Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
On the first ground, according to the petitioners, the implementation of the RH Law
would authorize the purchase of hormonal contraceptives, intra-uterine devices and
injectables which are abortives, in violation of Section 12, Article II of the
Constitution which guarantees protection of both the life of the mother and the life
of the unborn from conception.
Second, the petitioners posit that the RH Law provides for a universal access
to contraceptives which are hazardous to one's health, as it causes cancer and
other health problems.
Third, the petitioners contend that the RH Law violates the constitutional
guarantee respecting religion as it authorizes the use of public funds for the
procurement of contraceptives. For the petitioners, the use of public funds for
purposes that are believed to be contrary to their beliefs is included in the
constitutional mandate ensuring religious freedom.
Petitioners also argued that the RH Law providing for the formulation of
mandatory sex education in schools should not be allowed as it is an affront to their
religious beliefs. While the petitioners recognize that the guarantee of religious
freedom is not absolute, they argue that the RH Law fails to satisfy the "clear and
present danger test" and the "compelling state interest test" to justify the regulation
of the right to free exercise of religion and the right to free speech.