IMBONG VS OCHOA
GR NO 2048819, APRIL 8, 2014
(Section 12. The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and
strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution.)
FACTS: Nothing has polarized the nation more in recent years than the issues of
population growth control, abortion and contraception. As in every democratic society,
diametrically opposed views on the subjects and their perceived consequences freely
circulate in various media. From television debates to sticker campaigns, from rallies
by socio-political activists to mass gatherings organized by members of the clergy- the
clash between the seemingly antithetical ideologies of the religious conservatives and
progressive liberals has caused a deep division in every level of the society.
Despite calls to withhold support thereto, however, 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.
Challengers from various sectors of society went to the Court, beckoning to wield the
sword that strikes down constitutional disobedience. Petitioners are assailing the
constitutionality of RH Law:
RH Law violates right to life of the unborn. The implementation of the RH Law
would authorize the purchase of hormonal contraceptives, intra-uterine devices
and injectables which are abortives, in violation of Section 12, Article II of the
Constitution which guarantees protection of both the life of the mother and the
life of the unborn from conception.
RH Law violates the right of religious freedom.
Petitioners also contended that RH Law threatens conscientious objectors of criminal
prosecution, imprisonment and other form of punishment; it compels medical
practitioners: 1] to refer patients who seek advice on reproductive health programs to
other doctors; and 2] to provide full and correct information on reproductive health
programs and service, although it is against their religious beliefs and convictions.
It also argued that it provides the formulation of mandatory sex education in schools.
They argue that the RH Law fails to satisfy the "clear and present danger test" and the
"compelling state interest test" to justify the regulation of the right to free exercise of
religion and the right to free speech.
The respondents, aside from traversing the substantive arguments of the petitioners,
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; and 3] the
petitions are essentially petitions for declaratory relief over which the Court has no
original jurisdiction.
Meanwhile, March 15, 20013, RH-IRR for the enforcement took effect.
STATUS QUO ANTE: Prior to the RH Law: contraceptives are not allowed to be sold,
dispensed or distributed unless such sale is by duly licensed drug store or
pharmaceutical company.
Despite the foregoing legislative measures, the population of the country kept on
galloping at an uncontrollable pace. From a paltry number of just over 27 million
Filipinos in 1960, the population of the country reached over 76 million in the year
2000 and over 92 million in 2010.
To rein in the problem, the RH Law was enacted to provide Filipinos, especially the
poor and the marginalized, access and information to the full range of modem family
planning methods, and to ensure that its objective to provide for the peoples' right to
reproductive health be achieved.
ISSUE: Substantive: WHETHER THE RH LAW IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL: right to life,
health, freedom of religion, right of free speech, family.
HELD: In relation to Section 12, Art II of the Constitution
PETITIONERS CONTENTION: violates the right to life and health of the unborn child.
Contraceptives prevent the fertilized ovum to reach and be implanted in the mother’s
womb. Contraceptives are contrary to the intent of the Framers of the Constitution to
afford protection to the fertilized ovum. It opposes the initiation of life.
RESPONDENTS CONTENTION: according to them, the intention of the framers was
simply the prohibition of abortion. They contend that the RH Law does not violate the
Constitution since the said law emphasizes that only "non-abortifacient" reproductive
health care services, methods, devices products and supplies shall be made accessible
to the public.
Respondent Lagman argues that one’s right to life is not violated since according to
WHO, life begins from the implantation of the fertilized ovum. That the law provides
that only contraceptives that do not prevent the implantation of the fertilized ovum
are allowed.
COURT POSITION: it is a universally accepted principle that every human being enjoys
the right to life. that the RH Law does not violate the Constitution since the said law
emphasizes that only "non-abortifacient" reproductive health care services, methods,
devices products and supplies shall be made accessible to the public.
As to when life begins: In this regard, the ponente, is of the strong view that life begins
at fertilization. Section 12 Art II Constitution
Verba Legis - In conformity with the above principle, the traditional meaning of the
word "conception" which, as described and defined by all reliable and reputable
sources, means that life begins at fertilization.
Intent of the framers: First of all, like all living organisms, it takes in nutrients which it
processes by itself. It begins doing this upon fertilization. Therefore, there is no
question that biologically the fertilized ovum has life. Fertilized ovum has 46
chromosomes, and only human cells have 46 chromosomes, hence it is human.
From the deliberations above-quoted, it is apparent that the Framers of the
Constitution emphasized that the State shall provide equal protection to both the
mother and the unborn child from the earliest opportunity of life, that is, upon
fertilization or upon the union of the male sperm and the female ovum. It is also
apparent is that the Framers of the Constitution intended that to prohibit Congress
from enacting measures that would allow it determine when life begins.
Equally apparent, however, is that the Framers of the Constitution did not intend to
ban all contraceptives for being unconstitutional. In fact, Commissioner Bernardo
Villegas, spearheading the need to have a constitutional provision on the right to life,
recognized that the determination of whether a contraceptive device is an abortifacient
is a question of fact which should be left to the courts to decide on based on
established evidence.
From the discussions above, contraceptives that kill or destroy the fertilized ovum
should be deemed an abortive and thus prohibited. Conversely, contraceptives that
actually prevent the union of the male sperm and the female ovum, and those that
similarly take action prior to fertilization should be deemed non-abortive, and thus,
constitutionally permissible.
"Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells
during a process known as fertilization (conception).
The clear and unequivocal intent of the Framers of the 1987 Constitution in protecting
the life of the unborn from conception was to prevent the Legislature from enacting a
measure legalizing abortion.
A reading of the RH Law would show that it is in line with this intent and actually
proscribes abortion. While the Court has opted not to make any determination, at this
stage, when life begins, it finds that the RH Law itself clearly mandates that protection
be afforded from the moment of fertilization.
Indeed, consistent with the constitutional policy prohibiting abortion, and in line
with the principle that laws should be construed in a manner that its
constitutionality is sustained, the RH Law and its implementing rules must be
consistent with each other in prohibiting abortion. Thus, the word " primarily" in
Section 3.0l(a) and G) of the RH-IRR should be declared void.To uphold the validity
of Section 3.0l(a) and G) of the RH-IRR and prohibit only those contraceptives that
have the primary effect of being an abortive would effectively "open the floodgates
to the approval of contraceptives which may harm or destroy the life of the unborn
from conception/fertilization in violation of Article II, Section 12 of the
Constitution."
ASSOCIATION OF SMALL LANDOWNERS IN THE PHILIPPINES, INC VS
SEC OF AGRARIAN REFORM
GR NO. 78742, JULY 14, 1989
(Section 21. The State shall promote comprehensive rural
development and agrarian reform.)
FACTS: Earlier, in fact, R.A. No. 3844, otherwise known as the Agricultural Land
Reform Code, had already been enacted by the Congress of the Philippines in
line with the principle that “The State shall, by law, undertake an agrarian reform
program founded on the right of farmers and regular farmworkers, who are
landless, to own directly or collectively the lands they till or, in the case of other
farmworkers, to receive a just share of the fruits thereof.”
The people power revolution of 1986 did not change and indeed even energized
the thrust for agrarian reform. Thus, on July 17, 1987, President Corazon C.
Aquino issued E.O. No. 228, declaring full land ownership in favor of the
beneficiaries of P.D. No. 27 and providing for the valuation of still unvalued lands
covered by the decree as well as the manner of their payment. This was followed
by PD 131, instituting a comprehensive agrarian reform program.
Squarely raised in this petition is the constitutionality of P.D. No. 27, E.O. Nos.
228 and 229, and R.A. No. 6657.
The subjects of this petition are 9-hectare Riceland worked by 4 tenants and
owned by petitioner Nicolas Manaay and 5-hectare Riceland owned by petitioner
Augustin Hermano.
Petitioners contend that promulgation of EO 228 by Pres. Aquino is invalid for
violation of Art XIII Sec 4, for failure to provide for retention limits for small
landowners.
The petitioners also maintain that in declaring beneficiaries to be the owners of
the lands ignored judicial prerogatives and violated due process.
The petitioner alleges that the then Secretary of Department of Agrarian Reform,
in violation of due process and the requirement for just compensation, placed his
landholding under the coverage of Operation Land Transfer. Certificates of Land
Transfer were subsequently issued to the private respondents, who then refused
payment of lease rentals to him.
Power of eminent domain- Eminent domain is an inherent power of the State that
enables it to forcibly acquire private lands intended for public use upon payment
of just compensation to the owner. Obviously, there is no need to expropriate
where the owner is willing to sell under terms also acceptable to the purchaser, in
which case an ordinary deed of sale may be agreed upon by the parties. It is only
where the owner is unwilling to sell, or cannot accept the price or other conditions
offered by the vendee, that the power of eminent domain will come into play to
assert the paramount authority of the State over the interests of the property
owner.
The limitation is found in the constitutional injunction that "private property shall
not be taken for public use without just compensation".
Contention of the petitioners – that the state should first distribute public
agricultural lands in the pursuit of agrarian reform instead of immediately
disturbing property rights by forcibly acquiring private agricultural lands.
SC Decision – the legislature and the executive have been seen fit, in their
wisdom, to include in the CARP the redistribution of private landholdings. The
requirements for public use have already been settled for us by the Constitution,
which is the reason why private agricultural lands are to be taken from the
owners. The purposes specified in P.D. No. 27, Proc. No. 131 and R.A. No. 6657
are only an elaboration of the constitutional injunction that the State adopt the
necessary measures "to encourage and undertake the just distribution of all
agricultural lands to enable farmers who are landless to own directly or
collectively the lands they till." That public use, as pronounced by the
fundamental law itself, must be binding on us.
