The Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012
Opinions supporting freedom of conscience
Introduction:
In April, 2014, the Protection of Conscience Project’s critique of the Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012 (RH Act) was confirmed by a ruling of the Supreme Court of the Philippines.
With respect to the issue of freedom of conscience among health
care workers and institutions, of the fifteen Supreme Court judges:
- 11 held that the mandatory referral provision in the law
was an unconstitutional violation of freedom of conscience;
- 10 of the 11 also ruled that forcing an objecting health
care worker to provide “complete and correct information” about
contraception was a violation of freedom of conscience
- The eleventh judge (Del Castillo, J.) held that a requirement
to provide complete and correct information was not unconstitutional, as long as it was not used to suppress the freedom of
objecting health care workers to express professional or other
opinions concerning contraception.
DISSENTING
Estala M. Perlas-Bernabe
Marvic Mario Victor F. Leonen
Bienvenido L. Reyes
Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno
MAJORITY DECISION
Position of the Petitioners [P.60]
2. On Religious Accommodation and The Duty to Refer [P.61]
Petitioners Imbong and Luat note that while the RH Law attempts to address religious sentiments by making provisions for a conscientious objector, the constitutional guarantee is nonetheless violated because the law also imposes upon the conscientious objector the duty to refer the patient seeking reproductive health services to another medical practitioner who would be able to provide for the patient’s needs. For the petitioners, this amounts to requiring the conscientious objector to cooperate with the very thing he refuses to do without violating his/her religious beliefs.190 . . . [Full text]
