With the increased likelihood that the Supreme Court will soon be declaring the RH Law unconstitutional, the government should take a brief moment, step back, and view the implications of this from a higher level. If the declaration of the RH Law's unconstitutionality pushes through, then this says a lot about the type of democracy that our country righteously claims to have. The very essence of having an election puts the people's mandate to the representatives they elect, especially when it comes to policies such as what previously was the Reproductive Health Bill. The bill being enacted into law goes to show that the people choose to have it in place, and by virtue of their representatives, they have let their voices be heard.

The idea that is now the RH Law has been debated upon for so long, and researched on even more as the times evolved while it lay waiting. With its approval, a well-informed decision should have, and as I'd like to believe, was already made. As the Supreme Court is currently questioning the need for the law, it implicitly disregards the debate that has given rise to the already made decision. Possibly, the intention may not be such, but it still does not form a valid and logical way to tackle an issue since the arguments have already been discussed before, and surely, the question in rise has already been answered. The arguments will again only go around in circles when it shouldn't be the case anymore (though it shouldn't ever have been the case at all). 

Another question that is being discussed by the Supreme Court is with regard to the link between contraception and abortion. By now, the arguments should not be going on between whether it is an abortifacient or not. The law should have been upheld, and the mandate of the people should already be respected. There is no longer any purpose in pursuing the debate relating RH to abortion, not only because it has been an issue dealt with before, but more because the debate leads the Supreme Court to a mindset of morality than legality. Officials are not elected to dictate what is moral and what isn't. We should remember that the government is here not to make choices for the people, but to ensure that choice is given to the people. Just like in the passage of the RH Bill, our government representatives were merely a voice to the choices that we, the people, have made. It is in this instance that light towards the importance of an educated vote and a non-passive electorate should be shed.

A lot have already gone through the active political battle to get the RH Bill to be passed, and many up to now, continue that fight for the RH Law to be rightfully upheld. The Supreme Court is doing its job of verifying the constitutionality of the RH Law, yet when they stray away from ensuring the rights of the people to questioning whether they do need the access to such choices that the RH Law will provide, then we can infer that something is flawed with the way the government handles the authority lent to them by the people.