Imbong vs. Ochoa Jr.

AI-generated

Updated 21st March 2025

This consolidated case involves multiple petitions challenging the constitutionality of the Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012 (RH Law) in the Philippines. Petitioners argue that the RH Law violates various constitutional rights including the right to life, health, religious freedom, and due process. The Supreme Court partially granted the petitions, declaring certain provisions of the RH Law and its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) unconstitutional while upholding the law's general validity.

Decided

8th April 2014

Division

En Banc

Ponente

MENDOZA, Jose Catral

Case Nature

SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS in the Supreme Court. Certiorari and Prohibition; and PETITIONS-IN-INTERVENTION.

Case References

721 SCRA 146

732 Phil. 1

G.R. No. 204819

G.R. No. 204934

G.R. No. 204957

G.R. No. 204988

G.R. No. 205003

G.R. No. 205043

G.R. No. 205138

G.R. No. 205478

G.R. No. 205491

G.R. No. 205720

G.R. No. 206355

G.R. No. 207111

G.R. No. 207172

G.R. No. 207563

Full text word count

175,087

Full text read time est.

500-700 Mins

Full text sources

elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph

E-SCRA

Lawphil

PDF Document

Subjects

Constitutional Law I

Constitutional Law II

Philosophy of Law

Dispositive

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 modern methods of family planning without written consent from their parents or guardian/s; 2] Section 23(a)(1) 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 Republic Act No. 8344, to undergo reproductive health procedures without the consent of 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/or refuses 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 provision in the RH-IRR regarding the rendering of pro bono reproductive health service insofar as they affect the conscientious objector in securing PhilHealth accreditation; and 8] Section 3.01(a) and Section 3.01(j) 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. The Status Quo Ante Order issued by the Court on March 19, 2013 as extended by its Order, dated July 16, 2013, is hereby LIFTED, insofar as the provisions of R.A. No. 10354 which have been herein declared as constitutional.

Concur (8)

ABAD, Roberto

BERSAMIN, Lucas

CARPIO, Antonio

MENDOZA, Jose Catral

PEREZ, Jose Portugal

PERALTA, Diosdado

VELASCO JR, Presbitero

VILLARAMA JR, Martin

Separate Concur And Dissent (7)

BRION, Arturo

DEL CASTILLO, Mariano

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, Teresita

LEONEN, Marvic

PERLAS-BERNABE, Estela

REYES, Bienvenido

SERENO, Maria Lourdes

Primary Holding

The Supreme Court declared certain provisions of the RH Law and its IRR unconstitutional, specifically those related to abortifacients as redefined by the IRR, restrictions on conscientious objectors, lack of parental or spousal consent in specific situations, and limitations on health facilities operated by religious groups. However, the majority of the RH Law was upheld as constitutional.

Background

The Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012 (RH Law) was enacted to address population growth and improve reproductive health in the Philippines. It mandates government provision of reproductive health services and supplies, including contraceptives, and requires sex education in schools. The law generated significant controversy and strong opposition, particularly from religious groups. Shortly after its enactment, various groups filed petitions challenging its constitutionality.

History

December 21, 2012: Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012 (RH Law) enacted.
Multiple petitions and petitions-in-intervention filed before the Supreme Court questioning the RH Law's constitutionality.
March 15, 2013: RH-IRR for the enforcement of the RH Law took effect.
March 19, 2013: Supreme Court issued a Status Quo Ante Order (SQAO) enjoining the effects and implementation of the RH Law.
July 16, 2013: SQAO was extended until further orders.
Oral arguments were heard on multiple dates in July and August 2013.
Parties submitted memoranda after oral arguments.
April 08, 2014: Supreme Court promulgated its decision.

Facts

1. The RH Law mandates universal access to a full range of modern family planning methods, emphasizing the need for Filipinos, especially the poor, to have access to information and services.
2. The law promotes both natural and modern family planning methods but is principally aimed at population control by reducing birth rates.
3. The RH Law criminalizes certain acts of refusal to implement its mandates by healthcare providers and institutions, including the duty to refer and provide information.
4. The RH-IRR redefined "abortifacient" and "contraceptive" in a way petitioners argued conflicted with the RH Law itself and the Constitution.
5. Petitioners come from diverse sectors of society, including religious organizations, medical professionals, and citizens concerned about family and life issues.
6. Respondents include various government secretaries and agencies responsible for implementing the RH Law.

Arguments of the Petitioners

1. The RH Law violates the right to life of the unborn by authorizing abortifacient contraceptives.
2. The RH Law violates the right to health by promoting potentially hazardous contraceptives.
3. The RH Law violates the right to religious freedom by funding contraceptives contrary to religious beliefs and compelling actions against conscience.
4. The RH Law violates the constitutional provision against involuntary servitude by forcing medical practitioners to provide pro bono services.
5. The RH Law violates the right to equal protection by disproportionately targeting the poor with contraception.
6. The RH Law is void for vagueness due to undefined terms and penalties.
7. The RH Law violates the right to due process by infringing on management prerogatives of health facilities.
8. The RH Law violates the right to free speech by compelling speech on family planning methods.
9. The RH Law intrudes into the zone of privacy of the family.
10. The RH Law violates the non-delegation of legislative authority by delegating to the FDA the determination of abortifacients.
11. The RH Law violates the one subject/one bill rule.
12. The RH Law violates Natural Law.
13. The RH Law violates the principle of Autonomy of Local Government Units and ARMM.

Arguments of the Respondents

1. The petitions are premature as there is no actual case or controversy.
2. Some petitioners lack locus standi to question the RH Law.
3. The petitions are essentially petitions for declaratory relief over which the Court has no original jurisdiction.
4. The RH Law does not violate the right to life as it prohibits abortion and promotes only non-abortifacient contraceptives.
5. Contraceptives are not hazardous to health, and concerns are refuted by medical authorities.
6. The RH Law does not violate religious freedom as it provides for conscientious objectors and serves public interest in health.
7. The duty to refer and mandatory sex education are reasonable regulations.
8. The RH Law does not violate equal protection and is aimed at improving public health, especially for the poor and marginalized.
9. The RH Law is not vague and provides sufficient standards.
10. Contraception and reproductive health are interrelated and inseparable.

Issues

1. The procedural issues surrounding the RH Law controversy center on the Court's authority to exercise judicial review, requiring examination of several key aspects: the Court's established power of judicial review, the existence of an actual case or controversy, the validity of a facial challenge, the complainants' legal standing (locus standi), the appropriateness of declaratory relief, and whether the law violates the One Subject/One Title Rule. These procedural questions must be resolved before the Court can address the substantive constitutional challenges to the legislation.
2. The substantive constitutional challenges to the RH Law encompass multiple fundamental rights and principles: whether the law violates the right to life, impacts the right to health, infringes upon freedom of religion and free speech, undermines the family as a social institution, restricts freedom of expression and academic freedom, violates due process and equal protection guarantees, constitutes involuntary servitude, improperly delegates authority to the FDA, and encroaches upon the autonomy of local governments and the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM). Each of these substantive issues requires careful constitutional analysis to determine the law's validity.

Ruling

1. Procedural Issues: The Court affirmed its power of judicial review, found the case ripe for adjudication due to the law's effectivity and budget allocation, and recognized the petitioners' locus standi given the transcendental importance of the issues. Facial challenge was deemed proper.
2. Right to Life: The Court held that life begins at fertilization and that the RH Law, in principle, protects this right by prohibiting abortifacients. However, the proviso in Section 9 of RH Law and redefinition of "abortifacient" and "contraceptive" in RH-IRR were problematic.
3. Right to Health: The Court acknowledged the right to health but deferred to legislative and executive wisdom regarding contraceptives, relying on safeguards in existing laws (R.A. 4729 and R.A. 5921) requiring prescription for contraceptives.
4. Freedom of Religion and Right to Free Speech: The Court recognized the right to religious freedom, including conscientious objection, but deemed the duty to refer as an unconstitutional burden on religious freedom. However, the duty to inform was upheld. Mandatory family planning seminars were deemed constitutional.
5. The Family and Right to Privacy: The Court ruled that Section 23(a)(2)(i) requiring spousal consent was unconstitutional as it undermined marital and parental authority. Parental consent for minors was generally upheld but the exception for minor-parents/miscarriage was struck down.
6. Other Issues: The Court rejected arguments regarding involuntary servitude, equal protection, vagueness, non-delegation, one subject/one title rule, and violations of Natural Law and LGU autonomy.

Doctrines

1. Judicial Review: The power of the judiciary to review the constitutionality of actions of the other branches of government.
2. Justiciable Controversy & Ripeness: The requirement that a case must be actual and ripe for adjudication, not hypothetical or premature.
3. Locus Standi: The requirement that a party must have a personal and substantial interest and sustain direct injury to bring a case. Relaxed in cases of transcendental importance.
4. Facial Challenge: A challenge to a statute's validity on its face, applicable in cases involving free speech and fundamental rights.
5. One Subject-One Title Rule: The constitutional requirement that a law should only cover one subject expressed in its title.
6. Freedom of Religion and Free Exercise Clause: The constitutional guarantee of religious freedom, encompassing both freedom to believe and freedom to act on beliefs, subject to limitations for public welfare.
7. Benevolent Neutrality/Accommodation: The State's stance towards religion, allowing accommodation to religious exercise without favoring any religion.
8. Compelling State Interest Test: The standard used to justify regulation of religious freedom; the State must show a compelling interest and use the least restrictive means.
9. Separation of Church and State: The constitutional principle ensuring mutual respect and non-interference between Church and State.
10. Right to Privacy: The right of individuals and families to be free from unwarranted government intrusion into personal affairs, including marital privacy and parental autonomy.
11. Principle of No Abortion: The constitutional protection of life from conception, interpreted as prohibiting abortion and abortifacient contraceptives.
12. Principle of Non-Coercion: Ensuring that family planning choices are made freely and without coercion.
13. Plain Meaning Rule in Statutory Construction: Interpreting words in their ordinary meaning.
14. Transcendental Importance: Allows relaxation of procedural rules like locus standi in cases of paramount public interest.

Key Excerpts

1. "Freedom of religion was accorded preferred status by the framers of our fundamental law. And this Court has consistently affirmed this preferred status, well aware that it is 'designed to protect the broadest possible liberty of conscience, to allow each man to believe as his conscience directs, to profess his beliefs, and to live as he believes he ought to live, consistent with the liberty of others and with the common good.'"
2. "The intention…is to make sure that there would be no pro-abortion laws ever passed by Congress or any pro-abortion decision passed by the Supreme Court."

Precedents Cited

1. Tañada v. Angara: Used to affirm that certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus are appropriate remedies to raise constitutional issues against legislative and executive actions.
2. Southern Hemisphere v. Anti-Terrorism Council: Cited by OSG to argue against certiorari and prohibition as remedies against legislative acts. Court distinguished this case by stating certiorari and prohibition are proper.
3. Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS: Used to clarify self-executing provisions of the constitution.
4. Benjamin E. Cawaling, Jr. v. The Commission on Elections and Rep. Francis Joseph G. Escudero: Used to clarify the "one title-one subject" rule.
5. Coconut Oil Refiners Association, Inc. v. Torres, & Emergency Powers Cases, Jaworski v. PAGCOR: Used to justify relaxation of locus standi in cases of transcendental importance.
6. Gerona v. Secretary of Education, German, Ebralinag, Iglesia ni Cristo: Referenced in the context of religious freedom tests evolution.
7. Victoriano v. Elizalde Rope Workers Union: Used to discuss religious freedom and the "compelling state interest" test.
8. Griswold v. Connecticut: Landmark US case on right to privacy, relevant to spousal consent and contraception.
9. Gonzales v. Carhart: US Supreme Court case referenced in discussing fetal life and state interest.

Statutory and Constitutional Provisions

1. Article II, Section 12 (Sanctity of Family Life; Protection of Mother and Unborn)
2. Article III, Section 1 (Due Process and Equal Protection)
3. Article III, Section 5 (Free Exercise Clause)
4. Article VI, Section 26(1) (One Subject-One Title Rule)
5. Article VIII, Section 1 (Judicial Power)
6. Article VIII, Section 5 (Powers of the Supreme Court)
7. Article XI, Section 1 (Public Office is a Public Trust)
8. Article XIII, Section 11 (State duty to provide for health of people)
9. Article XV, Section 1 (Filipino Family as Foundation of Nation)
10. Article XV, Section 2 (Marriage as Inviolable Institution)
11. Article XV, Section 3 (State duty to defend Family Rights)
12. Republic Act No. 10354, Section 2 (Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012 - RH Law)
13. Republic Act No. 10354, Section 3 (RH Law)
14. Republic Act No. 10354, Section 4 (RH Law)
15. Republic Act No. 10354, Section 7 (RH Law)
16. Republic Act No. 10354, Section 9 (RH Law)
17. Republic Act No. 10354, Section 10 (RH Law)
18. Republic Act No. 10354, Section 14 (RH Law)
19. Republic Act No. 10354, Section 17 (RH Law)
20. Republic Act No. 10354, Section 23 (RH Law)
21. Republic Act No. 10354, Section 24 (RH Law)
22. Republic Act No. 10354, Section 29 (RH Law)
23. RH-IRR Section 3.01
24. RH-IRR Section 5.24
25. RH-IRR Section 7.03
26. RH-IRR Section 7.04
27. RH-IRR Section 8.08
28. RH-IRR Section 8.09
29. Republic Act No. 4729, Section 1 (Sale, Dispensation, and/or Distribution of Contraceptive Drugs and Devices Act)
30. Republic Act No. 4729, Section 2
31. Republic Act No. 4729, Section 3
32. Republic Act No. 5921, Section 25 (Pharmacy Law)
33. Republic Act No. 6365 (Population Act of the Philippines)
34. Republic Act No. 7392 (Midwifery Act)
35. Republic Act No. 8344 (Act Penalizing Refusal to Admit Patients in Emergency Cases)
36. Republic Act No. 8479 (Downstream Oil Industry Deregulation Act)
37. Republic Act No. 9054 (ARMM Organic Act)
38. Republic Act No. 9071 (Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act)
39. Republic Act No. 9710 (Magna Carta of Women)
40. Republic Act No. 9711 (Amending R.A. 3720)
41. Republic Act No. 7875 (National Health Insurance Act of 1995)
42. Presidential Decree No. 79
43. Local Government Code

Primary Holding Background History Facts Arguments of the Petitioners Arguments of the Respondents Issues Ruling Doctrines Key Excerpts Precedents Cited Provisions

Contents