JAMES M. IMBONG Petitioners, vs.HON. PAQUITO N. OCHOA, Respondents.G.R. No.

204819, April 8, 2014

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.

There are fourteen (14) petitions and two (2) petitions- in-intervention were filed assailing the
constitutionality of RH Law on the following GROUNDS:

Respondents pray for the dismissal of the petitions for the principal reasons that 1] there is no actual case
or controversy and, therefore, the issues are not yet ripe for judicial determination.; 2] some petitioners
lack standing to question the RH Law.

OSG asserts that it should submit to the legislative and political wisdom of Congress and respect the
compromises made in the crafting of the RH Law, it being "a product of a majoritarian democratic
process"75 and "characterized by an inordinate amount of transparency." The OSG posits that the authority
of the Court to review social legislation like the RH Law by certiorari is "weak," since the Constitution vests
the discretion to implement the constitutional policies and positive norms with the political departments,
in particular, with Congress.

Also the proponents of the RH Law submit that the subject petitions do not present any actual case or
controversy because the RH Law has yet to be implemented. They claim that the questions raised by the
petitions are not yet concrete and ripe for adjudication since no one has been charged with violating any of
its provisions and that there is no showing that any of the petitioners' rights has been adversely affected by
its operation.98 In short, it is contended that judicial review of the RH Law is premature.

ISSUES : Whether the Court can exercise its power of judicial review over the controversy.

Whether or not the SC’s exercise of its judicial power violates the principle of separation of
powers ?

HELD:

YES, the Court can exercise its power of judicial review over the controversy and the SC’s exercise of its
judicial power is not a violation of the principle of separation of powers.

Under the principle of Separation of powers, each department of the government has exclusive
cognizance of matters within its jurisdiction and is supreme within its own sphere.While the Supreme Court
may not pass upon questions of wisdom, justice or expediency of the RH Law, it may do so where an
attendant unconstitutionality or grave abuse of discretion results.The Court may pass upon the
constitutionality of acts of the legislative and the executive branches, since its duty is not to review their
collective wisdom but, rather, to make sure that they have acted in consonance with their respective
authorities and rights as mandated of them by the Constitution. The power of judicial review is limited by
four exacting requisites, viz : (a) there must be an actual case or controversy; (b) the petitioners must
possess locus standi; (c) the question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest opportunity; and (d)
the issue of constitutionality must be the lis mota of the case.96
 In this case, an actual case or controversy exists and that the same is ripe for judicial determination.
Considering that the RH Law and its implementing rules have already taken effect and that budgetary
measures to carry out the law have already been passed, it is evident that the subject petitions present a
justiciable controversy.Moreover, the petitioners have shown that the case is so because medical
practitioners or medical providers are in danger of being criminally prosecuted under the RH Law for
vague violations thereof, particularly public health officers who are threatened to be dismissed from the
service with forfeiture of retirement and other benefits. They must, at least, be heard on the matter
NOW.When an action of the legislative branch is seriously alleged to have infringed the Constitution, it not
only becomes a right, but also a duty of the Judiciary to settle the dispute.

Considering that the foregoing petitions have seriously alleged that the constitutional human rights to
life, speech and religion and other fundamental rights mentioned above have been violated by the
assailed legislation, the Court has authority to take cognizance of these kindred petitions and to
determine if the RH Law can indeed pass constitutional scrutiny. To dismiss these petitions on the simple
expedient that there exist no actual case or controversy, would diminish this Court as a reactive branch
of government, acting only when the Fundamental Law has been transgressed, to the detriment of the
Filipino people.

In view of the seriousness, novelty and weight as precedents, not only to the public, but also to the bench
and bar, the issues raised must be resolved for the guidance of all. After all, the RH Law drastically affects
the constitutional provisions on the right to life and health, the freedom of religion and expression and
other constitutional rights. Mindful of all these and the fact that the issues of contraception and
reproductive health have already caused deep division among a broad spectrum of society, the Court
entertains no doubt that the petitions raise issues of transcendental importance warranting immediate
court adjudication. More importantly, considering that it is the right to life of the mother and the unborn
which is primarily at issue, the Court need not wait for a life to be taken away before taking action.

Thus, the Court cannot, and should not, exercise judicial restraint at this time when rights enshrined in
the Constitution are being imperilled to be violated. To do so, when the life of either the mother or her
child is at stake, would lead to irreparable consequences.