P O L I T I C A L

A N D
I N T E R N A T I O N A L L A W
2 0 2 0 B A R E X A M
P R O S P E C T U S

Imbong vs. Ochoa, G.R. No. 204819, April 8, 2014

The meaning of conception according to reputable dictionaries is that life begins at

fertilization. Medical sources support the view that conception begins at fertilization.

The framers of the Constitution intended conception to refer to the moment of fertilization
and the protection of the unborn child upon fertilization. In addition, they did not intend to ban
all contraceptives for being unconstitutional; only those that kill or destroy the fertilized ovum
is prohibited. Contraceptives that prevent the union between the male sperm and the female
ovum and those that similarly take action before fertilization is deemed non-abortive and
thus, constitutionally permissible.

The intent of the framers of the Constitution for protecting the unborn child was to prevent
the legislature from passing a measure that would allow abortion.

By using “or,” in defining abortifacient, the Reproductive Health Act of 2012 (RH Law)
prohibits not only drugs or devices that prevent implantation but also those that induce
abortion and those that induce the destruction of the fetus inside the mother’s womb. The RH
law recognizes that the fertilized ovum already has life and that the State has the bounden
duty to protect it.

The definition of contraceptives under Sec. 3.01 (j) of the IRR of the RH Law which uses the
term “primarily” must be struck down. Recognizing as abortifacient only those that “primarily
induce abortion or the destruction of a fetus inside the mother’s womb or the prevention of
the fertilized ovum to reach and be implanted in the mother’s womb” would paved the way for
the approval of contraceptives that may harm or destroy the life of the unborn from
conception/fertilization.

Sec. 7 of the RH Law which excludes parental consent in cases where a minor undergoing a
procedure is already a parent or has had a miscarriage is anti-family. In addition, also Sec.
23 (a)(ii) which requires the written consent of parents or legal guardian or, in their absence
persons exercising parental authority or next of skin only elective surgical procedures denies
the right of parental authority in cases where what is involved is non-surgical procedures.

Exceptions to parental consent/authority:

1. A minor may receive information, as opposed to procedures, about family planning.

- Parents are not deprived of parental guidance and control over their minor child
in this situation and may assist her in deciding whether to reject or accept the
information received.

2. Life threatening procedures.

- The life of a minor who has already suffered a miscarriage and that of the
spouses should be put to a grave risk simply because of lack of consent.