IMBONG v.

OCHOA
G.R. No. 204819 / April 8, 2014
J. Mendoza

FACTS:
Petitioners assailed the constitutionality of the Reproductive Health Law (RH Law), because,
among others, it violates the right to life of the unborn. Notwithstanding its declared policy
against abortion, the implementation of the RH Law would authorize the purchase of hormonal
contraceptives, intrauterine devices and injectables which are abortives, in violation of Section
12, Article II of the Constitution which guarantees protection of both the life of the mother and
the life of the unborn from conception.

ISSUE:
Whether or RH Law violates the right to life of the unborn. (N

RULING:

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 actually prevent the union of the male sperm and the
female ovum, and those that similarly take action prior to fertilization should be deemed
nonabortive, and thus, constitutionally permissible. The clear and unequivocal intent of the
Framers of the 1987 Constitution in protecting the life of the unborn from conception was to
prevent the Legislature from enacting a measure legalizing abortion. A reading of the RH Law
would show that it is in line with this intent and actually proscribes abortion. While the Court has
opted not to make any determination, at this stage, when life begins, it finds that the RH Law
itself clearly mandates that protection be afforded from the moment of fertilization.

However, the section of the RH-IRR allows “contraceptives” and recognizes as “abortifacient”
only
those that primarily induce abortion or the destruction of a fetus inside the mother's womb or the
prevention of the fertilized ovum to reach and be implanted in the mother's womb. This cannot
be
done. Evidently, with the addition of the word “primarily,” in Section 3.0l(a) and G) of the RH-IRR
is indeed ultra vires. It contravenes Section 4(a) of the RH Law and should, therefore, be
declared
invalid.

Section 15, Article II of the Constitution provides: The State shall protect and promote the
right to health of the people and instill health consciousness among them. Contrary to the
OSG’s position, these provisions are self-executing. At this point, the Court is of the strong view
that Congress cannot legislate that hormonal contraceptives and intra-uterine devices are safe
and non-abortifacient. The provision in Section 9 covering the inclusion of hormonal
contraceptives, intra-uterine devices, injectables, and other safe, legal, non-abortifacient and
effective family planning products and supplies by the National Drug Formulary in the EDL is not
mandatory. There must first be a determination by the FDA that they are in fact safe, legal, non-
abortifacient and effective family planning products and supplies. There can be no
predetermination by Congress that the gamut of contraceptives are "safe, legal, non-
abortifacient and effective" without the proper scientific examination.
The clear and unequivocal intent of the Framers of the 1987 Constitution in protecting the life of
the unborn from conception was to prevent the Legislature from enacting a measure legalizing
abortion. A reading of the RH Law would show that it is in line with this intent and actually
proscribes abortion. While the Court has opted not to make any determination, at this stage,
when life begins, it finds that the RH Law itself clearly mandates that protection be afforded from
the moment of fertilization.

The petitions are PARTIALLY GRANTED. Accordingly, the Court declares R.A. No. 10354 as
NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The Status Quo Ante Order issued by the Court on March 19,
2013 as extended by its Order, dated July 16, 2013 , is hereby LIFTED, insofar as the
provisions of R.A. No. 10354 which have been herein declared as constitutional.