Case Title: MAXIMO CALALANG, Petitioner, v. A. D. WILLIAMS, ET AL., Respondents.

G.R. No. 47800. December 2, 1940.

Facts:

Maximo Calalang in his capacity as a private citizen and a taxpayer of Manila filed a petition for a
writ of prohibition against the respondents.

It is alleged in the petition that the National Traffic Commission, in its resolution of July 17, 1940,
resolved to recommend to the Director of the Public Works and to the Secretary of Public Works and
Communications that animal-drawn vehicles be prohibited from passing along Rosario Street extending
from Plaza Calderon de la Barca to Dasmariñas Street from 7:30 Am to 12:30 pm and from 1:30 pm to
530 pm; and along Rizal Avenue extending from the railroad crossing at Antipolo Street to Echague
Street from 7 am to 11pm for a period of one year from the date of the opening of the Colgante Bridge
to traffic.

The Chairman of the National Traffic Commission on July 18, 1940 recommended to the Director of
Public Works with the approval of the Secretary of Public Works the adoption of the measure proposed
in the resolution aforementioned in pursuance of the provisions of the Commonwealth Act No. 548
which authorizes said Director with the approval from the Secretary of the Public Works and
Communication to promulgate rules and regulations to regulate and control the use of and traffic on
national roads.

On August 2, 1940, the Director recommended to the Secretary the approval of the recommendations
made by the Chairman of the National Traffic Commission with modifications. The Secretary of Public
Works approved the recommendations on August 10, 1940.

The Mayor of Manila and the Acting Chief of Police of Manila have enforced and caused to be enforced
the rules and regulation. As a consequence, all animal-drawn vehicles are not allowed to pass and pick
up passengers in the places above mentioned to the detriment not only of their owners but of the riding
public as well.

Issue:

1. Whether the rules and regulations promulgated by the respondents pursuant to the provisions
of Commonwealth Act NO. 548 constitute an unlawful inference with legitimate business or trade and
abridged the right to personal liberty and freedom of locomotion?
2. Whether the rules and regulations complained of infringe upon the constitutional precept
regarding the promotion of social justice to insure the well-being and economic security of all the
people?

Held:

1. No. The promulgation of the Act aims to promote safe transit upon and avoid obstructions on
national roads in the interest and convenience of the public. In enacting said law, the National Assembly
was prompted by considerations of public convenience and welfare. It was inspired by the desire to
relieve congestion of traffic, which is a menace to the public safety. Public welfare lies at the bottom of
the promulgation of the said law and the state in order to promote the general welfare may interfere
with personal liberty, with property, and with business and occupations. Persons and property may be
subject to all kinds of restraints and burdens in order to secure the general comfort, health, and
prosperity of the State. To this fundamental aims of the government, the rights of the individual are
subordinated. Liberty is a blessing which should not be made to prevail over authority because society
will fall into anarchy. Neither should authority be made to prevail over liberty because then the
individual will fall into slavery. The paradox lies in the fact that the apparent curtailment of liberty is
precisely the very means of insuring its preserving.

2. No. Social justice means the promotion of the welfare of all the people, the adoption by the
Government of measures calculated to insure economic stability of all the competent elements of
society, through the maintenance of a proper economic and social equilibrium in the interrelations of
the members of the community, constitutionally, through the adoption of measures legally justifiable, or
extra-constitutionally, through the exercise of powers underlying the existence of all governments on
the time-honored principles of salus populi est suprema lex.

Social justice must be founded on the recognition of the necessity of interdependence among divers and
diverse units of a society and of the protection that should be equally and evenly extended to all groups
as a combined force in our social and economic life, consistent with the fundamental and paramount
objective of the state of promoting health, comfort and quiet of all persons, and of bringing about “the
greatest good to the greatest number.”

Rulling : THE PETITION IS DENIED WITH COSTS AGAINST THE PETITIONER

IMBONG VS. OCHOA

KEY TAKE-AWAY: The Reproductive Health Law is a consolidation and enhancement of

existing reproductive laws. It seeks to enhance the population control program of the government
in order to promote public welfare. However, when coercive measures are found within the law,
provisions must be removed or altered in order to ensure that it does not defy the Constitution by
infringing on the rights of the people.

PONENTE: MENDOZA, J.

FACTS
 Petition: to declare provisions of Republic Act No. 10354 as unconstitutional
 Factual Antecedents
 December 21, 2012: Congress enacted RA No. 10354 also known as the Responsible
Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012 (RH LAW)
 The president’s imprimatur and support for the said law lead to a range of petitions
against the law leading to iuris controversy in court. Petitions for certiorari and
prohibition were placed by numerous parties. All in all, 14 petitions and 2 petitions-in-
intervention were filed.
 March 15, 2013: the RH-IRR or enforcement of the law took place
 March 19, 2013: After deliberating the issues and arguments raised, the court issued
Status Quo Ante Order (SQAO) which lead to a 120 day halt on the implementation of
the legislation
 Due to further arguments and debates from opposing parties, the SQAO was extended
until further orders of the court last July 16, 2013
 Statute Involved:
 Republic Act 10354, “The Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of
2012”
 Position of Petitioner:
o Petitioners claim that the provisions of RA 10354 are unconstitutional as they
violate the rights to life, to health, to freedom of expression and speech, to the
privacy of families, to academic freedom, to due process of law, to equal protection,
and against involuntary servitude. They also intrude on the autonomy of local
governments and the ARMM, and violate natural law. Furthermore, they claim that
Congress’ delegation of authority to the FDA in determining which should be
included in the EDL is invalid.
 Position of Respondent
  There is no actual case or controversy and, therefore, the issues are not yet ripe for
judicial determination
 Some petitioners lack standing to question the RH Law
 The petitions are essentially petitions for declaratory relief over which the Court
has no original jurisdiction.
 ISSUES
 Procedural
o Whether or not the Court may exercise its power of judicial review
o Whether or not there is an actual case or controversy
o Whether the Court may apply facial challenge
o Whether or not the petitions are praying for declaratory relief
o Whether the petitions violate the One Subject/One Title Rule
 Substantive
o Whether or not the RH Law is unconstitutional on the grounds that it violates
 Right to Life
 Right to Health
 Freedom of Religion and the Right to Free Speech
 The Family
 Freedom of Expression and Academic Freedom
 Due Process
 Equal Protection
 Involuntary Servitude
 Autonomy of Local Governments/ARMM
 Natural Law
o Whether or not Congress’ delegation of authority to the FDA in determining which
should be included in the EDL is valid
 HELD
 Procedural
o Whether or not the court may exercise its power of judicial review - YES
 While the Court may not pass upon questions of wisdom, justice or expediency
of the RH Law, it may do so where an attendant unconstitutionality or grave
abuse of discretion results. The following requisites for judicial review were
met: (a) there must be an actual case or controversy; (b) the petitioners must
possess locus standi; ( c) the question of constitutionality must be raised at the
earliest opportunity; and ( d) the issue of constitutionality must be the lis mota
of the case
o Whether or not there is an actual case or controversy – YES
 Considering that the RH Law and its implementing rules have already taken
effect and that budgetary measures to carry out the law have already been
passed, it is evident that the subject petitions present a justiciable controversy.
 As stated earlier, when an action of the legislative branch is seriously alleged
to have infringed the Constitution, it not only becomes a right, but also a duty
of the Judiciary to settle the dispute.
 Moreover, the petitioners have shown that the case is so because medical
practitioners or medical providers are in danger of being criminally prosecuted
under the RH Law for vague violations thereof, particularly public health
officers who are threatened to be dismissed from the service with forfeiture
of retirement and other benefits.
o Whether the Court may apply facial challenge – YES
 The scope of application of facial challenges extends to the regulation of free
speech, but also those involving religious freedom, and other fundamental
rights.
 Consequently, considering that the foregoing petitions have seriously alleged
that the constitutional human rights to life, speech and religion and other
fundamental rights mentioned above have been violated by the assailed
legislation, the Court has authority to take cognizance of these kindred petitions
and to determine if the RH Law can indeed pass constitutional scrutiny.
o Whether or not Locus Standi applies – YES
 Regardless of whether the petitioners are directly injured of affected by the RH
Law or not, the Court leans on the doctrine that "the rule on standing is a matter
of procedure, hence, can be relaxed for non-traditional plaintiffs like ordinary
citizens, taxpayers, and legislators when the public interest so requires, such as
when the matter is of transcendental importance, of overreaching significance
to society, or of paramount public interest." The RH Law falls under
transcendental importance as it drastically affects the constitutional provisions
on the right to life and health, the freedom of religion and expression and other
constitutional rights.
o Whether or not the petitions are praying for declaratory relief - YES
 Most of the petitions are praying for injunctive reliefs, not declaratory reliefs,
and so the Court would just consider them as petitions for prohibition under
Rule 65, over which it has original jurisdiction. Where the case has far-reaching
implications and prays for injunctive reliefs, the Court may consider them as
petitions for prohibition under Rule 65.
o Whether the petitions violate the One Subject/One Title Rule – NO
 In a textual analysis of the various provisions of the law, both "reproductive
health" and "responsible parenthood" are interrelated and germane to the
overriding objective to control the population growth. Thus, the Court finds no
reason to believe that Congress had the intention to deceive the public regarding
the contents of the said law.
 Substantive
o Whether or not the RH Law is unconstitutional on the grounds that it violates
 Right to Life – NO
 Constitution intended that 1.) conception to refer to the time of fertilization
and 2.) the protection of the unborn upon said fertilization
 Not all contraceptives are to be banned (only those that kill a fertilized
ovum)
 Contraceptives that prevent union of sperm and egg are thus permissible
 It is the intended by the framers of the 1987 Constitution to prevent the
enacting of a law that legalizes abortion.
 RH law prohibits abortion
 RH law recognizes that abortion is a crime
 RH law prohibits abortifacients
 Right to Health - NO
 With the provisions of RA 4729 still in place, the status quo on the sale of
contraceptives is maintained and the Court believes that there are adequate
measures that ensure that the public has access to contraceptives that have
been determined safe following testing, evaluation, and approval by the
FDA
 Freedom of Religion and the Right to Free Speech – NO and YES
 RH law does not violate guarantee of religious freedom via the state-
sponsored procurement of contraceptives, which contravene the religious
beliefs of the people including the petitioners. This is because in doing so,
the state would be adhering to one religions, making a de facto state religion
which is contrary to religious freedom.
 The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable
 There limits to the exercise of religious freedom (compelling state interest
test)
 Benevolent neutrality
 RH law does not violate the guarantee of religious freedom by requiring
would-be spouses, as a condition for the issuance of a marriage license, to
attend a seminar on parenthood, family planning, breastfeeding and infant
nutrition (sec.7, 23, 24)
 However, RH Law violates the guarantee of religious freedom by
compelling medical health practitioners, hospitals, and health care
providers, under pain of penalty, to refer patients to other institutions despite
their conscientious objections
 The Family - YES
 Section 23(a)(2)(i) of the RH Law, which needs only the consent of the
spouse undergoing the provision in order to undergo reproductive
procedures intrudes into martial privacy and autonomy and goes against the
constitutional safeguards for the family as the basic social institution. Not
 only that, but the exclusion of parental consent in cases where a minor
undergoing a procedure is already a parent or has had a miscarriage (Section
7 of the RH Law) is also anti-family and violates Article II, Section 12 of
the Constitution, which declares that the rearing of children by parents is a
natural right.
 Freedom of Expression and Academic Freedom – UNDECIDED
 The court decided that making a ruling on Section 14 of the RH Law, which
mandates the State to provide Age-and Development-Appropriate
Reproductive Health Education, is premature. The Department of Education
has not yet created a curriculum on age-appropriate reproductive health
education, thus the constitutionality of the specifics in such a curriculum
still cannot be determined. The exclusion of private educational institutions
from the mandatory RH education program under Section 14 is valid. There
is a need to recognize the academic freedom of private educational
institutions especially with respect to religious instruction and to consider
their sensitivity towards the teaching of reproductive health education.
 Due Process - NO
 The definitions of several terms pinpointed by the petitioners in the RH Law
are not vague.
 Private health care institution = private health care service provider.
 “service” and “methods” are also broad enough to include giving
information and performing medical procedures, so hospitals run by
religious groups can be exempted.
 “incorrect information” connotes a sense of malice and ill motive to
mislead the public.
 Equal Protection - NO
 It is pursuant to Section 11, Article XIII of the Constitution, which states
that the State shall prioritize the needs of the underprivileged, sick elderly,
disabled, women, and children and that it shall endeavor to provide medical
care to paupers.
 Involuntary Servitude - NO
 The State has the power to regulate the practice of medicine in order to
ensure the welfare of the public. Not only that, but Section 17 only
encourages private and non-government RH service providers to give pro
bono service; they do not incur penalties if they refuse. Conscientious
objects are exempt if their religious beliefs do not allow them to provide the
said services.
 Autonomy of Local Governments/ARMM – NO
 The RH Law does not infringe upon the autonomy of local governments.
Under paragraph (c) of Section 17, unless a local government unit (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 LGUs. Not only
that, but LGUs are merely encouraged and not compelled to provide RH
services. Provision of these services are not mandatory. Lastly, Article III,
Sections 6, 10, and 11 of RA 9054 deor the Organic Act of the ARMM
merely outlines the powers that may be exercised by the regional
government and does not indicate the State’s abdication to create laws in
the name of public welfare.
 Natural Law – disregarded
 Natural law, according to the Court, is not recognized as proper legal basis
for making decisions
o Whether or not Congress’ delegation of authority to the FDA in determining
which should be included in the EDL is valid- YES
 Under RA 3720, the FDA, being the primary and sole premiere and only agency
that ensures the safety of food and medicines available to the public, has the
power and competency to evaluate, register and cover health services and
methods
 Final Ruling
o Petitions partially granted. The RA 10354 is declared constitutional, and Status Quo
Ante Order lifted with respect to provisions of RA 10354 that have been declared
as constitutional. However, the following provisions and their corresponding
provisions in the RH-IRR have been declared unconstitutional:
 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 Republic Act No. 8344, to
another health facility which is conveniently accessible; and b) allow minor-
parents or minors who have suffered a miscarriage access to modem methods
of family planning without written consent from their parents or guardian/s;
 Section 23(a)(l) 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 disseminate information regarding
programs and services on reproductive health regardless of his or her religious
beliefs.
 Section 23(a)(2)(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 Republic Act No. 8344, to undergo reproductive health
procedures without the consent of the spouse;
  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.
 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 Republic Act No. 8344, to another health
care service provider within the same facility or one which is conveniently
accessible regardless of his or her religious beliefs;
 Section 23(b) and the corresponding provision in the RH-IRR, particularly
Section 5 .24 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 reproductive health program, regardless of his or her
religious beliefs;
 Section 17 and the corresponding provision in the RH-IRR regarding the
rendering of pro bona reproductive health service in so far as they affect the
conscientious objector in securing PhilHealth accreditation;
 Section 3.0l(a) and Section 3.01 G) of the RH-IRR, which added the qualifier
"primarily" in defining abortifacients and contraceptives, as they are ultra vires
and, therefore, null and void for contravening Section 4(a) of the RH Law and
violating Section 12, Article II of the Constitution.

IMBONG VS. OCHOA

KEY TAKE-AWAY: The Reproductive Health Law is a consolidation and enhancement of existing
reproductive laws. It seeks to enhance the population control program of the government in order to
promote public welfare. However, when coercive measures are found within the law, provisions must
be removed or altered in order to ensure that it does not defy the Constitution by infringing on the
rights of the people.

PONENTE: MENDOZA, J.

FACTS

• Petition: to declare provisions of Republic Act No. 10354 as unconstitutional

• Factual Antecedents
 December 21, 2012: Congress enacted RA No. 10354 also known as the Responsible Parenthood
and Reproductive Health Act of 2012 (RH LAW)

The president’s imprimatur and support for the said law lead to a range of petitions against the
law leading to iuris controversy in court. Petitions for certiorari and prohibition were placed by
numerous parties. All in all, 14 petitions and 2 petitions-in-intervention were filed.

March 15, 2013: the RH-IRR or enforcement of the law took place

March 19, 2013: After deliberating the issues and arguments raised, the court issued Status Quo
Ante Order (SQAO) which lead to a 120 day halt on the implementation of the legislation

Due to further arguments and debates from opposing parties, the SQAO was extended until
further orders of the court last July 16, 2013

• Statute Involved:

Republic Act 10354, “The Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012”

Position of Petitioner:

o Petitioners claim that the provisions of RA 10354 are unconstitutional as they violate the rights
to life, to health, to freedom of expression and speech, to the privacy of families, to academic freedom,
to due process of law, to equal protection, and against involuntary servitude. They also intrude on the
autonomy of local governments and the ARMM, and violate natural law. Furthermore, they claim that
Congress’ delegation of authority to the FDA in determining which should be included in the EDL is
invalid.

Position of Respondent

There is no actual case or controversy and, therefore, the issues are not yet ripe for judicial
determination

Some petitioners lack standing to question the RH Law

The petitions are essentially petitions for declaratory relief over which the Court has no original
jurisdiction.

• ISSUES

Procedural

o Whether or not the Court may exercise its power of judicial review

o Whether or not there is an actual case or controversy

o Whether the Court may apply facial challenge

o Whether or not the petitions are praying for declaratory relief

o Whether the petitions violate the One Subject/One Title Rule

Substantive
o Whether or not the RH Law is unconstitutional on the grounds that it violates

Right to Life

Right to Health

Freedom of Religion and the Right to Free Speech

The Family

Freedom of Expression and Academic Freedom

Due Process

Equal Protection

Involuntary Servitude

Autonomy of Local Governments/ARMM

Natural Law

o Whether or not Congress’ delegation of authority to the FDA in determining which should be
included in the EDL is valid

• HELD

Procedural

o Whether or not the court may exercise its power of judicial review - YES

While the Court may not pass upon questions of wisdom, justice or expediency of the RH Law, it
may do so where an attendant unconstitutionality or grave abuse of discretion results. The following
requisites for judicial review were met: (a) there must be an actual case or controversy; (b) the
petitioners must possess locus standi; ( c) the question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest
opportunity; and ( d) the issue of constitutionality must be the lis mota of the case

o Whether or not there is an actual case or controversy – YES

Considering that the RH Law and its implementing rules have already taken effect and that
budgetary measures to carry out the law have already been passed, it is evident that the subject
petitions present a justiciable controversy. As stated earlier, when an action of the legislative branch is
seriously alleged to have infringed the Constitution, it not only becomes a right, but also a duty of the
Judiciary to settle the dispute.

Moreover, the petitioners have shown that the case is so because medical practitioners or
medical providers are in danger of being criminally prosecuted under the RH Law for vague violations
thereof, particularly public health officers who are threatened to be dismissed from the service with
forfeiture of retirement and other benefits.

o Whether the Court may apply facial challenge – YES

 The scope of application of facial challenges extends to the regulation of free speech, but also
those involving religious freedom, and other fundamental rights.

Consequently, considering that the foregoing petitions have seriously alleged that the
constitutional human rights to life, speech and religion and other fundamental rights mentioned above
have been violated by the assailed legislation, the Court has authority to take cognizance of these
kindred petitions and to determine if the RH Law can indeed pass constitutional scrutiny.

o Whether or not Locus Standi applies – YES

Regardless of whether the petitioners are directly injured of affected by the RH Law or not, the
Court leans on the doctrine that "the rule on standing is a matter of procedure, hence, can be relaxed
for non-traditional plaintiffs like ordinary citizens, taxpayers, and legislators when the public interest so
requires, such as when the matter is of transcendental importance, of overreaching significance to
society, or of paramount public interest." The RH Law falls under transcendental importance as it
drastically affects the constitutional provisions on the right to life and health, the freedom of religion
and expression and other constitutional rights.

o Whether or not the petitions are praying for declaratory relief - YES

Most of the petitions are praying for injunctive reliefs, not declaratory reliefs, and so the Court
would just consider them as petitions for prohibition under Rule 65, over which it has original
jurisdiction. Where the case has far-reaching implications and prays for injunctive reliefs, the Court may
consider them as petitions for prohibition under Rule 65.

o Whether the petitions violate the One Subject/One Title Rule – NO

In a textual analysis of the various provisions of the law, both "reproductive health" and
"responsible parenthood" are interrelated and germane to the overriding objective to control the
population growth. Thus, the Court finds no reason to believe that Congress had the intention to
deceive the public regarding the contents of the said law.

Substantive

o Whether or not the RH Law is unconstitutional on the grounds that it violates

Right to Life – NO

Constitution intended that 1.) conception to refer to the time of fertilization and 2.) the
protection of the unborn upon said fertilization

Not all contraceptives are to be banned (only those that kill a fertilized ovum)

Contraceptives that prevent union of sperm and egg are thus permissible

It is the intended by the framers of the 1987 Constitution to prevent the enacting of a law that
legalizes abortion.

RH law prohibits abortion

RH law recognizes that abortion is a crime

 RH law prohibits abortifacients

Right to Health - NO

With the provisions of RA 4729 still in place, the status quo on the sale of contraceptives is
maintained and the Court believes that there are adequate measures that ensure that the public has
access to contraceptives that have been determined safe following testing, evaluation, and approval by
the FDA

Freedom of Religion and the Right to Free Speech – NO and YES

RH law does not violate guarantee of religious freedom via the state-sponsored procurement of
contraceptives, which contravene the religious beliefs of the people including the petitioners. This is
because in doing so, the state would be adhering to one religions, making a de facto state religion which
is contrary to religious freedom.

The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable

There limits to the exercise of religious freedom (compelling state interest test)

Benevolent neutrality

RH law does not violate the guarantee of religious freedom by requiring would-be spouses, as a
condition for the issuance of a marriage license, to attend a seminar on parenthood, family planning,
breastfeeding and infant nutrition (sec.7, 23, 24)

However, RH Law violates the guarantee of religious freedom by compelling medical health
practitioners, hospitals, and health care providers, under pain of penalty, to refer patients to other
institutions despite their conscientious objections

The Family - YES

Section 23(a)(2)(i) of the RH Law, which needs only the consent of the spouse undergoing the
provision in order to undergo reproductive procedures intrudes into martial privacy and autonomy and
goes against the constitutional safeguards for the family as the basic social institution. Not only that, but
the exclusion of parental consent in cases where a minor undergoing a procedure is already a parent or
has had a miscarriage (Section 7 of the RH Law) is also anti-family and violates Article II, Section 12 of
the Constitution, which declares that the rearing of children by parents is a natural right.

Freedom of Expression and Academic Freedom – UNDECIDED

The court decided that making a ruling on Section 14 of the RH Law, which mandates the State
to provide Age-and Development-Appropriate Reproductive Health Education, is premature. The
Department of Education has not yet created a curriculum on age-appropriate reproductive health
education, thus the constitutionality of the specifics in such a curriculum still cannot be determined. The
exclusion of private educational institutions from the mandatory RH education program under Section
14 is valid. There is a need to recognize the academic freedom of private educational institutions
especially with respect to religious instruction and to consider their sensitivity towards the teaching of
reproductive health education.

Due Process - NO
 The definitions of several terms pinpointed by the petitioners in the RH Law are not vague.

Private health care institution = private health care service provider.

“service” and “methods” are also broad enough to include giving information and performing
medical procedures, so hospitals run by religious groups can be exempted.

“incorrect information” connotes a sense of malice and ill motive to mislead the public.

Equal Protection - NO

It is pursuant to Section 11, Article XIII of the Constitution, which states that the State shall
prioritize the needs of the underprivileged, sick elderly, disabled, women, and children and that it shall
endeavor to provide medical care to paupers.

Involuntary Servitude - NO

The State has the power to regulate the practice of medicine in order to ensure the welfare of
the public. Not only that, but Section 17 only encourages private and non-government RH service
providers to give pro bono service; they do not incur penalties if they refuse. Conscientious objects are
exempt if their religious beliefs do not allow them to provide the said services.

Autonomy of Local Governments/ARMM – NO

The RH Law does not infringe upon the autonomy of local governments. Under paragraph (c) of
Section 17, unless a local government unit (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 LGUs. Not only that, but LGUs are merely encouraged and not compelled to
provide RH services. Provision of these services are not mandatory. Lastly, Article III, Sections 6, 10, and
11 of RA 9054 deor the Organic Act of the ARMM merely outlines the powers that may be exercised by
the regional government and does not indicate the State’s abdication to create laws in the name of
public welfare.

Natural Law – disregarded

Natural law, according to the Court, is not recognized as proper legal basis for making decisions

o Whether or not Congress’ delegation of authority to the FDA in determining which should be
included in the EDL is valid- YES

Under RA 3720, the FDA, being the primary and sole premiere and only agency that ensures the
safety of food and medicines available to the public, has the power and competency to evaluate,
register and cover health services and methods

Final Ruling

o Petitions partially granted. The RA 10354 is declared constitutional, and Status Quo Ante Order
lifted with respect to provisions of RA 10354 that have been declared as constitutional. However, the
following provisions and their corresponding provisions in the RH-IRR have been declared
unconstitutional:
 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 Republic Act No.
8344, to another health facility which is conveniently accessible; and b) allow minor-parents or minors
who have suffered a miscarriage access to modem methods of family planning without written consent
from their parents or guardian/s;

Section 23(a)(l) 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 disseminate
information regarding programs and services on reproductive health regardless of his or her religious
beliefs.

Section 23(a)(2)(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 Republic Act No. 8344, to
undergo reproductive health procedures without the consent of the spouse;

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.

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 Republic Act No. 8344, to another health care
service provider within the same facility or one which is conveniently accessible regardless of his or her
religious beliefs;

Section 23(b) and the corresponding provision in the RH-IRR, particularly Section 5 .24 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 reproductive health program, regardless of his or
her religious beliefs;

Section 17 and the corresponding provision in the RH-IRR regarding the rendering of pro bona
reproductive health service in so far as they affect the conscientious objector in securing PhilHealth
accreditation;

Section 3.0l(a) and Section 3.01 G) of the RH-IRR, which added the qualifier "primarily" in
defining abortifacients and contraceptives, as they are ultra vires and, therefore, null and void for
contravening Section 4(a) of the RH Law and violating Section 12, Article II of the Constitution.
Oposa vs Factoran
Natural and Environmental Laws; Constitutional Law: Intergenerational Responsibility

GR No. 101083; July 30 1993

FACTS:

A taxpayer’s class suit was filed by minors Juan Antonio Oposa, et al., representing their generation and
generations yet unborn, and represented by their parents against Fulgencio Factoran Jr., Secretary of
DENR. They prayed that judgment be rendered ordering the defendant, his agents, representatives and
other persons acting in his behalf to:

1. Cancel all existing Timber Licensing Agreements (TLA) in the country;

2. Cease and desist from receiving, accepting, processing, renewing, or appraising new TLAs;

and granting the plaintiffs “such other reliefs just and equitable under the premises.” They alleged that
they have a clear and constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology and are entitled to
protection by the State in its capacity as parens patriae. Furthermore, they claim that the act of the
defendant in allowing TLA holders to cut and deforest the remaining forests constitutes a
misappropriation and/or impairment of the natural resources property he holds in trust for the benefit
of the plaintiff minors and succeeding generations.

The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the following grounds:

1. Plaintiffs have no cause of action against him;

2. The issues raised by the plaintiffs is a political question which properly pertains to the
legislative or executive branches of the government.

ISSUE:

Do the petitioner-minors have a cause of action in filing a class suit to “prevent the misappropriation or
impairment of Philippine rainforests?”

HELD:
Yes. Petitioner-minors assert that they represent their generation as well as generations to come. The
Supreme Court ruled that they can, for themselves, for others of their generation, and for the
succeeding generation, file a class suit. Their personality to sue in behalf of succeeding generations is
based on the concept of intergenerational responsibility insofar as the right to a balanced and healthful
ecology is concerned. Such a right considers the “rhythm and harmony of nature” which indispensably
include, inter alia, the judicious disposition, utilization, management, renewal and conservation of the
country’s forest, mineral, land, waters, fisheries, wildlife, offshore areas and other natural resources to
the end that their exploration, development, and utilization be equitably accessible to the present as
well as the future generations.

Needless to say, every generation has a responsibility to the next to preserve that rhythm and harmony
for the full enjoyment of a balanced and healthful ecology. Put a little differently, the minor’s assertion
of their right to a sound environment constitutes at the same time, the performance of their obligation
to ensure the protection of that right for the generations to come.