Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 39 views

    Imbong V. Ochoa Title

    Uploaded by

    Nerry Neil Teologo
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that the Reproductive Health Law violates the right to free speech protected by the constitution. Specifically, the law requires healthcare providers to explain all family planning methods even if they only want to promote certain methods due to religious beliefs. While the law exempts facilities owned by religious groups, it still requires them to refer patients to other providers, which infringes on free speech rights. The court rejected arguments that the law could not be challenged on its face, finding that constitutional protections for free speech also apply to related rights like religious freedom. It concluded the law was unconstitutional.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Imbong V. Ochoa Title

    Uploaded by

    Nerry Neil Teologo
    39 views3 pages
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that the Reproductive Health Law violates the right to free speech protected by the constitution. Specifically, the law requires healthcare providers to explain all family planning methods even if they only want to promote certain methods due to religious beliefs. While the law exempts facilities owned by religious groups, it still requires them to refer patients to other providers, which infringes on free speech rights. The court rejected arguments that the law could not be challenged on its face, finding that constitutional protections for free speech also apply to related rights like religious freedom. It concluded the law was unconstitutional.

    Original Description:

    consti

    Original Title

    imbong

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that the Reproductive Health Law violates the right to free speech protected by the constitution. Specifically, the law requires healthcare providers to explain all family planning methods even if they only want to promote certain methods due to religious beliefs. While the law exempts facilities owned by religious groups, it still requires them to refer patients to other providers, which infringes on free speech rights. The court rejected arguments that the law could not be challenged on its face, finding that constitutional protections for free speech also apply to related rights like religious freedom. It concluded the law was unconstitutional.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    39 views3 pages

    Imbong V. Ochoa Title

    Uploaded by

    Nerry Neil Teologo
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that the Reproductive Health Law violates the right to free speech protected by the constitution. Specifically, the law requires healthcare providers to explain all family planning methods even if they only want to promote certain methods due to religious beliefs. While the law exempts facilities owned by religious groups, it still requires them to refer patients to other providers, which infringes on free speech rights. The court rejected arguments that the law could not be challenged on its face, finding that constitutional protections for free speech also apply to related rights like religious freedom. It concluded the law was unconstitutional.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    53. IMBONG V.

    OCHOA
    TITLE JAMES M. IMBONG and LOVELY-ANN C. IMBONG,
    for themselves and in behalf of their minor
    children, LUCIA CARLOS IMBONG and
    BERNADETTE CARLOS IMBONG and MAGNIFICAT
    CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER, INC., Petitioners,
    vs.
    HON. PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., Executive
    Secretary, HON. FLORENCIO B. ABAD, Secretary,
    Department of Budget and Management, HON.
    ENRIQUE T. ONA, Secretary, Department of
    Health, HON. ARMIN A. LUISTRO, Secretary,
    Department of Education, Culture and Sports and
    HON. MANUELA. ROXAS II, Secretary, Department
    of Interior and Local Government, Respondents.

    GR NUMBER 204819

    DATE APRIL 8, 2014

    PONENTE MENDOZA, J

    NATURE/KEYWORDS
    SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS in the Supreme Court.
    Certiorari and Prohibition; and PETITIONS-IN-
    INTERVENTION.

    FACTS In 2012, the Philippines enacted the Responsible


    Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012,
    known as the Reproductive Health Law (RH Law),
    which guaranteed universal and free access to
    nearly all modern contraceptives to all citizens,
    including those living in poverty, through
    government health centers. The law also mandated
    reproductive health education in government
    schools and recognized the right to post-abortion
    care as part of the right to reproductive healthcare.

    The RH Law was immediately challenged by various


    religious and conservative groups. The Supreme
    Court of the Philippines issued an order preventing
    the law from going into effect pending a final
    judgment. The RH Law was challenged on the
    grounds that it violated a range of constitutional
    rights, such as the rights to life, health, freedom of
    religion and speech, and privacy.

    ISSUE(S) Whether or not (WON) RA 10354/Reproductive


    Health (RH) Law is unconstitutional for violating
    the:

    1. Right to free speech

    RULING(S) 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. The petitioners note that although
    exemption is granted to institutions owned and
    operated by religious groups, they are still forced
    to refer their patients to another healthcare facility
    willing to perform the service or procedure.

    The OSG also assails the propriety of the facial


    challenge lodged by the subject petitions,
    contending that the RH Law cannot be challenged
    "on its face" as it is not a speech regulating
    measure. The Court is not persuaded.

    In United States (US) constitutional law, a facial


    challenge, also known as a First Amendment
    Challenge, is one that is launched to assail the
    validity of statutes concerning not only protected
    speech, but also all other rights in the First
    Amendment. These include religious freedom,
    freedom of the press, and the right of the people
    to peaceably assemble, and to petition the
    Government for a redress of grievances. After all,
    the fundamental right to religious freedom,
    freedom of the press and peaceful assembly are
    but component rights of the right to one's freedom
    of expression, as they are modes which one's
    thoughts are externalized. In this jurisdiction, the
    application of doctrines originating from the U.S.
    has been generally maintained, albeit with some
    modifications. While this Court has withheld the
    application of facial challenges to strictly penal
    statutes, it has expanded its scope to cover
    statutes not only regulating free speech, but also
    those involving religious freedom, and other
    fundamental rights. Verily, the framers of Our
    Constitution envisioned a proactive Judiciary, ever
    vigilant with its duty to maintain the supremacy of
    the Constitution.

    You might also like