News:

Priest refutes senator: ‘Divorce will never be pro-family’ -

Thursday, September 19, 2019

2 priests, 2 pro-life activists arrested trying to save babies inside New Jersey abortion center -

Wednesday, July 17, 2019

Respect and Care for Life 2019 -

Tuesday, January 8, 2019

Over 41 million abortions estimated in 2018, making ‘choice’ world’s leading cause of death -

Thursday, January 3, 2019

Everyone must respect the basic human rights of all human beings, pope says -

Friday, December 14, 2018

Parents of ‘miracle’ micro-preemie thankful to bring home healthy girl -

Thursday, November 29, 2018

WATCH: Drag queen admits he’s ‘grooming’ children at story hour events -

Wednesday, November 28, 2018

Brazil elects pro-life president, despite pressure to legalize abortion -

Tuesday, November 6, 2018

Alfie Evans’ parents to ‘form a relationship’ with hospital, ask supporters to return home: BREAKING -

Friday, April 27, 2018

Couples told: ‘Have courage to fight divorce bill’ -

Wednesday, April 11, 2018

CBCP STATEMENT ON THE DIVORCE BILL -

Wednesday, March 14, 2018

Pastoral Statement Against Divorce -

Tuesday, February 27, 2018

Cardinal Tagle to lead walk against killings -

Tuesday, February 13, 2018

49 Abortion Clinics Closed in 2017, 77% of All Abortion Clinics Open in 1991 Have Shut Down -

Thursday, December 21, 2017

Bishop condemns killing of priest -

Wednesday, December 6, 2017

Church urges repentance over rampant killings -

Monday, November 6, 2017

Our Lady of Fatima will be icon at prayer for healing -

Monday, October 30, 2017

Church urges faithful to join ‘heal the nation’ Edsa procession -

Monday, October 16, 2017

Fr. Chito rescued from Maute captivity -

Tuesday, September 19, 2017

Cardinal Tagle’s statement on drug-related killings -

Tuesday, August 22, 2017

SUPREME COURT DECISION ON RH LAW

rh

 

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10354 :  RH LAW

AN ACT  PROVIDING FOR A NATIONAL POLICY ON RESPONSIBLE PARENTHOOD AND REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH 

 

PETITIONS FILED AGAINST THIS LAW:

  1. G.R. No. 204819
  2. G.R. No. 204934
  3. G.R. No. 204957
  4. G.R. No. 205003
  5. G.R. No. 205138
  6. G.R. No. 204988
  7. G.R. No. 205043
  8. G.R. No. 205478
  9. G.R. No. 205491
  10. G.R. No. 205720
  11. G.R. No. 206355
  12. G.R. No. 207111
  13. G.R. No. 207172
  14. G.R. No. 207563

 

SUPREME COURT DECISION , APRIL 8, 2014

DOWNLOAD COPY OF MAIN DECISION

WHEREFORE, the petitions are PARTIALLY GRANTED.
Accordingly, the Court declares R.A. No. 10354 as NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL except with respect to the following

8 provisions which are declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL:

1] Section 7 and the corresponding provision in the RH-IRR insofar as
they: a) require private health facilities and non-maternity specialty hospitals
and hospitals owned and operated by a religious group to refer patients, not
in an emergency or life-threatening case, as defined under Republic Act No.
8344, to another health facility which is conveniently accessible; and b)
allow minor-parents or minors who have suffered a miscarriage access to
modem methods of family planning without written consent from their
parents or guardian/s;

2) Section 23(a)(l) and the corresponding provision in the RH-IRR,
particularly Section 5 .24 thereof, insofar as they punish any healthcare
service provider who fails and or refuses to disseminate information
regarding programs and services on reproductive health regardless of his or
her religious beliefs.

3) Section 23(a)(2)(i) and the corresponding provision in the RH-IRR
insofar as they allow a married individual, not in an emergency or lifethreatening
case, as defined under Republic Act No. 8344, to undergo
reproductive health procedures without the consent of the spouse;

4) Section 23(a)(2)(ii) and the corresponding provision in the RH-IRR
insofar as they limit the requirement of parental consent only to elective
surgical procedures.

5] Section 23(a)(3) and the corresponding provision in the RH-IRR,
particularly Section 5.24 thereof, insofar as they punish any healthcare
service provider who fails and/or refuses to refer a patient not in an
emergency or life-threatening case, as defined under Republic Act No. 8344,
to another health care service provider within the same facility or one which
is conveniently accessible regardless of his or her religious beliefs;

6] Section 23(b) and the corresponding provision in the RH-IRR,
particularly Section 5 .24 thereof, insofar as they punish any public officer
who refuses to support reproductive health programs or shall do any act that
hinders the full implementation of a reproductive health program, regardless
of his or her religious beliefs;

7] Section 17 and the corresponding prov1s10n in the RH-IRR
regarding the rendering of pro bona reproductive health service in so far as
they affect the conscientious objector in securing PhilHealth accreditation;
and

8] Section 3.0l(a) and Section 3.01 G) of the RH-IRR, which added
the qualifier “primarily” in defining abortifacients and contraceptives, as
they are ultra vires and, therefore, null and void for contravening Section
4(a) of the RH Law and violating Section 12, Article II of the Constitution.

Source: SC Decision pages 103-104

 

CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINIONS OF JUSTICES

C.J. Sereno

J. Carpio

J. Leonardo-De Castro

J. Brion

J. Del Castillo

J. Abad

J. Reyes

J. Perlas-Bernabe

J. Leonen

 

 

 

 

Share via email
Leave A Comment