You are on page 1of 34

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES SUPREME COURT MANILA

TASK FORCE FOR FAMILY AND LIFE VISAYAS, INC. and VALERIANO S. AVILA, Petitioners. -versusG.R. No. _________ For: Petition for Certiorari

HON. PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., Executive Secretary; HON. FLORENCIO B. ABAD, Secretary, Department of Budget and Management; HON. ENRIQUE T. ONA, Secretary, Department of Education; and HON. MANUEL A. ROXAS II, Secretary, Department of Interior and Local Government. Respondents. X ---------------------------------/

PETITION FOR CERTIORARI WITH PRAYER FOR INJUNCTION COME NOW, petitioners, thru undersigned counsel, to this Honorable Court, most respectfully state:

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT This petition seeks unconstitutional Republic Act Responsible Parenthood and 2012” (hereinafter referred grounds/reasons: for the declaration as No. 10354 known as “The Reproductive Health Act of to as Act) for the following

1. THE ACT VIOLATES SECTION 26(l), ART. VI OF THE CONSTITUTION, AS IT CARRIES TWO SUBJECTS, NAMELY: “RESPONSIBLE PARENTHOOD” AND

1

“REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH” WHERE BOTH ARE PERCEIVED TO HAVE CONCEALED FROM AND MISLEAD THE PUBLIC AS TO THE PERCEIVED EVIL IT PACKAGED – DEATH TO THE FILIPINO NATION THROUGH CONTRACEPTION, LARGELY WITH THE USE OF MODERN METHODS, AS A TOOL FOR A MASSIVE, PERMANENT AND UNBRIDLED POPULATION CONTROL FOR THE FILIPINO NATION, IN VIOLATION OF ANOTHER CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION ON THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION (SECTIONS 24 AND 28, ARTICLE II OF THE CONSTITUTION). 2. THE ACT IS A DEPARTURE FROM THE MANIFESTLY PRO-GOD 1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION AS ETCHED IN ITS PREAMBLE. 2.a. THE 1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION IS A PROGOD. 2.b. THE PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION EMBODIES GOD’S DECREE ON THE SANCTITY OF FAMILY, LIFE AND MARRIAGE. 2.c. THE ACT IS ANTI-GOD. 3. THE ACT BETRAYS ITS OWN DECLARATION OF POLICIES AND GUIDING PRINCIPLES. 3.a. It undermines the survival of the Filipino nation through the decimation, weakening, and eventual disintegration of Filipino families, its very foundation (Section 1, Art. XV). 3.b. It undermines the inviolability and sanctity of marriage, as the recognized foundation of every Filipino family (Sec. 2, Art. XV).

4. THE ACT VIOLATES THE DUTY OF THE STATE TO PROMOTE AND RESPECT THE SANCTITY OF FAMILY LIFE AND IN THE PROTECTION AND STRENGTHENING OF THE FAMILY AS A BASIC AUTONOMOUS SOCIAL

2

INSTITUTION; INSTEAD OF PROTECTING, IT ENDANGERS OR EXPOSES THE LIFE OF THE UNBORN TO ABORTION (Sec. 12, Art. II of the Constitution); 5. THE ACT INTERFERES IN THE NATURAL AND PRIMARY RIGHT AND DUTY OF PARENTS IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE MORAL CHARACTER OF THEIR CHILDREN (Sec. 12, Art. II of the Constitution); 6. THE ACT VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF FAMILIES OR FAMILY ASSOCIATIONS TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF POLICIES AND PROGRAMS THAT AFFECT THEIR CHILDREN (Sec. 3, Art. XV of the Constitution). 7. THE ACT EXPOSES THE LIFE OF THE UNBORN TO ABORTION. 8. THE ACT VIOLATES THE FREEDOM OF THE FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION (Sec. 5, Art. III of the Constitution). 9. THE ACT VIOLATES ON THE AREAS OF PRIORITIES ENUMERATED UNDER SECTION 17, ARTICLE III OF THE CONSTITUTION. 10. THE ACT ROBS THE FILIPINO PEOPLE OF THEIR ULTIMATE AND MOST TREASURED WEALTH, THEIR FAITH AND RELIGIOSITY.

11. IT PROMOTES THE WORST KIND OF CORRUPTION, THE CORRUPTION AGAINST LIFE, FAMILY AND MARRIAGE. 12. IT VIOLATED THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION ON HEALTH AS PROVIDED FOR UNDER SECTION 11, ARTICLE XIII OF THE CONSTITUTION. 13. THE ACT IS DISCRIMINATORY AND IS A CLASS LEGISLATION. 14. THE ACT, INSTEAD OF BRINGING UNITY AND PEACE WILL CAUSE DIVISION AS IT AGITATES HATE AGAINST THE VERY INSTITUTION THAT INTRODUCES

3

AND BRINGS GOD IN THE MIDST OF THE FILIPINO PEOPLE.

This is an original petition for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure with prayer for permanent injunction against the respondents. This is filed as an original special civil action since there is no remedy of appeal from the complained acts of the respondents and the principals they represent, and neither is there any plain, speedy and adequate remedy available to petitioners in the ordinary course of law.

PARTIES 1. That petitioner association is a juridical entity duly organized and existing under the laws of the Philippines with office of business at 3rd Floor, Cebu Caritas Bldg., Cebu City; it is an association of men and women who have committed themselves to the protection of family and life, sanctity of marriage, preservation of the dignity of every human being and the primary and natural right and duty of parents in the rearing of their children and the development of their moral character as mandated under the Constitution and specific legislations; petitioner association’s members, mostly parents are ordinary taxpayers; they are also Roman Catholics by faith; they are spread throughout the Visayan region; as such ordinary citizens, lay people and taxpayers, through herein petitioner association, they collectively seek relief before this Honorable (Court) from the impending threat against their children, their respective families and the entire Filipino nation, their religious freedom and other constitutional rights as they foresee and make known in this petition; individual petitioner, is of legal age, married, Filipino and resident of Cebu City; he is joining in this petition as a parent, as ordinary taxpayer and citizen, and a devoted Roman Catholic; 2. The respondents, namely: 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

4

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. ARGUMENTS AND DISCUSSIONS1

FIRST GROUND/REASON:

1. THE ACT VIOLATES SECTION 26(l), ART. VI OF THE CONSTITUTION, AS IT CARRIES TWO SUBJECTS, NAMELY: “RESPONSIBLE PARENTHOOD” AND “REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH WHERE BOTH MAY HAVE CONCEALED FROM AND MISLEAD THE PUBLIC AS TO THE PERCEIVED EVIL IT PACKAGED – DEATH TO THE FILIPINO NATION THROUGH CONTRACEPTION, LARGELY WITH THE USE OF MODERN METHODS, AS A TOOL FOR A MASSIVE, PERMANENT AND UNLIMITED POPULATION CONTROL FOR THE FILIPINO NATION, IN VIOLATION OF ANOTHER CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION ON THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION (SECTIONS 24 AND 28, ARTICLE II OF THE CONSTITUTION).

1

Grounds/Reasons enumerated under the Preliminary Statement

5

Before the subject Act was passed, it had so many names as a proposed bill before Congress, to wit: -During the 11th Congress, as House Bill 8110, “Integrated Population and Development Act of 1999.” -During the 12th as House Bill 4110, “The Reproductive Health Care Agenda Act of 2001”; -During the 13th Congress, 13th as Senate Bill 1280, “The Reproductive Health Act of 2004” -During the 14th Congress, as House Bill 5043, “Reproductive Health and Population Development Act of 2008”; and - During the present 15h Congress, when this Act was passed, as House Bill 4244 “The Responsible Parenthood, Reproductive Health and Population and Development Act of 2011”. Petitioners proposed that this Honorable Court will take judicial notice of the fact that the Act while still a proposed bill has been the cause of heated public debates. All the time (as petitioners further proposed for judicial notice), the Roman Catholic Church, in its efforts to inform (the public about) the evils of modern methods of contraception as population control, has been vigorously and ceaselessly preaching to its flock and/or to the Filipino people in general about Responsible Parenthood to curb rampant abortions, mostly perpetrated by minors, drug addictions and other vices. The words or phrase “Responsible Parenthood”, was and still the catchword used by the Church people in their preachings and homilies, in their defense of the sanctity of the Family, Life and Marriage. Petitioner Association is in the position to assert this fact because, its members (who are mostly deeply devoted Roman Catholics and even active members of different religious communities, with some even Papal Awardees) were and are still in the forefronts in the preaching and campaign for “Responsible Parenthood”. Then, all of the sudden, there was a change of the name of the bill filed in the present 15th Congress where the “Responsible Parenthood” catchword is being incorporated in the title of the proposed bill, which is House Bill 4244, “The Responsible Parenthood, Reproductive Health and Population and Development Act of 2011”.

6

As it can be noticed from the title of the HB 4244 (now the Act), “Responsible Parenthood” as one of its subjects, comes first, and “Reproductive Health” as merely second in the order. Petitioners so believe as they hereby assert that the passing of the bill into law (now the subject Act), after so many instances of having been rejected by the Filipino people, and the sudden insertion of the phrase “Responsible Parenthood” in it, was not accidental. Petitioners further strongly assert that the sudden insertion of the phrase “Responsible Parenthood” in the bill may have been designed to mislead the public into believing that indeed the proposed bill was about “Responsible Parenthood” in its true and literal meaning as conveyed by the Church to the people.

Section 26, of Article VI of the Constitution provides that: “Every bill passed by the Congress shall embrace only one subject which shall be expressed in the title thereof.” (Bold Ours) But the subject Act as it is, carries the subjects of (a) Responsible Parenthood, and (b) Reproductive Health. Who would not welcome “Responsible Parenthood”. After all, this is what the Church people has been preaching all the time to the (public). The inclusion of “Responsible Parenthood” as one of the two (2) topics in the law, but without any provision in the law itself which could be considered as germane to “Responsible Parenthood”, is clearly misleading. The mislabeling of the essence of the Act, which is contraception, to that of “Responsible Parenthood” must have paved the way to the passage of the bill into law. Considering the many instances that the bill changed its name or title, it is not farfetched that the general public may have been deprived of their constitutional right to know the right information about the Act as provided for under

7

Sections 24 and 28, Art. II of the Constitution provides: “Sec. 24. The State recognizes the vital role of communication and information in nation-building.” “Section 28. Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law, the State adopts and implements a policy of full public disclosure of all its transactions involving public interest.”

which

This Honorable Court in the case of the Phil. Judges Association represented by its President Bernardo P. Abesamis vs. Hon. Pete Pardo, G.R. No. 105371, November 11, 1993, has explained the purpose of the single-subject rule in legislation. Thus: “We consider first the objection based on Article VI, Sec. 26(l), of the Constitution providing that “Every bill passed by the Congress shall embrace only one subject which shall be expressed in the title thereof.” The purposes of this rule are: (1) to prevent “hodge-podge rolling” legislation; (2) to prevent surprise or fraud upon the legislature by means of provisions in bills of which the title gives no intention, and which might therefore be overlooked and carelessly and unintentionally adopted; and (3) to fairly apprise the people, through such publication of legislative proceedings as is usually made, of the subject of legislation that is being considered, in order that they may have the opportunity of being heard thereon, by petition or otherwise, if they shall so desire.” This Honorable Court is humbly invited to the fact that except for the perceived vague definition under Section 4 (definition of terms), the phrase “Responsible Parenthood”

8

has not been mentioned in the subsequent sections of the Act except in the heading under Section 11 and under Section 15. But even the body of Section 11 surprisingly fails to mention or even to make a slightest reference to “Responsible Parenthood”. Applying the doctrine on res ipsa loquitor, the entire Act itself proves the violation of singlesubject rule in legislation as provided for under Section 26(l) of Article VI of the Constitution in relation to Sections 24 and 28, Article II of the Constitution on the right to information.

SECOND GROUND/REASON. - THE ACT IS A DEPARTURE FROM THE MANIFESTLY PRO-GOD 1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION AS ETCHED IN ITS PREAMBLE.

2.a. THE 1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION IS A PRO-GOD. Let us identify first where God is in the 1987 Philippine Constitution. Central in the Preamble of the 1987 Philippine Constitution is God. It reads:
“We, the sovereign Filipino people, imploring the aid of Almighty God, in order to build a just and humane society and establish a Government that shall embody our ideals and aspirations, promote the common good, conserve and develop our patrimony, and secure to ourselves and our posterity the blessings of independence and democracy under the rule of law, and a regime of truth, justice, freedom, love, equality, and peace, do ordain and promulgate this Constitution.”

The Filipino people declare themselves as sovereign and have the right and privilege to do so because God is in their midst, as they invoke His aid. Minus God, the Filipino people recognize their helplessness in the building of a just and humane society and in establishing a government that “shall embody our ideals and aspirations, promote the common
9

good, conserve and develop our patrimony, and secure to ourselves and our posterity the blessings of “independence and democracy”. To recall, what was in the old Constitutions, but the phrase “Imploring the aid of Divine Providence”. But it has been changed to “Imploring the aid of Almighty God” under our present Constitution, apparently to make the reference to God as direct and personal. The intense and the unfaltering reliance upon God by the Filipino people is so manifest in the present Constitution. In the same preamble, the Filipino people desire and aspire for a government “under the rule of law, and a regime of truth, justice, freedom, love, equality, and peace”. But who is the Law Giver but God; who is the absolute truth, the ultimate source of justice, freedom, love, equality and peace, but only God. Truth, justice, freedom, love, equality and peace are terms which St. Thomas Aquinas equate with God. The whole preamble is not only about “Almighty God” but also the complete surrender and dependence of the Filipino people upon Him. True enough, we have an entire constitution which is reflective of God. The means and the ultimate end simply refer to God. That is our present Constitution, unique from all other Constitutions in the world. The Philippine Constitution focuses on the care and protection of the Filipino Family, as it is being recognized as the very foundation of the Filipino nation (Section 1, Art. XV). Why this is so? God has revealed Himself as a divine family, a union of three, God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit, bonded together out of love, incessant communion, perpetual union and adoration. To petitioner’s understanding, this is marriage instituted by God himself in his nature of being Trinitarian. As such Blessed Trinity, God reveals Himself as a divine family, the ultimate source and cradle of life. He created man and woman, in His own image and likeness, but in their midst, He made himself as the third pillar, so that not only two but three constituting the first human yet also divine family that it may now become the procreator and cradle of human life.

10

Three fundamental matters were entrusted by God to humanity for their stewardship: (a) Family, (b) marriage and (b) life. Question. Humanity, as God’s creation (but later on claimed by God Himself as His Children) are they bound to live within the paradigm given by God about family, marriage and life? Can humanity through their established government, amend God’s decree about life, family and marriage thru introduction of cultures and legislations? The Holy Bible upon which most if not all government officials take their oath, teaches us that the first human family lost the divine image of God because it rejected God resulting in the forfeiture of its privilege to live in the abiding and continual presence of God. So it is said that death came in as the wage of humanity’s sin or rejection of God. But God who is ever faithful to His promise, inherent in His love, was quick to save humanity thru another family, the family of Mary and Joseph, in preparation for the care of His only begotten son, Jesus who shall come as Mary’s Offspring by the power of the Holy Spirit, so that the covenant of salvation becomes a joint undertaking between the family of God on the one hand and the family of Mary on the other. God who is unimaginably huge and powerful and creator of the universe, in His Trinitarian nature, by His permissive will must have mysteriously entrusted Himself to the care and protection of the family of Mary and Joseph. Where the Son is, and so the Father and the Holy Spirit are. By this will of God, we may not have realized that the human family is being elevated to a divine status. Otherwise, no way God would have entrusted His only Son to the stewardship of the human family. This new divine family created in Mary, Joseph and the new Adam who is Jesus, is the full restoration of the broken image of God which was implanted in the first human family. Then, to affirm the inflexibility and immutability of God’s decree on life, family and marriage, Jesus sealed it by his death at the cross. Family is about God and so with marriage and life. While everyone in the family has complete freedom, restraint in the exercise of it is its very essence, in order to give space for others.

11

2.b. THE PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION EMBODIES GOD’S DECREE ON THE SANCTITY OF FAMILY, LIFE AND MARRIAGE. The Philippine Constitution has embodied God’s decree on family, marriage and the sanctity of life when it provides under Section 12, Article II:
“The state recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution. It shall equally protect the life of the unborn from conception. The natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral character shall receive the support of the Government.”

Indeed, the Constitution recognizes the family as the ultimate bastion and bulwark in the protection of life. Understandably, for the purpose of the care and protection of the Filipino family, the Constitution came out with a government composed of three co-equal branches, the Executive, the Legislative and the Judiciary. We may not have realized that this unity of three branches is again reflective of God in its nature as the Blessed Trinity after we invoked Him in the ordain of our Constitution.

2.c. THE ACT IS ANTI-GOD. No matter how Congress has sugarcoated the Act by incorporating every pro-life and pro family provisions in the Constitution the Act remains in its entirety, to be about the permanent and unbridled population control through CONTRACEPTION principally with the use of the modern methods. Permanent, because it has no cap or time limit. Section 3(l) of the Act provides that “There shall be no demographic or population targets and the mitigation, promotion and/or stabilization of the population

12

growth rate is incidental to the advancement of reproductive health;”. Unlimited, because it is designed to apply to everyone including minors. Worse, The coverage of the Act as provided for under second paragraph of Section 7, says: “No person shall be denied information and access to family planning services, whether natural or artificial: Provided, That minors will not be allowed access to modern methods of family planning without written consent from their parents or guardian/s except when the minor is already a parent or has had a miscarriage.” Let us go back to Section 3(l) of the Act. Please consider that contraception is a tool for the stagnation of population and rejection of a new born. With this in mind, the absence of demographic or population targets is not actually a positive thing but a trap for the death of the Filipino generation. Contraception as packaged in the Act is about death of the nation. To insure the effectiveness of this law on contraception, Sections 5 and 6 thereof mandated to involve all local government units in its massive and nationwide implementation. Then under Section 3, the following are also provided:
“(a) xxx xxx xxx (b) xxx xxx xxx (c) xxx xxx xxx (d) The provision of ethical and medically safe, legal, accessible, affordable, nonabortifacient, 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 health;

13

(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, non-abortifacient, and effective xxx: Provide, That the State shall also provide funding support to promote modern natural methods of family planning, xxx consistent with the needs of acceptors and their religious convictions;” (f) xxx xxx xxx (g) The provision of reproductive health care, information and supplies giving priority to poor beneficiaries xxx must be the primary responsibility of the national government xxx”. (h) xxx xxx xxx (i) “Active participation by non-government organizations (NGOs) women’s and people’s organizations, civil society, faithbased organizations, the religious sector and communities xxx”; (j) “The resources of the country must be made to serve the entire population, especially the poor, and the allocations thereof must be adequate and effective”. (k) xxx xxx xxx (l) xxx xxx xxx (m) xxx xxx xxx (n) The resources of the country must be made to serve the entire population, especially the poor, and allocations thereof must be adequate and effective:”

Then Section 9 provides the range of the contraceptives to be employed in the program. Thus,

14

“The National Drug Formulary shall include hormonal contraceptives, intrauterine devices, injectables and other safe, legal, non-abortifacient and effective family planning products and supplies. xxxx” These Products and supplies shall also be included in the regular purchase of essential medicines and supplies of all national hospitals:”

Then Section 10 provides:
“The DOH shall procure, distribute to LGUs and monitor the usage of family planning supplies the whole country. The DOH shall coordinate with all appropriate local government bodies to plan and implement this procurement and distribution program.

Under Section 11, the “reproductive health care, services, products and programs” are made components of the government in fighting poverty. Under Section 14, “The State shall provide age-and development-appropriate reproductive health education to adolescent xxx”. The Department of Education (DepED) shall formulate a curriculum which shall be used by public schools and may be adopted by private schools”. Under Section 20, “The DOH and the LGUs shall initiate and sustain a heightened nationwide multi-media-campaign to raise the level of public awareness on the protection and promotion of reproductive health and rights xxx”. With the expected Billions of Pesos the government is mandated to disburse annually for contraception, the involvement of different government agencies, all local government units, the NGOs even the private sectors in its implementation, the absence of a time limit as to its implementation, the absence of demographic target when it has to stop, its wide coverage which include even minors and the range of the contraceptives to be employed, as shown above, God forbids, in no distant future we will be a nation of Senior Citizens, then ghosts.

15

Petitioners posit that the surest way to topple this government is through this Act.

But before the eventual collapse of the government because of the deterioration of its People, in age and numbers, the first casualties are the very natures of God our Constitution has imposed upon itself to protect, the family, marriage and life.

THIRD GROUND/REASON. - THE ACT BETRAYS ITS OWN DECLARATION OF POLICIES AND GUIDING PRINCIPLES.

The Act integrates in it the State Policies in the Constitution. But this adoption of the State Policies is an oxymoron in the light of its imminent evil effects as follows: 3.a. It undermines the survival of the Filipino nation through the decimation, weakening, and eventual disintegration of Filipino families, its very foundation (Section 1, Art. XV). Section 1, of Article XV recognizes the family as the foundation of the Filipino nation. This must be so because it is the very source of the first of the basic elements of every nation which is people. What are the government and territory for without people? The Philippine Constitution underscoring the importance of the family expressly promotes a life of every Filipino, not somewhere else but nestled within the family as it provides that “The state recognizes the sanctity of family life”. As such it undertakes to “protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution”. Rightly so, because, all ills in the Philippine society can be traced to the insidious and common agendum of the enemies of the state to bring disorder to every Filipino family, the fruits of which are: rampant abortion, sexual

16

revolution, alcohol, drug addictions, the growing disparity between the rich and the poor and the greed of all sorts penetrating every community. Add to all this, is contraception, which by its nature a clear tool for the government’s self-destruction, viewed from its very nature as tool for stagnation and death.

3.b. It undermines the inviolability and sanctity of marriage, as the recognized foundation of every Filipino family (Sec. 2, Art. XV). The new Civil Code, echoing the provision of Section 2, Article XV of the Constitution recognizes marriage in the Philippines as the foundation of the family and as an inviolable social institution. As earlier shown, marriage is God’s design for the founding of a family with the end in view of being God’s procreator and cradle of human life. But with pre-marital sex and sex outside marriage being clearly condoned if not promoted and encouraged under the Act, where is now the sanctity of marriage? We weaken the marriage, we weaken the family. We weaken the family, we kill the nation.

FOURTH GROUND/REASONS.

- THE ACT VIOLATES THE DUTY OF THE STATE TO PROMOTE AND RESPECT THE SANCTITY OF FAMILY LIFE AND IN THE PROTECTION AND STRENGTHENING OF THE FAMILY AS A BASIC AUTONOMOUS SOCIAL INSTITUTION; INSTEAD OF PROTECTING, IT ENDANGERS OR EXPOSES THE LIFE OF THE UNBORN TO ABORTION (Sec. 12, Art. II of the Constitution);

17

Since the Filipino family is perceived to be the number one casualty of the Act, what happens now to the duty of the State to promote the sanctity of family life? Consider that the Act makes contraception available to everyone regardless of age. The culture or mentality of contraception being promoted by the Act is fear even of the possibility of life. That is why the Act involves all government agencies and even the private sectors as if it declares war against the potential of a new born. It clearly encourages all people within the country to close every window, every door or every opening for fear of the unwelcomed visitor, human life. And yet, Section 3(c) of the Act recognizes “human resource” as principal assets of the country. A clear contradiction. The decision of this Honorable Court in the case of Leonilo Antonio vs. Marie Ivonne F. Reyes, G.R. No. G.R. No. 155800, March 10, 2006 is very instructive:
“Now is also opportune time to comment on another common legal guide utilized in the adjudication of petitions for declaration of nullity under Article 36. All too frequently, this Court and lower courts, in denying petitions of the kind, have favorably cited Sections 1 and 2, Article XV of the Constitution, which respectively state that “[t]he State recognizes the Filipino family as the foundation of the nation. Accordingly, it shall strengthen its solidarity and actively promote its total developmen[t],” and that “[m]arriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the foundation of the family and shall be protected by the State.” These provisions highlight the importance of the family and the constitutional protection accorded to the institution of marriage.” (Bold and underscoring Ours) Then this Honorable Court in the above-quoted decision proceeded:

But the Constitution itself does not establish the parameters of state protection to marriage as a social

18

institution and the foundation of the family. It remains the province of the legislature to define all legal aspects of marriage and prescribe the strategy and the modalities to protect it, based on whatever socio-political influences it deems proper, and subject of course to the qualification that such legislative enactment itself adheres to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. This being the case, it also falls on the legislature to put into operation the constitutional provisions that protect marriage and the family.” (Underscoring Ours) In the famous case of REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. COURT OF APPEALS and RORIDEL OLAVIANO MOLINA, this Honorable Court quoted and adopted the memorandum submitted by the two amici curiae, one of whom was Justice Ricardo C. Puno, which says in part:

“(1) The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs to the plaintiff. Any doubt should be resolved in favor of the existence and continuation of the marriage and against its dissolution and nullity. This is rooted in the fact that both our Constitution and our laws cherish the validity of marriage and unity of the family. Thus, our Constitution devotes an entire Article on the Family,[11] recognizing it “as the foundation of the nation.” It decrees marriage as legally “inviolable,” thereby protecting it from dissolution at the whim of the parties. Both the family and marriage are to be “protected” by the state.” The Family Code [12] echoes this constitutional edict on marriage and the

19

family and permanence, solidarity.” (Bold ours.)

emphasizes inviolability

their and

Petitioners humbly submit that the present Act does not conform to the guidelines established by this Honorable Court in the protection of family, marriage and above all life in the aforementioned cases. FIFTH GROUND/REASON: - THE ACT INTERFERES IN THE NATURAL AND PRIMARY RIGHT AND DUTY OF PARENTS IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE MORAL CHARACTER OF THEIR CHILDREN. (Sec. 12, Art. II); Section 14 of the act provides that “The State shall provide age-and development-appropriate reproductive health education to adolescent”, which is between ages of ten (10) to nineteen (19) after mere consultations, not consent, of the “parents-teachers-community associations, school officials and other interests groups.” What happens now to the natural and primary right and duty of parents in the development of the moral character of their children? These are supposed to be personal and inalienable rights of the parents as clearly intended by the Constitution. This Honorable Court in the case of Herald Black Dacasin versus Sharon Del Mundo Dacasin, G.R. No. 168785 , February 5, 2010, is emphatic in upholding the above discussed natural right and duty of parents, to wit:
“Parents have a natural and fundamental right to autonomy in the care, custody, and upbringing of their children. The Family Code recognizes this in Article 209:

20

Art. 209. Pursuant to the natural right and duty of parents over the person and property of their unemancipated children, parental authority and responsibility shall include the caring for and rearing them for civic consciousness and efficiency and the development of their moral, mental and physical character and well being. (n) The State ought not to interfere with the right of parents to bring up their child unless its exercise causes potential harm to him. The State steps in, through the law, only if there are compelling reasons to do so. State intrusion is uncalled for where the welfare of a child is not jeopardized.” (Underscoring Ours)

Even Presidential Decree No. 603 is also clear on this constitutional rights of parents. Thus,
“ Article 1. Declaration of Policy. - The Child is one of the most important assets of the nation. Every effort should be exerted to promote his welfare and enhance his opportunities for a useful and happy life. The child is not a mere creature of the State. Hence, his individual traits and aptitudes should be cultivated to the utmost insofar as they do not conflict with the general welfare. The molding of the character of the child starts at the home. Consequently, every member of the family should strive to make the home a wholesome and harmonious place as its atmosphere and conditions will greatly influence the child's development. Attachment to the home and strong family ties should be encouraged but not to the extent of making the home isolated and exclusive and unconcerned with the interests of the community and the

21

country. The natural right and duty of parents in the rearing of the child for civic efficiency should receive the aid and support of the government. Other institutions, like the school, the church, the guild, and the community in general, should assist the home and the State in the endeavor to prepare the child for the responsibilities of adulthood.”

Certainly reproductive health education clashes with the different religious beliefs and convictions of the parents. So much so that it also violates the freedom of religion insofar as the parents are concerned.

SIXTH GROUND/REASON:

THE ACT VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF FAMILIES OR FAMILY ASSOCIATIONS TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF POLICIES AND PROGRAMS THAT AFFECT THEIR CHILDREN (Sec. 3, Art. XV). Under Section 3, Article XV of the Constitution, it is provided that the state shall defend:
1. xxx xxx xxx 2. The right of children to assistance, including proper care and nutrition, and special protection from all forms of neglect, abuse, cruelty, exploitation, and other conditions prejudicial to their development; and 3. xxx xxx xxx 4. The right of families or family associations to participate in the planning

22

and implementation of policies and programs that affect them.”

Sexual education is one critical program which petitioner believed is reserved only for the parents as their primary and natural duty. But this Act allows the invasion on this constitutional right of the parents after a mere consultation, not consent, of the “parents-teacherscommunity associations, school officials and other interests groups.” This mere consultation is in sharp contrast to the clear intent of the Constitution empowering the families or family associations “to participate in the planning and implementation of policies and programs” that affect their children.

SEVENTH GROUND/REASON: - THE ACT EXPOSES THE LIFE OF THE UNBORN TO ABORTION. Medical science will prove that every contraceptive, including “hormonal contraceptives, intrauterine devices, injectables” as provided for under Section 9 of the Act, has the element or capacity of causing abortion. With this in mind, how many unborns will be casualties of abortions, intentional or unintentional? Every potential or possibility of life should have been resolved in favor of the unborn instead of exposing to the risk of death, since unqualified openness to life is the avowed policy of the State as underscored under Section 12, Article II of the Constitution. What happens now to government policy to protect even the life of the unborn from conception (Section 12, Art. II) and to its right to equal protection as a person (Section 1, Art. III)? To repeat PD 603, The Child and Youth Welfare Code of the Philippines, under its Article 1 has recognized that “The Child is one of the most important assets of the nation. Every effort should be exerted to promote his welfare and enhance his opportunities for a useful and happy life.” It is not a mere creature of the State, the law further declares. It is definitely not right to expose it, while still unborn to the danger of abortion.

23

- THE ACT VIOLATES THE FREEDOM OF THE FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION (Sec. 5, Art. III). Certainly, this newly introduced reproductive health law clashes with the religious beliefs and conviction of the millions of taxpayers, specifically the Roman Catholics. For instance, under Section 7 of the Act, which provides in part:
“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 nonmaternity 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:”;

And also under Section 23(3), the reproductive health care service provider who has a “conscientious objection” to provide the “reproductive health services” asked of him is required to “immediately refer the person seeking such care and services to another health care service provider”. Is it not that by these mandatory requirement of referral, “these hospitals” especially those operated by religious groups, and the reproductive health provider concerned become and accomplice to the perceived wrong in the provision of the sought health services based on their religious beliefs and convictions? What happened now to their guaranteed freedom of religion under Section 5, Article III of the Constitution? Even reproductive health education as it is now provided under the Act also clashes with the different religious beliefs and convictions of the parents in the matter of moral and spiritual formation of their children. So much so that it also violates the freedom of religion of many parents. And foremost, the disbursement of Billions of Pesos of

24

taxpayers’ money to be disbursed in order to buy contraceptives for free distributions to those who can not control their sexual behaviors from foreign and/or multinational companies, is a wholesale violation of the religious freedom of many. Why? Contraception through the use modern methods to be used as a permanent tool for population control, and worse without time limit, is against the religious beliefs of millions of tax payers. Contraception as earlier said is about a mentality of stagnation and death. Here is a relevant dissertation about life by an international human rights center, the ICELANDIC HUMAN RIGHTS CENTER, posted in the internet:
“A. The right to life

The right to life is considered a fundamental human right because, without it, enjoyment of all of the other rights and freedoms established in international human rights Conventions would be rendered nugatory; there can be no rights if there is no life. Given the fundamental importance of the right to life to the protection of human rights, under most human rights instruments the right to life is a supreme right from which no derogation is permitted, even in time of a public emergency threatening the life of the nation (see Article 4(2) ICCPR, Article 15(2) ECHR and Article 27(2) ACHR).”

If the government will only use the Billions of Pesos appropriated for modern contraception for the building of houses for the poor, to bring food to the table of the millions who are hungry, to pay for the rising cost of truly essential medicines and hospital and medical bills for the indigent patients, in hiring medical doctors, nurses and midwives to address maternal and child deaths, to create jobs in our own land, to build sufficient schools, to hire more teachers and other basic needs of the Filipino people or to follow the areas of priorities as provided for under Section 17, Article III of the Constitution, who will object to that?

25

NINTH GROUND/REASON: - THE ACT VIOLATES ON THE AREAS OF PRIORITIES ENUMERATED UNDER SECTION 17, ARTICLE III OF THE CONSTITUTION. Section 17, Article III provides:
“The State shall give priority to education, science and technology, arts, culture, and sports to foster patriotism and nationalism, accelerate social progress, and promote total human liberation and development.”

This Honorable Court can take judicial notice of the dearth of government funds on the aforementioned areas of priorities mentioned in afore-cited provision of the Constitution. Why of all, contraception is being prioritized with the expected Billions of Pesos of taxpayers’ money to be disbursed for it? There are critical and other serious areas of concerns where the Billions of Pesos appropriated and still to be appropriated are most needed. Along this line, petitioner ventures to say there is a wholesale violation of the religious freedom of Millions of Filipino taxpayers who are mostly devoted Roman Catholics and who believe that their taxes should not be spent for contraceptives, especially the modern methods, because according to their faith, they are morally wrong and intrinsically evil and therefore against their faith.

TENTH GROUND/REASON. THE ACT ROBS THE FILIPINO PEOPLE OF THEIR ULTIMATE AND MOST TREASURED WEALTH, THEIR FAITH AND RELIGIOSITY.

Majority of the Filipino families are submerged in the quagmire of poverty. The Act pretends that contraception is the solution. This is clear under Section 11 of the Act which provides that the so called reproductive health care services be made components in the government’s Anti-Poverty

26

Programs. As shown above, contraception, being inherently a partner or equivalent of death, can never be a tool for alleviation. But in their poverty, the Filipino families still possess hidden wealth, their faith and religiosity. They have God that sustains their dignity as human beings as etched in the Preamble of the Constitution. But sad to say, the Act will rob the Filipino families of this ultimate possessions without them knowing it because the evil contained in it (contraception) is well hidden and disguised as “Responsible Parenthood” and allegedly good health. Indeed, as seen by petitioner, the Act is well packaged, yet its contents, if only a collective and deep discernment is made by the Filipino People through the Honorable Justices of this Honorable Court, are abominations and garbage heaped before God. It stinks. Going back to the question, is God’s decree on Family, life and marriage subject to tinker by man through legislation? The answer is in the negative. God’s nature of being a family and source of life, to repeat, was sealed by the death of His Son at the cross, to proclaim its inflexibility and immutability. So that every assault either singly or collectively, directly or indirectly on life, family and marriage (the three fundamental natures of God as illustrated above) must be seen as direct rebellion with God, who from the Constitution is recognized as Filipino People’s source of (their proclaimed) sovereignty. The Act is perceived to bring only curse and punishment to the entire Filipino nation. The Filipino people ought to learn from the message and shudder in fear of the cycle of calamities in our troubled times (climate change accompanied by typhoons, floods, tornadoes, volcanic eruption, earthquakes and tsunamis, etc.) as God speaks to the Filipino people through the language of nature. The above perceptions of petitioners which are based on their religious beliefs and convictions of its members, are themselves offered as concrete proofs of the unconstitutionality of this Act. Their religious freedom is being trampled upon and violated by this Act.

ELEVENTH GROUND/REASON.

27

- IT PROMOTES THE WORST KIND OF CORRUPTION, THE CORRUPTION AGAINST LIFE, FAMILY AND MARRIAGE. As explained above, family, life and marriage are the very essence of the pro-God Constitution. As such, they are acknowledged to be crucial to the survival of the Filipino nations. They are the imprints of God within the Constitution. The Act viewed as contraception in its entirety, not only will corrupt but little by little eventually put extinction the Filipino families. It will make marriage irrelevant and above all makes life a rebellion against God.

TWELFTH GROUND/REASON. - IT VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION ON HEALTH AS PROVIDED FOR UNDER SECTION 11, ARTICLE XIII OF THE CONSTITUTION. Section 11, Article XIII of the Constitution provides:
“The state shall adopt an integrated and comprehensive approach to health development which shall endeavor to make essential goods, health and other social services available to all the people at affordable cost. There shall be a priority for the needs of the underprivileged sick, elderly, disabled, women, and children. The State shall endeavor to provide free medical care to paupers.”

Petitioner(s) pose this query. Is contraception the right answer to the “health development” referred to in the above-quoted provision? Certainly not. Health development and contraception contradicts each other.

THIRTEENTH GROUND/REASON.

- THE ACT IS DISCRIMINATORY, AND IS A CLASS LEGISLATION.

28

This Honorable Court in its en banc decision in People of the Philippines vs. Remigio B. Chan, G.R. No. L-45435, June 17, 1938, viewed and defined class legislation as follows:
“Class legislation discriminating against some and favoring others is prohibited. But classification on a reasonable basis, and to make arbitrarily or capriciously is permitted. The trues governing classification are briefly as follows: the classification must be based on substantial distinctions which make real differences; it must be germane to the purposes of the law; it must not be limited to existing conditions only, and must apply equally to each member of the class. (Malcom, Philippine Constitutional law, 2d ed., page 343). “ (bold ours).

The segment of the Philippine population which is being primarily targeted by the Act the essence of which as perceived by herein petitioners is contraception, is the marginalized and poor families. As earlier mentioned it is being made integral of the poverty alleviation program of the government. Why so much concentration in the implementation of the Act on the poor?. Are the poor Filipinos not entitled to the sanctity of the family, life and marriage which are the ones threatened by contraception? Now on the part of the taxpayers. Bearing in mind that so much taxes will be disbursed for the purchase on regular basis on contraceptives, how can this act be fair and beneficial to other taxpayers who by reason of their religious beliefs and conviction are opposed to the use of contraceptives? The Act will certainly work an injustice not only to petitioners but to all Filipino Families and Filipino Taxpayers, Roman Catholics or not, who are of the same religious beliefs and convictions of herein petitioners.

29

FOURTEENTH GROUND/REASON: - THE ACT, INSTEAD OF BRINGING UNITY AND PEACE WILL CAUSE DIVISION AS IT AGITATES HATE AGAINST THE VERY INSTITUTION THAT INTRODUCES AND BRINGS GOD IN THE MIDST OF THE FILIPINO PEOPLE.

It is a public knowledge that the Roman Catholic Church takes the lead in opposing the Act while this was still a bill before Congress. In a public statement made by the Media Officer Director of Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP), Msgr. Pedro Quitorio after the Act was signed into law, he says” The Catholic Church and its allies will not backdown and will continue to monitor the progress of its implementation.” So much hate have been heaped against the Roman Catholic Church and other Christian religions and personalities who lead in the ever constant advocacy for the protection of the sanctity of family, life and marriage. Their opposition to this Act even before its passage is viewed as an encroachment on political issues and/or violation of the doctrine on the separation of the Church and State. But this is not the issue here. The Church, on matters of Family, Life and Marriage deserves to be listened to instead of being despised and hated. Why? The Filipino People will not know God without the Church. The Church brings God in their midst. No one can ever win a war declared against God. We will be only repeating the errors of the past. But, even if this is the inclination of many, so be it. The foundation of God’s love is complete freedom of choice. But before we embrace death, let us first revisit the Constitution, which as adverted to, one which is PRO-GOD, PRO-FAMILY, PRO-LIFE and PROMARRIAGE. Where will this Act lead the Filipino nation?

PRAYER FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION As soon as the mandated publication of the law is complied with, the implementation thereof is “all systems

30

go”. If not immediately stopped, this will signal the introduction of a hedonistic way of life to the entire Filipino people, especially the youth, contrary to the envisioned balanced promotion and protection of their physical, moral, spiritual, intellectual, and social well being; contraception as contained in the law is a very negative culture whose impact upon the society is not properly weighed and studied, with all due respect, by its initiators; the pernicious and far reaching effect upon the children, the families, and the entire Filipino nation should not be taken lightly since once a culture is being legislated then embedded in the society it becomes irreversible and beyond repair; the impending damage upon the Filipino nation is perceived to be incalculable; what is at stake is the survival of the entire Filipino nation viewed from the important role of the family, marriage and the element of people in nation building; very soon, as the nation whose youth are believed to be corrupted by the dubious and disguised ill effects of contraception, forfeits future potential leaders; a ticking moral time bomb has been set off by the subject Act; there is therefore an urgent need for the issuance of a temporary restraining order directing the respondents to immediately cease and desist from implementing the law until such time that the matter is heard; PRINCIPAL PRAYER After parties are heard, to declare the entire R.A. No. 10354 as unconstitutional. Petitioners further pray for such other reliefs and remedies consistent with law, justice and equity. Cebu City (for Manila), January 9, 2013. M.B. MAHINAY & ASSOCIATES Counsel for the Petitioners Diamond St., Cor. Jade St. Francisca Village 6th Street, Happy Valley, Cebu City Tel. Nos. 2548295; 09228674381 Email address:makilinglaw@yahoo.com By: MAKILITO B. MAHINAY
PTR No. 2194387 1-10-12, Cebu City IBP Lifetime No. 01216; Roll No. 32016 MCLE Compliance No. III 0013818 4-22-2010 MCLE NO. IV-0003647- 12-2-2011 31

CERTIFICATION It is certified that copies of the foregoing petition were furnished to the following: -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, City 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 - THE SOLICITOR GENERAL 139 Amorsolo Street, Legaspi Village, Makati City By registered mail due distance making personal service difficult and impracticable. M. B. MAHINAY

32

VERIFICATION That WE, DOUGLAS GACASAN and VALERIANO S. AVILA, all of legal age, all married, Filipinos and residents of Cebu City, after being duly sworn depose and say: 1. That I, Douglas Gacasan, is the President and Chairman of petitioner association, in the above entitled case; 2. That I, VALERIANO S. AVILA, is also a member of petitioner association and a co-petitioner in the above entitled case; 3. That in our capacities as members/officers of petitioner association, and in our personal capacities we have caused the preparation and filing of the instant petition; I, Douglas, Gacasan is also duly authorized by the Board to file for and in behalf of petitioner association, per Secretary’s Certificate hereto attached as Annex A. 4. That we have read and fully understand all its contents and the same are true and correct to the best of our personal knowledge and the authentic documents and records in our possession. 5. That whether on the past or at present there is no suit between petitioners and the respondents involving the same subject matter and issues before any court (Municipal Trial Court, Regional Trial Court, Court of Appeals or Supreme Court), or other government agencies, and if one should arise and come to our knowledge, we hereby undertake to inform this Honorable Court, within five (5) days from knowledge thereof. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto set our hands this ___day of January, 2013 at at Cebu City.

DOUGLAS GACASAN Affiant

VALERIANO S. AVILA Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME this __day of January, 2013 at Cebu City. Affiants exhibited to me their Govt. IDs as follows: Douglas Gacasan ___________________ Valeriano S. Avila ______________ It is certified that no further identification documents were required upon affiant being personally known to the undersigned. Doc. No. ___;Page No. ___; Book No.___;Series of 2013;

33

34