G.R. No. 204819, April 08, 2014
Facts:
Republic
Act (R.A.) No. 10354, otherwise known as the Responsible Parenthood and
Reproductive Health Act of 2012 (RH Law), was enacted by Congress on December
21, 2012. Shortly after the President placed his imprimatur on the said law,
challengers from various sectors of society came knocking on the doors of the
Court, beckoning it to wield the sword that strikes down constitutional
disobedience.
Petitioners
are assailing the constitutionality of RH Law contending that the RH Law
violates the right to life of the unborn. According to the petitioners,
notwithstanding its declared policy against abortion, the implementation of the
RH Law would authorize the purchase of hormonal contraceptives, intra-uterine
devices and injectables which are abortives, in violation of Section 12,
Article II of the Constitution which guarantees protection of both the life of
the mother and the life of the unborn from conception.
Respondent
contends that the intent of the Framers of the Constitution was simply
the prohibition of abortion. They contend that the RH Law does not violate the
Constitution since the said law emphasizes that only
"non-abortifacient" reproductive health care services, methods,
devices products and supplies shall be made accessible to the public.
Issue:
WON RH Law violates the right to life and health of the unborn child under Section 12, Article II of the Constitution..
WON RH Law violates the right to life and health of the unborn child under Section 12, Article II of the Constitution..
Ruling:
Yes.
Section 12. The State
recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the
family as a basic autonomous social institution. It shall equally protect the
life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception.
The Constitution affords
protection to the unborn from conception. The State shall provide equal
protection to both the mother and the unborn child from the earliest
opportunity of life, that is, upon fertilization or upon the union of the male
sperm and the female ovum. Contraceptives that kill or destroy the
fertilized ovum should be deemed an abortive and thus prohibited. Conversely,
contraceptives that actually prevent the union of the male sperm and the female
ovum, and those that similarly take action prior to fertilization should be
deemed non-abortive, and thus, constitutionally permissible.
Fertilization is sacred
because it is at this stage that conception, and thus human life, begins. Human
lives are sacred from the moment of conception, and that destroying those new
lives is never licit, no matter what the purported good outcome would be.
Good luck!
ReplyDelete