or excess of jurisdiction by the Congress; for containing significant provisions that violate the Constitutionally protected religious rights of the Catholic Church and its faithful, as provided for under Article III.5 of the Constitution, and for grossly violating the inherently pro-family and democratic nature of the Constitution. Finally, for being void-for-vagueness in violation the due process clause. Accordingly, this Honorable Supreme Court is well authorized, mandated, and justified in declaring R.A. 10354unconstitutional, void and without any force and effect.
79
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING PREMISES, it is most respectfully prayed of this Honorable Supreme Court: 1) That a Temporary Restraining Order be issued immediately to preserve the status quo ante, restraining herein Respondents from implementing RA 10354, or the Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012, and after due notice and hearing, to issue the corresponding writ of preliminary injunction pending the final determination of this case; 2) After due notice and hearing, to render judgment granting: 1) a writ of certiorari declaring Republic Act No. 10354 unconstitutional, void and without any force or effect, and 2) a writ of prohibition directing herein Respondents to refrain and/or cease and desist from implementing R.A. No. 10354. Other remedies just and equitable in the premises are likewise most respectfully prayed for. Pasig City for Manila 25 February 2013.
RUFINO L. POLICARPIO III Counsel for Petitioners c/o Policarpio & Acorda Law Office 903 Richmonde Plaza, San Miguel Ave. Corner Lourdes Drive, Ortigas Center, Pasig City, 1605
PTR No. Lifetime IBP No. MCLE Compliance Roll No
CRISTINA A. MONTES Counsel for Petitioners

PTR No. Lifetime IBP No. MCLE Compliance / Roll No.
JEREMY I. GATDULA Counsel for Petitioners

PTR No. IBP No. MCLE Compliance No. Roll No.
80
COPY FURNISHED: OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINES Hon. Paquito N. Ochoa Executive Secretary Office of the President of the Philippines Malacaang Palace, City of Manila SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES c/o Office of the Senate President, Pasay City HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES c/o Office of the Speaker, Batasan Hills, Quezon City Hon. Florencio B. Abad Secretary Department of Budget and Management Malacaang, City of Manila Hon. Enrique T. Ona, M.D. Secretary Department of Health San Lazaro Compound, City of Manila Hon. Armin A. Luistro, FSC Secretary Department of Education DepEd Complex, Meralco Avenue, Pasig City Hon. Manuel A. Roxas II Secretary Department of Internal and Local Government EDSA cor. Mapagmahal St., Diliman, Quezon City Hon. Francis H. Jardeleza Solicitor General 139 Amorsolo Street Legaspi Village, Makati City EXPLANATION In compliance with the Rules of Civil Procedure, the undersigned counsel states that due to distance, time, and manpower constraints, personal filing and service of this Petition was not resorted to and instead, copies of the same were sent by registered mail pursuant to said Rules as per attached registry receipts.
81

Pro-Life Phil vs. Office of The President

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pro-Life Phil vs. Office of The President

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic of the Philippines

Ibid. G.R. No. 160261, November 10, 2003. 11 Ibid.

(2) (3) (4)

Section 7 of the Act also provides:

Philippines entry to demographic window, Manila Bulletin, September 12, 2012

494 U.S. 872 (1990)

492 SCRA 1 ; 22 JUN 2006 Article 18

People v. Adillo, G.R. No. L-23785, November 27, 1975.

http://www.gov.ph/1986/10/15/closing-remarks-of-the-president-of-the-constitutional-commissionat-the-final-session-october-15-1986/ Official Gazette

CRISTINA A. MONTES Counsel for Petitioners

JEREMY I. GATDULA Counsel for Petitioners

You might also like