....

-lJ
.'\'
-----
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
SUPREME COURT
2Jl:J Fc.s 11,
Manila
REYNALDO J. ECHAVEZ, M.D.,
JACQUELINE H. KING, M.D.,
CYNTHIA T. DOMINGO, M.D., and
JOSEPHINE MILLADO-LUMITAO,
M.D., collectively known as
DOCTORS FOR and
ANTHONY PEREZ, MICHAEL
ANTHONY G. MAPA, CARLOS
ANTONIO PALAD, WILFREDO
JOSE, CLAIRE NAVARRO, ANNA
COSIO, and GABRIEL DY LIACCO
collectively known as FILIPINOS
FOR LIFE,
Petitioners,
-versus-
HON. PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR.,
Executive Secretary; HON.
FLORENCIO B. ABAD, Secretary of
the Department of Budget and
Management; HON. ENRIQUE T.
ONA, Secretary of the Department
of Health; HON. ARMIN A.
LUISTRO, Secretary of the
Department of Educaiton; and
HON. MANUEL A. ROXAS,
Secretary of the Department of
Interior and Local Government.
Respondents.
x-------------------------------------------x
PETITION
SUPREME COURT
OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT
EN BANC
RECEIVED
FEB 1 4 2013

For: Declaration of
Unconstitutionality of
R.A. 10354with Prayer
for Issuance of a
Temporary Restraining
Order, Status Quo Ante
Order, and/or Writ of
Preliminary Mandatory
Injunction
COME NOW THE PETITIONERS by the undersigned counsel, and
unto this Honorable Court, respectfully allege:
.........
.iti

THE PARTIES
Petitioners
1. The first group of Petitioners are all Filipinos, taxpayers and
members of the medical profession and other doctorates who all belong
to the organization known as Doctors For Life, either as officers, andjor
member of its Board of Trustees. They may be served with notices and
processes through their undersigned counsel with office address at Unit
1903-A, West Tower, Philippine Stock Exchange Center, Exchange Road,
Ortigas Center, Pasig City.
2. The second group of Petitioners are Filipinos, taxpayers and
professionals, and employees from all walks of life, who all belong to the
organization known as Filipinos For Life, either as officers, and/or
members of its Board of Trustees. They may be served with notices and
processes through their undersigned counsel with office address at Unit
1903-A, West Tower, Philippine Stock Exchange Center, Exchange Road,
Ortigas Center, Pasig City.
3. These two sets of Petitioners, albeit having common
members and having common interests, are two different personalities
hence the separate Verification and Certification against Forum-
Shopping.
Respondents
4. Respondents are public officials whose duties as heads of
their respective departments include the implementation of the
provisions of the law assailed herein.
5. Respondent Hon. Paquito N. Ochoa, Jr. is the Executive
Secretary and can be served with notices and processes at his office in
the Office of the President of the Philippines, Malacafiang Palace, City of
Manila.
6. Respondent Hon. Florencio B. Abad is the Secretary of the
Department of Budget and Management and can be served with notices
and processes at his office in Malacafiang Palace, City of Manila.
7. Respondent Hon. Enrique T. Ona, M.D. is the Secretary of the
Department of Health and can be served with notices and processes at
his office in San Lazaro Compound, City of Manila.
8. Respondent Hon. Armin A. Luistro, FSC is the Secretary of
the Department of Education and can be served with notices and
processes at his office in DepEd Complex, Meralco Avenue, Pasig City.
9. Respondent Hon. Manuel A. Roxas, II is the Secretary of the
Department of Internal and Local Government and can be served with
notices and processes at his office in EDSA cor. Mapagmahal St., Diliman,
Quezon City.
I

"'
I ~
i
10. Respondents can also be collectively served with notices
and processes through their counsel, the Solicitor General, with office
address 139 Amorsolo Street, Legaspi Village, Makati City.
PREFATORY STATEMENT
11. It is a basic tenet in Philippine Law that our Government is
inherently imbued with three great powers. These powers are
otherwise known as Police Power, the Power of Eminent Domain and
the Power of Taxation. Thus, every law that is passed is an exercise of
either of the three aforementioned powers.
12. However, not every law that is passed is a valid exercise of
Governmental power. In order for a law to be valid, it must pass certain
tests provided for by law and jurisprudence, so as not to trample upon
the Civil and Political rights of the citizenry that are guaranteed by the
Bill of Rights in our 1987 Constitution.
13. This Petition is filed upon the belief that R.A. 10354 or The
Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012 is
violative of the 1987 Constitution.
14. The proponents of RA 1354 claim that the implementation
of the law will prevent elective abortions because they have a misguided
belief that birth control and family planning will improve the quality of
life of mothers and children.
15. But actual experience proves the contrary. A study
conducted in Spain shows that despite the use of condoms and birth
control pills by two-thousand (2,000) women over the span of ten (10)
years, the incidence of elective abortions doublectz.
There can only be one explanation for this. The overdependence
of individuals on contraceptives promotes irresponsible, reckless and
imprudent sexual behavior. In the event of failure or misuse of the
contraceptive method, unwanted pregnancies occur, forcing women to
turn to elective abortion to terminate such unwanted pregnancies.
NATURE OF THE PETITION
16. This is a Petition assailing the constitutionality of R.A.
10354 or The Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of
2012, in relation to the Petitioners' and the public's rights, as will be
discussed hereunder
2
Trends in the use of contraceptive methods and voluntary interruption of Pregnancy in the Spanish
population during 1997-2007; Jose Luis Duenas et al; Contraception, vol 83, Issue 1, pages 82-87, January
2011.
j.
; ~
LOCUS STAND I
17. The Petitioners are two entities namely Doctors for Life and
Filipinos for Life, composed of medical practitioners and concerned
citizens, respectively. They are suing in their capacities as tax-paying
citizens. They feel that there is a clear and present danger to their rights
by the passage of RA 10354. They also assert that they will be
prejudiced by the disbursement of public funds for the purposes of
fulfilling the mandates of RA 10354.
DISCUSSION
R.A. 10354 violates the Doctrine
of Benevolent Neutrality under
the Freedom of Religion Clause
18. Our constitution respects the religion of the citizens in a
sense that no law shall encroach upon religious practices. Section 5 of
Article III of the 1987 Philippine Constitution lays down the non-
establishment clause as follows:
No law shall be made respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free
exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship,
without discrimination or preference, shall forever be
allowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise
of civil or political rights. [Emphasis supplied]
19. Explaining the principle of non-establishment of religion,
the Supreme Court said in the case of Estrada v. Escritor,A.M. No. P-02-
1651, 4 August 2003, that: "[G]overnment action, including its
proscription of immorality ... must have a secular purpose."
20. The interpretation of the Philippine Constitution's
"Freedom of Religion" clause is that it prescribes, not strict,
butbenevolent neutrality. "The benevolent neutrality or
accommodation, is buttressed by the view that the wall of separation is
meant to protect the church from the state.
4
" It recognizes that
government must pursue its secular goals and interests but at the same
time strive to uphold religious liberty to the greatest extent possible
within flexible constitutional limits. Thus, although the morality
contemplated by laws is secular, benevolent neutrality could allow for
accommodation of morality based on religion, provided it does not
offend compelling State intere?tS.
21. The provisions of this case, particularly Sections 9, 14, and
17, are clearly too secular that it disregards the religion of Filipinos.
Provisions, as will be discussed hereunder, authorizing the use of
4
Estrada v. Escitor, A.M. No. P-02-1651, 4 August 2003
Jl
i
t
1
" .
contraceptives with abortive effects, mandatory sex education,
mandatory pro-bono reproductive health services to indigents among
others, encroach upon the religious freedom of those upon whom they
are required.Therefore, it runs counter to the Constitution, because as
ruled by the Supreme Court in the case of Estrada v. Esctritor, our
Constitution prescribes benevolent neutrality, not a strict one.
Thus our laws must be interpreted such that they be considered taking
into consideration its effect on people's religion. The laws must protect
religion, and not disregard the way R.A. 10354 has.
R.A. 10354 violates the
Constitutional proscription
against Involuntary Servitude
22. The Constitution also protects the freedom of an individual
from doing an act which he does not intend to do. Section 18 (2) of
Article III provides:
No involuntary servitude in any form shall exist except as a
punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been
duly convicted.
23. Involuntary Servitude has been defined as "a condition of
compulsory service or labor performed by one person, against his will,
for the benefit of another person due to force, threats, intimidation or
other similar means of coercion and compulsion directed against him."
7
24. However, some provisions of R.A. 10354 run counter to the
Constitutional provision above-mentioned. Paragraph 3 of Section 23 of
R.A. 10354 provides:
(3) Refuse to extend quality health care services and
information on account of the person's marital status,
gender, age, religious convictions, personal circumstances,
or nature of work: Provided, That the conscientious
objection of a health care service provider based on hisjher
ethical or religious beliefs shall be respected; however, the
conscientious objector shall immediatelv refer the person
seeking such care and services to anOther health care
service provider within the same facility or one which is
conveniently accessible: Provided, further, That the person
is not in an emergency condition or serious case as defined
in Republic Act No. 8344, which penalizes the refusal of
hospitals and medical clinics to administer appropriate
initial medical treatment and support in emergency and
serious cases [emphasis supplied].
25. The foregoing provisions are examples that this law not
only violates the Doctrine of Benevolent Neutrality, it also compels
individuals and institutions to provide and referreproductive health
7
Lectric Law Library's Lexicon.
c
I
.
-
'
J
t
t
services. Although it mentions that ethical or religious beliefs shall be
respected, the requirement to immediately refer the matter to another
health care service provider is still considered a compulsion of these
practices on the health care service provider who objected. In turn, it
also prohibits the free exercise of religion, in case their religion
prohibits such kind of service as a practice. Worse, non-performance of
the required actions compels individuals and entities concerned to
follow under pain of legal sanctions.
26. Another provision of R.A. 10354 which compels individuals,
medical practitioners in particular, to do a compulsory service against
their will is as follows:
Pro Bono Services for Indigent Women. - Private and
nongovernment reproductive healthcare service providers
including, but not limited to, gynecologists and
obstetricians, are encouraged to provide at least forty-
eight ( 48) hours annually of reproductive health
services. ranging from providing information and
education to rendering medical services. free of charge
to indigent and low-income patients as identified through
the NHTS- PR and other government measures of identifying
marginalization, especially to pregnant adolescents. The
forty-eight ( 48) hours annual pro bono services shall be
included as a prerequisite in the accreditation under
the PhilHealth.s [Emphasis supplied]
The law above-mentioned does not only mandate Involuntary Servitude
but it is a form of harassment on practitioners of the Medical Profession
as well.
27. Worse, R.A. 10354 provides for penalties for violations in
case of breach of any of the its prohibited acts:
Penalties. - Any violation of this Act or commission of the
foregoing prohibited acts shall be penalized by
imprisonment ranging from one (1) month to six ( 6)
months or a fine of Ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00) to
One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00), or both such
fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the competent
court: Provided, That, if the offender is a public officer,
elected or appointed, hejshe shall also suffer the penalty of
suspension not exceeding one (1) year or removal and
forfeiture of retirement benefits depending on the gravity of
the offense after due notice and hearing by the appropriate
body or agency.
If the offender is a juridical person, the penalty shall be
imposed upon the president or any responsible officer. An
offender who is an alien shall, after service of sentence, be
deported immediately without further proceedings by the
Bureau of Immigration. If the offender is a pharmaceutical
8
Section 17 of R.A. 10354
..
t
company, its agent and/or distributor, their license or
permit to operate or conduct business in the Philippines
shall be perpetually revoked, and a fine triple the amount
involved in the violation shall be imposed. [Emphasis
supplied]
28. For compelling medical practitioners and medical
institutions to perform actions which they do not intend to perform
absent the legal sanctions, this provision must be struck down for
violating the constitutional provision on involuntary servitude.
The Titleofthe Law Embraces
More ThanOne Subject
29. According to Section 26, Paragraph 1 of Article VI of the
1987 Philippine Constitution, every bill passed by Congress shall
embrace only one subject which shall be expressed in the title thereof.
9
30. However, the title of R.A. 10354 is "The Responsible
Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012 ".Clearly, such title
shows two subjects - "Responsible Parenthood"and "Reproductive
Health". Since these two subjects are separable, there is no reason to
cluster them in just one law.
31. In fact, these two subjects fall under two (2) different
provisiOns of the Constitution. The first one, "The Responsible
Parenthood" falls under any of these provisions:
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. The 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.1o
Section 2. The State shall:
-XXX-
2. Establish and maintain, a system of free public education
in the elementary and high school levels. Without limiting
the natural rights of parents to rear their children,
elementary education is compulsory for all children of
school age;
11
Section 3. The State shall defend:
9
Section 26 of Article VI of the 1987 Constitution
10
Article II Section 12 of the Constitution
11
Article XIV Section 2 of the Constitution
7
1. The right of spouses to found a family in accordance
with their religious convictions and the demands of
responsible parenthood;1z
32. The second one, the "Reproductive Health'' falls under any
of these provisions: I
Section 15. The State shall protect and promote the right to 1.
health of the people and instill health consciousness among
them.
13
Section 11. The State shall adopt an integrated and
comprehensive approach to health development which shall
endeavor to make essential goods, health and other social
services available to all the people at affordable cost. There
shall be priority for the needs of the under-privileged, sick,
elderly, disabled, women, and children. The State shall
endeavor to provide free medical care to paupers.1
4
Section 12. The State -shall establish and maintain an
effective food and drug regulatory system and undertake
appropriate health, manpower development, and research,
responsive to the country's health needs and problems.
1
s
33. Falling under two different provisions of the Constitution, it
is clear that these two phrases cover different rights. As such, they
should be covered by different laws as well.
R.A. 10354 violates a person's
Right to Life
34. The Philippine Constitution treasures the life of every
person as seen in Section 1 of Article III of the Constitution:
No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property
without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied
the equal protection of the laws.
3 5. Not only does the Constitution protect the life of every
person who is already born, but it also protects those still unborn:
Section 12 of Article II. 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. The natural and primary right and duty of
parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and
12
Artivle XV Section 3 of the Constitution
13
Article II Section 15 of the Constitution
14
Article XIII Section 11 of the Constitution
15
Article XIII Section 12 of the Constitution
8
I
.
.
.
the development of moral character shall receive the
support of the Government. [emphasis and underscoring
supplied]
36. However, some provisions of the assailed law actually
destroy instead of protect life. Section 9 of R.A. 103 54 states:
Section 9: The Philippine National Drug Formulary and
System and Family Planning Supplies. - The National Drug
Formulary shall include hormonal contraceptives,
intrauterine devices, injectables and other safe, legal, non-
abortificient and effective family planning products and
supplies. [emphasis supplied]
3 7. The foregoing provision is a clear contrast to the provisions
of the Bill of Rights on the right to life for reasons stated hereunder:
Life begins at Fertilization
38. Life begins at fertilization. Historically, the terms
conception and fertilization have been virtually synonymous, both
referring to the very beginning of human life (Alcorn, 2007). Reputable
embryologist and a lot of other authors like England, Moore, Langman,
Sadler agree with this scientific fact.
39. Fertilization has been defined as the process of uniting the
sperm from the male, and the egg from the female resulting into one cell
called the zygote.1
6
It is well known fact that in the creation of a human
being, an ovum or oocyte unite with a sperm or spermatozoa. The ovum
has life, but one that is genetically identified with and dependent on the
mother. Hence, it cannot reproduce on its own. Its life is 12 to 24 hours
and if it does not get fertilized, it dies.
40. Similarly, the sperm also has life but one that is genetically
and identified with and dependent on the father. It cannot reproduce on
its own and its life ends after ejaculation unless it is situated in a warm
and moist area where it can survive for about 3-5 days. Once the ovum
and the sperm meet, this is now what we call a zygote, a single cell
which possesses self-sustaining life, similar to what all life-forms have.
Having this "self-sustaining life", it shall be considered a human being! If
both ovum and sperm already have life on their own even before they
unite, what more when they unite? If that is not called life, then what is
it?
Pill is a form of Abortifacient
41. As aforementioned, the Constitution protects the life of the
mother as well as the life of the unborn. Consequently, Section 2 of
R.A.10354 provides that " ... The State also recognizes and guarantees
15
The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology by Moore, K. and T.V.N. Persaud. 1998. (6th
ed.), W.B. Saunders Company, Philadelphia. (pp 2-18)
9
.. f
",-,w;,

,a'

.:;.c;,>fi,;'





the promotion and equal protection of the welfare and rights of
children, the youth, and the unborn." The priority given to life is also
expounded when the law provides that the " ... State likewise guarantees
universal access to medically-safe, non-abortifacient, effective, legal,
affordable, and quality reproductive health care services, methods,
devices, supplies which do not prevent the implantation of fertilized
"
ovum ...
42. Pursuant to the above-mentioned, Section 4 of R.A. 10354
defines Abortifacient in the law as follows:
SEC. 4. Definition of Terms. - For the purpose of this Act, the
following terms shall be defined as follows:
(a) Abortifacient refers to 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.
43. The assailed law also provided a list of allowable drugs and
devices for the public to use as part of "family planning". The law
provides as follows:
SEC. 9. The Philippine National Drug Formulary System and
Family Planning Supplies. - The National Drug Formulary
shall include horn1onal contraceptives, intrauterine
devices, injectables and other safe, legal, non-abortifacient
and effective family planning products and supplies.
(emphasis and underscoring supplied]
However, this list does not conform to the constitutional provision
above-mentioned. Not all the drugs that were listed in the law are non-
abortifacients.
44. The primary mechanisms of oral contraceptives are to
inhibit ovulation and produce a thick mucus hostile for sperm
penetration. However, if it is not able to prevent ovulation, it has
another mode of action which is, modification of endometrium
preventing implantation (American Society of Reproductive Medicine in
their publication Fertility and Sterility, March 2008).
45. All the measures which impair the viability of the zygote at
anytime between the instant of fertilization and the completion of labor,
constitute, procedures for inducing abortion (US Dept of Health).
46. Since the pill is a contraceptive, it can cause abortion. No
drug works 100/o. The researches of Dr. Van de Vange and Grimes &co
workers have shown that even if the woman is on the pill, with good
compliance, breakthrough ovulation can occur which can go as high as
34.28 ovulations per 100-woman years. If this happens, and the woman
is sexually active, there can be fertilization, but no implantation since
the pill had destroyed the endometrium which will not be receptive to
the implanting blastocyst, abortion results
1n
I
t
t
I
Intrauterine Device is an
abortifacient agent
4 7. Section 9 of R.A. 103 54 also classifies intrauterine devices
as safe, legal and non-abortifacient products. However, that is not really
the case.
48. IUD acts as both contraceptive and abortifacient agent. It
induces an inflammatory reaction which will result in a spermicidal
effect (contraceptive) but it also acts by preventing the embryo from
implanting, not by preventing contraception. In this instance, it is
therefore an abortifacient. (Dr. Jerome Lejeune, Fundamental Genetics,
University of Paris).
49. The Reproductive system, Principles of Anatomy &
Physiology, Tortora and Grabowski (9th edition c 2000; Chapter 28,
p.1009) also provides the same description of its effect - IUDs cause
changes in the uterine lining that prevent implantation of the
fertilization ovum.
SO. Having the same effect as pills, this provision should also be
stricken down as violative of both the Constitution, and the Section 2 of
the law itself
The law not only violates the right to
life of the unborn, but endangers the
life of the mother as well
51. Both the life of the mother and the unborn are protected by
the Constitution.l
7
However, the law subject of this petition allows
women to use certain drugs that are not only abortifacients, but also
cause long-term illnesses to women.
52. A monograph released last year (2011) by a working group
under the WHO's International Agency for research on Cancer (IARC)
made an "overall evaluation" that "oral combined estrogen-
progesterone contraceptives are carcinogenic to humans." The 2011
report classified the pill as a "Group 1" carcinogen, which means the
highest level of evidence of cancer risk. "There is sufficient evidence in
humans for the carcinogenicity of oral combined estrogen-progesterone
contraceptive. Oral combined estrogen-progesterone contraceptives
cause cancer of the breast, in-situ and invasive cancer of the uterine
cervix, and cancer of the liver," said the 40-page section on oral
contraceptive pills of the WHO-IARC monograph.
53. On breast cancer, the Mayo Clinic, consistently considered
as one of the best hospitals in the world, published in 2006, an article
17
Section 12 of Article II, 1987 Constitution
11
~ . ,
I
.
t
entitled "Oral Contraceptive Use as a Risk Factor for Premenopausal
Breast Cancer: A The meta-analysis, a study of world
scientific literature on this issue, concluded that use of the pill is linked
with statistically significant association with pre-menopausal breast
cancer. The association was 44/o over baseline in women who have
been pregnant and took the pill before their first pregnancy.
54. On cervical cancer, a systemic review of literature of 2003
published at the Lancet, one of the leading medical journals in the
world, stated: "long duration use of hormonal contraceptives is
associated with an increased risk of cervical cancer".
55. On heart attacks, a 2005 meta-analysis at The Journal of
Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism stated that "a rigorous meta-
analysis of the literature suggests that current use of low-dose OCs
significantly increases the risk of both cardiac and vascular arterial
events".
56. On stroke, one of the leading scientific journals of the
American Heart Association, published a study, precisely titled as
STROKE in 2002, concluded that indeed the pill confers "the risk of first
ischemic stroke".
57. Considering the foregoing long-term effects of
contraceptives on women, the law allowing the use of such
contraceptives clearly violate one of the most important tenets of the
Constitution. The drugs allowed by the law will not only harm the
unborn, but endanger the life of the mother as well.
58. Furthermore, the assailed law allows midwives to both
prescribe and dispense drugs. The law states:
SEC. 5. Hiring of Skilled Health Professionals for
Maternal Health Care and Skilled Birth Attendance. -
The LGUs shall endeavor to hire an adequate number of
nurses, midwives and other skilled health professionals for
maternal health care and skilled birth attendance to achieve
an ideal skilled health professional-to-patient ratio taking
into consideration DOH targets: Provided, That people in
geographically isolated or highly populated and depressed
areas shall be provided the same level of access to health
care: Provided, further, That the national government shall
provide additional and necessary funding and other
necessary assistance for the effective implementation of this
provision.
For the purposes of this Act, midwives and nurses shall be .
allowed to administer lifesaving drugs such as. but not
limited to. oxytocin and magnesium sulfate, in
accordance with the guidelines set by the DOH, under
emergency conditions and when there are no physicians
available: Provided, That they are properly trained and
certified to administer these lifesaving drugs. [Emphasis
supplied]
I
'
'
I
"''-!
59. However, according to the Pharmacy Law
1
B and Medical
Law
19
, only medical practitioners can prescribe medicines, and only
pharmacists can dispense the same.
60. This law, by indirectly amending the provisions of previous
laws, endangers the lives of women. The authority to prescribe
medicines and dispense medicines is given solely to medical
practitioners and pharmacists respectively due to their training and
expertise. Hence, discrimination aside, if the above authority is
extended to midwives who are not that experienced and knowledgeable
in complex effects of medicines, the lives of their patients will be put in
jeopardy.
It authorizes the State to control
the private education sector,
medical industry and employers
61. The Constitution also gives primacy to education. Section 5
(2) of Article III of the Constitution even provides that "Academic
Freedom shall be enjoyed in all institutions of higher learning".
62. The case of Mercado v. AMA G.R. No. 183572, characterizes
Academic Freedom as follows:
The institutional academic freedom includes the right of the
school or college to decide and adopt its aims and
objectives, and to determine how these objections can best
be attained, free from outside coercion or interference, save
possibly when the overriding public welfare calls for some
restraint. The essential freedoms subsumed in the term
"academic freedom" encompass the freedom of the school
or college to determine for itself: (1) who may teach; ill
what may be taught; (3) how lessons shall be taught; and
( 4) who may be admitted to study. [emphasis supplied]
63. However, a provision of RA. 10354talks about including
Reproductive Health as part of the school curriculum:
SEC. 14. Age- and Development-Appropriate Reproductive
Health Education. - The State shall provide age- and
development-appropriate reproductive health
education to adolescents which shall be taught by
adequately trained teachers informal and nonformal
educational system and integrated in relevant subjects
such as, but not limited to, values formation; knowledge and
skills in self-protection against discrimination; sexual abuse
and violence against women and children and other forms
of gender based violence and teen pregnancy; physical,
18
Republic Act No. 5921, "An act regulating the practice of Pharmacy and setting standards of
Pharmaceutical education in the Philippines and for other purposes"
19
Republic Act No. 2382, "The Medical Act of 1959"
1 ~
''
''
'

J;
t
.
'
I
t
f
I
social and emotional changes in adolescents; women's
rights and children's rights; responsible teenage behavior;
gender and development; and responsible parenthood:
Provided, That flexibility in the formulation and adoption of
appropriate course content, scope and methodology in each
educational level or group shall be allowed only after
consultations with parents-teachers-community
associations, school officials and other interest groups. The
Department of Education (DepED) shall formulate a
curriculum which shall be used by public schools and may
be adopted by private schools. [Emphasis supplied]
64. Such provision is clearly contrary to the tenets of the
Constitution on Academic Freedom. Hence, school owners are
compelled to teach a subject that they feel might not be suitable to be
taught to their students yet they have to comply, under pain of legal
sanctions. The law does not only violate Academic Freedom, it also
mandates involuntary servitude on private school owners and teachers.
It establishes a monopoly system
65. Fair trade is also regulated and protected by the
Constitution. Section 19 of Article XII of the 1987 Philippine
Constitution provides:
The State shall rei:ulate or prohibit monopolies when
the public interest so requires. No combinations in restraint
of trade or unfair competition shall be allowed. [Emphasis
supplied]
66. The Supreme Courtelaborates the meaning of monopoly as
follows:
The simplest form of monopoly exists when there is only
one seller or producer of a product or service for which
there are no substitutes. In its more complex form,
monopoly is defined as the joint acquisition or
maintenance by members of a conspiracy, formed for
that purpose, of the power to control and dominate trade
and commerce in a commodity to such an extent that they
are able, as a group, to exclude actual or potential
competitors from. the field, accompanied with the
intention and purpose to exercise such power.zo [Emphasis
supplied]
6 7. Contrary to the constitutional provision protecting
healthy competition, Section 9 of R.A. 10354 provides:
SEC. 9. The Philippine National Drug Formulary System and
Family Planning Supplies. - The National Drug Formulary
zacarcia v. Corona, G.R. No. 132451, 17 December 1999
1 11
I
I
shall include hormonal contraceptives, intrauterine devices,
injectables and other safe, legal, non-abortifacient and
effective family planning products and supplies. The
Philippine National Drug Formulary System (PNDFS) shall
be observed in selecting drugs including family planning
supplies that will be included or removed from the Essential
Drugs List (EDL) in accordance with existing practice and in
consultation with reputable medical associations in the
Philippines. For the purpose of this Act, any product or
supply included or to be included in the EDL must have a
certification from the FDA that said product and supply is
made available on the condition that it is not to be used as
an abortifacient.
These products and supplies shall also be included in the
regular purchase of essential medicines and supplies of all
national hospitals: Provided, further, That the foregoing
offices shall not purchase or acquire by any means
emergency contraceptive pills, postcoital pills,
abortifacients that will be used for such purpose and their
other forms or equivalent.
68. The foregoing provision shows an early sign of monopoly.
Having a certain product declared to be purchased by the government
as a necessity,private businesses and industries producing these
supplies will benefit greatly. Although it may not be apparent now, long-
term implementation of this law might lead to government partnerships
with suppliers in order to achieve a constant supply, lower prices, or
some other seemingly valid reason. Hence, that clearly is a violation of
the 1987 Philippine Constitution on the prevention of monopolies. In
effect, this law assists certain business to thrive at the expense of the
public.
ALLEGATIONS IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION FOR THE
ISSUANCE OF A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER.
STATUS QUO ANTE ORDER. AND/OR WRIT OF
PRELIMINARY MANDATORY INJUNCTION
69. Petitioner incorporates and repleads the allegations of the
foregoing paragraphs insofar as they are relevant and material hereto;
70. It is of public knowledge that the law was signed by the
President late last year and is currently being implemented. Should the
instant Petition be not timely resolved, there is a great possibility that
physicians everywhere will be subject to the involuntary servitude,
schools will be forced to offer sex education even if it is contrary to their
religion, contraceptives with abortive effects will proliferate the market,
public funds will be used to buy contraceptives which actually curtail
life, and in general, the public perception on abortion and sex will
change.
'
l
I
J},'
I
1, .. '.
,,
71. As adverted to, there are several provisiOns in this law :',
which violate the Constitution. Since the violation of the Constitution is
duly proven, it is but proper that this law be struck down for being
unconstitutional.
72. Unless a temporary restraining order, status quo ante order,
andjor writ of preliminary injunction is immediately issued ex-parte,
Public Respondent will continue to implement the assailed law resulting
in the proliferation of abortive contraceptives, mandatory sex education
in schools, and disbursement of public funds for contraceptives. Hence,
grave and irreparable injury will thus be suffered by Petitioners.
73. Petitioners are ready and willing to post a bond in the
amount to be fixed by this Honorable Court to the effect that Petitioners
will pay all damages which might sustain by reason of the injunction, if
this Honorable Court should finally decide that Petitioners are not
entitled thereto.
FROM the foregoing. it is clear that R.A. 10354 is flawed which is
not only violative of basic Constitutional principles, but is
ultimately detrimental to our society.
7 4. First, it violates the Doctrine of Benevolent Neutrality under
the Freedom of Religion Clause which is safeguarded by our Country's
Bill of Rights. Although no law should establish or promote any religion,
the law should also accommodate the religious beliefs of individuals and
not force them to act against their beliefs. R.A. 10354 completely
disregards the fact that majority of the Filipino people are devout
Roman Catholics, who firmly believe in procreation and are do not
subscribe to the belief that pregnancies should be controlled or
prevented.
75. Second, R.A. 10354 violates our constitutionally-protected
right against involuntary servitude. By mandating that health care
services cannot be denied to any person and in case of refusal due to
religious beliefs or ethics, the health care provider must refer the patient
to another health care provider. This, in our belief, is a clear case of
involuntary servitude, because health care providers must not be
coerced into providing such services to patients who are asking them to
do something immoral, even if it is legal. Demanding that health care
providers must provide pro bono reproductive health services for
indigent women is not only a form of involuntary servitude, but is a
form of harrassment as well, as .it imposes an additional burden on
doctors who do not specialize in gynecology and obstetrics to go beyond
their field of specialization.
76. Third, R.A. 10354 violates the basic Constitutional principle
that laws "shall embrace only one subject which shall be expressed in the
title thereof'. R.A. 10354 embraces two subjects, namely: Responsible
1
I
I
I
','
\!1;;
Parenthood and Reproductive Health. The law covers a very broad
range of subjects and thus we believe that it should be struck down for
being violative of this Constitutional provision.
77. Fourth, R.A. 10354 violates the individual's basic right to
life. The Constitution could not be clearer in saying that the State "shall
equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from
conception", as provided for by Section 12, Article II of the 1987
Constitution.
The Constitution itself says that the right of the individual is
protected from the moment of conception. Expert embryologists and
scientists agree that conception begins at the moment of fertilization
(Alcorn 2007). Thus, medicines such as hormonal contraceptives,
intrauterine devices, injectables and even birth control pills, which
prevent or impair fertilization are considered abortifacient.
Not only does the law promote the destruction of the life of the
unborn, it also endangers the life of the mother as well. Studies show
that birth control pills, which are mandated by R.A. 10354 to be made
readily available to all Filipino women, are carcinogenic to humans.
Simply put, women who take birth control pills, specifically those that
contain estrogen and progesterone concoctions are highly at risk for
cancer among other illnesses.
78. Fifth, R.A. 10354 is detrimental to the growth of our Nation
because it allows the State to control the private education sector and
medical industry. For example, by making it mandatory for
Reproductive Health to be part of every school's curriculum, the State
violates schools' academic freedom by controlling what can be taught in
such schools.
79. Lastly, R.A. 10354 encourages the establishment on
monopolies, which is not only unconstitutional but stunts the growth of
the manufacturers and service providers in the Medical Industry. R.A.
10354 makes hormonal contraceptives, intrauterine devices, injectables
and other safe, legal, non-abortifacient and effective family planning
products and supplies essential drugs and thus producers of these
products are already given an advantage over all others, thereby
contributing to the uneven distribution of wealth in our Country.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court to
exercise its power to:
1. Pending resolution of this Petition, a temporary restraining
order, status quo ante order, and/ or a writ of preliminary injunction be
issued compelling Public Respondents to refrain from implementing
R.A. 10354;
2 After due proceedings:
I
'
a. Declare the unconstitutionality of R.A. 10354;
otherwise known as the "The Responsible Parenthood and
Reproductive Health Act of 2012";
b. Restrain the Departments of Budget and Management,
and Finance, and the Bureau of Treasury from disbursing any
funds for the purpose of implementing R.A. 10354;
c. Restrain the other Public Respondents from
implementing the provisions and mandates of the R.A. 10354.
Other reliefs, just and equitable under the premises, are likewise
prayed for.
By:
14 February 2013, Pasig City for Manila.
CALLEJA LAW OFFICE
Counsel for Petitioners
Unit 1903-A, West Tower, PSE Centre,
Exchange Road, Ortigas Center,
Pasig City, 1605
Tel. nos. 633.6113 I 635.2307
Email: calleja.lawofc@yahoo.com
. CALL A
IBP No. 924259 I 1.10.1 I Albay
PTR No.8 38831 I 1.10.13 I Pasig City
Roll of Attorneys No. 39488
MCLE Exemption No.IV-000305
September 28, 2012
RAMO A F. CEDRO
IBP No. 924251 I 1.10.13 I QC
PTR No. 8439483 I 1.11.13 I Pasig City
Roll of Attorneys No. 54702
MCLE Compliance No. IV-0007105
August 2, 2012
i
I
I
'!'
.
.
'
'
'
'

I
[1;;:1
~ 1 4 ? : '
I
COPY FURNISHED:
Hon. Paquito N. Ochoa
Executive Secretary
Office of the President of the Philippines
Malacafiang Palace, City of Manila
Hon. Florencio B. Abad
Secretary
Department of Budget and Management
Malacafiang, City of Manila
Hon. Enrique T. Ona, M.D.
Secretary
Department of Health
San Lazaro Compound, City of Manila
Hon. Armin A. Luistro, FSC
Secretary
Department of Education
DepEd Complex, Meralco Avenue, Pasig City
Hon. Manuel A. Roxas II
Secretary
Department of Internal and Local Government
EDSA cor. Mapagmahal St.,
Diliman, Quezon City
Hon. Francis H. Jardeleza
Solicitor General
139 Amorsolo Street
Legaspi Village, Makati City
EXPLANATION
In compliance with the Rules of Civil Procedure, the undersigned
counsel states that due to distance, time, and manpower constraints,
personal filing and service of this Petition was not resorted to and
instead, copies of the same were sent by registered mail pursuant to
said Rules as per attached registry receipts.
'f
I
I
' ~ -i
VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION
OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING
We, REYNALDO ]. ECHAVEZ, M.D. with postal address at# 770 Kings Road Highway
Hills, Mandaluyong City 1550, JOSE S. SANDE]AS, PhD, with postal address at #131 Narra
St. Ayala Alabang Village, Muntinglupa City, JACQUELINE H. KING, M.D. with postal
address at# 217 M. Paterno Street San Juan City 1500, CYNTHIA T. DOMINGO, MD. with
postal address at #20 Villegas Street San Francisco Del Monte, Quezon City MM, JOSEPHINE
MILLAI>O-LUMITAO, M.I>. with postal address at # B-Phase 8 Duval Town Homes,
Maunawain St., Quezon City, collectively known as DOCTORS FOR LIFE, all of legal age,
Filipino, and tax payers, after having been duly sworn in accordance with law, hereby
depose and state that:
1. We are the Petitioners in this case;
2. We have caused the preparation and filing of the foregoing Petition, read its
allegations and attest that the same are true and correct of our own personal knowledge
and based on authentic records made available to us;
3. We further attest that no other action or proceeding involving the same or similar
issues raised in this pleading has been commenced before the Supreme Court, the Court of
Appeals, or any division thereof, the Regional Trial Court, or any other tribunal, court, or
agency;
4. We further undertake to inform this Honorable Court within five (5) days from
notice of any similar action or proceeding, which may have been filed.
1/

ALDO J. ECHA VEZ, MD
,.
-;;;;. rrJ'<_un"rec.
JOSKPH/ E
I .
---- _,...,.
. -
/1_ fUn__,
fY\s , , /j 1n V\.Nrrv
'i I r!J ) '>< <
N Iii:tT. DOMINGO, M
page2
VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION
OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING
IFfB J .
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 12th day of at Pasig City,
Affiants exhibiting to me:
Name
REYNALDO }. ECHAVEZ, M.D.
JACQUELINE H. KING, M.D.
-
)
CYNTHIA T. DOMINGO, M.D.
JOSEPHINE MILLADO-LUMITAO
Doc. No. s&zi;-
PageNo.-*;
Book No. J; ;
Series of 2013.
Competent Evidence
of Identity
PRC Physicians Lie.
#0025387
PRC Physicians Lie.
# 0064375

. .;....,
..... "
9
PRC Physicians Lie
# 0064779
PRC # 0046182
Until l)e,_::!. . 2
t.l!:Ji.
Date of Issue I
Expiration
Expiry Date
02/07/14
Expiry Date
01/26/14
-
Ofln
,_
Expiry Date
10/02/15
Expiry Date
03/24/15
' J
.._,_lJ
VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION
OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING
We, Anthony Perez with postal address at #5 Gaza Strip St. Multinational Village
Paranaque City 1708 and President of Filipinos for Life, Family and God, Miguel
Mapa Chairman with postal address at 7 Stella St., Bel-Air 3, Makati City, Carlos
Antonio Palad, Vice Chairman with postal address at 1815-C Dapitan St. cor.
Prudencio St.Sampaloc, Manila, Wilfredo Jose Vice President with postal address at
#42 Maalalahanin St. Teachers Village, Quezon City, Claire Navarro with postal
address at E52B Gueventville II, Libertad St. Mandaluyong City and Secretary of the
organization and Anna Cosio, Board of Trustee with postal address at Block 6 Lot 9
Saturn St., Mapayapa Village, Pulanglupa, Las Pinas City, Gabriel Dy Liacco, Board
of Trustee with postal address at 29 Mangyan Road, La Vista, Q.C. 1108. All of legal
age, Filipino and taxpayer. They may be served with pertinent papers and processes
through his undersigned counsel, the CALLEjA LAW OFFICE, at Unit 1903-A West
Tower, Philippine Stock Exchange Center, Exchange Road, Ortigas Center, Pasig City
and after having been duly sworn in accordance with law, hereby depose and state
that:
1. We are the Petitioners in this case;
2. We have caused the preparation and filing of the foregoing Petition, read
its allegations and attest that the same are true and correct of our -own personal
knowledge and based on authentic records made available to us;
3. We further attest that no other action or proceeding involving the same or
similar issues raised in this pleading has been commenced before the Supreme
Court, the Court of Appeals, or any division thereof, the Regional Trial Court, or any
other tribunaL court, or agency;
4. We further undertake to inform this Honorable Court within five (5) days
from notice of any similar action or proceeding, which may have been filed.
Signatures
Anthony Perez
Wilfredo Jose
Claire Navarro
Anna Cosio
Carlos Antonio Palad
(Miguel Mapa)4nV"
M \(_ ' - IT .sf -ot-'1 (?. 1 ' - " - t f ~
Gabriel Dy Liacco
;if"(!] I .
J r,
. SUBSCRIBED AN SWORN to before me this _ day of 2013, at
(7T! r!' ,...,.,
- '; Affiants exhibiting to me:
,I
Name
Anthony Perez
Claire Navarro
Willy Jose
Anna Cosio
Carlos Antonio Palad
Miguel Mapa
Gabriel Dy Liacco
Doc.
Page
BookNo.J;
Series of 2013.
Competent Evidence Date of
of Identity
TIN# 3096-45889- 08/31/11
0000
TIN# 236-083-181-000 03/28/06
TIN# 117-429-346 12/07/91
TIN# 406-479-051 03/28/11.
Passport# EB3701'727 Validity: 09/20/16
Passport# XX5519075. Validity: 02/12/15
DL N03-87-040641 10/03/14
fBP .. - .:.; 7/
HR Uo.T' .' ;;_ ... f 1 City
i 1-. I_Af.,...r i:. .-, ; ;- -. f"- ..... ('.h
-.'1 .. . ;q ...
Republic of the Philippines)
) s.s.
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
I, Jesus De La Cruz, under oath declare that:
a. I am the messenger of Calleja Law Office, counsel for
Petitioners in the case entitled REYNALDO J. ECHAVEZ, M.D.,
JOSE S. SANDEJAS, PhD, JACQUELINE H. KING, M.D.,
CYNTHIA T. DOMINGO, M.D., and JOSEPHINE MILLADO-
LUMITAO, M.D., collectively known as DOCTORS FOR LIFE,
and ANTHONY PEREZ, MICHAEL ANTHONY G. MAPA,
CARLOS ANTONIO PALAD, WILFREDO JOSE, CLAIRE
NAVARRO, ANNA COSIO, and GABRIEL DY LIACCO
collectively known as FILIPINOS FOR LIFE vs. HON. PAQUITO
N. OCHOA, JR., Executive Secretary; HON. FLORENCIO B.
ABAD, Secretary of the Department of Budget and
Management; HON. ENRIQUE T. ONA, Secretary of the
Department of Health; HON. ARMIN A. LUISTRO, Secretary of
the Department of Educaiton; and HON. MANUEL A. ROXAS,
Secretary of the Department of Interior and Local
Government and that as such messenger I served upon the
respondent the petition filed in said case by registered mail.
b. I am executing this affidavit in order to attest to the
truthfulness of all the foregoing.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature
this 13th day of February 2013 in the City of Pasig.
JURAT
JESUS DE LA CRUZ
Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 13th day of February
2013, affiant exhibiting his SSS ID no. 19-089068989-6 by the
Social Security System. /;;/
'p ./.
' ' ,
:3'(/j
-y-- -
... --,
. ,-,- '
1