FACTS Despite calls to withhold support
thereto, however, 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. Aware of the profound and lasting
impact that its decision may produce, the Court now faces the iuris
controversy, as presented in fourteen (14) petitions and two (2) petitions-
in-intervention. A perusal of the foregoing petitions shows that the
petitioners are assailing the constitutionality of RH Law
ISSUE : WON RH Law violates the right to health
HELD : SEC. 2. Declaration of Policy. - The
State recognizes and guarantees the human rights of all persons including their
right to equality and nondiscrimination of these rights, the right to
sustainable human development, the right to health which includes reproductive
health, the right to education and information, and the right to choose and
make decisions for themselves in accordance with their religious convictions, ethics,
cultural beliefs, and the demands of responsible parenthood.
A component to the right to life is the
constitutional right to health. In this regard, the Constitution is replete
with provisions protecting and promoting the right to health. Section 15,
Article II of the Constitution provides:
Section 15. The State shall protect and
promote the right to health of the people and instill health consciousness
among them.
Section 11. The State shall adopt an
integrated and comprehensive approach to health development which shall
endeavor to make essential goods, health and other social services available to
all the people at affordable cost. There shall be priority for the needs of the
underprivileged, sick, elderly, disabled, women, and children. The State shall
endeavor to provide free medical care to paupers.
Section 12. The State shall establish and
maintain an effective food and drug regulatory system and undertake appropriate
health, manpower development, and research, responsive to the country's health
needs and problems.
Section 13. The State shall establish a
special agency for disabled person for their rehabilitation, self-development,
and self-reliance, and their integration into the mainstream of society.
Finally, Section 9, Article XVI provides:
Section 9. The State shall protect consumers
from trade malpractices and from substandard or hazardous products.
Contrary to the respondent's notion, however,
these provisions are self-executing. Unless the provisions clearly express the
contrary, the provisions of the Constitution should be considered
self-executory. There is no need for legislation to implement these
self-executing provisions
This notwithstanding, it bears mentioning
that the petitioners, particularly ALFI, do not question contraception and
contraceptives per se.184 In fact, ALFI prays that the status quo - under R.A.
No. 5921 and R.A. No. 4729, the sale and distribution of contraceptives are not
prohibited when they are dispensed by a prescription of a duly licensed by a
physician - be maintained.185
The legislative intent in the enactment of
the RH Law in this regard is to leave intact the provisions of R.A. No. 4729.
There is no intention at all to do away with it. It is still a good law and its
requirements are still in to be complied with. Thus, the Court agrees with the
observation of respondent Lagman that the effectivity of the RH Law will not
lead to the unmitigated proliferation of contraceptives since the sale,
distribution and dispensation of contraceptive drugs and devices will still
require the prescription of a licensed physician. With R.A. No. 4729 in place,
there exists adequate safeguards to ensure the public that only contraceptives
that are safe are made available to the public
Thus, in the distribution by the DOH of contraceptive
drugs and devices, it must consider the provisions of R.A. No. 4729, which is
still in effect, and ensure that the contraceptives that it will procure shall
be from a duly licensed drug store or pharmaceutical company and that the
actual dispensation of these contraceptive drugs and devices will done
following a prescription of a qualified medical practitioner. The distribution
of contraceptive drugs and devices must not be indiscriminately done. The
public health must be protected by all possible means. As pointed out by
Justice De Castro, a heavy responsibility and burden are assumed by the
government in supplying contraceptive drugs and devices, for it may be held
accountable for any injury, illness or loss of life resulting from or incidental
to their use
At any rate, it bears pointing out that not a
single contraceptive has yet been submitted to the FDA pursuant to the RH Law.
It behooves the Court to await its determination which drugs or devices are
declared by the FDA as safe, it being the agency tasked to ensure that food and
medicines available to the public are safe for public consumption.
Consequently, the Court finds that, at this point, the attack on the RH Law on
this ground is premature. Indeed, the various kinds of contraceptives must
first be measured up to the constitutional yardstick as expounded herein, to be
determined as the case presents itself.
At this point, the Court is of the strong
view that Congress cannot legislate that hormonal contraceptives and
intra-uterine devices are safe and non-abortifacient. The first sentence of
Section 9 that ordains their inclusion by the National Drug Formulary in the
EDL by using the mandatory "shall" is to be construed as operative
only after they have been tested, evaluated, and approved by the FDA. The FDA,
not Congress, has the expertise to determine whether a particular hormonal
contraceptive or intrauterine device is safe and non-abortifacient. The
provision of the third sentence concerning the requirements for the inclusion
or removal of a particular family planning supply from the EDL supports this
construction.
Stated differently, the provision in Section
9 covering the inclusion of hormonal contraceptives, intra-uterine devices,
injectables, and other safe, legal, non-abortifacient and effective family
planning products and supplies by the National Drug Formulary in the EDL is not
mandatory. There must first be a determination by the FDA that they are in fact
safe, legal, non-abortifacient and effective family planning products and
supplies. There can be no predetermination by Congress that the gamut of
contraceptives are "safe, legal, non-abortifacient and effective"
without the proper scientific examination
No comments:
Post a Comment