... 1 ' .. \t; Manila EN BANC JAMES M. IMBONG and LOVELY- ANN C. IMBONG, et al., Petitioners -versus- HON. PACQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., et al., Respondents x--------------------------------------x AlliANCE FOR THE FAMILY FOUNDATION PHILIPPINES, INC. (ALFI), et al-, Petitioners -versus- HON. PACQUITO N. OCHOA, Executive Secretary, et al., Respondents x--------------------------------------x SJS PRESIDENT SAMSON S. AlCANTARA, Petitioner-in-Intervention -versus- l-ION. PACQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., et al., Respondents x--------------------------------------x TASK FORCE FOR FAMILY AND LIFE VISAYAS, INC. and VALERIANO S. AVILA, Petitioners ;_ i I o' V G.R. No. 204819 G. R. No. 204934 G.R. No. 204934 -versus- I " ~ O N . PACQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., et al./ Re:,-pondents x--------------------------------------x SERVE liFE CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY, INC., et al./ Petitioners -versus- OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, et al./ Respondents x--------------------------------------x EXPEOITO A. BUGARIN, Petitioner -versus- OFFICES OF THE HON. PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, riON. SENATE PRESIDENT, HON. SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND HON. SOLICITOR GENERAL; Respondents x--------------------------------------x EDUARDO B. OlAGUER and the CATHOLIC XYBR APOSTOLATE OF THE PHiliPPINES, Petitioners -versus- DOH SECRETARY ENRIQUE T. ONA, Respondent x--------------------------------------x G.R. No. 204951 G.R. No. 204988 G. R. No. 205003 G.R.No.205043 ) REYNALDO I. ECHAVEZ, MD., et al., Petitioners -versus- HON. PACQUITO N. OCHOA, JR. 1 et al. Respondents x--------------------------------------x Spouses FRANCISCO S, TATAD and MA. FENY C. TATAD, et al., Petitioners -versus- OFFICE Of THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent x--------------------------------------x G.R. No. 205478 G.R. No. 205491 MOTION FOR lEAVE TO APPEAR AS RESPONDENT-IN-INTERVENTION WITH ATTACHED "COMMENT-IN-INTERVENTION'' AND APPEARANCE AS COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (G.R. No. 204988 AND G.R. No. 205003) IN COLLABORATION WITH THE SOLICITOR GENERAL rv10VANT Rep. Edcel C. Lagman respectfully manrfests that: 1. He is the acknowledged principal author and main sponsor in the House of Representatives of House Bill No. 4244, entitled "An Act Providing for a Comprehensive Policy on Responsible Parenthood, Reproductive Health, and Population and Development and For Other Purposes", which has been enacted as Republic Act No. 10354 or the "Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012", hereinafter referred to as the Reproductive Health Law. 2. Herein Movant was also the principal author and sponsor of the precursor bills -- House Bill No. 3773, entitled "Responsible Parenthood and Population r"lanagement Act of 2005" during the 13th Congress; and House Bill No. 5043, entitled "Reproductive Health, Responsible Parenthood and Population Development Act of 2008" during the 3. Even when he vvas not a Member of the 11th and 12th Congresses due to the expiration of his third consecutive term after the lOth Congress 1 he was active in advocating for the passage of the earlier bills - House Bill No. 8110, entitled "The Integrated Population and Development Act of 1999" in the 11th Congress, and House Bill No. 4110, entitled "An Act Establishing a Reproductive Health Care Act, Strengthening Its Implementing Structures, Appropriating Funds Therefor and For Other Purposes" in the 12tt 1 Congress. 4. During the 13-year saga for the enactment of the Reproductive Health Law, the herein fvlovant and the other reproductive health advocates have thoroughly studied the constitutionality of the Reproductive Health Bill and they are of the firm position that the Reproductive Health Law is free from any and all constitutional infirmities, and that it is absolutely and indubitably constitutional because: a) It does not vitiate the right to life; b) Contraceptives are not abortifacients; c) It does not infringe on the right to health but rather protects and promotes maternal and infant health; d) It does not violate freedorn of religion but fully respects religious conviction and freedom of informed choice; and 4 e) It does not supplant the right of parents in developing the moral character of the youth but supports such parental right by providing for age and development-appropriate reproductive health education for adolescents. 5. As a ~ ~ e m b e r of the 15th Congress, and more particularly as the principal author and main sponsor of the Reproductive Health Law, he has the legal standing and abiding interest to defend its constitutionality and align himself as intervenor with the public respondents in accordance with Rule 19 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. 6. The projected intervention will not unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original parties, and the herein movant's rights as intervenor cannot be fully protected in a separate proceeding. 7. The Honorable Supreme Court in Province of North Cotabato vs. the Government of the Republic of the Philippines Peace Panel of Ancestral Don1ain (GRP), [G.R. 183591, October 14, 2008] ruled that a "Member of the House of Representatives has a standing to maintain inviolate the prerogatives, powers and privileges vested by the Constitution in his office." 8. In Senate of the Philippines vs. Ermita (486 SCRA 1), the Honorable Supreme Court reiterated that "indeed, legislators have standing to maintain inviolate the prerogatives, powers and privileges vested by the Constitution in their office and are allowed to sue to question the validity of any official action which they claim infringes their prerogatives as legislators". 9. If legislators or Members of the Congress can sue as petitioners to challenge the constitutionality of certain statues or executive orders, then by parity of reasoning a iVJember of Congress has the legal personality to defend the constitutionality of a statute, like in the case at bar, which is the deliberate and earnest product of his office's prerogatives, powers and privileges. 10. It is relevant to stress that the Honorable Supreme Court has adopted the rule that even where the petitioners have failed to show direct injury, they have been allowed to sue under the principle of "transcendental importance." In David vs. Macapagai-Arroyo ( 489 SCRA 160), it was ruled that: "However, being a mere procedural technicality, the requirement of locus standi may be waived by the Court in the exercise of its discretion. This was done in the 1949 Emergency Power Cases, Araneta v. Dinglasan, where the 'transcendental importance' of the cases prompted the Court to act liberally. Such liberality was neither a rarity nor accidental. In Aquino v. C o m e l e c ~ this Court resolved to pass upon the issues raised due to the 'far-fetching implications' of the petition notwithstanding its categorical statement that petitioner therein had no personality to file the suit. Indeed, there is a chain .of cases where this liberal policy has been observed, allowing ordinary citizens, members of Congress, and civic organizations to prosecute actions involving the constitutionality or validity of laws, regulations and rulings." 11. In the landmark Emergency Powers Cases, the Honorable Supreme Court ruled that "the transcendental importance to the public of these cases demands that they be settled promptly and definitely, brushing aside, if we must, technicalities of procedure.'/ (Kilosbayan vs. Guingona, 232 SCRA 110). c:. 12. In the same measure, the transcendental importance of resolving the constitutionality of the Reproductive Health Law justifies the intervention of the herein t1ovant in sustaining the constitutionality of the challenged Act. 13. Moreover, as a family man, herein fVjovant has a legal interest to protect in defending the validity of the Reproductive Health Law because he has children and grandchildren who will benefit from the progressive and enlightened provisions of the law. 14. It also needs emphasis that in G. R. No. 204988, entitled "Serve Life c:agayan de Oro City Inc., et a/. vs. Office of the President, Senate of the Philippines, House of Representatives, et and G. R. No. 205003, entitled "Expedito A. Bugarin, Jr. vs. Office of the Hon. President of the Republic of the Philippines, Hon. Senate President, Hon. Speaker of the House of Representatives and Hon. Solicitor the House of Representatives was named one of the respondents. 15. Honorable Feliciano Belmonte, Jr., Speaker of the House of Representatives, has authorized the herein Movant to appear before the Honorable Supreme Court in collaboration with the Solicitor General on behalf of the House of Representatives in the aforementioned cases, with the prior conformity of Solicitor General Francis H. Jardeleza. 16. Attached as Annex "1" is the adverted authorization contained in a letter dated 16 April 2013 from Speaker Feliciano Belmonte, Jr. 7 17. Attached as Annex "2" is the herein Movant's "Comment-in-Intervention" traversing the petitioners' purported arguments questioning the constitutionality of the Reproductive Health Law in the above-captioned petitions. PRAYER ACCORDINGLY, herein Movant respectfully prays that the Honorable Supreme Court: 1. Grants him leave to appear as party Respondent-in-Intervention; 2. Allows him to appear as counsel for the respondent House of Representatives in collaboration with the Solicitor General; 3. Admits the attached Comment-in-Intervention; and 4. Considers the Comment-in-Intervention as part of the Comment of the respondent House of Representatives. Quezon City, for Manila 19 April 2013 --------------,
EDcEL Member, House of Representatives Roll of Attorneys No. 21381 PTR No. 8189823; 04-16-2013 (Quezon City) IBP No. 923026 (CALMANA) fvJobile No. 0916-6406737 Honorable Clerk of Court The Supreme Court En Bane GREETINGS: NOTICE Please submit the foregoing "Motion for Leave to Appear as Respondent-in- Intervention and File Comment-in-lntervention/1 for the consideration of the Honorable Supreme Court immediately upon receipt thereof. EXPLANATION This "Motion for Leave to Appear as Respondent-in-Intervention and File Comment-in-Intervention /I is filed personally with the Honorable Court and copies thereof served on the parties, through counsel, by registered mail due to personnel constraints. Copy furnished: IMBONG & CASTRO LAW OFFICES Counsel for the Petitioners in GR No. 204819 Unit 403 Senor Ivan de Palacio Building J 39 Malakas St., Diliman, Quezon City MCS Noche law Office Counsel for the Petitioners in GR No. 204934 91 Melchor St., Loyola Heights, 1108 Quezon City ~ ~ ' EDCEl C. LAGMAN Quezon City Hall Post Office Registry Receipt No. __ _ Quezon City Hall Post Office Registry Receipt No. __ _ _ April 2013 ATTY. SAMSON S. ALCANTARA Petitioner-in-Intervention in GR No. 204934 Suite 1402 1 14th Floor, Manila Astral Tower, Taft Avenue cor. Padre Faura St. Ermita, fVlanila fv1.B. P..i!AfiiNAY & ASSOCIATES Counsel for the Petitioners in GR No. 204957 Diamond St. cor. Jade St. Francisca Village 6th Street, Happy Valley, Cebu City GAMBE & YAP LAW OFFICES Counsel for the Petitioners in GR iVo. 204988 Mandumol Upper Makasandig, Cagayan de Oro City ATTY. EXPEDITO A. BUGARIN, JR. Petitioner in GR No. 205003 No. 19 Country Club Village Banilad, Cebu City ATTY. NELSON A. CLEMENTE Counsel for the Petitioners in GR No. 205043 Penthouse, Aurora Milestone Tovver 1045 Aurora Boulevard, Quezon City CAllEJA LAW OFFICE Counsel for the Petitioners in GR No. 205478 lJnit 1903-A West Tower PSE Centre Exchange Road, Ortigas Center Pasig City ATTY. ALAN F. PAGUIA Counsel for the Petitioners in GR No. 205491 Corporate 101 Building (Unit 412) 101 Mother Ignacia St., Barangay South Triangle, Quezon City THE SOLICITOR GENERAL Counsel for the Respondents 134 Amorsolo St., Legaspi Village 1229 Makati City Quezon City Hall Post Office Registry Receipt No. __ _ _ April 2013 Quezon City Hall Post Office Registry Receipt No. __ __ April 2013 Quezon City Hall Post Office Registry Receipt No. __ _ _ April 2013 Quezon City Hall Post Office Registry Receipt No. __ _ _ April 2013 Quezon City Hall Post Office Registry Receipt No. __ _ _ April 2013 Quezon City Hall Post Office Registry Receipt No. __ _ _ April 2013 Quezon City Hall Post Office Registry Receipt No. __ _ _ April 2013 Quezon City Hall Post Office Registry Receipt No. __ _ __ April 2013 1n REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES QUEZON CITY Sc. AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE I, SEAN DABU, as messenger of Lagman Lagman and Mones Law Firm, with postal address at 2/F Tempus Place II Condominium, Makatarungan and Matalino Streets, Diliman, Quezon City, after being duly sworn to in accordance with law, hereby depose and say: Tl1at on 23 April 2013, I served a copy of the following pleading/paper: Nature of Pleading/Paper MOTION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAR AS RESPONDENT-IN-INTERVENTION WITH ATTACHED "COMMENT-IN-INTERVENTION" AND APPEARANCE AS COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (G.R. No. 204988 AND G.R. No. 205003) IN COLLABORATION WITH THE SOLICITOR GENERAL In SC- G.R. No. 204819, "JAMES M. IMBONG and LOVELY-ANN C. IMBONG, et al., VS. HON. PACQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., et al., G.R. No. 204934, ALLIANCE FOR THE FAMILY FOUNDATION PHILIPPINES, INC. (ALFI), et al. VS. HON. PACQUITO N. OCHOA, Executive Secretary, et al., G.R. No. 204934, SJS PRESIDENT SAMSON S. ALCANTARA VS HON. PACQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., et al., G.R. No. 204957, TASK FORCE FOR FAMILY AND LIFE VISAYAS, INC. and VALERIANO S. AVILA VS. HON. PACQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., et al.. G.R. No. 204988, SERVE LIFE CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY, INC., et al. VS. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, et al., G.R. No. 205003, EXPEDITO A. BUGARIN VS. OFFICES OF THE HON. PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, HON. SENATE PRESIDENT, HON. SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND HON. SOLICITOR GENERAL, G.R. No. 205043, EDUARDO B. OLAGUER and the CATHOLIC XYBR APOSTOLATE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. DOH SECRETARY ENRIQUE T. ONA, G.R. No. 205478, REYNALDO I. ECHAVEZ, MD., et al. VS. HON. PACQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., et al., G.R. No. 205491, Spouses FRANCISCO S. TATAD and MA. FENY C. TATAD, et al. VS. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES- SC ENBANC", pursuant to Sections 5, 7 and 13, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as follows: Copy Furnished by registered mail:. IMBONG & CASTRO LAW OFFICES Counsel for tfle Petitioners in GR No. 204819 Unit 403 Senor Ivan de Palacio Building 139 Malakas St., Diliman, Quezon City MCS Noche Law Office Counsel for the Petitioners in GR No. 204934 91 Melchor St., Loyola Heights, 1108 Quezon City (/) By depositing a copy on the date and in the post office indicated below, as evidenced by the following Registry Receipt(s) No(s). hereto attached and indicated after the name(s) of the addressee(s), and with instructions to the postmaster to return the mail to the sender after ten (1 0) days if undelivered. Quezon City HaiiPost Office Registry Receipt No. __ 23 April 2013 Quezon City Hall Post Office Registry Receipt No. __ 23 Apri12013 ATTY. SAMSON S. ALCANTARA Petitioner-in-Intervention in GR No. 204934 Suite 1402, 14th Floor, Manila Astral Tower, Taft Avenue cor. Padre Faura St. Errnila, Manila IVJ.B. IVIAHINAY & ASSOCIATES Counsel for the Petitioners in GR No. 204957 Diamond St. cor Jade St. Francisca Village 6 1 h Street, Happy Valley, Cebu City GAMBE & YAP LAW OFFICES Counsel for the Petitioners in GR No. 204988 Mandurnol Upper Makasandig, Cagayan de Oro City A TTY. EXPEDITO A. BUGARIN, JR. Petitioner in GR No. 205003 No. 19 Country Club Village Banilad, Cebu City ATTY. NELSON A. CLEMENTE Counsel for the Petitioners in GR No. 205043 Penthouse, Aurora Milestone Tower 1045 Attrora Boulevard, Quezon City CALLEJA LAW OFFICE Counsel for the Petitioners in GR No. 205478 Unit 1903-A West Tower PSE Centre Exchange Road, Ortigas Center Pasig City ATTY. ALAN F. PAGUIA Counsel for the Petitioners in GR No. 205491 Corporate 101 Building (Unit 412) 101 Mott1er lgnacia St., Barangay Soutt1 Triangle, Quezon City THE SOLICITOR GENERAL Counsel for the Respondents 134 Amorsolo St., Legaspi Village 1229 Makati City C!uezon City, for Manila. 23 April 2013. Quezon City Hall Post Office Registry Receipt No. __ _ 23 April 2013 Quezon City Hall Post Office Registry Receipt No. __ _ 23 April 2013 Quezon City Hall Post Office Registry Receipt No. __ _ 23 April 2013 Quezon City Hall Post Office Registry Receipt No. __ _ 23 April 2013 Quezon City Hall Post Office Registry Receipt No __ _ 23 April 2013 Quezon City Hall Post Office Registry Receipt No. __ _ 23 April 2013 Quezon City Hall Post Office Registry Receipt No. __ _ 23 April 2013 Quezon City Hall Post Office Registry Receipt No. __ _ 23 April 2013 Affiant AND SWORN to before me this 23 day of April 2013 at ________ l;;d.__C , affiant personally appeared before me and exhibited his Government I.D. No 6867623 issued at Quezon City on 26 . . I Doc , Page No )U, _, 111 Book No d . riot::Jfj Publ<t. i ___ , .urJii,-llb>C.il uniil31 Decmntrur20i<ll\ f Series of 20 "13. rUI, I. :fdilloH r lu 01 {/Hl I C!.<ll, : : ).! ;--; l',h; / 1:! I j u: ALlutTH::'\" f"Jo, t l'":::tn f nff4:e J4ilippin:es nf <@uel!nn J!R:efrn afi. Speaker 16 April 2013 HON. EDCEL C. LAG MAN First District of Albay North Wing 411, House of Representatives Constitution Hills, Quezon City Dear Hem. Lagman: 1 ANNEX
With the conformity of Solicitor General Francis H. Jardeleza, I hereby authorize you to appear before the Supreme Court on behalf of the House of Representatives, which is a respondent in G.R. No. 204933, entitled "Serve Life Cagayan de Oro City, Inc., et al. vs. Office of the President, Senate of the Philippines, House of Representatives, et al." and G.R. No. 205003, entitled "Expedito A. Bugarin 1 Jr. vs. Offices of the Hon. President of the Republic of the Philippines, Hon. Senate President, I1on. Speaker of the I-louse of Representatives and Hon. Solicitor General," in collaboration with the Office of the Solicitor General. Thank you. Very truly yours, Copy l\uui;iled: Hou. Francis H. Jardeleza Solicitor Geueral Otlice of rile Solicitor Geneml l St.; Legaspi Viilagr; tvi;'L"Li City l ANNEX "2'1 Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC JAMES M. IMBONG and lOVELY-ANN C. IMBONG, et Petitioners -versus- HON. PACQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., et al./ Respondents x--------------------------------x ALLIANCE FOR THE FAMILY FOUNDATION PHILIPPINES, INC. (ALFI), et al., Petitioners -versus- HON. PACQUITO N. OCHOA, Executive Secretary 1 et a I. 1 Respondents x--------------------------------x SJS PRESIDENT SAMSON S. ALCANTARA/ Petitioner -in-Intervention -versus- HON. PACQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., et al., Respondents x--------------------------------x G.R. No. 204819 G.R. No. 204934 G.R. No. 204934 TASK FORCE FOR FAMILY AND LIFE VISAYAS, INC. and VALERIANO S. AVILA, Petitioners -versus- HON. PACQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., et al., Respondents x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - x SERVE LIFE CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY, INC., et al., Petitioners -versus- . OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, et al., Respondents x--------------------------------x EXPEDITO A. BUGARIN, Petitioner -versus- OFFICES OF THE HON. PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, HON. SENATE PRESIDENT, HON. SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND HON. SOLICITOR GENERAL, Respondents x--------------------------------x EDUARDO B. OLAGUER and the CATHOLIC XYBR G.R. No. 204957 G.R. No. 204988 G.R. No. 205003 2 APOSTOLATE PHILIPPINES, OF THE Petitioners -versus- DOH SECRETARY ENRIQUE T. ONA, Respondent x - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x REYNALDO I. ECHAVEZ, MD., et al., Petitioners -versus- HON. PACQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., et al. Respondents x--------------------------------x Spouses FRANCISCO S. TATAD and MA. FENY C. TAT AD, et al., Petitioners -versus- OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent x--------------------------------x REPRESENTATIVE EDCEL C. LAG MAN Respondent -in-Intervention x--------------------------------x G.R. No. 205043 G.R. No. 205478 G.R. No. 205491 3 COMMENT -IN-INTERVENTION RESPONDENT-IN-INTERVENTION Representative Edcel C. Lagman, hereinafter referred to as Intervenor Lagman, most respectfully interposes the instant Comment-in-Intervention in accordance with the following presentation: PRELIMINARY STATEMENT After a 13-year saga spanning five (5) Congresses - from the 11th Congress to the current 15th Congress- the latest versions of the Reproductive Health Bills (House Bill No. 4244, entitled "An Act Providing for a Comprehensive Policy on Responsible Parenthood, Reproductive Health, and Population and Development and For Other Purposes" in the House of Representatives and Senate Bill No. 2865, entitled "An Act Providing for a National Policy on Reproductive Health and Population and Development" in the Senate) had been finally enacted on 21 December 2012 when President Benigno Aquino III signed the pertinent enrolled bill as Republic Act No. 10354 or the ''Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012 11 , 4 hereinafter referred to as the Reproductive Health Law or the RH Law. As expected, like almost all controversial measures, the constitutionality of the Reproductive Health Law has been challenged before the Honorable Supreme Court in nine petitions, including one petition-in-intervention. The reproductive health advocates and the authors of the Reproductive Health Law led by Intervenor Lagman anticipated this eventuality. They have fully prepared to defend and sustain the constitutionality of the Reproductive Health Law before the Honorable Supreme Court. Reproductive Health and Family Planning are Basic Universal Human Rights The right to reproductive health and family planning are inalienable human rights. This inherent truism was affirmed in the Proclamation of Teheran as the Final Act of the International Conference on Human Rights in Teheran from 22 April to 13 May 1968 or 45 years ago, to which the Philippines is a signatory. Paragraph 16 of the Teheran Proclamation unequivocally provides: 5 "The protection of the family and of the child remains the concern of the international community. Parents have a basic human right to determine freely and responsibly the number and the spacing of their children." (Emphasis supplied). The central figure in the Reproductive Health Law is the women - adolescent girl, teenage mother, multi-parity wife, victim of maternal mortality and even the tormented woman of a forced abortion who cannot afford another child. This brings to fore the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) which was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 18 December 1979 and to which the Philippines is a State Party. It is said that "among the international human rights treaties, the Convention takes an important place in bringing the female half of humanity into the focus of human rights concerns." Article 12 and Article 16(e) of the Convention are truly instructive and relevant. Article 12 provides: "1. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women in the field of health care in order to ensure, on a basis of equaUty of men and women, access to health care services, including those related to family planning. (Emphasis supplied). 6 2. Notwithstanding the prov1s1ons of paragraph I of this article, States Parties shall ensure to women appropriate services in connection with pregnancy, confinement and the post-natal period, granting free services where necessary, as well as adequate nutrition during pregnancy and lactation." Article 16(e) likewise mandates: "1. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women in all matters relating to marriage and family relations and in particular shall ensure, on a basis of equality of men and women: XXX XXX XXX (e) The same rights to decide freely and responsibly on the number and spacing of their children and to have access to the information, education and means to enable them to exercise these rights." (Emphasis supplied). In September 1994, 179 governments, including the Philippines, adopted the Programme of Action of the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) in Cairo. This is the bible worldwide on reproductive health and family planning. Principle 4 of the ICPD Programme provides: "Advancing gender equality and equity and the empowerment of women, and the elimination of all kinds of violence against women, and ensuring 7 women's ability to control their own fertility, are cornerstones of population and development- related programmes. The human rights of women and the girl child are an inalienable, integral and indivisible part of universal human rights. The full and equal participation of women in civil, cultural, economic, political and social life, at the national, regional and international levels, and the eradication of all forms of discrimination on grounds of sex, are priority objectives of the international community." (Emphasis supplied). Principle 8 provide's: "Everyone has the right to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health. States should take all appropriate measures to ensure, on a basis of equality of men and women, universal access to health-care services, including those related to reproductive health care, which includes family planning and sexual health. Reproductive health-care programmes should provide the widest range of services without any form of coercion. All couples and individuals have the basic right to decide freely and responsibly the number and spacing of their children and to have the information, education and means to do so." (Emphasis supplied). Chapter VII of the ICPD Programme of Action is devoted to reproductive rights and reproductive health. Among others, it provides that: "7.2. Reproductive health is a state of complete physical, mental . and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity, in all matters relating to the reproductive system and to its functions and processes. Reproductive health therefore implies that people are able to have a satisfying and safe sex life and that they have the 8 capability to reproduce and the freedom to decide if, when and how often to do so. Implicit in this last condition are the right of men and women to be informed and to have access to safe, effective, affordable and acceptable methods of family planning of their choice, as well as other methods of their choice for regulation of fertility which are not against the law, and the right of access to appropriate health-care services that will enable women to go safely through pregnancy and childbirth and provide couples with the best chance of having a healthy infant. In line with the above definition of reproductive health, reproductive health care is defined as the constellation of methods, techniques and services that contribute to reproductive health and well- being by preventing and solving reproductive health problems. It also includes sexual health, the purpose of which is the enhancement of life and personal relations, and not merely counselling and care related to. reproduction and sexually transmitted diseases." "7.3. Bearing in mind the above definition, reproductive rights embrace certain human rights that are already recognized in national laws, international human rights documents and other consensus documents. These rights rest on the recognition of the basic right of all couples and individuals to decide freely and responsibly the number, spacing and timing of their children and to have the information and means to do so, and the right to attain the highest standard of sexual and reproductive. health. It also includes their right to make decisions concerning reproduction free of discrimination, coercion and violence, as expressed in human rights documents. In the exercise of this right; they should take into account the needs of their living and future children and their responsibilities towards the community. The promotion of the responsible exercise of these rights for all people should be the fundamental basis for government- and policies and programmes in the area of reproductive health, including family planning. As part of their commitment, full 9 attention should be given to the promotion of mutually and equitable gender relations and particularly to meeting the educational and service needs of adolescents to enable them to deal in a positive and responsible way with their sexuality. Reproductive health eludes many of the worlds people because of such factors as: inadequate levels of knowledge about human sexuality and inappropriate or poor-quality reproductive health information and services; the prevalence of high-risk sexual behaviour; discriminatory social practices; negative attitudes towards women and girls; and the limited power many women and girls have over their sexual and reproductive lives. Adolescents are particularly vulnerable because of their lack of information and access to relevant services in most countries. Older women and men have distinct reproductive and sexual health issues which are often inadequately addressed." XXX XXX XXX "7 .12. The aim of family-planning programmes must be to enable couples and individuals to decide freely and responsibly the number and spacing of their children and to have the information and .means to do so and to ensure informed choices and make available a full range of safe and effective methods. The success of population education and family-planning programmes 1n a variety of settings demonstrates that informed individuals everywhere can and will act responsibly in the light of their own needs and those of their families and communities. The principle of informed free choice is essential to the long-term success of family-planning programmes. Any form of coercion has no part to play. In every society there are many social and economic incentives and disincentives that affect individual decisions about child-bearing and family size. Over the past century, many Governments have experimented with such schemes, including specific incentives and 10 disincentives, in order to lower or raise fertility. Most such schemes have had only marginal impact on fertility and in some cases have been counterproductive. Governmental goals for family planning should be defined in terms of unmet needs for information and services. Demographic goals, while legitimately the subject of government development strategies, should not be imposed on family-planning providers in the form of targets or quotas for the recruitment of clients." (Emphasis supplied). XXX XXX XXX "7.24. Governments should take appropriate steps to help women avoid abortion, which in no case should be promoted as a method of family planning, and in all cases provide for the humane treatment and counselling of women who have had recourse to abortion." (Emphasis supplied). A year after ICPD, the Fourth World Conference on Women was held in Beijing from 4 to 15 September 1995. The Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action, to which the Philippines is also a signatory, paralleled and reiterated the ICPD Programme of Action on reproductive health and family planning. According to the World Health Organization (WHO): "The global mandate for sexual and reproductive health derives from international consensus agreements such as the Programme of Action of the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD, 1994) and the Platform for 11 Action of the Fourth World Conference on Women (Beijing 1995). Both consensus documents were signed by the Government of the Philippines. The most recent mandate is given by World Health Assembly Resolution 57.12 which was adopted by WHO Member States, including the Government of the Philippines, in May 2004. This Resolution endorses the strategy entitled, Reproductive health: a strategy to accelerate progress towards the attainment of international development goals and targets." "The Strategy reaffirms the definition of reproductive health agreed upon in ICPD and FWCW. It emphasizes that the various dimensions . of sexual and reproductive ill-health - maternal and newborn morbidity and mortality, lack of access to family planning, unsafe abortion, sexually transmitted infections and gynaecological morbidities - account for 20/o of the global burden of disease for women and 14/o for men." It is important to underscore that since the Philippines is a signatory to all the above conventions and covenants, it is duty- bound to protect, promote and fulfill the Filipinos' right to reproductive health and family planning. The Reproductive Health Law is a measure of c9mpliance by the Philippines with its avowed commitments. The Philippines is also committed to achieving by 2015 the Millennium Development Goals, among which are the reduction of infant mortality (MDG No.4) and the improvement of maternal health (MDG No. 5), which was amended to include universal access to 12 reproductive health by 2015. The Philippines' performance on maternal health is dismal with 14 mothers currently dying daily from complications or causes related to pregnancy and childbirth or 5,110 maternal deaths a year. The MDG target in maternal mortality rate (MRR) is 52 deaths per 100,000 live births in 2015 with an escalating MRR, MDG 5 on irnprovement of maternal health has been identified as the MDG which the Philippines is least likely to achieve. The passage of the Reproductive Health Law will help the Philippines approximate compliance with MDG No. 5 and the other seven MGDs wherein reproductive health is the common denominator. FREEDOM OF INFORMED CHOICE The hallmark of the Reproductive Health Law is freedom of informed choice. No beneficiary of reproductive healthcare services and no acceptor of a legitimate family planning method is a compelled or coerced adherent 13 Neither the State nor the Church has the authority to compel a citizen or faithful to a d o p ~ a particular family planning method it endorses. The option or choice belongs to the concerned woman or couple. Thus, Section 3(a) and Section 3(h) of the Guiding Principles for Implementation of the RH Law unequivocally provide: "Sec. 3( a) -The right to make free and informed decisions, which is central to the exercise of any right, shall not be subjected to any form of coercion and must be fully guaranteed by the State, like the right itself." XXX XXX XXX "SEC. 3(h) - The State shall respect individuals' preferences and choice of family planning methods that are in accordance with their religious convictions and cultural beliefs, taking into consideration the State's obligations under various human rights instruments." Consequently, an enabling environment shall be created and assured to allow women and couples to freely choose the method of family planning from the natural to the modern that they wish to adopt consistent with their personal needs, individual consciences and religious beliefs. The government shall conduct a massive information campaign on the benefits of family planning without any bias for or agai0st any 14 method. The only limitation is that the entire menu of family planning methods must be legal, medically-safe, affordable and truly effective. The government shall afford acceptors access to the family planning supplies of their choice which shall be given free to the poor and marginalized. Sustained information campaign shall be undertaken because freedom of choice will not be meaningful if there is no prior complete and accurate information, including the possible side-effects and failure rates of the various methods of family planning. Thus, Section 3(e) of the RH Law provides: "SEC. 3(e)- The State shall promote and provide information and access, without bias, to all methods of family planning, including effective natural and modern methods which have been proven medically safe, legal, non-abortifacient, and effective in accordance with scientific and evidence-based medical research standards such as those registered and approved by the FDA for the poor and marginalized as identified through the NHTS-PR and other government measures of identifying marginalization: Provided, That the State shall also provide funding support to promote modern natural methods of family planning, especially the Billings Ovulation Method, consistent with the needs of acceptors and their religious convictions." Corollarily, Section 20 on Public Awareness provides that: "SEC. 20. Public Awareness. - The DOH and the LGUs shall initiate and sustain a heightened nationwide multimedia-campaign to raise the level of 15 public awareness on the protection and promotion of reproductive health and rights including, but not limited to, maternal health and nutrition, family planning and responsible parenthood information and services, adolescent and youth reproductive health 1 guidance and counseling and other elements of reproductive health care under Section 4( q)." "Education and information materials to be developed and disseminated for this purpose shall be reviewed regularly to ensure their effectiveness and relevance." It is in this sensitive area of giving factual and truthful information that the misinformation being peddled by the oppositors of the Act should be exposed and rebutted, like the following: 1. It is false and malicious to claim that the Reproductive Health Law legalizes abortion. It does not. The measure repeatedly provides to the point of superfluity that abortion is illegal and criminal and is not part of the menu of legally permissible and legally safe family planning methods. In this regard, the following are the pertinent provisions of the RH Law: "SEC. 3 - U) While this Act recognizes that abortion is illegal and punishable by law, the government shall ensure that all women needing care for post-abortive complications and all other complications arising from pregnancy, labor and delivery and related issues shall be treated and counseled in a humane, nonjudgmental and compassionate manner in accordance with law and medical ethics;" (Emphasis supplied). 16 "SEC. 4. Definition of Terms. - For the purpose of this Act, the following terms shall be defined as follows: "( q) Reproductive health care refers to the access to a full range of methods, facilities, services and supplies that contribute to reproductive health and well-being by addressing reproductive health- related problems. It also includes sexual health, the purpose of which is the enhancement of life and personal relations. The elements of reproductive health care include the following: XXX XXX XXX (3) Proscription of abortion and management of abortion complications." (Emphasis supplied). "SEC. 9. The Philippine National Drug Formulary System and Family Planning Supplies. - The National Drug Formulary shall include hormonal contraceptives, intrauterine devices, injectables and other safe, legal, non-abortifacient and effective family planning products and supplies. The Philippine National Drug Formulary System (PNDFS) shall be observed in selecting drugs including family planning supplies that will be included or removed from the Essential Drugs List (EDL) in accordance with existing practice and in consultation with reputable medical associations in the Philippines. For the purpose of this Act, any product or supply included or to be included in the EDL must have a certification from the FDA that said product and supply is made available on the condition that it is not to be used as an abortifacient." (Emphasis supplied). 2. It is likewise misleading and inaccurate to claim that the use of contraceptives will eventually lead to the legalization of abortion. The truth is Catholic and Muslin countries which have liberalized the 17 use of contraceptives still criminalize abortion. Moreover, there is an inverse correlation between contraceptive use and abortion. The regular and correct use of contraceptives drastically reduces abortion rates to the extent of 85/o since unplanned and unwanted pregnancies, which are the ones usually aborted, are avoided. These are well-documented by empirical studies conducted by Guttmacher Institute. Consequently, women do not have to resort to abortion and the State finds no need to legalize abortion. 3. It is utterly unchristian and grossly inhuman to deny medical care and counsel to women suffering from post-abortion complications on the pretext that this would condone and encourage abortion. 4. The proposition that the use of modern family planning will wipe out the Filipino race in a catastrophic demographic winter is a scare tactic which fails to comprehend the dynamics of population momentum wherein the country's population will continue to grow even if the population growth rate is increasingly reduced to below replacement levels. 18 According to the projections of the National Statistics Coordination Board, if our Total Fertility Rate (TFR) continues to decrease by 0. 2 children per woman every five years, replacement fertility of 2.1 children will be achieved only by 2040. However, the effects of "population momentum" or the continuous increase in population will go on for another 60 years by which time the population of the country would have reached 240 million. In the case of Thailand, it current!y has what is called ''below-replacement fertility" for some time now and yet its population continues to grow because of population momentum. The dynamics of policymaking is that policies are never cast on stone. They are flexible and reversible. Given the experiences of .P countries like Singapore, South Korea and Japan where there is a thinning young population and the need to accelerate Population Growth Rate (PGR), the Philippines can anticipate well in advance these eventualities without forfeiting the vast opportunity of economic growth by currently m i t i g a t i n ~ population expansion. 5. Hailing labor migration as the beneficent result of population power is a misplaced accolade to inordinate fertility. Dollar remittances from OFWs should not blind us to the incalculable social and economic costs of labor migration. 19 Moreover, the so-called "population power" often explodes on our faces as market for labor migration becomes depressed when economies collapse. 6. The issue on population is not a simple matter of population density but more importantly, it is a question of sustainable human development. Concededly, there are still vast unpopulated areas of the country but these are places hostile to human development because there are rio infrastructures in place, no schools, no hospitals, and no visible means of livelihood and employment. Certainly, we can place the entire world's population of 7 billion people in an area the size of the State of Texas. But they would end up eating each other's sewage! 7. It is a myopic view that since contraceptives are available in the market, there is no need to enact a law on reproductive health and family planning. This contention overlooks that availability does not mean access, particularly to those who are uninformed and could not afford to buy reproductive health supplies. The RH Law is not limited to contraceptives because it covers a wide range of related subjects. 20 The RH Law Renders Fealty to Constitutional Mandates The salutary constitutional provisions on the right to quality education (Sec. 1, Article XIV); right to health (Sec. 15, Art. II); right to a family living wage and income (Sec. 3(2), Art. XV); right to a balanced and healthful ecology (Sec. 16, Art. II); and the right of children to proper care and nutrition and protection from all forms of neglect, abuse, cruelty, exploitation and other conditions prejudicial to their development, will all be illusory if the government is unable to promote reprod11ctive health and family planning as indispensable tools to manage population growth and achieve sustainable human development. The Reproductive Health Law accords fealty to these constitutional mandates. The RH Law is an Indispensable CompoJlent of an Agenda on Sustainable Human Development and Poverty Alleviation The late Rafael Salas, a Filipino and the first Executive Director of the United Nations Population Fund who served for 20 years, emphasized that no human development program is bound to . succeed if the problem of. population is not simultaneously and 21 positively addressed by government. This statement underscores the intrinsic interrelationship among population, poverty and sustainable human development. An inordinately huge population impacts negatively on all indicators of human development such as quality education, adequate medical care, food security, availability of employment, sufficient mass housing and a healthy ecology. Invariably, all the more populous countries in the world rank low in human development. The Philippines, which is the 12th most populous country in the world with 94 million people, is llih in the 2011 UN-measured Human Development Index released in 2012. The country went down by an unprecedented 15 ranks from 9ih in the previous years. The Reproductive Health Law aims to protect the family from poverty and want by helping w o m ~ n and couples achieve their fertility goals, thus making family life more affordable and enabling parents to invest more on human capital. Empirical studies consistently document that larger families are almost invariably poorer than smaller families. 22 Data from the National Statistics Office 1985 to 2000 or a period of 15 years demonstrate that there is indeed greater incidence of poverty in larger families. Large families are prone to poverty with 57.3/o of Filipino families with seven children mired in poverty while only 23.8/o of families having two children live below the poverty threshold. What is even more alarming are the results of studies conducted by the Philippine Institute for Development Studies (PIDS) which show that large family size is a significant factor in keeping families poor across generations (Orbeta and Pernia). According to the UN State of the World Population Report 2002, "family planning and reproductive health are essential to reducing poverty." The report declares that "countries that invest in reproductive health and family planning and in women's development register lower population growth and faster economic growth." In a recent study of poverty and its causes in the Philippines, the Asian Development Bank listed an expanding population as one of the major causes of poverty in the country. 23 Popular Support for the Reproductive Health Law Vox o p u l ~ vox Dei (the voice of the people is the voice of God) and vox populi est suprema lex (the voice of the people is the supreme law) are truisms most relevant to the RH Law. Consider the following popular survey results: 96/o of Catholics say it is important to have the ability to control their fertility and most approve of the use of contraceptives expressly forbidden by the Church (SWS, July 1991). Pulse Asia has conducted regular surveys (1995, 2001, 2004, 2007 and 2010) on family planning and the results have consistently . revealed that Filipinos believe in the importance of family planning. Consider the 2007 results: , 92/o of all Filipinos believe that it is important to have the ability to control onefs fertility and plan one's family. , 93/o of all Roman Catholics surveyed said that family planning is important. This is an even higher percentage than the national average of 92/o. 24 ')i- 89/o of all Filipinos support government funding for modern methods of family planning. r 90/o of all Roman Catholics surveyed agreed that government should allocate funding to modern FP methods. Again, this is an even higher percentage than the national average of 89/o. ';;- The top three ethnic groups which support public funding for contraceptives are: Bicolanos (96/o ), Pangasinenses (96/o) and Kapangpangans (95/o). 'Y 75/o of Filipinos will support candidates who are in favor of a government budget for family planning. 'r Top three ethnic groups who will support candidates who are in favor of government budget for family planning are: Pangasinenses (96/o ), Bicolanos (90/o) and Tagalogs (80/o ). 'r On the question of whether a candidate's support for family planning determines his/her electoral victory or defeat, 52/o of Filipinos surveyed say that a pro-family planning agenda will ensure a candidate's victory compared to the only 6.0/o who 25 . say that it would mean his or her defeat. 41 /o say that it will have no effect in a candidate's potential victory or defeat. 'r 76/o of Filipinos consider it important that a candidate includes family planning in his or her program of action. ,.- 77/o of Roman Catholics surveyed say that it is important that family planning be included in a candidate's program of action. Again, this is even higher than the national average of 76/o. When the reproductive health bills were pending in the Congress, it had continuing multi-sectoral support from the following: 1. Inter-faith Partnership composed of Iglesia ni Cristo, Jesus is Lord Movement, majority of the Protestant churches and Muslim leaders; 2. Employers' groups like the Employers Confederation of the Philippines (ECOP), Financial Executives Institute of the Philippines (FINEX), Makati Business Club (MBC), Management Association of the Philippines (MAP) and the Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry (PCCI); 26 3. Labor unions like the Bukluran ng Manggagawang Pilipino (BMP), Partido ng Manggagagwa (PM) and Trade Union Congress of the Philippines (TUCP); 4. The academe like the UP Economics professors, UP Manila Center for Gender and Development Studies; UP Diliman College of Social Work and Community Development; UP Diliman Center for Women's Studies; Ateneo de Manila University Professors and De La Salle University Faculty Members; s. Government agencies like the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD); the National Economic Development Authority (NEDA); the Department of Health (DOH); the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) and the Department of Justice (DOJ), among others; 6. Scientists from the National Academy of Science and Technology; 7. Medical organizations such as the Philippine Obstetrical and Gynecological Society (POGS) and the Philippine Society of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility (PSREI); 27 8. Human rights groups like the Cordillera Human Rights Alliance; Amnesty International and Women's Legal Bureau; 9. Multi-sectoral organizations like the Welga ng Kababaihan; Samahan ng Mamamayan - Zone One Tondo Organization and Damayan ng Maralitang Pilipino (DAMPA) 10. The vast NGO community constituting the Reproductive Health Advocacy Network (RHAN), which includes the Philippine Legislators Committee on Population and Development (PLCPD), The Forum for Family Planning and Development (the FORUM), Likhaan Center for Women's Health, Inc. (Likhaan), Democratic Socialist Women of the Philippines (DSWP), Reproductive Health, Rights and Ethics Center for Studies and Training (Reprocen), Catholics for Reproductive Health (C4RH) and Family Planning Organization of the Philippines (FPOP), among others; 11. Civil Society Groups like the Philippine NGO Council on Population, Health and Welfare (PNGOC); Action for Health Initiatives, Inc. (ACHIEVE); Filipino Free Thinkers (FF); and WomenHealth Philippi.nes; 28 12. Tri-media practitioners and social media enthusiasts who have been enduring partners in the RH campaign. ARGUMENTS OF THE PETITIONERS 1. In a virtual compendium of the usual anti-RH homilies and tirades, the petitioners, either collectively or separately, posit the following arguments assailing the constitutionality of the Reproductive Health Law: (a) The Reproductive Health Law violates the "right to life of the unborn" as enshrined in Section 12 of Article II of the Constitution; (b) Contraceptives are abortifacients; (c) The Reproductive Health Law infringes on the people's "right to health" which is constitutionally guaranteed; (d) The RH Law is offensive to the freedom of religion; and 29 (e) The RH Law supplants the natural and primary right of parents to develop their children's moral character by prescribing reproductive health education for adolescents. ARGUMENTS SUSTAINING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH LAW I. THE RH LAW PROTECTS AND RESPECTS THE LIFE OF THE UNBORN FROM CONCEPTION. II. CONTRACEPTION ABORTION CONTRACEPTIVES ABORTIFACIENTS. IS NOT AND ARE NOT III. RH LAW PROTECTS AND PROMOTES THE PEOPLE'S RIGHT TO HEALTH. IV. THE RH LAW RESPECTS AND UPHOLDS THE FREEDOM OF RELIGION AND THE HALLMARK OF THE RH LAW IS FREEDOM OF INFORMED CHOICE. V. THE RH LAW COMPLIES WITH THE CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE THAT THE GOVERNMENT SHALL SUPPORT THE RIGHT AND DUTY OF PARENTS OF DEVELOPING THE MORAL CHARACTER OF THE YOUTH BY PRESCRIBING REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH EDUCATION FOR ADOLESCENTS. i\. 30 DISCUSSiON I. THE RH LAW PROTECTS AND RESPECTS THE LIFE OF THE UNBORN FROM CONCEPTION. 1. The very constitutional provision invoked by the petitioners, which is Section 12 of Article II of the Constitution, provides that the "State shall equally protect the life of the mother and the unborn from (Emphasis supplied). Clearly, before the onset of conception, there is no unborn whose life shall be protected. Conception has been defined by medical authorities as the implantation of the fertilized ovum in the woman's uterus. Conception is synonymous with pregnancy. It is only at the start of conception that pregnancy can be detected. 2. It must be underscored that the Constitution provides the protection of the unborn from conception, not from fertilization. This is a clear recognition that ( 1) the fertilized ovum cannot have a viable existence without its implanting in the uterine lining; (2) consequently, there is yet no human life to protect in a fertilized ovum; and (3) fertilization is not synonymous with conception. 3. Verily, in the earlier stages of the reproductive process like 31 ovulation, copulation and fertilization, there is still no unborn whose life has to be protected. 4. Nowhere in the proceedings of the Constitutional Commission is it on record that the Commissioners had a collective decision or determination that fertilization is synonymous with conception. 5. On the contrary, the genesis of Section 12 of Article II of the 1987 Constitution started with the proposal to include in Section 1 of the Bill of Rights the provision that the "right to life extends to the fertilized ovum." This proposal was not constitutionalized. It was rejected in favor of the present provision which guarantees the life of the unborn from conception, not before conception where there is no life yet to safeguard. It is the unborn in the mother's womb upon conception which is constitutionally guaranteed protection. 6. It is a gynecological and medical truism that not all fertilization result in conception. A range of 40/o to 70/o of fertilized ova are naturally lost before and after implantation. Indeed, fertilization and conception are different phases of the reproductive process. In fact, conception starts days or even more than a week 32 after fertilization. 7. After the proposal to include in the Bill of Rights a provision that "The right to life extends to the fertilized ovum" was not carried, another formulation was included in Article II of the Declaration of Principles which originally read: "The State shall protect human life from the moment of conception." 8. It is important to note that the foregoing new formulation admitted that the protection of human life begins "from the moment of conception", not anymore from the fertilization of the ovum. 9. As finally adopted, Section 12 of Article II has been reformulated as it now appears in the Constitution, reading \\the State shall equally protect the life of the mother and the unborn from conception." The voting was 33 in favor; 3 against; and 4 abstentions. 10. There were two amendments incorporated in the final version of the subject provision: (1) the phrase "the moment of" preceding "conception" was deleted; and (2) the phrase "the life of the mother" was included. These two amendments are very significant: 33 a) The deletion of the phases "the moment of" was the result of the Commissioners' uncertainty as to the precise beginning of conception, which is the domain of medical science. b) Equal protection of the life of the mother and the life of the unborn is mandated. In fact, when both the lives of the mother and the unborn are imperiled, the invariable option is to save the life of the mother if both lives cannot be saved. The doctor's primary obligation is to the mother because it is she who is the patient. The importance of the second amendment which included the protection of the "life of the mother" is lost because of the undue emphasis on protecting the life of the unborn. 11. The international scientific community and numerous medical dictionaries and textbooks define the beginning of pr.egnancy or conception as the moment the fertilized ovum attaches itself to the 34 lining of the uterus. Pregnancy, therefore, starts at least nearly a week after fertilization. 12. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists defines conception as "the implantation of the blastocyst. It is not synonymous with fertilization." (Emphasis supplied). The National Institute of Health/Food and Drug Administration states that "Pregnancy encompasses the period of time from confirmation of implantation until expulsion or extraction of the fetus." 13. Verily, the fertilized egg has no sustainable viability outside of the uterine wall. It has to implant in the uterine wall to have sustainable life and for gestation to progress or for pregnancy to begin. This is the reason why the fertilized egg in the Petri dish, like in vitro fertilization, has to be implanted subsequently in the woman's uterus in order for it to develop into a fetus. 14. In fine, it is the fertilized ovum which has implanted in the woman's uterus or the fetus which has the human life to protect, not the fertilized ovum travelling in the fallopian tube before i m pia ntation. 35 15. The explicit intention of the framers of the 1987 Constitution in protecting the life of the unborn from conception is to prevent the Congress and the Supreme Court from legalizing abortion. The RH law does not legalize abortion. In fact, it acknowledges that abortion is illegal and punishable and is not a family planning option or method. 1.6. This clear intent is articulated in the proceedings of the Constitutional Commission of 1986. Thus, Commissioner Bernardo Villegas, the principal proponent of the protection of the unborn from conception, explained: "The intention ... is to make sure that there would be no pro-abortion laws ever passed by Congress or any pro-abortion decision passed by the Supren1e Court." (Emphasis supplied). 17. Of the same import is the following statement of Commissioner Felicitas Aquino: "Would the deletion of the phrase 'from the moment of conception' legalize abortion? We do not, one bit, intend to give statutory fiat to the legalization of abortion by deleting 'the moment of conception."' (Emphasis supplied). 36 18. The intention to outlaw abortion was reiterated by Commissioner Villegas upon interpellation by Commissioner Suarez: "MR. SUAREZ: So, principally and exclusively, if I may say so, what the Commissioner has in mind is only an act outlawing abortion. MR. VILLEGAS: Exactly, Madam President. MR. SUAREZ: So that is the real thrust and meaning of this particular provision? MR. VILLEGAS: That is right." 19. The RH Law to an indubitable fealty to the Constitution. It does not legalize abortion. In fact, it is anti-abortion. As shown in the preceding Preliminary Statement, the RH Law unequivocally provides that abortion is illegal and is punishable by law. 20. Since outlawing abortion is the principal objective of the subject constitutional provision, then it is appropriate to revisit the medical and legal definitions of abortion to place the RH Law within context of the constitutional injunction against abortion. 21. The International Federation of Gynecology and 37 '. Obstetrics (FIGO) defines abortion as the "termination of pregnancy after implantation and before the conceptus has become independently viable." (Emphasis supplied). 22. The Philippine Obstetrics and Gynecology Society (POGS) defines abortion as \\the expulsion of a non-viable fetus on or before the 20th week of gestation. The fetus is the human embryo from the end of the second month of gestation until birth." 23. The legal definition of abortion parallels the medical definition. Black's Law dictionary (tfh ed./ 1990) defines abortion as the "spontaneous or artificially induced expulsion of an embryo or fetus." Similarly, the Philippine Legal Encyclopedia (Sibal, Jose Agaton R., 1995) defines abortion as the "premature expulsion of the foetus of a pregnant woman." 24. Both legal and medical definitions refer to the expulsion of the embryo or fetus, not of a fertilized ovum. 25. The medical and legal definitions of abortion denote that abortion only happens after the onset of conception, not after fertilization pending implantation of the fertilized ovum. 38 26. This manifestly shows that fertilization is not equitable with conception. II. CONTRACEPTION IS NOT ABORTION AND CONTRACEPTIVES ARE NOT ABORTIFACIENTS. 27. There is a whale of a difference between contraception and abortion. Contraception prevents fertilization, while abortion pre- terminates conception or pregnancy. 28. It is in the reproductive phase before conception where the principal mechanism of contraceptives works either to prevent ovulation or prevent the sperm from fertilizing the egg. 29. In either case, the prime purpose is to prevent fertilization. If a woman does not ovulate, there is no egg produced to be fertilized. And if perchance, ovulation ensues, the sperm is weakened or incapacitated to fertilize the egg. In either case, no fertilized ovum is produced. 30. Consequently, contraceptives are not abortifacients 39 because they prevent fertilization, and if there is no fertilization, then there is no fertilized ovum, thus foreclosing conception. This. is the reason for the nomenclature "contraceptives" or contra conception. 31. Even the Church endorsed natural or traditional method of family planning of periodic abstinence from mating during a woman's fertile period is verily a form of contraception because its purpose is to prevent pregnancy or conception. Likewise, the Church- favored modern natural methods like the billings method is also contraception. As far as the purpose is concerned, there is no distinction between the traditional and modern methods of contraception. The difference is in their varying efficacy and convenience. 32. Neither the Constitution nor any statute bans contraceptives as illegal including the modern or artificial ones. This is so because all empirical studies document that contraceptives are not abortifacients. 33. The UN includes contraceptives as part of the WHO Model List of Essential Medicines Formulary of prescribed drugs and medicines. In the Philippines, the Food and Drugs Administration (FDA) approves the sale, distribution and use of contraceptives like . 40 pills, injectables, IUDs and condoms. 34. In fact, there has been no test case where a couple or a woman who uses contraceptives or a physician who prescribes contraceptives has been charged with abortion simply because contraceptives are not abortifacients. 35. To reiterate, the principal purpose of pills and injectables is to prevent a woman from ovulation or producing eggs. If a woman does not ovulate, there is no egg to be fertilized, no conception will set in and no fetus is formed to be aborted. 36. The principal purpose of IUDs and condoms is to prevent the sperm form fertilizing the egg and thus effectively prevent pregnancy or conception. 37. However, if contraception fails and conception sets in, there should be no human intervention to terminate the pregnancy or expel the fetus because this is already abortion which is illegal and criminal. 38. The RH Law even provides that contraceptives must not prevent the implantation of the fertilized ovum in the woman's uterus 41 as determined by FDA. 39. This provision was included in the law to assure critics that the present generation of contraceptives does not interfere in the implantation of the fertilized ovum. 40. Experts and UN agencies are unanimous in declaring that the alleged third and secondary action of contraceptives to purportedly prevent the implantation of a fertilized ovum is a mere commercial claim of manufacturers devoid of any empirical and scientific authentication, to wit: (a) The World Health Organization (WHO), represented by Dr. Soe Nyunt-U, WHO country representative, in a reply dated 06 June 2011 to the query of herein respondent-movant, declared that: "To date, there is no scientific evidence supporting the contention that hormonal contraceptives and IUD prevent the implantation of the fertilized ovum." (Emphasis supplied). (b) As early as 07 November 2006, the UNDP/UNFPA/WHO/World Bank Special Program of Research Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP) submitted to the House of Representatives' Committee on Revision of 42 Laws an Expert Opinion on House Bill No. 4643 on abortive substances and devices in the Philippines declaring that contraceptives are not abortifacients and the alleged third mechanism of action of contraceptives has no empirical basis, to wit: "Combined Hormonal Methods (oral contraceptives and Evra patch): There has been a growing body of evidence for more than four decades indicating that administration of combined oral contraceptives (COC) inhibits follicular development and ovulation, and that this is their primary mechanism of action (Mishell et al. 1977; Killick et al. 1987; Rivera et al. 1999). They also affect cervical mucus, making it thicker and more difficult for sperm to penetrate. This effect may also contribute to their high efficacy (Rivera et al. 1999). Although it is known that there are changes in the endometrium during combined oral contraceptive (COC) use, no evidence to date has supported the hypothesis that these changes lead to disruption of implantation. Given the high efficacy of COCs in preventing ovulation, it is very unlikely that 'interference with implantation' is a 'primary mechanism' of contraceptive action. The same mechanism of action also applies to the Evra patch." (Emphasis supplied). (c) The foregoing declaration was reiterated by the WHO in a Position Paper dated 27 October 2010 on Senate Bill 2378 (RH bill) upon request by the Senate Committee on Health and Demography. 43 (d) No less than the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, a Christian medical association, has also debunked the third and secondary mechanism of action of contraceptives in a paper entitled "Hormone Contraceptives Controversies and Clarifications". They declared that: "An extensive review of pertinent scientific writings indicates that there is no credible evidence to validate a mechanism of pre-implantation abortion as a part of the action of hormone contraceptives. On the contrary, the existing evidence indicates that 'on pill' conceptions are handled by the reproductive system with the same results seen with 'off pill' conceptions, with the exception of increased ectopic rates seen with POPs and Norpla nt. II XXX XXX XXX "Given the above, there is no evidence that shows that the endometrial changes. produced by COCs contribute to failure of implantation of conceptions, nor is there evidence that COCs cause an increased per pregnancy ratio of ectopics. II XXX XXX XXX "We have done our best to evaluate the current literature on the topic, and to present it fairly for consideration by the reader. We do not find substantive evidence that hormone contraceptives include an abortifacient 44 mechanism of action. We recognize that equally spiritual and honest men and women may consider the same facts, but come to differing conclusions on this matter. For the follower of Jesus, the decision on whether or not to use or prescribe hormone contraceptives is a spiritual as well as a medical matter. The principles of how to handle a situation among Christian Believers on a very vital subject in dispute is directly addressed in Romans chapter 14 as an issue of individual conscience and responsibility before the Master. "Many factors play a part in how a family plans and spaces their children. It is not the purpose of this paper to promote nor to oppose hormone contraception. However, if a family, weighing all the factors affecting their own circumstances, decides to use this modality, we are confident that they are not using an abortifacient. "This paper is not meant to be the 'final word' on this issue. If scientific study should validate that a hormone contraceptive agent is partly abortifacient in its action, we would oppose that agent just as we oppose elective medical and surgical abortions. We must constantly examine valid data as it becomes available in our effort -to discern what are appropriate methods of family planning to be used or prescribed by those who know that human life begins at the time of conception." (Emphasis supplied). (e) The following summary of medical evidence against claims that hormonal contraceptives and IUDs are abortifacients, in their third action of mechanism by preventing the implantation of a fertilized ovum is truly instructive: 45 11 A. For both - A fertilized egg can implant outside the uterus, on sites without an endometrium at all, much more inhospitable than the 'thin' endometrium that anti-contraceptive groups claim are causing abortions. These are called ectopic pregnancies, and are well-known and observed phenomena. In contrast, the theory that hormonal contraceptives and IUDs can make the endometrium hostile to implantation, though very old, are not backed up by observation and empirical evidence. B. For hormonal contraceptives - The endometrium relies on hormones produced by the process of ovulation in order to thicken and develop. As a consequence of preventing ovulation, the endometrium does not develop. Without ovulation, there's no fertilized egg to stop from implanting. Therefore, hormonal contraceptives effect on the endometrium has no contraceptive impact or value. If the contraceptive fails in blocking sperm penetration of the cervical mucus and fails as well in preventing ovulation, then fertilization, implantation and pregnancy can and does occur. C For IUDs - Many experiments have unequivocally demonstrated that the IUD does not act by blocking implantation. The World Health Organization supports this conclusion." (Emphasis supplied). 41. In the event that subsequent medical studies and empirical researches would ascertain that contraceptives have the third action of mechanism of preventing the fertilized ovum from implanting in 46 the uterine lining, and the same is determined by FDA, then the pertinent provision of t h ~ RH Law outlawing contraceptives which obstruct the implantation of the fertilized ovum would adequately answer this eventuality. Thus, the second paragraph of Section 2 (d) on Declaration of Policy unequivocally provides: "The State likewise guarantees universal access to medically-safe, non-abortifacient, effective, legal, affordable, and quality reproductive health care services, methods, devices, supplies which do not prevent the implantation of a fertilized ovum as determined by the Food and Drug Adn1inistration (FDA)." (Emphasis supplied). 42. Likewise, under Section 4(a) on Definition of Terms, it is provided that: "Abortifacient refers to any drug or device that induces abortion or the destruction of a fetus inside the mother's womb or the prevention of the fertilized ovum to reach and be implanted in the mother's womb upon determination of the FDA." (Emphasis supplied). 43. To recap, medical authorities and researches for the past several decades are of the expert opinion that contraceptives are not abortifacients because their principal mechanism of action is either to prevent ovulation or prevent the fertilization of the ovum, in which case no fertilized ovum is formed for implantation in the uterus. However, if contraception fails and a fertilized ovum is formed, and it 47 is subsequently ascertained that contraceptives prevent the implantation of the fertilized ovum, then under the RH Law, the FDA can determine such secondary action as abortive. lll. RH LAW PROTECTS AND PROMOTES THE PEOPlE'S RIGHT TO HEALTH. 44. Far from infringing the people's "right to health", the RH law promotes, protects and enhances the right to health, particularly of mothers and infants because the promotion of reproductive health and family planning will considerably decrease maternal and infant mortality rates since high-risk, unwanted and unintended pregnancies are avoided. 45. Moreover, the promotion of reproductive health and family planning would assure the birth of healthy infants and empower parents to give fewer children proper sustenance, health care and education. 46. The so-called risks of side effects of contraceptives are not more than those of ordinary drugs and medicines. 47. While there may be risks in contraceptive use just like in 48 other drugs and medicines, risk does not mean actual affliction. 48. The much propagandized carcinogenic risk of contraceptive use by "pro-lifers" is more of a scare rhetoric than genuine concern. 49. Paraphrasing the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the mechanism of action of hormone contraceptives and also their possible adverse side effects cannot be "illuminated by rhetoric" because "how a medication works is a scientific question." 50. The following are relevant excerpts from Dr. Esperanza I. Cabral's comments entitled "Half-truth is a Whole Lie" on the veracity of reports that certain contraceptives are carcinogenic and hazardous to women's health (House Resolution No. 491): a. "Even as the IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer of the WHO) categorizes a certain substance as carcinogenic, its mother agency, the WHO, may decide, as indeed it has, that the substance is beneficial enough to be included in its Model List of Essential Drugs. This is the case with oral contraceptives." 49 b. "Several WHO Committees work on creating evidence-based family planning guidelines and on keeping them up-to-date on a continuous basis. They regularly review the safety of COCs and assess the balance of risks and benefits of COC use and they have determined that for most healthy women, the health benefits clearly exceed the health risks." c. "The Women's Contraceptive and Reproductive Experiences (Women's CARE) study examined the use of OCs (oral contraceptives) as a risk factor for breast cancer in women ages 35 to 64. Researchers interviewed 4,575 women who were diagnosed with breast cancer between 1994 and 1998, and 4,682 women who did not have breast cancer. Investigators collected detailed information about the participants' use of OCs, reproductive history, health, and family history. The results, which were published in 2002, indicated that current or former use of OCs did not significantly increase the risk of breast cancer." d. "OCs did not increase the risk of liver cancer in Asian and African women, who are considered high risk for this disease. Researchers believe this is because other risk factors, such as hepatitis infection, outweigh the effect of OCs." e. "Studies have consistently shown that using OCs reduces the risk of ovarian cancer. In a 1992 analysis of 20 studies of OC use and ovarian cancer, researchers from Harvard Medical School found that the risk of ovarian cancer decreased with increasing duration of OC use. Results showed a 10 to 12 percent decrease 50 in risk after 1 year of use, and approximately a 50 percent decrease after 5 years of use." f. "The use of OCs has been shown to significantly reduce the risk of endometrial cancer. This protective effect increases with the length of time OCs are used, and continues for many years after a woman stops using OCs. II g. "In sum, contraceptives are just like any other form of medical treatment. There are many forms available, and none are perfect. They vary as to effectiveness, safety and convenience and each has its own advantages and disadvantages. II h. "All active drugs, including contraceptives, can cause some adverse effects in some users, and if safety were understood as the total absence of adverse effects, then no drug could be called 'safe.' Safety of a drug, in real world terms, is conceived as a favourable ratio of benefits to risks for the population of users of the drug as a whole. In deciding to allow or prohibit the use a drug or device, contraceptive or not, the predictable benefits of use must be determined and weighed against the potential risks." i. "New data is constantly being produced in medical science. The quality of the evidence generated varies so much that a new branch of learning termed critical appraisal of medical literature has evolved. It is understandable that those who are not practiced in this discipline of rigorous analysis 51 and evaluation of research results may make a mistake in interpreting data." j. "Thus this work is best left to the appropriate expert executive department of government, in this case, the Department of Health and its agency, the Food and Drug Administration and their expert consultants and personnel. They should be entrusted with the responsibility of permitting and regulating the public use of a drug or device and given the space to perform their functions without interference from special interest groups and their lobbyists." (Emphasis supplied). IV. THE RH LAW RESPECTS AND UPHOLDS THE FREEDOM OF RELIGION AND THE HALLMARK Of THE RH LAW IS FREEDOM OF INFORMED CHOICE. 51. The accusation that the RH law is offensive to religious freedom is a patent aberration. The RH Law is replete with provisions upholding the freedom of religion and respecting religious convictions. The guarantee of freedom of informed choice, which is tile hallmark of the RH Law, is an assurance that no one would be compelled to violate the tenets of his religion or defy his religious convictions against his free will and own discernment of his faith. 52 52. The option to be a beneficiary of reproductive healthcare services and be an acceptor of a particular family planning method is solely the decision of a couple or woman with due regard to one's religious beliefs and convictions. Good conscience is the anchor . of one's choice. As the professors of the Ateneo de Manila University declared, Catholics can use contraceptives in good conscience. 53. It is a grossly mistaken view that the government under the RH Law imposes contraceptive use and family planning on couples and women by invading the privacy of their bedrooms. 54. There is no such imposition or intrusion because the heart and soul of the Reproductive Health Law is freedom of informed choice. V. THE RH lAW COMPLIES WITH THE CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE THAT THE GOVERNMENT SHALL SUPPORT THE RIGHT AND DUTY OF PARENTS OF DEVELOPING THE MORAL CHARACTER OF THE YOUTH BY PRESCRIBING REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH EDUCATION FOR ADOLESCENTS. 53 55. Section 12 of. Article II is among the 22 provisions constituting the State Policies or a "Bill of State Obligations" as distinguished from the Bill of Rights as found in Article III. Accordingly, the last sentence of Sec. 12 provides: "The natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and development of moral character shall receive the support of the Government." (Emphasis supplied). 56. More than a recognition or grant of a right, this provision is an imposition of an obligation upon the State. Accordingly, the operative phrase in this provision is "shall receive the support of the Government." 57. The prescription of a mandatory age and development- appropriate reproductive health education for adolescents enrolled in elementary and secondary schools is not an abridgement of the role of parents in the development of the moral character of their children. It is a compliance with the bounden duty of Government to support said parental role. 58. This prescription on RH education assumes more relevance when we consider that the majority of parents default in 54 teaching their children proper sexual values because of the prevailing taboo on conversation about sex in Filipino homes. 59. Section 14 of the RH law is no different from the constitutional obligation of the State "to establish, maintain and support a complete, adequate and integrated system of education relevant to the needs .of the people and society" (Sec. 2[1] of Art. XIV), which is not an impairment of the parent's right and duty in the rearing of the youth. It is supportive ~ n d co1nplementary. 60. Similarly, the Constitution unequivocally provides that "Without limiting the natural right of parents to rear their children, elementary education is compulsory for all children of school age." (Sec. 2[2] of Art. XIV). Clearly, no less than the Constitution mandates compulsory elementary education without violating parental right in the rearing of the youth. The same standard applies to the teaching of reproductive health to adolescents. 61. It is a grotesque argument that reproductive health education for adolescents will create a breed of sex maniacs and promiscuous youth. This baseless apprehension is debunked by empirical studies of the United Nations and other progressive 55 countries which document the following beneficent effects of reproductive health education among the young: (a) Inculcation of correct and relevant sexual values and norms in the young which disabuses their minds of preconceived myths on sex and responsibly addresses their curiosity so much so that experimenting is foreclosed; (b) Initiation into sexual activity is delayed; (c) Multiple sexual partners is avoided; (d) Abstinence before marriage is encouraged; and (e) Transmittal of HIV-AIDS and sexually transmitted diseases is prevented. SUMMATION Aside from being constitutional, popularly-endorsed, healthfully beneficial and compliant with the Philippines' international commitment on promotion and protection of reproductive rights and family planning, the Reproductive Health Law is an indispensible measure for poverty alleviation and the attainment of sustainable human development. 56 PRAYER ACCORDINGLY, it is respectfully prayed that the Honorable Supreme Court admits the instant Comment-in-Intervention and upholds the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 10354, entitled "An Act Providing for a National Policy on Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health". Quezon City, for Manila 24 April 2013
EDCEL C. LAGMAN Member, House of Representatives Roll of Attorneys No. 21381 PTR No. 8189823; 04-16-2013 (Quezon Oty) IBP No. 923026 (CALMANA) lagmanedcel@yahoo.com Mobile No. 0916-6406737 EXPLANATION This Comment-in-Intervention is filed personally with the Honorable Supreme Court and copies thereof served on the parties, through counsel, by registered mail because of personnel constraints. 57 Copy furnished: IMBONG & CASTRO LAW OFFICES Counsel for the Petitioners in GR No. 204819 Unit 403 Senor Ivan de Palacio Building 139 Malakas St., Diliman, Quezon City MCS Noche Law Office Counsel for the Petitioners in GR No. 204934 " 91 Melchor St., Loyola Heights, 1108 Quezon City ATTY. SAMSON S. ALCANTARA Petitioner -in-In tetven tion in GR No. 204934 Suite 1402, 14th Floor, Manila Astral Tower, Taft Avenue cor. Padre Faura St. Ermita, Manila M.B. MAHINAY & ASSOCIATES Counsel for the Petitioners in GR No. 204957 Diamond St. cor. Jade St. Francisca Village 6th Street, Happy Valley, Cebu City GAMBE & YAP LAW OFFICES Counsel for the Petitioners in GR No. 204988 Mandumol Upper Makasandig, Cagayan de Oro City ATTY. EXPEDITO A. BUGARIN, JR. Petitioner in GR No. 205003 No. 19 Country Club Village Banilad, Cebu City ATTY. NELSON A. CLEMENTE Counsel for the Petitioners in GR No. 205043 Penthouse, Aurora Milestone Tower 1045 Aurora Boulevard, Quezon City CALLEJA LAW OFFICE Counsel for the Petitioners in GR No. 205478 Unit 1903-A West Tower PSE Centre Exchange Road, Ortigas Center Pasig City Quezon City Hall Post Office Registry Receipt No. __ _ 24 April 2013 Quezon City Hall Post Office Registry Receipt No. __ _ 24 April 2013 Quezon City Hall Post Office Registry Receipt No. __ _ 24 April 2013 Quezon City Hall Post Office Registry Receipt No. __ _ 24 April 2013 Quezon City Hall Post Office Registry Receipt No. __ _ 24 April 2013 Quezon City Hall Post Office Registry Receipt No. __ _ 24 April 2013 Quezon City Hall Post Office Registry Receipt No. __ _ 24 April 2013 Quezon City Hall Post Office Registry Receipt No. __ _ 24 April 2013 58 AITY. ALAN F. PAGUIA Counsel for the Petitioners in GR No. 205491 Corporate 101 Building (Unit 412) 101 Mother Ignacia St., Barangay South Triangle, Quezon City THE SOLICITOR GENERAL Counsel for the Respondents 134 Amorsolo St., Legaspi Village 1229 Makati City Quezon City Hall Post Office Registry Receipt No. __ _ 24 April 2013 Quezon City Hall Post Office Registry Receipt No. --- 24 April 2013 59