OPPOSITION PAPER RE: ATTY.

LOUIS CASE IN ADVISING WENDY TO ABORT HER BABY SINCE HER LIFE IS AT RISK

Over the decades, Abortion continues to be one of the most controversial subjects throughout different societies. Like any other issues it also has two opposing sides- the pro and the anti. Indeed, there are various reasons why a lot of women opt to undergo abortion such as unwanted pregnancies, for the concealment of dishonor, and sometimes due to illness during pregnancy. In the instant case, Wendys lawyer, Louis, advised her to abort her baby in order to protect the life of Wendy since she is suffering from mitral valve stenosis wherein there is a high maternal mortality rate. In the Philippines where there is a wide range of human diversity, different cultures and perceptions where being observed. In order to unify and harmonize these conflicting perceptions and customs, generally-accepted rules and statements also known as the positive law emerged to administer justice in our society and maintain order. The positive law speaks of not only one governing law; it involves many such as our Constitution, the Civil Code, the Revised Penal Code and others that we must abide by. Thus, in the case of Wendy opting to undergo abortion as advised by a lawyer, Louis, is to be deemed a crime once she continues to do it. Despite the fact that Wendy is diagnosed to have a risky pregnancy, clearly it is not a justification for her to commit abortion. To support the previous statement, a pertinent criminal law provision is Article 256 of our Revised Penal Code providing Intentional abortion. Any person who shall intentionally cause an abortion shall suffer: 1. The penalty of reclusion temporal if, he shall use any violence upon the person of the pregnant woman. 2. The penalty of prision mayor if, without using violence, he shall act without the consent of the woman.3. The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods, if the woman shall have consented. Relating the said provision to the case at bar, if Wendy will commit abortion she will fall under the third penalty wherein she consented the said crime. It is very clear that the law does not distinguish whether such abortion to be penalized is for those with certain purposes only not including Wendys situation. Thus, if she will continue to abort her baby she must be liable for the crime of abortion. In addition to the abovementioned provision we also have the following from the Revised Penal Code: - Article 257 Unintentional abortion. The penalty of prision correccional in its
minimum and medium period shall be imposed upon any person who shall cause an abortion by violence, but unintentionally.

-Art. 258. Abortion practiced by the woman herself of by her parents. The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods shall be imposed upon a woman who shall practice abortion upon herself or shall consent that any other person should do so. Any woman who shall commit this offense to conceal her dishonor, shall suffer the penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods. If this crime be committed by the parents of the pregnant woman or either of them, and they act with the consent of said woman for the purpose of concealing her dishonor, the offenders shall suffer the penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods. -Art. 259. Abortion practiced by a physician or midwife and dispensing of abortives. The penalties provided in Article 256 shall be imposed in its maximum period, respectively, upon any physician or midwife who, taking advantage of their scientific knowledge or skill, shall cause an abortion or assist in causing the same. Any pharmacist who, without the proper prescription from a physician, shall dispense any abortive shall suffer arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos."

Thus, with all these ethical and logical provisions concerning the crime of Abortion, it is very clear that Wendys situation is not an excuse to make her liable for the consequences if she will commit the said crime. On the issue concerning Louis act of advising Wendy to abort her baby, it appears to be intolerable and a violation of her oath as a lawyer under the Code of Professional Responsibility since Louis is expected to uphold his profession as a lawyer and as an agent of the administration of justice at all times. As a lawyer, Louis is presumed to be knowledgeable on laws and jurisprudence thus; he must uphold the mandate of the law. In line with this we have Cannon 1 which asserts that a lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal processes. Thus, being a lawyer and advising a person may it be a family or a friend to commit abortion may it be for a certain reason is deemed intolerable by our laws and the persons involved must be criminally liable for it.
On another perspective, if Wendys case in aborting her baby due to a certain illness is being permitted, it will obviously defeat the purpose of the mentioned provisions of the law and violates the intent of the framers to promote fairness, justice and order since practically, it is not that hard to present and make up medical certificates or diagnosis stating a person is suffering the same illness experienced by Wendy. If this will be permitted it might lead to other social problems such as medical practitioners making money out of this excuse to justify a womans act of abortion. Thus, it is understood that the law makers passed the provisions on Abortion without

specifying any particular situation that should be penalized or not for they look into the future and foreseen these social tragedies that might arise.