DELA CENA, Patricia Beatrice S.

BSN 203

CASE DIGEST: Imbong v. Ochoa

G.R. No. 204819
April 8, 2014

Petitioners: James M. Imbong and Lovely-Ann C. Imbong, and Magnificat Child

Development Center
Respondents: Hon. Paquito N. Ochoa, Jr. (Executive Secretary), Hon. Florencio B. Abad
(Department of Budget and Management Secretary), Hon. Enrique T. Ona (DOH
Secretary), Hon. Armin A. Luistro (DECS Secretary), and Hon. Manuel A. Roxas II (DILG
Secretary)

FACTS
• December 21, 2012: Republic Act 10354 or the Responsible Parenthood and
Republic Health Act of 2012 (R.H. Law) was enacted by the Congress to promote
the Filipino people’s, especially those who are poor and marginalized, access to
reproductive health information and responsible parenthood.
o The government, through the RH Law, requires health care professionals to
provide information with the full range of modern family planning
methods and for schools to provide students with reproductive health
education.
o The RH Law criminalized acts of refusal to carry out the law’s mandate to
help ensure that its aim will be realized.
• March 15, 2013: The Implementing Rules and Regulations took effect.
• March 19, 2013: The Court issued the Status Quo Ante Order (SQAO) for 120 days
(until July 17), enjoining the effects and implementation of the assailed legislation.
List of Related Laws:
1. RA 4729 (June 18, 1966) – regulates sale, dispensation, and/or distribution of
contraceptive drugs and devices.
2. RA 5921 (June 21, 1969) – Under Section 37, “no drug or chemical product or
device capable of provoking abortion or preventing conception as classified by the
FDA shall be delivered or sold to any person without a proper prescription by a
duly licensed physician”.
3. RA 6365 (August 16, 1971) – national policy on population, Commission on
Population, family planning as part of a broad educational program, provision of
safe and effective means for couples desiring to space or limit family size.
 4. PD 79 (December 8, 1972) – family planning part of a broad educational program,
FP services as part of overall health care, made available all acceptable methods of
contraception, except abortion for spacing, limiting or preventing pregnancies.
5. RA 9710 (August 14, 2009) – Magna Carta for Women, mandating State to provide
comprehensive health services and programs for women (including FP and sex
ed).

Arguments made by the petitioners that states RH Law is unconstitutional for

violating the following:
1. Right to life – violates right to life of the unborn (Article II, Section 12 of the 1987
Philippine Constitution), because of the authorization of the use of contraceptives,
intra-uterine devices, and injectables which are abortive.
2. Right to health – violates the right to health and right to protection against
hazardous products because it provides universal access to contraceptives as well
as it causes cancer and other health problems.
3. Freedom of Religion and Right to Free Speech
a. It authorizes the use of public funds to buy contraceptives.
b. RH Law should not be allowed because the mandatory sex education in
schools is an insult to petitioners’ religious beliefs.
c. RH Law violates the right to free speech because it compels a person to
explain a full range of family planning methods thus curtailing his right to
expound only on his preferred family planning method.
i. Exemptions are granted to institutions owned and operated by
religious groups, but they are still mandated to refer patients to
another facility.
4. The Family – The RH Law intrudes on the zone of privacy of one’s family because
absolute authority given to the person who will undergo reproductive health
procedures impedes on the right of spouses to mutually decide on overall
wellbeing of their family.
a. Also, parents of a child who has suffered a miscarriage are deprived of the
parental authority to determine whether their child should use
contraceptives
5. Freedom of Expression and Academic Freedom – The mandatory reproductive
health education intrudes on people’s constitutional right to raise their children in
accordance with their beliefs.
 6. Due Process
a. It penalizes “any violation” without defining the what conduct is a
“violation” and does not define who is a “private health care service
provider” and fails to define “incorrect information” — “void for
vagueness”.
b. it is unclear if religious hospitals are exempt from providing modern family
planning methods and from giving RH information or procedures (under
Section 7 and Section 23)
c. it punishes health care providers who intentionally withhold, restrict and
provide incorrect information on RH programs and services.
7. Equal Protection – The RH law violates the right to equal protection of the law
because:
a. It discriminates against the poor as the primary target of promotion of
contraceptive use aimed to effectively reduce the number of poor people.
i. It excludes private educational institutions from mandatory RH
education program.
8. Involuntary Servitude -- Medical practitioners are compelled to provide 48 hours
of pro bono services for indigent women for them (medical practitioners) to be
accredited by PhilHealth.
9. Delegation of Authority to the FDA – The RH Law violates constitutional
principle of non-delegation of legislative authority because it delegated to the
Food and Drug Administration (FDA under the DOH) the power to determine
whether a product is non-abortive and whether to be included in the Emergency
Drugs List (EDL).
10. Autonomy of Local Governments/ARMM – The RH Law violates the principle of
Autonomy of LGUs and the ARMM because it meddles with the power and
authority of LGUs to provide basic services and facilities to their constituents.
11. Natural Law – The RH Law violates natural law, i.e. morality, acts of violence,
murder.

ISSUES OF THE CASE

1. Right to life – Consistent with Section 12, Article II of the Constitution, the RH
Law does not allow abortion in any shape or form as it only allows the use of non-
abortive drugs including those that destroy fertilized ova and those that prevent
the fertilized ovum from implanting on the uterine walls.
2. Right to health – RH Law upholds, that is, does not revoke, the law currently in
force that regulates and ensures that contraceptives would only be accessible
through licensed medical practitioners, and that citizens are safeguarded from
unsafe contraceptives.

3. The Court held that since that not a single contraceptive has been submitted to the
FDA to determine whether it is unsafe and/or an abortive drug, it would be
premature to make a judgment on this issue. However, the Court also held that it
is not for the Congress to name which contraceptives are safe or not, and only the
FDA has the authority to do such determination.

4. Right to Freedom of Religion – only with regard to the mandatory attendance of

family planning seminars, as it does not mandate what kind of family planning
method to use nor does it compel attendees to follow what they learn from the
seminar, ergo still retaining the privacy of the family with regards to making
decisions on their family life. All other provisions regarding said right are
unconstitutional (see 2b).

5. Due Process – “private health care service provider” is defined in Section 4[n], and
this term is used synonymously with “private health care institution”, and other
words are clear in common language.
ii. Right to be exempted from obligated rendering of RH services and
modern FP methods necessarily includes exemption from being
obligated to give information and render RH procedures.
iii. Punishment against withholding or giving wrong info is not wrong
because doing this connotes malice and ill will which is contrary to
public health and safety.
1. Equal Protection – Equal protection extends to all actions of
a state denying equal protection of the laws but does not
require the universal application of laws to all persons or
things without distinction. It simply requires equality among
equals as determined by a valid classification.
iv. Section 11, Article XIII of the Constitution recognizes the distinct
necessity to address the needs or the underprivileged (poor) by
providing they be given priority in addressing health development.
v. Also, Section 7 of RH Law pertains to poor and marginalized couples
who are suffering from fertility issues and desire to have children and does
not prescribe number of children or impose conditions on those who
want to have children.
 vi. On exclusion of private schools from mandatory sex ed, this is
simply a recognition of the academic freedom of private schools (esp.
with respect to religious instruction).

6. Involuntary Servitude – Not involuntary servitude because no coercion or

compulsion and no penalty is imposed for not doing this. Law only encourages
private and non-government RH service providers to render 40 hours of pro bono
service. Making this a requirement for PhilHealth accreditation is not an
unreasonable burden, but rather a necessary incentive in furtherance of a
perceived legitimate state interest.

7. Delegation of Authority to the FDA – FDA has both the legal mandate (RA 3720
as amended by RA 9711) and the competency to ensure that the public be given
only those medicines that are proven medically safe, legal, non-abortive, and
effective in accordance with scientific and evidence-based medical research
standards. Legislature may not have the competence, interest or time to provide
the direct, efficacious, and specific solutions.

8. Autonomy of Local Governments/ARMM – Local autonomy is not absolute.

Unless LGU is designated as implementing agency for the program, it has no
power over a program funded by the national government. Also, the use of the
word “endeavor” implies that LGUs are merely encouraged to provide RH
services (i.e. not mandatory). Congress cannot be restricted to legislate on all
subjects, autonomous governments included, when it is for public interest.

9. Natural Law – Court is not obliged to see if laws are in conformity with natural
law because their only guidepost is the Constitution. Natural law is to be used
sparingly on circumstances involving rights inherent to man where no law is
applicable.

UNCONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
1. Section 7 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 to another health facility that is
conveniently accessible.
 b. Allow minor-patients or minors who have suffered a miscarriage access to
modern FP methods without written consent from their parents or
guardian(s).
2. Section 23[a][1] 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/her religious beliefs.
3. Section 23[a][2][i] insofar as they allow a married individual, not in an emergency
or life-threatening case, to undergo reproductive health procedures without the
consent of the spouse not undergoing the procedure.
4. Section 23[a][2][ii] insofar as they limit the requirement of parental consent only
to elective surgical procedure.
5. Section 23[a][3] 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 to
another health care service provider within the same facility or one which is
conveniently accessible regardless of his/her religious beliefs.
6. Section 23[b] 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/her religious
beliefs.
7. Section 3.01[a] and Section 3.01[j] 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.

OBITER DICTA
● Court believes that the RH seeks to address the problem of rising poverty in the
country. But the cause of these recurrent issues, the Court said, is not the large
population but the unequal distribution of wealth.
● The Court also contended that population control may not be beneficial to the
country in the long run.
● Court admits that the country has a population problem, but the State should not
use coercive measures (like the penal provisions in the RH Law against
conscientious objectors) to solve it. Nonetheless, the policy of the Court is non-
interference in the wisdom of the law.
RULING OF THE COURT:
• RH Law is CONSTITUTIONAL, with the exception of a couple of selected
sections.