IMBONG VS. OCHOA KEY TAKE-AWA AKE-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 onstitution by infringing on the rights of the people. PONENTE: !"#$%&', (. CONSOLIDATION OF 14 CASES NAMELY: DATE/GR NO/SCRA 'pril ), *+-, .R. #o. *+-)/
R. #o. *+-/7-
PETITIONER
(ames !. Imbong Lovely0'nn . Imbong, for themselves and in behalf of their minor children, Lu ia arlos Imbong and 1ernadette arlos Imbong and !agnificat hild $evelopment enter, Inc., a domestic, privately0owned educational institution
RESPONDENT
Hon. 2a3uito #. %choa, (r., "xecutive 4ecretary5 Hon. 6lorencio 1. 'bad, 4ecretary, 4ecretary, $epartment %f 1udget 'nd !anagement5 Hon. "nri3ue T. %na, 4ecretary, 4ecretary, $epartment %f Health5 Hon. 'rmin '. Luistro, 4ecretary, $epartment %f "ducation, ulture 'nd 4ports5 and Hon. !anuela. Roxas II, 4ecretary, 4ecretary, $epartment %f Interior and Local overnment 'LLI'#" 6%R TH" 6'!IL8 H%#. 2'?9IT% #. %H%', (R., 6%9#$'TI%# 2HILI22I#"4, I#. "xecutive 4ecretary, H%#. "#RI?9" T. :'L6I;, represented by its 2resident, %#', !aria oncepcion 4. #oche, 4pouses 4ecretary, 4ecretary, $epartment of Health, H%#. Reynaldo 4. Luistro < Rosie 1. 'R!I# '. L9I4TR%, 4ecretary, 4ecretary, Luistro, (ose 4. 4ande=as < "lenita $epartment of "ducation, ulture and 4.'. 4ande=as, 'rturo !. orre> < 4ports, H%#. %R'&%# 4%LI!'#, !arietta . orre>, 4alvador 4. 4ecretary, 4ecretary, $epartment of 4ocial @elfare @elfare !ante, (r. < Ha>eleen L. !ante, and $evelopment, H%#. !'#9"L'. Rolando !. 1autista < !aria 6elisa R%A'4 II, 4ecretary, $epartment of 4. 1autista, $esiderio Racho < Interior and Local overnment, H%#. Tra3uilina Racho, 6 emand 'ntonio 6L%R"#I% 1. '1'$, 4ecretary, 4ecretary, '. Tansingco Tansingco < arol 'nne . $epartment of 1udget and !anagement, Tansingco for themselves and on H%#. 'R4"#I% !. 1'LI4''#, behalf of their minor children, 4ocio0"conomic 2lanning 4ecretary and Therese 'ntonette . Tansingco, #"$' $irector0eneral, $irector0eneral, TH" Loren>o (ose . Tansingco, !iguel 2HILI22I#" %!!I44I%# %# 6emando . Tangsingco, arlo @%!"#, represented by its hairperson,
R #o. *+-/DE
R #o.
(osemaria . Tansingco < (uan 2aolo Remedios lgnacioRikken, TH" . Tansingco, 4pouses !ariano B. 2HILI22I#" H"'LTH I#49R'#" 'raneta < "ileen &. 'raneta for %R2%R'TI%#, represented by its themselves and on behalf of their 2resident "duardo 1an>on, TH" minor children, Ramon arlos &. L"'9" %6 2R%BI#"4 %6 TH" 'raneta < !aya 'ngelica &. 2HILI22I#"4, represented by its 'raneta, 4pouses Renato . astor < 2resident 'lfonso 9mali, TH" L"'9" !ildred . astor for themselves and %6 ITI"4 %6 TH" 2HILI22I#"4, on behalf of their minor children, represented by its 2resident %scar Ren> (effrey . astor, (oseph Ramil Rodrigue>, and TH" L"'9" %6 . astor, (ohn 2aul . astor < !9#II2'LITI"4 %6 TH" Raphael . astor, 4pouses 2HILI22I#"4, represented by its 'lexander R. Racho < &ara &. Racho 2resident $onato !arcos, for themselves and on behalf of their minor children !argarita Racho, !ikaela Racho, !artin Racho, !ari Racho < !anolo Racho, 4pouses 'lfred R. Racho < 6rancine B. Racho for themselves and on behalf of their minor children !ichael Racho, !ariana Racho, Rafael Racho, !axi Racho, hessie Racho < Laura Racho, 4pouses $avid R. Racho < 'rmilyn '. Racho for themselves and on behalf of their minor child abriel Racho, !indy !. (uatas and on behalf of her minor children "li=ah erald (uatas and "lian abriel (uatas, 4alvacion !. !onteiro, "mily R. Laws, (oseph R. Laws < Catrina R. Laws T'4C 6%R" 6%R 6'!IL8 '#$ H%#. 2'?9IT% #. %H%', (R., LI6" BI4'8'4, I#. and "xecutive 4ecretary5 H%#. 6L%R"#I% B'L"RI'#% 4. 'BIL', 1. '1'$, 4ecretary, $epartment of 1udget and !anagement5 H%#. "#RI?9" T. %#', 4ecretary, $epartment of "ducation5 and H%#. !'#9"L'. R%A'4 II, 4ecretary, $epartment of Interior and Local overnment 4"RB" LI6" ''8'# $" %R% %66I" %6 TH" 2R"4I$"#T,
*+-/))
R #o. *+D++7
IT8, I#., represented by $r. #estor 1. Lumicao, !.$., as 2resident and in his personal capacity, R%4"B'L" 6%9#$'TI%# I#., represented by $r. Rodrigo !. 'lenton, !.$., as member of the school board and in his personal capacity, R%4"!'RI" R. 'L"#T%#, I!"L$' . I1'RR', 2', L%B"#I'2. #'"4, 2hd., '#TH%#8 . #'', "'RL '#TH%#8 . '!1" and !'RL%# I. 8'2, "A2"$IT% '. 19'RI#, (R.,
R #o. *+D+-7
"$9'R$% 1. %L'9"R and TH" 'TH%LI A81R42'" '2%4T%L'T" %6 TH" 2HILI22I#"4,
R #o. *+D7)
2HILI22I#" 'LLI'#" %6 A4"!I#'RI'#4, I#. F2'AG, herein represented by its #ational 2resident, 'tty. Ricardo !. Ribo, and in his own behalf, 'tty. Lino ".'. $umas, Romeo 1. 'lmonte, %smundo . %rlanes, 'rsenio &. !enor, 4amuel (. 8ap, (aime 6. !ateo, Rolly 4iguan, $ante ". !agdangal, !ichael "ugenio +. 2lana, 1ienvenido . !iguel, (r., Landrito !. $iokno and 1aldomero 6alcone,
4"#'T" %6 TH" 2HILI22I#"4, H%94" %6 R"2R"4"#T'TIB"4, H%#. 2'?9IT% #. %H%', (R., "xecutive 4ecretary, H%#. 6L%R"#I% 1. '1'$, 4ecretary, $epartment of 1udget and !anagement5 H%#. "#RI?9" T. %#', 4ecretary, $epartment of Health5 H%#. 'R!I# '. L9I4TR%, 4ecretary, $epartment of "ducation and H%#. !'#9"L'. R%A'4 II, 4ecretary, $epartment of Interior and Local overnment, Respondents %66I" %6 TH" 2R"4I$"#T %6 TH" R"291LI %6 TH" 2HILI22I#"4, H%#. 4"#'T" 2R"4I$"#T, H%#. 42"'C"R %6 TH" H%94" %6 R"2R"4"#T'TIB"4 and H%#. 4%LIIT%R "#"R'L $%H 4"R"T'R8 "#RI?9" T. %#', 6$' $IR"T%R 49&"TT" H. L'&%, $1! 4"R"T'R8 6L%R"#I% 1. '1'$, $IL 4"R"T'R8 !'#9"L'. R%A'4 II, $"4 4"R"T'R8 'R!I# '. L9I4TR% H%#. 2'?9IT% #. %H%', (R., "xecutive 4ecretary, H%#. 6L%R"#I% 1. '1'$, 4ecretary, $epartment of 1udget and !anagement, H%#. "#RI?9" T. %#', 4ecretary, $epartment of Health, H%#. 'R!I# '. L9I4TR%, 4ecretary, $epartment of "ducation, H%#. !'#9"L'. R%A'4 II, 4ecretary, $epartment of Interior and Local overnment, H%#. %R'&%# (. 4%LI!'#, 4ecretary, $epartment of 4ocial @elfare and $evelopment, H%#. 'R4"#I% 1'LI4''#, $irector0 eneral, #ational "conomic and $evelopment 'uthority, H%#. 49&"TT" H. L'&%, $irectoreneral,
R #o. *+D-E)
R #o. *+D-/
R #o. *+DE*+
R #o. *+7DD
R"8#'L$% (. "H'B"&, !.$., ('?9"LI#" H. CI#, !.$., 8#THI' T. $%!I#%, !.$., '#$ (%4"2HI#" !ILL'$%0 L9!IT'%, !.$., collectively known as $octors 6or Life, and '#TH%#8 2"R"&, !IH'"L '#TH%#8 . !'2', 'RL%4 '#T%#I% 2'L'$, @IL6R"$% (%4", L'IR" #'B'RR%, '##' %4I%, and '1RI"L $8 LI'% collectively known as 6ilipinos 6or Life, 42%94"4 6R'#I4% 4. T'T'$ '#$ !'RI' 6"##8 . T'T'$ < 'L' 6. 2'9I', for themselves, their 2osterity, and the rest of 6ilipino posterity 2R%0LI6" 2HILI22I#"4 6%9#$'TI%#, Inc., represented by Loma !elegrito, as "xecutive $irector, and in her personal capacity, (%4"L8# 1. 1'4ILI%, R%1"RT &. %RT"4, 'RI"L '. RI4%4T%!%, ("R"!8 I. 'T$9L', RI4TI#' '. !%#T"4, R'9L '#T%#I% '. #I$%8, @I#4T%# %#R'$ 1. 2'$%(I#%, R96I#% L. 2%LI'R2I% III,
!ILL"##I9! 4'I#T 6%9#$'TI%#, I#., 'TT8. R'!%# 2"$R%4', 'TT8. IT' 1%RR%!"%'RI',
6ood and $rugs 'dministration, TH" 1%'R$ %6 $IR"T%R4, 2hilippine Health Insurance orporation, and TH" 1%'R$ %6 %!!I44I%#"R4, 2hilippine ommission on @omen, H%#. 2'?9IT% #. %H%', (R., "xecutive 4ecretary5 H%#. 6L%R"#I% 1. '1'$, 4ecretary of the $epartment of 1udget and !anagement5 H%#. "#RI?9" T. %#', 4ecretary of the $epartment of Health5 H%#. 'R!I# '. L9I4TR%, 4ecretary of the $epartment of "ducation5 and H%#. !'#9"L'. R%A'4 II, 4ecretary of the $epartment of Interior and Local overnment,
%66I" %6 TH" 2R"4I$"#T of the Republic of the 2hilippines,
%66I" %6 TH" 2R"4I$"#T, 4"#'T" %6 TH" 2HILI22I#"4, H%94" %6 R"2R"4"#T'TIB"4, H%#. 2'?9IT% #. %H%', (R., "xecutive 4ecretary, H%#. 6L%R"#I% 1. '1'$, 4ecretary, $epartment of 1udget and !anagement, H%#. "#RI?9" T. %#', 4ecretary, $epartment of Health, H%#. 'R!I# '. L9I4TR%, 4ecretary, $epartment of "ducation and H%#. !'#9"L '. R%A'4 II, 4ecretary, $epartment of Interior and Local overnment %66I" %6 TH" 2R"4I$"#T, %66I" %6 TH" "A"9TIB" 4"R"T'R8, $"2'RT!"#T %6 H"'LTH, $"2'RT!"#T %6 "$9'TI%#,
R #o. *+E
4T"LL''"$"R', 'TT8. 1"RT"#I 'T'L9#' '94I# (%H# @'LT"R 1. (9'T, !'R8 !. I!1%#, '#TH%#8 BIT%RI% 1. L9!I'%, (%4"2H !'RTI# ?. B"R$"(%, '#T%#I' "!!' R. R%A'4 and L%T' L'T0 9"RR"R%,
R #o. *+EE*
%92L"4 6%R HRI4T 6%9#$'TI%#, I#., 42%94"4 (9'# 'RL%4 'RT'$I 4'R!I"#T% '#$ 6R'#"4' I4'1"LL" 1"4I#'0 4'R!I"#T%, '#$ 42%94"4 L9I4 6R'#I4 '. R%$RI%, (R. and $"1%R'H !'RI" B"R%#I' #. R%$RI%.
R #o. *+ED7
'L!'RI! "#TI TILL'H and '1$9LH944"I# !. C'4HI!,
H%#. 2'?9IT% #. %H%', (R., "xecutive 4ecretary, H%#. 6L%R"#I% '1'$, 4ecretary, $epartment of 1udget and !anagement, H%#. "#RI?9" T. %#', 4ecretary, $epartment of Health, H%#. 'R!I# '. L9I4TR%, 4ecretary, $epartment of "ducation, ulture and 4ports and H%#. !'#9"L '. R%A'4 II, 4ecretary, $epartment of Interior and Local overnment H%#. 2'?9IT% #. %H%', (R., "xecutive 4ecretary, H%#. 6L%R"#I% 1. '1'$, 4ecretary, $epartment of 1udget and !anagement, H%#. "#RI?9" T. %#', 4ecretary, $epartment of Health, H%#. 'R!I# '. L9I4TR%, 4ecretary, $epartment of "ducation, ulture and 4ports and H%#. !'#9"L'. R%A'4 II, 4ecretary, $epartment of Interior and Local overnment, Respondents H%#. 2'?9IT% #. %H%', (R., "xecutive 4ecretary, H%#. "#RI?9" T. %#', 4ecretary of the $epartment of Health, and H%#. 'R!I# '. L9I4TR%,4ecretary of the $epartment of 1udget and !anagement
FACTS
Petiti! to declare provisions of Republic 'ct #o. +7D- as unconstitutional F"#t$"% A!te#e&e!t' De#e()e* +1, +1+: ongress enacted R' #o. +7D- also known as the Responsible 2arenthood and Reproductive Health 'ct of *+* FRH L'@G The presidentJs imprimatur and support for the said law lead to a range of petitions against the law leading to iuris controversy in court. 2etitions for certiorari and prohibition were placed by numerous parties. 'll in all, - petitions and * petitions0 in0intervention were filed. M"*# 1, +10 the RH0IRR or enforcement of the law took place
St"t$te I!5%5e&: Republic 'ct +7D-, KThe Responsible 2arenthood and Reproductive Health 'ct of *+* P'iti! 6 Petiti!e*: 2etitioners claim that the provisions of R' +7D- are unconstitutional as they o
M"*# 1, +10 'fter deliberating the issues and arguments raised, the court issued 4tatus ?uo 'nte %rder F4?'%G which lead to a *+ day halt on the implementation of the legislation $ue to further arguments and debates from opposing parties, the 4?'% was extended until further orders of the court last 2$%3 1, +10
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 e3ual protection, and against involuntary servitude. They also intrude on the autonomy of local governments and the 'R!!, and violate natural law. 6urthermore, they claim that ongressJ delegation of authority to the 6$' in determining which should be included in the "$L is invalid. P'iti! 6 Re'7!&e!t There is no actual case or controversy and, therefore, the issues are not yet ripe for =udicial determination 4ome petitioners lack standing to 3uestion the RH Law The petitions are essentially petitions for declaratory relief over which the ourt has no original =urisdiction.
ISS8ES P*#e&$*"% @hether or not the ourt may exercise its power of =udicial review o o
@hether or not there is an actual case or controversy
o
@hether the ourt may apply facial challenge
o o
@hether or not the petitions are praying for declaratory relief @hether the petitions violate the %ne 4ub=ectM%ne Title Rule
S$)'t"!ti5e @hether or not the RH Law is unconstitutional on the grounds that it violates o Right to Life Right to Health 6reedom of Religion and the Right to 6ree 4peech The 6amily 6reedom of "xpression and 'cademic 6reedom $ue 2rocess "3ual 2rotection Involuntary 4ervitude 'utonomy of Local overnmentsM'R!!
#atural Law o
@hether or not ongressJ delegation of authority to the 6$' in determining which should be included in the "$L is valid
HELD P*#e&$*"% o Wete* * !t te #$*t ("3 e9e*#i'e it' 7e* 6 ;$&i#i"% *e5ie - YES @hile the ourt may not pass upon 3uestions of wisdom, =ustice or
o
expediency of the RH Law, it may do so where an attendant unconstitutionality or grave abuse of discretion results. The following re3uisites for =udicial review were met FaG there mustbe an actual case or controversy5 FbG the petitioners must possess locus standi; F cG the 3uestion of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest opportunity5 and F dG the issue of constitutionality must be the lis mota of the case Wete* * !t te*e i' "! "#t$"% #"'e * #!t*5e*'3 < YES onsidering that the RH Law and its implementing rules have already taken
o
effect and that budgetary measures to carry out the law have already been passed, it is evident that the sub=ect petitions present a =usticiable controversy. 's stated earlier, when an action of the legislative branch is seriously alleged to have infringed the onstitution, it not only becomes a right, but also a duty of the (udiciary to settle the dispute. !oreover, the petitioners have shown that the case is so because medical practitioners or medical providers are in danger of being criminally prosecuted under the RH Law for vague violations thereof, particularly 7$)%i# e"%t 66i#e*' who are t*e"te!e& t )e &i'(i''e& 6*( te 'e*5i#e it 6*6eit$*e 6 *eti*e(e!t "!& te* )e!e6it'. Wete* te C$*t ("3 "77%3 6"#i"% #"%%e!=e < YES The scope of application of facial challenges extends to the regulation of 6*ee
o
'7ee#, but also those involving *e%i=i$' 6*ee&(, and te* 6$!&"(e!t"% *i=t'. onse3uently, 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 ourt has authority to take cogni>ance of these kindred petitions and to determine if the RH Law can indeed pass constitutional scrutiny. Wete* * !t Locus Standi "77%ie' < YES Regardless of whether the petitioners are directly in=ured of affected by the
RH Law or not, the ourt leans on the doctrine that Nthe rule on standing is a matter of procedure, hence, can be relaxed for non0traditional plaintiffs like ordinary citi>ens, taxpayers, and legislators when the public interest so
o
o
re3uires, such as when the matter is of transcendental importance, of overreaching significance to society, or of paramount public interest.N 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. Wete* * !t te 7etiti!' "*e 7*"3i!= 6* &e#%"*"t*3 *e%ie6 - YES !ost of the petitions are praying for in=unctive reliefs, not declaratory reliefs, and so the ourt would =ust consider them as petitions for prohibition under Rule D, over which it has original =urisdiction. @here the case has far0 reaching implications and prays for in=unctive reliefs, the ourt may consider them as petitions for prohibition under Rule D. Wete* te 7etiti!' 5i%"te te O!e S$);e#t/O!e Tit%e R$%e < NO In a textual analysis of the various provisions of the law, both Nreproductive
healthN and Nresponsible parenthoodN are interrelated and germane to the overriding ob=ective to control the population growth. Thus, the ourt finds no reason to believe that ongress had the intention to deceive the public regarding the contents of the said law. S$)'t"!ti5e @hether or not the RH Law is unconstitutional on the grounds that it violates o Ri=t t Li6e < NO onstitution intended that .G conception to refer to the time of
fertili>ation and *.G the protection of the unborn upon said fertili>ation #ot all contraceptives are to be banned Fonly those that kill a fertili>ed ovumG ontraceptives that prevent union of sperm and egg are thus permissible It is the intended by the framers of the /)E onstitution to prevent the enacting of a law that legali>es abortion. RH law prohibits abortion RH law recogni>es that abortion is a crime RH law prohibits abortifacients Ri=t t He"%t - NO @ith the provisions of R' -E*/ still in place, the status 3uo on the sale of contraceptives is maintained and the ourt believes that there are ade3uate measures that ensure that the public has access to contraceptives that have been determined safe following testing, evaluation, and approval by the 6$' F*ee&( 6 Re%i=i! "!& te Ri=t t F*ee S7ee# < NO "!& YES RH law does not violate guarantee of religious freedom via the state0 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 hurch and 4tate shall be inviolable There limits to the exercise of religious freedom Fcompelling state interest testG 1enevolent neutrality RH law does not violate the guarantee of religious freedom by re3uiring would0be spouses, as a condition for the issuance of a marriage license, to attend a seminar on parenthood, family planning, breastfeeding and infant nutrition Fsec.E, *7, *-G He5e*, 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 ob=ections Te F"(i%3 - YES 4ection *7FaGF*GFiG 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. #ot 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 F4ection E of the RH LawG is also anti0family and violates 'rticle II, 4ection * of the onstitution, which declares that the rearing of children by parents is a natural right. F*ee&( 6 E97*e''i! "!& A#"&e(i# F*ee&( < 8NDECIDED The court decided that making a ruling on 4ection - of the RH Law, which mandates the 4tate to provide 'ge0and $evelopment0'ppropriate Reproductive Health "ducation, is premature. The $epartment of "ducation has not yet created a curriculum on age0appropriate reproductive health education, thus the constitutionality of the specifics in such a curriculum still cannot be determined. The exclusion of private educational institutions from the mandatory RH education program under 4ection - is valid. There is a need to recogni>e the academic freedom of private educational institutions especially with respect to religious instruction and to consider their sensitivity towards the teaching of reproductive health education. D$e P*#e'' - NO The definitions of several terms pinpointed by the petitioners in the RH Law are not vague. 2rivate health care institution O private health care service provider.
Kservice and Kmethods are also broad enough to include giving
o
information and performing medical procedures, so hospitals run by religious groups can be exempted. Kincorrect information connotes a sense of malice and ill motive to mislead the public. E>$"% P*te#ti! - NO It is pursuant to 4ection , 'rticle AIII of the onstitution, which states that the 4tate shall prioriti>e the needs of the underprivileged, sick elderly, disabled, women, and children and that it shall endeavor to provide medical care to paupers. I!5%$!t"*3 Se*5it$&e - NO The 4tate has the power to regulate the practice of medicine in order to ensure the welfare of the public. #ot only that, but 4ection E only encourages private and non0government RH service providers to give pro bono service5 they do not incur penalties if they refuse. onscientious ob=ects are exempt if their religious beliefs do not allow them to provide the said services. A$t!(3 6 L#"% G5e*!(e!t'/ARMM < NO The RH Law does not infringe upon the autonomy of local governments. 9nder paragraph FcG of 4ection E, unless a local government unit FL9G 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 eneral 'ppropriations 'ct, even if the program involves the delivery of basic services within the =urisdiction of the L9s. #ot only that, but L9s are merely encouraged and not compelled to provide RH services. 2rovision of these services are not mandatory. Lastly, 'rticle III, 4ections , +, and of R' /+D- deor the %rganic 'ct of the 'R!! merely outlines the powers that may be exercised by the regional government and does not indicate the 4tateJs abdication to create laws in the name of public welfare. N"t$*"% L" < &i'*e="*&e& #atural law, according to the ourt, is not recogni>ed as proper legal basis for making decisions Wete* * !t C!=*e''? &e%e="ti! 6 "$t*it3 t te FDA i! &ete*(i!i!=
i# '$%& )e i!#%$&e& i! te EDL i' 5"%i&- YES 9nder R' 7E*+, the 6$', 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
2etitions partially granted. The R' +7D- is declared constitutional, and 4tatus ?uo 'nte %rder lifted with respect to provisions of R' +7D- that have been declared as constitutional. However, the following provisions and their corresponding provisions in the RH0IRR have been declared unconstitutional Se#ti! @ "!& te #**e'7!&i!= 7*5i'i! i! te RH-IRR insofar as they aG re3uire private health facilities and non0maternity specialty hospitals and hospitals owned and operated by a religious group to refer patients, not in an emergency or life0threatening case, as defined under Republic 'ct #o. )7--, to another health facility which is conveniently accessible5 and bG allow minor0parents or minors who have suffered a miscarriage access to modem methods of family planning without written consent from their parents or guardianMs5 Se#ti! +0"% "!& te #**e'7!&i!= 7*5i'i! i! te RH-IRR , particularly 4ection D .*- 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. Se#ti! +0"+i "!& te #**e'7!&i!= 7*5i'i! i! te RH-IRR insofar as they allow a married individual, not in an emergency or life0threatening case, as defined under Republic 'ct #o. )7--, to undergo reproductive health procedures without the consent of the spouse5 Se#ti! +0"+ii "!& te #**e'7!&i!= 7*5i'i! i! te RH-IRR insofar as they limit the re3uirement of parental consent only to elective surgical procedures. Se#ti! +0"0 "!& te #**e'7!&i!= 7*5i'i! i! te RH-IRR , particularly 4ection D.*- thereof, insofar as they punish any healthcare service provider who fails andMor refuses to refer a patient not in an emergency or life0 threatening case, as defined under Republic 'ct #o. )7--, to another health care service provider within the same facility or one which is conveniently accessible regardless of his or her religious beliefs5 Se#ti! +0) "!& te #**e'7!&i!= 7*5i'i! i! te RH-IRR , particularly 4ection D .*- 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 beliefs5 Se#ti! 1@ "!& te #**e'7!&i!= 7*5i'i! i! te RH-IRR regarding the rendering of pro bona reproductive health service in so far as they affect the conscientious ob=ector in securing 2hilHealth accreditation5 Se#ti! 0.%" "!& Se#ti! 0.1 G 6 te RH-IRR , which added the 3ualifier NprimarilyN in defining abortifacients and contraceptives, as they are
ultra vires and, therefore, null and void for contravening 4ection -FaG of the RH Law and violating 4ection *, 'rticle II of the onstitution.
Di''e!ti!= O7i!i! Le!e!, 2. I. P*e%i(i!"*3 C!'i&e*"ti!'
#one of the petitions properly present an Kactual case or controversy which deserves the exercise of =udicial review. The consolidated petitions do not provide the proper venue to decide on fundamental issues. The law in 3uestion is needed social legislation. 'n actual case or controversy is Kone which involves a conflict of legal rights, an assertion of opposite legal claims susceptible of =udicial resolution5 the case must not be moot or academic or based on extra0legal or other similar considerations not cogni>able by a court of =ustice. No locus standi. 2etitioners, by no stretch of the imagination, cannot be representative of the interests of Kthe entire 6ilipino nation. #ot all 6ilipinos are Roman atholics. #ot all 6ilipinos are from the Bisayas. ertainly not all 6ilipinos have a common interest that will lead to a common point of view on the constitutionality of the various provisions of the RH law.
II. S$)'t"!ti5e Di'#$''i!'
The court cannot make a declaration on the beginning of life. 'ny declaration on this issue will be fraught with contradictions. "ven the onstitutional ommissioners were not in full agreement5 hence, the use of the word Kconception rather than Kfertili>ed ovum in 'rticle II, 4ection * of the onstitution. There were glaring factual inaccuracies peddled during their discussion. The onstitutional ommission deliberations show that it is not true that the issue of when life begins is already a settled matter. There are several other opinions on this issue. The Constitutional Commissioners adopted the term “conception” rather than “fertilized ovum.” Insisting that we can impose, modify or alter rules of the 6ood and $rug 'dministration is usurpation of the executive power of control over administrative agencies. It is a violation of the principle of separation of powers, which recogni>es that K:e;ach department of the government has exclusive cogni>ance of matters within its =urisdiction, and is supreme within its own sphere. The system of checks and balances only allows us to declare, in the exercise of our =udicial powers, the 6ood and $rugs 'dministrationJs acts as violative of the law or as committed with grave abuse of discretion. 4uch power is further limited by the re3uirement of actual case or controversy.
The petitions have failed to present clear cases when the provisions for conscientious ob=ection would truly amount to a violation of religion. They have not distinguished the relationship of conscience and specific religious dogma. They have not established religious canon that conflict with the general provision of 4ections E, E and *7 of the law. The comments in intervention in fact raise serious 3uestions regarding what could be acceptable atholic doctrine on some issues of contraception and sex as only for procreation.
Se7"*"te C!#$**i!= O7i!i! C"*7i, 2. I.
P*e%i(i!"*3 C!'i&e*"ti!'
The court is not competent to declare when human life begins. The issue with regards to this must be settled within the scientific and medical community. II.
S$)'t"!ti5e Di'#$''i!'
R' #o. +7D- protects the ovum upon its fertili>ation Fwithout actually saying that life begins hereG. The issue then, of whether life begins during fertili>ation or when the ovum plants itself on the uterus wall, is covered as this protects at both stages. 'lthough the law does not provide a definition of conception, it has provisions that embody the policy of the state to protect the travel of the fertili>ed ovum to the uterus wall. The law states that it will provide means i# & !t 7*e5e!t i(7%"!t"ti! 6 " 6e*ti%ie& 5$( as determined by the 6ood and $rug 'dministration.
Se7"*"te C!#$**i!= O7i!i! B*i!, 2. I. P*e%i(i!"*3 C!'i&e*"ti!'
The petitions are ripe for =udicial review. The petitions allege actions by the legislature and by the executive that lie outside the contemplation of the onstitution. ' controversy exists appropriate for this ourtPs initial consideration of the presence of grave abuse of discretion and conse3uent ad=udication if the legislative and executive actions can be so characteri>ed.
II. S$)'t"!ti5e Di'#$''i!'
@hile the RH Law generally protects and promotes the unbornJs right to life, its 4ection / and its IRR fail in their fidelity to the onstitution and to the very terms of the RH Law itself. It fails to adopt the principle of double effect under 4ection *, 'rticle II of the /)E onstitution. The ourt should formulate guidelines on what the government can actually procure and distribute under the RH law, consistent with its authority under this law and 4ection *, 'rticle II to achieve the full protection the onstitution envisions. The attack on 4ection -Js constitutionality is premature because that the lack of an implementing curriculum by the $epartment of "ducation makes it premature to rule on constitutionality. The court cannot determine yet how parental rights will be affected since the specifics of what would be taught under the RH education program do not yet exist. The RH LawJs implementation could have political and economic conse3uences. It could also produce social conse3uences by ushering in behaviors and perceptions about sex, marriage, and family that are vastly different Fin a negative wayG from the norm. 4ection *7FaG FlG of the RH Law is an unconstitutional subse3uent punishment of speech. It has overreached the permissible coverage of regulation on the speech of doctors and other health professionals. The existing information dissemination program found in the RH law is sufficient in providing information about available reproductive health services and programs, and the existing regulatory framework for their practice already sufficiently protects against such negligence and malpractice. 6urthermore, the said section can create a chilling effect for those in the profession.
