INTRODUCTION

To swallow and follow, whether old doctrine or new propaganda, is a weakness still dominating the human mind.__Robert Green Ingersoll

The Philippine setting during the ancient times, they do not worry of foods because nature provides for them. They only work to provide enough food for their families. Children were seen as gift from the Creator, it is considered wealth to the family. So the more children produced by the mother, the more beneficial to the family because these children now would help in the tilling of the land, hunting and fishing for the sustenance of the family. Children were favored by the society and it was even a valid ground for a man to divorce her wife if the latter cant bear a child. They look more on children as security of the family as well as to the society. Today, according to the Storm Prediction Control, we are about 7 billion in number. Our world does not only sustain a just number of people but billions to speak of. Lands were owned and privatized, foods and water become scarce. Hunger now becomes the concern of human being. All things are seen in a different way. People became wild and engaged in immorality. People of today especially the new generation became liberated in all matters and played life. The sanctity of marriage and family becomes now an alien word. They engage in premarital sex and do not consider the consequences. Because of this, various illness and diseases some of which were life-threatening begin to surface affecting now the health of the people. Children are seen as liability instead of a gift which had been that way since the time the Lord gave life and existence to men. Babies are abandoned by the mother for personal reasons or economic problem and worse, these babies are even aborted by the mother commiting murder to humanity. Abortion is rampant which became a normal course of life. Even then these children grow, their family cant provide food for them. These children become a criminal and learned the illegal and hard way to survive. And as a result, they abandoned education and become just content with their hard life. The quality of education to them becomes just a burden.

It was a good thing for our government to finally take action to the problem of our society. It was then a very tough journey to the administration of President Aquino before the bill on the Reproductive Health finally became a law. The bill was one of the priorities which the current administration passed through. In fact the result of passing the bill struck the entire Philippines. Many conservative Christians especially the Catholics and even our moslem brothers view this bill as against morality. And the most serious act tried and made by the church was to deny giving Holy Communion with those proponents of the bill and even the head of the state which supported the bill. In fact the President certifies the bill to the necessity of its immediate enactment skipping the rule on three readings of a bill on separate days. The Church, despite its separation with the state, pressured the President and even threatened it that it would withdraw its support. This is the reality that the Church has greater influenced to our Country. However, despite many difficulties, the bill becomes now law as Republic Act No. 10354 otherwise known as An act providing for a National Policy on Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health. ( (The Official Gazette Online: December 21, 2012)

The passing of the first national family planning law in the Philippines which is RA No. 10354 does not deter the opposing party to question the validity of the law before our Supreme Court. In fact, today our Supreme Court is still deciding for the issues raised. But whatever the decision of our highest court would be is that people would always depend to the provisions of our Constitution which is the supreme law of the land particularly section V of article 11 which provides that 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. ,, (De Leon, The Philippine Constitution, 2012)

DISCUSSION
In the entire history of the Philippines, the church is always meddling with the dealing of the governments in its people and even at this era. They manipulated our higher officials to do only what they perceive as the only right without any consideration to other things and to the freedom of men to do what is right for his welfare. They threatened us Christians with their excommunicado thing which is not even right and just but only one of manipulative powers of the Church to our government. The Church miss the point behind our governments program in family planning which has been in the first place brought by the problems our people is facing today. Not to mentioned financial problem, many unwanted pregnancy especially with the teens resulted to uncounseled abortion and such other crimes. Actually the church has its own version of birth control. If we look back and consider the stand of the Church with regard to family planning, they really are not against it but according to them to be right and to be not against the words of our Divine Lord, it must only be done through the Calendar Method and abstinence. However, if we just look to the purpose of the RH Law and this method by the Church, they both have only one objective that is to prevent unwanted pregnancy. Is this not also a violation to the normal course of life? These methods by the states in addressing the increasing problems of our citizen only differs on matters of the way to do it because regardless whether it is the Reproductive Health program or the Calendar Method, there is that intention to prevent pregnancy. However, since this is not the main issue here, but the constitutionality of the RH Law, the facts tell us that the act of the Church in imposing and rejecting the application of the RH Law and to question the constitutionality of the law base on its religious belief is totally unacceptable. It would seem that the Church forgot one of its limitations of powers in the administration of our government. To reiterate it, Section V of Article 11 of our Constitution provides that No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting t he 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.

Before we proceed, there is some decision of the U.S Supreme Court which deals with the scope of the freedom of religion. In the case of U.S vs Ballard, it states that: Freedom of thought, which includes freedom of religious belief, is basic in a society of free men. It embraces the right to maintain the theories of life and of death and of the hereafter which are rank heresy to follow of the orthodox faith. Men may believe what they cannot prove. They may not be put to the proof of their religious doctrines or beliefs. xxx The fathers of the Constitution were aware of the varied and extreme views of religious sects, of the violence of disagreement among them, and of the lack of any one religious creed on which all men would agree. They fashioned a charter of government which envisage the widest possible toleration of conflicting views. Mans relation to his God was made no concern of the state. He was granted the right to worship as he pleased and to answer to no man for the verity of his religious views. The Supreme Court was very clear in its meaning that the state is created giving men more freedom than to the dictate of the spiritual belief of men and let them conduct their life on the way they look on it. The Church cannot just impose what he believe is right in the conduct of men in handling their life and ordering the state to desist from any of its action of what it sees right to its citizen because it would be a violation to the separation of the church and the state which has been stated in our Constitution particularly Article V1 which provides that the separation of the Church and the State shall be inviolable (U.S vs. Ballard, 32 U.S 78, 64 S. Ct.822 L. Ed 1148. 1948)

Our population is growing at a much faster rate than can be sustained by the government or the countrys resources. We are still importing rice to our neighboring countries. Considering the fact that we are a third world country, we cannot just dismiss this speedy growth of our population. The countrys population growth can no longer be ignored. In fact, we are the only country in Southeast Asia with no national reproductive health bill in place. One reason is the

influence of our Church in the conduct of our government and to our life. It is a fact that we are the most numbered Christian nation in the South East Asia and still have the power and influence of religion. We are one Christian nation which has not been accepted Reproductive Health as a way in helping our people to lessen their burden in life. What could have been the difference of our government to others who are also like us Christians who adopted and accepted the Reproductive health and they are nations who can sustain and feed their people more than us? It is because they respected and separated religion and matters of state. Our country has not yet been completely freed from the hand of our church. We have not yet understood the advance of our world today. Nowhere can we see now the traditional ways in conducting ones self. What have been dominating our country are the new generation born in this new era and not anymore yesterday where the Church really exercise power over the administration of our government. Actually, one transition our Supreme Court had done with respect to the issue of the new practice of the world which the Church has also opposed is its decision in the case of Ang Ladlad LGBT Party vs Commission on Election. In this case our Supreme Court states that: Our constitution provides in Article 111, Section 5 that: No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. At bottom, what our non-establishment clause calls for is government neutrality in religious matters. Clearly, government reliance on religious justification is inconsistent with this policy of neutrality. The Supreme Court ruled that it was grave violation of non-establishment clause for the COMELEC to utilize the Bible and Koran to justify the exclusion of Ang Ladlad . Rather than relying on religious belief, the legitimacy of the Assailed Resolution should depend, instead, on whether the COMELEC is able to advance some justification for its rulings mere conformity to doctrine. The government must act for secular purposes and in ways that have primarily secular effects. This is one of the first liberated cases where its practice to society has not been fully accepted by society however our Supreme Court has been strict in its application of our Constitution and ruled on its constitutionality. This has been the first case which our Court ruled involving these

LGBTs. It has been a fact that they have been seen as outcast to society and this has not been a new issue because even during the time of our Lord Jesus, it has been viewed by the society as a sickness. The decision now of our Supreme Court maybe a new beginning to these kind of people which has been discriminated for a long time which is not been fair on the part of our government to disregard them because our Constitution states that our government has no religion. But if we see how it acted on these people, they are treated as if they have no right also as a human being. They are not free to express their selves because of fear of being ostracized by our Church which is not even fair and just in the concept of our law. Although our Supreme Court maybe give new beginning to these people, our government has still very careful on its stand on these issue. (Ang Ladlad LGBT Party vs Commission on Election, G.R. No. 190582, 2010)

As it is, one argument of the Church with the anti-RH Law is that it is against Christian principles. This is clear as crystal that it is establishing a religion to our government. It is already an act to impose certain religious principle which the people are expected to practice and follow. The people have the free will of its own. They already know what is right and wrong. The wrongfulness of the RH Law if ever, must not be based solely on religious principle of some churches on their perspective to the rightfulness of one thing because it would appear that our government is favoring some religion which as far as our constitution is concerned, is a violation to the non-establishment clause. In deciding the constitutionality of the RH Law, any religious belief should be excluded. With regard to the non-establishment clause of our constitution, the freedom to have religion carries with it the freedom to act on ones beliefs. This is the guaranty of our state that men are free to do what he feels right. This means also that men are set free to believe which includes not having a religion. With respect now to the RH Law, the people are free to practice it since it is included in their right to freedom to believe. To prohibit them because of some religious principle only curtail these people their constitutional right but also violates the non-establishment clause. This is discrimination to the people which do not belong to the religious group who has different perspective in the RH Law. It is also their right to be

provided help by the government with regard to their current problems. Some of them are parents with many children but has no means to raise them on the standard of a good family which includes good education and proper sustenance to their children. We forgot the real situation of our people, if we just look around we can be able to see many families suffering and added also their children to their burden in life. Children should be just children and not to be expose to the problems of the world in their early age. But do we blame these parents? No because that is just what life is. This is where our government enters. Our government cannot have the power to solve every single of our problems but they can help us through information dissemination regarding on how to plan a good family and that is through the RH Law. The RH Law does not only provide materials for these people but also to give them information about family planning. Instead of helping in making the situation easier for our people, we just insist our religious beliefs and principles without considering these factors causing and contributing to the problems of our government. This is another way of curtailing the people to their freedom of religion imposing only one religious principle of a certain church to rule the future of men including others which do not even have religion or who have different views with the church with respect to RH Law. This is not fair and unjust to them because their right to have a planned and good family would be denied just because of some religious principles of other churches. In some decisions of the U.S Supreme Court, it has been beautifully put by Justice Frankfurter in the case of W. VA Board Of Education vs. Barnett: The constitutional provision on religious freedom terminated disabilities; it did not create new privileges. It gave religious liberty, not civil immunity. Its essence is freedom from conformity to religious dogma, not freedom from conformity to law because of religious dogma. (W. VA Board Of Education vs. Barnett, 219 U.S. 624)

Another popular belief fired by our church is that the RH Law promotes immorality which gained a different notion through the pro RH Law. We have again a genuine dispute on the

definition of immorality as applied in this case. Certainly, the church maybe correct in saying that the RH Law promotes immoral act, however, we forget the thing that we should not allow some churches great principles on good conduct to rule what would affect the entire citizen of our country. The RH Law is created for everybody. If you have a different concept about it and is totally against what you believe is right due to your religion, then good for you, but that doesnt mean also that everybody would see it as the way you perceive it. Philippines maybe a Christian nation but it doesnt mean that we have a uniform understanding of certain thing especially the validity of the RH Law that it has a great impact to the future of our people. Our people need immediate action from our government. This RH Law maybe a great solution by our government but regardless, this law has been passed for the general welfare of the people. Our legislators have been very careful in considering the real situation of the people. Through our right to religion which is to believe and act with it, it grants us the freedom to choose and live our life the way we seem it right. It is also contrary to what is raised by the anti-RH Law that the law encourages abortion or the pre-marital sex because actually the RH Law is a preventive solution with these problems we are facing today. It is wrong to say that it encourages such thing because before the passage of this law, we are already facing such dilemma, and in passing the RH Law, it somehow relieve us to know that we can prevent such thing to happen and control it. The church should see it as a good law which must relieve them because it would somehow lessen and uplift the spirit of the people that now they can obtain knowledge with regard to family planning with more confidence, they can now raise enough children which they can afford to educate, feed and train to be a good citizen of our country. To reiterate it, religious members especially Catholics and the non-Catholics are free enough to make their own choice free of religious intervention and without fear to be branded as sinners by the church because we have the separation of state and the church. This right in our Constitution is enough to make us free as men and to know our own responsibilities to our family, society and to our country.

CONCLUSION
However we may pity the mother whose health and even life is imperiled by the performance of her natural duty, there yet remains no sufficient reason for condoning the direct murder of the innocent.__ Pope Pius X1

We cannot deny the great contributions of our Churches in the peace and harmony of our country land, in fact our country is denominated by Catholics and the latter has been one of the great opponents of the proponent of the RH Law. It should also be noted that the Catholic Church exerts a strong influence in public and moral life of the people. They are even more powerful with respect to the conduct of men that the state itself. Our Church has always the upper hand when it comes to this kind of issues because they always use God himself to reason out their own opinion of what is right and wrong, moral or immoral. But we must also note that they are not the proper authority to judge the RH Law because in the first place, they may know the problems of our people but they do not experienced it and have no better grasp in the whole context of the situation not including that they live luxuriously. However, the Church should also know the limitation of their interventions especially in the administration of the government and its people. Let the government deal with the real problems of its people and let the church do their things. The church should not meddle in matters of the state, and should focus on religious matters, not political matters. The RH Law is a great help to improve the wellbeing of Filipino families, especially the lives of women, children, adolescents, and the poor. The law would give them free access to information regarding their choices to family and make them better to make their own decisions. This law will help in the building of a better and strengthen family and lead to a stronger society. I was just curious on what will happen if a pharmacist happened to be a Catholic and belong to the group which oppose the RH Law and when ask advice about the contraceptive which was allowed in the law, but instead he gave different advice different from that of the aim and purpose of the RH Law. The RH Law happens to have a provision which punishes anyone to

withhold information to people who need it. But is it also a violation to the freedom of religion? The pharmacist must have acted in good faith because in the first place he really genuinely believed that contraceptive method as allowed by the RH Law is against morality. Can he be punished for an act he did only because of his religious belief? Besides, our Supreme Court ruled in the case of Estrada vs Escritor: The State could not penalize respondent for she is exercising her right to freedom of religion. A distinction between public and secular morality and religious morality should be kept in mind. The jurisdiction of the Court extends only to public and secular morality. The Court further states that our Constitution adheres the benevolent neutrality approach that gives room for accommodation of religious exercises as required by the Free Exercise Clause. This benevolent neutrality could allow for accommodation of morality based on religion, provided it does not offend compelling state interests. (Estrada vs Escritor, A.M No. P-02-1615, 2006)

10

The opposing stand of the state and our Church, if it cannot be able to have a compromise, the one who will be affected will always be the people themselves who will suffer for the prolonged suppression of the law. The state and the Church can have their long arguments but they must also consider the general welfare of the people. Lastly, the RH Law is passed for anybody, whether they belong to a religious group or not, it is a choice which cannot even affect those who do not patronize it and probably serve to help those who need it. The RH Law is always a choice of responsible parenthood and respects the decision of each couple. The RH Law is just a reflex act by the government to provide support and action to the demand of its people. Everyone has the right to choose whether to follow it or not.