IMBONG VS OCHOA

PETITIONER:

-­‐ Despite its express terms prohibiting abortion, Section 4(a) of the RH Law
considers contraceptives that prevent the fertilized ovum to reach and be
implanted in the mother's womb as an abortifacient.
-­‐ Sanctioning contraceptives that take effect after fertilization and prior to
implantation, contrary to the intent of the Framers of the Constitution to afford
protection to the fertilized ovum, which already has life.
-­‐ Petitioner argue that even if Section 9 of the RH Law allows only
"nonabortifacient" hormonal contraceptives, intrauterine devices, injectables and
other safe, legal, non-abortifacient and effective family planning products and
supplies, medical research shows that contraceptives use results in abortion as
they operate to kill the fertilized ovum which already has life.
-­‐ As it opposes the initiation of life, which is a fundamental human good, the
petitioners assert that the State sanction of contraceptive use contravenes natural
law and is an affront to the dignity of man
-­‐ Petitioner contends that since Section 9 of the RH Law requires the Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) to certify that the product or supply is not to be used
as an abortifacient, the assailed legislation effectively confirms that abortifacients
are not prohibited.
-­‐ FDA is not the agency that will actually supervise or administer the use of these
products and supplies to prospective patients, there is no way it can truthfully
make a certification that it shall not be used for abortifacient purposes

RESPONDENT:

-­‐ Point out that the intent of the Framers of the Constitution was simply the
prohibition of abortion.
-­‐ RH Law does not violate the Constitution since the said law emphasizes that only
"non-abortifacient" reproductive health care services, methods, devices products
and supplies shall be made accessible to the public.
-­‐ Respondent Lagman argues that the constitutional protection of one's right to life
is not violated considering that various studies of the WHO show that life begins
from the implantation of the fertilized ovum.
-­‐ The RH Law is constitutional since the law specifically provides that only
contraceptives that do not prevent the implantation of the fertilized ovum are
allowed.
ISSUE:

Whether or Not RH Law violates the RIGHT TO LIFE AND HEALTH OF

THE UNBORN CHILDREN under Section 12, Article II of the Constitution.

HELD:

Contrary to the assertions made by the petitioners, the Court finds that the
RH Law, consistent with the Constitution, recognizes that the fertilized ovum
already has life and that the State has a bounden duty to protect it.

The conclusion becomes clear because the RH Law, first, prohibits any drug or
device that induces abortion, refers to that which induces the killing or the destruction of
the fertilized ovum, and, second, prohibits any drug or device the fertilized ovum to
reach and be implanted in the mother's womb.

By expressly declaring that any drug or device that prevents the fertilized ovum to
reach and be implanted in the mother's womb is an abortifacient (third kind), the RH
Law does not intend to mean at all that life only begins only at implantation, as Hon.
Lagman suggests. It also does not declare either that protection will only be given upon
implantation, as the petitioners likewise suggest. Rather, it recognizes that: one,
there is a need to protect the fertilized ovum which already has life, and
two, the fertilized ovum must be protected the moment it becomes
existent - all the way until it reaches and implants in the mother's womb.  
After all, if life is only recognized and afforded protection from the moment the fertilized
ovum implants - there is nothing to prevent any drug or device from killing or destroying
the fertilized ovum prior to implantation.

The Court finds that inasmuch as it affords protection to the fertilized ovum, the
RH Law does not sanction abortion. It is the Court's position that life begins at
fertilization, not at implantation. When a fertilized ovum is implanted in the uterine wall,
its viability is sustained but that instance of implantation is not the point of beginning of
life. As defined by the RH Law, any drug or device that induces abortion, that is, which
kills or destroys the fertilized ovum or prevents the fertilized ovum to reach and be
implanted in the mother's womb, is an abortifacient.

Section 12. “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. ………………………………………….”