Case Digest

TOPIC:
Fundamental Principles and State Policies

GR 204819
April 8, 2014

JAMES R. IMONONG AND LOVELY-ANN IMBONG, for themselves and in behalf of

their minor children, LUCIA CARLOS IMBONG and BERNADETTE CARLOS IMBONG
and MAGNIFICAT CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER, INC., Petitioners,
v.
HON. PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., Executive Secretary, HON. FLORENCIO B. ABAD,
Secretary, Department of Budget and Management, HON. ENRIQUE T. ONA,
Secretary, Department of Health, HON. ARMIN A. LUISTRO, Secretary, Department
of Education, Culture and Sports and HON. MANUEL A. ROXAS II, Secretary,
Department of Interior and Local Government, Respondents.

(IMBONG v. OCHOA)

FACTS:

Republic Act No. 10354 , otherwise known as the Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive
Health Act of 2012 (RH Law), was enacted by Congress on December 21, 2012. Shortly after
the President placed his imprimatur (approval) on the said law, various sectors of society went
to court to challenge its constitutionality. The Court now faces 14 petitions (certiorari and
prohibition) and 2 petitions-in-intervention. The petitioners are assailing the constitutionality of
the RH Law on the following grounds:
 The RH Law violates the life of the unborn by authorizing the purchase of hormonal
contraceptives, intra-uterine devices and injectables which are abortifacients which
violates Art II, Sec. 12 (protection of both the life of the mother and the life of the
unborn);
 The RH law violates the right to health and the right to protection against hazardous
products (Art. II, Sec. 15); and,
 The RH law violates religious freedom and the principle of local autonomy and the
ARMM.

The respondents pray for the dismissal of the petitioners for the principal reasons that:
 There are 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; and,
 The Petitioners are essentially petitions for declaratory relief over which the Court has
no original jurisdiction.

ISSUE:
Whether or not The RH Law is unconstitutional?

Held:

No, the RH law is constitutional. The pressing issue on this case is on the question of when life
begins. Majority of the Members of the Court are of the position that this question is a scientific
and medical issue that should not be decided, at this stage, without proper hearing and
evidence. In a nutshell, those opposing the RH law contend that conception is synonymous to
“fertilization” of the female ovum by the male sperm. On the other side of the spectrum are
those who assert that conception refers to the ‘implantation” of the fertilized ovum in the
uterus. In conformity with the primary and basic rules in statutory construction that the
language employed in the Constitution must be given their ordinary meaning except where
technical terms are employed, the traditional meaning of the word “conception” which, as
described and defined by all reliable reputable sources, means life begins at fertilization.

The RH law also recognizes that abortion is a crime under Article 256 of the Revised Penal
Code, which penalizes the destruction or expulsion of the fertilized ovum. Contrary to the
assertions made by the petitioners, the Court finds that RH law, consistent with the
Constitution, recognizes that the fertilized ovum already has life and that the State has a
bounded duty to protect it (Section 4a, RH Law).

Decision:
Associate Justice JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA