University of The Philippines College of Law

University of the Philippines College of Law
Constitutional Law 1 | Professor Charlemagne Yu

Case Digest
TOPIC: Family as a Basic Autonomous Social Institution
DOCTRINE:
CASE Number: 2014819 | April 8, 2014
CASE Name: Imbong vs Ochoa
Ponente: Justice Mendoza
FACTS
RA 10354, the Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act (RH Law),
was enacted by Congress on December 21, 2012.
o The RH Law is an enhancement measure to fortify and make effective
the current laws on contraception, womens health and population
control.
o The rise of the Philippine population prompted the enactment of the RH
Law.
o To make it effective, the RH Law made it mandatory to provide
information on the full range of modern family planning methods,
supplies and services AND for schools to provide reproductive health
education.
o To put teeth to it, the RH Law criminalizes certain acts of refusals to
carry out its mandates.
Fourteen (14) petitions and two (2) petitions-in-intervention now face the
Court regarding this issue.
On March 15, 2013, the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the RH Law
took effect.
The Court issued a Status Quo Ante Order enjoining the effects and
implementation of the RH Law for 120 days and then extended it pending
further orders.
ISSUES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Procedural Issues
W/N the Court may exercise its power of judicial review over the controversy
W/N the issues are ripe for judicial determination
W/N petitioners have locus standi to question the RH Law
W/N the petitions are for declaratory relief, over which Court has no original
jurisdiction
W/N RH Law is violating the one subject/one bill rule
Substantive Issues
1. W/N RA 10354 or the Reproductive Health Law is unconstitutional for violating

the following rights and provisions:
a. The right to life
b. The right to health
c. The right to religious freedom and the right to free speech
d. The family and the right to privacy
e. Freedom of expression and academic freedom
f. The due process clause
g. The equal protection clause
h. The prohibition against involuntary servitude
i. Non-delegation of legislative authority
j. Natural Law
k. The principle of Autonomy of Local Government Units (LGU) and the
Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao (ARMM)
HELD
Procedural
1. Yes, because the Court has duty to review acts of Congress or the Executive
that might be unconstitutional or involve grave abuse of discretion.
2. Yes, since the RH Law and its implementing rules have already taken effect
and that budgetary measures to carry out the law have already been passed.
Also, because there may be medical practitioners or medical providers who
are in danger of being criminally prosecuted under the RH Law for alleged
vague violations.
3. Yes, since the matter is of transcendental importance the rules on standing is
relaxed.
4. No, because the far-reaching implications of the case and the prayers of
injunctive relief allow the Court to consider them as petitions for prohibition
under Rule 65. So the Court still has original jurisdiction.
5. No. While the RH Law does concentrate on contraceptive use and is
principally a population-control measure, it does not violate the one
subject/one bill rule. Reproductive health and responsible parenthood are
interrelated and germane to the overriding objective to control population
growth.
Substantive
I will not be discussing every substantive issue here, only those that pertain directly
to the topic.
a. THE RIGHT TO LIFE No.
The Members of the Court believe that when life begins is a scientific and medical
issue that shouldnt be decided at this stage without proper hearing and evidence.
Nevertheless, the individual Members could express their own views on the matter.
For the ponente, life begins at fertilization.
The Constitution protects the unborn starting from conception. There are two
opposing views in this case: that life begins at fertilization and conception begins
with the implantation of the fertilized ovum in the uterus.
There are three ways to look at the issue: from the plain and legal meaning of the
words, from the intent of the Framers of the Constitution and from the medical
meaning of the words.
Plain and legal meaning traditional definitions of the word conception give
the meaning that life begins at fertilization (the joining of the sperm and the
egg). Even in jurisprudence, the unborn child already has legal personality
(Continental Steel vs Montano).
Intent of the Framers from their deliberations, they refer to conception as
the moment of fertilization. (Villegas, paraphrased) Is the fertilized ovum
alive? Yes, because it is taking nutrients, it is growing and it multiplies itself
through cell division. Is it human? Yes, genetically it has 46 chromosomes
which is only found in human beings. Also, the Framers did not intend for all
contraceptives to be banned, only the contraceptives that acted on the
fertilized ovum. As an example, condoms are okay since they prevent the
sperm and the egg from meeting. If the sperm and egg do not meet, then
there is no recognized human yet.
Medical meaning beginning of pregnancy is when the sperm enters the egg
and forms a viable zygote. The Philippine Medical Association made a
statement to that effect: human being begins immediately at fertilization.
The RH Law is also against abortion, and is constitutional in that respect. Contrary
to the assertions of the respondents, the RH Law mandates protection of the
fertilized ovum from the moment of fertilization, not implantation.
However, the authors of the RH-IRR gravely abused their office when they redefined
abortifacient and contraception with the addition of the word primarily.
Abortifacient is a drug/device that primarily induces abortion etc
Contraception is a drug/device that does not primarily destroy a fertilized
ovum etc.
The inclusion of the word primarily allows for the usage of contraceptives that
only secondarily (as part of its failsafe mechanisms) destroys the fertilized ovum
and/or prevents it from implanting in the uterus.
b. RIGHT TO HEALTH No.
There are many medical risks to using hormonal contraceptives. While the
petitioners do not question contraception and contraceptive use per se, they pray
that status quo under RA 4729 and 5921 be maintained. These laws prohibit the
sale and distribution of contraceptives without the prescription of a duly-licensed
physician.
The Court finds the RH Law does not repeal RA 4729 and 5921, but rather
strengthens them. The safeguards of RA 4729 are still in place that makes sure only
safe contraceptives are made available for public use.
The FDA (Food and Drug Administration) still has to test, evaluate and approve the
drugs in question. Congress cannot determine that the contraceptives will be safe,
legal, non-abortifacient and effective as this is delegated to the FDA. Nor can the
Court decide to declare this unconstitutional since as of the moment no drugs have
been submitted to the FDA.
d. THE FAMILY AND THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY Yes.
The RH Law contains provisions that might wreck the family as a solid social
institution. It bars the husband and/or the father from participating in the decision
making process regarding the child. It also deprives the parents of their authority
over their minor daughter if she is already a parent or she has suffered a
miscarriage.
It permits RH procedures even with just the consent of the spouse who is
undergoing the procedures, which intrudes into the marital privacy and
autonomy and goes against the constitutional safeguards for family as the
basic social institution and Sec 3 of Article XV.
A minor who is a parent or who has had a miscarriage can have access to
family planning services even without consent of her parents or guardian.
This is unconstitutional because parents are mandated by the Constitution to
have the natural and primary right in the rearing of the youth, and the Court
finds that after a miscarriage or when a minor becomes a parent is when the
minor needs her parents/guardians the most.
EXCEPTIONS:
Access to information about family planning services. The Court has no
objection to the minor gaining information regarding how to take care of her
own body and that of her unborn child.
Life threatening cases. In the case of a minor or a spouse, their lives should
not be put at risk or they should not be denied medical care simply for lack of
consent.
IN GENERAL, the Court does not find the RH Law to be unconstitutional insofar as it
seeks to provide access to medically-safe, non-abortifacient, effective, legal,
affordable and quality reproductive health services, methods, devices and supplies.
The Court also maintains that the RH Law is a mere compilation and enhancement
of the prior existing contraceptive and reproductive health laws, but with coercive
measures.
RULING
The petitions are PARTIALLY GRANTED. RA 103524 is NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL,
except with respect to some provisions which are declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

University of The Philippines College of Law

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

University of The Philippines College of Law

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

University of The Philippines College of Law

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

University of the Philippines College of Law

Constitutional Law 1 | Professor Charlemagne Yu

1. W/N RA 10354 or the Reproductive Health Law is unconstitutional for violating

You might also like