persons debate - rh bill

7/23/2019 Persons Debate - RH Bill

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/persons-debate-rh-bill 1/3

THE REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH BILL IS NOT DESTRUCTIVE OF BUT, IN FACT, EVEN

ADVANTAGEOUS TO THE FAMILY.

A. Primarily, the RH Bill falls within the ambit of the Constitutional mandate for the protection and

the strengthening of the Filipino Family.

1. Article II – Declrti!" !# Pri"ci$le% "& Stte P!licie%

Section !. "he State recogni#es the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family

as a basic autonomous social institution. $t shall e%ually protect the life of the mother and the life of

the unborn from conception. "he natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the

youth for ci&ic efficiency and the de&elopment of moral character shall recei&e the support of the

'o&ernment.

($t directs the State to strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution. "his

can be reali#ed by pro&iding the family with the much needed assistance to enable them to

attain a dignified e)istence, to li&e in a decent world in health, in peace and comfort.*

$t is decreed in this declaration of policy that the parents be not left alone in their right and

duty of training the youth for ci&ic efficiency+ that the go&ernment e%ually share in this duty and

responsibility by gi&ing them help and support. * p.-

("his principle further imposes upon the parents the duty of training their children for the

de&elopment of moral character. "his means that the parents should be the guardians of the moral

of their children. $t is imperati&e that they see their children embrace the high standard of

morality.* p. -/ Ruperto '. 0artin

R1P2R"3 '. 0 AR"$4, 425 C34S"$"1"$34 3F "H2 PH$6$PP$42S7 43"2S, C30024"S 8 PR3B620S - 9:;-<.

Section =. "he State shall protect and promote the right to health of the people and instill health

consciousness among them.

(Health being the sine %ua non of all personal en>oyment, it is not only the right but the duty of a state

or a municipality possessing police power to pass such laws or ordinances as may be necessary for

the preser&ation of the health of the people* 9! Corpus ?uris, p. :< Ambrosio Padilla pp. -@--

A0BR3S$3 P A$66A, "H2 :;- C34S"$"1"$34 3F "H2 R2P1B6$C 3F "H2 PH$6$PP$42S 5$"H C30024"S

A4 CAS2S -@-- 936. . :;;<.



'. Article III ( Bill !# Ri)*t%

Sec. @

($t does not follow therefore, from the constitutional guaranties of the free e)ercise ofreligion that e&erything may be so called can be tolerated. $t has been said that a law

ad&ancing a legitimate go&ernment interest is not necessarily in&alid as one interfering with

the (free e)ercise* of religion merely because it also incidentally has a detrimental effect on

the adherents of one or more religion.* Pp.:D: Santiago

("he sole >ustification for a prior restraint or limitation in the )ercise of religious freedom is

the e)istence of a gra&e and present danger of a character both gra&e and imminent, of a

serious e&il to public safety, public morals, public health or any other legitimate public

interest, that the state has the right and duty to protect.* P. :

0$R$A0 2F24S3R S A4"$A'3, C34S"$"1"$34 A443"A"2 : 9:::<.

+. Article V ( T*e F-il

(5hy is the family autonomousE $t is so because while the law go&erns family

relations, the family should be freed from undue interference of the State+ it must ha&e

freedom from destruction. 5hate&er is destructi&e of the family is now considered

unconstitutional.* p.::! 4olledo

("he State shall defend the right of the spouses to found a family in accordance with

their religious con&ictions and the demands of responsible parenthood. $n the case of Catholic

spouses, to them birth control through the use of contracepti&es and the liGe is taboo.

"herefore the State cannot impose a program of birth control against the religious beliefs of th

spouses* $bid

("he State no longer has the constitutional mandate to achie&e and maintain

population le&els, an in accordance to Sec. , subsection of the Article on Family, it may

not compel or impose upon spouses 9e.g. &ia (moti&ators* or intensi&e ad&ertising< to adopt

means of birth limitation contrary to religious beliefs.*

(3&erpopulation has its most disastrous impact on the man in the submarginal legal

who seems to be hopelessly drowned in miseries. $ronically enough, it is the poor man who



begets more children than he can e&er hope to feed, clothe, shelter and send to school. "his

great disparity between dependents and earners in families has always been a factor

pro&iding a serious setbacG to the social de&elopment of societyAnd the go&ernment are

becoming increasingly o&erburdened by a population bigger than they can possible feed and

clothe, educate and house and pro&ide employment to.* Pp. ::/

"o limit the population down to a si#e where men will readily ha&e options for a better

life has become one of utmost necessity. "o be able to li&e a more wholesome life physically,

morally and spiritually is a right of e&ery man. And to achie&e and preser&e social e%uity is a

goal aimed at by peoples all o&er the world. "o lift the poor from a life of degradation to a life

of selfreliance and producti&ity where they can be part of mainstream is imperati&e as a

moral obligation on the part of those in a position to help do so.* Pp.::/::= $d.

?3S2 4. 436623, "H2 425 C34S"$"1"$34 3F "H2 PH$6$PP$42S A443"A"2 ::! 9::D<.

"his section ISec. , Art. JK recogni#es the right of parents to determine the number of their

children . "herefore when a law is passed, limiting the right of a parent to claim e)emption for children

in e)cess of a certain number, it would be sub>ect to attacG as discriminatory. 1nfortunately, no one

has yet raised the %uestion to the Supreme Court.* p. -D!

0$R$A0 2F24S3R S A4"$A'3, C34S"$"1"$34 A443"A"2 -D! 9:::<.

L24 M:!NOAH33.C30

persons debate - rh bill

Documents