Supreme Court decision on RH Law: An excerpt

BAGUIO CITY, Philippines - Supreme Court spokesperson Theodore Te on Tuesday announced the final ruling on the controversial Reproductive Health Law, after several petitions contesting its legality were finally resolved by the magistrates.

Also read: SC waters down RH Law

An excerpt of the text he read is as follows:

---

The Republic Act No. 10354 or the Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act is NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL* based on the grounds raised, except with respect to the following items, to wit:

1. Section 7, and the corresponding provision in the RH-[Implementing Rules and Regulations] insofar as they: (1) require private health facilities and non-maternity specialty hospitals and hospitals owned and operated by a religious group to refer patients, not in an emergency or life-threatening case, as defined under Republic Act No. 8344, to another health facility which is conveninently accessible; and (b) allow minor-parents or minors who have suffered miscarriage access to modern methods of family planning without written consent from their parents of guardian/s;

2. Section 23(a)(1) and the corresponding provision in the RH-IRR particularly section 5.24 thereof, insofar as it punishes any health care provider who fails or refuses to disseminate information regarding programs and services on reproductive health regardless of his or her religious beliefs.

3. Section 23(a)(2)(i) and the corresponding provision in the RH-IRR insofar as they allow a married individual, not in an emergency or life-threatening case, as defined under Republic Act No. 8344, to undergo reproductive health procedures without the consent of the spouse;

4. Section 23(a)(3) and the corresponding provision in the RH-IRR, particularly section 5.24 thereof, insofar as they punish any health care provider who fails and/or refuses to refer a patient not in an emergency or life-threatening case, as defined under Republic Act No. 8344, to another health care service provider within the same facility or one which is conveniently accessible regardless of his or her religious beliefs;

5. Section 23(b) and the corresponding provision in the RH-IRR, particularly section 5.24 thereof, insofar as they punish any public officer who refuses to support reproductive health programs or shall do any act that hinders the full implementation of a reproductive health program, regardless of his or her religious beliefs.

6. Section 17 and the corresponding provision in the RH-IRR regarding the rendering of pro-bono reproductive health service, insofar as they affect the conscientious objector in securing PhilHealth accreditation.

7. Section 3.01(a) and (j) of the RH-IRR insofar as it uses the qualifier "primarily" for contravening sec. 4(a) of the RH Law and violating section 12, Article II of the Constitution.

8. Section 23(a)(2)(ii) insofar as it penalizes a health service provider who will require parental consent from the minor in not emergency or serious situations, which are declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

* The formulation that uses the double negative is peculiar to constitutional adjudication and is premised on the presumption that all laws are presumed to be constitutional and the burden of showing that a law is unconstitutional is on the petitioner.