CASE DIGEST

GR No. 204819 - Imbong v. Ochoa

Constitutional Law 1

Court Supreme Court

Citation GR No. 204819

Date April 5, 2000

Plaintiff-Appellee JAMES M. IMBONG, et al.

Accused-Appellants HON. PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., EXECUTIVE Secretary, et al.

Ponente Mendoza, J.

Relevant topic Art. II - Declaration of Principles and State Policies

Prepared by Anne Berango

RELEVANT CHARACTERS:
Full Name Tag Character Description

James M. Imbong, et al. Petitioners Citizens, taxpayers, and organizations assailing the
RH Law for its unconstitutionality

Hon. Paquito N. Ochoa, Jr., OSG Proponents of the RH Law

Executive Secretary, et al.

Guide: Who are the petitioners? Who are the respondents? What are their roles?

FACTS:

● December 21, 2012 - Congress enacted Republic Act No. 10354 (Reproductive Parenthood and
Reproductive Health Act of 2012) a.k.a. the RH Law
● Shortly after, the President placed his imprimatur (authorization) on the said law
● Petitions for certiorari and prohibition (14 petitions and 2 petitions-in-intervention) were filed from various
parties (in their capacity as citizens, lawyers, or taxpayers) to the Court. Some of the sectors who raised their
concerns are:
o Parents
o Educational institutions
o Organizations for the unborn
o Religious organizations
● These petitioners advocate for the law to be declared unconstitutional
● March 15, 2013 - the RH-IRR took effect
● March 19, 2013 - considering the issues filed, the Court issued the Status Quo Ante Order (SQAO), stopping
the implementation of the law for a period of 120 days (until July 17, 2013)

ISSUE – HELD – RATIO:

I. PROCEDURAL: Whether the Court may exercise its power of judicial review over the controversy.
1. Power of Judicial Review
2. Actual Case or Controversy
3. Facial Challenge
4. Locus Standi
5. Declaratory Relief
6. One Subject/One Title Rule

II. SUBSTANTIVE: 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

Page 1 of 11
CASE DIGEST
GR No. 204819 - Imbong v. Ochoa
Constitutional Law 1

7. Equal Protection
8. Involuntary Servitude
9. Delegation of Authority to the FDA
10. Autonomy of Local Governments/ARMM SETaHC
11. Natural Law

ISSUE #1 HELD

PROCEDURAL: Whether the Court may exercise its power of judicial review YES
over the controversy

RATIO:

1. Power of Judicial Review - In an attempt to persuade the Court not to exercise judicial review, OSG asserts
that the separation of powers between the 3 co-equal branches be respected.

While the Court may not pass upon questions of wisdom, justice, or expediency of the RH Law, it may do so
where an attendant unconstitutionality or grave abuse of discretion of results. Given that this is a question of
constitutionality, the Court must uphold its duty to protect the rights and principles embodied in the
Constitution.

2. Actual Case or Controversy - Proponents of the RH Law contend that the petitions do not yet present any
actual case or controversy because the RH Law has yet to be implemented. There is no showing that rights
have been usurped. It appears that the issue is not yet ripe for adjudication.

However, the Court is of the view that an actual case or controversy exists and it is ripe for judicial
determination. When an action of the legislative branch is seriously alleged to have infringed the Constitution,
it becomes the duty of the Judiciary to settle the dispute. Moreover, the implementation of the law presents the
threat of medical practitioners or medical providers being criminally prosecuted. They have the right to be
heard on the matter NOW.

3. Facial Challenge - OSG assails the propriety of invoking the “First Amendment Challenge” (facial challenge)
by the petitioners, as the RH Law is not a law on speech regulation. This raises the issues of religious
freedom, freedom of the press, and the right of the people to peaceably assemble, etc.

Although the facial challenge has been used primarily by the Court only for penal statutes, this case is an
exception as the petitions raised allegations of violations to rights to life, speech, and religion, and other
fundamental rights.

4. Locus Standi - OSG attacks the legal personality of the petitioners as the law has not yet been enforced and
the government is yet to distribute reproductive health devices that are abortive.

The petitioners invoked the ‘transcendental importance’ doctrine and their status as citizens and taxpayers.
The Court agrees that the RH Law drastically affects the constitutional provisions on the right to life and
health, the freedom of religion and expression and other constitutional rights. Thus, it is right for the Court to
exercise its power of judicial review.

5. Declaratory Relief - The respondents assail that the petitions are essentially petitions for declaratory relief,
which the Court has no jurisdiction over.

As most of the petitions are praying for injunctive relief, the Court will consider them as petitions for
prohibition, over which it has original jurisdiction.

6. One Subject/One Title Rule - The petitioners question the constitutionality of the RH Law, claiming that it
violates Section 26(1), Article VI of the Constitution (One subject, on title rule). This rule is followed to make
sure that laws are not misconstrued by the average person. Petitioners insist that the law is actually a
population control measure disguised in the concepts of “responsible parenthood” and “reproductive health.”
They contend that this is meant to deceive the general public.

The Court sees the law as principally a population control measure, but it does not violate the ‘one subject,
one title rule.’ The rule is applied to ensure that the title is comprehensive enough to include the general
Page 2 of 11
CASE DIGEST
GR No. 204819 - Imbong v. Ochoa
Constitutional Law 1

object which the statute seeks to effect. The Court agrees that “responsible parenthood” and “reproductive
health” are interrelated and germane to the overriding objective of controlling population growth.

ISSUE #2 HELD

SUBSTANTIVE: Whether the RH Law is unconstitutional NO, with exceptions

RATIO:

1. Right to Life - Petitioners assailed that the law violates the rights to life and health of the unborn child (Sec.
12, Article II of the Constitution), as it allows for abortifacients/abortives and effectively sanctions abortion.

The RH Law provides the definition below for abortifacients:

Sec. 4 (a) Abortifacient refers to any drug or device that induces abortion or the destruction of a fetus inside a
mother’s womb or the prevention of the fertilized ovum to reach and be implanted in the mother’s womb upon
determination of the FDA.

Sec. 4 (s) Reproductive health rights refers of individuals and couples, to decide freely and
responsibly….Reproductive health rights do not include abortion, and access to abortifacients.

The Court concludes that the moment of conception is upon fertilization (fertilized ovum). Given this definition
of abortifacients and reproductive health rights, the RH Law itself clearly mandates that protection be afforded
from the moment of fertilization. It also recognizes that abortion is a crime (Article 156 of the RPC). The Court
finds that the RH Law does not sanction abortion, aligned to the intent of the framers of preventing Congress
to enact a law allowing abortion.

However, the RH-IRR committed a grave abuse of discretion when it changed the definition of abortifacient.

In the RH-IRR:

Sec. 3.01 (a) Abortifacient refers to any drug or device that primarily induces abortion…

The use of “primarily” will allow for approval of contraceptives which may harm or destroy the life of an unborn,
thus this provision of the RH-IRR should be declared void.

2. Right to Health - Petitioners claim that the RH Law violates the right to health because it requires the
inclusion of hormonal contraceptives, intrauterine devices, injectables and family products and supplies in the
National Drug Formulary and the inclusion of the same in the regular purchase of essential medicines and
supplies of all national hospital. According to studies, this increases the risk of breast and cervical cancer,
venous thromboembolism, ischemic stroke, and myocardial infarction.

Prior laws on contraceptives (R.A. No. 5921 and R.A. No. 4729) do not prohibit the sale and distribution of
contraceptives when they are dispensed by a prescription of a duly licensed physician. The legislative intent of
the RH Law is to leave this intact. The Court agrees that the law will not lead to unmitigated proliferation of
contraceptives, given that these prior laws are still in effect.

3. Freedom of Religion and the Right to Free Speech - There are those who, because of religious education
and background, sincerely believe that contraceptives, whether abortifacient or not, are evil.

Petitioners also contend that while the RH Law attempts to address religious sentiment through a
conscientious objector, the constitutional guarantee is still violated as it imposes that the conscientious
objector to refer the patient to another medical practitioner who can provide the medical service he/she
refuses to do. This makes him/her an accessory to perpetrating something he/she does not believe to be right.
Compelling them to act against their will violates the Doctrine of Benevolent Neutrality.

It is not within the jurisdiction 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 dogma or belief (the state will not encroach into the affairs of
the Church and vice versa). It’s jurisdiction extends only to public and secular morality. Although the RH Law
Page 3 of 11
CASE DIGEST
GR No. 204819 - Imbong v. Ochoa
Constitutional Law 1

is replete with assurances that it respects religious beliefs, the Court acknowledges that the beliefs of medical
practitioners should be respected. The opt-out clause (through referral) still makes the medical practitioner
complicit to an act that he/she finds morally repugnant or offensive. This encroaches on his/her right to
religious freedom.

Moreover, the RH Law penalizes the medical practitioners/institutions if they refuse to deliver the service. The
Court finds that a conscientious objector must be exempted from the mandate of the RH Law. The punishment
of a healthcare service provider who fails/refuses to deliver a reproductive health procedure because it
contradicts their beliefs is a violation of a constitutional guarantee, which the Court cannot allow. Penalty in
this situation can only be applied in the event of emergencies or life-threatening situations. In such case, the
healthcare service provider is compelled to act in order to save the lives concerned.

4. The Family - Petitioner assails that the RH Law violates the Constitution by intruding into marital privacy and
autonomy. The RH Law allows for a husband/wife to perform reproductive health procedures without the
consent of his/her spouse. It also deprives parents of their authority over their minor daughter if she is already
a parent or had suffered a miscarriage.

The Court agrees that giving absolute authority to a spouse would drive a wedge between husband and wife,
which is contradictory to the Constiitution’s mandate on protecting the family. Severing parental authority from
their minor daughter is also a violation of this mandate.

5. Freedom of Expression and Academic Freedom - Sec. 14, in relation to Sec. 24, of the RH Law mandates
teaching Age- and Development-Appropriate Reproductive Health Education. Failure to do so is penalized
with a fine or imprisonment, which violates the principle of academic freedom.

The Court finds this to be premature as the Department of Education has not yet formulated a curriculum for
this. Thus, it declines to rule on its constitutionality.

6. Due Process - The petitioners argue that the law suffers from vagueness in the ff. instances:
a. “private health service provider” is not defined
b. exemption of hospitals operated by religious groups to render reproductive health service and
information
c. penalizing “incorrect information,” when this is not defined

The Court finds that this lacks merit. Vagueness is raised when the average person fails to guess the meaning
and application of the provisions. The elements of vagueness stated by the petitioners appear to be clear at
the perusal of the provisions of the law.

7. Equal Protection - Petitioners claim that the RH Law violates the equal protection clauses under the
Constitution as it discriminates against the poor because it makes them the primary target of the government
program that promotes contraceptive use. They argue that introducing contraceptive to the poor signifies its
intent to reduce their number.

The Court believes that prioritizing the poor in the Government’s reproductive health program is not a violation
of the equal protection clause. In fact, the Constitution mandates the necessity for the underprivileged to be
given priority in addressing the health development of the people.

8. Involuntary Servitude - The petitioners argue that compelling non-government healthcare providers to
render 48 hours of pro bono reproductive health services against their will violates the constitutional
prohibition against involuntary servitude. The OSG counters that providers have the discretion as to the
manner and the time of giving these services.

The Court acknowledges OSG’s point. The practice of medicine is tied to public interest. The practice of
medicine is a privileged burden as it directly involves the very lives of people. A reading of the provision
reveals that it only aims to encourage pro bono service.

However, in line with the argument raised earlier, conscientious objectors must be exempt from this.

9. Delegation of Authority to the FDA - Petitioners question the delegation by Congress to the FDA of the
power to determine whether or not a supply or product to be included in the Essential Drugs Life (ESL).

Page 4 of 11
CASE DIGEST
GR No. 204819 - Imbong v. Ochoa
Constitutional Law 1

The Court finds nothing wrong with this delegation as the FDA has the competency and the power to evaluate,
register, and cover health services and methods. It is the only government entity empowered to render these
services.

10. Autonomy of Local Governments/ARMM SETaHC - The petitioners claim that the RH Law infringes on the
powers devolved to LGUs.

A reading of the RH Law clearly shows that whether it pertains to the establishment of healthcare 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. The LGUs are merely encouraged to render
these services. This can be equally applied to the ARMM.

11. Natural Law - Petitioners argue that the RH Law violates natural law.

The Court finds that this has no legal basis for upholding or validating a law. The Court’s only guidepost is the
Constitution. Unless this is written in law, this cannot serve as a basis to strike down a law. As earlier
explained, the RH Law does not sanction taking away a life.

RULING:

● Petition is: PARTIALLY GRANTED

● The Court does not find the RH Law as unconstitutional insofar as it seeks to provide access to medically-
safe, non-abortifacient, effective, legal, affordable, and quality reproductive healthcare services, methods,
devices, and supplies. As earlier pointed out, however, the religious freedom of some sectors of society
cannot be trampled upon in pursuit of what the law hopes to achieve.
● The RH Law is a mere compilation and enhancement of prior existing contraceptive and reproductive health
laws (R.A. No. 6365, R.A. No. 4729, R.A. No. 9710), but with coercive measures.
● WHEREFORE, 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: SCEDAI

1. Section 7 and the corresponding provision in the RH-IRR insofar as they: a) require private health
facilities and non-maternity specialty hospitals and hospitals owned and operated by a religious group
to refer patients, not in an emergency or life-threatening case, as defined under Republic Act No.
8344, to another health facility which is conveniently accessible; and b) allow minor-parents or minors
who have suffered a miscarriage access to modern methods of family planning without written
consent from their parents or guardian/s;

2. Section 23 (a) (1) and the corresponding provision in the RH-IRR, particularly Section 5.24 thereof,
insofar as they punish any healthcare service provider who fails and or refuses to disseminate
information regarding programs and services on reproductive health regardless of his or her religious
beliefs.

3. Section 23 (a) (2) (i) and the corresponding provision in the RH-IRR insofar as they allow a married
individual, not in an emergency or life-threatening case, as defined under Republic Act No. 8344, to
undergo reproductive health procedures without the consent of the spouse; KDTS: I don’t think this is
unconstitutional!!

4. Section 23 (a) (2) (ii) and the corresponding provision in the RH-IRR insofar as they limit the
requirement of parental consent only to elective surgical procedures.

5. Section 23 (a) (3) and the corresponding provision in the RH-IRR, particularly Section 5.24 thereof,
insofar as they punish any healthcare service provider who fails and/or refuses to refer a patient not in
an emergency or life-threatening case, as defined under Republic Act No. 8344, to another health
care service provider within the same facility or one which is conveniently accessible regardless of his
or her religious beliefs; SDAaTC

6. Section 23 (b) and the corresponding provision in the RH-IRR, particularly Section 5.24 thereof,
insofar as they punish any public officer who refuses to support reproductive health programs or shall
do any act that hinders the full implementation of a reproductive health program, regardless of his or
her religious beliefs; AKA the unconstitutional ones are the provisions against the archaic family code

Page 5 of 11
CASE DIGEST
GR No. 204819 - Imbong v. Ochoa
Constitutional Law 1

and the ones that punish health workers/public officers for not believing in/following RH provisions

7. Section 17 and the corresponding provision in the RH-IRR regarding the rendering of pro bono
reproductive health service in so far as they affect the conscientious objector in securing PhilHealth
accreditation; and

8. Section 3.01 (a) and Section 3.01 (j) of the RH-IRR, which added the quali􀁑er "primarily" in de􀁑ning
abortifacients and contraceptives, as they are ultra vires (beyond one’s legal power/authority) and,
therefore, null and void for contravening Section 4 (a) of the RH Law and violating Section 12, Article
II of the Constitution.
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.

SO ORDERED.

SEPARATE OPINION:

● Sereno, CJ. (CONCURRING AND DISSENTING) oh wow tagalog

○ Hindi pagkitil ng buhay ng kapwa-taong isisilang pa lamang ang pagpapalaya sa pasiya ng may-
katawan. Wala sa R.A. 10354 o RH Law ang pagkitil ng buhay. I LOVE CJ SERENOOO

○ Hindi na kailangang gamitin ang compelling state interest test upang tiyakin ang legalidad ng RH Law
dahil buo na ang pagkilala ng RH Law sa religious freedom (sa pamamagitan ng opt-out clause and
exemption to penalties sa mga tatangging magdulot ng reproductive health care services and provide
info for these)

○ Hindi rin labag sa religious freedom ng mga conscientious objector ang duty to refer na likas naman
dapat sa propesyon nila. Maaari ring ituring na labag sa sinumpaang tungkulin ng mga medical
professionals ang pagtangging magturo ng pasyente sa ibang medical professional. (SAGOT NIYA
ITO SA MGA “UNCONSTITUTIONALITY” NG PROVISIONS NA NAGPAPARUSA SA MGA
RELIGIOUS HEALTH WORKERS NA HINDI MAGREREFER SA IBA)

○ Hindi ipinagbabawal ng Section 23(a)(2) ang pagtangging magsagawa ng reproductive health

procedures dahil sa kanilang religious beliefs

○ Walang anumang nakasulat sa RH Law na nag-aalis sa mag-asawa ng kanilang karapatang bumuo

ng pamilya. Tinitiyak pa nga nito na gumagawa sila ng informed choice.

○ Hindi rin pinagbabawalan ang mga menor de edad na may anak o nagkaroon ng miscarriage na
humingi ng payo sa kanilang mga magulang at di rin pinagbabawalan ang mga magulang na
magbigay nito. Dagdag pa rito, hindi na masasabing walang muwang ang mga menor de edad
pagdating sa mga bagay na sekswal, kaya’t hindi dapat maging dahilan ang kawalan ng parents’
consent para tanggihan sila ng mga health professionals ng reproductive health services.

○ Hindi dapat payagang tumalikod sa tungkulin ang isang public officer na mismong inatasang isagawa
ang mga kautusan at programa sa ilalim ng RH Law at IRR nito o biguin ang paglunsad ng
reproductive health program. Kahangalaan ito para sa pamahalaan kung hahayaan nila ito.

● Carpio, J. (CONCURRING OPINION)

○ The Court is not competent to declare when human life begins. The issue is a scientific and medical
issue that cannot be decided by this Court without proper hearing and evidence.

○ Whether life begins at fertilization or implantation, R.A. No. 10354 protects both starting points of
human life.

○ R.A. No. 10354 protects the fertilized ovum by prohibiting services, methods, devices or supplies that
prevent its implantation on the uterus wall.

● Leonardo-De Castro, J. (SEPARATE CONCURRING OPINION)

Page 6 of 11
CASE DIGEST
GR No. 204819 - Imbong v. Ochoa
Constitutional Law 1

○ The constitutionality of the RH Law ought to be judged based on its implications on the relevant and
treasured values of the Filipino society as shown by the Filipino people’s history and tradition as
enshrined in the Constitution. These cherished values are: the sanctity of the family, the natural join
right of spouses to found a family; the natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of
their children; and the right to health of the people, particularly women; and the fundamental equality
before the law of women and men. These transcendental values include the protection of the freedom
of religion and freedom of speech.

● Brion, J. (SEPARATE CONCURRING OPINION)

○ Personal decisions are protected by the constitutional right to be free from unwarranted government
intrusion.

○ I submit that Section 23(a)(1) violates the right of health practitioners to speak in public about
reproductive health and should simply be struck down.

● Del Castillo, J. (CONCURRING AND DISSENTING)

○ The RH Law does not contravene Article II, Section 12 of the Constitution

■ Article II, Section 12 of the 1987 Constitution

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. . . . (Emphasis supplied)

■ The RH Law prohibits the use of abortifacients in several provisions in consonance with
Article II, Section 12 of the Constitution. Abortifacient is defined in Section 4(a) as "any drug
or device that induces 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 upon
determination of the FDA."

○ The definition of “abortifacient” in the IRR of RH Law contravenes VIOLATES with Article II,
Section12

■ Rule 3 — Definition of Terms, Section 3.01 (a) of the IRRs, as signed, states:

"Abortifacient refers to any drug or device that primarily induces 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 upon determination of the Food and Drug Administration
(FDA)."

■ Petitioners argued that “primarily” means the drug or device has no other known effect aside
from abortion and the use of this word radically changed the meaning of “abortifacient”.

■ The IRR is not in consonance with the RH Law and Article II, Section 2 on the definition of the
word “abortifacient”.

○ Within the framework of implementation of the RH Law, it is necessary for this Court to exercise its
expanded jurisdiction and power to issue rules for the protection and enforcement of constitutional
rights in order to adequately protect the right to life of the unborn.

○ The FDA should be directed to issue the proper rules of procedure that will sufficiently safeguard the
right to life of the unborn.

■ Section 9 of the RH Law should be read in relation to Section 4(a) of the RH Law which
requires the FDA to determine whether a contraceptive is abortifacient or not.

○ The FDA should be directed to submit to the Court the list of contraceptives that it previously
approved and is currently available if these comply with the constitutional standards for allowable
contraceptives.

○ The DOH should be directed to formulate the guidelines for the distribution of the products which will
be covered by FDA’s certification
Page 7 of 11
CASE DIGEST
GR No. 204819 - Imbong v. Ochoa
Constitutional Law 1

○ A proviso in Section 9 of the RH Law allows the distribution of products with abortifacient properties to
on the condition that these are not going to be used as an abortifacient. I share the view of the
ponencia that the aforesaid certification is empty and absurd. Such certification cannot guarantee that
the subject products and supplies will not be used as abortifacients. The ponencia modifies the
phrase from "it is not to be used" to "it cannot be used" in order to protect the right to life of the
unborn.

○ Other Issues:

■ Right to Health: Agrees with the ponencia that the right to health was not violated

■ Establishment Cause: Agrees with ponencia that RH Law does not violate the
Establishment Clause

■ Duty to Refer: Agrees that the duty to refer, under pain of penal liability, placed on the
conscientious objector is unconstitutional.

● Duty to refer on the conscientious objector, is limited to referring the person to

another health care service provider for purposes of availing health care services
only, not health care services and information. The implication is that the
conscientious objector is required to provide complete and correct information, and, in
the event that the person asks for health care services that the conscientious objector
objects to on religious or ethical grounds, the conscientious objector has the duty to
refer the person to another health care service provider.

■ Duty to Inform: Finds the conscientious objector’s duty to inform is constitutional

● Duty to Inform: all persons, who are qualified to avail of the benefits provided by the
law, shall be given complete and correct information on the reproductive health
programs and services of the government under the RH Law.

■ Family Planning Seminar: Agrees with ponencia mandating family planning seminar as a
condition for the issuance of a marriage license is constitutional.

■ Family Planning and the Right to Privacy: Agrees with ponencia that Section 23 (a) (2) (i)
of the RH Law is unconstitutional.

■ The Need for Parental Consent: Agrees with ponencia that the phrase, "except when the
minor is already a parent or has had a miscarriage," in Section 7 of the RH Law is
unconstitutional. Recognition of parental authority is broad and indivisible, full and complete in
all matters relating to care for minors.Parental authority is a constitutionally recognized natural
and primary right of parents.

■ Access to Information: I agree with the ponencia that there is nothing unconstitutional about
the capacity of a minor to access information on family planning services under Section 7 of
the RH Law

■ Age and Development Appropriate Reproductive Health Education: Agrees with

ponencia that the constitutional challenge against Section 14 of the RH Law is unavailing. The
RH Law seeks to supplement, not supplant, the natural and primary right and duty of parents
to rear their children.

■ Due Process and Free Speech Clause: Agrees with the ponencia that the void for
vagueness doctrine is inapplicable to the challenged portions of the RH Law

■ Equal Protection: Agrees with ponencia that the RH Law does not violate the equal
protection clause insofar as it is claimed to single out the poor to reduce their numbers and
that the poor may be the subject of government subsidy for the programs

■ Involuntary Servitude: Agrees that Section 17 of the RH Law does not violate the
constitutional prohibition against involuntary servitude and that it is unconstitutional insofar as
it imposes a duty to conscientious objectors to render pro bono which the objectors objects on
religious or ethical grounds.

Page 8 of 11
CASE DIGEST
GR No. 204819 - Imbong v. Ochoa
Constitutional Law 1

■ Delegation of Authority to the FDA: Agrees with the ruling that Congress can validly
delegate the authority to determine whether products or services will comply with
constitutional and statutory standards

■ Autonomy of the LGU and the ARMM: Agrees that the RH Law does not violate the local
autonomy

■ Natural Law: Agrees that the natural law may not, under the particular circumstances of this
case, be used to invalidate the RH Law.
○ Partially grants the petition.

● Abad, J. (CONCURRING OPINION)

○ The ponencia is right that the procedural challenges to the petitions are unmeritorious. The Court
cannot wait for the actual extermination of an unborn child before assessing the constitutional validity
of RH Law.

○ The Constitution is clear: the life of a child begins from conception. Ambushing the fertilized ovum as
it travels down the fallopian tube to prevent its implantation on the uterine wall is abortion. Filipino
people have in effect covenanted to this through the Consti.

○ The RH Law precisely aims to put an end to the resistance to hormonal contraceptives and
intrauterine devices (IUDs) under the belief that they are unsafe and abortifacient . It does this through
sanctions against hospitals, physicians, nurses, midwives, and other health care providers who
communicate the view contrary to this.

○ I agree with the Court’s ruling that the second sentence of Sec. 9 does not authorize approval of
family planning products and supplies that act as abortifacient

○ The dangers of the side effects of hormonal contraceptives and IUDs are more worrisome since the
RH law fails to provide standards of safe use

○ It is not for the Supreme Court or legislature to determine what medicine is safe and useful to a
person

○ The Court has correctly decided to annul Section 23(a)(3) and the corresponding RH-IRR provision in
section 5.24 as unconstitutional insofar as they punish any health care provider who fails and/or
refuses to refer a patient not, in an emergency or life-threatening case, to another health care service
provider within the same facility or one which is conveniently accessible regardless of his or her
religious beliefs

○ Religious conscience is precisely a part of the consideration for free choice in family planning

● Reyes, J. (CONCURRING AND DISSENTING)

○ I dissent from the ponencia's conclusion that the following provisions of R.A. No. 10354 are
unconstitutional:

1. Section 7, insofar as it imposes on non-maternity specialty hospitals and hospitals owned and
operated by a religious group the duty to refer a person seeking access to modern family
planning methods to another health facility, for being violative of the freedom of religion;

2. Section 23 (a) (1), which punishes any health care service provider who withholds information
or restricts the dissemination thereof regarding programs and services on reproductive health,
and Section 23 (a) (2), which punishes any health care service providers who refuse to
perform reproductive health procedures on the ground of lack of consent or authorization in
certain cases, for being violative of the freedom of religion;

3. Section 23 (a) (2) (i), which allows a married individual to undergo reproductive health
procedure sans the consent of his/her spouse, for being contrary to one's right to privacy;

4. Section 23 (a) (3), insofar as it requires a conscientious objector to immediately refer a person
seeking reproductive health care and services to another health care service provider, for
being violative of the freedom of religion;
Page 9 of 11
CASE DIGEST
GR No. 204819 - Imbong v. Ochoa
Constitutional Law 1

5. Section 23 (b), which punishes any public o􀁋cer charged with the duty to implement the
provision of R.A. No. 10354 who prohibits or restricts the delivery of reproductive health care
services, and Section 5.24 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No.
10354, which, inter alia, provides that those charged with the duty to implement the provisions
of R.A. No. 10354 cannot be considered as conscientious objectors, for being violative of the
freedom of religion; and

6. Section 17, insofar as it included the rendition of at least forty-eight (48) hours annual pro
bono reproductive health services as a prerequisite in the accreditation under PhilHealth.

● Perlas-Bernabe, J. (CONCURRING AND DISSENTING)

○ I do not find that Section 23(a)(1) of the RH Law/RH-IRR are invidious of religious freedom as it is the
professional responsibility of the health practitioner to disseminate information, including that of
reproductive health.

○ Decision of a couple on medical procedures is purely a private affair.

● Leonen, J. (SEPARATE DISSENT)

○ Procedural Issues: Actual Case or Controversy, Judicial Review, Facial Challenges, Class Suits,
President’s immunity - Must be approached with caution

○ A law that mandates informed choice and proper access to reproductive health technologies should
not be presumed to be a threat to the right of life. It should be a guarantee to assure the protection of
human rights. DAMN I LOVE LEONEN TOO AT LEAST, MOST OF THE TIME

○ The Court cannot make a decision of when life begins.

○ The Constitutional Commission deliberations show that it is not true that the issue of when life begins
is a settled matter.

○ The conscientious objector provision is too broad. It is also not clear if the provisions on conscientious
objectors are declared unconstitutional for all religions or only specific ones.

○ The Court cannot make a determination to declare the Catholic Church’s opinion on contraceptives
and sex.

○ View on the spouse’s autonomy - No person should be deemed to concede her or his privacy rights
and autonomy upon getting married. RIGHT

○ The Court cannot make a declaration on what is best for a minor child who is a parent or has
experienced a miscarriage as they do not have firsthand experience of this. They cannot speak for the
child.

○ We cannot impose, modify, or alter the rules of the FDA as this is usurpation of the executive power of
control over administrative agencies.

HOW IS IT RELEVANT TO THE TOPIC?

Art. II - Declaration of Principles and State Policies

The case is relevant to Sections 5, 6, 12, and 15 of Art. II of the 1987 Constitution:

Sec. 5 - The maintenance of peace and order, the protection of life, liberty, and property, and the promotion of the
general welfare are essential for the enjoyment by all the people of the blessings of democracy.

Sec. 6 - The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable.

Sec. 12 - The State 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. The

Page 10 of 11
CASE DIGEST
GR No. 204819 - Imbong v. Ochoa
Constitutional Law 1

natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of
moral character shall receive the support of the Government.

Sec. 15 - The State shall protect and promote the right to health of the people and instill health consciousness
among them.

These provisions are relevant because the petitioners anchored their petitions on the violations of the right to life,
religious freedom, the protection of the family, and the right to health. The alleged unconstitutionality of the RH Law
was based on the encroachment of these constitutional mandates.

Page 11 of 11