BY EVANGELINE DE VERA

MANILA residents from some of the poorest communities in the city yesterday asked the Court of Appeals to declare unconstitutional an issuance banning artificial contraception and state-provided reproductive health services in the city.

In a 61-page landmark petition, the Manila residents, consisting mostly of mothers who they said have at least two unplanned children, asked the CA to nullify and set aside former Manila Mayor Lito Atienza’s Executive Order No. 003 which directed city hospitals and health centers to stop the distribution of contraceptives like condoms, pills, intrauterine devices, and surgical sterilization, in support of the city’s pro-life stance.

Atienza, who is now Environment secretary, was not impleaded in the petition for certiorari and prohibition but only the Office of the Mayor, "hoping to set a legal precedent that will deter other local government units from issuing similar orders and policies," the petition said.

The petition was filed by members of the group Likhain (Linangan ng Kababaihan Inc.), which also includes NGOs, that was formed last year.

Assisted by lawyers Harry Roque and former UP Law Dean Raul Pangalangan, the 20 signatories said Atienza’s order violated the State’s constitutional duty to defend the right of spouses to "found a family in accordance with their religious convictions and the demands of responsible parenthood," as well as the right of families to "participate in the planning and implementation of policies and programs that affect them."

"Particularly in the case of petitioners who are further constrained by poverty and therefore cannot purchase contraceptives from private hospitals or facilities, EO 003 has completely rendered the State’s duty empty and meaningless, since any possibility of ‘choice’ by spouses to found their families is foreclosed altogether in favor of only natural family planning," said petitioners.

"The freedom of choice in marriage and family relationships are at the core of the right of privacy. There is a private realm of family which the state cannot enter," they told the court.

The group also questioned the validity of the order, saying the Office of the Mayor acted without jurisdiction when it usurped legislative authority in issuing the EO, which does not enforce any existing law or city ordinance.

The petition further said EO 003 could not be claimed as simply an "implementing issuance, there being no legislation in the first place that prohibits or discourages artificial methods of contraception.

"Clearly, the city mayor does not have the authority to enact legislative measures in the guise of `executive orders’ bypassing legislative authorization. On its face, EO 003 is a legislative measure... (but) nowhere is there any reference to any legislative statute or city ordinance providing that artificial methods of contraception should indeed be ‘discouraged,’" they said.

According to petitioners, the local issuance also violated international treaties on family planning such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women; and the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The EO was issued by Atienza on Feb. 29, 2000 but it took the petitioners almost eight years to act for fear of reprisal from Atienza.