Cited Laws
Accordingly, a conscientious objector should be exempt from compliance with the mandates of the RH Law. If he would be compelled to act contrary to his religious belief and conviction, it would be violative of the principle of non-coercion enshrined in the constitutional right to free exercise of religion. Interestingly, on April 24, 2013, Scotlands Inner House of the Court of Session, found in the case of Doogan and Wood v. NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde Health Board, [225] that the midwives claiming to be conscientious objectors under the provisions of Scotlands Abortion Act of 1967, could not be required to delegate, supervise or support staff on their labor ward who were involved in abortions. [226] The Inner House stated that if participation were defined according to whether the person was taking part directly or indirectly this would actually mean more complexity and uncertainty. [227] While the said case did not cover the act of referral, the applicable principle was the same they could not be forced to assist abortions if it would be against their conscience or will. Institutional Health Providers The same holds true with respect to non-maternity specialty hospitals and hospitals owned and operated by a religious group and health care service providers. Considering that Section 24 of the RH Law penalizes such institutions should they fail or refuse to comply with their duty to refer under Section 7 and Section 23(a)(3), the Court deems that it must be struck down for being violative of the freedom of religion. The same applies to Section 23(a)(1) and (a)(2) in relation to Section 24, considering that in the dissemination of information regarding programs and services and in the performance of reproductive health procedures, the religious freedom of health care service providers should be respected. In the case of Islamic Da'wah Council of the Philippines, Inc. v. Office of the Executive Secretary [228] it was stressed: Freedom of religion was accorded preferred status by the framers of our fundamental law. And this Court has consistently affirmed this preferred status, well aware that it is "designed to protect the broadest possible liberty of conscience, to allow each man to believe as his conscience directs, to profess his beliefs, and to live as he believes he ought to live, consistent with the liberty of others and with the common good. " 10 The Court is not oblivious to the view that penalties provided by law endeavour to ensure compliance. Without set consequences for either an active violation or mere inaction, a law tends to be toothless and ineffectual. Nonetheless, when what is bartered for an effective implementation of a law is a constitutionally-protected right the Court firmly chooses to stamp its disapproval. The punishment of a healthcare service provider, who fails and/or refuses to refer a patient to another, or who declines to perform reproductive health procedure on a patient because incompatible religiou