Imbong v Ochoa
Constitution provides that the natural and primary
FACTS:
Republic Act (R.A.) No. 10354, otherwise known as
the Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive
Health Act of 2012 (RH Law), was enacted by
Congress on December 21, 2012. Shortly after the
President placed his imprimatur on the said law,
challengers from various sectors of society came
knocking on the doors of the Court, beckoning it to
wield the sword that strikes down constitutional
disobedience. Aware of the profound and lasting
impact that its decision may produce, the Court now
faces the iuris controversy as presented in fourteen
(14) petitions and two (2) petitions- in-intervention.
On academic freedom, it was asserted that Section
14 of the RH Law, in relation to Section 24 thereof,
mandating the teaching of Age-and Development-
Appropriate Reproductive Health Education under
threat of fine and/or imprisonment violates the
principle of academic freedom. According to the
petitioners, these provisions effectively force
educational institutions to teach reproductive health
education even if they believe that the same is not
suitable to be taught to their students. Citing various
studies conducted in the United States and statistical
data gathered in the country, the petitioners aver
that the prevalence of contraceptives has led to an
increase of out-of-wedlock births; divorce and
breakdown of families; the acceptance of abortion
and euthanasia; the "feminization of poverty"; the
aging of society; and promotion of promiscuity
among the youth.
ISSUE:
Whether the RH law is unconstitutional for violating
Freedom of Expression and Academic Freedom? NO
RULING:
At this point, suffice it to state that any attack on the
validity of Section 14 of the RH Law
is premature because the Department of Education,
Culture and Sports has yet to formulate a curriculum
on age-appropriate reproductive health education.
One can only speculate on the content, manner and
medium of instruction that will be used to educate
the adolescents and whether they will contradict the
religious beliefs of the petitioners and validate their
apprehensions. Thus, considering the premature
nature of this particular issue, the Court declines to
rule on its constitutionality or validity.
At any rate, Section 12, Article II of the 1987
right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth
for civic efficiency and development of moral
character shall receive the support of the
Government. Like the 1973 Constitution and the 1935
Constitution, the 1987 Constitution affirms the State
recognition of the invaluable role of parents in
preparing the youth to become productive members
of society. Notably, it places more importance on the
role of parents in the development of their children
by recognizing that said role shall be "primary," that
is, that the right of parents in upbringing the youth is
superior to that of the State.
It is also the inherent right of the State to act
as parens patriae to aid parents in the moral
development of the youth. Indeed, the Constitution
makes mention of the importance of developing the
youth and their important role in nation building.
Considering that Section 14 provides not only for the
age-appropriate-reproductive health education, but
also for values formation; the development of
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, social and
emotional changes in adolescents; women's rights
and children's rights; responsible teenage behavior;
gender and development; and responsible
parenthood, and that Rule 10, Section 11.01 of the
RH-IRR and Section 4(t) of the RH Law itself provides
for the teaching of responsible teenage behavior,
gender sensitivity and physical and emotional
changes among adolescents the Court finds that the
legal mandate provided under the assailed provision
supplements, rather than supplants, the rights and
duties of the parents in the moral development of
their children.
Furthermore, as Section 14 also mandates that the
mandatory reproductive health education program
shall be developed in conjunction with parent-
teacher-community associations, school officials and
other interest groups, it could very well be said that it
will be in line with the religious beliefs of the
petitioners. By imposing such a condition, it becomes
apparent that the petitioners' contention that
Section 14 violates Article XV, Section 3(1) of the
Constitution is without merit.
While the Court notes the possibility that educators
might raise their objection to their participation in the
reproductive health education program provided
under Section 14 of the RH Law on the ground that
the same violates their religious beliefs, the Court
reserves its judgment should an actual case be filed
before it.