This is the first of three columns on the RH Law decision by the Supreme Court. Today, I will write about the main decision, unanimously agreed by the 15 members of the Court, to dismiss the petitions against the RH Law. On Tuesday, I will discuss the eight provisions declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, with four or five dissents depending on the provision, and the reasoning behind the majority vote on these provisions. Finally, a week from now, I will share the thinking of the Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno and Justice Marvic Leonen, the youngest members of the Court, as they dissented from the majority on the unconstitutionality of the eight provisions. In my view, this landmark decision is an affirmation of the long held-constitutional principles of separation of church and state and the principle of non-interference in the wisdom of the law. In this sense, it is actually a conservative court that ruled on the RH Law. That court could have chosen the more controversial path and declared the law unconstitutional but to have done so would be to defy the basic principles of constitutionalism and would have brought us to unexplored, dangerous legal territory. By ruling as it did, the Court dodged a social bullet, a bomb in fact, and has rendered a decision that seems to have been accepted by everyone except the most partisan on RH issues.
Posted on: Sat, 12 Apr 2014 01:30:04 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015