For the AFFIRMATIVE on the RH BILL

In partial fulfillment of the requirements in

PRACTICE COURT 1

Submitted to: Judge Gina Bibat-Palamos Submitted by: R.A.W.R and Associates AGUILA, Laisa Mae RAMOS, Rossanne ROSALES, Christine Heide BAY Law and Associates ARENAS, Dianne Katrine BARCENA, Hanna YAPJOCO, Frances Soleil

October 05, 2011

05 October 2011 Judge Gina Bibat- Palamos San Beda Alabang School of Law Las Pinas City

Dear Judge Palamos, You requested our opinion on whether or not we would affirm the validity of the RH BILL, otherwise known as Reproductive Health and Population Development Act of 2008. We believe that there is sufficient ground to conclude that the said RH Bill is VALID, thus, the same should be passed and be enacted as a law. The RH Bill in its declaration of State Policy, upholds and promotes responsible parenthood, informed choice, birth spacing and respect for life in conformity with internationally recognized human rights standards1. It seeks to envelope the following concerns, to wit; Information and access to natural and modern family planning (2) Maternal, infant and child health and nutrition (3) Promotion of breast feeding (4) Prevention of abortion and management of post-abortion complications (5) Adolescent and youth health (6) Prevention and management of reproductive tract infections, HIV/AIDS and STDs (7) Elimination of violence against women (8) Counseling on sexuality and sexual and reproductive health (9) Treatment of breast and reproductive tract cancers (10) Male involvement and participation in RH; (11) Prevention and treatment of infertility and (12) RH education for the youth2. You confided to us the following concerns regarding the passage of such bill: (1) that the same is not the answer to the growing number of the poor; (2) it is against morality as it opens the mind of the our youth to pre-marital sex and that the same is encourages or is equivalent to abortion, and that being primarily a Catholic country, the same receives the strongest opposition based on the grounds of morality, thus, instead of promoting and improving the lives of our citizens as the primary concern of the government the same produces the opposite effect.

1HOUSE BILL NO. 5043 Section 2 2Speech delivered by REP. EDCEL C. LAGMAN at the Graduate School of Nursing Seminar, Arellano University on 20 February 2010

First, the Bill does not promise to abolish the number of the poor, it will however, eventually lessen, if not totally abolish such problem as it seeks to provide information among our citizenry the idea of family planning and parental responsibility. In that regard, children will be properly cared for and will not be forced to engage in such activities detrimental to their development in order to deliver themselves from such impoverished state. It is common knowledge that many children are forced into prostitution, drugs and other street crimes due to poverty. Second, the argument that it encourages pre-marital sex among the youth, is a misnomer. The funding and the accessibility and availability of contraceptives that this bill encourages do not automatically make this available to our youth at their own whims as the dissemination of these materials are under the control and within the confines of the proper health care center authorities. Education involving family planning, reproductive health and care among our youth are but fundamental types of information that one must know. Hence, we are of the opinion that everyone has the right to know realities of pregnancy, parenthood and child-rearing, the possibilities and probabilities of acquiring sexually transmissible diseases and the complications of abortion due to early or unwanted pregnancy. These things are normally not being taught by the parents at home, either because they too lack the proper information or are too conservative in their views. This is where the state steps in. Under the the principle of 'parens patriae', the state shall assume the role of the parent in such situations. Third, that the bill encourages abortion, is a fallacy. Nowhere in the bill does it state that abortion is encouraged. In fact it is worded as, prevention of abortion and management of post-abortion complications, thus, it does not encourage abortion directly nor indirectly. Many posit that the fertilized egg is life in itself, thus, these contraceptives interfere with the creation and the development of life. In reality however, the use of contraceptives do not interfere with the creation of life. In fact it is pro-life by giving the women the option to prepare for their pregnancy until such time that they are fully ready to rear their own child so that the child will be assured of the quality of life that every human being deserves. This bill does not make abortion legal as abortion is still a crime punishable under the Revised Penal Code. Nowhere in the bill does it state that it will supplant the provisions of the Revised Penal Code. The management and administration of postabortion complications is just a recognition of a law that is already in existence. It respects the right of women in life-threatening situations because anyone whose life and limb is in danger deserves urgent medical attention including such options. This is because the right to life, in this case, the right of the mother whose safety is threatened, is of paramount consideration. Thus, Sec.11 is worded as such, the state values the dignity of every human person and guarantees the full respect for human rights.

Lastly, the argument of the church on the side of morality is unfounded. It is specifically stated under Sec. 6 of The 1987 Constitution, that: The separation of the church and the state shall be inviolable. Time and time again, this hands-off policy between the church and the state has become the source of argument precisely because the church has an undeniable persuasive effect among the people. However, one must remember that the concern for morality is equally the concern of the state. Also, the sanctity of family life, as the basic unit of our society, is more than just a part of morality as it is of public interest or concern. Being of public concern, the state is not inhibited from creating laws that will enhance and promote that quality of life within the family and this bill is but an exercise of such police powerone that exclusively belongs to the state. What is moral is that what is good and right. What is good is that which would promote, not just the life but also the quality of life of our people, and that which is right is that kind of nation where its people are well-informed of their rights and responsibilities not just to the state but more so themselves and their family. Every child has the right to live a free and well-developed and nourished life in all its aspects. With this, the bill affirms the provisions of the Constitution thus, Sec. 12. The state recognizes the sanctity of the family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution. It shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception. The natural and primary right and duty of the parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral character shall receive the support of the government. Thus, in view of the foregoing, we are in the position of affirming the RH bill. May this help you in your consideration for the same purpose. Please do not hesitate to call our attention for any further assistance.

Atty. John Lanuza For the firm