SC justices: Anti-RH advocates not in right venue

Supreme Court justices Tuesday said the SC might not be the right venue for the grievances of the anti-Reproductive Health Law advocates.

During Tuesday's oral arguments, Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P. Aranal Sereno said "by your responses, it is clear that you are grappling with your answers which makes me think this court might not be the right venue."

Sereno told Atty. Maria Concepcion Noche the SC is in a very difficult situation.

"This court may exercise judicial restraint unless you have to show us a way out. You have to provide us tools," she said.

Sereno added petitioners should not make premature conclusions.

"The complexity of this question (constitutionality of the RH Law) is that may be beyond this court to address," she said.

"We are not going to answer a theological or a metaphysical question here. We are more humbled than wishing to go into the area of ultimate morals," Sereno said.

She added "are we in a position to supplant Congress in a policy direction."

Senior Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio said textually the (RH Law) protects fertilization, "same as your position, then why are you here?"

Associate Justice Marvic Leonen also asked the petitioners what is wrong about making methods on contraception, fertility control available to the public and allowing the government to give the public advice.

The RH Law has been subjected to a wide debate in Congress and now at the SC with some calling it violative of the constitutional provision on the right to life.

Leonen said while he joins the anti-RH advocate in protecting the life of the unborn, "people are not forced because there is a choice."

He said it is possible the petition against RH Law makes the SC a "super agency."

"The petition against RH Law gives law-making power from the Executive and Legislative to the Supreme Court," he said.

Associate Justice Diosdado M. Peralta said he does not see anything wrong with Section 7 of the RH Law on access to family planning.

"In fact, I think it is good to all," Peralta said.

Associate Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. said he also does not see anything unconstitutional with Section 9 of the RH Law.

"Congress put it Section 9 on the use of safe, legal and non-abortifacient family planning products and supplies. What is unconstitutional about that," Velasco asked.

The SC justices also noted the RH Law is for the poor.

Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes said statistics show poorer families have more children and children of poor families have less access to food and other needs.

However, Noche said "while poverty is a problem, population control is not the solution."

The SC justices grilled Noche for almost five hours.

The oral arguments will resume on July 23, 2013. (PNA)