SUPREME COURT RULING: LIFE BEGINS AT FERTILIZATION – The Varsitarian of UST

THE SUPREME Court sided with pro-life groups in affirming that life begins at fertilization in last week’s decision that struck down eight key provisions but declared the Reproductive Health (RH) Law “not unconstitutional.”

The high court was of the strong view that life begins at the meeting of the sperm and the egg in the mother’s womb or “fertilization,” which it said should be taken as synonymous with “conception.” The 106-page decision written by Associate Justice Jose Catral Mendoza cited dictionaries, medical literature, court decisions, and records of the Constitutional Commission that drafted the 1987 Constitution. Article II, Section 12 of the Constitution says the state shall “equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception.”

The ruling could prevent government distribution of hormonal contraceptives, which have mechanisms to frustrate life after fertilization.

The basis of the court decision, however, was not the Constitution, but Republic Act 10354 or the RH Law itself, which prohibits abortifacients and defines such as “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 Food and Drug Authority.”

This Supreme Court’s position is in contrast with that of RH advocates, such as former congressman Edcel Lagman, that life begins at “implantation,” or only when the fertilized ovum reaches the uterine wall.

The high tribunal said: “To repeat, it is the Court’s position that life begins at fertilization, not at implantation. When a fertilized ovum is implanted in the uterine wall, its viability is sustained but that instance of implantation is not the point of beginning of life. It started earlier.”

Mendoza’s ponente pointed out that the RH Law’s Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) had overstepped its bounds by changing the definition of an abortifacient to any drug or device that “primarily” induces abortion. The high tribunal said that to uphold the “principle of no abortion” in the Constitution, the word “primarily” should be stricken out, as there are contraceptives that can act as abortifacients, or prevent implantation as a secondary or fail-safe mechanism.

The voting was 14-1 on striking the word “primarily” from the definition, with only Associate Justice Marvic Leonen dissenting.

In previous interviews with the Varsitarian, Dr. Josephine Lumitao of the Faculty of Medicine and Surgery and UST Hospital said hormonal contraceptives—in the forms of pills, skin patches, or injections—not only prevent ovulation or the release of the egg cell, but also thicken the cervical mucus to prevent sperm transport and avoid fertilization, as well as produce a uterine lining that is not receptive for implantation of a fertilized egg. Intrauterine devices also intervene with implantation by irritating the uterine lining.

The high court concluded that only contraceptives that do not cause abortion and do not prevent implantation should be included in Philippine National Drug Formulary System, the list of family planning supplies, and the Essential Drugs List of the RH Law.

Likewise, the Supreme Court struck down parts of Sections 3, 7, 17 and 23, dealing with penalties for health personnel, government employees, and health institutions that refuse or fail to provide services and programs under the RH Law.

Specific provisions in the RH Law with corresponding provisions in the IRR that were held unconstitutional were: Section 7, which requires private hospitals and other medical facilities to refer patients, not in an emergency or life-threatening case, to another health facility that is conveniently accessible; and allows a minor who have suffered a miscarriage access to modern methods of family planning without written consent from parents or guardians;

Section 23 (a) (1), which punishes healthcare service providers who fail or refuse to disseminate information regarding programs and services on reproductive health regardless of their religious beliefs;

Section 23 (a) (2) (i), which allows a married individual, not in an emergency or life-threatening case, to undergo reproductive health procedures without the consent of the spouse;

Section 23 (a) (2) (ii), which limits the requirement of parental consent only to elective surgical procedures;

Section 23 (a) (3), which punishes healthcare service providers who fail or refuse to refer a patient, not in an emergency or life-threatening case, to another health care service provider within the same facility or one that is conveniently accessible regardless of their religious beliefs;

Section 23 (b), which punishes public officers who refuse to support reproductive health programs or hinder the full implementation of a reproductive health program regardless of their religious beliefs; and

Section 17, which requires health service providers to render 48 hours of pro bono or free reproductive health services or else lose their accreditation with the Philippine Health Insurance Corp.

The high tribunal also lifted the status quo ante order issued last year to stop the law’s implementation. The parties were given 15 days to file a motion for reconsideration.