Imbong V Ochoa

GR No. 204819
April 8, 2014
The RH Law Case
Facts:
A consolidated petition to assail the constitutionality of RH Law on the following grounds:

a. The RH Law violates the right to life of the unborn

b. Violates the right to religious freedom.
c. Violates the right to religious freedom.
d. Violates the constitutional provision on involuntary servitude.
e. Violates the right to equal protection of the law.
f. Violates the due process clause of the constitution.
g. Violates the right to free speech.
h. Intrudes into the zone of privacy of ones family protected by the constitution.
i. Violates the constitutional principle of non-delegation of legislative authority.
j. Violates the one subject/one bill rule.
k. Violates the Natural Law.
l. Violates the principles of LGU and ARMM

Despite the foregoing legislative measures, the population of the country kept on galloping at an uncontrollable pace. The
executive and the legislative, thus, felt that the measures were still not adequate. To rein in the problem, the RH Law was enacted
to provide Filipinos, especially the poor and marginalized access and information to the full range of modern family planning
methods, and to ensure that its objective to provide for the peoples right to reproductive health be achieved. To make it more
effective, the RH law made it mandatory for health providers to provide information on the full range of modern family planning
methods, supplies and services, and for schools to provide reproductive health education. To put teeth to it, the RH Law
criminalizes certain acts of refusals to carry out its mandates.

The petitioners are one in praying that the entire Law be declared unconstitutional, for the very essence of the RH Law vilates
the right to health of women and the sanctity of life, which the State is mandated to protect and promote. Thus, the petitioners
prays that the status quo ante the situation prior to the passage of the RH Law - must be maintained.

Issues:

a. WON the court may exercise its power of judicial review over the controversy.
b. WON the RH Law is unconstitutional.

Held:

a. Yes.
b. No, except for some provisions which are considered void.

Ratio:

a. issue

Actual Case

The petitioners have shown that the case is so because medical practitioners or medical providers are in
danger of being criminally prosecuted under the RH Law for vague violations thereof. They must at least be
heard now.
Locus Standi
This is in accordance with the well-entrenched principle that rules of procedure are not inflexible tools
designed to hinder or delay, but to facilitate and promote the administration of justice. Their strict and rigid
application which would result in technicalities that tend to frustrate, rather that promote substantial justice.
b. Issue

Facts and Fallacies and the Wisdom of the Law

In general, the Court does not find the RH Law as unconstitutional insofar as it seeks to provide
access to medically-safe, non-abortifacient, effective, legal, affordable, and quality reproductive healthcare services,
methods, devices, and supplies. As earlier pointed out, however, the religious freedom of some sectors of society cannot be
trampled upon in pursuit of what the law hopes to achieve. After all, the Constitutional safeguard to religious freedom is a
recognition that man stands accountable to an authority higher than the State. As healthful as the intention of the RH Law
may be, the idea does not escape the Court that what it seeks to address is the problem of rising poverty and unemployment
in the country. Let it be said that the cause of these perennial issues is not the large population but the unequal distribution
of wealth. Even if population growth is controlled, poverty will remain as long as the country's wealth remains in the hands
of the very few.

WHEREFORE, the petitions are PARTIALLY GRANTED. Accordingly, the Court declares R.A. No. 10354 as NOT
UNCONSTITUTIONAL except with respect to the following provisions which are declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL:

1) Section 7 and the corresponding provision in the RH-IRR insofar as they: a) require private health facilities and non-
maternity specialty hospitals and hospitals owned and operated by a religious group to refer patients, not in an emergency
or life-threatening case, as defined under Republic Act No. 8344, to another health facility which is conveniently accessible;
and b) allow minor-parents or minors who have suffered a miscarriage access to modem methods of family planning without
written consent from their parents or guardian/s;

2) Section 23(a)(l) and the corresponding provision in the RH-IRR, particularly Section 5 .24 thereof, insofar as they punish
any healthcare service provider who fails and or refuses to disseminate information regarding programs and services on
reproductive health regardless of his or her religious beliefs.

3) Section 23(a)(2)(i) and the corresponding provision in the RH-IRR insofar as they allow a married individual, not in an
emergency or life-threatening case, as defined under. the spouse;

4) Section 23(a)(2)(ii) and the corresponding provision in the RH-IRR insofar as they limit the requirement of parental consent
only to elective surgical procedures.

5) Section 23(a)(3) and the corresponding provision in the RH-IRR, particularly Section 5.24 thereof, insofar as they punish
any healthcare service provider who fails and/orrefuses to refer a patient not in an emergency or life-threatening case, as
defined under Republic Act No. 8344, to another health care service provider within the same facility or one which is
conveniently accessible regardless of his or her religious beliefs;

6) Section 23(b) and the corresponding provision in the RH-IRR, particularly Section 5 .24 thereof, insofar as they punish any
public officer who refuses to support reproductive health programs or shall do any act that hinders the full implementation
of a reproductive health program, regardless of his or her religious beliefs;

7) Section 17 and the corresponding prov1s10n in the RH-IRR regarding the rendering of pro bona reproductive health
service in so far as they affect the conscientious objector insecuring PhilHealth accreditation; and

8) Section 3.0l(a) and Section 3.01 G) of the RH-IRR, which added the qualifier "primarily" in defining abortifacients and
contraceptives, as they are ultra vires and, therefore, null and void for contravening Section 4(a) of the RH Law and violating
Section 12, Article II of the Constitution.