Imbong v Ochoa, et al. (G.R. Nos.

204819, April 8, 2014)

Facts:
Republic Act (R.A.) No. 10354, otherwise known as the Responsible Parenthood and
Reproductive Health Act of 2012 (RH Law), was enacted by Congress on December 21, 2012.
Challengers from various sectors of society are questioning the constitutionality of the said Act.
The petitioners are assailing the constitutionality of RH Law on the following grounds:
SUBSTANTIAL ISSUES:
1. The RH Law violates the right to life of the unborn.
2. The RH Law violates the right to health and the right to protection against hazardous
products.
3. The RH Law violates the right to religious freedom.
4. The RH Law violates the constitutional provision on involuntary servitude.
5. The RH Law violates the right to equal protection of the law.
6. The RH Law violates the right to free speech.
7. The RH Law is “void-for-vagueness” in violation of the due process clause of the
Constitution.
8. The RH Law intrudes into the zone of privacy of one’s family protected by the
Constitution
Issue 1:
Can the Supreme Court exercise its power of judicial review over the RH law --- a social
legislation which is "a product of a majoritarian democratic process" and "characterized by an
inordinate amount of transparency"?
Ruling:

No. The Court does not have the unbridled authority to rule on just any and every claim of
constitutional violation. Jurisprudence is replete with the rule that the power of judicial review is
limited by four exacting requisites, viz : (a) there must be an actual case or controversy; (b) the
petitioners must possess locus standi; (c) the question of constitutionality must be raised at the
earliest opportunity; and (d) the issue of constitutionality must be the lis mota of the case.

An actual case or controversy means an existing case or controversy that is appropriate or ripe
for determination, not conjectural or anticipatory, lest the decision of the court would amount to
an advisory opinion.

Locus standi or legal standing is defined as a personal and substantial interest in a case such that
the party has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of the challenged governmental act.

Issue 2:
Considering that the RH Law has yet to be implemented, do the petitions present actual
controversy ripe for adjudication?
Ruling:

Yes. For a case to be considered ripe for adjudication, it is a prerequisite that something has then
been accomplished or performed by either branch before a court may come into the picture, and
the petitioner must allege the existence of an immediate or threatened injury to himself as a result
of the challenged action. He must show that he has sustained or is immediately in danger of
sustaining some direct injury as a result of the act complained of102

In this case, the Court is of the view that an actual case or controversy exists and that the same is
ripe for judicial determination. Considering that the RH Law and its implementing rules have
already taken effect and that budgetary measures to carry out the law have already been passed,
it is evident that the subject petitions present a justiciable controversy. As stated earlier, when an
action of the legislative branch is seriously alleged to have infringed the Constitution, it not only
becomes a right, but also a duty of the Judiciary to settle the dispute.104

Moreover, the petitioners have shown that the case is so because medical practitioners or medical
providers are in danger of being criminally prosecuted under the RH Law for vague violations
thereof, particularly public health officers who are threatened to be dismissed from the service
with forfeiture of retirement and other benefits. They must, at least, be heard on the matter now.