SC upholds #RHLaw , legal implications : Guide for Reporters
The right to health which includes reproductive health is one of those rights that fall under “economic rights”, or, more technically, “economic, social, and cultural rights” enshrined in the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights.
In the Philippine Constitution, these rights are embodied in the motherhood provisions of Art. XIII on “Social Justice and Human Rights”.
The approval of the RH Law and the validation of its salient provisions by the Supreme Court elevates this economic right to the status of a legally demandable right.
Big words. “Legally demandable right”. What does that mean?
Normally, or generally, the motherhood provisions of Art. XIII “Social Justice and Human Rights” (Art. XIII 1987 Constitution reiterating some provisions of the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights) require an enabling law or enabling acts to be enforcible. Absent a law, these motherhood provisions do not create “legally demandable rights”. They are not like the provisions of the Bill of Rights, which enshrine civil liberties – those rights [fundamental civil liberties, like the right not be deprived of life (not to be put to death) without the chance to defend yourself in a trial, or the right not to be deprived of liberty (not to be jailed) without trial] – those rights are so fundamental that they are enforcible withoutneed of an enabling law. In other words, if you are jailed without charges beyond 12, 18, 36, you could sue government (the PNP or AFP or the NBI or the DOJ, etc) and get a court order to set yourself free (a habeas corpus writ). See – it’s legally enforcible, you can sue government and force government to observe your right; if your jailer disobeys the writ, you can send him to jail immediately for contempt.
“Social, economic, and cultural rights”, on the other hand (like, for example, the right to adequate housing, the right to health care, the right to education) require enabling laws. In other words, without an enabling law, they are not legally enforcible. For example, if you are homeless, you cannot sue government to force government to give you a house, or, failing which, send the housing official to jail – you can’t — not without an enabling law — it’s not a legally demandable right.
If you could see this framework, you would realize how this law, in elevating the right to reproductive health to a legally demandable right, turns the century around.
The Supreme Court upheld the most important provisions of the RH Law — those requiring government to fund and make accessible reproductive health services, information, and education. Those rights have become legally enforcible.
A representative of the anti-RH bill groups said in an interview that the Supreme Court rendered the RH Law “toothless” or “defanged” it.
Well, more like , de-whiskered it.
If you take a look at the RH Law, you would see that the SC tweezed out a few whiskers. Here’s an example:
The entire Section 7 states (I bracketed, put multiple x’s and rendered in pink color, the clauses of Section 7 that were invalidated by the SC so you will not make the mistake of still reading it into the provision but I retained the entire provision to illustrate the point):
Sec. 7. Access to Family Planning. – All accredited public health facilities shall provide a full range of modern family planning methods, which shall also include medical consultations, supplies and necessary and reasonable procedures for poor and marginalized couples having infertility issues who desire to have children: Provided, That family planning services shall likewise be extended by private health facilities to paying patients with the option to grant free care and services to indigents, except in the case of non-maternity specialty hospitals and hospitals owned and operated by a religious group, but they have the option to provide such full range of modern family planning methods: [Provided, further, [That x these x hospitals x shall x immediately x refer x the x person x seeking x such x care x and x services x to x another x health x facility x which x is x conveniently x accessible:] Provided, finally, That the person is not in an emergency condition or serious case as defined in Republic Act No. 8344. No person shall be denied information and access to family planning services, whether natural or artificial: Provided, That minors will not be allowed access to modern methods of family planning without written consent from their parents or guardian/s [x except x when x the x minor x is already x a parent x or x has x had x a x miscarriage. ]
Do you see the entire provision? Do you see what “whiskers” were taken out?
(if you want the text of the dispositive portion of the SC decision, it’s online — the paragraph on Section 7 reads: “1) Section 7, and the corresponding provision in the RH-IRR insofar as they: (a) require private health facilities and non-maternity specialty hospitals and hospitals owned and operated by a religious group to refer patients, not in an emergency or life-threatening case, as defined under Republic Act No. 8344, to another health facility which is conveniently accessible; and (b) allow minor-parents or minors who have suffered a miscarriage access to modern methods of family planning without written consent from their parents or guardian/s;”).
The most important provisions of the RH Law, to my mind, are Sections 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 16, 20, 23, 24.
The Supreme Court reporters who broke the news, and the resource persons who discussed the SC announcement, failed to situate those clauses enumerated by the SC spokesperson within the entire provisions themselves, which remain in effect. In fact, the SC did not invalidate entire provisions, but only pulled out certain clauses, or parts of a provision.
When editors or news directors or resource persons fail to show the entirety of the most important provisions that remain in effect, and fail to situate the invalidated clause within the entire provision which is bigger, they fail to see the point, fail to show the millennial shift.
Forest for the trees, sweetie.
Fowwest… fo tha… tweees — gubat for da kuli—sap (ngeh ehek)
People vs. Delfin Lee et al for syndicated estafa, pretrial: Will signatures of ex-PAGIBIG officials be also marked as prosecution evidence? #DelfinLee Guide for Reporters
Syndicated estafa accused Delfin Lee’s arraignment was reset to Friday. Upon arraignment, the pre-trial would be set or, if the parties are ready, would be held right after the arraignment.
Pre-trial includes marking of documents. The documents include the PAGIBIG loan documents, deeds of sale, contracts to sell, mortgage documents, etc.
Ideally, ALL the signatures on the pertinent documents should also be marked – called “sub-markings”. When a signature is marked, there is an intent to present them as evidence.
So… Here’s what to watch out for in the pre-trial:
Will the prosecution also mark in evidence the signatures of the former PAGIBIG officials who approved the loans, amounting to a total of 6 billion pesos?
Because if these signatures are marked in evidence, it will draw attention to the fact that PAGIBIG and PAGIBIG members, were defrauded, to the tune of about 6 billion pesos, with the help of said former PAGIBIG officials.
(I don’t know whose signatures from PAGIBIG appear in those documents. The former PAGIBIG CEOs, from most recent to oldest, are : Jaime Fabiaña, Miro Quimbo, Noli de Castro.)
If they are marked as prosecution evidence, will those former PAGIBIG officials be impleaded (as respondents in a preliminary investigation and as accused later on)?
If the prosecution does not mark them in evidence … one would wonder why.
If the lawyers of Delfin Lee are smart, they would notice if the signatures of the former PAGIBIG officials are not marked in evidence. If they have a theory of this case, they would sub-mark those signatures. But they’ll have to stipulate on those documents – and hopefully, those become common exhibits, thereby facilitating trial.
Those who are just beginning to cover this case should probably read this column piece from Prof. Randy David:
“The picture of Delfin Lee” By Randy David Philippine Daily Inquirer First Posted 00:11:00 10/31/2010 “Public Lives”
“IN A column I wrote in July this year (Inquirer, 07/17/10), I tried to interpret an intriguing photo that appeared in the Inquirer showing Globe Asiatique’s Delfin Lee with top officials of Pag-Ibig (Home Development Mutual Fund). The photo carried the following caption: “Globe Asiatique and Pag-Ibig Committed to Working Together.” If this was a news item, I said, what was it doing in the foreign section? If it was a paid advertisement, why was it not labeled as such? The main point of that article was to argue why it is important to mark the boundaries separating the news from advertisement and entertainment.
“But, what initially drew me to the picture in question had little to do with the point I was making. There was just something curious and disturbing about the photo itself: A smiling man dressed casually (Delfin Lee) had his right hand on the shoulder of a formally dressed person (Jaime Fabiaña) in what appeared to be a formal pose. This man must be a celebrity, I thought to myself.
“Well, Lee might have felt like one because he used to host a television program on ANC in which he mainly promoted the projects of his real-estate company. Still, it seemed improper for anyone, especially one who has dealings with Pag-Ibig, to treat the chief executive officer of the agency as if they were buddies. To be fair, Fabiaña himself, like the other Pag-Ibig official in the photo, deputy CEO Emma Linda Faria, looked reluctant and uncomfortable in that picture.
“My instinct was instantly confirmed after I Googled Delfin Lee. One link led me to the website of Pag-Ibig Fund South Min, which featured more or less the same photograph minus the overreaching hand of Lee resting on Fabiaña?s shoulder. More interesting was the caption: “Apology to Pag-Ibig. Jaime A. Fabiaña (left), Chief Executive Officer of Home Development Mutual Fund (Pag-Ibig Fund), receives Delfin Lee (center), President of Globe Asiatique Realty Holdings Corporation at his office. Lee personally apologized to Fabiaña over his reported statements that HDMF officials have become lazy and have lost the vision to serve.”
(blog admin’s note: here’s that photo, right-clicked from the PAGIBIG South Min site, embedded below):
“Three months quickly passed since that picture saw print in the Inquirer. But one doesn’t have to be a journalist, I wrote in my column, to sense that there?s a bigger story buried here. What prompted the apology? What was the issue? What is the nature of Lee’s dealings with the Pag-Ibig Fund?
“As it turned out, one sharp-nosed journalist, the Inquirer’s own Tonette Orejas, correspondent for Central Luzon, had been quietly researching Lee’s projects in Pampanga long before that contested photograph appeared. Her carefully documented research resulted in a two-part report that the Inquirer published a month later. That report promptly triggered a Senate investigation of the activities of Globe Asiatique. Today, Globe Asiatique owner Delfin Lee and other officials of his company are facing charges of syndicated estafa. The complaint filed at the Department of Justice is signed by Pag-Ibig officer in charge Emma Linda Faria, the lady in that picture.
“Lee is accused of using fictitious buyers of housing units supplied by his company to take out loans from Pag-Ibig. The amount involved is P6.65 billion, representing payment for 8,790 units in the Xevera projects of Globe Asiatique. Of these, only 1,209 are actually occupied by buyers/borrowers on Pag-Ibig’s records. A total of 1,576 housing units that were supposed to have been bought by Pag-Ibig members/borrowers are actually being occupied by people who say they are tenants or in-house buyers of Globe Asiatique.
“The charges allege that Delfin Lee, in effect, fraudulently accessed the funds belonging to Pag-Ibig members to finance his own real-estate projects. This scam is so reminiscent of the misuse of public funds that doomed the well-intentioned Unified Home Lending Program during the Ramos administration that it is difficult to believe that people at Pag-Ibig and the Housing and Urban Development Coordinating Council (HUDCC) could not have smelled this rip-off earlier.
“Every legitimate Pag-Ibig member knows how tortuous and protracted the process of securing a housing loan can be. Yet, individuals sponsored by Globe Asiatique, who became instant Pag-Ibig members upon paying P5,000, the equivalent of two years’ contributions, could get their loan applications processed and approved in less than a week. For a given period, month after month, a big bulk of the agency
s available housing credit was taken out by the same company. If no one in Pag-Ibig or the HUDCC felt any alarm over this, the only logical conclusion one can draw is that the officials of these government agencies were incompetent, in collusion with the private developer, or were intimidated by a powerful official.
“As a long-time member of the Pag-Ibig Fund, I feel violated. This matter cannot end with the filing of charges against Globe Asiatique and one low-ranking employee at Pag-Ibig. Delfin Lee could not have gotten this far without the backing of someone who uses political muscle to soften the stiffest resistance from professionals in government. The man in that photograph who carried himself as if he owned Pag-Ibig definitely had a protector who was clever enough not to be in that picture.”
