G.R. No.

204819
IMBONG vs OCHOA

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,
causing the clash between the seemingly antithetical ideologies of the religious conservatives and
progressive liberals. Various individuals from different groups filed petition for Certiorari and
prohibition of RA 10354 or RH law.

The petitioners averred that the RH Law is constitutionally infirm as it violates the constitutional
prohibition against involuntary servitude. They posit that Section 17 of the assailed legislation
requiring private and non-government health care service providers to render forty-eight (48)
hours of pro bono reproductive health services, actually amounts to involuntary servitude
because it requires medical practitioners to perform acts against their will.

The OSG counters that the rendition of pro bono services envisioned in Section 17 can hardly be
considered as forced labor analogous to slavery, as reproductive health care service providers
have the discretion as to the manner and time of giving pro bono services. Moreover, the OSG
points out that the imposition is within the powers of the government, the accreditation of
medical practitioners with PhilHealth being a privilege and not a right.

ISSUE:
Whether or not RA 10354 (RH law) is unconstitutional for violating the prohibition on
involuntary servitude.

RULING:

NO. The practice of medicine is undeniably imbued with public interest that it is both a power
and a duty of the State to control and regulate it in order to protect and promote the public
welfare. Like the legal profession, the practice of medicine is not a right but a privileged
burdened with conditions as it directly involves the very lives of the people. A fortiori, this power
includes the power of Congress to prescribe the qualifications for the practice of professions or
trades which affect the public welfare, the public health, the public morals, and the public safety;
and to regulate or control such professions or trades, even to the point of revoking such right
altogether

Moreover, as some petitioners put it, the notion of involuntary servitude connotes the presence of
force, threats, intimidation or other similar means of coercion and `compulsion A reading of the
assailed provision, however, reveals that it only encourages private and non- government
reproductive healthcare service providers to render pro bono service. Other than non-
accreditation with PhilHealth, no penalty is imposed should they choose to do otherwise. Private
and non-government reproductive healthcare service providers also enjoy the liberty to choose
which kind of health service they wish to provide, when, where and how to provide it or whether
to provide it all. Clearly, therefore, no compulsion, force or threat is made upon them to render
pro bono service against their will. While the rendering of such service was made a prerequisite
to accreditation with PhilHealth, the Court does not consider the same to be an unreasonable
burden, but rather, a necessary incentive imposed by Congress in the furtherance of a perceived
legitimate state interest.

Consistent with what the Court had earlier discussed, however, it should be emphasized that
conscientious objectors are exempt from this provision as long as their religious beliefs and
convictions do not allow them to render reproductive health service, pro bona or otherwise.