CONCRETE SC DEFINITION OF "URGENT BILL" NEEDED

As things now stand, a petition has been filed with the Supreme Court questioning the constitutionality of the RH Bill.  I am not privy to the exact position of the petitioners in this regard, or as to why they consider the controversial bill  unconstitutional.  I myself had been against that bill for four basic considerations.  One, I believe a specific law is no longer needed under the present situation where contraceptive materials have long been freely accessible to those who need them anytime.  Thus, for  a law to still be passed to practically make contraception mandatory necessarily undermines the government's much avowed position  to guarantee  freedom of choice between the natural and artificial methods of family planning.  Two,  neither does its objective to control this country's population growth still remain relevant, given unimpeachable statistics showing our annual population growth rates to have been constantly declining since 1960;  in fact,  to a point comparable to, if not really lower than, those of some countries in the region.  Third, I do not believe population is the culprit behind the continuing poverty of our people; rather it's the continuing failure of government, with corruption incorrigible all around, to allow our economic gains to really trickle down to the poorest of the poor.  And fourth, I honestly believe most of the RH Bill proponents do have hidden agendas and vested personal interests hidden behind their apparently laudable intentions.  But the bill has now been passed, and everything is water under the bridge. Thus, I've already rested my case against it.

As I said, I do not know the arguments raised by the petitioners in the case they elevated to the Supreme Court.  And so, I cannot  pass personal judgment on them for the moment.  At the very least,. however, I sincerely believe there is cogent reason for it to reach the high court -- well, to determine not as much its constitutionality  per se as the constitutionality of the  manner by which it was enacted.   I mean, everybody knows that that bill would not have been passed in the present Congress had it not been declared or certified  as urgent by the President.  The big question therefore aches for an answer:  had that certification of "urgency"  truly passed the litmus test of constitutionality?

This necessarily brings us to Section 26(2) of the Constitution.  I remember having quoted that in an earlier blog, but let me repeat it here: "No bill passed by either House shall become a law unless it has passed three readings on separate days, and printed copies thereof in its final form have been distributed to its Members three days before its passage, EXCEPT when the President certifies to the necessity of its immediate enactment to meet a public calamity or emergency."  I do not know how others perceive  this provision but, for me,  the only compelling requirement for a bill to be considered "urgent" and thus to be  passed immediately to the extent of  by-passing  the normal legislative process, is when, and only when, there exists a public calamity or emergency.   I leave it upon the readers to judge for themselves whether such public calamity or emergency did exist to constitutionally justify the immediate passage of the RH Bill.

Having said the above, I am writong this blog not as much with respect to the RH Bill -- like I said it's water under the bridge -- as with particular respect to future legislation.  At the very least, even if the RH bill may finally be ruled as constitutional by the high court  --  it is likely going to be since,  in fairness, notwithstanding the presidential certification of urgency, that bill did pass three readings on separate days -- methinks it would still be important that the court should say something on whether a justifiable urgency,  i.e.,  a public calamity or emergency, indeed preceded its blitzkrieg enactment.  That is, to forestall  repetition of what appears to be a bad precedent.  For example, some sectors have lately been in the news urging the President to certify as urgent the passage of the FOI Bill.  Alas, I  do not know what sort of public calamity or emergency awaits the nation if this bill is not passed immediately!