IMBONG VS.

OCHOA

JAMES M. IMBONG and LOVELY-ANN C. IMBONG, for themselves and in behalf of their minor
children, LUCIA CARLOS IMBONG and BERNADETTE CARLOS IMBONG and MAGNIFICAT
CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER, INC., Petitioners,
vs.
HON. PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., Executive Secretary, HON. FLORENCIO B. ABAD, Secretary,
Department of Budget and Management, HON. ENRIQUE T. ONA, Secretary, Department of
Health, HON. ARMIN A. LUISTRO, Secretary, Department of Education, Culture and Sports
and HON. MANUELA. ROXAS II, Secretary, Department of Interior and Local
Government, Respondents.

FACTS OF THE CASE

14 Petitions and 2 Petitions-in-intervention:

1) C/P BY ATTY JAMES M. IMBONG AND LOVELY ANN C. IMBONG; MAGNIFICAT CHILD
LEARNING CENTER INC.
2) PP Alliance for the family foundation Philippines Inc. through its President Atty Maria Concepcion
S. Noche
3) PC Task Force for Family and Life Visayas Inc. and Valeriano S. Avila
4) C/P Serve Life CDO City Inc Rosevale Foundation Inc
5) Petition Expedito Bugarin Jr
6) C/P Eduardo Olaguer and Xybrspace Apostolate of the Philippines
7) C/P Philippine Alliance of Xseminarians Inc
8) Petition Reynaldo Echavez, MD
9) C/P Sps. Francisco and Fenny Tatad, Atty. Alan Paguia
10) C/P Pro-life Philippines Foundation Inc
11) P Millenium Saint Foundation Inc
12) C/P John Walter B. Juat
13) C/P Couples for Christ Foundation Inc
14) Prohibition Almarem Centi Tillah and Abdulhussein Kashim
15) PII Atty. Samson S. Alcantara
16) PII Buhay Hayaang Yumabong (party list)

ENACTED BY CONGRESS DEC. 21, 2012 RA 10354 RESPONSIBLE PARENTHOOD AND

ISSUES:

I. PROCEDURAL: Whether the Court may exercise its power of judicial review over the controversy.

1] Power of Judicial Review

In many cases involving the determination of the constitutionality of the actions of the
Executive and the Legislature, it is often sought that the Court temper its exercise of judicial
power and accord due respect to the wisdom of its co-equal branch on the basis of the principle
of separation of powers. To be clear, the separation of powers is a fundamental principle in our
system of government, which obtains not through express provision but by actual division in our
 Constitution. Each department of the government has exclusive cognizance of matters within its
jurisdiction and is supreme within its own sphere.

2] Actual Case or Controversy

Proponents of the RH Law submit that the subj ect petitions do not present any actual
case or controversy because the RH Law has yet to be implemented.97 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.

3] Facial Challenge

The OSG also assails the propriety of the facial challenge lodged by the subject petitions,
contending that the RH Law cannot be challenged "on its face" as it is not a speech regulating
measure.

4] Locus Standi

Locus standi or legal standing is defined as a personal and substantial interest in a case such
that the party has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of the challenged governmental
act.

5] Declaratory Relief

The respondents also assail the petitions because they are essentially petitions for declaratory
relief over which the Court has no original jurisdiction. Suffice it to state that most of the petitions
are praying for injunctive reliefs and so the Court would just consider them as petitions for
prohibition under Rule 65, over which it has original jurisdiction. Where the case has far-reaching
implications and prays for injunctive reliefs, the Court may consider them as petitions for
prohibition under Rule 65.

6] One Subject/One Title Rule

The petitioners also question the constitutionality of the RH Law, claiming that it violates Section
26(1 ), Article VI of the Constitution, prescribing the one subject-one title rule. According to them,
being one for reproductive health with responsible parenthood, the assailed legislation violates
the constitutional standards of due process by concealing its true intent - to act as a population
control measure.

II. SUBSTANTIVE: Whether the RH law is unconstitutional:

1] Right to Life – fertilization vs implantation of the sperm to the egg

2] Right to Health - The petitioners claim that the RH Law violates the right to health because it
requires the inclusion of hormonal contraceptives, intrauterine devices, injectables and family
products and supplies in the National Drug Formulary and the inclusion of the same in the regular
purchase of essential medicines and supplies of all national hospitals.
 3] Freedom of Religion and the Right to Free Speech

4] The Family

5] Freedom of Expression and Academic Freedom

6] Due Process

7] Equal Protection

8] Involuntary Servitude

9] Delegation of Authority to the FDA

10] Autonomy of Local Governments /ARMM

The ARMM

The fact that the RH Law does not intrude in the autonomy of local governments can be equally applied to
the ARMM. The RH Law does not infringe upon its autonomy. Moreover, Article III, Sections 6, 10 and 11
of R.A. No. 9054, or the organic act of the ARMM, alluded to by petitioner Tillah to justify the exemption of
the operation of the RH Law in the autonomous region, refer to the policy statements for the guidance of
the regional government. These provisions relied upon by the petitioners simply delineate the powers that
may be exercised by the regional government, which can, in no manner, be characterized as an
abdication by the State of its power to enact legislation that would benefit the general welfare. After all,
despite the veritable autonomy granted the ARMM, the Constitution and the supporting jurisprudence, as
they now stand, reject the notion of imperium et imperio in the relationship between the national and the
regional governments.

Defence of OSG

Despite efforts to push the RH Law as a reproductive health law, the Court sees it as principally a
population control measure. The corpus of the RH Law is geared towards the reduction of the country's
population. While it claims to save lives and keep our women and children healthy, it also promotes
pregnancy-preventing products. As stated earlier, the RH Law emphasizes the need to provide Filipinos,
especially the poor and the marginalized, with access to information on the full range of modem family
planning products and methods. These family planning methods, natural or modem, however, is clearly
geared towards the prevention of pregnancy.

The respondents, on the other hand, contend that the RH Law does not provide that a specific mode or
type of contraceptives be used, be it natural or artificial. It neither imposes nor sanctions any religion or
belief. They point out that the RH Law only seeks to serve the public interest by providing accessible,
effective and quality reproductive health services to ensure maternal and child health, in line with the
State's duty to bring to reality the social justice health guarantees of the Constitution,

RULING

WHEREFORE, the petitions are PARTIALLY GRANTED. Accordingly, the Court declares R.A. No. 10354
as NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL except with respect to the following provisions which are declared
UNCONSTITUTIONAL:
 1) Section 7 and the corresponding provision in the RH-IRR 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, as defined under
Republic Act No. 8344, to another health facility which is conveniently accessible; and b) allow
minor-parents or minors who have suffered a miscarriage access to modem methods of family
planning without written consent from their parents or guardian/s;

2) Section 23(a)(l) and the corresponding provision in the RH-IRR, particularly Section 5 .24
thereof, 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 or her religious beliefs.

3) Section 23(a)(2)(i) and the corresponding provision in the RH-IRR insofar as they allow a
married individual, not in an emergency or life-threatening case, as defined under Republic Act
No. 8344, to undergo reproductive health procedures without the consent of the spouse;

4) Section 23(a)(2)(ii) and the corresponding provision in the RH-IRR insofar as they limit the
requirement of parental consent only to elective surgical procedures.

5) Section 23(a)(3) and the corresponding provision in the RH-IRR, particularly Section 5.24
thereof, 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, as defined under Republic Act No. 8344, to
another health care service provider within the same facility or one which is conveniently
accessible regardless of his or her religious beliefs;

6) Section 23(b) and the corresponding provision in the RH-IRR, particularly Section 5 .24
thereof, 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 or her religious beliefs;

7) Section 17 and the corresponding prov1s10n in the RH-IRR regarding the rendering of pro
bona reproductive health service in so far as they affect the conscientious objector in securing
PhilHealth accreditation; and

8) Section 3.0l(a) and Section 3.01 G) of the RH-IRR, 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.

The Status Quo Ante Order issued by the Court on March 19, 2013 as extended by its Order, dated July
16, 2013 , is hereby LIFTED, insofar as the provisions of R.A. No. 10354 which have been herein
declared as constitutional.

SO ORDERED.

JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA