JAMES M. IMBONG et al. vs HON. PAQUITO N. OCHOA et al.

G.R. No. 204819

April 8, 2014
JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA

FACTS: On December 21, 2012, Congress enacted Republic Act (R.A.) No. 10354, otherwise known as
the Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012 (RH Law) which guarantees universal
access to methods on contraception, fertility control, sexual education, and maternal care. On March 15,
2013, the enforcement of its Implementing rules and regulations took place.

Shortly after the President placed his imprimatur on the said law, challengers from various sectors of
society assails the constitutionality of the RH law. In view of this, the court faces fourteen (14) petitions
and two (2) petitions- in-intervention.

A perusal of the foregoing petitions shows that the petitioners are asserting that RH law violates various
sections of Art II of the 1987 Constitution such as it violates the right to life, to health, and to religious
freedom. They also intrude on the autonomy of local governments and the ARMM.

Respondents contend that there is no actual case or controversy and, therefore, the issues are not yet
ripe for judicial determination. Also, according to them, some petitioners lack of locus standi.

ISSUE: Whether the RH Law is unconstitutional on the grounds that it violates right to life, to health, to
religious freedom and autonomy of local governments/ARMM.

RULING: No. The RH law does not violate the right to life of the unborn. Sec 12, Art. II provides that:

“The State shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception.”

The controversy here is “when does life begin?”. In a nutshell, those opposing the RH Law contend that
conception is synonymous with "fertilization" of the female ovum by the male sperm. On the other side of
the spectrum are those who assert that conception refers to the "implantation" of the fertilized ovum in the
uterus.

Majority of the Members of the Court are of the position that the question of when life begins is a scientific
and medical issue that should not be decided, at this stage, without proper hearing and evidence.

After deliberation and in conformity with the principle of statutory construction, which states that words of
the Constitution should be interpreted in their plain and ordinary meaning (As held in the recent case of
Chavez v. Judicial Bar Council), the traditional meaning of the word "conception" which, as described and
defined by all reliable and reputable sources, means that life begins at fertilization.

A reading of the RH Law would show that it is in line with this intent and actually proscribes abortion.
Moreover, the RH Law recognizes that abortion is a crime under Article 256 of the Revised Penal Code,
which penalizes the destruction or expulsion of the fertilized ovum. In carrying out its declared policy, the
RH Law is consistent in prohibiting abortifacients (refers to any drug or device that induces abortion or the
destruction of a fetus inside the mother's womb or the prevention of the fertilized ovum to reach and be
implanted in the mother's womb upon determination of the FDA).

Contrary to the assertions made by the petitioners, the Court finds that the RH Law, consistent with the
Constitution, recognizes that the fertilized ovum already has life and that the State has a bounden duty to
protect it.
With regard to the right to health of the people, the Constitution is replete with provisions protecting
and promoting the right to health. Provisions under Section 15 of Article II, sections 11,12,13 of Article XIII
and section 9 of Article XVI are self-executing. Also, provisions of RA 4729 still in place which provides
that the sale, distribution and dispensation of contraceptive drugs and devices will still require the
prescription of a licensed physician. In view of this, there is adequate safeguards in assuring that only
those contraceptives that have been determined safe, as approved by the FDA, are made available to the
public.

In relation to the Freedom of Religion, the Court does not favor the proposition of the petitioners that
procurement of contraceptives contravenes the religious beliefs of the people. This because the state
would be adhering to one religion and it violates section 6 of the Article II of the Constitution which states
that:

“The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable.”

Under the doctrine of “benevolent neutrality”, accommodation of religion may be allowed, not to promote
the government's favored form of religion, but to allow individuals and groups to exercise their religion
without hindrance. In the case of Islamic Da'wah Council of the Philippines, Inc. v. Office of the Executive
Secretary it was stressed: Freedom of religion was accorded preferred status by the framers of our
fundamental law.

Thus, the last paragraph of section 5.24 IRR of RH law, which compels medical health practitioners,
hospitals and health care providers, under pain of penalty, to refer patients to other institutions despite
their conscientious objections, is discriminatory and violative of the equal protection clause.

Lastly, with respect to the autonomy of Local Governments/ARMM, the RH law does not infringe
upon the autonomy of local governments. Paragraph (c) of section 17 provides a categorical exception of
cases involving nationally-funded projects, facilities, programs and services. Unless a LGU is particularly
designated as the implementing agency, it has no power over a program for which funding has been
provided by the national government under the annual general appropriations act, even if the program
involves the delivery of basic services within the jurisdiction of the LGU.

In addition, LGUs are merely encouraged to provide RH services. Provisions of these services are not
mandatory. Therefore, the RH law does not amount to an undue encroachment by the national
government upon the autonomy enjoyed by LGUs.

To conclude, the Court does not find the RH Law as unconstitutional, except those provisions which are
declared unconstitutional, insofar as it seeks to provide access to medically-safe, non-abortifacient,
effective, legal, affordable, and quality reproductive healthcare services, methods, devices, and supplies.
RH Law is a mere compilation and enhancement of the prior existing contraceptive and reproductive
health laws, but with coercive measures.