Professional Documents
Culture Documents
OCHOA
PONENTE: MENDOZA, J.
FACTS
Statute Involved:
Republic Act 10354, “The Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of
2012”
Position of Petitioner:
Position of Respondent
There is no actual case or controversy and, therefore, the issues are not yet ripe
for judicial determination
Some petitioners lack standing to question the RH Law
The petitions are essentially petitions for declaratory relief over which the Court
has no original jurisdiction.
ISSUES
Substantive
o Whether or not the RH Law is unconstitutional on the grounds that it violates
Right to Life
Right to Health
Freedom of Religion and the Right to Free Speech
The Family
Freedom of Expression and Academic Freedom
Due Process
Equal Protection
Involuntary Servitude
Autonomy of Local Governments/ARMM
Natural Law
HELD
Substantive
o Whether or not the RH Law is unconstitutional on the grounds that it violates
Right to Life – NO
Constitution intended that 1.) Conception to refer to the time of
fertilization and 2.) the protection of the unborn upon said fertilization
Not all contraceptives are to be banned (only those that kill a fertilized
ovum)
Contraceptives that prevent union of sperm and egg are thus permissible
It is the intended by the framers of the 1987 Constitution to prevent the
enacting of a law that legalizes abortion.
RH law prohibits abortion
RH law recognizes that abortion is a crime
RH law prohibits abortifacients
Right to Health - NO
With the provisions of RA 4729 still in place, the status quo on the sale of
contraceptives is maintained and the Court believes that there are adequate
measures that ensure that the public has access to contraceptives that have
been determined safe following testing, evaluation, and approval by the
FDA
Due Process - NO
The RH Law does not infringe upon the autonomy of local governments.
Under paragraph (c) of Section 17, 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 LGUs. Not only that, but LGUs are merely encouraged and not
compelled to provide RH services. Provision of these services are not
mandatory. Lastly, Article III, Sections 6, 10, and 11 of RA 9054 deor the
Organic Act of the ARMM merely outlines the powers that may be
exercised by the regional government and does not indicate the State’s
abdication to create laws in the name of public welfare.
Natural law, according to the Court, is not recognized as proper legal basis
for making decisions
Final Ruling