Dee, Manuel Jr.

2021400127

lmbong v. Ochoa, G.R. No. 204819, April 8, 2014

Doctrine: The case at hand discusses the compelling state interest test in accord
with the Doctrine of Benevolent Neutrality.
Facts:
Petitioners assail the constitutionality of the RH Law on the following
grounds:
1. The said law violates the right to life of the unborn (Art. II, Sec.
12) as the implementation of the same would authorize various
abortive substances.
2. RH Law would violate the right to health and the right to
protection against hazardous products as the said law advances the
use of contraceptives which causes cancer and other health
problems.
3. The RH Law violates the right to religious freedom as it authorizes
the use of public funds for the procurement of contraceptives. And
that it fails to satisfy the "clear and present danger test" and the
"compelling state interest test" to justify the regulation of the right
to free exercise of religion and the right to free speech.

Issue:
1. Whether or not the RH Law is violative of the constitutional right to life
of the unborn.
2. Whether or not the right to health, being enshrined in Article II, Sec. 15
is not self-executory.
3. Whether or not the RH Law violates the right to religious freedom.

Held:
1. Partly. Article II, Sec. 12 of the Constitution provides, “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.” In the case at hand, it is established that
conception begins at fertilization. Considering that fact the IRR of the
RH Law purports to advance the use of contraceptives that may cause
abortion in its use of the word “primarily”, the word in the provision is
struck down.

2. No. Unless the provisions clearly express the contrary, the provisions of
the Constitution should be considered self-executory. The legislative
intent in the enactment of the RH Law in this regard is to leave intact the
provisions of R.A. No. 4729. There is no intention at all to do away with
it. It is still a good law and its requirements are still in to be complied
with.

3. Yes. In applying the compelling state interest test, the conscientious

objector's claim to religious freedom would warrant an exemption from
obligations under the RH Law, unless the government succeeds in
demonstrating a more compelling state interest in the accomplishment of
an important secular objective. Necessarily so, the plea of conscientious
objectors for exemption from the RH Law deserves no less than strict
scrutiny. The obligation to refer imposed by the RH Law violates the
religious belief and conviction of a conscientious objector. Once the
medical practitioner has referred a patient on information on modern
reproductive products, his conscience is burdened, being forced to
perform an act contrary to what he believes. While the RH Law seeks to
provide freedom of choice through informed consent, freedom of choice
guarantees the liberty of the religious conscience and prohibits any
degree of compulsion or burden, whether direct or indirect, in the
practice of one's religion. When pitted to choose over the interest of the
State and the religious convictions of individuals, the individuals should
take primacy.