JAMES IMBONG and LOVELY-ANN C. IMBONG, et al. vs. HON.

PAQUITO N. OCHOA, et al.

G.R. No. 204819, April 8, 2014.

FACTS:
On December 21, 2012, Congress enacted Republic Act No. 10354,
otherwise known as the Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of
2012, despite calls to withhold thereto. Shortly after the President placed his
imprimatur on the said law, challengers from various sectors of society went to the
Supreme Court, beckoning it to wield the sword and strike down constitutional
disobedience.
According to the petitioners, notwithstanding the policy against abortion, the
implementation of the RH Law would authorize the purchase of hormonal
contraceptives, intra-uterine devices and injectables that are abortives, in violation
of the Constitutionally guaranteed protection of both the life of the mother and the
life of the unborn from conception.
The petitioners also claimed that the RH Law violated the equal protection
clause under the Constitution as it discriminated against the poor because it makes
them the primary target of the government program that promotes contraceptive
use. They argue that rather than fostering reproductive health among the poor, the
RH law introduces contraceptives that would efficiently reduce the number of the
poor.

ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the RH Law violates the right to life of the unborn child.
2. Whether or not the RH Law violates the right to equal protection of the law.

RULING:
1. No. It is apparent that the Framers of the Constitution emphasized that the
State shall provide equal protection to both the mother and the unborn child
from the earliest opportunity of life, that is, upon fertilization or the
union of the male sperm and the female ovum. It is also apparent that the
Framers of the Constitution intended to prohibit Congress from enacting
measures that would determine when life begins.
Equally apparent is that the Framers of the Constitution did not intend to ban
all contraceptives for being unconstitutional. Contraceptives that kill or
destroy the fertilized ovum should be deemed an abortive and thus
prohibited. Conversely, contraceptives that prevent the union of the male
sperm, and the female ovum, and those that similarly take action prior to
fertilization should be deemed non-abortive, and thus, constitutionally
permissible.

1
 2. No. To provide the poor are to be given priority in the government’s
reproductive health care program is not a violation of the equal protection
clause. It should be noted that Section 7 of the RH Law prioritizes poor and
marginalized couples who are suffering from fertility issues and desire to
have children.
Moreover, the RH Law does not prescribe the number of children a couple
may have and does not impose conditions upon couples who intend to have
children. At the same time, petitioners surmise that the assailed law seeks to
charge couples with the duty to have children only if they would raise them
in a truly humane way, a deeper look into its provisions shows that what the
law seeks to do is to simply provide priority to the poor in the
implementation of government programs to promote basic reproductive
health care.

Learnings:
The equal protection clause does not require the universal application of the laws
to all persons or things without distinction. What it simply requires is equality
among equals as determined according to a valid classification.