IMBONG VS OCHOA

G.R. No. 204819 April 8, 2014

JAMES M. IMBONG and LOVELY-ANN C. IMBONG, for themselves and in behalf of their minor children,
LUCIA CARLOS IMBONG and BERNADETTE CARLOS IMBONG and MAGNIFICAT CHILD DEVELOPMENT
CENTER, INC., Petitioners,
vs.
HON. PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., Executive Secretary, HON. FLORENCIO B. ABAD, Secretary, Department
of Budget and Management, HON. ENRIQUE T. ONA, Secretary, Department of Health, HON. ARMIN A.
LUISTRO, Secretary, Department of Education, Culture and Sports and HON. MANUELA. ROXAS II,
Secretary, Department of Interior and Local Government, Respondents.

Facts:

December 21, 2012-R.A No. 10354, known as the Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act
of 2012 was enacted by congress.

Various sectors of society challenged the Court crtiticizing constitutionality of the RH Law.

Procedural Issues:

WON The court may exercise its power of judicial review over the controversy

1. Power of judicial Review- Rh Law has already took effect and budgetary measures have been
passed. Petitioners stands that the medical practitioners are in danger of being persecuted due
to vagueness.
2. Actual Controversy- alleged that the constitutional human rights to life, speech and religion have
been violated by the assailed legislation, the court has the authority to take organize.
3. Locus Standi- “Legal standing”, a procedural technicality which the Court has, on more than one
occasion, waived or relaxed, thus allowing non-traditional plaintiffs, such as concerned citizens,
taxpayers, voters or legislators, to sue in the public interest, albeit they may not have been
directly injured by the operation of a law or any other government act.
>The transcendental importance of the issues involved in this case warrants that the Court set
aside the technical defects and take primary jurisdiction over the petition at bar. One cannot
deny that the issues raised herein have potentially pervasive influence on the social and moral
wellbeing of this nation, specially the youth; hence, their proper and just determination is an
imperative need.

4. The courts have considered reliefs as prohibitions

5. The close intimacy between “reproductive health” and “responsible parenthood” which bears to
the attainment of the goal of achieving “sustainable human development” the Court finds no
reason to believe that Congress intentionally sought to deceive the public as to the contents of
the assailed legislation.

Substantive Issues:

1. RH Law violates the rights of the unborn. Article II, Section 12 of the Constitution states: “The
State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic
 autonomous social institution. It shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the
unborn from conception.”
2. RH Law violates the right to health and the right to protection against hazardous products
3. Violation of religious freedom. The Court cannot determine whether or not the use of
contraceptives or participation in support of modern RH measures (a) is moral from a religious
standpoint; or, (b) right or wrong according to one’s dogma or belief. However, the Court has
the authority to determine whether or not the RH Law contravenes the Constitutional guarantee
of religious freedom.
4. The family and the right to privacy.
5. Academic freedom- judicial review not applicable for the sec. 14 is not yet on the curriculum as
there is no actual case or controversy.
6. Violation pf due process clause due to vagueness- the definition of several terms are clear like
methods, services, incorrect information etc.
7. Violation of equal protection clause -Rh Law discriminates against the poor and reduce the
number. Pursuant to Art. 13 sec. 11 the state shall prioritize the needs of the underprivileged,
sick, elderly, disabled, woman, and children that it shall endeavor to provide medical care to
paupers.
8. RH Law is involuntary servitude- 48 hours of pro bono RH services does not amount to
involuntary servitude, no penalty is imposed should they do otherwise.

Ruling:

Petition partially granted.

R.A. 10354 is not unconstitutional except Sec. 7 and Sec. 23(a)(1); on spousal and parental consent

Sec. 3. 01(a) on “primary” abortifacients