Manila residents who petitioned to lift former Mayor Ateinza's ban on modern family planning methods suffered a setback recently when the Court of Appeals dismissed the Petition they filed early this year.
The appellate court's resolution directed the petitioners to file their case before the regional trial court but counsel for the petitioners argued that the case, being one of "transcendental importance," involved pure questions of law, which the Court of Appeals had the jurisdiction to decide. In the past, the Philippine Supreme Court has ruled that the Courts in cases involving issues of transcendental importance and legal questions with serious implications on public interests may set aside procedural technicalities and consider a petition. The Petitioners are hoping that the Court will consider this case, a plea to lift the ban on comprehensive family planning methods in Manila, such an issue. The ban, which was instituted by former Mayor Atienza, has been in effect for over nine years.
Dr. Junice D. Melgar, chair of the Reproductive Health Advocacy Network (RHAN) Policy and Legislative Committee, confirmed that the petitioners remain very committed to the case and from early on, indicated their willingness to take the case all the way to the Supreme Court, if necessary. (Dr. Junice Melgar was interviewed by Al Jazeera early in March and spoke about the case.)
Elizabeth Pangalangan, legal counsel for the petitioners, also pointed out that the parties filed the case as indigents, pleading with the Court to exempt them from the payment of applicable court and docket fees. In a Motion for Reconsideration questioning the Court of Appeal's dismissal, the petitioners claimed that they would suffer "substantial injustice" following a dismissal from the court. The only recourse left for the petitioners if this were to happen is to re-file the case before the Manila Regional Trial Court.
Claire V. Luczon, executive director of Womenlead and chair of the RHAN Legal Committee, supported the call of the Petitioners to keep the fight going. She clarified that: "The case is very important not just for the resident petitioners whose rights were prejudiced by the Atienza ban but for all Manila residents who remain unable to access complete reproductive health care in the City's public health facilities simply because the ban has not been lifted."
Meanwhile, as the Petitioners await the Court of Appeal's final decision on their Motion for Reconsideration, like other Manila residents, for modern birth control options they have to rely on both private NGO sources as well as nearby cities for their family planning needs.
Atienza imposed his views on Catholic teaching adopting the ban on contraceptives in Manila but current Mayor Alfredo Lim, who is himself a devout Catholic, professes respect for the "choice" of couples in family planning. The conflicting positions on Family Planning by the former and current Mayor is nothing new in Catholic circles. A 2006 Catholics for Free Choice study reveals that Catholics' views on family planning differ almost everywhere in the world and that even Catholic theologians emphasize the importance of individual "conscience" in making a decision on contraceptive use.
Despite the pronouncements of Mayor Lim, who says that, unlike Atienza, he favors and supports free and informed consent as to family planning methods, not all of Manila's facilities have been able to reinstate modern methods in their service delivery because the City has yet to include a budget for the services. This February, Quezon City, a neighboring city, passed an ordinance providing for reproductive health care for its constituents on a vote of 25-1 and allocated a budget of 12 million pesos for the program. While the new Mayor has welcomed private organizations and donations of reproductive health care services to benefit his constituents, the remaining question is whether he will have a change of heart on lifting the policy which as it is worded, "discourages" modern family planning methods and favors only Natural Family Planning (NFP).
"The only reason the case is directed against the City and the Office of the Mayor is because obviously, he has the power to make the change and junk the policy," Luczon added. In fact, the Mayor can lift the ban sans a direct order from any Court and institute a comprehensive reproductive health program with the assistance of the City Council.
What this really means is that despite the pending case, the ball, is clearly in the Mayor's court.
