Human Rights Law

James M. Imbong, et al. v. Executive Secretary

Pacquito N. Ochoa
G.R. No. 204819, April 8, 2014
Ruling:
Facts:
1. Before delving into the constitutionality
Shortly after the President placed his imprimatur on of the RH Law and its implementing
Republic Act (R.A.) No. 10354, otherwise known as rules, it behooves the Court to resolve
the Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health some procedural impediments.
Act of 2012 (RH Law), challengers from various
sectors of society came knocking on the doors of the a. The petition no doubt raises a justiciable
Court, beckoning it to wield the sword that strikes controversy. Where an action of the legislative
down constitutional disobedience. Aware of the branch is seriously alleged to have infringed
profound and lasting impact that its decision may the Constitution, it becomes not only the right
produce, the Court now faces the controversy, as but in fact the duty of the judiciary to settle the
presented in fourteen (14) petitions and two (2) dispute. “The question thus posed is judicial
petitions-in-intervention. rather than political. The duty (to adjudicate)
remains to assure that the supremacy of the
The petitioners are one in praying that the entire RH Constitution is upheld. Once a controversy as
Law be declared unconstitutional. to the application or interpretation of
constitutional provision is raised before this
Court (as in the instant case), it becomes a
Issue/s: legal issue which the Court is bound by
constitutional mandate to decide. In the
After a scrutiny of the various arguments and scholarly estimation of former Supreme Court
contentions of the parties, the Court has synthesized Justice Florentino Feliciano, “judicial review
and refined them to the following principal issues: is essential for the maintenance and
enforcement of the separation of powers and
1. PROCEDURAL: Whether the Court may the balancing of powers among the three great
exercise its power of judicial review over departments of government through the
the controversy. definition and maintenance of the boundaries
of authority and control between them.” To
a. Power of Judicial Review him, judicial review is the chief, indeed the
b. Actual Case or Controversy only, medium of participation – or instrument
c. Facial Challenge of intervention – of the judiciary in that
d. Locus Standi balancing operation. Lest it be misunderstood,
e. Declaratory Relief it bears emphasizing that the Court does not
f. One Subject/One Title Rule have the unbridled authority to rule on just any
and every claim of constitutional violation.
2. SUBSTANTIVE: Whether the RH law is Jurisprudence is replete with the rule that the
unconstitutional: power of judicial review is limited by four
exacting requisites, viz : (a) there must be an
a. Right to Life actual case or controversy; (b) the petitioners
b. Right to Health must possess locus standi; (c) the question of
c. Freedom of Religion and the Right to Free constitutionality must be raised at the earliest
Speech opportunity; and (d) the issue of
d. The Family constitutionality must be the lis mota of the
e. Freedom of Expression and Academic case.
Freedom
f. Due Process b. Even a singular violation of the Constitution
g. Equal Protection and/or the law is enough to awaken judicial
h. Involuntary Servitude duty. In this case, the Court is of the view that
i. Delegation of Authority to the FDA an actual case or controversy exists and that
j. Autonomy of Local Governments / ARMM the same is ripe for judicial determination.
Considering that the RH Law and its

R.C. GATOC NOTES

 Human Rights Law

implementing rules have already taken effect right to life of the mother and the unborn
and that budgetary measures to carry out the which is primarily at issue, the Court need not
law have already been passed, it is evident that wait for a life to be taken away before taking
the subject petitions present a justiciable action.
controversy. When an action of the legislative
branch is seriously alleged to have infringed e. Where the case has far-reaching implications
the Constitution, it not only becomes a right, and prays for injunctive reliefs, the Court may
but also a duty of the Judiciary to settle the consider them as petitions for prohibition
dispute. under Rule 65.

c. The Court is not persuaded. In United States f. The RH Law does not violate the one
(US) constitutional law, a facial challenge, subject/one bill rule. It is well-settled that the
also known as a First Amendment Challenge, “one title-one subject” rule does not require
is one that is launched to assail the validity of the Congress to employ in the title of the
statutes concerning not only protected speech, enactment language of such precision as to
but also all other rights in the First mirror, fully index or catalogue all the contents
Amendment. These include religious freedom, and the minute details therein. The rule is
freedom of the press, and the right of the sufficiently complied with if the title is
people to peaceably assemble, and to petition comprehensive enough as to include the
the Government for a redress of grievances. general object which the statute seeks to effect,
After all, the fundamental right to religious and where, as here, the persons interested are
freedom, freedom of the press and peaceful informed of the nature, scope and
assembly are but component rights of the right consequences of the proposed law and its
to one’s freedom of expression, as they are operation. Moreover, this Court has invariably
modes which one’s thoughts are externalized. adopted a liberal rather than technical
In this jurisdiction, the application of doctrines construction of the rule “so as not to cripple or
originating from the U.S. has been generally impede legislation.” In this case, a textual
maintained, albeit with some modifications. analysis of the various provisions of the law
While this Court has withheld the application shows that both “reproductive health” and
of facial challenges to strictly penal statues, it “responsible parenthood” are interrelated and
has expanded its scope to cover statutes not germane to the overriding objective to control
only regulating free speech, but also those the population growth.
involving religious freedom, and other
fundamental rights. Verily, the framers of Our
Constitution envisioned a proactive Judiciary, 2. SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES:
ever vigilant with its duty to maintain the
supremacy of the Constitution. a. The Court cannot subscribe to the theory
advocated by Hon. Lagman that life begins at
d. The transcendental importance of the issues implantation. According to him, “fertilization
involved in this case warrants that we set aside and conception are two distinct and successive
the technical defects and take primary stages in the reproductive process. They are
jurisdiction over the petition at bar. One not identical and synonymous.” Citing a letter
cannot deny that the issues raised herein have of the WHO, he wrote that medical authorities
potentially pervasive influence on the social confirm that the implantation of the fertilized
and moral well being of this nation, specially ovum is the commencement of conception and
the youth; hence, their proper and just it is only after implantation that pregnancy can
determination is an imperative need. This is in be medically detected. This theory of
accordance with the well-entrenched principle implantation as the beginning of life is devoid
that rules of procedure are not inflexible tools of any legal or scientific mooring. It does not
designed to hinder or delay, but to facilitate pertain to the beginning of life but to the
and promote the administration of justice. viability of the fetus. The fertilized
Their strict and rigid application, which would ovum/zygote is not an inanimate object – it is
result in technicalities that tend to frustrate, a living human being complete with DNA and
rather than promote substantial justice, must 46 chromosomes. Implantation has been
always be eschewed. Considering that it is the conceptualized only for convenience by those

R.C. GATOC NOTES

 Human Rights Law

who had population control in mind. To adopt dealing with “faith, practice, doctrine, form of
it would constitute textual infidelity not only worship, ecclesiastical law, custom and rule of
to the RH Law but also to the Constitution. It a church … are unquestionably ecclesiastical
is the Court’s position that life begins at matters which are outside the province of the
fertilization, not at implantation. When a civil courts.” The jurisdiction of the Court
fertilized ovum is implanted in the uterine extends only to public and secular morality.
wall, its viability is sustained but that instance Whatever pronouncement the Court makes in
of implantation is not the point of beginning of the case at bench should be understood only in
life. this realm where it has authority. Stated
otherwise, while the Court stands without
b. A component to the right to life is the authority to rule on ecclesiastical matters, as
constitutional right to health. In this regard, the vanguard of the Constitution, it does have
Constitution is replete with provisions authority to determine whether the RH Law
protecting and promoting the right to health. contravenes the guarantee of religious
These provisions are self-executing. Unless the freedom. Consequently, the petitioners are
provisions clearly express the contrary, the misguided in their supposition that the State
provisions of the Constitution should be cannot enhance its population control program
considered self-executory. There is no need for through the RH Law simply because the
legislation to implement these self-executing promotion of contraceptive use is contrary to
provisions. In Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS, it their religious beliefs. Indeed, the State is not
was stated: precluded to pursue its legitimate secular
1. x x x Hence, unless it is expressly provided objectives without being dictated upon by the
that a legislative act is necessary to policies of any one religion. One cannot refuse
enforce a constitutional mandate, the to pay his taxes simply because it will cloud
presumption now is that all provisions of his conscience. The demarcation line between
the constitution are self-executing. If the Church and State demands that one render
constitutional provisions are treated as unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and
requiring legislation instead of self- unto God the things that are God’s. The Court
executing, the legislature would have the is of the view that the obligation to refer
power to ignore and practically nullify the imposed by the RH Law violates the religious
mandate of the fundamental law. This can belief and conviction of a conscientious
be cataclysmic. That is why the prevailing objector. Once the medical practitioner,
view is, as it has always been, that –… in against his will, refers a patient seeking
case of doubt, the Constitution should be information on modem reproductive health
considered self-executing rather than non- products, services, procedures and methods,
self-executing. . his conscience is immediately burdened as he
has been compelled to perform an act against
2. Unless the contrary is clearly intended, his beliefs. As Commissioner Joaquin A.
the provisions of the Constitution should Bernas (Commissioner Bernas) has written, “at
be considered self-executing, as a the basis of the free exercise clause is the
contrary rule would give the legislature respect for the inviolability of the human
discretion to determine when, or whether, conscience.
they shall be effective. These provisions
would be subordinated to the will of the 1. The Court is of the strong view that the
lawmaking body, which could make them religious freedom of health providers,
entirely meaningless by simply refusing to whether public or private, should be
pass the needed implementing statute. accorded primacy. Accordingly, a
conscientious objector should be exempt
c. It is not within the province of the Court to from compliance with the mandates of the
determine whether the use of contraceptives or RH Law. If he would be compelled to act
one’s participation in the support of modem contrary to his religious belief and
reproductive health measures is moral from a conviction, it would be violative of “the
religious standpoint or whether the same is principle of non-coercion” enshrined in
right or wrong according to one’s dogma or the constitutional right to free exercise of
belief. For the Court has declared that matters religion.

R.C. GATOC NOTES

 Human Rights Law

must necessarily guess its meaning and differ

2. The same holds true with respect to non- as to its application. It is repugnant to the
maternity specialty hospitals and hospitals Constitution in two respects: (1) it violates due
owned and operated by a religious group process for failure to accord persons,
and health care service providers. especially the parties targeted by it, fair notice
Considering that Section 24 of the RH of the conduct to avoid; and (2) it leaves law
Law penalizes such institutions should enforcers unbridled discretion in carrying out
they fail or refuse to comply with their its provisions and becomes an arbitrary flexing
duty to refer under Section 7 and Section of the Government muscle. Moreover, in
23(a)(3), the Court deems that it must be determining whether the words used in a
struck down for being violative of the statute are vague, words must not only be
freedom of religion. taken in accordance with their plain meaning
alone, but also in relation to other parts of the
3. The same applies to Section 23(a)(l) and statute. It is a rule that every part of the statute
(a)(2) in relation to Section 24, must be interpreted with reference to the
considering that in the dissemination of context, that is, every part of it must be
information regarding programs and construed together with the other parts and
services and in the performance of kept subservient to the general intent of the
reproductive health procedures, the whole enactment.
religious freedom of health care service
providers should be respected. The g. To provide that the poor are to be given
punishment of a healthcare service priority in the government’s reproductive
provider, who fails and/or refuses to refer health care program is not a violation of the
a patient to another, or who declines to equal protection clause. In fact, it is pursuant
perform reproductive health procedure on to Section 11, Article XIII of the Constitution
a patient because incompatible religious which recognizes the distinct necessity to
beliefs, is a clear inhibition of a address the needs of the underprivileged by
constitutional guarantee which the Court providing that they be given priority in
cannot allow. addressing the health development of the
people. Thus: Section 11. The State shall adopt
d. The State cannot, without a compelling state an integrated and comprehensive approach to
interest, take over the role of parents in the health development which shall endeavor to
care and custody of a minor child, whether or make essential goods, health and other social
not the latter is already a parent or has had a services available to all the people at
miscarriage. Only a compelling state interest affordable cost. There shall be priority for the
can justify a state substitution of their parental needs of the underprivileged, sick, elderly,
authority. disabled, women, and children. The State shall
endeavor to provide free medical care to
e. Any attack on the validity of Section 14 of the paupers. It should be noted that Section 7 of
RH Law is premature because the Department the RH Law prioritizes poor and marginalized
of Education, Culture and Sports has yet to couples who are suffering from fertility issues
formulate a curriculum on age-appropriate and desire to have children. There is, therefore,
reproductive health education. One can only no merit to the contention that the RH Law
speculate on the content, manner and medium only seeks to target the poor to reduce their
of instruction that will be used to educate the number. While the RH Law admits the use of
adolescents and whether they will contradict contraceptives, it does not, as elucidated
the religious beliefs of the petitioners and above, sanction abortion. As Section 3(1)
validate their apprehensions. Thus, considering explains, the “promotion and/or stabilization
the premature nature of this particular issue, of the population growth rate is incidental to
the Court declines to rule on its the advancement of reproductive health.”
constitutionality or validity.
h. The notion of involuntary servitude connotes
f. A statute or act suffers from the defect of the presence of force, threats, intimidation or
vagueness when it lacks comprehensible other similar means of coercion and
standards that men of common intelligence compulsion. A reading of the assailed

R.C. GATOC NOTES

 Human Rights Law

provision, however, reveals that it only permitted delegation was explained in

encourages private and non- government Echagaray v. Secretary of Justice, as follows:
reproductive healthcare service providers to
render pro bono service. Other than non- 1. The reason is the increasing
accreditation with PhilHealth, no penalty is complexity of the task of the
imposed should they choose to do otherwise. government and the growing
Private and non-government reproductive inability of the legislature to cope
healthcare service providers also enjoy the directly with the many problems
liberty to choose which kind of health service demanding its attention. The
they wish to provide, when, where and how to growth of society has ramified its
provide it or whether to provide it all. Clearly, activities and created peculiar
therefore, no compulsion, force or threat is and sophisticated problems that
made upon them to render pro bono service the legislature cannot be expected
against their will. While the rendering of such reasonably to comprehend.
service was made a prerequisite to Specialization even in legislation
accreditation with PhilHealth, the Court does has become necessary. To many of
not consider the same to be an unreasonable the problems attendant upon
burden, but rather, a necessary incentive present day undertakings, the
imposed by Congress in the furtherance of a legislature may not have the
perceived legitimate state interest. Consistent competence, let alone the interest
with what the Court had earlier discussed, and the time, to provide the
however, it should be emphasized that required direct and efficacious,
conscientious objectors are exempt from this not to say specific solutions.
provision as long as their religious beliefs and
convictions do not allow them to render j. A reading of the RH Law clearly shows that
reproductive health service, pro bona or whether it pertains to the establishment of
otherwise. health care facilities, the hiring of skilled
health professionals, or the training of
i. The Court finds nothing wrong with the barangay health workers, it will be the national
delegation. The FDA does not only have the government that will provide for the funding
power but also the competency to evaluate, of its implementation. Local autonomy is not
register and cover health services and absolute. The national government still has the
methods. It is the only government entity say when it comes to national priority
empowered to render such services and highly programs which the local government is called
proficient to do so. It should be understood upon to implement like the RH Law.
that health services and methods fall under the
gamut of terms that are associated with what is
ordinarily understood as “health products.”
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 necessary powers and functions to
make it effective. Pursuant to the principle of
necessary implication, the mandate by
Congress to the FDA to ensure public health
and safety by permitting only food and
medicines that are safe includes “service” and
“methods.” From the declared policy of the
RH Law, it is clear that Congress intended that
the public be given only those medicines that
are proven medically safe, legal, non-
abortifacient, and effective in accordance with
scientific and evidence-based medical research
standards. The philosophy behind the

R.C. GATOC NOTES