Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
OCHOA
KEY TAKE-AWAY: The Reproductive Health Law is a consolidation and enhancement of
reproductive laws. It seeks to enhance the population control program of the government in
promote public welfare. However, when coercive measures are found within the law, provisions
removed or altered in order to ensure that it does not defy the Constitution by infringing on the
the people.
existing
order to
must be
rights of
PONENTE: MENDOZA, J.
CONSOLIDATION OF 14 CASES NAMELY:
DATE/GR
PETITIONER
NO/SCRA
April 8, 2014,
James M. Imbong Lovely-Ann C.
G.R. No.
Imbong, for themselves and in behalf of
204819
their minor children, Lu Cia Carlos
Imbong and Bernadette Carlos Imbong
and Magnificat Child Development
Center, Inc., a domestic, privately-owned
educational institution
GR. No.
204934
RESPONDENT
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
HON. PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., Executive
Secretary, HON. ENRIQUE T. ONA,
Secretary, Department of Health, HON.
ARMIN A. LUISTRO, Secretary, Department
of Education, Culture and Sports, HON.
CORAZON SOLIMAN, Secretary,
Department of Social Welfare and
Development, HON. MANUELA. ROXAS II,
Secretary, Department of Interior and Local
Government, HON. FLORENCIO B. ABAD,
Secretary, Department of Budget and
Management, HON. ARSENIO M.
BALISACAN, Socio-Economic Planning
Secretary and NEDA Director-General, THE
PHILIPPINE COMMISSION ON WOMEN,
represented by its Chairperson, Remedios
lgnacioRikken, THE PHILIPPINE HEALTH
INSURANCE CORPORATION, represented
by its President Eduardo Banzon, THE
LEAGUE OF PROVINCES OF THE
PHILIPPINES, represented by its President
Alfonso Umali, THE LEAGUE OF CITIES OF
THE PHILIPPINES, represented by its
President Oscar Rodriguez, and THE
LEAGUE OF MUNICIPALITIES OF THE
PHILIPPINES, represented by its President
GR No.
204957
GR No.
204988
GR No.
205003
GR No.
205043
GR No.
PHILIPPINE ALLIANCE OF
Donato Marcos,
205138
GR No.
205478
GR No.
205491
GR No.
205720
GR No.
206355
GR No.
207111
GR No.
207172
GR No.
207563
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,
HON. PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., Executive
Secretary, HON. FLORENCIO 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.
MANUEL A. ROXAS II, Secretary,
Department of Interior and Local Government
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
HON. PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., Executive
Secretary, HON. ENRIQUE T. ONA,
Secretary of the Department of Health, and
HON. ARMIN A. LUISTRO,Secretary of the
Department of Budget and Management
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 presidents 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
mustbe 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
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 States
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;
Dissenting Opinion
Leonen, J.
I. Preliminary Considerations
None of the petitions properly present an actual case or controversy which deserves the
exercise of judicial review. The consolidated petitions do not provide the proper venue to decide
on fundamental issues. The law in question is needed social legislation.
An actual case or controversy is one which involves a conflict of legal rights, an assertion of
opposite legal claims susceptible of judicial resolution; the case must not be moot or academic or
based on extra-legal or other similar considerations not cognizable by a court of justice.
No locus standi. Petitioners, by no stretch of the imagination, cannot be representative of the
interests of the entire Filipino nation. Not all Filipinos are Roman Catholics. Not all Filipinos are
from the Visayas. Certainly not all Filipinos 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. Substantive Discussions
The court cannot make a declaration on the beginning of life. Any declaration on this issue will be
fraught with contradictions. Even the Constitutional Commissioners were not in full agreement;
hence, the use of the word conception rather than fertilized ovum in Article II, Section 12 of the
Constitution. There were glaring factual inaccuracies peddled during their discussion.
The Constitutional Commission 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 Food and Drug Administration is
usurpation of the executive power of control over administrative agencies. It is a violation of the
principle of separation of powers, which recognizes that [e]ach department of the government
has exclusive cognizance of matters within its jurisdiction, and is supreme within its own sphere.
The system of checks and balances only allows us to declare, in the exercise of our judicial
powers, the Food and Drugs Administrations acts as violative of the law or as committed with
grave abuse of discretion. Such power is further limited by the requirement of actual case or
controversy.
The petitions have failed to present clear cases when the provisions for conscientious objection
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 Sections 7, 17 and 23 of the law. The comments in intervention in
fact raise serious questions regarding what could be acceptable Catholic doctrine on some issues
of contraception and sex as only for procreation.
Separate Concurring Opinion
Carpio, J.
I.
Preliminary Considerations
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.
Substantive Discussions
RA No. 10354 protects the ovum upon its fertilization (without actually saying that life begins
here). The issue then, of whether life begins during fertilization or when the ovum plants itself on
the uterus wall, is covered as this protects at both stages.
Although 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 fertilized ovum to the uterus wall. The law states that
it will provide means which do not prevent implantation of a fertilized ovum as determined by
the Food and Drug Administration.
The attack on Section 14s constitutionality is premature because that the lack of an implementing
curriculum by the Department of Education 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 Laws implementation could have political and economic consequences. It could also
produce social consequences by ushering in behaviors and perceptions about sex, marriage, and
family that are vastly different (in a negative way) from the norm.
Section 23(a) (l) of the RH Law is an unconstitutional subsequent 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. Furthermore, the said section can create a chilling effect for those in the profession.