Libot, Vanisa I.
SSCR SEMINAR 1
2024004376
IMBONG VS. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
G.R. No. 204819 April 8, 2014
FACTS:
Republic Act (R.A.) No. 10354, otherwise known as the Responsible
Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012 (RH Law), was enacted by Congress
on December 21, 2012. Challengers from various sectors of society are questioning
the constitutionality of the said Act. The petitioners are assailing the constitutionality
of RH Law on the following grounds:
SUBSTANTIAL ISSUES:
1. The RH Law violates the right to life of the unborn.
2. The RH Law violates the right to health and the right to protection against
hazardous products.
3. The RH Law violates the right to religious freedom.
4. The RH Law violates the constitutional provision on involuntary servitude.
5. The RH Law violates the right to equal protection of the law.
6. The RH Law violates the right to free speech.
7. The RH Law is “void-for-vagueness” in violation of the due process clause of the
Constitution.
8. The RH Law intrudes into the zone of privacy of one’s family protected by the
Constitution
PROCEDURAL:
Whether the Court may exercise its power of judicial review over the controversy.
ISSUE:
Whether or not (WON) RA 10354/Reproductive Health (RH) Law is unconstitutional
for violating the aforementioned substantial issues and procedural issues.
RULING:
In this case, the Court is of the view that an actual case or controversy exists
and that the same is ripe for judicial determination. Considering that the RH Law and
its implementing rules have already taken effect and that budgetary measures to
carry out the law have already been passed, it is evident that the subject petitions
present a justiciable controversy. Moreover, the petitioners have shown that the case
is so because medical practitioners or medical providers are in danger of being
criminally prosecuted under the RH Law for vague violations thereof, particularly
public health officers who are threatened to be dismissed from the service with
forfeiture of retirement and other benefits. They must, at least, be heard on the
matter NOW. Locus Standi After all, the RH Law drastically affects the constitutional
provisions on the right to life and health, the freedom of religion and expression and
other constitutional rights. the Court entertains no doubt that the petitions raise
issues of transcendental importance warranting immediate court adjudication. the
Court need not wait for a life to be taken away before taking action. The Court, thus,
agrees with the petitioners' contention that the whole idea of contraception pervades
the entire RH Law. It is, in fact, the central idea of the RH Law.[126] Indeed, remove
the provisions that refer to contraception or are related to it and the RH Law loses its
very foundation In this case, a textual analysis of the various provisions of the law
shows that both "reproductive health" and "responsible parenthood" are interrelated
and germane to the overriding objective to control the population growth.
It is a universally accepted principle that every human being enjoys the right to
life.[137] Even if not formally established, the right to life, being grounded on natural
law, is inherent and, therefore, not a creation of, or dependent upon a particular law,
custom, or belief. It precedes and transcends any authority or the laws of men.
Article III of the Constitution provides: Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life,
liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the
equal protection of the laws
The RH Law and Abortion
The clear and unequivocal intent of the Framers of the 1987 Constitution in
protecting the life of the unborn from conception was to prevent the Legislature from
enacting a measure legalizing abortion. A reading of the RH Law would show that it
is in line with this intent and actually proscribes abortion. While the Court has opted
not to make any determination, at this stage, when life begins, it finds that the RH
Law itself clearly mandates that protection be afforded from the moment of
fertilization. Moreover, the RH Law recognizes that abortion is a crime under Article
256 of the Revised Penal Code, which penalizes the destruction or expulsion of the
fertilized ovum. the RH Law is consistent in prohibiting abortifacients the Court finds
that the RH Law, consistent with the Constitution, recognizes that the fertilized ovum
already has life and that the State has a bounden duty to protect it 2-The Right to
Health Thus, the Court agrees with the observation of respondent Lagman that the
effectivity of the RH Law will not lead to the unmitigated proliferation of
contraceptives since the sale, distribution and dispensation of contraceptive drugs
and devices will still require the prescription of a licensed physician.
R.A. No. 4729 in place, there exists adequate safeguards to ensure the public
that only contraceptives that are safe are made available to the public. In general,
the Court does not find the RH Law as unconstitutional insofar as it seeks to provide
access to medically-safe, non-abortifacient, effective, legal, affordable, and quality
reproductive healthcare services, methods, devices, and supplies. As healthful as the
intention of the RH Law may be, the idea does not escape the Court that what it
seeks to address is the problem of rising poverty and unemployment in the country.
Be that as it may, it bears reiterating that the RH Law is a mere compilation and
enhancement of the prior existing contraceptive and reproductive health laws, but
with coercive measures.
Accordingly, the Court declares R.A. No. 10354 as NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL
except with respect to the following provisions which are declared
UNCONSTITUTIONAL: