3Imbong vs. Ochoa, Jr.
I. Abortifacients
I. Definitions
A. Requisites for Judicial Review
1. Actual case or controversy
2. Petitioners have locus standi
3. Question of constitutionality raised at the earliest opportunity
B. Actual Case or Controversy
1. Existing case that is appropriate or ripe for determination, not
conjectural or anticipatory
2. Controversy must be definite and concrete – justiciable
a. Pleadings must show an active antagonistic assertion of a
legal right
b. Denial on the other side
C. Ripeness
1. Act being challenged has had a direct adverse effect on the
individual challenging it
2. Petitioner must allege an immediate or threatened injury to himself
D. Facial Challenge
1. US Jurisdiction – assail the validity of statutes concerning
protected speech and all other rights of the First Amendment (i.e.
Religious freedom, free press, right to assemble) and to petition the
government for a redress of grievances
2. Philippine Jurisdiction – Expanded US definition to include
religious freedom and other fundamental rights, and mandates
the Court to determine the presence of grave abuse of discretion
E. Locus Standi
1. Legal Standing
2. Personal or substantial interest in a case such that the party has
sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of the challenged
government act
F. As Applied Challenge
1. One can challenge the constitutionality of a statute only if he
asserts a violation of his own rights
G. Transcendental Importance
1. Overreaching significance to society or paramount public interest
2. Used to relax the requirements of locus standi for non-
traditional plaintiffs (i.e. citizens, taxpayers, etc.)
H. One Subject-One Title Rule
1. See Section 26(1), Article 6 of the 1987 Constitution
2. The title of a law must not be so uncertain that the average person
would not be informed of the purpose of its enactment or put on
inquiry as to its contents, or which is misleading, either in referring
to or indicating one subject where another or different one is really
embraced in the act, or in omitting any expression or indication of
the real subject or scope of the act
1. Induces abortion
2. Induces the destruction of a fetus inside the mother’s womb
3. Prevents the fertilized ovum to reach and be implanted in the
mother’s womb
J. Establishment Clause
1. Principally prohibits the State from sponsoring any religion or
favoring any religion as against other religions
2. Strict neutrality of affairs among religious groups
K. Free Exercise Clause
1. Respect for the inviolability of the human conscience
2. The State is prohibited from unduly interfering with the outside
manifestations of one’s faith
L. Doctrine of Benevolent Neutrality
1. With respect to government actions, accommodation of religion
may be allowed to allow individuals and groups to exercise their
religion without hindrance
2. Remove a burden or facilitate the exercise of a person’s or
institution’s religion
M. Conscientious Objector
1. A person, who by reason of conscience, objects to doing a duty (i.e.
in this case, render RH services)
N. Compelling State Interest Test
1. Free exercise is a fundamental right and that laws burdening it
should be subject to strict scrutiny
2. Revering religious liberty while affording protection to the interests
of the state
O. Void for Vagueness
1. A statute which lacks comprehensible standards that men of
common intelligence must necessarily guess its meaning and
differ as to its application
2. Repugnant to the Constitution in two respects:
a. Violates due process for failure to accord persons fair notice of
the conduct to avoid
b. Leaves law enforcers unbridled discretion in carrying out its
provisions
P. Equal Protection
1. All persons or things similarly situated should be treated alike, both
as to rights conferred and responsibilities imposed
2. Does not require the universal application of the laws to all persons
or things without distinction
II. Facts
A. Dates
1. December 21, 2012 – RA 10354 or the Responsible Parenthood
and Reproductive Health Act of 2012 also known as the
Reproductive Health Bill (RH) was enacted
2. March 15, 2013 – RH-IRR took effect
3. March 19, 2013 – Status Quo Ante Order (SQAO) enjoining the
effect and implementation of the RH Law for 120 days, or until July
17, 2013
4. May 30, 2013 – SC held a preliminary conference with the counsels
of the parties to determine and/or identify uses raised by the parties
and their sequences of discussion in the Oral Arguments
5. July 9 and 23, 2013 and August 6, 13, and 27, 2013 – Oral
Arguments
6. July 16, 2013 – SQAO extended until further notice of the SC
B. Background
Immediately after the Reproductive Health Law was passed, various
petitions were filed questioning the constitutionality of the said law.
Among other arguments, the petitions claim that the RH law violates the
right to life of the unborn, and in violation of Sec. 12, Article II of the
Constitution:
The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect
and
strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution. It
shall
equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from
conception. 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.
C. The RH Law
1. Enacted to provide Filipinos access and information to the full
range of modern family planning methods, and to ensure that its
objectives to provide for the peoples’ right to reproductive health be
achieved
2. Mandatory for health providers to provide information on the full
range of modern family planning methods, supplies, and services,
and for schools to provide reproductive health education.
3. Criminalizes certain acts of refusal to carry out its mandates
4. Enhancement measure to fortify and make effective the current
laws on contraception, women’s health, and population control
D. Grounds for Petitioner (14 petitions and 2 petitions-in-intervention for
certiorari and prohibition)
1. Right to Life – authorizes purchase of contraceptives, intra-uterine
devices, and injectables which are abortives, contrary to Sec. 12,
Article 2 of the Constitution
2. Right to Health and Right to Protection Against Hazardous
Products – provides universal access to contraceptives which are
hazardous to one’s health (ex. Cancerous)
3. Right to Religious Freedom – Violates constitutional guarantee
respecting religions as it authorizes the use of public funds for the
procurement of contraceptives
a. Threatens Conscientious Objectors with punishment –
compels medical practitioners to:
● Refer patients who seek reproductive health advice to
other doctors
● Provide full and correct information on reproductive health
programs and services, even if against their religious
beliefs
● Section 5.23 of the RH-IRR – Skilled health professionals
who are public officers cannot be considered as
conscientious objectors
b. Mandatory Sex Education – affront to the schools’ religious
beliefs
c. Agree that religious freedom is NOT absolute, but argues
that the RH Law fails to satisfy the clear and present danger
test and the compelling state interest test in controlling
religious freedom
4. Involuntary Servitude – Compels medical practitioners to provide
48 hours of pro bono services for indigent women, under threat of
punishment, to be accredited under the PhilHealth program
5. Right to Equal Protection of the Law – Discriminates against the
poor as they are the target market (i.e. contraceptives reduce the
number of poor people)
6. Void-for-Vagueness in violation of Due Process
a. There is no definition of what is to be treated as a violation of
the RH Law, the penalty of which is imprisonment and/or fine
b. Violates the right of due process by removing from the people
the right to decide on what health facility they will be and what
services they will offer
7. Right to Free Speech
a. To compel a person to explain the full range of family-planning
methods curtails his right to expound on his preferred family-
planning method
 b. Religious institutions, though exempted, are required to refer IV. Discussion
patients to another facility willing to perform RH services
A. Procedural Issue
8. Zone of Privacy of One’s Family 1. The Power of Judicial Review
a. Intrudes upon the parent’s constitutional right to raise children a. OSG Claims
according to their beliefs ● Submit to the political wisdom of the Congress and
b. Forsakes any real dialogue between the spouses pertaining to respect the compromises made in the crafting of the RH
reproductive health procedures Law – product of democratic process and characterized by
9. Non-Delegation of Legislative Authority – Congress delegated to transparency
the FDA the power to classify a product as an abortifacient and ● Review by certiorari is weak since the Constitution vests
included in the Emergency Drugs List (EDL) in Congress the power to implement constitutional
10. One Subject One Bill (Sec 26(1), Art. 6 of the Constitution) policies and positive norms
11. Autonomy of LGUs and the ARMM – providing for RH measures ● “As applied challenge” – cannot prosper since the RH law
at the local government level and the ARMM infringes upon the is yet to be enforced and applied to petitioners, and RH
powers of the LGUs and the ARMM under the LGC and RA 9054 devices have yet to be distributed
● No facial challenge since the RH Law is not a speech-
E. Grounds for Respondent regulating measure
1. No actual case or controversy – issues not yet ripe for judicial b. Court’s Position
determination ● SC adheres to separation of powers, but constitutional
2. Some petitioners lack locus standi landmarks are apt to be forgotten in times of social
3. Petitions are essentially for Declaratory Relief which is outside the disquietude (aka. agitation) or political instability
SC jurisdiction - The Court may only pass on the wisdom, justice, or
expediency of the RH Law if there is a resulting grave
III. Issues abuse of discretion or unconstitutionality
- The constitution does not distinguish as to the kind
MAIN ISSUE: Whether or not the RH law is unconstitutional. of legislation that may be put under judicial review
- The Court may pass on the constitutionality of
A. Procedural – W/N the Court may exercise its power of judicial review legislative acts to make sure they have acted as
1. Power of Judicial Review mandated to them by the constitution
2. Actual Case or Controversy ● As far back as Tanada v Angara, the Court has declared
3. Facial Challenge that certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus are appropriate
4. Locus Standi remedies to raised constitutional issues
5. Declaratory Relief c. Justice Feliciano – Judicial review is essential for the
6. One Subject/One Title Rule maintenance and enforcement of the separation of powers and
B. Substantive – W/N the RH Law is unconstitutional the balancing of powers among the three great departments of
1. Right to Life government
2. Right to Health 2. Actual Case or Controversy
3. Freedom of Religion and Speech a. Respondents’ claims
4. The Family ● No actual case or controversy since RH Law is yet to be
5. Freedom of Expression and Academic Freedom implemented
6. Due Process ● Petitioners’ questions are not yet ripe for adjudication
7. Equal Protection - No one has been charged with violation of the RH
8. Involuntary Servitude Law
9. Delegation of authority to the FDA - There is no showing that petitioners have suffered
10. Autonomy of LGUs and ARMM injury
● Judicial review is premature
 b. Court’s Position
● An actual case or controversy exists and the same is ripe
for adjudication
- RH Law and its IRR are already in effect and budget
measures have already been passed, therefore, a
justiciable controversy exists
- Petitioners have shown that public health officers, per
provisions of the RH Law, can be sanctioned with
dismissal. This must at least be heard now
● North Cotabato v GRP – Even a singular violation of the
constitution and/or the law is enough to awaken judicial
duty
3. Facial Challenge
a. Court’s Position
● Court has authority to take cognizance of the petitions
since they allege violations on human rights to life,
speech, religion, and other fundamental rights
4. Locus Standi
a. OSG Claims
● Petitioners have no legal standing
● “As applied challenge” cannot prosper as the RH Law has
yet to be enforced and applied against petitioners, and
the government has yet to distribute RH devices that are
abortive
b. Petitioners’ Claims
● Invoke transcendental importance
● Invoke their status as citizens and taxpayers
c. Court’s Position
● The Court entertains no doubt that the petitions raise
issues of transcendental importance
- The RH Law drastically affects constitutional
provisions on right to life and health, freedom of
religion, and other constitutional provisions
5. Declaratory Relief
a. Respondents’ Claims
● SC has no original jurisdiction over petitions for
declaratory relief
b. Court’s Position
● Court considers them as petitions for prohibition
- Justified because the case has far-reaching
implications and prays for injunctive relief
6. One Subject-One Title Rule
a. Petitioners’ Claims
● RH Law violates One Subject-One Title rule
- Being one for RH with Responsible Parenthood, RH
Law violates due process by concealing its true intent
– a population control measure
b. Respondents’ Claims
● Concepts of Responsible Parenthood and RH are
interrelated and inseparable
● RH Law is not a birth or population measure
c. Court’s Position
● RH Law is principally a population control measure
- Geared towards the prevention of pregnancy and
reduction of births
- Remove the provisions on contraception and the RH
Law loses its foundation
- The rest of the RH Law can be found in previous RAs
and the Magna Carta for Women
● Be that as it may, the RH Law does not violate the one
subject-one title rule
- The rule is sufficiently complied with if the title is
comprehensive enough to include the general object
which the statute seeks to effect
- RH and responsible parenthood are interrelated and
germane to the population control objective
B. Substantive Issues
1. The Right to Life
a. Petitioners’ Claims
● RH Law violates the right to life and health of the
unborn child under Sec. 12, Art 2 of the Constitution
● Sec. 4(a) of the RH Law allows for post-fertilization but
pre-implantation contraceptives, which is an abortifacient
- Even if Sec. 9 of the RH Law only allows non-
abortifacients, medical research shows that
contraceptives use results in abortion as they
operate to kill the fertilized ovum
● Since the RH Law requires that the FDA certify a product
is not to be used as an abortifacient, it effectively confirms
that abortifacients are not prohibited
b. Respondents’ Claims
● RH Law does not violate the constitution since only non-
abortifacient products and services will be allowed
● Congress has made a legislative determination that
contraceptives are not abortifacients by enacting the RH
Law
- Enacted with due consultation and studies from the
WHO and other medical experts
● Various studies from the WHO show that life begins after
the implantation of the fertilized ovum.
c. Court’s Position
● The use of contraceptives and family planning methods
has been around since the enactment of RA 4729
● The Philippine national population program has always
been grounded on the principle of no-abortion and the
principle of non-coercion
● The court did not rule on when life begins
- The ponente is of the opinion that life begins upon
fertilization
● RH Law and Abortion
- RH Law clearly mandates that protection be granted
from the moment of fertilization
- RH Law recognizes that abortion is a crime under
RPC Art. 256 (Sec. 4, RH Law)
● RH Law and Abortifacients
- RH Law is consistent in prohibiting abortifacients
- According to its definition of an abortifacient (Sec
4(a), RH Law), the RH Law recognizes that the
fertilized ovum already has a life and that the State
has the duty to protect it. RH Law prohibits and
defines abortifacients as:
o Any drug or device that induces abortion
o Prohibits any drug or device that prevents
the fertilized ovum to reach and be implanted
in the mother’s womb
- RH Law recognizes that:
o There is a need to protect the fertilized
ovum which already has life
o The fertilized ovum must be protected the
moment it exists
● Proviso Under Section 9 of the RH Law
- “Any product or supply… in the EDL must [be
certified] by the FDA that [it] is not to be used as an
abortifacient”
- Court finds this proviso empty and absurd – FDA
cannot fully attest that a drug will not be used as an
abortifacient
- Section 9 should mean that the certification is for
drugs that cannot be used as an abortifacient (vis a
vis not to be used)
● Abortifacients under the RH-IRR
- The authors of the RH-IRR gravely abused their
discretion when they redefined the meaning of
abortifacients
- The addition of the word “primarily” in Sec. 3.01 of
the RH-IRR to redefine the RH Law definition of
abortifacients (…primarily induces abortion…) will
mean that drugs will only be considered abortifacients
if its primary effect is the prevention of implantation
of the fertilized ovum
- The word “primary” in Sec 3.01 of the RH-IRR should
be declared void
2. The Right to Health
a. Petitioners’ Claims
● RH Law violates the right to health because it requires the
inclusion of hormonal contraceptives, intrauterine devices,
injectables, and family products and supplies in the
National Drug Formulary and national hospitals
- Risk of breast and cervical cancer increased
- Threefold increase in risk of venous
thromboembolism
- Twofold increase in risk of ischematic stroke
- Indeterminate effect on risk of myocardial infarcation
b. OSG Claims
● Section 15, Art 2 of the Constitution is not self-executory
● Medical authorities refute the claim that contraceptives are
a danger to women’s health
c. Court’s Position
● Constitutional provisions on health are self-executory
● The legislative intent of the RH Law is to leave intact the
provisions of RA 4729
● The effectivity of the RH Law will not lead to the
unmitigated sale of contraceptives – RA 4729 imposed
safeguards that only safe contraceptives are made
available
● The Court also points out that not a single contraceptive
has yet been submitted to the FDA pursuant to the RH
Law, consequently, the attack on the RH Law on this front
is premature
3. Freedom of Religion and the Right to Free Speech
a. Petitioners’ Claims
● On Contraception
- Question the state-sponsored procurement of
contraceptives, arguing that expenditure of their taxes
on contraceptives violates the guarantee of religious
freedom
● On Religious Accommodation and the Duty to Refer
- Requiring conscientious objectors to cooperate with
the very thing they refuse to do without violating their
religious beliefs
- No escape is afforded the conscientious objector in
Sec 23(a)(1) and (2) of the RH Law against a patient
seeking reproductive health procedure. Right to
conscientiously object by the ff. are not recognized:
o Public health workers (Sec 7)
 o Public officers in implementing the law (Sec
23(b))
o Public school teachers (Sec 14)
- Compulsory referrals violate the doctrine of
benevolent neutrality. Authorizing contraceptives
with abortive effects, mandatory sex education, and
mandatory pro bono RH services to indigents
encroach upon the religious freedom of those
upon whom they are required
- Compulsory referrals violate freedom of religion as
they become unwilling participants
- RH Law does not show compelling state interest to
justify the regulation of religious freedom
- Sec 15 of the RH Law, which requires would-be
couples to attend family planning and responsible
parenthood seminars and to obtain a certificate of
compliance, forces individuals to participate in the
implementation of the RH Law even if it contravenes
their religious beliefs
b. Respondents’ Claims
● RH Law does not provide that a specific mode or type of
contraceptive be used, be it natural or artificial
● It neither imposes nor sanctions any religion or belief
- The RH Law only seeks to serve the public interest
and that the law only prohibits acts and practices
which deprives others of their right to RH
- The law only seeks to guarantee informed choice,
and no one will be compelled to violate his/her religion
● Petitioners, by asserting that only natural family planning
should be allowed, are going against religious freedom
themselves (i.e. by seeking to declare RH Law
unconstitutional, they ask the Court to recognize only
the Church’s family planning)
● The compulsion to refer is a balance between the beliefs
of the medical practitioner and the needs of the patient
- Whatever the burden placed on the religious freedom
is minimal as duty to refer is limited in duration,
location, and impact
● Mandatory seminars would provide would-be couples
information regarding parenthood, family planning,
breastfeeding, and infant nutrition. They are not
compelled to accept the information being taught to them
● The Catholic Church has changed its stance regarding
family planning over the years, and did not just stand by
natural family planning
c. The Church and the State
● The constitutional assurance of religious freedom provides
two (2) guarantees:
- Establishment Clause
- Free Exercise Clause
● The guarantee of religious freedom has two (2) parts:
- Freedom to believe - unlimited
- Freedom to act on one’s belief – limited and subject
to the power of the State in regulation of acts that
affect public welfare
● Legislative Acts and the Free Exercise Clause
- In cases of conflict between the free exercise clause
and the Sate, the Court adheres to the doctrine of
benevolent neutrality
- In ascertaining the limits of religious freedom, the
compelling state interest test is proper
d. Court’s Position
● The jurisdiction of the Court extends only to public and
secular morality
- The Court cannot rule on the religious morality of
contraceptives
● The RH Law recognizes and respects religion and
religious beliefs and convictions. It is replete with
provisions that no one is compelled to violate his/her
religion
● The Establishment Clause and Contraceptives
- The State is allowed to pursue its legitimate secular
objectives free from the dictation of any religion
o Establishment clause limits what government
can do to religion but also vice versa
- One cannot simply refuse to pay taxes because it
will cloud his conscience
● The Free Exercise Clause and the Duty to Refer
- The Court is of the view that the obligation of referral
imposed by the RH Law violates the religious beliefs
and convictions of the conscientious objectors
- The act of referral makes the “pro-life” health
practitioner complicit in an act repugnant to his/her
belief
- Freedom of speech includes freedom to be silent
o Freedom of choice prohibits any degree of
compulsion
- In case of conflict between religious beliefs and
convictions of individuals and the interest of the State,
the Court is of the strong belief that the religious
freedom of health providers should be accorded
primacy
 o A conscientious objector should be exempt
from compliance with the RH Law
● Institutional Health Providers
- The punishment of a healthcare service provider, who
fails or refuses to refer patients to another, or who
declines to render RH services on a patient because
of religious beliefs, is a clear inhibition of a
constitutional guarantee which the Court cannot
allow
● RH-IRR
- The last paragraph of Sec 5.24 of the RH-IRR
prohibiting skilled health professionals from being
considered as conscientious objectors is
discriminatory and violative of the equal protection
clause
o Protection accorded to conscientious
objectors should apply to all medical
practitioners
- Intellectual liberty occupies a place inferior to none
in the hierarchy of human values
● Compelling State Interest
- The Court finds no compelling state interest which
would limit the free exercise clause of the
conscientious objectors
o Only an immediate and grave danger to
security and welfare can justify infringing on
religious freedom
- In this case, there is no immediate danger to the life
or health of an individual
o i.e. too much babies are not a danger
o All other health issues have been taken up
by previous legislation which actually
reduced the number of female mortality
● Exception: Life Threatening Case
- Health care service providers cannot be forced to
render RH services if it would be contrary to their
religious beliefs, except in life-threatening cases, in
which case the life of the mother must take
precedence over religious beliefs
● Family Planning Seminars
- All the law requires is to attend a family-planning
seminar.
o The law does not mandate the type of
family-planning method to be included in
the seminar
- The OSG correctly posits that attendees may reject
the information in the seminars in favor of their own
beliefs
4. The Family and the Right to Privacy
a. Petitioners claims
● Sec. 23(a)(2)(i), which gives the final decision to the one
undergoing RH process, violates Constitutional
provisions by intruding into marital privacy and autonomy
● It cultivates disunity and fosters animosity in the family
b. Court’s Position
● The Court agrees with the petitioner
● The RH Law, in its efforts to curb population growth,
contain provisions which tend to wreck the family as a
social institution
o Bans the husband and/or father from participating
in the decision-making process regarding their
common future progeny
o Deprives the parents of their authority over their
minor daughter simply because she is already a
parent or had suffered a miscarriage (Sec 7, RH
Law)
● The Family and Spousal Consent
- The consent discussed in Sec. 23(a)(2)(i) should be
given to both spouses, as one person cannot found a
family
- The RH Law cannot be allowed to infringe on this
right to mutual decision making
- Decision making involving RH procedures is a private
matter, should be shared by both spouses, and is a
constitutionally guaranteed private right
- The Magna Carta for Women provides that women
shall have equal rights in matters relating to
marriage and family decisions
- Section 3(v) of the RH Law states that Responsible
Parenthood is a shared responsibility between
parents
- In case of conflict between the couple, the courts will
decide
● The Family and Parental Consent
- Regarding Sec. 7 of the RH Law (waiving parental
consent for minors who have given birth), the State
cannot replace the parents when it comes to
providing for the minor’s needs and comfort
- It disregards the constitutional mandate that the
natural and primary duty of parents in rearing the
youth shall receive support from the government
 - Only a compelling state interest can justify state
substitution of their parental authority
● First Exception: Access to Information
- Insofar as access to information is concerned vis a vis
Sec 7, the Court finds no constitutional objection to
the acquisition of information by the minor that would
enable her to take care of herself and the unborn child
● Second Exception: Life Threataning Case
- An exception must be made in life threatening cases
- The life of the minor and/or the spouse should not be
put at grave risk simply because of a lack of
consent
5. Academic Freedom
a. Petitioners’ Claims
● Sec. 14 and 24 of the RH Law, mandating RH Education
under threat of fine and/or imprisonment, violate the
principle of academic freedom
● RH Law forces educational institutions to teach RH even if
they believe that it is inappropriate to be taught to their
students
b. Court’s Position
● Any Attack on Sec 14 of the RH Law is premature as the
DepEd has yet to formulate a curriculum on RH
Education
● The Court finds the legal mandate in the RH Law and its
IRR supplementary to the rights and duties of parents in
the moral development of their children
6. Due Process (Void for Vagueness)
a. Petitioners’ Claims
● RH Law suffers from vagueness
● Sec 23(a)(1) mentions “private health service providers”
but gives no definition
- Sec 7’s “private health care institution” adds to the
confusion
● Sec 7 exempts hospitals operated by religious groups
from rendering RH services and modern family
planning methods
- It is unclear if these institutions are also exempt from
giving RH information under Sec 23(a)(1), or from
rendering RH procedures under Sec 23(a)(2)
● RH Law punishes the knowing provision of incorrect
information but fails to define the same
b. Court’s Position
● “Private Health Care Service Provider” should be defined
in reference to Sec 4(n) which defines “public health
service provider”
● The use of the term “public health care institution” in Sec 7
is synonymous with “private health care service provider”
● The right to exempt from rendering RH services and
modern family planning methods includes exemption to
give RH information and to render RH procedures
- The term “service” and “methods” are broad enough
to include information and medical procedures
7. Equal Protection
a. Petitioners’ Claims
● RH Law is “anti-poor” because it targets the poor people
● Rather than promoting RH to the poor, they introduce
contraceptives that would reduce the poor
b. Court’s Position
● To provide that the poor are to be given priority in the RH
programs is not a violation of the equal protection clause,
and in fact, is pursuant to the Constitutional mandate to
address the needs of the underprivileged
● Sec 7 of the RH Law prioritizes the poor who are suffering
from fertility issues and desire to have children – No
merit to the contention that RH Law seeks to reduce the
number of poor people
● Sec 3(1) of the RH Law states that the stabilization of
population growth is incidental to the advancement of RH
● Substantial distinction rests between public and
private educational institutions as there is a need to
recognize the academic freedom of the latter
8. Involuntary Servitude
a. Petitioners’ Claims
● RH Law requiring private health care service providers to
render 48 hours of pro bono RH services amounts to
involuntary servitude
b. OSG Claims
● Rendition of pro bono services in Sec 17 of the RH Law is
up to the discretion of the service providers with
regards to manner and time
● Imposition is within the power of the government, the
PhilHealth accreditation being a privilege and not a right
c. Court’s Position
● Agree with OSG
● The practice of medicine is imbued with public interest
that it is both the power and the duty of the State to
control and regulate it
● The RH Law only encourages pro bono services, hence
no involuntary servitude
● No penalty is imposed other than non-accreditation by
PhilHealth, which is not a heavy burden, but a necessary
incentive
 ● Conscientious objectors are exempt from rendering pro
bono services based on their religious beliefs
9. Delegation of Authority to the FDA
a. Petitioners’ Claims
● There is undue delegation of power by allowing the FDA
to determine a product to be included in the Essential
Drugs List (EDL)
b. Court’s Position
● Nothing wrong with the delegation
● The functions, powers, and duties of the FDA are specific
to enable the agency to carry out the mandate given to it
by the RH Law
● The FDA has the power and competency to evaluate,
register, and cover health services and methods
10. Autonomy of LGUs and the ARMM
a. Petitioners’ Claims
● Sec 6, 10, and 11 of Art 3 of RA 9054 guarantees ARMM
autonomy from national legislative acts
● RH Law infringes on the powers devolved to the LGUs
under Sec 17 of the LGC
- Sec 17 vests upon the LGU the duties and functions
pertaining to the delivery of basic services and
facilities
b. Court’s Position
● Paragraph (c) of the same section provides a categorical
exception of cases involving nationally-funded projects,
facilities, programs, and services
- Unless an LGU is particularly designated as an
implementing agency, it has no power over a
program for which funding has been provided by the
national government
- In the case of the RH Law, it will be the national
government who will shoulder the expenses
● Local autonomy is not absolute, and the national
government still has the final say in national priority
programs
● From the use of the word “endeavor” in the provision,
LGUs are merely encouraged to provide these services
● The ARMM
- The fact that the RH Law does not intrude into the
LGUs can also be applied to the ARMM
- Sec 6, 10, and 11 of Art 3 of RA 9054 delineates
powers that may be exercised by the ARMM
government, and not an abdication by the Senate of
its power to legislate for the general welfare of the
people
V. HELD
WHEREFORE, the petitions are PARTIALLY GRANTED. Accordingly,
the Court declares RA 10354 as NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL except
with respect to the following provisions which are declared
UNCONSTITUTIONAL:
1. Section 7 and the corresponding provision in the RH-IRR insofar as
they
a. Require private health facilities and non-maternity specialty
hospitals and hospitals owned and operated by a religious
group to refer patients, not in an emergency or life-threateni
b. ng case, as defined under RA 8344, to another health facility
which is conveniently accessible
c. Allow minor parents or minors who have suffered miscarriage
to modern methods of family planning without written consent
from their parents or guardian/s
2. Section 23(a)(1) and the corresponding provisions in the RH-IRR,
particularly Section 5.24 thereof, insofar as they punish any
healthcare service provider who fails and or refuses to disseminate
information regarding programs and services on RH regardless of
his or her religious beliefs
3. Section 23(a)(1)(i) and the corresponding provision in the RH-IRR
insofar as they allow a married individual, not in an emergency or
life-threatening case, as defined under RA 8344, to undergo RH
procedures without the consent of the spouse
4. Section 23(a)(2)(ii) and the corresponding provision in the RH-IRR
insofar as they limit the requirement of parental consent only to
elective surgical procedures
5. Section 23(a)(3) and the corresponding provision in the RH-IRR,
particularly Section 5.24 thereof, insofar as they punish any
healthcare service provider who fails and/or refuses to refer a
patient not in an emergency or life threatening case, as defined
under RA 8344, to another health care service provider within the
same facility or one which is conveniently accessible regardless of
his or her religious beliefs
6. Section 23(b) and the corresponding provision in the RH-IRR,
particularly Section 5.25 thereof, insofar as they punish any public
officer who refuses to support reproductive health programs or shall
do any act that hinders the full implementation of a RH program,
regardless of his or her religious beliefs
7. Section 17 and the corresponding provision in the RH-IRR
regarding the rendering of pro bono RH service insofar as they
affect the conscientious objector in securing PhilHealth
accreditation
8. Section 3.01(a) and Section 3.01(j) of the RH-IRR, which added 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 2 of the
Constitution

The Status Quo Ante Order issued by the Court on March 19, 2013 as
extended but its Order, dated July 16, 2013, is hereby LIFTED, insofar
as the provisions of RA 10354 which have been herein declared as
constitutional.