Rumor has it that the Supreme Court will be deliberating on the constitutionality of the “Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Law” today. Indeed, many groups anticipate that the high tribunal would even be ready to issue its decision on this day, the reason both “pros” and “antis” have gathered in Baguio where the “supremes” are holding their summer session in accordance with tradition.
Implementation of the “RH Law” has been delayed for more than a year ever since the Supreme Court issued a “status quo ante” (SQA) order to study the 15 petitions filed by anti-RH groups questioning the constitutionality of the law. Even before the issuance of the SQA order, the measure had long been pending in the legislature, 13 years and four months to be exact, as legislators waxed hot and cold on the proposed bill, and support for the proposed law varied with each president and his/her personal beliefs.
During the previous administration, in fact, even as President Gloria Arroyo purportedly supported the efforts of Rep. Edcel Lagman, a key ally, to push the RH measure through the House of Representatives, she had already told the House leadership to simply “dribble the ball” on the bill. This allegedly because she was courting the support of Catholic bishops who were and are the staunchest opponents of any reproductive health measure.
It took a determined push by the bill’s proponents—Lagman and Sen. Pia Cayetano, along with other legislators—supported by President Aquino who was quite vocal with his belief in the need for such a law—to finally have the law passed last year. And then the Supreme Court stepped in.
* * *
For much of the 13 years that the measure wended its way through the labyrinth of legislation and political intrigue, the RH bill had enjoyed a remarkable level of public opinion support. Indeed, if laws are passed based only on public opinion, the RH Law should have been passed when it was first filed. It should have been carried out—enjoying the necessary budgetary support—well over a decade ago.
The same level of support applies today.
Just last month, Social Weather Stations, a major public opinion polling body, released the results of its March 2014 national survey commissioned by the Forum on Family Planning and Development.
Among its findings: 84 percent of respondents agreed with the statement: “The government should provide free supply or service to the poor who wish to use any family planning method.
This level of support and awareness remains high in other portions of the survey: 68 percent said they are “aware” of the RH Law, 72 percent said they are in favor of the RH Law, while 77 percent agree that “the RH Law follows what the Constitution should stand for, so it is only proper for the Supreme Court to allow it.”
Of course, a law’s constitutionality depends on much more than its popularity or acceptability with the public. But barring legal impediments—which after 13 years should have been resolved by now—shouldn’t the Supreme Court at least heed the wishes of its constituents, the Filipino people?
* * *
Every day, we see manifestations of the problem that the RH Law seeks to address.
One such place, and the Supreme Court justices should try paying a visit, is a mass rail transit station, which TV news shows have been covering regularly to call attention to the growing congestion in these stations.
Every evening, we see footage of long lines that start forming even in the early morning hours, and the crowded LRT/MRT platforms. Investigation has showed that the overcrowding stems from lack of foresight among its planners as well as the complacency of management, which built undersized stations and ordered too few train cars. Not helping matters any is the delay in ordering new cars because of a protracted investigation into allegations of corruption.
But surely, unfettered population growth, due to natural increase and intensified migration into Metro Manila, has something to do with the worsening situation. The growth in the number of people taking the mass transit—and simply living in the metropolis and needing to use our roads, transport, infrastructure and other basic services—surely exacerbates the growing pressure on our resources, which are only finite.
* * *
It’s this “disconnect” that puzzles many observers wondering why the Catholic bishops would so vehemently oppose the RH Law that seeks nothing more than to slow down population growth and give our country some breathing room from the relentless pressure of a growing populace.
It is also a means of respecting the wishes and desires of individuals, who have told pollsters for more than a decade now that not only do they believe in and support a family planning policy, but also that they want only a “small” family (from two to three children) for themselves.
Previous studies have shown that this goal has been reached by couples in the upper quintile (fifth) of our population, meaning the most educated, most affluent sector. But poorer couples, especially in the poorest sector, are having a harder time limiting the number of their children, with families having, on average, four to five children.
From both the “macro” level, to the “micro” private level, giving couples the ability to control their fertility makes sense and answers their most urgent needs.
Should the Supreme Court decide on the RH debate today, let’s pray the justices consider both the larger public good and our most urgent, private needs and desires.