G.R. No. 204819 – 732 Phil. 1 – Political Law – Constitutional Law – Equal Protection Clause – Reproductive Health Law is not in violation of the equal protection clause
Conscientious Objectors May Not Be Forced to Implement Law and its IRR; Except in life-and-death situations
Advocates against the Reproductive Health Law (R.A. No. 10354) argue that it violates the right to equal protection of the law; that RH Law discriminates against the poor as it makes them the primary target of the government program that promotes contraceptive use; that, rather than promoting reproductive health among the poor, RH Law seeks to introduce contraceptives that would effectively reduce the number of the poor.
ISSUE: Is the RH Law violative of the equal protection clause?
HELD: No. To provide that the poor are to be given priority in the government’s reproductive health care program is not a violation of the equal protection clause. In fact, it is pursuant to Section 11, Article XIII of the Constitution which recognizes the distinct necessity to address the needs of the underprivileged by providing that they be given priority in addressing the health development of the people.
It should be noted that Section 7 of the RH Law prioritizes poor and marginalized couples who are suffering from fertility issues and desire to have children. There is, therefore, no merit to the contention that the RH Law only seeks to target the poor to reduce their number. While the RH Law admits the use of contraceptives, it does not, as elucidated above, sanction abortion. As Section 3(l) explains, the “promotion and/or stabilization of the population growth rate is incidental to the advancement of reproductive health.”
Moreover, the RH Law does not prescribe the number of children a couple may have and does not impose conditions upon couples who intend to have children. What the law seeks to do is to simply provide priority to the poor in the implementation of government programs to promote basic reproductive health care.
On the RH Law IRR re: conscientious objectors
| Atty. Chan’s Note: Traditionally, a conscientious objector is someone who refuses to perform military service or bear arms due to deeply held moral, ethical, or religious beliefs that conflict with war or killing. In the USA, they may be exempt from the mandatory military draft after explaining to the proper agency the basis for their objection. |
The RH Law may not be implemented on conscientious objectors. However, the IRR provides that skilled health professional such as provincial, city or municipal health officers, chiefs of hospital, head nurses, supervising midwives, among others, who by virtue of their office are specifically charged with the duty to implement the provisions of the RH Law and its IRR, cannot be considered as conscientious objectors.
ISSUE: Is this valid?
HELD: No. This is discriminatory and violative of the equal protection clause. The conscientious objection clause should be equally protective of the religious belief of public health officers. There is no perceptible distinction why they should not be considered exempt from the mandates of the law. The protection accorded to other conscientious objectors should equally apply to all medical practitioners without distinction whether they belong to the public or private sector. After all, the freedom to believe is intrinsic in every individual and the protective robe that guarantees its free exercise is not taken off even if one acquires employment in the government.
Except: While generally healthcare service providers cannot be forced to render reproductive health care procedures if doing it would contravene their religious beliefs, an exception must be made in life-threatening cases that require the performance of emergency procedures. In these situations, the right to life of the mother should be given preference, considering that a referral by a medical practitioner would amount to a denial of service, resulting to unnecessarily placing the life of a mother in grave danger.
This case is consolidated with G.R. No. 204934 (Alliance for the Family Foundation Philippines, Inc. et al vs Paquito Ochoa, Jr. et al.), G.R. No. 204957 (Task Force for Family and Life Visayas, Inc. et al vs Paquito Ochoa, Jr.), G.R. No. 204988 (Serve Life Cagayan De Oro City, Inc. et al Office of the President et al.), G.R. No. 205003 (Expedito Bugarin, Jr. vs Office of the President et al.), G.R. No. 205043 (Eduardo Olaguer et al. vs Enrique Ona et al.), G.R. No. 205138 (Philippine Alliance of XSeminarians, Inc. et al. vs Paquito Ochoa, Jr. et al.), G.R. No. 205478 (Reynaldo Echavez et al. vs Paquito Ochoa, Jr. et al.), G.R. No. 205491 (Francisco Tatad et al. vs Office of the President), G.R. No. 205720 (Pro-Life Philippines Foundation, Inc. et al. vs Office of the President et al.), G.R. No. 206355 (Millennium Saint Foundation, Inc. et al. vs Office of the President et al.), G.R. No. 207111 (John Walter Juat et al vs Paquito Ochoa, Jr. et al.), G.R. No. 207172 (Couples for Christ Foundation, Inc. et al. vs Paquito Ochoa, Jr. et al.), and G.R. No. 207563 (Almarim Centi Tillah et al. vs Paquiot Ochoa, Jr. et al.).
