JAMES IMBONG, ET. AL., Petitioners, vs. HON. PAQUITO OCHOA, JR., ET.AL.

GR No. 204819; April 8, 2014

Ponente: Associate Justice Jose Catral Mendoza
FACTS:
I.

PRIOR TO THE RH LAW (Notable Laws):

RA No. 4729- An Act to Regulate the Sale, Dispensation, and/or Distribution of
Contraceptive Drugs and Devices
RA 5921- dispensing of abortifacients or anti-conceptional substances and devices with
proper prescription by a licensed physician
RA No. 6365- created the Population Commission; envisioned that family planning be
made part of a broad educational program.
PD No. 79- provided family planning as part of the over-all healthcare; made available
acceptable methods of contraception, except abortion, to all Filipinos desirous of spacing
or preventing pregnancies.
RA No. 9710- Magna Carta for Women
The Philippine national population program is grounded on 2 CORNERSTONES:
(1) Principle of No-Abortion
(2) Principle of Non-Coercion

II.

THE RH LAW
The population has continued to grow from 27 million in 1960 to over 92 million in 2010.
RA No. 10354, otherwise known as the Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive
Health Act of 2012 (RH Law), was enacted on Dec. 21, 2012 to provide Filipinos,
especially the poor, access and information to the full range of modern family planning
methods and to ensure that its objective to provide for the peoples right to reproductive
health be achieved.
Petitioners assailed the constitutionality of the RH Law in these 14 petitions for certiorari
and prohibition and 2 petitions-in-intervention.
On March 15, 2013, the IRR of the RH Law took effect.
On March 19, 2013, the Court issued a Status Quo Ante Order, enjoining the
implementation of the law for 120 days.

ISSUES:
A. PROCEDURAL
1. Whether or not the Supreme Court can exercise its power of judicial review over the
controversy;
2. Whether or not the RH Law is unconstitutional for violation of the one subject-one
title rule (Art. VI, Sec. 26 (1) of the Constitution).
B. SUBSTANTIVE

IMBONG VS. OCHOA

1. Whether or not is unconstitutional for violating the following:

a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.

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
Delegation of authority to the FDA
Autonomy of Local Governments/ ARMM

A. RULING ON THE PROCEDURAL ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the Supreme Court can exercise its power of judicial review over
the controversy.

OSGs Assertions: The courts authority to review social legislation like the RH Law by
certiorari is weak, since the Constitution vests the discretion to implement the
constitutional policies with Congress.
Contention of the proponents of the RH Law: (1) The petitions do not present actual
controversy because the RH Law has yet to be implemented; (2) petitioners have no
locus standi.

RULING: YES, the Supreme Court can exercise its power of judicial review over
these petitions.
The Court may pass upon the constitutionality of any acts of the legislative and
executive branches, consonant to Art. VIII, Sec. 1 of the Constitution which provides:
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies
involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine where or
not there has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on
the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.
This case also presents an actual controversy and is ripe for judicial determination,
because the RH Law and its IRR have already taken effect and budgetary measures to carry
out the law have already been passed.
Moreover, the RH Law involves issues of transcendental importance, which would
warrant immediate court adjudication. The rule on legal standing is a matter of procedure,
hence, can be relaxed when public interest so requires. In this case, the RH Law also
drastically affects the different constitutional rights.
2. Whether or not the RH Law is unconstitutional for violation of the one subject-one
title rule (Art. VI, Sec. 26 (1) of the Constitution).

IMBONG VS. OCHOA

Petitioners contention: Being one for reproductive health with responsible parenthood,
the assailed law violates the constitutional standards of due process by concealing its
true intent- to act as a population control measure.
Respondents contention: The RH Law is not a population control measure.

RULING: NO, the RH Law does not violate the one subject-one title rule.
The RH is a population control measure; its corpus is geared towards reduction of the
countrys population. Nevertheless, it does not violate the one subject- one title rule. The
rule is sufficiently complied with if the title is comprehensive enough as to include the
general object which the law seeks to effect and the people are informed of the nature and
consequences of the proposed law and its operation. In this case, the provisions of the RH
Law show that both reproductive health and responsible parenthood are interrelated and
germane to the overriding objective to control the population growth.
RULING ON THE SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the RH Law violates the right to life of the unborn.

Petitioners Contention: Notwithstanding its declared policy against abortion, Sec. 4(a)
of the RH Law considers contraceptives that prevent the fertilized ovum to reach and be
implanted in the mothers womb as an abortifacient; thus, sanctioning contraceptives
that take effect after fertilization and prior to implantation, contrary to the intent of the
Framers of the Constitution to afford protection to the fertilized ovum which already has
life. This is in violation of Art. II, Sec. 12 of the Constitution, which guarantees the
protection of both the life of mother and the unborn from conception.
Respondents Contention: The RH Law does not violate the Constitution, since the
law emphasizes that only non-abortifacient reproductive health care services and
products shall be made accessible.
Rep. Lagmans Contention: Right to life is not violated since various WHO studies
show that life begins from the implantation of the ovum.
RULING: The RH Law does not violate the right to life of the unborn.

Whether it be taken from a plain meaning or understood under medical parlance, and
more importantly, following the intention of the Framers of the Constitution, the
undeniable conclusion is that a zygote is a human organism and that the life of a new
human being commences at a scientifically well-defined moment of CONCEPTION,
that is upon FERTILIZATION.
The RH Law is replete of provisions that embody the policy of the law to protect the
fertilized ovum and that it should be afforded safe travel to the uterus for implantation.
Moreover, it recognizes that abortion is a crime under Art. 256 of the RPC.
Sec. 4 of the RH Law states: Abortifacients refers to any drug/ device that induces
abortion OR the destruction of a fetus inside the mothers womb or the prevention of the
fertilized ovum to reach and be implanted in the mothers womb upon determination of
the FDA. By using the word OR, the RH law prohibits not only drugs or devices that
prevent implantation, but also those that induce abortion and that induce the destruction
of a fetus inside the maternal womb.
IMBONG VS. OCHOA

Meanwhile, the Court held that Sec. 3.01 (a) and Sec. 3.01 (j) must be struck down
for being ULTRA VIRES, because of the addition of the word primarily in said
sections. There is danger that the insertion said qualifier will pave the way for the
approval of contraceptives which may harm or destroy the life of the unborn from
conception in violation of Art. II, Sec. 12 of the Constitution. It appears to insinuate that a
contraceptive will only be considered as abortifacient if its sole known effect is abortion.

2. Whether or not the RH Law violates the right to health.

Petitioners Contention: The RH Law provides universal access to contraceptives

which are hazardous to ones health, as it causes cancer and other health problems.
OSGs Contention: Art. II, Sec. 15 of the Constitution is not self-executing, it being a
mere statement of the administrations principle and policy.

RULING: NO, the RH Law does not violate the right to health. Art. II, Sec. 15 of the
Constitution provides: The State shall protect and promote the right to health of
the people and instill health consciousness among them. Sections 11, 12 and 13,
Art. XIII of the Constitution also relate to the States duty to adopt a comprehensive
approach to health development. These provisions are self-executing. Unless the
provisions clearly express the contrary, the provisions of the Constitution should be
considered self-executing. There is no need for legislation to implement these
provisions.
With RA No. 4729 in place, there exist adequate safeguards to ensure the public
that only contraceptives that are safe are made available to the public. RA 4729 ensures
that the contraceptives that the DOH will procure shall be from a duly licensed drug store
or pharmaceutical company and that the actual dispensation of these contraceptives will
be done following a prescription of a qualified medical practitioner.
3. Whether or not the RH Law violates the right to religious freedom.
NOTE: The Constitutional assurance of religious freedom provides two guarantees:
a. Non-Establishment clause- prohibits the establishment of a state religion and use
of public resources for the support/prohibition of a religion.
b. Free exercise clause- State is prohibited from interfering with the outside
manifestations of ones belief and faith.
A. WON the RH Law violates the non-establishment clause.
Petitioners contention: RH Law violates the constitutional guarantee respecting
religion as it authorizes the use of public fund for the procurement of contraceptives.
The use of public funds for purposes that are contrary to their beliefs is included in
the constitutional mandate ensuring religious freedom.
Respondents contention: The RH Law does not impose nor sanction any religion
or belief. They assert that the law only seeks to guarantee informed choice. They
add that by asserting that only natural family planning should be allowed, petitioners
are effectively going against the right to religious freedom.
RULING: NO, the RH Law does not violate the establishment clause. Petitioners
are misguided in their supposition that the State cannot enhance its population control
program simply because the promotion of contraceptive use is contrary to their religious
4

IMBONG VS. OCHOA

beliefs. The State is not precluded to pursue its legitimate secular objectives without
being dictated by the policies of one religion.
B. WON the RH Law violates the free exercise of religion of medical practitioners.
Petitioners Contentions:
-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,
although it is against their religious beliefs and convictions.
-Sec. 5.24 of the IRR provides that skilled health professionals who are public
officers are specifically charged with the duty to implement these Rules, cannot
be considered conscientious objectors.
-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 free speech.
RULING: YES, the RH Law violates the right to free exercise of religion of
medical practitioners.
Freedom of religion means more than just the freedom to believe. It also
means to act or not to act according to what one believes.
In case of conflict between the religious beliefs on the one hand, and the interest of
the State, on the other, to provide access and information on reproductive health
products and services, the Court is of the strong view that the religious freedom of health
providers, whether public or private, should be accorded primacy.
A conscientious objector should be exempt from compliance with the mandates of
the RH Law. If he would be compelled contrary to his religious beliefs, it would be
violative of the PRINCIPLE OF NON-COERCION enshrined in the constitutional right to
free exercise of religion.
Sec. 24 of the RH Law (which penalizes non-maternity specialty hospitals and
hospitals owned by religious group should they fail to comply with their duty to refer)
should also be struck down for being violative of the freedom of religion.
Section 5.24 of the RH-IRR (which provides that public skilled health professionals
cannot be considered as conscientious objectors) was also held discriminatory and
violative of the equal protection clause. There is no perceptible distinction why they
should not be considered exempt from the mandates of the law. The protection accorded
to other conscientious objectors should equally apply to all medical practitioners without
distinction whether they belong to the public or private sector.
Moreover, there is no compelling state interest to justify the infringement of the
conscientious objectors religious freedom. There is no immediate danger to life or health
of an individual in the perceived scenario of the subject provisions.

NOTE: Exception: Life-threatening cases

IMBONG VS. OCHOA

4. Whether or not the RH Law is unconstitutional for intruding into marital privacy
and autonomy.

Questioned provisions: Sec. 23 (a) (2)(i) of the law prohibits refusal of health
care service provider to perform legal reproductive health procedures on the
ground of lack of consent from the other spouse. Based on Sec. 7, parental
consent is not needed in cases where a minor, who will undergo a procedure, is
already a parent or has had miscarriage.

RULING: YES. The RH Law contains provisions which tend to wreck the
family as a solid social institution. It bars the husband from participating in the
decision-making process regarding their common future child. It likewise deprives
the parents of their authority over their minor daughter simply because she is
already a parent or had suffered a miscarriage. It disregards the constitutional
mandate that the natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of
the youth for civic efficiency and development of moral character shall receive
the support of the Government

5. Whether or not the RH Law violates academic freedom.

Petitioners Contention: Sec. 14 of the RH Law, in relation to Sec. 24 thereof,

mandating the teaching of Age-and Development-Appropriate Reproductive Health
Education under threat of fine and/or imprisonment violates the principle of academic
freedom. These provisions force educational institutions to teach reproductive health
education even if they believe that the same is not suitable to be taught to their
students.

RULING: Any attack on the validity of Sec. 14 of the RH Law is premature

because the Department of Education has yet to formulate a curriculum on ageappropriate reproductive health education.

6. Whether or not the RH Law violates due process.

Petitioners contentions: The RH Law suffers from vagueness and thus, violates due
process. Sec. 23 (a) (l) mentions a private health service provider among those who
may be held punishable but does not define who is a private health care service
provider. Although in Sec. 7 of the law exempts religious group operated hospitals from
rendering reproductive health service, it is, however, unclear if these are also exempt
from giving reproductive health information under Sec. 23 (a) (l).

RULING: NO, the RH Law does not violate due process.

A statute or act suffers from vagueness when it lacks comprehensible standards that
men of common intelligence must necessarily guess its meaning and differ as to its
application.
In this case, as correctly noted by the OSG, in determining the definition of private
health care service provider, reference must be made to Sec. 4 (n) of the RH Law which
defines a public health service provider.
6

IMBONG VS. OCHOA

Furthermore, the right to be exempt from being obligated to render reproductive

health service, necessarily includes exemption from being obligated to give reproductive
health information and to render reproductive health procedures.
7. Whether or not the RH Law violates the equal protection clause.
Petitioners Contention: It discriminates against the poor because it makes them
primary target of the government program that promotes contraceptive use and thus,
reduce their number. They add that the exclusion of private educational institutions
from the mandatory reproductive health education program imposed by the RH Law
renders it unconstitutional.

RULING: NO, the RH Law does not violate the equal protection clause.

To provide that the poor are to be given priority in the governments reproductive
health care program is not a violation of the equal protection clause. In fact, it is in
pursuant to Sec. 11, Art. XIII of the Constitution which recognizes the distinct necessity
to address the needs of the underprivileged by providing that they be given priority in
addressing the health development of the people. Section 7 of the RH Law prioritizes the
marginalized couples who are suffering from fertility issues and desire to have children.
Thus, there is no merit to the argument that the RH Law only seeks to target the poor tp
reduce their number.
Regarding the exclusion of private educational institutions from the mandatory
reproductive health education program under Sec. 14, substantial distinction rests
between public and private educational institutions because 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.
8. Whether or not the RH Law violates the constitutional prohibition against
involuntary servitude.

Petitioners Contention: Sec. 17 of the law requiring private and non-governmental

health care service providers to render 48 hours of pro bono reproductive health
services, to be accredited under the Phil Health Program, amounts to involuntary
servitude, because it requires medical practitioners to perform acts against their will.

RULING: NO, the RH Law does not violate the constitutional prohibition
against involuntary servitude. The practice of medicine is imbued with public
interest that it is both the States power and duty to regulate it in order to promote the
public welfare. The practice of medicine is not a right but a privilege burdened with
conditions. Moreover, the assailed provision only encourages private and nongovernmental reproductive health service providers to render pro bono service.
Other than non-accreditation with PhilHealth, no penalty is imposed should they
choose to do otherwise.

9. Whether or not the delegation of authority to the FDA to determine whether a

supply or product is to be included in the Essential Drugs List is valid.
7

IMBONG VS. OCHOA

RULING: YES, said delegation of authority is valid. The FDA does not only
have the power, but also the competency to evaluate, register and cover health
services and methods.

10. Whether or not the RH Law violates the autonomy of local governments and of the
ARMM.

Petitioners Contention: The RH Law infringes upon the powers devolved to LGUs
under Sec. 17 of the LGC.

RULING: NO, the RH does not violate the autonomy of LGUs and the ARMM.
Under Sec. 17 of the LGC, it is clear that unless an 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 GAA.

In this case, a reading of the RH law shows that whether it pertains to the
establishment of health care facilities, hiring of skilled health professionals or training of
barangay health workers, it will be the national government that will provide for the
funding of its implementation. Local autonomy is not absolute. National Government still
has a say when it comes to national priority programs, like the RH Law. In the same way,
The RH Law does not also infringe upon the ARMMs autonomy.

Prepared by:
Mary Grace Mendoza Alemania
Fourth Year
Political Law (SY 2015-2016, 1st Semester)

IMBONG VS. OCHOA