Abortion

Abortion Each year in the Philippines, hundreds of thousands of women become pregnant without intending to, and many women with unintended pregnancies decide to end them by abortion. Because abortion is legal only to save a woman’s life, most procedures are clandestine, and many are carried out in unsafe circumstances. Unsafe abortion can endanger women’s reproductive health and lead to serious, often life-threatening complications. Furthermore, unsafe abortions impose a heavy burden on women, their families and society by virtue of the serious health consequences that often ensue: These health problems can keep women from work and school, and treatment can be costly and consume scarce medical resources at both public and private health institutions. Because abortion is highly stigmatized and largely prohibited, information on abortion is difficult to obtain. However, new research findings shed light on the causes, level and consequences of abortion in the PH. RH LAW The intent of the framers of the Constitution for protecting the life of the unborn child was to prevent the Legislature from passing a measure prevent abortion. The Court cannot interpret this otherwise. The RH Law is in line with this intent and actually prohibits abortion. By using the word “or” in defining abortifacient  (Section 4(a)), the RH Law prohibits not only drugs or devices that prevent implantation but also those that induce abortion and induce the destruction of a fetus inside the mother’s womb. The RH Law recognizes that the fertilized ovum already has life and that the State has a bounded duty to protect it. However, the authors of the IRR gravely abused their office when they redefined the meaning of abortifacient by using the term “primarily”. Recognizing as abortifacients only those that “primarily induce abortion or the destruction of a fetus inside the mother’s womb or the prevention of the fertilized ovum to reach and be implanted in the mother’s womb” (Sec. 3.01(a) of the IRR) would pave the way for the approval of contraceptives that may harm or destroy the life of the unborn from conception/fertilization. This violates Section 12, Article II of the Constitution. For the same reason, the definition of contraceptives under the IRR (Sec 3.01(j)), which also uses the term “primarily”, must be struck down. The RH Law does not intend to do away with RA 4729 (1966). With RA 4729 in place, the Court believes adequate safeguards exist to ensure that only safe contraceptives are made available to the public. In fulfilling its mandate under Sec. 10 of the RH Law, the DOH must keep in mind the provisions of RA 4729: the contraceptives it will procure shall be from a duly licensed drug store or pharmaceutical company and that the actual distribution of these contraceptive drugs and devices will be done following a prescription of a qualified medical practitioner.Meanwhile, the requirement of Section 9 of the RH Law is to be considered “mandatory” only after these devices and materials have been tested, evaluated and approved by the FDA. Congress cannot determine that contraceptives are “safe, legal, non-abortificient and effective”. Child-friendly environment A child-friendly school ensures every child an environment that is physically safe, emotionally secure and psychologically enabling. A child-friendly school recognizes, encourages and supports children's growing capacities as learners by providing a school culture, teaching behaviors and curriculum content that are focused on learning and the learner. The ability of a school to be and to call itself child-friendly is directly linked to the support, participation and collaboration it receives from families. Child-friendly schools aim to develop a learning environment in which children are motivated and able to learn Academic freedom Art. 14, Sec 5(2) Academic freedom shall be enjoyed in all institutions of higher learning. In its 2010 decision on Mercado et al vs. AMA Computer College (G.R. No. 183572), for example, the Supreme Court said: “Last but not the least factor in the academic world, is that a school enjoys academic freedom – a guarantee that enjoys protection from the Constitution no less. Section 5(2) Article XIV of the Constitution guarantees all institutions of higher learning academic freedom. The institutional academic freedom includes the right of the school or college to decide and adopt its aims and objectives, and to determine how these objections can best be attained, free from outside coercion or interference, save possibly when the overriding public welfare calls for some restraint. The essential freedoms subsumed in the term ‘academic freedom’ encompass the freedom of the school or college to determine for itself: (1) who may teach; (2) who may be taught; (3) how lessons shall be taught; and (4) who may be admitted to study.” Without it Will lead to degradation of its culture, confusion of its thinkers and ultimate cessation of its scientific progress Right to discipline Right to discipline has certain limitations since students have certain well-defined rights under existing laws. Prohibition against cruel or physically harmful punishment, Valid cause for initiating disciplinary action, Due process, Commensurate Guzman vs NU (1986) -Under the Education Act of 1982, 5 the petitioners, as students, have the right among others "to freely choose their field of study subject to existing curricula and to continue their course therein up to graduation, except in case of academic deficiency, or violation of disciplinary regulations -But, to repeat, the imposition of disciplinary sanctions requires observance of procedural due process. And it bears stressing that due process in disciplinary cases involving students does not entail proceedings and hearings similar to those prescribed for actions and proceedings in courts of justice. The proceedings in student discipline cases may be summary; and cross-examination is not, 'contrary to petitioners' view, an essential part thereof. There are withal minimum standards which must be met to satisfy the demands of procedural due process; and these are, that (1) the students must be informed in writing of the nature and cause of any accusation against them; (2) they shag have the right to answer the charges against them, with the assistance of counsel, if desired; (3) they shall be informed of the evidence against them; (4) they shall have the right to adduce evidence in their own behalf; and (5) the evidence must be duly considered by the investigating committee or official designated by the school authorities to hear and decide the case. Section 13. Rights of Schools - In addition to other rights provided for by law, schools shall enjoy the following: 1. The right of their governing boards or lawful authorities to provide for the proper governance of the school & adopt & enforce administrative or management systems 2. The right for institutions of higher learning to determine on academic grounds who shall be admitted to study, who may teach, & what shall be subjects of the study & research Education is a right and a privilege Since Garcia v. Loyola School of Theology, (1975)  we have consistently upheld the salutary proposition that admission to an institution of higher learning is discretionary upon a school, the same being a privilege on the part of the student rather than a right. While under the education Act of 1982, students have a right "to freely choose their field of study, subject to existing curricula and to continue their course therein up to graduation," such right is subject, as all rights are, to the established academic and disciplinary standards laid down by the academic institution. 42 "For private schools have the right to establish reasonable rules and regulations for the admission, discipline and promotion of students. This . . . extends as well to parents . . . as parents are under a social and moral (if not legal) obligation, individually and collectively, to assist and cooperate with the schools." 43 Such rules are "incident to the very object of incorporation and indispensable to the successful management of the college. The rules may include those governing student discipline." 44 Going a step further, the establishment of rules governing university-student relations, particularly those pertaining to student discipline, may be regarded as vital, not merely to the smooth and efficient operation of the institution, but to its very survival. Best Interests of the Child STANDARD SETTING AND INSTITUTION BUILDING In the international instruments and national legislation, the “best interests of the child” is the standard by which issues or cases involving children are decided. Thus in both lawmaking and adjudication involving or affecting the rights of the child, the primary consideration is his/her welfare and anything prejudicial to the child’s well-being will be struck down. Upholding the best interests of the child is already well established in our legal and judicial systems. To illustrate, the court applied the best interest of the child standard in determining custody cases. In Gualberto v Gualberto, Crisanto Gualberto filed a petition for declaration of nullity of his marriage to Joycelyn Gualberto, with a prayer for custody of their 4-year-old child. The lower court judge awarded custody to Crisanto, taking into consideration Joycelyn’s lesbian relations. On appeal, the SC held: “The CRC provides that “[i]n all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration. “The principle of “best interest of the child” pervades Philippine cases involving adoption, guardianship, support, personal status, minors in conflict with the law, and child custody. In these cases, it has long been recognized that in choosing the parent to whom custody is given, the welfare of the minors should always be the paramount consideration. Courts are mandated to take into account all relevant circumstances that would have a bearing on the children’s well-being & development. Aside from the material resources & the moral and social situations of each parent, other factors may also be considered to ascertain which one has the capability to attend to the physical, educational, social & moral welfare of the children. Among these factors are the previous care & devotion shown by each of the parents; their religious background, moral uprightness, home environment and time availability; as well as the children’s emotional & educational needs. Following the general rule that no child below 7 yrs of age should be separated from his/her mother unless there are compelling reasons, the court concluded that there was “no evidence that the son was exposed to the mother’s alleged sexual proclivities or that his proper moral and psychological development suffered as a result.” In the case of Republic v Court of Appeals, the court ruled that: “The welfare of a child is of paramount consideration in proceedings involving its custody and the propriety of its adoption by another, and the courts to which the application for adoption is made is charged with the duty of protecting the child and its interests and, to bring those interests fully before it, it has authority to make rules to accomplish that end. Ordinarily, the approval of the adoption rests in the sound discretion of the court. This discretion should be exercised in accordance with the best interests of the child, as long as the natural rights of the parents over the child are not disregarded. In the absence of a showing of grave abuse, the exercise of this discretion by the approving official will not be disturbed.” Before the enactment of BP 129, civil actions & special proceedings involving children were within the jurisdiction of the Juvenile & Domestic Relations Courts (JDRCs). BP 129, however, abolished the JDRC and transferred jurisdiction over said cases to the Regional Trial Courts. This change spawned several problems. Mainly, due to the lack of training and orientation programs for court personnel and judges, some child offenders were not treated differently from adult offenders. Court proceedings were conducted with very little regard for children’s welfare and protection. With the passage of the RA 8369, Family Courts similar to the JDCR now have exclusive jurisdiction over all criminal and civil cases as well as special proceedings involving minors. In particular, such special courts have authority to try violations of RA 7610 (also known as the Child Abuse Act) & cases based on PD 603 (Child & Youth Welfare Code), among others. However, the court in a recent decision, explained that RA 8369 did not divest the Court of Appeals and the SC of their jurisdiction over habeas corpus cases involving the custody of minors. In Madrinan v Madrinan, petitioner & respondent were married and had four children. After a bitter quarrel, petitioner left the conjugal abode and took their three sons with him. Respondent filed a petition for habeas corpus on the ground that petitioner’s act of leaving the conjugal dwelling & going out of town disrupted the education of their children and deprived them of their mother’s care. She prayed that petitioner be ordered to appear & produce their sons before the court and to explain why they should not be returned to her custody. Petitioner countered that respondent was unfit to take custody of their children because she was habitually drunk, frequently out at night and is a neglectful mother. He also questioned the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals claiming that under Section 5(b) of RA 8369 (Family Courts Act of 1997) family courts have exclusive original jurisdiction to hear and decide the petition for habeas corpus filed by respondent. The Court reiterated its decision in Thornton v Thornton and said that: There is no doubt that the Court of Appeals and SC have concurrent jurisdiction with family courts in habeas corpus cases where the custody of minors is involved. “We note that after petitioner moved out of their Parañaque residence on May 18, 2002, he twice transferred his sons to provinces covered by different judicial regions. This situation is what the Thornton interpretation of RA 8369’s provision on jurisdiction precisely addressed: “[The reasoning that by giving family courts exclusive jurisdiction over habeas corpus cases, the lawmakers intended them to be the sole courts which can issue writs of habeas corpus] will result in an iniquitous situation, leaving individuals like [respondent] without legal recourse in obtaining custody of their children. Individuals who do not know the whereabouts of minors they are looking for would be helpless since they cannot seek redress from family courts whose writs are enforceable only in their respective territorial jurisdictions. Thus, if a minor is being transferred from one place to another, which seems to be the case here, the petitioner in a habeas corpus case will be left without legal remedy. This lack of recourse could not have been the intention of the lawmakers when they passed (RA 8369). Adoption ADOPTION (RA 8552: DOMESTIC ADOPTION LAW) Who Can Adopt A Filipino citizen or an alien (a foreigner who is not a Filipino citizen) may adopt if he or she meets the following requirements: legal age. at least 16 yrs older than adoptee (except when adopter is the biological parent) Has the capacity to act and assume all the rights and duties incident to the exercise of parental authority. of good moral character & has not been convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude. in a good position to support, educate and care for his/her legitimate and illegitimate children and the child to be adopted. Has undergone the pre-adoption services. As for aliens, another additional requirement would be: If he/she has diplomatic relations with the Philippines. Has been certified by his/her diplomatic or consular office or any appropriated agency that he/she is qualified to adopt in his country His/her government will allow the adoption. needs to have been living in the country for a minimum of 3 continuous years before adoption application. Who Can Be Adopted Any person below 18 who has been administratively or judicially declared available for adoption. Legitimate son/daughter of one spouse by the other spouse. An illegitimate son/daughter by a qualified adopter/s to improve his/her status to that of legitimacy. A person of legal age if, prior to the adoption, said the person has been consistently considered and treated by the adopter/s as his/her own child since minority. A child whose adoption has been previously rescinded. A child whose biological parent/s has died provided that no proceedings shall be initiated within 6 months from the time of the death of the said parent/s. Gender-sensitivity Promotes gender equality in enrolment and achievement. Eliminates gender stereotypes. Guarantees girl-friendly facilities, curricula, textbooks, and teaching-learning processes. socializes girls and boys in a non-violent environment. Encourages respect for each others' rights, dignity, and equality. As of 2016, the Philippines ranks 7th out of 144 countries in the world in bridging the gender gap. The perception is that locally, the gap seems to have closed significantly — or there seems to be little to no disparity — in terms of educational attainment and health and survival between men and women. The gender gap in politics and economic opportunity, however, can still be closed further in terms of electing more female leaders and assigning them ministerial positions in government, among others, as well as increasing the number of women who join the workforce. But overall, the report views the Philippines as one of the most gender-equal societies in the world. Armed conflict Children in Situation of Armed Conflict (CSAC)- children who are: a) members of displaced families as a result of armed conflict; b) physically weakened, orphaned or disabled as a result of armed conflict; c) combatants and those mobilized for other armed conflict-related activities; and d) disrupted from schooling due to armed conflict Optional Protocol to the CRC on the involvement of children in armed conflict: ART 2: State parties shall ensure that persons who have not attained the age of 18 years are not compulsorily recruited into armed forces ART 3: State parties that permit voluntary recruitment under the age of 18 shall maintain safeguards to ensure, as a minimum, that: It is genuinely voluntary Done with the informed consent of the parents or legal guardians Persons are fully informed of the duties involved in such military service Persons provide reliable proof of age prior to acceptance 4