Government versus the Church

REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH LAW

In a previous decision, the Supreme Court has limited the issues to be tackled to four, and these are: whether the law violates the autonomy of local government and equal protection of the law; whether the law violates the natural law and disregards inter-generational responsibility; whether the law violates the rights to life and health; and, whether the RH law violates freedoms of religion, speech, and academic freedom. The Local Government Code (approved way before the RH bill), has all this time contained provisions mandating LGUs to implement family planning programs (one of the most controversial features of the law) for their constituents. How can the RH law then be violative of local autonomy when the very law that created such concept included family planning from the start? The law actually stands on the principle of equal protection. It provides RH information and services to everyone who wants or needs such. There is no compulsion or coercion whatsoever. In fact any form of compulsion or coercion to use or not use the services the law offers is punishable under it. The argument that the RH law violates natural law is because of its contraceptive provisions. Does the natural law state that women should be baby machines without regard for their health and well-being? What about the women who could die (and die) because of complications of high-risk pregnancies that could easily be prevented by using contraceptives? As to the freedoms of religion and speech, and academic freedom, the mere fact that pro-RH Catholics and other religions will argue in favour of the law means that they do not see the law as violative of these freedoms. Moreover, any freedom cannot and must not go against the common good. This is the reason why at times, certain freedoms may be limited. The RH law pursues the common good but at the same time does not limit any of these freedoms. Really, all these issues have been repeatedly and extensively discussed, debated, and argued in the House of Representatives, Senate, media, and in public over many years. The then RH bills contents have been put under the microscope, examined and re-examined, and revised many times over before it was put to a final vote. The Supreme Court is about to make a decision that will surely affect the lives of millions of Filipinos. The majority in fact because the RH law was primarily passed for the Filipino women and youth. This is no small decision.

GROUP 5 Says: The solution to poverty is population control. It might still lead to that kind of thinking that the emphasis in anti-poverty strategy is population reduction, and this is needed by our country. One more, it gives the right to not only women but families to decide for themselves what they want and they are being assisted by the government to know what's out there and what they options are. Uphold RH Law.

DIVORCE BILL A big majority of our national leaders, including the lawmakers on whose hands fall the authority to pass such law, are men who want to enjoy the best of both worlds keeping their family intact while enjoying the benefits of infidelity. In millions of households, both men and women who are trapped in marital commitment constantly quarrel, often in front of their helpless children who grow up in a confused and violent environment. Often, men turn to other women and bear illegitimate children, and then abandon their legal wives and children because of lack or laxity of laws that should have held them accountable. Many couples have irreparable differences that lead to almost daily verbal and physical abuse. And yet, they remain living together for lack of a law that would allow them to legally and properly part ways, and seek the peace and happiness that they couldnt find in their present partner. Many couples have simply lost the love that brought them before the altar or before a marriage minister, and have found instead contempt and sadness. And yet, they are confined to their hopeless situation because of the lack of a divorce law. Opponents of divorce say there are legal remedies for these people stuck in failed marriages. There is legal separation, a decree rendered by a court allowing spouses to live separately but they remain married to each other. If the man lives or cohabits with another woman, he may be charged with concubinage and if the woman cohabits with another man, she can be charged with adultery. Legal separation may be granted when there is marital infidelity, attempt on the life of the other spouse, homosexuality or lesbianism, repeated physical violence and abandonment without justifiable cause for more than one year. The main difference between legal separation and the two other remedies is that the legally separated spouses cannot re-marry, while in the case of annulment and declaration to nullify marriage, they can re-marry. The proposed divorce law also allows them to re-marry, with added protection, such as child support, alimony and child custody. In the Philippines, the options to end bad marriages legally are restricted to three.

1. Legal separation, which allows the couple to separate on the basis of repeated violence and physical abuse, sexual infidelity, conviction of a criminal offense with a penalty of more than six years, and abandonment. But this option does not allow the couple to re-marry and requires that they maintain fidelity. So individuals legally separated from their spouses should not have any sexual relations, lest they be charged with concubinage or adultery. 2. Declaration of nullity of marriage declares a marriage void from the very beginning. Children in this type of marriage are considered illegitimate. This legal option is available to minors who married without parental consent and those who were married by an unauthorized person. Bigamous marriages, mistaken identity, and incestuous marriages may also be declared void from the very beginning. 3. An annulment declares the marriage legal until it is declared void. This legal option is available to minors married without parental consent and to individuals who may have been of unsound mind at the time of the marriage. Couples married under deceitful circumstances such as the failure to inform the other party of a sexually transmitted disease, a pregnancy involving another man, criminal conviction, addiction, impotence, or homosexuality may also file for annulment. Article 36 of the Family Code states that a marriage can be declared void if one of the parties is psychologically incapacitated to perform his or her marital obligations. This has often been used by couples seeking a way out of marriages and is sometimes dubbed as the Philippine de facto divorce law. These options, however, cannot accommodate cases that a divorce can. When a woman is a battered wife, she must have the freedom and the right to get out of the marriage and to totally severe the bond that has been destroying her. The existing laws however, fail to address this reality. Group 5 Says: Divorce bill is not necessary to Filipinos because there is such a civil annulment which is legal to the country. If only couples are to be responsible to each other then they just need to sanctify their love and marriage for their children.