G.R. No. 184535 , September 3, 2019
Sister Pilar Versoza, Petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines, Michelina S. Aguirre-Olondriz, Pedro Aguirre, and Dr. Marissa Pascual, Respondents.

FACTS

Larry, a ward of the Heart of Mary Villa, became the legal ward of spouses Pedro and Lourdes Aguirre in 1980. In 1989, at age 11, he was diagnosed with mild mental deficiency. In 2001, when Larry was 21, the Aguirres sought to have him vasectomized. Urologist Dr. Juvido Agatep required a psychiatric evaluation first. Psychiatrist Dr. Marissa Pascual evaluated Larry and found he had a mental capacity comparable to a 7-8 year old, was very dependent on his family for needs and major decisions, and may never understand the nature, risks, benefits, and consequences of a vasectomy. She concluded the responsibility for decision-making could be given to his parent or guardian. On January 31, 2002, with Pedro Aguirre’s written consent, Dr. Agatep performed a bilateral vasectomy on Larry.
Complaints for child abuse under Republic Act No. 7610 (RA 7610) were filed against respondents Pedro Aguirre, his daughter Michelina, Dr. Agatep, and Dr. Pascual. The Office of the City Prosecutor initially dismissed the complaints but later reconsidered and filed criminal Informations. The Regional Trial Court dismissed the case for lack of probable cause. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, holding the vasectomy was neither child abuse nor cruelty under RA 7610 and that petitioner Sister Pilar Versoza lacked legal personality to institute the complaint. Petitioner elevated the matter to the Supreme Court. During the pendency of the case, petitioner died.

ISSUE

Whether the sterilization (vasectomy) performed on Larry, an intellectually disabled individual, with the consent of his legal guardian but without his express consent, constitutes child abuse or cruelty punishable under Section 10(a) of RA 7610, and violates a fundamental right to procreation and parenthood.

RULING

The Separate Opinion concurs with the majority that the petition should be dismissed. It specifically responds to views in another Separate Opinion that: 1) a person with intellectual disability has a fundamental right to procreation and parenthood; 2) sterilization performed at the instance of parents/guardian without the individual’s express consent violates this right; and 3) such sterilization is punishable as cruelty or child abuse under RA 7610.
The Opinion holds that RA 7610 does not criminalize vasectomy. There is no clear legislative intent to make sterilization of intellectually-disabled individuals, conducted with parental/guardian consent, a criminal act. Legislative deliberations define acts of cruelty as “unreasonable infliction of physical injury or inhuman treatment,” such as physical maltreatment and beatings. The vasectomy was a recognized and medically accepted method of contraception performed with the consent of Larry’s court-appointed guardian after deliberation and psychiatric consultation.
The Opinion clarifies that existing laws, like the Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012 (RA 10354), recognize other important interests, including those of parents and the State, which balance the asserted liberty interest in procreation. RA 10354 recognizes parents’ shared responsibility to decide on family planning based on psychological preparedness, health status, and economic concerns. This responsibility arguably extends to parents/guardians of intellectually-disabled children, who have a constitutional right and duty to decide what is in the child’s best interests. The record contains no evidence that Larry understood the nature and consequences of sexuality, having a child, or being a parent. Evidence showed he needed supervision for basic tasks, had no independent income, and his human figure drawing was comparable to a 7-8 year old. Therefore, the decision by his guardians, following medical advice, does not automatically constitute a violation of law or fundamental rights. The issue of whether such a decision is in the child’s best interest is a triable question of fact, not settled conclusively in this proceeding.