CONTENTIOUS as ever, Republic Act (RA) 10354 or the Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012, which was signed into law by President Benigno Aquino III last December 2012 is again making headlines as Supreme Court (SC) last Tuesday declared it constitutional except for certain sections.
Commonly addressed as the ‘RH Law’, its following sections are declared unconstitutional by SC: Portions of Section 7 (Access to Family Planning) requiring private hospitals owned by religious groups to refer nonemergency patients to another health facility and allowing minors to access modern family planning methods without the consent of parents.
u2022 Section 17 (Pro Bono [for the public good or voluntary professional service] Services for Indigent Women) that mandates granting of free services to indigent women as a prerequisite for healthcare providers in securing PhilHealth accreditation.
u2022 Section 23 a (1) (Prohibited Acts for healthcare service providers) which punishes health workers who withhold or restrict dissemination or incorrect information about RH programs and services including family planning methods.
u2022 Section 23 a (2) (i) allowing married individuals to undergo reproductive health procedures without the consent of the spouse and that should disagreement arise, the decision of the one undergoing the procedure shall prevail.
u2022 Section 23 a (3) punishing healthcare provides who refuses to refer nonemergency patients to another facility regardless of religious beliefs.
u2022 Section 23 a (2) (ii) which penalizes a health worker who requires parental consent from a minor in nonemergency cases.
u2022 Section 23(b) which punishes a public official who refuses to support reproductive health programs; and
u2022 The Implementing Rules and Regulations’ (IRR) definition of contraceptives and abortifacients as it contravenes the law’s definitions. Abortifacient, according to IRR is defined as “to any drug or device that induces abortion or the destruction of a fetus inside the mother’s womb or the prevention of the fertilized ovum to reach and be implanted in the mother’s womb upon determination of the FDA”.
Overall, when the constitutionality of a law is under scrutiny, it is but a protocol to refer to the 1987 Philippine Constitution. But is it not that this upheld and respected constitution is also the workings of big people with great minds post-dictatorship era?
Big and great indeed but these founding leaders are just like any mortals whose decisions are guided by their conscience, ethics, morals and most importantly, culture.
As Filipinos, we have a deep sense of respect for life and fear of God. And this is one plausible explanation why controlling the fertility of a woman is a sensitive topic and a taboo to some degree.
These taboo and sensitive topics have been bestowed with teeth through a constitution that sets that brakes and accelerators of the so-called RH Law.
What are ‘laws’ to begin with?
Philosophically, a law is a general truth that is higher than theory as it is held universally constant. An example is the law of gravity that is true all the time regardless of geographical location.
But in the context of the RH law in the light of sociology, a law is a medium of imposing social control that defines what behaviors are acceptable and not among people encompassed by its powers through some territorial sovereignty. It also defines what society will do for the non-conformists or deviants: it imposes sanctions. These sanctions are in turn mediated by the SC challenging its legitimacy in a just way.
In a sociological perspective, this RH law controversy breeds two competing camps. At one end, there are those who truly support its sweet promises. At the other, are those who doubt the benevolence of this law.
The interaction of these two camps together with the interventions of units of social structures like the church, polity and health give shape to the society we live in.
As a matter of fact, both the Pro and Anti-RH law construe SC’s decision as victory for all to different extents.
While many argues that the church should quit meddling with the state’s affairs particularly with legislative matters, it is built-in the social structure of the church to interfere with the state’s activities for as long as the latter infringes its boundaries to touch matters relating to morality- the rightness and wrongness of an act.
In short, it is the function of the church to step in if morality is at question.
Theologically speaking, morality is thought of as universal. But in reality, it can be relative and culture-bound. And the RH law, as it runs its natural course- the debates social division and unity-since it crept into being is an example of this thesis.
But ultimately, may everyone concerned realize that this Law is not meant to divide a nation but to join hands in the battle against social inequity, irresponsible parenthood and maternal deaths. (With Rolando D. Acoriba, Jr., Ph.D., D.P.M.)
r[Email: polo.journalist@gmail.com]