STATEMENT ON RH DECISION
By SEN. MIRIAM DEFENSOR SANTIAGO (Author and co-sponsor, RH Law)

Thank you, Supreme Court! I love you, because you have faced the fears of a nation, and swept them away like cobwebs.

The Supreme Court opinion is, to quote a landmark case, a decision upon clashing interests resolved exclusively by the force of reason, according to law, without the power of armies, the weight of patronage, or imposing pomp. In short, it is a triumph of reason over superstition.

For lack of time, I want to make only a general assessment of the chances of a motion for reconsideration on the eight provisions of the RH law, which were struck down, as follows:

• The RH law enjoys a presumption of constitutionality, based on the respect of the judiciary for the legislature.

• The presumption of constitutionality dictates that doubt should be resolved in favor of the law; and that the Court should reconcile the law with the Constitution.

• With respect to the provisions that did not pass muster, the Court should have granted to Congress the presumption of good faith and the presumption that legislative determination of factual issues is correct.

Very humbly, I emphasize that the burden of proof lies on the party who alleges unconstitutionality. In the eight provisions, the petitioners failed to discharge this burden. It is not entirely clear what quantum of proof was applied by the Court to overcome the presumption of constitutionality.

I think that in many instances, petitioners failed to show that the eight provisions are unconstitutional; instead, petitioners depended only on the argument that there was reasonable, substantial, or rational doubt. But I very respectfully emphasize the rule that mere preponderance of evidence is not enough.

Hence, I support with full enthusiasm the move to file motions for reconsideration. I am fairly confident that a more exhaustive study of the principles of constitutional law will support a reconsideration of all eight provisions.