Supreme Court's RH Law microsite draws flak from netizens

Late Friday night until the wee early hours of Saturday, shortly after the Supreme Court went live with its revamped website, some netizens took issue with the color scheme used in the court's microsite for the Reproductive Health (RH) Law.

 

The feedback focused on the choice of the color red for the microsite, which featured a header bearing the words "RH Law" in white over a red background. 

 

The header also contained a red image of what looked like the palm of an adult and a palm of an infant, with a sillhouette of a baby at the center.

 

Elizabeth Angsioco, national chairperson of the Democratic Socialist Women of the Philippines (DSWP) and a staunch RH supporter, was among the first to take notice and immediately express her dismay over the SC's choice of color and image for the microsite.

 

The color purple has somewhat become the unofficial color representing the RH Law and its supporters, who usually don purple shirts during street protests. On the other hand, red has become the unofficial color of anti-RH Law advocates.

 

The website used to have shades of purple as the color of its background and headers, purple being the official color of the Supreme Court.

 

The entire SC website had actually just undergone a facelift, sporting a new and improved look, in time for the high court's anniversary. Already noticeable among the changes was how the site's color had gone neutral (white). 

Visitors to the website are greeted with a notification window that says, "This site is currently under construction, some features and links may not be available."

The flurry of comments

 

"@TedTe Please check header of this SC microsite on the RH Law. This isn't fair. It also apoears on the SC homepage," tweeted Angsioco (@bethangsioco).

 

@TedTe is the official Twitter account of Supreme Court spokesman and Public Information chief Theodore Te.

 

Another Twitter user, Perci Cendana (@PerciCen), posted: "Sobrang biased naman ng graphic sa official Supreme Court site. What happened to objectivity?"

 

Twitter @jesterinexhile took note of the symbolism of the color in the RH debate: "[SC] Microsite image is one commonly used to demonize #RHLaw."

 

"If this is the image on the Supreme Court microsite for the #RHLaw, I'm worried," Mike Aquino (@micketymoc), meanwhile, said.

 

Kristine Gonzaga (@krstngonzaga), meanwhile, tweeted: "Gee. I wonder which side designer is on."


Revision
 

Several hours after the flurry of feedback, Te responded on Twitter.

 

"The RH law microsite's logo & color do not reflect the SC's position. color and image were artistic choices.the logo is being edited.thanks.," he said.

 

Just the same, the SC PIO eventually decided to take down the controversial header and replaced it with a more neutral one, the words "RH Law" over a plain black background.

 

"The logo and colors of the RH law microsite on the SC webPage have been edited. Thank you for your feedback. Hope you find it useful," he tweeted.

 

Te later appealed to netizens no longer to make a big fuss out of it. "People err, lets leave it at that. Artistic choices were made. Certainly not malicious. It has been corrected. Thank you."  — ELR, GMA News