therefore, these “generally accepted public morals” have not been
convincingly transplanted into the realm of law.
...
We do not doubt that a number of our citizens may believe that
homosexual conduct is distasteful, offensive, or even defiant. They
are entitled to hold and express that view...However, our democracy
precludes using the religious or moral views of one part of the commu-
nity to exclude from consideration the values of other members of the
community.
62Finally, after fourteen years of resistance to contraceptives led by the Roman
Catholic clergy, Congress passed what is now known as the Reproductive Health
Law,^63 reconciling the Constitution’s anti-abortion clause^64 with spouses’ right to
privacy and their autonomy from communal regulation on intimate relations.^65
The law required the government to offer the full range of contraceptive options in
its health programs and to subsidize poor couples’ access to contraceptive methods
of their own choosing. Known church advocates have challenged the law before the
Supreme Court, which has temporarily stopped enforcement of this law.
66
Affirmative action for senior citizens
The Supreme Court also allowed the taking of private property for redistributive
justice. It upheld the revision of the tax treatment of the senior citizens’ discount
that effectively forced the seller to bear the cost of a public subsidy.^67 The original
law gave a 20 percent discount to senior citizens in stores, hotels, restaurants, drug
stores and funeral homes, but enabled the business owner to recover the full cost
through a tax credit. Since tax credits are subtracted from the tax payable, the tax
paid to the state was reduced by the entire amount of the senior citizens’ discount.
The full discount, in effect, was effectively borne by the state.
The new law transformed the tax credit into a mere tax deduction wherein the
discount is merely considered an “operating expense” subtracted from the gross
income to determine the taxable amount. Accordingly, the seller recovers only a
(^62) Ibid.
(^63) Rep. Act 10354 (The Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012 )
(December 21 , 2012 ).
(^64) Constitution Art.ii§ 12 (“The State recognizes the sanctity of family life [and] shall equally
protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception”).
(^65) Constitution Art. XV § 3 para. 1. (“The State shall defend [t]he right of spouses to found a
family in accordance with their religious convictions and the demands of responsible
parenthood”).
(^66) Imbongv.Executive Secretary,G.R. 204819 (Order of March 19 , 2013 ).
(^67) Rep. Act 9257 § 4 (a) (February 26 , 2004 ), amending Rep. Act 7432 (Expanded Senior
Citizens Act of 2003 ).