IN THE KNOW

ON APRIL 8, 2014, the Supreme Court unanimously declared the Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health (RH) Act of 2012 “not unconstitutional.”

But the high court rejected eight of the law’s provisions, a ruling lauded by Catholic Church leaders and other opponents of the law.

Use of public funds

The ruling came more than a year after the law’s implementation was put on hold following petitions to declare the law unconstitutional from Pro- Life Philippines Foundation Inc. and other Catholic Churchaffiliated groups.

The groups claimed that Republic Act No. 10354, signed by President Aquino in December 2012, would allow the state to use public funds to educate the youth on reproductive health and provide couples with contraceptives.

Declared unconstitutional by the high court were the following eight provisions in the RH law’s implementing rules and regulations:

Written parental consent

Section 7, which ( a) requires private health facilities and nonmaternity specialty hospital, and hospitals owned and operated by a religious group to refer patients, not in an emergency or life- threatening case, as defined under RA 8344, to another health facility which is conveniently accessible and ( b) allows minor- parents or minors who have suffered a miscarriage access to modern methods of family planning without written consent from their parents or guardian; ( RA 8344, otherwise known as the no- deposit law, prohibits the “no deposit, no admittance” rule in emergency or serious cases.)

Information dissemination

Section 23 (a) (1) as it punishes any healthcare provider who fails, or refuses, to disseminate information regarding programs and services on reproductive health regardless of his or her religious beliefs;

Section 23 (a)(2) (i) as it allows a married individual, not in an emergency or lifethreatening case, as defined under RA 8344, to undergo RH procedures without the consent of the spouse;

Refusal to refer patients

Section 23 (a) (3) as it punishes any healthcare provider who fails and/or refuses to refer a patient not in an emergency or life-threatening case, as defined under RA 8344, to another healthcare service provider within the same facility or one which is conveniently accessible regardless of his or her religious beliefs;

Section 23 (b) as it punishes any public officer who refuses to support RH programs or (does) any act that hinders the full implementation of an RH program, regardless of his or her religious beliefs;

Pro bono services

Section 17, which renders pro bono RH services, insofar as they affect the conscientious objector in securing PhilHealth accreditation;

Section 3.01 (a) and (j) as it uses the qualifier “primarily” for contravening Section 4 (a) of the RH law and violating Section 12, Article II of the Constitution; and

Section 23 (a) (2) (ii) as it penalizes a health service provider who will require parental consent from the minor in nonemergency situations.