IMBONG et al. v. HON. PAQUITO OCHOA, et al. G.R. No. 204819, et al Aprl 8, 2014
!ACT" R.A. R.A. 10354 (Respon (Responsibl sible e Paren Parenthood thood and Reproduct eproductive ive Health Health Act) Act) was enacted enacted by on!ress on!ress on "ece#ber $1% $01$. &n this re!ard% several petitions were 'led beore beore the upre#e upre#e ourt see*in! to nulliy R.A. 10354 on the !round that the sa#e is unconstitutional. AR+,-/ o Petitioners Petitioners (+rounds or ,nconstitutionality) ,nconstitutionality) 1. 2iolation o R#$t to %&e the i#ple#en i#ple#entati tation on o the RH aw would authorie authorie the purchase purchase o hor#onal contraceptives% intrauterine devices and in6ectables which are abortives% in violation o ection 1$% Article && o the onstitution which !uarantees protection o both the lie o the #other and the lie o the unborn ro# conception $. 2iolation o R#$t to Healt$ and Healt$ and R#$t to Prote'to( a#a()t $a*ar+o) pro+'t) 7 RH law provides universal access to contraceptives which are haardous to one8s health 3. 2iolati 2iolation on o R#$t to Rel#o) !ree+o- 7 RH law authories the use o public unds or the proc procur ure# e#en entt o cont contra race cept ptiv ives es99 it also also t$reat t$reate() e() 'o()' 'o()'e(t e(to o) ) o/e't o/e'tor) or) o& 'r-( 'r-(al al pro)e'to( as it co#p co#pel els s #edi #edica call prac practi titi tion oner ers s to (a) (a) reer eer pati patien ents ts who who see* see* advi advice ce on reprodu reproductiv ctive e health health pro!ra# pro!ra#s s to other doctors doctors and (b) to provide provide ull : correct correct inor#ation inor#ation on repr reprodu oducti ctive ve health health pro!r pro!ra# a#s s and servic service% e% altho althou!h u!h it is a!ains a!ainstt their their reli! reli!iou ious s belie belies s and convictions RH aw in providin! or the or#ulation o -a(+ator )e e+'ato( in schools should not be allowed at it is an a;ront to their reli!ious belies RH law &al) to )at)& t$e 'lear a(+ pre)e(t +a(#er te)t3 a(+ 'o-pell(# )tate (tere)t te)t3 to te)t3 to 6ustiy the re!ulation o the ri!ht to ree e
. 2iolation o 7e Pro'e)) 7 Pro'e)) 7 2oidorva!ueness9 in i#posin! the penalty o i#prison#ent and?or 'ne or @any violation%@ it is va!ue because it does not de'ne the type o conduct to be treated as @violation@ o the RH aw RH aw violates due process by re#ovin! ro# the people the ri!ht to #ana!e their own a;airs and to decide what *ind o health acility they shall be and what *ind o services they shall o;er. . 2iolation o R#$t to !ree "pee'$ o o co#pel a person to e
B CARA -AR& . ,-,AC
=. &ntrusion into o(e o& Prva' o& O(e:) !a-l RH aw providin! or #andatory reproductive health education intrudes upon their constitutional ri!ht to raise their children in accordance with their belies D. 2iolation o Pr('ple o& No(7ele#ato( o& %e#)latve At$ort ; Euestion the dele!ation by on!ress to the F"A o the power to deter#ine whether a product is nonabortiacient and to be included in the #er!ency "ru! ist 10. 2iolation o O(e"/e'tO(eBll rle 11. 2iolation o Natral %a6 1$. 2iolation o Pr('ple o& Ato(o- o& %o'al Gover(-e(t) a(+ ARMM the RH aw% providin! or reproductive health #easures at the local !overn#ent level and the AR--% inrin!es upon the powers devolved to +,s and the AR-- under the ocal +overn#ent ode and R.A. /o. D054 I""U <$et$er or (ot t$e Repro+'tve Healt$ %a6 =RA 10>?4@ ) val+ a(+ 'o()ttto(al
RU%ING he upre#e ourt ,/G/&,&G/A
declared the
ollowin!
provisions
o
R.A.
1015
to
be
2G&"
and
a) ection and correspondin! provision in RH&RR 7 (a) ReEuirin! private health acilities and non#aternity specialty hospitals owned and operated by reli!ious !roups to reer patients% not in e#er!ency or liethreatenin! cases to another health acility9 and (b) allowin! #inor parents or #inors who have su;ered a #iscarria!e access to #odern #ethods o a#ily plannin! without written consent ro# their parents?!uardians b) ection $3 (a) (1) and correspondin! provision in RH &RR insoar as they punish any healthcare service provider who ails and or reuses to disse#inate inor#ation re!ardin! pro!ra#s and services on reproductive health re!ardless o his or her reli!ious belies. c) ection $3 (a) ($) (i) and correspondin! provision in RH &RR insoar as they allow a #arried individual% not in an e#er!ency or liethreatenin! case to under!o reproductive health procedures without consent o spouse d) ection $3 (1) ($) (ii) and correspondin! provision in RH &RR insoar as they li#it the reEuire#ent o parental consent only to elective sur!ical procedures e) ection $3 (a) (3) and correspondin! provision in RH &RR insoar as they punish any healthcare service provider who ails and?or reuses to reer a patient not in an e#er!ency or liethreatenin! case to another health care service provider within the sa#e acility or one which is conveniently accessible re!ardless o his or her reli!ious belies )
ection $3 (b) and correspondin! provision in RH &RR insoar as they punish any public ocer who reuses to support reproductive health pro!ra#s or shall do any act that hinders the ull i#ple#entation o a reproductive health pro!ra#% re!ardless o his or her reli!ious belies
B CARA -AR& . ,-,AC
!) ection 1 and correspondin! provision in RH &RR renderin! o pro bona reproductive health service in so ar as they a;ect the conscientious ob6ector in securin! PhilHealth accreditation h) ection 3.01 (a) and ection 3.01 (6) or RH &RR which added the Euali'er @pri#arily@ in de'nin! abortiacients and contraceptives% as they are ultra vires and% thereore% null and void or contravenin! ection 4(a) o the RH aw and violatin! ection 1$% Article && o the onstitution
"PCI!IC RU%ING" O! TH COURT per a))ale+ I))e PRG",RA &,
1. Po6er o& +'al Reve6 Certiorari and Prohibition as remedies to review legislative acts Ar!u#ent o olicitor +eneral ourt should sub#it to the le!islative and political wisdo# o on!ress and respect the co#pro#ises #ade in cratin! the RH aw% it bein! a product o a #a6oritarian de#ocratic process. he re#edies o certiorari and prohibition utilied by petitioners are i#proper to assail the validity o acts o the le!islature hat the RH law cannot be challen!ed Ion its aceJ as it is not a speech re!ulatin! #easure Rulin! o the ourt ,//AK Lhile the ourt #ay not pass upon Euestions o wisdo#% 6ustice or e
2. O( A'tal Ca)e or Co(trover) Ar!u#ent o Petitioners petitions do not present any actual case or controversy because the RH law has yet to be i#ple#ented. /o one has been char!ed with violatin! any its provisions and that there is no showin! that any o petitioners8 ri!hts has been adversely a;ected by its operation. Rulin! o the ourt &n this case% t$e Cort ) o& t$e ve6 t$at a( a'tal 'a)e or
'o(trover) e)t) a(+ t$at t$e )a-e ) rpe &or /+'al +eter-(ato(. B CARA -AR& . ,-,AC
Co()+er(# t$at t$e RH %a6 a(+ t) -ple-e(t(# rle) $ave alrea+ taFe( ee't a(+ t$at +#etar -ea)re) to 'arr ot t$e la6 $ave alrea+ ee( pa))e+, t ) ev+e(t t$at t$e )/e't petto() pre)e(t a /)t'ale 'o(trover). As stated earlier% when an action o the le!islative branch is seriously alle!ed to have inrin!ed the onstitution% it not only beco#es a ri!ht% but also a duty o the Nudiciary to settle the dispute. -oreover% the petto(er)
$ave )$o6( t$at t$e 'a)e ) )o e'a)e -e+'al pra'tto(er) or -e+'al prov+er) are ( +a(#er o& e(# 'r-(all pro)e'te+ (+er t$e RH %a6 &or va#e volato() thereo% particularly public health ocers who are threatened to be dis#issed ro# the service with oreiture o retire#ent and other bene'ts. hey #ust% at least% be heard on the #atter now.
2. O( !a'al C$alle(#e Ar!u#ent o Petitioners RH law cannot be challen!ed Ion its aceJ as it is not a speech re!ulatin! #easure Lhat is a !a'al C$alle(#e Also *nown as First A#end#ent hallen!e% is one that is launched to assail the
validity o statutes concernin! not only protected speech% but also other ri!hts in the First A#end#ent . hese include rel#o) &ree+o-, &ree+o- o& t$e pre)), a(+ t$e r#$t o& t$e people to pea'eal a))e-le, a(+ to petto( t$e Gover(-e(t &or a re+re)) o& #reva('e) . Ater all% the unda#ental ri!ht to reli!ious reedo#% reedo# o the press and peaceul asse#bly are but co#ponent ri!hts o the ri!ht to oneOs reedo# o e
Lhile this ourt has withheld the application o acial challen!es to strictly penal statues% i t has epa(+e+ t) )'ope to 'over )tatte) (ot o(l re#lat(# &ree )pee'$, t al)o t$o)e (volv(# rel#o) &ree+o-, a(+ ot$er &(+a-e(tal r#$t). he underlyin! reason or this #odi'cation is si#ple. For unli*e its counterpart in the ,..% this ourt% under its e
seriously alle!ed that the constitutional hu#an ri!hts to lie% speech and reli!ion and other unda#ental ri!hts #entioned above have been violated by the assailed le!islation% the ourt has authority to ta*e co!niance o these *indred petitions and to deter#ine i the RH aw can indeed pass constitutional scrutiny.
>. O( %o') "ta(+ Ar!u#ent o olicitor +eneral attac*s the le!al personality o the petitioners since the assailed law has yet to be enorced and applied a!ainst the# and the !overn#ent has yet to distribute reproductive health devices that are abortive Rulin! o the ourt ,//AK /otwithstandin!% the ourt leans on the doctrine that @the rule on standin! is a #atter o procedure% hence% can be rela
B CARA -AR& . ,-,AC
Lith these said% eve( & t$e 'o()ttto(alt o& t$e RH %a6 -a (ot e a))ale+
t$ro#$ a( a)apple+ '$alle(#e, )tll, t$e Cort $a) t-e a(+ a#a( a'te+ lerall o( t$e lo') )ta(+ re5re-e(t. It $a) a''or+e+ 'erta( (+v+al) )ta(+(# to )e, (ot ot$er6)e +re'tl (/re+ or 6t$ -ateral (tere)t ae'te+ a Gover(-e(t a't, prov+e+ a 'o()ttto(al ))e o& tra()'e(+e(tal -porta('e ) (voFe+. &n view o the seriousness% novelty and wei!ht as precedents% not only to the public% but also to the bench and bar% the issues raised #ust be resolved or the !uidance o all. Ater all% the RH aw drastically a;ects the constitutional provisions on the ri!ht to lie and health% the reedo# o reli!ion and e
>. O( O(e"/e'tO(e Ttle Rle Ar!u#ent o Petitioners petitioners also Euestion the constitutionality o the RH aw% clai#in! that it violates ection $>(1 )% Article 2& o the onstitution% 1$$ prescribin! the one sub6ectone title rule. Accordin! to the#% bein! one or reproductive health with responsible parenthood% the assailed le!islation violates the constitutional standards o due process by concealin! its true intent to act as a population control #easure. Rulin! o the ourt H RH aw "G /G 2&GA the onesub6ectonebill rule. &s the RH aw a population control #easure 7 J" he ourt% thus% a!rees with the petitionersO contention that the whole idea o contraception pervades the entire RH aw. &t is% in act% the central idea o the RH aw. &ndeed% re#ove the provisions that reer to contraception or are related to it and the RH aw loses its very oundation. As earlier e
1. R#$t to %&e he use o contraceptives and a#ily plannin! #ethods in the Philippines is not o recent vinta!e. hrou!h the years% however% the use o contraceptives and other a#ily plannin! #ethods evolved ro# bein! a co#ponent o de#o!raphic #ana!e#ent% to one centered on the pro#otion o public health% particularly reproductive health. /otwithstandin! this paradi!# shit% the Philippine national population pro!ra# has always been !rounded $ cornerstone principles pr('ple o& (oaorto( and pr('ple o& (o(
'oer'o(. B CARA -AR& . ,-,AC
%&e e#() at !RTI%IATION, (ot I-pla(tato(3 e
t$e tra+to(al -ea((# o& t$e 6or+ Co('epto(3 6$'$, a) +e)'re+ a(+ +eK(e+ all relale a(+ reptale )or'e), -ea() t$at %I! BGIN" AT !RTI%IATION =.e. 6$e( t$e e## -eet) t$e )per-@. Klac*Os aw "ictionary !ives le!al #eanin! to the ter# @conception Ias the ecundation o the e#ale ovu# by the #ale sper#atooon resultin! in hu#an lie capable o survival and #aturation under nor#al conditions. ven in 6urisprudence% the unborn child has already le!al personality. Records o the onstitutional onvention also shed li!ht on the intention o the Fra#ers re!ardin! the ter# @conception@ used in ection 1$% Article && o the onstitution. Fro# their deliberations% it clearly reers to the #o#ent o @ertiliation.@ Lhy the onstitution used the phrase @ro# the #o#ent o conception@ and not @ro# the #o#ent o ertiliation@ was not because o doubt when hu#an lie be!ins% but rather% because the phrase ro# the #o#ent o conception@ was described by the ra#ers here beore with the scienti'c phrase @ertilied ovu#@ #ay be beyond the co#prehension o so#e people9 the ra#ers want to use the si#pler phrase @ro# the #o#ent o conception.J &t is apparent that the Fra#ers o the onstitution e#phasied that the tate shall provide eEual protection to both the #other and the unborn child ro# the earliest opportunity o lie% that is% upon ertiliation or upon the union o the #ale sper# and the e#ale ovu#. &t is also apparent is that the Fra#ers o the onstitution intended that to prohibit on!ress ro# enactin! #easures that would allow it deter#ine when lie be!ins. Co(tra'eptve) t$at Fll or +e)tro t$e &ertl*e+ ov- )$ol+ e +ee-e+ a) ABORTIL a(+ t$) pro$te+. Co(ver)el, 'o(tra'eptve) t$at a'tall preve(t t$e (o( o& t$e -ale )per- a(+ t$e &e-ale ov-, a(+ t$o)e t$at )-larl taFe a'to( pror to &ertl*ato( )$ol+ e +ee-e+ NON ABORTIL a(+ t$) 'o()ttto(all per-))le. &n all% whether it be ta*en ro# a plain #eanin!% or understood under #edical
parlance% and #ore i#portantly% ollowin! the intention o the Fra#ers o the onstitution% the undeniable conclusion is that a *#ote ) a $-a( or#a()- and that the l&e o& a (e6 $-a( e(# 'o--e('e) at a scienti'cally wellde'ned -o-e(t o& 'o('epto(, t$at ), po( &ertl*ato(. B CARA -AR& . ,-,AC
For the above reasons% the ourt cannot subscribe to the theory advocated by Hon. a!#an that lie be!ins at i#plantation . his theory o i#plantation as the be!innin! o lie is devoid o any le!al or scienti'c #oorin! . &t does not pertain to the
be!innin! o lie but to the viability o the etus. he ertilied ovu#?y!ote is not an inani#ate ob6ect it is a livin! hu#an bein! co#plete with "/A and 4> chro#oso#es . &#plantation has been conceptualied only or convenience by those who had population control in #ind. o adopt it would constitute te
A readin! o the RH aw would show that it is in line with this intent and actually proscribes abortion. Lhile the ourt has opted not to #a*e any deter#ination% at this sta!e% when lie be!ins% it 'nds that the RH aw itsel clearly #andates that protection be a;orded ro# the #o#ent o ertiliation. As pointed out by
Nustice arpio% the RH aw is replete with provisions that e#body the policy o the law to protect to the ertilied ovu# and that it should be a;orded sae travel to the uterus or i#plantation. -oreover% the RH aw reco!nies that abortion is a cri#e under Article $5> o the Revised Penal ode % which penalies the destruction or e
RH %a6 ) 'o())te(t 6t$ pro$t(# aort&a'e(t) RH aw #andates that protection #ust be a;orded ro# the #o#ent o ertiliation. Ky usin! the word @or%@ the RH aw prohibits not only dru!s or devices that prevent i#plantation% but also those that induce abortion and those that induce the destruction o a etus inside the #otherOs wo#b.
ontrary to the assertions #ade by the petitioners% the ourt 'nds that the RH aw% consistent with the onstitution% reco!nies that the ertilied ovu# already has lie and that the tate has a bounden duty to protect it . he conclusion beco#es clear because the RH aw 1. Pro$t) a( +r# or +ev'e t$at (+'e) aorto( 6$'$ (+'e) t$e Fll(# or +e)tr'to( o& t$e &ertl*e+ ov- and $. Pro$t) a( +r# or +ev'e t$e &ertl*e+ ov- to rea'$ a(+ e -pla(te+ ( t$e -ot$er:) 6o-. Ky e
the ertilied ovu# which already has lie% and two% the ertilied ovu# #ust be protected the #o#ent it beco#es e
RH %a6 +oe) (ot )a('to( aorto( &t is the ourt8s position that lie be!ins at ertiliation% not at i#plantation. Lhen a ertilied ovu# is i#planted in the uterine wall% its viability is sustained but that instance o i#plantation is not the point o be!innin! o lie. &t started earlier. As de'ned by the RH aw% a( +r# or +ev'e t$at (+'e) aorto(, t$at ), 6$'$ Fll) or +e)tro) t$e &ertl*e+ ovor preve(t) t$e &ertl*e+ ov- to rea'$ a(+ e -pla(te+ ( t$e -ot$er:) 6o- ) a( ABORTI!ACINT.
Grave A)e o& 7)'reto( ( re+eK((# t$e Mea((# o& Aort&a'e(t3 ( RH IRR RH aw
RH &RR
. 4. "e'nition o er#s. For the purpose o this Act% the ollowin! ter#s shall be de'ned as ollows (a) Abortiacient reers to any dru! or device that induces abortion or the destruction o a etus inside the #otherOs wo#b or the prevention o the ertilied ovu# to reach and be i#planted in the #otherOs wo#b upon deter#ination o the F"A.
ection 3.01 For purposes o these Rules% the ter#s shall be de'ned as ollows a) Abortiacient reers to any dru! or device that pr-arl nduces abortion or the destruction o a etus inside the #otherOs wo#b or the prevention o the ertilied ovu# to reach and be i#planted in the #otherOs wo#b upon deter#ination o the Food and "ru! Ad#inistration (F"A). 6) ontraceptive reers to any sae% le!al% e;ective and scienti'cally proven #odern a#ily plannin! #ethod% device% or health product% whether natural or arti'cial% that prevents pre!nancy but does not pr-arl destroy a ertilied ovu# or prevent a ertilied ovu# ro# bein! i#planted in the #other8s wo#b in doses o its approved indication as deter#ined by the F"A
he above#entioned section o the RH&RR allows @contraceptives@ and reco!nies as @abortiacient@ only those that pri#arily induce abortion or the destruction o a etus inside the #otherOs wo#b or the prevention o the ertilied ovu# to reach and be i#planted in the #otherOs wo#b. T$e ()erto( o& t$e 6or+ pr-arl3 ( t$e RH IRR -)t e )tr'F +o6( &or e(# ltravre) . vidently% with the addition o the word @pri#arily%@ in ection 3.0l(a) and +) o the RH&RR is indeed ultra vires. &t contravenes ection 4(a) o the RH aw and should% thereore% be declared invalid. here is dan!er that the insertion o the Euali'er @pri#arily@ will pave the way or the approval o contraceptives which #ay har# or destroy the lie o the unborn ro# conception?ertiliation in violation o Article &&% ection 1$ o the onstitution. Lith such Euali'cation in the RH&RR% it appears to insinuate that a contraceptive will only be considered as an @abortiacient@ i its sole *nown e;ect is abortion or% as pertinent here% the prevention o the i#plantation o the ertilied ovu#. B CARA -AR& . ,-,AC
2. R#$t to Healt$ he ourt a!rees with the observation o respondent a!#an that the e;ectivity o the RH aw will not lead to the un#iti!ated prolieration o contraceptives since the sale% distribution and dispensation o contraceptive dru!s and devices will still reEuire the prescription o a licensed physician. Lith RA 4$D% t$ere e)t) a+e5ate )a&e#ar+) to e()re t$e pl' t$at o(l 'o(tra'eptve) t$at are )a&e are -a+e avalale to t$e pl'. &n the distribution by the "GH o contraceptive dru!s and devices% it #ust consider the provisions o RA 4$D and ensure that the contraceptives that it will procure shall be ro# a duly licensed dru! store or phar#aceutical co#pany and that the actual dispensation o these contraceptive dru!s and devices will be done ollowin! a prescription o a Euali'ed #edical practitioner. At any rate% it bears pointin! out
that not a sin!le contraceptive has yet been sub#itted to the F"A pursuant to the RH aw. &t behooves the ourt to await its deter#ination which dru!s or devices are declared by the F"A as sae% it bein! the a!ency tas*ed to ensure that ood and #edicines available to the public are sae or public consu#ption. onseEuently% t$e Cort K(+) t$at, at t$) po(t, t$e atta'F o( t$e RH %a6 o( t$) #ro(+ ) pre-atre. &ndeed% the various *inds o contraceptives #ust 'rst be #easured up to the constitutional yardstic* to be deter#ined as the case presents itsel. on!ress cannot le!islate that hor#onal contraceptives and intrauterine devices are sae and nonabortiacient. T$e !oo+ a(+ 7r# A#e(' =!7A@ $a) t$e epert)e to +eter-(e 6$et$er a part'lar $or-o(al 'o(tra'eptve or (trater(e +ev'e ) )a&e a(+ (o(aort&a'e(t.
>. !ree+o- o& Rel#o( a(+ R#$t to !ree "pee'$ H,RH and A he undisputed act is that our people !enerally believe in a deity% whatever they conceived Hi# to be% and to who# they call or !uidance and enli!hten#ent in cratin! our unda#ental law. he Filipino people in @i#plorin! the aid o Al#i!hty +od@ #aniested their spirituality innate in our nature and consciousness as a people% shaped by tradition and historical e
"PARATION O! CHURCH a(+ "TAT 2erily% the principle o separation o hurch and tate is based on #utual respect. +enerally% the tate cannot #eddle in the internal a;airs o the church% #uch less Euestion its aith and do!#as or dictate upon it. &t cannot avor B CARA -AR& . ,-,AC
one reli!ion and discri#inate a!ainst another. Gn the other hand% the church cannot i#pose its belies and convictions on the tate and the rest o the citienry. &t cannot de#and that the nation ollow its belies% even i it sincerely believes that they are !ood or the country.
T
2. !ree er')e Cla)e ; respect or the inviolability o the hu#an conscience. tate is prohibited ro# unduly intererin! with the outside #aniestations o one8s belie and aith. a@ !ree+o- to eleve absolute @ !ree+o- to a't o( o(e:) ele& ; li#ited and sub6ect to the power o the tate and can be en6oyed only with proper re!ard to the ri!hts o others. &t is sub6ect to re!ulation where the belie is translated into e
rel#o( -a e allo6e+, not to pro#ote the !overn#ent8s avored reli!ion% t to allo6 (+v+al) a(+ #rop) to eer')e t$er rel#o( 6t$ot $(+ra('e . he purpose o acco##odation is to re#ove the burden on% or acilitate the e
Co-pell(# "tate I(tere)t Te)t Free e
B CARA -AR& . ,-,AC
A #ere balancin! o interests which balances a ri!ht with 6ust a colorable state interest is thereore inappropriate. &nstead% only a co#pellin! interest o the state can prevail over the unda#ental ri!ht to reli!ious liberty. T$e te)t re5re) t$e )tate to 'arr a $eav
r+e(, a 'o-pell(# o(e, &or to +o ot$er6)e 6ol+ allo6 t$e )tate to atter rel#o(, e)pe'all t$e le)) po6er&l o(e) (tl t$e are +e)troe+. I( +eter-((# 6$'$ )$all preval et6ee( t$e )tate:) (tere)t) a(+ rel#o) lert, rea)o(ale(e)) )$all e t$e #+e. he Ico#pellin! state interest testJ serves the purpose o reverin! reli!ious liberty while at the sa#e ti#e a;ordin! protection to the para#ount interests o the state. R,&/+ GF H G,R
1. he stablish#ent lause and ontraceptives onseEuently% the petitioners are #is!uided in their supposition that the tate cannot
enhance its population control pro!ra# throu!h the RH aw si#ply because the pro#otion o contraceptive use is contrary to their reli!ious belies. &ndeed% the tate is not precluded to pursue its le!iti#ate secular ob6ectives without bein! dictated upon by the policies o any one reli!ion.
$. Free
'o()'e(to) o/e'tor) 'la- to rel#o) &ree+o- 6ol+ 6arra(t a( ee-pto( &ro- ol#ato() (+er t$e RH %a6, (le)) t$e #over(-e(t )''ee+) ( +e-o()trat(# a -ore 'o-pell(# )tate (tere)t ( t$e a''o-pl)$-e(t o& a( -porta(t )e'lar o/e'tve. /ecessarily so% the plea o conscientious ob6ectors or e
he ourt is o the view that the ol#ato( to re&er i#posed by the RH aw violates the reli!ious belie and conviction o a conscientious ob6ector. Gnce the #edical practitioner% a!ainst his will% reers a patient see*in! inor#ation on #ode# reproductive health products% services% procedures and #ethods% his conscience is i##ediately burdened as he has been co#pelled to peror# an act a!ainst his belies.
hou!h it has been said that the act o reerral is an optout clause% it is% however% a &al)e 'o-pro-)e because it #a*es prolie health providers co#plicit in the peror#ance o an act that they 'nd #orally repu!nant or o;ensive. hey cannot% in conscience% do indirectly what they cannot do directly. Gne #ay not be the principal% but he is eEually !uilty i he abets the o;ensive act by indirect participation.
B CARA -AR& . ,-,AC
Lith the constitutional !uarantee o reli!ious reedo# ollows the protection that should be a;orded to individuals in co##unicatin! their belies to others as well as protection or si#ply bein! silent. Lhile the RH law see*s to provide reedo# o choice throu!h inor#ed consent% reedo# o choice !uarantees the liberty o conscience and prohibits any de!ree o co#pulsion or burden% whether direct or indirect% in the practice o one8s reli!ion.
&n case o 'o('t et6ee( t$e rel#o) ele&) and #oral convictions o individuals% on one hand% a(+ t$e (tere)t o& t$e "tate % on the other% to prov+e a''e)) a(+ (&or-ato( o( repro+'tve $ealt$ pro+'t) % services% procedures and #ethods to enable the people to deter#ine the ti#in!% nu#ber and spacin! o the birth o their children% the Cort ) o& t$e )tro(# ve6 t$at t$e rel#o) &ree+o- o& $ealt$ prov+er), 6$et$er pl' or prvate, )$ol+ e a''or+e+ pr-a'. Accordin!ly% a conscientious ob6ector should be e
3. &nstitutional Health Providers he sa#e holds true with respect to non#aternity specialty hospitals and hospitals owned and operated by a reli!ious !roup and health care service providers . onsiderin! that ection $4 o the RH aw penalies such institutions should they ail or reuse to co#ply with their duty to reer under ection and ection $3(a)(3)% the ourt dee#s that it #ust be struc* down or bein! violative o the reedo# o reli!ion. he sa#e applies to ection $3(a)(1) and (a)($) in relation to ection $4% considerin! that in the disse#ination o inor#ation re!ardin! pro!ra#s and services and in the peror#ance o reproductive health procedures% the reli!ious reedo# o health care service providers should be respected.
ast para!raph o ec. 5.$4 o RH &#ple#entin! Rules and Re!ulations which apply to public health ocers is "&R&-&/AGRS A/" 2&GA&2 o the eEual protection clause. T$e 'o()'e(to) o/e'to( 'la)e )$ol+ e e5all prote'tve o& t$e rel#o) ele& o& pl' $ealt$ oE'er). here is no perceptible distinction why they should not be considered e
o/e'tor) )$ol+ e5all appl to all -e+'al pra'tto(er) 6t$ot +)t('to( 6$et$er t$e elo(# to t$e pl' or prvate )e'tor. he discri#inatory provision is void not only because no such e
4. here is no co#pellin! state interest T$e Cort K(+) (o 'o-pell(# )tate (tere)t 6$'$ 6ol+ l-t t$e &ree eer')e 'la)e o& t$e 'o()'e(to) o/e'tor), however ew in nu#ber. Gnly the prevention o an i##ediate and !rave dan!er to the security and welare o the co##unity can 6ustiy the inrin!e#ent o reli!ious reedo#. & the !overn#ent ails B CARA -AR& . ,-,AC
to show the seriousness and i##ediacy o the threat% tate intrusion is constitutionally unacceptable. Apparently% ( t$e)e 'a)e), t$ere ) (o --e+ate +a(#er to t$e l&e or
$ealt$ o& a( (+v+al ( t$e per'eve+ )'e(aro o& t$e )/e't prov)o(). Ater all% a couple who plans the ti#in!% nu#ber and spacin! o the birth o their children reers to a uture event that is contin!ent on whether or not the #other decides to adopt or use the inor#ation% product% #ethod or supply !iven to her or whether she even decides to beco#e pre!nant at all. Gn the other hand% the burden placed upon those who ob6ect to contraceptive use is i##ediate and occurs the #o#ent a patient see*s consultation on reproductive health #atters. -oreover% !rantin! that a co#pellin! interest e
+e-o()trate t$e #rave)t a)e), e(+a(#er(# para-o(t (tere)t) 6$'$ 'ol+ l-t or overr+e a per)o() &(+a-e(tal r#$t to rel#o) &ree+o-. Also% re)po(+e(t) $ave (ot pre)e(te+ a( #over(-e(t eort eerte+ to )$o6 t$at t$e -ea() t taFe) to a'$eve t) le#t-ate )tate o/e'tve ) t$e lea)t (tr)ve -ea(). At any rate% t$ere
are ot$er )e'lar )tep) alrea+ taFe( t$e %e#)latre to e()re t$at t$e r#$t to $ealt$ ) prote'te+. onsiderin! other le!islations as they stand now% R.A. /o. 4 $D or the Co(tra'eptve A't% R.A. /o. >3>5 or @he Poplato( A't o the Philippines@ and R.A. /o. D10% otherwise *nown as @he Ma#(a Carta o&
5. onscientious Gb6ectors 'epto( o& %&e T$reate((#3 'a)e) Lhile !enerally healthcare service providers cannot be orced to render reproductive health care procedures i doin! it would contravene their reli!ious belies% a( e'epto( -)t e -a+e ( l&et$reate((# 'a)e) t$at re5re t$e per&or-a('e o& e-er#e(' pro'e+re). &n these situations% the ri!ht to lie o the #other should be !iven preerence% considerin! that a reerral by a #edical practitioner would a#ount to a denial o service% resultin! to unnecessarily placin! the lie o a #other in !rave dan!er. Accordin!ly% i it is necessary to save the lie o a #other% procedures endan!erin! the lie o the child #ay be resorted to even i is a!ainst the reli!ious senti#ents o the #edical practitioner. As Euoted above% whatever burden i#posed upon a #edical practitioner in this case would have been #ore than 6usti'ed considerin! the lie he would be able to save.
>. /o violation o reli!ious reedo# in -andatory Fa#ily Plannin! e#inars ursory readin! o the assailed provision bares that the reli!ious reedo# o the petitioners is not at all violated. All the law reEuires is or wouldbe spouses to B CARA -AR& . ,-,AC
attend a se#inar on parenthood% a#ily plannin! breasteedin! and inant nutrition. &t does not even #andate the type o a#ily plannin! #ethods to be included in the se#inar% whether they be natural or arti'cial. As correctly noted by the G+% those who receive any inor#ation durin! their attendance in the reEuired se#inars are not co#pelled to accept the inor#ation !iven to the#% are co#pletely ree to re6ect the inor#ation they 'nd unacceptable% and retain the reedo# to decide on #atters o a#ily lie without the intervention o the tate.
4. !a-l a(+ R#$t to Prva' ection 3% Art. T2 o the onstitution espouses that the tate shall deend the @ri!ht o the spouses to ound a a#ily.@ Gne person cannot ound a a#ily. he ri!ht% thereore% is shared by both spouses. &n the sa#e ection 3% their ri!ht @to participate in the plannin! and i#ple#entation o policies and pro!ra#s that a;ect the#@ is eEually reco!nied. he RH %a6 'a((ot e allo6e+ to (&r(#e
po( t$) -tal +e')o(-aF(#. B #v(# a)olte at$ort to t$e )po)e 6$o 6ol+ (+er#o a pro'e+re (e.!. tubal li!ation or vasecto#y)% a(+ arr(# t$e ot$er )po)e &ro- part'pat(# ( t$e +e')o( 6ol+ +rve a 6e+#e et6ee( t$e $)a(+ a(+ 6&e, po))l re)lt ( tter a(-o)t, a(+ e(+a(#er t$e -arra#e a(+ t$e &a-l% all or the sa*e o reducin! the population. 7e')o(-aF(# (volv(# a repro+'tve $ealt$ pro'e+re ) a prvate -atter 6$'$ elo(#) to t$e 'ople, (ot /)t o(e o& t$e-. Any decision they would reach would a;ect their uture as a a#ily because the sie o the a#ily or the nu#ber o their children si!ni'cantly #atters. he decision whether or not to under!o the procedure belon!s e
How about in cases o -(or =alrea+ a pare(t or (+er#o(# -)'arra#e@ who will be under!oin! a procedure 7 Parental consent is still needed &t is precisely in such situations when a #inor parent needs the co#ort% care% advice% and !uidance o her own parents. he tate cannot replace her natural #other and ather when it co#es to providin! her needs and co#ort. o say that their consent is no lon!er relevant is clearly antia#ily. &t does not pro#ote unity in the a#ily. &t is an a;ront to the constitutional #andate to protect and stren!then the a#ily as an inviolable social institution. LG TP&G/ (no need or parental consent) 1. -inors accessin! inor#ation about a#ily plannin! services
B CARA -AR& . ,-,AC
$. -inors under liethreatenin! cases that reEuire peror#ance o e#er!ency procedures
?. Lolato( o& A'a+e-' !ree+o- ; R #andatory teachin! o A!e and "evelop#ent Appropriate Reproductive Health ducation At this point% suce it to state that any attac* on the validity o ection 14 o RH aw is pre-atre because the "epd has yet to or#ulate a curriculu# on appropriate reproductive health education. onsiderin! that ection 14 provides not only or the a!eappropriatereproductive health education% but also or values or#ation9 the develop#ent o *nowled!e and s*ills in selprotection a!ainst discri#ination9 se
. Lolato( o& 7e Pro'e)) ,//AK he ourt need not belabor the issue o whether the ri!ht to be e
It )$ol+ e (ote+ t$at "e'to( o& t$e RH %a6 prort*e) poor a(+ -ar#(al*e+ 'ople) 6$o are )er(# &ro- &ertlt ))e) a(+ +e)re to $ave '$l+re(. here is% thereore% no #erit to the contention that the RH aw only see*s to tar!et the poor to reduce their nu#ber. Lhile the RH aw ad#its the use o contraceptives% it does not% as elucidated above% sanction abortion. Moreover, t$e RH B CARA -AR& . ,-,AC
%a6 +oe) (ot pre)'re t$e (-er o& '$l+re( a 'ople -a $ave a(+ +oe) (ot -po)e 'o(+to() po( 'ople) 6$o (te(+ to $ave '$l+re(. Lith respect to the e
8. I(vol(tar "ervt+e ,//AK
A rea+(# o& t$e a))ale+ prov)o(, $o6ever, reveal) t$at t o(l e('ora#e) prvate a(+ (o(#over(-e(t repro+'tve $ealt$'are )erv'e prov+er) to re(+er pro o(a )erv'e. Gther than nonaccreditation with PhilHealth% no penalty is i#posed should they choose to do otherwise. Private and non!overn#ent reproductive healthcare service providers also en6oy the liberty to choose which *ind o health service they wish to provide% when% where and how to provide it or whether to provide it all. learly% thereore% no co#pulsion%
orce or threat is #ade upon the# to render pro bono service a!ainst their will. Lhile the renderin! o such service was #ade a prereEuisite to accreditation with PhilHealth% the ourt does not consider the sa#e to be an unreasonable burden% but rather% a necessary incentive i#posed by on!ress in the urtherance o a perceived le!iti#ate state interest. Co()'e(to) O/e'tor) are MPT &ro- t$) prov)o( a) lo(# a) t$er rel#o) ele&) a(+ 'o(v'to() +o (ot allo6 t$e- to re(+er repro+'tve $ealt$ )erv'e pro o(o or ot$er6)e.
9. 7ele#ato( o& At$ort to t$e !7A a) to 6$et$er a pro+'t ) to e ('l+e+ ( ))e(tal 7r# %)t Fro# the declared policy o the RH aw% it is clear that on!ress intended that the public be !iven only those #edicines that are proven #edically sae% le!al% non abortiacient% and e;ective in accordance with scienti'c and evidencebased #edical research standards.
10. Lolato( o& Ato(o- o& %o'al Gover(-e(t) a(+ ARMM ,//AK &n this case% a readin! o the RH aw clearly shows that whether it pertains to the establish#ent o health care acilities% the hirin! o s*illed health proessionals% or the trainin! o baran!ay health wor*ers , t 6ll e t$e (ato(al #over(-e(t t$at 6ll prov+e &or t$e &(+(# o& t) -ple-e(tato(. ocal autono#y is not absolute. T$e (ato(al #over(-e(t )tll $a) t$e )a 6$e( t 'o-e) to
B CARA -AR& . ,-,AC
(ato(al prort pro#ra-) 6$'$ t$e lo'al #over(-e(t ) 'alle+ po( to -ple-e(t lFe t$e RH %a6.
T$e &a't t$at t$e RH %a6 +oe) (ot (tr+e ( t$e ato(o- o& lo'al #over(-e(t) 'a( e e5all apple+ to t$e ARMM. T$e RH %a6 +oe) (ot (&r(#e po( t) ato(o-. -oreover% Article &&&% ections >% 10 and 11 o R.A. /o. D054% or the or!anic act o the AR--% alluded to by petitioner illah to 6ustiy the e
the petitioners si#ply delineate the powers that #ay be e
B CARA -AR& . ,-,AC
