(. }".

'' ,,'
....

Republic of the Philippines
QCo11rt
Padre Faura St., Manila
MILLENNIUM SAINT FOUNDATION, INC.,
ATTY. RAMON PEDROSA, AITY. CITA
BORROMEO-GARCIA, STELLA ACEDERA,
ATTY. BERTENI CATALUNA CAUSING,
Petitioners,
-'... I
.....! '
206355
-versus - G.R. No. ______ _
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT (OP),
OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY (OES),
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH (DOH),
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (DEPED),
Respondents.
x-------------------------------------------------x
on for ro{Jt bitt on
It is revolting to give money to buy condoms
and pills to see others enjoy sex out of the money I
gave.
It violates the Constitution for the Congress
to make a law to authorize free distribution of
artificial contraceptives that kill fertilized ovum
because fertilization is the beginning of conception
that is protected by tile Constitution.
The law fails to pass the substantive due
process test because the means employed does
not substantially advance the ends.
The. provisions of the same law are
unconstitutional because they destroy religion and
violate the Constitution's provision on free speech,
on religious freedom and free exercise thereof, on
rnarriage, family and the right to found a family.
With these opening brief statements, this Petition for Prohibition is
being filed.
1. The petitioners are as follows:
a. Millennium Saints Foundation, Inc. - an entity organized
under the Philippines laws whose objective includes promotion
and dissemination of Spiritual Childhood as taught and lived by
St. Therese of Llle Child Jesus of the Holy Face, Doctor of the
Universal Church and Saint of the Third Millennium; work
toward the development of traditional Filipino values rooted in
the Catholic faith through education and formation as inspired
by St. Therese; promotion, encouragement and prosecution of
activities such as seminars, convocations and workshops
directed toward propagating the said spirituality.
For the purpose of this case, the board of Millennium Saint
Foundation, Inc. authorized Atty. Ramon Pedrosa, Mrs. Stella
Acedera or Atty. Cita Borromeo-Garcia to file this petition on
behalf of petitioner Millennium Saints Foundation, Inc., whose
place of business and address is located at St.Therese
Compound M a n ~ u n a s St., Villamor Airbase, Pasay City.' But for
purposes of this petition, it is requested that all notices be sent
to its counsel that is the undersigned law firm on its address
written below.
For this purpuse, a copy of the Secretary's Certificate is
attached hereto as ANNEX "A."
b. Atty. Ramon Pedrosa, Filipino, a lawyer, taxpayer whose Tax
Identification No. Is , a firm Catholic being
an Opus Dei, whose residence is
________________ , is joining this petition
as a petitioner in his own right;
c. Atty. Cita Borromeo-Garcia, Filipino, a lawyer, taxpayer whose
Tax Identification No. is J6'3--q.E(JI (p{p , and a firm follower
of the Catholic faith, is joining this petitions as a petitioner in
her own right, is a resident of Vicente Encarnacio St. Dona
Romana BF Homes Subd., Capitol District, Quezon City;
- :...
d. Stella Acedera, Filipino, a resident of 8 Lirio St., Tahanan
Village, Quezon City, a Catholic and a taxpayer; and
e. Atty. Berteni Catalufia Causing, Filipino, a lawyer, a taxpayer
whose BIR TIN is No. 914-839-837-000.
It is requested that all notices for all the petitioners be sent to
their counsel at the address written below.
2. The respondents are as fui1uws:
a. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, for being the Chief Executive Office
that is the chief etlforcer of the law that is being challenged in
this petition;
b. OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, for being the Chief
Cabinet Secretary that is the chief alter ego of the Presiden't of
the Philippines; Botlr the Office of the President and the Office
of the Executive Secretary can be served with notices at the
Office of the Executive Secretary, Malacanang Palace, Manila;
c. THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH (DOH), for being the main
department that is 1 ,nforce the challenged law, which can be
served notices thro11gh the Office of the Secretary, DOH, on
Jose Rizal Avenue, Sta. Cruz, Manila; and
d. THE DEPARTME1 Jf EDUCATION (DepEd), for being the
main enforcer nf the instructions and information
dissemination among all elementary and secondary schools in
the country, private or public, on all the reproductive health
that is one of the chief contents of the law being challenged.
\!thr l[octts ~ t a n b l
3. The petitioners here have locus standi because:
a. The degree of transcendental importance of the matters
involved in this petition is enormous that its effects even
transcends several generations from now;
b. There is that paramount public interest in the issue as
demonstrated by the debates in and out of halls of the House
of Representatives and the Senate, where it was seen the
voting in the plenary of the two houses of the Congress was
attended by the pro- and anti-RH Bill, including the believers in
the teachings of the Roman Catholic who fought for the
rejection of the Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive
Health Bill, as well as movements and alliances that were
formed and the extraordinary activism that were done;.
c. The passion against the RH Law has never waned and will
never die as demonstrated by the boldness of the posting of
"Team Patay" and "Team Buhay" tarpaulin on San Sebastian
Church in Bacolod City, which is now the subject of intense
controversy because it has been defiant of the order of the
Commission on Elections (Comelec) take it down;
d. The law styled "The Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive
Health Act of 2012," otherwise known as Republic Act No.
10354, without doubt has overreaching significance to the
society that this will define the rule of rnoral conduct in the
next generation and beyond;
e. The degree of offense that the law will cause on the Catholics
that include the petitioners who are entitled to have their
doctrine or religious beliefs protected against acts of intrusion
by the State into the zone of Catholic dogmas and doctrines,
that the Constitution even commands that the separation of
the Church and the State shall be inviolable;
f. A direct injury that would be caused on the petitioners in. the
form of the "de-establishment" or blatant assault on the faith
of the petitioners as Catholics;
g. While the petitioners are conscientiously guarding their beliefs
and exercising their freedom of religion in the form of
shunning against anti-life contraceptives and spread this part
of the teachings of their religion, the State will openly and
blatantly espouse the very same devices that the Catholics
religiously object;
h. That assault by the State that is committed by way of providing
what are a taboo as a matter of the exercise of religious belief,
openly insults the petitioners and put them in a situation as if
they are outcasts;
1. The RH law also brings direct personal injury to the petitioners
in the form of the sleepless nights, anxieties and revolting
hearts caused on them;
J. This is because the petitioners cannot stomach the sight of
them having their share of taxes they paid to be given for free
in the forms of condoms, pills, injections and other
contraceptives so that others will enjoy sex;
k. These also constitute unjust enrichment on the part of the free
beneficiaries of these particulars at the expense of those who
pay taxes;
I. Also, a direct personal injury that will be caused on the
petitioners come in the form of the appropriation of money
from the taxe.s and the petitioners are taxpayers, too;
m. It does not only assault the petitioners as a matter of tax issue,
but also as a matter of torturing the petitioners' minds to think
that a part of the taxes they pay are used to buy
contraceptives to be given to others so that these lucky
beneficiaries enjoy sex at the expense of taxpayers;
n. Such appropriation is proven by Section 25 if the same law;
4. On 28 December 2012 the President of the Philippines signed into
law Republic Act 10354, otherwise known as /'Responsible
Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012."
5. Among the provisions that are objectionable because it assaults the
Catholic religion of the petitioners is Section 2 (d) of this law, to wit:
(d) The right of families or family associations to
participate in the planning and implementation of policies
and prograrns
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 a fertilized ovum as determined by the
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and relevant
information and education thereon according to the
priority needs of women, children and other
underprivileged sectors, giving preferential access to those
identified through the National Household Targeting
System for Poverty Reduction (NHTS-PR) and other
government measures of identifying marginalization, who
shall be voluntary beneficiaries of reproductive health
care, services and supplies for free.
6. Other provisions of the law that offends the religious beliefs of the
petitioners as among the Catholic faithful provide that these artificial
contraceptives shall be provided free, one of these provisions is as
follows:
SEC. 7. Access to Family Planning. -All accredited
public health facilities shall provide a full range of modern
family planning methods, which shall also include medical
consultations, supplies and necessary and reasonable
procedures for poor and marginalized couples having
infertility issues who desire to have children: Provided,
That family planning services shall likewise be extended by
private health facilities to paying patients with the option
19_grant free care and services to indigents, except in the
case of non-maternity specialty hospitals and hospitals
owned and operated by a religious group, but they have
the option to provide such full range of modern family
planning methods: Provided, further, That these hospitals
shall immediately refer the person seeking such care and
services to another health facility which is conveniently
accessible: Provided, finally, That the person is not in an
emergency condition or serious case as defined in Republic
Act No. 8344.
No person shall be denied information and access
to family planning services, whether natural or artificial:
Provided, That minors will not be allowed access to
modern methods of family planning without written
consent from their parents or guardian/s except when the
minor is already a parent or has had a miscarriage.
7. The petitioners as Catholics feel insulted that while their religious
belief prohibits ;:Jrtificial contraceptives because these kill life, the
State on the other hand insults the Catholics by blatantly insisting on
artificial contraceptives that the Catholic has declared to be
doctrinally evil.
8. While the law says the use of artificial contraceptives is optional and
the Catholics can opt out of it, still it violates the Catholic faith of the
petitioners because it unwittingly insults them.
9. Additionally, the petitioners see the law as an act of destroying the
Catholic religion and the petitioners have the right to defend the
existence of their faith.
lO.As such, the petitioners see this as a destruction of their religion,
standing pat that the prohibition of the Constitution for the State to
establish religion also prohibits the de-establishment or destruction
of religion.
11. The petitioners also see the law violating the cherished freedom of
expression, particularly in the following provision:
SEC. 23. Prohibited Acts. - The following acts are
prohibited:
(a) Any health care service provider, whether public or
private, who shall:
(1) Knowingly withhold information or
restrict the disserTlination thereof, and/or
intentionally provide incorrect information
regarding programs and services on reproductive
health including the right to informed choice and
access to a full range of legal, medically-safe, non-
abortifacient and effective family planning
methods;
XXX XXX XXX
(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 his/her
ethical or religious beliefs shall be respected;
however, the conscientious objector shall
immediately refer the person seeking such care
and services to another health care service
within the same facility or one which is
conveniently accessible: Provided,
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;
(d) Any person who shall falsify a Certificate of
Compliance as required in Section 15 of this Act; and
12. The provision of Section 23 (a) (1) violates the freedom of speech of
health providers, including Catholic doctors, in expressing what they
believe is incorrect in the programs or in the ideas being regarded as
correct by the State.
13. The petitioners also see the provision of Section 23(a)(3) as a
violation of the religion of the petitioners.
14. The petitioners see this as a violation because while Section 23
(a)(3) allows religious objectors not to administer artificial
contraceptives or not make advices on artificial contraceptives the
law requires these objectors to refer the patient or client to another
service provider.
15. To the petitioners, the act of referring is the same as an act of
compelling religious objectors to perform what is prohibited in their
religious beliefs.
16. A copy of the law can be downloaded or found at this Official
Gazette site, to wit: http://www.gov.ph/2012/12/21/republic-act-no-
10354/.
17. There has been no Implementing Rules and Regulations yet that has
been published until this writing, preventing the petitioners from
asking for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) because there is no
impending danger y"et.
18. The petitioners see that the new law encompasses almost all what
is the future of the Filipino race, as a State and as a race.
19. The petitioners cannot sleep to think that the law appears to be not
just another ordinary law that simply affects acts or conducts
because it appears to be more of making or unmaking what is the
cherished Filipino culture, traditions and dreams as taught to the
80% of the population who are Catholics.
20. The petitioners fear that the habit-forming-and-extraordinary law
will define lower moral standards a generation later: that drastically
high number of Filipinos of tomorrow will look at sexual immorality
as ordinary or less and less sacred for the married couples only.
21. The petitioners have expressed fears that this habit will be formed
by force of evolution due to the lack of fear of getting pregnant
among teenagers
~ r t 5 of @rnllt> sgl.Jttsr of l!llsrretlon
Contrary to life
22. The Houses of Congress and the Office of the President of the
Philippines blended their powers to commit grave abuse of discretion
on the first count in the making and signing into law of Republic Act
10354, otherwise known as the "Responsible Parenthood and
Reproductive Health Act of 2012."
23. It was grave abuse of discretion because their act of exercising the
blending of their powers violated the command of the Constitution
that the State shall equally protect the life of the mother and the
life of the unborn from the time of conception.
24. The particular provision of the Constitution that this law violates is
Section 12 of Article II thereof, which states:
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
conce@Qf! The natural and primary right and duty of
parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and
the development of rnoral character shall receive the
support of the Government.
25. The Constitution is clear that the injunction against any danger to
the life of the unborn BEGINS FROM CONCEPTION.
26. CONCEPTION OCCURS AT THE TIME OF FERTILIZATION OF AN EGG
BY A SPERM but the law expressly violated this by instructing the FDA
to determine and allow only those contraceptives that prevent
implantation of the fertilized egg in the uterus.
27. That particular provision of the law, Section 2(d), states:
(d) The right of families or family associations to
participate in the planning and implementation of policies
and programs.
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
iD!Q!antation of a fertilized ovum as determined by the
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and relevant
information and education thereon according to the
priority needs of women, children and other
underprivileged sectors, giving preferential access to those
identified through the National Household Targeting
System for Poverty Reduction (NHTS-PR) and other
government measures of identifying marginalization, who
shall be voluntary beneficiaries of reproductive health
care, services and ~ u p p l i e s for free.
28. Conception occurs in the fertilization stage because it is only at the
mornent a sperm cell fertilizes an egg or ovum that life can only
possibly begin.
29. It is very clear that without fertilization, there can be no human life.
30. And !Jecause it is only at the time of fertilization that there is a
possibility of hurnan life coming full circle, it necessarily follows that
fertilization is the very essence of conception.
31. Moreover, the word "conception" comes from the word
"concept."
32. If it is to talk about conceptualization of human beings, it is to talk
about the concept of human being.
33. Further, if it is to talk about concept, there is no assurance yet of
coming to fruition or realization.
34. So is in the concept of making a human being, it is no as5urance
that with the occurrence of concept human being is assured.
35. Now, concept involves the occurrence of an initial act with the
purpose of making the concept a reality.
36. So that when a n1Jrried couple, a man and a woman, copulate and
the sperm cell fertilizes the egg of the woman, the concept of
creating a human being begins from that fertilization.
37. This is the position of the petitioners: CONTRACEPTION means
"contra to conception.n
38. Now, during the interpellations at the plenary of the halls of
Congress, the question of "where does life begin" was the central
issue raised by the lawmakers opposing the RH bill proposal to make
a law giving free artificial contraceptives.
39. The determination of when does conception begin, at the time of
fertilization or at the time of implantation of the fertilized egg into
the uterus, was indispensable during the interpellation among the
lawmakers.
40. This was because there was that apprehension among anti-RH bill
lawmakers, led by Senator Tito Sotto, that the artificial
contraceptives that are available today and those methods that may
be made available in the future will operate to kill the fertilized egg
and it was in this concern that the anti-RH solons vigorously opposed
the proposal of RH authors Senator Pia Cayetano and Senator Miriam
Defensor Santiago.
41. Sotto stressed that the Constitution protects the life of the unborn
from conception.
42. Senators Cayetano and Santiago, for their part, rejected the idea
that conception occurs at fertilization, insisting that conception
begins at the time of implantation of the fertilized egg into the
uterus.
43. Senator Tito Sotto, upon the other hand, insisted that conception
occurs at the moment of fertilization.
44. While all lawmakers, both the pro and anti, were in agreement that
they should not violate the Constitution's proscription against
conception in making a law to provide for free artificial
contraceptives, they were not agreeing with each other as to when
does conception occur: during fertilization or during implantation.
45. In the course of the exchange of debates, Santiago admitted that
even experts on reproductive health cannot even agree as to this
ISSUe.
46. There was no clear scrutiny done as to how each of the available
contraceptives operate: whether each operates to prevent the sperm
from fertilizing the egg, or whether each operates to kill the fertilized
egg, or whether each operates to kill the implanted fertilized egg.
47. In other words, the interpellations ldt hzmging the following
questions:
a. Does fertilization constitute conception?;
b. Does implantation constitute conception?;
c. Does each of the contraceptives available at the time of the
deliberation merely prevent fertilization?;
d. Does each of the contraceptives available today merely
prevent implantation to occur?;
e. Does each of the contraceptives available now actually
prevent pregnancy that should take place after implantation
in the uterus?
48. Now, despite these un-answered questions, the Senate and the
House of Representatives voted for the separate bills and ratified the
reconciled versions directing the government to provide free artificial
contraceptives.
49. In other Nords, what the Houses of Congress and the President did
was that they passed a law that has the high risk of killing the unborn
after conception.
50. These acts of the Congress are therefore a very clear case of grave
abuse of discretion.
51. Then artificial contraceptives must not be allowed because of all
those that are known to be available as contraceptives, only condom
was almost sure to be non--violative as suggested by Senator Ralph
Recto during Lhe deiiberation.
52. Condom stocks the sperm cells inside it so that it prevents sperm
cells from being ejaculated inside the woman dt.tring copulation, so
that there is no possibility that fertilization will occur.
53. As to the rest of the artificial contraceptives, there is no assurance
as when they begin to operate, before or after the fertilization stage.
54. And because the Congress insisted on contraceptives that do not
prevent implantation only, it allows the killing of life right at
fertilization, grave abuse of discretion is very clear.
Violation of Freedom of Speech
55. Nnw, the law also violated the constitutionally-protected freedom
of soeech spelled out under Section 4 of. Article Ill of the 1987
Con:titution.
Su. for clarity, let this provision be quoted, to,wit:
r ,,.' 'f; .:
SEC. 23. Prohibited Acts. -The following acts are
prohibited:
(a) Any health care service provider, whether f.JUblic or
private, who shall:
(1) Knowingly withhold information or
restrict the dissemination tl1ereof, and/or
intentionally provide !ncorrect information
services on
including the right to informed choice and
access to a full range of legal, medically-safe, non-
abortifacient and effective . family planning
methods;
57. No one has the monopoly of what is correct and what is incorrect.
The essence of the treedom of speech is the freedom to express
one's opinion, no matter the opinion is incorrect.
59. If this law is allowed to it will imprison health service
providers, includinr: Catholic hospitals, Catholic doctors and nurses,
who wuulrl exprr:ss opininns co, trary to Lhe prog,arns under the RH
law.
60. Section 4, Article Ill uf the Constitution states: "No law shall be
passed abridging the freedom of expression, of speech, and of the
press.
1'J.Q!ation of religious freedoJI!
6l. Now, under Section 23(a)(3) of the law, it compels health service
providers, including Catholic hospitals, Catholic doctors and nurses,
who would refuse to render services if artificial contraceptives are
involved.
62. This is so because while the provision allows health serv1ce
providers that are religious objectors to refuse to render
reproductive health services if the services to be rendered constitute
a violation of their religious tenets the same law compels them to
refer the patient or client to a health service provider that renders
the same.
63. The act of referring is the same as the Catholic hospitals and doctors
and nurses committing sin against the doctrine of the Catholic on life.
6LI. For clarity, the same provision, Section 23(a)(3), is hereby quoted as
follows:
(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 his/her
ethical or religious beliefs shall be respected;
however, the conscientious objector shall
immediately refer the person 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;
Violation of marriage rights of Catholics
65. The compulsion by the law to require marrying couples to undergo
seminar on reproductive health and other related matters violates
the freedom of religion of couples.
66. This is because there is nothing in the objectionable provision that
exempts the religious objectors from receiving instructions on
artificial contraceptives.
67. To be clear, Section 15 of this law states:
SEC. 15. Certificate of Compliance. - No marriage lrcense shall
ue issued by the Local Civil Registrar unless the applicants
present a Certificate of Compliance issued for free by the local
Family Planning Office certifying that they had duly received
adequate instructions and information on responsible
parenthood, family planning, breastfeeding and infant nutrition_
68. This law prohibits marrying couples from marrying because the
State will not issue a marriage license of the couple who refuse to
receive instructions that the couple would object on the ground of
religion.
69. That provision of the law therefore constitutes also an act of
assaulting the Catholic religion.
Destruction or de-establishment of Catholic religion
70. In the entirety, because of the fact that the law commands the
procuren1ent of artificial contraceptives to be given for free is more
than an insult to the Catholic religion that has been repeatedly
con1plaining that doing the same amounts to an assault against the
religion.
71. The Constitutional prohibition against establishment of religion also
goes with the prohibition against de-establishment or destruction of
religion.
72_ The State destroys the Catholic by officially promoting the doing of
acts that are blatantly against the doctrine of life of the Catholics and
the people who embrace this religion.
73. Actually, it does not offend only the Catholic, it also does the same
on the Islam religion exercised by Filipino Muslims.
74. It is a doctrine of Islam that its men can marry up to four wives,
divorce any or all of the wives and marry anew.
75. How then would this religious freedom be consistent with the
unstated but clear objective of RH Law in reducing the country's
population, considering that with four wives alone and with only two
children per wife would produce a number of children that is
obviously more than the law imagines?
76. It really offends the senses of the Catholics like the petitioners to
see the State officially endorsing acts that are prohibited by the
Catholic.
77. The fact that the law never compels the Catholics to avail of the
artificial contraceptives never removes the assault on the Catholic
religion.
Jhe means employed does not advance the end and i ~ p r e s s i v e
78. The means employed by the law in achieving its end, reduction in
population or the achievement of responsible parenthood and of
desired reproductive health is oppressive and does not substantially
advance the end.
79. Giving free artificial contraceptives is oppressive because it offends
the Catholic religion, no matter the fact that it is on a voluntary basis.
80. It will also make many Cai:holic faithful who may have been duped
or convinced to avail of artificial contraceptives that are loath at by
the Catholic religion.
81. It will therefore diminish the respect and belief of many Catholics
to the religion.
82. It is not an offense for private persons or other religions to recruit
the Catholics into other religions.
83. But it is an offense against the Constitution's injunction on the
separation of the Church from the State for the State to officially do
those acts that are contrary to the doctrine of life by the Catholic.
84. Hence, it is clear that the same means of giving free artificial
contraceptives will oppress the Catholics and assault the Catholic
religion.
85. Bt1t rnore importantly, the means employed will actually not
advance the purposes of the law.
86. This is because the government cannot be assured that when the
couples go to bed the couples will use the conclorns and other
contraceptive drugs or devices or instruments they availed from the
government.
87. When carried away by passions for love and sex, the couples
cannot be expected to say, "Telw, isusuot mo muna ang condom
(Wuit, we or your condom first). Teka, nakainom l<o ba ng pills?
(Woit, have you alreody taken your pills? r
88. According to Senator Aquilino "l<oko" Pimentel Ill, the better ways
to achieve responsible parenthood and reproductive health are to
build more hospitals instead of buying artificial contraceptives,
provide health facilities to the citizens even to remote areas, equip
schools with educational curriculurn on health, particularly on what
foods are healthy and on how to grow more vegetables for family
consumption, educate the children on reproductive systems focusing
on how these systems work and that the curriculum should be age-
appropriate as well as the value of abstinence in marriage and the
sacredness of sex among married couples, and the like.
89. Another better way that is not compulsive is the massive education
program on natural contraception, inc:luding inculcating the Billings
Ovulation Method.
90. The unconstitutionality is similar to what was expressed by the State
thmugh the Supreme Court in a "carabao" case officially named
"Ynot vs Intermediate Appellate Court"
1

91. In that Ynot case, a law was struck down because the means
employed cannot substantially advance to achieve the purpose of the
law.
1 o I 1
92. The High Court said in this Ynot case that to prohibit the transport
of carabaos from one province to another cannot achieve the
purpose of preserving carabaos because slaughtering carabaos first
before transporting them can be done.
93. This is revolting in the face of the fact that there are better means
available and that the State can rely on the other modes to achieve
better results without offending the Catholic religion.
94. One better means is conducting massive educational or information
campaign about the importance of responsible parent hood and that
being responsible can be achieved by natural family planning
methods, including the proven-effective Billings Ovulation Method.
95. The massive information dissemination shall be made mandatory
in order to ensure 100% absorption by the citizens.
96. The massive information dissemination can promote the culture of
practicing abstinence so that fewer and more quality children can be
born out of them to a level that can be managed by their income.
97. The massive and frequent flow of information will be implanted
into the subliminal minds of the people, including the poor, and that
will be more effective than all medically-concocted contraceptives.
98. This campaign can be done by incorporating reproductive health
care and responsible parenthood through natural methods as
subjects in all levels in schools.
99. The funds that will be used by the law for buying artificial
contraceptives can be used instead in daily five-time-or-more radio
and television commercials and advertisements through online and
other media, and the like.
100. The suggested means is not oppressive and not
discriminatory to the poor and the Catholics or Muslims who are
allowed to take four wives or divorce some or all and take new wives.
101. At the same time, the law amounts to constructive violation
of the privacy of the couples.
102. For matters that affect pnvacy and personal decisions, the
State as a rule is not authorized to interfere with by means of a law.
103. The State is not allowed to dictate on the couples as to how
they will bring up their families, including those matters of the
number of children and the like.
104. All the State can do is to define what acts it will prohibit, define
the policies on certain conducts and provide sanctions for the doing
of those acts or conducts.
105. The State cannot invade into the privacy of couples on their
beds.
106. It cannot dictate on how they conduct their lovemaking, how
they enjoy their most intimate moments, and how they celebrate to
the most they can to satisfy their desire for heavenly joy.
107. Combined with love, sex becomes the bedrock of the strength
needed to keep the young family staying together and this would be
enough to keep them together until their senior years when all lust
would be gone and all they would have to stick to each other would
only be the love for their children and the strong desire not to break
up for the children, for family, and for honor.
108. If there is something that the State may be allowed to do if it
desires to have a quality family, that is truly in the essence of what
responsible parenthood and reproductive health should be, it is only
doing such acts that will enlighten and galvanize in the minds of the
citizens in a scale massive enough to form a good culture of high
rnoral standards, that in the process will place back the
consciousness on the value of keeping the f. ~ m i l y together.
109. It is therefore awkward for the State to teach the mothers and
the fathers how to enjoy sex by the use of condoms, pills, etc.
110. Stated in another way, it cannot be seen how the law would be
effective in achieving its stated and unstated purposes.
111. If practicality dictates that many of the Catholics will not avail
of the free artificial contraceptives on the ground of religion which is
allowed by the law, then how can the State achieve the unstated
purpose of lesser number of children each family?
112. The State is therefore like prescribing a solution yet allowing
the people to opt out or not follow the prescribed solution.
113. If that is so, how can the ends be advanced substantially?
Law violates the Qrimary right of parents on moral development
114. The State cannot decide or compel unto the parents on how to
rear their children for moral development.
115. This is very clear in Sections 12 and 13 of Article II of the
Constitutions, to wit:
Section 12. The State recognizes the sanctity of farnily
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.
d!c!!'LQf parents in of
the of
shall receive the support of the Government.
Section 13. The State recognizes the vital role of the
youth in nation-building and shall promote and protect their
physical, moral, spiritual, intellectual, and social well-being. It
shall inculcate in the youth patriotism and nationalisrn, and
encourage their involvement in public and civic affairs.
116. By passing RA No. 10354, the State is unwittingly creating a
system whereby it diminishes the parents' effectiveness in rearing
their children in developing their moral character.
117. This is not to say that the moral character that would be
developed among the future citizens will be dictated by the law, for
what is objectionable is for the State to grab from the parents their
natural and primary right and duty to rear their children for the
purpose of developing their mora I character.
118. Educating the young ones on the artificial modes of
contraceptives would demean the teachings of the Catholics that sex
is sacred and it is only for the married couples.
119. Educating the young ones on the artificial modes of
contraception would give ideas to sex among unmarried couples that
can become massive because of the lack of fear of unwanted
pregnancy.
120. For sure, the State cannot also make any law that promotes
moral deterioration among the people, particularly among the
families that are inviolable social institutions.
121. The law here in question, if allowed to run its full course, say
ten (10) years, will see the moral values running low: the people then
would look up to sex like goods that can be bought over the counter
and not something that should be worked hard for and to keep as
sacred when found.
122. The effect of the educational system as the device to be used
to teach children of various products that prevent pregnancies
through artificial means would even embolden the teenagers to try
premarital sex for they would be assured that there are modes
available and free to be used to prevent pregnancy.
123. Gone will be the fear of pregnancy that has played a major role
in keeping young people within the zone of morality.
124. So that instead of strengthening the family as the Constitution
commands, it weakens its foundations of love between spouses, of
respect for each other between couples, of the dignity of the spouses
and their family, and of high regard to the higher interest of keeping
the family as higher than the pride and anger of each spouse against
each other when they would quarrel or would have envies and other
issues between them.
125. Also, the wives would cope with the extreme difficulty of how
to accept that their husbands would use condoms on them as if they
are prostitutes.
126. The law promotes crime and immorality rather than morality.
127. The regard by the people to sexual intercourse will be less and
less sacred as it was originally intended and as taught by the Divine
teachings that these are only for the legitimate and married couples.
128. At any urge of sexual desires the low-moral individuals easily
give in to the desire for heavenly pleasures that they would not mind
having sex with another not their spouse because there are condoms
or pills anyway that can cover their covert acts.
Law protection clause
129. The law is also unconstitutional because it violates the equal
protection clause.
130. It classifies the poor from the rich and then gives them all free
contraceptives in queues.
131. This classification renders prejudice to the indigent who,
wittingly or unwittingly, will be ostracized as "palamunin" and an
outcast of the society for it will appear they are being blamed for the
miseries of the country.
132. Giving free contraceptives is undoubtedly targeting the poor.
133. Also, the sight of the poor in queues asking for condoms, pills
or for other contraception devices every day destroys their dignity as
human beings.
134. Observers will likely say: "Hey, look those maniacs in long
queues."
QQQressive to taxpayers
135. This law also constitutes unjust compensation to the taxpayers
because a part of the taxes they paid are not giving back the
equivalent value of governrnent service.
136. Imagine that the pE;sons who would avail of contraceptives to
enjoy the worldly desires are to use the contraceptives paid fo.r by
others, the taxpayers.
137. Is this enjoyment by others constitutes a public purpose to
justify as a compensation to the taxpayers for a part of the monies
they paid to the government as taxes?
138. It is also revolting to think that some people would pay and be
cornpelled to contribute in the form of taxes so that others would
enjoy the worldly satisfactions for sex.
139. Taking all the arguments into one make it clear that the
Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012 is
unconstitutional on the aspect of using artificial contraceptives.
140. Additionally, the grave abuse of discretion is apparent because
the Congress and the President committed in the process violations
against life as defined by the Constitution, the freedom of speech,
the freedom of religion and protection of religion from de-
establishment or assault, and the equal protection clause, as well as
the oppressiveness of the means employed.
141. Much apparent is the grave abuse of discretion when the
lawmakers officially gives sanctions to the giving of free artificial
contraceptives when they were not even sure on the defination of
"conception" as to whether it is at the stage of the completion of the
fertilizaiton process or during the implantation of the fertilized egg
in the uterus and not sure whether the artificial contraceptives
attacks or kills fertilized egg.
142. The gravest abuse of discretion was committed when the
lawmakers even defined the limits of allowable contraceptives to be
those that would be determined by the Food and Drug
Administration as only preventing implantation to happen in the
uterus.
J43. Ergo, tile instant law, Hepublic Act 10354, otherwise known as
tile "1\esponsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012,
l!lust be struck down.
144. Specifically, tile provisions that rnust be struck clown are those
that provide for the official procurement and distribution for free of
artificial contrceptives, and those that mandate instruction on
artificial contraceptives in schools or elsewhere.
ILlS. Also being sought to be struck down are the provisions that:
a. violate press freedom-- Section 23(a)(1);
IJ. violate religious freedom- Section 23(a)(3); ancl
c. violate the religious freedom of marrying couples who are
Catholics- Section 15;
WHEREFORE, after clue notice and hearing, it is respectfully prayed
that the challenged law, Republic Act 10354, be declared unconstitutional
as discussed above.
RENTA PE CAUSING SABARRE CASTRO & ASSOCIATES
Unit J, 2368 JB Roxas St. corner Leon Guinto St., Malate, Manila
1:111 cl i Is usi u Tel e f-Jhone No.: t632- 3105521
By:
BERTENI C A CAUSING
IBP No. 876498 I I IV I 10-01-2013
PTR No. 1435314 I Ma Ia I 10-01-2013
Roll No. I MCLE No. IV -0007338 I 08-10-2012
Cc:
-Jr.: I i
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT (OP),
OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY {OES),
Malacaf\ang Palace, Manila
DEPARTMENT OF HF:ALTH (DOH),
Jose Reyes Memorial Medical Center
Rizal Avenue, Manila
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (DEPED),
Meralco Avenue, Pasig City
Explanation
Lack of personnel compelled serv1ce of cop1es by
mails.
x--------------------------------------------------------x
Republic of the Philippines )
City of Manila ) SC
VERIFICATION & CERTIFICATE
Of=
NON-FORUM SHOPPING
We AlTY. CITA BORROMEO-GARCIA, Filipino, a resident of Dona Romana BF
Homes Subd., Capitol District, Quezon City, and STELLA R. AQCEDERA, Filipino, a
resident of 8 Lirio St., Tahanan Village, Quezon City, for our own respective persons and
for Millennium Saint Foundation, Inc., as evidenced by the Board Resolution for the
purpose, hereby declare under oath that we have caused the preparation of .the
foregoing PITITION FOR PROHIBITION, read and understood the same, and the
allegations therein are true of our personal knowledge and based on authentic records.
We further certify that other than this venue and jurisdiction, we have not filed any
other action having similar facts, parties and reliefs prayed of in any quasi-judicial offices,
courts, or tribunal. Should we learn one we undertake to inform the Honorable Court
about it within five (5) days from knowledge.
nq !"\ ?. 2013
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, We sign this Verification and Certificate on this __ of
April, 2013, in Manila.
Arrv.
ID No. Driver's License 1-82-24 399
Issued by: LTO Quezon city office
Valid until: April 27, 2014


ID No. Senior Citizen's ID No: 13205
Issue by:Paranaque city Hall
Date of Issue: April 25, 20051: _____ _
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME

in the City of
Manila, affiant showing her evidence of identity as writte:.n __ _
Doc. No.: f{gt-
Page No.:
Book No.: -___l.iij-i i
Series of 2013.
JfO B. TAMAYO
! \1."231430744000
, ,. 13 I ROLL No. 4!687
:lllu18 MA111LA
, , _,
x--------------------------------------------------------x
Republic of the Philippines )
City of Manila ) SC
VERIFICATION & CERTIFICATE
OF
NON-FORUM SHOPPING
i, ATTY. BERTENI CATALUNA CAUSING, Filipino, of legal age, a taxpayer with
BIR Tax Identification No. 914-839-837-000, whose address is Unit 1, No. 2368 Leon
Guinto St. corner JB Roxas St., Malate, Manila, hereby declare under oath that I have
caused the preparation of the foregoing PETITION FOR PROHIBITION, read and
understood the same, and the allegations therein are true of our personal knowledge
and based on authentic records.
I further certify that other than this venue and jurisdiction, I have not filed any
other action having similar facts, parties and reliefs prayed of in any quasi-judicial offices,
courts, or tribunal. Should we learn one we undertake to inform the Honorable Court
about it within five (5) days from knowledge.
APR 0 3 2013
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, We sign thiS\., Verification and Certificate on this 5th of
April, 2013, in Manila.
Issued by: Bureau of In rnal Revenue
Integrated Bar of the Philippines ID No. 60944
APR 0 8 2013
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME this st" of April 2013 in the City
of Manila, affiant showing her evidence of identity as written above.
Doc. No.: _ lvV
Page N o . : ~
Book No.: ~
Series of 2013.
oi'the Philippines )
City ul ) SC
AFFIDA Vlrf OF SERVICE
L RON ELO r. CESUMISION, oC legal age, who postal address is at f-1 2368
l Jnit l. l.cun (iuintu Corner JB Roxas St., Malate Manila, City, hereby declare under oath
that l !Ja\ e caused the service of the foregoing l'ETITION FOR PHOllllliTION, to the
!'olio\\ ing manner:
Addressee: Reg. Receipt No. Date/Post Office
OFI!CL OF TliE PRESIDENT
OFJICE OF TilE EXECUTIVE SECRET'ARY
1\-lalac,mang Palace, t\ilanila
DEPART!VIENT OF HEALTH (DOli)
.luse Reyes Memorial Medical Center
DEI'ARTfviENT OF EDUCATION (DEPED)
rvtemlcu A\ enue, Pasig City
IN WITN \VI-Itn{EOF, I sign this Affidavit of Service onAftfts

or
_2()]3 in the City of' Manila.

RONELO T. CESlJMISION
Affiant
APR 0 a 2013
SliBCIUBE.D AND S\VORN TO BEFORE ME this '
1
' day of
the t 'it) uf Manila. affiant showing his SSS ID No. 34-1060307-8
Page No._ :
Due. No.
Book No. _[ y.
Series of.2013.
2013 in
Republic of the Philippines )Ss.
Quezon City, Metro Manila )
SECRETARY'S CERTIFICATE
I, ATTY. CITA BORROMEO-GARCIA, Filipino, a resident of Dona Romana BF
Homes Subd., Capitol District, Quezon City, the corporate secretary of Millennium Saint
Foundation, Inc., hereby declare under oath that:
1. In a special board meeting on Saturday at the office of Millennium Saint
Foundation, Inc., there was a quorum to resolve the agenda of giving
authority to the filing of a Petition before the Supreme Court seeking the
declaration of nullity of Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act
of 2012 or Republic Act 10354, in whole or in parts;
2. Resolved during the meeting is as follows:
NOW, TI-IEREFORE, it is RESOLVED as it is HEREBY
RESOLVED that ATIY. RAMON PEDROSA, ATIY. CITA
BORROMEO-GARCIA or STELLA ACEDERA is authorized to
sign on behalf of Millennium Saint Foundation, Inc. the
petition for prohibition seeking to declare the Republic Act
10354, otherwise known as Responsible Parenthood and
Reproductive Health Act of 2012, as null and void in whole
or in parts.
It is also resolved that the same authority includes
the power to sign the certificate of non-forum shopping
and the verification, as well as the power to enter into a
compromise agreement and amicable settlement if
warranted by law or circumstances, and the power to
perform acts that are implied and necessary to the
authority given.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, We sign this Secretary's Certificate on this
in Manila.
-
Ao J '
ATTY. CITA
Driver's license No: 1-82-24399
Issued by: LTO, QC Office
Valid until: April 27, 2014
1.\\\l
' . \
. AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME of March 201J.r-t11+-\d.=
Gii\1\of Manila, affiant showing her evidence of ef!tity as written above.
Doc. No.:
d),
Page No.: , .
Book No.: \/11 1
N()tdJ\ l'tJi>lic ,
- >I 'IJJ,J()l.(i ld\O.llll!JCC 31,201:.-i)
I'-d)
!1:\'iln g\:.'h, l>cc .
1
1, 2012/QC
, j {\] '] I I\("