SOLEDAD, ALEXANDRA G|DLSU
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
IMBONG, ET AL V. OCHOA
G.R. NO. 204819 |APRIL 8,2014| MENDOZA, J
PARTIES:
Petitioner: JAMES M. IMBONG and LOVELY-ANN C. IMBONG, for themselves and in
behalf of their minor children, LUCIA CARLOS IMBONG and BERNADETTE CARLOS
IMBONG and MAGNIFICAT CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER, INC
Respondents: HON. PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., Executive Secretary, HON. FLORENCIO
B. ABAD, Secretary, Department of Budget and Management, HON. ENRIQUE T.
ONA, Secretary, Department of Health, HON. ARMIN A. LUISTRO, Secretary,
Department of Education, Culture and Sports and HON. MANUELA. ROXAS II,
Secretary, Department of Interior and Local Government
FACTS:
Republic Act No. 10354 of the Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive health
Act of 2012 (RH Law), was enacted by Congress on December 21, 2012. However,
just after the president signed his approval, a total of 14 petitions and two
interventions were filed to assail its validity. The following are some of the grounds
of petitioners:
a. The RH Law violates the right to life of the unborn because of authorizing
the purchase of hormonal contraceptives, intra-uterine devices and injectables
which are allegedly abortive.
b. The RH Law violates religious freedom since it authorizes the use of public
funds for the procurement of contraceptives which is against the religious beliefs of
the petitioners
c. The RH Law threatens conscientious objectors of criminal
prosecution,imprisonment and other forms of ounsihment, as it is a form of
compulsion for medical doctors to refer to other doctors and provide health
education contrary to their beliefs.
d. The RH Law violates the constitutional provision of involuntary servitude
because medical practitioners to be accredited must proide 48 hours of pro-bono
services for indigent women.
e. The RH Law violates the constitutional principle of non-delegation of
legislative authority because FDA is then given the power to determine whether a
product is non-abortifacient and to be included in the Emergency Drugs List.
PROCEDURE:
SC: Petitions for certiorari and prohiobition and interventions alleging that RA
10354 is unconstitutional
Status Quo Ante (SQAO) was issued enjoining the effects and implementation for
120 days/ The cases were heard for oral arguments. On July 16, 2013, the SQAO
was ordered extended until further orders of teh COurt.
ISSUE: Is the RH Law unonstitutional as to Right to Life, Freedom of Religion, and
teh RIght to Free Speech, Freedom of Expression and Academic Freedom,
Involuntary Servitud and Delegation of Authority to the FDA?
RULING: Partially granted teh petition.
RATIONALE:
The Supreme Court finds the RH Law obvedient to the constitutional mandate to
the Right to Life. It initially defined when life begins. The records of the
Constituional Convention revealed that the framers intended that the life begins at
the moment of fertilization. Nevertheless such did not intend to ban all
contraceptives for being unconstituional and ot was for the courts to decide based
on evidence. The RH Law is actually full of provisions which aim to protect the
pregnant mother and the offspring from the moment of fertilization. It even
recognizes abortion as a crime.
The SC also upheld the power of teh FDA to determine whether the drug is
abortifacient or not since FDA, not COngress, has the expertise to perform such
function.
As to the perceived contravention to the Freedom of Religion, teh SC believe sthat
teh obligation to refer goes against the religious belief and conviction of a
 SOLEDAD, ALEXANDRA G|DLSU
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

conscientious objector. Once the medical practitioner , agaisnt his wil, refers a
patient seeking information on modern reproductive health products, services,
procedures and methods, his conscience is immediately burdened as he has been
compelled to perform an act agaisnt his neliefs.

Religious freedom of health providers, both public and private, should be more
important than the likes of family planning. Otherwise, it will result to unwarranted
coercion in the exercise of beliefs.
The Supreme Court held the implementing rules and regulations provision on non-
exemption of the certain skilled health professionls such as provincial, city or
municipal; health officers, chiefs of hospital, head nurses, supervising midwives,
aong others, as being conscientious objectors, as unconsitutional. This is because
of two reasons. First, because such provision and non-exemption was not provided
in the law. And second, becaus eit infringes on the equal protection clause which
should have applied equally to health professionals whether working in the public
or private sector.

Regarding the involuntary servitude transgression, it was held by the Supreme

Court that the reproductive health care service providers actually have the
discretion on the manner and time of giving pro-bono services(48 hours). Being a
prerequisite to the accreditation of medical practitioners with PhilHealth, it violates
no leagl provision as accreditation itself is a mere privilege and not a right.

Other contentions such as on Reproductive Health Education in schools were

passed lightly by the Supreme Court as the issues were to premature to be decided
as the Department of Education is yet to produce a curriculum for the same.