IMBONG v.

OCHOA (RH LAW)

August 11, 2016 | Mendoza, J. | Rights and/or Privileges
SUMMARY: In general, the RH Law is not deemed as
unconstitutional as it is a mere compilation and enhancement of
the prior existing contraceptive and reproductive health law, but
with coercive measures.
DOCTRINE: In conformity of the principle of separation of Church
and State, one religious group cannot be allowed to impose its
beliefs on the rest of the society.
FACTS:
RA 10354, which is also known as Responsible Parenthood &
Health Act of 2012 or simply 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. It also mandates the health providers to provide
information on the modern family methods, supplies and
services, and for schools to provide reproductive health
education.
RULING: Petitions are PARTIALLY granted.
Whether RH Law is unconstitutional on the following bases:
Right to life NO.
Petitioners contends that the RH Law does not prohibit
contraceptives that take effect after the fertilization and prior
to the implantation of the fertilized ovum to the uterus.
The RH Law itself clearly mandates that protection of life be
afforded from the moment of fertilization (or conception).
Right to Health NO.
Petitioners aver that the oral contraceptives increase the risk
of various diseases, such as breast cancer and cervical cancer.
RH Law will not lead to the proliferation of contraceptives as
RA 4729 (An Act to Regulate the Sale, Dispensation and
Distribution Contraceptive Drugs and Devices) is still a good
law; hence, a prescription from a duly licensed physician is still
required before any sale, dispensation and distribution of
contraceptive can be made to any person.

Freedom of Religion and Rights to Free Speech PARTIALLY

YES.
Petitioners contend that the expenditure of the taxes for
contraceptives violates the guarantee of religious freedom
since contraceptives are against their religious beliefs.
Petitioners further claim that the law violates the freedom of
religion, as the law requires that the conscientious objector
refer the patient seeking reproductive health service to
another medical practitioner who would be able to provide for
the patients needs. Petitioners also claim that the requirement
of would-be couples to attend family planning and responsible
parenthood seminars may contravene their religious beliefs.
On the other hand, respondents contend that a person may
choose natural or artificial contraceptives since the RH Law
does not require the specific mode or type of contraceptives to
be used. Respondents also insist that RH Law is a balance
compromise between the interest of the religious
(conscientious) objector and the citizen who expects health
care professionals to act professionally. Lastly, respondents
claim that would-be couples are not forced to accept the
information, taught in the seminar, which they do not agree
with.
The Court ruled that the State is not precluded to pursue a
legitimate secular objective without being dictated upon by the
policies of any one group.
The Court is of the view that the obligation to refer violates the
religious belief and conviction of a conscientious objector.
Freedom of religion was accorded preferred status by the
framers of the Consti to protect the broadest possible liberty.
The Court also finds the provisions Skilled health
professionals . . . cannot be considered as conscientious
objectors as discriminatory and in violation of the equal
protection clause and is, thus, deemed void.
The Court finds the requirement for would-be couples to attend
seminars as a reasonable exercise of police power and does not
violate the religious freedom, as the family planning method is
not specified. The would-be couple are also not compelled to
accept the information given to them in that seminar.
Family and Right to Privacy YES.
The Court finds that the following provisions tend to wreck the
family as a solid social institution

In case of spousal disagreement, the decision of one

undergoing a procedure (e.g., vasectomy and
ligation) shall prevail.
o When a minor is already a parent or had a
miscarriage, the parents of the minor are excluded
from the decision making process of the minor with
regard to the family planning methods available to
the minor.
The first mentioned provision violates the Consti, which
provides for the right of the spouses to found a family. Such
procedure should require mutual consent as they affect issues
intimately related to the founding of a family.
The second mentioned provision disregards the natural and
primary right and duty of the parents in rearing the youth.
Exceptions (i.e., not considered as unconstitutional): 1. Access
to information and 2. Life threatening cases.
o

Academic Freedom NO.

According to the petitioners, Section 14 of the RH Law, which
mandates the teaching of age and development appropriate
reproductive health education, violates the principle of
academic freedom.
The Court ruled that the attack on the validity of the provision
is premature, since the DepEd has not yet formulated a
curriculum on the reproductive health education.
Due Process NO.
Petitioners contend that the RH Law suffers from vagueness
and thus violates due process.
The Court held that every part of the statute must be construed
together with the other parts and kept subservient to the
general intent of the whole enactment.
Equal Protection NO.
Petitioners aver that the RH Law violates the equal protection
because it discriminates against the poor by making them the
primary target of the programs. The petitioners claim that by
doing so, the State does not promote reproductive health
among the poor but intends to reduce the number of the poor.
The Court held that prioritizing the poor does not violate the
equal protection, as equal protection mandates that all persons
alike be treated alike as to their rights and responsibilities.

Involuntary Servitude NO.

Petitioners aver that requiring private and non-government
health care service providers to render 48 hours of pro bono
services amounts to involuntary servitude.
Respondents contest that such provision may hardly be
construed as involuntary servitude since the RH Law does not
prescribe the time and manner of the giving of the services.
Also, such imposition is within the power of the government.
The Court ruled that since the practice of medicine is with
public interest, it is both a power and a duty of the State to
control and regulate it. Such power includes the power to
prescribe the qualifications for the practice of the profession.
Also, a reading of the RH Law reveals that it does not mandate
but only encourages health care professionals to render pro
bono services.
Delegation of Authority to FDA NO.
The Court deems the delegation of the Congress to the FDA the
power to determine whether a product is to be included in the
Essential Drug List to be not unconstitutional. The FDA has the
competency to evaluate, register and cover health services and
methods.
Autonomy of local governments and ARMM NO.
Petitioners claim that the RH Law infringes the power devolved
to the LGUs with regard to the provision of basic services and
facilities.
The Court does not agree with the petitioner as the same
provision provides that an LGU has no power over a program
funded by the national government. RH Law provides that the
services enumerated in the said law shall be funded by the
national government and, thus, does not infringe the LGUs
power.
The provisions of RA 9054 (An Act to Expand the Organic Act
of ARMM) cannot be characterized as an abdication of the
State of its powers to enact laws that will benefit the general
welfare of the country.
NOTES:
Religious guarantees:
o Establishment clause prohibits the establishment of a
state religion (or to reward a certain religious belief)
o Free exercise clause prohibits the State from unduly
interfering with ones faith & belief (or to penalize a certain

religious belief). 1. Freedom to believe and 2. Freedom to

act on ones belief
Doctrine of Benevolent Neutrality accommodation of religion
may be allowed to allowed individuals to exercise their
religion without hindrance

Compelling State Interest Test notion that free exercise is a

fundamental right and the law burdening it should be subject
to strict scrutiny. Should be employed when the human
conduct has different effects on the States interests.