IMBONG vs.

OCHOA
G.R. No. 204819 April 8, 2014
MENDOZA, J.

Facts:

Despite calls to withhold, the Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012 (RH Law) was
enacted by Congress. 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 iuris controversy, as presented in fourteen (14)
petitions and two (2) petitions- in-intervention.

Issue:

Whether or not Reproductive Health Law is unconstitutional for violating the right to life

Ruling:

No. It does not violate the right to life and health of the unborn child under Section 12, Article II of the
Constitution which mandates the State to protect both the life of the mother as that of the unborn
child.

The RH Law was enacted to provide Filipinos information on the full range of modern family planning
methods, and to ensure that its objective to provide for the peoples' right to reproductive health be
achieved. Furthermore, RH Law prohibits any drug or device that induces abortion, which induces
the killing or the destruction of the fertilized ovum, as well as any drug or device the fertilized ovum
to reach and be implanted in the mother's womb .

Thus, 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. It was so clear that even the Court cannot interpret it otherwise.