(The following is essentially my opening statement, with some additional points, submitted at the hearing on Oct. 12 of the House of Representatives Committee on Revision of Laws, tackling particularly the provisions affecting the protection of unborn life and the concomitant constitutional guarantees of due process and equal protection.)
At the outset, pro-abortionists demanded that discussions involving public policy must employ “secular morality,” as stated in Estrada vs. Escritor. That is demonstrably false.
Estrada actually points out that while indeed there is “secular morality” (whatever that is), yet such indubitably has to give way to a “higher law.” Furthermore, religious arguments are actually protected speech under the Constitution.
In any event, Article II.12 of the Constitution commands the State to “equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception.” Article III.1 guarantees due process and equal protection of the laws. These provisions establish the constitutional foundation for protecting unborn life.
In Imbong v. Ochoa, the Supreme Court examined the constitutional protection of unborn life in reviewing the Reproductive Health Act. The Court discussed the Constitutional Commission’s objective of protecting unborn life from conception. Equal protection requires scrutiny of laws that deny protection to unborn children because of their developmental stage, dependence, or circumstances of conception. These differences do not, by themselves, justify withdrawing protection against intentional destruction. The unborn child did not choose the circumstances of conception and bears no responsibility for them.
Due process likewise requires serious consideration of legislation authorizing the deliberate deprivation of life. Article III and Article II.12 independently impose an express constitutional obligation to protect unborn life.
In Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the United States Supreme Court held that the American Constitution does not confer a right to abortion and overruled Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Although not binding in the Philippines, Dobbs confirms that abortion is not universally recognized as a constitutional right.
Emphatically, international law does not consider abortion a demandable human right. No universal human-rights treaty expressly establishes abortion as a human right that States are universally obligated to recognize.
In Vo v. France, the European Court of Human Rights declined to determine definitively whether an unborn child is a person under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court recognized the absence of European consensus on when life begins and afforded States a margin of appreciation in determining the legal protection of unborn life. The decision does not establish a universal right to abortion or require States to legalize it.
Noticeably, pro-abortion advocates were doing everything to force others not to refer to unborn babies or unborn children as “babies” or “children,” a base, malicious, and malevolent attempt at dehumanizing the most innocent members of our society.
It was argued that criminalizing abortion is anti-women. They say this because 1,000 women allegedly die annually from improper (and illegal) abortion procedures. But you know what kills women more? Abortion. Abortion murders 550,000 Filipinas yearly (see UPPI/PINSAN data), a tragic and scandalous number that should be cracked down and stopped with all the powers of the State.
Regarding life-saving treatment, such is different from abortion. Medical intervention directed at treating a life-threatening condition is no way morally equivalent to intentionally murdering an unborn child. Under the principle of double effect, an intervention may be justified when its objective is to treat a serious pathology, fetal death is foreseen but not intended, the intervention is proportionate, and no less harmful alternative is available.
Ectopic pregnancy requires prompt treatment because it cannot result in a viable birth through ordinary medical means and may threaten the mother’s life. The law must permit medically necessary treatment without requiring physicians to wait for rupture or imminent death.
Such treatment must be distinguished from elective termination of a viable pregnancy by examining its medical purpose, necessity, proportionality, and intent.
Article 11.4 of the Revised Penal Code, concerning avoidance of a greater evil or injury, may be relevant, subject to its specific requirements. Congress should clarify the law to protect physicians undertaking necessary and proportionate interventions in genuine medical emergencies.
Regarding rape and incestuous rape, such do not justify a general exception permitting abortion. Rape and incestuous rape require prosecution, medical care, psychological support, and financial assistance for victims. The unborn child is not responsible for the crime. Adoption is a clear viable alternative and should be supported for women unable or unwilling to raise a child.
To sum, Congress should preserve the prohibition against abortion, clarify the law governing life-saving medical interventions, strengthen support for victims of rape and incest, and promote adoption.
These measures give effect to the constitutional protection of unborn life while ensuring appropriate care for women facing exceptional medical and personal circumstances.
Filipinos are generally a good, sensible, commonsensical people. We know instinctively that the fetus is a person. That’s why we call a pregnant woman as nagdadalang tao (carrying a person).
Jemy Gatdula is the dean of the UA&P Law School and is a Philippine Judicial Academy lecturer for constitutional philosophy and jurisprudence. The views expressed here are his own and not necessarily of the institutions to which he belongs.
https://www.facebook.com/jigatdula/
Twitter @jemygatdula