Republic of the Philippines minor children Elijah Gerald Juatas and Elian Gabriel Juatas, Salvacion

SUPREME COURT M. Monteiro, Emily R. Laws, Joseph R . Laws & Katrina R.

Baguio City Laws, Petitioners,
vs.
EN BANC HON. PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., Executive Secretary, HON. ENRIQUE T.
ONA, Secretary, Department of Health, HON. ARMIN A. LUISTRO,
G.R. No. 204819 April 8, 2014 Secretary, Department of Education, Culture and Sports, HON.
CORAZON SOLIMAN, Secretary, Department of Social Welfare and
Development, HON. MANUELA. ROXAS II, Secretary, Department of
JAMES M. IMBONG and LOVELY-ANN C. IMBONG, for themselves and
Interior and Local Government, HON. FLORENCIO B. ABAD, Secretary,
in behalf of their minor children, LUCIA CARLOS IMBONG and
Department of Budget and Management, HON. ARSENIO M.
BERNADETTE CARLOS IMBONG and MAGNIFICAT CHILD
BALISACAN, Socio-Economic Planning Secretary and NEDA Director-
DEVELOPMENT CENTER, INC., Petitioners,
General, THE PHILIPPINE COMMISSION ON WOMEN, represented by
vs.
its Chairperson, Remedios lgnacio-Rikken, THE PHILIPPINE HEALTH
HON. PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., Executive Secretary, HON.
INSURANCE CORPORATION, represented by its President Eduardo
FLORENCIO B. ABAD, Secretary, Department of Budget and
Banzon, THE LEAGUE OF PROVINCES OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Management, HON. ENRIQUE T. ONA, Secretary, Department of Health,
represented by its President Alfonso Umali, THE LEAGUE OF CITIES
HON. ARMIN A. LUISTRO, Secretary, Department of Education, Culture
OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by its President Oscar Rodriguez,
and Sports and HON. MANUELA. ROXAS II, Secretary, Department of
and THE LEAGUE OF MUNICIPALITIES OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Interior and Local Government, Respondents.
represented by its President Donato Marcos, Respondents.
x---------------------------------x
x---------------------------------x
G.R. No. 204934
G.R. No. 204957
ALLIANCE FOR THE FAMILY FOUNDATION PHILIPPINES, INC. [ALFI],
TASK FORCE FOR FAMILY AND LIFE VISAYAS, INC. and VALERIANO
represented by its President, Maria Concepcion S. Noche, Spouses
S. AVILA, Petitioners,
Reynaldo S. Luistro & Rosie B . Luistro, Jose S. Sandejas & Elenita
vs.
S.A. Sandejas, Arturo M. Gorrez & Marietta C. Gorrez, Salvador S.
HON. PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., Executive Secretary; HON.
Mante, Jr. & Hazeleen L. Mante, Rolando M. Bautista & Maria Felisa S.
FLORENCIO B. ABAD, Secretary, Department of Budget and
Bautista, Desiderio Racho & Traquilina Racho, F emand Antonio A.
Management; HON. ENRIQUE T. ONA, Secretary, Department of
Tansingco & Carol Anne C. Tansingco for themselves and on behalf of
Education; and HON. MANUELA. ROXAS II, Secretary, Department of
their minor children, Therese Antonette C. Tansingco, Lorenzo Jose C.
Interior and Local Government, Respondents.
Tansingco, Miguel F emando C. Tangsingco, Carlo Josemaria C.
Tansingco & Juan Paolo C. Tansingco, Spouses Mariano V. Araneta &
Eileen Z. Araneta for themselves and on behalf of their minor children, x---------------------------------x
Ramon Carlos Z. Araneta & Maya Angelica Z. Araneta, Spouses Renato
C. Castor & Mildred C. Castor for themselves and on behalf of their G.R. No. 204988
minor children, Renz Jeffrey C. Castor, Joseph Ramil C. Castor, John
Paul C. Castor & Raphael C. Castor, Spouses Alexander R. Racho & SERVE LIFE CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY, INC., represented by Dr. Nestor
Zara Z. Racho for themselves and on behalf of their minor children B. Lumicao, M.D., as President and in his personal capacity,
Margarita Racho, Mikaela Racho, Martin Racho, Mari Racho & Manolo ROSEVALE FOUNDATION INC., represented by Dr. Rodrigo M. Alenton,
Racho, Spouses Alfred R. Racho & Francine V. Racho for themselves M.D., as member of the school board and in his personal capacity,
and on behalf of their minor children Michael Racho, Mariana Racho, ROSEMARIE R. ALENTON, IMELDA G. IBARRA, CPA, LOVENIAP.
Rafael Racho, Maxi Racho, Chessie Racho & Laura Racho, Spouses NACES, Phd., ANTHONY G. NAGAC, EARL ANTHONY C. GAMBE and
David R. Racho & Armilyn A. Racho for themselves and on behalf of MARLON I. YAP, Petitioners,
their minor child Gabriel Racho, Mindy M. Juatas and on behalf of her vs.
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES, HOUSE MANUELA. ROXAS II, Secretary, Department of Interior and Local
OF REPRESENTATIVES, HON. PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., Executive Government, HON. CORAZON J. SOLIMAN, Secretary, Department of
Secretary, HON. FLORENCIO B. ABAD, Secretary, Department of Social Welfare and Development, HON. ARSENIO BALISACAN,
Budget and Management; HON. ENRIQUE T. ONA, Secretary, Director-General, National Economic and Development Authority, HON.
Department of Health; HON. ARMIN A. LUISTRO, Secretary, SUZETTE H. LAZO, Director-General, Food and Drugs Administration,
Department of Education and HON. MANUELA. ROXAS II, Secretary, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, Philippine Health Insurance Corporation,
Department of Interior and Local Government, Respondents. and THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, Philippine Commission on
Women, Respondents.
x---------------------------------x
x---------------------------------x
G.R. No. 205003
G.R. No. 205478
EXPEDITO A. BUGARIN, JR., Petitioner,
vs. REYNALDO J. ECHAVEZ, M.D., JACQUELINE H. KING, M.D., CYNTHIA
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, T. DOMINGO, M.D., AND JOSEPHINE MILLADO-LUMITAO, M.D.,
HON. SENATE PRESIDENT, HON. SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF collectively known as Doctors For Life, and ANTHONY PEREZ,
REPRESENTATIVES and HON. SOLICITOR GENERAL, Respondents. MICHAEL ANTHONY G. MAPA, CARLOS ANTONIO PALAD, WILFREDO
JOSE, CLAIRE NAVARRO, ANNA COSIO, and GABRIEL DY LIACCO
x---------------------------------x collectively known as Filipinos For Life, Petitioners,
vs.
G.R. No. 205043 HON. PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., Executive Secretary; HON.
FLORENCIO B. ABAD, Secretary of the Department of Budget and
Management; HON. ENRIQUE T. ONA, Secretary of the Department of
EDUARDO B. OLAGUER and THE CATHOLIC XYBRSPACE
Health; HON. ARMIN A. LUISTRO, Secretary of the Department of
APOSTOLATE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioners,
Education; and HON. MANUELA. ROXAS II, Secretary of the
vs.
Department of Interior and Local Government, Respondents.
DOH SECRETARY ENRIQUE T. ONA, FDA DIRECTOR SUZETTE H.
LAZO, DBM SECRETARY FLORENCIO B. ABAD, DILG SECRETARY
MANUELA. ROXAS II, DECS SECRETARY ARMIN A. x---------------------------------x
LUISTRO, Respondents.
G.R. No. 205491
x---------------------------------x
SPOUSES FRANCISCO S. TATAD AND MARIA FENNY C. TATAD & ALA
G.R. No. 205138 F. PAGUIA, for themselves, their Posterity, and the rest of Filipino
posterity, Petitioners,
vs.
PHILIPPINE ALLIANCE OF XSEMINARIANS, INC. (PAX), herein
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT of the Republic of the
represented by its National President, Atty. Ricardo M . Ribo, and in his
Philippines, Respondent.
own behalf, Atty. Lino E.A. Dumas, Romeo B. Almonte, Osmundo C.
Orlanes, Arsenio Z. Menor, Samuel J. Yap, Jaime F. Mateo, Rolly
Siguan, Dante E. Magdangal, Michael Eugenio O. Plana, Bienvenido C. x---------------------------------x
Miguel, Jr., Landrito M. Diokno and Baldomero Falcone, Petitioners,
vs. G.R. No. 205720
HON. PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., Executive Secretary, HON.
FLORENCIO B. ABAD, Secretary, Department of Budget and PRO-LIFE PHILIPPINES FOUNDATION, Inc., represented by Loma
Management, HON. ENRIQUE T. ONA, Secretary, Department of Health, Melegrito, as Executive Director, and in her personal capacity,
HON. ARMIN A. LUISTRO, Secretary, Department of Education, HON. JOSELYN B. BASILIO, ROBERT Z. CORTES, ARIEL A. CRISOSTOMO,
JEREMY I. GATDULA, CRISTINA A. MONTES, RAUL ANTONIO A. SARMIENTO, AND SPOUSES LUIS FRANCIS A. RODRIGO, JR. and
NIDOY, WINSTON CONRAD B. PADOJINOG, RUFINO L. POLICARPIO DEBORAH MARIE VERONICA N. RODRIGO, Petitioners,
III, Petitioners, vs.
vs. HON. PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., Executive Secretary, HON.
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES, HOUSE FLORENCIO B. ABAD, Secretary, Department of Budget and
OF REPRESENTATIVES, HON. PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., Executive Management, HON. ENRIQUE T. ONA, Secretary, Department of Health,
Secretary, HON. FLORENCIO B. ABAD, Secretary, Department of HON. ARMIN A. LUISTRO, Secretary, Department of Education, Culture
Budget and Management, HON. ENRIQUE T. ONA, Secretary, and Sports and HON. MANUELA. ROXAS II, Secretary, Department of
Department of Health, HON. ARMIN A. LUISTRO, Secretary, Department Interior and Local Government, Respondents.
of Education and HON. MANUEL A. ROXAS II, Secretary, Department of
Interior and Local Government, Respondents. x---------------------------------x

x---------------------------------x G.R. No. 207563

G.R. No. 206355 ALMARIM CENTI TILLAH and ABDULHUSSEIN M. KASHIM, Petitioners,
vs.
MILLENNIUM SAINT FOUNDATION, INC., ATTY. RAMON PEDROSA, HON. PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., Executive Secretary, HON. ENRIQUE T.
ATTY. CITA BORROMEO-GARCIA, STELLAACEDERA, ATTY. BERTENI ONA, Secretary of the Department of Health, and HON. ARMIN A.
CATALUNA CAUSING, Petitioners, LUISTRO,Secretary of the Department of Budget and
vs. Management, Respondents.
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE
SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, DEPARTMENT OF DECISION
EDUCATION, Respondents.
MENDOZA, J.:
x---------------------------------x
Freedom of religion was accorded preferred status by the framers of our
G.R. No. 207111 fundamental law. And this Court has consistently affirmed this preferred
status, well aware that it is "designed to protect the broadest possible liberty
JOHN WALTER B. JUAT, MARY M. IMBONG, ANTHONY VICTORIO B. of conscience, to allow each man to believe as his conscience directs, to
LUMICAO, JOSEPH MARTIN Q. VERDEJO, ANTONIA EMMA R. ROXAS profess his beliefs , and to live as he believes he ought to live, consistent
and LOTA LAT-GUERRERO, Petitioners, with the liberty of others and with the common good."1
vs.
HON. PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., Executive Secretary, HON. To this day, poverty is still a major stumbling block to the nation's
FLORENCIO ABAD, Secretary, Department of Budget and emergence as a developed country, leaving our people beleaguered in a
Management, HON. ENRIQUE T. ONA, Secretary, Department of Health, state of hunger, illiteracy and unemployment. While governmental policies
HON. ARMIN A. LUISTRO, Secretary, Department of Education, Culture have been geared towards the revitalization of the economy, the
and Sports and HON. MANUEL A. ROXAS II, Secretary, Department of bludgeoning dearth in social services remains to be a problem that concerns
Interior and Local Government, Respondents. not only the poor, but every member of society. The government continues
to tread on a trying path to the realization of its very purpose, that is, the
x---------------------------------x general welfare of the Filipino people and the development of the country as
a whole. The legislative branch, as the main facet of a representative
G.R. No. 207172 government, endeavors to enact laws and policies that aim to remedy
looming societal woes, while the executive is closed set to fully implement
COUPLES FOR CHRIST FOUNDATION, INC., SPOUSES JUAN CARLOS these measures and bring concrete and substantial solutions within the
ARTADI SARMIENTO AND FRANCESCA ISABELLE BESINGA- reach of Juan dela Cruz. Seemingly distant is the judicial branch, oftentimes
regarded as an inert governmental body that merely casts its watchful eyes privately-owned educational institution, and several others,13 in their
on clashing stakeholders until it is called upon to adjudicate. Passive, yet capacities as citizens (Serve Life);
reflexive when called into action, the Judiciary then willingly embarks on its
solemn duty to interpret legislation vis-a-vis the most vital and enduring (5) Petition,14 filed by Expedito A. Bugarin, Jr. in his capacity as a
principle that holds Philippine society together - the supremacy of the citizen (Bugarin);
Philippine Constitution.
(6) Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition,15 filed by Eduardo Olaguer
Nothing has polarized the nation more in recent years than the issues of and the Catholic Xybrspace Apostolate of the Philippines,16 in their
population growth control, abortion and contraception. As in every capacities as a citizens and taxpayers (Olaguer);
democratic society, diametrically opposed views on the subjects and their
perceived consequences freely circulate in various media. From television (7) Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition,17 filed by the Philippine
debates2 to sticker campaigns,3 from rallies by socio-political activists to Alliance of Xseminarians Inc.,18 and several others19 in their
mass gatherings organized by members of the clergy4 - the clash between capacities as citizens and taxpayers (PAX);
the seemingly antithetical ideologies of the religious conservatives and
progressive liberals has caused a deep division in every level of the society.
(8) Petition,20 filed by Reynaldo J. Echavez, M.D. and several
Despite calls to withhold support thereto, however, Republic Act (R.A.) No.
others,21 in their capacities as citizens and taxpayers (Echavez);
10354, otherwise known as the Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive
Health Act of 2012 (RH Law), was enacted by Congress on December 21,
2012. (9) Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition,22 filed by spouses Francisco
and Maria Fenny C. Tatad and Atty. Alan F. Paguia, in their
capacities as citizens, taxpayers and on behalf of those yet unborn.
Shortly after the President placed his imprimatur on the said law,
Atty. Alan F. Paguia is also proceeding in his capacity as a member
challengers from various sectors of society came knocking on the doors of
of the Bar (Tatad);
the Court, beckoning it to wield the sword that strikes down constitutional
disobedience. Aware of the profound and lasting impact that its decision
may produce, the Court now faces the iuris controversy, as presented in (10) Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition,23 filed by Pro-Life
fourteen (14) petitions and two (2) petitions- in-intervention, to wit: Philippines Foundation Inc.24 and several others,25 in their capacities
as citizens and taxpayers and on behalf of its associates who are
members of the Bar (Pro-Life);
(1) Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition,5 filed by spouses Attys.
James M. Imbong and Lovely Ann C. Imbong, in their personal
capacities as citizens, lawyers and taxpayers and on behalf of their (11) Petition for Prohibition,26 filed by Millennium Saint Foundation,
minor children; and the Magnificat Child Leaming Center, Inc., a Inc.,27 Attys. Ramon Pedrosa, Cita Borromeo-Garcia, Stella Acedera,
domestic, privately-owned educational institution (Jmbong); and Berteni Catalufia Causing, in their capacities as citizens,
taxpayers and members of the Bar (MSF);
(2) Petition for Prohibition,6 filed by the Alliance for the Family
Foundation Philippines, Inc., through its president, Atty. Maria (12) Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition,28 filed by John Walter B.
Concepcion S. Noche7 and several others8 in their personal Juat and several others,29 in their capacities as citizens (Juat) ;
capacities as citizens and on behalf of the generations unborn
(ALFI); (13) Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition,30 filed by Couples for
Christ Foundation, Inc. and several others,31 in their capacities as
(3) Petition for Certiorari,9 filed by the Task Force for Family and Life citizens (CFC);
Visayas, Inc., and Valeriano S. Avila, in their capacities as citizens
and taxpayers (Task Force Family); (14) Petition for Prohibition32 filed by Almarim Centi Tillah and
Abdulhussein M. Kashim in their capacities as citizens and
(4) Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition,10 filed by Serve Life taxpayers (Tillah); and
Cagayan De Oro City, Inc.,11 Rosevale Foundation, Inc.,12 a domestic,
 (15) Petition-In-Intervention,33 filed by Atty. Samson S. Alcantara in It is also argued that the RH Law providing for the formulation of mandatory
his capacity as a citizen and a taxpayer (Alcantara); and sex education in schools should not be allowed as it is an affront to their
religious beliefs.41
(16) Petition-In-Intervention,34 filed by Buhay Hayaang Yumabong (B
UHAY) , an accredited political party. While the petit10ners recognize that the guarantee of religious freedom is
not absolute, they argue that the RH Law fails to satisfy the "clear and
A perusal of the foregoing petitions shows that the petitioners are assailing present danger test" and the "compelling state interest test" to justify the
the constitutionality of RH Law on the following GROUNDS: regulation of the right to free exercise of religion and the right to free
speech.42
• The RH Law violates the right to life of the unborn. According to the
petitioners, notwithstanding its declared policy against abortion, the • The RH Law violates the constitutional provision on involuntary
implementation of the RH Law would authorize the purchase of servitude. According to the petitioners, the RH Law subjects medical
hormonal contraceptives, intra-uterine devices and injectables which practitioners to involuntary servitude because, to be accredited
are abortives, in violation of Section 12, Article II of the Constitution under the PhilHealth program, they are compelled to provide forty-
which guarantees protection of both the life of the mother and the life eight (48) hours of pro bona services for indigent women, under
of the unborn from conception.35 threat of criminal prosecution, imprisonment and other forms of
punishment.43
• The RH Law violates the right to health and the right to protection
against hazardous products. The petitioners posit that the RH Law The petitioners explain that since a majority of patients are covered by
provides universal access to contraceptives which are hazardous to PhilHealth, a medical practitioner would effectively be forced to render
one's health, as it causes cancer and other health problems.36 reproductive health services since the lack of PhilHealth accreditation would
mean that the majority of the public would no longer be able to avail of the
• The RH Law violates the right to religious freedom. The petitioners practitioners services.44
contend that the RH Law violates the constitutional guarantee
respecting religion as it authorizes the use of public funds for the • The RH Law violates the right to equal protection of the law. It is
procurement of contraceptives. For the petitioners, the use of public claimed that the RH Law discriminates against the poor as it makes
funds for purposes that are believed to be contrary to their beliefs is them the primary target of the government program that promotes
included in the constitutional mandate ensuring religious freedom.37 contraceptive use. The petitioners argue that, rather than promoting
reproductive health among the poor, the RH Law seeks to introduce
It is also contended that the RH Law threatens conscientious objectors of contraceptives that would effectively reduce the number of the poor.45
criminal prosecution, imprisonment and other forms of punishment, as it
compels medical practitioners 1] to refer patients who seek advice on • The RH Law is "void-for-vagueness" in violation of the due process
reproductive health programs to other doctors; and 2] to provide full and clause of the Constitution. In imposing the penalty of imprisonment
correct information on reproductive health programs and service, although it and/or fine for "any violation," it is vague because it does not define
is against their religious beliefs and convictions.38 the type of conduct to be treated as "violation" of the RH Law.46

In this connection, Section 5 .23 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations In this connection, it is claimed that "Section 7 of the RH Law violates the
of the RH Law (RH-IRR),39 provides that skilled health professionals who are right to due process by removing from them (the people) the right to manage
public officers such as, but not limited to, Provincial, City, or Municipal their own affairs and to decide what kind of health facility they shall be and
Health Officers, medical officers, medical specialists, rural health physicians, what kind of services they shall offer."47 It ignores the management
hospital staff nurses, public health nurses, or rural health midwives, who are prerogative inherent in corporations for employers to conduct their affairs in
specifically charged with the duty to implement these Rules, cannot be accordance with their own discretion and judgment.
considered as conscientious objectors.40
• The RH Law violates the right to free speech. To compel a person
to explain a full range of family planning methods is plainly to curtail
 his right to expound only his own preferred way of family planning. Hontiveros,59 and Atty. Joan De Venecia60 also filed their respective
The petitioners note that although exemption is granted to Comments-in-Intervention in conjunction with several others. On June 4,
institutions owned and operated by religious groups, they are still 2013, Senator Pia Juliana S. Cayetano was also granted leave to
forced to refer their patients to another healthcare facility willing to intervene.61
perform the service or procedure.48
The respondents, aside from traversing the substantive arguments of the
• The RH Law intrudes into the zone of privacy of one's family petitioners, pray for the dismissal of the petitions for the principal reasons
protected by the Constitution. It is contended that the RH Law that 1] there is no actual case or controversy and, therefore, the issues are
providing for mandatory reproductive health education intrudes upon not yet ripe for judicial determination.; 2] some petitioners lack standing to
their constitutional right to raise their children in accordance with question the RH Law; and 3] the petitions are essentially petitions for
their beliefs.49 declaratory relief over which the Court has no original jurisdiction.

It is claimed that, by giving absolute authority to the person who will undergo Meanwhile, on March 15, 2013, the RH-IRR for the enforcement of the
reproductive health procedure, the RH Law forsakes any real dialogue assailed legislation took effect.
between the spouses and impedes the right of spouses to mutually decide
on matters pertaining to the overall well-being of their family. In the same On March 19, 2013, after considering the issues and arguments raised, the
breath, it is also claimed that the parents of a child who has suffered a Court issued the Status Quo Ante Order (SQAO), enjoining the effects and
miscarriage are deprived of parental authority to determine whether their implementation of the assailed legislation for a period of one hundred and
child should use contraceptives.50 twenty (120) days, or until July 17, 2013.62

• The RH Law violates the constitutional principle of non-delegation On May 30, 2013, the Court held a preliminary conference with the counsels
of legislative authority. The petitioners question the delegation by of the parties to determine and/or identify the pertinent issues raised by the
Congress to the FDA of the power to determine whether a product is parties and the sequence by which these issues were to be discussed in the
non-abortifacient and to be included in the Emergency Drugs List oral arguments. On July 9 and 23, 2013, and on August 6, 13, and 27, 2013,
(EDL).51 the cases were heard on oral argument. On July 16, 2013, the SQAO was
ordered extended until further orders of the Court.63
• The RH Law violates the one subject/one bill rule provision under
Section 26( 1 ), Article VI of the Constitution.52 Thereafter, the Court directed the parties to submit their respective
memoranda within sixty (60) days and, at the same time posed several
• The RH Law violates Natural Law.53 questions for their clarification on some contentions of the parties.64

• The RH Law violates the principle of Autonomy of Local The Status Quo Ante
Government Units (LGUs) and the Autonomous Region of Muslim
Mindanao {ARMM). It is contended that the RH Law, providing for (Population, Contraceptive and Reproductive Health Laws
reproductive health measures at the local government level and the
ARMM, infringes upon the powers devolved to LGUs and the ARMM Prior to the RH Law
under the Local Government Code and R.A . No. 9054.54
Long before the incipience of the RH Law, the country has allowed the sale,
Various parties also sought and were granted leave to file their respective dispensation and distribution of contraceptive drugs and devices. As far
comments-in-intervention in defense of the constitutionality of the RH Law. back as June 18, 1966, the country enacted R.A. No. 4729 entitled "An Act
Aside from the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) which commented on to Regu,late the Sale, Dispensation, and/or Distribution of Contraceptive
the petitions in behalf of the respondents,55 Congressman Edcel C. Drugs and Devices." Although contraceptive drugs and devices were
Lagman,56 former officials of the Department of Health Dr. Esperanza I. allowed, they could not be sold, dispensed or distributed "unless such sale,
Cabral, Jamie Galvez-Tan, and Dr. Alberto G. Romualdez,57 the Filipino dispensation and distribution is by a duly licensed drug store or
Catholic Voices for Reproductive Health (C4RH),58 Ana Theresa "Risa"
pharmaceutical company and with the prescription of a qualified medical over 27 million Filipinos in 1960, the population of the country reached over
practitioner."65 76 million in the year 2000 and over 92 million in 2010.72 The executive and
the legislative, thus, felt that the measures were still not adequate. To rein in
In addition, R.A. No. 5921,66 approved on June 21, 1969, contained the problem, the RH Law was enacted to provide Filipinos, especially the
provisions relative to "dispensing of abortifacients or anti-conceptional poor and the marginalized, access and information to the full range of
substances and devices." Under Section 37 thereof, it was provided that "no modem family planning methods, and to ensure that its objective to provide
drug or chemical product or device capable of provoking abortion or for the peoples' right to reproductive health be achieved. To make it more
preventing conception as classified by the Food and Drug Administration effective, the RH Law made it mandatory for health providers to provide
shall be delivered or sold to any person without a proper prescription by a information on the full range of modem family planning methods, supplies
duly licensed physician." and services, and for schools to provide reproductive health education. To
put teeth to it, the RH Law criminalizes certain acts of refusals to carry out its
On December 11, 1967, the Philippines, adhering to the UN Declaration on mandates.
Population, which recognized that the population problem should be
considered as the principal element for long-term economic development, Stated differently, the RH Law is an enhancement measure to fortify and
enacted measures that promoted male vasectomy and tubal ligation to make effective the current laws on contraception, women's health and
mitigate population growth.67 Among these measures included R.A. No. population control.
6365, approved on August 16, 1971, entitled "An Act Establishing a National
Policy on Population, Creating the Commission on Population and for Other Prayer of the Petitioners - Maintain the Status Quo
Purposes. " The law envisioned that "family planning will be made part of a
broad educational program; safe and effective means will be provided to The petitioners are one in praying that the entire RH Law be declared
couples desiring to space or limit family size; mortality and morbidity rates unconstitutional. Petitioner ALFI, in particular, argues that the government
will be further reduced." sponsored contraception program, the very essence of the RH Law, violates
the right to health of women and the sanctity of life, which the State is
To further strengthen R.A. No. 6365, then President Ferdinand E . Marcos mandated to protect and promote. Thus, ALFI prays that "the status quo
issued Presidential Decree. (P.D.) No. 79,68 dated December 8, 1972, which, ante - the situation prior to the passage of the RH Law - must be
among others, made "family planning a part of a broad educational maintained."73 It explains:
program," provided "family planning services as a part of over-all health
care," and made "available all acceptable methods of contraception, except x x x. The instant Petition does not question contraception and
abortion, to all Filipino citizens desirous of spacing, limiting or preventing contraceptives per se. As provided under Republic Act No. 5921 and
pregnancies." Republic Act No. 4729, the sale and distribution of contraceptives are
prohibited unless dispensed by a prescription duly licensed by a physician.
Through the years, however, the use of contraceptives and family planning What the Petitioners find deplorable and repugnant under the RH Law is the
methods evolved from being a component of demographic management, to role that the State and its agencies - the entire bureaucracy, from the
one centered on the promotion of public health, particularly, reproductive cabinet secretaries down to the barangay officials in the remotest areas of
health.69 Under that policy, the country gave priority to one's right to freely the country - is made to play in the implementation of the contraception
choose the method of family planning to be adopted, in conformity with its program to the fullest extent possible using taxpayers' money. The State
adherence to the commitments made in the International Conference on then will be the funder and provider of all forms of family planning methods
Population and Development.70 Thus, on August 14, 2009, the country and the implementer of the program by ensuring the widespread
enacted R.A. No. 9710 or "The Magna Carta for Women, " which, among dissemination of, and universal access to, a full range of family planning
others, mandated the State to provide for comprehensive health services methods, devices and supplies.74
and programs for women, including family planning and sex education.71
ISSUES
The RH Law
After a scrutiny of the various arguments and contentions of the parties, the
Despite the foregoing legislative measures, the population of the country Court has synthesized and refined them to the following principal issues:
kept on galloping at an uncontrollable pace. From a paltry number of just
I. PROCEDURAL: Whether the Court may exercise its power of judicial I. PROCEDURAL ISSUE: Whether the Court can exercise its power of
review over the controversy. judicial review over the controversy.

1] Power of Judicial Review The Power of Judicial Review

2] Actual Case or Controversy In its attempt to persuade the Court to stay its judicial hand, the OSG
asserts that it should submit to the legislative and political wisdom of
3] Facial Challenge Congress and respect the compromises made in the crafting of the RH Law,
it being "a product of a majoritarian democratic process"75 and "characterized
4] Locus Standi by an inordinate amount of transparency."76 The OSG posits that the
authority of the Court to review social legislation like the RH Law by
certiorari is "weak," since the Constitution vests the discretion to implement
5] Declaratory Relief
the constitutional policies and positive norms with the political departments,
in particular, with Congress.77 It further asserts that in view of the Court's
6] One Subject/One Title Rule ruling in Southern Hemisphere v. Anti-Terrorism Council,78 the remedies of
certiorari and prohibition utilized by the petitioners are improper to assail the
II. SUBSTANTIVE: Whether the RH law is unconstitutional: validity of the acts of the legislature.79

1] Right to Life Moreover, the OSG submits that as an "as applied challenge," it cannot
prosper considering that the assailed law has yet to be enforced and applied
2] Right to Health to the petitioners, and that the government has yet to distribute reproductive
health devices that are abortive. It claims that the RH Law cannot be
3] Freedom of Religion and the Right to Free Speech challenged "on its face" as it is not a speech-regulating measure.80

4] The Family 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
5] Freedom of Expression and Academic Freedom 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.
6] Due Process 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
7] Equal Protection exclusive cognizance of matters within its jurisdiction and is supreme within
its own sphere.81
8] Involuntary Servitude
Thus, the 1987 Constitution provides that: (a) the legislative power shall be
9] Delegation of Authority to the FDA vested in the Congress of the Philippines;82 (b) the executive power shall be
vested in the President of the Philippines;83 and (c) the judicial power shall be
10] Autonomy of Local Govemments/ARMM vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be
established by law.84 The Constitution has truly blocked out with deft strokes
DISCUSSION and in bold lines, the allotment of powers among the three branches of
government.85
Before delving into the constitutionality of the RH Law and its implementing
rules, it behooves the Court to resolve some procedural impediments. In its relationship with its co-equals, the Judiciary recognizes the doctrine of
separation of powers which imposes upon the courts proper restraint, born
of the nature of their functions and of their respect for the other branches of
government, in striking down the acts of the Executive or the Legislature as
unconstitutional. Verily, the policy is a harmonious blend of courtesy and In seeking to nullify an act of the Philippine Senate on the ground that it
caution.86 contravenes the Constitution, the petition no doubt raises a justiciable
controversy. Where an action of the legislative branch is seriously alleged to
It has also long been observed, however, that in times of social disquietude have infringed the Constitution, it becomes not only the right but in fact the
or political instability, the great landmarks of the Constitution are apt to be duty of the judiciary to settle the dispute. "The question thus posed is judicial
forgotten or marred, if not entirely obliterated.87 In order to address this, the rather than political. The duty (to adjudicate) remains to assure that the
Constitution impresses upon the Court to respect the acts performed by a supremacy of the Constitution is upheld. " Once a "controversy as to the
co-equal branch done within its sphere of competence and authority, but at application or interpretation of constitutional provision is raised before this
the same time, allows it to cross the line of separation - but only at a very Court (as in the instant case), it becomes a legal issue which the Court is
limited and specific point - to determine whether the acts of the executive bound by constitutional mandate to decide. [Emphasis supplied]
and the legislative branches are null because they were undertaken with
grave abuse of discretion.88 Thus, while the Court may not pass upon In the scholarly estimation of former Supreme Court Justice Florentino
questions of wisdom, justice or expediency of the RH Law, it may do so Feliciano, "judicial review is essential for the maintenance and enforcement
where an attendant unconstitutionality or grave abuse of discretion of the separation of powers and the balancing of powers among the three
results.89 The Court must demonstrate its unflinching commitment to protect great departments of government through the definition and maintenance of
those cherished rights and principles embodied in the Constitution. the boundaries of authority and control between them. To him, judicial
review is the chief, indeed the only, medium of participation - or instrument
In this connection, it bears adding that while the scope of judicial power of of intervention - of the judiciary in that balancing operation.95
review may be limited, the Constitution makes no distinction as to the kind of
legislation that may be subject to judicial scrutiny, be it in the form of social Lest it be misunderstood, it bears emphasizing that the Court does not have
legislation or otherwise. The reason is simple and goes back to the earlier the unbridled authority to rule on just any and every claim of constitutional
point. The Court may pass upon the constitutionality of acts of the legislative violation. Jurisprudence is replete with the rule that the power of judicial
and the executive branches, since its duty is not to review their collective review is limited by four exacting requisites, viz : (a) there must be an actual
wisdom but, rather, to make sure that they have acted in consonance with case or controversy; (b) the petitioners must possess locus standi; (c) the
their respective authorities and rights as mandated of them by the question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest opportunity; and
Constitution. If after said review, the Court finds no constitutional violations (d) the issue of constitutionality must be the lis mota of the case.96
of any sort, then, it has no more authority of proscribing the actions under
review.90 This is in line with Article VIII, Section 1 of the Constitution which Actual Case or Controversy
expressly provides:
Proponents of the RH Law submit that the subj ect petitions do not present
Section 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in any actual case or controversy because the RH Law has yet to be
such lower courts as may be established by law. 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
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual violating any of its provisions and that there is no showing that any of the
controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and petitioners' rights has been adversely affected by its operation.98 In short, it is
enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse contended that judicial review of the RH Law is premature.
of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any
branch or instrumentality of the Government. [Emphases supplied] An actual case or controversy means an existing case or controversy that is
appropriate or ripe for determination, not conjectural or anticipatory, lest the
As far back as Tanada v. Angara,91 the Court has unequivocally declared decision of the court would amount to an advisory opinion.99 The rule is that
that certiorari, prohibition and mandamus are appropriate remedies to raise courts do not sit to adjudicate mere academic questions to satisfy scholarly
constitutional issues and to review and/or prohibit/nullify, when proper, acts interest, however intellectually challenging. The controversy must be
of legislative and executive officials, as there is no other plain, speedy or justiciable-definite and concrete, touching on the legal relations of parties
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. This ruling was later on having adverse legal interests. In other words, the pleadings must show an
applied in Macalintal v. COMELEC,92 Aldaba v. COMELEC,93 Magallona v. active antagonistic assertion of a legal right, on the one hand, and a denial
Ermita,94 and countless others. In Tanada, the Court wrote: thereof, on the other; that is, it must concern a real, tangible and not merely
a theoretical question or issue. There ought to be an actual and substantial The OSG also assails the propriety of the facial challenge lodged by the
controversy admitting of specific relief through a decree conclusive in nature, subject petitions, contending that the RH Law cannot be challenged "on its
as distinguished from an opinion advising what the law would be upon a face" as it is not a speech regulating measure.105
hypothetical state of facts.100
The Court is not persuaded.
Corollary to the requirement of an actual case or controversy is the
requirement of ripeness.101 A question is ripe for adjudication when the act In United States (US) constitutional law, a facial challenge, also known as a
being challenged has had a direct adverse effect on the individual First Amendment Challenge, is one that is launched to assail the validity of
challenging it. For a case to be considered ripe for adjudication, it is a statutes concerning not only protected speech, but also all other rights in the
prerequisite that something has then been accomplished or performed by First Amendment.106 These include religious freedom, freedom of the press,
either branch before a court may come into the picture, and the petitioner and the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the
must allege the existence of an immediate or threatened injury to himself as Government for a redress of grievances.107 After all, the fundamental right to
a result of the challenged action. He must show that he has sustained or is religious freedom, freedom of the press and peaceful assembly are but
immediately in danger of sustaining some direct injury as a result of the act component rights of the right to one's freedom of expression, as they are
complained of102 modes which one's thoughts are externalized.

In The Province of North Cotabato v. The Government of the Republic of the In this jurisdiction, the application of doctrines originating from the U.S. has
Philippines,103 where the constitutionality of an unimplemented Memorandum been generally maintained, albeit with some modifications. While this Court
of Agreement on the Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD) was put in question, it has withheld the application of facial challenges to strictly penal statues,108 it
was argued that the Court has no authority to pass upon the issues raised has expanded its scope to cover statutes not only regulating free speech,
as there was yet no concrete act performed that could possibly violate the but also those involving religious freedom, and other fundamental
petitioners' and the intervenors' rights. Citing precedents, the Court ruled rights.109 The underlying reason for this modification is simple. For unlike its
that the fact of the law or act in question being not yet effective does not counterpart in the U.S., this Court, under its expanded jurisdiction, is
negate ripeness. Concrete acts under a law are not necessary to render the mandated by the Fundamental Law not only to settle actual controversies
controversy ripe. Even a singular violation of the Constitution and/or the law involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, but also to
is enough to awaken judicial duty. determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
In this case, the Court is of the view that an actual case or controversy exists instrumentality of the Government.110 Verily, the framers of Our Constitution
and that the same is ripe for judicial determination. Considering that the RH envisioned a proactive Judiciary, ever vigilant with its duty to maintain the
Law and its implementing rules have already taken effect and that budgetary supremacy of the Constitution.
measures to carry out the law have already been passed, it is evident that
the subject petitions present a justiciable controversy. As stated earlier, Consequently, considering that the foregoing petitions have seriously
when an action of the legislative branch is seriously alleged to have infringed alleged that the constitutional human rights to life, speech and religion and
the Constitution, it not only becomes a right, but also a duty of the Judiciary other fundamental rights mentioned above have been violated by the
to settle the dispute.104 assailed legislation, the Court has authority to take cognizance of these
kindred petitions and to determine if the RH Law can indeed pass
Moreover, the petitioners have shown that the case is so because medical constitutional scrutiny. To dismiss these petitions on the simple expedient
practitioners or medical providers are in danger of being criminally that there exist no actual case or controversy, would diminish this Court as a
prosecuted under the RH Law for vague violations thereof, particularly public reactive branch of government, acting only when the Fundamental Law has
health officers who are threatened to be dismissed from the service with been transgressed, to the detriment of the Filipino people.
forfeiture of retirement and other benefits. They must, at least, be heard on
the matter NOW. Locus Standi

Facial Challenge The OSG also attacks the legal personality of the petitioners to file their
respective petitions. It contends that the "as applied challenge" lodged by
the petitioners cannot prosper as the assailed law has yet to be enforced
and applied against them,111 and the government has yet to distribute waived or relaxed, thus allowing non-traditional plaintiffs, such as concerned
reproductive health devices that are abortive.112 citizens, taxpayers, voters or legislators, to sue in the public interest, albeit
they may not have been directly injured by the operation of a law or any
The petitioners, for their part, invariably invoke the "transcendental other government act. As held in Jaworski v. PAGCOR:119
importance" doctrine and their status as citizens and taxpayers in
establishing the requisite locus standi. Granting arguendo that the present action cannot be properly treated as a
petition for prohibition, the transcendental importance of the issues involved
Locus standi or legal standing is defined as a personal and substantial in this case warrants that we set aside the technical defects and take
interest in a case such that the party has sustained or will sustain direct primary jurisdiction over the petition at bar. One cannot deny that the issues
injury as a result of the challenged governmental act.113 It requires a personal raised herein have potentially pervasive influence on the social and moral
stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure the concrete well being of this nation, specially the youth; hence, their proper and just
adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the determination is an imperative need. This is in accordance with the well-
court so largely depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions.114 entrenched principle that rules of procedure are not inflexible tools designed
to hinder or delay, but to facilitate and promote the administration of justice.
In relation to locus standi, the "as applied challenge" embodies the rule that Their strict and rigid application, which would result in technicalities that tend
one can challenge the constitutionality of a statute only if he asserts a to frustrate, rather than promote substantial justice, must always be
violation of his own rights. The rule prohibits one from challenging the eschewed. (Emphasis supplied)
constitutionality of the statute grounded on a violation of the rights of third
persons not before the court. This rule is also known as the prohibition In view of the seriousness, novelty and weight as precedents, not only to the
against third-party standing.115 public, but also to the bench and bar, the issues raised must be resolved for
the guidance of all. After all, the RH Law drastically affects the constitutional
Transcendental Importance provisions on the right to life and health, the freedom of religion and
expression and other constitutional rights. Mindful of all these and the fact
that the issues of contraception and reproductive health have already
Notwithstanding, the Court leans on the doctrine that "the rule on standing is
caused deep division among a broad spectrum of society, the Court
a matter of procedure, hence, can be relaxed for non-traditional plaintiffs like
entertains no doubt that the petitions raise issues of transcendental
ordinary citizens, taxpayers, and legislators when the public interest so
importance warranting immediate court adjudication. More importantly,
requires, such as when the matter is of transcendental importance, of
considering that it is the right to life of the mother and the unborn which is
overreaching significance to society, or of paramount public interest."116
primarily at issue, the Court need not wait for a life to be taken away before
taking action.
In Coconut Oil Refiners Association, Inc. v. Torres,117 the Court held that in
cases of paramount importance where serious constitutional questions are
The Court cannot, and should not, exercise judicial restraint at this time
involved, the standing requirement may be relaxed and a suit may be
when rights enshrined in the Constitution are being imperilled to be violated.
allowed to prosper even where there is no direct injury to the party claiming
To do so, when the life of either the mother or her child is at stake, would
the right of judicial review. In the first Emergency Powers Cases,118 ordinary
lead to irreparable consequences.
citizens and taxpayers were allowed to question the constitutionality of
several executive orders although they had only an indirect and general
interest shared in common with the public. Declaratory Relief

With these said, even if the constitutionality of the RH Law may not be The respondents also assail the petitions because they are essentially
assailed through an "as-applied challenge, still, the Court has time and again petitions for declaratory relief over which the Court has no original
acted liberally on the locus s tandi requirement. It has accorded certain jurisdiction.120 Suffice it to state that most of the petitions are praying for
individuals standing to sue, not otherwise directly injured or with material injunctive reliefs and so the Court would just consider them as petitions for
interest affected by a Government act, provided a constitutional issue of prohibition under Rule 65, over which it has original jurisdiction. Where the
transcendental importance is invoked. The rule on locus standi is, after all, a case has far-reaching implications and prays for injunctive reliefs, the Court
procedural technicality which the Court has, on more than one occasion, may consider them as petitions for prohibition under Rule 65.121
One Subject-One Title Be that as it may, the RH Law does not violate the one subject/one bill rule.
In Benjamin E. Cawaling, Jr. v. The Commission on Elections and Rep.
The petitioners also question the constitutionality of the RH Law, claiming Francis Joseph G Escudero, it was written:
that it violates Section 26(1 ), Article VI of the Constitution,122 prescribing the
one subject-one title rule. According to them, being one for reproductive It is well-settled that the "one title-one subject" rule does not require the
health with responsible parenthood, the assailed legislation violates the Congress to employ in the title of the enactment language of such precision
constitutional standards of due process by concealing its true intent - to act as to mirror, fully index or catalogue all the contents and the minute details
as a population control measure.123 therein. The rule is sufficiently complied with if the title is comprehensive
enough as to include the general object which the statute seeks to effect,
To belittle the challenge, the respondents insist that the RH Law is not a and where, as here, the persons interested are informed of the nature,
birth or population control measure,124 and that the concepts of "responsible scope and consequences of the proposed law and its operation. Moreover,
parenthood" and "reproductive health" are both interrelated as they are this Court has invariably adopted a liberal rather than technical construction
inseparable.125 of the rule "so as not to cripple or impede legislation." [Emphases supplied]

Despite efforts to push the RH Law as a reproductive health law, the Court In this case, a textual analysis of the various provisions of the law shows
sees it as principally a population control measure. The corpus of the RH that both "reproductive health" and "responsible parenthood" are interrelated
Law is geared towards the reduction of the country's population. While it and germane to the overriding objective to control the population growth. As
claims to save lives and keep our women and children healthy, it also expressed in the first paragraph of Section 2 of the RH Law:
promotes pregnancy-preventing products. As stated earlier, the RH Law
emphasizes the need to provide Filipinos, especially the poor and the SEC. 2. Declaration of Policy. - The State recognizes and guarantees the
marginalized, with access to information on the full range of modem family human rights of all persons including their right to equality and
planning products and methods. These family planning methods, natural or nondiscrimination of these rights, the right to sustainable human
modem, however, are clearly geared towards the prevention of pregnancy. development, the right to health which includes reproductive health, the right
to education and information, and the right to choose and make decisions for
For said reason, the manifest underlying objective of the RH Law is to themselves in accordance with their religious convictions, ethics, cultural
reduce the number of births in the country. beliefs, and the demands of responsible parenthood.

It cannot be denied that the measure also seeks to provide pre-natal and The one subject/one title rule expresses the principle that the title of a law
post-natal care as well. A large portion of the law, however, covers the must not be "so uncertain that the average person reading it would not be
dissemination of information and provisions on access to medically-safe, informed of the purpose of the enactment or put on inquiry as to its contents,
non-abortifacient, effective, legal, affordable, and quality reproductive health or which is misleading, either in referring to or indicating one subject where
care services, methods, devices, and supplies, which are all intended to another or different one is really embraced in the act, or in omitting any
prevent pregnancy. expression or indication of the real subject or scope of the act."129

The Court, thus, agrees with the petitioners' contention that the whole idea Considering the close intimacy between "reproductive health" and
of contraception pervades the entire RH Law. It is, in fact, the central idea of "responsible parenthood" which bears to the attainment of the goal of
the RH Law.126 Indeed, remove the provisions that refer to contraception or achieving "sustainable human development" as stated under its terms, the
are related to it and the RH Law loses its very foundation.127 As earlier Court finds no reason to believe that Congress intentionally sought to
explained, "the other positive provisions such as skilled birth attendance, deceive the public as to the contents of the assailed legislation.
maternal care including pre-and post-natal services, prevention and
management of reproductive tract infections including HIV/AIDS are already II - SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES:
provided for in the Magna Carta for Women."128
1-The Right to Life
Position of the Petitioners
The petitioners assail the RH Law because it violates the right to life and to such a determination and pass judgment only when a particular drug or
health of the unborn child under Section 12, Article II of the Constitution. The device is later on determined as an abortive.135
assailed legislation allowing access to abortifacients/abortives effectively
sanctions abortion.130 For his part, respondent Lagman argues that the constitutional protection of
one's right to life is not violated considering that various studies of the WHO
According to the petitioners, despite its express terms prohibiting abortion, show that life begins from the implantation of the fertilized ovum.
Section 4(a) of the RH Law considers contraceptives that prevent the Consequently, he argues that the RH Law is constitutional since the law
fertilized ovum to reach and be implanted in the mother's womb as an specifically provides that only contraceptives that do not prevent the
abortifacient; thus, sanctioning contraceptives that take effect after implantation of the fertilized ovum are allowed.136
fertilization and prior to implantation, contrary to the intent of the Framers of
the Constitution to afford protection to the fertilized ovum which already has The Court's Position
life.
It is a universally accepted principle that every human being enjoys the right
They argue that even if Section 9 of the RH Law allows only "non- to life.137
abortifacient" hormonal contraceptives, intrauterine devices, injectables and
other safe, legal, non-abortifacient and effective family planning products Even if not formally established, the right to life, being grounded on natural
and supplies, medical research shows that contraceptives use results in law, is inherent and, therefore, not a creation of, or dependent upon a
abortion as they operate to kill the fertilized ovum which already has life.131 particular law, custom, or belief. It precedes and transcends any authority or
the laws of men.
As it opposes the initiation of life, which is a fundamental human good, the
petitioners assert that the State sanction of contraceptive use contravenes In this jurisdiction, the right to life is given more than ample protection.
natural law and is an affront to the dignity of man.132 Section 1, Article III of the Constitution provides:

Finally, it is contended that since Section 9 of the RH Law requires the Food Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due
and Drug Administration (FDA) to certify that the product or supply is not to process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the
be used as an abortifacient, the assailed legislation effectively confirms that laws.
abortifacients are not prohibited. Also considering that the FDA is not the
agency that will actually supervise or administer the use of these products
As expounded earlier, the use of contraceptives and family planning
and supplies to prospective patients, there is no way it can truthfully make a
methods in the Philippines is not of recent vintage. From the enactment of
certification that it shall not be used for abortifacient purposes.133
R.A. No. 4729, entitled "An Act To Regulate The Sale, Dispensation, and/or
Distribution of Contraceptive Drugs and Devices "on June 18, 1966,
Position of the Respondents prescribing rules on contraceptive drugs and devices which prevent
fertilization,138 to the promotion of male vasectomy and tubal ligation,139 and
For their part, the defenders of the RH Law point out that the intent of the the ratification of numerous international agreements, the country has long
Framers of the Constitution was simply the prohibition of abortion. They recognized the need to promote population control through the use of
contend that the RH Law does not violate the Constitution since the said law contraceptives in order to achieve long-term economic development.
emphasizes that only "non-abortifacient" reproductive health care services, Through the years, however, the use of contraceptives and other family
methods, devices products and supplies shall be made accessible to the planning methods evolved from being a component of demographic
public.134 management, to one centered on the promotion of public health, particularly,
reproductive health.140
According to the OSG, Congress has made a legislative determination that
contraceptives are not abortifacients by enacting the RH Law. As the RH This has resulted in the enactment of various measures promoting women's
Law was enacted with due consideration to various studies and rights and health and the overall promotion of the family's well-being. Thus,
consultations with the World Health Organization (WHO) and other experts aside from R.A. No. 4729, R.A. No. 6365 or "The Population Act of the
in the medical field, it is asserted that the Court afford deference and respect Philippines" and R.A. No. 9710, otherwise known as the "The Magna Carta
of Women" were legislated. Notwithstanding this paradigm shift, the It is a canon in statutory construction that the words of the Constitution
Philippine national population program has always been grounded two should be interpreted in their plain and ordinary meaning. As held in the
cornerstone principles: "principle of no-abortion" and the "principle of non- recent case of Chavez v. Judicial Bar Council:144
coercion."141 As will be discussed later, these principles are not merely
grounded on administrative policy, but rather, originates from the One of the primary and basic rules in statutory construction is that where the
constitutional protection expressly provided to afford protection to life and words of a statute are clear, plain, and free from ambiguity, it must be given
guarantee religious freedom. its literal meaning and applied without attempted interpretation. It is a well-
settled principle of constitutional construction that the language employed in
When Life Begins* the Constitution must be given their ordinary meaning except where
technical terms are employed. As much as possible, the words of the
Majority of the Members of the Court are of the position that the question of Constitution should be understood in the sense they have in common use.
when life begins is a scientific and medical issue that should not be decided, What it says according to the text of the provision to be construed compels
at this stage, without proper hearing and evidence. During the deliberation, acceptance and negates the power of the courts to alter it, based on the
however, it was agreed upon that the individual members of the Court could postulate that the framers and the people mean what they say. Verba legis
express their own views on this matter. non est recedendum - from the words of a statute there should be no
departure.
In this regard, the ponente, is of the strong view that life begins at
fertilization. The raison d' etre for the rule is essentially two-fold: First, because it is
assumed that the words in which constitutional provisions are couched
In answering the question of when life begins, focus should be made on the express the objective sought to be attained; and second, because the
particular phrase of Section 12 which reads: Constitution is not primarily a lawyer's document but essentially that of the
people, in whose consciousness it should ever be present as an important
condition for the rule of law to prevail.
Section 12. The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect
and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution. It shall
equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from In conformity with the above principle, the traditional meaning of the word
conception. The natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing "conception" which, as described and defined by all reliable and reputable
of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral character shall sources, means that life begins at fertilization.
receive the support of the Government.
Webster's Third New International Dictionary describes it as the act of
Textually, the Constitution affords protection to the unborn from conception. becoming pregnant, formation of a viable zygote; the fertilization that results
This is undisputable because before conception, there is no unborn to speak in a new entity capable of developing into a being like its parents.145
of. For said reason, it is no surprise that the Constitution is mute as to any
proscription prior to conception or when life begins. The problem has arisen Black's Law Dictionary gives legal meaning to the term "conception" as the
because, amazingly, there are quarters who have conveniently disregarded fecundation of the female ovum by the male spermatozoon resulting in
the scientific fact that conception is reckoned from fertilization. They are human life capable of survival and maturation under normal conditions.146
waving the view that life begins at implantation. Hence, the issue of when life
begins. Even in jurisprudence, an unborn child has already a legal personality. In
Continental Steel Manufacturing Corporation v. Hon. Accredited Voluntary
In a nutshell, those opposing the RH Law contend that conception is Arbitrator Allan S. Montano,147 it was written:
synonymous with "fertilization" of the female ovum by the male sperm.142 On
the other side of the spectrum are those who assert that conception refers to Life is not synonymous with civil personality. One need not acquire civil
the "implantation" of the fertilized ovum in the uterus.143 personality first before he/she could die. Even a child inside the womb
already has life. No less than the Constitution recognizes the life of the
Plain and Legal Meaning unborn from conception, that the State must protect equally with the life of
the mother. If the unborn already has life, then the cessation thereof even
prior to the child being delivered, qualifies as death. [Emphases in the chromosomes of the sperm to form a total of 46 chromosomes. A
original] chromosome count of 46 is found only - and I repeat, only in human cells.
Therefore, the fertilized ovum is human.
In Gonzales v. Carhart,148 Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the US
Supreme Court, said that the State "has respect for human life at all stages Since these questions have been answered affirmatively, we must conclude
in the pregnancy" and "a legitimate and substantial interest in preserving that if the fertilized ovum is both alive and human, then, as night follows day,
and promoting fetal life." Invariably, in the decision, the fetus was referred to, it must be human life. Its nature is human.151
or cited, as a baby or a child.149
Why the Constitution used the phrase "from the moment of conception" and
Intent of the Framers not "from the moment of fertilization" was not because of doubt when human
life begins, but rather, because:
Records of the Constitutional Convention also shed light on the intention of
the Framers regarding the term "conception" used in Section 12, Article II of Mr. Tingson: x x x x the phrase from the moment of conception" was
the Constitution. From their deliberations, it clearly refers to the moment of described by us here before with the scientific phrase "fertilized ovum" may
"fertilization." The records reflect the following: be beyond the comprehension of some people; we want to use the simpler
phrase "from the moment of conception."152
Rev. Rigos: In Section 9, page 3, there is a sentence which reads:
Thus, in order to ensure that the fertilized ovum is given ample protection
"The State shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the under the Constitution, it was discussed:
unborn from the moment of conception."
Rev. Rigos: Yes, we think that the word "unborn" is sufficient for the purpose
When is the moment of conception? of writing a Constitution, without specifying "from the moment of conception."

xxx Mr. Davide: I would not subscribe to that particular view because according
to the Commissioner's own admission, he would leave it to Congress to
Mr. Villegas: As I explained in the sponsorship speech, it is when the ovum define when life begins. So, Congress can define life to begin from six
is fertilized by the sperm that there is human life. x x x.150 months after fertilization; and that would really be very, very, dangerous. It is
now determined by science that life begins from the moment of conception.
There can be no doubt about it. So we should not give any doubt to
xxx
Congress, too.153
As to why conception is reckoned from fertilization and, as such, the
Upon further inquiry, it was asked:
beginning of human life, it was explained:
Mr. Gascon: Mr. Presiding Officer, I would like to ask a question on that
Mr. Villegas: I propose to review this issue in a biological manner. The first
point. Actually, that is one of the questions I was going to raise during the
question that needs to be answered is: Is the fertilized ovum alive?
period of interpellations but it has been expressed already. The provision, as
Biologically categorically says yes, the fertilized ovum is alive. First of all,
proposed right now states:
like all living organisms, it takes in nutrients which it processes by itself. It
begins doing this upon fertilization. Secondly, as it takes in these nutrients, it
grows from within. Thirdly, it multiplies itself at a geometric rate in the The State shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the
continuous process of cell division. All these processes are vital signs of life. unborn from the moment of conception.
Therefore, there is no question that biologically the fertilized ovum has life.
When it speaks of "from the moment of conception," does this mean when
The second question: Is it human? Genetics gives an equally categorical the egg meets the sperm?
"yes." At the moment of conception, the nuclei of the ovum and the sperm
rupture. As this happens 23 chromosomes from the ovum combine with 23 Mr. Villegas: Yes, the ovum is fertilized by the sperm.
Mr. Gascon: Therefore that does not leave to Congress the right to Mr. Gascon: xx xx. As I mentioned in my speech on the US bases, I am pro-
determine whether certain contraceptives that we know today are life, to the point that I would like not only to protect the life of the unborn, but
abortifacient or not because it is a fact that some of the so-called also the lives of the millions of people in the world by fighting for a nuclear-
contraceptives deter the rooting of the ovum in the uterus. If fertilization has free world. I would just like to be assured of the legal and pragmatic
already occurred, the next process is for the fertilized ovum to travel towards implications of the term "protection of the life of the unborn from the moment
the uterus and to take root. What happens with some contraceptives is that of conception." I raised some of these implications this afternoon when I
they stop the opportunity for the fertilized ovum to reach the uterus. interjected in the interpellation of Commissioner Regalado. I would like to
Therefore, if we take the provision as it is proposed, these so called ask that question again for a categorical answer.
contraceptives should be banned.
I mentioned that if we institutionalize the term "the life of the unborn from the
Mr. Villegas: Yes, if that physical fact is established, then that is what is moment of conception" we are also actually saying "no," not "maybe," to
called abortifacient and, therefore, would be unconstitutional and should be certain contraceptives which are already being encouraged at this point in
banned under this provision. time. Is that the sense of the committee or does it disagree with me?

Mr. Gascon: Yes. So my point is that I do not think it is up to Congress to Mr. Azcuna: No, Mr. Presiding Officer, because contraceptives would be
state whether or not these certain contraceptives are abortifacient. preventive. There is no unborn yet. That is yet unshaped.
Scientifically and based on the provision as it is now proposed, they are
already considered abortifacient.154 Mr. Gascon: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer, but I was speaking more about
some contraceptives, such as the intra-uterine device which actually stops
From the deliberations above-quoted, it is apparent that the Framers of the the egg which has already been fertilized from taking route to the uterus. So
Constitution emphasized that the State shall provide equal protection to both if we say "from the moment of conception," what really occurs is that some
the mother and the unborn child from the earliest opportunity of life, that is, of these contraceptives will have to be unconstitutionalized.
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 Mr. Azcuna: Yes, to the extent that it is after the fertilization.
prohibit Congress from enacting measures that would allow it determine
when life begins. Mr. Gascon: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.156

Equally apparent, however, is that the Framers of the Constitution did not The fact that not all contraceptives are prohibited by the 1987 Constitution is
intend to ban all contraceptives for being unconstitutional. In fact, even admitted by petitioners during the oral arguments. There it was
Commissioner Bernardo Villegas, spearheading the need to have a conceded that tubal ligation, vasectomy, even condoms are not classified as
constitutional provision on the right to life, recognized that the determination abortifacients.157
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
Atty. Noche:
evidence.155
Before the union of the eggs, egg and the sperm, there is no life yet.
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 Justice Bersamin:
female ovum, and those that similarly take action prior to fertilization should
be deemed non-abortive, and thus, constitutionally permissible. There is no life.

As emphasized by the Framers of the Constitution: Atty. Noche:

xxx xxx xxx So, there is no life to be protected.

Justice Bersamin:
To be protected. egg and the sperm resulting in the formation of a new individual, with a
unique genetic composition that dictates all developmental stages that
Atty. Noche: ensue.

Under Section 12, yes. Similarly, recent medical research on the matter also reveals that: "Human
development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ
Justice Bersamin: cells during a process known as fertilization (conception). Fertilization is a
sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon)
with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei
So you have no objection to condoms?
(the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their
chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is
Atty. Noche: a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being."162

Not under Section 12, Article II. The authors of Human Embryology & Teratology163 mirror the same position.
They wrote: "Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical
Justice Bersamin: landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct
human organism is thereby formed.... The combination of 23 chromosomes
Even if there is already information that condoms sometimes have porosity? present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus
the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The
Atty. Noche: embryo now exists as a genetic unity."

Well, yes, Your Honor, there are scientific findings to that effect, Your Honor, In support of the RH Bill, The Philippine Medical Association came out with a
but I am discussing here Section 12, Article II, Your Honor, yes. "Paper on the Reproductive Health Bill (Responsible Parenthood Bill)" and
therein concluded that:
Justice Bersamin:
CONCLUSION
Alright.
The PMA throws its full weight in supporting the RH Bill at the same time
Atty. Noche: that PMA maintains its strong position that fertilization is sacred because it is
at this stage that conception, and thus human life, begins. Human lives are
sacred from the moment of conception, and that destroying those new lives
And it's not, I have to admit it's not an abortifacient, Your Honor.158
is never licit, no matter what the purported good outcome would be. In terms
of biology and human embryology, a human being begins immediately at
Medical Meaning fertilization and after that, there is no point along the continuous line of
human embryogenesis where only a "potential" human being can be
That conception begins at fertilization is not bereft of medical foundation. posited. Any philosophical, legal, or political conclusion cannot escape this
Mosby s Medical, Nursing, and Allied Health Dictionary defines conception objective scientific fact.
as "the beginning of pregnancy usually taken to be the instant a
spermatozoon enters an ovum and forms a viable zygote."159 The scientific evidence supports the conclusion that a zygote is a human
organism and that the life of a new human being commences at a
It describes fertilization as "the union of male and female gametes to form a scientifically well defined "moment of conception." This conclusion is
zygote from which the embryo develops."160 objective, consistent with the factual evidence, and independent of any
specific ethical, moral, political, or religious view of human life or of human
The Textbook of Obstetrics (Physiological & Pathological Obstetrics),161 used embryos.164
by medical schools in the Philippines, also concludes that human life
(human person) begins at the moment of fertilization with the union of the
Conclusion: The Moment of Conception is Reckoned from The intention .. .is to make sure that there would be no pro-abortion laws
Fertilization ever passed by Congress or any pro-abortion decision passed by the
Supreme Court.169
In all, whether it be taken from a plain meaning, or understood under
medical parlance, and more importantly, following the intention of the A reading of the RH Law would show that it is in line with this intent and
Framers of the Constitution, the undeniable conclusion is that a zygote is a actually proscribes abortion. While the Court has opted not to make any
human organism and that the life of a new human being commences at a determination, at this stage, when life begins, it finds that the RH Law itself
scientifically well-defined moment of conception, that is, upon fertilization. clearly mandates that protection be afforded from the moment of fertilization.
As pointed out by Justice Carpio, the RH Law is replete with provisions that
For the above reasons, the Court cannot subscribe to the theory advocated embody the policy of the law to protect to the fertilized ovum and that it
by Hon. Lagman that life begins at implantation.165 According to him, should be afforded safe travel to the uterus for implantation.170
"fertilization and conception are two distinct and successive stages in the
reproductive process. They are not identical and synonymous."166 Citing a Moreover, the RH Law recognizes that abortion is a crime under Article 256
letter of the WHO, he wrote that "medical authorities confirm that the of the Revised Penal Code, which penalizes the destruction or expulsion of
implantation of the fertilized ovum is the commencement of conception and it the fertilized ovum. Thus:
is only after implantation that pregnancy can be medically detected."167
1] xx x.
This theory of implantation as the beginning of life is devoid of any legal or
scientific mooring. It does not pertain to the beginning of life but to the Section 4. Definition of Terms. - For the purpose of this Act, the following
viability of the fetus. The fertilized ovum/zygote is not an inanimate object - it terms shall be defined as follows:
is a living human being complete with DNA and 46
chromosomes.168 Implantation has been conceptualized only for convenience xxx.
by those who had population control in mind. To adopt it would constitute
textual infidelity not only to the RH Law but also to the Constitution.
(q) Reproductive health care refers to the access to a full range of methods,
facilities, services and supplies that contribute to reproductive health and
Not surprisingly, even the OSG does not support this position. well-being by addressing reproductive health-related problems. It also
includes sexual health, the purpose of which is the enhancement of life and
If such theory would be accepted, it would unnervingly legitimize the personal relations. The elements of reproductive health care include the
utilization of any drug or device that would prevent the implantation of the following:
fetus at the uterine wall. It would be provocative and further aggravate
religious-based divisiveness. xxx.

It would legally permit what the Constitution proscribes - abortion and (3) Proscription of abortion and management of abortion complications;
abortifacients.
xxx.
The RH Law and Abortion
2] xx x.
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
Section 4. x x x.
Legislature from enacting a measure legalizing abortion. It was so clear that
even the Court cannot interpret it otherwise. This intent of the Framers was
captured in the record of the proceedings of the 1986 Constitutional (s) Reproductive health rights refers to the rights of individuals and couples,
Commission. Commissioner Bernardo Villegas, the principal proponent of to decide freely and responsibly whether or not to have children; the
the protection of the unborn from conception, explained: number, spacing and timing of their children; to make other decisions
concerning reproduction, free of discrimination, coercion and violence; to
have the information and means to do so; and to attain the highest standard
of sexual health and reproductive health: Provided, however, That fertilized ovum, and, second, prohibits any drug or device the fertilized ovum
reproductive health rights do not include abortion, and access to to reach and be implanted in the mother's womb (third kind).
abortifacients.
By expressly declaring that any drug or device that prevents the fertilized
3] xx x. ovum to reach and be implanted in the mother's womb is an abortifacient
(third kind), the RH Law does not intend to mean at all that life only begins
SEC. 29. Repealing Clause. - Except for prevailing laws against abortion, only at implantation, as Hon. Lagman suggests. It also does not declare
any law, presidential decree or issuance, executive order, letter of either that protection will only be given upon implantation, as the petitioners
instruction, administrative order, rule or regulation contrary to or is likewise suggest. Rather, it recognizes that: one, there is a need to protect
inconsistent with the provisions of this Act including Republic Act No. 7392, the fertilized ovum which already has life, and two, the fertilized ovum must
otherwise known as the Midwifery Act, is hereby repealed, modified or be protected the moment it becomes existent - all the way until it reaches
amended accordingly. and implants in the mother's womb. After all, if life is only recognized and
afforded protection from the moment the fertilized ovum implants - there is
The RH Law and Abortifacients nothing to prevent any drug or device from killing or destroying the fertilized
ovum prior to implantation.
In carrying out its declared policy, the RH Law is consistent in prohibiting
abortifacients. To be clear, Section 4(a) of the RH Law defines an From the foregoing, the Court finds that inasmuch as it affords protection to
abortifacient as: the fertilized ovum, the RH Law does not sanction abortion. To repeat, it is
the Court's position that life begins at fertilization, not at implantation. When
a fertilized ovum is implanted in the uterine wall , its viability is sustained but
Section 4. Definition of Terms - x x x x
that instance of implantation is not the point of beginning of life. It started
earlier. And as defined by the RH Law, any drug or device that induces
(a) Abortifacient refers to any drug or device that induces abortion or the abortion, that is, which kills or destroys the fertilized ovum or prevents 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, is an
fertilized ovum to reach and be implanted in the mother's womb upon abortifacient.
determination of the FDA.
Proviso Under Section 9 of the RH Law
As stated above, the RH Law mandates that protection must be afforded
from the moment of fertilization. By using the word " or," the RH Law
This notwithstanding, the Court finds that the proviso under Section 9 of the
prohibits not only drugs or devices that prevent implantation, but also those
law that "any product or supply included or to be included in the EDL must
that induce abortion and those that induce the destruction of a fetus inside
have a certification from the FDA that said product and supply is made
the mother's womb. Thus, an abortifacient is any drug or device that either:
available on the condition that it is not to be used as an abortifacient" as
empty as it is absurd. The FDA, with all its expertise, cannot fully attest that
(a) Induces abortion; or a drug or device will not all be used as an abortifacient, since the agency
cannot be present in every instance when the contraceptive product or
(b) Induces the destruction of a fetus inside the mother's womb; or supply will be used.171

(c) Prevents the fertilized ovum to reach and be implanted in the Pursuant to its declared policy of providing access only to safe, legal and
mother's womb, upon determination of the FDA. non-abortifacient contraceptives, however, the Court finds that the proviso of
Section 9, as worded, should bend to the legislative intent and mean that
Contrary to the assertions made by the petitioners, the Court finds that the "any product or supply included or to be included in the EDL must have a
RH Law, consistent with the Constitution, recognizes that the fertilized ovum certification from the FDA that said product and supply is made available on
already has life and that the State has a bounden duty to protect it. The the condition that it cannot be used as abortifacient." Such a construction is
conclusion becomes clear because the RH Law, first, prohibits any drug or consistent with the proviso under the second paragraph of the same section
device that induces abortion (first kind), which, as discussed exhaustively that provides:
above, refers to that which induces the killing or the destruction of the
Provided, further, That the foregoing offices shall not purchase or acquire by In this regard, the observations of Justice Brion and Justice Del Castillo are
any means emergency contraceptive pills, postcoital pills, abortifacients that well taken. As they pointed out, with the insertion of the word "primarily,"
will be used for such purpose and their other forms or equivalent. Section 3.0l(a) and G) of the RH-IRR173 must be struck down for being ultra
vires.
Abortifacients under the RH-IRR
Evidently, with the addition of the word "primarily," in Section 3.0l(a) and G)
At this juncture, the Court agrees with ALFI that the authors of the RH-IRR of the RH-IRR is indeed ultra vires. It contravenes Section 4(a) of the RH
gravely abused their office when they redefined the meaning of abortifacient. Law and should, therefore, be declared invalid. There is danger that the
The RH Law defines "abortifacient" as follows: insertion of the qualifier "primarily" will pave the way for the approval of
contraceptives which may harm or destroy the life of the unborn from
SEC. 4. Definition of Terms. - For the purpose of this Act, the following terms conception/fertilization in violation of Article II, Section 12 of the Constitution.
shall be defined as follows: With such qualification in the RH-IRR, it appears to insinuate that a
contraceptive will only be considered as an "abortifacient" if its sole known
effect is abortion or, as pertinent here, the prevention of the implantation of
(a) Abortifacient refers to any drug or device that induces abortion or the
the fertilized ovum.
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 upon
determination of the FDA. For the same reason, this definition of "contraceptive" would permit the
approval of contraceptives which are actually abortifacients because of their
fail-safe mechanism.174
Section 3.0l (a) of the IRR, however, redefines "abortifacient" as:
Also, as discussed earlier, Section 9 calls for the certification by the FDA
Section 3.01 For purposes of these Rules, the terms shall be defined as
that these contraceptives cannot act as abortive. With this, together with the
follows:
definition of an abortifacient under Section 4 (a) of the RH Law and its
declared policy against abortion, the undeniable conclusion is that
a) Abortifacient refers to any drug or device that primarily induces abortion contraceptives to be included in the PNDFS and the EDL will not only be
or the destruction of a fetus inside the mother's womb or the prevention of those contraceptives that do not have the primary action of causing abortion
the fertilized ovum to reach and be implanted in the mother's womb upon or the destruction of a fetus inside the mother's womb or the prevention of
determination of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). [Emphasis the fertilized ovum to reach and be implanted in the mother's womb, but also
supplied] those that do not have the secondary action of acting the same way.

Again in Section 3.0lG) of the RH-IRR, "contraceptive," is redefined, viz: Indeed, consistent with the constitutional policy prohibiting abortion, and in
line with the principle that laws should be construed in a manner that its
j) Contraceptive refers to any safe, legal, effective and scientifically proven constitutionality is sustained, the RH Law and its implementing rules must be
modern family planning method, device, or health product, whether natural consistent with each other in prohibiting abortion. Thus, the word " primarily"
or artificial, that prevents pregnancy but does not primarily destroy a in Section 3.0l(a) and G) of the RH-IRR should be declared void. To uphold
fertilized ovum or prevent a fertilized ovum from being implanted in the the validity of Section 3.0l(a) and G) of the RH-IRR and prohibit only those
mother's womb in doses of its approved indication as determined by the contraceptives that have the primary effect of being an abortive would
Food and Drug Administration (FDA). effectively "open the floodgates to the approval of contraceptives which may
harm or destroy the life of the unborn from conception/fertilization in violation
The above-mentioned section of the RH-IRR allows "contraceptives" and of Article II, Section 12 of the Constitution."175
recognizes as "abortifacient" only those that primarily induce abortion or the
destruction of a fetus inside the mother's womb or the prevention of the To repeat and emphasize, in all cases, the "principle of no abortion"
fertilized ovum to reach and be implanted in the mother's womb.172 embodied in the constitutional protection of life must be upheld.

This cannot be done. 2-The Right to Health

The petitioners claim that the RH Law violates the right to health because it Section 12. The State shall establish and maintain an effective food and
requires the inclusion of hormonal contraceptives, intrauterine devices, drug regulatory system and undertake appropriate health, manpower
injectables and family products and supplies in the National Drug Formulary development, and research, responsive to the country's health needs and
and the inclusion of the same in the regular purchase of essential medicines problems.
and supplies of all national hospitals.176 Citing various studies on the matter,
the petitioners posit that the risk of developing breast and cervical cancer is Section 13. The State shall establish a special agency for disabled person
greatly increased in women who use oral contraceptives as compared to for their rehabilitation, self-development, and self-reliance, and their
women who never use them. They point out that the risk is decreased when integration into the mainstream of society.
the use of contraceptives is discontinued. Further, it is contended that the
use of combined oral contraceptive pills is associated with a threefold Finally, Section 9, Article XVI provides:
increased risk of venous thromboembolism, a twofold increased risk of
ischematic stroke, and an indeterminate effect on risk of myocardial
Section 9. The State shall protect consumers from trade malpractices and
infarction.177 Given the definition of "reproductive health" and "sexual health"
from substandard or hazardous products.
under Sections 4(p)178 and (w)179 of the RH Law, the petitioners assert that the
assailed legislation only seeks to ensure that women have pleasurable and
satisfying sex lives.180 Contrary to the respondent's notion, however, these provisions are self-
executing. Unless the provisions clearly express the contrary, the provisions
of the Constitution should be considered self-executory. There is no need for
The OSG, however, points out that Section 15, Article II of the Constitution is
legislation to implement these self-executing provisions.182 In Manila Prince
not self-executory, it being a mere statement of the administration's principle
Hotel v. GSIS,183 it was stated:
and policy. Even if it were self-executory, the OSG posits that medical
authorities refute the claim that contraceptive pose a danger to the health of
women.181 x x x Hence, unless it is expressly provided that a legislative act is
necessary to enforce a constitutional mandate, the presumption now is that
all provisions of the constitution are self-executing. If the constitutional
The Court's Position
provisions are treated as requiring legislation instead of self-executing, the
legislature would have the power to ignore and practically nullify the
A component to the right to life is the constitutional right to health. In this mandate of the fundamental law. This can be cataclysmic. That is why the
regard, the Constitution is replete with provisions protecting and promoting prevailing view is, as it has always been, that –
the right to health. Section 15, Article II of the Constitution provides:
... in case of doubt, the Constitution should be considered self-executing
Section 15. The State shall protect and promote the right to health of the rather than non-self-executing. . . . Unless the contrary is clearly intended,
people and instill health consciousness among them. the provisions of the Constitution should be considered self-executing, as a
contrary rule would give the legislature discretion to determine when, or
A portion of Article XIII also specifically provides for the States' duty to whether, they shall be effective. These provisions would be subordinated to
provide for the health of the people, viz: the will of the lawmaking body, which could make them entirely meaningless
by simply refusing to pass the needed implementing statute. (Emphases
HEALTH supplied)

Section 11. The State shall adopt an integrated and comprehensive This notwithstanding, it bears mentioning that the petitioners, particularly
approach to health development which shall endeavor to make essential ALFI, do not question contraception and contraceptives per se.184 In fact,
goods, health and other social services available to all the people at ALFI prays that the status quo - under R.A. No. 5921 and R.A. No. 4729, the
affordable cost. There shall be priority for the needs of the underprivileged, sale and distribution of contraceptives are not prohibited when they are
sick, elderly, disabled, women, and children. The State shall endeavor to dispensed by a prescription of a duly licensed by a physician - be
provide free medical care to paupers. maintained.185
The legislative intent in the enactment of the RH Law in this regard is to "Sec. 3 Any person, partnership, or corporation, violating the provisions of
leave intact the provisions of R.A. No. 4729. There is no intention at all to do this Act shall be punished with a fine of not more than five hundred pesos or
away with it. It is still a good law and its requirements are still in to be an imprisonment of not less than six months or more than one year or both
complied with. Thus, the Court agrees with the observation of respondent in the discretion of the Court.
Lagman that the effectivity of the RH Law will not lead to the unmitigated
proliferation of contraceptives since the sale, distribution and dispensation of "This Act shall take effect upon its approval.
contraceptive drugs and devices will still require the prescription of a
licensed physician. With R.A. No. 4729 in place, there exists adequate "Approved: June 18, 1966"
safeguards to ensure the public that only contraceptives that are safe are
made available to the public. As aptly explained by respondent Lagman:
111. Of the same import, but in a general manner, Section 25 of RA No.
5921 provides:
D. Contraceptives cannot be
dispensed and used without
"Section 25. Sale of medicine, pharmaceuticals, drugs and devices. No
prescription
medicine, pharmaceutical, or drug of whatever nature and kind or device
shall be compounded, dispensed, sold or resold, or otherwise be made
108. As an added protection to voluntary users of contraceptives, the same available to the consuming public except through a prescription drugstore or
cannot be dispensed and used without prescription. hospital pharmacy, duly established in accordance with the provisions of this
Act.
109. Republic Act No. 4729 or "An Act to Regulate the Sale, Dispensation,
and/ or Distribution of Contraceptive Drugs and Devices" and Republic Act 112. With all of the foregoing safeguards, as provided for in the RH Law and
No. 5921 or "An Act Regulating the Practice of Pharmacy and Setting other relevant statutes, the pretension of the petitioners that the RH Law will
Standards of Pharmaceutical Education in the Philippines and for Other lead to the unmitigated proliferation of contraceptives, whether harmful or
Purposes" are not repealed by the RH Law and the provisions of said Acts not, is completely unwarranted and baseless.186 [Emphases in the Original.
are not inconsistent with the RH Law. Underlining supplied.]

110. Consequently, the sale, distribution and dispensation of contraceptive In Re: Section 10 of the RH Law:
drugs and devices are particularly governed by RA No. 4729 which provides
in full:
The foregoing safeguards should be read in connection with Section 10 of
the RH Law which provides:
"Section 1. It shall be unlawful for any person, partnership, or corporation, to
sell, dispense or otherwise distribute whether for or without consideration,
SEC. 10. Procurement and Distribution of Family Planning Supplies. - The
any contraceptive drug or device, unless such sale, dispensation or
DOH shall procure, distribute to LGUs and monitor the usage of family
distribution is by a duly licensed drug store or pharmaceutical company and
planning supplies for the whole country. The DOH shall coordinate with all
with the prescription of a qualified medical practitioner.
appropriate local government bodies to plan and implement this
procurement and distribution program. The supply and budget allotments
"Sec. 2 . For the purpose of this Act: shall be based on, among others, the current levels and projections of the
following:
"(a) "Contraceptive drug" is any medicine, drug, chemical, or portion
which is used exclusively for the purpose of preventing fertilization of (a) Number of women of reproductive age and couples who want to
the female ovum: and space or limit their children;

"(b) "Contraceptive device" is any instrument, device, material, or (b) Contraceptive prevalence rate, by type of method used; and
agent introduced into the female reproductive system for the primary
purpose of preventing conception.
(c) Cost of family planning supplies.
Provided, That LGUs may implement its own procurement, distribution and "safe, legal, non-abortifacient and effective" without the proper scientific
monitoring program consistent with the overall provisions of this Act and the examination.
guidelines of the DOH.
3 -Freedom of Religion
Thus, in the distribution by the DOH of contraceptive drugs and devices, it and the Right to Free Speech
must consider the provisions of R.A. No. 4729, which is still in effect, and
ensure that the contraceptives that it will procure shall be from a duly Position of the Petitioners:
licensed drug store or pharmaceutical company and that the actual
dispensation of these contraceptive drugs and devices will done following a 1. On Contraception
prescription of a qualified medical practitioner. The distribution of
contraceptive drugs and devices must not be indiscriminately done. The
While contraceptives and procedures like vasectomy and tubal ligation are
public health must be protected by all possible means. As pointed out by
not covered by the constitutional proscription, there are those who, because
Justice De Castro, a heavy responsibility and burden are assumed by the
of their religious education and background, sincerely believe that
government in supplying contraceptive drugs and devices, for it may be held
contraceptives, whether abortifacient or not, are evil. Some of these are
accountable for any injury, illness or loss of life resulting from or incidental to
medical practitioners who essentially claim that their beliefs prohibit not only
their use.187
the use of contraceptives but also the willing participation and cooperation in
all things dealing with contraceptive use. Petitioner PAX explained that
At any rate, it bears pointing out that not a single contraceptive has yet been "contraception is gravely opposed to marital chastity, it is contrary to the
submitted to the FDA pursuant to the RH Law. It behooves the Court to good of the transmission of life, and to the reciprocal self-giving of the
await its determination which drugs or devices are declared by the FDA as spouses; it harms true love and denies the sovereign rule of God in the
safe, it being the agency tasked to ensure that food and medicines available transmission of Human life."188
to the public are safe for public consumption. Consequently, the Court finds
that, at this point, the attack on the RH Law on this ground is premature.
The petitioners question the State-sponsored procurement of
Indeed, the various kinds of contraceptives must first be measured up to the
contraceptives, arguing that the expenditure of their taxes on contraceptives
constitutional yardstick as expounded herein, to be determined as the case
violates the guarantee of religious freedom since contraceptives contravene
presents itself.
their religious beliefs.189
At this point, the Court is of the strong view that Congress cannot legislate
2. On Religious Accommodation and
that hormonal contraceptives and intra-uterine devices are safe and non-
The Duty to Refer
abortifacient. The first sentence of Section 9 that ordains their inclusion by
the National Drug Formulary in the EDL by using the mandatory "shall" is to
be construed as operative only after they have been tested, evaluated, and Petitioners Imbong and Luat note that while the RH Law attempts to address
approved by the FDA. The FDA, not Congress, has the expertise to religious sentiments by making provisions for a conscientious objector, the
determine whether a particular hormonal contraceptive or intrauterine device constitutional guarantee is nonetheless violated because the law also
is safe and non-abortifacient. The provision of the third sentence concerning imposes upon the conscientious objector the duty to refer the patient
the requirements for the inclusion or removal of a particular family planning seeking reproductive health services to another medical practitioner who
supply from the EDL supports this construction. would be able to provide for the patient's needs. For the petitioners, this
amounts to requiring the conscientious objector to cooperate with the very
thing he refuses to do without violating his/her religious beliefs.190
Stated differently, the provision in Section 9 covering the inclusion of
hormonal contraceptives, intra-uterine devices, injectables, and other safe,
legal, non-abortifacient and effective family planning products and supplies They further argue that even if the conscientious objector's duty to refer is
by the National Drug Formulary in the EDL is not mandatory. There must recognized, the recognition is unduly limited, because although it allows a
first be a determination by the FDA that they are in fact safe, legal, non- conscientious objector in Section 23 (a)(3) the option to refer a patient
abortifacient and effective family planning products and supplies. There can seeking reproductive health services and information - no escape is afforded
be no predetermination by Congress that the gamut of contraceptives are the conscientious objector in Section 23 (a)(l) and (2), i.e. against a patient
seeking reproductive health procedures. They claim that the right of other
individuals to conscientiously object, such as: a) those working in public The respondents, on the other hand, contend that the RH Law does not
health facilities referred to in Section 7; b) public officers involved in the provide that a specific mode or type of contraceptives be used, be it natural
implementation of the law referred to in Section 23(b ); and c) teachers in or artificial. It neither imposes nor sanctions any religion or belief.196 They
public schools referred to in Section 14 of the RH Law, are also not point out that the RH Law only seeks to serve the public interest by providing
recognize.191 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
Petitioner Echavez and the other medical practitioners meanwhile, contend social justice health guarantees of the Constitution,197 and that what the law
that the requirement to refer the matter to another health care service only prohibits are those acts or practices, which deprive others of their right
provider is still considered a compulsion on those objecting healthcare to reproductive health.198 They assert that the assailed law only seeks to
service providers. They add that compelling them to do the act against their guarantee informed choice, which is an assurance that no one will be
will violates the Doctrine of Benevolent Neutrality. Sections 9, 14 and 1 7 of compelled to violate his religion against his free will.199
the law are too secular that they tend to disregard the religion of Filipinos.
Authorizing the use of contraceptives with abortive effects, mandatory sex The respondents add that by asserting that only natural family planning
education, mandatory pro-bono reproductive health services to indigents should be allowed, the petitioners are effectively going against the
encroach upon the religious freedom of those upon whom they are constitutional right to religious freedom, the same right they invoked to assail
required.192 the constitutionality of the RH Law.200 In other words, by seeking the
declaration that the RH Law is unconstitutional, the petitioners are asking
Petitioner CFC also argues that the requirement for a conscientious objector that the Court recognize only the Catholic Church's sanctioned natural family
to refer the person seeking reproductive health care services to another planning methods and impose this on the entire citizenry.201
provider infringes on one's freedom of religion as it forces the objector to
become an unwilling participant in the commission of a serious sin under With respect to the duty to refer, the respondents insist that the same does
Catholic teachings. While the right to act on one's belief may be regulated by not violate the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom, it being a
the State, the acts prohibited by the RH Law are passive acts which produce carefully balanced compromise between the interests of the religious
neither harm nor injury to the public.193 objector, on one hand, who is allowed to keep silent but is required to refer -
and that of the citizen who needs access to information and who has the
Petitioner CFC adds that the RH Law does not show compelling state right to expect that the health care professional in front of her will act
interest to justify regulation of religious freedom because it mentions no professionally. For the respondents, the concession given by the State
emergency, risk or threat that endangers state interests. It does not explain under Section 7 and 23(a)(3) is sufficient accommodation to the right to
how the rights of the people (to equality, non-discrimination of rights, freely exercise one's religion without unnecessarily infringing on the rights of
sustainable human development, health, education, information, choice and others.202
to make decisions according to religious convictions, ethics, cultural beliefs
and the demands of responsible parenthood) are being threatened or are Whatever burden is placed on the petitioner's religious freedom is minimal
not being met as to justify the impairment of religious freedom.194 as the duty to refer is limited in duration, location and impact.203

Finally, the petitioners also question Section 15 of the RH Law requiring Regarding mandatory family planning seminars under Section 15 , the
would-be couples to attend family planning and responsible parenthood respondents claim that it is a reasonable regulation providing an opportunity
seminars and to obtain a certificate of compliance. They claim that the for would-be couples to have access to information regarding parenthood,
provision forces individuals to participate in the implementation of the RH family planning, breastfeeding and infant nutrition. It is argued that those
Law even if it contravenes their religious beliefs.195 As the assailed law who object to any information received on account of their attendance in the
dangles the threat of penalty of fine and/or imprisonment in case of non- required seminars are not compelled to accept information given to them.
compliance with its provisions, the petitioners claim that the RH Law forcing They are completely free to reject any information they do not agree with
them to provide, support and facilitate access and information to and retain the freedom to decide on matters of family life without intervention
contraception against their beliefs must be struck down as it runs afoul to the of the State.204
constitutional guarantee of religious freedom.
For their part, respondents De Venecia et al., dispute the notion that natural
The Respondents' Positions family planning is the only method acceptable to Catholics and the Catholic
hierarchy. Citing various studies and surveys on the matter, they highlight Verily, the principle of separation of Church and State is based on mutual
the changing stand of the Catholic Church on contraception throughout the respect. Generally, the State cannot meddle in the internal affairs of the
1âwphi1

years and note the general acceptance of the benefits of contraceptives by church, much less question its faith and dogmas or dictate upon it. It cannot
its followers in planning their families. favor one religion and discriminate against another. On the other hand, the
church cannot impose its beliefs and convictions on the State and the rest of
The Church and The State the citizenry. It cannot demand that the nation follow its beliefs, even if it
sincerely believes that they are good for the country.
At the outset, it cannot be denied that we all live in a heterogeneous society.
It is made up of people of diverse ethnic, cultural and religious beliefs and Consistent with the principle that not any one religion should ever be
backgrounds. History has shown us that our government, in law and in preferred over another, the Constitution in the above-cited provision utilizes
practice, has allowed these various religious, cultural, social and racial the term "church" in its generic sense, which refers to a temple, a mosque,
groups to thrive in a single society together. It has embraced minority groups an iglesia, or any other house of God which metaphorically symbolizes a
and is tolerant towards all - the religious people of different sects and the religious organization. Thus, the "Church" means the religious congregations
non-believers. The undisputed fact is that our people generally believe in a collectively.
deity, whatever they conceived Him to be, and to whom they call for
guidance and enlightenment in crafting our fundamental law. Thus, the Balancing the benefits that religion affords and the need to provide an ample
preamble of the present Constitution reads: barrier to protect the State from the pursuit of its secular objectives, the
Constitution lays down the following mandate in Article III, Section 5 and
We, the sovereign Filipino people, imploring the aid of Almighty God, in Article VI, Section 29 (2), of the 1987 Constitution:
order to build a just and humane society, and establish a Government that
shall embody our ideals and aspirations, promote the common good, Section. 5. No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or
conserve and develop our patrimony, and secure to ourselves and our prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of
posterity, the blessings of independence and democracy under the rule of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall
law and a regime of truth, justice, freedom, love, equality, and peace, do forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil
ordain and promulgate this Constitution. or political rights.

The Filipino people in "imploring the aid of Almighty God " manifested their Section 29.
spirituality innate in our nature and consciousness as a people, shaped by
tradition and historical experience. As this is embodied in the preamble, it xxx.
means that the State recognizes with respect the influence of religion in so
far as it instills into the mind the purest principles of morality.205 Moreover, in No public money or property shall be appropriated, applied, paid, or
recognition of the contributions of religion to society, the 1935, 1973 and employed, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect,
1987 constitutions contain benevolent and accommodating provisions church, denomination, sectarian institution, or system of religion, or of any
towards religions such as tax exemption of church property, salary of priest, preacher, minister, other religious teacher, or dignitary as such,
religious officers in government institutions, and optional religious except when such priest, preacher, minister, or dignitary is assigned to the
instructions in public schools. armed forces, or to any penal institution, or government orphanage or
leprosarium.
The Framers, however, felt the need to put up a strong barrier so that the
State would not encroach into the affairs of the church, and vice-versa. The In short, the constitutional assurance of religious freedom provides two
principle of separation of Church and State was, thus, enshrined in Article II, guarantees: the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause.
Section 6 of the 1987 Constitution, viz:
The establishment clause "principally prohibits the State from sponsoring
Section 6. The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable. any religion or favoring any religion as against other religions. It mandates a
strict neutrality in affairs among religious groups."206 Essentially, it prohibits
the establishment of a state religion and the use of public resources for the The realm of belief and creed is infinite and limitless bounded only by one's
support or prohibition of a religion. imagination and thought. So is the freedom of belief, including religious
belief, limitless and without bounds. One may believe in most anything,
On the other hand, the basis of the free exercise clause is the respect for the however strange, bizarre and unreasonable the same may appear to others,
inviolability of the human conscience.207 Under this part of religious freedom even heretical when weighed in the scales of orthodoxy or doctrinal
guarantee, the State is prohibited from unduly interfering with the outside standards. But between the freedom of belief and the exercise of said belief,
manifestations of one's belief and faith.208 Explaining the concept of religious there is quite a stretch of road to travel.212
freedom, the Court, in Victoriano v. Elizalde Rope Workers Union209 wrote:
The second part however, is limited and subject to the awesome power of
The constitutional provisions not only prohibits legislation for the support of the State and can be enjoyed only with proper regard to the rights of others.
any religious tenets or the modes of worship of any sect, thus forestalling It is "subject to regulation where the belief is translated into external acts that
compulsion by law of the acceptance of any creed or the practice of any affect the public welfare."213
form of worship (U.S. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78, 88 L. ed. 1148, 1153), but also
assures the free exercise of one's chosen form of religion within limits of Legislative Acts and the
utmost amplitude. It has been said that the religion clauses of the
Constitution are all designed to protect the broadest possible liberty of Free Exercise Clause
conscience, to allow each man to believe as his conscience directs, to
profess his beliefs, and to live as he believes he ought to live, consistent Thus, in case of conflict between the free exercise clause and the State, the
with the liberty of others and with the common good. Any legislation whose Court adheres to the doctrine of benevolent neutrality. This has been clearly
effect or purpose is to impede the observance of one or all religions, or to decided by the Court in Estrada v. Escritor, (Escritor)214 where it was stated
discriminate invidiously between the religions, is invalid, even though the "that benevolent neutrality-accommodation, whether mandatory or
burden may be characterized as being only indirect. (Sherbert v. Verner, 374 permissive, is the spirit, intent and framework underlying the Philippine
U.S. 398, 10 L.ed.2d 965, 83 S. Ct. 1970) But if the state regulates conduct Constitution."215 In the same case, it was further explained that"
by enacting, within its power, a general law which has for its purpose and
effect to advance the state's secular goals, the statute is valid despite its
The benevolent neutrality theory believes that with respect to these
indirect burden on religious observance, unless the state can accomplish its
governmental actions, accommodation of religion may be allowed, not to
purpose without imposing such burden. (Braunfeld v. Brown, 366 U.S. 599,
promote the government's favored form of religion, but to allow individuals
6 Led. 2d. 563, 81 S. Ct. 144; McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420, 444-5
and groups to exercise their religion without hindrance. "The purpose of
and 449).
accommodation is to remove a burden on, or facilitate the exercise of, a
person's or institution's religion."216 "What is sought under the theory of
As expounded in Escritor, accommodation is not a declaration of unconstitutionality of a facially neutral
law, but an exemption from its application or its 'burdensome effect,' whether
The establishment and free exercise clauses were not designed to serve by the legislature or the courts."217
contradictory purposes. They have a single goal-to promote freedom of
individual religious beliefs and practices. In simplest terms, the free exercise In ascertaining the limits of the exercise of religious freedom, the compelling
clause prohibits government from inhibiting religious beliefs with penalties state interest test is proper.218 Underlying the compelling state interest test is
for religious beliefs and practice, while the establishment clause prohibits the notion that free exercise is a fundamental right and that laws burdening it
government from inhibiting religious belief with rewards for religious beliefs should be subject to strict scrutiny.219 In Escritor, it was written:
and practices. In other words, the two religion clauses were intended to deny
government the power to use either the carrot or the stick to influence
Philippine jurisprudence articulates several tests to determine these limits.
individual religious beliefs and practices.210
Beginning with the first case on the Free Exercise Clause, American Bible
Society, the Court mentioned the "clear and present danger" test but did not
Corollary to the guarantee of free exercise of one's religion is the principle employ it. Nevertheless, this test continued to be cited in subsequent cases
that the guarantee of religious freedom is comprised of two parts: the on religious liberty. The Gerona case then pronounced that the test of
freedom to believe, and the freedom to act on one's belief. The first part is permissibility of religious freedom is whether it violates the established
absolute. As explained in Gerona v. Secretary of Education:211
institutions of society and law. The Victoriano case mentioned the otherwise would allow the state to batter religion, especially the less
"immediate and grave danger" test as well as the doctrine that a law of powerful ones until they are destroyed. In determining which shall prevail
general applicability may burden religious exercise provided the law is the between the state's interest and religious liberty, reasonableness shall be
least restrictive means to accomplish the goal of the law. The case also the guide. The "compelling state interest" serves the purpose of revering
used, albeit inappropriately, the "compelling state interest" test. After religious liberty while at the same time affording protection to the paramount
Victoriano , German went back to the Gerona rule. Ebralinag then employed interests of the state. This was the test used in Sherbert which involved
the "grave and immediate danger" test and overruled the Gerona test. The conduct, i.e. refusal to work on Saturdays. In the end, the "compelling state
fairly recent case of Iglesia ni Cristo went back to the " clear and present interest" test, by upholding the paramount interests of the state, seeks to
danger" test in the maiden case of A merican Bible Society. Not surprisingly, protect the very state, without which, religious liberty will not be preserved.
all the cases which employed the "clear and present danger" or "grave and [Emphases in the original. Underlining supplied.]
immediate danger" test involved, in one form or another, religious speech as
this test is often used in cases on freedom of expression. On the other hand, The Court's Position
the Gerona and German cases set the rule that religious freedom will not
prevail over established institutions of society and law. Gerona, however, In the case at bench, it is not within the province of the Court to determine
which was the authority cited by German has been overruled by Ebralinag whether the use of contraceptives or one's participation in the support of
which employed the "grave and immediate danger" test . Victoriano was the modem reproductive health measures is moral from a religious standpoint or
only case that employed the "compelling state interest" test, but as whether the same is right or wrong according to one's dogma or belief. For
explained previously, the use of the test was inappropriate to the facts of the the Court has declared that matters dealing with "faith, practice, doctrine,
case. form of worship, ecclesiastical law, custom and rule of a church ... are
unquestionably ecclesiastical matters which are outside the province of the
The case at bar does not involve speech as in A merican Bible Society, civil courts."220 The jurisdiction of the Court extends only to public and secular
Ebralinag and Iglesia ni Cristo where the "clear and present danger" and morality. Whatever pronouncement the Court makes in the case at bench
"grave and immediate danger" tests were appropriate as speech has easily should be understood only in this realm where it has authority. Stated
discernible or immediate effects. The Gerona and German doctrine, aside otherwise, while the Court stands without authority to rule on ecclesiastical
from having been overruled, is not congruent with the benevolent neutrality matters, as vanguard of the Constitution, it does have authority to determine
approach, thus not appropriate in this jurisdiction. Similar to Victoriano, the whether the RH Law contravenes the guarantee of religious freedom.
present case involves purely conduct arising from religious belief. The
"compelling state interest" test is proper where conduct is involved for the At first blush, it appears that the RH Law recognizes and respects religion
whole gamut of human conduct has different effects on the state's interests: and religious beliefs and convictions. It is replete with assurances the no one
some effects may be immediate and short-term while others delayed and can be compelled to violate the tenets of his religion or defy his religious
far-reaching. A test that would protect the interests of the state in preventing convictions against his free will. Provisions in the RH Law respecting
a substantive evil, whether immediate or delayed, is therefore necessary. religious freedom are the following:
However, not any interest of the state would suffice to prevail over the right
to religious freedom as this is a fundamental right that enjoys a preferred
1. The State recognizes and guarantees the human rights of all persons
position in the hierarchy of rights - "the most inalienable and sacred of all
including their right to equality and nondiscrimination of these rights, the
human rights", in the words of Jefferson. This right is sacred for an
right to sustainable human development, the right to health which includes
invocation of the Free Exercise Clause is an appeal to a higher sovereignty.
reproductive health, the right to education and information, and the right to
The entire constitutional order of limited government is premised upon an
choose and make decisions for themselves in accordance with their religious
acknowledgment of such higher sovereignty, thus the Filipinos implore the
convictions, ethics, cultural beliefs, and the demands of responsible
"aid of Almighty God in order to build a just and humane society and
parenthood. [Section 2, Declaration of Policy]
establish a government." As held in Sherbert, only the gravest abuses,
endangering paramount interests can limit this fundamental right. A mere
balancing of interests which balances a right with just a colorable state 2 . The State recognizes marriage as an inviolable social institution and the
interest is therefore not appropriate. Instead, only a compelling interest of foundation of the family which in turn is the foundation of the nation.
the state can prevail over the fundamental right to religious liberty. The test Pursuant thereto, the State shall defend:
requires the state to carry a heavy burden, a compelling one, for to do
(a) The right of spouses to found a family in accordance with their religious The Establishment Clause
convictions and the demands of responsible parenthood." [Section 2,
Declaration of Policy] and Contraceptives

3. The State shall promote and provide information and access, without bias, In the same breath that the establishment clause restricts what the
to all methods of family planning, including effective natural and modern government can do with religion, it also limits what religious sects can or
methods which have been proven medically safe, legal, non-abortifacient, cannot do with the government. They can neither cause the government to
and effective in accordance with scientific and evidence-based medical adopt their particular doctrines as policy for everyone, nor can they not
research standards such as those registered and approved by the FDA for cause the government to restrict other groups. To do so, in simple terms,
the poor and marginalized as identified through the NHTS-PR and other would cause the State to adhere to a particular religion and, thus,
government measures of identifying marginalization: Provided, That the establishing a state religion.
State shall also provide funding support to promote modern natural methods
of family planning, especially the Billings Ovulation Method, consistent with Consequently, the petitioners are misguided in their supposition that the
the needs of acceptors and their religious convictions. [Section 3(e), State cannot enhance its population control program through the RH Law
Declaration of Policy] simply because the promotion of contraceptive use is contrary to their
religious beliefs. Indeed, the State is not precluded to pursue its legitimate
4. The State shall promote programs that: (1) enable individuals and couples secular objectives without being dictated upon by the policies of any one
to have the number of children they desire with due consideration to the religion. One cannot refuse to pay his taxes simply because it will cloud his
health, particularly of women, and the resources available and affordable to conscience. The demarcation line between Church and State demands that
them and in accordance with existing laws, public morals and their religious one render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and unto God the
convictions. [Section 3CDJ things that are God's.221

5. The State shall respect individuals' preferences and choice of family The Free Exercise Clause and the Duty to Refer
planning methods that are in accordance with their religious convictions and
cultural beliefs, taking into consideration the State's obligations under While the RH Law, in espousing state policy to promote reproductive health
various human rights instruments. [Section 3(h)] manifestly respects diverse religious beliefs in line with the Non-
Establishment Clause, the same conclusion cannot be reached with respect
6. Active participation by nongovernment organizations (NGOs) , women's to Sections 7, 23 and 24 thereof. The said provisions commonly mandate
and people's organizations, civil society, faith-based organizations, the that a hospital or a medical practitioner to immediately refer a person
religious sector and communities is crucial to ensure that reproductive health seeking health care and services under the law to another accessible
and population and development policies, plans, and programs will address healthcare provider despite their conscientious objections based on religious
the priority needs of women, the poor, and the marginalized. [Section 3(i)] or ethical beliefs.

7. Responsible parenthood refers to the will and ability of a parent to In a situation where the free exercise of religion is allegedly burdened by
respond to the needs and aspirations of the family and children. It is likewise government legislation or practice, the compelling state interest test in line
a shared responsibility between parents to determine and achieve the with the Court's espousal of the Doctrine of Benevolent Neutrality in Escritor,
desired number of children, spacing and timing of their children according to finds application. In this case, the conscientious objector's claim to religious
their own family life aspirations, taking into account psychological freedom would warrant an exemption from obligations under the RH Law,
preparedness, health status, sociocultural and economic concerns unless the government succeeds in demonstrating a more compelling state
consistent with their religious convictions. [Section 4(v)] (Emphases interest in the accomplishment of an important secular objective. Necessarily
supplied) so, the plea of conscientious objectors for exemption from the RH Law
deserves no less than strict scrutiny.
While the Constitution prohibits abortion, laws were enacted allowing the
use of contraceptives. To some medical practitioners, however, the whole In applying the test, the first inquiry is whether a conscientious objector's
idea of using contraceptives is an anathema. Consistent with the principle of right to religious freedom has been burdened. As in Escritor, there is no
benevolent neutrality, their beliefs should be respected.
doubt that an intense tug-of-war plagues a conscientious objector. One side Interestingly, on April 24, 2013, Scotland's Inner House of the Court of
coaxes him into obedience to the law and the abandonment of his religious Session, found in the case of Doogan and Wood v. NHS Greater Glasgow
beliefs, while the other entices him to a clean conscience yet under the pain and Clyde Health Board,225 that the midwives claiming to be conscientious
of penalty. The scenario is an illustration of the predicament of medical objectors under the provisions of Scotland's Abortion Act of 1967, could not
practitioners whose religious beliefs are incongruent with what the RH Law be required to delegate, supervise or support staff on their labor ward who
promotes. were involved in abortions.226 The Inner House stated "that if 'participation'
were defined according to whether the person was taking part 'directly' or '
The Court is of the view that the obligation to refer imposed by the RH Law indirectly' this would actually mean more complexity and uncertainty."227
violates the religious belief and conviction of a conscientious objector. Once
the medical practitioner, against his will, refers a patient seeking information While the said case did not cover the act of referral, the applicable principle
on modem reproductive health products, services, procedures and methods, was the same - they could not be forced to assist abortions if it would be
his conscience is immediately burdened as he has been compelled to against their conscience or will.
perform an act against his beliefs. As Commissioner Joaquin A. Bernas
(Commissioner Bernas) has written, "at the basis of the free exercise clause Institutional Health Providers
is the respect for the inviolability of the human conscience.222
The same holds true with respect to non-maternity specialty hospitals and
Though it has been said that the act of referral is an opt-out clause, it is, hospitals owned and operated by a religious group and health care service
however, a false compromise because it makes pro-life health providers providers. Considering that Section 24 of the RH Law penalizes such
complicit in the performance of an act that they find morally repugnant or institutions should they fail or refuse to comply with their duty to refer under
offensive. They cannot, in conscience, do indirectly what they cannot do Section 7 and Section 23(a)(3), the Court deems that it must be struck down
directly. One may not be the principal, but he is equally guilty if he abets the for being violative of the freedom of religion. The same applies to Section
offensive act by indirect participation. 23(a)(l) and (a)(2) in relation to Section 24, considering that in the
dissemination of information regarding programs and services and in the
Moreover, the guarantee of religious freedom is necessarily intertwined with performance of reproductive health procedures, the religious freedom of
the right to free speech, it being an externalization of one's thought and health care service providers should be respected.
conscience. This in turn includes the right to be silent. With the constitutional
guarantee of religious freedom follows the protection that should be afforded In the case of Islamic Da'wah Council of the Philippines, Inc. v. Office of the
to individuals in communicating their beliefs to others as well as the Executive Secretary228 it was stressed:
protection for simply being silent. The Bill of Rights guarantees the liberty of
the individual to utter what is in his mind and the liberty not to utter what is Freedom of religion was accorded preferred status by the framers of our
not in his mind.223 While the RH Law seeks to provide freedom of choice fundamental law. And this Court has consistently affirmed this preferred
through informed consent, freedom of choice guarantees the liberty of the status, well aware that it is "designed to protect the broadest possible liberty
religious conscience and prohibits any degree of compulsion or burden, of conscience, to allow each man to believe as his conscience directs, to
whether direct or indirect, in the practice of one's religion.224 profess his beliefs, and to live as he believes he ought to live, consistent
with the liberty of others and with the common good."10
In case of conflict between the religious beliefs and moral convictions of
individuals, on one hand, and the interest of the State, on the other, to The Court is not oblivious to the view that penalties provided by law
provide access and information on reproductive health products, services, endeavour to ensure compliance. Without set consequences for either an
procedures and methods to enable the people to determine the timing, active violation or mere inaction, a law tends to be toothless and ineffectual.
number and spacing of the birth of their children, the Court is of the strong Nonetheless, when what is bartered for an effective implementation of a law
view that the religious freedom of health providers, whether public or private, is a constitutionally-protected right the Court firmly chooses to stamp its
should be accorded primacy. Accordingly, a conscientious objector should disapproval. The punishment of a healthcare service provider, who fails
be exempt from compliance with the mandates of the RH Law. If he would and/or refuses to refer a patient to another, or who declines to perform
be compelled to act contrary to his religious belief and conviction, it would be reproductive health procedure on a patient because incompatible religious
violative of "the principle of non-coercion" enshrined in the constitutional beliefs, is a clear inhibition of a constitutional guarantee which the Court
right to free exercise of religion. cannot allow.
The Implementing Rules and Regulation (RH-IRR) Justice Mendoza:

The last paragraph of Section 5.24 of the RH-IRR reads: I will read to you one provision. It's Section 5.24. This I cannot find in the RH
Law. But in the IRR it says: " .... skilled health professionals such as
Provided, That skilled health professional such as provincial, city or provincial, city or municipal health officers, chief of hospitals, head nurses,
municipal health officers, chiefs of hospital, head nurses, supervising supervising midwives, among others, who by virtue of their office are
midwives, among others, who by virtue of their office are specifically specifically charged with the duty to implement the provisions of the RPRH
charged with the duty to implement the provisions of the RPRH Act and Act and these Rules, cannot be considered as conscientious objectors." Do
these Rules, cannot be considered as conscientious objectors. you agree with this?

This is discriminatory and violative of the equal protection clause. The Congressman Lagman:
conscientious objection clause should be equally protective of the religious
belief of public health officers. There is no perceptible distinction why they I will have to go over again the provisions, Your Honor.
should not be considered exempt from the mandates of the law. The
protection accorded to other conscientious objectors should equally apply to Justice Mendoza:
all medical practitioners without distinction whether they belong to the public
or private sector. After all, the freedom to believe is intrinsic in every In other words, public health officers in contrast to the private practitioners
individual and the protective robe that guarantees its free exercise is not who can be conscientious objectors, skilled health professionals cannot be
taken off even if one acquires employment in the government. considered conscientious objectors. Do you agree with this? Is this not
against the constitutional right to the religious belief?
It should be stressed that intellectual liberty occupies a place inferior to none
in the hierarchy of human values. The mind must be free to think what it Congressman Lagman:
wills, whether in the secular or religious sphere, to give expression to its
beliefs by oral discourse or through the media and, thus, seek other candid
Your Honor, if there is any conflict between the IRR and the law, the law
views in occasions or gatherings or in more permanent aggrupation.
must prevail.230
Embraced in such concept then are freedom of religion, freedom of speech,
of the press, assembly and petition, and freedom of association.229
Compelling State Interest
The discriminatory provision is void not only because no such exception is
stated in the RH Law itself but also because it is violative of the equal The foregoing discussion then begets the question on whether the
protection clause in the Constitution. Quoting respondent Lagman, if there is respondents, in defense of the subject provisions, were able to: 1]
any conflict between the RH-IRR and the RH Law, the law must prevail. demonstrate a more compelling state interest to restrain conscientious
objectors in their choice of services to render; and 2] discharge the burden
of proof that the obligatory character of the law is the least intrusive means
Justice Mendoza:
to achieve the objectives of the law.
I'll go to another point. The RH law .. .in your Comment- in-Intervention on
Unfortunately, a deep scrutiny of the respondents' submissions proved to be
page 52, you mentioned RH Law is replete with provisions in upholding the
in vain. The OSG was curiously silent in the establishment of a more
freedom of religion and respecting religious convictions. Earlier, you affirmed
compelling state interest that would rationalize the curbing of a
this with qualifications. Now, you have read, I presumed you have read the
conscientious objector's right not to adhere to an action contrary to his
IRR-Implementing Rules and Regulations of the RH Bill?
religious convictions. During the oral arguments, the OSG maintained the
same silence and evasion. The Transcripts of the Stenographic Notes
Congressman Lagman: disclose the following:

Yes, Your Honor, I have read but I have to admit, it's a long IRR and I have Justice De Castro:
not thoroughly dissected the nuances of the provisions.
Let's go back to the duty of the conscientious objector to refer. .. given to her or whether she even decides to become pregnant at all. On the
other hand, the burden placed upon those who object to contraceptive use is
Senior State Solicitor Hilbay: immediate and occurs the moment a patient seeks consultation on
reproductive health matters.
Yes, Justice.
Moreover, granting that a compelling interest exists to justify the
Justice De Castro: infringement of the conscientious objector's religious freedom, the
respondents have failed to demonstrate "the gravest abuses, endangering
paramount interests" which could limit or override a person's fundamental
... which you are discussing awhile ago with Justice Abad. What is the
right to religious freedom. Also, the respondents have not presented any
compelling State interest in imposing this duty to refer to a conscientious
government effort exerted to show that the means it takes to achieve its
objector which refuses to do so because of his religious belief?
legitimate state objective is the least intrusive means.234 Other than the
assertion that the act of referring would only be momentary, considering that
Senior State Solicitor Hilbay: the act of referral by a conscientious objector is the very action being
contested as violative of religious freedom, it behooves the respondents to
Ahh, Your Honor, .. demonstrate that no other means can be undertaken by the State to achieve
its objective without violating the rights of the conscientious objector. The
Justice De Castro: health concerns of women may still be addressed by other practitioners who
may perform reproductive health-related procedures with open willingness
What is the compelling State interest to impose this burden? and motivation. Suffice it to say, a person who is forced to perform an act in
utter reluctance deserves the protection of the Court as the last vanguard of
Senior State Solicitor Hilbay: constitutional freedoms.

In the first place, Your Honor, I don't believe that the standard is a At any rate, there are other secular steps already taken by the Legislature to
compelling State interest, this is an ordinary health legislation involving ensure that the right to health is protected. Considering other legislations as
professionals. This is not a free speech matter or a pure free exercise they stand now, R.A . No. 4 729 or the Contraceptive Act, R.A. No. 6365 or
matter. This is a regulation by the State of the relationship between medical "The Population Act of the Philippines" and R.A. No. 9710, otherwise known
doctors and their patients.231 as "The Magna Carta of Women," amply cater to the needs of women in
relation to health services and programs. The pertinent provision of Magna
Resultantly, the Court finds no compelling state interest which would limit the Carta on comprehensive health services and programs for women, in fact,
free exercise clause of the conscientious objectors, however few in number. reads:
Only the prevention of an immediate and grave danger to the security and
welfare of the community can justify the infringement of religious freedom. If Section 17. Women's Right to Health. - (a) Comprehensive Health Services.
the government fails to show the seriousness and immediacy of the threat, - The State shall, at all times, provide for a comprehensive, culture-sensitive,
State intrusion is constitutionally unacceptable.232 and gender-responsive health services and programs covering all stages of
a woman's life cycle and which addresses the major causes of women's
mortality and morbidity: Provided, That in the provision for comprehensive
Freedom of religion means more than just the freedom to believe. It also
health services, due respect shall be accorded to women's religious
means the freedom to act or not to act according to what one believes. And
this freedom is violated when one is compelled to act against one's belief or convictions, the rights of the spouses to found a family in accordance with
is prevented from acting according to one's belief.233 their religious convictions, and the demands of responsible parenthood, and
the right of women to protection from hazardous drugs, devices,
interventions, and substances.
Apparently, in these cases, there is no immediate danger to the life or health
of an individual in the perceived scenario of the subject provisions. After all,
a couple who plans the timing, number and spacing of the birth of their Access to the following services shall be ensured:
children refers to a future event that is contingent on whether or not the
mother decides to adopt or use the information, product, method or supply
 (1) Maternal care to include pre- and post-natal services to women's health in government education and training programs, with due
address pregnancy and infant health and nutrition; regard to the following:

(2) Promotion of breastfeeding; (1) The natural and primary right and duty of parents in the
rearing of the youth and the development of moral character
(3) Responsible, ethical, legal, safe, and effective methods of and the right of children to be brought up in an atmosphere
family planning; of morality and rectitude for the enrichment and
strengthening of character;
(4) Family and State collaboration in youth sexuality
education and health services without prejudice to the (2) The formation of a person's sexuality that affirms human
primary right and duty of parents to educate their children; dignity; and

(5) Prevention and management of reproductive tract (3) Ethical, legal, safe, and effective family planning methods
infections, including sexually transmitted diseases, HIV, and including fertility awareness.
AIDS;
As an afterthought, Asst. Solicitor General Hilbay eventually replied that the
(6) Prevention and management of reproductive tract compelling state interest was "Fifteen maternal deaths per day, hundreds of
cancers like breast and cervical cancers, and other thousands of unintended pregnancies, lives changed, x x x."235 He, however,
gynecological conditions and disorders; failed to substantiate this point by concrete facts and figures from reputable
sources.
(7) Prevention of abortion and management of pregnancy-
related complications; The undisputed fact, however, is that the World Health Organization
reported that the Filipino maternal mortality rate dropped to 48 percent from
(8) In cases of violence against women and children, women 1990 to 2008, 236 although there was still no RH Law at that time. Despite
and children victims and survivors shall be provided with such revelation, the proponents still insist that such number of maternal
comprehensive health services that include psychosocial, deaths constitute a compelling state interest.
therapeutic, medical, and legal interventions and assistance
towards healing, recovery, and empowerment; Granting that there are still deficiencies and flaws in the delivery of social
healthcare programs for Filipino women, they could not be solved by a
(9) Prevention and management of infertility and sexual measure that puts an unwarrantable stranglehold on religious beliefs in
dysfunction pursuant to ethical norms and medical exchange for blind conformity.
standards;
Exception: Life Threatening Cases
(10) Care of the elderly women beyond their child-bearing
years; and All this notwithstanding, the Court properly recognizes a valid exception set
forth in the law. While generally healthcare service providers cannot be
(11) Management, treatment, and intervention of mental forced to render reproductive health care procedures if doing it would
health problems of women and girls. In addition, healthy contravene their religious beliefs, an exception must be made in life-
lifestyle activities are encouraged and promoted through threatening cases that require the performance of emergency procedures. In
programs and projects as strategies in the prevention of these situations, the right to life of the mother should be given preference,
diseases. considering that a referral by a medical practitioner would amount to a denial
of service, resulting to unnecessarily placing the life of a mother in grave
danger. Thus, during the oral arguments, Atty. Liban, representing CFC,
(b) Comprehensive Health Information and Education. - The State shall
manifested: "the forced referral clause that we are objecting on grounds of
provide women in all sectors with appropriate, timely, complete, and
violation of freedom of religion does not contemplate an emergency."237
accurate information and education on all the above-stated aspects of
In a conflict situation between the life of the mother and the life of a child, the The Court cannot but agree.
doctor is morally obliged always to try to save both lives. If, however, it is
impossible, the resulting death to one should not be deliberate. Atty. Noche The 1987 Constitution is replete with provisions strengthening the family as
explained: it is the basic social institution. In fact, one article, Article XV, is devoted
entirely to the family.
Principle of Double-Effect. - May we please remind the principal author of
the RH Bill in the House of Representatives of the principle of double-effect ARTICLE XV
wherein intentional harm on the life of either the mother of the child is never THE FAMILY
justified to bring about a "good" effect. In a conflict situation between the life
of the child and the life of the mother, the doctor is morally obliged always to Section 1. The State recognizes the Filipino family as the foundation of the
try to save both lives. However, he can act in favor of one (not necessarily nation. Accordingly, it shall strengthen its solidarity and actively promote its
the mother) when it is medically impossible to save both, provided that no total development.
direct harm is intended to the other. If the above principles are observed, the
loss of the child's life or the mother's life is not intentional and, therefore,
Section 2. Marriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the foundation of
unavoidable. Hence, the doctor would not be guilty of abortion or murder.
the family and shall be protected by the State.
The mother is never pitted against the child because both their lives are
equally valuable.238
Section 3. The State shall defend:
Accordingly, if it is necessary to save the life of a mother, procedures
endangering the life of the child may be resorted to even if is against the The right of spouses to found a family in accordance with their religious
religious sentiments of the medical practitioner. As quoted above, whatever convictions and the demands of responsible parenthood;
burden imposed upon a medical practitioner in this case would have been
more than justified considering the life he would be able to save. The right of children to assistance, including proper care and nutrition, and
special protection from all forms of neglect, abuse, cruelty, exploitation and
Family Planning Seminars other conditions prejudicial to their development;

Anent the requirement imposed under Section 15239 as a condition for the The right of the family to a family living wage and income; and
issuance of a marriage license, the Court finds the same to be a reasonable
exercise of police power by the government. A cursory reading of the The right of families or family assoc1at1ons to participate in the planning
assailed provision bares that the religious freedom of the petitioners is not at and implementation of policies and programs that affect them.
all violated. All the law requires is for would-be spouses to attend a seminar
on parenthood, family planning breastfeeding and infant nutrition. It does not In this case, the RH Law, in its not-so-hidden desire to control population
even mandate the type of family planning methods to be included in the growth, contains provisions which tend to wreck the family as a solid social
seminar, whether they be natural or artificial. As correctly noted by the OSG, institution. It bars the husband and/or the father from participating in the
those who receive any information during their attendance in the required decision making process regarding their common future progeny. It likewise
seminars are not compelled to accept the information given to them, are deprives the parents of their authority over their minor daughter simply
completely free to reject the information they find unacceptable, and retain because she is already a parent or had suffered a miscarriage.
the freedom to decide on matters of family life without the intervention of the
State. The Family and Spousal Consent

4-The Family and the Right to Privacy Section 23(a) (2) (i) of the RH Law states:

Petitioner CFC assails the RH Law because Section 23(a) (2) (i) thereof The following acts are prohibited:
violates the provisions of the Constitution by intruding into marital privacy
and autonomy. It argues that it cultivates disunity and fosters animosity in (a) Any health care service provider, whether public or private, who shall: ...
the family rather than promote its solidarity and total development.240
(2) refuse to perform legal and medically-safe reproductive health The right to chart their own destiny together falls within the protected zone of
procedures on any person of legal age on the ground of lack of consent or marital privacy and such state intervention would encroach into the zones of
authorization of the following persons in the following instances: spousal privacy guaranteed by the Constitution. In our jurisdiction, the right
to privacy was first recognized in Marje v. Mutuc,243 where the Court,
(i) Spousal consent in case of married persons: provided, That in case of speaking through Chief Justice Fernando, held that "the right to privacy as
disagreement, the decision of the one undergoing the procedures shall such is accorded recognition independently of its identification with liberty; in
prevail. [Emphasis supplied] itself, it is fully deserving of constitutional protection."244 Marje adopted the
ruling of the US Supreme Court in Griswold v. Connecticut,245 where Justice
The above provision refers to reproductive health procedures like tubal William O. Douglas wrote:
litigation and vasectomy which, by their very nature, should require mutual
consent and decision between the husband and the wife as they affect We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -older than our
issues intimately related to the founding of a family. Section 3, Art. XV of the political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together
Constitution espouses that the State shall defend the "right of the spouses to for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of
found a family." One person cannot found a family. The right, therefore, is being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a
shared by both spouses. In the same Section 3, their right "to participate in harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or
the planning and implementation of policies and programs that affect them " social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any
is equally recognized. involved in our prior decisions.

The RH Law cannot be allowed to infringe upon this mutual decision- Ironically, Griswold invalidated a Connecticut statute which made the use of
making. By giving absolute authority to the spouse who would undergo a contraceptives a criminal offense on the ground of its amounting to an
procedure, and barring the other spouse from participating in the decision unconstitutional invasion of the right to privacy of married persons.
would drive a wedge between the husband and wife, possibly result in bitter Nevertheless, it recognized the zone of privacy rightfully enjoyed by couples.
animosity, and endanger the marriage and the family, all for the sake of Justice Douglas in Grisworld wrote that "specific guarantees in the Bill of
reducing the population. This would be a marked departure from the policy Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that
of the State to protect marriage as an inviolable social institution.241 help give them life and substance. Various guarantees create zones of
privacy."246
Decision-making involving a reproductive health procedure is a private
matter which belongs to the couple, not just one of them. Any decision they At any rate, in case of conflict between the couple, the courts will decide.
would reach would affect their future as a family because the size of the
family or the number of their children significantly matters. The decision The Family and Parental Consent
whether or not to undergo the procedure belongs exclusively to, and shared
by, both spouses as one cohesive unit as they chart their own destiny. It is a Equally deplorable is the debarment of parental consent in cases where the
constitutionally guaranteed private right. Unless it prejudices the State, minor, who will be undergoing a procedure, is already a parent or has had a
which has not shown any compelling interest, the State should see to it that miscarriage. Section 7 of the RH law provides:
they chart their destiny together as one family.
SEC. 7. Access to Family Planning. – x x x.
As highlighted by Justice Leonardo-De Castro, Section 19( c) of R.A. No.
9710, otherwise known as the "Magna Carta for Women," provides that No person shall be denied information and access to family planning
women shall have equal rights in all matters relating to marriage and family services, whether natural or artificial: Provided, That minors will not be
relations, including the joint decision on the number and spacing of their allowed access to modern methods of family planning without written
children. Indeed, responsible parenthood, as Section 3(v) of the RH Law consent from their parents or guardian/s except when the minor is already a
states, is a shared responsibility between parents. Section 23(a)(2)(i) of the parent or has had a miscarriage.
RH Law should not be allowed to betray the constitutional mandate to
protect and strengthen the family by giving to only one spouse the absolute
There can be no other interpretation of this provision except that when a
authority to decide whether to undergo reproductive health procedure.242
minor is already a parent or has had a miscarriage, the parents are excluded
from the decision making process of the minor with regard to family objection to the acquisition of information by the minor referred to under the
planning. Even if she is not yet emancipated, the parental authority is exception in the second paragraph of Section 7 that would enable her to
already cut off just because there is a need to tame population growth. take proper care of her own body and that of her unborn child. After all,
Section 12, Article II of the Constitution mandates the State to protect both
It is precisely in such situations when a minor parent needs the comfort, the life of the mother as that of the unborn child. Considering that
care, advice, and guidance of her own parents. The State cannot replace information to enable a person to make informed decisions is essential in the
her natural mother and father when it comes to providing her needs and protection and maintenance of ones' health, access to such information with
comfort. To say that their consent is no longer relevant is clearly anti-family. respect to reproductive health must be allowed. In this situation, the fear that
It does not promote unity in the family. It is an affront to the constitutional parents might be deprived of their parental control is unfounded because
mandate to protect and strengthen the family as an inviolable social they are not prohibited to exercise parental guidance and control over their
institution. minor child and assist her in deciding whether to accept or reject the
information received.
More alarmingly, it disregards and disobeys the constitutional mandate that
"the natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth Second Exception: Life Threatening Cases
for civic efficiency and the development of moral character shall receive the
support of the Government."247 In this regard, Commissioner Bernas wrote: As in the case of the conscientious objector, an exception must be made in
life-threatening cases that require the performance of emergency
The 1987 provision has added the adjective "primary" to modify the right of procedures. In such cases, the life of the minor who has already suffered a
parents. It imports the assertion that the right of parents is superior to that of miscarriage and that of the spouse should not be put at grave risk simply for
the State.248 [Emphases supplied] lack of consent. It should be emphasized that no person should be denied
the appropriate medical care urgently needed to preserve the primordial
To insist on a rule that interferes with the right of parents to exercise right, that is, the right to life.
parental control over their minor-child or the right of the spouses to mutually
decide on matters which very well affect the very purpose of marriage, that In this connection, the second sentence of Section 23(a)(2)(ii)249 should be
is, the establishment of conjugal and family life, would result in the violation struck down. By effectively limiting the requirement of parental consent to
of one's privacy with respect to his family. It would be dismissive of the "only in elective surgical procedures," it denies the parents their right of
unique and strongly-held Filipino tradition of maintaining close family ties parental authority in cases where what is involved are "non-surgical
and violative of the recognition that the State affords couples entering into procedures." Save for the two exceptions discussed above, and in the case
the special contract of marriage to as one unit in forming the foundation of of an abused child as provided in the first sentence of Section 23(a)(2)(ii),
the family and society. the parents should not be deprived of their constitutional right of parental
authority. To deny them of this right would be an affront to the constitutional
The State cannot, without a compelling state interest, take over the role of mandate to protect and strengthen the family.
parents in the care and custody of a minor child, whether or not the latter is
already a parent or has had a miscarriage. Only a compelling state interest 5 - Academic Freedom
can justify a state substitution of their parental authority.
It is asserted that Section 14 of the RH Law, in relation to Section 24 thereof,
First Exception: Access to Information mandating the teaching of Age-and Development-Appropriate Reproductive
Health Education under threat of fine and/or imprisonment violates the
Whether with respect to the minor referred to under the exception provided principle of academic freedom . According to the petitioners, these
in the second paragraph of Section 7 or with respect to the consenting provisions effectively force educational institutions to teach reproductive
spouse under Section 23(a)(2)(i), a distinction must be made. There must be health education even if they believe that the same is not suitable to be
a differentiation between access to information about family planning taught to their students.250 Citing various studies conducted in the United
services, on one hand, and access to the reproductive health procedures States and statistical data gathered in the country, the petitioners aver that
and modern family planning methods themselves, on the other. Insofar as the prevalence of contraceptives has led to an increase of out-of-wedlock
access to information is concerned, the Court finds no constitutional births; divorce and breakdown of families; the acceptance of abortion and
euthanasia; the "feminization of poverty"; the aging of society; and While the Court notes the possibility that educators might raise their
promotion of promiscuity among the youth.251 objection to their participation in the reproductive health education program
provided under Section 14 of the RH Law on the ground that the same
At this point, suffice it to state that any attack on the validity of Section 14 of violates their religious beliefs, the Court reserves its judgment should an
the RH Law is premature because the Department of Education, Culture and actual case be filed before it.
Sports has yet to formulate a curriculum on age-appropriate reproductive
health education. One can only speculate on the content, manner and 6 - Due Process
medium of instruction that will be used to educate the adolescents and
whether they will contradict the religious beliefs of the petitioners and The petitioners contend that the RH Law suffers from vagueness and, thus
validate their apprehensions. Thus, considering the premature nature of this violates the due process clause of the Constitution. According to them,
particular issue, the Court declines to rule on its constitutionality or validity. Section 23 (a)(l) mentions a "private health service provider" among those
who may be held punishable but does not define who is a "private health
At any rate, Section 12, Article II of the 1987 Constitution provides that the care service provider." They argue that confusion further results since
natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for Section 7 only makes reference to a "private health care institution."
civic efficiency and development of moral character shall receive the support
of the Government. Like the 1973 Constitution and the 1935 Constitution, The petitioners also point out that Section 7 of the assailed legislation
the 1987 Constitution affirms the State recognition of the invaluable role of exempts hospitals operated by religious groups from rendering reproductive
parents in preparing the youth to become productive members of society. health service and modern family planning methods. It is unclear, however, if
Notably, it places more importance on the role of parents in the development these institutions are also exempt from giving reproductive health
of their children by recognizing that said role shall be "primary," that is, that information under Section 23(a)(l), or from rendering reproductive health
the right of parents in upbringing the youth is superior to that of the State.252 procedures under Section 23(a)(2).

It is also the inherent right of the State to act as parens patriae to aid parents Finally, it is averred that the RH Law punishes the withholding, restricting
in the moral development of the youth. Indeed, the Constitution makes and providing of incorrect information, but at the same time fails to define
mention of the importance of developing the youth and their important role in "incorrect information."
nation building.253 Considering that Section 14 provides not only for the age-
appropriate-reproductive health education, but also for values formation; the The arguments fail to persuade.
development of knowledge and skills in self-protection against
discrimination; sexual abuse and violence against women and children and
A statute or act suffers from the defect of vagueness when it lacks
other forms of gender based violence and teen pregnancy; physical, social
comprehensible standards that men of common intelligence must
and emotional changes in adolescents; women's rights and children's rights;
necessarily guess its meaning and differ as to its application. It is repugnant
responsible teenage behavior; gender and development; and responsible
to the Constitution in two respects: (1) it violates due process for failure to
parenthood, and that Rule 10, Section 11.01 of the RH-IRR and Section 4(t)
accord persons, especially the parties targeted by it, fair notice of the
of the RH Law itself provides for the teaching of responsible teenage
conduct to avoid; and (2) it leaves law enforcers unbridled discretion in
behavior, gender sensitivity and physical and emotional changes among
carrying out its provisions and becomes an arbitrary flexing of the
adolescents - the Court finds that the legal mandate provided under the
Government muscle.255 Moreover, in determining whether the words used in
assailed provision supplements, rather than supplants, the rights and duties
a statute are vague, words must not only be taken in accordance with their
of the parents in the moral development of their children.
plain meaning alone, but also in relation to other parts of the statute. It is a
rule that every part of the statute must be interpreted with reference to the
Furthermore, as Section 14 also mandates that the mandatory reproductive context, that is, every part of it must be construed together with the other
health education program shall be developed in conjunction with parent- parts and kept subservient to the general intent of the whole enactment.256
teacher-community associations, school officials and other interest groups, it
could very well be said that it will be in line with the religious beliefs of the
As correctly noted by the OSG, in determining the definition of "private
petitioners. By imposing such a condition, it becomes apparent that the
health care service provider," reference must be made to Section 4(n) of the
petitioners' contention that Section 14 violates Article XV, Section 3(1) of the
RH Law which defines a "public health service provider," viz:
Constitution is without merit.254
(n) Public health care service provider refers to: (1) public health care From its plain meaning, the word "incorrect" here denotes failing to agree
institution, which is duly licensed and accredited and devoted primarily to the with a copy or model or with established rules; inaccurate, faulty; failing to
maintenance and operation of facilities for health promotion, disease agree with the requirements of duty, morality or propriety; and failing to
prevention, diagnosis, treatment and care of individuals suffering from coincide with the truth. 257 On the other hand, the word "knowingly" means
illness, disease, injury, disability or deformity, or in need of obstetrical or with awareness or deliberateness that is intentional.258 Used together in
other medical and nursing care; (2) public health care professional, who is a relation to Section 23(a)(l), they connote a sense of malice and ill motive to
doctor of medicine, a nurse or a midvvife; (3) public health worker engaged mislead or misrepresent the public as to the nature and effect of programs
in the delivery of health care services; or (4) barangay health worker who and services on reproductive health. Public health and safety demand that
has undergone training programs under any accredited government and health care service providers give their honest and correct medical
NGO and who voluntarily renders primarily health care services in the information in accordance with what is acceptable in medical practice. While
community after having been accredited to function as such by the local health care service providers are not barred from expressing their own
health board in accordance with the guidelines promulgated by the personal opinions regarding the programs and services on reproductive
Department of Health (DOH) . health, their right must be tempered with the need to provide public health
and safety. The public deserves no less.
Further, the use of the term "private health care institution" in Section 7 of
the law, instead of "private health care service provider," should not be a 7-Egual Protection
cause of confusion for the obvious reason that they are used synonymously.
The petitioners also claim that the RH Law violates the equal protection
The Court need not belabor the issue of whether the right to be exempt from clause under the Constitution as it discriminates against the poor because it
being obligated to render reproductive health service and modem family makes them the primary target of the government program that promotes
planning methods, includes exemption from being obligated to give contraceptive use . They argue that, rather than promoting reproductive
reproductive health information and to render reproductive health health among the poor, the RH Law introduces contraceptives that would
procedures. Clearly, subject to the qualifications and exemptions earlier effectively reduce the number of the poor. Their bases are the various
discussed, the right to be exempt from being obligated to render provisions in the RH Law dealing with the poor, especially those mentioned
reproductive health service and modem family planning methods, in the guiding principles259 and definition of terms260 of the law.
necessarily includes exemption from being obligated to give reproductive
health information and to render reproductive health procedures. The terms They add that the exclusion of private educational institutions from the
"service" and "methods" are broad enough to include the providing of mandatory reproductive health education program imposed by the RH Law
information and the rendering of medical procedures. renders it unconstitutional.

The same can be said with respect to the contention that the RH Law In Biraogo v. Philippine Truth Commission,261 the Court had the occasion to
punishes health care service providers who intentionally withhold, restrict expound on the concept of equal protection. Thus:
and provide incorrect information regarding reproductive health programs
and services. For ready reference, the assailed provision is hereby quoted One of the basic principles on which this government was founded is that of
as follows: the equality of right which is embodied in Section 1, Article III of the 1987
Constitution. The equal protection of the laws is embraced in the concept of
SEC. 23. Prohibited Acts. - The following acts are prohibited: due process, as every unfair discrimination offends the requirements of
justice and fair play. It has been embodied in a separate clause, however, to
(a) Any health care service provider, whether public or private, who shall: provide for a more specific guaranty against any form of undue favoritism or
hostility from the government. Arbitrariness in general may be challenged on
(1) Knowingly withhold information or restrict the dissemination thereof, and/ the basis of the due process clause. But if the particular act assailed
or intentionally provide incorrect information regarding programs and partakes of an unwarranted partiality or prejudice, the sharper weapon to cut
services on reproductive health including the right to informed choice and it down is the equal protection clause.
access to a full range of legal, medically-safe, non-abortifacient and effective
family planning methods; "According to a long line of decisions, equal protection simply requires that
all persons or things similarly situated should be treated alike, both as to
rights conferred and responsibilities imposed." It "requires public bodies and To provide that the poor are to be given priority in the government's
inst itutions to treat similarly situated individuals in a similar manner." "The reproductive health care program is not a violation of the equal protection
purpose of the equal protection clause is to secure every person within a clause. In fact, it is pursuant to Section 11, Article XIII of the Constitution
state's jurisdiction against intentional and arbitrary discrimination, whether which recognizes the distinct necessity to address the needs of the
occasioned by the express terms of a statue or by its improper execution underprivileged by providing that they be given priority in addressing the
through the state's duly constituted authorities." "In other words, the concept health development of the people. Thus:
of equal justice under the law requires the state to govern impartially, and it
may not draw distinctions between individuals solely on differences that are Section 11. The State shall adopt an integrated and comprehensive
irrelevant to a legitimate governmental objective." approach to health development which shall endeavor to make essential
goods, health and other social services available to all the people at
The equal protection clause is aimed at all official state actions, not just affordable cost. There shall be priority for the needs of the underprivileged,
those of the legislature. Its inhibitions cover all the departments of the sick, elderly, disabled, women, and children. The State shall endeavor to
government including the political and executive departments, and extend to provide free medical care to paupers.
all actions of a state denying equal protection of the laws, through whatever
agency or whatever guise is taken. It should be noted that Section 7 of the RH Law prioritizes poor and
marginalized couples who are suffering from fertility issues and desire to
It, however, does not require the universal application of the laws to all have children. There is, therefore, no merit to the contention that the RH
persons or things without distinction. What it simply requires is equality Law only seeks to target the poor to reduce their number. While the RH Law
among equals as determined according to a valid classification. Indeed, the admits the use of contraceptives, it does not, as elucidated above, sanction
equal protection clause permits classification. Such classification, however, abortion. As Section 3(1) explains, the "promotion and/or stabilization of the
to be valid must pass the test of reasonableness. The test has four population growth rate is incidental to the advancement of reproductive
requisites: (1) The classification rests on substantial distinctions; (2) It is health."
germane to the purpose of the law; (3) It is not limited to existing conditions
only; and (4) It applies equally to all members of the same class. "Superficial Moreover, the RH Law does not prescribe the number of children a couple
differences do not make for a valid classification." may have and does not impose conditions upon couples who intend to have
children. While the petitioners surmise that the assailed law seeks to charge
For a classification to meet the requirements of constitutionality, it must couples with the duty to have children only if they would raise them in a truly
include or embrace all persons who naturally belong to the class. "The humane way, a deeper look into its provisions shows that what the law
classification will be regarded as invalid if all the members of the class are seeks to do is to simply provide priority to the poor in the implementation of
not similarly treated, both as to rights conferred and obligations imposed. It government programs to promote basic reproductive health care.
is not necessary that the classification be made with absolute symmetry, in
the sense that the members of the class should possess the same With respect to the exclusion of private educational institutions from the
characteristics in equal degree. Substantial similarity will suffice; and as long mandatory reproductive health education program under Section 14, suffice
as this is achieved, all those covered by the classification are to be treated it to state that the mere fact that the children of those who are less fortunate
equally. The mere fact that an individual belonging to a class differs from the attend public educational institutions does not amount to substantial
other members, as long as that class is substantially distinguishable from all distinction sufficient to annul the assailed provision. On the other hand,
others, does not justify the non-application of the law to him." substantial distinction rests between public educational institutions and
private educational institutions, particularly because there is a need to
The classification must not be based on existing circumstances only, or so recognize the academic freedom of private educational institutions
constituted as to preclude addition to the number included in the class. It especially with respect to religious instruction and to consider their sensitivity
must be of such a nature as to embrace all those who may thereafter be in towards the teaching of reproductive health education.
similar circumstances and conditions. It must not leave out or "underinclude"
those that should otherwise fall into a certain classification. [Emphases 8-Involuntary Servitude
supplied; citations excluded]
The petitioners also aver that the RH Law is constitutionally infirm as it
violates the constitutional prohibition against involuntary servitude. They
posit that Section 17 of the assailed legislation requiring private and non- 9-Delegation of Authority to the FDA
government health care service providers to render forty-eight (48) hours of
pro bono reproductive health services, actually amounts to involuntary The petitioners likewise question the delegation by Congress to the FDA of
servitude because it requires medical practitioners to perform acts against the power to determine whether or not a supply or product is to be included
their will.262 in the Essential Drugs List (EDL).266

The OSG counters that the rendition of pro bono services envisioned in The Court finds nothing wrong with the delegation. The FDA does not only
Section 17 can hardly be considered as forced labor analogous to slavery, have the power but also the competency to evaluate, register and cover
as reproductive health care service providers have the discretion as to the health services and methods. It is the only government entity empowered to
manner and time of giving pro bono services. Moreover, the OSG points out render such services and highly proficient to do so. It should be understood
that the imposition is within the powers of the government, the accreditation that health services and methods fall under the gamut of terms that are
of medical practitioners with PhilHealth being a privilege and not a right. associated with what is ordinarily understood as "health products."

The point of the OSG is well-taken. In this connection, Section 4 of R.A. No. 3 720, as amended by R.A. No.
9711 reads:
It should first be mentioned that the practice of medicine is undeniably
imbued with public interest that it is both a power and a duty of the State to SEC. 4. To carry out the provisions of this Act, there is hereby created an
control and regulate it in order to protect and promote the public welfare. office to be called the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the
Like the legal profession, the practice of medicine is not a right but a Department of Health (DOH). Said Administration shall be under the Office
privileged burdened with conditions as it directly involves the very lives of of the Secretary and shall have the following functions, powers and duties:
the people. A fortiori, this power includes the power of Congress263 to
prescribe the qualifications for the practice of professions or trades which "(a) To administer the effective implementation of this Act and of the
affect the public welfare, the public health, the public morals, and the public rules and regulations issued pursuant to the same;
safety; and to regulate or control such professions or trades, even to the
point of revoking such right altogether.264
"(b) To assume primary jurisdiction in the collection of samples of
health products;
Moreover, as some petitioners put it, the notion of involuntary servitude
connotes the presence of force, threats, intimidation or other similar means
"(c) To analyze and inspect health products in connection with the
of coercion and compulsion.265 A reading of the assailed provision, however,
implementation of this Act;
reveals that it only encourages private and non- government reproductive
healthcare service providers to render pro bono service. Other than non-
accreditation with PhilHealth, no penalty is imposed should they choose to "(d) To establish analytical data to serve as basis for the preparation
do otherwise. Private and non-government reproductive healthcare service of health products standards, and to recommend standards of
providers also enjoy the liberty to choose which kind of health service they identity, purity, safety, efficacy, quality and fill of container;
wish to provide, when, where and how to provide it or whether to provide it
all. Clearly, therefore, no compulsion, force or threat is made upon them to "(e) To issue certificates of compliance with technical requirements
render pro bono service against their will. While the rendering of such to serve as basis for the issuance of appropriate authorization and
service was made a prerequisite to accreditation with PhilHealth, the Court spot-check for compliance with regulations regarding operation of
does not consider the same to be an unreasonable burden, but rather, a manufacturers, importers, exporters, distributors, wholesalers, drug
necessary incentive imposed by Congress in the furtherance of a perceived outlets, and other establishments and facilities of health products, as
legitimate state interest. determined by the FDA;

Consistent with what the Court had earlier discussed, however, it should be "x x x
emphasized that conscientious objectors are exempt from this provision as
long as their religious beliefs and convictions do not allow them to render
reproductive health service, pro bona or otherwise.
 "(h) To conduct appropriate tests on all applicable health products attendant upon present day undertakings, the legislature may not have the
prior to the issuance of appropriate authorizations to ensure safety, competence, let alone the interest and the time, to provide the required
efficacy, purity, and quality; direct and efficacious, not to say specific solutions.

"(i) To require all manufacturers, traders, distributors, importers, 10- Autonomy of Local Governments and the Autonomous Region
exporters, wholesalers, retailers, consumers, and non-consumer
users of health products to report to the FDA any incident that of Muslim Mindanao (ARMM)
reasonably indicates that said product has caused or contributed to
the death, serious illness or serious injury to a consumer, a patient, As for the autonomy of local governments, the petitioners claim that the RH
or any person; Law infringes upon the powers devolved to local government units (LGUs)
under Section 17 of the Local Government Code. Said Section 17 vested
"(j) To issue cease and desist orders motu propio or upon verified upon the LGUs the duties and functions pertaining to the delivery of basic
complaint for health products, whether or not registered with the services and facilities, as follows:
FDA Provided, That for registered health products, the cease and
desist order is valid for thirty (30) days and may be extended for sixty SECTION 17. Basic Services and Facilities. –
( 60) days only after due process has been observed;
(a) Local government units shall endeavor to be self-reliant and shall
"(k) After due process, to order the ban, recall, and/or withdrawal of continue exercising the powers and discharging the duties and
any health product found to have caused death, serious illness or functions currently vested upon them. They shall also discharge the
serious injury to a consumer or patient, or is found to be imminently functions and responsibilities of national agencies and offices
injurious, unsafe, dangerous, or grossly deceptive, and to require all devolved to them pursuant to this Code. Local government units
concerned to implement the risk management plan which is a shall likewise exercise such other powers and discharge such other
requirement for the issuance of the appropriate authorization; functions and responsibilities as are necessary, appropriate, or
incidental to efficient and effective provision of the basic services
x x x. and facilities enumerated herein.

As can be gleaned from the above, the functions, powers and duties of the (b) Such basic services and facilities include, but are not limited to, x
FDA are specific to enable the agency to carry out the mandates of the law. x x.
Being the country's premiere and sole agency that ensures the safety of
food and medicines available to the public, the FDA was equipped with the While the aforementioned provision charges the LGUs to take on the
necessary powers and functions to make it effective. Pursuant to the functions and responsibilities that have already been devolved upon
principle of necessary implication, the mandate by Congress to the FDA to them from the national agencies on the aspect of providing for basic
ensure public health and safety by permitting only food and medicines that services and facilities in their respective jurisdictions, paragraph (c)
are safe includes "service" and "methods." From the declared policy of the of the same provision provides a categorical exception of cases
RH Law, it is clear that Congress intended that the public be given only involving nationally-funded projects, facilities, programs and
those medicines that are proven medically safe, legal, non-abortifacient, and services.268 Thus:
effective in accordance with scientific and evidence-based medical research
standards. The philosophy behind the permitted delegation was explained in
(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (b) hereof, public
Echagaray v. Secretary of Justice,267 as follows:
works and infrastructure projects and other facilities, programs and
services funded by the National Government under the annual
The reason is the increasing complexity of the task of the government and General Appropriations Act, other special laws, pertinent executive
the growing inability of the legislature to cope directly with the many orders, and those wholly or partially funded from foreign sources, are
problems demanding its attention. The growth of society has ramified its not covered under this Section, except in those cases where the
activities and created peculiar and sophisticated problems that the local government unit concerned is duly designated as the
legislature cannot be expected reasonably to comprehend. Specialization
even in legislation has become necessary. To many of the problems
 implementing agency for such projects, facilities, programs and and plenary power to legislate on all subjects which extends to all matters of
services. [Emphases supplied] general concern or common interest.275

The essence of this express reservation of power by the national 11 - Natural Law
government is that, unless an LGU is particularly designated as the
implementing agency, it has no power over a program for which funding has With respect to the argument that the RH Law violates natural law,276 suffice
been provided by the national government under the annual general it to say that the Court does not duly recognize it as a legal basis for
appropriations act, even if the program involves the delivery of basic upholding or invalidating a law. Our only guidepost is the Constitution. While
services within the jurisdiction of the LGU.269 A complete relinquishment of every law enacted by man emanated from what is perceived as natural law,
central government powers on the matter of providing basic facilities and the Court is not obliged to see if a statute, executive issuance or ordinance
services cannot be implied as the Local Government Code itself weighs is in conformity to it. To begin with, it is not enacted by an acceptable
against it.270 legitimate body. Moreover, natural laws are mere thoughts and notions on
inherent rights espoused by theorists, philosophers and theologists. The
In this case, a reading of the RH Law clearly shows that whether it pertains jurists of the philosophical school are interested in the law as an abstraction,
to the establishment of health care facilities,271 the hiring of skilled health rather than in the actual law of the past or present.277 Unless, a natural right
professionals,272 or the training of barangay health workers,273 it will be the has been transformed into a written law, it cannot serve as a basis to strike
national government that will provide for the funding of its implementation. down a law. In Republic v. Sandiganbayan,278 the very case cited by the
Local autonomy is not absolute. The national government still has the say petitioners, it was explained that the Court is not duty-bound to examine
when it comes to national priority programs which the local government is every law or action and whether it conforms with both the Constitution and
called upon to implement like the RH Law. natural law. Rather, natural law is to be used sparingly only in the most
peculiar of circumstances involving rights inherent to man where no law is
Moreover, from the use of the word "endeavor," the LG Us are merely applicable.279
encouraged to provide these services. There is nothing in the wording of the
law which can be construed as making the availability of these services At any rate, as earlier expounded, the RH Law does not sanction the taking
mandatory for the LGUs. For said reason, it cannot be said that the RH Law away of life. It does not allow abortion in any shape or form. It only seeks to
amounts to an undue encroachment by the national government upon the enhance the population control program of the government by providing
autonomy enjoyed by the local governments. information and making non-abortifacient contraceptives more readily
available to the public, especially to the poor.
The ARMM
Facts and Fallacies
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 and the Wisdom of the Law
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 In general, the Court does not find the RH Law as unconstitutional insofar as
Tillah to justify the exemption of the operation of the RH Law in the it seeks to provide access to medically-safe, non-abortifacient, effective,
autonomous region, refer to the policy statements for the guidance of the legal, affordable, and quality reproductive healthcare services, methods,
regional government. These provisions relied upon by the petitioners simply devices, and supplies. As earlier pointed out, however, the religious freedom
delineate the powers that may be exercised by the regional government, of some sectors of society cannot be trampled upon in pursuit of what the
which can, in no manner, be characterized as an abdication by the State of law hopes to achieve. After all, the Constitutional safeguard to religious
its power to enact legislation that would benefit the general welfare. After all, freedom is a recognition that man stands accountable to an authority higher
despite the veritable autonomy granted the ARMM, the Constitution and the than the State.
supporting jurisprudence, as they now stand, reject the notion of imperium et
imperio in the relationship between the national and the regional In conformity with the principle of separation of Church and State, one
governments.274 Except for the express and implied limitations imposed on it religious group cannot be allowed to impose its beliefs on the rest of the
by the Constitution, Congress cannot be restricted to exercise its inherent society. Philippine modem society leaves enough room for diversity and
pluralism. As such, everyone should be tolerant and open-minded so that Be that as it may, it bears reiterating that the RH Law is a mere compilation
peace and harmony may continue to reign as we exist alongside each other. and enhancement of the prior existing contraceptive and reproductive health
laws, but with coercive measures. Even if the Court decrees the RH Law as
As healthful as the intention of the RH Law may be, the idea does not entirely unconstitutional, there will still be the Population Act (R.A. No.
escape the Court that what it seeks to address is the problem of rising 6365), the Contraceptive Act (R.A. No. 4729) and the reproductive health for
poverty and unemployment in the country. Let it be said that the cause of women or The Magna Carta of Women (R.A. No. 9710), sans the coercive
these perennial issues is not the large population but the unequal provisions of the assailed legislation. All the same, the principle of "no-
distribution of wealth. Even if population growth is controlled, poverty will abortion" and "non-coercion" in the adoption of any family planning method
remain as long as the country's wealth remains in the hands of the very few. should be maintained.

At any rate, population control may not be beneficial for the country in the WHEREFORE, the petitions are PARTIALLY GRANTED. Accordingly, the
long run. The European and Asian countries, which embarked on such a Court declares R.A. No. 10354 as NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL except with
program generations ago , are now burdened with ageing populations. The respect to the following provisions which are declared
number of their young workers is dwindling with adverse effects on their UNCONSTITUTIONAL:
economy. These young workers represent a significant human capital which
could have helped them invigorate, innovate and fuel their economy. These 1) Section 7 and the corresponding provision in the RH-IRR insofar
countries are now trying to reverse their programs, but they are still as they: a) require private health facilities and non-maternity
struggling. For one, Singapore, even with incentives, is failing. specialty hospitals and hospitals owned and operated by a religious
group to refer patients, not in an emergency or life-threatening case,
And in this country, the economy is being propped up by remittances from as defined under Republic Act No. 8344, to another health facility
our Overseas Filipino Workers. This is because we have an ample supply of which is conveniently accessible; and b) allow minor-parents or
young able-bodied workers. What would happen if the country would be minors who have suffered a miscarriage access to modem methods
weighed down by an ageing population and the fewer younger generation of family planning without written consent from their parents or
would not be able to support them? This would be the situation when our guardian/s;
total fertility rate would go down below the replacement level of two (2)
children per woman.280 2) Section 23(a)(l) and the corresponding provision in the RH-IRR,
particularly Section 5 .24 thereof, insofar as they punish any
Indeed, at the present, the country has a population problem, but the State healthcare service provider who fails and or refuses to disseminate
should not use coercive measures (like the penal provisions of the RH Law information regarding programs and services on reproductive health
against conscientious objectors) to solve it. Nonetheless, the policy of the regardless of his or her religious beliefs.
Court is non-interference in the wisdom of a law.
3) Section 23(a)(2)(i) and the corresponding provision in the RH-IRR
x x x. But this Court cannot go beyond what the legislature has laid down. Its insofar as they allow a married individual, not in an emergency or
duty is to say what the law is as enacted by the lawmaking body. That is not life-threatening case, as defined under Republic Act No. 8344, to
the same as saying what the law should be or what is the correct rule in a undergo reproductive health procedures without the consent of the
given set of circumstances. It is not the province of the judiciary to look into spouse;
the wisdom of the law nor to question the policies adopted by the legislative
branch. Nor is it the business of this Tribunal to remedy every unjust 4) Section 23(a)(2)(ii) and the corresponding provision in the RH-IRR
situation that may arise from the application of a particular law. It is for the insofar as they limit the requirement of parental consent only to
legislature to enact remedial legislation if that would be necessary in the elective surgical procedures.
premises. But as always, with apt judicial caution and cold neutrality, the
Court must carry out the delicate function of interpreting the law, guided by 5) Section 23(a)(3) and the corresponding provision in the RH-IRR,
the Constitution and existing legislation and mindful of settled jurisprudence. particularly Section 5.24 thereof, insofar as they punish any
The Court's function is therefore limited, and accordingly, must confine itself healthcare service provider who fails and/or refuses to refer a patient
to the judicial task of saying what the law is, as enacted by the lawmaking not in an emergency or life-threatening case, as defined under
body.281 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; TERESITA J. LEONARDO- ARTURO D. BRION
DE CASTRO Associate Justice
Associate Justice
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 DIOSDADO M. PERALTA LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
do any act that hinders the full implementation of a reproductive Associate Justice Associate Justice
health program, regardless of his or her religious beliefs;
See Concurring and
7) Section 17 and the corresponding prov1s10n in the RH-IRR See Concurring Opinion
dissenting
regarding the rendering of pro bona reproductive health service in so ROBERTO A. ABAD
MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO
far as they affect the conscientious objector in securing PhilHealth Associate Justice
Associate Justice
accreditation; and
MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR. JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ
8) Section 3.0l(a) and Section 3.01 G) of the RH-IRR, which added Associate Justice Associate Justice
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 See Concurring and
Constitution. See concurring and dissenting Dissenting Opinion
BIENVENIDO L. REYES ESTELA M. PERLAS-
Associate Justice BERNABE
The Status Quo Ante Order issued by the Court on March 19, 2013 as
Associate Justice
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. See Separate dissent
MARVIC MARIO VICTOR F. LEONEN
SO ORDERED. Associate Justice

JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA CERTIFICATION

Associate Justice
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I hereby certify that
WE CONCUR: the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation
before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court.
Tingnan ang aking opinyong
Sumasang-ayon at Sumasalungat MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO
MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO Chief Justice
Chief Justice

See Concurring Opinion PRESBITERO J. VELASCO,

ANTONIO T. CARPIO JR.
Associate Justice Associate Justice

With Separate concurring See: Separate Concurring

opinion Opinion