Here, therefore, is a guide (particularly for law students and laymen) to the breadth and complexity of the likely queries for this quite controversial case:
A.
Right to Life
- Why is right to life being considered violated when the RH Law deals with contraception?
- Why are abortifacients being alleged when such is not being endorsed or supported by the RH Law?
- Why are abortifacients being alleged when the RH Law does not even mention abortifacients and in fact expressly speaks against it?
- Why are abortifacients being alleged when the RH Law does not even name specific medicines or medical supplies?
- Why make the RH Law unconstitutional when if there are any abortifacients sold or imported in the Philippines they will actually be considered in violation of the RH Law?
- Why is right to life being violated when, if Catholics consider life begins at conception, then no life has been threatened at all from the way the RH Law has been drafted?
- How is the foregoing different from a sterile and married couple?
- How is the foregoing different from a fertile and married couple who decided not to have children?
- Assuming there is inclusion of “day after pills”, what is the definition of conception?
- Why is conception different from implantation?
- Why should Catholics impose their belief that life begins at conception when international medical organizations and other reputable international organizations consider that life begins at a different point?
- Are petitioners saying that the US ruling in the case of Roe vs Wade to be wrong? On what grounds? What about Planned Parenthood vs Casey?
- Assuming that life begins at conception, how can that be reconciled with the fact that our own laws do not give rights to such until such foetuses have been born?
- How does petitioners’ position square with the doctrine of unenumerated rights?
- How does petitioners’ position square with the concept of personal dominion, without resorting to religious arguments?
- If foetuses do not have rights equivalent to persons (as defined by law), then what is the legal basis for making such foetuses have the right to override the rights of women, including the right to privacy, to decide with regard to their reproductive rights?
- Why should a foetus, which does not have the same rights as a “person”, not be allowed to override State interest (assuming such can be proved)?
- In Planned Parenthood vs Casey, the US Supreme Court indicated that “the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.” What are petitioners’ basis for depriving people of such right?
- Do petitioners’ deny that women have a right to reproductive health?
- Do petitioners’ deny that there is an international human right to reproductive health? What is their basis considering the numerous international agreements that mention reproductive health rights?
- Petitioners argue that our Constitution is pro-life, what is the basis for that? Are petitioners saying that pro-life is synonymous with pro-family?
- Does the wording of the ConCom deliberations override the express wording of our Constitution and the authority of Congress? How is pro-family in contradiction to the intent of the RH Law to give families the choices needed for them to do what is best for their family?
- Why do the provisions of the 1973 Constitution regarding population development or control have any relevance to the RH Law, which has been stated to be not about population control but about reproductive health?
B.
Religious freedom
- Why are petitioners resorting to religious freedom arguments when the RH Law does not force them to use contraceptives?
- Do petitioners deny that the State can override religious freedom if such be in accordance with State interests, with People vs Lagman and Zosa as example?
- Where is evidence regarding sincerity of religious belief considering that surveys show that most Catholics, here and abroad, show acceptance of contraceptives?
- Where is evidence regarding sincerity of religious belief when surveys in England, Wales, and Australia show that a significant number of priests are in favor of contraception?
- Where is evidence regarding sincerity of religious belief when a number of Filipino bishops and priests are in favor of contraception or do not judge contraception to be a grave sin?
- What is the evidence on contraception being a doctrine of the Catholic Church?
- Where does it say that the Catholic teaching on contraception is infallible?
- If it is not infallible, then why should Catholics strictly follow such teaching?
- The Catechism of the Catholic Church mentions the proscription on contraception in relation to married couples. So why are petitioners insisting that contraception be disallowed or is immoral for all Catholics or for everyone?
- How do petitioners explain the various different opinions by Catholic theologians and even lawyers regarding the actual teaching on contraception?
- How can petitioners explain the fact that most religions and churches, including most if not all other Christian churches, accept contraception?
- How do petitioners explain the fact that majority of the members of a commission organized by Pope John XXIII and expanded by Pope Paul VI actually voted in favor of contraception?
- Where is contraception mentioned in the Bible?
- What exactly again is the burden being imposed on Catholics considering that: a) most Catholics agree to contraception, and b) the RH Law does not force people to use contraceptives?
- What positive or negative act is being imposed on Catholics that would constitute a burden on their religious rights?
- Are petitioners saying that the government cannot initiate or carry out any measure if it offends the religious feelings of anybody?
- What if a Catholic out there says that he does not like war, can that Catholic be allowed not to support the country during war, not pay taxes, not do military duties, not to provide service to the government?
- What if a religion out there does not like bridges or buildings or think the internet is a sin? Does that mean that person is now allowed not to pay taxes or otherwise support the State?
- Does the Catholic Church go against personal freedom? Of conscience?
- In Planned Parenthood vs Casey, the US Supreme Court indicated that “the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.” What are petitioners’ basis for depriving people of such right?
- Do petitioners believe that Filipinos have no right to their own bodies?
- Do petitioners believe that Filipinos have no right to privacy, which is the point of the US Supreme Court case of Griswold, as well as Eisenstadt, affirming the right to contraception?
- Do petitioners realize that by arguing on the basis of religious freedom, they are essentially asking only for an exemption from the law?
- If petitioners are asking for an exemption from the application of the RH Law on the basis of religious freedom, how do they suggest that such exemption be made?
- What about the fact that surveys show most Catholics actually agree with the use of contraceptives? How then should such exemption be made?
- Do petitioners know that in Ebranilag and even Escritor cases, where such exemption was granted, yet it came with certain conditions (e.g., in Ebranilag, though they were not forced to salute the flag, yet the students were still required to stand in attention during flag ceremonies), what conditions do petitioners suggest that would merit such an exemption being considered?
- Again, what is the actual burden to Catholics if they are not forced by the RH Law to use contraceptives? In which case, how then can such an exemption be made?
- Petitioners argue that Catholic medical workers and government employees are forced to act against their faith? How is that exactly?
- If petitioners argue that Catholic health workers are forced to refer patients to another health worker that is willing to issue contraceptives, how does that violate their faith? Are petitioners saying that Catholics can predict the exact will and action of other health workers?
- Considering the separability clause of the RH Law, would petitioners agree to allowing the constitutionality of the RH Law if the provisions on health workers were cut off? Why? Or why not?
- Wouldn’t poverty be adequate State interest for Congress to enact the RH Law? If not, then what can constitute adequate State interest?
- The RH Law was deliberated by Congress over years and it finally made a conclusion, after numerous hearings, that the evidence they heard from both sides (which includes medical, scientific, economic, social, and other such data and facts) justified the enactment of the RH Law. What right do petitioners now say to demand that the law be rendered unconstitutional?
- Considering that in the last elections most of the Congressmen and Senators who supported the RH Law and ran for reelection were reelected, where then is the basis for saying grave abuse of discretion if the people agreed to the actions made by their elected representatives?
- Several international instruments such as Tehran Proclamation, Cairo Programme, Beijing Platform, Yogyakarta Principles, as well as the CEDAW, all indicate an international law right to reproductive health. Are petitioners saying that we should ignore such, in violation of Article II, Section 2 of our Constitution?
- Do Petitioners argue that it is acceptable for Filipinos to be deprived of their right of choice, considering that all the RH Law does is to provide Filipinos with an array or “menu” of options with regard to reproductive health?
- Do petitioners deny that the RH Law actually mentions and includes NFP or natural family planning as one of the choices? Are petitioners also against NFP?
- If petitioners are not against NFP, then why are they against contraception when the effects are the same?
- Are petitioners arguing that only fertile couples capable of producing children can marry? If not, what is the difference between a married fertile couple resorting to contraception and a married sterile couple?
- If NFP is acceptable to petitioners, then why are Catholic government health workers considered coerced to act against their faith when they are not prohibited from speaking about the merits of NFP?
- Are Catholics prohibited under the RH Law from resorting to NFP?
- Are petitioners saying that the RH Law fails the ‘strict scrutiny test’?
- How can the RH Law be discriminatory to Catholics when the same is to be applied ‘neutrally and generally’? Note that if a measure is applicable in such a manner, then legal doctrine says that such measure can override religious rights.
- How can petitioners argue that the RH Law is unconstitutional when it is not ‘intrusive’ to the point of discriminating against Catholics: a) it does not force Catholics to use contraceptives, and b) Catholics are free under the RH Law to use NFP?
- Are petitioners arguing that contraceptives are to be not made available to everyone because the Catholic Church says so? If not, so do petitioners agree that non-Catholics and even Catholics who do not agree with the Catholic Church are entitled to contraceptives?
- What basis would petitioners have for arguing that contraceptives is immoral and improper for every one? Is that not a violation of the pluralistic society that the Philippines is? Are petitioners saying that a theocratic society is needed in the Philippines?
- What gives the Catholic Church the right to impose their beliefs on everyone else? Does that not violate personal freedom enshrined in our Constitution?
- Do petitioners not understand the concept of Church and State separation enshrined in our Constitution? That such a provision is not found in the US Constitution (which is limited merely to the non-establisment clause and free exercise clause) and yet is expressly written in ours, thus emphasizing that Philippines believes that the Church to not meddle in matters of State or at the very least the dominance of the State interests over religious rights?
- If petitioners are saying that contraceptives are immoral and yet legally available, then why don’t they consider the fact that Congress to be in ‘grave abuse of discretion’ for not making legislation banning contraceptives?
- If contraceptives are immoral for everybody and not only for Catholics (on a still yet to be determined rationale or basis as to why it is immoral for everybody), then why not make contraceptives illegal?
- If Catholic petitioners believe that contraception is immoral (not only for themselves but for everyone), then is Congress or our legal system, by allowing contraceptives to be legal, currently discriminating against their religious rights?
- Having said that, where is contraception mentioned in the Qu'ran? For Muslim petitioners, considering that Muslims constitute less than 10% of the population, is it their position that they be merely be held exempt from the application of the RH Law?
- Or is it the position of Muslim petitioners that their beliefs be imposed on the rest of the population who seem to agree to contraception? On what basis?
C. Other areas:
- Are petitioners arguing that the local government provisions (as well as the provisions on local autonomy) of the Constitution are self-executory? Are petitioners saying that Congress does not have the authority to carry out enactments that according to its judgment meet and carry out the local government provisions of the Constitution?
- Are Muslim petitioners saying that the Congress of the Republic has no authority to legislate relating to the ARMM?
- How can the RH Law violate local government rights when most of the Filipino people according to surveys are in favor of contraception and thus should support local governments in addressing the desire for contraception of most of the Filipino people?
- How can Catholics right to speech be violated when a) speech can be regulated in accordance with State interests, and b) Catholic government health workers are free to espouse or proclaim the merits of NFP?
- Do petitioners deny that the goals of the RH Law are laudable? If not, how can petitioners say that Catholics are forced to undergo involuntary servitude to serve the laudable goals of the RH Law? How different is this from lawyers being asked by the courts to do pro bono work or for anybody to render compulsory military service in accordance with State interests?
Whatever the outcome of this case, it is clear nevertheless that the ruling (and intellectual legal thought) that will come out of it will steer the direction of this country for years to come.
