By Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas S. J.
After a long wait, the verdict of the Supreme Court on the constitutionality of the Reproductive Health Law has been promulgated. It is a 106-page document exclusive of concurring and dissenting opinions. Not everyone will have the patience to read through it. But since I had been writing about the bill while it was being debated, I thought it might be useful for those interested if I were to break it down into a more easily accessible presentation.
By Ernesto M. Pernia
I wasn’t able to react quickly to the April 8 Supreme Court decision on the Reproductive Health Law as I was then preparing for back-to-back trips abroad. This allowed me ample time to reflect on the landmark decision as well as on the host of reactions and commentaries that came in its wake. Unexpectedly, the verdict begot not one but two sweet surprises, seemingly gratifying both sides of the RH divide.
The May 18 editorial cartoon of the Inquirer reminded me of Justice Arturo Brion’s separate concurring opinion on the Supreme Court’s decision on the Reproductive Health Law.
By Antonio J. Ledesma SJ
Under the Reproductive Health Law, we have asked whether the government could meaningfully promote natural family planning (NFP). The same question can be raised for churches and faith-based organizations.
By Artemio V. Panganiban
As soon as the Supreme Court decision (Imbong vs Ochoa, April 8, 2014) on the RH Law (Republic Act No. 10354) was announced, both the petitioners and the respondents instantly burst out with cheers of victory.