Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
0Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Memorandum Imbong and Juat

Memorandum Imbong and Juat

Ratings: (0)|Views: 12 |Likes:
Published by CBCP for Life
Memorandum Imbong and Juat
Memorandum Imbong and Juat

More info:

Categories:Business/Law
Published by: CBCP for Life on Nov 21, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

11/21/2013

pdf

text

original

 
R
EPUBLIC OF THE
P
HILIPPINES
 
SUPREME COURT
MANILA
 EN BANC
In
G.R. No. 204819
and
G.R. No. 207111
 
(with consolidated cases)  _________________________________
J
AMES
M. I
MBONG AND
L
OVELY
-A
NN
C
ARLOS
-I
MBONG
,
FOR THEMSELVES AND IN BEHALF OF THEIR MINOR CHILDREN
,
L
UCIA
C
ARLOS
I
MBONG
 AND
B
ERNADETTE
C
ARLOS
I
MBONG
,
 
 AND
 
THE
M
AGNIFICAT
C
HILD
D
EVELOPMENT
C
ENTER
, I
NC
.,
Petitioners in G.R. No. 204819, and
J
OHN
W
ALTER
B. J
UAT
, M
ARY
M. I
MBONG
, A
NTHONY
V
ICTORIO
B. L
UMICAO
, J
OSEPH
M
ARTIN
Q. V
ERDEJO
, A
NTONIA
E
MMA
R. R
OXAS
,
 AND
L
OTA
L
AT
-G
UERRERO
 
Petitioners in G.R. No. 207111,
v.
H
ON
. E
XECUTIVE
S
ECRETARY
,
ET AL
.,
 
Respondents.
 
On Writ of Certiorari and Prohibition
 _______________________________________________________
P
ETITIONERS
’ J
OINT
M
EMORANDUM OF
L
AW
 
 _______________________________________________________ 15 November 2013 JO AUREA M. IMBONG JAMES M. IMBONG I
MBONG
& C
 ASTRO
L
 AW
O
FFICES
 Unit 304 Señor Ivan de Palacio Building 139 Malakas St., Diliman, Quezon City
 
Joint Memorandum of Law Imbong, et al. vs. Executive Secretary, et al. Juat, et al. vs. Executive Secretary, et al. G.R. No. 204819 and G.R. No. 207111 (with consolidated cases) -------------------------------------------------------------
2
OUTLINE OF THE MEMORANDUM I. The Constitutional Claims Raised Against the Act are Textually Demonstrable.
(p.4)
 
 A. The Breadth of Reproductive Health and Responsible Parenthood under the Act. (p. 4) B. The Basis of Constitutional Claims Against the Act. (p. 16) C. There are Textually Demonstrable Contradictions Between the Words and Phrases of the Act and the Words and Phrases of the Constitution. (p. 18) Reproductive Health and Family Planning (p. 18) Family Planning and Pregnancy (p. 22) Social Justice and Family Planning (p. 23) Responsible Parenthood and Founding a Family (p. 25) Responsible Parenthood and Parental Authority (p. 27)
II. The Rhetoric of Interests Furthered by the Act is Irreconcilable with Express Constitutional Interests.
(p. 28)
 
 A. The State has a Textually Demonstrable Constitutional Interest in Reproductive Health and Responsible Parenthood in the Context of Protecting the Maternal Functions of Women and the Reproductive Capacity of Spouses to Found a Family. (p. 29) B. “Reproductive Health” and “Responsible Parenthood” under the Act Embrace Broad Interests that Frustrate Express Constitutional Claims to Protect the Maternal Functions of Women and the Reproductive Capacity of Spouses to Found a Family, to Promote Health, Educate Youth, and Ensure the Productivity of Future Generations. (p. 31) C. The Act’s Treatment of Life, Health, Family, and National Life in the Context of its Reproductive Health and Responsible Parenthood is Irreconcilable with the Constitution. (p. 57) D. Absent a Textual Demonstration of any Constitutional Basis for the Prevention of Pregnancies, Youth Sexual Liberation, Parental and Spousal Alienation, and Population Management, the Act Cannot Claim Any
 
Joint Memorandum of Law Imbong, et al. vs. Executive Secretary, et al. Juat, et al. vs. Executive Secretary, et al. G.R. No. 204819 and G.R. No. 207111 (with consolidated cases) -------------------------------------------------------------
3
Compelling State Interest, Much Less Any Legitimate Interest. (p. 58)
III. The Mandates and Sanctions of the Act Disregard the Supremacy of the Constitution by Violating Constitutional Principles and Burdening Constitutional Rights.
(p. 59)
 
 A. The “Referral Mandate” in Section 23.a.3 Unreasonably Burdens the Religious Freedom of Religious Conscience Objectors. (p. 66) B. The Narrow Conscience Protection Clause Unreasonably Burdens the Religious Freedom of Religious Conscience Objectors. (p. 69) C. The Absence of a Conscience Protection Clause for Public Health Care Service Providers Unreasonably Discriminates Against Public Service Workers’ Right to Religious Freedom. (p. 71) D. The “Information Mandate” in Sec. 23.a.1 Unreasonably Compels Content-Based Speech. (p. 73) E. The Act Unreasonably Discriminates Against Unorganized Religious Adherents By Allowing a Narrow Religious Accommodation under Section 7. (p. 74) F. The “Referral Mandate” in Section 7 Unreasonably Burdens the Religious Freedom of Religious Groups. (p. 76) G. The Act Sanctions Crimes that are Vague. (p. 79) Regarding the criminal violations addressed to a “private health care service provider” under (1) to (6). (p. 86) Regarding the criminal violations for withholding or restricting information, or providing incorrect information under (1), (2), and (3). (p. 88)
IV. When a Doctrinal Application of a Constitutional Principle on a Matter of Transcendental Importance is Raised Before this Court, the Absence of an As-applied Case has Not Hindered Judicial Review.
(p. 89)
 V. Our P
RAYER
, O
UR
F
UTURE
(p. 90)
 

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->