II. CURRENT LEGAL FRAMEWORK ON ABORTION The Philippine Congress, composed of the House of Representatives and the Senate, can play a vital role in shaping and improving the country’s legal framework on abortion, including in the Philippine Constitution and the Revised Penal Code (RPC).3 As the legislative branch of the Philippine government, Congress has the ability to modify and repeal the RPC. In addition, when convened as a constituent assembly, Congress can also propose amendments and revisions to the constitution.4 A closer look at both the RPC and constitution reveals the significant need to ensure that any reform to these laws includes modifying the provisions of each that have effectively led to abortion being criminalized without any clear exceptions. The RPC, an almost century-old law based on the Spanish Penal Code of 1870, defines abortion as a crime and imposes prison sentences ranging from one month to a maximum of 20 years for an individual found guilty of performing, supporting, or having an abortion.5 Under the general provisions of “justification” and “necessity”—the same principles that allow self-defense—the RPC can be interpreted to impose no criminal liability when an abortion is performed to save the life or health of the woman or girl because it was done “in order to avoid an evil or injury”6 or under the “impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury.”7 However, because these defenses have not yet been adjudicated before a court of law, many health care providers fear openly providing safe abortions services under any circumstances.8 This ambiguity is perpetuated by recent laws and policies on reproductive health which affirm the “illegality” of abortion.9 The lack of legal clarity and fear of criminal liability put health care providers in a difficult situation. Many assume that they must turn away patients who seek an abortion, including in cases when the pregnancy poses a risk to the woman’s or girl’s life or health.10 The Philippine Constitution does not expressly refer to or prohibit abortion. It may be interpreted to allow abortion in certain circumstances, including at a minimum when the life or physical or mental health of the woman or girl is at risk. However, in addressing the question of whether a law allowing access to contraceptives that are abortifacients violates the constitution,11 the Supreme Court narrowly interpreted Section 12 of the constitution’s Declaration of Principles and State Policies, which contains provisions generally considered as “guidelines for executive or legislative action,”12 as a “constitutional policy prohibiting abortion.”13 Section 12 calls upon the government to “equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception.”14 While this provision establishes the need to protect the life of a pregnant woman in addition to the fetus, the Court failed to prioritize a woman’s life in their decision and ignored a woman’s fundamental rights enshrined in the constitution’s articles on the Bill of Rights and on Social Justice and Human Rights.15 Protecting these rights, which are violated when access to abortion is denied, should take precedence over any state interest in protecting the fetus. Given Congress’ unique mandate to lead any constitutional or penal code reform processes as well as its responsibility to ensure the realization of women’s and girls’ health and rights, legislators seeking to further the Philippines’ sustainable development should ensure that any efforts on law reform push for the clear recognition of legal access to abortion at a minimum when a pregnancy poses a risk to the mother’s life or health. 2 REALIZING A HEALTHY, EQUAL, AND THRIVING PHILIPPINES