Imbong vs. Ochoa, Jr.

I.

Definitions
A. Requisites for Judicial Review
1. Actual case or controversy
2. Petitioners have locus standi
3. Question of constitutionality raised at the earliest opportunity
4. Issue of constitutionality the lis mota of the case
B. Actual Case or Controversy
1. Existing case that is appropriate or ripe for determination, not conjectural or anticipatory
a. Rule is that courts do not adjudicate academic questions
2. Controversy must be definite and concrete justiciable
a. Pleadings must show an active antagonistic assertion of a legal right
b. Denial on the other side
C. Ripeness
1. Act being challenged has had a direct adverse effect on the individual challenging it
2. Petitioner must allege an immediate or threatened injury to himself
D. Facial Challenge
1. US Jurisdiction assail the validity of statutes concerning protected speech and all other rights
of the First Amendment (i.e. Religious freedom, free press, right to assemble) and to petition the
government for a redress of grievances
2. Philippine Jurisdiction Expanded US definition to include religious freedom and other
fundamental rights, and mandates the Court to determine the presence of grave abuse of
discretion
E. Locus Standi
1. Legal Standing
2. Personal or substantial interest in a case such that the party has sustained or will sustain
direct injury as a result of the challenged government act
F. As Applied Challenge
1. One can challenge the constitutionality of a statute only if he asserts a violation of his own rights
G. Transcendental Importance
1. Overreaching significance to society or paramount public interest
2. Used to relax the requirements of locus standi for non-traditional plaintiffs (i.e. citizens,
taxpayers, etc.)
H. One Subject-One Title Rule
1. See Section 26(1), Article 6 of the 1987 Constitution
2. The title of a law must not be so uncertain that the average person would not be informed of the
purpose of its enactment or put on inquiry as to its contents, or which is misleading, either in
referring to or indicating one subject where another or different one is really embraced in the
act, or in omitting any expression or indication of the real subject or scope of the act
I. Abortifacients
1. Induces abortion
2. Induces the destruction of a fetus inside the mothers womb
3. Prevents the fertilized ovum to reach and be implanted in the mothers womb
J. Establishment Clause
1. Principally prohibits the State from sponsoring any religion or favoring any religion as against
other religions
2. Strict neutrality of affairs among religious groups
K. Free Exercise Clause
1. Respect for the inviolability of the human conscience
2. The State is prohibited from unduly interfering with the outside manifestations of ones faith
L. Doctrine of Benevolent Neutrality
1. With respect to government actions, accommodation of religion may be allowed to allow
individuals and groups to exercise their religion without hindrance
1

2. Remove a burden or facilitate the exercise of a persons or institutions religion

M. Conscientious Objector
1. A person, who by reason of conscience, objects to doing a duty (i.e. in this case, render RH
services)
N. Compelling State Interest Test
1. Free exercise is a fundamental right and that laws burdening it should be subject to strict
scrutiny
2. Revering religious liberty while affording protection to the interests of the state
O. Void for Vagueness
1. A statute which lacks comprehensible standards that men of common intelligence must
necessarily guess its meaning and differ as to its application
2. Repugnant to the Constitution in two respects:
a. Violates due process for failure to accord persons fair notice of the conduct to avoid
b. Leaves law enforcers unbridled discretion in carrying out its provisions
P. Equal Protection
1. All persons or things similarly situated should be treated alike, both as to rights conferred and
responsibilities imposed
2. Does not require the universal application of the laws to all persons or things without distinction

II.

Facts
A. Dates
1. December 21, 2012 RA 10354 or the Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of
2012
2. March 15, 2013 RH-IRR took effect
3. March 19, 2013 Status Quo Ante Order (SQAO) enjoining the effect and implementation of the
RH Law for 120 days, or until July 17, 2013
4. May 30, 2013 SC held a preliminary conference with the counsels of the parties to determine
and/or identify uses raised by the parties and their sequences of discussion in the Oral
Arguments
5. July 9 and 23, 2013 and August 6, 13, and 27, 2013 Oral Arguments
6. July 16, 2013 SQAO extended until further notice of the SC
B. The Status Quo Ante (i.e. Pre-RH Bill population, contraception, and health laws)
1. RA 4729 (June 18, 1966). An Act to Regulate the Sale, Dispensation, and/or Distribution of
Contraceptive Drugs and Devices Contraceptives not sold, dispensed, or distributed unless it
is by a duly licensed drug store or pharmaceutical company and with the prescription of a
qualified medical practitioner
2. RA 5921 (June 21, 1969)
a. Provisions relating to the dispensing of abortifacients
b. Disallowed any FDA-classified abortifacients from being sold without propert prescription
by a licensed physician
3. RA 6365 (August 16, 1971). An Act Establishing a National Policy on Population, Creating the
Commission on Population, and for Other Purposes
a. Family planning will be made part of a broad educational program
b. Safe and effective means will be provided to couples desiring to space or limit family size
c. Mortality and morbidity rates will be further reduced
4. PD 79 (December 8, 1972)
a. Family planning part of a broad educational program
b. Family planning services as part of overall healthcare
5. RA 9710 (August 14, 2009). The Magna Carta for Women Comprehensive health services for
women
C. The RH Law
1. Enacted to provide Filipinos access and information to the full range of modern family planning
methods, and to ensure that its objectives to provide for the peoples right to reproductive health
be achieved
2. Mandatory for health providers to provide information on the full range of modern family
planning methods, supplies, and services, and for schools to provide reproductive health
education.
3. Criminalizes certain acts of refusal to carry out its mandates
4. Enhancement measure to fortify and make effective the current laws on contraception, womens
health, and population control
D. Grounds for Petitioner (14 petitions and 2 petitions-in-intervention for certiorari and prohibition)
1. Right to Life authorizes purchase of contraceptives, intra-uterine devices, and injectables
which are abortives, contrary to Sec. 12, Article 2 of the Constitution
2. Right to Health and Right to Protection Against Hazardous Products provides universal
access to contraceptives which are hazardous to ones health (ex. Cancerous)
3. Right to Religious Freedom Violates constitutional guarantee respecting religions as it
authorizes the use of public funds for the procurement of contraceptives
a. Threatens Conscientious Objectors with punishment compels medical practitioners to:
Refer patients who seek reproductive health advice to other doctors
Provide full and correct information on reproductive health programs and services, even
if against their religious beliefs
3

Section 5.23 of the RH-IRR Skilled health professionals who are public officers cannot
be considered as conscientious objectors
b. Mandatory Sex Education affront to the schools religious beliefs
c. Agree that religious freedom is NOT absolute, but argues that the RH Law fails to satisfy
the clear and present danger test and the compelling state interest test in controlling
religious freedom
4. Involuntary Servitude Compels medical practitioners to provide 48 hours of pro bono
services for indigent women, under threat of punishment, to be accredited under the
PhilHealth program
5. Right to Equal Protection of the Law Discriminates against the poor as they are the target
market (i.e. contraceptives reduce the number of poor people)
6. Void-for-Vaugeness in violation of Due Process
a. There is no definition of what is to be treated as a violation of the RH Law, the penalty of
which is imprisonment and/or fine
b. Violates the right of due process by removing from the people the right to decide on what
health facility they will be and what services they will offer
7. Right to Free Speech
a. To compel a person to explain the full range of family-planning methods curtails his right to
expound on his preferred family-planning method
b. Religious institutions, though exempted, are required to refer patients to another facility
willing to perform RH services
8. Zone of Privacy of Ones Family
a. Intrudes upon the parents constitutional right to raise children according to their beliefs
b. Forsakes any real dialogue between the spouses pertaining to reproductive health
procedures
9. Non-Delegation of Legislative Authority Congress delegated to the FDA the power to
classify a product as an abortifacient and included in the Emergency Drugs List (EDL)
10. One Subject One Bill (Sec 26(1), Art. 6 of the Constitution)
11. Natural Law
12. Autonomy of LGUs and the ARMM providing for RH measures at the local government level
and the ARMM infringes upon the powers of the LGUs and the ARMM under the LGC and RA
9054
E. Grounds for Respondent
1. No actual case or controversy issues not yet ripe for judicial determination
2. Some petitioners lack locus standi
3. Petitions are essentially for Declaratory Relief which is outside the SC jurisdiction
III.
Issues
A. Procedural W/N the Court may exercise its power of judicial review
1. Power of Judicial Review
2. Actual Case or Controversy
3. Facial Challenge
4. Locus Standi
5. Declaratory Relief
6. One Subject/One Title Rule
B. Substantive W/N the RH Law is unconstitutional
1. Right to Life
2. Right to Health
3. Freedom of Religion and Speech
4. The Family
5. Freedom of Expression and Academic Freedom
6. Due Process
7. Equal Protection
8. Involuntary Servitude
4

9. Delegation of authority to the FDA

10. Autonomy of LGUs and ARMM
11. Natural Law
IV.
Discussion
A. Procedural Issue
1. The Power of Judicial Review
a. OSG Claims
Submit to the political wisdom of the Congress and respect the compromises made in
the crafting of the RH Law product of democratic process and characterized by
transparency
Review by certiorari is weak since the Constitution vests in Congress the power to
implement constitutional policies and positive norms
As applied challenge cannot prosper since the RH law is yet to be enforced and
applied to petitioners, and RH devices have yet to be distributed
No facial challenge since the RH Law is not a speech-regulating measure
b. Courts Position
SC adheres to separation of powers, but constitutional landmarks are apt to be forgotten
in times of social disquietude or political instability
- The Court may only pass on the wisdom, justice, or expediency of the RH Law if
there is a resulting grave abuse of discretion or unconstitutionality
- The constitution does not distinguish as to the kind of legislation that may be put
under judicial review
- The Court may pass on the constitutionality of legislative acts to make sure they
have acted as mandated to them by the constitution
As far back as Tanada v Angara, the Court has declared that certiorari, prohibition, and
mandamus are appropriate remedies to raised constitutional issues
c. Justice Feliciano Judicial review is essential for the maintenance and enforcement of the
separation of powers and the balancing of powers among the three great departments of
government
2. Actual Case or Controversy
a. Respondents claims
No actual case or controversy since RH Law is yet to be implemented
Petitioners questions are not yet ripe for adjudication
- No one has been charged with violation of the RH Law
- There is no showing that petitioners have suffered injury
Judicial review is premature
b. Courts Position
An actual case or controversy exists and the same is ripe for adjudication
- RH Law and its IRR are already in effect and budget measures have already been
passed, therefore, a justiciable controversy exists
- Petitioners have shown that public health officers, per provisions of the RH Law, can
be sanctioned with dismissal. This must at least be heard now
North Cotabato v GRP Even a singular violation of the constitution and/or the law is
enough to awaken judicial duty
3. Facial Challenge
a. Courts Position
Court has authority to take cognizance of the petitions since they allege violations on
human rights to life, speech, religion, and other fundamental rights
4. Locus Standi
a. OSG Claims
Petitioners have no legal standing
5

As applied challenge cannot prosper as the RH Law has yet to be enforced and
applied against petitioners, and the government has yet to distribute RH devices that
are abortive
b. Petitioners Claims
Invoke transcendental importance
Invoke their status as citizens and taxpayers
c. Courts Position
The Court entertains no doubt that the petitions raise issues of transcendental
importance
- The RH Law drastically affects constitutional provisions on right to life and health,
freedom of religion, and other constitutional provisions
5. Declaratory Relief
a. Respondents Claims
SC has no original jurisdiction over petitions for declaratory relief
b. Courts Position
Court considers them as petitions for prohibition
- Justified because the case has far-reaching implications and prays for injunctive
relief
6. One Subject-One Title Rule
a. Petitioners Claims
RH Law violates One Subject-One Title rule
- Being one for RH with Responsible Parenthood, RH Law violates due process by
concealing its true intent a population control measure
b. Respondents Claims
Concepts of Responsible Parenthood and RH are interrelated and inseparable
RH Law is not a birth or population measure
c. Courts Position
RH Law is principally a population control measure
- Geared towards the prevention of pregnancy and reduction of births
- Remove the provisions on contraception and the RH Law loses its foundation
- The rest of the RH Law can be found in previous RAs and the Magna Carta for
Women
Be that as it may, the RH Law does not violate the one subject-one title rule
- The rule is sufficiently complied with if the title is comprehensive enough to include
the general object which the statute seeks to effect
- RH and responsible parenthood are interrelated and germane to the population
control objective
B. Substantive Issues
1. The Right to Life
a. Petitioners Claims
RH Law violates the right to life and health of the unborn child under Sec. 12, Art 2 of
the Constitution
Sec. 4(a) of the RH Law allows for post-fertilization but pre-implantation contraceptives,
which is an abortifacient
- Even if Sec. 9 of the RH Law only allows non-abortifacients, medical research shows
that contraceptives use results in abortion as they operate to kill the fertilized ovum
Since the RH Law requires that the FDA certify a product is not to be used as an
abortifacient, it effectively confirms that abortifacients are not prohibited
b. Respondents Claims
RH Law does not violate the constitution since only non-abortifacient products and
services will be allowed
6

Congress has made a legislative determination that contraceptives are not abortifacients
by enacting the RH Law
- Enacted with due consultation and studies from the WHO and other medical experts
Various studies from the WHO show that life begins after the implantation of the
fertilized ovum.
c. Courts Position
The use of contraceptives and family planning methods has been around since the
enactment of RA 4729
The Philippine national population program has always been grounded on the principle
of no-abortion and the principle of non-coercion
The court did not rule on when life begins
- The ponente is of the opinion that life begins upon fertilization
RH Law and Abortion
- RH Law clearly mandates that protection be granted from the moment of
fertilization
- RH Law recognizes that abortion is a crime under RPC Art. 256 (Sec. 4, RH Law)
RH Law and Abortifacients
- RH Law is consistent in prohibiting abortifacients
- According to its definition of an abortifacient (Sec 4(a), RH Law), the RH Law
recognizes that the fertilized ovum already has a life and that the State has the duty
to protect it. RH Law prohibits and defines abortifacients as:
o Any drug or device that induces abortion
o Prohibits any drug or device that prevents the fertilized ovum to reach and be
implanted in the mothers womb
- RH Law recognizes that:
o There is a need to protect the fertilized ovum which already has life
o The fertilized ovum must be protected the moment it exists
Proviso Under Section 9 of the RH Law
- Any product or supply in the EDL must [be certified] by the FDA that [it] is not to
be used as an abortifacient
- Court finds this proviso empty and absurd FDA cannot fully attest that a drug will
not be used as an abortifacient
- Section 9 should mean that the certification is for drugs that cannot be used as an
abortifacient (vis a vis not to be used)
Abortifacients under the RH-IRR
- The authors of the RH-IRR gravely abused their discretion when they redefined the
meaning of abortifacients
- The addition of the word primarily in Sec. 3.01 of the RH-IRR to redefine the RH
Law definition of abortifacients (primarily induces abortion) will mean that drugs
will only be considered abortifacients if its primary effect is the prevention of
implantation of the fertilized ovum
- The word primary in Sec 3.01 of the RH-IRR should be declared void
2. The Right to Health
a. Petitioners Claims
RH Law violates the right to health because it requires the inclusion of hormonal
contraceptives, intrauterine devices, injectables, and family products and supplies in the
National Drug Formulary and national hospitals
- Risk of breast and cervical cancer increased
- Threefold increase in risk of venous thromboembolism
- Twofold increase in risk of ischematic stroke
- Indeterminate effect on risk of myocardial infarcation
7

b. OSG Claims
Section 15, Art 2 of the Constitution is not self-executory
Medical authorities refute the claim that contraceptives are a danger to womens health
c. Courts Position
Constitutional provisions on health are self-executory
The legislative intent of the RH Law is to leave intact the provisions of RA 4729
The effectivity of the RH Law will not lead to the unmitigated sale of contraceptives RA
4729 imposed safeguards that only safe contraceptives are made available
The Court also points out that not a single contraceptive has yet been submitted to
the FDA pursuant to the RH Law, consequently, the attack on the RH Law on this front is
premature
3. Freedom of Religion and the Right to Free Speech
a. Petitioners Claims
On Contraception
- Question the state-sponsored procurement of contraceptives, arguing that
expenditure of their taxes on contraceptives violates the guarantee of religious
freedom
On Religious Accommodation and the Duty to Refer
- Requiring conscientious objectors to cooperate with the very thing they refuse to do
without violating their religious beliefs
- No escape is afforded the conscientious objector in Sec 23(a)(1) and (2) of the RH
Law against a patient seeking reproductive health procedure. Right to
conscientiously object by the ff. are not recognized:
o Public health workers (Sec 7)
o Public officers in implementing the law (Sec 23(b))
o Public school teachers (Sec 14)
- Compulsory referrals violate the doctrine of benevolent neutrality. Authorizing
contraceptives with abortive effects, mandatory sex education, and mandatory pro
bono RH services to indigents encroach upon the religious freedom of those
upon whom they are required
- Compulsory referrals violate freedom of religion as they become unwilling
participants
- RH Law does not show compelling state interest to justify the regulation of
religious freedom
- Sec 15 of the RH Law, which requires would-be couples to attend family planning
and responsible parenthood seminars and to obtain a certificate of compliance,
forces individuals to participate in the implementation of the RH Law even if it
contravenes their religious beliefs
b. Respondents Claims
RH Law does not provide that a specific mode or type of contraceptive be used, be it
natural or artificial
It neither imposes nor sanctions any religion or belief
- The RH Law only seeks to serve the public interest and that the law only prohibits
acts and practices which deprives others of their right to RH
- The law only seeks to guarantee informed choice, and no one will be compelled to
violate his/her religion
Petitioners, by asserting that only natural family planning should be allowed, are going
against religious freedom themselves (i.e. by seeking to declare RH Law
unconstitutional, they ask the Court to recognize only the Churchs family planning)
The compulsion to refer is a balance between the beliefs of the medical practitioner and
the needs of the patient
8

Whatever the burden placed on the religious freedom is minimal as duty to refer is
limited in duration, location, and impact
Mandatory seminars would provide would-be couples information regarding parenthood,
family planning, breastfeeding, and infant nutrition. They are not compelled to accept
the information being taught to them
The Catholic Church has changed its stance regarding family planning over the years,
and did not just stand by natural family planning
c. The Church and the State
The constitutional assurance of religious freedom provides two (2) guarantees:
- Establishment Clause
- Free Exercise Clause
The guarantee of religious freedom has two (2) parts:
- Freedom to believe - unlimited
- Freedom to act on ones belief limited and subject to the power of the State in
regulation of acts that affect public welfare
Legislative Acts and the Free Exercise Clause
- In cases of conflict between the free exercise clause and the Sate, the Court adheres
to the doctrine of benevolent neutrality
- In ascertaining the limits of religious freedom, the compelling state interest test is
proper
d. Courts Position
The jurisdiction of the Court extends only to public and secular morality
- The Court cannot rule on the religious morality of contraceptives
The RH Law recognizes and respects religion and religious beliefs and convictions. It
is replete with provisions that no one is compelled to violate his/her religion
The Establishment Clause and Contraceptives
- The State is allowed to pursue its legitimate secular objectives free from the
dictation of any religion
o Establishment clause limits what government can do to religion but also vice
versa
- One cannot simply refuse to pay taxes because it will cloud his conscience
The Free Exercise Clause and the Duty to Refer
- The Court is of the view that the obligation of referral imposed by the RH Law
violates the religious beliefs and convictions of the conscientious objectors
- The act of referral makes the pro-life health practitioner complicit in an act
repugnant to his/her belief
- Freedom of speech includes freedom to be silent
o Freedom of choice prohibits any degree of compulsion
- In case of conflict between religious beliefs and convictions of individuals and the
interest of the State, the Court is of the strong belief that the religious freedom of
health providers should be accorded primacy
o A conscientious objector should be exempt from compliance with the RH Law
Institutional Health Providers
- The punishment of a healthcare service provider, who fails or refuses to refer
patients to another, or who declines to render RH services on a patient because of
religious beliefs, is a clear inhibition of a constitutional guarantee which the Court
cannot allow
RH-IRR
- The last paragraph of Sec 5.24 of the RH-IRR prohibiting skilled health professionals
from being considered as conscientious objectors is discriminatory and violative of
the equal protection clause
9

Protection accorded to conscientious objectors should apply to all medical

practitioners
- Intellectual liberty occupies a place inferior to none in the hierarchy of human
values
Compelling State Interest
- The Court finds no compelling state interest which would limit the free exercise
clause of the conscientious objectors
o Only an immediate and grave danger to security and welfare can justify
infringing on religious freedom
- In this case, there is no immediate danger to the life or health of an individual
o i.e. too much babies are not a danger
o All other health issues have been taken up by previous legislation which
actually reduced the number of female mortality
Exception: Life Threatening Case
- Health care service providers cannot be forced to render RH services if it would be
contrary to their religious beliefs, except in life-threatening cases, in which case
the life of the mother must take precedence over religious beliefs
Family Planning Seminars
- All the law requires is to attend a family-planning seminar.
o The law does not mandate the type of family-planning method to be
included in the seminar
- The OSG correctly posits that attendees may reject the information in the seminars
in favor of their own beliefs
4. The Family and the Right to Privacy
a. Petitioners claims
Sec. 23(a)(2)(i), which gives the final decision to the one undergoing RH process,
violates Constitutional provisions by intruding into marital privacy and autonomy
It cultivates disunity and fosters animosity in the family
b. Courts Position
The Court agrees with the petitioner
The RH Law, in its efforts to curb population growth, contain provisions which tend to
wreck the family as a social institution
o Bans the husband and/or father from participating in the decision-making process
regarding their common future progeny
o Deprives the parents of their authority over their minor daughter simply because
she is already a parent or had suffered a miscarriage (Sec 7, RH Law)
The Family and Spousal Consent
- The consent discussed in Sec. 23(a)(2)(i) should be given to both spouses, as one
person cannot found a family
- The RH Law cannot be allowed to infringe on this right to mutual decision making
- Decision making involving RH procedures is a private matter, should be shared by
both spouses, and is a constitutionally guaranteed private right
- The Magna Carta for Women provides that women shall have equal rights in
matters relating to marriage and family decisions
- Section 3(v) of the RH Law states that Responsible Parenthood is a shared
responsibility between parents
- In case of conflict between the couple, the courts will decide
The Family and Parental Consent
- Regarding Sec. 7 of the RH Law (waiving parental consent for minors who have
given birth), the State cannot replace the parents when it comes to providing for the
minors needs and comfort
o

10

It disregards the constitutional mandate that the natural and primary duty of parents
in rearing the youth shall receive support from the government
- Only a compelling state interest can justify state substitution of their parental
authority
First Exception: Access to Information
- Insofar as access to information is concerned vis a vis Sec 7, the Court finds no
constitutional objection to the acquisition of information by the minor that would
enable her to take care of herself and the unborn child
Second Exception: Life Threataning Case
- An exception must be made in life threatening cases
- The life of the minor and/or the spouse should not be put at grave risk simply
because of a lack of consent
5. Academic Freedom
a. Petitioners Claims
Sec. 14 and 24 of the RH Law, mandating RH Education under threat of fine and/or
imprisonment, violate the principle of academic freedom
RH Law forces educational institutions to teach RH even if they believe that it is
inappropriate to be taught to their students
b. Courts Position
Any Attack on Sec 14 of the RH Law is premature as the DepEd has yet to formulate a
curriculum on RH Education
The Court finds the legal mandate in the RH Law and its IRR supplementary to the
rights and duties of parents in the moral development of their children
6. Due Process (Void for Vaugeness)
a. Petitioners Claims
RH Law suffers from vagueness
Sec 23(a)(1) mentions private health service providers but gives no definition
- Sec 7s private health care institution adds to the confusion
Sec 7 exempts hospitals operated by religious groups from rendering RH services and
modern family planning methods
- It is unclear if these institutions are also exempt from giving RH information under
Sec 23(a)(1), or from rendering RH procedures under Sec 23(a)(2)
RH Law punishes the knowing provision of incorrect information but fails to define
the same
b. Courts Position
Private Health Care Service Provider should be defined in reference to Sec 4(n)
which defines public health service provider
The use of the term public health care institution in Sec 7 is synonymous with private
health care service provider
The right to exempt from rendering RH services and modern family planning methods
includes exemption to give RH information and to render RH procedures
- The term service and methods are broad enough to include information and
medical procedures
Incorrect denotes failing to agree with established rules, while knowingly means
deliberate. Taken together insect 23(a)(1), they connote a sense of malice and ill
motive to mislead the public as to the nature of the programs on RH
7. Equal Protection
a. Petitioners Claims
RH Law is anti-poor because it targets the poor people
Rather than promoting RH to the poor, they introduce contraceptives that would reduce
the poor
11

b. Courts Position
To provide that the poor are to be given priority in the RH programs is not a violation of
the equal protection clause, and in fact, is pursuant to the Constitutional mandate to
address the needs of the underprivileged
Sec 7 of the RH Law prioritizes the poor who are suffering from fertility issues and
desire to have children No merit to the contention that RH Law seeks to reduce the
number of poor people
Sec 3(1) of the RH Law states that the stabilization of population growth is incidental to
the advancement of RH
Substantial distinction rests between public and private educational institutions as
there is a need to recognize the academic freedom of the latter
8. Involuntary Servitude
a. Petitioners Claims
RH Law requiring private health care service providers to render 48 hours of pro bono
RH services amounts to involuntary servitude
b. OSG Claims
Rendition of pro bono services in Sec 17 of the RH Law is up to the discretion of the
service providers with regards to manner and time
Imposition is within the power of the government, the PhilHealth accreditation being a
privilege and not a right
c. Courts Position
Agree with OSG
The practice of medicine is imbued with public interest that it is both the power and the
duty of the State to control and regulate it
The RH Law only encourages pro bono services, hence no involuntary servitude
No penalty is imposed other than non-accreditation by PhilHealth, which is not a heavy
burden, but a necessary incentive
Conscientious objectors are exempt from rendering pro bono services based on theyr
religious beliefs
9. Delegation of Authority to the FDA
a. Petitioners Claims
There is undue delegation of power by allowing the FDA to determine a product to be
included in the Essential Drugs List (EDL)
b. Courts Position
Nothing wrong with the delegation
The functions, powers, and duties of the FDA are specific to enable the agency to carry
out the mandate given to it by the RH Law
The FDA has the power and competency to evaluate, register, and cover health
services and methods
10. Autonomy of LGUs and the ARMM
a. Petitioners Claims
Sec 6, 10, and 11 of Art 3 of RA 9054 guarantees ARMM autonomy from national
legislative acts
RH Law infringes on the powers devolved to the LGUs under Sec 17 of the LGC
- Sec 17 vests upon the LGU the duties and functions pertaining to the delivery of
basic services and facilities
b. Courts Position
Paragraph (c) of the same section provides a categorical exception of cases involving
nationally-funded projects, facilities, programs, and services
12

V.

Unless an LGU is particularly designated as an implementing agency, it has no

power over a program for which funding has been provided by the national
government
- In the case of the RH Law, it will be the national government who will shoulder the
expenses
Local autonomy is not absolute, and the national government still has the final say in
national priority programs
From the use of the word endeavor in the provision, LGUs are merely encouraged to
provide these services
The ARMM
- The fact that the RH Law does not intrude into the LGUs can also be applied to the
ARMM
- Sec 6, 10, and 11 of Art 3 of RA 9054 delineates powers that may be exercised by
the ARMM government, and not an abdication by the Senate of its power to
legislate for the general welfare of the people
11. Natural Law
a. Court does not duly recognize it as a legal basis for upholding or invalidating law
b. Unless a natural right has been written into law, it cannot serve as the basis for striking
down a law
Dispositive
WHEREFORE, the petitions are PARTIALLY GRANTED. Accordingly, the Court declares RA 10354
as NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL except with respect to the following provisions which are declared
UNCONSTITUTIONAL:
1. Section 7 and the corresponding provision in the RH-IRR insofar as they
a. Require private health facilities and non-maternity specialty hospitals and hospitals owned
and operated by a religious group to refer patients, not in an emergency or life-threatening
case, as defined under RA 8344, to another health facility which is conveniently accessible
b. Allow minor parents or minors who have suffered miscarriage to modern methods of family
planning without written consent from their parents or guardian/s
2. Section 23(a)(1) and the corresponding provisions in the RH-IRR, particularly Section 5.24
thereof, insofar as they punish any healthcare service provider who fails and or refuses to
disseminate information regarding programs and services on RH regardless of his or her
religious beliefs
3. Section 23(a)(1)(i) and the corresponding provision in the RH-IRR insofar as they allow a
married individual, not in an emergency or life-threatening case, as defined under RA 8344, to
undergo RH procedures without the consent of the spouse
4. Section 23(a)(2)(ii) and the corresponding provision in the RH-IRR insofar as they limit the
requirement of parental consent only to elective surgical procedures
5. Section 23(a)(3) and the corresponding provision in the RH-IRR, particularly Section 5.24
thereof, insofar as they punish any healthcare service provider who fails and/or refuses to refer
a patient not in an emergency or life threatening case, as defined under RA 8344, to another
health care service provider within the same facility or one which is conveniently accessible
regardless of his or her religious beliefs
6. Section 23(b) and the corresponding provision in the RH-IRR, particularly Section 5.25 thereof,
insofar as they punish any public officer who refuses to support reproductive health programs or
shall do any act that hinders the full implementation of a RH program, regardless of his or her
religious beliefs
7. Section 17 and the corresponding provision in the RH-IRR regarding the rendering of pro bono
RH service insofar as they affect the conscientious objector in securing PhilHealth accreditation
8. Section 3.01(a) and Section 3.01(j) of the RH-IRR, which added the qualifier primarily in
defining abortifacients and contraceptives, as they are ultra vires and, therefore, null and void
13

for contravening Section 4(a) of the RH Law and violating Section 12, Article 2 of the
Constitution
The Status Quo Ante Order issued by the Court on March 19, 2013 as extended bu its Order, dated
July 16, 2013, is hereby LIFTED, insofar as the provisions of RA 10354 which have been herein
declared as constitutional.

14