Ano nga ba ang “unconstitutional” sa RH Law?

RH Law

Samut-sari ang interpretasyon sa naging desisyon ng Korte Suprema noong Abril 8 tungkol sa constitutionality ng R.A. 10354. Ano nga ba ang halaga ng mga probisyong matatanggal sa nasabing batas? Ang mga sumusunod na items sa RH Law ang sinasabing “unconstitutional” o labag sa Saligang Batas:

“a.) Section 7 and the corresponding provisions 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 modern methods of family planning without written consent from their parents or guardians/s;

b.) Section 23 (a) (1)and the corresponding provision in the RH-IRR, particularly section 5.24 thereof, insofar as it punishes any health care provider who fails or refuses to disseminate information regarding programs and services on reproductive health regardless of his or her religious beliefs.

c.) 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 life-threatening case, as defined under Republic Act No. 8344, to undergo reproductive health procedures without the consent of the spouse;
d.) Section 23 (a) (3) and the corresponding provision in the RH-IRR, particularly section 5.24 thereof, insofar as they punish and health care 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;

e.) 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.

f.) Section 17 and the corresponding provision in the RH-IRR regarding the rendering of pro-bono reproductive health service, insofar as they affect the conscientious objector in securing PhilHealth accreditation.

g.) Section 3.01 (a) and (j) of the RH-IRR insofar as it uses the qualifier “primarily” for contravening sec. 4(a) of the RH Law and violating section 12, Article II of the Constitution.

h.) Section 23 (a) (2) (ii) insofar as it penalizes a health service provider who will require parental consent from the minor in not emergency or serious situations.”
[TapatNews]

You May Also Like