Imbong v.

Ochoa
G.R. No. 204819; April 8, 2014
MENDOZA, J:

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. Shortly after the President placed
his imprimatur on the said law, challengers from various sectors of society came knocking on the doors of
the Court, beckoning it to wield the sword that strikes down constitutional disobedience. Aware of the
profound and lasting impact that its decision may produce. The Court now faces the juris controversy, as
presented in fourteen (14) petitions and two (2) petitions-in-intervention.
On March 19, 2013, after considering the issues and arguments raised, the Court issued the Status Quo Ante
Order (SQAO), enjoining the effects and implementation of the assailed legislation for a period of one
hundred and twenty (120) days, or until July 17, 2013.

ISSUE:
Whether the RH law is unconstitutional: 1] Right to Life; 2] Right to Health; 3] Freedom of Religion and the
Right to Free Speech; 4] The Family; 5] Freedom of Expression and Academic Freedom; 6] Due Process; 7]
Equal Protection; 8] Involuntary Servitude; 9] Delegation of Authority to the FDA; 10] Autonomy of Local
Governments/ARMM

RULING:
The Court ruled that the petitions are partially granted. Accordingly, the Court declares R.A. No. 10354 as
NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL except with respect to the following provisions which are declared
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
1. Right to Life - 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 second,
prohibits any drug or device the fertilized ovum to reach and be implanted in the mother's womb. It
is the Court's position that life begins at fertilization, not at implantation. And 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.

2. Right to Health - the Court finds that, at this point, the attack on the RH Law on this ground is
premature. It bears pointing out that not a single contraceptive has yet been submitted to the FDA
pursuant to the RH Law. It behooves the Court to await its determination which drugs or devices are
declared by the FDA as safe, it being the agency tasked to ensure that food and medicines available
to the public are safe for public consumption.

3. Freedom of Religion and the Right to Free Speech - In the case at bench, it is not within the province
of the Court to determine whether the use of contraceptives or one's participation in the support of
modern reproductive health measures is moral from a religious standpoint or whether the same is
right or wrong according to one's dogma or belief. The jurisdiction of the Court extends only to
public and secular morality.

4. The Family - In this case, the RH Law, contains provisions which tend to wreck the family as a solid
social institution. It bars the husband and/or the father from participating in the decision-making
process regarding their common future progeny. Decision-making involving a reproductive health
procedure is a private matter which belongs to the couple, not just one of them.
5. Freedom of Expression and Academic Freedom - At this point, suffice it to state that any attack on
the validity of Section 14 of the RH Law is premature because the Department of Education, Culture
and Sports has yet to formulate a curriculum on age-appropriate reproductive health education. Thus,
considering the premature nature of this particular issue, the Court declines to rule on its
constitutionality or validity.

6. Due Process - The petitioners contend that the RH Law suffers from vagueness and, thus violates the
due process clause of the Constitution. In determining whether the words used in a statute are vague,
words must not only be taken in accordance with their plain meaning alone, but also in relation to
other parts of the statute. The use of the term "private health care institution" in Section 7 of the law,
instead of "private health care service provider," should not be a cause of confusion for the obvious
reason that they are used synonymously.

7. Equal Protection - The petitioners also claim that the RH Law violates the equal protection clause
under the Constitution as it discriminates against the poor because it makes them the primary target
of the government program that promotes contraceptive use. For a classification to meet the
requirements of constitutionality, it must include or embrace all persons who naturally belong to the
class. To provide that the poor are to be given priority in the government's reproductive health
care program is not a violation of the equal protection clause. In fact, it is pursuant to Section
11, Article XIII of the Constitution which recognizes the distinct necessity to address the needs
of the underprivileged by providing that they be given priority in addressing the health
development of the people.

8. Involuntary Servitude - The petitioners also aver that the RH Law is constitutionally infirm as it
violates the constitutional prohibition against involuntary servitude. The practice of medicine is not a
right but a privileged burdened with conditions as it directly involves the very lives of the people. A
reading of the assailed provision, reveals that it only encourages private and non-government
reproductive healthcare service providers to render pro bono service. Private and non-government
reproductive healthcare service providers also enjoy the liberty to choose which kind of health
service they wish to provide, when, where and how to provide it or whether to provide it all.
Clearly, therefore, no compulsion, force or threat is made upon them to render pro bono
service against their will.

9. Delegation of Authority to the FDA - The Court finds nothing wrong with the delegation. The FDA
does not only have the power but also the competency to evaluate, register and cover health services
and methods. Being the country's premiere and sole agency that ensures the safety of food and
medicines available to the public, the FDA was equipped with the necessary powers and functions to
make it effective. From the declared policy of the RH Law, it is clear that Congress intended that
the public be given only those medicines that are proven medically safe, legal, non-
abortifacient, and effective in accordance with scientific and evidence-based medical research
standards.

10. Autonomy of Local Governments/ARMM - The essence of this express reservation of power by the
national government is that, unless an LGU is particularly designated as the implementing agency, it
has no power over a program for which funding has been provided by the national government under
the annual general appropriations act, even if the program involves the delivery of basic services
within the jurisdiction of the LGU. In this case, a reading of the RH Law clearly shows that
whether it pertains to the establishment of health care facilities, the hiring of skilled health
professionals, or the training of barangay health workers, it will be the national government
that will provide for the funding of its implementation.