Skip to content

Top Ten Reasons Why RH Law is Unconstitutional

January 2, 2013

Good grief! Less than two weeks after it was enacted into law, the still controversial Reproductive Health Law, otherwise known as Republic Act No. 10354 or the “Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of

The RH law is now in the hands of our Supreme Court justices. Though I'm an atheist let me say this: "God help us...

The RH law is now in the hands of our Supreme Court justices. Though I’m an atheist let me say this: “God help us…”

2012″, was challenged as unconstitutional in the Supreme Court on the ground that it “mocks the nation’s Filipino culture”.

This is unbelievable. No, this is madness!

Yes, perhaps the new law mocks ‘our’ collectivist, welfare or palamunin culture, but there are better, more urgent reasons why it should be invalidated by this impoverished land’s court of last resort.

Petitioners, couple James and Lovely Imbong, on behalf of their young children and the Magnificat Child Development Center, filed a 25-page petition for a writ of certiorari, claiming the measure, which aims to promote contraception, sexual education and family planning programs and is strongly opposed by the country’s Roman Catholic Church, is invalid and should be nullified.

“This case will present the illegality of the Act as it mocks the nation’s Filipino culture–noble and lofty in its values and holdings on life, motherhood and family life–now the fragile lifeblood of a treasured culture that today stands solitary but proud in contrast to other nations,” petitioners said.

Named respondents are Executive Secretary Paquito Ochoa, Budget Secretary Florencio Abad, Health Secretary Enrique Ona, Education Secretary Armin Luistro and Interior and Local Government Secretary Manuel Roxas II.

Here’s a piece of advice: If the Catholics really want to stop the law, they should file a more serious, more legal-plus-secular-sounding petition.

I disagree with their shallow evaluation or argument that is obviously grounded in religion.

The RH law is unconstitutional, invalid, immoral and evil because it violates individual rights. This is the only reason why we must all oppose the law. It is not evil because it’s against the Catholic doctrines. It is evil because it against- and contradicts- rights. This is why I’ve argued repeatedly in the past that the proper concept of rights is what is at stake in the RH bill debate. This is because the RH law, which allegedly seeks to promote women’s rights, according to lawyers Miriam Defensor Santiago and Pia Cayetano and their ilk, simply bastardizes the real essence of rights.

For once, the Catholic Church needs to embrace Thomism. It needs to take a closer look at the secular teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas, the most secular of the ancient Catholic intellectuals who rediscovered the philosophy of Aristotle, particularly on rights and justice. Perhaps Fr. Joaquin Bernas, a Jesuit (and the Jesuits are known for being sympathetic to socialism), is an Augustinian.

To guarantee women’s rights, the government can now force certain people or sectors (e.g., Catholic Church’s institutions and hospitals, doctors and employers, etc.) to deliver/provide certain services that violate their faith, religion and freedom of conscience.

To help the poor, the government can now use legal coercion against doctors (e.g., Catholics, religious, non-religious or atheists) to render mandatory pro bono (which is a contradiction in terms) services, while anyone who dares oppose the measure would labeled as greedy, anti-poor, anti-women or anti-progress. Isn’t this a great way to bankrupt and divide a nation?

To promote sex education, the government can now indoctrinate our schoolchildren– what to think, not how to think-- and force Catholic and religious schools to adopt certain subjects that are against their faith, freedom of religion and of conscience.

This still unfinished battle is all about rights; this is not just about religion. Lest we forget, secularism does not merely demand the separation of church and state; it also establishes the right of every individual to practice religion or to embrace any form of faith.

Unknown to many, the separation clause is a  LIMITATION strictly applied against the state, not against private individuals or private groups (e.g., Catholic Church, Iglesia Ni Cristo, etc.). It does not limit the right of religious individuals or groups to worship their god or anything they like; rather it limits the state from making special favors or making a law respecting an establishment of religion.

Since the separation doctrine prohibits the government from giving favors to certain religious sects or organizations, it follows that it also prohibits the state from arbitrarily interfering with religion and religious institutions’ and individuals’ practices and freedom of faith. Thus, the government should have no right at all to force Catholic schools at gun point to teach sex education that is against their doctrines and faith. It should also be powerless to force Catholic hospitals and doctors to violate their freedom of conscience.

In essence, the law is ideologically and philosophically Machiavellian in nature, as it seeks to serve its intended beneficiaries at the expense of others.

Can the government force a Muslim food-trader to sell pork?

Lest we forget the government also funds and manages thousands of basic schools and over 100 states colleges and universities throughout the country. With billions of taxpayers’ money at its disposal the government can simply activate its massive machinery of indoctrination to spread the alleged value of sex education and to keep the status quo and the people’s collective ignorance.

Now, the so-called pro-women, pro-poor RH law (a very absurd claim that’s utterly debatable or questionable), which is undeniably a population control measure (thank goodness they deleted the provision on malicious disinformation which is so vague and ambiguous), is unconstitutional due to the following reasons:

  1. It violates the equal protection clause guaranteed by the Constitution. Certain provisions of the law show an apparent government take over of the medical industry or of the whole medical system, which will impact an “underinclusive” class (composed of doctors and healthcare providers). The law speaks of two classes- the beneficiaries and those who will be obliged by it to deliver the necessary RH services (healthcare providers and employers).
  2. It breaches the freedom of religion. As stated, the law uses force/compulsion against religious institutions, including employers, to provide RH services that violate their faith.
  3. It breaches the separation clause (as already explained above). Contrary to the claim of many pro-RH supporters, the Catholic Church is not in breach of the separation clause. This is what most Filipinos fail to understand. Only the government and its agents (law-implementing officials and lawmakers) can bastardize this separation doctrine by– 1) giving in to religious pressures (which they can simply ignore), 2) interfering with religion, religious practices and affairs, 3) preferring religion to irreligion or vice versa, 4) establishing a state religion.
  4. It seeks to regulate or legislate morality.
  5. It mandates involuntary servitude to private and nongovernment reproductive healthcare service providers (under Section 17).
  6. It criminalizes the practice of faith and religion as well as other acts (called crimes mala prohibita) that are not inherently evil or against public policy or morality. For example, a religious institution or a conscientious Catholic healthcare provider who withholds information regarding programs and services on reproductive health may be held liable under the law.
  7. It authorizes the government to control (directly or indirectly) the private education sector, medical industry and employers.
  8. It is socially and economically unjust and destructive. The law justifies the imposition of new taxes and higher tax rates, government borrowing, price controls and distortions, and massive regulations that will affect not just the entire economy but also people’s rights. Furthermore, LGUs have no competence, managerial skills and professional expertise to run and manage health clinics and centers.
  9. It will benefit certain businesses and industries in a monopoly or a crony system. Where will the government buy contraceptives, pregnancy test kits, RH products and equipment, among others? And does this law demand  the partnership or merger between the government and the medical industry, and the government between the government and the education sector? There’s a term for this very dangerous political phenomenon and its called Corporatism or Fascism. As fascist leader Benito Mussolini once said: “Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.”
  10. There are already dozens of RH laws or RH-related laws enacted in the past. It seems all of them didn’t work, did they?

With respect to the equal protection clause, its necessary requisites are as follows:

  •  must rest on substantial distinction
  •  must be germane to the purpose of the law
  • must not be limited to existing conditions only
  • must apply equally to all members of the same class

The requisites suggest that individuals must be protected against any form of hostility or undue favoritism from the government. Since we borrowed this concept from the Americans, let me state that this is one of the founding principles of limited government, which means that the only proper purpose of government is to protect rights. However, many welfare provisions of the 1987 Constitution contradict the classical American principles consistent with Republicanism, limited government and individual rights.

The Court has repeatedly stated in a long line of cases that: “Arbitrariness in general may be challenged on the basis of the due process clause. But if the particular act assailed partakes of an unwarranted partiality or prejudice, the sharper weapon to cut it down is the equal protection clause.”

The Court also stated the following in previous cases:

  • “According to a long line of decisions, equal protection simply requires that all persons or things similarly situated should be treated alike, both as to rights conferred and responsibilities imposed.”
  • Equal protection “requires public bodies and institutions to treat similarly situated individuals in a similar manner.”
  • “The purpose of the equal protection clause is to secure every person within a state’s jurisdiction against intentional and arbitrary discrimination, whether occasioned by the express terms of a statue or by its improper execution through the state’s duly constituted authorities.”
  • “In other words, the concept of equal justice under the law requires the state to govern impartially, and it may not draw distinctions between individuals solely on differences that are irrelevant to a legitimate governmental objective.”

Thus, the law should be challenged only on secular, constitutional grounds.

However, we have to admit it will be a lot harder to nullify the law because of our self-contradicting Constitution that compromises individual rights and establishes a semi-socialist politico-economic system. (We are a mixed economy with higher degree of statism or more government control and intervention).

We’re now faced with this divisive, immoral law because of our collectivist culture and collective belief that the government should take care of us and pay for our basic services from womb to tomb. The law is immoral not because it’s against the Christian religion but because it negates individual rights! This is why the proper concept of rights is at stake here, as we currently have lawmakers and politicians who naively believe that rights are contradictory and cannibalistic. That is, that in order to serve the welfare of Juan the government must steal from–or use force or coercion– against Pedro.

We are indeed a fucked up nation…

ADDITIONAL BLOG RANT:

The ObamaCare in the United States, which the SCOTUS (the Federal Court) called a “tax law” and which is more than a thousand times worse than P-Noy’s RH law, was nullified by several states months after its ratification thanks to America’s long-cherished Federalism that gives power to the states to strike down unconstitutional, oppressive federal laws.

This should inform us about the beauty of Federalism. This system empowers states to protect the rights of their people should the Federal government turn to tyranny.

With our centralized republican-democratic system, the provincial or local governments are utterly powerless to defend their constituents’ rights. Under our system, the only last resort left is the Supreme Court, which was undoubtedly weakened by Executive branch.

We must start to consider changing our Charter and adopting Federalism, because as stated here:

[Under Federalism], State governments may oppose or reject coercive, anti-freedom, anti-rights National Government programs, reforms, measures and policies. For example, under federalism the States of Ilocandia or Cebu may oppose the Reproductive Health bill or the Antitrust Law. State courts may also declare vague, totalitarian measures like the Cybercrime Law unconstitutional.

In the Philippines, the atmosphere or culture which too much prevailed in the media and academic institutions is to view religious freedom or freedom of conscience with contempt, suspicion or jealousy. This is because a lot of people fail– or refuse– to understand this concept.

Historically and philosophically, freedom of religion is the ultimate, logical result of the separation clause. The America’s founding fathers, who were deists (not Catholics or Christians, according to historians), ratified the First Amendment that guarantees, among others, free exercise of religion, because the “government must be neutral among religions and nonreligion: it cannot promote, endorse, or fund religion or religious institutions.” Hence the birth of secularism.

This is to say that the concept of religious freedom is secularist in nature. This is actually what the framers of the 1987 Constitution (including the previous ones) miserably failed to grasp– that this right to faith and to practice it is as sacred and important as the rights to free speech, to peaceably assemble, etc.

Freedom of religion simply recognizes the inalienable right of every individual to believe in or worship anything and to act on that belief. Others call it a “natural right”. The founding fathers were proponents or theorists of natural rights.

RELATED BLOG ARTICLES:

The RH Bill’s Impact on Your Rights and Freedom

Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago’s RH Bill Illogic

Fr. Bernas’ Egregious, Sanctimonious Misunderstanding

PNoy Signs RH Bill Into Law: A Faux Victory for Little Tyrants

RH Scam and the PH Government’s 21st Century Plantation

Aquino Regime’s Accomplishments: RH, Welfare Funds on Steroids, Higher Debt, More Taxes, Blame-Arroyo

What About Leave No Poor Filipino Behind, Miriam?

About these ads
53 Comments leave one →
  1. juujuu permalink
    January 3, 2013 3:38

    “Furthermore, LGUs have no competence, managerial skills and professional expertise to run and manage health clinics and centers.”

    So are you saying that we should do away with LGUs?

    • GabbyD permalink
      January 3, 2013 3:38

      further, who should manage them, if not LGUs? will all places have health clinics without govt participation?

    • January 3, 2013 3:38

      LOL! I didn’t say we should get rid of LGUs. I was just saying LGUs “LGUs have no competence, managerial skills and professional expertise to run and manage health clinics and centers”

  2. Abe Tejada permalink
    January 3, 2013 3:38

    you muddled the issue by your circuituous monologue. Contrary to your viewpoint, this RH Law gives you an option, every individual will have a choice, everyone has a freedom to decide for themselves, this is not like a MANDATORY PILL TO BE TAKEN BY ANYBODY. Should you decide to want to have a birth control method, it is for you to decide, and this RH Law can not coerce you to oblige.
    And mind you, freedom of faith means to believe or to disbelieve any given religion.

    • juujuu permalink
      January 3, 2013 3:38

      Well, it forces medical professionals to be professional, and gov’t workers to work for the welfare of the people.

      • January 3, 2013 3:38

        juujuu,

        “Well, it forces medical professionals to be professional, and gov’t workers to work for the welfare of the people.”

        *FACEPALM* That proved you don’t know anything about the law.

        Should we adopt the same law (with its methods and principles) against engineers, lawyers and architects?

        Better read my ANALOGY here—> http://fvdb.wordpress.com/2012/12/29/rh-scam-and-the-ph-governments-21st-century-plantation/

      • ajaja permalink
        January 3, 2013 3:38

        ^Heh, people won’t read the contents of your links.
        tl;dr

      • January 3, 2013 3:38

        LOL! That’s your problem, not mine.

    • January 3, 2013 3:38

      well, 1) just by merely BEING A LAW meaning with prohibitions and penalty and 2) the State uses my taxes to fund this RH Law against my moral and religious beliefs and in effect telling me this is for the public good- which is a lie since RH Law could NEVER be for the public good as enumerated above…… if that’s not FORCE, or MANDATORY PILL TO BE TAKEN BY ANYBODY-i’ll be damned!

      • Juan Dela Cruz permalink
        April 7, 2014 3:38

        Use your taxes to fund something that is against YOUR morality not against everyone’s morality. You don’t share the same morality with the rest of the country. Public good is the benefit or well-being of the public NOT the benefit and well-being of a single FAITH, of specific ORGANIZATION…

    • January 3, 2013 3:38

      Dear Abe Tejada (whoever you are),

      You said: “you muddled the issue by your circuituous monologue”

      Nice way to open a comment. Circuitous in what way?

      You said: “this RH Law gives you an option.”

      For deity’s sake that is BULLSHIT! That is one of the worst political slogans ever perpetrated by small minds in Philippine politics. Now what you said is an utterly stupid circuitous monologue. You need to read my previous blogs on the RH bill (now a law) that tackled the issue of “informed choice”, etc.

      Like I stated HERE: “Condoms and pills are available at almost all convenience and drug stores. The government does not currently provide us food, does this mean we’re also deprived of right right to food?”

      Did you even know condoms and pills are available at every convenience or drug store throughout RP?

      Did you even know you can go to any hospital to have tubal ligation?

      What “option” are you blabbing about?

      Option at whose expense? You already had that option LONG BEFORE the RH bill was passed.

      “very individual will have a choice.”

      That is utterly idiotic, to say the least. We already have that choice. Buying condoms or pills is like buying a kilo of rice at your nearest sari-sari store. Having your reproductive organ LIGATED is just like going to a doctor to have your ganglion cyst on your thumb surgically removed. Are you saying we also must force all doctors to “cure” or “medically operate” us for free?

      You said: “this is not like a MANDATORY PILL TO BE TAKEN BY ANYBODY.”

      You must be crazy indeed.

      Nobody is taking your “mandatory pill”, stupid! This is how this RH bill issue turned schooled people in these parts into unthinking zombies. They’re saying women are deprived of their right to RH services. What a bunch of palamunin idiots. Are they trying to say that if your government is not paying for you monthly rent, you are deprived of your right to property?

      You said: “Should you decide to want to have a birth control method, it is for you to decide, and this RH Law can not coerce you to oblige.”

      Yes, it’s for you to decide so long as you’re willing to pay for it, stupid… In fact in case you don’t know (oh you don’t know since you’re a pro-RH moron) you had that option or choice many years before the passage of the RH law.

      But you shouldn’t have any right to all to use government force against doctors. This is what the law is trying to do.

      You said: “freedom of faith means to believe or to disbelieve any given religion.”

      Read the entire blog again, stupid.

      • metta permalink
        January 3, 2013 3:38

        sir wag naman pong bobo, available nga po yang mga contraceptives o iba pang pamamaraan ng family planning pero paano naman po ang mga mahihirap na hindi kayang gumastos para sa mga ito, ito pong batas ay para talaga sa mahihirap, ngayon kung hindi mo maintindihan yan dahil nabrainwashed ka na ng relihiyon mong ginagamit lang ang diyos, para magpayaman ay wala na talaga tayong magagawa sa kabobohan mo, hay dami talagang bobong tulad mo nakakapagod na

      • January 4, 2013 3:38

        That makes this issue economics. You cannot legislate poverty. If you’re so concern about the welfare of the poor, then why not advocate the right to food, which is just similar to what Miriam Defensor called women’s right?

        Of course that would be absurd, right?

        What this country needs is more jobs. — http://fvdb.wordpress.com/2012/08/06/filipino-people-need-jobs-not-rh/

        http://fvdb.wordpress.com/2012/12/29/rh-scam-and-the-ph-governments-21st-century-plantation/

        “ito pong batas ay para talaga sa mahihirap, ngayon kung hindi mo maintindihan yan dahil nabrainwashed ka na ng relihiyon mong ginagamit lang ang diyos”

        That shows that you didn’t read the blog. I am an atheist, idiot.

        You didn’t even read the bill. You’re simply parroting the brain-dead arguments of the leftists about the law being pro-poor, etc. Puro ka “mahirap, mahirap, mahirap.”

        You can never help the poor by making them more dependent on the government. No country has ever achieved economic progress by increasing its number of welfare recipients and by encouraging a palamunin culture. Take the case of Singapore, for example — http://fvdb.wordpress.com/2012/09/30/singapores-pm-lee-hsien-loong-to-phs-malthusian-economists-and-intellectuals-you-got-it-all-wrong-stupid/

        Don’t be so stupid. Use your brain, folks. Stop appealing to emotion.

      • ming permalink
        January 4, 2013 3:38

        right you are, froi…

      • alex c permalink
        January 4, 2013 3:38

        Many atheists are now theists due to this site: http://www.seekonlytruth.com

  3. January 3, 2013 3:38

    In the US the ObamaCare, which forces catholic hospitals to conduct ABORTION, was never seen as a religious issue. It’s because ObamaCare’s opponents believe the law is unconstitutional because it’s against individual rights.

    And mind you, the ObamaCare is 1000 times worse than the RH law. I repeat, Obama’s universal health care is more than a thousand times worse than PNoy’s RH law in terms of violating the Catholics’ and religious people’s freedom of religion and conscience?

    I say, majority of flipnoys are INTELLECTUALLY BANKRUPT…

  4. joyce permalink
    January 3, 2013 3:38

    am anti rh bill from the start,i see it as just an excuse to spend govt funds on useless undertakings at the same time earn on the side more money for the powers that be.also it is indeed against freedom of religion.am just glad am not a doctor or nurse or else i ll be in trouble.

  5. ajaja permalink
    January 3, 2013 3:38

    “It seeks to regulate or legislate morality.”
    – How? Please elaborate

    “It breaches the freedom of religion. As stated, the law uses force/compulsion against religious institutions, including employers, to provide RH services that violate their faith.”
    – I can say that paying taxes violates my faith, my religion specifically states that I should only pay for goods and I should receive all the money I worked for. Does that mean our taxation laws violate the constitution?

    • January 3, 2013 3:38

      “How? Please elaborate.”

      Why does the law have to force doctors and employers to help others and then penalize them for failing to do so?

      We should also pass laws that would force engineers, architects and real estate agents to help the poor by using the government to artificially lower (that’s called price control) the prices of housing or condo products.

      “I can say that paying taxes violates my faith, my religion specifically states that I should only pay for goods and I should receive all the money I worked for. Does that mean our taxation laws violate the constitution?”

      You simply missed the point. I’ve explained that issue above.

      There’s a BIG difference between a LAW telling religions to do something that’s against their faith and conscience and a religion telling you not to do something… In the second, you may still ignore it because you have the freedom and free will to do so. In the first, someone has to go to jail for failing to obey the law.

      I said:

      To guarantee women’s rights, the government can now force certain people or sectors (e.g., Catholic Church’s institutions and hospitals, doctors and employers, etc.) to deliver/provide certain services that violate their faith, religion and freedom of conscience.

      To help the poor, the government can now use legal coercion against doctors (e.g., Catholics, religious, non-religious or atheists) to render mandatory pro bono (which is a contradiction in terms) services, while anyone who dares oppose the measure would labeled as greedy, anti-poor, anti-women or anti-progress. Isn’t this a great way to bankrupt and divide a nation?

      To promote sex education, the government can now indoctrinate our schoolchildren– what to think, not how to think– and force Catholic and religious schools to adopt certain subjects that are against their faith, freedom of religion and of conscience.

      • ajaja permalink
        January 3, 2013 3:38

        “There’s a BIG difference between a LAW telling religions to do something that’s against their faith”
        It’s against our faith to pay taxes, the law requires us to do so or face charges of tax evasion.

      • January 3, 2013 3:38

        LOL. Nice try. What is your “faith” in the first place?

      • ajaja permalink
        January 3, 2013 3:38

        Should I say religion instead? It’s the same for me so why bother.

      • ajaja permalink
        January 3, 2013 3:38

        also, is there some requirement for having a recognized faith or religion? I can pull one out of my behind just like every other one out there and declare discrimination if someone objects.

      • January 3, 2013 3:38

        It seems you don’t know anything about your faith or religion.

        Who said this: “give unto caesar that which belongs to Caesar”?

      • January 3, 2013 3:38

        The more I read your hilarious arguments, flips, the more I’m convinced this country is indeed intellectually bankrupt…

        Try using the government to force Muslims to eat pork. Let’s see what’ll happen lol!

      • ajaja permalink
        January 3, 2013 3:38

        Whoever said I believed in the Christian bible?

        “Try using the government to force Muslims to eat pork.”

        But the gov’t won’t be forcefully putting condoms on the dicks of Catholics.

        BTW, you should read the text of the ratified law. It makes this whole conversation (and your point) moot.

        Ill give you a preview:

        SEC. 23. Prohibited Acts. – The following acts are prohibited:

        (a) Any health care service provider, whether public or private, who shall:

        (3) Refuse to extend quality health care services and information on account of the person’s marital status, gender, age, religious convictions, personal circumstances, or nature of work: Provided, That the conscientious objection of a health care service provider based on his/her ethical or religious beliefs shall be respected; however, the conscientious objector shall immediately refer the person seeking such care and services to another health care service provider within the same facility or one which is conveniently accessible: Provided, further, That the person is not in an emergency condition or serious case as defined in Republic Act No. 8344, which penalizes the refusal of hospitals and medical clinics to administer appropriate initial medical treatment and support in emergency and serious cases;

      • January 3, 2013 3:38

        Do you have enough brain cells to see the many contradictions in your statements?

        You said: “But the gov’t won’t be forcefully putting condoms on the dicks of Catholics.”

        Then why are you asking for government condoms? You must be a palamunin…

        Are you even aware condoms are available at all drug or department stores even without the RH law? LOL. You don’t even know what you’re talking about.

        You don’t need the government to tell you how to “do” your wife or girl friend, stupid.

  6. GabbyD permalink
    January 3, 2013 3:38

    actually, none of these hold water, except maybe freedom of religion, which i dont think there has been much jurisprudence generated by the Phil SC.

    it would be a good idea actually to have a test case on religious liberty for this very reason.

    • January 3, 2013 3:38

      Perhaps… if you don’t believe in equal protection under the law, limited government, individual rights, and justice.

      Well, that’s because our Constitution is semi-socialistic.

      The Supreme Court might also uphold PNoy’s law because of Sereno and the doctrine of “growing complexities of modern society”.

      The Supreme Court, in the case of Agricultural Credit v. ACCFA, reiterated its theory of “growing complexities of modern society” as a justification for repudiating the residual- or to be more precise, ‘pretended’- laissez-faire policy in the Constitution. The Court declares, to wit:

      “The growing complexities of modern society, however, have rendered this traditional classification of the functions of government quite unrealistic, not to say obsolete. The areas which used to be left to private enterprise and initiative and which the government was called upon to enter optionally, and only “because it was better equipped to administer for the public welfare than is any private individual or group of individuals,”5 continue to lose their well-defined boundaries and to be absorbed within activities that the government must undertake in its sovereign capacity if it is to meet the increasing social challenges of the times. Here as almost everywhere else the tendency is undoubtedly towards a greater socialization of economic forces. Here of course this development was envisioned, indeed adopted as a national policy, by the Constitution itself in its declaration of principle concerning the promotion of social justice.”

      In his book titled Political Law, former associate justice Isagani Cruz mocked the decision and made the following obviously ‘sarcastic’ commentary:

      “Thus it is now obligatory on the part of the State to promote social justice, to provide adequate social services to promote a rising standard of living, to afford protection to labor, to formulate and implement urban and agrarian reform programs, and to adopt other measures intended to ensure the dignity, welfare and security of its citizens. It is also required to establish and maintain a complete, adequate and fully integrated system of education, to offer free elementary and secondary education, to promote scientific research and invention, and to patronize arts and letters and develop Filipino culture for national identity. These functions, while traditionally regarded as merely ministrant and optional, have been made compulsory by the Constitution.”

      http://fvdb.wordpress.com/2012/03/06/the-workers-rights-folly/

      • GabbyD permalink
        January 3, 2013 3:38

        equal protection has a specific legal definition which does not apply here.

        the SC determines constitutionality. end of story.

        also Agricultural Credit v. ACCFA has nothing to do with it either.

      • January 3, 2013 3:38

        “equal protection has a specific legal definition which does not apply here.”

        That is interesting… How so?

      • January 3, 2013 3:38

        The necessary requisites of equal protection clause are as follows:

        * must rest on substantial distinction
        * must be germane to the purpose of the law
        * must not be limited to existing conditions only
        * must apply equally to all members of the same class

        The requisites suggest that individuals must be protected against any form of hostility or undue favoritism from the government. Since we borrowed this concept from the Americans, let me state that this is one of the founding principles of limited government, which means that the only proper purpose of government is to protect rights. However, many welfare provisions of the 1987 Constitution contradict the classical American principles consistent with Republicanism, limited government and individual rights.

        The Court has repeatedly stated in a long line of cases that: “Arbitrariness in general may be challenged on the basis of the due process clause. But if the particular act assailed partakes of an unwarranted partiality or prejudice, the sharper weapon to cut it down is the equal protection clause.”

        The Court also stated the following in previous cases:

        “According to a long line of decisions, equal protection simply requires that all persons or things similarly situated should be treated alike, both as to rights conferred and responsibilities imposed.”

        It “requires public bodies and institutions to treat similarly situated individuals in a similar manner.”

        “The purpose of the equal protection clause is to secure every person within a state’s jurisdiction against intentional and arbitrary discrimination, whether occasioned by the express terms of a statue or by its improper execution through the state’s duly constituted authorities.”

        “In other words, the concept of equal justice under the law requires the state to govern impartially, and it may not draw distinctions between individuals solely on differences that are irrelevant to a legitimate governmental objective.”

  7. January 4, 2013 3:38

    Really? This long post for recycled anti-RH arguments? God Froi, plesaase!

    • Mike Alcazar permalink
      January 4, 2013 3:38

      LOL! How do you even know? Any citations?

      Is that your only argument? These pro-RH bill flips are indeed hopeless…

  8. January 5, 2013 3:38

    Your opinion against the RH Law certainly deserves respect despite your seriously flawed arguments. I still believe that we are in a democratic country and every opinion matters in the marketplace of ideas. I’m a lawyer (and also a Catholic!) but I don’t understand where you and the Anti-RH Law advocates are coming from. I took the time to read the Declaration of Policy of the RH Law and I found it in consonance with the 1987 Constitution. In fact, it even gives life to the provisions of the Constitution particularly the provisions relating to the right to equality and nondiscrimination of these rights, the right to sustainable human development, the right to health which includes reproductive health, the right to education and information, etc. There’s nothing in the law which states that it’s goal is to take away State protection of individual freedoms, freedom of choice or equal protection of the law. Those who are challenging the constitutionality law before the Supreme Court are waging a very difficult battle, but personally, I’m glad that these legal challenges would at least, remove the cloud of unconstitutionality on the RH Law. They better get good lawyers because the burden of proving that the law is unconstitional is upon their shoulders. I’m glad that Fr. Bernas has been on the Pro-RH initiatives side of the fence (anyone try arguing with Fr. Bernas on the 1987 Philippine Constitution and that person will appear like a simpleton. He wrote a scholarly book/treatise on the 1987 Constitution, right?). Just one thing I noticed with Anti-RH fanatics is they try to ignore the surveys conducted by credible pollsters like Pulse Asia or the Social Weather Stations showing that majority of Filipinos support the RH Bill (now a law). These surveys are reflective of the majority public opinion which obviously, Anti-RH advocates would want to avoid in open discussions because they know they are outnumbered and it would appear that they, the minority is imposing its will on the majority and would be seem very undemocratic. Sa mga Anti-RH, sana igalang din ninyo ang pananaw ng mga Pro-RH at igagalang din namin ang pananaw ninyo and not as if you have the monopoly of the truth. As my former professor in college would always say “no one has a monopoly of the truth”. Well perhaps, the truth is in between. In the likely event that the Anti-RH advocates lose their battle, sana naman ay mag move-on na sila and accept their defeat with magnanimity.

    • GabbyD permalink
      January 5, 2013 3:38

      lito,

      there are no opt out possibilities for catholic health care providers. if the RP consti is similar to the american one, then its a problem

      • January 5, 2013 3:38

        @ GabbyD Hi. Well, there must be some way out for catholic health care providers. Although perhaps, that could be a gray area in the RH law that needs some fine tuning via future amendments to the law. I don’t have the answer to that right now. I’m not really aware if that issue was already tackled during the RH Bill debates in Congress and the Senate (I wasn’t able to religiously follow much of the discussions). But I’ll try to research on that. Regards.

    • January 5, 2013 3:38

      Dear Mr. Lawyer Lito Fernandez,

      You may read my reply HERE.

      • January 6, 2013 3:38

        Thanks Mr. Froi. I’ll read your reply and try to draft my rejoinder from there. I must concede that I really don’t have that good writing skills, so please bear with me. Its just that I’m just so eager to expose the fallacies of your reasoning and thus, I’ll make an effort. But for the meantime, we can always agree to disagree. Good day!

      • January 6, 2013 3:38

        I understand. Thanks for your reply as well. I really appreciate your efforts and eagerness “to expose the fallacies” of my reasoning. That is actually what I’ve been waiting for. I’d really like to see someone– an ‘enlightened’ supporter of the RH law– who clearly understands the issue and is able to present well-reasoned arguments based on the facts of the problem. Someone who doesn’t dogmatically consider this issue to be entirely a religious one.

        I’m looking forward to your rejoinder.

      • Jun Madrigal permalink
        January 8, 2013 3:38

        Lito Fernandez: ” I’m just so eager to expose the fallacies of your reasoning…”

        Mr. Fernandez, don’t just say it… DO IT. Show us you’re indeed a lawyer.

    • January 5, 2013 3:38

      i visited mr. lito fernandez’s site. he’s indeed a lawyer. he also maintains a blog. but mr. fernandez, there is no such word as “defamated”. the right word is “defamed”. did you mean “defamed” or “defacated”? ;-) cheers! http://pussycatsodyssey.blogspot.com/2009/03/my-thoughts-on-right-of-reply-bill.html

      • January 5, 2013 3:38

        @ Kiro Alcazar Hi there! Sorry about that mistake in my blog post which you pointed out. Yes, you are correct, the right word should be “defamed”. That was perhaps due to a keyboard mix-up or a plain typographical error when I wrote that post way back in 2009. Unfortunately, I almost forgot that I even had a blog page at Blogspot.com, had you not mentioned it now. I have not been able to update that blog since 2009 since I was really planning to migrate my blogs here at WordPress.com where I also maintain one but there’s still much work to be done. Its easier to post your blogs in WordPress since it works seamlessly with Microsoft’s Word application. You simply upload it to WordPress by clicking an icon without even leaving the application. That blog of mine on Blogspot.com was just an “experiment” of some sort when I started it in 2008 to find out if I also have that special “talent” to become a prolific blogger. But then again, I didn’t have much time to devote to blogging since I also have full-time job, the reason why the blog posts are no longer current. I came to the realization that it is quite difficult to maintain a respectable blog page as you may soon have a lot of followers and its a must to live up to their expectations for your blog to remain interesting. For now, I am contented to just post my comments on other people’s blogs like this one by Mr. Froi Vincenton whom I really admire because he takes the time to answer every comment and he writes very, very well in precise language, in fairness to him. Although I’m not finished with him yet since I feel I need to compose some rejoinder to his reply since I observed that he’s also anti-establishment. I just mentioned in my previous post that I am a lawyer not to create the impression that I’m smarter than him for that’s hardly the case. I just wanted to highlight the fact that I’m already a lawyer yet I still don’t really get it where he’s coming from, both from a legal or practical standpoint (perhaps I really need to read more of his blogs, which I haven’t done and dig deeper to be able to appreciate the factual milieu of his arguments). I noted his declaration of being an “atheist”, albeit for the time being, he sings in unison with the Catholic Church on the RH law. Just a thought, perhaps, the CBCP should confer an “Honorary Catholic” award on him for being one with the Church on the issue (Joke!) Peace! :-)

      • January 5, 2013 3:38

        Mr. Lito Fernandez probably thinks only catholics could be against the newly passed law. Well, I think he’s just one of millions of pro-contraception Filipinos who think that the RH law is purely a religious issue. For the information of everybody, there are people like me– some of them are Libertarians and free marketers– who oppose the measure purely on secular grounds.

        RH Law and RP’s Economic Prison

    • January 5, 2013 3:38

      GabbyD,

      “there are no opt out possibilities for catholic health care providers. if the RP consti is similar to the american one, then its a problem”

      There is. All they need is a good lawyer or anti-RH law representative who knows what he’s talking about. I mean someone who knows how to exploit the many contradictions in the Constitution and the inevitable consequences of the measure. But you’re right in saying that there’d be a big problem if our semi-socialist consti were similar to the American charter.

  9. attybong permalink
    January 6, 2013 3:38

    To be accurate, this is Section 17, of R.A. 10354 …. if spending 48 hours (once a year) giving services for free to the poor and indigents is “involuntary servitude” .. then let’s scrap this law …

    “SEC. 17. Pro Bono Services for Indigent Women. – Private and nongovernment reproductive healthcare service providers including, but not limited to, gynecologists and obstetricians, are encouraged to provide at least forty-eight (48) hours annually of reproductive health services, ranging from providing information and education to rendering medical services, free of charge to indigent and low-income patients as identified through the NHTS-PR and other government measures of identifying marginalization, especially to pregnant adolescents. The forty-eight (48) hours annual pro bono services shall be included as a prerequisite in the accreditation under the PhilHealth.”

  10. August 15, 2013 3:38

    My buddy recommended I would such as this website. He or she was completely right. This informative article really made my personal day. You can not imagine just how much time I’d spent for this information! Thanks!

  11. May 28, 2014 3:38

    It’s great that you are getting ideas from this article as well
    as from our dialogue made at this time.

Trackbacks

  1. Pro-RH Law Inquirer Is No Defender of Rights and Liberty « THE VINCENTON POST
  2. Why Every Anti-RH Law Should Boycott Inquirer « THE VINCENTON POST
  3. RH Law and RP’s Economic Prison « THE VINCENTON POST
  4. GMA News’ Pro-RH Law Semantic Propaganda « THE VINCENTON POST
  5. Top Ten Reasons Why RH Law is Unconstitutional | THE … | #revolutie - 2012

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 246 other followers

%d bloggers like this: