On November 26, 2011, I attended a forum at the Sarangani Study Center along Dos Castillas St., Sampaloc, Manila near the University of Santo Tomas Campus. It was an awesome experience to be with some of the noted members of the Philippine Congress including former Senator Francisco "Kit" Tatad and the current representative of BUHAY Party List Irwin Tieng, as well as a noted physician Dr. Edna Monzon.
Sen. Tatad expalined the Legal-Constitutional Implications of the Reproductive Health/Responsible Parenthood Bill, simply RH Bill. He started the talk by emphasizing the bill's desire to get away with a government which respects morality and religious beliefs. He said that the RH Bill wants to imitate the communist and totalitarian countries. He further explained why the RH Bill is anti-family and showed that it does not show any regard for marriage. The purpose of marriage is PRO-CREATION while the purpose of the RH Bill is CONTRACEPTION.
"Congress can not pass a law that is against the Constitution", he said, reading Article II Section 12 from the Philippine Constitution. "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
natural
and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for
civic
efficiency and the development of moral character shall receive the
support
of the Government." (emphasis by Sen. Tatad)
The emphasis made by Sen. Tatad himself made me wonder, "Will the State trample on this part of the Constitution if it says 'protect the unborn from conception'? After all, contraception, per se, works before conception." But I was enlightened when the former senator articulated that the Constitution does not say that the State shall protect the unborn provided that he survives the State's contraception. I can only agree with him. Truly, the Constitution does not say that!
Following the Principle of Non-Contradiction, the second of the so-called three classic laws of thought, he further stated that the State can not be the 'preventer' and 'destroyer' of conception.
Article III of the Constitution covering the Bill of Rights says in Section 5, "No law shall be
made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise
thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and
worship,
without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No
religious
test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights."
Frequently heard these days is the cry that Catholics should not impose their religious beliefs on non-Catholics. "But the opposite appears to be the case," said Sen. Tatad. Commenting on Art III Section 5, he said that even a single person should not be discriminated if he has his own religious beliefs. What more for the overwhelming majority of the population? The free exercise and enjoyment of the Catholic's religious profession will be discriminated, should the bill be passed.
"The State shall
defend the right of spouses
to found a family in accordance with their religious convictions and
the
demands of responsible parenthood." (Art XV, Sec 3(1), Constitution)
Of the two conditions set by the Constitution, the first one surely disrespects the Catholic couple's religious convictions within the context of the RH Bill! As for the second condition, Sen. Tatad believes that many have misunderstood the terms "responsible parenthood".
Overall, Sen. Tatad ended with the words: Assuming that they [pro-RH] were right on "10 women die a day" and "the environment is being destroyed by the 7 billion people", can they pass this bill under this Constitution? The answer is NO!
