James M. Imbong And Lovely-Ann C.

Imbong, 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., Hon. Florencio B. Abad, Hon. Enrique T. Ona, Hon.
Armin A. Luistro, And Hon. Manuela. Roxas II, Respondents.

G.R. No. 204819 April 8, 2014

MENDOZA, J:

FACTS OF THE CASE:

Consolidated petitions which assert unconstitutionality of the RH Law were
filed after its effectivity date on January 17, 2013. Most of which are from
religious crusaders of the Catholic Church who claims representation of the totality
of the religious sects.
The petitioners argued that the RH law allowing access to abortifacients/
abortives effectively consents abortion as they operate to kill the fertilized ovum
which already has life. However, the respondents contend that various studies
show that life begins from the implantation of the fertilized ovum.
The petitioners question the mandatory inclusion of sex education in the
curriculum and mandatory duty to conduct seminars on reproductive health
services to indigents violate the religious freedom. The respondents in response,
contend that the RH Law does not provide that a specific mode or type of
contraceptives be used, be it natural or artificial. The respondents add that by
asserting that only natural family planning should be allowed and that he or she is
against can refer to the patient to another practitioner. It is also discretionary to the
couple whether what family planning method to use or they may not use any to at
all.

ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the constitutional right as to freedom of religion is violated
by the provisions of RH Law?
HELD:
YES.
The ruling of the court partially granted the petitions. The Court declares
R.A. No. 10354 as not unconstitutional except with respect to the following
provisions which are declared unconstitutional:
1. Section 23(a)(l) and the corresponding provision in the RH-IRR, particularly
Section 5; 2. Section 23(a)(3) and the corresponding provision in the RH-
IRR, particularly Section 5.; 3. Section 23(b) and the corresponding
provision in the RH-IRR, particularly Section 5.
The constitutional assurance of religious freedom provides two guarantees:
Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause.
The establishment clause "principally prohibits the State from sponsoring
any religion or favoring any religion as against other religions. It mandates a strict
neutrality in affairs among religious groups." It prohibits the establishment of a
state religion and the use of public resources for the support or prohibition of a
religion. On the other hand, the basis of the free exercise clause is the respect for
the inviolability of the human conscience. The State is prohibited from unduly
interfering with the outside manifestations of one's belief and faith. Consistent with
the principle that not any one religion against other religions. It mandates a strict
neutrality in affairs among religious groups." In the present case, the duty of
medical practitioners to refer burdens his conscience when he acted against his
belief. That by conscience, he may not be a principal yet he is equally liable for his
indirect participation.

GROUP OPINION: Yes, we agree with the decision of the Supreme Court. The
decision created a middle ground between RH Law and the Church as it struck
down the provisions that expressly violates the beliefs and teachings of the Church
the same way it protected the interest of the State on life preservation of mothers
and their children. On the otherhand, the Court also emphasized that religion has
nothing to do with constituent functions of the State.

GROUP 1: IMBONG vs. OCHOA

BABAS, GRACE A.
ALCANCIA, REINA
ABAD, AARON JAMES