Supreme Court spokesman Theodore Te was splitting hairs when he reiterated that the High Court did not derail the implementation of the Reproductive Health Law (R.A. No. 10354).

While there is no direct injunction against the implementation of the RH Law, the Supreme Court has pierced the heart and soul of the RH Law by making the certification, procurement and access to contraceptives more difficult and cumbersome.

Central to the RH Law is the informed choice accorded to women of reproductive age to determine the number and spacing of their children by voluntarily using modern, effective and safe contraceptives as a method of family planning.

When the Supreme Court halted the certification and re-certification by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of contraceptive products and devices pending FDA’s compliance with its directive to adopt a more protracted quasi-judicial process instead of the regular and usual summary administrative process purportedly to observe due process, the Supreme Court practically derailed the enforcement of the RH Law so much so that by 2018 contraceptive supplies are expected to dry up.

Te failed to admit that in lieu of the limited temporary restraining order (TRO) dated 17 June 2015 on Implanon and Implanon NXT, the Supreme Court sustained its earlier TRO and even expanded it in its Decision dated 24 August 2016 to cover the certification and re-certification of all contraceptives to be used under R.A. No. 10354, including those which have been traditionally certified for decades as safe and non-abortifacient.

Implanon and Implanon NXT are long-lasting, reversible hormonal contraceptive implants which would prevent pregnancy for up to three (3) years. These are the implants of choice of women practicing family planning.

Under Section 9 of the RH Law, the FDA is the primary authority to determine which hormonal contraceptives, intrauterine devices, injectables and family planning products and supplies are safe, legal, non-abortifacient and effective.

All that is required pursuant to Section 9 is a “certification from the FDA that said product and supply is made available on the condition that it is not to be used as an abortifacient.”

The findings of administrative agencies like the FDA are accorded highest respect and adherence by superior courts because of the former’s acknowledged expertise.

EDCEL C. LAGMAN