ACTIVITY NO.

Introduction

If an individual has the right to live, does he also have the right to die? If there
is a right to privacy, does it include the right to die? Does the right to decide one’s
health care include the right to decide to end one’s life? The complex life-and-death
problems raised by the scientific advances in the field of medicine have no simple
answers.
I even asked my husband that if we were on the situation that a family member
is in a persistent vegetative state or in a coma using artificial life prolonging method,
what will be his stand if we are to decide, whether or not to terminate the employment
of the extraordinary means to prolong the life of the patient. He answered, “I won’t
for I still believe in miracle”. It is true that sometimes a person seems to be dead, and
then recovers. This is what gives everyone the urge to do all that is possible to
preserve life.
In the Philippines, it used to be that the family decides for the patient given the
cultural closeness of the Filipino family. Even it will mean financial loss, we tried to
keep our loved one on a life support machine but what happens when time comes that
we cannot afford it anymore? Truly, it will take tons of courage to decide for a dear
family member to “let die”. But if dying becomes inevitable from such an illness or an
accident, all we need is a wise and competent medical advice and seek divine
guidance as well for acceptance and to vindicate our decision to let go of someone
very dear to us.

Euthanasia

The term euthanasia was derived from the Greek words eu ("well" or "good")
and thanatos ("death"). Euthanasia or colloquially known as “mercy-killing” is
defined the practice of intentionally ending a life in order to relieve pain and
suffering. Euthanasia has three classifications depending on whether a person gives an
informed consent: voluntary, non-voluntary, involuntary. Voluntary euthanasia is
performed with the consent of the patient. When the explicit consent of the patient is
unavailable as when a patient is in a vegetative state or when a patient is a minor, such
is termed as non-voluntary euthanasia. Involuntary euthanasia is conducted against
the will of the patient. Furthermore, these three classifications can be further
categorized into the active and passive kinds. Passive euthanasia usually involves the
withdrawal of treatments needed for life support; while, active euthanasia entails the
use of lethal substances in order to terminate a life1.
The legality of euthanasia varies depending on the country. Efforts to change
government policies on euthanasia of humans in the 20th and 21st centuries have met
limited success in Western countries. Human euthanasia policies have also been
developed by a variety of NGOs, most notably medical associations and advocacy
organizations. As of 2022, euthanasia is legal in Belgium, Canada, Colombia,
Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Spain and all six states
of Australia (New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia,
Tasmania, Victoria and Western Australia).2
Euthanasia in the Philippines

Euthanasia is not recognized and legal in the Philippines. It is tantamount to

parricide3, homicide4, or murder5. Also, any person who shall assist another to commit
suicide leads to a penalty of prision mayor, or reclusion temporal if such person lends
his assistance to another to the extent of doing the killing himself 6. Under current
laws, doctors assisting a patient to die can be imprisoned and charged with
malpractice. The Philippine Constitution of 1987 (Article II, Section 11), the State
values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect for human
rights. Therefore, euthanasia contradicts both the Hippocratic Oath and the Philippine
Constitution.

1
Beauchamp, T. and A. Davidson, “The Definition of Euthanasia”, The Journal of Medicine and
Philosophy, 1979
2
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_euthanasia
3
Art. 246, Revised Penal Code
4
Art. 249, Revised Penal Code
5
Art. 248, Revised Penal Code
6
Art. 253, Revised Penal Code
 However, despite the legal prohibition of euthanasia, it is a practice 7 among
hospitals in the Philippines to follow advance care directives particularly the Do Not
Resuscitate waiver. A DNR is a request not to have cardiopulmonary resuscitation
(CPR) if your heart stops or if you stop breathing. (Unless given other instructions,
hospital staff will try to revive all patients whose heart has stopped or who have
stopped breathing.) You can use an advance directive form or tell your Attending
Physician (AP) that you don't want to be resuscitated in case this happens. In this
case, a DNR order is written in your medical chart by your AP. A DNR is usually
discussed by the health care team with the relatives of patients without other advance
directives in situations like: a comatose patient, persistent vegetative state, and brain
death.
Isn’t this similar to a passive euthanasia? How is it different when a mechanical
ventilator was turned off or the cardiac stimulants were discontinued or a feeding tube
has been withheld, which are the only reasons why a vegetative person is considered
to be medically alive?
In 20138, a voluntary euthanasia or mercy killing and “living will-related”
proposal known as Senate Bill No. 1887 or the Natural Death Act was filed by
Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago. The bill seeks to recognize the fundamental right
of adult persons to decide their own health care, including the decision to have life-
sustaining treatment withheld or withdrawn in instances of a terminal condition or
permanent unconscious condition.
However, because of the stern opposition of the Catholic Church and pro-life
non-government organizations, the bill died without being passed into law. A decade
has passed and yet it seems that there is no any attempt from our legislators to propose
a bill advocating the legalization of euthanasia in the Philippines. It is hard though for
it was contrary to the morals and public customs of the Filipino people, also, we are
not yet ready to make such as law. Furthermore, the Catholic Church is a very strong
institution in the Philippines and we know that the high officials of the church will
speak against this and to those who advocate this.
Those who are opposing euthanasia might say that we cannot have such as law
for it is against the Constitution that:

7
themedicalcity.com/news/advance-directives-and-do-not-resuscitate-orders
8
Senate Bill 1887, Natural Death Act
 “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due
process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the
laws.”9
Our fundamental law highly values human life to the extent of prohibiting the
imposition of the death penalty. Indeed, it is the duty of the State to protect life. But
how do we define “life”? The definition of life must not be construed as mere
survival, but must also include quality. The right to life is also a right to a good life,10
for a good quality life necessarily comprises the right to be alive and the right to one’s
limbs against physical harm. Pain and suffering, thus, weaken this quality.
These physical discomforts and emotional distress, not only to the patient but
to the family, caused by seeing their loved one in a vegetative state for an extended
period of time might make them want euthanasia to achieve that complete wellness
and that the patient will be freed from his or her agony and the body can now rest.
Nonetheless, we need an enabling law for euthanasia to be legally recognized,
to address or regulate euthanasia within the country’s control and supervision.
Government officials are aware of persons, who are terminally ill, travel abroad to
countries where euthanasia is recognized and legal. It is also known as “Euthanasia
Tourism” and “Euthanasia tourists” are flocking to countries where euthanasia is
legal. The capability of the wealthy to go that far to end their life when terminally ill
has discriminatory impact to the impoverished, thus, must be taken into consideration
for the need of creating a law for the “right to die” to be legally recognized in our
country.
Expected that, introducing euthanasia in the country, people will not embrace
it easily. The need to educate the people, to enlighten them that legalizing this will not
force everyone to take this course, but rather only to provide an option. The kind of
euthanasia or “mercy-killing” needs to be specific. Passive euthanasia suits well in the
Philippines since it is permissible, in some cases, to withhold treatment and allow a
patient to die, naturally. Also, passive euthanasia is with the same essence of that Do
Not Resuscitate practice of hospitals. The doctor does this when the patient is
terminal, when everything has been done for this patient that could be done, when

9
Section 1, Article III, 1987 Philippine Constitution
10
Bernas, The Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, A Commentary, Volume I, First Edition,
1997
prolonging life would only mean prolonging the agony and pain of the patient, and
prolonging the anxiety and suffering of the family.
To avoid abuses and to provide protection for the vulnerable, the law needs to
ensure necessary and obligatory conditions before allowing a terminally ill individual
from exercising his or her right to die with dignity. To established such requisites, we
can base to these groundbreaking cases that involved “right to die” campaign.
In In re Quinlan11, the first right-to-die case, 21-year-old Karen Ann Quinlan, a
resident of New Jersey, was admitted to the hospital in a coma, and was later declared
by doctors to be in a “persistent vegetative state.” After five months on a ventilator,
her parents requested that the ventilator be removed and that Ms. Quinlan be allowed
to die. After doctors refused, her parents brought the matter to court. The New Jersey
Superior Court denied her parents’ request, but the New Jersey Supreme Court
reversed and ruled that Quinlan’s “right to privacy” included her right to be removed
from the ventilator.
Joseph Quinlan, the father of Karen Ann Quinlan, consulted his parish priest
and later with the Catholic chaplain of Saint Clare’s Hospital to confirm the moral
rightness of the decision he was about to make.
The position statement of Bishop Lawrence B. Casey, reproduced in the amicus brief,
projects these views:
a) The verification of the fact of death in a particular case cannot be deduced
from any religious or moral principle and, under this aspect, does not fall
within the competence of the church; that dependence must be had upon
traditional and medical standards, and by these standards Karen Ann Quinlan
is assumed to be alive.
b) The request of plaintiff for authority to terminate a medical procedure
characterized as "an extraordinary means of treatment" would not involve
euthanasia. This upon the reasoning expressed by Pope Pius XII in his
"allocutio" (address) to anesthesiologists on November 24, 1957, when he
dealt with the question:

Does the anesthesiologist have the right, or is he bound, in all cases of

deep unconsciousness, even in those that are completely hopeless in

11
70 N.J. 10 (1976), 355 A.2d 647 (The Supreme Court of New Jersey)
 the opinion of the competent doctor, to use modern artificial
respiration apparatus, even against the will of the family?

His answer made the following points:

1. In ordinary cases the doctor has the right to act in this manner, but is
not bound to do so unless this is the only way of fulfilling another
certain moral duty.
2. The doctor, however, has no right independent of the patient. He can
act only if the patient explicitly or implicitly, directly or indirectly
gives him the permission.
3. The treatment as described in the question constitutes extraordinary
means of preserving life and so there is no obligation to use them nor
to give the doctor permission to use them.
4. The rights and the duties of the family depend on the presumed will of
the unconscious patient if he or she is of legal age, and the family, too,
is bound to use only ordinary means.
5. This case is not to be considered euthanasia in any way; that would
never be licit. The interruption of attempts at resuscitation, even when
it causes the arrest of circulation, is not more than an indirect cause of
the cessation of life, and we must apply in this case the principle of
double effect.

The Court reiterate that the "Catholic view" of religious neutrality in the
circumstances of this case is considered by the Court only in the aspect of its impact
upon the conscience, motivation and purpose of the intending guardian, Joseph
Quinlan, and not as a precedent in terms of the civil law.

Chief Justice Robert Hughes upheld the following judicial principles:

a. If patients are mentally unable to make treatment decisions, someone else

may exercise their right for them.
b. Decisions that can lead to the death of a mentally incompetent patient are
better made not by courts but by families, with the input of their doctors.
 c. Decisions about end-of-life care should take into consideration both the
invasiveness of the treatment involved and the patient's likelihood of recovery.
d. Patients have the right to refuse treatment even if this refusal might lead to
death.

Karen’s case is also credited with the development of formal ethics

committees in hospitals, nursing homes, and hospices and the development of
advance health directives.

Another landmark case is the case of Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department

of Health12, Nancy Cruzan was a 25-year-old southwest Missouri woman who was
thrown from her car in 1983 when it flipped over. Three years after sustaining major
injuries from this incident, Nancy was still in a rehabilitation hospital operated by the
State of Missouri. Her physicians and family members concluded she would never
return to full consciousness, and her family began a long legal battle to have her
feeding tube removed so she could die.
After nearly eight years, the family won the case. Nancy’s tube was removed
and she died 12 days later on December 26, 1990. The Court’s ruling affirmed that all
adults with decision making capacity have the right to—
a. Choose or refuse any medical or surgical intervention, including artificial
nutrition and hydration.
b. Make advance directives.
c. Name a surrogate to make decisions on their behalf.

The Court also said that surrogates can decide on a certain course (e.g.,
treatment or not) even when all concerned are aware that such measures will hasten
death, as long as causing death is not their intent.

The landmark Quinlan and Cruzan cases emerged out of similar situations and
similar needs. Both cases dealt with the medical care of young, physically strong
people in a persistent vegetative state. While similar in these regards, the two judicial
decisions dealt with different types of advance directives. The case of Karen Ann
Quinlan dealt with the ability of the individual to appoint a health care proxy. The

12
497 U.S. 261, JUNE 25, 1990
case of Nancy Cruzan addressed the right of a healthy individual to establish a
binding living will.

Another groundbreaking and more recent case involved Terri Schiavo, a

resident of St. Petersburg, Florida. Terri collapsed on February 25, 1990, from cardiac
arrest and was diagnosed as being in a persistent vegetative state. In 1998, her
husband and guardian, Michael, petitioned the 6th Circuit Court of Pinellas County,
Florida to remove her feeding tube according to state law. He was opposed by Terri's
parents, Robert and Mary Schindler, who argued that Terri was conscious. The court
ruled in Michael's favor, agreeing that Terri was in a persistent vegetative state and
would not wish to continue life-prolonging measures. On April 24, 2001, Terri's
feeding tube was removed—only to be reinserted several days later.
Over the next 4 years, various interest groups, members of the Florida
Legislature, the United States Congress, and the President of the United States
became involved in the case. In all, the Schiavo case involved 14 appeals and
numerous motions, petitions, and hearings in the Florida courts; five suits in federal
district court; Florida legislation struck down by the Supreme Court of Florida; a
subpoena by a congressional committee to qualify Terri for witness protection; federal
legislation; and four denials of certiorari (a formal written order for further judicial
review) from the Supreme Court of the United States.

Ultimately, the judicial process prevailed and the original court's decision to
disconnect Terri from artificial nutrition and hydration was upheld. These measures
were removed on March 18, 2005, and Terri died 13 days later.

The Court’s conclusion:

We recognize that the tragic circumstances underlying this case make

it difficult to put emotions aside and focus solely on the legal issue
presented. We are not insensitive to the struggle that all members of
Theresa’s family have endured since she fell unconscious in 1990.
However, we are a nation of laws and we must govern our decisions by
the rule of law and not by our own emotions. Our hearts can fully
comprehend the grief so fully demonstrated by Theresa’s family
members on this record. But our hearts are not the law. What is in the
 Constitution always must prevail over emotion. Our oaths as judges
require that this principle is our polestar, and it alone.13

Note the court's language, which focused solely on issues of law:

We are called upon to make a collective, objective decision concerning

a question of law. Each of us, however, has our own family, our own
loved ones, our own children … but in the end, this case is not about
the aspirations that loving parents have for their children… Rather, as
our decision today makes clear, this case is about maintaining the
integrity of a constitutional system of government with three
independent and coequal branches. If the Legislature with the assent
of the Governor can do what was attempted here, the judicial branch
would be subordinated to the final directive of the other branches. The
essential core of what the Founding Fathers sought to change from
their experience with English rule would be lost, especially their belief
that our courts exist precisely to preserve the rights of individuals,
even when doing so is contrary to popular will.14

In this case, the Florida Legislature enacted chapter 2003-418, and Governor
Jeb Bush signed the Act into law, issuing executive order No. 03-201 to stay the
continued nutrition and hydration tube from Theresa.
Michael Schiavo, Theresa’s husband and guardian, challenged the Act in
circuit court, and the circuit court ruled in his favor, finding the Act unconstitutional.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed.
The Terri Schiavo case was a turning point for Americans thinking about their
own end-of-life decisions. While Schiavo’s situation was an extreme outlier, her case
ultimately brought into question the government’s role in end-of-life choices
altogether.

13
Pp. 27-28, Bush vs. Schiavo, No. SC04-925, September 23, 2004

14
P. 28, Bush vs. Schiavo, No. SC04-925, September 23, 2004
 At present, we do not have law recognizing euthanasia. Do we need to be in
the middle of distressing legal battles before we can come up to such law? We shall
not. As shown in the above cases, there is necessity to create a law for this. For a
“right to die” to be constitutionally or legally had, I proposed the following
circumstances or situations for us to consider:
1) When the patient is:
a. Brain Dead. Brain death is the irreversible loss of the clinical function
of the whole brain. The cause should be reasonably established and
reasonably irreversible. The patient shall meet all of the standard
criteria for brain death and shall be declared brain dead by multiple
doctors.
b. In Vegetative state. When the condition has a poor prognosis. Shall
meet all the diagnostic criteria, patient has been examined and
evaluated by competent doctors.
c. And other medical conditions where the injury is serious and that
none of the life-sustaining treatments has been successful. Also, with
the advice of a competent doctor or the health care provider.
2) When the patient is still capable to make decision for his or her own health
care preference and he or she chose not to engage to extraordinary means
when the situation gets worst, then the physician shall not be liable under the
law.
The latter is on par with the practice of the hospitals nowadays known as the Do Not
Resuscitate. DNR is a note the doctor writes into the medical record of the patient
when the patient is terminal, with an advance directive.

Right information. This should be the starting point so that people who are
against this “right to die”, will slowly embrace and gradually accept its existence.
Evidently, they do not have the medical facts clear when making a moral
pronouncement about medical treatment and that their arguments are often flawed
because they do not have correct understanding of these medical science related
problems.
 As stated in Quinlan’s case: “The right to a natural death is one outstanding
area in which the disciplines of theology, medicine and law overlap; or, to put it
another way, it is an area in which these three disciplines convene.”
In addition, there are also people in favor of this “right-to-die”, based upon
their beliefs, including respect for patient autonomy and the right to be left alone, or a
belief that persons created in the divine image should not be maintained in a mindless
state of existence, which they perceive as anything but divine.
Right to die, the goal is to die naturally without these “medical procedures
which no longer correspond to the real situation of the patient, either because they are
by now disproportionate to any expected results or because they impose an excessive
burden on the patient and his family. Therefore, these extraordinary means” can be
morally refused and let the person die, naturally.

ACTIVITY NO. 2

Introduction

Philippines is predominantly Catholic, a conservative country. There are also

many religious groups and denominations. For this reason, legalizing abortion is hard
to introduce.
“Thou shalt not kill.” (Exodus 20:13), God gave us the sixth commandment.
It was intended to stress the fact that life is sacred, that God alone gives life, and that
no individual has the right to arbitrarily take it from another person. The command
which God gave to Moses literally says, “You shall do no murder.” Many antiabortion
groups quote the sixth commandment as evidence that the bible is antiabortion. Many
of us are devoted Christians and we firmly upheld the teaching of the Church where
we belong. We consider abortion a crime and aborting unborn children is nothing less
than murder and is forbidden by the sixth commandment.
Despite of this, there are still women resorting to abortion. Worldwide, the
most commonly reported reason women cite for having an abortion is to postpone or
stop childbearing. The second most common reason—socioeconomic concerns—
includes disruption of education or employment; lack of support from the father;
desire to provide schooling for existing children; and poverty, unemployment or
inability to afford additional children. In addition, relationship problems with a
husband or partner and a woman's perception that she is too young constitute other
important categories of reasons.15
Reasons which we can say the consequences of an individual life’s choices.
Another reason is when a married woman may need abortion because the
pregnancy is endangering her life. In the case of an ectopic pregnancy, it is treated by
administering a drug to prevent the pregnancy from progressing further. And for
extreme circumstances, wherein the life of the mother is in danger, they undergo
surgeries. Obviously, this is abortion. This situation is morally acceptable since it is a
matter of life and death. Too, this is contained in the Implementing Rules and
Regulations of R.A. No. 1035416 which states that:
“While these Rules recognize that abortion is illegal and punishable by
law, the government shall ensure that all women needing care for post-
abortive complications and all other complications arising from
pregnancy, labor and delivery and related issues shall be treated and
counseled in a humane, nonjudgmental and compassionate manner in
accordance with law and medical ethics;”

Supposing, the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest, can a woman resort to
abortion? Who would want to raise a child that came from the seed of your
tormentor? Why must a woman suffer and be reminded of her horror when she is the
victim? Also, the child will carry that stigma even if he or she is innocent. Do they
both need to suffer? I can still recall the story of a distant relative, she is a victim of
rape. She got pregnant, she has no choice but to continue her pregnancy but along the
way, she lost her sanity. She gave birth to her child and her parents took care of the
child. Since they are poor, they were not able to treat her mental problem. There are
many stories like this and tthese women will continue to endure for the rest of their
lives. It is hard for the mother to develop love and affection towards it. For many, they

15
International Perspective on Sexual and Reproductive Health, Guttmacher Institute

16
Rule 2, Section 2.01(n)
believe that getting an abortion can solve this and suffering that these women must
have undergone.

Abortion

Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by removal or expulsion of

an embryo or fetus. An abortion that occurs without intervention is known as
a miscarriage or "spontaneous abortion". When deliberate steps are taken to end a
pregnancy, it is called an induced abortion, or less frequently "induced miscarriage".
The unmodified word abortion generally refers to an induced abortion.17 It involves
using surgery or taking medicines to end a pregnancy.
Over several centuries and in different cultures, there is a rich history of
women helping each other to abort. Until the late 1800s, women healers in Western
Europe and the U.S. provided abortions and trained other women to do so, without
legal prohibitions.
The State didn't prohibit abortion until the 19th century, nor did the Church
lead in this new repression. In 1803, Britain first passed antiabortion laws, which then
became stricter throughout the century. The U.S. followed as individual states began
to outlaw abortion. By 1880, most abortions were illegal in the U.S., except those
``necessary to save the life of the woman.'' But the tradition of women's right to early
abortion was rooted in U.S. society by then; abortionists continued to practice openly
with public support, and juries refused to convict them.

Abortion became a crime and a sin for several reasons. A trend of

humanitarian reform in the mid-19th century broadened liberal support for
criminalization, because at that time abortion was a dangerous procedure done with
crude methods, few antiseptics, and high mortality rates. But this alone cannot explain
the attack on abortion. For instance, other risky surgical techniques were considered
necessary for people's health and welfare and were not prohibited. ``Protecting''
women from the dangers of abortion was actually meant to control them and restrict
them to their traditional child-bearing role. Antiabortion legislation was part of an

17
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion
antifeminist backlash to the growing movements for suffrage, voluntary motherhood,
and other women's rights in the 19th century.18
In our country, abortion was criminalized through the Penal Code of 1870
under Spanish colonial rule, and the criminal provisions were incorporated into the
Revised Penal Code passed in 1930 under U.S. occupation of the Philippines. At
present, physicians and midwives who perform abortions in the Philippines with the
consent of a pregnant woman may face up to six years in prison under the Revised
Penal Code.19 These criminal punishments are supplemented by separate laws that
prescribe sanctions for a range of medical professionals and health workers such as
doctors, midwives, and pharmacists for performing abortions or dispensing
abortifacients such as the Medical Act, the Midwifery Act, and the Pharmaceutical
Act. According to these laws, these practitioners may have their license to practice
suspended or revoked if caught engaging in abortion-related activities. Women who
undergo abortion for any reason may be punished by imprisonment for two to six
years.20

The 1987 Constitution, the first Philippines constitution ever to recognize a

government obligation to protect “the life of the unborn from conception.” In the case
of Imbong vs. Ochoa21, the Supreme Court, through the ponente, opined that life
begins at fertilization. The Court considered the definitions provided by Webster's
Third New International Dictionary22 and Black's Law Dictionary23. Such is
apparently consistent with past jurisprudence declaring that even an unborn child has
already a legal personality before its birth. In the case of Continental Steel
Manufacturing Corporation vs. Montano24, the court ruled:

18
Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right by Linda Gordon, New York:1990

19
Art. 259, The Revised Penal Code

20
Art. 258, The Revised Penal Code

21
G.R. Nos. 204819, 204934, 204957, 204988, 205003, 205043, 205138, 205478, 205491, 205720,
206355, 207111, 207172 & 207563, April 8, 2014
22
The act of becoming pregnant, formation of a viable zygote; the fertilization that results in a new
entity capable of developing into a being like its parents.
23
The fecundation of the female ovum by the male spermatozoon resulting in human life capable of
survival and maturation under normal conditions.
24
G.R. No. 182836, October 13, 2009
 “Life is not synonymous with civil personality. One need not acquire civil
personality first before he/she could die. Even a child inside the womb already
has life. No less than the Constitution recognizes the life of the unborn from
conception, that the State must protect equally with the life of the mother. If the
unborn already has life, then the cessation thereof even prior to the child being
delivered, qualifies as death."

In Article II, Section 12 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, the state must
protect the life of the mother and the unborn. Abortion, therefore, is unconstitutional.
However, abortion is already rampant in the Philippines, although unbeknown
to the general public. These abortions are usually done in make-shift clinics by people
who often have no professional medical background. This puts the mother in a
dangerous and life- heartening situation, these women might develop complications.
The government should address this matter, despite the fact that we already
have the Reproductive Health Law25, maybe we should have some amendments to
include rules and regulations to pregnancy occurred from rape, incest, and sexual
trafficking. Abused women should be given the right for abortion since they did not
plan on having a baby in the first place. If legalized with the given situations, abortion
can take place in medical settings, ensuring the safety of the mother.
Revisiting the case of Roe vs. Wade26, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that
the Constitution of the United States generally protects a pregnant individual's liberty
to have an abortion. The decision struck down many abortion laws, and caused an
ongoing abortion debate in the United States about whether, or to what extent,
abortion should be legal, who should decide the legality of abortion, and what the role
of moral and religious views in the political sphere should be. The decision also
shaped debate concerning which methods the Supreme Court should use in
constitutional adjudication.
The case was brought by Norma McCorvey—under the legal pseudonym
"Jane Roe"—who, in 1969, became pregnant with her third child. McCorvey wanted
an abortion but lived in Texas, where abortion was illegal except when necessary to
save the mother's life. Her lawyers, Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffee, filed a

25
R.A. No. 10354
26
410 U.S. 113, 1973
lawsuit on her behalf in U.S. federal court against her local district attorney, Henry
Wade, alleging that Texas's abortion laws were unconstitutional. A special three-judge
court of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas heard the case and
ruled in her favor. The parties appealed this ruling to the Supreme Court. In January
1973, the Supreme Court issued a 7–2 decision in McCorvey's favor holding that
the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution provides a fundamental "right to privacy", which protects a pregnant
woman's right to an abortion. It also held that the right to abortion is not absolute and
must be balanced against the government's interests in protecting women's health and
prenatal life. It resolved these competing interests by announcing a pregnancy
trimester timetable to govern all abortion regulations in the United States. The Court
also classified the right to abortion as "fundamental", which required courts to
evaluate challenged abortion laws under the "strict scrutiny" standard, the most
stringent level of judicial review in the United States.27
In this case, we can adopt its regulations as exceptions to abortion in cases
involving rape, incest, and health problems that arise by keeping the fetus. This will
lead to the right of a woman to make personal decisions related to pregnancy,
childbirth, and motherhood. Also, to protect them from the risks of illegal abortion.
We can also consider the case of Geluz vs CA28 to protect medical practitioners
in the performance of their profession from any claims or suit.
In 1961 landmark case Geluz vs Court of Appeals (G.R. No. L-16439, July 20,
1961), the Supreme Court through J. B. L. Reyes declared that an unborn child is not
a person endowed with civil personality. Consequently, no claim for damages could
be instituted on behalf of the unborn child on account of the injuries it received. Since
judicial decisions of the Supreme Court interpreting laws form part of the legal
system of the Philippines (Article 12 of the Civil Code), Geluz essentially remains a
“good law” that has yet to be overturned.
The Court ruled that the damages claimed by the husband on behalf of the
unborn child based on Article 2206 of the old Civil Code do not cover the case of an
unborn fetus that is not endowed with personality. The Court further held that since an
action for pecuniary damages on account of personal injury or death pertains
27
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade

28
Geluz vs CA, July 20, 1961
primarily to the one injured, it is easy to see that if no action for such damages could
be instituted on behalf of the unborn child on account of the injuries it received, no
such right of action could derivatively accrue to its parents or heirs.
In fact, even if a cause of action did accrue on behalf of the unborn child, the
same was extinguished by its pre-natal death, since no transmission to anyone can
take place from on that lacked juridical personality (or juridical capacity as
distinguished from capacity to act). It is no answer to invoke the provisional
personality of a conceived child (conceptus pro nato habetur) under Article 40 of the
Civil Code, because that same article expressly limits such provisional personality by
imposing the condition that the child should be subsequently born alive: “provided it
be born later with the condition specified in the following article”. In the present case,
there is no dispute that the child was dead when separated from its mother’s womb.
On June 24, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s
Health Organization — a case involving a challenge to a. Mississippi ban on abortion
at 15 weeks of pregnancy. The ruling overturned Roe — ending the federal
constitutional right to abortion in the United States.
Consequently, Jackson Women’s Health organization filed suit in
a federal district court and challenged the constitutionality of the Gestational Age Act.
Thomas Dobbs (the petitioner) was a Mississippi State Health officer. Dobbs filed
a petition for certiorari, which was granted. The Supreme Court granted writ to
address whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are
unconstitutional.
Mississippi, through Dobbs, argued that the Constitution does not provide
a right to abortion (and as such, states can freely ban abortions if it is rationally
related to legitimate government interests). Mississippi leaned on the text of the Tenth
Amendment, that denies states powers like making treaties, but does not directly deny
the power to restrict abortion. Additionally, Mississippi argued that “liberty” as
written in the Fourteenth Amendment only implicates fundamental rights that are
“deeply rooted in U.S history and tradition.” Mississippi further argued that abortion
is not a fundamental right here since many states at the time of the Fourteenth
Amendment’s ratification had bans on abortions. Additionally, Mississippi contended
that the “viability line” prevented a state from protecting its interest and was too
arbitrary or subjective.
 In contrast, Jackson’s Women’s Health Organization (“Women’s Health”)
argued that abortion is grounded in the Fourteenth Amendment. It asserted that
physical autonomy and body integrity are “essential elements of liberty protected by
the Due Process Clause.” For example, contraception is included in the word
“liberty.” Women’s Health also argued that abortion, or the right of a person to have
possession of their own body is important in the common law tradition. Furthermore,
Women’s Health pointed out that federal courts have uniformly applied the viability
line.
The Court explained that the critical question was whether the Constitution
“properly understood” confers a right to obtain an abortion. The Court first stated that
the Constitution makes no express references to abortion. Further,
Court precedent holds that a state regulation of abortion is not a sex-based
classification (and so is not subject to heightened scrutiny).
From there, the Court then established that abortion is not deeply rooted in the
Nation’s history and traditions. The Court elaborated that the Due Process Clause
protects only two types of substantive rights, rights guaranteed by the first eight
Amendments, and rights that are deemed fundamental. As such, The Court noted that
the history of abortion in the U.S is “as a crime”-- that at the time the Fourteenth
Amendment was adopted, three-quarters of the States had made abortion a crime at
any stage of pregnancy. The Court explained that this was true until Roe v. Wade—
and thus, “liberty” would not recognize abortion as a fundamental right rooted in the
nature, history, or traditions of the nation. Indeed, the Court stated that “Roe either
ignored or misstated this history.”
The Court also explained that “the people of various states” may evaluate the
interests between “potential life” and a “woman who wants an abortion” differently
than the Court. Finally, the Court concluded that abortion is not part of a broader
entrenched right—that justifying this premise “proves too much.” The Court said that
linking abortion to a right to autonomy or to “define one’s concept of existence”
would also license fundamental rights to “illicit drug use or prostitution.”29
From this case, it is clear that abortion should have limitations. One must
qualify if there is a necessity to undergo such, banning abortion does not necessarily
mean not at all. In proposing a law legalizing abortion, legislators must state the clear

29
www.law.cornell.edu/wex/dobbs_v._jackson_women%27s_health_organization
intention of the law and be easily construed. Provide implementing rules and
regulations so as to avoid misemployment.
There are circumstances when abortion is considered necessary. We can
consider abortion as therapeutic procedure. Let us set standards to follow. Abortion
should not be viewed as fundamental right of a woman to avoid the abuse of this
procedure. We can discourage it but we can also allow abortion ONLY when:

1. Pregnancy is the result of incest or rape;

2. the pregnant woman suffers from a medical condition that is life or
health threatening such as eclampsia, diabetes, hypertension and
cancer.
3. pregnancy is at risk of fetal impairment causing the baby to develop
mental or physical defects or die after birth.

To allow abortion in the above situations, we need to evaluate human rights

and whether or not they are being violated. Also, our government should provide
comprehensive assistance to victims of sexual abuse in order to help them overcome
psychological stress to avoid opting for abortion, give them spiritual guidance and
guide them on how to raise their children. With these, we can strongly discourage
abortion.