You are on page 1of 6

*most of the digest is taken from the Internet

Imbong v. Ochoa, G.R. No. 204819, April 8, 2014.

Facts: On December 1, 2012, the Congress had enacted RA 10345 or the
Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012, also known as the RH
Law. A short time after the President approved it, several petitions had been filed
challenging the constitutionality of the said RH Law. Petitioners stand was based on
alleged violations of certain rights, such as, among many others, the right to life of
the unborn, the right to health and to protection against hazardous products, and
the right to religious freedom. They also argued that the RH Law did not satisfy the
clear and present danger test and the compelling state interest test to justify
the regulation of the right to religious freedom.
Several parties were allowed to file their respective comment-in-intervention in
defense of the constitutionality of the RH Law, and the respondents also prayed for
the dismissal of the case on procedural grounds.
The Supreme Court issued a Status Quo Ante Order (SQAO) enjoining the effects
and implementation of the RH Law for a period of 100 days, which was
subsequently extended until further orders.
Issue/s: WON the RH Law violates the:
1) Right to life
2) Right to Health
3) Right to Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Speech
4) The Family
5) Freedom of Expression and Academic Freedom
6) Right to Due Process
7) Right to Equal Protection
8) Right against involuntary servitude
9) Delegation of Authority to the FDA (Food and Drug Authority)
The Autonomy of Local Governments/ARMM
1) Right to Life No. The SC found that the RH Law did not violate the right to life,
and on the contrary, it recognized that the fertilized ovum already has life, and it
protected the same.
Although majority of the members of the Supreme Court (SC) were of the
view that the question of when life begins should not be decided at this stage,
without proper hearing and evidence, they agreed to allow themselves to express
their own opinion, and the ponente (the Justice who wrote the decision) was of the
view that life begins on fertilization.
Under Sec. 12 of the 1987 Constitution, the State shall protect the life of
the mother and the unborn from conception. The Supreme Court (SC from now
on) held that, applying the rule that the words of the Constitution should be
interpreted in their plain and ordinary meaning, conception begins at
fertilization. This is in accordance with the intent of the Framers of the
Constitution. Scientific evidence also supports the conclusion 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. Thus, the cessation of the childs life even prior to its delivery is
considered as death.
Respondents view is that conception begins at the implantation into the
uterus. However, if this is to be adhered to, then it would legitimize the use of any
drug or device that would prevent implantation of the fetus at the uterine wall,
which would be tantamount to abortion, which is prohibited by the Constitution,
together with abortifacients. Also, abortion is a crime under the Revised Penal
However, the SC found that the RH Law does not allow abortion, in fact, it
also recognizes and protects the fertilized ovum as already having life. Furthermore,
the RH Law also prohibits the use of abortifacients. However, in the IRR

(Implementing Rules and Regulations) of the RH Law, it allowed the use of drugs
and devices that do not primarily induce abortion or destroy a fertilized ovum or
prevent a fertilized ovum from being implanted. The SC held that this provision in
the RH-IRR, by putting the word primarily in effect allowed the use of
abortifacients for allowing the use of drugs and devices which may cause abortion
or destruction of the fetus, or the destruction of the fertilized egg or preventing it
from being implanted, provided that it is not the primary function.
Thus, the SC held that the RH Law does not violate the right to life, but
that the word primarily in a provision in its IRR (Implementing Rules and
Regulations) shall be declared void.
2) Right to Health - NO. Petitioners claim that the right to health is violated by
the RH Law because it requires the inclusion of hormonal contraceptives,
intrauterine devices, injectables and other safe, legal, non-abortifacient and
effective family planning products and supplies in the National Drug Formulary and
in the regular purchase of essential medicines and supplies of all national hospitals.
They cite risks of getting diseases gained by using e.g. oral contraceptive pills.
Some petitioners do not question contraception and contraceptives per se. Rather,
they pray that the status quo under RA 4729 and 5921 be maintained. These laws
prohibit the sale and distribution of contraceptives without the prescription of a
duly-licensed physician. The RH Law does not intend to do away with RA
4729 (1966). With RA 4729 in place, the SC believed adequate safeguards
exist to ensure that only safe contraceptives are made available to the
public. In fulfilling its mandate under Sec. 10 of the RH Law, the DOH must keep in
mind the provisions of RA 4729: the contraceptives it will procure shall be
from a duly licensed drug store or pharmaceutical company and that the
actual distribution of these contraceptive drugs and devices will be done
following a prescription of a qualified medical practitioner. Meanwhile,
the requirement of Section 9 of the RH Law is to be considered
mandatory only after these devices and materials have been tested,
evaluated and approved by the FDA. Congress cannot determine that
contraceptives are safe, legal, non-abortifacient and effective.
3) Right to Freedom of Religion and Free speech The SC cannot determine
whether or not the use of contraceptives or participation in support of modern RH
measures (a) is moral from a religious standpoint; or, (b) right or wrong according to
ones dogma or belief. However, the Court has the authority to determine whether
or not the RH Law contravenes the Constitutional guarantee of religious freedom.
a) WON the RH Law violates the guarantee of religious freedom since it
mandates the State-sponsored procurement of contraceptives, which
contravene the religious beliefs of e.g. the petitioners:
NO. The State may pursue its legitimate secular objectives without being dictated
upon the policies of any one religion. To allow religious sects to dictate policy or
restrict other groups would violate Article III, Section 5 of the Constitution or the
Establishment Clause. This would cause the State to adhere to a particular religion,
and thus, establishes a state religion. Thus, the State can enhance its population
control program through the RH Law even if the promotion of contraceptive use is
contrary to the religious beliefs of e.g. the petitioners.
b) WON the 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:
YES. Sections 7, 23, and 24 of the RH Law obliges a hospital or medical practitioner
to immediately refer a person seeking health care and services under the law to
another accessible healthcare provider despite their conscientious objections based
on religious or ethical beliefs. These provisions violate the religious belief and
conviction of a conscientious objector. They are contrary to Section 29(2),
Article VI of the Constitution or the Free Exercise Clause, whose basis is
the respect for the inviolability of the human conscience.

The provisions in the RH Law compelling non-maternity specialty hospitals

and hospitals owned and operated by a religious group and health care service
providers to refer patients to other providers and penalizing them if they fail to do
so (Sections 7 and 23(a)(3)) as well as compelling them to disseminate information
and perform RH procedures under pain of penalty (Sections 23(a)(1) and (a)(2) in
relation to Section 24) also violate (and inhibit) the freedom of religion. While
penalties may be imposed by law to ensure compliance to it, a constitutionallyprotected right must prevail over the effective implementation of the law.
Excluding public health officers from being conscientious objectors (under
Sec. 5.24 of the IRR) also violates the equal protection clause. There is no
perceptible distinction between public health officers and their private counterparts.
In addition, the freedom to believe is intrinsic in every individual and the protection
of this freedom remains even if he/she is employed in the government.
Using the compelling state interest test, there is no compelling state
interest to limit the free exercise of conscientious objectors. There is no
immediate danger to the life or health of an individual in the perceived
scenario of the above-quoted provisions. In addition, the limits do not pertain to lifethreatening cases.
The respondents also failed to show that these provisions are least
intrusive means to achieve a legitimate state objective. The Legislature has
already taken other secular steps to ensure that the right to health is protected,
such as RA 4729, RA 6365 (The Population Act of the Philippines) and RA 9710
(The Magna Carta of Women).
c) WON the RH Law violates 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:
NO. Section 15 of the RH Law, which requires would-be spouses to attend a seminar
on parenthood, family planning, breastfeeding and infant nutrition as a condition for
the issuance of a marriage license, is a reasonable exercise of police power by the
government. The law does not even mandate the type of family planning methods
to be included in the seminar. Those who attend the seminar are free to accept or
reject information they receive and they retain the freedom to decide on matters of
family life without the intervention of the State.

4) Right to privacy (marital privacy and autonomy) Yes. Section 23(a)(2)(i)

of the RH Law, which permits RH procedures even with only the consent of the
spouse undergoing the provision (disregarding spousal content), intrudes into
martial privacy and autonomy and goes against the constitutional
safeguards for the family as the basic social institution. Particularly, Section
3, Article XV of the Constitution mandates the State to defend: (a) the right of
spouses to found a family in accordance with their religious convictions and the
demands of responsible parenthood and (b) the right of families or family
associations to participate in the planning and implementation of policies and
programs that affect them. The RH Law cannot infringe upon this mutual decisionmaking, and endanger the institutions of marriage and the family.
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 states:
The natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for
civic efficiency and the development of moral character shall receive the support of
the Government. In addition, the portion of Section 23(a)(ii) which reads in the
case of minors, the written consent of parents or legal guardian or, in their absence,
persons exercising parental authority or next-of-kin shall be required only in elective

surgical procedures is invalid as it denies the right of parental authority in cases

where what is involved is non-surgical procedures.
However, a minor may receive information (as opposed to procedures) about
family planning services. Parents are not deprived of parental guidance and control
over their minor child in this situation and may assist her in deciding whether to
accept or reject the information received. In addition, an exception may be made in
life-threatening procedures.

5) Freedom of expression and academic freedom NO. The SC declined to

rule on the constitutionality of Section 14 of the RH Law, which mandates the State
to provide Age-and Development-Appropriate Reproductive Health Education.
Although educators might raise their objection to their participation in the RH
education program, the Court reserves its judgment should an actual case be filed
before it.
Any attack on its constitutionality is premature because the Department of
Education has not yet formulated a curriculum on age-appropriate reproductive
health education.
Section 12, Article II of the Constitution places more importance on the role of
parents in the development of their children with the use of the term primary. The
right of parents in upbringing their youth is superior to that of the State.
The provisions of Section 14 of the RH Law and corresponding provisions of
the IRR supplement (rather than supplant) the right and duties of the parents in the
moral development of their children.
By incorporating parent-teacher-community associations, school officials, and
other interest groups in developing the mandatory RH program, it could very well be
said that the program will be in line with the religious beliefs of the petitioners.

6) Right to due process No. The RH Law does not violate the due process
clause of the Constitution as the definitions of several terms as
observed by the petitioners are not vague.
The definition of private health care service provider must be seen in relation to
Section 4(n) of the RH Law which defines a public health service provider. The
private health care institution cited under Section 7 should be seen as
synonymous to private health care service provider.
The terms service and methods are also broad enough to include
providing of information and rendering of medical procedures. Thus, hospitals
operated by religious groups are exempted from rendering RH service and modern
family planning methods (as provided for by Section 7 of the RH Law) as well as
from giving RH information and procedures.
The RH Law also defines incorrect information. Used together in relation to
Section 23 (a)(1), the terms incorrect and knowingly connote a sense of malice
and ill motive to mislead or misrepresent the public as to the nature and effect of
programs and services on reproductive health.

7) Right to Equal protection - NO. To provide that the poor are to be given
priority in the governments RH program is not a violation of the equal
protection clause. In fact, 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.
The RH Law does not only seek to target the poor to reduce their number, since
Section 7 of the RH Law prioritizes poor and marginalized couples who are suffering
from fertility issues and desire to have children. In addition, the RH Law does not
prescribe the number of children a couple may have and does not impose
conditions upon couples who intend to have children. The RH Law only seeks to
provide priority to the poor.
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.

8) Right against involuntary servitude NO. The requirement under Sec. 17 of

the RH Law for private and non-government health care service providers to render
48 hours of pro bono RH services does not amount to involuntary servitude,
for two reasons. First, the practice of medicine is undeniably imbued with public
interest that it is both the power and a duty of the State to control and regulate it in
order to protect and promote the public welfare. Second, Section 17 only
encourages private and non-government RH service providers to render pro
bono service. Besides the PhilHealth accreditation, no penalty is imposed should
they do otherwise.
However, conscientious objectors are exempt from Sec. 17 as long as their
religious beliefs do not allow them to render RH service, pro bono or otherwise.

B. WON the delegation of authority to the Food and Drug Administration

(FDA) to determine WON a supply or product is to be included in the
Essential Drugs List is valid NO. The delegation by Congress to the FDA of the
power to determine whether or not a supply or product is to be included in the
Essential Drugs List is valid, as the FDA not only has the power but also the
competency to evaluate, register and cover health services and methods (under RA
3720 as amended by RA 9711 or the FDA Act of 2009).

C. WON the RH Law infringes upon the powers devolved to Local

Governments and the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM)
NO. The RH Law does not infringe upon the autonomy of local governments.
Paragraph (c) of Section 17 provides a categorical exception of cases involving
nationally-funded projects, facilities, programs and services. 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 LGU.

In addition, LGUs are merely encouraged to provide RH services. Provision of

these services are not mandatory. Therefore, the RH Law does not amount to an
undue encroachment by the national government upon the autonomy enjoyed by
Article III, Sections 6, 10, and 11 of RA 9054 or the Organic Act of the ARMM
merely delineates the powers that may be exercised by the regional government.
These provisions cannot be seen as an abdication by the State of its power to enact
legislation that would benefit the general welfare.