On December 21, 2012, the Congress approved Republic Act No. 10354, a.k.a. “The Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012”.

The law
1. The law materially provides that:
a) “… hormonal contraceptives, intra ultrine devices, injectables and other… family planning products and supplies… shall be included in the regular purchase of ESSENTIAL MEDICINES and SUPPLIES of ALL national hospitals…” (Sec. 9)

b) “The DOH shall procure, distribute to LGUs and monitor the usage of family planning supplies for the whole country. The DOH shall coordinate with all appropriate LGU bodies to plan and implement this procurement and distribution program. The supply and budget allotments shall be based on, among others, COST OF FAMILY PLANNING SUPPLIES.” (Sec. 10)

The problem
2. May the State validly impose FAMILY BIRTH CONTROL? It is respectfully submitted the proper answer is NO.
 
Police power
3. Police power is the sovereign duty of the State to promote the common good by regulating the citizenry’s exercise of rights. In terms of legislation, the same must have a FAIR end and must employ FAIR means. Here, the consistent rule is that the end does not justify the means.

4. The substantial distinction between REGULATION and PROHIBITION applies.

Comments
5. The law principally aims to provide the citizenry with FREE FAMILY BIRTH CONTROL SERVICES and SUPPLIES, which translates into BILLIONS of pesos of PUBLIC FUNDS. It does not seem reasonable for the congressmen to prioritize as essential such contraceptives over the essential need for FOOD and WATER of millions of our impoverished countrymen.

6. While it claims to promote FREEDOM OF CHOICE, it actually offers nothing new or substantial. That freedom is available with or without the law. Contraceptives are openly available in the market.

7. The difference is that, with the law, those who conscientiously object to the government program are literally FORCED to SUBSIDIZE those who wish to avail of contraceptives.

8. Is that fair? It is respectfully submitted the answer is NO. The right to avail is already there, but those who wish to exercise the option must do so at their own expense. With the law, the majority of senators and House representatives are virtually twisting the arm of those who do not wish to exercise the option to help defray the cost, even if it is contrary to their most basic belief or to the dictate of their conscience.

9. The law appears to be all about the SEXUAL ACT that precedes the moment of conception. The law actually promotes PROMISCUITY or SEX WITHOUT RISK OF PREGNANCY, which is not what most Filipino parents, as a matter of deep-seated culture and tradition, teach their children to follow.

10. For animal population growth, REPRODUCTION, which is a purely biological term, is the proper term to use. But for human population growth, the proper term is PROCREATION, which is not a purely biological term because it denotes Almighty God as the CREATOR of humanity.

11. It is not difficult to see why the proponents of the law used the term REPRODUCTION instead of PROCREATION. The first promotes the animal part of humans and therefore easier to debate about, while the second reminds the citizenry of their essentially SPIRITUAL NATURE in relation to the Creator, which would more likely make it IMPOSSIBLE for the proponents to win popular support in the Legislature.

Conclusion
The passage of the law calls to mind a legal and political fundament with respect to the concerned legislators, justices, and President Noynoy Aquino. Some leaders may fool some of the people some of the time; or some of the people all of the time; but NEVER all of the people all of the time.