466 Imbong v Ochoa

Date: 8 April 2014 GR Number: GR 204819 Ponente:

Mendoza, J
Article III, Section 5 Wayne Michael L. Novera
Petitioners: SPOUSES IMBONG Respondents: OCHOA, JR.

Doctrine: Contraceptives mentioned under the RH Law are not violative of the constitutional
right to life of the mother and the unborn, and is consistent with the intent of the framers of
the 1987 Constitution.

By expressly declaring that any drug or device that prevents the fertilized ovum to reach and
be implanted in the mother’s womb, RH Law does not intend to mean at all that life begins
only at implantation
Facts:
1. With the RH Law being enacted by Congress came the petitioners who assail the
constitutionality of the same, for being violative of the rights of the mother and the
unborn, in light of Art II Sec 12, as far as abortion is concerned.
2. In ruling this matter, SC differentiated implantation, which is the entry of the fertilized
ovum to the uterus and fertilization, or the meeting of the female ovum and the male
sperm. Such is important to be discussed as the question of where life begins is being
debated on
Issue/s: Ruling:
1. W/N RH Law violative of the right of the mother and the unborn NO

Rationale/Analysis/Legal Basis:

Contraceptives mentioned under the RH Law are not violative of the constitutional right to
life of the mother and the unborn, and is consistent with the intent of the framers of the
1987 Constitution.

By expressly declaring that any drug or device that prevents the fertilized ovum to reach and
be implanted in the mother’s womb, RH Law does not intend to mean at all that life begins
only at implantation