However in the case of Imbong vs Ochoa, the petitioners raised the violation

brought about by the RH Law. Petitioners assailed the constitutionality of RH Law on

the following grounds: The RH Law violates the right to life of the unborn, the right
to health and the right to protection against hazardous products, and to religious
freedom, equal protection clause, involuntary servitude, among others. 1

On the first ground, according to the petitioners, the implementation of the RH Law
would authorize the purchase of hormonal contraceptives, intra-uterine devices and
injectables which are abortives, in violation of Section 12, Article II of the
Constitution which guarantees protection of both the life of the mother and the life
of the unborn from conception.

Second, the petitioners posit that the RH Law provides for a universal access
to contraceptives which are hazardous to one's health, as it causes cancer and
other health problems.

Third, the petitioners contend that the RH Law violates the constitutional
guarantee respecting religion as it authorizes the use of public funds for the
procurement of contraceptives. For the petitioners, the use of public funds for
purposes that are believed to be contrary to their beliefs is included in the
constitutional mandate ensuring religious freedom.

Moreover, the petitioners contended that the RH Law threatens conscientious

objectors of criminal prosecution, imprisonment and other forms of punishment, as
it compels medical practitioners 1] to refer patients who seek advice on
reproductive health programs to other doctors; and 2] to provide full and correct
information on reproductive health programs and service, although it is against their
religious beliefs and convictions.

Petitioners also argued that the RH Law providing for the formulation of
mandatory sex education in schools should not be allowed as it is an affront to their
religious beliefs. While the petitioners recognize that the guarantee of religious
freedom is not absolute, they argue that the RH Law fails to satisfy the "clear and
present danger test" and the "compelling state interest test" to justify the regulation
of the right to free exercise of religion and the right to free speech.

On the issue that the RH Law violates constitutional provision of involuntary

servitude, the petitioners argue that the RH Law subjects medical practitioners to
involuntary servitude because, to be accredited under the PhilHealth program, they
are compelled to provide forty-eight (48) hours of pro bona services for indigent
women, under threat of criminal prosecution, imprisonment and other forms of
punishment. Since a majority of patients are covered by PhilHealth, a medical
practitioner would effectively be forced to render reproductive health services since

1 G.R. No. 204819, 8 April 2014

the lack of PhilHealth accreditation would mean that the majority of the public
would no longer be able to avail of the practitioners services.