Scribd
Upload
653 views3 pages

Imbong vs. Ochoa

1) Republic Act No. 10354, also known as the Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012 (RH Law), aims to provide Filipinos access to family planning methods and information on reproductive health. Various groups questioned the constitutionality of the RH Law. 2) The Supreme Court resolved preliminary issues before examining the RH Law's constitutionality. Since the petitions alleged legislative infringement of the Constitution, the Court had authority to determine if the RH Law passed constitutional scrutiny. 3) Even a single constitutional violation is enough to require judicial review. Since the RH Law and its implementing rules took effect, and funds were allocated for its implementation, the petitions presented a justiciable controversy that the

Uploaded by

Novah Merill Comillor Venezuela
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
653 views3 pages

Imbong vs. Ochoa

1) Republic Act No. 10354, also known as the Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012 (RH Law), aims to provide Filipinos access to family planning methods and information on reproductive health. Various groups questioned the constitutionality of the RH Law. 2) The Supreme Court resolved preliminary issues before examining the RH Law's constitutionality. Since the petitions alleged legislative infringement of the Constitution, the Court had authority to determine if the RH Law passed constitutional scrutiny. 3) Even a single constitutional violation is enough to require judicial review. Since the RH Law and its implementing rules took effect, and funds were allocated for its implementation, the petitions presented a justiciable controversy that the

Uploaded by

Novah Merill Comillor Venezuela
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

B.

Theory of Judicial Review

Imbong v. Ochoa (G.R. No. 204819)

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, which aims to provide the Filipinos access and information to the full range of
family planning methods and attain the people’s right to reproductive health, this is in
the midst of the country’s increase in population at an uncontrollable pace.

With this at hand, various sectors of society questioned the constitutionality of the RH
law, the petitioners, among others, claimed that the law violates ​Section 26(1), Article VI
of the Constitution, prescribing the one subject-one title rule, the legislation violates the
constitutional standards of due process by concealing the intent to act as a control
population measure as a reproductive health with responsible parenthood.

ISSUES:

There are various arguments, one of which is whether or not the RH law is
unconstitutional.

RULING:

The court resolved some procedural impediments first before delving into the
constitutionality of the RH Law.

1. Since the petition raised a justiciable controversy, where the legislative action
alleged to have infringed the Constitution, the judiciary should then settle the
dispute.“The question thus posed is judicial rather than political. The duty (to
adjudicate) remains to assure that the supremacy of the Constitution is upheld. Once
a controversy as to the application or interpretation of constitutional provision is
raised before this Court (as in the instant case), it becomes a legal issue which the
Court is bound by constitutional mandate to decide. In the scholarly estimation of
former Supreme Court Justice Florentino Feliciano, ​“judicial review is essential for
the maintenance and enforcement of the separation of powers and the balancing of
powers among the three great departments of government through the definition
and maintenance of the boundaries of authority and control between them.” To
him, judicial review is the chief, indeed the only, medium of participation – or
instrument of intervention – of the judiciary in that balancing operation. Lest it be
misunderstood, it bears emphasizing that the Court does not have the unbridled
authority to rule on just any and every claim of constitutional violation.
Jurisprudence is replete with the rule that 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.

2. ​ onsequently, considering that the foregoing petitions have seriously alleged that
C
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 exists 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.

3. It should be noted that even a singular violation of the Constitution and/or the law
is enough to awaken judicial duty. Which is why, in this case, the Court is of the view
that 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.
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.

Resources:

· The LawPhil Project, G.R. No. 204819 ,


https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_204819_2014
.html

· The Student and the Law , Imbong v. Ochoa (G.R. No. 204819)
https://thestudentandthelaw.wordpress.com/2018/07/13/imbong-
v-ochoa-g-r-no-204819/

You might also like