The Court cannot, and should not, exercise judicial restraint at this time when rights enshrined in the

Constitution are being imperilled to be violated. To do so, when the life of either the mother or her
child is at stake, would lead to irreparable consequences.

Declaratory Relief

The respondents also assail the petitions because they are essentially petitions for declaratory relief
over which the Court has no original jurisdiction.  Suffice it to state that most of the petitions are
120

praying for injunctive reliefs and so the Court would just consider them as petitions for prohibition
under Rule 65, over which it has original jurisdiction. Where the case has far-reaching implications
and prays for injunctive reliefs, the Court may consider them as petitions for prohibition under Rule
65.121

One Subject-One Title

The petitioners also question the constitutionality of the RH Law, claiming that it violates Section
26(1 ), Article VI of the Constitution,  prescribing the one subject-one title rule. According to them,
122

being one for reproductive health with responsible parenthood, the assailed legislation violates the
constitutional standards of due process by concealing its true intent - to act as a population control
measure. 123