Questioning the RH Law

 ATTY. JAMES IMBONG, FIRST NOMINEE OF #42 ANG PROLIFE PARTYLIST 
 (First Petitioner who filed in the Supreme Court against the RH LAW) 

 Supreme Court issues Status Quo Ante Order in G.R. No. 204819 
against Republic Act No. 10354. (REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH LAW) 

Reactions of James M. Imbong As Petitioner and Counsel for the Petitioners in G.R. No. 204819 

Whenever a court issues a status quo ante (SQA) order (whatever the case may be) it means that the court has decided to keep things as they were in the beginning (the "beginning" is the moment the case was filed before the court). It is worth pointing out that courts exercise this discretion NOT to rule in favor of one or another party, but rather simply to preserve the status of the parties before the controversy began. In other words, it is not a decision on the merits, but merely a practical action by a court in a given case. Practical because the court simply wants the parties "not to make a move" while the court is going into the merits of the controversy itself. In the case of the SQA order against the rh law, this means that the court, as sole arbiter of judicial questions, has determined that a 4-month status quo period is sufficient to allow the court to review the merits of the case (which culminates in the oral argument on June 18).

 While the SQA order is not a decision on the merits, but merely a practical order, the message we can deduce from this development is that: the SC is giving proper attention to the petitions and has decided to give a 4-month cool-off period in order for the parties to prepare for the oral arguments in June. It also means that the petitions have succeeded in "presenting a justiciable case worthy of the SC's time and judicial attention as the highest court of our country".

 As regards the implications of the SQA order on the crusade for life and Filipino values, it would be premature to make a conclusion on that because the SQA order does not give us a clear view of the "mind of the court". As you will see from the SQA order, the SC did not issue an "opinion", nor is there any legal reasoning or jurisprudential explanation behind the issuance of the SQA order. At best, the SQA order is a manifestation of the SC's intention to look deep into the merits of the case, considering that the numerous petitions have raised diverse legal arguments on many aspects of the law.

 The SC will hear the parties on oral argument in June, we know that for sure. After the oral arguments, the SC usually requires the arguing parties to file their final memorandum of law (a legal brief). Depending on the discretion of the SC, the parties may be allowed to file their reply-memorandum against each other's briefs. After that stage, the SC usually issues an order declaring that the arguments and filing of memoranda are over and that the SC will proceed to resolve the case. At that point, we cannot tell when the decision will be promulgated. That is all up to the SC. The best thing to do at that stage is to wait (and not talk about the case publicly under the sub judice rule).

 It is worth stressing that the SC is the highest judicial body in our legal system. Thus, we must put our full trust and confidence in their office because their highest duty is to decide cases that challenge the constitutionality of a particular law, in this case the RH law.

 In the next few months, while the SQA order is in effect, we must all be vigilant in our own communities and circles of vocation. If you are able to witness any government agency or official engaging in RH law related activities, the best thing to do is to gather information about that incident (who, what, where, when) and transmit your observations to any of our pro-life attorneys so that we can determine if any violation of the SQA order has been committed.

 James M. Imbong 
As Petitioner and Counsel
for the Petitioners in
G.R. No. 204819