0 Bewertungen0% fanden dieses Dokument nützlich (0 Abstimmungen)
20 Ansichten2 Seiten
The document discusses a case regarding the constitutionality of the Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012 (RH Law) in the Philippines. Specifically, it addresses whether Section 14 of the RH Law, which mandates age-appropriate reproductive health education in schools, violates principles of academic freedom or the role of parents in their children's upbringing. The court found the challenge to Section 14 premature since the educational curriculum had not been formulated yet. It also noted that the law requires development of the curriculum in consultation with parents and educators, so it may not contradict religious beliefs as petitioners claimed. The court declined to rule on the issue until an actual case is filed.
The document discusses a case regarding the constitutionality of the Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012 (RH Law) in the Philippines. Specifically, it addresses whether Section 14 of the RH Law, which mandates age-appropriate reproductive health education in schools, violates principles of academic freedom or the role of parents in their children's upbringing. The court found the challenge to Section 14 premature since the educational curriculum had not been formulated yet. It also noted that the law requires development of the curriculum in consultation with parents and educators, so it may not contradict religious beliefs as petitioners claimed. The court declined to rule on the issue until an actual case is filed.
The document discusses a case regarding the constitutionality of the Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012 (RH Law) in the Philippines. Specifically, it addresses whether Section 14 of the RH Law, which mandates age-appropriate reproductive health education in schools, violates principles of academic freedom or the role of parents in their children's upbringing. The court found the challenge to Section 14 premature since the educational curriculum had not been formulated yet. It also noted that the law requires development of the curriculum in consultation with parents and educators, so it may not contradict religious beliefs as petitioners claimed. The court declined to rule on the issue until an actual case is filed.
Imbong v Ochoa At any rate, Section 12, Article II of the 1987
Constitution provides that the natural and primary
FACTS: right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth Republic Act (R.A.) No. 10354, otherwise known as for civic efficiency and development of moral the Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive character shall receive the support of the Health Act of 2012 (RH Law), was enacted by Government. Like the 1973 Constitution and the 1935 Congress on December 21, 2012. Shortly after the Constitution, the 1987 Constitution affirms the State President placed his imprimatur on the said law, recognition of the invaluable role of parents in challengers from various sectors of society came preparing the youth to become productive members knocking on the doors of the Court, beckoning it to of society. Notably, it places more importance on the wield the sword that strikes down constitutional role of parents in the development of their children disobedience. Aware of the profound and lasting by recognizing that said role shall be "primary," that impact that its decision may produce, the Court now is, that the right of parents in upbringing the youth is faces the iuris controversy as presented in fourteen superior to that of the State. (14) petitions and two (2) petitions- in-intervention. It is also the inherent right of the State to act On academic freedom, it was asserted that Section as parens patriae to aid parents in the moral 14 of the RH Law, in relation to Section 24 thereof, development of the youth. Indeed, the Constitution mandating the teaching of Age-and Development- makes mention of the importance of developing the Appropriate Reproductive Health Education under youth and their important role in nation building. threat of fine and/or imprisonment violates the Considering that Section 14 provides not only for the principle of academic freedom. According to the age-appropriate-reproductive health education, but petitioners, these provisions effectively force also for values formation; the development of educational institutions to teach reproductive health knowledge and skills in self-protection against education even if they believe that the same is not discrimination; sexual abuse and violence against suitable to be taught to their students. Citing various women and children and other forms of gender based studies conducted in the United States and statistical violence and teen pregnancy; physical, social and data gathered in the country, the petitioners aver emotional changes in adolescents; women's rights that the prevalence of contraceptives has led to an and children's rights; responsible teenage behavior; increase of out-of-wedlock births; divorce and gender and development; and responsible breakdown of families; the acceptance of abortion parenthood, and that Rule 10, Section 11.01 of the and euthanasia; the "feminization of poverty"; the RH-IRR and Section 4(t) of the RH Law itself provides aging of society; and promotion of promiscuity for the teaching of responsible teenage behavior, among the youth. gender sensitivity and physical and emotional changes among adolescents the Court finds that the ISSUE: legal mandate provided under the assailed provision Whether the RH law is unconstitutional for violating supplements, rather than supplants, the rights and Freedom of Expression and Academic Freedom? NO duties of the parents in the moral development of their children. RULING: At this point, suffice it to state that any attack on the Furthermore, as Section 14 also mandates that the validity of Section 14 of the RH Law mandatory reproductive health education program is premature because the Department of Education, shall be developed in conjunction with parent- Culture and Sports has yet to formulate a curriculum teacher-community associations, school officials and on age-appropriate reproductive health education. other interest groups, it could very well be said that it One can only speculate on the content, manner and will be in line with the religious beliefs of the medium of instruction that will be used to educate petitioners. By imposing such a condition, it becomes the adolescents and whether they will contradict the apparent that the petitioners' contention that religious beliefs of the petitioners and validate their Section 14 violates Article XV, Section 3(1) of the apprehensions. Thus, considering the premature Constitution is without merit. nature of this particular issue, the Court declines to rule on its constitutionality or validity. While the Court notes the possibility that educators might raise their objection to their participation in the reproductive health education program provided under Section 14 of the RH Law on the ground that the same violates their religious beliefs, the Court reserves its judgment should an actual case be filed before it.