CASE DIGEST

Imbong v. Ochoa
Constitutional Law

Date April 8, 2014

Petitioners James M. Imbong, Lovely-Ann C. Imbong, et al.
Respondents Hon. Paquito N. Ochoa, Executive Secretary, et al.
Ponente Mendoza J.
Overview A case regarding the RH Law
Relevant topic Declaration of Principles and State Policies

FACTS:
 RA 10354 (RH Law) was enacted by Congress on December 21, 2012
- Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012
- Gained criticism and disapproval from various sectors of society
- 14 petitions and 2 petitions-in-intervention
 Petitioners assail the constitutionality of the RH Law (in particular the government sponsored contraception
program):
- Violates right to life of the unborn (Sec. 12, Art. II of the Constitution)
 Notwithstanding declared policy against abortion, RH Law authorizes purchase of abortives
- Violates right to health and the right to protection against hazardous products
 RH Law provides universal access to contraceptives which are hazardous to health (cancer, etc.)
- Violates the right to religious freedom
 Authorization for use of public funds for the procurement of contraceptives (which is contrary to
beliefs of petitioners) is included in the constitutional mandate ensuring religious freedom
 Providing mandatory sex education is against religious beliefs
 Petitioners admit that religious freedom is not absolute but contend that RH Law fails to satisfy the
tests to justify regulation of the right to free exercise of religion and the right to free speech
1. Clear and present danger test
2. Compelling state interest test
- Violates constitutional provision on involuntary servitude
 Medical practitioners are compelled to render 48 hours of pro bono services for indigent women
under threat of criminal prosecution, imprisonment, and other forms of punishment
- Violates right to equal protection of the law
 Discriminates against the poor as it makes the poor the primary target of program promoting
contraceptive use
- Void-for-vagueness in violation of the due process clause
 Imposes penalty for any violation but does not define the type of conduct to be treated as violation
 Deprives health facilities the prerogative to decide what health facility they shall be and what kind
of services they shall offer
- Violates right to free speech
 Curtails right to expound only on preferred way of family planning
- Intrudes into the zone of privacy of one’s family
 Intrudes upon constitutional right to raise children in accordance with they own beliefs
- Violates the constitutional principle of non-delegation of Legislative authority
 Congress delegated to FDA the power to determine whether a product is non-abortifacient and to
be included in the Emergency Drugs List (EDL)
- Violates the “One Subject/One Bill” rule under Sec. 26 (1), Art. VI of the Constitution
- Violates Natural Law
- Violates the principle of autonomy of LGUs and the ARMM
 Infringes upon the powers devolved to LGUs and the ARMM under the LGC and RA 9054
 Respondents pray for dismissal of petitions for the reasons that:
1. There is no actual case or controversy, therefore issues are not yet ripe for adjudication
 Judicial review is premature since RH Law is yet to be implemented
2. Petitioners lack standing
 RH Law is yet to be enforced/applied on petitioners and the government has yet to distribute
reproductive health devices
3. Petitions are essentially petitions for declaratory relief over which the Court has no original jurisdiction
 Respondents also claim that:
1. The wisdom of the legislative is beyond the review of the Courts
 Various laws prior to RH Law already allowed the sale and distribution of contraceptive drugs and devices
- However, said laws only allows duly licensed drug stores or pharmaceutical companies to sell/distribute
and only with the prescription of a qualified medical practitioner

Page 1 of 8
CASE DIGEST
Imbong v. Ochoa
Constitutional Law

ISSUE – HELD – RATIO:

ISSUES HELD
1) WON the Court may exercise its right of judicial review

2) WON the RH Law is unconstitutional

RATIO:
Judicial Review
 Separation of powers is a fundamental principle in our system of government
 Each department has exclusive cognizance of matters within its jurisdiction and is supreme within its own
sphere
 Constitution provides: a) the legislative power shall be vested in the Congress of the PH, b) the executive
power shall be vested in the President, and c) the judicial power shall be vested in one SC and in such lower
courts as may be established by law
 Courts are only allowed to cross the line of separation of powers to determine whether there has been grave
abuse of discretion on the part of the other departments
 The Court may pass upon the constitutionality of acts of the political departments since its duty is not to
review their collective wisdom but to make sure that they have acted in consonance with their respective
authorities and rights as mandated by the Constitution
 In Tanada v. Angara:
- Where an action of the legislative branch is seriously alleged to have infringed the Constitution, it
becomes not only the right but the duty of the judiciary to settle the dispute
 Requisites of judicial review:
1. There must be an actual case or controversy and the same is ripe for determination
2. Petitioners must possess locus standi
3. Question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest opportunity
4. Issue of constitutionality must be the lis mota of the case

Actual Case or Controversy and Ripeness

 Actual case means an existing case that is ripe for determination (not conjectural/speculative or anticipatory)
lest court decision would amount to an advisory opinion
- It must concern a real and tangible issue; not one that is merely theoretical
 An issue is ripe when the act being challenged has had a direct adverse effect on the party challenging it
- Party must show that he has sustained or is in danger of sustaining some direct injury as a result of the
act complained of
 In North Cotabato v. Government:
- A fact of law or act in question being not yet effective does not negate ripeness
- Even a singular violation of the Constitution and/or the law is enough to awaken judicial duty
 In the case at hand:
- The Court believes there is an actual case or controversy and the same is ripe for judicial determination
- RH Law and IRR have already taken effect
- Medical practitioners and medical providers are in danger of being criminally prosecuted under the RH
Law for vague violations thereof

Facial Challenge
 In PH jurisdiction, the “Facial Challenge” (or First Amendment Challenge in the US) is used to assail the
validity of statutes concerning freedom of speech, religious freedom, and other fundamental rights
- Underlying reason is the definition and scope of judicial power
 Petitions allege that RH Law has violated these fundamental rights, the Court has authority to take cognizance
of these petitions

Locus Standi
 Defined as the personal and substantial interest in a case such that a party has sustained or will sustain direct
injury as a result of the challenged governmental act
- Requires a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy
 Prohibits third-party standing
- One can challenge constitutionality of a statute only when there is a violation of one’s own rights
- Prohibits one from alleging violation of rights of a third person not before the court
Page 2 of 8
CASE DIGEST
Imbong v. Ochoa
Constitutional Law

 Petitioners invoke the “transcendental importance” doctrine and their status and citizens and taxpayers in
establishing locus standi
 The Court has, time and again, acted liberally on the locus standi requirement
- Locus standi is a matter of procedure which can be relaxed when the matter is of transcendental
importance, of overreaching significance to society, or of paramount public interest
 In the case at hand, the Court considers the impact of the RH Law and the issues it raised are of
transcendental importance

One Subject/One Title Rule

 Principle is that the title of a law must not be so uncertain that the average person reading it would not be
informed of the purpose of the enactment or is misleading
 However, as said in Cawaling v. COMELEC:
- The rule is sufficiently complied with if the title is comprehensive enough to include the general object
which the statute seeks to effect
 Since reproductive health and responsible parenthood are interrelated and germane to the overriding
objective to control population growth, the RH Law does not violate this principle

Right to Life
 Petitioners argue:
- That while RH Law prohibits abortion, it allows access to contraceptives that prevent the fertilized ovum
from reaching and being implanted in the womb
- Fertilized ovum already has life
 Rep. Lagman argue that:
- According to studies by WHO and various experts, life begins when the fertilized ovum is implanted in the
womb
 Right to life is provided under Sec. 1, Art. III of the Constitution
 Necessitates determination of when life begins
- By applying Verba Legis, “concepcion” is understood to be the point of fertilization (based on Webster’s)
 Even jurisprudence provides that the State has respect for human life at all stages in the
pregnancy
- By applying Ratio Legis Est Anima, the Court looked at the records of the Constitutional Convention to
determine the intent of the framers
 Deliberations clearly show that “conception” refers to the moment of fertilization
 The fertilized ovum is alive because it begins taking in nutrients and grows
 The fertilized ovum is human because it has 46 chromosomes; only human cells have 46
chromosomes
 Framers intended to prohibit Congress from enacting measures that determine when life begins
thereby possibly legalizing abortion
- Even in medical books and studies, it is established that life begins upon fertilization of the ovum
 In the case at hand, the provisions of the RH Law show that it is consistent with the Constitution as it
recognizes that the fertilized ovum already has life and the State is duty-bound to protect it
- Defines abortifacient as a drug or device that… or the prevention of the fertilized ovum to reach and be
implanted in the mother’s womb…
 However, RH-IRR redefined meaning of the word abortifacient
- IRR inserted the word “primarily” as in primarily induces…
- This Section of the IRR is ultra vires and must be struck down
- Will pave the way for the approval of contraceptives which could violate Art. II, Sec. 12 of the Constitution
 The principle of no abortion embodied in the constitutional protection of life must be upheld

The Right to Health

 Petitioners claim that:
- Risk of developing breast and cervical cancer is greatly increased in women who use oral contraceptives
- Also other diseases like venous thromboembolism, ischematic stroke, myocardial infarction, etc.
- RH Law may lead to unmitigated proliferation of contraceptives
 Respondents argue that:
- Constitutional provision on right to health is not self-executory and is a mere statement of the State’s
principle and policy
 Constitutional provisions related to right to health are self-executory
- No need for legislation to implement these provisions

Page 3 of 8
CASE DIGEST
Imbong v. Ochoa
Constitutional Law

- Presumption is that all provisions of the Constitution are self-executory unless expressly provided that a
legislative act is necessary to enforce a constitutional mandate
- Otherwise, the legislature will have the power to ignore and nullify the mandate of the fundamental law
 RH Law will not lead to unmitigated proliferation of contraceptives
- RH Law leaves the provisions of RA 4729 intact
 With RA 7429, there exists adequate safeguards to ensure that only contraceptives that are safe
are made available to the public
- Actual dispensation of the drugs and devices requires prescription of a qualified medical practitioner
- At any rate, not a single contraceptive has yet been submitted to the FDA pursuant to the RH Law to
determine whether it is safe and non-abortifacient
- Consequently, the attack on the RH law on this ground is premature

Freedom of Religion and Right to Free Speech

 Petitioners question the State-sponsored procurement of contraceptives arguing that the expenditure of their
taxes on contraceptives violates the guarantee of religious freedom since contraceptives are contrary to their
religious beliefs
- May believe that contraceptives, whether abortifacient or not, are evil
- Requiring conscientious objector to refer patients to another medical practitioner still imposes a duty to
refer
 Compelling them to do an act against their will violates the Doctrine of Benevolent Neutrality
 Forces objector to become an unwilling participant in the commission of a serious sin under
Catholic teachings
- Also forces would-be couples to participate in the implementation of the RH Law by attending seminars
even if it contravenes their religious beliefs
 Respondents argue that:
- By invoking religious freedom, petitioners ask the Court that only teachings of the Catholic Church be
recognized and imposed on the entire citizenry
- Duty to refer is a compromise between practitioner’s right to silence and the patient’s right to information
- Couples attending seminars are not compelled to accept information given to them
- Also point out the changing stand of the Catholic Church with regards to use of contraceptives
 Separation of Church and State
- In the preamble, the State recognizes with respect the influence of religion
- The Constitution then provides separation of Church and State to make sure neither would encroach into
the affairs of the other
 State cannot meddle in internal affairs of the Church, nor question its beliefs, nor favour one
religion and discriminate against another
 Church cannot impose its beliefs on the State and the rest of the citizenry, nor demand that the
nation follow its beliefs
 Constitutional assurance of religious freedom provides two guarantees:
1. Establishment Clause
 Provided under Art. VI, Sec. 29
 Prohibits the State from sponsoring or favouring any religion against another
 Mandates strict neutrality in affairs among religious groups
 Prohibits establishment of a state religion
2. Free Exercise Clause
 Provided under Art. III, Sec. 5
 Respect for the inviolability of the human conscience
 Prohibits the State from unduly interfering with the outside manifestations of one’s belief and faith
 Guarantee of religious freedom is comprised of two parts:
1. Freedom to believe
 Infinite and limitless, bounded only by one’s imagination and thought
2. Freedom to act on one’s belief
 Limited and subject to the awesome power of the State
 Can be enjoyed only with proper regard to the rights of others
 Subject to regulation where the belief is translated into external acts that affect public welfare
 Benevolent neutrality theory
- With respect to governmental actions, accommodation of religion may be allowed
 Purpose is to remove a burden on, or facilitate the exercise of religion
 What is sought under the theory of accommodation is not the declaration of unconstitutionality of
a facially neutral law, but an exemption from its application or its burdensome effect, whether by
the legislature or the courts
Page 4 of 8
CASE DIGEST
Imbong v. Ochoa
Constitutional Law

 In ascertaining the limits of the exercise of religious freedom, the compelling state interest test is proper
- Free exercise is a fundamental right and laws burdening it should be subject to strict scrutiny
- This test is proper where conduct is involved for the whole gamut (range/spectrum) of human conduct has
different effects on the state’s interests
 Some effects may be immediate and short-term while others may be delayed and far-reaching
 The Court, while having no authority to rule on ecclesiastical matters, being the vanguard of the Constitution,
has authority to determine whether the RH Law contravenes the guarantee of religious freedom
- RH Law appears to recognize and respect religion and religious beliefs and convictions
- With respect to use of contraceptives
 Petitioners are misguided that a state program cannot be implemented for being contrary to their
religious beliefs
- With respect to duty to refer
 Conscientious objector’s claim to religious freedom would warrant an exemption from obligations
under the RH Law by virtue of the Benevolent Neutrality theory
 Unless the state a more compelling state interest
 Right to religious freedom is intertwined with right to free speech which, in turn, includes the right
to be silent
 Hence, objector should be exempt from compliance with the mandates of the RH Law, otherwise
would violate the “principle of non-coercion”
 The same applies to institutional health providers, non-maternity specialty hospitals, and hospitals
owned and operated by religious groups and health care service providers
- With respect to family planning seminars
 The Court finds it a reasonable exercise of police power of the State
 Religious freedom is not at all violated
 Those who attend the seminars are not compelled to accept the information given to them
 The RH-IRR provides that:
- Public health care officials/providers cannot be considered as conscientious objectors and are charged
with the duty to implement provisions of the RH Law
- Violates equal protection clause; discriminatory
- Moreover, no such exception is stated in the RH Law itself
- In case of conflict between the IRR and the RH Law, the latter will prevail
 Respondents were unable to demonstrate a more compelling state interest
- Only the prevention of an immediate and grave danger to the security and welfare of the community can
justify the infringement of religious freedom
 Absent a showing of the seriousness and immediacy of the threat, State intrusion is
constitutionally unacceptable
 No immediate danger to the life or health of individuals was shown
 Exception to right to referral is in case of a life-threatening situation as in where the life of the
mother/patient is in grave danger

The Family and the Right to Privacy

 Petitioners argue that:
- The RH Law violates the Constitution by intruding into marital privacy and autonomy
- Cultivates disunity and fosters animosity in the family rather than promote its solidarity and development
- The Court agrees
 1987 Constitution is replete with provisions strengthening the family as it is the basic social institution
- Art. XV is devoted entirely to the family
 RH Law contains provisions which tend to wreck the family as a solid social institution
 With respect to spousal consent:
- Bars husband from participating in decision making process
- Deprives parents of authority over their minor daughter simply because she is already a parent or had
suffered a miscarriage
- Section 23 (a)(2)(i) of the RH law provides that for reproductive health procedures, in case of
disagreement, the decision of the person undergoing the procedure shall prevail
 The right to found a family is shared by both spouses
 Such decisions cannot be exercised by one of them alone; RH law cannot infringe upon mutual
decision-making of spouses
 Can result to bitter animosity and endanger the marriage and the family
 With respect to parental consent:

Page 5 of 8
CASE DIGEST
Imbong v. Ochoa
Constitutional Law

- Sec. 7 of RH law provides that minors will not be allowed access to modern methods of family planning
without written consent from their parents/guardians except when the minor is already a parent or had a
miscarriage
- The right of a parent to exercise parental control over minor children is superior to that of the State
- Only a compelling state interest can justify a state substitution of parental authority
 Exceptions:
- Access to information
- Life threatening cases
 Similar to earlier case of a conscientious objector

Academic Freedom
 Petitioners assert that Sec. 14, in relation to Sec. 24 of the RH Law, is unconstitutional:
- Mandatory sex education under threat of fine and/or imprisonment violates academic freedom
- Forces educational institutions to teach reproductive health education even if they believe the same is not
suitable for their students
 Attack on the validity of Sec. 14 is premature
- DepEd has yet to formulate a curriculum on age-appropriate reproductive health education
 Sec. 14 provides that:
- Mandatory reproductive health education shall be developed in conjunction with parent-teacher-
community associations, school officials, and other interest groups
- The State recognizes the importance of the role of parents in the development of their children
- By imposing such condition, petitioners’ contention that Sec. 14 violates Art. XV, Sec. 3 (1) of the
Constitution is without merit
- As it is, the Court reserves judgment until an actual case be filed before it

Due Process
 Petitioners content that the RH law violates the due process clause of the Constitution due to its vagueness
- Does not define who a “private healthcare service provider” is
- Does not define what constitutes “incorrect information”
- Unclear whether hospitals operated by religious groups is also exempt from giving reproductive health
information or from rendering reproductive health procedures
- The Court is not persuaded
 Statute suffers from vagueness when:
- It lacks comprehensible standards that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess its meaning
and differ as to its application
- Repugnant to the Constitution due to:
1. Violates due process for failure to accord persons, especially target parties, fair notice of the conduct
to avoid
2. Leaves law enforcers unbridled/unrestrained discretion in carrying out its provisions; may lead to
arbitrary exercise of power
- In determining whether words used in a statute are vague, we must consider:
1. Plain meaning
2. Relate to other parts of the statute

Equal Protection
 Petitioners argue that:
- RH Law discriminates against the poor as it makes them the primary target of the government program
that promotes contraceptive use
- Exclusion of private educational institutions from mandatory reproductive health education renders it
unconstitutional
 Equal Protection
- Embraced in the concept of due process
- Specific guaranty against any form of undue favouritism or hostility from the government
- Requires that all persons/things similarly situated should be treated alike, both as to rights conferred and
responsibilities imposed
- Permits classification, with requisites:
1. Classification rests on substantial distinctions
2. It is germane to the purpose of the law
3. It is not limited to existing conditions only
 Must be of a nature to embrace all those who thereafter may be in similar circumstances and
conditions
Page 6 of 8
CASE DIGEST
Imbong v. Ochoa
Constitutional Law

4. It applies equally to all members of the same class

- Superficial differences do not make for a valid classification
 Prioritizing the poor in the government’s reproductive health program does not violate equal protection
- Pursuant to Sec. 11, Art. XIII of the Constitution
- Necessity to address the needs of the underprivileged by providing that they be prioritized in addressing
the health development of the people
 Distinction between private and public educational institutions does not violate equal protection
- Substantial distinction exists
- Need to recognize the academic freedom of private educational institutions especially with respect to
religious instruction and to consider their sensitivity towards the teaching of reproductive health education
- Mere fact that the children of less fortunate attend public schools does not amount to substantial
distinction

Involuntary Servitude
 Petitioners assail the provision which provides for:
- 48 hours of pro bono services of private and non-government healthcare service providers
 Respondents counter that:
- Said healthcare service providers have the discretion as to the manner and time of rendering the service
- Said imposition is also within the power of the government, the accreditation of medical practitioners with
Philhealth being a privilege and not a right
- Court agrees
 Practice of medicine is imbued with public interest
- Power and duty of the state to control and regulate it in order to protect and promote the public welfare
- Includes power of Congress to prescribe the qualifications for the practice of professions or trades which
affect the public welfare, public health, etc. and to regulate such professions even to the point of revoking
such right altogether
 Notion of involuntary servitude connotes the presence of threats, intimidation, or other similar means of
coercion and compulsion
- RH Law only encourages rendering of pro bono service
- The only consequence is non-accreditation with Philhealth
 Court does not consider this as an unreasonable burden, but a necessary incentive imposed by
Congress in the furtherance of a perceived legal public interest
- No other penalty is imposed
- Healthcare service providers also enjoy the liberty to choose which kind of health service they wish to
provide, when, where, and how to provide it or whether to provide it at all
- It should be emphasized however, 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 bono or
otherwise

Delegation of Authority to FDA

 Power to determine whether a supply or drug is to be included in the Essential Drug List (EDL) was delegated
to FDA
- Court finds nothing wrong with such delegation
- FDA has the competency to do so
- It is the country’s premiere and sole agency that ensures the safety of food and medicine available to the
public
- FDA also has the mandate to “inspect health products”, to “conduct appropriate tests on health products
prior to issuance”, and to “order the ban, recall, and/or withdrawal of health products found to have
caused death, serious illness, or serious injury…”

Autonomy of LGUs and ARMM

 Petitioners claim that the RH Law infringes upon the power vested upon LGUs pertaining to the delivery of
basic services and facilities
 Court does not agree
- However, such power does not cover cases involving nationally-funded projects, facilities, programs, and
services as provided in the LGC
- Provisions relied upon simply delineate the powers that may be exercised by the regional government; in
no manner does it mean an abdication by the State of its power to enact legislation that would benefit the
general welfare

Natural Law
Page 7 of 8
CASE DIGEST
Imbong v. Ochoa
Constitutional Law

 Court does not recognize Natural Law as a legal basis for upholding or invalidating a law
- The only guidepost of the Court is the Constitution
- Natural law is not enacted by a legitimate body
- Unless a natural law has been transformed into a written law, it cannot be the basis to strike down a law
- To be used sparingly only in circumstances involving rights inherent to man where no law is applicable

RULING:
WHEREFORE, the petitions are PARTIALLY GRANTED. Accordingly, the Court declares R.A. No. 10354 as NOT
UNCONSTITUTIONAL except with respect to the following provisions which are declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL:

1. Sec. 7 and corresponding provision in the IRR

- Requirement to refer in the absence of emergency or life-threatening situation
- Allowing minor-parents or minors who suffered a miscarriage access to modern methods of family
planning without the written consent of their parents/guardians
2. Sec. 23 (a) (1) and corresponding provision in the IRR
- Punishment for healthcare service provider who fails or refuses to disseminate information regarding
programs and services on reproductive health regardless of belief
3. Sec. 23 (a)(2)(i) and corresponding provision in the IRR
- Allow married individual to undergo reproductive health procedure even without spousal consent, not in an
emergency or life-threatening case
4. Sec. 23 (a)(2)(ii) and corresponding provision in the IRR
- Limit requirement of parental consent only to elective surgical procedures
5. Sec. 23 (a)(3) and corresponding provision in the IRR
- Punishment for healthcare service provider who fails to and/or refuses to refer a patient not in an
emergency or life-threatening case
6. Sec. 23 (b) and corresponding provision in the IRR
- Punishment for public officer who refuses to support reproductive health programs or does any act that
hinders the full implementation of a reproductive health program, regardless of belief
7. Sec. 17 and corresponding provision in the IRR
- Regarding the rendering of pro bono services in so far as they affect the conscientious objector in
securing Philhealth accreditation
8. Sec. 3.01 (a) and Sec. 3.01 (j) of the IRR
- For adding word “primarily” which changes the definition of abortifacients and contraceptives as they are
ultra vires and therefore, null and void for being contrary to the RH Law and Sec. 12, Art.II of the
Constitution

Page 8 of 8