I am one of the petitioners in the Supreme Court case on the Reproductive Health Law, on which a decision was made in April this year. I wish to express my and my family’s conscientious objection to the continuous promotion of various contraceptive drugs and devices by officials of the Department of Health— this, in the absence of implementing rules and regulations (IRR) they should be preparing for the RH Law. It is very sad that we continue to hear of the DOH having procured, distributed, sold and made available contraceptive drugs and devices in the market. Is the DOH ignoring the verdict rendered and the safeguards introduced by the Supreme Court concerning the implementation of the RH Law?
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.