Author Topic: State of RA 10354 a year after  (Read 17523 times)

Miss Mae

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 479
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • Email
State of RA 10354 a year after
« on: December 20, 2013, 08:38:51 PM »
I still don’t agree with Republic Act 10354. It would just let Filipino men to take for granted what they should have been responsible for in the first place, and give the current administration an excuse if it fails to provide Filipino children proper care and nutrition as well as give them special protection from “all forms of neglect, abuse, cruelty, exploitation, and other conditions.” Under this law, industries are not liable anymore if they are not compensating their workers justly provided their policies and programs in relation to reproductive health are all correct.

But I also don’t agree that that law should be prevented. There may be no other way for some Filipinos to realize that no method of contraception could curb the Filipino population—other than through direct communication between partners, which is what my high school teacher and her husband do whenever they lie beside each other in bed at night.

The Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012, which is RA 10354 spelled out in full , regards overpopulation as the reason why there are Filipinos who experience discrimination and retrogression. It defines “responsible parenthood” as the will and ability of parents to sustain their family, and “reproductive health” as one’s awareness in all matters relating to the reproductive system. This law makes it the State’s duty to protect and strengthen its citizens so that everyone will have a chance to live in a “balanced and healthful environment in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature.”

A news website and a daily newspaper in the Philippines have summed RA 10354 as a law that would provide universal access to reproductive health care services and information, including the use of condoms and pills. It would also give precedence to the poor households that the National Household Targeting System for Poverty Reduction had identified.

Contraceptives are not abortifacients anyway. Article II, Section 12 of the Constitution also requires the State to “equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception.” Adults would still be free to reject information relating to reproductive health provided by the government “for whatever personal reason which may or may not be related to their religious beliefs.”

Environmental degradation in the Philippines is also aggravated by a high annual population growth rate. There are other factors, of course—loss of agricultural lands, deforestation, soil erosion, air and water pollution, improper disposal of solid and toxic wastes, loss of coral reefs, mismanagement and abuse of coastal resources, and overfishing—but most of the warming could still be traced to greenhouse gas concentrations from human activities.

The country did something about this by signing the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) on June 12, 1992. Hot temperatures will become frequent in 2020 and 2050 as well heavy daily rainfall. Limiting life will actually help free the succeeding generations from the outbreak and spread of water-based and vector-borne diseases, pulmonary illnesses, cardiovascular diseases, and other forms of health risk from poor air quality.

TIMELINE

•   December 21, 2012: PNoy signed the Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012.
•   December 29, 2012: The Malacañang announced its passage.
•   January 1, 2013: James Imbong, son of the legal counsel of the Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines (CBCP), and his wife, Jo Aurea Imbong, asked the Supreme Court to declare RA 10354 unconstitutional.
•   January 29, 2013: In the “CBCP Pastoral Statement on Certain Social Issues of Today,” the bishops warned Filipinos of “social and political storms” and criticized PNoy for not pushing for the passage of the Freedom of Information Bill. They also denounced the existence of political dynasties, the deepening culture of impunity, the unabated extra-judicial killings and enforced disappearances, and worsening poverty.
•   February 22, 2013: The World Socialist Web Site opined that the Philippines’ reproductive health bill will continue to hold that abortion is illegal.
•   March 5, 2013: The Supreme Court deferred issuing a temporary restraining order against the implementation of RA 10354.
•   March 7, 2013: CBCP president and Cebu Archbishop Jose Palma and some 10 other bishops dined with PNoy in Malacañang. The latter was reported to have made a peace offering to them.
•   March 16, 2013: The Department of Health (DOH) finalized the implementing rules and regulations of RA 10354.
•   March 18, 2013: Several Catholic priests attempted to revive their campaign against it. The Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 10354 (The Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012) were also published.
•   March 18, 2013: Pro-RH advocates plan to embark on a nationwide campaign, “Purple Vote,” the following week to encourage voters to choose pro-RH candidates during the May election.
•   March 19, 2013:  The Supreme Court  votes 10-5 for 1 120-day postponement of RA 10354. Those who voted for the SQA order were Associate Justices Presbitero Velasco Jr., Teresita Leonardo-De Castro, Arturo Brion, Diosdado Peralta, Lucas Bersamin, Roberto Abad, Martin Villarama Jr., Jose Perez, Jose Mendoza and Bienvenido Reyes. Those who dissented were Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Aranal-Sereno, Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio, Justice Mariano Del Castillo, Justice Estela Perlas-Bernabe, and Justice Marvic Leonen.
•   March 21, 2013: The CBCP announced its plan to launch a more active campaign against the RH law.
•   March 22, 2013: Lipa Archbishop Ramon Arguelles expressed his fears that Malacañang would pressure the Supreme Court justices to approve RA 10354.
•   March 26, 2013: Senatorial bet and former congressman Ana Theresa Hontiveros asked the Supreme Court to lift its status quo ante order restraining Malacanang from enforcing RA 10354.
•   April 2, 2013: The Supreme Court junked the 25-page motion for reconsideration filed by former Akbayan party-list Rep. Risa Hontiveros.
•   May 24, 2013: Sen. Pia Cayetano asked the Supreme Court to lift the status quo ante order it issued on February that indefinitely suspended the implementation of Republic Act 10354. Cayetano, who sponsored the measure in the Senate, also asked the SC to dismiss the 10 consolidated petitions questioning the constitutionality of the law. Through her counsel, UP law professor Harry Roque Jr., the senator said the RH law does not violate the constitutional freedom of choice and right to privacy. The high court set to hear the case on June 18, 2013.
•   June 1, 2013: The Catholics for Reproductive Health and Interfaith Partnership for the Promotion of Responsible Parenthood Inc., led by women’s rights lawyer Claire Padilla, asked the Supreme Court to dismiss the petitions and instead declare the assailed law as constitutional. She was joined by Zahria Mapandi, a Muslim mother and executive director of Al-Mujadillah Development Foundation Inc.
•   June 4, 2013: The Couples for Christ Foundation for Family and Life (CFC FFL) filed the 12th petition through its lawyer, Luis Francis Rodrigo Jr., asking the Supreme Court (SC) to declare Republic Act No. 10354 as unconstitutional.
•   June 4, 2013: The oral argument scheduled on June 18 was reset to July 9, and the SC summons lawyers of all the parties to a preliminary conference on June 6.
•   June 6, 2013: Preliminary conference held among 12 groups that are anti-RH and six groups that are pro-RH.
•   July 9, 2013: Critics and advocates of RA 10354 face off in a debate before the Supreme Court on the legality of the RH law.
•   August 6, 2013: The government, through Solicitor General Francis Jardeleza, defended RA 10354 before the Supreme Court.
•   August 16, 2013: Sacred Theology professor Fr. Yulito Ignacio (Fr. Itoy, as he is known to many) lamented during a gathering of some Marian devotees at Our Lady of Carmel Church the none-too-subtle attack on institutionalized religion in the Philippines, specifically on the Catholic Church and its teachings
•   August 17, 2013: Sacred Theology professor Fr. Yulito Ignacio decried what he called the half-true reportage about the RH Law oral debates in the Supreme Court (SC).