The RH Law: The Debate Continues

Posted on February 6, 2013 by Vicente D. Gerochi IV Posted in Constitutional Law, Philippines - Law
It took thirteen years, four months, and five days of heated debates and passionate protests before the
countrys first reproductive health law was passed. Four days shy of Christmas last year, President Aquino
finally signed the 24-page bill into law. It is now Republic Act No. 10354 or The Responsible Parenthood
and Reproductive Health Act of 2012 (RH Law).
The passing of the RH Law, however, does by no means close this chapter of Philippine history. In fact, the
legal ramifications plaguing the law are more prevalent than ever since the provisions thereof now have
force and effect. The following discusses the significant provisions of the law and the issues surrounding
them.
Reproductive Health Services
Section 7 of the RH Law provides that health care facilities, either public or private, are required to offer
modern family planning methods to patients:
SEC. 7. Access to Family Planning. All accredited public health facilities shall provide a full range of
modern family planning methodsProvided, That family planning services shalllikewise 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
groupProvided, finally, That the person is not in an emergency condition or serious case as defined in
Republic Act No. 8344. (emphasis supplied)
The law used the term shall to express the mandatory nature of the provision. The Supreme Court in the
case of Tan v. Link (G.R. No. 172849, December 10, 2008) ruled that the term shall is a word of
command, one which has always been or which must be given a compulsory meaning, and it is generally
imperative or mandatory.
The mandatory nature of the provision is further buttressed by Section 23 of the RH Law, which provides
that it is a prohibited act for any health care service provider to withhold information on reproductive
health. Although the law exempts non-maternity specialty hospitals and hospitals owned and operated by
a religious group from this requirement, this exemption is nevertheless subject to the qualification that the
patient must not be an emergency condition or a serious case. In effect, doctors cannot exempt
themselves from the RH law if the patient involved is an emergency condition.
A legal issue arising from this is whether or not it violates a doctors Constitutional right to free exercise of
religion.
The pro-RH argues that there is no violation because a doctor should separate his or her religious beliefs
from the exercise of his or her profession. Moreover, exempting certain doctors from the law based solely
on their religious beliefs would result in a violation of the non-establishment clause because it is effectively
an endorsement by the State of a religion.
As for the anti-RH, they contend that ones religious belief cannot be separated from ones daily existence.
Number 353 of Fr. Jose Maria Escrivas book The Way best exemplifies their pointthat it is absurd to
think that one can leave ones Catholicism aside upon entering a professional association like a man
leaving his hat at the door.
Sex Education
The RH Law also made reproductive health education for adolescents aged 10 to 19 mandatory in all
schools. The pertinent provision provides:
SEC. 14. Age- and Development-Appropriate Reproductive Health Education. The State shall provide
age- and development-appropriate reproductive health education to adolescents which shall be taught by
adequately trained teachers informal and nonformal educational system and integrated in relevant
subjects
The legal issues arising from this provision are:
(1) Whether or not it is contrary to the constitutional right and duty of parents over the rearing of the
youth for civic efficiency and development of moral character, (Art. II, Sec. 12 of the 1987 Constitution)
and;
(2) Whether or not it violates the right of spouses to found a family in accordance with their religious
convictions and the demands of responsible parenthood. (Art. XV, Sec. 3 of the 1987 Constitution)
The pro-RH proffers the argument that no Constitutional rights are violated because the Constitution does
not award parents absolute authority over their children and that the State also has the constitutional
obligation to promote and protect the physical, moral, spiritual, intellectual, and social well-being of the
youth.
Arguments against the RH law, on the other hand, say that the State has no right to intrude upon the
right of parents to rear their children according to their religious convictions. Quoting the petition filed by
the spouses Imbong questioning the RH Law before the Supreme Court, responsible parenthood is
embraced in [the] religious belief on life and family and its exercise is tied to religious convictions, hence,
religious belief on parenting is to be respected, not provoked into its violation. This installs a hands off
paradigm upon the State. It may not intrude into what is a natural spousal and family right.
Certificate of Compliance
The RH Law also introduced a new requirement for couples intending to get married:
SEC. 15. Certificate of Compliance. No marriage license shall be issued by the Local Civil Registrar
unless the applicants present a Certificate of Compliance
Questions arise as to the effect of the Certificate of Compliance on the already existing requisites of
marriage. Is it an additional formal requisite? What is the effect on the validity of a marriage license in
case no Certificate was presented? Is the marriage void if the license was issued without this requirement?

One view is that (1) it is not an additional formal requisite, (2) it does not render the marriage license
invalid in case of its absence, and (3) it does not render the marriage void if the requirement is not
present.
These conclusions are based on the Latin phrase Semper praesumitur pro matrimonio, which translates to
always presume marriage. In the case of Alcantara v. Alcantara (G.R. No. 167746, August 28, 2007),
the Supreme Court held that every intendment of the law or fact leans toward the validity of the marriage
bonds. The Courts look upon this presumption with great favor. It is not to be lightly repelled; on the
contrary, the presumption is of great weight.
It is clear, therefore, that the validity of marriage is regarded highly by the Court. Since the law is silent as
to the repercussions of the Certificate of Compliance, any doubt should be presumed in favor of the
validity of marriage.
The constitutional questions mentioned above have already been brought to the Supreme Court. In fact,
as of this writing, six petitions are currently resting in the Courts dockets. Indeed, the tussle is not over. It
just moved to a different stage. Hopefully, when the High Court renders its decision, the debate on the RH
Laws legality would once and for all be settled.