In order to simplify and expedite the hearing scheduled for 9 July to review the controversial Reproductive Health law, the Supreme Court of the Philippines has proposed that the petitioners for and against the bill concentrate on three constitutional themes during their oral submissions:
- proscription of involuntary servitude *
- equal protection clause (right to life, freedom of religion, natural law) **
- freedom of speech (academic freedom) ***
Sections of the Bill of Rights (Constitution of the Philippines) relevant to these proposals are:
- * Bill of Rights, Section 18(2): No involuntary servitude in any form shall exist except as a punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.
- **Constitution, Section 1: No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.
- ***Bill of Rights, Section 4: No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.
- ***Section 5. No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights.
The suggestion by the court to include the proscription of involuntary servitude as one of the constitutional themes could be interpreted two ways and could include arguments of two kinds. The first is a claim that compelling someone to do something contrary to his conscientious convictions is a form of involuntary servitude. The second is a claim that a pregnancy that results from difficulty accessing contraception and/or abortion is a form of involuntary servitude.