Lesson 24: Critique on the Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012 ,Republic Act
No.10354,also known as RH Law
Learning Objectives:
This module discusses background, rationale, salient provisions, and potential impacts of the “Responsible Parenthood and
Reproductive Health Act of 2011” or RA 10354, also known as RH Law. This module also discuses the pros and cons of the
said law. At the end of this module, you should be able to:
1. Understand fully the background, rationale, salient provisions and potential impacts of the “Responsible Parenthood
and Reproductive Health Act of 2013” or RA 10354; and
2. Have a stand/position on whether he/she agrees/disagrees on the existence and legality of the said law.
Introduction
As you will notice, it is quite common for your grandparents to have seven (7) or eight ( siblings. Some even have more.
This is not the commonplace nowadays, as most couples settle for two or three (3) kids, that is why most of you have few
siblings unlike previous times.
This phenomenon is very simple-rearing children became costly in terms of time and resources.
The RH Law
The “Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012 ,Republic Act No.10354,also known as RH Law” was
primarily enacted on a vision that the poor will have access to Reproductive Health (RH) goods and services which we have
a access to information about the proper use and effectiveness of these RH products.
Elements of RH Law
(1) Family planning information and services;
(2) Maternal, infant, and child health and nutrition, including breast feeding:
(3) Prevention of abortion and management of post-abortion complications;
(4) Adolescent and youth reproductive health guidance and counseling;
(5) Prevention and management of reproductive tract infections (RTIs), HIV/AIDS, and STIs;
(6) Elimination of VAWC and other forms of sexual and GBV;
(7) Education and counselling on sexuality and reproductive health;
(8) Treatment of breast and reproductive tract cancers and other gynecologic conditions and disorders;
(9) male responsibility and involvement and men’s
(10) Prevention, treatment, and management of infertility and sexual dysfunction;
(11) RH education for the adolescents; and
(12) mental health aspect reproductive health care.
Salient Provisions
1. Midwives for skilled birth attendance:
The law mandates every city and municipality to employ an adequate number of midwives and other skilled
attendants.
2. Emergency obstetric care:
Each province and city shall ensure the establishment and operation of hospitals with adequate facilities and
qualified personnel that provide emergency obstetric care.
3. Hospital-based family planning:
The law requires family planning services like ligation, vasectomy, and intrauterine device (IUD) placement to be
available in all government hospitals.
4. Contraceptives as essential medicines:
Reproductive health products shall be considered essential medicines and supplies and shall form part of the
National Drug Formulary.
5. Reproductive health education:
RH education shall be taught by adequate trained teachers in an age-appropriate manner.
6. Employers’ responsibilities:
Employers shall respect the reproductive health rights of all their workers. Women shall not be discriminated against
in the matter of hiring, regularization of employment status, or selection for retrenchment. Employers shall provide
free reproductive health services and education to workers.
7. Capability building of community-based volunteer workers:
Community-based workers shall undergo additional and updated training on the delivery of reproductive health care
services and shall receive not less than 10% increase in honoraria upon successful completion of training.
Prohibited Acts
This law also provides for penalties for persons who perform certain prohibited acts such as the following:
• Knowingly (with malicious intent) withholding or impeding the dissemination of information.
• Refusing to perform voluntary ligation and vasectomy and other legal and medically-safe reproduce health care
services.
• Refusing to provide health care services to an abused minor and/or an abused pregnant minor.
• Refusing to extend reproductive health care services and information on account of the patient’s civil status,
gender or sexual orientation, age, religion, personal circumstances, and nature of work.
• Requiring a female applicant or employee, as a condition of employment or continued employment, to involuntarily
undergo any contraceptive methods.
Legislating RH
The road to the enactment of the RH Law was a painstaking path. The main blockade was the constitutional
provision, particularly that provided in Article II, Section 12 of
The 1977 Constitution which mandates that:
“The State recognizes the sanctity of life…It shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn
from conception”
In this regard, the 1987 constitution itself mandates that the Philippine Government must recognize the importance
of life and protect the life of the mothers and the unborn.
In as much as artificial family planning methods are labeled as “anti-life” and against conception, these are
interpreted to be against the sanctity of life making them contrary to the said fundamental law of the land.
On the other hand, advocates of the RH Law counter this concept of proliferating abortion or abortifacient products
by scientific findings which claimed otherwise.
The long political battle
• The creation of a Population Commission as a measure of population control to manage high fertility and alleviate
property.
• The RH Law, which was finally enacted in 2012, was a product of a 14-year struggle.
• In March 2013, the law was challenged before the SC of the Philippines, delaying its full implementation.
• A year after, the law was held to be valid, except for clauses therein, that allowed minors to access reproductive
health services without the written consent of a guardian and penal measures for government officials who did not
implement the law.
• In 2015, a further temporary restraining order (TRO) issued again by the nation’s SC prevented the Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) of the Philippines from procuring, distributing, or issuing new certificates of product
registration.
• The TRO was launched after the FDA registered a contraceptive implant called ”Implanon”, which accordingly,
could be used to induce abortion.
• Two (2) years after the said TRO, the FDA then certified that Implanon and Implanon NXT are not abortifacients.
Summary
The “Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012”, or RA 10354, was truly a landmark legislation
which has the noblest intention of allowing women, especially those who are poor, to have a choice on their family
planning methods.
It is a given that the Catholic Church will vehemently oppose to this move and will keep doing so because of what
they believe in and what they fight for. This exercise of argument only strengthens our democratic institutions and
citizenry as more people become aware of what the law is all about and what it provides.
No matter the debates and the long winding journey, the RH Law is now implemented and it is expected that all
actors must comply to the same. As can be seen, the RH Law is replete with substantial provisions envisioning an
empowered Filipino woman with choices in her life.
