VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, [2], 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 23:32:12 01/17/13 Thu
Author: IMRD
Subject: jan 16 news

http://www.journal.com.ph/index.php/news/top-stories/42999-no-tro-vs-rh-law


No TRO vs RH law

Published : Wednesday, January 16, 2013 00:00 Article Views : 58
Written by : Hector Lawas


THE Supreme Court ordered the government to file its comment on a petition questioning the constitutionality of the controversial Reproductive Health Law.

In an en banc hearing, the justices decided not to immediately issue a temporary restraining order which would halt the implementation of the law.

The SC deferred the issuance of the TRO until the necessary explanations have been filed.

Instead, the high tribunal ordered respondent Malacañang, which shall be represented by the Office of the Solicitor General, to file its comment within ten days from receipt of its order.

The comments that shall be filed will serve as the basis whether or not the high court shall issue an injunction order against the law.

RH law is now considered the most controversial case pending before the SC.

A petition has been filed before the SC seeking to repeal the controversial law which sought to improve public access to reproductive health services, including natural and artificial family planning options.

Couple James and Lovely Imbong in their petition for certiorari argued that the law violates the Constitution which upholds the ideal of an unconditional respect for life, among others.

On behalf of their minor children and the Magnificat Child Development Center, the couple filed the petition with the high court naming as respondents Executive Secretary Paquito Ochoa, Education Secretary Armin Luistro, Interior and Local Government secretary Manuel Roxas II, Budget Secretary Florencio Abad and Health Secretary Enrique Ona.



http://manilastandardtoday.com/2013/01/16/palace-told-to-answer-plea-vs-rh/


Palace told to answer plea vs RH
By Manila Standard Today | Posted on Jan. 16, 2013 at 12:01am | 690 views

15
The Supreme Court ordered Malacanang on Tuesday to respond within 10 days to claims that the Reproductive Health law signed by President Aquino last month was unconstitutional because it could split families and destroy marriage as an institution, which are protected by the Constitution.

The new law, or Republic Act 10354, also contains 11 provisions that allow couples to choose to suppress life, which violates the Constitution, according to James and Lovely Ann Imbong, who sought a restraining order to stop its implementation.

The Imbong couple cited Article II, Section 12 of the Constitution, which says: “The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution. It shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn …”

Despite strong opposition from the Catholic Church, which accepts only natural family planning methods, Congress passed the Reproductive Health bill last December 19 and Aquino signed it into law two days later.

The Imbong couple filed their case on January 2, but various groups and foundations followed with their own petitions, seeking to stop the law’s implementation. The court will deliberate and decide the issue after it received the government’s comments.

Petitioners said the government should not implement the law because it runs counter to its constitutional duty “to strengthen (family’s) solidarity and actively promote its total development,” to protect “inviolable marriage” and the “right of spouses to build a family in accordance with their religious beliefs.”

From Mindanao, the Serve Life CDO, a medical services company, and Rosevale Foundation, a school in Cagayan de Oro City, also asked the Supreme Court to to stop implementation of the new law.

The petitioners said the new law was violative of the Constitution.

15

Readers of this story also viewed:
Soldiers given ‘blinded’ order
Gun ban defied; trader killed
UNA raps repressive acts of LP
China gears up for ‘war’ situation
MNLF seeks release of Abu Sayyaf’s hostages
Customs ‘reconfigures’
Justices find infirmities in cybercrime law
Admin party debunks it’s messed up
52-M voters sign up for May polls
Roxas tells police to stay out of politics
COMMENT DISCLAIMER: Reader comments posted on this Web site are not in any way endorsed by ManilaStandardToday.com. Comments are views by ManilaStandardToday.com readers who exercise their right to free expression and they do not necessarily represent or reflect the position or viewpoint of ManilaStandardToday.com. While reserving this publication’s right to delete comments that are deemed offensive, indecent or inconsistent with ManilaStandardToday.com editorial standards, ManilaStandardToday.com may not be held liable for any false information posted by readers in this comments section.



http://www.tribune.net.ph/index.php/headlines/item/9238-no-tro-on-rh-law-palace-asked-to-comment


No TRO on RH law; Palace asked to comment
Written by Benjamin B. Pulta Wednesday, 16 January 2013 00:00 font size Print
Rate this item 1 2 3 4 5(2 votes)
No restraining order was handed by the Supreme Court (SC) yesterday on the first day of en banc deliberations on a petition challenging the controversial population control measure of Malacañang which has already been signed into law.
At the end of the proceedings, the tribunal instead ordered the Executive Department to comment on the petition questioning the constitutionality of Republic Act 10354 or the Reproductive Health Law.
The SC decided to put off deciding whether to issue a TRO until after the necessary explanations have been filed.
In a 24-page suit, lawyer James Imbong, son of Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines legal counsel Jo Imbong, was joined by his wife Lovely-Ann and their Catholic school Magnificat Child Development Center.
At least 11 provisions in RA 10354, which allow couples to choose to suppress life, violate the constitution, the petitioner said.
Named respondents in the petition were Executive Secretary Pacquito Ochoa Jr., Budget Secretary Florencio Abad, Education Secretary Armin Luistro, Health Secretary Enrique Ona and Interior Secretary Mar Roxas.
The petitioners argued that the RH law “negates

and frustrates the foundational ideals and aspirations of the sovereign Filipino people as enshrined in the Constitution.”
They cited Article II, Section 12 of the Constitution, which states: “The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution. It shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception. The natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral character shall receive the support of Government.
“As regards the value of human life and its sustainance, the Constitution upholds the ideal of an unconditional respect for life and aspires for the establishment of policies that create opportunities to harness the economic potential of every Filipino,” they stressed.
They also alleged that the new law violates Article XV of the Constitution, which imposes on the government the duty to “strengthen (family’s) solidarity and actively promote its total development” and provides for “inviolable marriage” and “right of spouses to found a family in accordance with their religious convictions and the demands of responsible parenthood.”
The couple added that the new law violates constitutional freedom of religion and expression of those who will continue to oppose it and that it also creates doubtful or spurious rights called reproductive health rights.
Because of these violations, petitioners argued that both executive and legislative branches exceeded their boundaries set in the Constitution in enacting and passing the law, respectively.
They said there is need to stop the implementation of the new law that “mocks the nation’s Filipino culture — noble and lofty in its values and holdings on life, motherhood and family life — now the fragile lifeblood of a treasures culture that today stands solitary but proud in contrast to other nations.”
Read 61 times
Published in Headlines

Latest from Benjamin B. Pulta

Noy’s CJ, Leonen say Cyber law needed against bullying
Marcos, Nene mull update of local government code
‘Bong’ calls for Senate probe of Quezon carnage
SC judgment entry eases capital rule
Plunder raps filed vs Alaminos Mayor Braganza
DoJ files estafa raps vs Aman execs
More in this category: « String of resignations mere coincidence — Valte UNA: LP’s ugly side shows in new cases vs Garcia »

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]
[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.