Professional Documents
Culture Documents
and
to
religious
freedom,
equal
protection
clause,
1.
controversy exists and that the same is ripe for judicial determination.
Let it be misunderstood, it bears emphasizing that the Court
does not have the unbridled authority to rule on just any and every
claim of constitutional violation. Jurisprudence is replete with the rule
that the power of judicial review is limited by four exacting requisites,
viz : (a) there must be an actual case or controversy; (b) the
petitioners
must
possess
locus
standi;
(c)
the
question
of
the act being challenged has had a direct adverse effect on the
individual challenging it. For a case to be considered ripe for
adjudication, it is a prerequisite that something has then been
accomplished or performed by either branch before a court may come
into the picture, and the petitioner must allege the existence of an
immediate or threatened injury to himself as a result of the challenged
action. He must show that he has sustained or is immediately in
danger of sustaining some direct injury as a result of the act.
In this case, the Court is of the view that an actual case or
controversy exists and that the same is ripe for judicial determination.
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 threatened to be
dismissed from the service with forfeiture of retirement and other
benefits. They must, at least, be heard on the matter NOW.
In relation to locus standi, the "as applied challenge" embodies
the rule that one can challenge the constitutionality of a statute only if
he asserts a violation of his own rights. The rule prohibits one from
In
general,
the
Court
does
not
find
the
RH
Law
as
the
the
Court
petitions
declares
are
R.A.
PARTIALLY
No.
10354
GRANTED.
as
NOT
the
qualifier
"primarily"
in
defining
abortifacients
and
contraceptives, as they are ultra vires and, therefore, null and void for
contravening Section 4(a) of the RH Law and violating Section 12,
Article II of the Constitution.
The Status Quo Ante Order issued by the Court on March 19,
2013 as extended by its Order, dated July 16, 2013, is hereby LIFTED,
insofar as the provisions of R.A. No. 10354 which have been herein
declared as constitutional.