0 valutazioniIl 0% ha trovato utile questo documento (0 voti)
14 visualizzazioni2 pagine
The Supreme Court ruled that while some provisions of Republic Act No. 10354 or the Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act were unconstitutional, the law itself was not unconstitutional. Specifically, the Court found provisions requiring private hospitals owned by religious groups to refer non-emergency patients and allowing minors access to family planning without parental consent to be unconstitutional. However, other provisions around the government distributing family planning supplies and services and reproductive health education in schools were upheld.
The Supreme Court ruled that while some provisions of Republic Act No. 10354 or the Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act were unconstitutional, the law itself was not unconstitutional. Specifically, the Court found provisions requiring private hospitals owned by religious groups to refer non-emergency patients and allowing minors access to family planning without parental consent to be unconstitutional. However, other provisions around the government distributing family planning supplies and services and reproductive health education in schools were upheld.
The Supreme Court ruled that while some provisions of Republic Act No. 10354 or the Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act were unconstitutional, the law itself was not unconstitutional. Specifically, the Court found provisions requiring private hospitals owned by religious groups to refer non-emergency patients and allowing minors access to family planning without parental consent to be unconstitutional. However, other provisions around the government distributing family planning supplies and services and reproductive health education in schools were upheld.
Reproductive Health Act was declared NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL
NOTE: The phrase not unconstitutional was used instead of saying
constitutional, because the SC said that the assailed constitutionality of the law was assumed.
UNCONSTITUTIONAL
Sec.7 insofar as it requires
private hospitals owned by religious groups to refer nonemergency patients to another health facility and allows minors who had miscarriage to access modern family planning methods without the consent of parents Sec.17 which requires granting fee RH services to indigent women as a prerequisite for healthcare providers in securing PhilHealth accreditation Sec.23(a)(1) which penalizes health workers who fail or refuse to disseminate information on reproductive health programs regardless of religious beliefs Sec.23(a)(2)(i) which allows married individuals to undergo reproductive health procedures without the consent of the spouse Sec.23(a)(3) which penalizes healthcare providers who refuse to refer non-emergency patients to another facility regardless of religious beliefs Sec.23(b) which punishes a
CONSTITUTIONAL
Sec.3 (a): The government can
distribute for free to marginalized sectors reproductive health services and supplies. Sec.9: The Philippine National Drug Formulary shall include hormonal contraceptives, intrauterine devices, injectables and other safe, legal, nonabortifacient and effective family product and supplies as determined by the Food and Drug Administration Sec.10: The Department of Health can procure and distribute to local government units family planning supplies Sec.14: Age- and developmentappropriate reproductive health education will be provided to adolescents in all schools The role of local government units in the implementation of the RH Law, as provided in various sections of the measure, was also upheld Sec.20: A public awareness and multimedia campaign will be
public official who refuses to
support reproductive health programs regardless of religion Sec.3.01(a)and(j) of the IRR, which defines abortifacient as only contraceptives which primarily induce abortion
launched nationwide for the
protection and promotion of reproductive health and rights