Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 31 views

    RH BILL Presentation1

    Uploaded by

    EveB
    The document summarizes the key issues in the case Imbong v. Ochoa regarding the constitutionality of the Reproductive Health Law in the Philippines. It discusses the petitioners' position that the law violates the right to life of the unborn from conception and allows abortifacients, as well as the respondents' counter that the law aims to provide universal access to family planning and reproductive healthcare without sanctioning abortion. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that the RH Law is constitutional, except for provisions that require health providers to promote RH over their religious objections.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    RH BILL Presentation1

    Uploaded by

    EveB
    31 views18 pages
    The document summarizes the key issues in the case Imbong v. Ochoa regarding the constitutionality of the Reproductive Health Law in the Philippines. It discusses the petitioners' position that the law violates the right to life of the unborn from conception and allows abortifacients, as well as the respondents' counter that the law aims to provide universal access to family planning and reproductive healthcare without sanctioning abortion. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that the RH Law is constitutional, except for provisions that require health providers to promote RH over their religious objections.

    Original Description:

    RH Bill Presentation

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document summarizes the key issues in the case Imbong v. Ochoa regarding the constitutionality of the Reproductive Health Law in the Philippines. It discusses the petitioners' position that the law violates the right to life of the unborn from conception and allows abortifacients, as well as the respondents' counter that the law aims to provide universal access to family planning and reproductive healthcare without sanctioning abortion. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that the RH Law is constitutional, except for provisions that require health providers to promote RH over their religious objections.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    31 views18 pages

    RH BILL Presentation1

    Uploaded by

    EveB
    The document summarizes the key issues in the case Imbong v. Ochoa regarding the constitutionality of the Reproductive Health Law in the Philippines. It discusses the petitioners' position that the law violates the right to life of the unborn from conception and allows abortifacients, as well as the respondents' counter that the law aims to provide universal access to family planning and reproductive healthcare without sanctioning abortion. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that the RH Law is constitutional, except for provisions that require health providers to promote RH over their religious objections.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 18

    ARE YOU FOR IT OR AGAINST IT?

    Team BUHAY or Team Patay?


    This is the RH LAW

    R E P R O D U C T I V E H E A LT H L A W

    PRESENTED BY GROUP 3
    The Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health
    Act of 2012 (R.A. 10354), known as the Reproductive
    Health Law (RH Law) guarantees universal access to
    methods on contraception, fertility control, sexual
    education and maternal care.
    Imbong v. Ochoa et al.

    ! Consolidation of 14 petitions and two petitions-in-


    intervention
    ! Petitioners are assailing the constitutionality of the
    RH Law on various grounds
    Issues
    Procedural Whether the Court Substantive Whether the RH law
    may exercise its power of judicial is unconstitutional
    review over the controversy
    1. Right to Life
    1. Power of Judicial Review
    2. Right to Health
    2. Actual case or controversy
    3. Freedom of Religion and the
    3. Facial Challenge Right to Free Speech
    4. Locus standi 4. The Family
    5. Declaratory Relief 5. Freedom of Expression and
    6. One Subject/One Title Rule Academic Freedom
    6. Due Process
    7. Equal Protection
    8. Involuntary Servitude
    9. Delegation of Authority to the
    FDA
    10. Autonomy of Local
    Governments/ARMM
    Positions/Contentions
    Petitioners Respondents
    1. Violates the right to life 1. Intent of the framers was
    and health of the unborn simply the prohibition of
    child under Sec12, Art.II abortion
    of the Constitution 2. Reproductive health care
    2. Allows access to services, methods, devices
    abortifacients/abortives and supplies accessible to
    effectively sanctions public
    abortion 3. Right to life is not violated
    3. Contraceptive use considering that various
    contravenes natural law studies of the WHO show
    and is an affront to the that life begins from the
    dignity of man implantation of the
    4. Abortifacients are not fertilized ovum
    prohibited (Respondent Lagman)
    When does life begin?
    In jurisprudence, an unborn child has already a
    legal personality

    ! Even a child inside the womb already has life. No


    less than the Constitution recognizes the life of the
    unborn from conception, that the State must protect
    equally with the life of the mother. If the unborn
    already has life, then the cessation thereof even prior
    to the child being delivered, qualifies as death.
    - Continental Steel v. Hon. Accredited Montano (G.R. 182836)
    When is the moment of
    conception?

    LIFE BEGINS AT IMPLANTATION


    OR LIFE BEGINS AT FERTILIZATION?
    When does life begin?
    Term: Conception

    Plain and legal meaning: Blacks Law Dict:


    Fecundation of the
    Life begins at female ovum by the male
    fertilization spermatozoon

    Medical meanings/
    Websters 3rd Intl. textbooks
    Dictionary:
    Fertilization that Philippine Medical
    results in a new entity Association
    Intent of the Framers

    Records of the Constitutional Convention shed light on


    the intention of the Framers re: the term
    conception used in Sec. 12, Art. II of the
    Constitution.

    From the deliberations, it was emphasized that the


    State shall provide equal protection to both mother
    and unborn child at the earliest opportunity of life,
    that is, upon fertilization.
    All that discussion also mean that

    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 female ovum (and
    those that are deemed non-abortive) are
    constitutionally permissible.
    Re: abortion

    The intent of the framers of the Constitution for


    protecting the life of the unborn child was to prevent
    Legislature from passing a measure to prevent
    abortion. The RH Law is in line with this
    intent and actually prohibits abortion.
    How did the SC decide on this?

    THE MOMENT OF CONCEPTION


    IS RECKONED FROM
    FERTILIZATION.
    SC Decision - R.A. 10354 is not
    unconstitutional

    EXCEPT FOR THE FF:


    PROVISIONS WHICH ARE
    UNCONSTITUTIONAL

    You might also like