RH bill unconstitutional — Tatad

The Reproductive Health (RH) bill, now being pursued by its advocates in the House of Representatives, is unconstitutional as it goes against the fundamental rights of the family to be free from state regulation, former Sen. Francisco Tatad said yesterday.

Tatad, who was one of the panellists at the weekly Usaping Balita news forum at the Serye Restaurant in Quezon City, stressed that the Philippine government does not have the power to tell married couples what to do or what not to do with their family.

“The state does not have the authority or power to tell married couples what to do before, during or after sexual intercourse. That happens only in totalitarian states,” Tatad said.

“If Congress cannot pass any law ‘abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people to peaceably assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances,’ neither can Congress pass a law abridging the God-given right and duty of married couples to perform the marital act without intervention of the State or any third party,” he explained.

Tatad, who sits on the board of the US-based International Right to Life Federation, called on the proponents of the bill to respond squarely to the serious constitutional objections he has raised against the bill.

“They are using pro-RH pollsters to stage pro-RH polls, without revealing who funded the survey, who actually conducted it, what questions were asked, how they were asked, what samples were used, what is the margin of error, etc. Then the pro-RH media report the alleged results in screaming headlines without any critical questioning or analysis, as though they were gospel truth,” Tatad said.

He said that not even the members of Congress could now say what RH bill they would consider at this stage when the House committee on population had just begun hearing the six bills.

In a hearing at the House this week, Tatad said that the RH bill is unconstitutional because it seeks to make the State the ultimate provider of contraceptives and sterilization agents and mandate compulsory sex education for minor schoolchildren from Grade 5 up to fourth year high school without parental consent.

He said that two major provisions of the RH bill violate the Constitution’s Section 12, Article II which provides that “The state shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception,” and “ 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.”

Tatad further explained that while the Constitution does not prohibit contraception or sterilization by private individuals, Section 12, Article II is not only an outright ban on abortion but also an outright ban on state contraception and sterilization.

He said that the state cannot be the protector of life of the unborn from conception while simultaneously engaged in contraception and sterilization.

“The same applies to the natural and primary right of parents to be the educators of their children. The state cannot impose a mandatory sex education of schoolchildren without parental consent, without usurping that right and becoming a totalitarian state in the end,” he said.

Tatad accused the proponents of the RH bill of trying to mislead and deceive the public by claiming that the RH bill is needed in order to give Filipino women the right to an “informed choice” on what contraceptives and sterilization agents to use.  -Gerry Baldo, Daily Tribune