REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES SUPREME COURT Manila

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, MIGUEL MAPA, CARLOS ANTONIO PALAD, WILFREDO JOSE, CLAIRE NAVARRO, ANNA COSIO, and GABRIEL DY LIACCO collectively known as FILIPINOS FOR LIFE, Petitioners, -versusFor: 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

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 COME NOW THE PETITIONERS by the undersigned counsel, and unto this Honorable Court, respectfully allege:

THE PARTIES Petitioners 1. The first group of Petitioners are all Filipinos, taxpayers and members of the medical profession who all belong to the organization known as Doctors For Life, either as officers, and/or 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 ForumShopping. 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, Malacaang 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 Malacaang 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.
2

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 doubled 2. 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 publics rights, as will be discussed hereunder

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.

LOCUS STANDI 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 nonestablishment 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-021651, 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 interests. 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 contraceptives with abortive effects, mandatory sex education,
4

Estrada v. Escitor, A.M. No. P-02-1651, 4 August 2003

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 peoples 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 persons 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 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 services. Although it mentions that ethical or religious beliefs shall be
7

Lectric Law Librarys Lexicon.

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 fortyeight (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.8 [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, he/she 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 company, its agent and/or distributor, their license or
8

Section 17 of R.A. 10354

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 Parenthoodand 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.10 Section 2. The State shall: -xxx2. 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:

Section 26 of Article VI of the 1987 Constitution Article II Section 12 of the Constitution 11 Article XIV Section 2 of the Constitution
10

1. The right of spouses to found a family in accordance with their religious convictions and the demands of responsible parenthood;12 32. The second one, the Reproductive Health falls under any of these provisions: Section 15. The State shall protect and promote the right to 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.14 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.15 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 persons 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. 35. 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 13

Artivle XV Section 3 of the Constitution Article II Section 15 of the Constitution 14 Article XIII Section 11 of the Constitution 15 Article XIII Section 12 of the Constitution

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. 10354 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, nonabortificient and effective family planning products and supplies. [emphasis supplied] 37. 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.16 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
16

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)

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 mothers womb or the prevention of the fertilized ovum to reach and be implanted in the mothers 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 hormonal 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 nonabortifacients. 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%. 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
10

Intrauterine Device abortifacient agent

is

an

47. Section 9 of R.A. 10354 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. 50. 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.17 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 WHOs International Agency for research on Cancer (IARC) made an overall evaluation that oral combined estrogenprogesterone 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

entitled Oral Contraceptive Use as a Risk Factor for Premenopausal Breast Cancer: A Meta-analysis. 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% 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 metaanalysis 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]
12

59. However, according to the Pharmacy Law18 and Medical only medical practitioners can prescribe medicines, and only pharmacists can dispense the same. Law19, 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; (2) 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

13

social and emotional changes in adolescents; womens rights and childrens 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 regulate or prohibit monopolies when the public interest so requires. No combinations in restraint of trade or unfair competition shall be allowed. [Emphasis supplied] 66. follows: The Supreme Courtelaborates the meaning of monopoly as

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.20 [Emphasis supplied] 67. 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
20

Garcia v. Corona, G.R. No. 132451, 17 December 1999

14

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, longterm 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.
15

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, and/or 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. CONCLUSION It is plain to see that R.A. 10354 is flawed which is not only violative of basic Constitutional principles, but is ultimately detrimental to our society. First, it violates the Doctrine of Benevolent Neutrality under the Freedom of Religion Clause which is safeguarded by our Countrys 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. 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. Third, R.A. 10354 violates the basic Constitutional principle that laws shall embrace only one subject which shall be expressed in the title
16

thereof. R.A. 10354 embraces two subjects, namely: Responsible 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. Fourth, R.A. 10354 violates the individuals 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. 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 schools curriculum, the State violates schools academic freedom by controlling what can be taught in such schools. 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;
17

After due proceedings:

a. Declare the unconstitutionality of R.A. 10354; otherwise known as the The Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012, particularly Sections 9, 14, and 17 of the said Law; 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. ____ 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 / 635.2307 Email: calleja.lawofc@yahoo.com By:

HOWARD M. CALLEJA IBP No. 924259 / 1.10.13 / Albay PTR No. 8438831 / 1.10.13 / Pasig City Roll of Attorneys No. 39488 MCLE Exemption No.IV-000305 September 28, 2012

COPY FURNISHED: Hon. Paquito N. Ochoa Executive Secretary Office of the President of the Philippines Malacaang Palace, City of Manila Hon. Florencio B. Abad
18

Secretary Department of Budget and Management Malacaang, 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.

HOWARD M. CALLEJA

19