- Position Papers
- Legislative Update
- Independent Articles
- About Us
In a 50 page petition, petitioner John Walter Juat an Education Major taking up Child Development and five other students urged the Supreme Court to junk the RH law being unconstitutional.
In their petition, they questions RH law’s contrasting intentions with the Constitution that acknowledges the value of youth as the succeeding generation where it provides: “A society guided by love cannot be hostile to the birthing of posterity. Hence, it may not impede conception, the starting point of progeny. Since the Constitution values progeny, necessarily, it protects the human faculties necessary for progeny and human generation.”
Juat further said in an interview that he as a student is gravely affected by RH law. That it involves a change in the way of thinking of students on certain issues that deal with family life, marriage, contraception.
He furthered that, “maturity of each individual differs from person to person, and something as important and as sensitive as sex education should be left to the parents, who know their child well.”
Juat also stressed that there is a better use of the RH law funding which is believed to reach 13.7 billion a year by directing it instead to basic priorities such as education, hospitalization, increase of salary of teachers or poverty alleviation programs.
“To put it simply, there’s a better use of money than the government imposing contraceptive programs targeted on the poor and marginalized.” Juat said.
In their petition, it also questions the RH guiding principle that seeks to impose on the poor infertility medicines and devices. (Angelique Guevarra)