Anti The RH law funds the distribution of free contraceptives, requires government hospitals to provide reproductive health (RH)

services, and mandates public schools to teach sex education. The law's staunchest critic, the Catholic Church, said contraceptives are "evil" and "anti-life." The critics won a temporary victory when the high court issued on March 19 a status quo ante order (SQAO) stopping the implementation of the RH law for 120 days. The law was supposed to take effect last March 30. A total of 15 anti-RH petitions were separately filed before the SC by various individuals and religious groups. The first petition was filed by lawyer Jo Imbong who called the RH law "illegal" because it "mocks the nation's Filipino culture noble and lofty in its values and holdings on life, motherhood, and family life." Former Senate President Aquilino "Nene" Pimentel Jr will argue that the RH law violates the "autonomy of local governments" by requiring LGUs to promote reproductive health, according to an advisory issued by the Court. Pimentel is the architect of the Local Government Code. (His son and namesake Sen Aquilino Pimentel III voted against the RH law.) They will be joined by Maria Concepcion Noche, Luisito Liban, and Luis Ma. Gil Gana.

Noche will be given 20 minutes to argue. She is expected to point out that the RH law violates the "right to life" provision of the 1987 Constitution, that the SC may exercise judicial review over the issue, and that the SQAO should be extended, according to the same Court advisory. Liban is expected to argue that the law violates constitutional guarantees on freedom of religion, speech, academic freedom, and proscription of involuntary servitude, the same advisory said. He intends to question RH law provisions imposing fines on health providers who refuse to perform RH activities and requiring marriage license applicants to undergo RH seminar before the issuance of license, among others. He will be given 15 minutes. Gana intends to say that the law violates the Organic Act of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) by requiring LGUs' promotion and support for RH efforts. He will be given 5 minutes. The consolidated petitionswere filed in January by couple James and Lovely-Ann Imbong, lawyer Expedito Bugarin, Eduardo Olaguer of the Catholic Xybrspace Apostolate of the Philippines, former Sen. Francisco Tatad and wife Ma. Fenny, non-profit groups Alliance for the Family Foundation Philippines Inc. (ALFI), Serve Life Cagayan de Oro City, Task Force for Family and Life Visayas Inc., and a group of doctors represented by lawyer Howard Calleja.

The petitioners argued that the RH law negates and frustrates the ideals and aspirations of the sovereign Filipino people as enshrined in the Constitution. They said at least 11 provisions of RA 10354 violate the Constitution, particularly Article II Section 12. They added that the RH law violates freedom of religion and expression of those who are against it and creates spurious rights called reproductive health rights
In his opening remark for the oral argument before the SC, Tatad described the RH Law similar to genocide since it allegedly kills unborn children as their births are prevented. Cayetano said these statements from RH critics are nothing new to her. I've heard [the argument by anti-RH advocates] that for a man to masturbate is 'murder,' and so to say that it is 'genocide,' then it tells us what kind of discussion we have, Cayetano said.

(Disclaimer: This is Wikipedia..:D) "The world's leading scientific experts" have resolved the issues related to the bill and show that the "RH Bill is based on wrong economics" as the 2003 Rand Corporation study shows that "there is little cross-country evidence that population growth impedes or promotes economic growth". The bill takes away limited government funds from treating many high priority medical and food needs and transfers them to fund objectively harmful and deadly devices. The latest studies in scientific journals and organizations show that the ordinary birth control pill, and the IUD are abortifacient to 100celled human embryos: they kill the embryonic human, who as such are human beings equally worthy of respect,[ making the bill unconstitutional. U.S. National Defense Consultant Lionel Tiger has shown empirical evidence that contraceptives have deleterious social effects (abortion, premarital sex, female impoverishment, fatherless children, teenage pregnancies, and poverty) Harvard School of Public Health scientist Edward Green observes that "when people think they are made safe by using condoms at least some of the time, they actually engage in riskier sex", in the phenomenon called "risk compensation. There is evidence for increased risk of cancer (breast, cervical, liver) as well as significant increase of risk for heart attack and stroke for current users of oral contraceptives. The increased usage of contraceptives, which implies that some babies are unwanted, will eventually lead to more abortion; the correlation was shown in a scientific journal and acknowledged by pro-RH leaders People's freedom to access contraceptives is not restricted by any opposing law, being available in family planning NGOs, stores, etc. The country is not a welfare state: taxpayer's money should not be used for personal practices that are harmful and immoral; it can be used to inform people of the harm of BCPs.

 The penal provisions constitute a violation of free choice and conscience, and establishes religious persecution President Aquino stated he was not an author of the bill. He also stated that he gives full support to a firm population policy, educating parents to be responsible, providing contraceptives to those who ask for them, but he refuses to promote contraceptive use. He said that his position "is more aptly called responsible parenthood rather than reproductive health. (June 4) Couples for Christ Foundation for Family and Life (CFC FFL), a Philippine-based Catholic charismatic lay community that emphasizes family life renewal and evangelization, filed the 12th petition yesterday against the new law. In a 52-page petition, CFC FFL through its lawyer, Luis Francis Rodrigo Jr., also sought the issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) against the implementation of the RH law. In its petition, the CCFI said the new law violates the Filipinos right to free exercise of religion and right to free speech and expression. Despite his religious beliefs, a health care service provider is compelled by the RH Law, under threat of imprisonment, to refer his patient to another health care service provider who may be willing to prescribe artificial contraception, the petition stated. Such coercion constitutes an unreasonable restraint on the right of the Catholic health care service provider to exercise his religion, which includes the right not to refer the patient at all, it added. At the same time, CFC FFL said RA 10354 is unconstitutional as it compels a health care service provider who believes in the natural method of family planning to refer his client to another health care service provider who backs RH programs. The new law also violates the equal protection clause as it discriminates against the poor by making sex education mandatory only in public schools, it added. CFC-FFL claimed that the law amounts to a class legislation against the poor violative of the Constitutions equal protection clause. The petitioner contends that the laws discriminatory tendency arises from two unsubstantiated premises: (1) there is over-population, and (2) the poor are to be blamed for it, which is why the law unduly targets the poor for population control. The group also assailed the following provisions of the law for violating fundamental rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights: (a) Section 23 (a)(1), to the extent that it forces health care service providers to promote and speak favorably about artificial contraception even when their religion considers the use of such contraception as sinful, or when his conscience bids him to do otherwise for any non-religious reason, in violation of their religious and free speech rights; (b) Section 23 (a)(2)(i), insofar as it confers upon the wife the sole authority to decide whether or not to undergo ligation or use artificial contraceptives even over the objection of her husband, contrary to their (i) religious belief (if the spouses are Catholic) that the husband is the head of the wife as taught in Ephesians 5:21-23 of the Bible, (ii) privacy rights as husband and wife whose autonomy on such private matters as marital relationship and family is recognized and protected by the State, (iii) joint constitutional right to found

a family in accordance with their religious convictions.; (c) Section 23(a)(3), insofar as it compels a conscientious objector to participate in and become a party to an act forbidden by his faith by referring an individual who has asked for artificial contraception to a health care service provider who may be willing to oblige, in disregard of his religious freedom; and (d) Section 14, as it discriminates against the poor by making sex education mandatory only in public schools in violation of the equal protection clause and the primary right of parents to raise their children according to their religious beliefs and to be responsible for their moral development pursuant to Article II, Section 12 of the Constitution. CFC-FFL further said that the RH law impairs the constitutional provision granting fiscal and administrative autonomy to local government units (LGUs) by forcing the LGUs to allocate a portion of their local funds for the implementation of the law even if reproductive health is not their priority, and by compelling them to hire employees who will discharge reproductive health services. The voiding of the foregoing provisions of the RH law would render the law ineffectual to the point that it no longer expresses the legislative will, for which reason it must be declared invalid, the group pointed out. There are now 12 petitions against RA 10354. The lead petition was filed by James M. Imbong and Lovely-Ann C. Imbong and Magnificat Child Development Center. The other petitioners against the law were the Alliance for the Family Foundation Philippines, Inc. [ALFI]; Task Force for Family and Life Visayas, Inc. and Valeriano S. Avila; Serve Life Cagayan de Oro City Inc.; Expedito A. Bugarin, Jr.; Eduardo B. Olaguer and Catholic Xybrspace Apostolate of the Philippines; Philippine Alliance of XSeminarians, Inc.; Reynaldo J. Echavez; Spouses Francisco S. Tatad and Maria Fenny C. Tatad; Pro-Life Philippines Foundation Inc; and taxpayers John Walter Juat, Mary Imbong, Anthony Victorio Lumicao, Joseph Martin Verdejo, Antonio Emma Roxas, and Lota Lat-Guerrero. Tatad and Paguia argued "the RH law cannot co-exist with the Constitution" adding "the Constitution must prevail by declaring the [measure] stillborn." The petitioners argued "the State cannot, as a general principle, routinely invade the privacy of married couples in the exercise of their most intimate rights and duties to their respective spouses." "The law is contrary to public morals and destructive of the harmony and peace of society," the petition said. "The individual has the right to live his or her intimate family life with utmost dignity without any undue interference from the State," it added. The petitioners further argued a married couple's decision to practice birth control, regardless of the means or method to be used, "belongs to [them] alone, or in some exceptional cases perhaps to the woman alone, but under no circumstance is it to be imposed by any external entity or agent." Lawyer James Imbong and wife Lovely-Ann filed a petition against the reproductive health (RH) law before the Supreme Court last Jan. 2 to strike it as unconstitutional.

Faculty of Civil Law Dean Nilo Divina said that upon filing, such petition seeks a temporary restraining order (TRO) to prohibit the government from spending taxpayers money to achieve the purposes of the law. The Supreme Court will then have to either issue the TRO immediately or set a hearing, Divina said. Lawyer Jo Imbong, who is handling the case, told the media that the petition was not on behalf of the Catholic Church but on behalf of the unborn, who are protected by the Constitution. She said the act, which mandates a national contraception and sterilization program, would wreak havoc and destroy Filipino families. Jo Imbong, who is also a lawyer for the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP), is the mother of James Imbong. The petitioners said they are Catholics who have deeply held religious beliefs upon which faith their conscience is rooted against complying with the mandates of the act. This case will present the illegality of the Act as it mocks the nations Filipino culturenoble and lofty in its values and holdings on life, motherhood and family lifenow the fragile lifeblood of a treasured culture that today stands solitary but proud in contrast to other nations, the couple said in the petition. Atty. Jo Imbong echoed her son and daughter in-law, saying the RH law, an imposition of western lobby groups, would destroy Filipino culture and identity. The Alliance for the Family Foundation Philippines, Inc. (ALFI), a non-profit organization, filed a second petition last Jan. 9, saying the act violates constitutional provisions protecting life and health. ALFI president Maria Concepcion Noche told reporters they are against the acts provision promoting abortifacients such as hormonal pills. Noche added that the RH law mandates health providers to offer reproductive health services even if these are against their religious convictions. Divina said the RH law is the prelude to other contentious issues such as the legalization of abortion and same-sex marriage. There is hope, however, that the act may be overruled by the Supreme Court, challenging its constitutional nature, Divina said in an interview. Divina said members of the Supreme Court are usually divided in terms of dispositions. The issue is about defining conceptionwhether it begins from fertilization or implantation. If you have read the law, it says the state protects the unborn [from the moment of] conception, but the argument lies on how you identify conception, Divina said. Another contentious provision is the ambiguity of the right to choose, he said. If you dont follow, you will be penalized. So, are they being consistent? he asked.
Pimentel, a former Senate president and acknowledged as the father of the Local Government Code, will also face the justices of the SC to present arguments to prove that the law violates the autonomy of local governments and the equal protection clause under Article III Section 1 of the Constitution.

He is expected to assail portions of the law that tasks the local government units (LGUs) to hire nurses, midwives, and other skilled health workers; train village health workers in promoting reproductive health; remove barriers to reproductive health services for persons with disabilities; and lead a nationwide multimedia-campaign to raise awareness on reproductive health. Pimentel will also contest portions of the law that limit free services to indigent women to reproductive health care providers only; and prioritizes the poor in the provisions of reproductive health care, information and supplies. The 15 consolidated petitions were filed by couple James and Lovely-Ann Imbong, non-profit group Alliance for the Family Foundation Philippines Inc. (ALFI), Serve Life Cagayan de Oro City, Task Force for Family and Life Visayas Inc., Expedito Bugarin, Eduardo Olaguer of the Catholic Xybrspace Apostolate of the Philippines, Philippine Alliance of Ex-Seminarians Inc., Reynaldo Echavez, Tatad and his wife Ma. Fenny, a group of doctors represented by lawyer Howard Calleja, Millenium Saint Foundation Inc., Pro-Life Philippines Foundation Inc., a group of Catholic students represented by the legal office of the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines, Catholic lay group Couples For Christ Foundation (CFC), and Almarim Centi Tillah and Abdul Hussein Kashim.