The Reproductive Health Law, or Republic Act No. 10354, virtually constitutes murder of unborn Filipinos.

That is the problem.

The law
1. The 1987 Constitution mandates the State:

a) “to secure to ourselves and our POSTERITY the blessings of independence and democracy” (Preamble); and

b) to “equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception” (2nd sentence, Sec. 12, ART. II).

2. RA 10354 provides that:
a) Any public officer is prohibited from doing “any act that hinders the full implementation of a reproductive health program as mandated by this Act” (Sec. 23[b], last clause); and

b) “Any violation of this Act or commission of the foregoing prohibited acts shall be penalized by imprisonment ranging from one (1) month to six (6) months or a fine of Ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00) to One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00), or both such fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the competent court…” (Sec. 24).

Comments
3. POSTERITY, according to Black’s Law Dictionary, means: “All the descendants of a person in a direct line to the remotest generation.” Thus, under the Constitution, it means ALL THE DESCENDANTS of every Filipino IN A DIRECT LINE TO THE REMOTEST GENERATION.

4. Government must, therefore, serve and protect not only the present generation but also the latter’s succeeding generations.

5. The Constitution distinguishes between the BORN and the UNBORN. The first refers to the past, while the second refers to the future. Hence, from the point of view of the present, the UNBORN includes ALL SUCCEEDING GENERATIONS.

 6. Consequently, under the fundamental law, our POSTERITY and the UNBORN Filipinos have the same meaning.

7. What the RH Law does is to limit government protection of the UNBORN in point of time, that is, only FROM CONCEPTION. It offers NO PROTECTION BEFORE CONCEPTION.

8. Thus, while the statute claims to protect mothers by affording them the ability to enjoy a “satisfying sex life” that EFFECTIVELY PREVENTS CONCEPTION, it affords absolutely NO PROTECTION TO THE UNBORN who are thereby DOOMED to never have the chance to be born or be conceived.

9. Is that fair? It is respectfully submitted the proper answer is NO. That is neither “equal protection” or any protection at all. That is a virtual KILLING OF OUR POSTERITY or MURDER OF THE UNBORN, qualified by evident premeditation on the part of the concerned public officials.

10. Over and above the State’s equal protection of the mother and the unborn “from conception” is the transcendental SOVEREIGN DUTY to afford MAXIMUM PROTECTION to all succeeding generations – BEFORE, DURING, and AFTER conception. Anything less would constitute non-compliance with the “utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency” required of all public officials under the basic charter, and therefore, would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Conclusion
In sum, the law is full of sexy-sounding adjectives and phrases which are apparently designed to primarily seduce the uninitiated. The law thus appears to be the work of the misleading and the misled, mostly orchestrated by political showmanship, not statesmanship.

The murder of those who have been BORN is a heinous crime because it snuffs out individual human lives with extreme wickedness. It is most revolting to the conscience of the family of the victims. On the other hand, the murder of the UNBORN snuffs out the collective potential for conception of entire generations. It is thus revolting to nothing less than the conscience of the whole of mankind.