The votes on the provisions declared unconstitutional were decisive and, in my view, the margins are insurmountable. The decision in its entirety is likely to stay and will be the law of the land. My personal view is that it is good we finally have a strong conscientious objection jurisprudence in our constitutional system. This should apply to all issues of the highest ethical concern and to all religions, including nonbelievers. I do not think it applies to matter of taxation and property as in my view those are proper subjects of police power. In any case, the Supreme Court will eventually have to clarify where conscientious objection is appropriate. I certainly think this is consistent with our Bill of Rights, which probably explains why Justice Antonio Carpio, as pro-RH as you can find a judge to be, sided with the majority in declaring the coercive provisions unconstitutional. In columns I will write after Easter, I will summarize the contrary views of Chief Justice Sereno and the powerful dissenting voice of Justice Marvic Leonen on these issues. From an operational view, I do not think this is such a big loss to the pro-RH camp as survey data shows that most Filipinos, including doctors and other health workers, are pro-RH and very few of the latter will invoke religious beliefs in conscientiously objecting to the mandates of the law. In addition, I am one of those who have always believed that coercion in ethical matters are a wrong way to go and law can only go so far to influence behavior in issues such as those related to reproductive health. The truth is that law has its limits. Those who thought that passing an RH Law would end the RH wars clearly were mistaken. The fight on RH continues and it is still, and rightly so, in the streets and clinics, and in the hearts and minds of our people.
Posted on: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 01:37:34 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015