Mariana Racho, Rafael Racho, Maxi Racho, Chessie Racho & Laura

Racho, Spouses David R. Racho & Armilyn A. Racho for

themselves and on behalf of their minor child Gabriel Racho, Mindy
M. Juatas and on behalf of her minor children Elijah Gerald Juatas
and Elian Gabriel Juatas, Salvacion M. Monteiro, Emily R. Laws,
Joseph R. Laws & Katrina R. Laws, petitioners, vs. HON.
PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., Executive Secretary, HON. ENRIQUE
G.R. No. 204819.April 8, 2014.*
T. ONA, Secretary, Department of Health, HON. ARMIN A.
LUISTRO, Secretary, Department of Education, Culture and Sports,
JAMES M. IMBONG and LOVELY-ANN C. IMBONG, for
HON. CORAZON SOLIMAN, Secretary, Department of Social
themselves and in behalf of their minor children, LUCIA CARLOS
Welfare and Development, HON. MANUEL A. ROXAS II,
IMBONG and BERNADETTE CARLOS IMBONG and
Secretary, Department of Interior and Local Government, HON.
MAGNIFICAT CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER, INC.,
FLORENCIO B. ABAD, Secretary, Department of Budget and
petitioners, vs. HON. PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., Executive
Management, HON. ARSENIO M. BALISACAN, Socio-Economic
Secretary, HON. FLORENCIO B. ABAD, Secretary, Department of
Planning Secretary and NEDA Director-General, THE PHILIPPINE
Budget and Management, HON. ENRIQUE T. ONA, Secretary,
COMMISSION ON WOMEN, represented by its Chairperson,
Department of Health, HON. ARMIN A. LUISTRO, Secretary,
Remedios Ignacio-Rikken, THE PHILIPPINE HEALTH
Department of Education, Culture and Sports and HON. MANUEL
INSURANCE CORPORATION, represented by its President
A. ROXAS II, Secretary, Department of Interior and Local
Eduardo Banzon, THE LEAGUE OF PROVINCES OF THE
Government, respondents.
PHILIPPINES, represented by its President Alfonso Umali, THE
G.R. No. 204934.April 8, 2014.* LEAGUE OF CITIES OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by its
ALLIANCE FOR THE FAMILY FOUNDATION PHILIPPINES, President Oscar Rodriguez, and THE LEAGUE OF
INC. [ALFI], represented by its President, Maria Concepcion S. MUNICIPALITIES OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by its
Noche, Spouses Reynaldo S. Luistro & Rosie B. Luistro, Jose S. President Donato Marcos, respondents.
Sandejas & Elenita S.A. Sandejas, Arturo M. Gorrez & Marietta C.
G.R. No. 204957.April 8, 2014.*
Gorrez, Salvador S. Mante, Jr. & Hazeleen L. Mante, Rolando M.
TASK FORCE FOR FAMILY AND LIFE VISAYAS, INC. and
Bautista & Maria Felisa S. Bautista, Desiderio Racho & Traquilina
VALERIANO S. AVILA, petitioners, vs. HON. PAQUITO N.
Racho, Fernand Antonio A. Tansingco & Carol Anne C. Tansingco
OCHOA, JR., Executive Secretary; HON. FLORENCIO B. ABAD,
for themselves and on behalf of their minor children, Therese
Secretary, Department of Budget and Management; HON.
Antonette C. Tansingco, Lorenzo Jose C. Tansingco, Miguel
ENRIQUE T. ONA, Secretary, Department of Health, HON.
Fernando C. Tangsingco, Carlo Josemaria C. Tansingco & Juan
ARMIN A. LUISTRO, Secretary, Department of Education; and
Paolo C. Tansingco, Spouses Mariano V. Araneta & Eileen Z.
HON. MANUEL A. ROXAS II, Secretary, Department of Interior
Araneta for themselves and on behalf of their minor children,
and Local Government, respondents.
Ramon Carlos Z. Araneta & Maya Angelica Z. Araneta, Spouses
Renato C. Castor & Mildred C. Castor for themselves and on behalf
of their minor children, Renz Jeffrey C. Castor, Joseph Ramil C.
Castor, John Paul C. Castor & Raphael C. Castor, Spouses 148
Alexander R. Racho & Zara Z. Racho for themselves and on behalf
of their minor children Margarita Racho, Mikaela Racho, Martin
G.R. No. 204988.April 8, 2014.*
Racho, Mari Racho & Manolo Racho, Spouses Alfred R. Racho &
SERVE LIFE CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY, INC., represented by Dr.
Francine V. Racho for themselves and on behalf of their minor
Nestor B. Lumicao, M.D., as President and in his personal capacity,
children Michael Racho,
ROSEVALE FOUNDATION INC., represented by Dr. Rodrigo M.
147 Alenton, M.D., as member of the school board and in his personal
capacity, ROSEMARIE R. ALENTON, IMELDA G. IBARRA,
CPA, LOVENIA P. NACES, Phd., ANTHONY G. NAGAC, EARL
ANTHONY C. GAMBE and MARLON I. YAP, petitioners, vs. DIRECTORS, Philippine Health Insurance Corporation, and THE
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES, BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, Philippine Commission on
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, HON. PAQUITO N. OCHOA, Women, respondents.
JR., Executive Secretary, HON. FLORENCIO B. ABAD, Secretary,
Department of Budget and Management; HON. ENRIQUE T. ONA, G.R. No. 205478.April 8, 2014.*
Secretary, Department of Health; HON. ARMIN A. LUISTRO, REYNALDO J. ECHAVEZ, M.D., JACQUELINE H. KING, M.D.,
Secretary, Department of Education and HON. MANUEL A. CYNTHIA T. DOMINGO, M.D., AND JOSEPHINE MILLADO-
ROXAS II, Secretary, Department of Interior and Local LUMITAO, M.D., collectively known as Doctors For Life, and
Government, respondents. ANTHONY PEREZ, MICHAEL ANTHONY G. MAPA, CARLOS
ANTONIO PALAD, WILFREDO JOSE, CLAIRE NAVARRO,
G.R. No. 205003. April 8, 2014.* ANNA COSIO, and GABRIEL DY LIACCO collectively known as
EXPEDITO A. BUGARIN, JR., petitioner, vs. OFFICE OF THE Filipinos For Life, petitioners, vs. HON. PAQUITO N. OCHOA,
PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, HON. JR., Executive Secretary; HON. FLORENCIO B. ABAD, Secretary
SENATE PRESIDENT, HON. SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF of the Department of Budget and Management; HON. ENRIQUE T.
REPRESENTATIVES and HON. SOLICITOR GENERAL, ONA, Secretary of the Department of Health; HON. ARMIN A.
respondents. LUISTRO, Secretary of the Department of Education; and HON.
MANUEL A. ROXAS II, Secretary of the Department of Interior
G.R. No. 205043.April 8, 2014.* and Local Government, respondents.
EDUARDO B. OLAGUER and THE CATHOLIC XYBRSPACE
APOSTOLATE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioners, vs. DOH 150
SECRETARY ENRIQUE T. ONA, FDA DIRECTOR SUZETTE H.
LAZO, DBM SECRETARY FLORENCIO B. ABAD, DILG
G.R. No. 205491.April 8, 2014.*
SECRETARY MANUEL A. ROXAS II, DECS SECRETARY
SPOUSES FRANCISCO S. TATAD AND MARIA FENNY C.
ARMIN A. LUISTRO, respondents.
TATAD & ALA F. PAGUIA, for themselves, their Posterity, and the
G.R. No. 205138.April 8, 2014.* rest of Filipino posterity, petitioners, vs. OFFICE OF THE
PHILIPPINE ALLIANCE OF XSEMINARIANS, INC. (PAX), PRESIDENT of the Republic of the Philippines, respondent.
herein represented by its National President, Atty. Ricardo
G.R. No. 205720.April 8, 2014.*
149 PRO-LIFE PHILIPPINES FOUNDATION, Inc., represented by
Lorna Melegrito, as Executive Director, and in her personal capacity,
JOSELYN B. BASILIO, ROBERT Z. CORTES, ARIEL A.
M. Ribo, and in his own behalf, Atty. Lino E.A. Dumas, Romeo B. CRISOSTOMO, JEREMY I. GATDULA, CRISTINA A. MONTES,
Almonte, Osmundo C. Orlanes, Arsenio Z. Menor, Samuel J. Yap, RAUL ANTONIO A. NIDOY, WINSTON CONRAD B.
Jaime F. Mateo, Rolly Siguan, Dante E. Magdangal, Michael PADOJINOG, RUFINO L. POLICARPIO III, petitioners, vs.
Eugenio O. Plana, Bienvenido C. Miguel, Jr., Landrito M. Diokno OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
and Baldomero Falcone, petitioners, vs. HON. PAQUITO N. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, HON. PAQUITO N. OCHOA,
OCHOA, JR., Executive Secretary, HON. FLORENCIO B. ABAD, JR., Executive Secretary, HON. FLORENCIO B. ABAD, Secretary,
Secretary, Department of Budget and Management, HON. Department of Budget and Management, HON. ENRIQUE T. ONA,
ENRIQUE T. ONA, Secretary, Department of Health, HON. Secretary, Department of Health, HON. ARMIN A. LUISTRO,
ARMIN A. LUISTRO, Secretary, Department of Education, HON. Secretary, Department of Education and HON. MANUEL A.
MANUEL A. ROXAS II, Secretary, Department of Interior and ROXAS II, Secretary, Department of Interior and Local
Local Government, HON. CORAZON J. SOLIMAN, Secretary, Government, respondents.
Department of Social Welfare and Development, HON. ARSENIO
BALISACAN, Director-General, National Economic and G.R. No. 206355.April 8, 2014.*
Development Authority, HON. SUZETTE H. LAZO, Director- MILLENNIUM SAINT FOUNDATION, INC., ATTY. RAMON
General, Food and Drug Administration, THE BOARD OF PEDROSA, ATTY. CITA BORROMEO-GARCIA, STELLA
ACEDERA, ATTY. BERTENI CATALUA CAUSING, petitioners,
vs. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE 152

SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, DEPARTMENT OF

EDUCATION, respondents. and accord due respect to the wisdom of its co-equal branch on the basis of
the principle of separation of powers. To be clear, the separation of powers
G.R. No. 207111.April 8, 2014.*
is a fundamental principle in our system of government, which obtains not
JOHN WALTER B. JUAT, MARY M. IMBONG, ANTHONY through express provision but by actual division in our Constitution. Each
VICTORIO B. LUMICAO, JOSEPH MARTIN Q. VERDEJO, department of the government has exclusive cognizance of matters within
151
its jurisdiction and is supreme within its own sphere. Thus, the 1987
Constitution provides that: (a) the legislative power shall be vested in the
Congress of the Philippines; (b) the executive power shall be vested in the
ANTONIA EMMA R. ROXAS and LOTA LAT-GUERRERO, President of the Philippines; and (c) the judicial power shall be vested in one
petitioners, vs. HON. PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., Executive Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law. The
Secretary, HON. FLORENCIO ABAD, Secretary, Department of Constitution has truly blocked out with deft strokes and in bold lines, the
Budget and Management, HON. ENRIQUE T. ONA, Secretary, allotment of powers among the three branches of government.
Department of Health, HON. ARMIN A. LUISTRO, Secretary,
Same; Same; Judicial Review; The Constitution impresses upon the
Department of Education, Culture and Sports and HON. MANUEL
Supreme Court to respect the acts performed by a co-equal branch done
A. ROXAS II, Secretary, Department of Interior and Local
within its sphere of competence and authority, but at the same time, allows it
Government, respondents.
to cross the line of separation but only at a very limited and specic point
G.R. No. 207172.April 8, 2014.* to determine whether the acts of the executive and the legislative
COUPLES FOR CHRIST FOUNDATION, INC., SPOUSES JUAN branches are null because they were undertaken with grave abuse of
CARLOS ARTADI SARMIENTO AND FRANCESCA ISABELLE discretion.In times of social disquietude or political instability, the great
BESINGA-SARMIENTO, AND SPOUSES LUIS FRANCIS A. landmarks of the Constitution are apt to be forgotten or marred, if not
RODRIGO, JR. and DEBORAH MARIE VERONICA N. entirely obliterated. In order to address this, the Constitution impresses upon
RODRIGO, petitioners, vs. HON. PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., the Court to respect the acts performed by a co-equal branch done within its
Executive Secretary, HON. FLORENCIO B. ABAD, Secretary, sphere of competence and authority, but at the same time, allows it to cross
Department of Budget and Management, HON. ENRIQUE T. ONA, the line of separation but only at a very limited and specic point to
Secretary, Department of Health, HON. ARMIN A. LUISTRO, determine whether the acts of the executive and the legislative branches are
Secretary, Department of Education, Culture and Sports and HON. null because they were undertaken with grave abuse of discretion. Thus,
MANUEL A. ROXAS II, Secretary, Department of Interior and while the Court may not pass upon questions of wisdom, justice or
Local Government, respondents. expediency of the RH Law, it may do so where an attendant
unconstitutionality or grave abuse of discretion results. The Court must
G.R. No. 207563.April 8, 2014.* demonstrate its uninching commitment to protect those cherished rights
ALMARIM CENTI TILLAH and ABDULHUSSEIN M. KASHIM, and principles embodied in the Constitution.
petitioners, vs. HON. PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., Executive Same; Same; Same; Jurisprudence is replete with the rule that the
Secretary, HON. ENRIQUE T. ONA, Secretary of the Department of power of judicial review is limited by four exacting requisites, viz.: (a) there
Health, and HON. ARMIN A. LUISTRO, Secretary of the must be an actual case or controversy; (b) the petitioners must possess locus
Department of Education, respondents. standi; (c) the question of constitutional-

Constitutional Law; Separation of Powers; The separation of powers is 153

a fundamental principle in our system of government, which obtains not
through express provision but by actual division in our Constitution.In
ity must be raised at the earliest opportunity; and (d) the issue of
many cases involving the determination of the constitutionality of the
constitutionality must be the lis mota of the case.In the scholarly
actions of the Executive and the Legislature, it is often sought that the Court
estimation of former Supreme Court Justice Florentino Feliciano, judicial
temper its exercise of judicial power
review is essential for the maintenance and enforcement of the must allege the existence of an immediate or threatened injury to himself as
separation of powers and the balancing of powers among the three a result of the challenged action. He must show that he has sustained or is
great departments of government through the denition and maintenance immediately in danger of sustaining some direct injury as a result of the act
of the boundaries of authority and control between them. To him, judicial complained.
review is the chief, indeed the only, medium of participation or Same; Same; Same; Same; Facial Challenges; While the Supreme
instrument of intervention of the judiciary in that balancing operation. Court has withheld the application of facial challenges to strictly penal
Lest it be misunderstood, it bears emphasizing that the Court does not have statutes, it has expanded its scope to cover statutes not only regulating free
the unbridled authority to rule on just any and every claim of constitutional speech, but also those involving religious freedom, and other fundamental
violation. Jurisprudence is replete with the rule that the power of judicial rights.In this jurisdiction, the application of doctrines originating from the
review is limited by four exacting requisites, viz.: (a) there must be an actual U.S. has been generally maintained, albeit with some modications. While
case or controversy; (b) the petitioners must possess locus standi; (c) the this Court has withheld the application of facial challenges to strictly penal
question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest opportunity; and statutes, it has expanded its scope to cover statutes not only regulating free
(d) the issue of constitutionality must be the lis mota of the case. speech, but also those involving religious freedom, and other
Same; Same; Same; Actual Case or Controversy; Words and Phrases; fundamental rights. The underlying reason for this modication is simple.
An actual case or controversy means an existing case or controversy that is For unlike its counterpart in the U.S., this Court, under its expanded
appropriate or ripe for determination, not conjectural or anticipatory, lest jurisdiction, is mandated by the Fundamental Law not only to settle actual
the decision of the court would amount to an advisory opinion.An actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and
case or controversy means an existing case or controversy that is appropriate enforceable, but also to determine whether or not there has been a grave
or ripe for determination, not conjectural or anticipatory, lest the decision of abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the
the court would amount to an advisory opinion. The rule is that courts do part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government. Verily, the
not sit to adjudicate mere academic questions to satisfy scholarly interest, framers of Our Constitution envisioned a proactive Judiciary, ever vigilant
however intellectually challenging. The controversy must be justiciable with its duty to maintain the supremacy of the Constitution.
denite and concrete, touching on the legal relations of parties having Same; Same; Same; Same; Locus Standi; Words and Phrases; Locus
adverse legal interests. In other words, the pleadings must show an active standi or legal standing is dened as a personal and substantial interest in a
antagonistic assertion of a legal right, on the one hand, and a denial thereof, case such that the party has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a
on the other; that is, it must concern a real, tangible and not merely a result of the challenged governmental act; The rule prohibits one from
theoretical question or issue. There ought to be an actual and substantial challenging the constitutionality of the statute grounded on a violation of
controversy admitting of specic relief through a decree conclusive in the rights of third persons not before the court.Locus standi or legal
nature, as distinguished from an opinion advising what the law would be standing is dened as a personal and
upon a hypothetical state of facts.
Same; Same; Same; Same; For a case to be considered ripe for 155
adjudication, it is a prerequisite that something has then been accomplished
or performed by either branch before a court may come into the picture, and substantial interest in a case such that the party has sustained or will sustain
the petitioner must allege the existence of an direct injury as a result of the challenged governmental act. It requires a
personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure the concrete
154
adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court
so largely depends for illumination of difcult constitutional questions. In
immediate or threatened injury to himself as a result of the challenged relation to locus standi, the as applied challenge embodies the rule that
action.Corollary to the requirement of an actual case or controversy is the one can challenge the constitutionality of a statute only if he asserts a
requirement of ripeness. A question is ripe for adjudication when the act violation of his own rights. The rule prohibits one from challenging the
being challenged has had a direct adverse effect on the individual constitutionality of the statute grounded on a violation of the rights of third
challenging it. For a case to be considered ripe for adjudication, it is a persons not before the court. This rule is also known as the prohibition
prerequisite that something has then been accomplished or performed by against third-party standing.
either branch before a court may come into the picture, and the petitioner
 Same; Same; Same; Same; Reproductive Health Law; The Reproductive Health Law; The use of contraceptives and family
Reproductive Health (RH) Law drastically affects the constitutional planning methods in the Philippines is not of recent vintage.As
provisions on the right to life and health, the freedom of religion and expounded earlier, the use of contraceptives and family planning methods in
expression and other constitutional rights. Mindful of all these and the fact the Philippines is not of recent vintage. From the enactment of R.A. No.
that the issues of contraception and reproductive health have already 4729, entitled An Act To Regulate The Sale, Dispensation, and/or
caused deep division among a broad spectrum of society, the Supreme Court Distribution of Contraceptive Drugs and Devices on June 18, 1966,
entertains no doubt that the petitions raise issues of transcendental prescribing rules on contraceptive drugs and devices which prevent
importance warranting immediate court adjudication.In view of the fertilization, to the promotion of male vasectomy and tubal ligation, and the
seriousness, novelty and weight as precedents, not only to the public, but ratication of numerous international agreements, the country has long
also to the bench and bar, the issues raised must be resolved for the recognized the need to promote population control through the use of
guidance of all. After all, the RH Law drastically affects the constitutional contraceptives in order to achieve long-term economic development.
provisions on the right to life and health, the freedom of religion and Through the years, however, the use of contraceptives and other family
expression and other constitutional rights. Mindful of all these and the fact planning methods evolved from being a component of demographic
that the issues of contraception and reproductive health have already caused management, to one centered on the promotion of public health, particularly,
deep division among a broad spectrum of society, the Court entertains no reproductive health.
doubt that the petitions raise issues of transcendental importance Same; Life begins at fertilization.The ponente, is of the strong view
warranting immediate court adjudication. More importantly, considering that life begins at fertilization. In answering the question of when life
that it is the right to life of the mother and the unborn which is primarily at begins, focus should be made on the particular phrase of Section 12 which
issue, the Court need not wait for a life to be taken away before taking reads: Section 12. The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall
action. The Court cannot, and should not, exercise judicial restraint at this protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution. It
time when rights enshrined in the Constitution are being imperilled to be shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn
violated. To do so, when the life of either the mother or her child is at stake, from conception. The natural and primary right and duty of parents in the
would lead to irreparable consequences. rearing of the
Same; Statutes; One-Subject-One-Title Rule; The one subject/one title
rule expresses the principle that the title of a law must not be so uncertain 157
that the average person reading it would not be
youth for civic efciency and the development of moral character shall
156
receive the support of the Government. Textually, the Constitution affords
protection to the unborn from conception. This is undisputable because
informed of the purpose of the enactment or put on inquiry as to its contents, before conception, there is no unborn to speak of. For said reason, it is no
or which is misleading, either in referring to or indicating one subject where surprise that the Constitution is mute as to any proscription prior to
another or different one is really embraced in the act, or in omitting any conception or when life begins. The problem has arisen because, amazingly,
expression or indication of the real subject or scope of the act.The one there are quarters who have conveniently disregarded the scientic fact that
subject/one title rule expresses the principle that the title of a law must not conception is reckoned from fertilization. They are waving the view that life
be so uncertain that the average person reading it would not be informed of begins at implantation. Hence, the issue of when life begins. In a nutshell,
the purpose of the enactment or put on inquiry as to its contents, or which is those opposing the RH Law contend that conception is synonymous with
misleading, either in referring to or indicating one subject where another or fertilization of the female ovum by the male sperm. On the other side of
different one is really embraced in the act, or in omitting any expression or the spectrum are those who assert that conception refers to the
indication of the real subject or scope of the act. Considering the close implantation of the fertilized ovum in the uterus.
intimacy between reproductive health and responsible parenthood Same; Constitutional Law; Equal Protection of the Laws; It is apparent
which bears to the attainment of the goal of achieving sustainable human that the Framers of the Constitution emphasized that the State shall provide
development as stated under its terms, the Court nds no reason to believe equal protection to both the mother and the unborn child from the earliest
that Congress intentionally sought to deceive the public as to the contents of opportunity of life, that is, upon fertilization or upon the union of the male
the assailed legislation. sperm and the female ovum.It is apparent that the Framers of the
Constitution emphasized that the State shall provide equal protection to both egg and the sperm resulting in the formation of a new individual, with a
the mother and the unborn child from the earliest opportunity of life, that unique genetic composition that dictates all developmental stages that
is, upon fertilization or upon the union of the male sperm and the female ensue. Similarly, recent medical research on the matter also reveals that:
ovum. It is also apparent is that the Framers of the Constitution intended Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or
that to prohibit Congress from enacting measures that would allow it germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception). Fertilization
determine when life begins. is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm
Same; Same; Contraceptives; The Framers of the Constitution did not (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of
intend to ban all contraceptives for being unconstitutional; Contraceptives their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling
that kill or destroy the fertilized ovum should be deemed an abortive and of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a
thus prohibited. Conversely, contraceptives that actually prevent the union zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a
of the male sperm and the female ovum, and those that similarly take action human being.
prior to fertilization should be deemed non-abortive, and thus, Same; Same; In all, whether it be taken from a plain meaning, or
constitutionally permissible.The Framers of the Constitution did not understood under medical parlance, and more importantly, following the
intend to ban all contraceptives for being unconstitutional. In fact, intention of the Framers of the Constitution, the undeniable conclusion is
Commissioner Bernardo Villegas, spearheading the need to have a that a zygote is a human organism and that the life of a new human being
constitutional provision on the right to life, recognized that the commences at a scientically well-dened moment
determination 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 159
established evidence. From the discussions above, contraceptives that kill
of conception, that is, upon fertilization.In all, whether it be taken from a
158
plain meaning, or understood under medical parlance, and more importantly,
following the intention of the Framers of the Constitution, the undeniable
or destroy the fertilized ovum should be deemed an abortive and thus conclusion is that a zygote is a human organism and that the life of a new
prohibited. Conversely, contraceptives that actually prevent the union of the human being commences at a scientically well-dened moment of
male sperm and the female ovum, and those that similarly take action prior conception, that is, upon fertilization.
to fertilization should be deemed non-abortive, and thus, constitutionally Same; Same While the Supreme Court has opted not to make any
permissible. determination when life begins, it nds that the Reproductive Health (RH)
Same; Conception; Words and Phrases; Mosbys Medical, Nursing, Law itself clearly mandates that protection be afforded from the moment of
and Allied Health Dictionary denes conception as the beginning of fertilization.The clear and unequivocal intent of the Framers of the 1987
pregnancy usually taken to be the instant a spermatozoon enters an ovum Constitution in protecting the life of the unborn from conception was to
and forms a viable zygote; The Textbook of Obstetrics (Physiological & prevent the Legislature from enacting a measure legalizing abortion. It was
Pathological Obstetrics), used by medical schools in the Philippines, also so clear that even the Court cannot interpret it otherwise. This intent of
concludes that human life (human person) begins at the moment of the Framers was captured in the record of the proceedings of the 1986
fertilization with the union of the egg and the sperm resulting in the Constitutional Commission. x x x A reading of the RH Law would show
formation of a new individual, with a unique genetic composition that that it is in line with this intent and actually proscribes abortion. While the
dictates all developmental stages that ensue.That conception begins at Court has opted not to make any determination, at this stage, when life
fertilization is not bereft of medical foundation. Mosbys Medical, Nursing, begins, it nds that the RH Law itself clearly mandates that protection
and Allied Health Dictionary denes conception as the beginning of be afforded from the moment of fertilization. As pointed out by Justice
pregnancy usually taken to be the instant a spermatozoon enters an ovum Carpio, the RH Law is replete with provisions that embody the policy of the
and forms a viable zygote. It describes fertilization as the union of male law to protect to the fertilized ovum and that it should be afforded safe
and female gametes to form a zygote from which the embryo develops. travel to the uterus for implantation. Moreover, the RH Law recognizes that
The Textbook of Obstetrics (Physiological & Pathological Obstetrics), used abortion is a crime under Article 256 of the Revised Penal Code, which
by medical schools in the Philippines, also concludes that human life penalizes the destruction or expulsion of the fertilized ovum.
(human person) begins at the moment of fertilization with the union of the
 Same; Abortifacients; In carrying out its declared policy, the foregoing, the Court nds that inasmuch as it affords protection to the
Reproductive Health (RH) Law is consistent in prohibiting abortifacients. fertilized ovum, the RH Law does not sanction abortion. To repeat, it is the
In carrying out its declared policy, the RH Law is consistent in prohibiting Courts position that life begins at fertilization, not at implantation. When a
abortifacients. To be clear, Section 4(a) of the RH Law denes an fertilized ovum is implanted in the uterine wall, its viability is sustained but
abortifacient as: Section 4. Denition of Termsx x x x (a) Abortifacient that instance of implantation is not the point of beginning of life. It started
refers to any drug or device that induces abortion or the destruction of a earlier. And as dened by the RH Law, any drug or device that induces
fetus inside the mothers womb or the prevention of the fertilized ovum to abortion, that is, which kills or de-
reach and be implanted in the mothers womb upon determination of the
161
FDA. 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 prohibits not only drugs or devices that prevent implantation, but also stroys the fertilized ovum or prevents the fertilized ovum to reach and
those that in- be implanted in the mothers womb, is an abortifacient.
Same; Contraceptives; Evidently, with the addition of the word
160
primarily, in Section 3.01(a) and (j) of the Implementing Rules and
Regulations of the RH Law (RH-IRR) is indeed ultra vires. It contravenes
duce abortion and those that induce the destruction of a fetus inside the Section 4(a) of the Reproductive Health (RH) Law and should, therefore, be
mothers womb. Thus, an abortifacient is any drug or device that either: (a) declared invalid. There is danger that the insertion of the qualier
Induces abortion; or (b) Induces the destruction of a fetus inside the primarily will pave the way for the approval of contraceptives which may
mothers womb; or (c) Prevents the fertilized ovum to reach and be harm or destroy the life of the unborn from conception/fertilization in
implanted in the mothers womb, upon determination of the FDA. violation of Article II, Section 12 of the Constitution.Evidently, with the
Same; Same; Words and Phrases; As dened by the Reproductive addition of the word primarily, in Section 3.01(a) and (j) of the RH-IRR is
Health (RH) Law, any drug or device that induces abortion, that is, which indeed ultra vires. It contravenes Section 4(a) of the RH Law and should,
kills or destroys the fertilized ovum or prevents the fertilized ovum to reach therefore, be declared invalid. There is danger that the insertion of the
and be implanted in the mothers womb, is an abortifacient.Contrary to qualier primarily will pave the way for the approval of contraceptives
the assertions made by the petitioners, the Court nds that the RH Law, which may harm or destroy the life of the unborn from
consistent with the Constitution, recognizes that the fertilized ovum conception/fertilization in violation of Article II, Section 12 of the
already has life and that the State has a bounden duty to protect it. The Constitution. With such qualication in the RH-IRR, it appears to insinuate
conclusion becomes clear because the RH Law, rst, prohibits any drug or that a contraceptive will only be considered as an abortifacient if its sole
device that induces abortion (rst kind), which, as discussed exhaustively known effect is abortion or, as pertinent here, the prevention of the
above, refers to that which induces the killing or the destruction of the implantation of the fertilized ovum. For the same reason, this denition of
fertilized ovum, and, second, prohibits any drug or device the fertilized contraceptive would permit the approval of contraceptives which are
ovum to reach and be implanted in the mothers womb (third kind). By actually abortifacients because of their fair-sale mechanism.
expressly declaring that any drug or device that prevents the fertilized ovum Same; Same; Consistent with the constitutional policy prohibiting
to reach and be implanted in the mothers womb is an abortifacient (third abortion, and in line with the principle that laws should be construed in a
kind), the RH Law does not intend to mean at all that life only begins only manner that its constitutionality is sustained, the Reproductive Health (RH)
at implantation, as Hon. Lagman suggests. It also does not declare either Law and its implementing rules must be consistent with each other in
that protection will only be given upon implantation, as the petitioners prohibiting abortion.Indeed, consistent with the constitutional policy
likewise suggest. Rather, it recognizes that: one, there is a need to prohibiting abortion, and in line with the principle that laws should be
protect the fertilized ovum which already has life, and two, the fertilized construed in a manner that its constitutionality is sustained, the RH Law and
ovum must be protected the moment it becomes existent all the way its implementing rules must be consistent with each other in prohibiting
until it reaches and implants in the mothers womb. After all, if life is abortion. Thus, the word primarily in Section 3.01(a) and (j) of the RH-
only recognized and afforded protection from the moment the fertilized IRR should be declared void. To uphold the validity of Section 3.01(a) and
ovum implants there is nothing to prevent any drug or device from (j) of the RH-IRR and prohibit only those contraceptives that have the
killing or destroying the fertilized ovum prior to implantation. From the primary effect of being an abortive would effectively open the oodgates
to the approval of contraceptives which may harm or destroy the life of the abortifacient. The rst sentence of Section 9 that ordains their inclusion by
unborn from conception/fertilization in violation of Article II, Section 12 of the National Drug Formulary in the EDL by using the mandatory shall is
the Constitution. to be construed as operative only after they have been tested, evaluated, and
approved by the FDA. The FDA, not Congress, has the expertise to
162
determine whether a particular hormonal contraceptive or intrauterine
device is safe and non-abortifacient. The provision of the third sentence
Same; Same; With R.A. No. 4729 in place, there exists adequate concerning the requirements for the inclusion or removal of a particular
safeguards to ensure the public that only contraceptives that are safe are family planning supply from the EDL supports this construction.
made available to the public.The legislative intent in the enactment of the Constitutional Law; Separation of Church and State; Generally, the
RH Law in this regard is to leave intact the provisions of R.A. No. 4729. State cannot meddle in the internal affairs of the church, much less question
There is no intention at all to do away with it. It is still a good law and its its faith and dogmas or dictate upon it. It cannot favor one religion and
requirements are still in to be complied with. Thus, the Court agrees with discriminate against another.The principle of separation of Church and
the observation of respondent Lagman that the effectivity of the RH Law State was, thus, enshrined in Article II, Section 6 of the 1987 Constitution,
will not lead to the unmitigated proliferation of contraceptives since the viz.: Section 6. The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable.
sale, distribution and dispensation of contraceptive drugs and devices will Verily, the principle of separation of Church and State is based on mutual
still require the prescription of a licensed physician. With R.A. No. 4729 in respect. Generally, the State cannot meddle in the internal affairs of the
place, there exists adequate safeguards to ensure the public that only church, much less question its faith and dogmas or dictate upon it. It cannot
contraceptives that are safe are made available to the public. favor one religion and discriminate against another. On the other hand, the
Same; Same; In the distribution by the Department of Health of church cannot impose its beliefs and convictions on the State and the rest of
contraceptive drugs and devices, it must consider the provisions of Republic the citizenry. It cannot demand that the nation follow its beliefs, even if it
Act (R.A.) No. 4729, which is still in effect, and ensure that the sincerely believes that they are good for the country. Consistent with the
contraceptives that it will procure shall be from a duly licensed drug store principle that not any one religion should ever be preferred over another, the
or pharmaceutical company and that the actual dispensation of these Constitution in the above-cited provision utilizes the term church in its
contraceptive drugs and devices will done following a prescription of a generic sense, which refers to a temple, a mosque, an iglesia, or any other
qualied medical practitioner.In the distribution by the DOH of house of God which metaphorically symbolizes a religious organization.
contraceptive drugs and devices, it must consider the provisions of R.A. No. Thus, the Church means the religious congregations collectively.
4729, which is still in effect, and ensure that the contraceptives that it will Same; Religious Freedom; Free Exercise Clause; Establishment
procure shall be from a duly licensed drug store or pharmaceutical company Clause; The constitutional assurance of religious freedom provides two
and that the actual dispensation of these contraceptive drugs and devices guarantees: the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause.In
will done following a prescription of a qualied medical practitioner. The short, the constitutional assurance of religious freedom provides two
distribution of contraceptive drugs and devices must not be indiscriminately guarantees: the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. The
done. The public health must be protected by all possible means. As pointed establishment clause principally prohibits the State from sponsoring any
out by Justice De Castro, a heavy responsibility and burden are assumed religion or favoring any religion as against other religions. It mandates a
by the government in supplying contraceptive drugs and devices, for it strict neutrality in affairs among religious groups. Essentially, it prohibits
may be held accountable for any injury, illness or loss of life resulting the establishment of a state religion and the use of public resources for the
from or incidental to their use. support or prohibition of a religion. On the other hand, the basis of the free
Same; Same; The Supreme Court is of the strong view that Congress
164
cannot legislate that hormonal contraceptives and intra-uterine devices are
safe and non-abortifacient.At this point, the Court is of the strong view
that Congress cannot legislate that hormonal contraceptives and intrauterine exercise clause is the respect for the inviolability of the human conscience.
devices are safe and non- Under this part of religious freedom guarantee, the State is prohibited from
unduly interfering with the outside manifestations of ones belief and faith.
163
Same; Same; Same; Doctrine of Benevolent Neutrality; In case of
conict between the free exercise clause and the State, the Supreme Court
adheres to the doctrine of benevolent neutrality.In case of conict government can do with religion, it also limits what religious sects can or
between the free exercise clause and the State, the Court adheres to the cannot do with the government. They can neither cause the government to
doctrine of benevolent neutrality. This has been clearly decided by the adopt their particular doctrines as policy for everyone, nor can they not
Court in Estrada v. Escritor, 492 SCRA 1 (2006), (Escritor) where it was cause the government to restrict other groups. To do so, in simple terms,
stated that benevolent neutrality-accommodation, whether mandatory or would cause the State to adhere to a particular religion and, thus,
permissive, is the spirit, intent and framework underlying the Philippine establishing a state religion. Consequently, the petitioners are misguided in
Constitution. In the same case, it was further explained that: The their supposition that the State cannot enhance its population control
benevolent neutrality theory believes that with respect to these program through the RH Law simply because the promotion of
governmental actions, accommodation of religion may be allowed, not to contraceptive use is contrary to their religious beliefs. Indeed, the State is
promote the governments favored form of religion, but to allow individuals not precluded to pursue its legitimate secular objectives without being
and groups to exercise their religion without hindrance. The purpose of dictated upon by the policies of any one religion. One cannot refuse to pay
accommodation is to remove a burden on, or facilitate the exercise of, a his taxes simply because it will cloud his conscience. The demarcation line
persons or institutions religion. What is sought under the theory of between Church and State demands that one render unto Caesar the things
accommodation is not a declaration of unconstitutionality of a facially that are Caesars and unto God the things that are Gods.
neutral law, but an exemption from its application or its burdensome Same; Same; Same; Compelling Interest Test; The conscientious
effect, whether by the legislature or the courts. In ascertaining the limits of objectors claim to religious freedom would warrant an exemption from
the exercise of religious freedom, the compelling state interest test is obligations under the Reproductive Health Law, unless the government
proper. Underlying the compelling state interest test is the notion that free succeeds in demonstrating a more compelling state interest in the
exercise is a fundamental right and that laws burdening it should be subject accomplishment of an important secular objective.In a situation where the
to strict scrutiny. free exercise of religion is allegedly burdened by government legislation or
Same; Reproductive Health Law; Religious Freedom; While the practice, the compelling state interest test in line with the Courts espousal
Supreme Court stands without authority to rule on ecclesiastical matters, as of the Doctrine of Benevolent Neutrality in Escritor, nds application. In
vanguard of the Constitution, it does have authority to determine whether this case, the conscientious objectors claim to religious freedom would
the Reproductive Health (RH) Law contravenes the guarantee of religious warrant an exemption from obligations under the RH Law, unless the
freedom.In the case at bench, it is not within the province of the Court to government succeeds in demonstrating a more compelling state interest in
determine whether the use of contraceptives or ones participation in the the accomplishment of an important secular objective. Necessarily so,
support of modern reproductive health measures is moral from a religious
standpoint or whether the same is right or wrong according to ones dogma 166
or belief. For the Court has declared that matters dealing with faith,
practice, doctrine, form of worship, ecclesiastical law, custom and rule of a the plea of conscientious objectors for exemption from the RH Law
church...are unquestionably ecclesiastical matters which deserves no less than strict scrutiny.

165
Same; Same; Same; The Court is of the view that the obligation to refer
imposed by the Reproductive Health Law violates the religious belief and
conviction of a conscientious objector.The Court is of the view that the
are outside the province of the civil courts. The jurisdiction of the Court obligation to refer imposed by the RH Law violates the religious belief and
extends only to public and secular morality. Whatever pronouncement the conviction of a conscientious objector. Once the medical practitioner,
Court makes in the case at bench should be understood only in this realm against his will, refers a patient seeking information on modern reproductive
where it has authority. Stated otherwise, while the Court stands without health products, services, procedures and methods, his conscience is
authority to rule on ecclesiastical matters, as vanguard of the Constitution, it immediately burdened as he has been compelled to perform an act against
does have authority to determine whether the RH Law contravenes the his beliefs. As Commissioner Joaquin A. Bernas (Commissioner Bernas)
guarantee of religious freedom. has written, at the basis of the free exercise clause is the respect for the
Same; Same; Same; The State is not precluded to pursue its legitimate inviolability of the human conscience. Though it has been said that the act
secular objectives without being dictated upon by the policies of any one of referral is an opt-out clause, it is, however, a false compromise because it
religion.In the same breath that the establishment clause restricts what the makes pro-life health providers complicit in the performance of an act that
they nd morally repugnant or offensive. They cannot, in conscience, do protection accorded to other conscientious objectors should equally apply to
indirectly what they cannot do directly. One may not be the principal, but he all medical practitioners without distinction whether they belong to the
is equally guilty if he abets the offensive act by indirect participation. public or private sector. After all, the freedom to believe is intrinsic in every
Same; Same; Same; In case of conict between the religious beliefs individual and the protective robe that guarantees its free exercise is not
and moral convictions of individuals, on one hand, and the interest of the taken off even if one acquires employment in the government.
State, on the other, to provide access and information on reproductive health Same; Same; Same; The Supreme Court nds no compelling state
products, services, procedures and methods to enable the people to interest which would limit the free exercise clause of the conscientious
determine the timing, number and spacing of the birth of their children, the objectors, however few in number.The Court nds no compelling state
Supreme Court is of the strong view that the religious freedom of health interest which would limit the free exercise clause of the conscientious
providers, whether public or private, should be accorded primacy.In case objectors, however few in number. Only the prevention of an immediate
of conict between the religious beliefs and moral convictions of and grave danger to the security and welfare of the community can justify
individuals, on one hand, and the interest of the State, on the other, to the infringement of religious freedom. If the government fails to show the
provide access and information on reproductive health products, services, seriousness and immediacy of the threat, State intrusion is constitutionally
procedures and methods to enable the people to determine the timing, unacceptable. Freedom of religion means more than just the freedom to
number and spacing of the birth of their children, the Court is of the strong believe. It also means the freedom to act or not to act according to what one
view that the religious freedom of health providers, whether public or believes. And this freedom is violated when one is compelled to act against
private, should be accorded primacy. Accordingly, a conscientious objector ones belief or is prevented from acting according to ones belief.
should be exempt from compliance with the mandates of the RH Law. If he
would be compelled to act contrary to his religious belief and conviction, it 168
would be violative of the principle of non-coercion enshrined in the
constitutional right to free exercise of religion.
Same; Same; In a conict situation between the life of the mother and
167 the life of a child, the 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.In a conict situation between the life of the mother and the
Same; Same; Same; The punishment of a healthcare service provider, life of a child, the doctor is morally obliged always to try to save both lives.
who fails and/or refuses to refer a patient to another, or who declines to If, however, it is impossible, the resulting death to one should not be
perform reproductive health procedure on a patient because incompatible deliberate. Atty. Noche explained: Principle of Double-Effect.May we
religious beliefs, is a clear inhibition of a constitutional guarantee which the please remind the principal author of the RH Bill in the House of
Supreme Court cannot allow.The Court is not oblivious to the view that Representatives of the principle of double-effect wherein intentional harm
penalties provided by law endeavour to ensure compliance. Without set on the life of either the mother of the child is never justied to bring about a
consequences for either an active violation or mere inaction, a law tends to good effect. In a conict situation between the life of the child and the life
be toothless and ineffectual. Nonetheless, when what is bartered for an of the mother, the doctor is morally obliged always to try to save both
effective implementation of a law is a constitutionally-protected right the lives. However, he can act in favor of one (not necessarily the mother) when
Court rmly chooses to stamp its disapproval. The punishment of a it is medically impossible to save both, provided that no direct harm is
healthcare service provider, who fails and/or refuses to refer a patient to intended to the other. If the above principles are observed, the loss of the
another, or who declines to perform reproductive health procedure on a childs life or the mothers life is not intentional and, therefore,
patient because incompatible religious beliefs, is a clear inhibition of a unavoidable. Hence, the doctor would not be guilty of abortion or murder.
constitutional guarantee which the Court cannot allow. The mother is never pitted against the child because both their lives are
Same; Same; Same; The protection accorded to other conscientious equally valuable. Accordingly, if it is necessary to save the life of a mother,
objectors should equally apply to all medical practitioners without procedures endangering the life of the child may be resorted to even if is
distinction whether they belong to the public or private sector.The against the religious sentiments of the medical practitioner. As quoted
conscientious objection clause should be equally protective of the religious above, whatever burden imposed upon a medical practitioner in this case
belief of public health ofcers. There is no perceptible distinction why they would have been more than justied considering the life he would be able to
should not be considered exempt from the mandates of the law. The save.
 Same; Same; Police Power; Anent the requirement imposed under Same; Parental Consent; Equally deplorable is the debarment of
Section 15 as a condition for the issuance of a marriage license, the parental consent in cases where the minor, who will be undergoing a
Supreme Court nds the same to be a reasonable exercise of police power procedure, is already a parent or has had a miscarriage.Equally
by the government; All the law requires is for would-be spouses to attend a deplorable is the debarment of parental consent in cases where the minor,
seminar on parenthood, family planning breastfeeding and infant nutrition. who will be undergoing a procedure, is already a parent or has had a
Anent the requirement imposed under Section 15 as a condition for the miscarriage. Section 7 of the RH law provides: SEC. 7. Access to Family
issuance of a marriage license, the Court nds the same to be a reasonable Planning.x x x. No person shall be denied information and access to
exercise of police power by the government. A cursory reading of the family planning services, whether natural or articial: Provided, That
assailed provision bares that the religious freedom of the petitioners is not at minors will not be allowed access to modern
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 170
not even mandate the type of family planning methods to be included in the
seminar, whether they be natural or articial. As methods of family planning without written consent from their parents or
guardian/s except when the minor is already a parent or has had a
169
miscarriage. There can be no other interpretation of this provision except
that when a minor is already a parent or has had a miscarriage, the parents
correctly noted by the OSG, those who receive any information during their are excluded from the decision-making process of the minor with regard to
attendance in the required seminars are not compelled to accept the family planning. Even if she is not yet emancipated, the parental authority is
information given to them, are completely free to reject the information they already cut off just because there is a need to tame population growth. It is
nd unacceptable, and retain the freedom to decide on matters of family life precisely in such situations when a minor parent needs the comfort, care,
without the intervention of the State. advice, and guidance of her own parents. The State cannot replace her
Reproductive Health Law; Decision-making involving a reproductive natural mother and father when it comes to providing her needs and
health procedure is a private matter which belongs to the couple, not just comfort. To say that their consent is no longer relevant is clearly anti-family.
one of them.Section 3, Art. XV of the Constitution espouses that the State It does not promote unity in the family. It is an affront to the constitutional
shall defend the right of the spouses to found a family. One person cannot mandate to protect and strengthen the family as an inviolable social
found a family. The right, therefore, is shared by both spouses. In the same institution.
Section 3, their right to participate in the planning and implementation of Same; Same; Compelling State Interest; The State cannot, without a
policies and programs that affect them is equally recognized. The RH Law compelling state interest, take over the role of parents in the care and
cannot be allowed to infringe upon this mutual decision-making. By giving custody of a minor child, whether or not the latter is already a parent or has
absolute authority to the spouse who would undergo a procedure, and had a miscarriage. Only a compelling state interest can justify a state
barring the other spouse from participating in the decision would drive a substitution of their parental authority.To insist on a rule that interferes
wedge between the husband and wife, possibly result in bitter animosity, with the right of parents to exercise parental control over their minor-child
and endanger the marriage and the family, all for the sake of reducing the or the right of the spouses to mutually decide on matters which very well
population. This would be a marked departure from the policy of the State affect the very purpose of marriage, that is, the establishment of conjugal
to protect marriage as an inviolable social institution. Decision-making and family life, would result in the violation of ones privacy with respect to
involving a reproductive health procedure is a private matter which belongs his family. It would be dismissive of the unique and strongly-held Filipino
to the couple, not just one of them. Any decision they would reach would tradition of maintaining close family ties and violative of the recognition
affect their future as a family because the size of the family or the number of that the State affords couples entering into the special contract of marriage
their children signicantly matters. The decision whether or not to undergo to as one unit in forming the foundation of the family and society. The State
the procedure belongs exclusively to, and shared by, both spouses as one cannot, without a compelling state interest, take over the role of parents in
cohesive unit as they chart their own destiny. It is a constitutionally the care and custody of a minor child, whether or not the latter is already a
guaranteed private right. Unless it prejudices the State, which has not parent or has had a miscarriage. Only a compelling state interest can justify
shown any compelling interest, the State should see to it that they chart their a state substitution of their parental authority.
destiny together as one family.
 Same; Access to Information; Principle of Double Effect; Insofar as Same; Any attack on the validity of Section 14 of the Reproductive
access to information is concerned, the Supreme Court nds no Health (RH) Law is premature because the Department of Educa-
constitutional objection to the acquisition of information by the minor
referred to under the exception in the second paragraph of Section 7 that 172
would enable her to take proper care of her own body and that of her
unborn child. After all, Section 12, Article II of the Constitution tion, Culture and Sports (DECS) has yet to formulate a curriculum on age-
appropriate reproductive health education.Sufce it to state that any
171
attack on the validity of Section 14 of the RH Law is premature because the
Department of Education, Culture and Sports has yet to formulate a
mandates the State to protect both the life of the mother as that of the curriculum on age-appropriate reproductive health education. One can only
unborn child.There must be a differentiation between access to speculate on the content, manner and medium of instruction that will be
information about family planning services, on one hand, and access to the used to educate the adolescents and whether they will contradict the
reproductive health procedures and modern family planning methods religious beliefs of the petitioners and validate their apprehensions. Thus,
themselves, on the other. Insofar as access to information is concerned, the considering the premature nature of this particular issue, the Court declines
Court nds no constitutional objection to the acquisition of information by to rule on its constitutionality or validity.
the minor referred to under the exception in the second paragraph of Section Statutes; Principle of Void for Vagueness; A statute or act suffers from
7 that would enable her to take proper care of her own body and that of her the defect of vagueness when it lacks comprehensible standards that men of
unborn child. After all, Section 12, Article II of the Constitution mandates common intelligence must necessarily guess its meaning and differ as to its
the State to protect both the life of the mother as that of the unborn child. application.A statute or act suffers from the defect of vagueness when it
Considering that information to enable a person to make informed decisions lacks comprehensible standards that men of common intelligence must
is essential in the protection and maintenance of ones health, access to such necessarily guess its meaning and differ as to its application. It is repugnant
information with respect to reproductive health must be allowed. In this to the Constitution in two respects: (1) it violates due process for failure to
situation, the fear that parents might be deprived of their parental control is accord persons, especially the parties targeted by it, fair notice of the
unfounded because they are not prohibited to exercise parental guidance and conduct to avoid; and (2) it leaves law enforcers unbridled discretion in
control over their minor child and assist her in deciding whether to accept or carrying out its provisions and becomes an arbitrary exing of the
reject the information received. Government muscle. Moreover, in determining whether the words used in a
Same; Same; Right to Life; No person should be denied the statute are vague, words must not only be taken in accordance with their
appropriate medical care urgently needed to preserve the primordial right, plain meaning alone, but also in relation to other parts of the statute. It is a
that is, the right to life.As in the case of the conscientious objector, an rule that every part of the statute must be interpreted with reference to the
exception must be made in life-threatening cases that require the context, that is, every part of it must be construed together with the other
performance of emergency procedures. In such cases, the life of the minor parts and kept subservient to the general intent of the whole enactment.
who has already suffered a miscarriage and that of the spouse should not be Constitutional Law; Reproductive Health Law; Equal Protection of the
put at grave risk simply for lack of consent. It should be emphasized that no Law; To provide that the poor are to be given priority in the governments
person should be denied the appropriate medical care urgently needed to reproductive health care program is not a violation of the equal protection
preserve the primordial right, that is, the right to life. In this connection, the clause; It should be noted that Section 7 of the Reproductive Health (RH)
second sentence of Section 23(a)(2)(ii) should be struck down. By Law prioritizes poor and marginalized couples who are suffering from
effectively limiting the requirement of parental consent to only in elective fertility issues and desire to have children. There is, therefore, no merit to
surgical procedures, it denies the parents their right of parental authority in the contention that the RH Law only seeks to target the poor to reduce their
cases where what is involved are non-surgical procedures. Save for the number.To provide that the poor are to be given priority in the
two exceptions discussed above, and in the case of an abused child as governments reproductive health care program is not a violation of the
provided in the rst sentence of Section 23(a)(2)(ii), the parents should not equal protection clause. In fact, it is pursuant to Section 11, Article XIII of
be deprived of their constitutional right of parental authority. To deny them the Consti-
of this right would be an affront to the constitutional mandate to protect and
strengthen the family. 173
tution which recognizes the distinct necessity to address the needs of the government reproductive healthcare service providers to render pro bono
underprivileged by providing that they be given priority in addressing the service. Other than non-accreditation with PhilHealth, no penalty is imposed
health development of the people. Thus: Section 11. The State shall adopt an should they choose to do otherwise. Private and non-government
integrated and comprehensive approach to health development which shall reproductive healthcare service providers also enjoy the liberty to choose
endeavor to make essential goods, health and other social services available which kind of health service they wish to provide, when, where and how to
to all the people at affordable cost. There shall be priority for the needs of provide it or whether to provide it all. Clearly, therefore, no compulsion,
the underprivileged, sick, elderly, disabled, women, and children. The force or threat is made upon them to render pro bono service against their
State shall endeavor to provide free medical care to paupers. It should will. While the rendering of such service was made a prerequisite to
be noted that Section 7 of the RH Law prioritizes poor and marginalized accreditation with PhilHealth, the Court does not consider the same to be an
couples who are suffering from fertility issues and desire to have children. unreasonable burden, but rather, a necessary incentive imposed by Congress
There is, therefore, no merit to the contention that the RH Law only seeks to in the furtherance of a perceived legitimate state interest.
target the poor to reduce their number. While the RH Law admits the use of Same; Same; From the declared policy of the Reproductive Health
contraceptives, it does not, as elucidated above, sanction abortion. As (RH) Law, it is clear that Congress intended that the public be given only
Section 3(l) explains, the promotion and/or stabilization of the population those medicines that are proven medically safe, legal, non-abortifacient,
growth rate is incidental to the advancement of reproductive health. and effective in accordance with scientic and evidence-based medical
Same; Same; Involuntary Servitude; Clearly, no compulsion, force or research standards.The functions, powers and duties of the FDA are
threat is made upon reproductive healthcare service providers to render pro specic to enable the agency to carry out the mandates of the law. Being the
bono service against their will. While the rendering of such service was countrys premiere and sole agency that ensures the safety of food and
made a prerequisite to accreditation with PhilHealth, the Supreme Court medicines available to the public, the FDA was equipped with the necessary
does not consider the same to be an unreasonable burden, but rather, a powers and functions to make it effective. Pursuant to the principle of
necessary incentive imposed by Congress in the furtherance of a perceived necessary implication, the mandate by Congress to the FDA to ensure public
legitimate state interest.The OSG counters that the rendition of pro bono health and safety by permitting only food and medicines that are safe
services envisioned in Section 17 can hardly be considered as forced labor includes service and methods. From the declared policy of the RH Law,
analogous to slavery, as reproductive health care service providers have the it is clear that Congress intended that the public be given only those
discretion as to the manner and time of giving pro bono services. Moreover, medicines that are proven medically safe, legal, non-abortifacient, and
the OSG points out that the imposition is within the powers of the effective in accordance with scientic and evidence-based medical research
government, the accreditation of medical practitioners with PhilHealth being standards.
a privilege and not a right. The point of the OSG is well-taken. It should rst Same; Same; The fact that the Reproductive Health (RH) Law does not
be mentioned that the practice of medicine is undeniably imbued with public intrude in the autonomy of local governments can be equally applied to the
interest that it is both a power and a duty of the State to control and regulate Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao (ARMM). The RH Law does not
it in order to protect and promote the public welfare. Like the legal infringe upon its autonomy.The fact that the RH Law does not intrude in
profession, the practice of medicine is not a right but a privileged burdened the autonomy of local governments can
with conditions as it directly involves the very lives of the people. A
fortiori, this power includes the power of Congress to prescribe the 175
qualications for the practice of professions or trades which affect the
public welfare, the public health, the public morals, and the public safety;
and to regu- be equally applied to the ARMM. The RH Law does not infringe upon its
autonomy. Moreover, Article III, Sections 6, 10 and 11 of R.A. No. 9054, or
174
the organic act of the ARMM, alluded to by petitioner Tillah to justify the
exemption of the operation of the RH Law in the autonomous region, refer
to the policy statements for the guidance of the regional government. These
late or control such professions or trades, even to the point of revoking such provisions relied upon by the petitioners simply delineate the powers that
right altogether. Moreover, as some petitioners put it, the notion of may be exercised by the regional government, which can, in no manner, be
involuntary servitude connotes the presence of force, threats, intimidation or characterized as an abdication by the State of its power to enact legislation
other similar means of coercion and compulsion. A reading of the assailed that would benet the general welfare. After all, despite the veritable
provision, however, reveals that it only encourages private and non-
autonomy granted the ARMM, the Constitution and the supporting Same; Same; Separation of Powers; It is not the province of the
jurisprudence, as they now stand, reject the notion of imperium et imperio in judiciary to look into the wisdom of the law nor to question the policies
the relationship between the national and the regional governments. Except adopted by the legislative branch. Nor is it the business of this Tribunal to
for the express and implied limitations imposed on it by the Constitution, remedy every unjust situation that may arise from the application of a
Congress cannot be restricted to exercise its inherent and plenary power to particular law. It is for the legislature to enact remedial legislation if that
legislate on all subjects which extends to all matters of general concern or would be necessary in the premises.Indeed, at the present, the country has
common interest. a population problem, but the State should not use coercive measures (like
Same; Same; Abortion; The Reproductive Health (RH) Law does not the penal provisions of the RH Law against conscientious objectors) to solve
sanction the taking away of life. It does not allow abortion in any shape or it. Nonetheless, the policy of the Court is non-interference in the wisdom of
form. It only seeks to enhance the population control program of the a law. xxx. But this Court cannot go beyond what the legislature has laid
government by providing information and making non-abortifacient down. Its duty is to say what the law is as enacted by the lawmaking body.
contraceptives more readily available to the public, especially to the poor. That is not the same as saying what the law should be or what is the correct
Unless, a natural right has been transformed into a written law, it cannot rule in a given set of circumstances. It is not the province of the judiciary
serve as a basis to strike down a law. In Republic v. Sandiganbayan, 407 to look into the wisdom of the law nor to question the policies adopted
SCRA 10 (2003), the very case cited by the petitioners, it was explained that by the legislative branch. Nor is it the business of this Tribunal to
the Court is not duty-bound to examine every law or action and whether it remedy every unjust situation that may arise from the application of a
conforms with both the Constitution and natural law. Rather, natural law is particular law. It is for the legislature to enact remedial legislation if
to be used sparingly only in the most peculiar of circumstances involving that would be necessary in the premises. But as always, with apt judicial
rights inherent to man where no law is applicable. At any rate, as earlier caution and cold neutrality, the Court must carry out the delicate function of
expounded, the RH Law does not sanction the taking away of life. It does interpreting the law, guided by the Constitution and existing legislation and
not allow abortion in any shape or form. It only seeks to enhance the mindful of settled jurisprudence. The Courts function is therefore limited,
population control program of the government by providing information and and accordingly, must conne itself to the judicial task of saying what the
making non-abortifacient contraceptives more readily available to the law is, as enacted by the lawmaking body.
public, especially to the poor.

Same; Same; In general, the Supreme Court does not nd the
Reproductive Health (RH) Law as unconstitutional insofar as it seeks to 177
provide access to medically-safe, non-abortifacient, effective, legal,
affordable, and quality reproductive healthcare services, methods, devices,
Sereno,CJ., Opinyong Sumasang-ayon at Sumasalungat:
and supplies.In general, the Court does not nd the RH

Constitutional Law; Reproductive Health Law; Hierarchy of Rights; Sa

176
aking pananaw sa herarkiya ng mga karapatang pantao, walang hihigit pa
sa karapatang mabuhay, at nasasalamin ng ating Saligang Batas ang
Law as unconstitutional insofar as it seeks to provide access to medically- ganitong paniniwala; Wala sa takda ng Saligang Batas at Republic Act No.
safe, non-abortifacient, effective, legal, affordable, and quality reproductive 10354 (The Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012),
healthcare services, methods, devices, and supplies. As earlier pointed out, o RH Law, ang pagkitil ng buhay.Sa herarkiya ng mga karapatang pantao,
however, the religious freedom of some sectors of society cannot be walang hihigit pa sa karapatang mabuhay, at nasasalamin ng ating Saligang
trampled upon in pursuit of what the law hopes to achieve. After all, the Batas ang ganitong paniniwala. Ayon dito, pantay na pangangalagaan ng
Constitutional safeguard to religious freedom is a recognition that man pamahalaan ang buhay ng ina at ang buhay na kanyang dinadala. Bakas sa
stands accountable to an authority higher than the State. In conformity with adhikaing ito ang pagkilala sa malaking bahaging ginagampanan ng ina sa
the principle of separation of Church and State, one religious group cannot pagbibigay ng buhay. Kayat sasalungatin ko ang bigkasin ng aking mga
be allowed to impose its beliefs on the rest of the society. Philippine modern kapatid na Mahistrado, na ang pagpapalaya sa pasiya ng may-katawan ay
society leaves enough room for diversity and pluralism. As such, everyone kumikitil ng buhay ng kapwa-taong isisilang pa lamang. Wala sa takda ng
should be tolerant and open-minded so that peace and harmony may Saligang Batas at Republic Act No. 10354 (The Responsible Parenthood
continue to reign as we exist alongside each other. and Reproductive Health Act of 2012), o RH Law, ang pagkitil ng buhay.
Ngunit inuunawa rin nito ang karapatan ng mag-asawa na magpalaki ng mga mamamayan at ang interes ng pamahalaan sa pagpapatupad ng
kanilang pamilya ng may dangal sa buhay. Napakahalaga din sa pananaw ng patakarang sinasabing nagpapahirap sa religious convictions ng ilan. Kapag
Saligang Batas at ng RH Law ang kalusugan ng pamayanan, lalung-lalo na hindi nanaig ang interes ng pamahalaan, magbibigay ng exemption sa
ang kalusugan ng mga ina o magiging ina ng pamayanang ito. Kayat patakaran ang Korte Suprema para sa mga mamamayang naninindigan para
mahalaga na ang bawat interpretasyon ng RH Law ay ayon sa ikabubuti ng sa kanilang religious freedom. Isinaad din sa Estrada v. Escritor na
pamilyang Pilipino at kalusugan ng ina. nakagawian na ng Korte Suprema na magbigay ng exemption sa halip na
Same; Same; Compelling Interest Test; Religious Freedom; Sa aking magpawalang-bisa ng mga patakaran ng pamahalaan pagdating sa usapin ng
pananaw hindi ako sumasang-ayon na nararapat gamitin ang compelling religious freedom. Hindi ito ang sitwasyon sa ilalim ng RH Law. Ayon sa
state interest test upang tiyakin ang legalidad ng Reproductive Health (RH) petitioners, katumbas ng isang pagkakasala sa ilalim ng kanilang relihiyon
Law partikular na ang paggarantiya ng pamahalaan sa ligtas, mabisa, ang pagsasagawa ng serbisyo ukol sa modern family planning methods at
abot-kaya, de-kalidad, naaayon sa batas at hindi abortifacient na pagbibigay ng payo ukol dito. Labag ito sa religious freedom ng mga
reproductive health care services, methods, devices at supplies para sa conscientious health professionals na naniniwalang likas na masama ang
lahat, pati na ang mahalagang kaalaman ukol dito sa kadahilanang buo contraception. Dahil dito, nararapat na ipawalang-bisa ang RH Law. At,
ang pagkilala ng RH Law sa religious freedom, kayat hindi na kailangan ayon sa mga kapatid kong Mahistrado, walang compelling state interest para
ang test na ito.Hindi ako sumasang-ayon na nararapat gamitin ang payagan ang pamahalaang pilitin ang health professionals na luma-
compelling state interest test upang tiyakin ang legalidad ng RH Law
179
partikular na ang paggarantiya ng pamahalaan sa ligtas, mabisa, abot-kaya,
de-kalidad, naaayon sa batas at hindi abortifacient na reproductive health
care services, methods, devices at supplies para sa lahat, pati na ang bag sa kanilang paniniwala. Ang totoo, walang paglabag sa paniniwala na
mahalagang kaalaman ukol dito sa kadahi- pinapataw ang RH Law.
Same; Same; Religious Freedom; Opt-Out Clause; Sa aking pananaw
178
sa ilalim ng opt-out clause na nakapaloob sa Section 7 ng Reproductive
Health (RH) Law, hindi obligadong magdulot ng serbisyo kaugnay sa
lanang buo ang pagkilala ng RH Law sa religious freedom, kayat hindi na modern family planning methods ang mga non-maternity specialty hospitals
kailangan ang test na ito. at mga ospital na pagmamay-ari at pinatatakbo ng mga religious groups.
Same; Same; Same; Sa aking pananaw ginamit ang compelling state Nakalimutan ng petitioners ang kabuuan ng RH Law. Batid ng Kongreso na
interest test sa Estrada v. Escritor, 408 SCRA 1 (2003), upang malaman maaaring makasagasa sa paniniwala at ikaligalig ng ilang medical
kung ang respondent doon ay nararapat na bigyan ng exemption laban sa professionals ang kautusang ito sa RH Law. Dahil mismo dito kaya nag-ukit
kasong administratibo bunga ng pakikisama niya sa lalaking hindi niya ang Kongreso ng exemption sa RH Law para sa mga conscientious objectors
asawa ayon sa Civil Code.Ginamit ang compelling state interest test sa sa pamamagitan ng opt-out clause. Sa ilalim ng opt-out clause na
Estrada v. Escritor, 408 SCRA 1 (2003), upang malaman kung ang nakapaloob sa Section 7 ng RH Law, hindi obligadong magdulot ng serbisyo
respondent doon ay nararapat na bigyan ng exemption laban sa kasong kaugnay sa modern family planning methods ang mga non-maternity
administratibo bunga ng pakikisama niya sa lalaking hindi niya asawa ayon specialty hospitals at mga ospital na pagmamay-ari at pinatatakbo ng mga
sa Civil Code. Karaniwan, bilang kawani ng pamahalaan, mahaharap ang religious groups. Sa kabilang banda, pinahahalagahan sa ilalim ng Section
respondent sa kasong disgraceful and immoral conduct. Bagkus, inilahad ng 23(a)(3) ng RH Law ang conscientious objection ng health care service
respondent na bagamat walang basbas ng pamahalaang sibil ang kanilang providers batay sa kanilang ethical o religious beliefs. Ayon dito, exempted
pagsasama, may basbas naman ito ng kanilang relihiyon na Jehovahs sila sa kaparusahan na ipapataw sa mga tatangging magdulot ng
Witnesses and the Watch Tower and Bible Tract Society. Kayat hindi siya reproductive health care services at magbigay ng mahalagang kaalaman
nararapat na sampahan ng kasong administratibo bunga nito. ukol dito.

Same; Same; Same; Sa aking pananaw kapag hindi nanaig ang interes Same; Same; Same; Sa aking pananaw wala dapat pagtutol sa atas ng
ng pamahalaan, magbibigay ng exemption sa patakaran ang Korte Suprema Reproductive Health (RH) Law na ituro ng mga conscientious objector ang
para sa mga mamamayang naninindigan para sa kanilang religious mga pasyente sa pinakamalapit na health facility o health care service
freedom.Malinaw sa Estrada v. Escritor, 408 SCRA 1 (2003), na sa ilalim provider na makatutulong sa kanila.Ayon sa Decision, walang idinudulot
ng compelling state interest test, ipinagtutunggali ang religious freedom ng na paglabag sa religious freedom ang pag-uutos sa mga ikakasal na dumalo
sa mga seminar ukol sa responsible parenthood, family planning, napapaloob sa isang monopoly sa paghahatid ng serbisyong pangkalusugan,
breastfeeding at infant nutrition dahil hindi naman sila obligadong sumunod ang ilan sa kanila na mas pinahahalagahan ang kanilang religious interests
sa mga ituturo dito. Hindi rin masama ang pagbibigay-daan na mabigyan ng nang walang pakundangan sa kapakanan ng kanilang pasyente ay nababalot
mahalagang kaalaman tungkol sa family planning services ang mga menor sa isang matinding conict of interest. Kilala ang dakilang propesyong ito sa
de edad na may anak o nagkaroon ng miscarriage para matutunan nila ang pagpapakasakit para sa ikabubuti ng ibang tao, kaya naman ang pagtanggi
mga bagay na makatutulong sa kanila upang pangalagaan ang kanilang kahit sa pagtuturo na lamang sa ibang
katawan at anak o dinadala. Kung gayon, at kahalintulad ng nasabing
sitwasyon, wala rin dapat pagtutol sa atas ng RH Law na ituro ng mga 181
conscientious objector ang mga pasyente sa pinakamalapit na health facility
o health care service provider na makatutulong sa kanila. health facility o health care service provider ay maituturing na pagkait ng
serbisyong pangkalusugan sa mga pasyente.
180
Same; Same; Sa aking pananaw ipinagbabawal ng Section 23(a)(1)
ang pagkakait ng mahalagang kaalaman, pagbabawal sa pagpapalaganap
Same; Same; Same; Sa aking pananaw hindi maituturing na dagdag nito o sadyaang pagbibigay ng maling impormasyon kaugnay ng mga
pasanin ng medical professionals ang duty to refer sa ilalim ng programa at serbisyo ukol sa reproductive health, karapatan ng lahat sa
Reproductive Health (RH) Law.Sa kanilang pagpasok sa propesyon, informed choice at ang paggarantiya ng pamahalaan sa ligtas, mabisa,
tinanggap ng mga medical professionals ang mga moral values at kaakibat abot-kaya, de-kalidad, naaayon sa batas at hindi abortifacient na family
na katungkulan sa mga pasyente. Isa dito ang napapanahong duty to refer sa planning methods.Sa puntong ito, nais kong linawin na ipinagbabawal ng
ibang health facility o health care service provider kung batid nila na dahil Section 23(a)(1) ang pagkakait ng mahalagang kaalaman, pagbabawal sa
sa kanilang religious beliefs, hindi nila maaaring ihatid ang serbisyong pagpapalaganap nito o sadyaang pagbibigay ng maling impormasyon
hinihingi o kinakailangan ng pasyente. Upang mapanatili ang ethical kaugnay ng mga programa at serbisyo ukol sa reproductive health,
practice, hinihikayat ng mga pantas ang mga conscientious objectors na karapatan ng lahat sa informed choice at ang paggarantiya ng pamahalaan sa
maglingkod kalapit ang ibang medical professionals na hindi conscientious ligtas, mabisa, abot-kaya, de-kalidad, naaayon sa batas at hindi abortifacient
objectors upang maayos na mapanatili ang isang referral system para na family planning methods. Sa kabilang banda, ipinagbabawal naman ng
masigurado na maibibigay sa pasyente ang mga pangangailangan nitong Section 23(a)(2) ang pagtangging magsagawa ng ligtas at naaayon sa batas
hindi kayang tugunan ng conscientious objector. Mahalaga ito upang na reproductive health procedures dahil lamang sa ang taong naghahangad
masiguro na tuloy-tuloy ang serbisyong pangkalusugan para sa mga taong nito, bagamat nasa hustong edad, ay hindi makapagpakita ng pahintulot ng
nangangailangan nito. Dahil dito, hindi maituturing na dagdag pasanin ng kanyang asawa o magulang. Hindi nito ipinagbabawal ang pagtangging
medical professionals ang duty to refer sa ilalim ng RH Law. Likas na ito sa magsagawa ng reproductive health procedures dahil sa kanilang religious
kanilang propesyon. Sa katunayan, nasa kapangyarihan ng Kongreso ang beliefs.
maglatag ng mga alituntunin at dagdag na pasanin sa propesyon ng medisina Same; Same; Sa aking pananaw bagamat maaaring parusahan ang
ayon sa police power nito upang isulong ang public health. At, inuunawa ng iba kung sila ay tatangging magsagawa ng de-kalidad na health care
RH Law na dahil sa religious convictions, hindi maaaring isagawa ng isang services o tatangging magbigay ng mahalagang kaalaman ukol dito,
medical professional ang serbisyo ukol sa modern family planning methods pinapayagan ang mga conscientious objector na tumanggi kung wala sa
kahit hinihingi pa ng pasyente. Dahil dito, pinapayagan sila na tumanggi ng emergency condition o hindi serious case ang pasyente.Kung
pasyente at papuntahin ito sa ibang medical professional na makatutulong conscientious objector ang health care service provider, mapapasailalim
dito. siya sa Section 23(a)(3) na nagsasabing isasaalang-alang at irerespeto ang
Same; Same; Same; Sa aking pananaw kung tutuusin, maituturing na kanilang ethical o religious beliefs. Ayon dito, bagamat maaaring
paglabag sa sinumpaang tungkulin ng mga medical professionals ang parusahan ang iba kung sila ay tatangging magsagawa ng de-kalidad na
pagtangging magturo ng pasyente sa ibang medical professional.Kung health care services o tatangging magbigay ng mahalagang kaalaman ukol
tutuusin, maituturing na paglabag sa sinumpaang tungkulin ng medical dito, pinapayagan ang mga conscientious objector na tumanggi kung wala
professionals ang pagtangging magturo ng pasyente sa ibang mga medical sa emergency condition o hindi serious case ang pasyente. Hindi
professional. Maaari itong maging basehan ng disciplinary action laban sa parurusahan ng batas ang mga conscientious objector na tumanggi, at
kanila. Ayon sa isang lathalain, dahil ang mga medical professionals ay kabilang ito sa exemption na inilatag ng RH Law para sa kanila.
 Same; Same; Due Process; Sa aking pananaw bukod sa mga anak. Walang anumang nakasulat sa batas na nagpapahintulot sa
karapatang ginagarantiya ng Bill of Rights, saklaw ng due process pamahalaan na manghimasok sa pagpapasiya [that] belongs exclusively to,
and [is] shared by, both spouses as one cohesive unit as they chart their
182
own destiny. Walang anumang nakasulat sa RH Law na humahadlang sa
pagsali ng asawa sa pagtimbang ng mga pagpipiliang modern family
planning methods, at pagpapasiya kung ano ang pinakamabuti para sa
clause ang lahat ng bahagi ng buhay ng tao. Kabilang na rito ang kanyang asawa. Kung may epekto man ang RH Law, ito ay ang
karapatan ng sariling pagpapasiya.Mayroong pangunahing karapatan, at pagpapatibay ng makatotohanang sanggunian sa pagitan ng mag-asawang
pangangailangan, ang lahat ng tao sa sariling pagpapasiya. Biniyayaan ng pantay na magpapasiya ukol sa isang bagay na magtatakda ng kanilang
kaisipan ang lahat ng tao upang malayang maipahayag ang kanyang kinabukasan.
saloobin, makabuo ng sariling pananaw at makapagpasiya para sa kanyang
kinabukasan. Sa ilalim ng ating Saligang Batas, pinangangalagaan ng due Same; Same; Sa aking pananaw hindi angkop na manghimasok ang
process clause ang garantiya ng kalayaan sa bawat Pilipino. Nagsasabi ito Korte Suprema sa katanungan kung ang Reproductive Health (RH) Law ay
na walang sinuman ang maaaring bawian ng buhay, kalayaan at ari-arian isang population control measure sapagkat ang Kongreso lamang ang
nang hindi ayon sa paraang inilatag sa batas. Panangga ng mga mamamayan makasasagot sa tanong kung ano ang nag-udyok dito sa pagbuo ng
ang due process clause sa hindi makatuwirang pamamalakad at pagsamsam nasabing batas.Hindi angkop na manghimasok ang Korte Suprema sa
ng pamahalaan. Gayunpaman, [t]he Due Process Clause guarantees more katanungan kung ang RH Law ay isang population control measure
than fair process, and the liberty it protects includes more than the sapagkat ang Kongreso lamang ang makasasagot sa tanong kung ano ang
absence of physical restraint. Nagtatakda ang due process clause ng nag-udyok dito sa pagbuo ng nasabing batas. Ang tanging dapat pagtuunan
limitasyon sa kapangyarihan ng pamahalaan pagdating sa mga karapatan ng ng pansin ng Korte Suprema ay kung ang batas at ang mga nilalaman nito
mamamayan. Bukod sa mga karapatang ginagarantiya ng Bill of Rights, ay alinsunod sa itinatakda ng Saligang Batas. Masasabi nating ispekulasyon
saklaw ng due process clause ang lahat ng bahagi ng buhay ng tao. Kabilang lamang ang paghusga sa hangarin ng Kongreso na handa itong sirain ang
na rito ang karapatan ng sariling pagpapasiya. parental authority upang isulong lamang ang population control. Pasintabi
po, hindi maaaring ganito ang tono ng Korte Suprema patungo sa Kongreso.
Same; Same; Sa aking pananaw sa ilalim ng Reproductive Health (RH)
Law, ihahandog sa lahat ang mahalagang impormasyon ukol sa modern Same; Same; Parental Authority; Sa aking pananaw pinag-uukulan ng
family planning methods. Ipinapalagay na paglilimian ng asawang ilang karapatan at tungkulin ang mga magulang kaugnay sa kanilang mga
sasailalim sa procedure ang mga magiging epekto nito sa kanya at sa anak na wala pa sa tamang gulang. Maaaring talikuran o ilipat ang
kanyang mahal sa buhay.Sa ilalim ng RH Law, ihahandog sa lahat ang parental authority at responsibility ayon lamang sa mga halimbawang
mahalagang impormasyon ukol sa modern family planning methods. nakasaad sa batas.[P]arental authority and responsibility include the
Ipinapalagay din na paglilimian ng asawang sasailalim sa procedure ang caring for and rearing of unemancipated children for civic consciousness
mga magiging epekto nito sa kanya at sa kanyang mahal sa buhay. Kung and efciency and the development of their moral, mental and physical
magdesisyon siya na sumailalim sa napiling reproductive health procedure, character and well-being. Pinag-uukulan ng ilang karapatan at tungkulin
hindi ito dapat hadlangan ng sinuman. Bahagi pa rin ito ng informed consent ang mga magulang kaugnay sa kanilang mga anak na wala pa sa tamang
na pundasyon ng RH Law. gulang. Maaaring talikuran o ilipat ang parental authority at responsibility
ayon lamang sa mga halimbawang nakasaad sa batas. Mabibinbin o
Same; Same; Sa aking pananaw walang anumang nakasulat sa mapuputol ito ayon lamang sa mga sitwasyong nakasaad sa Family Code.
Reproductive Health (RH) Law na humahadlang sa pagsali ng asawa sa
pagtimbang ng mga pagpipiliang modern family planning methods, at 184
pagpapasiya kung ano ang pinakamabuti para sa kanyang asawa.Walang
anumang nakasulat sa RH Law na nag-aalis sa mag-asawa ng kanilang
karapatang bumuo ng pamilya. Sa katunayan, tinitiyak nito na ang mga Same; Same; Same; Sa aking pananaw sa ilalim ng Reproductive
maralita na nagnanais magkaroon ng anak ay makikinabang sa mga payo, Health (RH) Law, hindi pinagbabawalan ang mga menor de edad na may
kagamitan at nararapat na procedures para matulungan silang maglihi at anak o nagkaroon ng miscarriage na humingi ng payo sa kanilang
maparami ang mga magulang, at hindi pinagbabawalan ang mga magulang na magbigay nito.
Walang anumang nakasulat sa RH Law na nagsasabing napuputol ang
183 parental authority kapag ang menor de edad ay may anak na o nagkaroon
ng miscarriage. Hindi nito dinadagdagan ang mga halimbawang nakasaad karapatan ng mga kabataan na magkaroon ng mahalagang kaalaman ukol sa
sa Family Code ukol sa pagkawala ng parental authority. Walang anumang kanilang kalusugan, ipinag-uutos ng RH Law ang pagtuturo ng age-and
nakasulat sa batas na nagbibigay kapangyarihan sa pamahalaan upang development-appropriate reproductive health education sa lahat ng pribado
humalili sa ina at ama sa pagdamay at pagtugon sa mga pangangailangan ng at pampublikong paaralan.
kanilang mga menor de edad. Kailanmay hindi kaya at hindi maaaring Same; Same; Sa aking pananaw hindi ako sang-ayon sa Decision na
gawin ito ng pamahalaan, hindi lamang dahil hindi ito praktikal ngunit dahil walang totoong pagkakaiba sa pagitan ng pribado at pampublikong health
walang makatutumbas sa inaasahang pagmamahal ng magulang. Sa ofcers. Naniniwala ako na napakalaki ng pagkakaiba sa pagitan nila at
ganitong pagsubok sa buhay ng isang menor de edad, higit lalo niyang nagmumula ito sa kadahilanang inaasahan ang mga pampublikong health
kailangan ang comfort, care, advice and guidance from her own parents. ofcers bilang frontline sa paghahatid ng serbisyong pangkalusugan.
Sa ilalim ng RH Law, hindi pinagbabawalan ang mga menor de edad na Hindi ako sang-ayon sa Decision na walang totoong pagkakaiba sa pagitan
may anak o nagkaroon ng miscarriage na humingi ng payo sa kanilang ng pribado at pampublikong health ofcers. Naniniwala ako na napakalaki
magulang, at hindi pinagbabawalan ang mga magulang na magbigay nito. ng pagkakaiba sa pagitan nila at nagmumula ito sa kadahilanang inaasahan
Ipinapalagay na hangad lamang ng mga magulang ang makabubuti para sa ang mga pampublikong health ofcers bilang frontline sa paghahatid ng
kanilang anak. serbisyong pangkalusugan. Bilang public ofcers, may pananagutan sila sa
Same; Same; Same; Sa aking pananaw sa pagsasabi na hindi taong-bayan sa lahat ng oras, at nararapat na maglingkod sila nang may
kailangan ang parental consent ng mga menor de edad na may anak o dangal, katapatan, kahusayan, ganap-taglay ang pagiging makabayan at
nagkaroon ng miscarriage bago mabigyan ang mga ito ng modern family makatarungan, at payak ang pamumuhay. Maaari din nating banggitin na
planning services, pinanghihimasukan ng pamahalaan ang ugnayan sa ang sambayanan ang nagpapasahod sa kanila. Sa pamamagitan ng
pagitan ng menor de edad at ang nilapitan nitong medical health paglilingkod ng mga pampublikong health ofcers naisasakatuparan ng
professional.Sa pagsasabi na hindi kailangan ang parental consent ng mga pamahalaan ang tungkulin nito na pangalagaan ang kalusugan ng mga
menor de edad na may anak o nagkaroon ng miscarriage bago mabigyan mamamayan, lalo na ang mga maralitang bahagya na ngang makabili ng
ang mga ito ng modern family planning services, pinanghihimasukan ng sapat na pagkain sa araw-araw.
pamahalaan ang ugnayan sa pagitan ng menor de edad at ang nilapitan Same; Same; Equal Protection of the Law; Sa aking pananaw hindi
nitong medical health professional. Kadalasan, pinagkakaitan ng karapat-dapat na sabihing lumalabag sa equal protection clause ng ating
reproductive health services ng mga pribado at pampublikong health Saligang Batas ang Reproductive Health (RH) Law
professionals ang mga menor de edad dahil sa kaisipang masyado pa silang
mga bata para magkaroon ng kaalaman sa mga bagay ukol sa kanilang 186
sekswalidad. Ang paghingi ng parental consent ang madalas na dahilan
upang tanggihan ang ganitong pagsangguni ng mga kabataan. Minsan nga,
hinihiya pa ang mga ito. Ngunit kailangang tandaan na nagdalang-tao at Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) nito.Sa gayon, hindi
karapat-dapat na sabihing lumalabag sa equal protection clause ng ating
185
Saligang Batas ang RH Law at IRR nito. Kaugnay nito, tinutuligsa ang
sumusunod na bahagi ng Section 5.24 ng IRR ng RH Law: Provided, That
skilled health professionals such as provincial, city, or municipal health
na ang mga menor de edad na ito, at hindi na masasabing wala silang ofcers, chiefs of hospital, head nurses, supervising midwives, among
muwang pagdating sa mga bagay na sekswal. others, who by virtue of their ofce are specically charged with the
Same; Same; Age and Development-Appropriate Reproductive Health duty to implement the provisions of the RPRH Act and these Rules,
Education; Sa aking pananaw upang mapangalagaan ang karapatan ng cannot be considered as conscientious objectors. (Emphasis supplied)
mga kabataan na magkaroon ng mahalagang kaalaman ukol sa kanilang Itinatadhana nito na hindi maaaring maging conscientious objectors ang
kalusugan, ipinag-uutos ng RH Law ang pagtuturo ng age- and mga pampublikong skilled health professionals na mismong inatasang
development-appropriate reproductive health education sa lahat ng pribado magsagawa ng mga kautusan at programa sa ilalim ng RH Law at IRR
at pampublikong paaralan.Bahagi ng RH Law ang paninindigan ng nito. Malinaw ang dahilan nito. Walang makabuluhang pagsasakatuparan ng
pamahalaan na ang mga kabataan ay active rights holders, at katungkulan RH Law, at pangangalaga sa reproductive health ng sambayanan, kung
ng pamahalaan na siguraduhin na matatamasa nila ang kanilang mga hahayaan ang mga provincial, city, o municipal health ofcers, chiefs of
karapatan nang walang diskriminasyon. Upang mapangalagaan ang hospital, head nurses at supervising midwives iyong mga itinuturing na
nasa frontline ng paghahatid ng serbisyong pangkalusugan na pro bono service sa maralita upang mapangalagaan ang kanilang
tumangging magbigay ng reproductive health care services at mahalagang reproductive health. Kung tutuusin, reproductive health care ng mga
kaalaman ukol dito. Makikitang hindi discriminatory ang nasabing pasyente ang pangunahing pinagtutuunan ng pansin ng mga gynecologists at
probisyon kapag inilapat ang test of reasonableness. Sakop lamang nito ang obstetricians. Kung bibigyan sila ng exemption sa Section 17 dahil
mga public skilled health professionals na inatasang isagawa ang mga conscientious objector sila, ang tanging magiging epekto nito ay hindi nila
kautusan at programa sa ilalim ng RH Law at IRR nito. Makikita na iyon kakailanganing magbigay ng anumang libreng serbisyo. Kung gayon,
lamang mga may management prerogative at kapangyarihang mag- mawawalan ng saysay ang layunin ng pamahalaan sa ilalim ng RH Law na
impluwensiya ng pamamalakad ng kanilang institusyon ang hindi maaaring ihatid sa mga maralitang mamamayan ang kadalubhasaan ng mga pribadong
tumangging maghatid ng reproductive health care services at mahalagang reproductive health care service providers.
kaalaman ukol dito. Malinaw ang pagkakaiba nila sa ibang pampublikong Same; Same; Sa aking pananaw pinapayagan ang lahat ng methods of
health professionals na maaaring maging conscientious objectors. contraception hanggat ang mga ito ay ligtas, naaayon sa batas, aprobado
Same; Same; Sa aking pananaw pagdating sa reproductive health ng medical professionals at alinsunod sa Islamic Shariah.Pinapayagan
programs, magiging kahangalan para sa pamahalaan kung hahayaan nito ang lahat ng methods of contraception hanggat ang mga ito ay ligtas,
na sariling mga kawani ang humadlang sa pamamagitan ng paglalatag ng naaayon sa batas, aprobado ng medical professionals at alinsunod sa Islamic
mga salungat na patakaran gamit ang makinarya ng pamahalaan.Bilang Shariah. Wala ring nakikitang pagtutol ang Shariah sa pakahulugan ng
mga kawani ng pamahalaan, nalalagay sa isang pambihirang katayuan ang International Conference on Population and Development sa reproductive
mga public ofcers para isakatuparan ang mga nilalayon ng pamahalaan. health, pati na ang
Dahil dito, malaki ang nakaatang na responsibilidad sa kanila upang ilunsad
ang mga balakin ng pamahalaan. Pagdating sa reproductive health 188
programs, magiging kahangalan para sa pamahalaan kung haha-
mga prinsipyo nito ukol sa pagpapasiya sa dami at pag-aagwat ng mga anak,
187
pagkakaroon ng kaalaman ukol sa sariling sekswalidad, pagiging ligtas sa
mga sakit kaugnay sa reproduction, at pagkakaroon ng safe at satisfying sex
yaan nito na sariling mga kawani ang humadlang sa pamamagitan ng life sa pagitan ng mag-asawa. Kung susukatin ang mga adhikain ng RH Law
paglalatag ng mga salungat na patakaran gamit ang makinarya ng batay sa religious freedom ng mga Muslim, na bumubuo sa limang
pamahalaan. Samakatuwid, hindi dapat payagang tumalikod sa tungkulin porsiyento ng mga Pilipino, wala itong hatid na ligalig o pasanin.
ang isang public ofcer na mismong inatasang isagawa ang mga kautusan at
programa sa ilalim ng RH Law at IRR nito, o biguin nito ang paglulunsad Carpio,J., Concurring Opinion:
ng isang reproductive health program.
Reproductive Health Law; View that the Supreme Court is simply not
Same; Same; PhilHealth Accreditation; Sa aking pananaw alalahanin
competent to declare when human life begins, whether upon fertilization of
ng lahat na pribilehiyo at hindi karapatan ang magkaroon ng PhilHealth
the ovum or upon attachment of the fertilized ovum to the uterus wall.I
accreditation kayat tama lang na isukli ng gynecologists at obstetricians
concur in the ponencia of Justice Jose Catral Mendoza. However, my
ang 48 oras na pro bono service sa maralita upang mapangalagaan ang
opinion is that at this stage, the Court is simply not competent to declare
kanilang reproductive health.Masasabing isa lamang sa family planning
when human life begins, whether upon fertilization of the ovum or upon
information and services ang contraceptives at contraception na tinututulan
attachment of the fertilized ovum to the uterus wall. The issue of when life
ng mga conscientious objectors. Mayroon pang labing-isang bahagi ng
begins is a scientic and medical issue that cannot be decided by this Court
reproductive health care na kasunod nito. Maaaring gamitin ng mga
without the proper hearing and evidence. This issue has not even been
reproductive health care service providers ang mga libreng serbisyo na
settled within the scientic and medical community.
mapapaloob sa anumang bahagi ng reproductive health care upang mabuo
ang 48 oras na kakailanganin nila para sa kanilang PhilHealth accreditation. Same; View that whether life begins upon fertilization or upon
Maaari ngang ibuhos ng conscientious objector ang lahat ng 48 oras sa implantation of the fertilized ovum on the uterus wall, R.A. No. 10354
pagpapalaganap ng natural family planning method. Alalahanin ng lahat na protects both asserted starting points of human life. Absent a denitive
pribilehiyo at hindi karapatan ang magkaroon ng PhilHealth accreditation consensus from the scientic and medical community, the Supreme Court
kayat tama lang na isukli ng gynecologists at obstetricians ang 48 oras na cannot venture to pronounce which starting point of human life is correct.
R.A. No. 10354, however, protects the ovum upon its fertilization without
saying that life begins upon fertilization. This should be sufcient for argues that legitimate facial attacks upon legislation constitute a rare
purposes of resolving this case for whether life begins upon fertilization exception to the exercise of this Courts jurisdiction. This is the
or upon implantation of the fertilized ovum on the uterus wall, R.A. No. conventional wisdom and it is principally based on the American Salerno
10354 protects both asserted starting points of human life. Absent a rule that a facial challenge to a legislative act is the most difcult challenge
denitive consensus from the scientic and medical community, this Court to mount successfully, since the challenger must establish that no set of
cannot venture to pronounce which starting point of human life is correct. circumstances exists under which the law would be valid. It has been
We can only reiterate what Section 12, Article II of the Constitution previously pointed out, however, that the American Salerno rule has not
provides, that the State shall equally protect the life of the mother and the been met with unanimity in the American legal community. It has also been
life of the unborn from conception. pointed out that Philippine jurisprudence has traditionally
Same; Constitutional Law; View that Section 12, Article II of the
190
Constitution is repeated in Section 2 of R.A. No. 10354; R.A. No. 10354
protects the fertilized ovum by prohibiting services, methods,
deigned to nullify or facially invalidate statutes or provisions thereof
189 without need of considering whether no set of circumstances exists under
which the [law or provision] would be valid.
devices or supplies that prevent its implantation on the uterus wall. Reproductive Health Law; View that the moment of conception is
Section 12, Article II of the Constitution is repeated in Section 2 of R.A. reckoned from fertilization; that the fertilized ovum, known as zygote, is the
No. 10354. The law does not provide a denition of conception. However, beginning of a human being; and that the theory of implantation as the
the law is replete with provisions that embody the policy of the State to beginning of life is devoid of any legal or scientic mooring or basis as it
protect the travel of the fertilized ovum to the uterus wall. In fact, the law pertains not to the beginning of life but to the viability of the fetus.I fully
guarantees that the State will provide access only to medically-safe, non- concur with the comprehensive and exhaustive discussion in the majority
abortifacient, effective, legal, affordable, and quality reproductive health opinion penned by the Honorable Justice Jose Catral Mendoza, as to the
care services, methods, devices, supplies which do not prevent the plain meaning and jurisprudential and medical foundation of the Courts
implantation of a fertilized ovum as determined by the Food and Drug conclusion that the moment of conception is reckoned from fertilization;
Administration. R.A. No. 10354 protects the fertilized ovum by prohibiting that the fertilized ovum, known as zygote, is the beginning of a human
services, methods, devices or supplies that prevent its implantation on the being; and that the theory of implantation as the beginning of life is devoid
uterus wall. of any legal or scientic mooring or basis as it pertains not to the beginning
of life but to the viability of the fetus. The fertilized ovum is able to attach
Leonardo-De Castro,J., Concurring Opinion: or implant itself to the uterine wall because it is a living human being. The
majority opinion aptly quoted with favor the following statement of the
Constitutional Law; Statutes; Facial Challenges; Words and Phrases; Philippine Medical Association: The scientic evidence supports the
View that a facial challenge is a constitutional challenge asserting that a conclusion that a zygote is a human organism and that the life of a new
statute is invalid on its face as written and authoritatively construed, when human being commences at a scientically well dened moment of
measured against the applicable constitutional doctrine, rather than against conception. This conclusion is objective, consistent with the factual
the facts and circumstances or a particular case.In general, a facial evidence, and independent of any specic ethical, moral, political, or
challenge is a constitutional challenge asserting that a statute is invalid on religious view of human life or of human embryos.
its face as written and authoritatively construed, when measured against the
Same; View that Section 9 should be read to mean that there is no legal
applicable constitutional doctrine, rather than against the facts and
compulsion to include hormonal contraceptives, injectables and devices in
circumstances or a particular case. The inquiry uses the lens of relevant
the National Drug Formulary unless they are safe, legal and non-
constitutional text and principle and focuses on what is within the four
abortifacient, which obligatory preconditions must be determined by the
corners of the statute, that is, on how its provisions are worded. The
appropriate government agency, in this case the Food and Drug
constitutional violation is visible on the face of the statute. Thus, a facial
Administration (FDA); The government should be accountable or held
challenge is to constitutional law what res ipsa loquitur is to facts in a
liable whenever deleterious consequences to the health or life of the unborn
facial challenge, lex ipsa loquitur: the law speaks for itself. The
or the mother result from the latters availment of government supplied
Government, invoking Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, 369 SCRA 394 (2001),
contraceptive drugs or devices and the governments inability to provide Same; Precautionary Principle; View that the precautionary principle
adequate medical attention or supervision dictated by the individual health seeks to protect the rights of the present generation as well as to enforce
condition or a woman beneciary.Since Section 9 admits that only safe, intergenerational responsibility, that is, the present
legal and non-abortifacient contraceptives, injectables and devices can be
lawfully included in the National Drug Formulary, I join the majority 192
opinion

191
generation should promote sustainable development and act as stewards or
caretakers of the environment for the benet of generations yet unborn.
The precautionary principle seeks to protect the rights of the present
in holding that Section 9 should be read to mean that there is no legal generation as well as to enforce intergenerational responsibility, that is, the
compulsion to include hormonal contraceptives, injectables and devices in present generation should promote sustainable development and act as
the National Drug Fomulary unless they are safe, legal and non- stewards or caretakers of the environment for the benet of generations yet
abortifacient, which obligatory preconditions must be determined by the unborn. In its essence, the precautionary principle calls for the exercise of
appropriate government agency, in this case the Food and Drug caution in the face of risk and uncertainty. It acknowledges the pcculiar
Administration (FDA). I concur in principle with Justice Mariano C. del circumstances surrounding environmental cases in that scientic evidence
Castillos opinion that the FDA must formulate stringent and transparent is usually insufcient, inconclusive or uncertain and preliminary scientic
rules of procedure in the screening, evaluation and approval of all evaluation indicates that there are reasonable grounds for concern that
contraceptive drugs and devices to ensure that they are safe, non- there are potentially dangerous effects on the environment, human, animal,
abortifacient and legal or compliant with the mandate of the Constitution or planet health. For this reason, the precautionary principle requires those
and the law. The government should be accountable or held liable whenever who have the means, knowledge, power, and resources to take action to
deleterious consequences to the health or life of the unborn or the mother prevent or mitigate the harm to the environment or to act when conclusively
result from the latters availment of government supplied contraceptive ascertained understanding by science is not yet available.
drugs or devices and the governments inability to provide adequate medical
attention or supervision dictated by the individual health condition of a Same; Same; Principle of Prudence; Constitutional Law; Right to Life;
woman beneciary. Right to Health; View that in the face of the conicting claims and ndings
presented by the parties, and considering that the right to health is
Same; View that I agree with Justice Mendozas ponencia and Justice inextricably intertwined with the right to life, it is proper to refer to the
del Castillos objection to Section 3.01 of the Reproductive Health (RH) principle of prudence, which is the principle relied on by the framers of the
Laws Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) that the latter cannot 1987 Constitution on matters affecting the right to life.The right to health,
redene the term abortifacient by the addition of the word primarily. which is an indispensable element of the right to life, deserves the same or
I also agree with Justice Mendozas ponencia and Justice del Castillos even higher degree of protection. Thus, if it is scientically plausible but
objection to Section 3.01 of the RH Laws Implementing Rules and uncertain that any foreign substance or material ingested or implanted in the
Regulations (IRR) that the latter cannot redene the term abortifacient by womans body may lead to threats or serious and irreversible damage to her
the addition of the word primarily as follows: Section 3.01. For purposes or her unborn childs right life or health, care should be taken to avoid or
of these Rules the terms shall be dened as follows: a) Abortifacient refers diminish that threat. The principle of prudence requires that such a rule be
to any drug or device that primarily induces abortion or the destruction of a adopted in matters concerning the right to life and health. In the face of the
fetus inside the mothers womb or the prevention of the fertilized ovum to conicting claims and ndings presented by the parties, and considering that
reach and be implanted in the mothers womb upon determination of the the right to health is inextricably intertwined with the right to life, it is
Food and Drug Administration (FDA). (Emphasis supplied) As reworded, it proper to refer to the principle of prudence, which is the principle relied on
will allow the approval of contraceptives which has a secondary effect of by the framers of the 1987 Constitution on matters affecting the right to life.
inducing abortion or the destruction of the fetus or the prevention of Thus, any uncertainty on the adverse effects of making contraceptives
implantation of the fertilized ovum in the mothers womb. This secondary universally accessible on the life and health of the people, especially of
effect is the fail-safe mechanism, which is contrary to Section 12, Article II women, should be resolved in a way that will promote life and health.
of the 1987 Constitution and Section 4(a) of the RH Law.
193
 Same; Same; Same; View that considering the relevant medical issues proscribed by a religious faith is indirect complicity in other conduct, and
and health concerns in connection with contraceptives and devices, the the complicity line that the religious claimant draws appears inconsistent or
regulated framework under Republic Act No. 4729 where contraceptive unsound to the reviewing court because [i]t is not for [secular courts] to say
drugs and devices are sold, dispensed or distributed only by duly licensed that the line [the claimant] drew was an unreasonable one. Thus, the law
drug stores or pharmaceutical companies pursuant to a doctors recognizes that requiring a person to do something that he or she sincerely
prescription is no doubt more in harmony with the principle of prudence sees as sinful is a substantial burden on his/her religion, and peoples
and the precautionary principle than the apparently unrestricted or denition of sinful often includes sins of complicity and not just sins of
universal access approach under the RH Law.Republic Act No. 4729 direct action.
provides for a controlled access policy and requires that the sale, Same; Same; Same; Freedom of Speech; View that Section 23(a)(1)
dispensation or distribution of any contraceptive drug or device should be requires the doctor or health care service provider to make a compelled
made only by a duly licensed drug store or pharmaceutical company speech, a speech that may be against the doctors spiritual belief or
pursuant to a doctors prescription. On the other hand, with its thrust of professional opinion. Moreover, the threat of criminal sanction enhances the
providing universal access to contraceptives, the RH Law gives the chilling effect of the law and serves to deter a health care service provider
impression that it requires, under pain of criminal prosecution, even persons from expressing his professional views or exercising his religious
other than doctors of medicine (such as nurses, midwives, public health reservations.Section 23(a)(1) effectively compels the doctor or health
workers, and barangay health workers) to distribute contraceptives. care provider to make a speech that promotes the Governments RH Law
Considering the relevant medical issues and health concerns in connection program, particularly the use of contraceptive drugs and devices, regardless
with contraceptives and devices, the regulated framework under Republic of the doctors religious conviction or well-considered professional opinion.
Act No. 4729 where contraceptive drugs and devices are sold, dispensed or lt dictates upon the doctor what should. be said and what should not be said
distributed only by duly licensed drug stores or pharmaceutical companies in matters of reproductive health. In other words, Section 23(a)(1) requires
pursuant to a doctors prescription is no doubt more in harmony with the the doctor or health care service provider to make a compelled speech, a
principle of prudence and the precautionary principle than the apparently speech that may be against the doctors spiritual belief or professional
unrestricted or universal access approach under the RH Law. This is so as opinion. Moreover, the threat of criminal sanction enhances the chilling
the bodies of women may react differently to said drugs or devices effect of the law and serves to deter a health care service provider from
depending on many factors that only a licensed doctor is capable of expressing his professional views or exercising his religious reservations.
determining. Thus, the universal access policy should be read as qualied by Same; Same; Freedom of Speech; View that the Reproductive Health
the regulated framework under Republic Act No. 4729 rather than as (RH) Law dictates upon the doctor what to tell his/her patients in matters of
impliedly repealing the said law. family planning, and threatens the doctor with criminal prosecution in case
Same; Constitutional Law; Religious Freedom; View that the of noncompliance.Indeed, a society that tells its doctors under pain of
guarantee of free exercise of religion proscribes the imposition of criminal penalty what they may not tell their patients is not a free society.
substantial burden upon the said right absent any compelling state interest The RH Law, however, precisely does that to our society. It dictates upon
to justify the same.The guarantee of free exercise of religion proscribes the doctor what to tell his/her patients in matters of family planning, and
the imposition of substantial burden upon the said right absent any threatens the doctor with criminal prosecution in case of non-compliance.
compelling state interest to justify the same. A governmental restriction Laws of
substantially burdens religious freedom when it bans behavior that the
objectors see as religiously compelled, or mandates behavior that the 195
objectors see as religiously prohibited. Requiring people to do something
that is forbidden by [their] faith this sort pose the inherent risk that the Government seeks not to advance a
legitimate regulatory goal, but to suppress unpopular ideas or information or
194
to manipulate the public debate through coercion rather than persuasion.
Same; Same; Same; View that Section 23(a)(1) of the Reproductive
qualies as a substantial burden on religious practice. While the Health (RH) Law, a tool to promote the universal access policy established
compulsion may be indirect, the infringement upon free exercise is in Section 7 of that law, constitutes an undue and unconstitutional
nonetheless substantial and that is so even where the relevant conduct restriction of the freedom of speech.The Government also failed to show
that speech may be compelled or restrained because there is substantial requirement for parental consent with redound to the best interest of the
danger that the speech will likely lead to an evil the government has a right class of minors mentioned in the RH Law.
to prevent. There is no demonstration of evil consequences sought to be Same; Same; View that the constitutionality of the Reproductive Health
prevented which are substantive, extremely serious and highly imminent. In (RH) Law ought to be judged based on its implications on the relevant and
other words, no clear and present danger to be prevented has been treasured values of the Filipino society as shown by the Filipino peoples
established. All told, Section 23(a)(1) of the RH Law, a tool to promote the history and tradition as enshrined in the Constitution.The
universal access policy established in Section 7 of that law, constitutes an constitutionality of the RH Law ought to be judged based on its implications
undue and unconstitutional restriction of the freedom of speech. on the relevant and treasured values of the Filipino society as shown by the
Same; Same; View that the Reproductive Health (RH) Law as worded Filipino peoples history and tradition as enshrined in the Constitution.
contradicts the constitutional text of the Family Provisions as well as the These cherished values are as follows: the sanctity of the family; the natural
established constitutional principles on the family.The RH Law as joint right of the spouses to found a family; the natural and primary right
worded contradicts the constitutional text of the Family Provisions as well and duty of parents in the rearing of their children; and the right to health or
as the established constitutional principles on the family. The pertinent the people, particularly of women; and the fundamental equality before the
policy declarations are contained in Section 2 of the RH Law quoted law of women and men. These transcendental values include the protection
hereunder: SEC. 2. Declaration of Policy.x x x Moreover, the State of the freedom of religion and freedom of speech.
recognizes and guarantees the promotion of gender equality, gender equity,
women empowerment and dignity as a health and human rights concern and Brion,J., Separate Concurring Opinion:
as a social responsibility. The advancement and protection of womens
human rights shall be central to the efforts of the State to address Constitutional Law; Separation of Powers; Judicial Power; View that
reproductive health care. xxx xxxxxx The State likewise guarantees the 1987 Constitution, through the 2nd paragraph of its Section 1, conrms
universal access to medically-safe, non-abortifacient, effective, legal, that judicial power is wider than the power of adjudication that it
affordable, and quality reproductive health care services, methods, traditionally carried (by using the word includes) and at the same time
devices, supplies which do not prevent the implantation of a fertilized incorporated the basic requirements for adjudication in the traditional
ovum as determined by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and concept, namely, the presence of actual controversies, based on rights
relevant information and education thereon according to the priority which are legally demandable and enforceable.In addition, the 1987
needs of women, children and other underprivileged sectors, giving Constitution, through the
preferential access to those identied through the National Household
Targeting System for Poverty Reduction (NHTS-PR) and other government 197

measures
2nd paragraph of its Section 1, conrms that judicial power is wider than the
196 power of adjudication that it traditionally carried (by using the word
includes) and at the same time incorporated the basic requirements for
of identifying marginalization, who shall be voluntary beneciaries of adjudication in the traditional concept, namely, the presence of actual
reproductive health care, services and supplies for free. controversies, based on rights which are legally demandable and
enforceable. The conrmation expressly mentions that the power is granted
Same; Same; Parental Consent; View that the overly liberal stance or
to courts of justice and, aside from being a power, is imposed as a duty of
the Reproductive Health (RH) Law as regards the access of minors, who are
the courts. Thus, the Constitution now lays the courts open to the charge of
already parents or have had a miscarriage, to modern family planning
failure to do their constitutional duty when and if they violate the
methods without need of parental consent is contrary to the provision of
obligations imposed in Section 1, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution.
Section 12, Article II of the 1987 Constitution.The overly liberal stance or
Section 5, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution further eshes out the
the RH Law as regards the access of minors, who are already parents or
irreducible powers of the Supreme Court in terms of its original,
have had a miscarriage, to modern family planning methods without need of
appellate, and review adjudicative powers and its other non-adjudicative
parental consent is contrary to the provision of Section 12, Article II of the
powers. In so doing, Section 5 also conrmed the extent of the
1987 Constitution. It is also seriously doubtful if the elimination of the
constitutionally-granted adjudicative power of the lower courts that
Congress has the authority to create (by dening, prescribing and
apportioning their jurisdictions), as well as the grant of administrative, fail in their delity to the Constitution and to the very terms of the RH
executive and quasi-legislative powers to the Supreme Court, all within the Law itself. For one, it fails to adopt the principle of double effect under
sphere of its judicial operations. Section 12, Article II of the 1987 Constitution, as more fully discussed
Same; Same; Same; View that judicial power is extended over the very below. For these reasons, I cannot wholly concur that the RH law and its
powers exercised by other branches or instrumentalities of government IRR, as they came to this Court, were fully protective of the right to life of
when grave abuse of discretion is present.A completely new one, to the the unborn. In fact, the Court should lay down guidelines, culled from a
concept of judicial power under the 1987 Constitution is the power to constitutionally-valid RH Law, of what the government can actually procure
determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion and distribute under the RH law, consistent with its authority under this law
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or and Section 12, Article II of the Constitution.
instrumentality of the Government. This new power is innovative since its Same; Same; View that although Section 12, Article II of the
recognition is separate from the traditional adjudicative power that Section 1 Constitution does not consider the unborn a person, its terms reect the
earlier conrms and which Section 5 in part eshes out. It is likewise a framers clear intent to convey an utmost respect for human life that is not
denitive expansion of judicial power as its exercise is not over the merely co-extensive with civil personality.Although Section 12, Article II
traditional justiciable cases handled by judicial and quasi-judicial tribunals. of the Constitution does not consider the unborn a person, its terms reect
Notably, judicial power is extended over the very powers exercised by other the framers clear intent to convey an
branches or instrumentalities of government when grave abuse of
discretion is present. In other words, the expansion empowers the judiciary, 199
as a matter of duty, to inquire into acts of lawmaking by the legislature and
into law implementation by the executive when these other branches act utmost respect for human life that is not merely co-extensive with civil
with grave abuse of discretion. personality. This intent requires the extension of State protection to the life
198
of the unborn from conception. To be precise, Section 12, Article II of the
1987 Constitution provides: Section 12. The State recognizes the sanctity of
family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic
Same; Same; Same; View that under our constitutional regime, the autonomous social institution. It shall equally protect the life of the
judicial department is the only organ of government tasked to guard and mother and the life of the unborn from conception. The natural and
enforce the boundaries and limitations that the people had put in place in primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic
governing themselves.Under our constitutional regime, the judicial efciency and the development of moral character shall receive the support
department is the only organ of government tasked to guard and enforce the of the Government.
boundaries and limitations that the people had put in place in governing Same; Same; View that unlike the ponencia, I take the view that the
themselves. This constitutional duty of the Court has been expanded by the question of when the life of the unborn begins cannot strictly be answered
additional power of judicial review under the 1987 Constitution to with reference to time, i.e., the exact time the sperm cell fertilized the egg
determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion cell.Unlike the ponencia, I take the view that the question of when the life
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or of the unborn begins cannot strictly be answered with reference to time, i.e.,
instrumentality of the Government. the exact time the sperm cell fertilized the egg cell. But other than this
Same; Reproductive Health Law; Principle of Double Effect; View that uncertainty, the germinal stage of prenatal development that transpires (after
while the Reproductive Health (RH) Law generally protects and promotes the union of the sperm cell and the egg cell and the combination of their
the unborns right to life, its Section 9 and its Implementing Rules and genetic material materialized to form the fertilized egg or the zygote) is not
Regulations (IRR) fail in their delity to the Constitution and to the very debatable.
terms of the RH Law itself. For one, it fails to adopt the principle of double Same; Same; View that since the constitutional intent is to protect the
effect under Section 12, Article II of the 1987 Constitution.I agree with life of the unborn, and the fertilized egg (or the zygote) already exhibits
the ponencia that the RH law protects and promotes the right to life of the signs and characteristics of life, then this fertilized egg is already entitled to
unborn by its continued prohibition on abortion and distribution of constitutional protection.Since the constitutional intent is to protect the
abortifacients. I do recognize, however, that while the RH law generally life of the unborn, and the fertilized egg (or the zygote) already exhibits
protects and promotes the unborns right to life, its Section 9 and its IRR signs and characteristics of life, then this fertilized egg is already entitled to
constitutional protection. I say this even if this fertilized egg may not always number 6 of the Medical Experts Declaration, abortion is the termination of
naturally develop into a baby or a person. I submit that for purposes of established pregnancy and that abortifacients, logically, terminate this
constitutional interpretation, every doubt should be resolved in favor of pregnancy. Under paragraph number 5, pregnancy is established only after
life, as this is the rule of life, anywhere, everywhere; any doubt should be the implantation of the blastocysts or the fertilized egg. From this medical
resolved in favor of its protection following a deeper law that came before viewpoint, it is clear that prior to implantation, it is premature to talk about
all of us the law commanding the preservation of the human specie.
This must have been the subconscious reason why even those who voted 201
against the inclusion of the second sentence of Section 12 in Article II of the
Constitution conceded that a fertilized ovum the word originally used abortion and abortifacient as there is nothing yet to abort. If the
prior to constitutional framers simply intended to adopt this medical viewpoint in
crafting Section 12, Article II, there would have been no real need to
200
insert the phrase from conception. This should be obvious to a
discerning reader. Since conception was equated with fertilization, as
its substitution by the word unborn is possessed of human life although borne out by Records of the Constitutional Commission, a fertilized egg or
they disagreed that a right to life itself should be extended to it in the zygote, even without being implanted in the uterus, is therefore already
Constitution. entitled to constitutional protection from the State.
Same; Same; Principle of Double Effect; View that the mandate to Same; Same; Principle of Double Effect; View that the general rule is
equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn child from that both the life of the unborn and the life of the mother should be
conception under Section 12, Article II of the Constitution is self-executing protected. However, in case of exceptional conict situations, the life of one
to prevent and prohibit the state from enacting legislation that threatens the may be preferred over the life of the other where it becomes medically
right to life of the unborn child.I submit that the mandate to equally necessary to do so.To me, the general rule is that both the life of the
protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn child from unborn and the life of the mother should be protected. However, in case of
conception under Section 12, Article II of the Constitution is self-executing exceptional conict situations, the life of one may be preferred over the life
to prevent and prohibit the state from enacting legislation that threatens of the other where it becomes medically necessary to do so. The principle of
the right to life of the unborn child. To my mind, Section 12, Article II double effect recognizes that in some instances, the use or administration of
should not be read narrowly as a mere policy declaration lest the actual certain drugs that are abortifacient-capable are necessary in order to save the
intent of the provision be effectively negated. While it is indeed a directive life of the mother. The use in administration of these drugs in these
to the State to equally protect the life of the mother and the unborn child, instances is and should be allowed by Section 12, Article II of the
this command cannot be accomplished without the corollary and indirect Constitution since the policy is equal protection.
mandate to the State to inhibit itself from enacting programs that contradict Reproductive Health Law; Department of Health; View that as the lead
protection for the life of the unborn. agency in the implementation of the Reproductive Health (RH) Law, the
Same; Same; Abortion; View that the clear intent of the Framers was Department of Health (DOH) is tasked to ensure peoples access to
to prevent both Congress and the Supreme Court from making abortion medically safe, non-abortifacient, legal, quality and affordable reproductive
possible.The framers did not only intend to prevent the Supreme Court health goods and services.As the lead agency in the implementation of
from having a Philippine equivalent of a Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) the RH law, the Department of Health (DOH) is tasked to [e]nsure peoples
decision, they also unequivocally intended to deny Congress the power to access to medically safe, non-abortifacient, legal, quality and affordable
determine that only at a certain stage of prenatal development can the reproductive health goods and services[.] This is consistent with the RH
constitutional protection intended for the life unborn be triggered. In short, laws policy which guarantees universal access [only] to medically-safe
the clear intent of the Framers was to prevent both Congress and the [and] non-abortifacient contraceptives. The law also provides that these
Supreme Court from making abortion possible. contraceptives do not prevent the implantation of a fertilized ovum as
Same; Same; View that since conception was equated with fertilization, determined by the FDA. Accordingly, DOH is tasked to procure and
as borne out by Records of the Constitutional Commission, a fertilized egg distribute to local government units (LGUs) family planning supplies for the
or zygote, even without being implanted in the uterus, is therefore already whole country and to monitor their usage. Once delivered to the LGUs, the
entitled to constitutional protection from the State.Based on paragraph
responsible health ofcials shall assume responsibility for the supplies consciousness and efciency and the development of their moral, mental
and and physical character and well-being.The relationship created by and
resulting from a family naturally extends to and involves other personal
202 decisions that relate to child rearing and education. Parents have the natural
right, as well as the moral and legal duty, to care for their children, see to
ensure their distribution in accordance with DOH guidelines. For this their proper upbringing and safeguard their best interest and welfare. These
purpose, a regional ofcer appointed by the DOH shall oversee the supply array of personal decisions are protected by the constitutional right to
chain management of reproductive health supplies and/or health products in privacy to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion. Pursuant to
his or her respective area. The RH law also authorizes LGUs to implement this natural right and duty of parents over the person of their minor children,
its own procurement, distribution and monitoring program consistent with parental authority and responsibility include the caring for and rearing them
the overall provisions of this Act and the guidelines of the DOH. for civic consciousness and efciency and the development of their moral,
mental and physical character and well-being.
Same; Abortion; View that as a matter of exception, the government
should be able to procure and distribute abortifacients or drugs with Same; Same; View that while parents are given a wide latitude of
abortifacient properties but solely for the purpose of saving the life of the discretion and support in rearing their children, their well-being is of course
mother.As a matter of exception, the government should be able to a subject within the States constitutional power to regulate.While parents
procure and distribute abortifacients or drugs with abortifacient properties are given a wide latitude of discretion and support in rearing their children,
but solely for the purpose of saving the life of the mother. Specically, their well-being is of course a subject within the States constitutional power
the procurement and distribution of these abortifacients may be allowed to regulate. Specically, the Constitution tasked the State to promote and
only in emergency cases and should thus be made under medical protect their moral, spiritual, intellectual and social development, and to
supervision. The IRR of the RH law denes an emergency as a condition recognize and support their vital role in nation-building. In this undertaking,
or state of a patient wherein based on the objective ndings of a prudent the State acts in its capacity as parens patriae. Concededly, the State as
medical ofcer on duty for the day there is immediate danger and where parens patriae has the right and duty to minimize the risk of harm,
delay in initial support and treatment may cause loss of life or cause arising from the acquisition of knowledge from polluted sources, to those
permanent disability to the patient. who are as yet unable to take care of themselves fully. In other words, the
family itself and the rights of parenthood are not completely beyond
Same; Parental Rights; Mandatory Reproductive Health Education regulation; parental freedom and authority in things affecting the childs
Program; View that we cannot declare that the mandatory Reproductive welfare, including, to some extent, matters of conscience and religious
Health (RH) education program does not violate parental rights when the conviction are not totally beyond State authority. It is in this area that the
curriculum that could possibly supplant it is not yet in existence.We parents right to raise their children and the States interest in rearing the
cannot, without rst examining the actual contents of the curriculum and the youth clash
religious beliefs and personal convictions of the parents that it could affect,
declare that the mandatory RH education is consistent with the Constitution. Same; Same; Mandatory Reproductive Health Education Program;
In other words, we cannot declare that the mandatory RH education View that a mandatory reproductive health education program in public
program does not violate parental rights when the curriculum that could schools does not violate parental privacy if they allow parents to review and
possibly supplant it is not yet in existence. Given the primacy of the natural excuse their children from attending the program, or if the State shows a
and fundamental rights of parents to raise their children, we should not pre- compelling state interest to override the parents choice and compel them to
empt a constitutional challenge against its possible violation, especially allow their children to attend the program.A mandatory reproductive
since the scope and coercive nature of the RH mandatory education program health education pro-
could prevent the exercise of these rights.
204
Same; Same; View that pursuant to this natural right and duty of
parents over the person of their minor children, parental authority and
responsibility include the caring for and rearing them for civic gram in public schools does not violate parental privacy if they allow
parents to review and excuse their children from attending the
203
program, or if the State shows a compelling state interest to override
the parents choice and compel them to allow their children to attend By penalizing these expressive acts, Section 23 imposes a subsequent
the program. punishment on speech, which as a counterpart to the prohibition against
Same; View that one obvious discouraging effect of controlled prior restraint, is also generally prohibited under the constitutional guarantee
population growth is on the economy of some of these countries which now of freedom of expression. Without an assurance that speech would not be
have to secure foreign labor to balance their nances.The Philippines to subsequently penalized, people would hesitate to speak for fear of its
be sure, is not the rst country to use contraceptives and the mixed results consequences; there would be no need for prior restraints because the
from countries that have long travelled this road are, to my mind, not very punishment itself would effectively serve as a chilling effect on speech.
encouraging. One obvious discouraging effect of controlled population Same; Same; Same; View that Section 23(a)(1) of the Reproductive
growth is on the economy of some of these countries which now have to Health Law violates the right of health practitioners to speak in public
secure foreign labor to balance their nances. This development has been a about reproductive health and should simply be struck down.
boon for a country like the Philippines with a fast-growing population; we Jurisprudence in the United States regarding the speech of medical
are enjoying now the benets of our fast-growing population through the practitioners has drawn a distinction between speech in the course of their
returns our migrating Filipino workers bring back to the Philippines from practice of medicine, and speech in public. When a doctor speaks to his
their work in labor-starved countries. This has become possible because host patient, his speech may be subjected to reasonable regulation by the state to
countries like Japan and the more economically advanced European ensure the accuracy of the information he gives his patient and the quality of
countries need workers to man their industries and supply their economies. healthcare he provides. But when the doctor speaks to the public, his speech
Another economic effect is on retirement systems that have been burdened becomes protected speech, and the guarantees against prior restraint and
by predominantly aging populations. For this same reason, some countries subsequent punishment applies to his expressions that involves medicine or
even face impending economic slowdown in the middle term unless they any other topic. This distinction is not provided in Section 23(a)(1) of the
can effectively remedy their manpower shortage. RH Law, and we cannot create a distinction in the law when it provides
Same; Constitutional Law; Freedom of Speech; View that broken down none. Thus, I submit that Section 23(a)(1) violates the right of health
to its elements, Section 23(a)(1) of the Reproductive Health (RH) Law practitioners to speak in public about reproductive health and should
penalizes health care providers who (1) knowingly withhold information simply be struck down.
about programs and services on reproductive health; (2) knowingly restrict
Del Castillo,J., Concurring and Dissenting:
the dissemination of these programs and services; or (3) intentionally
provide incorrect information regarding them; By penalizing these
Constitutional Law; Judicial Power; View that the Supreme Court
expressive acts, Section 23 imposes a subsequent punishment on speech,
cannot remain an idle spectator or a disinterested referee when
which as a counterpart to the prohibition against prior restraint, is also
constitutional rights are at stake.The path that we, as a nation, will take
generally prohibited under the constitutional guarantee of freedom of
has already been decided by Congress, as representatives of the people,
expression.Broken down to its elements, Section 23(a)(1) of the RH law
under our system of government. The task before the
penalizes health care providers who (1) knowingly withhold information
about programs and services on reproductive health; (2) knowingly restrict
206
the dissemination of these programs and services; or (3) intentionally
provide incorrect information regarding them. These prohibited acts
Court, then, is not to say which path we ought to take but to determine if the
205 chosen path treads on unconstitutional grounds. But this is not all. For the
Court, which was once generally a passive organ in our constitutional order,
has been given expanded powers under the present Constitution. It is now
are, by themselves, communicative and expressive, and thus constitute
not only its right but its bounden duty to determine grave abuse of discretion
speech. Intentionally providing incorrect information cannot be performed
on the part of any branch, instrumentality or agency of government, and,
without uttering, verbally or otherwise, the information that the RH Law
equally important, it has been given the power to issue rules for the
deems to be incorrect. The information that is illegal to withhold or restrict
protection and enforcement of constitutional rights. The Court cannot,
under Section 23 also constitutes speech, as it is an expression of data and
therefore, remain an idle spectator or a disinterested referee when
opinions regarding reproductive health services and programs; thus, the
constitutional rights are at stake. It is its duty to protect and defend
prerogative to not utter these pieces of information also constitutes speech.
constitutional rights for otherwise its raison detre will cease.
 Same; Reproductive Health Law; Contraceptives; View that absent a term was understood by the people who ratied the Constitution,
clear and unequivocal constitutional prohibition on the manufacture, conception should be understood as fertilization.
distribution, and use of contraceptives, there is nothing to prevent Congress Same; Same; View that the protection of the life of the unborn under
from adopting a national family planning policy provided that the Article II, Section 12 of the Constitution is a self-executing provision.The
contraceptives that will be used pursuant thereto do not harm or destroy the protection of the life of the unborn under Article II, Section 12 is a self-
life of the unborn from conception, which is synonymous to fertilization, executing provision because: (1) It prevents Congress from legalizing
under Article II, Section 12 of the Constitution.I am fully in accord with abortion; from passing laws which authorize the use of abortifacients; and
the result reached by the ponencia. Absent a clear and unequivocal from passing laws which will determine when life begins other than from
constitutional prohibition on the manufacture, distribution, and use of the moment of conception/fertilization; (2) It prevents the Supreme Court
contraceptives, there is nothing to prevent Congress from adopting a from making a Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) ruling in our jurisdiction;
national family planning policy provided that the contraceptives that will be and (3) It obligates the Executive to ban contraceptives which act as
used pursuant thereto do not harm or destroy the life of the unborn from abortifacients or those which harm or destroy the unborn from
conception, which is synonymous to fertilization, under Article II, Section conception/fertilization. Article II, Section 12 is, thus, a direct, immediate
12 of the Constitution. The plain meaning of this constitutional provision and effective limitation on the three great branches of government and a
and the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission bare this out. positive command on the State to protect the life of the unborn.
Same; Same; View that history will judge the Supreme Court on what it Same; Same; Right to Life; View that the framers repeatedly treated or
did or did not do to protect the life of the unborn from referred to the right to life of the unborn as a fundamental right and thereby
conception/fertilization.The framers of, and the people who ratied the acknowledged that the unborn is a proper subject of a constitutional right.
Constitution set in bold and deft strokes the protection of the life of the Article II, Section 12 recognized a sui generis constitutional right to life
unborn from conception/fertilization because it is precious, sacred and of the unborn. The framers repeatedly treated or referred to the right to life
inviolable. For as long as this precept remains written in our Constitution, of the unborn as a fundamental
our solemn duty is to stay the course in delity to the most cherished values
and wisdom of those who came before us and to whom we entrusted the 208
writing and ratication of our Constitution. History will judge this Court on
what it did or did not do to protect the life of the unborn from right and thereby acknowledged that the unborn is a proper subject of a
conception/fertilization. There is, constitutional right. That this right is founded on natural law and is self-
executing further provides the unmistakable basis and intent to accord it the
207
status of a constitutional right. However, it is sui generis because, unlike a
person who possesses the right to life, liberty and property, the unborns
therefore, no other recourse but for this Court to act in defense of the life of fundamental right is solely limited to the right to life as was the intention of
the unborn. the framers. Clearly, then, Article II, Section 12 recognized a sui generis
Same; Same; View that the framers were unequivocal in their intent to right to life of the unborn from conception/fertilization and elevated it to the
dene conception as the fertilization of the egg by the sperm and to status of a constitutional right.
accord constitutional protection to the life of the unborn from the moment of Same; Same; View that because the unborn has been accorded a
fertilization.The framers were unequivocal in their intent to dene constitutional right to life from conception/fertilization under Article II,
conception as the fertilization of the egg by the sperm and to accord Section 12, this right falls within the ambit of the Courts power to issue
constitutional protection to the life of the unborn from the moment of rules for the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights under
fertilization. The plain meaning of the term conception, as synonymous to Article VIII, Section 5(5) of the Constitution.Because the unborn has been
fertilization, based on dictionaries and medical textbooks, as aptly and accorded a constitutional right to life from conception/fertilization under
extensively discussed by the ponencia, conrm this construction. In Article II, Section 12, this right falls within the ambit of the Courts power
addition, petitioners correctly argue that the denition of conception, as to issue rules for the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights
equivalent to fertilization, was the same denition prevailing during the under Article VIII, Section 5(5) of the Constitution: Section5. The
1980s or at around the time the 1987 Constitution was ratied. Hence, Supreme Court shall have the following powers: x x x x (5) Promulgate
under the rule of constitutional construction, which gives weight to how the rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights,
x x x. Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall because the known effect thereof is not solely prevention of implantation
remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court. This is since (1) it primarily prevents fertilization and (2) only secondarily prevents
signicant because it imposes upon this Court the duty to protect such right the implantation of the fertilized ovum in case fertilization still occurs.
pursuant to its rule-making powers. In recent times, the Court acknowledged Same; Same; View that although the Reproductive Health (RH) Law
that the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord does not provide a denition of contraceptive, a reasonable and logical
with the rhythm and harmony of nature under Article II, Section 16 of the deduction is that contraceptive (or allowable contraceptive to be more
Constitution, though found in the Declaration of Principles and Policies precise) is the opposite of abortifacient as dened under the RH Law.
(like the subject right to life of the unborn) and not in the Bill of Rights, Although the RH Law does not provide a denition of contraceptive, a
may be given esh pursuant to the power of the Court to issue rules for the reasonable and logical deduction is that contraceptive (or allowable
protection and enforcement of constitutional rights. It, thus, proceeded to contraceptive to be more precise) is the opposite of abortifacient as
promulgate the rules governing the Writ of Kalikasan. dened under the RH Law. This seems to be the tack adopted by the IRR in
Reproductive Health Law; Contraceptives; View that the Reproductive dening contraceptive. However, the IRRs denition of contraceptive
Health (RH) Law repeatedly emphasizes that the contraceptives which will again added the qualier
be made available under the law should be non-abortifacient.The RH
Law is to be commended for its zealous protection of the life of the unborn 210
from conception/fertilization. It repeatedly emphasizes that the
contraceptives which will be made primarily. For similar reasons with the previous discussion on the IRRs
denition of abortifacient, this denition of contraceptive opens the
209
oodgates to the approval of contraceptives which are actually
abortifacients because of their fail-safe mechanism. Hence, the qualier
available under the law should be non-abortifacient. It prohibits the use of primarily in Section 3.01(j) is, likewise, void.
abortifacients and penalizes the use thereof. Thus, it cannot be said that the Same; Same; Constitutional Law; View that the power to disapprove
law violates Article II, Section 12 of the Constitution. the rules of procedure of quasi-judicial bodies is signicant in that it implies
Same; Same; Abortifacient; Words and Phrases; View that as dened in the power of the Supreme Court to look into the sufciency of such rules of
the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR), a drug or device is procedure insofar as they adequately protect and enforce constitutional
considered an abortifacient if it primarily induces abortion or the rights.Viewed in light of the broad power of the Court to issue rules for
destruction of a fetus inside the mothers womb or the prevention of the the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, the power to
fertilized ovum to reach and be implanted in the mothers womb; where disapprove the rules of procedure of quasi-judicial bodies is signicant in
primarily means that the drug or device has no other known effect aside that it implies the power of the Court to look into the sufciency of such
from abortion.I agree that the insertion of the qualier primarily will rules of procedure insofar as they adequately protect and enforce
open the oodgates to the approval of contraceptives which may harm or constitutional rights. Moreover, the power to disapprove the aforesaid rules
destroy the life of the unborn from conception/fertilization in violation of of procedure necessarily includes or implies the power to approve or modify
Article II, Section 12 of the Constitution. As dened in the IRR, a drug or such rules or, on the one extreme, require that such rules of procedure be
device is considered an abortifacient if it primarily induces abortion or the issued when necessary to protect and enforce constitutional rights. In other
destruction of a fetus inside the mothers womb or the prevention of the words, within and between the broader power to issue rules for the
fertilized ovum to reach and be implanted in the mothers womb; where protection and enforcement of constitutional rights and the narrower power
primarily means that the drug or device has no other known effect aside to disapprove the rules of procedure of quasi-judicial bodies, there exist
from abortion. In other words, under the IRR, a contraceptive will only be penumbras of this power that the Court may exercise in order to protect and
considered as an abortifacient if its sole known effect is abortion or, as enforce constitutional rights.
pertinent here, the prevention of the implantation of the fertilized ovum. Same; Same; View that the Supreme Court must step in by directing the
Consequently, a drug or device which (a) prevents fertilization, (b) but does Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to issue the proper rules of procedure
not provide a 100% guarantee of such prevention, and (c) has a fail-safe in the determination of whether a drug or device is an abortifacient under
mechanism which will prevent the implantation of the fertilized ovum in the Reproductive Health (RH) Law.Within this framework of
case fertilization still occurs will not be considered an abortifacient implementation, and given the unique status of the unborn and the
exceptional need to protect its right to life, the Court must step in by unborn pending the proper screening, evaluation and/or testing through the
directing the FDA to issue the proper rules of procedure in the afore-discussed rules of procedure that the FDA is directed to issue.
determination of whether a drug or device is an abortifacient under the RH Same; Same; View that pursuant to the expanded jurisdiction of the
Law. Such rules must sufciently safeguard the right to life of the unborn. Supreme Court and as a penumbra of its power to issue rules
As a penumbra of its power to issue rules to protect and enforce
constitutional rights and its power to disapprove rules of procedure of quasi- 212
judicial bodies, the Court has the power and competency to mandate the
minimum requirements of due process in order to sufciently safeguard the
right to life of the unborn in the proceedings that will be conducted before for the protection and enforcement of the right to life of the unborn as well
as the exceptional need to protect such life, the Court can require that, in
211
the promulgation by the Department of Health (DOH) of the subject rules
and regulations or guidelines, certain minimum requirements of due process
shall be followed.Pursuant to the expanded jurisdiction of this Court and
the FDA. This is in line with the declared policy and numerous provisions as a penumbra of its power to issue rules for the protection and enforcement
of the RH Law according utmost respect and protection for the right to life of the right to life of the unborn as well as the exceptional need to protect
of the unborn. In determining whether a drug or device is an abortifacient, such life, the Court can require that, in the promulgation by the DOH of the
the FDA will necessarily engage in a quasi-judicial function. It will subject rules and regulations or guidelines, certain minimum requirements
determine whether a set of facts (active properties or mechanisms of a drug of due process shall be followed. I nd that, under these premises,
or device) comply with a legal standard (denition of non-abortifacient) publication, notice and hearing should precede the issuance of the rules and
which will ultimately bear upon the right to life of the unborn. Considering regulations or guidelines which will govern the purchase and distribution of
that quasi-judicial bodies involved in, say, rate-xing follow the due process the subject products and supplies. In other words, there should be public
requirements of publication, notice and hearing, where the lesser right to hearings and/or consultations. The Solicitor General should be mandated to
property is involved, then with far greater reason should the proceedings represent the unborn and the States interest in the protection of the life of
before the FDA require publication, notice and hearing. the unborn in these proceedings before the DOH. And interested parties
Same; Same; View that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) should be allowed to intervene.
should be ordered to immediately inform this Court whether its previously Same; Same; View that under the Reproductive Health (RH) Law, there
approved and the currently available contraceptive drugs and devices in our is nothing to suggest that the contraceptives will be made available without
jurisdiction were screened, evaluated and/or tested against the afore- properly informing the target users of their possible harmful side effects.
discussed general and specic standards.The FDA should be ordered to While indeed the RH Law will make available contraceptives that may have
immediately inform this Court whether its previously approved and the harmful side-effects, it is necessary to remember that the law does not
currently available contraceptive drugs and devices in our jurisdiction were impose their use upon any person. Understandably, from petitioners point
screened, evaluated and/or tested against the afore-discussed general and of view, it would seem irrational for (1) a person to take contraceptives,
specic standards. It should be emphasized that the FDA is not being asked which have known harmful side effects and, in the long term, even lead to
to re-screen, re-evaluate or re-test the aforesaid contraceptive drugs and premature death, and (2) the government to subsidize the same in order to
devices but only to inform this Court if they were screened, evaluated and/or prevent pregnancy or to properly space childbearing given that there are
tested against the constitutional and statutory standards that the Court other safer means and methods of family planning. But the weighing of
upholds in this decision. Thus, this will not take an inordinate amount of which value is superior to the other is a matter left to the individuals sound
time to do considering that the les should be readily available with the judgment and conscience. It is his or her choice; an axiom of liberty; an
FDA. This information will allow the Court to take immediate remedial attribute of free will. Men and women are free to make choices that harm
action in order to protect and defend the life of the unborn from themselves, like cigarette-smoking or excessive intake of alcohol, in order
conception/fertilization, if the circumstances warrant. That is, if the to attain a value that they perceive is more important than their own health
contraceptive drugs or devices were not screened, evaluated and/or tested and well-being. For as long as these choices are made freely (and do not
against the constitutional and statutory standards that the Court upholds in harm the unborn from conception/fertilization insofar as this case is
this decision, then it would be necessary to suspend their availability in the concerned), the State cannot intervene beyond ensuring that the choices are
market, as a precautionary measure, in order to protect the right to life of the well-informed absent a clear and unequivocal constitutional or
 213 he or she objects to on religious or ethical grounds provided that he or she
immediately refers the person seeking such care and services to another
statutory command permitting it to do so. Under the RH Law, there is health care service provider within the same facility or one which is
nothing to suggest that the contraceptives will be made available without conveniently accessible. As an exception to the exception, the conscientious
properly informing the target users of their possible harmful side effects. objector cannot refuse to perform or provide such health care services if it
The law itself mandates complete information-dissemination and severely involves an emergency condition or serious case under Republic Act No.
penalizes deliberate misinformation. 8344.

Same; Same; View that all persons, who are qualied to avail of the Same; Same; Same; View that the law does not command the health
benets provided by the law, shall be given complete and correct service provider to endorse a particular family planning method but merely
information on the reproductive health programs and services of the requires the presentation of complete and correct information so that the
government under the Reproductive Health (RH) Law.The duty to inform person can make an informed choice.The law does not command the
is embodied in the above-quoted Section 23(a)(1), which penalizes a public health service provider to endorse a particular family planning method but
or private health care service provider for: (1) knowingly withholding merely requires the presentation of complete and correct information so that
information or restricting the dissemination of information, and/or (2) the person can make an informed choice. A conscientious objector, like a
intentionally providing incorrect information; where information pertains Catholic doctor, is, thus, not compelled to endorse articial contraceptives
to the programs and services on reproductive health including the right to as the preferred family planning method. On its face, therefore, there
informed choice and access to a full range of legal, medically-safe, non- appears to be no burden imposed on the conscientious objector under the
abortifacient and effective family planning methods. This provision, thus, duty to inform.
seeks to ensure that all persons, who are qualied to avail of the benets Same; Same; Same; View that the duty to refer imposed on the
provided by the law, shall be given complete and correct information on the conscientious objector under Sections 7 and 23(a)(3) of the Reproductive
reproductive health programs and services of the government under the RH Health (RH) Law is unconstitutional for violating the Free Exercise of
Law. It does not provide any exception to the duty to inform. Thus, a Religion Clause.I nd that the duty to refer imposed on the conscientious
conscientious objector is mandated to provide complete and correct objector under Sections 7 and 23(a)(3) of the RH Law is unconstitutional for
information even if this will include information on articial contraceptives violating the Free Exercise of Religion Clause. Consequently, the phrase,
to which he or she objects to on religious grounds. Otherwise, he or she Provided, further, That these hospitals shall immediately refer the person
shall suffer the penal liability under the law. seeking such care and services to another health facility which is
Same; Constitutional Law; Religious Freedom; View that Section 23(a) conveniently accessible, in Section 7 and the phrase, however, the
(3) of the Reproductive Health (RH) Law respects the right of the conscientious objector shall immediately refer the person seeking such care
conscientious objector by permitting him or her to refuse to perform or and services to another health care service provider within the same facility
provide the health care services to which he or she objects to on religious or or one which is conveniently accessible, in Section 23(a)(3) of the RH Law
ethical grounds provided that he or she immediately refers the person should be declared void. Consequently, Sections 5.24(b) to (e) and 5.25 of
seeking such care and services to another health care service provider the IRR, which implements the aforesaid provisions of the RH Law, are
within the same facility or one which is conveniently accessible.The duty void.
to refer, on the other hand, is provided in the proviso of Section 23(a)(3), Same; Same; Equal Protection of the Laws; View that under Section
which is likewise quoted above. This provision penalizes a public or private 23(a)(3) of the Reproductive Health (RH) Law, both public and private
health care service provider for refusing to extend quality health care health service providers may invoke the right of a conscientious objector.
services and information on account of a persons marital status, gender, The last paragraph of Section 5.24 of the Implementing Rules and
age, religious convictions, personal circumstances, or nature of work. Regulations (IRR) is, thus, void insofar as it deprives
However, it respects the right of the conscientious objector by permitting
him or her to refuse to perform or provide the health care services to which 215

214
the skilled health professionals enumerated therein from the right to
conscientious objection. I also agree with the ponencia that the last
paragraph of Section 5.24 of the IRR is unconstitutional for being violative
of the Equal Protection Clause although I nd that the proper standard of and do violence to the equal right of each spouse to found the family in
review is the strict scrutiny test.The above-enumerated skilled health accordance with their religious convictions and the demands of responsible
professionals fall within the denition of a public health care service parenthood, in particular.The provision speaks of this right as properly
provider under Section 4(n) of the RH Law. Under Section 23(a)(3) of the belonging to both spouses. The right is, thus, conferred on both of them and
RH Law, both public and private health service providers may invoke the they are to exercise this right jointly. Implicit in this provision is that the
right of a conscientious objector. The last paragraph of Section 5.24 of the spouses equally possess this right particularly when read in light of Article
IRR is, thus, void insofar as it deprives the skilled health professionals II, Section 14 of the Constitution which enjoins the State to ensure the
enumerated therein from the right to conscientious objection. I also agree fundamental equality before the law of women and men. Thus, the spouse,
with the ponencia that the last paragraph of Section 5.24 of the IRR is who will undergo the reproductive health procedure, cannot be given the
unconstitutional for being violative of the Equal Protection Clause although absolute and nal authority to decide this matter because it will destroy the
I nd that the proper standard of review is the strict scrutiny test. The IRR solidarity of the family, in general, and do violence to the equal right of each
effectively creates two classes with differential treatment with respect to the spouse to found the family in accordance with their religious convictions
capacity to invoke the right of a conscientious objector: (1) skilled health and the demands of responsible parenthood, in particular.
professionals such as provincial, city, or municipal health ofcers, chiefs of Same; Same; View that while I agree that Section 23(a)(2)(i) of the
hospital, head nurses, supervising midwives, among others, who by virtue of Reproductive Health (RH) Law is unconstitutional, the declaration of
their ofce are specically charged with the duty to implement the unconstitutionality should not be construed as giving the non-consenting
provisions of the RH Law and its IRR, and (2) skilled health professionals spouse the absolute and nal authority in the decision-making process
not belonging to (1). Those belonging to the rst class cannot invoke the relative to undergoing a reproductive health procedure by one spouse.The
right of a conscientious objector while those in the second class are granted key principle is that no spouse has the absolute and nal authority to decide
that right. this matter because it will run counter to the constitutional edict protecting
Same; Same; View that the decision-making process in this area is a the solidarity of the family and equally conferring the right to found the
delicate and private matter intimately related to the founding of a family. family on both spouses. Consequently, while I agree that Section 23(a)(2)(i)
The matter should, thus, be decided by both spouses under the assumption of the RH Law is unconstitutional, the declaration of unconstitutionality
that they will amicably settle their differences and forthwith act in the best should not be construed as giving the non-consenting spouse the absolute
interest of the marriage and family.Indeed, the decision-making process and nal authority in the decision-making process relative to undergoing a
in this area is a delicate and private matter intimately related to the founding reproductive health procedure by one spouse. The proper state of the law
of a family. The matter should, thus, be decided by both spouses under the and rules of procedure on the matter is that the decision shall require the
assumption that they will amicably settle their differences and forthwith act consent of both spouses, and, in case of disagreement, the matter shall be
in the best interest of the marriage and family. But, as in all relations brought before the courts for its just adjudication.
between and among individuals, irreconcilable disagreements may arise.
The law, therefore, steps in to break the impasse. The law, however, settles 217
the dispute by giving the spouse, who will undergo the procedure, the
absolute and nal authority to decide the matter. The rationale seems to be
that the spouse, who will undergo the Same; Same; Parental Authority; View that as a natural right, parental
authority is recognized as an inherent right, not created by the State or
216
decisions of the courts, but derives from the nature of the parental
relationship.The description of the family as a basic social institution is
an assertion that the family is anterior to the state and is not a creature of
procedure, should ultimately make the decision since it involves his or her the state while the reference to the family as autonomous is meant to
body. Like the ponencia, I am of the view that this provision in the RH Law protect the family against the instrumentalization by the state. This
clearly violates Article II, Section 12 in relation to Article XV, Sections 1 provision is, thus, a guarantee against unwarranted State intrusion on
and 3(1) of the Constitution. matters dealing with family life. The subject of parental authority and
Same; Same; View that the spouse, who will undergo the reproductive responsibility is specically dealt with in the last sentence of the above
health procedure, cannot be given the absolute and nal authority to decide constitutional provision which reads: The natural and primary right and duty
this matter because it will destroy the solidarity of the family, in general, of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efciency and the
development of moral character shall receive the support of the Same; Same; Same; View that the State or parents of the minor cannot
Government. As a natural right, parental authority is recognized as an prevent or restrict access to such information considering that they will be
inherent right, not created by the State or decisions of the courts, but derives readily available on various platforms of media, if they are not already
from the nature of the parental relationship. More important, as pertinent in available at present. It is only when the minor decides to act on the
this controversy, the present Constitution refers to such right as primary information by seeking access to the family planning services themselves
which imports the assertion that the right of parents is superior to that of that parental authority cannot be dispensed with.I agree with the
the state. ponencia that there is nothing unconstitutional about the capacity of a minor
Same; Same; Same; View that because parental authority is a to access information on family planning services under Section 7 of the RH
constitutionally recognized natural and primary right of the parents, with Law for the reasons stated in the ponencia. In addition, for practical reasons,
emphasis on primary as giving parents a superior right over the State, the State or parents of the minor cannot prevent or restrict access to such
the State cannot carve out an exception to such authority without showing information considering that they will be readily available on various
or providing a sufciently compelling State interest to do so.Because platforms of media, if they are not already available at present. It is only
parental authority is a constitutionally recognized natural and primary right when the minor decides to act on the information by seeking access to the
of the parents, with emphasis on primary as giving parents a superior right family planning services themselves that parental authority cannot be
over the State, the State cannot carve out an exception to such authority dispensed with.
without showing or providing a sufciently compelling State interest to do Same; Same; Age- and Development-Appropriate Reproductive Health
so. A limited but blanket exception from parental authority, such as that Education; Police Power; View that pursuant to its police power, the State
found in Section 7 of the RH Law, will undoubtedly destroy the solidarity of may regulate the content of the matters taught to adolescents particularly
the family as well as foster disrespect and disobedience on the part of the with respect to reproductive health education in order to, among others,
minor. It disrupts the natural state of parent-child relationship and is wholly propagate proper attitudes and behavior relative to human sexuality and
inconsistent with the purpose and essence of parental authority granting the sexual relations as well as properly prepare the young for marriage and
parents the natural and primary right in all matters relating to the rearing family life.I agree with the
and care of the minor in order to safeguard his or her well-being.
Same; Same; Same; View that the fundamental right involving the 219
parental authority of parents over their minor children is unduly
ponencia that the constitutional challenge against Section 14 of the RH Law
218
is unavailing insofar as it is claimed to violate Article II, Section 12 of the
Constitution on the natural and primary right and duty of parents to rear
limited by the proviso in Section 7 of the Reproductive Health (RH) Law, their children. Indeed, the State has a substantial interest in the education of
thus, calling for the application of the strict scrutiny test.The fundamental the youth. Pursuant to its police power, the State may regulate the content of
right involving the parental authority of parents over their minor children is the matters taught to adolescents particularly with respect to reproductive
unduly limited by the proviso in Section 7 of the RH Law, thus, calling for health education in order to, among others, propagate proper attitudes and
the application of the strict scrutiny test. The government must show that a behavior relative to human sexuality and sexual relations as well as properly
compelling State interest justies the curtailment of parental authority of prepare the young for marriage and family life. The topics to be covered by
parents whose minor children belong to the rst group (i.e., minors who are the curriculum include values formation; knowledge and skills in self-
already parents or have had a miscarriage) vis--vis parents whose minor protection against discrimination; sexual abuse and violence against women
children belong to the second group (i.e., minors who are not parents or and children and other forms of gender based violence and teen pregnancy;
have not had a miscarriage). However, for reasons already discussed as to physical, social and emotional changes in adolescents; womens rights and
the maturity level of such group of minors and the apparent purpose of the childrens rights; responsible teenage behavior; gender and development;
subject legal provision, the government has failed to show such compelling and responsible parenthood. The curriculum is, thus, intended to achieve
State interest. Hence, the phrase except when the minor is already a parent valid secular objectives. As the ponencia aptly noted, the RH Law seeks to
or has had a miscarriage in Section 7 of the RH Law is, likewise, supplement, not supplant, the natural and primary right and duty of parents
unconstitutional on equal protection grounds. to rear their children.
 Same; Same; Same; Religious Freedom; View that the constitutional educational institutions should be a basis of such justication. Article XIV,
challenge against Section 14 relative to the Free Exercise of Religion Section 5(2) of the Constitution provides that, [a]cademic freedom shall be
Clause is premature because, as noted by the ponencia, the Department of enjoyed in all institutions of higher learning. Thus, only institutions of
Education, Culture and Sports (DECS) has yet to formulate the curriculum higher learning enjoy academic freedom. Considering that the students who
on age- and development-appropriate reproductive health education.The will be subjected to reproductive health education are adolescents or young
constitutional challenge against Section 14 relative to the Free Exercise of people between the ages often (10) to nineteen (19) years who are in
Religion Clause is premature because, as noted by the ponencia, the transition from childhood to adulthood, then this would presumably be
Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS) has yet to formulate taught in elementary and high schools which are not covered by academic
the curriculum on age- and development-appropriate reproductive health freedom. Nonetheless, I agree with the ponencia that, by effectively
education. A Free Exercise of Religion Clause challenge would necessarily decreeing optional teaching of reproductive health education in private
require the challenger to state what specic religious belief of his or hers is educational institutions, the RH Law seeks to respect the religious belief
burdened by the subject curriculum as well as the specic content of the system of the aforesaid institutions. I nd this to be a reasonable basis for
curriculum he or she objects to on religious grounds. Moreover, the proper the differential treatment between public and private educational
party to mount such a challenge would be the student and/or his or her institutions.
parents upon learning of the specic content of the curriculum and upon
221
deciding what aspects of their religious beliefs are burdened. It would be
inappropriate for the Court to speculate on these aspects of a potential Free
Exercise of Religion Same; Same; Same; Same; View that the Reproductive Health (RH)
Law is replete with provisions respecting the religious freedoms of
220
individuals.Noticeably, the RH Law is replete with provisions respecting
the religious freedoms of individuals. In fact, one of its central and guiding
Clause litigation involving a curriculum that has yet to be formulated by the principles is free and informed choice, thus, negating the imposition of any
DECS. family planning method on an individual who objects on religious grounds.
Same; Same; Same; Equal Protection of the Law; View that as to the The same principle appears to have been carried over relative to the
equal protection challenge against Section 14 of the Reproductive Health teaching of reproductive health education in private educational institutions.
(RH) Law, I agree with the ponencia that there are substantial distinctions Congress may have legitimately concluded that the State interests in societal
between public and private educational institutions which justify the peace, tolerance or benevolent-neutrality accommodation, as the case may
optional teaching of reproductive health education in private educational be, vis--vis the various religious belief systems of private educational
institutions.As to the equal protection challenge against Section 14, I institutions in our nation will be better served by making the teaching of
agree with the ponencia that there are substantial distinctions between reproductive health education (which may touch on or impact delicate or
public and private educational institutions which justify the optional sensitive religious beliefs) as merely optional in such institutions. We can
teaching of reproductive health education in private educational institutions. take judicial notice of the fact that majority of the private educational
(By giving private educational institutions the option to adopt the institutions in our nation were established and are run by religious groups or
curriculum to be formulated by the DECS, the RH Law effectively makes sects.
the teaching of reproductive health education in private educational Same; Same; View that the Reproductive Health (RH) Law enjoys the
institutions optional because the aforesaid institutions may completely presumption of constitutionality and should be given a construction which
discard such curriculum). will avoid its nullity.The RH Law enjoys the presumption of
Same; Same; Same; Same; Academic Freedom; View that only constitutionality and should be given a construction which will avoid its
institutions of higher learning enjoy academic freedom. Considering that the nullity. The phrase [k]nowingly withhold information or restrict the
students who will be subjected to reproductive health education are dissemination thereof, and/or intentionally provide incorrect information
adolescents or young people between the ages of ten (10) to nineteen (19) regarding programs and services under Section 23(a)(1) of the RH Law
years who are in transition from childhood to adulthood, then this would should be reasonably and narrowly construed as merely requiring the health
presumably be taught in elementary and high schools which are not covered care service provider to provide and explain to persons the list of the
by academic freedom.I disagree that the academic freedom of private governments reproductive health programs and services under the RH Law.
To illustrate, if the governments reproductive health programs and services for short, repeatedly extols the principles of gender equality,
under the RH Law consists of A, B, C and D, then a health care service sustainable human development, health, education, information, the
provider is required to transmit this information to a person qualied to sanctity of human life and the family, improved quality of life,
avail of the benets under the law. freedom of religious convictions, ethics, and cultural beliefs,
Same; Same; Religious Freedom; View that Section 17 of the freedom from poverty, and other ennobled principles.Remarkably,
Reproductive Health (RH) Law does not violate the constitutional Republic Act 10354 or the Responsible Parenthood and
prohibition against involuntary servitude and that it is unconstitutional Reproductive Health Act of 2012, the RH Law for short, repeatedly
insofar as it imposes a duty to conscientious objectors to render pro bono extols the principles of gender equal-
reproductive health care services to which the conscientious objector 223
objects to on religious or ethical grounds for reasons stated in the ponencia.
I am fully in accord with the ruling of the ponencia
ity, sustainable human development, health, education, information,
222 the sanctity of human life and the family, improved quality of life,
freedom of religious convictions, ethics, and cultural beliefs,
freedom from poverty, and other ennobled principles. But these are
that Section 17 of the RH Law does not violate the constitutional prohibition
already part of existing laws and no one can object to them. What
against involuntary servitude and that it is unconstitutional insofar as it
they do is apparently embellish what the RH Law seeks to
imposes a duty to conscientious objectors to render pro bono reproductive
accomplish.
health care services to which the conscientious objector objects to on
Same; Same; Facial Challenges; View that a law claimed to
religious or ethical grounds for reasons stated in the ponencia. Corrorarily,
threaten a childs right to live sufciently justies a constitutional
the conscientious objector can be required to render pro bono reproductive
facial challenge.The ponencia is right that the procedural
health care services for as long as it involves services that he or she does not
challenges to the petitions are unmeritorious. In particular,
object to on religious or ethical grounds.
respondents claim that the Court should dismiss these actions since
Same; Natural Law; View that I agree with the ponencia that natural they are a mere facial challenge on the constitutionality of the RH
law may not, under the particular circumstances of this case, be used to Law as opposed to an actual breach of its provisions and the ling of
invalidate the Reproductive Health (RH) Law.I agree with the ponencia a case in court on account of such breach. The petitions should not
that natural law may not, under the particular circumstances of this case, be be allowed, they add, since this challenge is not about the exercise of
used to invalidate the RH Law. However, I disagree with the following the freedom of expression, an exception to such limitation. But the
statements: While every law enacted by man emananted from what is right to life of the unborn child, which is at the center of these
perceived as natural law, the Court is not obliged to see if a statute, controversies, cannot be compared with rights that are best
executive issuance or ordinance is in conformity to it. To begin with, it is examined in cases of actual violations. Obviously, the Court cannot
not enacted by an acceptable legitimate body. Moreover, natural laws are wait for the actual extermination of an unborn child before assessing
mere thoughts and notions on inherent rights espoused by theorists, the constitutional validity of the law that petitioners claim to permit
philosophers and theologists. The jurists of the philosophical school are such action. A law claimed to threaten a childs right to live
interested in the law as an abstraction, rather than in the actual law of the sufciently justies a constitutional facial challenge.
past or present. These statements, I submit, are not necessary in the Same; Same; Same; View that there is no question of course that
disposition of this case and appear to be an inaccurate description of natural every couple planning their family and every woman of ample,
law. The Court need not foreclose the usefulness of natural law in resolving discernment has the right to use natural or articial methods to
future cases. I submit that the statement that natural law is not applicable in avoid pregnancy.There is no question of course that every couple
the resolution of this particular case sufces. planning their family and every woman of ample discernment has
the right to use natural or articial methods to avoid pregnancy. This
Abad,J., Concurring Opinion:
much is clear. But, in seeking to promote the exercise of this right,
Reproductive Health Law; Constitutional Law; View that the RH Law must hurdle certain constitutional barriers: 1) the right
Republic Act 10354 or the Responsible Parenthood and to life of the unborn child that outlaws abortion; 2) the right to
Reproductive Health Act of 2012, the Reproductive Health (RH) Law
health; 3) the free exercise of religion; 4) the right to due process of produce ovum or preventing the sperm from fertilizing it does not
law; and 4) the freedom of expression. constitute abortion. Contraception in this sense does not violate the
Same; Same; View that the 1987 Constitution is clear: the life of Constitutional right to life since the unborn has not as yet been
a child begins from conception and the dictionary, which is the conceived. The law may authorize or even encourage this kind of
nal arbiter of the common meaning of words, states that contraception since it merely prevents conception. The life of an
conception is the act of being pregnant, specically, the unborn child is not at stake.
formation of a viable zygote.Some people believe that the
225
conception of the child begins

224
Same; Same; Contraceptives; Intrauterine Devices; View that the
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has been routinely allowing
only from the moment the eshed embryo implants itself on the public access to hormonal contraceptives and Intrauterine Devices
mothers uterine wall where it will draw the food and nutrition it (IUDs) even before the passage of the Reproductive Health (RH)
needs to survive and grow into a fetus. It is the termination of the Law.The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has been routinely
embryo or the fetus at this stage, painful, bloody, and depressing, allowing public access to hormonal contraceptives and IUDs even
that some are quick to condemn as abortion. Preventing implantation before the passage of the RH Law. The outcry for the laws passage
by quietly slaying the zygote or the embryo with little or no blood to make these things available to whoever wants them is the lament
before it reaches the uterine wall is to them not abortion. But they of the unenlightened. In reality, the government senses a strong
are wrong. The 1987 Constitution is clear: the life of a child begins resistance to their use, borne of beliefs that they are unsafe and
from conception and the dictionary, which is the nal arbiter of abortifacient. The RH Law precisely aims to put an end to this
the common meaning of words, states that conception is the act resistance by imposing certain sanctions against hospitals,
of being pregnant, specically, the formation of a viable zygote. physicians, nurses, midwives, and other health care providers who
Science has proved that a new individual comes into being from the communicate to others the view that contraceptives and IUDs are
moment the zygote is formed. Indeed, the zygote already has a unsafe and abortifacient, refuse to prescribe them, or decline to
genome (DNA to others) that identies it as a human being and perform the required procedures for their use.
determines its sex. The union of man and woman in the fertilized Same; Same; Same; Same; View that in any event, I agree with
ovum is the beginning of another persons life. the Courts ruling that the second sentence of Section 9 does not
Same; Same; Abortion; View that with the Constitution, the authorize the approval of family planning products and supplies that
Filipino people have in effect covenanted that the fertilized ovum or act as abortifacient.Congress fears that hormonal contraceptives
zygote is a person; Ambushing the fertilized ovum as it travels down and IUDs perform a third function disabling the endometrium of
the fallopian tube to prevent its implantation on the uterine wall is uterine lining that enable them to serve as weapons of abortion,
abortion.With the Constitution, the Filipino people have in effect proof of this is that the RH Law provides in the third sentence of
covenanted that the fertilized ovum or zygote is a person. And it is a Section 9 that these contraceptives and devices may, assuming that
covenant that binds. Indeed, the RH Law accepts this inviolable they also function as abortifacients, pass FDA approval provided the
principle and precisely prohibits the use of abortifacient that induces latter issues a certication that they are not to be used as
the prevention of the fertilized ovum to reach and be implanted in abortifacient.. Thus: Sec. 9. xxx Any product or supply included
the mothers womb. Ambushing the fertilized ovum as it travels or to be included in the EDL, must have a certication from the
down the fallopian tube to prevent its implantation on the uterine FDA that said product and supply is made available on the condition
wall is abortion. that it is not to be used as an abortifacient. The above of course
Same; Same; Same; View that since the conception of a child makes no sense since the two functions go together and the user has
begins from the fertilization of the ovum, it is evident that merely no way, after taking the contraceptive, of stopping the second
preventing the woman from ovulating to produce ovum or preventing function from running its course. The bad simply comes with the
the sperm from fertilizing it does not constitute abortion.Since the good. The certication requirement violates the RH Laws tenet that
conception of a child begins from the fertilization of the ovum, it is reproductive health rights do not include...access to abortifacients.
evident that merely preventing the woman from ovulating to It also contradicts the RH Laws stated policy of guaranteeing
universal access to non-abortifacient contraceptives. Above all, common meaning: free from harm, injury, or risk. The RH Law
this position is in breach of the provision of the Constitution that itself recognizes that the use of contraceptives produces side
outlaws abortion. In any event, I agree with the Courts ruling that
227
the second sentence of

226
effects or other harmful results. Thus, it directs the FDA in Section
19 to issue strict guidelines with respect to their use, acknowledging
Section 9 does not authorize the approval of family planning the need for abundant caution. Do warnings of side effects and
products and supplies that act as abortifacient. possible lasting harm make contraceptives and IUDs safe? The
Same; Same; Same; Same; Administrative Agencies; Food and answer is of course no. For instance, a simple warning against pet
Drug Administration; View that annulling Section 9 of the snakes would say, Look at this snake. It is a safe pet to keep in the
Reproductive Health (RH) Law merely means that it is beyond the house. But just dont keep it hungry. Dont forget to close the small
powers of Congress to legislate the safe and non-abortifacient status door of the cage when you feed it. And watch those small kids.
of certain forms of articial contraceptives. That function must Same; Same; Same; View that the dangers of those side effects
remain with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) which has the are more worrisome since the Reproductive Health (RH) Law fails to
required scientic and technical skills for evaluating, testing, and provide standards of safe use of contraceptives.The dangers of
approving each contraceptive before it is publicly made available. those side effects are more worrisome since the RH Law fails to
This is not to say that all contraceptives and IUDs, present and provide standards of safe use of contraceptives such as: (a) a
future, double as abortifacients and are not to be allowed. Annulling prescribed standard of tolerance for side effects; (b) the service of a
Section 9 merely means that it is beyond the powers of Congress to qualied physician who can advice the user, especially the poor, of
legislate the safe and non-abortifacient status of certain forms of the dangers of contraceptives, not just literature written in English so
articial contraceptives. That function must remain with the FDA she can make intelligent choice; (c) the service of a qualied
which has the required scientic and technical skills for evaluating, physician who will, while she is under contraceptives, monitor their
testing, and approving each contraceptive before it is publicly made effects on her, treat her for adverse side effects and complications,
available. The manufacturers and distributors have their and provide her with the right medicine; and (d) the contraceptives
responsibilities, too. They have to warrant that their products do not she takes do not act at the same time as abortifacients in case an
function as abortifacients. ovum is fertilized despite the use of such contraceptives. The fact is
Same; Same; Right to Health; Family Planning Programs; View that contraceptives interfere with normal body functions. Women
that the government cannot promote family planning programs that have ovaries so these can produce ova or eggs that can be fertilized
violate the womens right to health.Women have the right to be to ensure procreation and the continuation of the human race.
free from government-sponsored sickness, government-sponsored Contraceptives prevent healthy ovaries from ovulating, which is the
pain, and government-sponsored defect. Since healthy vital organs reason for their being ovaries. One cannot disable the womans
of the body form part of the right to health, women have the right to ovaries or monkey with its functions for long periods without
have normally functioning vital organs. They have the right to walk affecting her health. Medical studies and reports show this to be the
in the park or in the malls free from debilitating illnesses and free case.
from worries and fears over contraceptives that the government Same; Same; Same; View that the determination of what
assures them are safe. The government cannot promote family medicine is safe and useful to a person is a function of the science of
planning programs that violate the womens right to health. A law medicine and pharmacy. It is not for the Supreme Court or the
that misleads women and states that hormonal contraceptives and legislature to determine.The legislatures attempt to elevate into
IUDs are safe violates their constitutional right to health. law its arbitrary nding that hormonal contraceptives and IUDs are
Same; Same; Contraceptives; View that the Reproductive Health safe and non-abortifacient is irrational. The determination of what
(RH) Law itself recognizes that the use of contraceptives produces medicine is safe and useful to a person is a function of the science of
side effects or other harmful results.Since the law does not dene medicine and pharmacy. It is not for the Court or the legislature to
the meaning of the term safe, it is to be understood according to its determine. Raising present-day scientic or medical views regarding
contraceptives to the level of law, when contested by opposing
scientic or medical views, is an arbitrary exercise of legislative 5.24, as unconstitutional insofar as they punish any health care
power. provider

228 229

Same; Same; Religious Freedom; View that a health care service who fails and/or refuses to refer a patient not, in an emergency or
provider is not to be compelled to render the services that would life-threatening case, to another health care service provider within
interfere with the natural human reproduction process if the same the same facility or one which is conveniently accessible regardless
conicts with his conscience. This is consistent with Section 5, of his or her religious beliefs.
Article III of the 1987 Constitution which provides that no law shall Same; Same; Principle of Void for Vagueness; View that due
be made prohibiting a persons free exercise of his religion.The process demands that the terms of a penal statute must be
law provides, however, that the health care service providers sufciently clear to inform those who may be subjected to it what
objection based on his or her ethical or religious beliefs is to be conduct will render them liable to its penalties.Due process
respected. Thus, he or she is not to be compelled to render the demands that the terms of a penal statute must be sufciently clear
services that would interfere with the natural human reproduction to inform those who may be subjected to it what conduct will render
process if the same conicts with his conscience. This is consistent them liable to its penalties. A criminal statute that fails to give a
with Section 5, Article III of the 1987 Constitution which provides person of ordinary intelligence fair notice that his contemplated
that no law shall be made prohibiting a persons free exercise of his conduct is forbidden by statute, or is so indenite that it
religion. But the irony of it is that at the next breath the RH Law encourages arbitrary and erratic arrests and convictions, is void for
would require the conscientious objector to immediately refer the vagueness. A vague or indenite statute is unconstitutional because
person, whose wants he declines to serve, to the nearest health care it places the accused on trial for an offense, the nature of which he is
service provider who will do what he would not. The penalty for given no fair warning.
failing to do this is imprisonment for 1 to 6 months or payment of a Same; Same; View that the State guarantees under Section 2 of
ne of P10,000 to P100,000 or both imprisonment and ne. If the the Reproductive Health (RH) Law the right of every woman to
offender is a juridical person, the penalty shall be imposed on its consider all available reproductive health options when making her
president or responsible ofcer. decision.The State guarantees under Section 2 of the RH Law the
Same; Same; Same; View that the Supreme Court has correctly right of every woman to consider all available reproductive health
decided to annul Section 23(a)(3) and the corresponding provision options when making her decision. This implies that she has the
in the Reproductive Health (RH) Law-Implementing Rules and right to seek advice from anyone she trusts. Consequently, if a
Regulations (RH-IRR), particularly section 5.24, as unconstitutional woman wanting to space her pregnancy seeks the advice of a
insofar as they punish any health care provider who fails and/or Catholic physician she trusts, the latter should not be sent to jail for
refuses to refer a patient not, in an emergency or life-threatening expressing his belief that taking oral pills or using copper IUDs can
case, to another health care service provider within the same facility cause abortion that her faith prohibits. This is valid even if others do
or one which is conveniently accessible regardless of his or her not share the faith. Religious conscience is precisely a part of the
religious beliefs.Unfortunately, the RH Law requires him to take consideration for free choice in family planning.
steps to ensure that the woman is pointed to another place where she Same; Same; View that for now I am satised that Section 23(a)
could get the IUD implantation she wants. In effect, the law compels (1) has been declared void and unconstitutional insofar as it
the doctor to do more than just keep quiet and let alone. It compels punishes any health care provider who fails or refuses to
him at the pains of going to jail to get involved and help in the disseminate information regarding programs and services on
commission of what his religious belief regards as amounting to the reproductive health regardless of his or her religious beliefs.I
murder of a child. And this is in order to satisfy the need of the concede, however, that my above views on Section 23(a)(1) could be
woman and her partner for sex without pregnancy. Remember, this is better appreciated in actual cases involving its application rather
not the case of a bleeding woman needing immediate medical than in the present case where I go by the are provisions of the law.
attention. The Court has correctly decided to annul Section 23(a)(3) For now I am satised that Section 23(a)(1) has been declared void
and the corresponding provision in the RH-IRR, particularly section and unconstitutional
 230 Same; Same; Same; View that there is no cogent reason to
require a written parental consent for a minor who seeks access to
modern family planning methods and dispense with such
insofar as it punishes any health care provider who fails or refuses to
requirement if the minor is already a parent or has had a
disseminate information regarding programs and services on
miscarriage. Under the Family Code, all minors, generally,
reproductive health regardless of his or her religious beliefs.
regardless of his/her circumstances, are still covered by the parental
Reyes,J., Concurring and Dissenting Opinion: authority exercised by their parents.There exists no substantial
distinction as between a minor who is already a parent or has had a
Reproductive Health Law; Parental Authority; View that the miscarriage and a minor who is not yet a parent or never had a
authority that is exercised by parents over their unemancipated miscarriage. There is no cogent reason to require a written parental
children includes the right and duty to enhance, protect, preserve, consent for a minor who seeks access to modern family planning
and maintain their physical and mental health and to represent them methods and dispense with such requirement if the minor is already
in all matters affecting their interests.The authority that is a parent or has had a miscarriage. Under the Family Code, all
exercised by parents over their unemancipated children includes the minors, generally, regardless of his/her circumstances, are still
right and duty to enhance, protect, preserve, and maintain their covered by the parental authority exercised by their parents. That a
physical and mental health and to represent them in all matters minor is already a parent or has had a miscarriage does not operate
affecting their interests. The authority exercised by parents over to divest his/her parents of their parental authority; such
their unemancipated children is terminated, inter alia, upon circumstances do not emancipate a minor.
emancipation of the child. Emancipation takes place upon Same; Same; Constitutional Law; View that considering that the
attainment of the age of majority, which commences at the age of last proviso of Section 7 operates to divest parents of their parental
eighteen years. authority over the persons of their minor child who is already a
Same; Same; Parental Consent; View that the last proviso of parent or has had a miscarriage, the same must be struck down for
Section 7 restricts the access of minors to modern methods of family being contrary to the natural and primary right and duty of parents
planning; It requires a written parental consent before a minor may under Section 12, Article II of the Constitution.It is cardinal with
be allowed access thereto.Section 7 seeks to make modern family us that the custody, care and nurture of the child reside rst in the
planning methods more accessible to the public. The provision parents, whose primary function and freedom include preparation
mandates that no person shall be denied information and access to for obligations the State can neither supply nor hinder. Most
family planning services, whether natural or articial. However, the children, even in adolescence, simply are not able to make sound
last proviso of Section 7 restricts the access of minors to modern judgments concerning many decisions, including their need for
methods of family planning; it requires a written parental consent medical care or treatment. Parents can and must make those
before a minor may be allowed access thereto. This is but judgments. Considering that the last proviso of Section 7 operates to
recognition of the parental authority that is exercised by parents over divest parents of their parental authority over the persons of their
the persons of their unemancipated children. That it is both a duty minor child who is already a parent or has had a miscarriage, the
and a right of the parents to protect the physical health of their same must be struck down for being contrary to the natural and
unemancipated children. However, Section 7 provided an exception primary right and duty of parents under Section 12, Article II of the
to the requirement of written parental consent for minors. A minor Constitution.
who is already a parent or has had a miscarriage may be allowed Same; Constitutional Law; Age- and Development-Appropriate
access to modern methods of family planning notwithstanding the Reproductive Health Education; Academic Freedom; View that
absence of a written parental consent therefor. This runs afoul of the Section 5(2), Article XIV of the Constitution guarantees all
natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of their institutions of higher learning academic freedom.The petitioners
children, which, under Section 12, Article II of the Constitution, claim that Section 14, by mandating the inclusion of age- and
should receive the support of the government. development-

231 232
appropriate reproductive health education to adolescents, violates a narrowly drawn government regulation, which advances a
the academic freedom of educational institutions since they will be legitimate and overriding State interest.When a government
compelled to include in their curriculum a subject, which, based on regulation is claimed to infringe on the right to privacy, courts are
their religious beliefs, should not be taught to students. The required to weigh the States objective against the privacy rights of
petitioners claim is utterly baseless. Section 5(2), Article XIV of the the people. Although considered a fundamental right, the right to
Constitution guarantees all institutions of higher learning academic privacy may nevertheless succumb to a narrowly drawn government
freedom. The institutional academic freedom includes the right of regulation, which advances a legitimate and overriding State
the school or college to decide and adopt its aims and objectives, interest. As explained earlier, Section 14 aims to address the
and to determine how these objections can best be attained, free increasing rate of teenage pregnancies in the country and the risks
from outside coercion or interference, save possibly when the arising therefrom, which is undeniably a legitimate and overriding
overriding public welfare calls for some restraint. The essential State interest. The question that has to be asked then is whether
freedoms subsumed in the term academic freedom encompass the Section 14, in advancing such legitimate and overriding State
freedom of the school or college to determine for itself: (1) who may interest, has employed means, which are narrowly tailored so as not
teach; (2) what may be taught; (3) how lessons shall be taught; and to intrude into the right to privacy of the people.
(4) who may be admitted to study. An analysis of the foregoing Same; Same; Religious Freedom; View that the Constitution
claim requires a dichotomy between public and private educational guarantees that no law shall be made respecting an establishment of
institutions. The last sentence of Section 14 provides that the age- religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; that the free
and development-appropriate reproductive health curriculum that exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without
would be formulated by the DepEd shall be used by public schools discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed.In order to
and may be adopted by private schools. The mandated properly assess the constitutionality of Sections 7 and 23(a)(3), the
reproductive health education would only be compulsory for public provisions thereof must be considered in its entirety. Judicial
schools. Thus, as regards private educational institutions, there being scrutiny of the subject provisions cannot be delimited to a particular
no compulsion, their constitutional right to academic freedom is not provision thereof, i.e., the duty to refer, lest the Court lose sight of
thereby violated. the objectives sought to be achieved by Congress and the
Same; Same; Same; Same; View that as regards public ramications thereof with regard to the free exercise clause. The
educational institutions, though they are mandatorily required to duty to refer must be construed with due regard to the other
adopt an age- and development-appropriate reproductive health provisions in Sections 7 and 23(a)(3) and the objectives sought to be
education curriculum, the claimed curtailment of academic freedom achieved by R.A. No. 10354 in its entirety. The Constitution
is still untenable.As regards public educational institutions, guarantees that no law shall be made respecting an establishment of
though they are mandatorily required to adopt an age- and religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; that the free
development-appropriate reproductive health education curriculum, exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without
the claimed curtailment of academic freedom is still untenable. discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. Religious
Section 4(1), Article XIV of the Constitution provides that [t]he freedom forestalls compulsion by law of the acceptance of any creed
State x x x shall exercise reasonable supervision and regulation of or the practice of any form of worship, and conversely, it safeguards
all educational institutions. The constitutional grant of academic the free exercise of the chosen form of religion.
freedom does not withdraw from the State the power to supervise Same; Same; Same; Compelling State Interest Test; View that
and regulate educational institutions, whether public or private. The under the compelling state interest test, a State regulation, which
only requirement imposed by the Constitution on the States is challenged as being contrary to the free exercise clause, would
supervision and regulation of educational institutions is that the only be
exercise thereof must be reasonable.
234
233

upheld upon showing that: (1) the regulation does not infringe on an
Same; Same; Right to Privacy; View that although considered a individuals constitutional right of free exercise; or (2) any
fundamental right, the right to privacy may nevertheless succumb to incidental burden on the free exercise of an individuals religion
maybe justied by a compelling state interest in the regulation of a owned and operated by a religious group the duty to immediately
subject within the States constitutional power to regulate by means, refer patients seeking reproductive health care and services to
which imposed the least burden on religious practices.In another health facility that is conveniently accessible.Although
ascertaining the limits of the exercise of religious freedom, in cases Section 7 provides that family planning services shall likewise be
where government regulations collide with the free exercise clause, extended by private health facilities to paying patients, it
the Court further declared that, following the benevolent nevertheless exempts non-maternity specialty hospitals and
neutrality/accommodation standard, the compelling state interest hospitals owned and operated by a religious group from
test should be applied. Under the compelling state interest test, a providing full range of modern family planning methods. Instead,
State regulation, which is challenged as being contrary to the free Section 7 imposes on non-maternity specialty hospitals and hospitals
exercise clause, would only be upheld upon showing that: (1) the owned and operated by a religious group the duty to immediately
regulation does not infringe on an individuals constitutional right of refer patients seeking reproductive health care and services to
free exercise; or (2) any incidental burden on the free exercise of an another health facility that is conveniently accessible. In the same
individuals religion maybe justied by a compelling state interest in manner, the prohibition imposed under Section 23(a)(3) is not
the regulation of a subject within the States constitutional power to absolute; it recognizes that a health care service provider may
regulate by means, which imposed the least burden on religious validly refuse to render reproductive health services and information
practices. if he/she conscientiously objects thereto based on his/her ethical or
Same; Same; View that primarily, the objective of R.A. No. 10354 religious beliefs. Nevertheless, Section 23(a)(3) likewise imposes a
is to provide marginalized sectors of society, particularly the women corresponding duty on such conscientious objector to immediately
and the poor, access to reproductive health care services, and to refer the person seeking reproductive health services to another
health care in general, of which they have been deprived for many health care service provider within the same facility or one, which is
decades due to discrimination and lack of access to information. conveniently accessible.
Particularly, R.A. No. 10354 seeks to provide effective and quality Same; Same; Same; Compelling Interest Test; View that the
reproductive health care services and supplies, which would supposed burden on the religious freedom of conscientious objectors
ensure maternal and child health, the health of the unborn, safe in complying with the duty to refer would have to be weighed
delivery and birth of healthy children, and sound replacement rate, against the States interest in promoting the right of the people to
in line with the States duty to promote the right to health, reproductive health.The determination of whether there exists a
responsible parenthood, social justice and full human development. compelling state interest that would justify an incidental burden
R.A. No. 10354, as a corollary measure for the protection of the involves balancing the interest of the State against religious liberty
right to health of the people, likewise recognizes necessity to to determine which is more compelling under the particular set of
promote and provide information and access, without bias, to all facts. In assessing the state interest, the court will have to determine
methods of family planning. Primarily, the objective of R.A. No. the importance of the secular interest and the extent to which that
10354 is to provide marginalized sectors of society, particularly the interest will be impaired by an exemption for the religious practice.
women and the poor, access to reproductive health care services, and Accordingly, the supposed burden on the religious freedom of
to health care in general, of which they have been deprived for many conscientious objectors in complying with the duty to refer would
decades due to discrimination and lack of access to information. have to be weighed against the States interest in promoting the right
Same; Same; Religious Freedom; Equal Protection of the Law; of the people to reproductive health.
View that although Section 7 provides that family planning services
236
shall likewise be extended by private health facilities to paying pa-

235
Same; View that Congress recognized that, in enacting
regulations to further the reproductive health of the people,
tients, it nevertheless exempts non-maternity specialty hospitals including access to modern family planning methods, resistance
and hospitals owned and operated by a religious group from thereto based on religious scruples would abound.Congress
providing full range of modern family planning methods. Instead, recognized that, in enacting regulations to further the reproductive
Section 7 imposes on non-maternity specialty hospitals and hospitals health of the people, including access to modern family planning
methods, resistance thereto based on religious scruples would things ostensibly similarly situated may, nonetheless, be treated
abound. Notwithstanding the presence of a compelling state interest differently if there is a basis for valid classication. The legislature
in the promotion and protection of reproductive health, Congress is allowed to classify the subjects of legislation; if the classication
deemed it proper to carve out exemptions that specically take into is reasonable, the law may operate only on some and not all of the
account the religious dissensions of conscientious objectors, which people without violating the equal protection clause. Classication,
effectively exempts them from the requirements imposed under to be valid, must (1) rest on substantial distinctions, (2) be germane
Sections 7 and 23(a)(3). In this regard, it cannot thus be claimed that to the purpose of the law, (3) not be limited to existing conditions
the said provisions invidiously interfere with the free exercise of only, and (4) apply equally to all members of the same class.
religion. Same; Same; Same; View that there is a substantial distinction as
Same; Constitutional Law; Religious Freedom; View that a regards a conscientious objector under Section 23(a)(3), who may
health care service provider who conscientiously objects, based on be a public or private health care service provider, and a public
his/her ethical or religious beliefs, to programs and services ofcer specically charged with the duty to implement the provisions
regarding reproductive health is exempted from the effects of Section of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 10354 and its Implementing Rules and
23(a)(1) only insofar as it punishes a health care service provider Regulations (IRR).There is a substantial distinction as regards a
who knowingly withholds information on said programs and conscientious objector under Section 23(a)(3), who may be a public
services.Accordingly, a health care service provider who or private health care service provider, and a public ofcer
conscientiously objects, based on his/her ethical or religious beliefs, specically charged with the duty to implement the provisions of
to programs and services regarding reproductive health is exempted R.A. No. 10354 and its IRR. The Constitution provides that a public
from the effects of Section 23(a)(1) only insofar as it punishes a ofce is a public trust. An important characteristic of a public ofce
health care service provider who knowingly withholds is that its creation and conferment involves a delegation to the
information on said programs and services. Section 23(a)(1), in individual of some of the sovereign functions of government, to be
relation to Section 23(a)(3), recognizes that a conscientious objector exercised by him for the benet of the public; that some portion of
cannot be compelled to provide information on reproductive health the sovereignty of the country, either legislative, executive, or
if the same would go against his/her religious convictions. In such judicial, attaches, for the time being, to be exercised for the public
cases, however, the conscientious objector, pursuant to Section 23(a) benet.
(3), has the correlative duty to immediately refer the person seeking Same; Spousal Consent; Parental Consent; View that Section
information on programs and services on reproductive health to 23(a)(2) does not penalize the refusal of a health care service
another health care service provider within the same facility or one provider to perform reproductive health procedures per se. What is
which is conveniently accessible. being penalized by the provision is the refusal of a health care
Same; Same; Equal Protection of the Law; View that the purpose service provider to perform such procedures on the ground of lack of
of the equal protection clause is to secure every person within a spousal consent or parental consent in certain cases.Section 23(a)
States jurisdiction against intentional and arbitrary discrimination, (2) does not penalize the refusal of a health care service provider to
whether occasioned by the express terms of a statute or by its perform reproductive health procedures per se. What is being
improper execution through the states duly constituted authorities. penalized by the provision is the refusal of a health care service
Equal protection simply provides that all persons or things provider to perform such procedures on the ground of lack of
similarly spousal consent or paren-

237
238

situated should be treated in a similar manner, both as to rights

conferred and responsibilities imposed. The purpose of the equal tal consent in certain cases. Indeed, for reasons to be explained at
protection clause is to secure every person within a States length later, a health care service provider cannot avoid the
jurisdiction against intentional and arbitrary discrimination, whether performance of reproductive health procedure, in case of married
occasioned by the express terms of a statute or by its improper persons, solely on the ground of lack of spousal consent since there
execution through the states duly constituted authorities. Persons or would be no justiable reason for such refusal.
 Same; Constitutional Law; Right to Privacy; View that intimate time; even in the absence of such declaration, the decision of the
relations between husband and wife fall within the right of privacy spouse undergoing the reproductive health procedure would still
formed by emanations of the various guarantees in the Bill of Rights, prevail. Section 23(a)(2)(i) is but a mere recognition and afrmation
to which State intrusion is proscribed.The ponencia declared of a married individuals constitutionally guaranteed personal
Section 23(a)(2)(i) as being contrary to Section 3, Article XV of the autonomy and his/her right to reproductive health.
Constitution, which requires the State to defend the right of the Same; PhilHealth Accreditation; View that a health care service
spouses to found a family, thus unduly infringing on the right to provider, his/her religious objections to certain reproductive health
marital privacy. The ponencia explained that the said provision care services aside, may still render pro bono reproductive health
refers to reproductive health procedures like tubal ligation and care service, as a prerequisite for PhilHealth accreditation, by
vasectomy which, by their very nature, require mutual consent and providing information or medical services.That a health care
decision between the husband and wife as they affect issues service provider has religious objections to certain reproductive
intimately related to the founding of the family. The ponencia health care services does not mean that he/she is already exempted
pointed out that decision-making concerning reproductive health from the requirement under Section 17 for PhilHealth accreditation.
procedure falls within the protected zone of marital privacy from The requirement under Section 17 is stated in general terms and is
which State intrusion is proscribed. Thus, the ponencia concluded, religion-neutral; it merely states that health care service providers, as
dispensing with the spousal consent is disruptive of family unity a condition for PhilHealth accreditation, must render pro bono
and a marked departure from the policy of the State to protect reproductive health service. The phrase reproductive health care
marriage as an inviolable social institution. It is conceded that service is quite expansive and is not limited only to those services,
intimate relations between husband and wife fall within the right of which may be deemed objectionable based on religious beliefs.
privacy formed by emanations of the various guarantees in the Bill Reproductive health care includes: (1) family planning information
of Rights, to which State intrusion is proscribed. However, I do not and services; (2) maternal, infant and child health and nutrition,
agree that upholding a married individuals choice to submit to including breastfeeding; (3) proscription of abortion and
reproductive health procedure despite the absence of the consent or management of abortion complications; (4) adolescent and youth
authorization of his/her spouse would be disruptive of the family. reproductive health guidance and counseling; (5) prevention,
Same; View that the law, in case of disagreement, recognizes that treatment, and management of reproductive tract infections, HIV
the decision of the spouse undergoing the reproductive health and AIDS, and other sexually transmittable infections; (6)
procedure should prevail.It is indeed ideal that the decision elimination of violence against women and children, and other forms
whether to submit to reproductive health procedure be a joint of sexual and gender-based violence; (7) education and counseling
undertaking of the spouses, especially on such a vital and sensitive on sexuality and reproductive health; (8) treatment of breast and
matter. It is inevitable, however, for cases to abound wherein a reproductive tract cancers, and other gynecological conditions and
husband/wife would object to the intended procedure of his/her disorders; (9) male responsibility and involvement, and mens
spouse. In such cases, the right to reproductive health of a spouse reproductive health; (10) prevention, treatment, and management of
would be rendered effectively inutile. I do not see how fostering infertility and sexual dysfunction; (11) reproductive health education
such stalemate, which can hardly be considered as a harmonious and for adolescents; and (12) mental health aspect of reproductive health
blissful marital relationship, could protect the marriage as an care. Thus, a health care service
inviolable social institu-
240
239

provider, his/her religious objections to certain reproductive health

tion. Thus, the law, in case of disagreement, recognizes that the care services aside, may still render pro bono reproductive health
decision of the spouse undergoing the reproductive health procedure care service, as a prerequisite for PhilHealth accreditation, by
should prevail. In so declaring, Section 23(a)(2)(i) does not providing information or medical services, for instance, on treatment
invidiously interfere with the privacy rights of the spouses. In of breast and reproductive tract cancers, and other gynecological
dispensing with the spousal consent/authorization in case of conditions and disorders or on maternal, infant and child health and
disagreement, the law is not declaring a substantive right for the rst nutrition.
 Perlas-Bernabe,J., Concurring and Dissenting Opinion: Same; Same; Same; View that Section 23(b) of the Reproductive
Health (RH) Law must be construed in the context of its surrounding
Reproductive Health Law; Constitutional Law; Religious provisions which afford the conscientious objector the ability to opt-
Freedom; Benevolent Neutrality; View that with religion looked out from performing reproductive health practices on account of his
upon with benevolence and not hostility, benevolent neutrality or her religious beliefs.As I see it, the problem lies only with
allows accommodation of religion under certain circumstances. Section 5.24 of the RH-IRR going beyond what is provided for in
Under the benevolent-neutrality theory utilized by the ponencia in the RH Law. Section 5.24 of the RH-IRR is an erroneous
support of its position, religious freedom is seen as a substantive construction of Section 23(b) of the RH Law which must stand as
right and not merely a privilege against discriminatory legislation. constitutional. As earlier mentioned, the latter provision only states
With religion looked upon with benevolence and not hostility, general prohibitions to public ofcers specically charged with the
benevolent neutrality allows accommodation of religion under implementation of the RH Law; nothing in its text negates the
certain circumstances. As case law instructs, it is the strict scrutiny- availability of the conscientious objector exception to them, or to
compelling state interest test which is most in line with the skilled health professionals such as provincial, city, or municipal
benevolent neutrality-accommodation approach. This method of health ofcers, chiefs of hospital, head nurses, supervising
analysis operates under three (3) parameters, namely: (a) the midwives, among others, who by virtue of their ofce are
sincerity of the religious belief which is burdened by a statute or a specically charged with the duty to implement the provisions of the
government action; (b) the existence of a compelling state interest [RH Law and the RH-IRR]. Section 23(b) of the RH Law must be
which justies such burden on the free exercise of religion; and (c) construed in the context of its surrounding provisions which afford
in the furtherance of its legitimate state objective, the state has the conscientious objector the ability to opt-out from performing
employed the least intrusive means to such exercise of religious reproductive health practices on account of his or her religious
beliefs. beliefs. As the aforementioned RH-IRR provision would be stricken
Same; Same; Same; View that nothing in the law requires the down as invalid on ultra vires grounds, I believe that an equal
conscientious objector to refer the patient to a health care service protection analysis is unnecessary.
provider capable and willing to perform the reproductive health Same; Same; Same; Parental Consent; View that the
procedure objected to.Neither do I nd Section 23(a)(1) of the RH Reproductive Health (RH) Law provision on parental consent does
Law, as well as its RH-IRR provision counterpart, invidious of not amount to a negation or even a dilution of the parents right to
religious freedom, particularly, of the Free Exercise Clause, for the care for and rear their minor child who is already a parent or has
reason that information dissemination on health advice, including undergone an abortion towards the end of developing her physical
that on reproductive health, constitutes, as mentioned, an inherent character and well-being.The RH Law provision on parental
professional responsibility of health care service providers to their consent does not amount to a negation or even a dilution of the
patients. Informing the patient of his or her health options does not, parents right to care for and rear their minor child who is already a
in any way, preclude the conscientious objector from, as also earlier parent or has undergone an abortion towards the end of developing
stated, sharing his or her religious beliefs on the matter. After her physical character and well-being. Neither does the provision
disseminating the information, and when the patient afrmatively inhibit the minors parents from preventing their child from
acquiring detrimental
241
242

decides to take the reproductive health procedure, then the

conscientious objector may opt not to perform such procedure health habits. Recognizing that these minors have distinct
himself or herself and, instead, refer the patient to another health reproductive health needs due to their existing situation, the law
care service provider based only on the qualication of accessibility; simply does away with the necessity of presenting to reproductive
nothing in the law requires the conscientious objector to refer the health care service providers prior parental consent before they are
patient to a health care service provider capable and willing to given information and access to modern day methods of family
perform the reproductive health procedure objected to. planning. In a predominantly conservative culture like ours, wherein
the thought that premarital sex is taboo pervades, a minor who is
already a parent or one who has undergone a previous miscarriage that he or she decides not to render such services, the State has the
is, more often than not, subject to some kind of social stigma. Said right to deny him or her PhilHealth accreditation. Being a mere
minor, given her predisposition when viewed against social privilege, the State, through its exercise of police power, is free to
perception, may nd it difcult, or rather uncomfortable, to impose reasonable concessions that would further its policies, i.e.,
approach her parents on the sensitive subject of reproductive health, dissemination of information and rendering of services on
and, much more, to procure their consent. The RH Law does away reproductive health, in exchange for the grant of such accreditation.
with this complication and makes modern methods of family
planning easily accessible to the minor, all in the interest of her Leonen,J., Dissenting Opinion:
health and physical well-being. On all accounts, nothing stops the
minors parents to, in the exercise of their parental authority, Constitutional Law; Judicial Power; Actual Case or Controversy; View
intervene, having in mind the best interest of their child insofar as that there is a case or controversy when there is a real conict of rights or
her health and physical well-being are concerned. duties arising from actual facts.An actual case or controversy is one
Same; View that ideally and as much as possible, spouses should, which involves a conict of legal rights, an assertion of opposite legal
as the ponencia puts it, act as one cohesive unit in the decision- claims susceptible of judicial resolution; the case must not be moot or
making process in undergoing a reproductive health procedure. academic or based on extra-legal or other similar considerations not
However, when there is a complete disagreement between the cognizable by a court of justice. To be justiciable, the issues presented
spouses, the assailed Reproductive Health (RH) Law provision must be denite and concrete, touching the legal relations of parties
provides, by way of exception, a deadlock-mechanism whereby the having adverse legal interest; a real and substantial controversy admitting
decision of the one undergoing the procedure shall prevail if only to of specic relief. The term justiciability refers to the dual limitation of only
prevent any unsettling conict between the married couple on the considering in an adversarial context the questions presented before courts,
issue.There is nothing in the RH Law that would completely and in the process, the courts duty to respect its co-equal branches of
alienate the other spouse in the decision-making process nor obviate governments powers and prerogatives under the doctrine of separation of
any real dialogue between them. This is a purely private affair left powers. There is a case or controversy when there is a real conict of rights
for the spouses to experience for themselves. Ideally and as much as or duties arising from actual facts. These facts, properly established in
possible, spouses should, as the ponencia puts it, act as one court through evidence or judicial notice, provide the natural limitations
cohesive unit in the decision-making process in undergoing a upon judicial interpretation of the statute. When it is claimed that a statute is
reproductive health procedure. However, when there is a complete inconsistent with a provision of the Constitution, the meaning of a
disagreement between the spouses, the assailed RH Law provision constitutional provision will be narrowly drawn.
provides, by way of exception, a deadlock-mechanism whereby the Same; Same; View that it is true that the present Constitution grants
decision of the one undergoing the procedure shall prevail if only to the Supreme Court with the exercise of judicial review when the case
prevent any unsettling conict between the married couple on the involves the determination of grave abuse of discretion
issue. To add, the assailed provision, in my view, also provides a
practical solution to situations of estrangement which complicates 244
the process of procuring the other spouses consent.

243 amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or

instrumentality of the Government.It is true that the present Constitution
grants this court with the exercise of judicial review when the case involves
Same; PhilHealth Accreditation; View that as there is no form of the determination of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
compulsion, then the conscientious objector remains free to choose of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the
whether to render pro bono reproductive health care services or not. Government. This new feature of the 1987 Constitution affects our political
In the event, however, that he or she decides not to render such question doctrine. It does not do away with the requirement of an actual
services, the State has the right to deny him or her PhilHealth case. The requirement of an actual case is fundamental to the nature of the
accreditation.As there is no form of compulsion, then the judiciary.
conscientious objector remains free to choose whether to render pro
bono reproductive health care services or not. In the event, however,
 Same; Same; Facial Challenges; View that the only instance when a Fifth, the application of the provision in question will entail prior restraints;
facial review of the law is not only allowed but also essential is when the and Sixth, the value of the speech that will be restrained is such that its
provisions in question are so broad that there is a clear and imminent threat absence will be socially irreparable. This will necessarily mean balancing
that actually operates or it can be used as a prior restraint of speech. between the state interests protected by the regulation and the value of the
Unfortunately, the ponencia failed to discuss how several provisions of the speech excluded from society.
RH Law became vulnerable to a facial attack, whereas other provisions Same; Same; Same; View that facial challenges can only be raised on
must await an actual case or controversy to pass upon its constitutionality. the basis of overbreadth and not on vagueness.Facial challenges can only
The ponencia explained that the: x x x foregoing petitions have seriously be raised on the basis of overbreadth and not on vagueness. Southern
alleged that the constitutional human right to life, speech and religion and Hemisphere demonstrated how vagueness relates to violations of due
other fundamental rights mentioned above have been violated by the process rights, whereas facial challenges are raised on the basis of
assailed legislation, the Court has authority to take cognizance of these overbreadth and limited to the realm of freedom of expression. None of
kindred petitions and determine if the RH Law can indeed pass these petitions justify a facial review of this social legislation. The free
constitutional scrutiny. I restate, for purposes of emphasis, parts of my exercise of ones religion may be a cognate of the freedom of expression.
disquisition on facial challenges in my dissenting and concurring opinion in However, the petitions have not properly alleged the religion, the religious
Disini v. Secretary of Justice, 716 SCRA 237 (2014). After all, the dogma, the actual application of the religious dogma where a repugnancy
challenges to this present law and the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 can be shown. They have also failed to demonstrate that the violation of the
are the publics reaction to the increasingly liberal but disturbing treatment amorphous religious dogmas that they imagine should result in the
that we have given on the issue of rigorous analysis for the justiciability of invalidation of statutory text rather than simply an adjustment in its
controversies brought before us. The invalidation of the statute is either on interpretation and in its application.
its face or as applied. The only instance when a facial review of the law Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Class Suits; Parties; View that a class
is not only allowed but also essential is when the provisions in question suit is allowed under the rules if those who instituted the action are found to
are so broad that there is a clear and imminent threat that actually be sufciently numerous and representative of the interests of all those they
operates or it can be used as a prior restraint of speech. seek to represent.A class suit is allowed under the rules if those who
Same; Same; Same; View that a facial challenge only applies to cases instituted the action are found to be
where the free speech and its cognates are asserted before the court.The
prevailing doctrine today is that: a facial challenge only applies to cases 246
where the free speech and its cognates are asserted before the court. While
as a general rule penal statutes cannot be sufciently numerous and representative of the interests of all those they
seek to represent. They must be so numerous that it would be impractical to
245
bring them all to court or join them as parties. Lastly, a common interest in
the controversy raised must be clearly established. These requirements
subjected to facial attacks, a provision in a statute can be struck down as afford protection for all those represented in the class suit considering that
unconstitutional when there is a clear showing that there is an imminent this courts ruling will be binding on all of them. We should be especially
possibility that its broad language will allow ordinary law enforcement to cautious when the class represented by a few in an alleged class suit is the
cause prior restraints of speech and the value of that speech is such that its entire Filipino Nation or all the adherents of a particular religion. This
absence will be socially irreparable. Broken down into its elements, a facial court must be convinced that the interest is so common that there can be no
review should only be allowed when: First, the ground for the challenge of difference in the positions and points of view of all that belong to that class.
the provision in the statute is that it violates freedom of expression or any of Anything less than this standard will be an implied acceptance that in this
its cognates; Second, the language in the statute is impermissibly vague; important adjudication of alleged constitutional rights, the views of a few
Third, the vagueness in the text of the statute in question allows for an can be imposed on the many.
interpretation that will allow prior restraints; Fourth, the chilling effect is Same; Same; Same; Same; View that class suits require that there is a
not simply because the provision is found in a penal statute but because possibility that those represented can afrm that their interests are properly
there can be a clear showing that there are special circumstances which raised in a class suit.Class suits require that there is a possibility that
show the imminence that the provision will be invoked by law enforcers; those represented can afrm that their interests are properly raised in a class
suit. The general rule must be that they be real and existing. In constitutional matter.The Constitutional Commission deliberations show that it is not
adjudication, this court must approach class suits with caution; otherwise, true that the issue of when life begins is already a settled matter. There are
future generations or an amorphous class will be bound by a ruling which several other opinions on this issue. The Constitutional Commissioners
they did not participate in. Not all these elements for a proper class suit are adopted the term conception rather than fertilized ovum. New
present in the petitions led in these cases. discoveries in reproductive science, particularly the possibility of cloning,
Constitutional Law; Presidency; Immunity from Suit; View that a provide basis for the possible signicance of viable implantation in the
sitting president cannot be sued. This immunity exists during the Presidents uterus as the beginning of life and personhood. It is at implantation when
incumbency only.A sitting president cannot be sued. This immunity exists a group of cells gain the potential of progressing into a human being without
during the Presidents incumbency only. The purpose is to preserve the further intervention.
dignity of the ofce that is necessary for its operations as well as to prevent Same; Administrative Agencies; Food and Drug Administration; View
any disruption in the conduct of ofcial duties and functions. Without this that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is mandated to examine each
immunity, a proliferation of suits would derail the focus of the ofce from and every drug, contraceptive or technology vis--vis the claims made for
addressing the greater needs of the country to attending each and every case or against their inclusion.The law specically grants the Food and Drug
led against the sitting President, including the petty and harassment suits. Administration (FDA) with the
The doctrine of presidential immunity is not a surrender of the right to
demand accountability from those who hold public ofce such as the 248
President. The Constitution enumerates the grounds when a President may
be impeached. This immunity is also no longer available to a non-sitting competence to determine the scientic validity of the allegations of the
President. After the end of his or petitioners. The FDA is mandated to examine each and every drug,
contraceptive or technology vis--vis the claims made for or against their
247
inclusion. I agree with the ponencia in withholding any blanket
pronouncement of any contraceptive absent the exercise of the FDA of its
her tenure, he or she can be made criminally and civilly liable in the proper functions under this provision. The FDA is mandated to ensure the safety
case. and quality of drugs released to the public.
Reproductive Health Law; Constitutional Law; Right to Life; View that Same; Contraceptives; View that the inclusion of contraceptives in the
a law that mandates informed choice and proper access for reproductive national drug formulary is not new.The inclusion of contraceptives in the
health technologies should not be presumed to be a threat to the right to life. national drug formulary is not new. The Philippine Drug Formulary:
The constitutional right to life has many dimensions. Apart from the Essential Medicines List, Volume 7, of 2008 already listed it under
protection against harm to ones corporeal existence, it can also mean the Hormones and Hormone Antagonists. Contraceptives are included,
right to be left alone. The right to life also congeals the autonomy of an following ve pillars designed to make available affordable, safe, and
individual to provide meaning to his or her life. In a sense, it allows him or effective drugs to the public. These pillars are: (1) the assurance of the
her sufcient space to determine quality of life. A law that mandates safety, efcacy and usefulness of pharmaceutical products through quality
informed choice and proper access for reproductive health technologies control; (2) the promotion of the rational use of drugs by both the health
should not be presumed to be a threat to the right to life. It is an afrmative professionals and the general public; (3) the development of self-reliance
guarantee to assure the protection of human rights. in the local pharmaceutical industry; (4) [t]he tailored or targeted
Same; View that the court cannot make a declaration of when life procurement of drugs by government with the objective of making available
begins.The court cannot make a declaration of when life begins. Such to its own clientele, particularly the lower-income sectors of the society, the
declaration is not necessary and is a dictum that will unduly confuse future best drugs at the lowest possible cost; and (5) people empowerment.
issues. First, there is, as yet, no actual controversy that can support our Same; Constitutional Law; Religious Freedom; View that if a health
deliberation on this specic issue. Second, the court cannot rely on the care service providers religious belief does not allow a certain method of
discussion of a few commissioners during the drafting of the constitution by family planning, then that provider may possibly withhold such information
the Constitutional Commission. from the patient.If a health care service providers religious belief does
Same; View that the Constitutional Commission deliberations show not allow a certain method of family planning, then that provider may
that it is not true that the issue of when life begins is already a settled possibly withhold such information from the patient. In doing so, the patient
is unable to give voluntary informed consent to all possible procedures that aided in imposing its beliefs not only on patients but also on all those who
are necessary for her or his care. The law, in sections 17 and 23 allow have different faiths. Conduct which purport to be religious practice and its
accommodation for full care of the patient by requiring referral. The patient relationship to the fundamental tenets of that religion is a question of fact
that seeks health care service from a provider should be able to put his or which cannot be part of our judicial notice. Otherwise, we implicitly
her trust on the provider that he or she would be referred to the best possible establish a religion or manifest a bias towards one in violation of the clear
option. There is nothing in the law which prevents the referring health care and absolute separation between church and state.
provider from making known the basis of his or her conscientious objection
to an available procedure which is otherwise scientically and medically 250
safe and effective. Between the doctor or health care provider on the one
hand and the patient on the
Same; Same; Same; View that the Supreme Court cannot make any
249
judicial determination to declare the Catholic Churchs position on
contraceptives and sex.We cannot make any judicial determination to
declare the Catholic Churchs position on contraceptives and sex. This
other, it is the patients welfare and beliefs which should be primordial. It is is not the forum to do so and there is no present controversy no
the patient that needs the care, and the doctor or health care provider should contraceptive and no individual that has come concretely affected by
provide that care in a professional manner. the law. This court must avoid entering into unnecessary entanglements
Same; Same; Same; View that it is clear that a conscientious objector with religion. We are apt to do this when, without proof, we assume the
provision whose coverage is too broad will allow too many to raise beliefs of one sect or group within a church as denitive of their
exception and effectively undermine the purpose sought by the law.There religion. We must not assume at the outset that there might be
is a difference between objections based on ones conscience and those homogeneity of belief and practice; otherwise, we contribute to the
based on ones religion. Conscience appears to be the broader category. States endorsement of various forms of fundamentalism.
Objections based on conscience can be unique to the individuals Same; View that the general rule encourages married persons to
determination of what is right or wrong based on ethics or religion. discuss and make a conjugal decision on the matter; They are caught in a
Objections based on religion, on the other hand, imply a set of beliefs that problem when they disagree.Section 23(a)(2)(i) applies to a specic
are canonical to an institution or a movement considered as a religion. situation: when there is a disagreement between married persons regarding
Others share religious belief. Conscientious objection may also include the performance of a legal and medically-safe reproductive health
those whose bases are unique only to the person claiming the exception. procedure. The general rule encourages married persons to discuss and
Ones conscience may be shaped by cultural factors other than religion. It is make a conjugal decision on the matter. They are caught in a problem when
clear that a conscientious objector provision whose coverage is too broad they disagree. This agreement may fester and cause problems within their
will allow too many to raise exception and effectively undermine the family. The disagreement will not be created by the RH Law. It will exist
purpose sought by the law. factually regardless of the law. Section 23(a)(2)(i) of the law becomes
Same; Same; Same; View that it is not clear in the ponencia whether available to break this deadlock and privilege the decision of the spouse
the provisions on referral by conscientious objectors are declared undergoing the procedure. This is logical since the reproductive health
unconstitutional for all religions or only for specic ones.The petitions do procedures involve the body, health and well being of the one undergoing
not show a specic instance when conscientious objection was availed of as the procedure. The marriage may be a social contract but is certainly not a
a result of the exercise of a religion. In this case, we are asked to evaluate talisman that removes the possibility of power relationships. Married
whether the provision that accommodates conscientious objectors would, in persons, especially the woman/wife, can still suffer inequality. Married
the future, with unspecied facts, violate the constitutional provision on persons may still experience spousal abuse. Generally, it will be the woman
religious exercise. Thus, it is also not clear in the ponencia whether the who will ask to undergo reproductive health procedures. The interpretation
provisions on referral by conscientious objectors are declared of the majority therefore affects her control over her body. Rather than
unconstitutional for all religions or only for specic ones. This is the natural enhance the zones of autonomy of a person even in a married state, the
result for speculative cases. This is dangerous constitutional precedent. If interpretation of the majority creates the womans body as a zone of
the declaration is for all religions, then this might just result in a violation contestation that gives the upper hand to the husband.
of the non-establishment clause. A dominant majoritarian religion is now
251
 Same; Constitutional Law; Equal Protection of the Law; View that the we see the complications of a real situation will we be able to understand
equal protection clause in this provision ensures that individuals, even and shape a narrowly tailored exception to the current rule. In the meantime,
those that enter into a married state, do not coexist and suffer under the wisdom of all the members of the House of Representative, the Senate,
conditions of marital inequality.This due process clause implies and and the President have determined that it would be best to give the minor
congeals a persons right to life. This includes the individuals right to who is already a parent or has undergone a miscarriage all the leeway to be
existence as well as her or his right to a quality of life of her or his choosing. able to secure all the reproductive health technologies to prevent her
The State is not to sanction a program or an act that deprives the individual difculties from happening again. We must stay our hand for now.
of her or his control over her or his life and body. The equal protection Same; Administrative Agencies; Food and Drug Administration; View
clause in this provision ensures that individuals, even those that enter into a that insisting that we can impose, modify or alter rules of the Food and
married state, do not coexist and suffer under conditions of marital Drug Administration is usurpation of the executive power of control over
inequality. administrative agencies. It is a violation of the principle of separation of
Same; Same; Same; View that the fundamental equality of women and powers.The Constitution vests the executive power upon the President.
men, the promotion of an improved quality of life, and the full respect for He or she, and not the judiciary, exercises the power of control over all
human rights do not exist when a spouse is guaranteed control the other executive departments, bureaus and ofces, including the Food and Drug
spouses decisions respecting the latters body.The fundamental equality Administration. The judiciary has no administrative power of control or
of women and men, the promotion of an improved quality of life, and the supervision over the Food and Drug Administration. Insisting that we can
full respect for human rights do not exist when a spouse is guaranteed impose, modify or alter rules of the Food and Drug Administration is
control the other spouses decisions respecting the latters body. The usurpation of the executive power of control over administrative agencies. It
autonomy and importance of family should not be privileged over the is a violation of the principle of separation of powers, which recognizes that
privacy and autonomy of a person. Marriage is not bondage that [e]ach department of the government has exclusive cognizance of matters
subordinates the humanity of each spouse. No person should be deemed to within its jurisdiction, and is supreme within its own sphere. The system of
concede her or his privacy rights and autonomy upon getting married. By checks and balances only allows us to declare, in the exercise of our judicial
declaring Section 23(a)(2)(i) as unconstitutional, the majority interprets powers, the Food and Drug Administrations acts as violative of the law or
the privacy and autonomy of the family as also providing insulation of as committed with grave abuse of discretion. Such power is further limited
patriarchal or sexist practices from state scrutiny. This is not what the by the requirement of actual case or controversy.
Constitution intends. Same; View that the law impliedly accepts that the choice of intimate
Same; Parental Consent; View that the wisdom of all the members of relationships is better left to the individual and the inuences of their
the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the President have determined culture, their family, and their faiths.Unwanted pregnancies may result in
that it would be best to give the minor who is already a parent or has clinical complications and deaths of women during childbirth, of the fetus
undergone a miscarriage all the leeway to be able to secure all the while inside the womb and of infants soon after they are born. Unwanted
reproductive health technologies to prevent her difculties from happening pregnancies may be the result of lack of knowledge of the consequences of
again.Those of us who have not and can never go through the actual the sexual act, or it could be due to the lack of information and access to
experience of miscarriage by a minor, those of us who cannot even imagine safe and effective reproductive technologies. The law impliedly accepts that
the pain and stresses of teenage pregnancy, should not proceed to make the choice of inti-
blanket rules on what minors could do in relation to their parents. None of
253
us can say that in all cases, all parents can be understanding and extend
sympathy for the minors that are legally under their care. None of us can say
that there are instances when parents would think that the only mate relationships is better left to the individual and the inuences of their
culture, their family, and their faiths.
252
Same; Constitutional Law; Equal Protection of the Law; View that the
law acknowledges the differential impact of lack of knowledge and access to
way to prevent teenage pregnancy is a tongue lashing or corporeal reproductive health technologies between the rich and the poor.The law
punishment. We cannot understand reality only from the eyes of how we acknowledges the differential impact of lack of knowledge and access to
want it to be. Only when we are faced with an actual controversy and when reproductive health technologies between the rich and the poor. It, therefore,
requires that proper information and access be made more available to those Alfredo A. Zapanta for respondent League of Provinces.
who need it. It mandates the government to intervene at least in order to
provide the right information and, when requested and without coercion, MENDOZA,J.:
provide access. Freedom of religion was accorded preferred status by the framers
of our fundamental law. And this Court has consistently afrmed this
SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS in the Supreme Court. Certiorari and preferred status, well aware that it is designed to protect the
Prohibition; and PETITIONS-IN-INTERVENTION. broadest possible liberty of conscience, to allow each man to believe
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. as his conscience directs, to profess his beliefs, and to live as he
James M. Imbong and Jo Aurea M. Imbong for petitioners in believes
G.R. Nos. 204819 and 207111.
255
Maria Concepcion S. Noche for petitioners in G.R. No. 204934.
Makilito B. Mahinay for petitioners in G.R. No. 204957.
Luis Francis A. Rodrigo, Jr. for petitioners in G.R. No. 207172. he ought to live, consistent with the liberty of others and with the
Luisito V. Liban collaborating counsel for petitioners in G.R. common good.1
No. 207172. To this day, poverty is still a major stumbling block to the
Luis Ma. Gil L. Gana for petitioners in G.R. No. 207563. nations emergence as a developed country, leaving our people
Nelson A. Clemente for petitioners in G.R. No. 205043. beleaguered in a state of hunger, illiteracy and unemployment.
Monsod, Enriquez, Barrios-Taran, Lucido, Tolentino, Ramos, While governmental policies have been geared towards the
Ramos, Meritt Law Ofce for Buhay Party-List. revitalization of the economy, the bludgeoning dearth in social
Elizabeth Aguiling-Pangalangan, Herminio Harry L. Roque services remains to be a problem that concerns not only the poor, but
and Ethel C. Avisado for intervenors Drs. E. Cabral, J. Galvez-Tan, every member of society. The government continues to tread on a
A. Romualdez, Jr. and P.J. Cayetano. trying path to the realization of its very purpose, that is, the general
welfare of the Filipino people and the development of the country as
254
a whole. The legislative branch, as the main facet of a representative
government, endeavors to enact laws and policies that aim to
Berteni Catalua Causing for petitioners in G.R. No. 206355. remedy looming societal woes, while the executive is closed set to
Alan F. Paguia for petitioners in G.R. No. 205491. fully implement these measures and bring concrete and substantial
Earl Anthony C. Gambe and Marlon I. Yap for petitioners in solutions within the reach of Juan dela Cruz. Seemingly distant is
G.R. No. 204988. the judicial branch, oftentimes regarded as an inert governmental
Calleja Law Ofce for petitioners in G.R. No. 205478. body that merely casts its watchful eyes on clashing stakeholders
Ricardo M. Ribo for petitioners PAX in G.R. No. 205138. until it is called upon to adjudicate. Passive, yet reexive when
Runo L. Policarpio III, Cristina A. Montes and Jeremy I. called into action, the Judiciary then willingly embarks on its solemn
Gatdula for petitioners in G.R. No. 205720. duty to interpret legislation vis--vis the most vital and enduring
Clarita Rita A. Padilla, Arnold Feliciano De Vera, Marlon J. principle that holds Philippine society together the supremacy of
Manuel and Ray Paolo Santiago for intervenors. the Philippine Constitution.
Ibarra M. Gutierrez III and Juan Alfonso P. Torrevillas for Nothing has polarized the nation more in recent years than the
intervenors Ana Theresia Risa Hontiveros, et al. issues of population growth control, abortion and contraception. As
Reynante B. Orceo for respondent League of Municipalities of in every democratic society, diametrically opposed views on the
the Philippines-National, Inc. (LMP). subjects and their perceived consequences freely circulate in various
Edcel C. Lagman collaborating counsel for the House of media. From television debates2 to sticker
Representatives.
E.M. Lombos, Joan A. De Venecia and Joyce Melcar T. Tan for _______________
intervenors. 1 Islamic Dawah Council of the Philippines, Inc. v. Ofce of the Executive
Cayetano, Sebastian, Ata, Dado and Cruz collaborating counsel Secretary, G.R. No. 153888, July 9, 2003, 405 SCRA 497, 504.
for respondent-intervenor Sen. Pilar Juliana S. Cayetano.
 2 See <http://wn.com/pro-rh_bill_vs_anti-rh_bill>, last visited on November 5, capacities as citizens and on behalf of the generations unborn
2013; See also <http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/04/19/10/ (ALFI);
hontiveros-tatad-debate-rh-bill>, last visited on November 5, 2013. (3)Petition for Certiorari,9 led by the Task Force for Family
and Life Visayas, Inc., and Valeriano S. Avila, in their capacities as
256
citizens and taxpayers (Task Force Family);
(4)Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition,10 led by Serve Life
campaigns,3 from rallies by socio-political activists to mass Cagayan De Oro City, Inc.,11 Rosevale Foundation, Inc.,12
gatherings organized by members of the clergy4 the clash
between the seemingly antithetical ideologies of the religious _______________
conservatives and progressive liberals has caused a deep division in 6With Prayer for the Urgent Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and/or
every level of the society. Despite calls to withhold support thereto, Writ of Preliminary Injunction, docketed as G.R. No. 204934; Rollo (G.R. No.
however, Republic Act (R.A.) No. 10354, otherwise known as the 204934), pp. 3-76.
Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012 (RH 7 Also proceeding in her personal capacity as a citizen and as a member of the
Law), was enacted by Congress on December 21, 2012. Bar.
Shortly after the President placed his imprimatur on the said law, 8 Spouses Reynaldo S. Luistro & Rosie B. Luistro, Jose S. Sandejas & Elenita
challengers from various sectors of society came knocking on the S.A. Sandejas, Arturo M. Gorrez & Marietta C. Gorrez, Salvador S. Mante, Jr. &
doors of the Court, beckoning it to wield the sword that strikes down Hazeleen L. Mante, Rolando M. Bautista & Maria Felisa S. Bautista, Desiderio Racho
constitutional disobedience. Aware of the profound and lasting & Traquilina Racho, Fernand Antonio A. Tansingco & Carol Anne C. Tansingco for
impact that its decision may produce, the Court now faces the iuris themselves and on behalf of their minor children, Therese Antonette C. Tansingco,
controversy, as presented in fourteen (14) petitions and two (2) Lorenzo Jose C. Tansingco, Miguel Fernando C. Tangsingco, Carlo Josemaria C.
petitions-in-intervention, to wit: Tansingco & Juan Paolo C. Tansingco, Spouses Mariano V. Araneta & Eileen Z.
(1)Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition,5 led by spouses Araneta for themselves and on behalf of their minor children, Ramon Carlos Z.
Attys. James M. Imbong and Lovely Ann C. Imbong, in their Araneta & Maya Angelica Z. Araneta, Spouses Renato C. Castor & Mildred C. Castor
personal capacities as citizens, lawyers and taxpayers and on behalf for themselves and on behalf of their minor children, Renz Jeffrey C. Castor, Joseph
of their minor children; and the Magnicat Child Learning Center, Ramil C. Castor, John Paul C. Castor & Raphael C. Castor, Spouses Alexander R.
Inc., a domestic, privately-owned educational institution (Imbong); Racho & Zara Z. Racho for themselves and on behalf of their minor children
Margarita Racho, Mikaela Racho, Martin Racho, Mari Racho & Manolo Racho,
_______________ Spouses Alfred R. Racho & Francine V. Racho for themselves and on behalf of their
3 See <http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20110321- minor children Michael Racho, Mariana Racho, Rafael Racho, Maxi Racho, Chessie
326743/Stickers-spread-anti-RH-bill-message>, last visited on November 5, 2013; Racho & Laura Racho, Spouses David R. Racho & Armilyn A. Racho for themselves
See also <http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/218169/news/nation/carlos- and on behalf of their minor child Gabriel Racho, Mindy M. Juatas and on behalf of
celdran-distributes-pro-rh-stickers-in-quiapo>, last visited on November 5, 2013. her minor children Elijah General Juatas and Elian Gabriel Juatas, Salvacion M.
4 See <http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/241737/massive-church-rally-set-against-rh- Monteiro, Emily R. Laws, Joseph R. Laws & Katrina R. Laws.
bill>, last visited November 5, 2013; See also 9 With Prayer for Injunction, docketed as G.R. No. 204957.
<http://www.splendorofthechurch.com.ph/2013/04/29/lipino-catholics-ex-muscles- 10 With Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order/Writ of
in-poll-clout/>, last visited November 5, 2013. Preliminary Injunction, docketed as G.R. No. 204988; Rollo (G.R. No. 204988), pp.
5 With Prayer for the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order/Writ of 5-35.
Preliminary Injunction; docketed as G.R. No. 204819; Rollo (G.R. No. 204819), pp. 11Through and together with its president Nestor B. Lumicao, M.D.
3-32.
258
257

a domestic, privately-owned educational institution, and several

(2)Petition for Prohibition,6 led by the Alliance for the others,13 in their capacities as citizens (Serve Life);
Family Foundation Philippines, Inc., through its president, Atty. (5)Petition,14 led by Expedito A. Bugarin, Jr. in his capacity
Maria Concepcion S. Noche7 and several others8 in their personal as a citizen (Bugarin);
(6)Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition,15 led by Eduardo
 (6)Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition,15 led by Eduardo (10)Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition,23 led by Pro-Life
Olaguer and the Catholic Xybrspace Apostolate of the Philippines,16 Philippines Foundation Inc.24 and several others,25 in their capacities
in their capacities as a citizens and taxpayers (Olaguer); as citizens and taxpayers and on behalf of its associates who are
(7)Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition,17 led by the members of the Bar (Pro-Life);
Philippine Alliance of Xseminarians Inc.,18 and several others19 in (11)Petition for Prohibition,26 led by Millennium Saint
their capacities as citizens and taxpayers (PAX); Foundation, Inc.,27 Attys. Ramon Pedrosa, Cita Borromeo-Garcia,
(8)Petition,20 led by Reynaldo J. Echavez, M.D. and several Stella Acedera, and Berteni Catalua Causing, in their capacities as
others,21 in their capacities as citizens and taxpayers (Echavez); citizens, taxpayers and members of the Bar (MSF);
(12)Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition,28 led by John
_______________ Walter B. Juat and several others,29 in their capacities as citizens
12 Through and together with its representative/member of the school (Juat);
board Dr. Rodrigo M. Alenton, M.D. (13)Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition,30 led by Couples
13Rosemarie R. Alenton, Imelda G. Ibarra, Cpa, Lovenia P. Naces, Phd., for Christ Foundation, Inc. and several others,31 in their capacities as
Anthony G. Nagac, Earl Anthony C. Gambe and Marlon I. Yap. citizens (CFC);
14 Docketed as G.R. No. 205003; Petition is entitled Petition (To
Declare As Unconstitutional Republic Act No. 10354). The petition fails to
_______________
provide any description as to nature of the suit under the Rules of Court;
22 With Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order/Writ of
Rollo (G.R. No. 205003), pp. 3-40.
Preliminary Injunction, docketed as G.R. No. 205491; Rollo (G.R. No. 205491), pp.
15 With prayer for the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order,
3-13.
docketed as G.R. No. 205043; Rollo (G.R. No. 205043), pp. 3-16.
23 With Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order/Writ of
16Through its vice president and co-founder, Eduardo B. Olaguer.
Preliminary Injunction, docketed as G.R. No. 205720; Rollo (G.R. No. 205720), pp.
17With Prayer for the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order/Writ
3-90.
of Preliminary Injunction; docketed as G.R. No. 205138; Rollo (G.R. No.
24Through and together with its executive director, Lorna Melegrito.
205138), pp. 3-50.
25Joselyn B. Basilio, Robert Z. Cortes, Ariel A. Crisostomo, Jeremy I. Gatdula,
18Through and together with its president Atty. Ricardo M. Ribo.
Cristina A. Montes, Raul Antonio A. Nidoy, Winston Conrad B. Padojinog, Runo L.
19 Atty. Lino E.A. Dumas, Romeo B. Almonte, Osmundo C. Orlanes,
Policarpio III.
Arsenio Z. Menor, Samuel J. Yap, Jaime F. Mateo, Rolly Siguan, Dante E.
26Docketed as G.R. No. 206355, Rollo (G.R. No. 206355), pp. 3-32.
Magdangal, Michael Eugenio O. Plana, Bienvenido C. Miguel, Jr., Landrito
27 Through and together with its co-petitioners, Attys. Ramon Pedrosa, Cita
M. Diokno and Baldomero Falcone.
Borromeo-Garcia, Stella Acedera, and Berteni Catalua Causing.
20With Prayer for the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order/Writ
28With Prayer for a Writ of Preliminary Injunction, docketed as G.R. No. 207111;
of Preliminary Injunction; The petition fails to provide any description as to
Rollo (G.R. No. 207111), pp. 3-51.
nature of the suit under the Rules of Court, docketed as G.R. No. 205478;
29 Mary M. Imbong, Anthony Victorio B. Lumicao, Joseph Martin Q. Verdejo,
Rollo (G.R. No. 205478), pp. 3-26.
Antonio Emma R. Roxas and Lota Lat-Guerrero.
21 Jacqueline H. King, M.D., Cynthia T. Domingo, M.D., Josephine
30With Prayer for a Writ of Preliminary Injunction, docketed as G.R. No. 207172;
Millado-Lumitao, M.D., Anthony Perez, Michael Anthony G. Mapa, Carlos
Rollo (G.R. No. 207172), pp. 3-56.
Antonio Palad, Wilfredo Jose, Claire Navarro, Anna Cosio, Gabriel Dy
Liacco.
259 260

(9)Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition,22 led by spouses (14)Petition for Prohibition32 led by Almarim Centi Tillah
Francisco and Maria Fenny C. Tatad and Atty. Alan F. Paguia, in and Abdulhussein M. Kashim in their capacities as citizens and
their capacities as citizens, taxpayers and on behalf of those yet taxpayers (Tillah); and
unborn. Atty. Alan F. Paguia is also proceeding in his capacity as a (15)Petition-In-Intervention,33 led by Atty. Samson S.
member of the Bar (Tatad); Alcantara in his capacity as a citizen and a taxpayer (Alcantara); and

(10)Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition,23 led by Pro-Life (16)Petition-In-Intervention,34 led by Buhay Hayaang
 (16)Petition-In-Intervention,34 led by Buhay Hayaang It is also contended that the RH Law threatens conscientious
Yumabong (BUHAY), an accredited political party. objectors of criminal prosecution, imprisonment and other forms of
A perusal of the foregoing petitions shows that the petitioners are punishment, as it compels medical practitioners 1] to refer patients
assailing the constitutionality of RH Law on the following who seek advice on reproductive health programs to other doctors;
and 2] to provide full and correct information on reproductive health
Grounds: programs and service, although it is against their religious beliefs
and convictions.38
The RH Law violates the right to life of the unborn. According to the
petitioners, notwithstanding its declared policy against abortion, the _______________
implementation of the RH Law would authorize the purchase of hormonal 36 Petition, Alliance for the Family Foundation, Inc. (ALFI) v. Ochoa,
contraceptives, intra-uterine devices and injectables which are abortives, in Rollo (G.R. No. 204934), pp. 26-28; Petition, Serve Life Cagayan De Oro
violation of Section 12, Article II of the Constitution which guarantees City, Inc. v. Ochoa, Rollo (G.R. No. 204988), pp. 15-16; Petition, Echavez v.
protection of both the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from Ochoa, Rollo (G.R. No. 205478), pp. 13-14; Petition, Pro-Life Philippines
conception.35 Foundation, Inc. v. Ochoa, Rollo (G.R. No. 205720), pp. 30-35.
37 Petition, Task Force for the Family and Life Visayas, Inc. v. Ochoa,
_______________ Rollo (G.R. No. 204957), pp. 26-27; Petition, Philippine Alliance of
31Spouses Juan Carlos Artadi Sarmiento and Francesca Isabelle Besinga-Sarmiento, and XSeminarians (PAX) v. Ochoa, Rollo (G.R. No. 205138), pp. 39-44; Petition,
Spouses Luis Francis A. Rodrigo, Jr. and Deborah Marie Veronica N. Rodrigo. Tatad v. Ofce of the President, Rollo (G.R. No. 205491), pp. 8-9; Petition,
32Docketed as G.R. No. 207563; Rollo (G.R. No. 207563), pp. 3-15. Pro-Life Philippines Foundation, Inc. v. Ochoa, Rollo (G.R. No. 205720),
33Rollo (G.R. No. 204934), pp. 138-155. pp. 59-67; Petition, Millennium Saint Foundation, Inc. v. Ofce of the
34Rollo (G.R. No. 204819), pp. 1248-1260. President, Rollo (G.R. No. 206355), pp. 25-26.
35Petition, Imbong v. Ochoa, Rollo (G.R. No. 204819), pp. 8-10; Petition, Alliance for the 38 Petition, Imbong v. Ochoa, Rollo (G.R. No. 204819), pp. 20-22;
Family Foundation, Inc. (ALFI) v. Ochoa, Rollo (G.R. No. 204934), pp. 15-25; Petition, Serve Petition, Alliance for the Family Foundation, Inc. (ALFI) v. Ochoa, Rollo
Life Cagayan De Oro City, Inc. v. Ochoa, Rollo (G.R. No. 204988), pp. 13-15; Petition, (G.R. No. 204934), pp. 34-38; Petition, Task Force for the Family and Life
Olaguer v. Ona, Rollo (G.R. No. 205043), pp. 10-11; Petition, Philippine Alliance of Visayas,
XSeminarians (PAX) v. Ochoa, Rollo (G.R. No. 205138), pp. 8-36; Petition, Echavez v. Ochoa,
Rollo (G.R. No. 205478), pp. 10-13; Petition, Millennium Saint Foundation, Inc. v. Ofce of the 262
President, Rollo (G.R. No. 206355), pp. 11-15; Petition, Juat v. Ochoa, Rollo (G.R. No.
207111), pp. 17-18; Petition, Buhay Party-List (BUHAY) v. Ochoa, Rollo (G.R. No. 204819), In this connection, Section 5.23 of the Implementing Rules and
pp. 1255-1256. Regulations of the RH Law (RH-IRR),39 provides that skilled health
professionals who are public ofcers such as, but not limited to,
Provincial, City, or Municipal Health Ofcers, medical ofcers,
261 medical specialists, rural health physicians, hospital staff nurses,
public health nurses, or rural health midwives, who are specically
The RH Law violates the right to health and the right to protection charged with the duty to implement these Rules, cannot be
against hazardous products. The petitioners posit that the RH Law considered as conscientious objectors.40
provides universal access to contraceptives which are hazardous to ones It is also argued that the RH Law providing for the formulation of
health, as it causes cancer and other health problems.36 mandatory sex education in schools should not be allowed as it is
The RH Law violates the right to religious freedom. The petitioners an affront to their religious beliefs.41
contend that the RH Law violates the constitutional guarantee respecting
religion as it authorizes the use of public funds for the procurement of _______________
contraceptives. For the petitioners, the use of public funds for purposes that Inc. v. Ochoa, Rollo (G.R. No. 204957), pp. 26-27; Petition, Echavez v. Ochoa, Rollo
are believed to be contrary to their beliefs is included in the constitutional (G.R. No. 205478), pp. 6-7; Petition, Pro-Life Philippines Foundation, Inc. v. Ochoa,
mandate ensuring religious freedom.37 Rollo (G.R. No. 205720), pp. 56-75; Petition, Millennium Saint Foundation, Inc. v.
Ofce of the President, Rollo (G.R. No. 206355), pp. 16-22; Petition, Juat v. Ochoa,
Rollo (G.R. No. 207111), pp. 28-33; Petition, Couples for Christ Foundation, Inc. v. The RH Law violates the right to equal protection of the law. It is
Ochoa, Rollo (G.R. No. 207172), pp. 12-16. claimed that the RH Law discriminates against the poor as it makes
39Section 5.23.Skilled Health Professional as a Conscientious Objector.In them the primary target of the government program that promotes
order to be considered a conscientious objector, a skilled health professional shall contraceptive use. The petitioners argue that, rather than promoting
comply with the following requirements: reproductive health among the poor,
a) Submission to the DOH of an afdavit stating the modern family planning
methods that he or she refuses to provide and his or her reasons for objection; _______________
b)Posting of a notice at the entrance of the clinic or place of practice, in a 205478), pp. 6-7; Petition, Pro-Life Philippines Foundation, Inc. v. Ochoa, Rollo
prominent location and using a clear/legible font, enumerating the reproductive health (G.R. No. 205720), p. 81.
services he or she refuses to provide; and 42 Petition, Pro-Life Philippines Foundation, Inc. v. Ochoa, Rollo (G.R. No.
c)Other requirements as determined by the DOH. xxx. 205720), pp. 63-64; Petition, Couples for Christ Foundation, Inc. v. Ochoa, Rollo
Provided, That skilled health professionals who are public ofcers such as, but (G.R. No. 207172), pp. 20-23.
not limited to, Provincial, City, or Municipal Health Ofcers, medical ofcers, 43 Petition, Serve Life Cagayan De Oro City, Inc. v. Ochoa, Rollo (G.R. No.
medical specialists, rural health physicians, hospital staff nurses, public health nurses, 204988), pp. 16-48; Petition, Echavez v. Ochoa, Rollo (G.R. No. 205478), pp. 7-9.
or rural health midwives, who are specically charged with the duty to implement 44Id.
these Rules cannot be considered as conscientious objectors. x x x (Emphases
Ours)
40 Joint Memorandum, Imbong v. Ochoa, Rollo (G.R. No. 204819), pp. 2617-
264
2619.
41Petition, Alliance for the Family Foundation, Inc. (ALFI) v. Ochoa, Rollo (G.R.
No. 204934), p. 40; Petition, Echavez v. Ochoa, Rollo (G.R. No. the RH Law seeks to introduce contraceptives that would effectively
reduce the number of the poor.45

The RH Law is void-for-vagueness in violation of the due
263 process clause of the Constitution. In imposing the penalty of
imprisonment and/or ne for any violation, it is vague because it
does not dene the type of conduct to be treated as violation of the
While the petitioners recognize that the guarantee of religious RH Law.46
freedom is not absolute, they argue that the RH Law fails to satisfy
the clear and present danger test and the compelling state
interest test to justify the regulation of the right to free exercise of In this connection, it is claimed that Section 7 of the RH Law
religion and the right to free speech.42 violates the right to due process by removing from them (the people)
the right to manage their own affairs and to decide what kind of
The RH Law violates the constitutional provision on involuntary health facility they shall be and what kind of services they shall
servitude. According to the petitioners, the RH Law subjects offer.47 It ignores the management prerogative inherent in
medical practitioners to involuntary servitude because, to be corporations for employers to conduct their affairs in accordance
accredited under the PhilHealth program, they are compelled to with their own discretion and judgment.
provide forty-eight (48) hours of pro bono services for indigent
women, under threat of criminal prosecution, imprisonment and The RH Law violates the right to free speech. To compel a person to
other forms of punishment.43 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
The petitioners explain that since a majority of patients are by religious groups, they are still forced to refer their patients to another
covered by PhilHealth, a medical practitioner would effectively be
forced to render reproductive health services since the lack of _______________
PhilHealth accreditation would mean that the majority of the public 45 Petition, Task Force for the Family and Life Visayas, Inc. v. Ochoa, Rollo (G.R. No.
would no longer be able to avail of the practitioners services.44 204957), pp. 30-31; Memorandum, Echavez v. Ochoa, Rollo (G.R. No. 205478), pp. 1247-
1250; Petition, Millennium Saint Foundation, Inc. v. Ofce of the President, Rollo (G.R. No. 50 Joint Memorandum, Imbong v. Ochoa, Rollo (G.R. No. 204819), pp. 2571-2574;
206355), p. 25; Petition, Couples for Christ Foundation, Inc. v. Ochoa, Rollo (G.R. No. Petition, Olaguer v. Ona, Rollo (G.R. No. 205043), pp. 11-12; Petition, Tatad v. Ofce of the
207172), pp. 43-45. President, Rollo (G.R. No. 205491), pp. 7-8; Petition, Couples for Christ Foundation, Inc. v.
46 Joint Memorandum, Imbong v. Ochoa, Rollo (G.R. No. 204819), pp. 2626-2637; Ochoa, Rollo (G.R. No. 207172), pp. 28-32.
Petition, Alcantara, pp. 9-13; Rollo (G.R. No. 204934), pp. 146-150; Petition, Pro-Life

Philippines Foundation, Inc. v. Ochoa, Rollo (G.R. No. 205720), pp. 78-81.
47Petition, Couples for Christ Foundation, Inc. v. Ochoa, Rollo (G.R. No. 207172), pp. 32- 266
34.

ers question the delegation by Congress to the FDA of the power to

determine whether a product is non-abortifacient and to be included in the
265
Emergency Drugs List (EDL).51
The RH Law violates the one subject/one bill rule provision under
healthcare facility willing to perform the service or procedure.48 Section 26(1), Article VI of the Constitution.52
The RH Law intrudes into the zone of privacy of ones family protected The RH Law violates Natural Law.53
by the Constitution. It is contended that the RH Law providing for The RH Law violates the principle of Autonomy of Local Government
mandatory reproductive health education intrudes upon their constitutional Units (LGUs) and the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao
right to raise their children in accordance with their beliefs.49 (ARMM). It is contended that the RH Law, providing for reproductive health
measures at the local government level and the ARMM, infringes upon the
powers devolved to LGUs and the ARMM under the Local Government
It is claimed that, by giving absolute authority to the person who Code and R.A. No. 9054.54
will undergo reproductive health procedure, the RH Law forsakes
any real dialogue between the spouses and impedes the right of
spouses to mutually decide on matters pertaining to the overall well- Various parties also sought and were granted leave to le their
being of their family. In the same breath, it is also claimed that the respective comments-in-intervention in defense of the
parents of a child who has suffered a miscarriage are deprived of constitutionality of the RH Law. Aside from the Ofce of the
parental authority to determine whether their child should use Solicitor General (OSG) which commented on the petitions in behalf
contraceptives.50 of the respondents,55 Congressman Edcel C. Lagman,56 former
ofcials of the Department of Health Dr. Esperanza I.
The RH Law violates the constitutional principle of non-delegation of
legislative authority. The petition-
_______________
51Petition, Alliance for the Family Foundation, Inc. (ALFI) v. Ochoa, Rollo (G.R.
_______________
No. 204934), pp. 28-33; Petition, Philippine Alliance of XSeminarians (PAX) v.
48Petition, Imbong v. Ochoa, Rollo (G.R. No. 204819), pp. 2623-2626; Petition, Alcantara,
Ochoa, Rollo (G.R. No. 205138), pp. 37-38.
pp. 5-9; Rollo (G.R. No. 204934), pp. 142-148; Petition, Serve Life Cagayan De Oro City, Inc.
52 Section 26. (1) Every bill passed by the Congress shall embrace only one
v. Ochoa, Rollo (G.R. No. 204988), pp. 20-21; Petition, Bugarin v. Ofce of the President,
subject which shall be expressed in the title thereof; Task Force for the Family and
Rollo (G.R. No. 205003), pp. 14-16; Petition, Millennium Saint Foundation, Inc. v. Ofce of the
Life Visayas, Inc. v. Ochoa, Rollo (G.R. No. 204957), pp. 6-10; Echavez v. Ochoa,
President, Rollo (G.R. No. 206355), p. 16; Petition, Couples for Christ Foundation, Inc. v.
Rollo (G.R. No. 205478), pp. 9-10.
Ochoa, Rollo (G.R. No. 207172), pp. 16-20.
53 Petition, Pro-Life Philippines Foundation, Inc. v. Ochoa, Rollo (G.R. No.
49Petition, Imbong v. Ochoa, Rollo (G.R. No. 204819), pp. 14-19; Petition, Alliance for the
205720), pp. 14-30.
Family Foundation, Inc. (ALFI) v. Ochoa, Rollo (G.R. No. 204934), pp. 42-44; Petition, Task
54 Memorandum, Echavez v. Ochoa, Rollo (G.R. No. 205478), pp. 894-900;
Force for the Family and Life Visayas, Inc. v. Ochoa, Rollo (G.R. No. 204957), pp. 21-25;
Petition, Couples for Christ Foundation, Inc. v. Ochoa, Rollo (G.R. No. 207172), pp.
Petition, Millennium Saint Foundation, Inc. v. Ofce of the President, Rollo (G.R. No. 206355),
45-48; Petition, Tillah v. Executive Secretary, Rollo (G.R. No. 207563) pp. 6-12.
pp. 23-25; Petition, Couples for Christ Foundation, Inc. v. Ochoa, Rollo (G.R. No. 207172), pp.
55Rollo (G.R. No. 204819), pp. 362-480.
23-28.
56Rollo (G.R. No. 204819), pp. 195-353.
 On May 30, 2013, the Court held a preliminary conference with
the counsels of the parties to determine and/or identify the pertinent
267
issues raised by the parties and the sequence by which these issues
were to be discussed in the oral arguments. On July 9 and 23, 2013,
Cabral, Jamie Galvez-Tan, and Dr. Alberto G. Romualdez,57 the and on August 6, 13, and 27, 2013, the cases were heard on oral
Filipino Catholic Voices for Reproductive Health (C4RH),58 Ana argument. On July 16, 2013, the SQAO was ordered extended until
Theresa Risa Hontiveros,59 and Atty. Joan De Venecia60 also led further orders of the Court.63 Thereafter, the Court directed the
their respective Comments-in-Intervention in conjunction with parties to submit their respective memoranda within sixty (60) days
several others. On June 4, 2013, Senator Pia Juliana S. Cayetano and, at the same time posed several questions for their clarication
was also granted leave to intervene.61 on some contentions of the parties.64
The respondents, aside from traversing the substantive arguments
of the petitioners, pray for the dismissal of the petitions for the _______________
principal reasons that 1] there is no actual case or controversy and, 63Resolution, dated July 16, 2013.
therefore, the issues are not yet ripe for judicial determination.; 2] 64In its Resolution, dated August 27, 2013, the Court required the parties to also
some petitioners lack standing to question the RH Law; and 3] the include the following in their respective memoranda:
petitions are essentially petitions for declaratory relief over which 1. What is the relation of the rst portion of Section 7 on Access to Family
the Court has no original jurisdiction. Planning to the theory that R.A. No. 10354 is an anti-poor program that seeks to
Meanwhile, on March 15, 2013, the RH-IRR for the enforcement reduce the population of the poor?
of the assailed legislation took effect. 2. How is the second paragraph of the same section related to the proposition
On March 19, 2013, after considering the issues and arguments that R.A. No. 10354 encourages sex among minors?
raised, the Court issued the Status Quo Ante Order (SQAO), 3. In relation to Section 23 on Prohibited Acts, where in the law can you nd
enjoining the effects and implementation of the assailed legislation the denition of the term health care service provider? Is the denition of a public
for a period of one hundred and twenty (120) days, or until July 17, health care service provider found in Section 4, paragraph (n) of the law sufcient
2013.62 for the Court to understand the meaning of a private health care service provider or
should the Court refer to the Implementing Rules and Regulations which refer to
_______________ health care providers?
4. With respect to health care providers under the Implementing Rules and
57Rollo (G.R. No. 204819), pp. 487-528. Regulations, does it make a difference that they are called health care providers and
58Rollo (G.R. No. 204934), pp. 871-1007. not health care service providers? Does the fact that there is a missing word indicate
59Rollo (G.R. No. 204819), pp. 1306-1334; Rollo (G.R. No. 204934), pp. 98-132. that there is a difference or that the tautology being proposed actually refers to
60Rollo (G.R. No. 204819), pp. 736-780. different objects? If in the afrmative, is there enough basis to say that the law is a
61 In her Motion for Leave to Intervene, Senator Pilar Juliana S. Cayetano criminal statute that has sufcient denitions for purposes of punitive action?
manifested that she was adopting as her own the arguments raised by respondents Dr. 5. In relation to Section 23(a)(1), how will the State be able to locate the
Esperanza I. Cabral, Jamie Galvez-Tan, and Dr. Alberto G. Romualdez in their programs and services on which the health care service provider has the duty to give
Petition for Intervention; See Rollo (G.R. No. 204819), pp. 1731-1783. After being information? If the terminology of health care service provider includes private
directed by the Court to le their respective memoranda, intervenors Dr. Esperanza I. health care service provider, which includes private hospitals and private doctors, is
Cabral, Jamie Galvez-Tan, and Dr. Alberto G. Romualdez manifested on November the State duty-bound to consequently provide these providers with
18, 2013, that they were adopting the arguments raised by Congressman Lagman in
his Joint Memorandum; See Rollo (G.R. No. 204819), pp. 3061-3070. On November 269
26, 2013, Senator Pilar Juliana S. Cayetano led her separate Memorandum; See,
Rollo (G.R. No. 204819), pp. 3032-3059.
The Status Quo Ante
62Resolution dated March 15, 2013.
(Population, Contraceptive and Reproductive Health Laws Prior to
the RH Law)
Long before the incipience of the RH Law, the country has
268 allowedA the sale, dispensation and distribution of contracep-
_______________ conceptional substances and devices. Under Section 37 thereof, it
information on the programs and services that these providers should give was provided that no drug or chemical product
information on?
6. As regards programs, is there a duty on the part of the State to provide a _______________
way by which private health care service providers can have access to information on Section 23(a)(3) when it is the doctor who is not comfortable about giving an
reproductive health care programs as dened in Section 4, paragraph (r)? What is the opinion? Is the difference legally material?
implication of the fact that the law requires even private parties with the duty to 13. How does Section 23, paragraph (c) relate to Article 134 the Labor Code
provide information on government programs on the criminal liability of private which requires employers to provide family planning services?
health care service providers? 14. Section 24 provides that in case the offender is a juridical person, the
7. As regards services, what is the distinction between information and penalties in the statute shall be imposed on the president or any responsible ofcer.
services considering that services in different portions of the statute include For each offense in Section 23, how will the corporate ofcer be made responsible if
providing of information? there is no actual participation by the hospital board directors or ofcers of such
8. What are the specic elements of every sub-group of crime in Section 23 action? Does Section 24 in relation to Section 23 require corporate action? What is
and what are the legal bases for the determination of each element? the situation being contemplated in the second paragraph of Section 24 before there
9. Are there existing provisions in other statutes relevant to the legal denitions can be accountability for criminal violations?
found in R.A. No. 10354? 15. Section 7 provides that access of minors to information and family
10. Why is there an exemption for the religious or conscientious objector in planning services must be with the written consent of parents or guardians. Is there a
paragraph (3) of Section 23 and not in paragraphs (1) and (2)? What is the distinction penalty in the law for those who will make these information and services (e.g.,
between paragraph (3) and paragraphs (1) and (2)? contraceptives) available to minors without the parents consent? How does this relate
11. Section 23(a)(3) penalizes refusal to extend quality health care services to Section 14 which requires the Department of Education to formulate a curriculum
and information on account of the persons marital status, gender, age, religious which shall be used by public schools and may be adopted by private schools? Is
convictions, personal circumstances, or nature of work. What if the refusal is not on there a penalty for teaching sex education without the parents or guardians written
account of ones marital status, gender, age, religious convictions, personal consent? Correlatively, is there a penalty for private schools which do not teach sex
circumstances, or nature of work, or what if the refuser simply does not state the education as formulated by the DepEd considering the use of the word may?
reason for the refusal? Will there still be a criminal liability under Section 23(a)(3)? 65Section 1, R.A. No. 4729.
12. Still on Section (23)(a)(3) on referring a person to another facility or 66 Entitled AN ACT REGULATING THE PRACTICE OF PHARMACY AND SETTING
provider, is this the same or analogous to referral of a person to seek second opinion? STANDARDS OF PHARMACEUTICAL EDUCATION IN THE PHILIPPINES.
What is the medical standard for the provision of a second opinion? In referring to
another professional or service provider for a second opinion, is it the patient who is
not comfortable with the opinion given by the rst doctor that triggers the duty or
271
option to refer? How is it different with the situation in

270
or device capable of provoking abortion or preventing conception as
classied by the Food and Drug Administration shall be delivered or
tive drugs and devices. As far back as June 18, 1966, the country sold to any person without a proper prescription by a duly licensed
enacted R.A. No. 4729 entitled An Act to Regulate the Sale, physician.
Dispensation, and/or Distribution of Contraceptive Drugs and On December 11, 1967, the Philippines, adhering to the UN
Devices. Although contraceptive drugs and devices were allowed, Declaration on Population, which recognized that the population
they could not be sold, dispensed or distributed unless such sale, problem should be considered as the principal element for long-term
dispensation and distribution is by a duly licensed drug store or economic development, enacted measures that promoted male
pharmaceutical company and with the prescription of a qualied vasectomy and tubal ligation to mitigate population growth.67
medical practitioner.65 Among these measures included R.A. No. 6365, approved on
In addition, R.A. No. 5921,66 approved on June 21, 1969, August 16, 1971, entitled An Act Establishing a National Policy on
contained provisions relative to dispensing of abortifacients or anti- Population, Creating the Commission on Population and for Other
Purposes. The law envisioned that family planning will be made
part of a broad educational program; safe and effective means will family planning methods, and to ensure that its objective to provide
be provided to couples desiring to space or limit family size; for the peoples right to reproductive health be achieved. To make it
mortality and morbidity rates will be further reduced. more effective, the RH Law made it mandatory for health providers
To further strengthen R.A. No. 6365, then President Ferdinand E. to provide information on the full range of modern family planning
Marcos issued Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 79,68 dated December methods, supplies and services, and for schools to provide
8, 1972, which, among others, made family planning a part of a reproductive health education. To put teeth to it, the RH Law
broad educational program, provided family planning services as a criminalizes certain acts of refusals to carry out its mandates.
part of overall health care, and made available all acceptable Stated differently, the RH Law is an enhancement measure to
methods of contraception, except abortion, to all Filipino citizens fortify and make effective the current laws on contraception,
desirous of spacing, limiting or preventing pregnancies. womens health and population control.
Through the years, however, the use of contraceptives and family
planning methods evolved from being a component of demographic _______________
management, to one centered on the promotion of public health, 70Held in Cairo, Egypt from September 5-13, 1994.
particularly, reproductive health.69 Under that policy, the country 71Section 17, R.A. 9710.
gave priority to ones right to freely 72See www.nscb.gov.ph/secstat/d)pop.asp, last accessed February 20, 2014.

_______________

67See http://www.pop.org/content/coercive-population-ploys-in-philippines-1428, 273
last visited October 17, 2013.
68 Entitled REVISING THE POPULATION ACT OF NINETEEN HUNDRED AND SEVENTY-
ONE. Prayer of the Petitioners Maintain the Status Quo
69 <http://www.senate.gov.ph/publications/PB%202009-03%20- The petitioners are one in praying that the entire RH Law be
%20Promoting%20Reproductive%20 declared unconstitutional. Petitioner ALFI, in particular, argues that
Health.pdf>, last visited October 17, 2013. the government 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 mandated to protect and promote.
Thus, ALFI prays that the status quo ante the situation prior to
272
the passage of the RH Law must be maintained.73 It explains:

choose the method of family planning to be adopted, in conformity x x x. The instant Petition does not question contraception and
with its adherence to the commitments made in the International contraceptives per se. As provided under Republic Act No. 5921 and
Conference on Population and Development.70 Thus, on August 14, Republic Act No. 4729, the sale and distribution of contraceptives are
2009, the country enacted R.A. No. 9710 or The Magna Carta for prohibited unless dispensed by a prescription duly licensed by a physician.
Women, which, among others, mandated the State to provide for What the Petitioners nd deplorable and repugnant under the RH Law is the
comprehensive health services and programs for women, including role that the State and its agencies the entire bureaucracy, from the
family planning and sex education.71 cabinet secretaries down to the barangay ofcials in the remotest areas of
The RH Law the country is made to play in the implementation of the contraception
Despite the foregoing legislative measures, the population of the program to the fullest extent possible using taxpayers money. The State
country kept on galloping at an uncontrollable pace. From a paltry then will be the funder and provider of all forms of family planning methods
number of just over 27 million Filipinos in 1960, the population of and the implementer of the program by ensuring the widespread
the country reached over 76 million in the year 2000 and over 92 dissemination of, and universal access to, a full range of family planning
million in 2010.72 The executive and the legislative, thus, felt that methods, devices and supplies.74
the measures were still not adequate. To rein in the problem, the RH

Law was enacted to provide Filipinos, especially the poor and the
Issues
marginalized, access and information to the full range of modern
 After a scrutiny of the various arguments and contentions of the _______________
parties, the Court has synthesized and rened them to the following 75Consolidated Comment, OSG, Rollo (G.R. No. 204819), p. 376.
principal issues:
275
I. PROCEDURAL: Whether the Court may exercise its power
of judicial review over the controversy.
1]Power of Judicial Review 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
73 Alliance for the Family Foundation, Inc. (ALFI) v. Ochoa, Rollo (G.R. No. implement the constitutional policies and positive norms with the
204934), p. 1408. political departments, in particular, with Congress.77 It further
74Id. asserts that in view of the Courts ruling in Southern Hemisphere v.
Anti-Terrorism Council,78 the remedies of certiorari and prohibition
utilized by the petitioners are improper to assail the validity of the
274
acts of the legislature.79
Moreover, the OSG submits that as an as applied challenge, it
cannot prosper considering that the assailed law has yet to be
2]Actual Case or Controversy enforced and applied to the petitioners, and that the government has
3]Facial Challenge yet to distribute reproductive health devices that are abortive. It
4]Locus Standi claims that the RH Law cannot be challenged on its face as it is
5]Declaratory Relief not a speech-regulating measure.80
6]One Subject/One Title Rule In many cases involving the determination of the
II.SUBSTANTIVE: Whether the RH law is unconstitutional: constitutionality of the actions of the Executive and the Legislature,
1]Right to Life it is often sought that the Court temper its exercise of judicial power
2]Right to Health and accord due respect to the wisdom of its co-equal branch on the
3] Freedom of Religion and the Right to Free Speech basis of the principle of separation of powers. To be clear, the
4] The Family separation of powers is a fundamental principle in our system of
5]Freedom of Expression and Academic Freedom government, which obtains not through express provision but by
6]Due Process actual division in our Constitution. Each department of the
7]Equal Protection government has exclusive cognizance of matters within its
8]Involuntary Servitude jurisdiction and is supreme within its own sphere.81 Thus, the 1987
9]Delegation of authority to the FDA Constitution provides that: (a) the legislative power shall be vested
10]Autonomy of Local Governments/ARMM in the Congress of the Philippines;82 (b) the executive power shall be
vested in the
Discussion
Before delving into the constitutionality of the RH Law and its _______________
implementing rules, it behooves the Court to resolve some 76Consolidated Comment, OSG, Rollo (G.R. No. 204819), p. 377.
procedural impediments. 77Id., at p. 378.
I. PROCEDURAL ISSUE:Whether the Court can exercise 78G.R. No. 178552, October 5, 2010, 632 SCRA 146, 166.
its power of judicial review over the controversy. 79Consolidated Comment, OSG, Rollo (G.R. No. 204819), pp. 385, 387-388.
The Power of Judicial Review 80Id., at pp. 381-384.
In its attempt to persuade the Court to stay its judicial hand, the 81Angara v. Electoral Commission, 63 Phil. 139, 158 (1936).
OSG asserts that it should submit to the legislative and political 82Constitution, Art. VI, Sec. 1.
wisdom of Congress and respect the compromises made in the
crafting of the RH Law, it being a product of a majoritarian
democratic process75 and characterized by
276
 In this connection, it bears adding that while the scope of judicial
83
President of the Philippines; and (c) the judicial power shall be power of review may be limited, the Constitution makes no
vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be distinction as to the kind of legislation that may be subject to judicial
established by law.84 The Constitution has truly blocked out with scrutiny, be it in the form of social legislation or otherwise. The
deft strokes and in bold lines, the allotment of powers among the reason is simple and goes back to the earlier point. The Court may
three branches of government.85 pass upon the constitutionality of acts of the legislative and the
In its relationship with its co-equals, the Judiciary recognizes the executive branches, since its duty is not to review their collective
doctrine of separation of powers which imposes upon the courts wisdom but, rather, to make sure that they have acted in consonance
proper restraint, born of the nature of their functions and of their with their respective authorities and rights as mandated of them by
respect for the other branches of government, in striking down the the Constitution. If after said review, the Court nds no
acts of the Executive or the Legislature as unconstitutional. Verily, constitutional violations of any sort, then, it has no more authority of
the policy is a harmonious blend of courtesy and caution.86 proscribing the actions under review.90 This is in line with Article
It has also long been observed, however, that in times of social VIII, Section 1 of the Constitution which expressly provides:
disquietude or political instability, the great landmarks of the Section1.The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court
Constitution are apt to be forgotten or marred, if not entirely and in such lower courts as may be established by law.
obliterated.87 In order to address this, the Constitution impresses Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual
upon the Court to respect the acts performed by a co-equal branch controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and
done within its sphere of competence and authority, but at the same enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave
time, allows it to cross the line of separation but only at a very abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the
limited and specic point to determine whether the acts of the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government. [Emphases
executive and the legislative branches are null because they were supplied]
undertaken with grave abuse of discretion.88 Thus, while the Court
may not pass upon questions of wisdom, justice or expediency of the As far back as Taada v. Angara,91 the Court has unequivocally
RH Law, it may do so where an attendant unconstitutionality or declared that certiorari, prohibition and mandamus are appropriate
grave abuse of discretion results.89 The Court must remedies to raise constitutional issues and to review and/or
prohibit/nullify, when proper, acts of legislative and executive
_______________ ofcials, as there is no other plain, speedy or adequate remedy in the
83CONSTITUTION, ART. VII, Sec. 1. ordinary course of law. This
84CONSTITUTION, ART. VIII, Sec. 1.
85Supra note 81. _______________
86 See Association of Small Landowners in the Phil., Inc., et al. v. Secretary of 90Biraogo v. The Philippine Truth Commission, G.R. No. 192935 & G.R. No.
Agrarian Reform, 256 Phil. 777, 799; 175 SCRA 343, 364 (1989). 193036, December 7, 2010, 637 SCRA 78, 177.
87Francisco, Jr. v. The House of Representatives, G.R. No. 160261, November 91Taada v. Angara, 338 Phil. 546, 575; 272 SCRA 18, 49 (1997).
10, 2003, 415 SCRA 44, citing Angara v. Electoral Commission, 63 Phil. 139, 158
(1936).
88Garcia v. Executive Secretary, 602 Phil. 64, 77-78; 583 SCRA 119, 134 (2009).
278
89 Kida v. Senate of the Philippines, G.R. No. 196271, October 18, 2011, 659
SCRA 270, 326-327.
ruling was later on applied in Macalintal v. COMELEC,92 Aldaba v.
COMELEC,93 Magallona v. Ermita,94 and countless others. In
Taada, the Court wrote:
277
In seeking to nullify an act of the Philippine Senate on the ground that it
demonstrate its uninching commitment to protect those cherished contravenes the Constitution, the petition no doubt raises a justiciable
rights and principles embodied in the Constitution. controversy. Where an action of the legislative branch is seriously
alleged to have infringed the Constitution, it becomes not only the right has been charged with violating any of its provisions and that there
but in fact the duty of the judiciary to settle the dispute. The question is no showing that any of the petitioners rights has been adversely
thus posed is judicial rather than political. The duty (to adjudicate) remains affected by its operation.98 In short, it is contended that judicial
to assure that the supremacy of the Constitution is upheld. Once a review of the RH Law is premature.
controversy as to the application or interpretation of constitutional An actual case or controversy means an existing case or
provision is raised before this Court (as in the instant case), it becomes a controversy that is appropriate or ripe for determination, not
legal issue which the Court is bound by constitutional mandate to decide. conjectural or anticipatory, lest the decision of the court would
[Emphasis supplied] amount to an advisory opinion.99 The rule is that courts do not sit to
adjudicate mere academic questions to satisfy scholarly interest,
In the scholarly estimation of former Supreme Court Justice however intellectually challenging. The controversy must be
Florentino Feliciano, judicial review is essential for the justiciable denite and concrete, touching on the legal relations
maintenance and enforcement of the separation of powers and of parties having adverse legal interests. In other words, the
the balancing of powers among the three great departments of pleadings must show an active antagonistic assertion of a legal right,
government through the denition and maintenance of the on the one hand, and a
boundaries of authority and control between them. To him, judicial
review is the chief, indeed the only, medium of participation or
_______________
instrument of intervention of the judiciary in that balancing
96Biraogo v. Philippine Truth Commission, G.R. No. 192935, December 7, 2010,
operation.95
637 SCRA 78, 148; Southern Hemisphere Engagement Network, Inc. v. Anti-
Lest it be misunderstood, it bears emphasizing that the Court
Terrorism Council, G.R. No. 178552, October 5, 2010, 632 SCRA 146, 166-167;
does not have the unbridled authority to rule on just any and every
Senate of the Philippines v. Ermita, 522 Phil. 1, 27; 488 SCRA 1 (2006); Francisco v.
claim of constitutional violation. Jurisprudence is replete with the
House of Representatives, 460 Phil. 830, 892; 415 SCRA 44, 133 (2003).
rule that the power of judicial review is limited by four exacting
97Consolidated Comment, OSG, Rollo (G.R. No. 204819), pp. 375-376.
requisites, viz.: (a) there must be an
98 Comment-In-Intervention, Hontiveros, et al., Rollo (G.R. No. 204934), pp.
106-109; Comment-In-Intervention, Cabral, et al., Rollo (G.R. No. 204819), pp. 500-
_______________ 501.
92453 Phil. 586; 405 SCRA 614 (2003). 99Republic Telecommunications Holdings, Inc. v. Santiago, 556 Phil. 83, 91-92;
93G.R. No. 188078, 25 January 2010, 611 SCRA 137. 529 SCRA 232, 242 (2007).
94G.R. No. 187167, July 16, 2011, 655 SCRA 476.
95Francisco v. House of Representatives, 460 Phil. 830, 882-883; 415 SCRA 44,
124 (2003), citing Florentino P. Feliciano, The Application of Law: Some Recurring
280
Aspects of the Process of Judicial Review and Decision Making, 37 Am. J. Jur. 17, 24
(1992).
denial 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
279 actual and substantial controversy admitting of specic relief
through a decree conclusive in nature, as distinguished from an
opinion advising what the law would be upon a hypothetical state of
actual case or controversy; (b) the petitioners must possess locus facts.100
standi; (c) the question of constitutionality must be raised at the Corollary to the requirement of an actual case or controversy is
earliest opportunity; and (d) the issue of constitutionality must be the the requirement of ripeness.101 A question is ripe for adjudication
lis mota of the case.96 when the act being challenged has had a direct adverse effect on the
Actual Case or Controversy individual challenging it. For a case to be considered ripe for
Proponents of the RH Law submit that the subject petitions do adjudication, it is a prerequisite that something has then been
not present any actual case or controversy because the RH Law has accomplished or performed by either branch before a court may
yet to be implemented.97 They claim that the questions raised by the come into the picture, and the petitioner must allege the existence of
petitions are not yet concrete and ripe for adjudication since no one
an immediate or threatened injury to himself as a result of the Facial Challenge
challenged action. He must show that he has sustained or is The OSG also assails the propriety of the facial challenge lodged
immediately in danger of sustaining some direct injury as a result of by the subject petitions, contending that the RH Law cannot be
the act complained.102 challenged on its face as it is not a speech regulating measure.105
In The Province of North Cotabato v. The Government of the The Court is not persuaded.
Republic of the Philippines,103 where the constitutionality of an In United States (US) constitutional law, a facial challenge, also
unimplemented Memorandum of Agreement on the Ancestral known as a First Amendment Challenge, is one that is launched to
Domain (MOA-AD) was put in question, it was argued that the assail the validity of statutes concerning not only protected speech,
Court has no authority to pass upon the issues raised as there was yet but also all other rights in the First Amendment.106 These include
no concrete act performed that could possibly violate the petitioners religious free-
and the intervenors rights. Citing precedents, the Court ruled that
the fact of the law or act in question being not yet effective does not _______________
negate ripeness. Concrete acts under a law are not necessary to 104Taada v. Angara, 338 Phil. 546, 574; 272 SCRA 18, 47 (1997).
render the 105Consolidated Comment, OSG, Rollo (G.R. No. 204819), p. 381.
106See United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987).
_______________
100 Information Technology Foundation of the Philippines v. Commission on

Elections, 499 Phil. 281, 304-305; 460 SCRA 291, 313 (2005). 282
101Lawyers Against Monopoly and Poverty (LAMP) v. The Secretary of Budget
and Management, G.R. No. 164987, April 24, 2012, 670 SCRA 373, 383.
102The Province of North Cotabato v. The Government of the Republic of the dom, freedom of the press, and the right of the people to
Philippines, 589 Phil. 387, 481; 568 SCRA 402, 451 (2008). peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress
103Id., at p. 483; p. 452. of grievances.107 After all, the fundamental right to religious
freedom, freedom of the press and peaceful assembly are but
component rights of the right to ones freedom of expression, as they
are modes which ones thoughts are externalized.
281
In this jurisdiction, the application of doctrines originating from
the U.S. has been generally maintained, albeit with some
controversy ripe. Even a singular violation of the Constitution and/or modications. While this Court has withheld the application of
the law is enough to awaken judicial duty. facial challenges to strictly penal statutes,108 it has expanded its
In this case, the Court is of the view that an actual case or scope to cover statutes not only regulating free speech, but also
controversy exists and that the same is ripe for judicial those involving religious freedom, and other fundamental
determination. Considering that the RH Law and its implementing rights.109 The underlying reason for this modication is simple. For
rules have already taken effect and that budgetary measures to carry unlike its counterpart in the U.S., this Court, under its expanded
out the law have already been passed, it is evident that the subject jurisdiction, is mandated by the Fundamental Law not only to settle
petitions present a justiciable controversy. As stated earlier, when an actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable
action of the legislative branch is seriously alleged to have infringed and enforceable, but also to determine whether or not there has
the Constitution, it not only becomes a right, but also a duty of the been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
Judiciary to settle the dispute.104 jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the
Moreover, the petitioners have shown that the case is so because Government.110 Verily, the framers of Our Constitution envisioned
medical practitioners or medical providers are in danger of being a proactive Judiciary, ever vigilant with its duty to maintain the
criminally prosecuted under the RH Law for vague violations supremacy of the Constitution.
thereof, particularly public health ofcers who are threatened to
be dismissed from the service with forfeiture of retirement and _______________
other benets. They must, at least, be heard on the matter NOW.
 107The First Amendment of the US Constitution reads: Congress shall make no 112Id., at p. 384.
law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or 113 Anak Mindanao Party-List Group v. The Executive Secretary, 558
abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably Phil. 338, 350; 531 SCRA 583, 591 (2007).
to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. 114Integrated Bar of the Philippines v. Zamora, 392 Phil. 618, 633; 338
108Romualdez v. Commission on Elections, 576 Phil. 357; 553 SCRA 370 (2008); SCRA 81, 100 (2000), citing Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962).
Romualdez v. Hon. Sandiganbayan, 479 Phil. 265; 435 SCRA 371 (2004); Estrada v.
Sandiganbayan, 421 Phil. 290; 369 SCRA 394 (2001).
109Resolution, Romualdez v. Commission on Elections, 594 Phil. 305, 316; 573
284
SCRA 639, 645 (2008).
110CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE VIII, Section 1.
In relation to locus standi, the as applied challenge embodies
the rule that one can challenge the constitutionality of a statute only
if he asserts a violation of his own rights. The rule prohibits one
283
from challenging the constitutionality of the statute grounded on a
violation of the rights of third persons not before the court. This rule
Consequently, considering that the foregoing petitions have is also known as the prohibition against third-party standing.115
seriously alleged that the constitutional human rights to life, speech Transcendental Importance
and religion and other fundamental rights mentioned above have Notwithstanding, the Court leans on the doctrine that the rule on
been violated by the assailed legislation, the Court has authority to standing is a matter of procedure, hence, can be relaxed for non-
take cognizance of these kindred petitions and to determine if the traditional plaintiffs like ordinary citizens, taxpayers, and legislators
RH Law can indeed pass constitutional scrutiny. To dismiss these when the public interest so requires, such as when the matter is of
petitions on the simple expedient that there exist no actual case or transcendental importance, of overreaching signicance to society,
controversy, would diminish this Court as a reactive branch of or of paramount public interest.116
government, acting only when the Fundamental Law has been In Coconut Oil Reners Association, Inc. v. Torres,117 the Court
transgressed, to the detriment of the Filipino people. held that in cases of paramount importance where serious
Locus Standi constitutional questions are involved, the standing requirement may
The OSG also attacks the legal personality of the petitioners to be relaxed and a suit may be allowed to prosper even where there is
le their respective petitions. It contends that the as applied no direct injury to the party claiming the right of judicial review. In
challenge lodged by the petitioners cannot prosper as the assailed the rst Emergency Powers Cases,118 ordinary citizens and taxpayers
law has yet to be enforced and applied against them,111 and the were allowed to question the constitutionality of several executive
government has yet to distribute reproductive health devices that are orders although they had only an indirect and general interest shared
abortive.112 in common with the public.
The petitioners, for their part, invariably invoke the
transcendental importance doctrine and their status as citizens and _______________
taxpayers in establishing the requisite locus standi. 115Dissenting Opinion, J. Carpio; Romualdez v. Commission on Elections, 576
Locus standi or legal standing is dened as a personal and Phil. 357, 406; 553 SCRA 370, 436 (2008).
substantial interest in a case such that the party has sustained or will 116Social Justice Society (SJS) v. Dangerous Drugs Board and Philippine Drug
sustain direct injury as a result of the challenged governmental Enforcement Agency, 591 Phil. 393, 404; 570 SCRA 410, 421 (2008); Tatad v.
act.113 It requires a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy Secretary of the Department of Energy, 346 Phil 321; 281 SCRA 330 (1997); De
as to assure the concrete adverseness which sharpens the Guia v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 104712, May 6, 1992, 208 SCRA 420, 422.
presentation of issues upon which the court so largely depends for 117503 Phil. 42, 53; 465 SCRA 47, 62 (2005).
illumination of difcult constitutional questions.114 11884 Phil. 368, 373 (1949).

_______________
111 Consolidated Comment, OSG, Rollo (G.R. No. 204819), pp. 375-
376. 285
 With these said, even if the constitutionality of the RH Law may is the right to life of the mother and the unborn which is primarily at
not be assailed through an as-applied challenge, still, the Court has issue, the Court need not wait for a life to be taken away before
time and again acted liberally on the locus standi requirement. It has taking action.
accorded certain individuals standing to sue, not otherwise directly The Court cannot, and should not, exercise judicial restraint at
injured or with material interest affected by a Government act, this time when rights enshrined in the Constitution are being
provided a constitutional issue of transcendental importance is imperilled to be violated. To do so, when the life of either the mother
invoked. The rule on locus standi is, after all, a procedural or her child is at stake, would lead to irreparable consequences.
technicality which the Court has, on more than one occasion, waived Declaratory Relief
or relaxed, thus allowing non-traditional plaintiffs, such as The respondents also assail the petitions because they are
concerned citizens, taxpayers, voters or legislators, to sue in the essentially petitions for declaratory relief over which the Court has
public interest, albeit they may not have been directly injured by the no original jurisdiction.120 Sufce it to state that most of the
operation of a law or any other government act. As held in Jaworski petitions are praying for injunctive reliefs and so the Court would
v. PAGCOR:119 just consider them as petitions for prohibition under Rule 65, over
which it has original jurisdiction. Where the case has far-reaching
Granting arguendo that the present action cannot be properly treated as a implications and prays for injunctive reliefs, the Court may consider
petition for prohibition, the transcendental importance of the issues them as petitions for prohibition under Rule 65.121
involved in this case warrants that we set aside the technical defects and One Subject-One Title
take primary jurisdiction over the petition at bar. One cannot deny that The petitioners also question the constitutionality of the RH Law,
the issues raised herein have potentially pervasive inuence on the social claiming that it violates Section 26(1), Article VI of the
and moral well being of this nation, specially the youth; hence, their proper Constitution,122 prescribing the one subject-one title rule.
and just determination is an imperative need. This is in accordance with
the well-entrenched principle that rules of procedure are not inexible
_______________
tools designed to hinder or delay, but to facilitate and promote the
120Consolidated Comment, OSG, Rollo (G.R. No. 204819), pp. 388-389.
administration of justice. Their strict and rigid application, which
121The Province of North Cotabato v. The Government of the Republic of the
would result in technicalities that tend to frustrate, rather than promote
Philippines, supra note 102; Ortega v. Quezon City Government, 506 Phil. 373, 380;
substantial justice, must always be eschewed. (Emphasis supplied)
469 SCRA 388 (2005); and Gonzales v. Comelec, 137 Phil. 471; 27 SCRA 835
In view of the seriousness, novelty and weight as precedents, not (1969).
only to the public, but also to the bench and bar, the issues raised 122 Section26.(1) Every bill passed by the Congress shall embrace only one
must be resolved for the guidance of all. After all, the RH Law subject which shall be expressed in the title thereof.
drastically affects the constitutional provisions on the right to life

and health, the freedom of religion and expression and other
constitutional rights. 287

_______________
According to them, being one for reproductive health with
119464 Phil. 375, 385; 491 SCRA 317, 323-324 (2004).
responsible parenthood, the assailed legislation violates the
constitutional standards of due process by concealing its true intent
to act as a population control measure.123
286 To belittle the challenge, the respondents insist that the RH Law
is not a birth or population control measure,124 and that the concepts
of responsible parenthood and reproductive health are both
Mindful of all these and the fact that the issues of contraception and
interrelated as they are inseparable.125
reproductive health have already caused deep division among a
Despite efforts to push the RH Law as a reproductive health law,
broad spectrum of society, the Court entertains no doubt that the
the Court sees it as principally a population control measure. The
petitions raise issues of transcendental importance warranting
corpus of the RH Law is geared towards the reduction of the
immediate court adjudication. More importantly, considering that it
countrys population. While it claims to save lives and keep our informed of the nature, scope and consequences of the proposed law and its
women and children healthy, it also promotes pregnancy-preventing operation. Moreover, this Court has invariably adopted a liberal rather
products. As stated earlier, the RH Law emphasizes the need to than technical construction of the rule so as not to cripple or impede
provide Filipinos, especially the poor and the marginalized, with legislation. [Emphases supplied]
access to information on the full range of modern family planning
products and methods. These family planning methods, natural or In this case, a textual analysis of the various provisions of the law
modern, however, are clearly geared towards the prevention of shows that both reproductive health and responsible parenthood
pregnancy. For said reason, the manifest underlying objective of the are interrelated and germane to the overriding objective to
RH Law is to reduce the number of births in the country. control the population growth. As expressed in the rst paragraph
It cannot be denied that the measure also seeks to provide pre- of Section 2 of the RH Law:
natal and post-natal care as well. A large portion of the law, SEC.2.Declaration of Policy.The State recognizes and guarantees
however, covers the dissemination of information and provisions on the human rights of all persons including their right to equality and
access to medically-safe, non-abortifacient, effective, legal, nondiscrimination of these rights, the right to sustain-
affordable, and quality reproductive health care services, methods,
devices, and supplies, which are all intended to prevent pregnancy.
_______________
The Court, thus, agrees with the petitioners contention that the
126ALFI Memorandum, Rollo (G.R. No. 204934), p. 1396.
whole idea of contraception pervades the entire RH
127Id.
128Id.
_______________
123 Petition, Task Force for the Family and Life Visayas, Inc. v. Ochoa, Rollo
(G.R. No. 204957), pp. 6-10; Petition, Echavez v. Ochoa, Rollo (G.R. No. 205478),
289
pp. 9-10.
124Joint Memorandum, Lagman, Rollo (G.R. No. 204819), pp. 212-214.
125Consolidated Comment, OSG, Rollo (G.R. No. 204819), pp. 389-393. able human development, the right to health which includes reproductive
health, the right to education and information, and the right to choose and
288 make decisions for themselves in accordance with their religious
convictions, ethics, cultural beliefs, and the demands of responsible
Law. It is, in fact, the central idea of the RH Law.126 Indeed, remove parenthood.
the provisions that refer to contraception or are related to it and the The one subject/one title rule expresses the principle that the title
RH Law loses its very foundation.127 As earlier explained, the other of a law must not be so uncertain that the average person reading it
positive provisions such as skilled birth attendance, maternal care would not be informed of the purpose of the enactment or put on
including pre- and post-natal services, prevention and management inquiry as to its contents, or which is misleading, either in referring
of reproductive tract infections including HIV/AIDS are already to or indicating one subject where another or different one is really
provided for in the Magna Carta for Women.128 embraced in the act, or in omitting any expression or indication of
Be that as it may, the RH Law does not violate the one the real subject or scope of the act.129 Considering the close
subject/one bill rule. In Benjamin E. Cawaling, Jr. v. The intimacy between reproductive health and responsible
Commission on Elections and Rep. Francis Joseph G. Escudero, it parenthood which bears to the attainment of the goal of achieving
was written: sustainable human development as stated under its terms, the
It is well-settled that the one title-one subject rule does not require the Court nds no reason to believe that Congress intentionally sought
Congress to employ in the title of the enactment language of such precision to deceive the public as to the contents of the assailed legislation.
as to mirror, fully index or catalogue all the contents and the minute details
therein. The rule is sufciently complied with if the title is II. SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES:
comprehensive enough as to include the general object which the 1 The Right to Life
statute seeks to effect, and where, as here, the persons interested are Position of the Petitioners
 The petitioners assail the RH Law because it violates the right to Ochoa, Rollo (G.R. No. 205138), pp. 8-36; Petition, Echavez v. Ochoa, Rollo (G.R.
life and health of the unborn child under Section 12, Article II of the No. 205478), pp. 10-13; Petition, Millennium Saint Foundation, Inc. v. Ofce of the
Constitution. The assailed legislation allowing access to President, Rollo (G.R. No. 206355), pp. 11-15; Petition, Juat v. Ochoa, Rollo (G.R.
abortifacients/abortives effectively sanctions abortion.130 No. 207111), pp. 17-18; Petition, Buhay Party-List (BUHAY) v. Ochoa, Rollo (G.R.
No. 204819), pp. 1255-1256.

_______________ 132 Petition, Pro-Life Philippines Foundation, Inc. v. Ochoa, Rollo (G.R. No.

129Cruz, Philippine Political Law, 2002 edition, pp. 157-158; citing 82 CJS 365. 205720), pp. 14-30.

130 Petition, Imbong v. Ochoa, Rollo (G.R. No. 204819), pp. 8-10; Petition,
291
Alliance for the Family Foundation, Inc. (ALFI) v. Ochoa, Rollo (G.R. No. 204934),
pp. 15-25; Petition, Serve Life Cagayan De Oro City, Inc. v. Ochoa, Rollo (G.R. No.
204988), pp. 13-15; Petition, Olaguer v. Ona, Rollo facient, the assailed legislation effectively conrms that
abortifacients are not prohibited. Also considering that the FDA is
290 not the agency that will actually supervise or administer the use of
these products and supplies to prospective patients, there is no way it
According to the petitioners, despite its express terms prohibiting can truthfully make a certication that it shall not be used for
abortion, Section 4(a) of the RH Law considers contraceptives that abortifacient purposes.133
prevent the fertilized ovum to reach and be implanted in the Position of the Respondents
mothers womb as an abortifacient; thus, sanctioning contraceptives For their part, the defenders of the RH Law point out that the
that take effect after fertilization and prior to implantation, contrary intent of the Framers of the Constitution was simply the prohibition
to the intent of the Framers of the Constitution to afford protection of abortion. They contend that the RH Law does not violate the
to the fertilized ovum which already has life. Constitution since the said law emphasizes that only non-
They argue that even if Section 9 of the RH Law allows only abortifacient reproductive health care services, methods, devices
non-abortifacient hormonal contraceptives, intrauterine devices, products and supplies shall be made accessible to the public.134
injectables and other safe, legal, non-abortifacient and effective According to the OSG, Congress has made a legislative
family planning products and supplies, medical research shows that determination that contraceptives are not abortifacients by enacting
contraceptives use results in abortion as they operate to kill the the RH Law. As the RH Law was enacted with due consideration to
fertilized ovum which already has life.131 As it opposes the initiation various studies and consultations with the World Health
of life, which is a fundamental human good, the petitioners assert Organization (WHO) and other experts in the medical eld, it is
that the State sanction of contraceptive use contravenes natural law asserted that the Court afford deference and respect to such a
and is an affront to the dignity of man.132 determination and pass judgment only when a particular drug or
Finally, it is contended that since Section 9 of the RH Law device is later on determined as an abortive.135
requires the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to certify that the For his part, respondent Lagman argues that the constitutional
product or supply is not to be used as an aborti- protection of ones right to life is not violated considering that
various studies of the WHO show that life begins from the
implantation of the fertilized ovum. Consequently, he argues that the
_______________
RH Law is constitutional since the law
(G.R. No. 205043), pp. 10-11; Petition, Philippine Alliance of XSeminarians (PAX) v.
Ochoa, Rollo (G.R. No. 205138), pp. 8-36; Petition, Echavez v. Ochoa, Rollo (G.R.
No. 205478), pp. 10-13; Petition, Millennium Saint Foundation, Inc. v. Ofce of the _______________

President, Rollo (G.R. No. 206355), pp. 11-15; Petition, Juat v. Ochoa, Rollo (G.R. 133Memorandum, Alcantara, Rollo (G.R. No. 204819), p. 2133; Reply, Olaguer

No. 207111), pp. 17-18; Petition, Buhay Party-List (BUHAY) v. Ochoa, Rollo (G.R. v. Ona, Rollo (G.R. No. 205043), pp. 339-340.

No. 204819), pp. 1255-1256. 134 Consolidated Comment, OSG, Rollo (G.R. No. 204819), pp. 393-396;

131 Petition, Alliance for the Family Foundation, Inc. (ALFI) v. Ochoa, Rollo Comment-In-Intervention, Lagman, Rollo (G.R. No. 204819), pp. 230-233;

(G.R. No. 204934), pp. 15-25; Petition, Serve Life Cagayan De Oro City, Inc. v. Comment-In-Intervention, C4RH, Rollo (G.R. No. 204819), pp. 1091-1192;

Ochoa, Rollo (G.R. No. 204988), pp. 13-15; Petition, Olaguer v. Ona, Rollo (G.R. Hontiveros, Rollo (G.R. No. 204934), pp. 111-116; Memorandum, Cayetano, Rollo

No. 205043), pp. 10-11; Petition, Philippine Alliance of XSeminarians (PAX) v. (G.R. No. 204819), pp. 3038-3041.
 135Consolidated Comment, OSG, Rollo (G.R. No. 204819), pp. 396-410. graphic management, to one centered on the promotion of public
health, particularly, reproductive health.140
This has resulted in the enactment of various measures promoting
292 womens rights and health and the overall promotion of the familys
well-being. Thus, aside from R.A. No. 4729, R.A. No. 6365 or The
Population Act of the Philippines and R.A. No. 9710, otherwise
specically provides that only contraceptives that do not prevent the known as the The Magna Carta of Women were legislated.
implantation of the fertilized ovum are allowed.136 Notwithstanding this paradigm shift, the Philippine national
population program has always been grounded two cornerstone
The Courts Position
principles: principle of no-abortion and the principle of non-
It is a universally accepted principle that every human being coercion.141 As will be discussed later, these principles are not
enjoys the right to life.137 Even if not formally established, the right merely grounded on administrative policy, but rather, originates
to life, being grounded on natural law, is inherent and, therefore, not from the constitutional protection expressly provided to afford
a creation of, or dependent upon a particular law, custom, or belief. protection to life and guarantee religious freedom.
It precedes and transcends any authority or the laws of men. When Life Begins**
In this jurisdiction, the right to life is given more than ample Majority of the Members of the Court are of the position that the
protection. Section 1, Article III of the Constitution provides: question of when life begins is a scientic and medical issue that
should not be decided, at this stage, without proper hearing and
Section1.No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property evidence. During the deliberation, however, it was agreed upon that
without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal the individual members of the Court could express their own views
protection of the laws. on this matter.
In this regard, the ponente, is of the strong view that life begins at
As expounded earlier, the use of contraceptives and family fertilization.
planning methods in the Philippines is not of recent vintage. From In answering the question of when life begins, focus should be
the enactment of R.A. No. 4729, entitled An Act To Regulate The made on the particular phrase of Section 12 which reads:
Sale, Dispensation, and/or Distribution of Contraceptive Drugs and
Devices on June 18, 1966, prescribing rules on contraceptive drugs Section12.The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall
and devices which prevent fertilization,138 to the promotion of male protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous
vasectomy and tubal ligation,139 and the ratication of numerous
international agreements, the country has long recognized the need _______________
to promote population control through the use of contraceptives in 140 <http://www.senate.gov.ph/publication/PB%202009-03%20-
order to achieve long-term economic development. Through the %20Promoting%20Reproductive%20Health.pdf>, last visited October 17, 2013.
years, however, the use of contraceptives and other family planning 141<http://www.pop.org/content/coercivepopulation-ploys-in-philippines-1428>
methods evolved from being a component of demo- ** During the deliberation, it was agreed that the individual members of the Court can
express their own views on this matter.

_______________

136Comment-In-Intervention, Lagman, Rollo (G.R. No. 204819), pp. 225-342.
137Article 3, Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 294
138See Republic Act No. 4729, dated June 18, 1966.
139 See http://www.pop.org/content/coercive-population-ploys-in-philippines- social institution. It shall equally protect the life of the mother and the
1428, last visited October 17, 2013. life of the unborn from conception. The natural and primary right and duty
of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efciency and the
293
development of moral character shall receive the support of the
Government.
 Textually, the Constitution affords protection to the unborn from non est recedendum from the words of a statute there should be no
conception. This is undisputable because before conception, there is departure.
no unborn to speak of. For said reason, it is no surprise that the The raison d tre for the rule is essentially two-fold: First, because it is
Constitution is mute as to any proscription prior to conception or assumed that the words in which constitutional provisions are couched
when life begins. The problem has arisen because, amazingly, there express the objective sought to be attained; and second, because the
are quarters who have conveniently disregarded the scientic fact Constitution is not primarily a lawyers document but essentially that of the
that conception is reckoned from fertilization. They are waving the people, in whose consciousness it should ever be present as an important
view that life begins at implantation. Hence, the issue of when life condition for the rule of law to prevail.
begins.
In a nutshell, those opposing the RH Law contend that In conformity with the above principle, the traditional meaning of
conception is synonymous with fertilization of the female ovum the word conception which, as described and dened by all
by the male sperm.142 On the other side of the spectrum are those reliable and reputable sources, means that life begins at fertilization.
who assert that conception refers to the implantation of the Websters Third New International Dictionary describes it as the
fertilized ovum in the uterus.143 act of becoming pregnant, formation of a viable zygote; the
Plain and Legal Meaning fertilization that results in a new entity capable of developing into a
It is a canon in statutory construction that the words of the being like its parents.145
Constitution should be interpreted in their plain and ordinary Blacks Law Dictionary gives legal meaning to the term
meaning. As held in the recent case of Chavez v. Judicial Bar conception as the fecundation of the female ovum by the male
Council:144 spermatozoon resulting in human life capable of survival and
maturation under normal conditions.146
Even in jurisprudence, an unborn child has already a legal
_______________
personality. In Continental Steel Manufacturing Corporation
142 Petition, Alliance for the Family Foundation, Inc. (ALFI) v. Ochoa, Rollo
(G.R. No. 204934), pp. 15-25; Petition, Serve Life Cagayan De Oro City, Inc. v.
Ochoa, Rollo (G.R. No. 204988), pp. 13-15; Petition, Olaguer v. Ona, Rollo (G.R. _______________

No. 205043), pp. 10-11; Petition, Philippine Alliance of XSeminarians (PAX) v. 145Websters Third International Dictionary, 1993 edition, p. 469.

Ochoa, Rollo (G.R. No. 205138), pp. 8-36; Petition, Echavez v. Ochoa, Rollo (G.R. 146Blacks Law Dictionary, 5th edition, p. 262.

No. 205478), pp. 10-13; Petition, Millennium Saint Foundation, Inc. v. Ofce of the
296
President, Rollo (G.R. No. 206355), pp. 11-15; Petition, Juat v. Ochoa, Rollo (G.R.
No. 207111), pp. 17-18; Petition, Buhay Party-List (BUHAY) v. Ochoa, Rollo (G.R.
No. 204819), pp. 1255-1256. v. Hon. Accredited Voluntary Arbitrator Allan S. Montao,147 it was
143Comment-In-Intervention, Lagman, Rollo (G.R. No. 204819), pp. 225-342. written:
144G.R. No. 202242, July 17, 2012, 676 SCRA 579.
Life is not synonymous with civil personality. One need not acquire civil
295 personality rst before he/she could die. Even a child inside the womb
already has life. No less than the Constitution recognizes the life of the
unborn from conception, that the State must protect equally with the life of
One of the primary and basic rules in statutory construction is that where
the mother. If the unborn already has life, then the cessation thereof even
the words of a statute are clear, plain, and free from ambiguity, it must be
prior to the child being delivered, qualies as death. [Emphases in the
given its literal meaning and applied without attempted interpretation. It is a
original]
well-settled principle of constitutional construction that the language
employed in the Constitution must be given their ordinary meaning except In Gonzales v. Carhart,148 Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for
where technical terms are employed. As much as possible, the words of the the US Supreme Court, said that the State has respect for human
Constitution should be understood in the sense they have in common use. life at all stages in the pregnancy and a legitimate and substantial
What it says according to the text of the provision to be construed compels interest in preserving and promoting fetal life. Invariably, in the
acceptance and negates the power of the courts to alter it, based on the decision, the fetus was referred to, or cited, as a baby or a child.149
postulate that the framers and the people mean what they say. Verba legis Intent of the Framers
 Records of the Constitutional Convention also shed light on the Since these questions have been answered afrmatively, we must
intention of the Framers regarding the term conception used in conclude that if the fertilized ovum is both alive and human, then, as night
Section 12, Article II of the Constitution. From their deliberations, it follows day, it must be human life. Its nature is human.151
clearly refers to the moment of fertilization. The records reect the
following:
Why the Constitution used the phrase from the moment of
Rev. Rigos: In Section 9, page 3, there is a sentence which reads: conception and not from the moment of fertilization was not
The State shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the because of doubt when human life begins, but rather, because:
unborn from the moment of conception.
When is the moment of conception? _______________
xxx 150Record of the Constitutional Commission, Volume 4, September 16, 1986, p.
668.
_______________ 151Record of the Constitutional Commission, Volume 4, September 12, 1986, p.
147G.R. No. 182836, October 13, 2009, 618 Phil. 634; 603 SCRA 621. 596.
148Gonzales v. Carhart (Nos. 05-380 and 05-1382), No. 05-380, 413 F. 3d 791; 05-1382,
435 F. 3d 1163.
149http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-380.ZO.html, last visited February 15, 2014.
298

297
Mr. Tingson: x x x x the phrase from the moment of conception was
described by us here before with the scientic phrase fertilized ovum may
be beyond the comprehension of some people; we want to use the simpler
Mr. Villegas: As I explained in the sponsorship speech, it is when the
phrase from the moment of conception.152
ovum is fertilized by the sperm that there is human life. xxx.150
xxx
Thus, in order to ensure that the fertilized ovum is given ample
protection under the Constitution, it was discussed:
As to why conception is reckoned from fertilization and, as such,
the beginning of human life, it was explained: Rev. Rigos: Yes, we think that the word unborn is sufcient for the
purpose of writing a Constitution, without specifying from the moment of
Mr. Villegas: I propose to review this issue in a biological manner. The
conception.
rst question that needs to be answered is: Is the fertilized ovum alive?
Mr. Davide: I would not subscribe to that particular view because
Biologically categorically says yes, the fertilized ovum is alive. First of all,
according to the Commissioners own admission, he would leave it to
like all living organisms, it takes in nutrients which it processes by itself. It
Congress to dene when life begins. So, Congress can dene life to begin
begins doing this upon fertilization. Secondly, as it takes in these nutrients, it
from six months after fertilization; and that would really be very, very,
grows from within. Thirdly, it multiplies itself at a geometric rate in the
dangerous. It is now determined by science that life begins from the moment
continuous process of cell division. All these processes are vital signs of
of conception. There can be no doubt about it. So we should not give any
life. Therefore, there is no question that biologically the fertilized ovum has
doubt to Congress, too.153
life.
The second question: Is it human? Genetics gives an equally categorical
yes. At the moment of conception, the nuclei of the ovum and the sperm Upon further inquiry, it was asked:
rupture. As this happens 23 chromosomes from the ovum combine with 23
chromosomes of the sperm to form a total of 46 chromosomes. A Mr. Gascon: Mr. Presiding Ofcer, I would like to ask a question on that
chromosome count of 46 is found only and I repeat, only in human cells. point. Actually, that is one of the questions I was going to raise during the
Therefore, the fertilized ovum is human. period of interpellations but it has been expressed already. The provision, as
proposed right now states:
 The State shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the ovum should be deemed an abortive and thus prohibited.
unborn from the moment of conception. Conversely, contraceptives that
When it speaks of from the moment of conception, does this mean
when the egg meets the sperm? _______________
Mr. Villegas: Yes, the ovum is fertilized by the sperm. 154Record of the Constitutional Commission, Volume 4, September 17, 1986, p.
Mr. Gascon: Therefore that does not leave to Congress the right to 711.
determine whether certain contraceptives that we know today are 155Id.
abortifacient or not because it is a fact that some of the so-

_______________
300
152Record of the Constitutional Commission, Volume 4, September 12, 1986, p. 669.
153Record of the Constitutional Commission, Volume 4, September 19, 1986, p. 800.
actually prevent the union of the male sperm and the female ovum,
299
and those that similarly take action prior to fertilization should be
deemed non-abortive, and thus, constitutionally permissible.
called contraceptives deter the rooting of the ovum in the uterus. If As emphasized by the Framers of the Constitution:
fertilization has already occurred, the next process is for the fertilized ovum
to travel towards the uterus and to take root. What happens with some
contraceptives is that they stop the opportunity for the fertilized ovum xxx xxx xxx xxx
to reach the uterus. Therefore, if we take the provision as it is proposed, Mr. Gascon: xxxx. As I mentioned in my speech on the US bases, I
these so called contraceptives should be banned. am pro-life, to the point that I would like not only to protect the life of the
Mr. Villegas: Yes, if that physical fact is established, then that is what is unborn, but also the lives of the millions of people in the world by ghting
called abortifacient and, therefore, would be unconstitutional and should be for a nuclear-free world. I would just like to be assured of the legal and
banned under this provision. pragmatic implications of the term protection of the life of the unborn from
Mr. Gascon: Yes. So my point is that I do not think it is up to the moment of conception. I raised some of these implications this
Congress to state whether or not these certain contraceptives are afternoon when I interjected in the interpellation of Commissioner
abortifacient. Scientically and based on the provision as it is now Regalado. I would like to ask that question again for a categorical answer.
proposed, they are already considered abortifacient.154 I mentioned that if we institutionalize the term the life of the unborn
from the moment of conception we are also actually saying no, not
maybe, to certain contraceptives which are already being encouraged at
From the deliberations above-quoted, it is apparent that the this point in time. Is that the sense of the committee or does it disagree with
Framers of the Constitution emphasized that the State shall provide me?
equal protection to both the mother and the unborn child from the Mr. Azcuna: No, Mr. Presiding Ofcer, because contraceptives
earliest opportunity of life, that is, upon fertilization or upon the would be preventive. There is no unborn yet. That is yet unshaped.
union of the male sperm and the female ovum. It is also apparent is Mr. Gascon: Yes, Mr. Presiding Ofcer, but I was speaking more about
that the Framers of the Constitution intended that to prohibit some contraceptives, such as the intra-uterine device which actually stops
Congress from enacting measures that would allow it determine the egg which has already been fertilized from taking route to the uterus. So
when life begins. if we say from the moment of conception, what really occurs is that some
Equally apparent, however, is that the Framers of the of these contraceptives will have to be unconstitutionalized.
Constitution did not intend to ban all contraceptives for being Mr. Azcuna: Yes, to the extent that it is after the fertilization.
unconstitutional. In fact, Commissioner Bernardo Villegas, Mr. Gascon: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Ofcer.156
spearheading the need to have a constitutional provision on the right
to life, recognized that the determination of whether a contraceptive _______________
device is an abortifacient is a question of fact which should be left to 156Record of the Constitutional Commission, Volume 4, September 17, 1986, p.
the courts to decide on based on established evidence.155 From the 745.
discussions above, contraceptives that kill or destroy the fertilized
 301 zygote.159 It describes fertilization as the union of male and female
gametes to form a zygote from which the embryo develops.160
The Textbook of Obstetrics (Physiological & Pathological
The fact that not all contraceptives are prohibited by the 1987
Obstetrics),161 used by medical schools in the Philippines, also
Constitution is even admitted by petitioners during the oral
concludes that human life (human person) begins at the moment of
arguments. There it was conceded that tubal ligation, vasectomy,
fertilization with the union of the egg and the sperm resulting in the
even condoms are not classied as abortifacients.157
formation of a new individual, with a unique genetic composition
Atty. Noche: that dictates all developmental stages that ensue.
Before the union of the eggs, egg and the sperm, there is no life yet. Similarly, recent medical research on the matter also reveals that:
Justice Bersamin: Human development begins after the union of male and female
There is no life. gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization
Atty. Noche: (conception). Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with
So, there is no life to be protected. the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte
Justice Bersamin: (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid
To be protected. nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their
Atty. Noche: chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a
Under Section 12, yes. zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium,
Justice Bersamin: of a human being.162
So you have no objection to condoms?
Atty. Noche: _______________
Not under Section 12, Article II. 1594th edition, p. 375.
Justice Bersamin: 160Id., at p. 609.
Even if there is already information that condoms sometimes have porosity? 161 Sumpaico, Gutierrez, Luna, Pareja, Ramos and Baja-Panlilio, 2nd edition
Atty. Noche: (2002), pp. 76-77.
Well, yes, Your Honor, there are scientic ndings to that effect, Your Honor, but 162 Moore, Persaud, Torchia, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented
I am discussing here Section 12, Article II, Your Honor, yes. Embryology, International Edition, 9th edition (2013), pp. 1-5, 13.
Justice Bersamin:
Alright.
Atty. Noche:
303
And its not, I have to admit its not an abortifacient, Your Honor.158

_______________ The authors of Human Embryology & Teratology163 mirror the

157TSN, July 9, 2013, pp. 23-24. same position. They wrote: Although life is a continuous process,
158Id. fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary
circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is
thereby formed.... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in
each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the
302
diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed.
The embryo now exists as a genetic unity.
Medical Meaning In support of the RH BILL, The Philippine Medical Association
That conception begins at fertilization is not bereft of medical came out with a Paper on the Reproductive Health Bill
foundation. Mosbys Medical, Nursing, and Allied Health Dictionary (Responsible Parenthood Bill) and therein concluded that:
denes conception as the beginning of pregnancy usually taken to
CONCLUSION
be the instant a spermatozoon enters an ovum and forms a viable
The PMA throws its full weight in supporting the RH BILL at the same
time that PMA maintains its strong position that fertilization is sacred
zygote.159 It describes fertilization as the union of male and female
because it is at this stage that conception, and thus human life, begins. This theory of implantation as the beginning of life is devoid of
Human lives are sacred from the moment of conception, and that any legal or scientic mooring. It does not pertain to the beginning
destroying those new lives is never licit, no matter what the purported of life but to the viability of the fetus. The fertilized ovum/zygote is
good outcome would be. In terms of biology and human embryology, a not an inanimate object it is a living human being complete
human being begins immediately at fertilization and after that, there is no with DNA and 46 chromosomes.168 Implantation has been
point along the continuous line of human embryogenesis where only a conceptualized only for convenience by those who had population
potential human being can be posited. Any philosophical, legal, or control in mind. To adopt it would constitute textual indelity not
political conclusion cannot escape this objective scientic fact. only to the RH Law but also to the Constitution.
The scientic evidence supports the conclusion that a zygote is a human Not surprisingly, even the OSG does not support this
organism and that the life of a new human being commences at a position.
scientically well dened moment of conception. This conclusion is
objective, consistent with the factual evidence, and independent of any _______________
specic ethical, moral, political, or religious view of human life or of 165Comment-In-Intervention, Lagman, Rollo (G.R. No. 204819), pp. 225-342.
human embryos.164 166Id.
167Id.
_______________ 168See <http://americanpregnancy.org/duringpregnancy/fetaldevelopment1.htm>,
163ORahilly, Ronan and Muller, Fabiola, Human Embryology & Teratology, 2nd last visited April 7, 2014.
edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29, cited at:
http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html, last visited February

15, 2014. 305
164Fromhttps://www.philippinemedicalassociation.org/downloads/circular-
forms/Position-Paper-on-the-Republic-Health-Bill-%28Responsible-Parenthood-
Bill%29.pdf, last visited March 26, 2014. If such theory would be accepted, it would unnervingly
legitimize the utilization of any drug or device that would prevent
the implantation of the fetus at the uterine wall. It would be
provocative and further aggravate religious-based divisiveness.
304
It would legally permit what the Constitution proscribes
abortion and abortifacients.
Conclusion: The Moment of Conception The RH Law and Abortion
is Reckoned from Fertilization The clear and unequivocal intent of the Framers of the 1987
In all, whether it be taken from a plain meaning, or understood Constitution in protecting the life of the unborn from conception was
under medical parlance, and more importantly, following the to prevent the Legislature from enacting a measure legalizing
intention of the Framers of the Constitution, the undeniable abortion. It was so clear that even the Court cannot interpret it
conclusion is that a zygote is a human organism and that the life of a otherwise. This intent of the Framers was captured in the record of
new human being commences at a scientically well-dened the proceedings of the 1986 Constitutional Commission.
moment of conception, that is, upon fertilization. Commissioner Bernardo Villegas, the principal proponent of the
For the above reasons, the Court cannot subscribe to the theory protection of the unborn from conception, explained:
advocated by Hon. Lagman that life begins at implantation.165
According to him, fertilization and conception are two distinct and The intention...is to make sure that there would be no pro-abortion
successive stages in the reproductive process. They are not identical laws ever passed by Congress or any pro-abortion decision passed by the
and synonymous.166 Citing a letter of the WHO, he wrote that Supreme Court.169
medical authorities conrm that the implantation of the fertilized
A reading of the RH Law would show that it is in line with this
ovum is the commencement of conception and it is only after
intent and actually proscribes abortion. While the Court has opted
implantation that pregnancy can be medically detected.167
not to make any determination, at this stage, when life begins, it
nds that the RH Law itself clearly mandates that protection be
afforded from the moment of fertilization. As pointed out by 7392, otherwise known as the Midwifery Act, is hereby repealed, modied
Justice Carpio, the RH Law is replete with provisions that embody or amended accordingly.
the policy of the law to protect to the fertilized ovum and that it
should be afforded safe travel to the uterus for implantation.170
The RH Law and Abortifacients
In carrying out its declared policy, the RH Law is consistent in
_______________
prohibiting abortifacients. To be clear, Section 4(a) of the RH Law
169 Joint Memorandum (of the House of Representatives and Respondent-
denes an abortifacient as:
Intervenor Rep. Edcel C. Lagman), Section 40, Rollo, G.R. No. 204819, p. 2343.
170Concurring Opinion (Justice Carpio), p. 417. Section4.Denition of Termsxxxx
(a)Abortifacient refers to any drug or device that induces abortion or the
306
destruction of a fetus inside the mothers womb or the prevention of the
fertilized ovum to reach and be implanted in the mothers womb upon
Moreover, the RH Law recognizes that abortion is a crime under determination of the FDA.
Article 256 of the Revised Penal Code, which penalizes the
destruction or expulsion of the fertilized ovum. Thus:

1]xxx. As stated above, the RH Law mandates that protection must be
Section4.Denition of Terms.For the purpose of this Act, the afforded from the moment of fertilization. By using the word or,
following terms shall be dened as follows: the RH Law prohibits not only drugs or devices that prevent
xxx. implantation, but also those that induce abortion and those that
(q)Reproductive health care refers to the access to a full range of induce the destruction of a fetus inside the mothers womb. Thus, an
methods, facilities, services and supplies that contribute to reproductive abortifacient is any drug or device that either:
health and well-being by addressing reproductive health-related problems. It (a) Induces abortion; or
also includes sexual health, the purpose of which is the enhancement of life (b)Induces the destruction of a fetus inside the mothers womb; or
and personal relations. The elements of reproductive health care include the (c) Prevents the fertilized ovum to reach and be implanted in
following: the mothers womb,
xxx. upon determination of the FDA.
(3)Proscription of abortion and management of abortion Contrary to the assertions made by the petitioners, the Court nds
complications; that the RH Law, consistent with the Constitution, recognizes that
xxx. the fertilized ovum already has life and that the State has a
2]xxx. bounden duty to protect it. The conclusion becomes clear because
Section4.xxx. the RH Law, rst, prohibits any drug or device that induces abortion
(s)Reproductive health rights refers to the rights of individuals and (rst kind), which, as discussed exhaustively above, refers to that
couples, to decide freely and responsibly whether or not to have children; which induces the killing or the destruction of the fertilized ovum,
the number, spacing and timing of their children; to make other decisions and, second, prohibits any drug or device the fertilized ovum to
concerning reproduction, free of discrimination, coercion and violence; to reach and be implanted in the mothers womb (third kind).
have the information and means to do so; and to attain the highest standard
of sexual health and reproductive health: Provided, however, That 308

reproductive health rights do not include abortion, and access to

abortifacients. By expressly declaring that any drug or device that prevents the
3]xxx. fertilized ovum to reach and be implanted in the mothers womb is
SEC.29.Repealing Clause.Except for prevailing laws against an abortifacient (third kind), the RH Law does not intend to mean at
abortion, any law, presidential decree or issuance, executive order, letter of all that life only begins only at implantation, as Hon. Lagman
instruction, administrative order, rule or regulation contrary to or is suggests. It also does not declare either that protection will only be
inconsistent with the provisions of this Act including Republic Act No. given upon implantation, as the petitioners likewise suggest. Rather,
it recognizes that: one, there is a need to protect the fertilized Abortifacients under the RH-IRR
ovum which already has life, and two, the fertilized ovum must At this juncture, the Court agrees with ALFI that the authors of
be protected the moment it becomes existent all the way until the RH-IRR gravely abused their ofce when they redened the
it reaches and implants in the mothers womb. After all, if life is meaning of abortifacient. The RH Law denes abortifacient as
only recognized and afforded protection from the moment the follows:
fertilized ovum implants there is nothing to prevent any drug or
device from killing or destroying the fertilized ovum prior to SEC.4.Denition of Terms.For the purpose of this Act, the
implantation. following terms shall be dened as follows:
From the foregoing, the Court nds that inasmuch as it affords (a) Abortifacient refers to any drug or device that induces abortion or the
protection to the fertilized ovum, the RH Law does not sanction destruction of a fetus inside the mothers womb or the prevention of the
abortion. To repeat, it is the Courts position that life begins at fertilized ovum to reach and be implanted in the mothers womb upon
fertilization, not at implantation. When a fertilized ovum is determination of the FDA.
implanted in the uterine wall, its viability is sustained but that
Section 3.01(a) of the IRR, however, redenes abortifacient as:
instance of implantation is not the point of beginning of life. It
started earlier. And as dened by the RH Law, any drug or device
_______________
that induces abortion, that is, which kills or destroys the
171 See TSN, July 9, 2013, p. 100.
fertilized ovum or prevents the fertilized ovum to reach and be
implanted in the mothers womb, is an abortifacient. 310
Proviso Under Section 9 of the RH Law
This notwithstanding, the Court nds that the proviso under
Section 9 of the law that any product or supply included or to be Section 3.01.For purposes of these Rules, the terms shall be dened as
included in the EDL must have a certication from the FDA that follows:
said product and supply is made available on the condition that it is a)Abortifacient refers to any drug or device that primarily induces abortion
not to be used as an abortifacient as empty as it is absurd. The or the destruction of a fetus inside the mothers womb or the prevention
FDA, with all its expertise, cannot fully attest that a drug or device of the fertilized ovum to reach and be implanted in the mothers womb
will not all be used as an abortifacient, since the agency cannot be upon determination of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
present in every [Emphasis supplied]

309
Again in Section 3.01(j) of the RH-IRR, contraceptive, is
redened, viz.:
instance when the contraceptive product or supply will be used.171 j)Contraceptive refers to any safe, legal, effective and
Pursuant to its declared policy of providing access only to safe, scientically proven modern family planning method, device, or
legal and non-abortifacient contraceptives, however, the Court nds health product, whether natural or articial, that prevents pregnancy
that the proviso of Section 9, as worded, should bend to the but does not primarily destroy a fertilized ovum or prevent a
legislative intent and mean that any product or supply included or fertilized ovum from being implanted in the mothers womb in doses
to be included in the EDL must have a certication from the FDA of its approved indication as determined by the Food and Drug
that said product and supply is made available on the condition that Administration (FDA).
it cannot be used as abortifacient. Such a construction is consistent The above-mentioned section of the RH-IRR allows
with the proviso under the second paragraph of the same section that contraceptives and recognizes as abortifacient only those that
provides: primarily induce abortion or the destruction of a fetus inside the
Provided, further, That the foregoing ofces shall not purchase or mothers womb or the prevention of the fertilized ovum to reach and
acquire by any means emergency contraceptive pills, postcoital pills, be implanted in the mothers womb.172
abortifacients that will be used for such purpose and their other forms or This cannot be done.
equivalent. In this regard, the observations of Justice Brion and Justice Del
Castillo are well taken. As they pointed out, with the insertion of the
word primarily, Section 3.01(a) and (j) of the RH-IRR173 must be
word primarily, Section 3.01(a) and (j) of the RH-IRR173 must be _______________
struck down for being ultra vires. j)Contraceptive refers to any safe, legal, effective and scientically proven
modern family planning method, device, or health product, whether natural or

_______________ articial, that prevents pregnancy but does not primarily destroy a fertilized ovum or

172 Separate Opinion (Justice Del Castillo), pp. 565-567; Separate Opinion prevent a fertilized ovum from being implanted in the mothers womb in doses of its

(Justice Brion), pp. 515-516. approved indication as determined by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

173 Section3.01.For purposes of these Rules, the terms shall be dened as 174Supra note 172.

follows:

a) Abortifacient refers to any drug or device that primarily induces abortion or the
destruction of a fetus inside the mothers womb or the prevention of the fertilized 312
ovum to reach and be implanted in the mothers womb upon determination of the
Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
be construed in a manner that its constitutionality is sustained, the
xxxx
RH Law and its implementing rules must be consistent with each
other in prohibiting abortion. Thus, the word primarily in Section
3.01(a) and (j) of the RH-IRR should be declared void. To uphold
311 the validity of Section 3.01(a) and (j) of the RH-IRR and prohibit
only those contraceptives that have the primary effect of being an
Evidently, with the addition of the word primarily, in Section abortive would effectively open the oodgates to the approval of
3.01(a) and (j) of the RH-IRR is indeed ultra vires. It contravenes contraceptives which may harm or destroy the life of the unborn
Section 4(a) of the RH Law and should, therefore, be declared from conception/fertilization in violation of Article II, Section 12 of
invalid. There is danger that the insertion of the qualier primarily the Constitution.175
will pave the way for the approval of contraceptives which may To repeat and emphasize, in all cases, the principle of no
harm or destroy the life of the unborn from conception/fertilization abortion embodied in the constitutional protection of life must be
in violation of Article II, Section 12 of the Constitution. With such upheld.
qualication in the RH-IRR, it appears to insinuate that a 2 The Right to Health
contraceptive will only be considered as an abortifacient if its sole The petitioners claim that the RH Law violates the right to health
known effect is abortion or, as pertinent here, the prevention of the because it requires the inclusion of hormonal contraceptives,
implantation of the fertilized ovum. intrauterine devices, injectables and family products and supplies in
For the same reason, this denition of contraceptive would the National Drug Formulary and the inclusion of the same in the
permit the approval of contraceptives which are actually regular purchase of essential medicines and supplies of all national
abortifacients because of their fair sale mechanism.174 hospitals.176 Citing various studies on the matter, the petitioners
Also, as discussed earlier, Section 9 calls for the certication by posit that the risk of developing breast and cervical cancer is
the FDA that these contraceptives cannot act as abortive. With this, greatly increased in women who use oral contraceptives as
together with the denition of an abortifacient under Section 4(a) of compared to women who never use them. They point out that the
the RH Law and its declared policy against abortion, the undeniable risk is decreased when the use of contraceptives is discontinued.
conclusion is that contraceptives to be included in the PNDFS and Further, it is contended that the use of combined oral contraceptive
the EDL will not only be those contraceptives that do not have the pills is associated with a threefold increased risk of venous
primary action of causing abortion or the destruction of a fetus thromboembolism, a twofold increased risk of ischematic stroke,
inside the mothers womb or the prevention of the fertilized ovum to
reach and be implanted in the mothers womb, but also those that do _______________
not have the secondary action of acting the same way. 175Separate Opinion (Justice Del Castillo), p. 565.
Indeed, consistent with the constitutional policy prohibiting 176 Petition, Alliance for the Family Foundation, Inc. (ALFI) v. Ochoa, Rollo
abortion, and in line with the principle that laws should (G.R. No. 204934), pp. 26-28; Petition, Serve Life Cagayan De Oro City, Inc. v.
Ochoa, Rollo (G.R. No. 204988), pp. 15-16; Petition, Echavez v. Ochoa, Rollo (G.R.
No. 205478), pp. 13-14; Petition, Pro-Life Philippines Foundation, Inc. v. Ochoa, 314
Rollo (G.R. No. 205720), pp. 30-35.

provisions protecting and promoting the right to health. Section 15,

Article II of the Constitution provides:
313
Section15.The State shall protect and promote the right to health of
the people and instill health consciousness among them.
and an indeterminate effect on risk of myocardial infarction.177
Given the denition of reproductive health and sexual health A portion of Article XIII also specically provides for the States
under Sections 4(p)178 and (w)179 of the RH Law, the petitioners duty to provide for the health of the people, viz.:
assert that the assailed legislation only seeks to ensure that women
have pleasurable and satisfying sex lives.180 HEALTH
The OSG, however, points out that Section 15, Article II of the Section11.The State shall adopt an integrated and comprehensive
Constitution is not self-executory, it being a mere statement of the approach to health development which shall endeavor to make essential
administrations principle and policy. Even if it were self-executory, goods, health and other social services available to all the people at
the OSG posits that medical authorities refute the claim that affordable cost. There shall be priority for the needs of the underprivileged,
contraceptive pose a danger to the health of women.181 sick, elderly, disabled, women, and children. The State shall endeavor to
The Courts Position provide free medical care to paupers.
A component to the right to life is the constitutional right to Section12.The State shall establish and maintain an effective food
health. In this regard, the Constitution is replete with and drug regulatory system and undertake appropriate health, manpower
development, and research, responsive to the countrys health needs and
problems.
_______________
Section13.The State shall establish a special agency for disabled
177Memorandum, Alliance for the Family Foundation, Rollo (G.R. No. 204934),
person for their rehabilitation, self-development, and self-reliance, and their
pp. 1419-1445.
integration into the mainstream of society.
178Section4.Denition of Terms.For the purpose of this Act, the following
terms shall be dened as follows:

xxxx
Finally, Section 9, Article XVI provides:
(p) Reproductive Health (RH) refers to the state of complete physical, mental and
social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or inrmity, in all matters Section9.The State shall protect consumers from trade malpractices
relating to the reproductive system and to its functions and processes. This implies and from substandard or hazardous products.
that people are able to have a responsible, safe, consensual and satisfying sex life, that
they have the capability to reproduce and the freedom to decide if, when, and how Contrary to the respondents notion, however, these provisions
often to do so. This further implies that women and men attain equal relationships in are self-executing. Unless the provisions clearly express the
matters related to sexual relations and reproduction. contrary, the provisions of the Constitution should be considered
179Section4.Denition of Terms.For the purpose of this Act, the following self-executory. There is no need for legislation to implement these
terms shall be dened as follows: self-executing provisions.182 In Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS,183 it
xxxx was stated:
(w) Sexual health refers to a state of physical, mental and social well-being in
relation to sexuality. It requires a positive and respectful approach to sexuality and _______________
sexual relationships, as well as the possibility of having pleasurable and safe sexual 182Gamboa v. Finance Secretary, G.R. No. 176579, June 28, 2011, 652 SCRA
experiences, free from coercion, discrimination and violence. 690, 738-739.
180 Memorandum, Alcantara, Rollo (G.R. No. 204934) p. 2136; Memorandum, 183335 Phil. 82; 267 SCRA 408 (1997).
PAX, Rollo (G.R. No. 205138), pp. 2154-2155.
181Consolidated Comment, OSG, Rollo (G.R. No. 204819), pp. 415-416. 315

 x x x Hence, unless it is expressly provided that a legislative act is 108.As an added protection to voluntary users of contraceptives, the
necessary to enforce a constitutional mandate, the presumption now is that same cannot be dispensed and used without prescription.
all provisions of the constitution are self-executing. If the constitutional 109.Republic Act No. 4729 or An Act to Regulate the Sale,
provisions are treated as requiring legislation instead of self-executing, Dispensation, and/or Distribution of Contraceptive Drugs and Devices and
the legislature would have the power to ignore and practically nullify Republic Act No. 5921 or An Act Regulating the Practice of Pharmacy and
the mandate of the fundamental law. This can be cataclysmic. That is why Setting Standards of Pharmaceutical Education in the Philippines and for
the prevailing view is, as it has always been, that Other Purposes are not repealed by the RH Law and the provisions of said
... in case of doubt, the Constitution should be considered self-executing Acts are not inconsistent with the RH Law.
rather than non-self-executing. . . . Unless the contrary is clearly intended, 110.Consequently, the sale, distribution and dispensation of
the provisions of the Constitution should be considered self-executing, contraceptive drugs and devices are particularly governed by RA No. 4729
as a contrary rule would give the legislature discretion to determine which provides in full:
when, or whether, they shall be effective. These provisions would be Section 1.It shall be unlawful for any person, partnership, or
subordinated to the will of the lawmaking body, which could make them corporation, to sell, dispense or otherwise distribute whether for or without
entirely meaningless by simply refusing to pass the needed implementing consideration, any contraceptive drug or device, unless such sale,
statute. (Emphases supplied) dispensation or distribution is by a duly licensed drug store or
pharmaceutical company and with the prescription of a qualied medical
This notwithstanding, it bears mentioning that the petitioners, practitioner.
particularly ALFI, do not question contraception and contraceptives Sec.2.For the purpose of this Act:
per se.184 In fact, ALFI prays that the status quo under R.A. No. (a) Contraceptive drug is any medicine, drug, chemical, or portion
5921 and R.A. No. 4729, the sale and distribution of contraceptives which is used exclusively for the purpose of preventing fertilization of the
are not prohibited when they are dispensed by a prescription of a female ovum: and
duly licensed by a physician be maintained.185 (b)Contraceptive device is any instrument, device, material, or
The legislative intent in the enactment of the RH Law in this agent introduced into the female reproductive system for the primary
regard is to leave intact the provisions of R.A. No. 4729. There is no purpose of preventing conception.
intention at all to do away with it. It is still a good law and its Sec.3.Any person, partnership, or corporation, violating the
requirements are still in to be complied with. Thus, the Court agrees provisions of this Act shall be punished with a ne of not more than ve
with the observation of respondent Lagman that the effectivity of the hundred pesos or an imprisonment of not less than six months or more than
RH Law will not lead to the unmitigated proliferation of one year or both in the discretion of the Court.
contraceptives since the sale, distribution and dispensation of
contraceptive drugs and devices will still require the prescription of 317
a licensed physi-
This Act shall take effect upon its approval.
_______________ Approved: June 18, 1966
184 Memorandum, Alliance for the Family Foundation, Inc. (ALFI) v. Ochoa, 111.Of the same import, but in a general manner, Section 25 of RA
Rollo (G.R. No. 204934), p. 1408. No. 5921 provides:
185Id. Section 25.Sale of medicine, pharmaceuticals, drugs and devices.
No medicine, pharmaceutical, or drug of whatever nature and kind or device
316 shall be compounded, dispensed, sold or resold, or otherwise be made
available to the consuming public except through a prescription drugstore or
cian. With R.A. No. 4729 in place, there exists adequate hospital pharmacy, duly established in accordance with the provisions of
safeguards to ensure the public that only contraceptives that are this Act.
safe are made available to the public. As aptly explained by 112.With all of the foregoing safeguards, as provided for in the RH
respondent Lagman: Law and other relevant statutes, the pretension of the petitioners that
D.Contraceptives cannot be dispensed and used without the RH Law will lead to the unmitigated proliferation of contraceptives,
prescription
whether harmful or not, is completely unwarranted and baseless.186
whether harmful or not, is completely unwarranted and baseless.186 devices are declared by the FDA as safe, it being the agency tasked
[Emphases in the Original. Underlining supplied.] to ensure that food and medicines available to the public are safe for
public consumption. Consequently, the Court nds that, at this point,
In Re: Section 10 of the RH Law: the attack on the RH Law on this ground is premature. Indeed, the
The foregoing safeguards should be read in connection with various kinds of contraceptives must rst be measured up to the
Section 10 of the RH Law which provides: constitutional yardstick as expounded herein, to be determined as the
SEC.10.Procurement and Distribution of Family Planning Supplies.
case presents itself.
The DOH shall procure, distribute to LGUs and monitor the usage of
At this point, the Court is of the strong view that Congress cannot
family planning supplies for the whole country. The DOH shall coordinate
legislate that hormonal contraceptives and intrauterine devices are
with all appropriate local government bodies to plan and implement this
safe and non-abortifacient. The rst sentence of Section 9 that
procurement and distribution program. The supply and budget allotments
ordains their inclusion by the National Drug Formulary in the EDL
shall be based on, among others, the current levels and projections of the
by using the mandatory shall is to be
following:
_______________
187Separate Opinion (Justice Leonardo-De Castro) p. 482.
(a)Number of women of reproductive age and couples who
want to space or limit their children; 319
(b)Contraceptive prevalence rate, by type of method used; and
(c)Cost of family planning supplies. construed as operative only after they have been tested, evaluated,
and approved by the FDA. The FDA, not Congress, has the expertise
_______________ to determine whether a particular hormonal contraceptive or
186Memorandum, Lagman, Rollo (G.R. No. 204819), pp. 2359-2361. intrauterine device is safe and non-abortifacient. The provision of
the third sentence concerning the requirements for the inclusion or
318 removal of a particular family planning supply from the EDL
supports this construction.
Provided, That LGUs may implement its own procurement, distribution Stated differently, the provision in Section 9 covering the
and monitoring program consistent with the overall provisions of this Act inclusion of hormonal contraceptives, intrauterine devices,
and the guidelines of the DOH. injectables, and other safe, legal, non-abortifacient and effective
family planning products and supplies by the National Drug
Thus, in the distribution by the DOH of contraceptive drugs and Formulary in the EDL is not mandatory. There must rst be a
devices, it must consider the provisions of R.A. No. 4729, which is determination by the FDA that they are in fact safe, legal, non--
still in effect, and ensure that the contraceptives that it will procure abortifacient and effective family planning products and supplies.
shall be from a duly licensed drug store or pharmaceutical company There can be no predetermination by Congress that the gamut of
and that the actual dispensation of these contraceptive drugs and contraceptives are safe, legal, non-abortifacient and effective
devices will done following a prescription of a qualied medical without the proper scientic examination.
practitioner. The distribution of contraceptive drugs and devices
must not be indiscriminately done. The public health must be 3 Freedom of Religion
protected by all possible means. As pointed out by Justice De and the Right to Free Speech
Castro, a heavy responsibility and burden are assumed by the Position of the Petitioners:
government in supplying contraceptive drugs and devices, for it 1.On Contraception
may be held accountable for any injury, illness or loss of life While contraceptives and procedures like vasectomy and tubal
resulting from or incidental to their use.187 ligation are not covered by the constitutional proscription, there are
At any rate, it bears pointing out that not a single contraceptive those who, because of their religious education and background,
has yet been submitted to the FDA pursuant to the RH Law. It sincerely believe that contraceptives, whether abortifacient or not,
behooves the Court to await its determination which drugs or are evil. Some of these are medical practitioners who essentially
claim that their beliefs prohibit not only the use of contraceptives 321
but also the willing participation and cooperation in all things
dealing with contraceptive use. Petitioner PAX explained that
such as: a) those working in public health facilities referred to in
contraception is gravely opposed to marital chastity, it is contrary to
Section 7; b) public ofcers involved in the implementation of the
the good of the transmission of life, and to the reciprocal self-
law referred to in Section 23(b); and c) teachers in public schools
320 referred to in Section 14 of the RH Law, are also not recognized.191
Petitioner Echavez and the other medical practitioners
meanwhile, contend that the requirement to refer the matter to
giving of the spouses; it harms true love and denies the sovereign another health care service provider is still considered a compulsion
rule of God in the transmission of Human life.188 on those objecting healthcare service providers. They add that
The petitioners question the State-sponsored procurement of compelling them to do the act against their will violates the Doctrine
contraceptives, arguing that the expenditure of their taxes on of Benevolent Neutrality. Sections 9, 14 and 17 of the law are too
contraceptives violates the guarantee of religious freedom since secular that they tend to disregard the religion of Filipinos.
contraceptives contravene their religious beliefs.189 Authorizing the use of contraceptives with abortive effects,
2.On Religious Accommodation mandatory sex education, mandatory pro bono reproductive health
and The Duty to Refer services to indigents encroach upon the religious freedom of those
Petitioners Imbong and Luat note that while the RH Law upon whom they are required.192
attempts to address religious sentiments by making provisions for a Petitioner CFC also argues that the requirement for a
conscientious objector, the constitutional guarantee is nonetheless conscientious objector to refer the person seeking reproductive
violated because the law also imposes upon the conscientious health care services to another provider infringes on ones freedom
objector the duty to refer the patient seeking reproductive health of religion as it forces the objector to become an unwilling
services to another medical practitioner who would be able to participant in the commission of a serious sin under Catholic
provide for the patients needs. For the petitioners, this amounts to teachings. While the right to act on ones belief may be regulated by
requiring the conscientious objector to cooperate with the very thing the State, the acts prohibited by the RH Law are passive acts which
he refuses to do without violating his/her religious beliefs.190 produce neither harm nor injury to the public.193
They further argue that even if the conscientious objectors duty Petitioner CFC adds that the RH Law does not show compelling
to refer is recognized, the recognition is unduly limited, because state interest to justify regulation of religious freedom because it
although it allows a conscientious objector in Section 23(a)(3) the mentions no emergency, risk or threat that endangers state interests.
option to refer a patient seeking reproductive health services and It does not explain how the rights of the people (to equality, non-
information no escape is afforded the conscientious objector in discrimination of rights, sustainable
Section 23(a)(1) and (2), i.e., against a patient seeking reproductive
health procedures. They claim that the right of other individuals to
_______________
conscientiously object,
191Id., at pp. 2616-2621.
192Petition, Echavez v. Ochoa, Rollo (G.R. No. 205478), pp. 6-7.
_______________
193 Petition, Couples for Christ Foundation, Inc. v. Ochoa, Rollo (G.R. No.
188 Petition, Philippine Alliance of XSeminarians (PAX) v. Ochoa, Rollo (G.R.
207172), pp. 20-23.
No. 205138), pp. 40-41.
189 Petition, Task Force for the Family and Life Visayas, Inc. v. Ochoa, Rollo
(G.R. No. 204957), pp. 26-27; Petition, Philippine Alliance of XSeminarians (PAX) v.
Ochoa, Rollo (G.R. No. 205138), pp. 39-44; Petition, Tatad v. Ofce of the President, 322

Rollo (G.R. No. 205491), pp. 8-9; Petition, Pro-Life Philippines Foundation, Inc. v.
Ochoa, Rollo (G.R. No. 205720), pp. 59-67; Petition, Millennium Saint Foundation, human development, health, education, information, choice and to
Inc. v. Ofce of the President, Rollo (G.R. No. 206355), pp. 25-26. make decisions according to religious convictions, ethics, cultural
190Joint Memorandum, Imbong/Luat, Rollo (G.R. No. 204819), p. 2615. beliefs and the demands of responsible parenthood) are being
threatened or are not being met as to justify the impairment of against the constitutional right to religious freedom, the same right
religious freedom.194 they invoked to assail the constitutionality of the RH Law.200 In
Finally, the petitioners also question Section 15 of the RH Law other words, by seeking the declaration that the RH Law is
requiring would-be couples to attend family planning and unconstitutional, the petitioners are asking that the Court recognize
responsible parenthood seminars and to obtain a certicate of only the Catholic Churchs sanctioned natural family planning
compliance. They claim that the provision forces individuals to methods and impose this on the entire citizenry.201
participate in the implementation of the RH Law even if it With respect to the duty to refer, the respondents insist that the
contravenes their religious beliefs.195 As the assailed law dangles the same does not violate the constitutional guarantee of religious
threat of penalty of ne and/or imprisonment in case of non- freedom, it being a carefully balanced compromise between the
compliance with its provisions, the petitioners claim that the RH interests of the religious objector, on one hand, who is allowed to
Law forcing them to provide, support and facilitate access and keep silent but is required to refer and that of the citizen who
information to contraception against their beliefs must be struck needs access to information and who has the right to expect that the
down as it runs afoul to the constitutional guarantee of religious health care professional in front of her will act professionally. For
freedom. the respondents, the concession given by the State under Section 7
The Respondents Positions and 23(a)(3) is sufcient accommodation to the right to freely
The respondents, on the other hand, contend that the RH Law exercise ones religion without unnecessarily infringing on the rights
does not provide that a specic mode or type of contraceptives be of others.202 Whatever burden is placed on the petitioners religious
used, be it natural or articial. It neither imposes nor sanctions any freedom is minimal as the duty to refer is limited in duration,
religion or belief.196 They point out that the RH Law only seeks to location and impact.203
serve the public interest by providing accessible, effective and
quality reproductive health services to ensure maternal and child _______________
health, in line with the States duty to bring to reality the social 198Memorandum, Cayetano, Rollo (G.R. No. 204819), p. 3050.
justice health guarantees of the Constitution,197 and that what the 199Joint Memorandum Lagman, Rollo (G.R. No. 204819), p. 2361.
law only prohibits are 200 Memorandum, C4RH, Rollo (G.R. No. 204819), p. 2189; Memorandum,
Cayetano, Rollo (G.R. No. 204819), pp. 3050-3051.
_______________ 201Memorandum, Cayetano, Rollo (G.R. No. 204819), p. 3050.
194 Petition, Couples for Christ Foundation, Inc. v. Ochoa, Rollo (G.R. No. 202Memorandum, OSG, Rollo (G.R. No. 204819), p. 2677.
207172), pp. 20-23. 203Id., at p. 2679.
195 Petition, Alliance for the Family Foundation, Inc. (ALFI) v. Ochoa, Rollo
(G.R. No. 204934), pp. 35-37; Petition, Millennium Saint Foundation, Inc. v. Ofce of

the President, Rollo (G.R. No. 206355), pp. 17-18. 324
196 Memorandum, Cayetano, Rollo (G.R. No. 204819), p. 3050; Comment-in-
Intervention, Cabral, Rollo (G.R. No. 204819), p. 511.
197Memorandum, OSG, Rollo (G.R. No. 204819), p. 2677. Regarding mandatory family planning seminars under Section
15, the respondents claim that it is a reasonable regulation providing
an opportunity for would-be couples to have access to information
regarding parenthood, family planning, breastfeeding and infant
323
nutrition. It is argued that those who object to any information
received on account of their attendance in the required seminars are
those acts or practices, which deprive others of their right to not compelled to accept information given to them. They are
reproductive health.198 They assert that the assailed law only seeks completely free to reject any information they do not agree with and
to guarantee informed choice, which is an assurance that no one will retain the freedom to decide on matters of family life without
be compelled to violate his religion against his free will.199 intervention of the State.204
The respondents add that by asserting that only natural family For their part, respondents De Venecia, et al., dispute the notion
planning should be allowed, the petitioners are effectively going that natural family planning is the only method acceptable to
Catholics and the Catholic hierarchy. Citing various studies and vice-versa. The principle of separation of Church and State was,
surveys on the matter, they highlight the changing stand of the thus, enshrined in Article II, Section 6 of the 1987 Constitution, viz.:
Catholic Church on contraception throughout the years and note the
general acceptance of the benets of contraceptives by its followers Section6.The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable.
in planning their families.
Verily, the principle of separation of Church and State is based on
The Church and The State
mutual respect. Generally, the State cannot meddle in the internal
At the outset, it cannot be denied that we all live in a
affairs of the church, much less question its faith and dogmas or
heterogeneous society. It is made up of people of diverse ethnic,
dictate upon it. It cannot favor one religion and discriminate against
cultural and religious beliefs and backgrounds. History has shown us
another. On the other hand, the
that our government, in law and in practice, has allowed these
various religious, cultural, social and racial groups to thrive in a
_______________
single society together. It has embraced minority groups and is
205Cruz, Philippine Political Law, 2000 ed., p. 179, citing Justice Laurel in Engel
tolerant towards all the religious people of different sects and the
v. Vitale, 370 US 421.
nonbelievers. The undisputed fact is that our people generally
believe in a deity, whatever they conceived Him to be, and to whom 326
they call for guidance and enlightenment in crafting our fundamental
law. Thus, the preamble of the present Constitution reads:
church cannot impose its beliefs and convictions on the State and the
rest of the citizenry. It cannot demand that the nation follow its
_______________
beliefs, even if it sincerely believes that they are good for the
204Id., at p. 2679.
country.
325 Consistent with the principle that not any one religion should
ever be preferred over another, the Constitution in the above-cited
provision utilizes the term church in its generic sense, which
We, the sovereign Filipino people, imploring the aid of Almighty God,
refers to a temple, a mosque, an iglesia, or any other house of God
in order to build a just and humane society, and establish a Government that
which metaphorically symbolizes a religious organization. Thus, the
shall embody our ideals and aspirations, promote the common good,
Church means the religious congregations collectively.
conserve and develop our patrimony, and secure to ourselves and our
Balancing the benets that religion affords and the need to
posterity, the blessings of independence and democracy under the rule of
provide an ample barrier to protect the State from the pursuit of its
law and a regime of truth, justice, freedom, love, equality, and peace, do
secular objectives, the Constitution lays down the following
ordain and promulgate this Constitution.
mandate in Article III, Section 5 and Article VI, Section 29 (2), of
The Filipino people in imploring the aid of Almighty God the 1987 Constitution:
manifested their spirituality innate in our nature and consciousness Section5.No law shall be made respecting an establishment of
as a people, shaped by tradition and historical experience. As this is religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and
embodied in the preamble, it means that the State recognizes with enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or
respect the inuence of religion insofar as it instills into the mind the preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for
purest principles of morality.205 Moreover, in recognition of the the exercise of civil or political rights.
contributions of religion to society, the 1935, 1973 and 1987 Section29.
constitutions contain benevolent and accommodating provisions xxx.
towards religions such as tax exemption of church property, salary of No public money or property shall be appropriated, applied, paid, or
religious ofcers in government institutions, and optional religious employed, directly or indirectly, for the use, benet, or support of any sect,
instructions in public schools. church, denomination, sectarian institution, or system of religion, or of any
The Framers, however, felt the need to put up a strong barrier so priest, preacher, minister, other religious teacher, or dignitary as such,
that the State would not encroach into the affairs of the church, and except when such priest, preacher, minister, or dignitary is assigned to the
armed forces, or to any penal institution, or government orphanage or 207Bernas, The 1987 Constitution, 2009 ed., p. 330.
leprosarium. 208Gorospe, Constitutional Law, Vol. I, p. 1066.
20959 SCRA 54 (1974).
In short, the constitutional assurance of religious freedom
provides two guarantees: the Establishment Clause and the Free
Exercise Clause.
328
The establishment clause principally prohibits the State from
sponsoring any religion or favoring any religion as
As expounded in Escritor,
327
The establishment and free exercise clauses were not designed to serve
contradictory purposes. They have a single goal to promote freedom of
against other religions. It mandates a strict neutrality in affairs
individual religious beliefs and practices. In simplest terms, the free exercise
among religious groups.206 Essentially, it prohibits the
clause prohibits government from inhibiting religious beliefs with penalties
establishment of a state religion and the use of public resources for
for religious beliefs and practice, while the establishment clause prohibits
the support or prohibition of a religion.
government from inhibiting religious belief with rewards for religious
On the other hand, the basis of the free exercise clause is the
beliefs and practices. In other words, the two religion clauses were intended
respect for the inviolability of the human conscience.207 Under this
to deny government the power to use either the carrot or the stick to
part of religious freedom guarantee, the State is prohibited from
inuence individual religious beliefs and practices.210
unduly interfering with the outside manifestations of ones belief
and faith.208 Explaining the concept of religious freedom, the Court, Corollary to the guarantee of free exercise of ones religion is the
in Victoriano v. Elizalde Rope Workers Union,209 wrote: principle that the guarantee of religious freedom is comprised of two
The constitutional provisions not only prohibits legislation for the parts: the freedom to believe, and the freedom to act on ones belief.
support of any religious tenets or the modes of worship of any sect, thus The rst part is absolute. As explained in Gerona v. Secretary of
forestalling compulsion by law of the acceptance of any creed or the Education:211
practice of any form of worship (U.S. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78, 88 L. ed. 1148, The realm of belief and creed is innite and limitless bounded
1153), but also assures the free exercise of ones chosen form of religion only by ones imagination and thought. So is the freedom of
within limits of utmost amplitude. It has been said that the religion clauses belief, including religious belief, limitless and without bounds.
of the Constitution are all designed to protect the broadest possible liberty of One may believe in most anything, however strange, bizarre and
conscience, to allow each man to believe as his conscience directs, to unreasonable the same may appear to others, even heretical when
profess his beliefs, and to live as he believes he ought to live, consistent weighed in the scales of orthodoxy or doctrinal standards. But
with the liberty of others and with the common good. Any legislation between the freedom of belief and the exercise of said belief, there is
whose effect or purpose is to impede the observance of one or all quite a stretch of road to travel.212
religions, or to discriminate invidiously between the religions, is invalid, The second part however, is limited and subject to the awesome
even though the burden may be characterized as being only indirect. power of the State and can be enjoyed only with proper regard to the
(Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 10 L. ed. 2d 965, 83 S. Ct. 1970) But if rights of others. It is subject to regulation where the belief is
the state regulates conduct by enacting, within its power, a general law translated into external acts that affect the public welfare.213
which has for its purpose and effect to advance the states secular goals, the
statute is valid despite its indirect burden on religious observance, unless the _______________
state can accomplish its purpose without imposing such burden. (Braunfeld 210Escritor v. Estrada, A.M. No. P-02-1651, June 22, 2006, 525 Phil. 110, 140-
v. Brown, 366 U.S. 599, 6 L. ed. 2d 563, 81 S. Ct. 144; McGowan v. 141; 492 SCRA 1, 33 (2006).
Maryland, 366 U.S. 420, 444-5 and 449). 211106 Phil. 2 (1959).
212Id., at pp. 9-10.
213Ebralinag v. Division Superintendent of Schools, 219 SCRA 256, March 1,
_______________
1993.
206Gorospe, Constitutional Law, Vol. I, p. 1007.
 present danger test but did not employ it. Nevertheless, this test continued
to be cited in subsequent cases on religious liberty. The Gerona case then
329 pronounced that the test of permissibility of religious freedom is whether it
violates the established institutions of society and law. The Victoriano case
Legislative Acts and the mentioned the immediate and grave danger test as well as the doctrine
Free Exercise Clause that a law of general applicability may burden religious exercise provided
Thus, in case of conict between the free exercise clause and the the law is the least restrictive means to accomplish the goal of the law. The
State, the Court adheres to the doctrine of benevolent neutrality. case also used, albeit inappropriately, the compelling state interest test.
This has been clearly decided by the Court in Estrada v. Escritor,214 After Victoriano, German went back to the Gerona rule. Ebralinag then
(Escritor) where it was stated that benevolent neutrality- employed the grave and immediate danger test and overruled the
accommodation, whether mandatory or permissive, is the spirit, Gerona test. The fairly recent case of Iglesia ni Cristo went back to the
intent and framework underlying the Philippine Constitution.215 In clear and present danger test in the maiden case of American Bible
the same case, it was further explained that: Society. Not surprisingly, all the cases which employed the clear and
present danger or grave and immediate danger test involved, in one
The benevolent neutrality theory believes that with respect to these form or another, religious speech as this test is often used in cases on
governmental actions, accommodation of religion may be allowed, not to freedom of expression. On the other hand, the Gerona and German cases
promote the governments favored form of religion, but to allow individuals set the rule that religious freedom will not prevail over established
and groups to exercise their religion without hindrance. The purpose of institutions of society and law. Gerona, however, which was the authority
accommodation is to remove a burden on, or facilitate the exercise of, a cited by German has been overruled by Ebralinag which employed the
persons or institutions religion.216 What is sought under the theory of grave and immediate danger test. Victoriano was the only case that
accommodation is not a declaration of unconstitutionality of a facially employed the compelling state interest test, but as explained previously,
neutral law, but an exemption from its application or its burdensome the use of the test was inappropriate to the facts of the case.
effect, whether by the legislature or the courts.217 The case at bar does not involve speech as in American Bible Society,
Ebralinag and Iglesia ni Cristo where the clear and present danger and
In ascertaining the limits of the exercise of religious freedom, the
grave and immediate danger tests were appropriate as speech has easily
compelling state interest test is proper.218 Underlying the
discernible or immediate effects. The Gerona and German doctrine, aside
compelling state interest test is the notion that free exercise is a
from having been overruled, is not congruent with the benevolent
fundamental right and that laws burdening it should be subject to
neutrality approach, thus not appropriate in this jurisdiction. Similar to
strict scrutiny.219 In Escritor, it was written:
Victoriano, the present case involves purely conduct arising from religious
Philippine jurisprudence articulates several tests to determine these belief. The compelling state interest test is proper where conduct is
limits. Beginning with the rst case on the Free Exercise Clause, American involved for the whole gamut of human conduct has different effects on
Bible Society, the Court mentioned the clear and the states interests: some effects may be immediate and short-term
while others delayed and far-reaching. A test that would protect the
interests of the state in preventing a substantive evil, whether immediate or
_______________
delayed, is therefore necessary. However, not any interest of the state would
214525 Phil. 110; 492 SCRA 1 (2006).
sufce to prevail over the right to religious freedom as this is a fundamental
215Id., at p. 137; p. 66.
right
216Id., at p. 148; p. 42.
217Id., at p. 149; pp. 42-43. 331
218Id., at p. 175; p. 63.
219Id., at pp. 168-169; id.
that enjoys a preferred position in the hierarchy of rights the most
inalienable and sacred of all human rights, in the words of Jefferson. This
right is sacred for an invocation of the Free Exercise Clause is an appeal to a
330 higher sovereignty. The entire constitutional order of limited government is
premised upon an acknowledgment of such higher sovereignty, thus the
Filipinos implore the aid of Almighty God in order to build a just and 1.The State recognizes and guarantees the human rights of all persons
humane society and establish a government. As held in Sherbert, only the including their right to equality and nondiscrimination of these rights, the
gravest abuses, endangering paramount interests can limit this right to sustainable human development, the right to health which includes
fundamental right. A mere balancing of interests which balances a right with reproductive health, the right to education and information, and the right to
just a colorable state interest is therefore not appropriate. Instead, only a choose and make decisions for themselves in accordance with their
compelling interest of the state can prevail over the fundamental right religious convictions, ethics, cultural beliefs, and the demands of
to religious liberty. The test requires the state to carry a heavy burden, responsible parenthood. [Section 2, Declaration of Policy]
a compelling one, for to do otherwise would allow the state to batter 2.The State recognizes marriage as an inviolable social institution and
religion, especially the less powerful ones until they are destroyed. In the foundation of the family which in turn is the foundation of the nation.
determining which shall prevail between the states interest and Pursuant thereto, the State shall defend:
religious liberty, reasonableness shall be the guide. The compelling (a)The right of spouses to found a family in accordance with their
state interest serves the purpose of revering religious liberty while at religious convictions and the demands of responsible parenthood. [Section
the same time affording protection to the paramount interests of the 2, Declaration of Policy]
state. This was the test used in Sherbert which involved conduct, i.e., 3. The State shall promote and provide information and access,
refusal to work on Saturdays. In the end, the compelling state interest test, without bias, to all methods of family planning, including effective natural
by upholding the paramount interests of the state, seeks to protect the very and modern methods which have been proven medically safe, legal, non-
state, without which, religious liberty will not be preserved. [Emphases in abortifacient, and effective in accordance with scien-
the original. Underlining supplied.]
_______________
The Courts Position 220Estrada v. Escritor, 455 Phil. 411, 560; 408 SCRA 1, 183 (2003); citing Fonacier v.
Court of Appeals, 96 Phil. 417 (1955).
In the case at bench, it is not within the province of the Court to
determine whether the use of contraceptives or ones participation in
the support of modern reproductive health measures is moral from a
333
religious standpoint or whether the same is right or wrong according
to ones dogma or belief. For the Court has declared that matters
dealing with faith, practice, doctrine, form of worship, tic and evidence-based medical research standards such as those registered
ecclesiastical law, custom and rule of a church...are unquestionably and approved by the FDA for the poor and marginalized as identied
ecclesiastical matters through the NHTS-PR and other government measures of identifying
marginalization: Provided, That the State shall also provide funding support
332
to promote modern natural methods of family planning, especially the
Billings Ovulation Method, consistent with the needs of acceptors and
which are outside the province of the civil courts.220 The their religious convictions. [Section 3(e), Declaration of Policy]
jurisdiction of the Court extends only to public and secular morality. 4. The State shall promote programs that: (1) enable individuals and
Whatever pronouncement the Court makes in the case at bench couples to have the number of children they desire with due consideration to
should be understood only in this realm where it has authority. the health, particularly of women, and the resources available and affordable
Stated otherwise, while the Court stands without authority to rule on to them and in accordance with existing laws, public morals and their
ecclesiastical matters, as vanguard of the Constitution, it does have religious convictions. [Section 3(f)]
authority to determine whether the RH Law contravenes the 5. The State shall respect individuals preferences and choice of
guarantee of religious freedom. family planning methods that are in accordance with their religious
At rst blush, it appears that the RH Law recognizes and respects convictions and cultural beliefs, taking into consideration the States
religion and religious beliefs and convictions. It is replete with obligations under various human rights instruments. [Section 3(h)]
assurances the no one can be compelled to violate the tenets of his 6. Active participation by nongovernment organizations (NGOs),
religion or defy his religious convictions against his free will. womens and peoples organizations, civil society, faith-based
Provisions in the RH Law respecting religious freedom are the organizations, the religious sector and communities is crucial to ensure
following: that reproductive health and population and development policies, plans,
and programs will address the priority needs of women, the poor, and the services under the law to another accessible healthcare provider
marginalized. [Section 3(i)] despite their conscientious objections based on religious or ethical
7.Responsible parenthood refers to the will and ability of a parent to beliefs.
respond to the needs and aspirations of the family and children. It is
likewise a shared responsibility between parents to determine and achieve _______________
the desired number of children, spacing and timing of their children 221Cruz, Constitutional Law, 2000 edition, pp. 178-179.
according to their own family life aspirations, taking into account
psychological preparedness, health status, sociocultural and economic 335
concerns consistent with their religious convictions. [Section 4(v)]
(Emphases supplied)
In a situation where the free exercise of religion is allegedly
While the Constitution prohibits abortion, laws were enacted burdened by government legislation or practice, the compelling
allowing the use of contraceptives. To some medical practitioners, state interest test in line with the Courts espousal of the Doctrine
however, the whole idea of using contraceptives is an anathema. of Benevolent Neutrality in Escritor, nds application. In this case,
Consistent with the principle of benevolent neutrality, their beliefs the conscientious objectors claim to religious freedom would
should be respected. warrant an exemption from obligations under the RH Law, unless
the government succeeds in demonstrating a more compelling state
334 interest in the accomplishment of an important secular objective.
Necessarily so, the plea of conscientious objectors for exemption
from the RH Law deserves no less than strict scrutiny.
The Establishment Clause
In applying the test, the rst inquiry is whether a conscientious
and Contraceptives
objectors right to religious freedom has been burdened. As in
In the same breath that the establishment clause restricts what the
Escritor, there is no doubt that an intense tug-of-war plagues a
government can do with religion, it also limits what religious sects
conscientious objector. One side coaxes him into obedience to the
can or cannot do with the government. They can neither cause the
law and the abandonment of his religious beliefs, while the other
government to adopt their particular doctrines as policy for
entices him to a clean conscience yet under the pain of penalty. The
everyone, nor can they not cause the government to restrict other
scenario is an illustration of the predicament of medical practitioners
groups. To do so, in simple terms, would cause the State to adhere to
whose religious beliefs are incongruent with what the RH Law
a particular religion and, thus, establishing a state religion.
promotes.
Consequently, the petitioners are misguided in their supposition
The Court is of the view that the obligation to refer imposed by
that the State cannot enhance its population control program through
the RH Law violates the religious belief and conviction of a
the RH Law simply because the promotion of contraceptive use is
conscientious objector. Once the medical practitioner, against his
contrary to their religious beliefs. Indeed, the State is not precluded
will, refers a patient seeking information on modern reproductive
to pursue its legitimate secular objectives without being dictated
health products, services, procedures and methods, his conscience is
upon by the policies of any one religion. One cannot refuse to pay
immediately burdened as he has been compelled to perform an act
his taxes simply because it will cloud his conscience. The
against his beliefs. As Commissioner Joaquin A. Bernas
demarcation line between Church and State demands that one render
(Commissioner Bernas) has written, at the basis of the free
unto Caesar the things that are Caesars and unto God the things that
exercise clause is the respect for the inviolability of the human
are Gods.221
conscience.222
The Free Exercise Clause and the Duty to Refer
Though it has been said that the act of referral is an opt-out
While the RH Law, in espousing state policy to promote
clause, it is, however, a false compromise because it makes pro-life
reproductive health manifestly respects diverse religious beliefs in
health providers complicit in the performance of an act that they nd
line with the Non-Establishment Clause, the same conclusion cannot
morally repugnant or offensive. They
be reached with respect to Sections 7, 23 and 24 thereof. The said
provisions commonly mandate that a hospital or a medical
practitioner to immediately refer a person seeking health care and _______________
222Bernas, The 1987 Constitution, 2009 ed., p. 330.
 336 involved in abortions.226 The Inner House stated that if
participation were dened according to whether the person was
taking part directly or indirectly this would actually mean more
cannot, in conscience, do indirectly what they cannot do directly.
complexity and uncertainty.227
One may not be the principal, but he is equally guilty if he abets the
While the said case did not cover the act of referral, the
offensive act by indirect participation.
applicable principle was the same they could not be forced to
Moreover, the guarantee of religious freedom is necessarily
assist abortions if it would be against their conscience or will.
intertwined with the right to free speech, it being an externalization
Institutional Health Providers
of ones thought and conscience. This in turn includes the right to be
The same holds true with respect to non-maternity specialty
silent. With the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom follows
hospitals and hospitals owned and operated by a religious group and
the protection that should be afforded to individuals in
health care service providers. Considering that Section 24 of the RH
communicating their beliefs to others as well as the protection for
Law penalizes such institutions should they fail or refuse to comply
simply being silent. The Bill of Rights guarantees the liberty of the
with their duty to refer under Section 7 and Section 23(a)(3), the
individual to utter what is in his mind and the liberty not to utter
Court deems that it must be struck down for being violative of the
what is not in his mind.223 While the RH Law seeks to provide
freedom of religion. The same applies to Section 23(a)(1) and (a)(2)
freedom of choice through informed consent, freedom of choice
in relation to Section 24, considering that in the dissemination of
guarantees the liberty of the religious conscience and prohibits any
information regarding programs and services and in the performance
degree of compulsion or burden, whether direct or indirect, in the
of reproductive health procedures, the religious freedom of health
practice of ones religion.224
care service providers should be respected.
In case of conict between the religious beliefs and moral
In the case of Islamic Dawah Council of the Philippines, Inc. v.
convictions of individuals, on one hand, and the interest of the State,
Ofce of the Executive Secretary,228 it was stressed:
on the other, to provide access and information on reproductive
health products, services, procedures and methods to enable the Freedom of religion was accorded preferred status by the framers of
people to determine the timing, number and spacing of the birth of our fundamental law. And this Court has consis-
their children, the Court is of the strong view that the religious
freedom of health providers, whether public or private, should be _______________
accorded primacy. Accordingly, a conscientious objector should be 22520130 CSIH 36.
exempt from compliance with the mandates of the RH Law. If he 226 http://www.skepticink.com/tippling/2013/05/05/conscientious-objection-to-abortion-
would be compelled to act contrary to his religious belief and catholic-midwives-win-appeal/; last visited February 22, 2014.
conviction, it would be violative of the principle of non-coercion 227 http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2013/05/03/conscientious-objection-to-abortion-
enshrined in the constitutional right to free exercise of religion. catholic-midwives-win-appeal; last visited February 22, 2014.
Interestingly, on April 24, 2013, Scotlands Inner House of the 228453 Phil. 440; 405 SCRA 497 (2003).
Court of Session, found in the case of Doogan and Wood v.

_______________ 338
223Separate Opinion, Cruz, Ebralinag v. Division Superintendent of Schools, 219
SCRA 256, March 1, 1993.
tently afrmed this preferred status, well aware that it is designed to
224 Estrada v. Escritor, supra note 220 at p. 537; p. 134.
protect the broadest possible liberty of conscience, to allow each man to
337 believe as his conscience directs, to profess his beliefs, and to live as he
believes he ought to live, consistent with the liberty of others and with
the common good.
NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde Health Board,225 that the
midwives claiming to be conscientious objectors under the The Court is not oblivious to the view that penalties provided by
provisions of Scotlands Abortion Act of 1967, could not be required law endeavour to ensure compliance. Without set consequences for
to delegate, supervise or support staff on their labor ward who were either an active violation or mere inaction, a law tends to be

involved in abortions.226 The Inner House stated that if

toothless and ineffectual. Nonetheless, when what is bartered for an Ill go to another point. The RH law...in your Comment-in-Intervention
effective implementation of a law is a constitutionally-protected on page 52, you mentioned RH Law is replete with provisions in upholding
right the Court rmly chooses to stamp its disapproval. The the freedom of religion and respecting religious convictions. Earlier, you
punishment of a healthcare service provider, who fails and/or refuses afrmed this with qualications. Now, you have read, I presumed you have
to refer a patient to another, or who declines to perform reproductive read the IRR-Implementing Rules and Regulations of the RH Bill?
health procedure on a patient because incompatible religious beliefs, Congressman Lagman:
is a clear inhibition of a constitutional guarantee which the Court Yes, Your Honor, I have read but I have to admit, its a long IRR and I
cannot allow. have not thoroughly dissected the nuances of the provisions.
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. Its Section 5.24. This I cannot nd 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 ofcers, chief of hospitals, head nurses,
municipal health ofcers, chiefs of hospital, head nurses, supervising supervising midwives, among others, who by
midwives, among others, who by virtue of their ofce are specically
charged with the duty to implement the provisions of the RPRH Act and
_______________
these Rules, cannot be considered as conscientious objectors.
229 Fernando on the Philippine Constitution, 1974 ed., p. 565; See Dissenting Opinion
Makasiar, Garcia v. The Faculty Admission Committee, No. L-40779, November 28, 1975, 68
This is discriminatory and violative of the equal protection
SCRA 277.
clause. The conscientious objection clause should be equally
protective of the religious belief of public health ofcers. There is no
perceptible distinction why they should not be considered exempt
from the mandates of the law. The protection accorded to other 340
conscientious objectors should equally apply to all medical
practitioners without distinction whether they belong to the public or virtue of their ofce are specically charged with the duty to implement the
private sector. After all, the free- provisions of the RPRH Act and these Rules, cannot be considered as
conscientious objectors. Do you agree with this?
339
Congressman Lagman:
I will have to go over again the provisions, Your Honor.
dom to believe is intrinsic in every individual and the protective Justice Mendoza:
robe that guarantees its free exercise is not taken off even if one In other words, public health ofcers in contrast to the private
acquires employment in the government. practitioners who can be conscientious objectors, skilled health
It should be stressed that intellectual liberty occupies a place professionals cannot be considered conscientious objectors. Do you agree
inferior to none in the hierarchy of human values. The mind must be with this? Is this not against the constitutional right to the religious belief?
free to think what it wills, whether in the secular or religious sphere, Congressman Lagman:
to give expression to its beliefs by oral discourse or through the Your Honor, if there is any conict between the IRR and the law, the law
media and, thus, seek other candid views in occasions or gatherings must prevail.230
or in more permanent aggrupation. Embraced in such concept then
are freedom of religion, freedom of speech, of the press, assembly Compelling State Interest
and petition, and freedom of association.229 The foregoing discussion then begets the question on whether the
The discriminatory provision is void not only because no such respondents, in defense of the subject provisions, were able to: 1]
exception is stated in the RH Law itself but also because it is demonstrate a more compelling state interest to restrain
violative of the equal protection clause in the Constitution. Quoting conscientious objectors in their choice of services to render; and 2]
respondent Lagman, if there is any conict between the RH-IRR and discharge the burden of proof that the obligatory character of the law
the RH Law, the law must prevail. is the least intrusive means to achieve the objectives of the law.
Unfortunately, a deep scrutiny of the respondents submissions
Justice Mendoza: proved to be in vain. The OSG was curiously silent in the
establishment of a more compelling state interest that would 231TSN, August 27, 2013, pp. 71-72.
rationalize the curbing of a conscientious objectors right not to 232Islamic Dawah Council of the Philippines v. Ofce of the Executive Secretary of the
adhere to an action contrary to his religious convictions. During the Ofce of the President of the Philippines, supra note 228 at p. 450; p. 505.
oral arguments, the OSG maintained the same silence and evasion.
342
The Transcripts of the Stenographic Notes disclose the following:

act against ones belief or is prevented from acting according to ones
Justice De Castro: belief.233
Lets go back to the duty of the conscientious objector to refer...

_______________ Apparently, in these cases, there is no immediate danger to the
230TSN, August 13, 2013, pp. 52-54. life or health of an individual in the perceived scenario of the
subject provisions. After all, a couple who plans the timing, number
341 and spacing of the birth of their children refers to a future event that
is contingent on whether or not the mother decides to adopt or use
Senior State Solicitor Hilbay: the information, product, method or supply given to her or whether
Yes, Justice. she even decides to become pregnant at all. On the other hand, the
Justice De Castro: burden placed upon those who object to contraceptive use is
...which you are discussing awhile ago with Justice Abad. What is the immediate and occurs the moment a patient seeks consultation on
compelling State interest in imposing this duty to refer to a reproductive health matters.
conscientious objector which refuses to do so because of his religious Moreover, granting that a compelling interest exists to justify the
belief? infringement of the conscientious objectors religious freedom, the
Senior State Solicitor Hilbay: respondents have failed to demonstrate the gravest abuses,
Ahh, Your Honor,.. endangering paramount interests which could limit or override a
Justice De Castro: persons fundamental right to religious freedom. Also, the
What is the compelling State interest to impose this burden? respondents have not presented any government effort exerted to
Senior State Solicitor Hilbay: show that the means it takes to achieve its legitimate state objective
In the rst place, Your Honor, I dont believe that the standard is a is the least intrusive means.234 Other than the assertion that the act
compelling State interest, this is an ordinary health legislation of referring would only be momentary, considering that the act of
involving professionals. This is not a free speech matter or a pure referral by a conscientious objector is the very action being
free exercise matter. This is a regulation by the State of the contested as violative of religious freedom, it behooves the
relationship between medical doctors and their patients.231 respondents to demonstrate that no other means can be undertaken
by the State to achieve its objective without violating the rights of
Resultantly, the Court nds no compelling state interest which the conscientious objector. The health concerns of women may still
would limit the free exercise clause of the conscientious objectors, be addressed by other practitioners who may perform reproductive
however few in number. Only the prevention of an immediate and health-related procedures with open willingness and motivation.
grave danger to the security and welfare of the community can Sufce it to say, a person who is forced to perform an act in utter
justify the infringement of religious freedom. If the government fails reluctance deserves the protection of the Court as the last vanguard
to show the seriousness and immediacy of the threat, State intrusion of constitutional freedoms.
is constitutionally unacceptable.232
_______________
Freedom of religion means more than just the freedom to believe. It also
233 http://fatherbernasblogs.blogspot.com/2011_02_01_archive.html; last visited
means the freedom to act or not to act according to what one believes. And
February 15, 2014.
this freedom is violated when one is compelled to
234Estrada v. Escritor, supra note 210.

_______________
 343 (9) Prevention and management of infertility and sexual dysfunction
pursuant to ethical norms and medical standards;
(10)Care of the elderly women beyond their child-bearing years; and
At any rate, there are other secular steps already taken by the
(11)Management, treatment, and intervention of mental health problems of
Legislature to ensure that the right to health is protected.
women and girls. In addition, healthy lifestyle activities are encouraged
Considering other legislations as they stand now, R.A. No. 4729 or
and promoted through programs and projects as strategies in the
the Contraceptive Act, R.A. No. 6365 or The Population Act of the
prevention of diseases.
Philippines and R.A. No. 9710, otherwise known as The Magna
(b)Comprehensive Health Information and Education.The State
Carta of Women, amply cater to the needs of women in relation to
shall provide women in all sectors with appropriate, timely, complete, and
health services and programs. The pertinent provision of Magna
accurate information and education on all the abovestated aspects of
Carta on comprehensive health services and programs for women,
womens health in government education and training programs, with due
in fact, reads:
regard to the following:
Section17.Womens Right to Health.(a) Comprehensive Health (1)The natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the
Services.The State shall, at all times, provide for a comprehensive, youth and the development of moral character and the right of children to
culture-sensitive, and gender-responsive health services and programs be brought up in an atmosphere of morality and rectitude for the
covering all stages of a womans life cycle and which addresses the major enrichment and strengthening of character;
causes of womens mortality and morbidity: Provided, That in the provision (2)The formation of a persons sexuality that afrms human dignity; and
for comprehensive health services, due respect shall be accorded to (3) Ethical, legal, safe, and effective family planning methods including
womens religious convictions, the rights of the spouses to found a family in fertility awareness.
accordance with their religious convictions, and the demands of responsible
As an afterthought, Asst. Solicitor General Hilbay eventually
parenthood, and the right of women to protection from hazardous drugs,
replied that the compelling state interest was Fifteen maternal
devices, interventions, and substances.
deaths per day, hundreds of thousands of unintended pregnancies,
Access to the following services shall be ensured:
lives changed, x x x.235 He, however, failed to substantiate this
(1) Maternal care to include pre- and post-natal services to address
point by concrete facts and gures from reputable sources.
pregnancy and infant health and nutrition;
(2)Promotion of breastfeeding;
(3) Responsible, ethical, legal, safe, and effective methods of family
planning;
_______________
(4)Family and State collaboration in youth sexuality education and health
services without prejudice to the primary right and duty of parents to 235 TSN, August 27, 2013, p. 130.
educate their children;
(5) Prevention and management of reproductive tract infections, including 345
sexually transmitted diseases, HIV, and AIDS;
(6)Prevention and management of reproductive tract cancers like breast and The undisputed fact, however, is that the World Health
cervical cancers, and other gynecological conditions and disorders; Organization reported that the Filipino maternal mortality rate
(7) Prevention of abortion and management of pregnancy-related dropped to 48 percent from 1990 to 2008,236 although there was still
complications; no RH Law at that time. Despite such revelation, the proponents still
344
insist that such number of maternal deaths constitute a compelling
state interest.
Granting that there are still deciencies and aws in the delivery
(8) In cases of violence against women and children, women and of social healthcare programs for Filipino women, they could not be
children victims and survivors shall be provided with comprehensive solved by a measure that puts an unwarrantable stranglehold on
health services that include psychosocial, therapeutic, medical, and legal religious beliefs in exchange for blind conformity.
interventions and assistance towards healing, recovery, and Exception: Life Threatening Cases
empowerment;
 All this notwithstanding, the Court properly recognizes a valid child is never justied to bring about a good effect. In a conict situation
exception set forth in the law. While generally healthcare service between the life of the child and the life of the mother, the doctor is morally
providers cannot be forced to render reproductive health care obliged always to try to save both lives. However, he can act in favor of
procedures if doing it would contravene their religious beliefs, an one (not necessarily the mother) when it is medically impossible to save
exception must be made in life-threatening cases that require the both, provided that no direct harm is intended to the other. If the above
performance of emergency procedures. In these situations, the right principles are observed, the loss of the childs life or the mothers life is not
to life of the intentional and, therefore, unavoidable. Hence, the doctor would not be
guilty of abortion or murder. The mother is never pitted against the child
_______________ because both their lives are equally valuable.238
236 http://www.lifenews.com/2011/09/01/philippines-sees-maternal-mortality-

decline-without-abortion; last visited March 9, 2014 [Researchers from the Institute
Accordingly, if it is necessary to save the life of a mother,
for Health Metrics and Evaluation of the University of Washington in Seattle
procedures endangering the life of the child may be resorted to even
examined maternal mortality rates in 181 countries and found the rate (the number of
if is against the religious sentiments of the medical practitioner. As
womens deaths per 100,000) dropped by 81 percent in the Philippines between
quoted above, whatever burden imposed upon a medical practitioner
1980 and 2008. The decrease comes as the largely Catholic nation has resister efforts
in this case would have been more than justied considering the life
to legalize abortions, even though the United Nations and pro-abortion groups claim
he would be able to save.
women will supposedly die in illegal abortions and increase the maternal mortality
rate if abortion is prohibited.
The 2010 study, published in Lancet, shows the Philippines outpaced rst-world _______________

nations like Germany, Russia and Israel where abortions are legal in 237TSN, July 23, 2013, p. 23.

cutting maternal mortality rates. 238 Memorandum, Alliance for the Family Foundation, Inc. (ALFI) v. Ochoa,

Meanwhile, the National Statistical Coordination Board in the Philippines, according Rollo (G.R. No. 204934), p. 1407.

to Spero Forum, has shown the same results. From 1990-2010, the daily maternal

mortality rate dropped 21 percent, its gures indicated. The World Health
Organization also found that the Filipino maternal mortality rate dropped 48 347
percent from 1990 to 2008.

Family Planning Seminars

Anent the requirement imposed under Section 15239 as a
346 condition for the issuance of a marriage license, the Court nds the
same to be a reasonable exercise of police power by the government.
mother should be given preference, considering that a referral by a A cursory reading of the assailed provision bares that the religious
medical practitioner would amount to a denial of service, resulting freedom of the petitioners is not at all violated. All the law requires
to unnecessarily placing the life of a mother in grave danger. Thus, is for would-be spouses to attend a seminar on parenthood, family
during the oral arguments, Atty. Liban, representing CFC, planning breastfeeding and infant nutrition. It does not even mandate
manifested: the forced referral clause that we are objecting on the type of family planning methods to be included in the seminar,
grounds of violation of freedom of religion does not contemplate whether they be natural or articial. As correctly noted by the OSG,
an emergency.237 those who receive any information during their attendance in the
In a conict situation between the life of the mother and the life required seminars are not compelled to accept the information given
of a child, the doctor is morally obliged always to try to save both to them, are completely free to reject the information they nd
lives. If, however, it is impossible, the resulting death to one should unacceptable, and retain the freedom to decide on matters of family
not be deliberate. Atty. Noche explained: life without the intervention of the State.
4 The Family and the Right to Privacy
Principle of Double-Effect.May we please remind the principal Petitioner CFC assails the RH Law because Section 23(a)(2)(i)
author of the RH Bill in the House of Representatives of the principle of thereof violates the provisions of the Constitution by intruding into
double-effect wherein intentional harm on the life of either the mother of the marital privacy and autonomy. It argues that it cultivates disunity
and fosters animosity in the family rather than promote its solidarity their authority over their minor daughter simply because she is
and total development.240 already a parent or had suffered a miscarrage.
The Court cannot but agree. The Family and Spousal Consent
The 1987 Constitution is replete with provisions strengthening Section 23(a)(2)(i) of the RH Law states:
the family as it is the basic social institution. In fact, one article,
Article XV, is devoted entirely to the family. The following acts are prohibited:
(a)Any health care service provider, whether public or private, who shall: ...

239SEC. 15.Certicate of Compliance.No marriage license shall be issued 349

by the Local Civil Registrar unless the applicants present a Certicate of Compliance
issued for free by the local Family Planning Ofce certifying that they had duly
(2) refuse to perform legal and medically-safe reproductive health
received adequate instructions and information on responsible parenthood, family
procedures on any person of legal age on the ground of lack of consent
planning, breastfeeding and infant nutrition.
or authorization of the following persons in the following instances:
240 Petition, Couples for Christ Foundation, Inc. v. Ochoa, Rollo (G.R. No.
(i) Spousal consent in case of married persons: provided, That in case of
207172), p. 29.
disagreement, the decision of the one undergoing the procedures
shall prevail. [Emphasis supplied]

348
The above provision refers to reproductive health procedures like
tubal litigation and vasectomy which, by their very nature, should
ARTICLE XV require mutual consent and decision between the husband and the
THE FAMILY wife as they affect issues intimately related to the founding of a
Section1.The State recognizes the Filipino family as the foundation family. Section 3, Art. XV of the Constitution espouses that the State
of the nation. Accordingly, it shall strengthen its solidarity and actively shall defend the right of the spouses to found a family. One person
promote its total development. cannot found a family. The right, therefore, is shared by both
Section2.Marriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the spouses. In the same Section 3, their right to participate in the
foundation of the family and shall be protected by the State. planning and implementation of policies and programs that affect
Section3.The State shall defend: them is equally recognized.
The right of spouses to found a family in accordance with The RH Law cannot be allowed to infringe upon this mutual
their religious convictions and the demands of responsible decision-making. By giving absolute authority to the spouse who
parenthood; would undergo a procedure, and barring the other spouse from
The right of children to assistance, including proper care and participating in the decision would drive a wedge between the
nutrition, and special protection from all forms of neglect, abuse, husband and wife, possibly result in bitter animosity, and endanger
cruelty, exploitation and other conditions prejudicial to their the marriage and the family, all for the sake of reducing the
development; population. This would be a marked departure from the policy of the
The right of the family to a family living wage and income; and State to protect marriage as an inviolable social institution.241
The right of families or family associations to participate in the Decision-making involving a reproductive health procedure is a
planning and implementation of policies and programs that affect them. private matter which belongs to the couple, not just one of them.
Any decision they would reach would affect their future as a family
because the size of the family or the number of their children
In this case, the RH Law, in its not-so-hidden desire to control signicantly matters. The decision whether or not to undergo the
population growth, contains provisions which tend to wreck the procedure belongs exclusively to, and
family as a solid social institution. It bars the husband and/or the
father from participating in the decision-making process regarding _______________
their common future progeny. It likewise deprives the parents of 24180 CONST. Art XV, 2.
 350 loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as
noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.

shared by, both spouses as one cohesive unit as they chart their own Ironically, Griswold invalidated a Connecticut statute which
destiny. It is a constitutionally guaranteed private right. Unless it made the use of contraceptives a criminal offense on the ground of
prejudices the State, which has not shown any compelling interest, its amounting to an unconstitutional invasion of the right to privacy
the State should see to it that they chart their destiny together as one of married persons. Nevertheless, it recognized the zone of privacy
family. rightfully enjoyed by couples. Justice Douglas in Grisworld wrote
As highlighted by Justice Leonardo-De Castro, Section 19(c) of that specic guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras,
R.A. No. 9710, otherwise known as the Magna Carta for Women, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life
provides that women shall have equal rights in all matters relating to and substance. Various guarantees create zones of privacy.246
marriage and family relations, including the joint decision on the At any rate, in case of conict between the couple, the courts will
number and spacing of their children. Indeed, responsible decide.
parenthood, as Section 3(v) of the RH Law states, is a shared The Family and Parental Consent
responsibility between parents. Section 23(a)(2)(i) of the RH Law Equally deplorable is the debarment of parental consent in cases
should not be allowed to betray the constitutional mandate to protect where the minor, who will be undergoing a procedure, is already a
and strengthen the family by giving to only one spouse the absolute parent or has had a miscarriage. Section 7 of the RH law provides:
authority to decide whether to undergo reproductive health
procedure.242 SEC.7.Access to Family Planning.xxx.
The right to chart their own destiny together falls within the No person shall be denied information and access to family planning
protected zone of marital privacy and such state intervention would services, whether natural or articial: Provided, That minors will not be
encroach into the zones of spousal privacy guaranteed by the allowed access to modern methods of family planning without written
Constitution. In our jurisdiction, the right to privacy was rst consent from their parents or guardian/s except when the minor is already
recognized in Morfe v. Mutuc,243 where the Court, speaking through a parent or has had a miscarriage.
Chief Justice Fernando, held that the right to privacy as such is
accorded recognition independently of its identication with liberty; There can be no other interpretation of this provision except that
in itself, it is fully deserving of constitutional protection.244 Morfe when a minor is already a parent or has had a miscarriage, the
adopted the ruling of the US Supreme Court in Griswold v. parents are excluded from the decision-making process of the minor
Connecticut,245 where Justice William O. Douglas wrote: with regard to family planning. Even if

We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights older than _______________
our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming 246Id.
together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring,
352
_______________
242Separate Opinion (Justice Leonardo-De Castro), p. 468. she is not yet emancipated, the parental authority is already cut off
243130 Phil. 415; 22 SCRA 424 (1968). just because there is a need to tame population growth.
244Id., at p. 436; p. 444. It is precisely in such situations when a minor parent needs the
245Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, June 7, 1965. comfort, care, advice, and guidance of her own parents. The State
cannot replace her natural mother and father when it comes to
providing her needs and comfort. To say that their consent is no
351 longer relevant is clearly anti-family. It does not promote unity in
the family. It is an affront to the constitutional mandate to protect
and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes and strengthen the family as an inviolable social institution.
a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral 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 for civic efciency and the development of State to protect both the life of the mother as that of the unborn
moral character shall receive the support of the Government.247 In child. Considering that information to enable a person to make
this regard, Commissioner Bernas wrote: informed decisions is essential in the protection and maintenance of
ones health, access to such information with respect to reproductive
The 1987 provision has added the adjective primary to modify the health must be allowed. In this situation, the fear that parents might
right of parents. It imports the assertion that the right of parents is be deprived of their parental control is unfounded because they are
superior to that of the State.248 [Emphases supplied] not prohibited to exercise parental guidance and control over their
minor child and assist her in deciding whether to accept or reject the

information received.
To insist on a rule that interferes with the right of parents to
Second Exception: Life Threatening Cases
exercise parental control over their minor-child or the right of the
As in the case of the conscientious objector, an exception must be
spouses to mutually decide on matters which very well affect the
made in life-threatening cases that require the performance of
very purpose of marriage, that is, the establishment of conjugal and
emergency procedures. In such cases, the life of the minor who has
family life, would result in the violation of ones privacy with
already suffered a miscarriage and that of the spouse should not be
respect to his family. It would be dismissive of the unique and
put at grave risk simply for lack of consent. It should be emphasized
strongly-held Filipino tradition of maintaining close family ties and
that no person should be
violative of the recognition that the State affords couples entering
into the special contract of marriage to as one unit in forming the 354
foundation of the family and society.
The State cannot, without a compelling state interest, take over
the role of parents in the care and custody of a minor denied the appropriate medical care urgently needed to preserve the
primordial right, that is, the right to life.
In this connection, the second sentence of Section 23(a)(2)(ii)249
_______________
should be struck down. By effectively limiting the requirement of
247Section 12, ARTICLE II, 1987 CONSTITUTION.
parental consent to only in elective surgical procedures, it denies
248Bernas, The 1987 Constitution, 2009 ed., p. 85.
the parents their right of parental authority in cases where what is
involved are non-surgical procedures. Save for the two exceptions
discussed above, and in the case of an abused child as provided in
353 the rst sentence of Section 23(a)(2)(ii), the parents should not be
deprived of their constitutional right of parental authority. To deny
child, whether or not the latter is already a parent or has had a them of this right would be an affront to the constitutional mandate
miscarriage. Only a compelling state interest can justify a state to protect and strengthen the family.
substitution of their parental authority.
5 Academic Freedom
First Exception: Access to Information
Whether with respect to the minor referred to under the exception It is asserted that Section 14 of the RH Law, in relation to Section
provided in the second paragraph of Section 7 or with respect to the 24 thereof, mandating the teaching of Age- and Development-
consenting spouse under Section 23(a)(2)(i), a distinction must be Appropriate Reproductive Health Education under threat of ne
made. There must be a differentiation between access to information and/or imprisonment violates the principle of academic freedom.
about family planning services, on one hand, and access to the According to the petitioners, these provisions effectively force
reproductive health procedures and modern family planning educational institutions to teach reproductive health education even
methods themselves, on the other. Insofar as access to information is if they believe that the same is not suitable to be taught to their
concerned, the Court nds no constitutional objection to the students.250 Citing various studies conducted in the United States
acquisition of information by the minor referred to under the and statistical data gathered in the country, the petitioners aver that
exception in the second paragraph of Section 7 that would enable the prevalence of contraceptives has led to an increase of out-of-
her to take proper care of her own body and that of her unborn child. wedlock births; divorce and breakdown of families; the acceptance
After all, Section 12, Article II of the Constitution mandates the of abortion and euthanasia; the feminization of pov-
_______________ _______________
249 (ii) Parental consent or that of the person exercising parental authority in 251 Memorandum, Alliance for the Family Foundation, Inc. (ALFI) v. Ochoa,
the case of abused minors, where the parent or the person exercising parental Rollo (G.R. No. 204934), pp. 1453-1496.
authority is the respondent, accused or convicted perpetrator as certied by the proper 252Records, 1986 Constitutional Convention, Volume IV, pp. 401-402.
prosecutorial ofce of the court. In the case of minors, the written consent of parents 253Article II, Section 13, 1987 Constitution.
or legal guardian or, in their absence, persons exercising parental authority or next-of-
kin shall be required only in elective surgical procedures and in no case shall
consent be required in emergency or serious cases as dened in Republic Act No.
356
8344.
250Petition, Echavez v. Ochoa, Rollo (G.R. No. 205478), pp. 15-16.
lence against women and children and other forms of gender based
violence and teen pregnancy; physical, social and emotional changes
in adolescents; womens rights and childrens rights; responsible
355
teenage behavior; gender and development; and responsible
parenthood, and that Rule 10, Section 11.01 of the RH-IRR and
erty; the aging of society; and promotion of promiscuity among the Section 4(t) of the RH Law itself provides for the teaching of
youth.251 responsible teenage behavior, gender sensitivity and physical and
At this point, sufce it to state that any attack on the validity of emotional changes among adolescents the Court nds that the
Section 14 of the RH Law is premature because the Department of legal mandate provided under the assailed provision supplements,
Education, Culture and Sports has yet to formulate a curriculum on rather than supplants, the rights and duties of the parents in the
age-appropriate reproductive health education. One can only moral development of their children.
speculate on the content, manner and medium of instruction that will Furthermore, as Section 14 also mandates that the mandatory
be used to educate the adolescents and whether they will contradict reproductive health education program shall be developed in
the religious beliefs of the petitioners and validate their conjunction with parent-teacher-community associations, school
apprehensions. Thus, considering the premature nature of this ofcials and other interest groups, it could very well be said that it
particular issue, the Court declines to rule on its constitutionality or will be in line with the religious beliefs of the petitioners. By
validity. imposing such a condition, it becomes apparent that the petitioners
At any rate, Section 12, Article II of the 1987 Constitution contention that Section 14 violates Article XV, Section 3(1) of the
provides that the natural and primary right and duty of parents in the Constitution is without merit.254
rearing of the youth for civic efciency and development of moral While the Court notes the possibility that educators might raise
character shall receive the support of the Government. Like the 1973 their objection to their participation in the reproductive health
Constitution and the 1935 Constitution, the 1987 Constitution education program provided under Section 14 of the RH Law on the
afrms the State recognition of the invaluable role of parents in ground that the same violates their religious beliefs, the Court
preparing the youth to become productive members of society. reserves its judgment should an actual case be led before it.
Notably, it places more importance on the role of parents in the
development of their children by recognizing that said role shall be 6 Due Process
primary, that is, that the right of parents in upbringing the youth
is superior to that of the State.252 The petitioners contend that the RH Law suffers from vagueness
It is also the inherent right of the State to act as parens patriae to and, thus violates the due process clause of the Constitution.
aid parents in the moral development of the youth. Indeed, the According to them, Section 23(a)(1) mentions a private health
Constitution makes mention of the importance of developing the service provider among those who may be
youth and their important role in nation building.253 Considering that
Section 14 provides not only for the age-appropriate-reproductive _______________
health education, but also for values formation; the development of 254 Petition, Task Force for the Family and Life Visayas, Inc. v. Ochoa, Rollo
knowledge and skills in self-protection against discrimination; (G.R. No. 204957), pp. 24-25.
sexual abuse and vio-
 357 Section 4(n) of the RH Law which denes a public health service
provider, viz.:
held punishable but does not dene who is a private health care (n)Public health care service provider refers to: (1) public health care
service provider. They argue that confusion further results since institution, which is duly licensed and accredited and devoted primarily to
Section 7 only makes reference to a private health care institution. the maintenance and operation of facilities for health promotion, disease
The petitioners also point out that Section 7 of the assailed prevention, diagnosis, treatment and care of individuals suffering from
legislation exempts hospitals operated by religious groups from illness, disease, injury, disability or deformity, or in need of obstetrical or
rendering reproductive health service and modern family planning other medical and nursing care; (2) public health care professional, who is a
methods. It is unclear, however, if these institutions are also exempt doctor of medicine, a nurse or a midwife; (3) public health worker engaged
from giving reproductive health information under Section 23(a)(1), in the delivery of health care services; or (4) barangay health worker who
or from rendering reproductive health procedures under Section has undergone training programs under any accredited government and
23(a)(2). NGO and who voluntarily renders primarily health care services in the
Finally, it is averred that the RH Law punishes the withholding, community after having been accredited to function as such by the local
restricting and providing of incorrect information, but at the same health board in accordance with the guidelines promulgated by the
time fails to dene incorrect information. Department of Health (DOH).
The arguments fail to persuade.
A statute or act suffers from the defect of vagueness when it Further, the use of the term private health care institution in
lacks comprehensible standards that men of common intelligence Section 7 of the law, instead of private health care service
must necessarily guess its meaning and differ as to its application. It provider, should not be a cause of confusion for the obvious reason
is repugnant to the Constitution in two respects: (1) it violates due that they are used synonymously.
process for failure to accord persons, especially the parties targeted The Court need not belabor the issue of whether the right to be
by it, fair notice of the conduct to avoid; and (2) it leaves law exempt from being obligated to render reproductive health service
enforcers unbridled discretion in carrying out its provisions and and modern family planning methods, includes exemption from
becomes an arbitrary exing of the Government muscle.255 being obligated to give reproductive health information and to
Moreover, in determining whether the words used in a statute are render reproductive health procedures. Clearly, subject to the
vague, words must not only be taken in accordance with their plain qualications and exemptions earlier discussed, the right to be
meaning alone, but also in relation to other parts of the statute. It is a exempt from being obligated to render reproductive health service
rule that every part of the statute must be interpreted with reference and modern family planning methods, necessarily includes
to the context, that is, every part of it must be construed together exemption from being obligated to give reproductive health
with the other parts and kept subservient to the general intent of the information and to render reproductive health procedures. The terms
whole enactment.256 service and methods are broad enough to include the providing
of information and the rendering of medical procedures.
_______________
359
255Southern Hemisphere Engagement Network, Inc. v. Anti-Terrorism Council,
G.R. No. 178552, October 5, 2010, 632 SCRA 146; People v. Nazario, No. L-44143,
August 31, 1988, 165 SCRA 186, 195. The same can be said with respect to the contention that the RH
256Philippine International Trading Corporation v. COA, G.R. No. 183517, June Law punishes health care service providers who intentionally
22, 2010, 621 SCRA 461, 469. withhold, restrict and provide incorrect information regarding
reproductive health programs and services. For ready reference, the
assailed provision is hereby quoted as follows:
358 SEC.23.Prohibited Acts.The following acts are prohibited:
(a)Any health care service provider, whether public or private, who shall:
As correctly noted by the OSG, in determining the denition of (1) Knowingly withhold information or restrict the dissemination thereof,
private health care service provider, reference must be made to and/or intentionally provide incorrect information regarding programs
 and services on reproductive health including the right to informed (d) The provision of ethical and medically safe, legal, accessible, affordable,
choice and access to a full range of legal, medically-safe, non- non-abortifacient, effective and quality reproductive health care services and supplies
abortifacient and effective family planning methods; is essential in the promotion of peoples right to health, especially those of women,
the poor, and the marginalized, and shall be incorporated as a component of basic
From its plain meaning, the word incorrect here denotes failing health care;
to agree with a copy or model or with established rules; inaccurate, (e)The State shall promote and provide information and access, without bias, to
faulty; failing to agree with the requirements of duty, morality or all methods of family planning, including effective natural and modern methods
propriety; and failing to coincide with the truth.257 On the other which have been proven medically safe, legal, non-abortifacient, and effective in
hand, the word knowingly means with awareness or deliberateness accordance with scientic and evidence-based medical research standards such as
that is intentional.258 Used together in relation to Section 23(a)(1), those registered and approved by the FDA for the poor and marginalized as identied
they connote a sense of malice and ill motive to mislead or through the NHTS-PR and other government measures of identifying marginalization:
misrepresent the public as to the nature and effect of programs and Provided, That the State shall also provide funding support to promote modern
services on reproductive health. Public health and safety demand natural methods of family planning, especially the Billings Ovulation Method,
that health care service providers give their honest and correct consistent with the needs of acceptors and their religious convictions;
medical information in accordance with what is acceptable in (f) The State shall promote programs that: (1) enable individuals and couples to
medical practice. While health care service providers are not barred have the number of children they desire with due consideration to the health,
from expressing their own personal opinions regarding the programs particularly of women, and the resources available and affordable to them and in
and services on reproductive health, their right must be tempered accordance with existing laws, public morals and their religious convictions:
with the need to provide public health and safety. The public Provided, That no one shall be deprived, for economic reasons, of the rights to
deserves no less. have children; (2) achieve equitable allocation and utilization of resources; (3)
ensure effective partnership among national government, local government units
_______________ (LGUs) and the private sector in the design, implementation, coordination,
257Websters Third New International Dictionary, 1993 edition, p. 1145. integration, monitoring and evaluation of people-centered programs to enhance the
258Id., at p. 1252. quality of life and environmental protection; (4) conduct studies to analyze
demographic trends including demographic dividends from sound population policies
towards sustainable

360
361

7 Equal Protection

The petitioners also claim that the RH Law violates the equal and denition of terms260 of the law.
protection clause under the Constitution as it discriminates against
the poor because it makes them the primary target of the government _______________
program that promotes contraceptive use. They argue that, rather human development in keeping with the principles of gender equality, protection of
than promoting reproductive health among the poor, the RH Law mothers and children, born and unborn and the promotion and protection of womens
introduces contraceptives that would effectively reduce the number reproductive rights and health; and (5) conduct scientic studies to determine the
of the poor. Their bases are the various provisions in the RH Law safety and efcacy of alternative medicines and methods for reproductive health care
dealing with the poor, especially those mentioned in the guiding development;
principles259 xxxx
(g) The provision of reproductive health care, information and supplies giving
priority to poor beneciaries as identied through the NHTS-PR and other
_______________
government measures of identifying marginalization must be the primary
259 SEC.3.Guiding Principles for Implementation.This Act declares the
responsibility of the national government consistent with its obligation to respect,
following as guiding principles:
protect and promote the right to health and the right to life;
xxxx
xxxx
(i) Active participation by nongovernment organizations (NGOs), womens and undue favoritism or hostility from the government. Arbitrariness in general
peoples organizations, civil society, faith-based organizations, the religious sector may be challenged on the basis of the due process clause. But if the
and communities is crucial to ensure that reproductive health and population and particular act assailed partakes of an unwarranted partiality or prejudice, the
development policies, plans, and programs will address the priority needs of women, sharper weapon to cut it down is the equal protection clause.
the poor, and the marginalized; According to a long line of decisions, equal protection simply
xxxx requires that all persons or things similarly situated should be treated
(l) There shall be no demographic or population targets and the mitigation, alike, both as to rights conferred and responsibilities imposed. It
promotion and/or stabilization of the population growth rate is incidental to the requires public bodies and institutions to treat similarly situated individuals
advancement of reproductive health; in a similar manner. The purpose of the equal protection clause is to
xxxx secure every person within a states jurisdiction against intentional and
(n) The resources of the country must be made to serve the entire population, arbitrary discrimination, whether occasioned by the express terms of a statue
especially the poor, and allocations thereof must be adequate and effective: Provided, or by its improper execution through the states duly constituted
That the life of the unborn is protected; authorities. In other words, the concept of equal justice under the law
(o)Development is a multi-faceted process that calls for the harmonization and requires the state to govern impartially, and it may not draw distinctions
integration of policies, plans, programs and projects that seek to uplift the quality of between individuals solely on differences that are irrelevant to a legitimate
life of the people, more particularly the poor, the needy and the marginalized; governmental objective.
260SEC.4.Denition of Terms.For the purpose of this Act, the following terms The equal protection clause is aimed at all ofcial state actions, not just
shall be dened as follows: those of the legislature. Its inhibitions cover all the departments of the
xxxx government including the political and executive departments, and extend to
(r) Reproductive health care program refers to the systematic and integrated all actions of a state denying equal protection of the laws, through whatever
provision of reproductive health care to all citizens prioritizing women, the poor, agency or whatever guise is taken.
marginalized and those invulnerable or crisis situations.
xxxx _______________
(aa) Sustainable human development refers to bringing people, particularly the poor 261Biraogo v. The Philippine Truth Commission, supra note 90.
and vulnerable, to the center of development process, the central purpose of which is
the creation of an enabling environment in which all can enjoy long, healthy and 363

productive lives, done in the manner that promotes their rights and protects the life
opportunities of future generations and the natural ecosystem on which all life It, however, does not require the universal application of the laws to
depends. all persons or things without distinction. What it simply requires is
equality among equals as determined according to a valid classication.
Indeed, the equal protection clause permits classication. Such
362 classication, however, to be valid must pass the test of reasonableness. The
test has four requisites: (1) The classication rests on substantial
distinctions; (2) It is germane to the purpose of the law; (3) It is not limited
They add that the exclusion of private educational institutions to existing conditions only; and (4) It applies equally to all members of the
from the mandatory reproductive health education program imposed same class. Supercial differences do not make for a valid classication.
by the RH Law renders it unconstitutional. For a classication to meet the requirements of constitutionality, it
In Biraogo v. Philippine Truth Commission,261 the Court had the must include or embrace all persons who naturally belong to the class.
occasion to expound on the concept of equal protection. Thus: The classication will be regarded as invalid if all the members of the class
are not similarly treated, both as to rights conferred and obligations
One of the basic principles on which this government was founded is that
imposed. It is not necessary that the classication be made with absolute
of the equality of right which is embodied in Section 1, Article III of the
symmetry, in the sense that the members of the class should possess the
1987 Constitution. The equal protection of the laws is embraced in the
same characteristics in equal degree. Substantial similarity will sufce; and
concept of due process, as every unfair discrimination offends the
as long as this is achieved, all those covered by the classication are to be
requirements of justice and fair play. It has been embodied in a separate
treated equally. The mere fact that an individual belonging to a class differs
clause, however, to provide for a more specic guaranty against any form of
from the other members, as long as that class is substantially distinguishable does not amount to substantial distinction sufcient to annul the
from all others, does not justify the non-application of the law to him. assailed provision. On the other hand, substantial distinction rests
The classication must not be based on existing circumstances only, or between public educational institutions and private educational
so constituted as to preclude addition to the number included in the class. It institutions, particularly because there is a need to recognize the
must be of such a nature as to embrace all those who may thereafter be in academic freedom of private educational institutions especially with
similar circumstances and conditions. It must not leave out or respect to religious instruction and to consider their sensitivity
underinclude those that should otherwise fall into a certain classication. towards the teaching of reproductive health education.
[Emphases supplied; citations excluded]
365
To provide that the poor are to be given priority in the
governments reproductive health care program is not a violation of
8 Involuntary Servitude
the equal protection clause. In fact, it is pursuant to Section 11,
Article XIII of the Constitution which recognizes the distinct The petitioners also aver that the RH Law is constitutionally
necessity to address the needs of the underprivileged by providing inrm as it violates the constitutional prohibition against involuntary
that they be given priority in addressing the health development of servitude. They posit that Section 17 of the assailed legislation
the people. Thus: requiring private and nongovernment health care service providers
364
to render forty-eight (48) hours of pro bono reproductive health
services, actually amounts to involuntary servitude because it
requires medical practitioners to perform acts against their will.262
Section11.The State shall adopt an integrated and comprehensive The OSG counters that the rendition of pro bono services
approach to health development which shall endeavor to make essential envisioned in Section 17 can hardly be considered as forced labor
goods, health and other social services available to all the people at analogous to slavery, as reproductive health care service providers
affordable cost. There shall be priority for the needs of the have the discretion as to the manner and time of giving pro bono
underprivileged, sick, elderly, disabled, women, and children. The State services. Moreover, the OSG points out that the imposition is within
shall endeavor to provide free medical care to paupers. the powers of the government, the accreditation of medical
practitioners with PhilHealth being a privilege and not a right.
It should be noted that Section 7 of the RH Law prioritizes poor
The point of the OSG is well-taken.
and marginalized couples who are suffering from fertility issues and
It should rst be mentioned that the practice of medicine is
desire to have children. There is, therefore, no merit to the
undeniably imbued with public interest that it is both a power and a
contention that the RH Law only seeks to target the poor to reduce
duty of the State to control and regulate it in order to protect and
their number. While the RH Law admits the use of contraceptives, it
promote the public welfare. Like the legal profession, the practice of
does not, as elucidated above, sanction abortion. As Section 3(l)
medicine is not a right but a privileged burdened with conditions as
explains, the promotion and/or stabilization of the population
it directly involves the very lives of the people. A fortiori, this
growth rate is incidental to the advancement of reproductive health.
power includes the power of Congress263 to prescribe the
Moreover, the RH Law does not prescribe the number of children
qualications for the practice of professions or trades which affect
a couple may have and does not impose conditions upon couples
the public welfare, the public health, the public morals, and the
who intend to have children. While the petitioners surmise that the
public safety; and to
assailed law seeks to charge couples with the duty to have children
only if they would raise them in a truly humane way, a deeper look
_______________
into its provisions shows that what the law seeks to do is to simply
262 Petition, Serve Life Cagayan De Oro City, Inc. v. Ochoa, Rollo (G.R. No.
provide priority to the poor in the implementation of government
204988), pp. 16-48; Petition, Echavez v. Ochoa, Rollo (G.R. No. 205478), pp. 7-9.
programs to promote basic reproductive health care.
263 Except the practice of law which is under the supervision of the Supreme
With respect to the exclusion of private educational institutions
Court.
from the mandatory reproductive health education program under
Section 14, sufce it to state that the mere fact that the children of
those who are less fortunate attend public educational institutions
 366 government entity empowered to render such services and highly
procient to do so. It should be understood that health services and
methods fall under the gamut of terms that are associated with what
regulate or control such professions or trades, even to the point of
is ordinarily understood as health products. In this connection,
revoking such right altogether.264
Section 4 of R.A. No. 3720, as amended by R.A. No. 9711 reads:
Moreover, as some petitioners put it, the notion of involuntary
servitude connotes the presence of force, threats, intimidation or SEC.4.To carry out the provisions of this Act, there is hereby created
other similar means of coercion and compulsion.265 A reading of the an ofce to be called the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the
assailed provision, however, reveals that it only encourages private Department of Health (DOH). Said Administration shall be under the Ofce
and nongovernment reproductive healthcare service providers to of the Secretary and shall have the following functions, powers and duties:
render pro bono service. Other than non-accreditation with (a)To administer the effective implementation of this Act and of the
PhilHealth, no penalty is imposed should they choose to do rules and regulations issued pursuant to the same;
otherwise. Private and non-government reproductive healthcare (b)To assume primary jurisdiction in the collection of samples of
service providers also enjoy the liberty to choose which kind of health products;
health service they wish to provide, when, where and how to provide (c)To analyze and inspect health products in connection with the
it or whether to provide it all. Clearly, therefore, no compulsion, implementation of this Act;
force or threat is made upon them to render pro bono service against (d) To establish analytical data to serve as basis for the preparation of
their will. While the rendering of such service was made a health products standards, and to recommend standards of identity, purity,
prerequisite to accreditation with PhilHealth, the Court does not safety, efcacy, quality and ll of container;
consider the same to be an unreasonable burden, but rather, a (e) To issue certicates of compliance with technical requirements to
necessary incentive imposed by Congress in the furtherance of a serve as basis for the issuance of appropriate authorization and spot-check
perceived legitimate state interest. for compliance with regulations regarding operation of manufacturers,
Consistent with what the Court had earlier discussed, however, it importers, exporters, distributors, wholesalers, drug outlets, and other
should be emphasized that conscientious objectors are exempt from establishments and facilities of health products, as determined by the FDA;
this provision as long as their religious beliefs and convictions do xxx
not allow them to render reproductive health service, pro bono or (h) To conduct appropriate tests on all applicable health products
otherwise. prior to the issuance of appropriate authorizations to ensure safety,
efcacy, purity, and quality;
9 Delegation of Authority to the FDA (i)To require all manufacturers, traders, distributors, importers,
exporters, wholesalers, retailers, consumers, and nonconsumer users of
The petitioners likewise question the delegation by Congress to
health products to report to the FDA any incident that reasonably indicates
the FDA of the power to determine whether or not a supply or
that said product has caused or contrib-
product is to be included in the Essential Drugs List (EDL).266
368
_______________
264United States v. Jesus, 31 Phil. 218, 230 (1915). uted to the death, serious illness or serious injury to a consumer, a patient, or
265Petition, Echavez v. Ochoa, Rollo (G.R. No. 205478), p. 8. any person;
266With reference to Sections 2, 3(E), 4(L), 9 and 19(C) of the RH Law; Petition, (j) To issue cease and desist orders motu propio or upon veried
ALFI, Rollo (G.R. No. 204934), pp. 28-33; Petition, Philippine Alliance of complaint for health products, whether or not registered with the FDA.
XSeminarians (PAX) v. Ochoa, Rollo (G.R. No. 205138), pp. 37-38. Provided, That for registered health products, the cease and desist order is
valid for thirty (30) days and may be extended for sixty (60) days only after
367
due process has been observed;
(k) After due process, to order the ban, recall, and/or withdrawal
The Court nds nothing wrong with the delegation. The FDA of any health product found to have caused death, serious illness or
does not only have the power but also the competency to evaluate, serious injury to a consumer or patient, or is found to be imminently
register and cover health services and methods. It is the only injurious, unsafe, dangerous, or grossly deceptive, and to require all
concerned to implement the risk management plan which is a requirement SECTION17.Basic Services and Facilities.
for the issuance of the appropriate authorization. (a)Local government units shall endeavor to be self-reliant and shall
xxx. continue exercising the powers and discharging the duties and functions
currently vested upon them. They shall also discharge the functions and
As can be gleaned from the above, the functions, powers and responsibilities of national agencies and ofces devolved to them pursuant
duties of the FDA are specic to enable the agency to carry out the to this Code. Local government units shall likewise exercise such other
mandates of the law. Being the countrys premiere and sole agency powers and discharge such other functions and responsibilities as are
that ensures the safety of food and medicines available to the public, necessary, appropriate, or incidental to efcient and effective provision of
the FDA was equipped with the necessary powers and functions to the basic services and facilities enumerated herein.
make it effective. Pursuant to the principle of necessary implication, (b)Such basic services and facilities include, but are not limited to,
the mandate by Congress to the FDA to ensure public health and xxx.
safety by permitting only food and medicines that are safe includes
service and methods. From the declared policy of the RH Law, While the aforementioned provision charges the LGUs to take on
it is clear that Congress intended that the public be given only those the functions and responsibilities that have already been devolved
medicines that are proven medically safe, legal, non-abortifacient, upon them from the national agencies on the aspect of providing for
and effective in accordance with scientic and evidence-based basic services and facilities in their respective jurisdictions,
medical research standards. The philosophy behind the permitted paragraph (c) of the same provision provides a categorical
delegation was explained in Echegaray v. Secretary of Justice,267 as exception of cases involv-
follows:

The reason is the increasing complexity of the task of the government 370
and the growing inability of the legislature to cope directly with the many
problems demanding its attention. The growth of
ing nationally-funded projects, facilities, programs and
services.268 Thus:
_______________
267358 Phil. 410; 297 SCRA 754 (1998). (c)Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (b) hereof, public
works and infrastructure projects and other facilities, programs and

services funded by the National Government under the annual General
369 Appropriations Act, other special laws, pertinent executive orders, and those
wholly or partially funded from foreign sources, are not covered under
this Section, except in those cases where the local government unit
society has ramied its activities and created peculiar and sophisticated
concerned is duly designated as the implementing agency for such
problems that the legislature cannot be expected reasonably to comprehend.
projects, facilities, programs and services. [Emphases supplied]
Specialization even in legislation has become necessary. To many of the
problems attendant upon present day undertakings, the legislature may not The essence of this express reservation of power by the national
have the competence, let alone the interest and the time, to provide the government is that, unless an LGU is particularly designated as the
required direct and efcacious, not to say specic solutions. implementing agency, it has no power over a program for which
funding has been provided by the national government under the
10 Autonomy of Local Governments and the Autonomous
annual general appropriations act, even if the program involves the
Region of Muslim Mindanao (ARMM)
delivery of basic services within the jurisdiction of the LGU.269 A
As for the autonomy of local governments, the petitioners claim
complete relinquishment of central government powers on the
that the RH Law infringes upon the powers devolved to local
matter of providing basic facilities and services cannot be implied as
government units (LGUs) under Section 17 of the Local
the Local Government Code itself weighs against it.270
Government Code. Said Section 17 vested upon the LGUs the duties
In this case, a reading of the RH Law clearly shows that whether
and functions pertaining to the delivery of basic services and
it pertains to the establishment of health care facilities,271 the hiring
facilities, as follows:
of skilled health professionals,272 or the training of barangay health
workers,273 it will be the national government that will provide for
workers,273 it will be the national government that will provide for legislate on all subjects which extends to all matters of general
the funding of its implementation. Local autonomy is not absolute. concern or common interest.275
The national government still has the say when it comes to national
prior- _______________
274Kida v. Senate of the Philippines, G.R. No. 196271, October 18, 2011, 659
268 Pimentel, Jr. v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 195770, July 17, 2012, 676 SCRA 270, 306.
SCRA 551, 559. 275Id., at p. 305.
269Id., at pp. 559-560.
372
270Id., at p. 561.
271See Section 6, R.A. No. 10354.
272See Section 5, R.A. No. 10354. 11 Natural Law
273See Section 16, R.A. No. 10354. With respect to the argument that the RH Law violates natural
law,276 sufce it to say that the Court does not duly recognize it as a

legal basis for upholding or invalidating a law. Our only guidepost is
371 the Constitution. While every law enacted by man emanated from
what is perceived as natural law, the Court is not obliged to see if a
statute, executive issuance or ordinance is in conformity to it. To
ity programs which the local government is called upon to begin with, it is not enacted by an acceptable legitimate body.
implement like the RH Law. Moreover, natural laws are mere thoughts and notions on inherent
Moreover, from the use of the word endeavor, the LGUs are rights espoused by theorists, philosophers and theologists. The
merely encouraged to provide these services. There is nothing in the jurists of the philosophical school are interested in the law as an
wording of the law which can be construed as making the abstraction, rather than in the actual law of the past or present.277
availability of these services mandatory for the LGUs. For said Unless, a natural right has been transformed into a written law, it
reason, it cannot be said that the RH Law amounts to an undue cannot serve as a basis to strike down a law. In Republic v.
encroachment by the national government upon the autonomy Sandiganbayan,278 the very case cited by the petitioners, it was
enjoyed by the local governments. explained that the Court is not duty-bound to examine every law or
The ARMM action and whether it conforms with both the Constitution and
The fact that the RH Law does not intrude in the autonomy of natural law. Rather, natural law is to be used sparingly only in the
local governments can be equally applied to the ARMM. The RH most peculiar of circumstances involving rights inherent to man
Law does not infringe upon its autonomy. Moreover, Article III, where no law is applicable.279
Sections 6, 10 and 11 of R.A. No. 9054, or the organic act of the At any rate, as earlier expounded, the RH Law does not sanction
ARMM, alluded to by petitioner Tillah to justify the exemption of the taking away of life. It does not allow abortion in any shape or
the operation of the RH Law in the autonomous region, refer to the form. It only seeks to enhance the population control program of the
policy statements for the guidance of the regional government. government by providing information and making non-abortifacient
These provisions relied upon by the petitioners simply delineate the contraceptives more readily available to the public, especially to the
powers that may be exercised by the regional government, which poor.
can, in no manner, be characterized as an abdication by the State of
its power to enact legislation that would benet the general welfare.
_______________
After all, despite the veritable autonomy granted the ARMM, the
276 Petition, Pro-Life Philippines Foundation, Inc. v. Ochoa, Rollo (G.R. No.
Constitution and the supporting jurisprudence, as they now stand,
205720), pp. 14-30.
reject the notion of imperium et imperio in the relationship between
277Gettel, Political Science, Revised Edition, p. 180.
the national and the regional governments.274 Except for the express
278454 Phil. 504; 407 SCRA 10 (2003).
and implied limitations imposed on it by the Constitution, Congress
279Separate Opinion, Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, Republic v. Sandiganbayan,
cannot be restricted to exercise its inherent and plenary power to
454 Phil. 504; 407 SCRA 10 (2003).
 population and the fewer younger generation would not be able to
support them? This would be the situation when our total fertility
373
rate would go down below the replacement level of two (2) children
per woman.280
Facts and Fallacies and Indeed, at the present, the country has a population problem, but
the Wisdom of the Law the State should not use coercive measures (like the penal provisions
In general, the Court does not nd the RH Law as of the RH Law against conscientious objectors) to solve it.
unconstitutional insofar as it seeks to provide access to medically- Nonetheless, the policy of the Court is non-interference in the
safe, non-abortifacient, effective, legal, affordable, and quality wisdom of a law.
reproductive healthcare services, methods, devices, and supplies. As
x x x. But this Court cannot go beyond what the legislature has laid
earlier pointed out, however, the religious freedom of some sectors
down. Its duty is to say what the law is as enacted by the lawmaking body.
of society cannot be trampled upon in pursuit of what the law hopes
That is not the same as saying what the law should be or what is the correct
to achieve. After all, the Constitutional safeguard to religious
rule in a given set of circumstances. It is not the province of the judiciary
freedom is a recognition that man stands accountable to an authority
to look into the wisdom of the law nor to question the policies adopted
higher than the State.
by the legislative branch. Nor is it the business of this Tribunal to
In conformity with the principle of separation of Church and
remedy every unjust situation that may arise from the application of a
State, one religious group cannot be allowed to impose its beliefs on
particular law. It is for the legislature to enact remedial legislation if
the rest of the society. Philippine modern society leaves enough
that would be necessary in the premises. But as always, with apt judicial
room for diversity and pluralism. As such, everyone should be
caution and cold neutrality, the Court must carry out the delicate function of
tolerant and open-minded so that peace and harmony may continue
interpreting the law, guided by the Constitution and existing legislation and
to reign as we exist alongside each other.
mindful of settled jurisprudence. The Courts function is therefore limited,
As healthful as the intention of the RH Law may be, the idea
and accordingly, must conne itself to the judicial task of saying what the
does not escape the Court that what it seeks to address is the
law is, as enacted by the lawmaking body.281
problem of rising poverty and unemployment in the country. Let it
be said that the cause of these perennial issues is not the large
population but the unequal distribution of wealth. Even if population _______________
growth is controlled, poverty will remain as long as the countrys 280 https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-
wealth remains in the hands of the very few. factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html; last visited March 21, 2014.
At any rate, population control may not be benecial for the 281 St. Josephs College v. St. Josephs College Workers Association
country in the long run. The European and Asian countries, which (SAMAHAN), 489 Phil. 559, 572-573; 448 SCRA 594, 606 (2005); and Cebu Institute
embarked on such a program generations ago, are now burdened of Technology v. Ople, No. L-58870, 18 December 1987, 156 SCRA 629.
with ageing populations. The number of their young workers is
375
dwindling with adverse effects on their economy. These young
workers represent a signicant human capital which could have
helped them invigorate, innovate and fuel their economy. These Be that as it may, it bears reiterating that the RH Law is a mere
countries are now trying to compilation and enhancement of the prior existing contraceptive and
reproductive health laws, but with coercive measures. Even if the
374
Court decrees the RH Law as entirely unconstitutional, there will
still be the Population Act (R.A. No. 6365), the Contraceptive Act
reverse their programs, but they are still struggling. For one, (R.A. No. 4729) and the reproductive health for women or The
Singapore, even with incentives, is failing. Magna Carta of Women (R.A. No. 9710), sans the coercive
And in this country, the economy is being propped up by provisions of the assailed legislation. All the same, the principle of
remittances from our Overseas Filipino Workers. This is because we no-abortion and non-coercion in the adoption of any family
have an ample supply of young able-bodied workers. What would planning method should be maintained.
happen if the country would be weighed down by an ageing
 WHEREFORE, the petitions are PARTIALLY GRANTED. insofar as they affect the conscientious objector in securing
Accordingly, the Court declares R.A. No. 10354 as NOT PhilHealth accreditation; and
UNCONSTITUTIONAL except with respect to the following 8]Section 3.01(a) and Section 3.01(j) of the RH-IRR, which
provisions which are declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL: added the qualier primarily in dening abortifacients and
1]Section 7 and the corresponding provision in the RH-IRR contraceptives, as they are ultra vires and, therefore, null and void
insofar as they: a) require private health facilities and non-maternity for contravening Section 4(a) of the RH Law and violating Section
specialty hospitals and hospitals owned and operated by a religious 12, Article II of the Constitution.
group to refer patients, not in an emergency or life-threatening case, The Status Quo Ante Order issued by the Court on March 19,
as dened under Republic Act No. 8344, to another health facility 2013 as extended by its Order, dated July 16, 2013, is hereby
which is conveniently accessible; and b) allow minor-parents or LIFTED, insofar as the provisions of R.A. No. 10354 which have
minors who have suffered a miscarriage access to modern methods been herein declared as constitutional.
of family planning without written consent from their parents or SO ORDERED.
guardian/s;
2]Section 23(a)(1) and the corresponding provision in the RH- Velasco, Jr., Peralta, Bersamin, Villarama, Jr. and Perez, JJ.,
IRR, particularly Section 5.24 thereof, insofar as they punish any concur.
healthcare service provider who fails and or refuses to disseminate
377
information regarding programs and services on reproductive health
regardless of his or her religious beliefs;
3]Section 23(a)(2)(i) and the corresponding provision in the Sereno, CJ., Tingnan ang aking Opinyong Sumasang-ayon at
RH-IRR insofar as they allow a married individual, not in an Sumasalungat.
emergency or life-threatening case, as dened under Republic Act Carpio, J., See Concurring Opinion.
No. 8344, to undergo reproductive health procedures without the Leonardo-De Castro, J., With Separate Concurring Opinion.
consent of the spouse; Brion, J., See: Separate Concurring Opinion.
Del Castillo, J., See Concurring and Dissenting.
376 Abad, J., See Concurring Opinion.
Reyes, J., See Concurring and Dissenting.
4]Section 23(a)(2)(ii) and the corresponding provision in the Perlas-Bernabe, J., See Concurring and Dissenting Opinion.
RH-IRR insofar as they limit the requirement of parental consent Leonen, J., See Separate Dissent.
only to elective surgical procedures;
5]Section 23(a)(3) and the corresponding provision in the RH- OPINYONG SUMASANG-AYON AT SUMASALUNGAT
IRR, particularly Section 5.24 thereof, insofar as they punish any
SERENO,CJ.:
healthcare service provider who fails and/or refuses to refer a patient
Paunang Salita
not in an emergency or life-threatening case, as dened under
Sa herarkiya ng mga karapatang pantao, walang hihigit pa sa
Republic Act No. 8344, to another health care service provider
karapatang mabuhay, at nasasalamin ng ating Saligang Batas ang
within the same facility or one which is conveniently accessible
ganitong paniniwala. Ayon dito, pantay na pangangalagaan ng
regardless of his or her religious beliefs;
pamahalaan ang buhay ng ina at ang buhay na kanyang dinadala.1
6]Section 23(b) and the corresponding provision in the RH-
Bakas sa adhikaing ito ang pagkilala sa malaking bahaging
IRR, particularly Section 5.24 thereof, insofar as they punish any
ginagampanan ng ina sa pagbibigay ng buhay.
public ofcer who refuses to support reproductive health programs
Kayat sasalungatin ko ang bigkasin ng aking mga kapatid na
or shall do any act that hinders the full implementation of a
Mahistrado, na ang pagpapalaya sa pasiya ng may-katawan ay
reproductive health program, regardless of his or her religious
kumikitil ng buhay ng kapwa-taong isisilang pa lamang. Wala sa
beliefs;
takda ng Saligang Batas at Republic Act No. 10354 (The
7]Section 17 and the corresponding provision in the RH-IRR
Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012), o
regarding the rendering of pro bono reproductive health service
RH Law, ang pagkitil ng buhay. Ngunit inuunawa rin nito ang
karapatan ng mag-asawa na magpalaki ng
_______________ mga batas, at hindi nila maaaring gamitin ang nasabing
1 Article II, Section 12. kapangyarihan upang biguin ang mga nilalayon ng pamahalaan para
sa mga mamamayan, lalo nat ang mga layuning ito ay kaugnay sa
usaping pangkalusugan.
378 Sinusuportahan ng RH Law ang pagsulong at pangangalaga sa
karapatan ng kababaihan. Ang pagkakaloob ng mabisa at mahusay
na reproductive health care services ay ayon sa layunin nitong
kanilang pamilya ng may dangal sa buhay. Napakahalaga din sa masiguro ang kalusugan ng mag-ina, at makapagtatag ng sapat na
pananaw ng Saligang Batas at ng RH Law ang kalusugan ng pamantayan alang-alang sa kapakanan ng lahat.
pamayanan, lalung-lalo na ang kalusugan ng mga ina o magiging ina Hindi maikakaila na ang paulit-ulit na pagbanggit sa mga
ng pamayanang ito. Kayat mahalaga na ang bawat interpretasyon katagang medically-safe, non-abortifacient, effective, legal,
ng RH Law ay ayon sa ikabubuti ng pamilyang Pilipino at kalusugan affordable and quality reproductive health care services, methods,
ng ina. devices and supplies sa RH Law ay di-pangkaraniwang
Naitakda na sa Saligang Batas, at alinsunod naman dito ang RH pagpapahalaga sa buhay ng tao at ang sadyang pagwawaksi sa
Law, na ang buhay ay pangangalagaan mula sa conception. Kung abortion bilang isang krimen na may karampatang parusa ayon sa
ano ang puntong iyon ay katanungan para sa mga dalubhasa ng ating batas.
siyensiya, at hindi para sa Korte Suprema. Mayroong prosesong Ang Pasanin ng Petitioners
naitakda ang RH Law kung saan kinikilala ang pangunahing Pinapalagay bilang isang paunang pag-unawa, na ang lahat ng
kapangyarihan ng Food and Drug Administration (FDA) sa batas ay hindi labag sa Saligang Batas o konstitusyonal.2 Ito ay
pagsusuri sa mga katangian ng isang metodo o gamot upang alamin pangunahing prinsipyo na matagal nang kinikilala, kung kayat
kung ito ay gagamitin sa pagkitil ng buhay na pinagbabawal ng iniiwasan ng Korte Suprema na ipawalang-bisa ang isang batas3
Saligang Batas. Maaari lamang saklawan ng Korte Suprema ang bilang pagkilala sa dunong, dangal at kabayanihan ng Kongreso na
tanong na ito kung ang prosesong legal ay lumabag sa mga gumawa nito, at sa Pangulo na nagpatibay dito.4 Ang tungkuling
alituntunin ng due process at mga kaakibat na procedural rules nito. magpatupad ng Saligang
Sukdulang panghihimasok ang magtakda kami sa panahong ito kung
ang mga hormonal contraceptives ay abortifacient o hindi.
_______________
Gayundin, ang may-katawan na daraan sa paglilihi, pagbubuntis
2 Barangay Association for National Advancement and Transparency (BANAT)
at maaaring ikapeligro ng sariling buhay ay nararapat na pakinggan
Party-List v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 177508, 7 August 2009, 595 SCRA 477; Samson
ng pamahalaan. Maaaring imungkahi ng kapamilya, kasama na ng
v. Aguirre, 373 Phil. 668; 315 SCRA 53 (1999); US v. Grant, 18 Phil. 122 (1910).
kanyang asawa, ang alternatibong paraan upang harapin ang
3 Insular Lumber Co. v. Court of Tax Appeals, 192 Phil. 221; 104 SCRA 710
sitwasyong pangkalusugan. Ngunit sa bandang huli, ang pasiya ng
(1981); Municipality of Jose Panganiban v. Shell Company of the Phils. Ltd., 124
may-katawan ang dapat manaig. At bagamat ang may-katawan ay
Phil. 197; 17 SCRA 778 (1966); Yu Cong Eng v. Trinidad, 47 Phil. 385 (1925).
wala pa sa hustong gulang, kung siya ay nabuntis na, hindi dapat
4 Garcia v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 111511, 5 October 1993, 227 SCRA 100.
hadlangan ang kanyang kakayahang humingi ng tulong ukol sa
reproductive health kahit walang pahintulot ng kanyang magulang
sapagkat nakasalalay sa ganitong kakayahan ang kanyang kalusugan
at mismong buhay. 380
Sa panig ng mga matataas na nanunungkulan sa pamahalaan na
inatasang magpatupad ng RH Law, hindi nararapat na sila ay Batas ay hindi natatangi sa Korte Suprema; ito ay kaakibat na
hayaang lumabag sa katungkulang ito. Binigyan sila ng katungkulan ng Kongreso at ng Pangulo.5
kapangyarihan ng pamahalaan upang ipatupad ang Dahil ang lahat ng batas ay ipinapalagay na konstitusyonal, ang
379
sinuman na dudulog sa Korte Suprema upang ipawalang-bisa ito ay
mabigat ang susuungin. Ipapawalang-bisa lamang ng Korte Suprema
ang isang batas o bahagi nito kung malinaw na maipakikita ng
petitioner ang paglabag nito sa Saligang Batas.6 Kinakailangang
malinaw at totohanan ang mga batayan sa pagpapawalang-bisa ng modern methods of family planning without written consent from their parents or
batas, at hindi maaaring ang mga ito ay haka-haka lamang.7 Saka guardian/s except when the minor is already a parent or has had a miscarriage.
lamang ipapawalang-bisa ng Korte Suprema ang isang batas kung 10 Sa ilalim ng R.A. 8344 (AN ACT PENALIZING THE REFUSAL OF HOSPITALS AND

malinaw na naipakita ang pagmamalabis at pagsalungat ng MEDICAL CLINICS TO ADMINISTER APPROPRIATE INITIAL MEDICAL TREATMENT AND SUPPORT
Kongreso sa ating Saligang Batas.8 IN EMERGENCY OR SERIOUS CASES), sinasabi na:
Ang Pasiya ng Mayorya SECTION 2.Section 2 of Batas Pambansa Bilang 702 is hereby deleted and in
Ayon sa Decision, ang RH Law ay konstitusyonal maliban na place thereof, new sections 2, 3 and 4 are added, to read as follows:
lamang sa mga sumusunod na bahagi nito: SEC.2.For purposes of this Act, the following denitions shall govern:
1. Section 7,9 at ang kaukulang bahagi nito sa Implementing (a) Emergency a condition or state of a patient wherein based on the
Rules and Regulations (IRR) ng RH Law, objective ndings of a prudent medical ofcer on duty for the day there is immediate
danger and where delay in initial support and treatment may cause loss of life or

5 Id. cause permanent disability to the patient. (Emphases supplied)

6 Lawyers Against Monopoly and Poverty (LAMP) v. Secretary of Budget and 11 Ayon sa IRR ng RH Law:

Management, G.R. No. 164987, 24 April 2012, 670 SCRA 373; Cawaling, Jr. v. Section 5.21.Family planning services shall likewise be extended by private

COMELEC, 420 Phil. 524; 368 SCRA 453 (2001); Dimaporo v. Mitra, Jr., 279 Phil. health facilities to paying patients with the option to grant free care and services to

843; 202 SCRA 779 (1991). indigents, except in case of non-maternity specialty hospitals and hospitals operated

7 Cawaling, Jr. v. COMELEC, supra note 6. by a religious group, but have the option to provide such full range of modern family

8 Basco v. PAGCOR, 274 Phil. 323; 197 SCRA 52 (1991). planning methods; Provided, further, That these hospitals shall immediately refer the

9 Section 7.Access to Family Planning.All accredited public health facilities person seeking such care and services to another health facility which is conveniently

shall provide a full range of modern family planning methods, which shall also accessible; Provided, nally, That the person is not in an emergency condition or

include medical consultations, supplies and necessary and reasonable procedures for serious case as dened in RA 8344.

poor and marginalized couples having infertility issues who desire to have children: Section 5.22.Exemption of Private Hospitals from Providing Family Planning

Provided, That family planning services shall likewise be extended by private health Services.Private health facilities shall provide a full range of modern family

facilities to paying patients with the option to grant free care and services to indigents, planning methods to clients, unless the hospital is owned and operated by a religious

except in the case of non-maternity specialty hospitals and hospitals owned and group, or is classied as a non-maternity specialty hospital, as part of their annual

operated by a religious group, but they have the option to provide such full range of licensing and accreditation requirements.

modern family planning methods: Provided, further, That these hospitals shall
382
immediately refer the person seeking such care and services to another health facility
which is conveniently accessible: Provided, nally, That the person is
menor de edad na may anak o nagkaroon ng miscarriage na
381 makinabang sa modern family planning methods kahit walang
pahintulot ng kanilang mga magulang;12
sa dahilang ito ay: a) nag-uutos sa mga non-maternity specialty
hospitals at mga ospital na pagmamay-ari o pinatatakbo ng mga _______________
religious group na agarang ituro sa pinakamalapit na health facility In order to receive exemption from providing the full range of modern family
ang mga pasyenteng wala sa emergency condition o hindi serious planning methods, the health care facility must comply with the following
case, ayon sa R.A. 8344,10 na naghahangad ng serbisyo ukol sa requirements:
modern family planning methods,11 at b) nagbibigay-daan sa mga a) Submission of proof of hospital ownership and management by a religious
group or its status as a non-maternity specialty hospital;

_______________ b) Submission to the DOH of an afdavit stating the modern family planning

not in an emergency condition or serious case as dened in Republic Act No. methods that the facility refuses to provide and the reasons for its objection;

8344. c) Posting of a notice at the entrance of the facility, in a prominent location

No person shall be denied information and access to family planning services, and using a clear/legible layout and font, enumerating the reproductive health services

whether natural or articial: Provided, That minors will not be allowed access to the facility does not provide; and
d) Other requirements as determined by the DOH.
 Within sixty (60) days from the effectivity of these Rules, the DOH shall develop (1) Knowingly withhold information or restrict the dissemination thereof, and/or
guidelines for the implementation of this provision. intentionally provide incorrect information regarding programs and services on
12 Ayon sa IRR ng RH Law: reproductive health including the right to informed choice and access to a full range
Section 4.06.Access to Family Planning Information and Services.No of legal, medically-safe, non-abortifacient and effective family planning methods;
person shall be denied information and access to family planning services, whether 14 Section 5.24.Public Skilled Health Professional as a Conscientious
natural or articial: Provided, That minors will not be allowed access to modern Objector.In order to legally refuse to deliver reproductive health care services or
methods of family planning without written consent from their parents or guardian/s information as a conscientious objector, a public skilled health professional shall
except when the minor is already a parent or has had a miscarriage. comply with the following requirements:
Section 4.07.Access of Minors to Family Planning Services.Any minor who a) The skilled health professional shall explain to the client the limited range
consults at health care facilities shall be given age-appropriate counseling on of services he/she can provide;
responsible parenthood and reproductive health. Health care facilities shall dispense b) Extraordinary diligence shall be exerted to refer the client seeking care to
health products and perform procedures for family planning: Provided, That in public another skilled health professional or volunteer willing and capable of delivering the
health facilities, any of the following conditions are met: desired reproductive health care service within the same facility;
a)The minor presents written consent from a parent or guardian; or c) If within the same health facility, there is no other skilled health
b) The minor has had a previous pregnancy or is already a parent as proven by professional or volunteer willing and capable of delivering the desired reproductive
any one of the following circumstances, among others: health care service, the conscientious objector shall refer the client to another specic
1. Written documentation from a skilled health professional; health facility or provider that is conveniently accessible in consideration of the
2. Documentation through ancillary examinations such as ultrasound; clients travel arrangements and nancial capacity;
3. Written manifestation from a guardian, local social welfare and d) Written documentation of compliance with the preceding requirements; and
development ofcer, local government ofcial or local health volunteer; or e) Other requirements as determined by the DOH.
4. Accompanied personally by a parent, grandparent, or guardian. In the event where the public skilled health professional cannot comply with all of
Provided, further, That consent shall not be required in the case of abused or the above requirements, he or she shall deliver the clients desired reproductive health
exploited minors, where the parent or the person exercising parental authority is the care service or information without further delay.
respondent, accused, or convicted perpetrator as certied by the proper prosecutorial Provided, That skilled health professionals such as provincial, city, or municipal
ofce or the court. health ofcers, chiefs of hospital, head nurses, supervising midwives, among others,
Provided, further, That in the absence of any parent or legal guardian, written who by virtue of their ofce are specically charged with the duty to implement the
consent shall be obtained only for elective surgical procedures from the grandparents, provisions of the RPRH Act and these Rules, cannot be considered as conscientious
and in their default, the oldest brother or sister who is at least 18 years of age or the objectors.
relative who has the actual custody of the child, or authorized represen- Within sixty (60) days from the effectivity of these rules, the DOH shall develop
guidelines for the implementation of this provision.
383

13 14
2. Section 23(a)(1), at ang Section 5.24 ng IRR ng RH 384
Law, sa dahilang pinarurusahan nito ang kahit

sinong health care service provider na hindi nagpalaganap o

_______________
tumangging magpalaganap ng mahalagang kaalaman kaugnay ng
tatives of childrens homes, orphanages, and similar institutions duly accredited by
mga programa at serbisyo ukol sa reproductive health, nang walang
the proper government agency, among others. In no case shall consent be required in
pakundangan sa religious beliefs ng mga health care service
emergency or serious cases as dened in RA 8344.
providers na ito;
Provided, nally, That in case a minor satises any of the above conditions but is
3. Section 23(a)(2)(i),15 at ang kaukulang bahagi nito sa IRR
still refused access to information and/or services, the minor may direct complaints to
ng RH Law,16 sa dahilang nagbibigay-daan ito sa isang may asawa
the designated Reproductive Health Ofcer (RHO) of the facility. Complaints shall be
na wala sa emergency condition o hindi serious case na sumailalim
acted upon immediately.
sa reproductive health procedures kahit walang pahintulot ng
13 Section23.Prohibited Acts.The following acts are prohibited:
kanyang asawa;
(a)Any health care service provider, whether public or private, who shall:

4. Section 23(a)(2)(ii)17 sa dahilang pinarurusahan nito ang

 4. Section 23(a)(2)(ii)17 sa dahilang pinarurusahan nito ang magtaguyod ng reproductive health programs o gagawa ng kahit
health care service provider na hihingi ng anong

_______________ _______________
legal guardian or, in their absence, persons exercising parental authority or next-of-
15 Section23.Prohibited Acts.The following acts are prohibited:
kin shall be required only in elective surgical procedures and in no case shall consent
(a) Any health care service provider, whether public or private, who shall:
be required in emergency or serious cases as dened in Republic Act No. 8344; and
(2) Refuse to perform legal and medically-safe reproductive health procedures
xxx.
on any person of legal age on the ground of lack of consent or authorization of the
18 Section23.Prohibited Acts.The following acts are prohibited:
following persons in the following instances:
(a)Any health care service provider, whether public or private, who shall:
(i)Spousal consent in case of married persons: Provided, That in case of
(3) Refuse to extend quality health care services and information on account of
disagreement, the decision of the one undergoing the procedure shall prevail; and
the persons marital status, gender, age, religious convictions, personal circumstances,
xxx.
or nature of work: Provided, That the conscientious objection of a health care service
16 Section16.01.The following acts are prohibited:
provider based on his/her ethical or religious beliefs shall be respected; however, the
a)Any health care service provider, whether public or private, who shall:
conscientious objector shall immediately refer the person seeking such care and
2. Refuse to perform legal and medically-safe reproductive health procedures on
services to another health care service provider within the same facility or one which
any person of legal age on the ground of lack of consent or authorization of the
is conveniently accessible: Provided, further, That the person is not in an emergency
following persons in the following instances:
condition or serious case as dened in Republic Act No. 8344, which penalizes the
i.Spousal consent in case of married persons: Provided, That in case of
refusal of hospitals and medical clinics to administer appropriate initial medical
disagreement, the decision of the one undergoing the procedure shall prevail; and
treatment and support in emergency and serious cases.
17 Section23.Prohibited Acts.The following acts are prohibited:
19 Section23.Prohibited Acts.The following acts are prohibited:
(a)Any health care service provider, whether public or private, who shall:
(b) Any public ofcer, elected or appointed, specically charged with the duty
(2) Refuse to perform legal and medically-safe reproductive health procedures
to implement the provisions hereof, who, personally or through a subordinate,
on any person of legal age on the ground of lack of consent or authorization of the
prohibits or restricts the delivery of legal and medically-safe reproductive health care
following persons in the following instances:
services, including family planning; or forces, coerces or induces any person to use
xxx
such services; or refuses to allocate, approve or release any budget for reproductive
(ii) Parental consent or that of the person exercising parental authority in the
health care services, or to support reproductive health programs; or shall do any act
case of abused minors, where the parent or the person exercising parental authority is
that hinders the full implementation of a reproductive health program as mandated by
the respondent, accused or convicted perpetrator as certied by the proper
this Act.
prosecutorial ofce of the court. In the case of minors, the written consent of parents
or 386

385
hahadlang o makakasagabal sa malawakang pagsasakatuparan ng
isang reproductive health program;
pahintulot ng magulang bago magsagawa ng reproductive health 7. Section 17,20 at ang kaukulang bahagi nito sa IRR ng RH
procedure sa menor de edad na wala sa emergency condition o hindi Law,21 kaugnay sa pagsasagawa ng pro bono reproductive health
serious case; services sa dahilang naaapektuhan nito ang conscientious objector sa
5. Section 23(a)(3),18 at ang Section 5.24 ng IRR ng RH Law, pagkuha ng PhilHealth accreditation; at
sa dahilang pinarurusahan nito ang kahit sinong health care service
provider na hindi nagturo o tumangging ituro sa pinakamalapit na
_______________
health facility ang mga pasyenteng wala sa emergency condition o
20 Section 17.Pro Bono Services for Indigent Women.Private and
hindi serious case na naghahangad ng serbisyo ukol sa modern
nongovernment reproductive health care service providers including, but not limited
family planning methods;
to, gynecologists and obstetricians, are encouraged to provide at least forty-eight (48)
6. Section 23(b),19 at ang Section 5.24 ng IRR ng RH Law, sa
hours annually of reproductive health services, ranging from providing information
dahilang pinarurusahan nito ang kahit sinong public ofcer na ayaw
and education to rendering medical services, free of charge to indigent and low-
income patients as identied through the NHTS-PR and other government measures ovum to reach and be implanted in the mothers womb upon determination of the
of identifying marginalization, especially to pregnant adolescents. The forty-eight Food and Drug Administration (FDA). (Emphasis supplied)
(48) hours annual pro bono services shall be included as a prerequisite in the 23 Section3.01.For purposes of these Rules, the terms shall be dened as
accreditation under the PhilHealth. follows:
21 Section 6.11.Pro Bono Services for Indigent Women.Private and j) Contraceptive refers to any safe, legal, effective, and scientically proven
nongovernment reproductive healthcare service providers including, but not limited modern family planning method, device, or health product, whether natural or
to, gynecologists and obstetricians, are encouraged to provide at least forty-eight (48) articial, that prevents pregnancy but does not primarily destroy a fertilized ovum or
hours annually of reproductive health services, ranging from providing information prevent a fertilized ovum from being implanted in the mothers womb in doses of its
and education to rendering medical services, free of charge to indigent and low- approved indication as determined by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
income patients as identied through the NHTS-PR and other government measures (Emphasis supplied)
of identifying marginalization, especially to pregnant adolescents. The forty-eight 24 Section4.Denition of Terms.For the purpose of this Act, the following
(48) hours annual pro bono services shall be included as a prerequisite in the terms shall be dened as follows:
accreditation under the PhilHealth. (a) Abortifacient refers to any drug or device that induces abortion or the
Section 6.12.Afdavit Attesting to Pro Bono Service.For purposes of the destruction of a fetus inside the mothers womb or the prevention of the fertilized
above provision, the health care providers involved in the provision of reproductive ovum to reach and be implanted in the mothers womb upon determination of the
health care shall submit as part of requirements for PhilHealth accreditation a duly FDA.
notarized afdavit attested to by two witnesses of legal age, following the format to 25 Section 12.The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect
be prescribed by PhilHealth, stating the circumstances by which forty-eight (48) and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution. It shall equally
hours of pro bono services per year have been rendered. The same shall be submitted protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception. The natural
to PhilHealth along with the other requirements for accreditation. and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efciency
Section6.13. Specication of Pro Bono Services.Reproductive health care and the development of moral character shall receive the support of the Government.
that may be provided pro bono shall be according to the denition of reproductive
health care in Section 3.01(ss) of these Rules. Services for which PhilHealth 388

reimbursement is being or shall be applied for by the health care provider shall not be
counted as part of the forty-eight (48)-hour requirement for pro bono services. dapat manaig. Sa palagay ko, hindi akma ang paggamit ng technical
legal test na compelling state interest sa kasong hinaharap natin.
387
Hindi ako sumasang-ayon na nararapat gamitin ang compelling
state interest test upang tiyakin ang legalidad ng RH Law
8. Section 3.01(a)22 at 3.01(j)23 ng IRR ng RH Law sa partikular na ang paggarantiya ng pamahalaan sa ligtas, mabisa,
dahilang nagdadagdag ito ng salitang primarily sa kahulugan ng abot-kaya, de-kalidad, naaayon sa batas at hindi abortifacient na
abortifacient, na labag sa Section 4(a)24 ng RH Law at Section 12, reproductive health care services, methods, devices at supplies para
Article II25 ng Saligang Batas. sa lahat, pati na ang mahalagang kaalaman ukol dito sa
Ang Religious Freedom, ang Compelling State Interest Test, at kadahilanang buo ang pagkilala ng RH Law sa religious freedom,
ang Conscientious Objector kayat hindi na kailangan ang test na ito. Sa Estrada v. Escritor,26
Bago ko talakayin ang mga substantibong mga argumento ukol ipinaliwanag natin na:
sa religious freedom, nais kong batikusin ang paggamit ng isang
technical legal test upang timbangin kung alin sa dalawa: (a) ang The compelling state interest test is proper where conduct is involved for
polisiya ng pamahalaan, gaya ng reproductive health, o (b) isang the whole gamut of human conduct has different effects on the states
karapatan gaya ng religious freedom, ang interests: some effects may be immediate and short-term while others
delayed and far-reaching. A test that would protect the interests of the state
in preventing a substantive evil, whether immediate or delayed, is therefore
_______________
necessary. However, not any interest of the state would sufce to prevail
22 Section3.01.For purposes of these Rules, the terms shall be dened as
over the right to religious freedom as this is a fundamental right that enjoys
follows:
a preferred position in the hierarchy of rights the most inalienable and
a) Abortifacient refers to any drug or device that primarily induces abortion or
sacred of all human rights, in the words of Jefferson. This right is sacred
the destruction of a fetus inside the mothers womb or the prevention of the fertilized
for an invocation of the Free Exercise Clause is an appeal to a higher Korte Suprema, na ipakita ng pamahalaan na gumamit ito ng least
sovereignty. The entire constitutional order of limited government is restrictive means sa pagpigil ng karapatan ng mga tao sa
premised upon an acknowledgment of such higher sovereignty, thus the pagtatanggol nito ng compelling state interest.
Filipinos implore the aid of Almighty God in order to build a just and Ukol dito, inihayag ng Korte Suprema na the government must
humane society and establish a government. As held in Sherbert, only the do more than assert the objectives at risk if exemption is given, it
gravest abuses, endangering paramount interests can limit this fundamental must precisely show how and to what extent those objectives will be
right. A mere balancing of interests which balances a right with just a undermined if exemptions are granted.28 Sa
colorable state interest is therefore not appropriate. Instead, only a
compelling interest of the state can prevail over the fundamental right to _______________
religious liberty. The test requires the state to carry a heavy burden, a 27 Id., at pp. 577-578; pp. 170-171.
compelling one, for to do otherwise would allow the state to batter religion, 28 Id., at p. 530; p. 128.
especially the less powerful ones until they are destroyed. In determining
which 390

_______________
kalaunan, bigo ang pamahalaan na patunayan ang pakay nito sa
26 455 Phil. 411; 408 SCRA 1 (2003).
pagbabawal sa relasyon ng respondent. Bunsod nito, binigyan ng
exemption sa parusa ang respondent batay sa kanyang religious
freedom.
389 Malinaw sa Estrada v. Escritor na sa ilalim ng compelling state
interest test, ipinagtutunggali ang religious freedom ng mga
shall prevail between the states interest and religious liberty, mamamayan at ang interes ng pamahalaan sa pagpapatupad ng
reasonableness shall be the guide. The compelling state interest serves patakarang sinasabing nagpapahirap sa religious convictions ng ilan.
the purpose of revering religious liberty while at the same time Kapag hindi nanaig ang interes ng pamahalaan, magbibigay ng
affording protection to the paramount interests of the state.27 (Emphasis exemption sa patakaran ang Korte Suprema para sa mga
ours) mamamayang naninindigan para sa kanilang religious freedom.
Isinaad din sa Estrada v. Escritor na nakagawian na ng Korte
Ginamit ang compelling state interest test sa Estrada v. Escritor Suprema na magbigay ng exemption sa halip na magpawalang-bisa
upang malaman kung ang respondent doon ay nararapat na bigyan ng mga patakaran ng pamahalaan pagdating sa usapin ng religious
ng exemption laban sa kasong administratibo bunga ng pakikisama freedom.
niya sa lalaking hindi niya asawa ayon sa Civil Code. Karaniwan, Hindi ito ang sitwasyon sa ilalim ng RH Law. Ayon sa
bilang kawani ng pamahalaan, mahaharap ang respondent sa kasong petitioners, katumbas ng isang pagkakasala sa ilalim ng kanilang
disgraceful and immoral conduct. Bagkus, inilahad ng respondent relihiyon ang pagsasagawa ng serbisyo ukol sa modern family
na bagamat walang basbas ng pamahalaang sibil ang kanilang planning methods at pagbibigay ng payo ukol dito. Labag ito sa
pagsasama, may basbas naman ito ng kanilang relihiyon na religious freedom ng mga conscientious health professionals na
Jehovahs Witnesses and the Watch Tower and Bible Tract Society. naniniwalang likas na masama ang contraception. Dahil dito,
Kayat hindi siya nararapat na sampahan ng kasong administratibo nararapat na ipawalang-bisa ang RH Law. At, ayon sa mga kapatid
bunga nito. kong Mahistrado, walang compelling state interest para payagan ang
Sa kadahilanang aminado naman ang Solicitor General na tunay pamahalaang pilitin ang health professionals na lumabag sa kanilang
at tapat ang paniniwala ng respondent sa kaniyang relihiyon, at paniniwala. Ang totoo, walang paglabag sa paniniwala na pinapataw
nagdudulot ng ligalig sa kanyang paniniwala ang banta ng ang RH Law.
disciplinary action bunga ng kasong disgraceful and immoral Ang Opt-Out Clause
conduct, nagpasiya ang Korte Suprema na nararapat na patunayan Nakalimutan ng petitioners ang kabuuan ng RH Law. Batid ng
ng pamahalaan kung tunay nga na may compelling secular objective Kongreso na maaaring makasagasa sa paniniwala at ikaligalig ng
na nagbunsod dito upang hindi payagan ang pakikisama ng ilang medical professionals ang kautusang ito sa RH Law. Dahil
respondent sa lalaking hindi niya asawa. Nararapat din, ayon sa mismo dito kaya nag-ukit ang Kongreso ng exemption sa RH Law
para sa mga conscientious objectors sa pamamagitan ng opt-out 74.The duty to refer, as an opt out clause, is a carefully balanced
clause. Sa ilalim ng opt-out clause na nakapaloob sa Section 7 ng compromise between, on one hand, the interests of the religious objector
RH Law, hindi obligadong magdulot ng serbisyo kaugnay sa modern who is allowed to keep silent but is required to refer and, on the other, the
family planning citizen who needs access to information and who has the right to expect that
the health care professional in front of her will act professionally. The
391 concession given by the State under Sections 7 and 23(a)(3) is sufcient
accommodation to the right to freely exercise ones religion without
methods ang mga non-maternity specialty hospitals at mga ospital unnecessarily infringing on the rights of others.29
na pagmamay-ari at pinatatakbo ng mga religious groups. Sa
Ayaw magpadala ng mga petitioners. Giit nila, labag pa rin sa
kabilang banda, pinahahalagahan sa ilalim ng Section 23(a)(3) ng
kanilang religious freedom ang pag-aatas ng duty to refer. Sang-ayon
RH Law ang conscientious objection ng health care service
dito ang Decision at nagsaad ito na ang opt-out clause ay isang
providers batay sa kanilang ethical o religious beliefs. Ayon dito,
false compromise because it makes pro-life health providers
exempted sila sa kaparusahan na ipapataw sa mga tatangging
complicit in the performance of an act that they nd morally
magdulot ng reproductive health care services at magbigay ng
repugnant or offensive.28
mahalagang kaalaman ukol dito.

Samakatuwid, hindi na nararapat na gamitin pa ang compelling
Ayon sa paninindigang ito, ang pagturo sa pasyente sa ibang
state interest test upang matiyak ang legalidad ng RH Law.
pinakamalapit na health facility o health care service provider na
Matatandaang sa ilalim ng compelling state interest test, kailangang
makatutulong sa kanila ay kahalintulad na kaagad ng contraception,
ipakita ng pamahalaan kung paano mawawalan ng saysay ang mga
ang bagay na kanilang itinuturing na likas na masama. Totoo naman
layunin nito sa pagbuo ng RH Law kung magbibigay ito ng
na maaaring puntahan nga ng pasyente ang itinurong health facility
exemptions sa mga itinatakda ng batas. Ngunit dahil kinilala na ng
o health care service provider at doon ay makakuha ito ng serbisyo
RH Law ang religious freedom ng mga conscientious objectors sa
ukol sa modern family planning methods na makasalanan sa
pamamagitan ng exemption na naka-ukit na dito, wala na sa
paningin ng conscientious objector. Ngunit bunga lamang ng
pamahalaan ang pasanin upang ipagtanggol ang interes nito sa
pagsasanib ng napakaraming posibilidad ang resultang ito.
pagsisikap na mapangalagaan ang reproductive health ng mga
Maaaring magpasiya ang pasyente na hindi na lang kumunsulta,
mamamayan.
o kaya ay pumunta ito sa health facility o health care service
Naging sensitibo ang Kongreso sa paniniwala ng mga
provider na iba sa itinuro sa kanya ng conscientious objector.
conscientious objectors sa pamamagitan ng paglalatag ng
Maaari ding magpayo ang naiturong health facility o health care
exemptions sa RH Law. Sa puntong ito, kung kakailanganin pa ng
service provider na hindi hiyang o nararapat sa pasyente ang modern
Kongreso na patunayan ang compelling state interest, mawawalan
family planning methods dahil sa kundisyon ng kanyang
ng saysay ang respeto sa isat isa na iniaatas ng ating Saligang Batas
pangangatawan. Maaaring pag-
sa mga magigiting na sangay ng pamahalaan.
Ang agarang pagturo na lamang sa pinakamalapit na health
facility o health care service provider sa mga pasyenteng _______________
naghahangad ng serbisyo ukol sa modern family planning methods 29 Memorandum of the Ofce of the Solicitor General, p. 25.
ang nalalabing katungkulan ng mga conscientious objectors, ng mga 30 Decision.
non-maternity specialty hospitals, at mga ospital na pagmamay-ari
393
at pinatatakbo ng mga religious groups. Ito ay upang malaman ng
pasyente kung saan siya tutungo at upang hindi naman sila
mapagkaitan ng serbisyong inihahandog ng pamahalaan para katapos ng lahat ng pagpapayo, pagpapatingin at paghahanda ukol sa
mapangalagaan ang kanilang reproductive health. gagawing modern family planning method o procedure ay
magpasiya ang pasyente na huwag na lang ituloy ang lahat ng ito.
392
Isa lamang sa maraming posibilidad ang kinatatakutang resulta
ng mga petitioners, at gayunpaman, hindi huling hakbang na
Ayon sa Solicitor General:
maghahatid sa pasyente tungo sa contraception ang pagtuturo sa ng conscientious objector.35 Mahalaga ito upang masiguro na tuluy-
ibang health facility o health care service provider. tuloy ang serbisyong pangkalusugan para sa mga taong
Ayon sa Decision, walang idinudulot na paglabag sa religious nangangailangan nito.
freedom ang pag-uutos sa mga ikakasal na dumalo sa mga seminar Dahil dito, hindi maituturing na dagdag pasanin ng medical
ukol sa responsible parenthood, family planning, breastfeeding at professionals ang duty to refer sa ilalim ng RH Law. Likas na ito sa
infant nutrition dahil hindi naman sila obligadong sumunod sa mga kanilang propesyon. Sa katunayan, nasa kapangyarihan ng Kongreso
ituturo dito. Hindi rin masama ang pagbibigay-daan na mabigyan ng ang maglatag ng mga alituntunin at dagdag na pasanin sa propesyon
mahalagang kaalaman tungkol sa family planning services ang mga ng medisina ayon sa police power nito upang isulong ang public
menor de edad na may anak o nagkaroon ng miscarriage para health. At, inuunawa ng RH Law na dahil sa religious convictions,
matutunan nila ang mga bagay na makatutulong sa kanila upang hindi maaaring isagawa ng isang medical professional ang serbisyo
pangalagaan ang kanilang katawan at anak o dinadala. Kung gayon, ukol sa modern family planning methods kahit hinihingi pa ng
at kahalintulad ng nasabing sitwasyon, wala rin dapat pagtutol sa pasyente. Dahil dito, pinapayagan sila na tumanggi ng pasyente at
atas ng RH Law na ituro ng mga conscientious objector ang mga papuntahin ito sa ibang medical professional na makatutulong dito.
pasyente sa pinakamalapit na health facility o health care service
provider na makatutulong sa kanila. _______________
Ang pagpapahalaga sa informed choice ng mga Pilipino 32 Braunfeld v. Brown, 366 U.S. 599 (1961).
pagdating sa usapin ng reproductive health ang pundasyon ng RH 33 The Limits of Conscientious Refusal in Reproductive Medicine, The American
Law. Mananatili ang pagpapasiya sa pasyente; hinihiling lamang na College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Committee on Ethics Opinion, Number
huwag hadlangan ng conscientious objectors ang kanilang daan 385, November 2007, Reafrmed 2013.
tungo sa paggawa ng masusing pagpapasiya. 34 Id.
Kinikilala ng International Covenant on Civil and Political 35 Id.
Rights na ang religious freedom ay maaari ding mapasailalim sa mga
limitations ... prescribed by law and ... necessary to protect public 395
safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and
freedoms of others.31 Bukod dito, hindi rin maikakaila na maaaring
Kung tutuusin, maituturing na paglabag sa sinumpaang tungkulin
ipagbawal ng pamahalaan ang isang
ng medical professionals ang pagtangging magturo ng pasyente sa
ibang mga medical professional. Maaari itong maging basehan ng
_______________ disciplinary action laban sa kanila. Ayon sa isang lathalain, dahil
31 Article 18(3). ang mga medical professionals ay napapaloob sa isang monopoly sa
paghahatid ng serbisyong pangkalusugan, ang ilan sa kanila na mas
394
pinahahalagahan ang kanilang religious interests nang walang
pakundangan sa kapakanan ng kanilang pasyente ay nababalot sa
gawain kahit alinsunod pa ito sa religious convictions kung ito ay isang matinding conict of interest.36 Kilala ang dakilang
labag sa important social duties or subversive of good order.32 propesyong ito sa pagpapakasakit para sa ikabubuti ng ibang tao,37
Sa kanilang pagpasok sa propesyon, tinanggap ng mga medical kaya naman ang pagtanggi kahit sa pagtuturo na lamang sa ibang
professionals ang mga moral values at kaakibat na katungkulan sa health facility o health care service provider ay maituturing na
mga pasyente.33 Isa dito ang napapanahong duty to refer sa ibang pagkait ng serbisyong pangkalusugan sa mga pasyente.
health facility o health care service provider kung batid nila na dahil Upang mabigyan ng katumbas na proteksyon ang karapatan ng
sa kanilang religious beliefs, hindi nila maaaring ihatid ang mga pasyente sa tuluy-tuloy na serbisyong pangkalusugan, minabuti
serbisyong hinihingi o kinakailangan ng pasyente.34 Upang ng Kongreso na patawan ng parusa ang mga conscientious objectors
mapanatili ang ethical practice, hinihikayat ng mga pantas ang mga na tatangging tuparin man lamang ang duty to refer. Ipinataw ang
conscientious objectors na maglingkod kalapit ang ibang medical parusa upang masiguro na hindi naman magagamit ng conscientious
professionals na hindi conscientious objectors upang maayos na medical professionals ang exemption na ipinagkaloob sa kanila
mapanatili ang isang referral system para masigurado na maibibigay upang ipataw ang kanilang religious beliefs sa kanilang mga
sa pasyente ang mga pangangailangan nitong hindi kayang tugunan pasyente. Pinaiiral ito ng prinsipyong ang karapatan ng malayang
ng conscientious objector.35 Mahalaga ito upang masiguro na tuluy-
pagsamba at pagpapahayag ng relihiyon ay nangangahulugan na dito, bagamat maaaring parusahan ang iba kung sila ay tatangging
walang karapatan ang sinuman na mang-api sa paniniwalang hindi magsagawa ng dekalidad na health care services o tatangging
ayon sa kanila. magbigay ng mahalagang kaalaman ukol dito, pinapayagan ang mga
Sa puntong ito, nais kong linawin na ipinagbabawal ng Section conscientious objector na tumanggi kung wala sa emergency
23(a)(1) ang pagkakait ng mahalagang kaalaman, pagbabawal sa condition o hindi serious case ang pasyente. Hindi parurusahan ng
pagpapalaganap nito o sadyaang pagbibigay ng maling batas ang mga
impormasyon kaugnay ng mga programa at serbisyo ukol sa
397
reproductive health, karapatan ng lahat sa informed choice at ang
paggarantiya ng pamahalaan sa ligtas,
conscientious objector na tumanggi, at kabilang ito sa exemption na
_______________ inilatag ng RH Law para sa kanila.
36 Unethical Protection of Conscience: Defending the Powerful against the Weak, Sa gayon, malinaw ang legislative intent ng Kongreso na hindi
Bernard M. Dickens, PhD, LLD, American Medical Association Journal of Ethics, mapapasailalim ang mga conscientious objector sa Section 23(a)(1)
September 2009, Volume XI, Number 9, pp. 725-729. at Section 23(a)(2). Maaari nang tumanggi sa pasyenteng wala sa
37 Id. emergency condition o hindi serious case sa unang pagkakataon pa
lamang ang sinumang health care service provider, pribado o
396 pampubliko, na tumututol sa paghahatid at pagsasagawa ng
reproductive health services at procedures at pagbibigay ng
mabisa, abot-kaya, de-kalidad, naaayon sa batas at hindi mahalagang kaalaman ukol dito dahil sa kanilang religious beliefs.
abortifacient na family planning methods. Ngunit, kalakip ng karapatan ng pagtanggi ng mga conscientious
Sa kabilang banda, ipinagbabawal naman ng Section 23(a)(2) ang objector ang katungkulang ituro ang mga pasyenteng wala sa
pagtangging magsagawa ng ligtas at naaayon sa batas na emergency condition o hindi serious case sa ibang pinakamalapit na
reproductive health procedures dahil lamang sa ang taong health facility kung saan nila makukuha ang serbisyo at mahalagang
naghahangad nito, bagamat nasa hustong edad, ay hindi kaalaman ukol sa reproductive health na ninanais nila.
makapagpakita ng pahintulot ng kanyang asawa o magulang. Hindi FDA Certication sa Section 9
nito ipinagbabawal ang pagtangging magsagawa ng reproductive Ayon sa Decision, empty as it is absurd38 ang huling
health procedures dahil sa kanilang religious beliefs. pangungusap sa unang talata ng Section 939 ng RH Law na nag-
Ang mga health care service providers na tinutukoy sa Section uutos na makukuha lamang sa kondisyong hindi gagamitin bilang
23(a)(1) at Section 23(a)(2) ay hindi ang mga conscientious abortifacient ang mga produkto na kasama o isasama sa Essential
objectors. Kung conscientious objector ang isang health care service Drugs List (EDL). Ayon sa kanila, hindi naman
provider, maaari na siyang tumanggi sa unang pagkakataon pa
lamang, at wala na siyang oportunidad para magbigay ng maling _______________
impormasyon kaugnay ng mga programa at serbisyo ukol sa 38 Decision.
reproductive health dahil tinanggihan na niya ang pasyente. 39 Section9.The Philippine National Drug Formulary System and Family
Gayundin, wala nang oportunidad ang mga conscientious objectors Planning Supplies.The National Drug Formulary shall include hormonal
na tumangging magsagawa ng ligtas at naaayon sa batas na contraceptives, intrauterine devices, injectables and other safe, legal, non-
reproductive health procedures sa isang may-asawa o menor de edad abortifacient and effective family planning products and supplies. The Philippine
dahil sa kakulangan ng pahintulot ng asawa o magulang. Paglapit pa National Drug Formulary System (PNDFS) shall be observed in selecting drugs
lamang ng pasyente sa kanya na humihingi ng serbisyo ukol sa including family planning supplies that will be included or removed from the
reproductive health, maaari na siyang tumanggi, at ang pagtangging Essential Drugs List (EDL) in accordance with existing practice and in consultation
ito ay dahil sa kanyang religious beliefs, hindi dahil sa kawalan ng with reputable medical associations in the Philippines. For the purpose of this Act,
pahintulot. any product or supply included or to be included in the EDL must have a
Kung conscientious objector ang health care service provider, certication from the FDA that said product and supply is made available on the
mapapasailalim siya sa Section 23(a)(3) na nagsasabing isasaalang- condition that it is not to be used as an abortifacient. (Emphasis supplied)
alang at irerespeto ang kanilang ethical o religious beliefs. Ayon
 398 saving drug. That is the context of that provision which says, ...should
not be used as an abortifacient. Meaning, just like restricted drugs,
oxytoxin will only be used in a hospital to be used for therapeutic
maaaring naroroon ang FDA upang maglabas ng certication ukol
abortion, that I believe, Your Honor, is the meaning of that, ...cannot be
dito sa tuwing ipamamahagi ang contraceptive. Sa halip,
used as an abortifacient. Meaning, the National Drug Formulary
iminungkahi na baguhin ang pagkakasulat ng pangungusap upang
contains oxytoxin, I believe, today but that is to be used under certain
linawin na walang kahit anong abortifacient na isasama o
very restrictive conditions, thats the meaning of ...should not be used as
maisasama sa EDL.
an abortifacient. Meaning, a woman who is healthy in the pregnancy
Noong oral arguments, nilinaw ni Associate Justice Mariano C.
cannot go to a doctor and the doctor will say, You want an abortion,
Del Castillo ang bagay na ito sa Solicitor General, partikular na sa
Ill give you oxytoxin, that cannot be done, Your Honor; thats my
paraan kung paano masisiguro ng pamahalaan na hindi gagamitin
understanding.
bilang abortifacient ang mga produkto sa EDL:
JUSTICE DEL CASTILLO:
JUSTICE DEL CASTILLO: So when theres only a choice between the life of the mother and the life
Just one question, Counsel. The RH Law allows the availability of these of the child.
contraceptives provided they will not be used as an abortifacient. SOL. GEN. JARDELEZA:
SOL. GEN. JARDELEZA: Yes, thats my understanding. The best example is the, the monitor
Yes, Your Honor. shows there is no more fetal heartbeat. If you dont induce abortion, the
JUSTICE DEL CASTILLO: mother will die.
So theres a possibility that these contraceptives, these drugs and devices JUSTICE DEL CASTILLO:
may be used as an abortifacient? Thank you, counsel.40 (Emphases supplied)
SOL. GEN. JARDELEZA:

No, Your Honor, there will be [sic] not be a possibility. After you have
Sa gayon, maaaring isama ng FDA ang ilang maaaring gamiting
the FDA certifying that ... (interrupted)
abortifacients, tulad ng oxytoxin, sa National Drug Formulary dahil
JUSTICE DEL CASTILLO:
ang mga ito ay ginagamit upang mailabas ang patay na sanggol mula
Yes, but why does the law still [say] that, ... provided that they will
sa sinapupunan ng ina. Ginagawa ito upang mailigtas ang buhay ng
not be used as an abortifacient[?]
ina na maaaring mameligro bunga ng impeksiyon kung hahayaang
SOL. GEN. JARDELEZA:
nasa loob ang patay na sanggol. Nagpapahiwatig lamang ang huling
The context of that, Your Honor, is that, there are certain drugs
pangungusap
which are abortifacients.
JUSTICE DEL CASTILLO:
So how then can... how can a government make sure that these drugs will _______________
not be used as an abortifacient? 40 TSN, 6 August 2013, pp. 171-173.
SOL. GEN. JARDELEZA:
400
To the best of my understanding, Your Honor, for example, a woman
who is pregnant and then the doctor says there is no more fetal heartbeat
then the unborn or the fetus is dead. The doctor will have to induce abortion. sa unang talata ng Section 9 ng legislative intent na kahit may
Sometimes you do this mga abortifacients na isasama sa EDL, ipinagbabawal na gamitin
ang mga ito bilang abortifacient, o paraan upang mapatay ang
399
malusog na sanggol sa sinapupunan.
Pahintulot ng Asawa
by curettage, which I think, incision. But many times there are drugs that Mayroong pangunahing karapatan, at pangangailangan, ang lahat
are abortifacient; they are life-saving because then you bring the ng tao sa sariling pagpapasiya. Biniyayaan ng kaisipan ang lahat ng
woman to a health center, the baby is dead, you induce abortion, the tao upang malayang maipahayag ang kanyang saloobin, makabuo ng
doctors can correct me, once that drug, I think, is called oxytoxin. So any sariling pananaw at makapagpasiya para sa kanyang kinabukasan.
hospital has oxytoxin in its pharmacy because you need that as a life-
 Sa ilalim ng ating Saligang Batas, pinangangalagaan ng due Sa ilalim ng RH Law, ihahandog sa lahat ang mahalagang
process clause ang garantiya ng kalayaan sa bawat Pilipino. impormasyon ukol sa modern family planning methods. Ipina-
Nagsasabi ito na walang sinuman ang maaaring bawian ng buhay, palagay din na paglilimian ng asawang sasailalim sa procedure ang
kalayaan at ari-arian nang hindi ayon sa paraang inilatag sa batas. mga magiging epekto nito sa kanya at sa kanyang mahal sa buhay.
Panangga ng mga mamamayan ang due process clause sa hindi Kung magdesisyon siya na sumailalim sa
makatuwirang pamamalakad at pagsamsam ng pamahalaan.
Gayunpaman, [t]he Due Process Clause guarantees more than fair _______________
process, and the liberty it protects includes more than the absence 44 Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hospital, 105 N.E. 92.
of physical restraint.41 Nagtatakda ang due process clause ng 45 Nasusulat sa Family Code of the Philippines na:
limitasyon sa kapangyarihan ng pamahalaan pagdating sa mga Article 96.The administration and enjoyment of the community property shall
karapatan ng mamamayan.42 Bukod sa mga karapatang belong to both spouses jointly. In case of disagreement, the husbands decision shall
ginagarantiya ng Bill of Rights, saklaw ng due process clause ang prevail, subject to recourse to the court by the wife for proper remedy, which must be
lahat ng bahagi ng buhay ng tao. Kabilang na rito ang karapatan ng availed of within ve years from the date of the contract implementing such decision.
sariling pagpapasiya. Naglatag ang batas ng panuntunan na sakaling hindi magkasundo ang mag-asawa
May nakapagsabi na [n]o right is held more sacred, or is more sa pamamahala at pagtamasa sa kanilang ari-arian, mananaig ang pasiya ng asawang
carefully guarded by the common law, than the right of every lalaki. Maihahalintulad dito ang probisyon ng RH Law na nagpapahalaga sa sariling
individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from pagpapasiya ng taong may katawan ukol sa reproductive health. Nagbibigay lamang
all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and ang batas ng kalutasan sa panahong hindi magkasundo ang mag-asawa.
unquestionable authority of law.43 Sa katunayan,

_______________ 402
41 Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702.
42 Atienza v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 188920, 16 February 2010, 612 SCRA 761.
43 Union Pacic Railway v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250. napiling reproductive health procedure, hindi ito dapat hadlangan ng
sinuman. Bahagi pa rin ito ng informed consent na pundasyon ng
401 RH Law.
Walang anumang nakasulat sa RH Law na nag-aalis sa mag-
[e]very human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to asawa ng kanilang karapatang bumuo ng pamilya. Sa katunayan,
determine what shall be done with his own body.44 tinitiyak nito na ang mga maralita na nagnanais magkaroon ng anak
Ayon sa Decision, isang pribadong paksa na dapat talakayin ng ay makikinabang sa mga payo, kagamitan at nararapat na procedures
mag-asawa ang desisyon sa usapin ng reproductive health, at hindi para matulungan silang maglihi at maparami ang mga anak. Walang
maaaring mapunta lamang sa asawang sasailalim dito ang anumang nakasulat sa batas na nagpapahintulot sa pamahalaan na
pagpapasiya. Hinay-hinay tayo. Hindi naman ipinagbabawal ng RH manghimasok sa pagpapasiya [that] belongs exclusively to, and
Law ang pagsanib ng pasiya ng mag-asawa kayat hindi dapat [is] shared by, both spouses as one cohesive unit as they chart their
sabihin na nakapaninira ng pagsasamahan ng mag-asawa ang own destiny.327 Walang anumang nakasulat sa RH Law na
karapatan ng may-katawan na magpasiya ukol sa reproductive humahadlang sa pagsali ng asawa sa pagtimbang ng mga
health. Ngunit sa panahon ng di-pagkakasundo ng pasiya, walang pagpipiliang modern family planning methods, at pagpapasiya kung
ibang makatuwirang sitwasyon kundi kilalanin ang karapatan ng ano ang pinakamabuti para sa kanyang asawa. Kung may epekto
taong may-katawan na magpasiya.45 Hindi nawawalan ng karapatan man ang RH Law, ito ay ang pagpapatibay ng makatotohanang
ang tao dahil lamang sa pag-aasawa. Hanggat hindi ito labag sa sanggunian sa pagitan ng mag-asawang pantay na magpapasiya ukol
batas, may kalayaan ang bawat isa na gawin ang kanyang nais at sa isang bagay na magtatakda ng kanilang kinabukasan.
magpasiya ayon sa makabubuti para sa kanyang sarili. Hindi Sa pamamagitan ng pagpapahalaga sa pangunahing pasiya ng
isinusuko sa asawa sa oras ng kasal ang pagpapasiya ukol sa sariling asawang sasailalim sa reproductive health procedure, pinaiigting
katawan. Kung hindi, bubuwagin nito ang prinsipyo sa likod ng lamang ng RH Law ang pangangalaga sa pangunahing karapatan ng
batas laban sa violence against women. bawat tao na magpasiya ukol sa kanyang sariling katawan. Sa
pamamagitan din nito, naglalatag ang RH Law ng proteksiyon para 48 Id.
sa mga medical professionals laban sa mga asunto at panliligalig
404
bunga ng pagkuwestiyon o paghamon kung bakit nila isinagawa ang
reproductive health procedure sa kabila ng kawalan ng pahintulot ng
asawa. Hindi akma ang antas ng pagpapahalaga sa parental authority ng
Decision, na sa pangamba ng Decision ay mawawala dahil lamang
_______________ sa pakinabang ng menor de edad sa family planning services nang
46 Decision. walang pahintulot ng kanilang magulang.
[P]arental authority and responsibility include the caring for
403 and rearing of unemancipated children for civic consciousness and
efciency and the development of their moral, mental and physical
Pahintulot ng Magulang character and well-being.49 Pinag-uukulan ng ilang karapatan at
Itinuturing din ng Decision na [e]qually deplorable47 ang tungkulin ang mga magulang kaugnay sa kanilang mga anak na wala
bahagi ng RH Law na nagbibigay-daan sa mga menor de edad na pa sa tamang gulang.50 Maaaring talikuran o ilipat ang parental
may anak o nagkaroon ng miscarriage na makinabang sa modern authority at responsibility ayon lamang sa mga halimbawang
family planning methods kahit walang pahintulot ang kanilang mga nakasaad sa batas.51
magulang. Ayon dito, pinuputol ng Section 7 ang parental authority
sa mga menor de edad just because there is a need to tame _______________
population growth.48 49 FAMILY CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Article 209.
Hindi angkop na manghimasok ang Korte Suprema sa 50 Id., Article 220.The parents and those exercising parental authority shall
katanungan kung ang RH Law ay isang population control measure have with respect to their unemancipated children or wards the following rights and
sapagkat ang Kongreso lamang ang makasasagot sa tanong kung ano duties:
ang nag-udyok dito sa pagbuo ng nasabing batas. Ang tanging dapat 1) To keep them in their company, to support, educate and instruct them by
pagtuunan ng pansin ng Korte Suprema ay kung ang batas at ang right precept and good example, and to provide for their upbringing in keeping with
mga nilalaman nito ay alinsunod sa itinatakda ng Saligang Batas. their means;
Masasabi nating ispekulasyon lamang ang paghusga sa hangarin ng 2) To give them love and affection, advice and counsel, companionship and
Kongreso na handa itong sirain ang parental authority upang isulong understanding;
lamang ang population control. Pasintabi po, hindi maaaring ganito 3) To provide them with moral and spiritual guidance, inculcate in them
ang tono ng Korte Suprema patungo sa Kongreso. honesty, integrity, self-discipline, self-reliance, industry and thrift, stimulate their
Kinikilala ng RH Law na hindi lamang edad ng isang tao ang interest in civic affairs, and inspire in them compliance with the duties of citizenship;
tanging palatandaan upang mahandugan ng family planning services. 4)To enhance, protect, preserve and maintain their physical and mental health at
Batid nito ang pangkasalukuyang sitwasyon ng paglaganap ng all times;
maagang pagkamulat at pagsubok ng mga kabataan sa kanilang 5) To furnish them with good and wholesome educational materials, supervise
sekswalidad. Nangangailangan ding mabigyan ng kaalaman, at kung their activities, recreation and association with others, protect them from bad
kinakailangan, mahandugan ng modern family planning services company, and prevent them from acquiring habits detrimental to their health, studies
kung ito ay kanilang gugustuhin, ang mga menor de edad na and morals;
nanganak o nagkaroon ng miscarriage. Bilang isang hakbang sa 6) To represent them in all matters affecting their interests;
pangangalaga ng pangkalahatang kalusugan, ang pagbibigay ng 7)To demand from them respect and obedience;
modern family planning services sa mga menor de edad na ito ay 8) To impose discipline on them as may be required under the circumstances;
daan upang maunawaan nila ang mga kahihinatnan at kaukulang and
pananagutan ng pagiging isang magulang, gayong nabuntis na sila, 9) To perform such other duties as are imposed by law upon parents and
pati na ang pagbuo ng pamilya. guardians. (316a)
51 Id., Article 210.

_______________
405
47 Id.
Mabibinbin o mapuputol ito ayon lamang sa mga sitwasyong nadagdagan ang mga halimbawang nakasaad sa Family Code
nakasaad sa Family Code.52 ukol sa pagkawala ng parental authority. Walang anumang
Walang anumang nakasulat sa RH Law na nagsasabing napuputol nakasulat sa batas na nagbibigay kapangyarihan sa pamahalaan
ang parental authority kapag ang menor de edad ay may anak na o upang humalili sa ina at ama sa pagdamay at pagtugon sa mga
nagkaroon ng miscarriage. Hindi nito di- pangangailangan ng kanilang mga menor de edad. Kailanmay hindi
kaya at hindi maaaring gawin ito ng pamahalaan, hindi lamang dahil
_______________ hindi ito praktikal ngunit dahil walang makatutumbas sa inaasahang
52 Article228.Parental authority terminates permanently: pagmamahal ng magulang. Sa ganitong pagsubok sa buhay ng isang
1)Upon the death of the parents; menor de edad, higit lalo niyang kailangan ang comfort, care,
2)Upon the death of the child; or advice and guidance from her own parents.53 Sa ilalim ng RH Law,
3)Upon emancipation of the child. (327a) hindi pinagbabawalan ang mga menor de edad na may anak o
Article229.Unless subsequently revived by a nal judgment, parental authority nagkaroon ng miscarriage na humingi ng payo sa kanilang
also terminates: magulang, at hindi pinagbabawalan ang mga magulang na magbigay
1)Upon adoption of the child; nito. Ipinapalagay na hangad lamang ng mga magulang ang
2)Upon appointment of a general guardian; makabubuti para sa kanilang anak.
3) Upon judicial declaration of abandonment of the child in a case led for the Sa pagsasabi na hindi kailangan ang parental consent ng mga
purpose; menor de edad na may anak o nagkaroon ng miscarriage bago
4) Upon nal judgment of a competent court divesting the party concerned of mabigyan ang mga ito ng modern family planning services,
parental authority; or pinanghihimasukan ng pamahalaan ang ugnayan sa pagitan ng
5) Upon judicial declaration of absence or incapacity of the person exercising menor de edad at ang nilapitan nitong medical health professional.
parental authority. (327a) Kadalasan, pinagkakaitan ng reproductive health services ng mga
Article 230.Parental authority is suspended upon conviction of the parent or pribado at pampublikong health professionals ang mga menor de
the person exercising the same of a crime which carries with it the penalty of civil edad dahil sa kaisipang masyado pa silang mga bata para magkaroon
interdiction. The authority is automatically reinstated upon service of the penalty or ng kaalaman sa mga bagay ukol sa kanilang sekswalidad. Ang
upon pardon or amnesty of the offender. (330a) paghingi ng parental consent ang madalas na dahilan upang
Article231.The court in an action led for the purpose or in a related case may tanggihan ang ganitong pagsangguni ng mga kabataan. Minsan nga,
also suspend parental authority if the parent or the person exercising the same: hinihiya pa ang mga ito. Ngunit kailangang tandaan na nagdalang-
1)Treats the child with excessive harshness or cruelty; tao na ang mga menor de edad na ito, at hindi na masasabing wala
2) Gives the child corrupting orders, counsel or example; silang muwang pagdating sa mga bagay na sekswal.
3)Compels the child to beg; or Bahagi ng RH Law ang paninindigan ng pamahalaan na ang mga
4) Subjects the child or allows him to be subjected to acts of lasciviousness. kabataan ay active rights holders, at katungkulan ng
The grounds enumerated above are deemed to include cases which have resulted
from culpable negligence of the parent or the person exercising parental authority. _______________
If the degree of seriousness so warrants, or the welfare of the child so demands, 53 Decision.
the court shall deprive the guilty party of parental authority or adopt such other
407
measures as may be proper under the circumstances.
The suspension or deprivation may be revoked and the parental authority revived
in a case led for the purpose or in the same proceeding if the court nds that the pamahalaan na siguraduhin na matatamasa nila ang kanilang mga
cause therefor has ceased and will not be repeated. (332a) karapatan nang walang diskriminasyon.54 Upang mapangalagaan
Article232.If the person exercising parental authority has subjected the child or ang karapatan ng mga kabataan na magkaroon ng mahalagang
allowed him to be subjected to sexual abuse, such person shall be permanently kaalaman ukol sa kanilang kalusugan, ipinag-uutos ng RH Law ang
deprived by the court of such authority. (n) pagtuturo ng age-and development-appropriate reproductive health
education55 sa lahat ng pribado at pampublikong paaralan.
406
Naaayong linawin na sakop ng kautusang magturo ng
reproductive health education sa kanilang mga mag-aaral ang mga
pribadong paaralan. Opsyonal ang paggamit ng curriculum na accorded equal exibility in adopting their own curriculum after requisite
bubuuin ng Department of Education. Ang nasabing curriculum ay consultation as provided in the RH Law.56 (Emphases supplied)
gagamitin ng mga pampublikong paaralan at maaaring gamitin ng
mga pribadong paaralan.
Ito ang paglilinaw ni Representative Edcel C. Lagman kaugnay Bukod sa pagbibigay sa kanila ng age- and development-
sa giit ng petitioners na lumalabag sa equal protection clause ng appropriate reproductive health education, ginagawaran din ng
Saligang Batas ang RH Law dahil ginagawa nitong mandatory sa dagdag na karapatan ang mga menor de edad na may anak o
pampublikong paaralan at opsyonal sa pribadong paaralan ang nagkaroon ng miscarriage na makinabang sa mga reproductive
reproductive health education. Ayon sa kanya: health services na inihahandog ng pamahalaan.
Kaagad na mauunawaan ang katuwiran kung bakit may dagdag
na karapatan na ibinibigay sa mga menor de edad na may anak o
_______________
nagkaroon ng miscarriage. Kung ang hindi pa nagbubuntis ay may
54 Committee on the Rights of the Child, General Comment No. 4, Adolescent
karapatan sa akmang kaalaman, higit na may karapatan ang
health and development in the context of the Convention on the Rights of the Child,
nagbuntis na. Naglahad ang Committee on the Rights of the Child na
U.N. Doc. CRC/GC/2003/4 (2003).
[a]dolescent girls should have access to information on the harm
55 Section 14.Age- and Development-Appropriate Reproductive Health
that early marriage and early pregnancy can cause, and those who
Education.The State shall provide age- and development-appropriate reproductive
become pregnant should have access to health services that are
health education to adolescents which shall be taught by adequately trained teachers
sensitive to their rights and particular needs.57 Batay sa karapatan
in formal and nonformal educational system and integrated in relevant subjects such
ng mga kabataan na malayang maihayag ang kanilang pananaw sa
as, but not limited to, values formation; knowledge and skills in self-protection
mga bagay na may kinalaman sa kanila, nararapat na
against discrimination; sexual abuse and violence against women and children and
other forms of gender based violence and teen pregnancy; physical, social and
emotional changes in adolescents; womens rights and childrens rights; responsible _______________

teenage behavior; gender and development; and responsible parenthood: Provided, 56 Joint Memorandum (of Respondent House of Representatives and Respondent-

That exibility in the formulation and adoption of appropriate course content, scope Intervenor Rep. Edcel C. Lagman), pp. 57-58.

and methodology in each educational level or group shall be allowed only after 57 General Comment No. 4, Adolescent health and development in the context of

consultations with parents-teachers-community associations, school ofcials and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, U.N. Doc. CRC/GC/2003/4 (2003).

other interest groups. The Department of Education (DepEd) shall formulate a

curriculum which shall be used by public schools and may be adopted by private
schools. (Emphasis supplied) 409

408
isaalang-alang ang kanilang saloobin.58 Kung mababatid na may
tamang kamalayan at nasa hustong pag-iisip ang menor de edad na
143.x x x [A]ge and development appropriate RH education is
may anak o nagkaroon ng miscarriage, sapat na na ibigay nila ang
mandatory in formal and non-formal educational system without
kanilang informed consent.59
distinction whether they are public or private, where adolescents are
Public ofcers at skilled health professionals
enrolled. Clearly, private schools are not exempt from affording their
Hindi ako sang-ayon sa Decision na walang totoong pagkakaiba
adolescent pupils/students [with] proper and appropriate RH
sa pagitan ng pribado at pampublikong health ofcers. Naniniwala
education.
ako na napakalaki ng pagkakaiba sa pagitan nila at nagmumula ito
144.The difference only pertains to the RH curriculum which shall
sa kadahilanang inaasahan ang mga pampublikong health ofcers
be formulated by DepEd which shall be used by public schools and
bilang frontline sa paghahatid ng serbisyong pangkalusugan.60
may be adopted by private schools.
Bilang public ofcers, may pananagutan sila sa taong-bayan sa lahat
145.If the DepEd curriculum is not adopted by private schools, they
ng oras, at nararapat na maglingkod sila nang may dangal,
can formulate their own curriculum subject to the review and approval of
katapatan, kahusayan, ganap-taglay ang pagiging makabayan at
the DepEd which has jurisdiction over private schools. Private schools are
makatarungan, at payak ang pamumuhay.61 Maaari din nating
banggitin na ang sambayanan ang nagpapasahod sa kanila.
 Sa pamamagitan ng paglilingkod ng mga pampublikong health d) Written documentation of compliance with the preceding requirements;
ofcers naisasakatuparan ng pamahalaan ang tungkulin nito na and
pangalagaan ang kalusugan ng mga mamamayan, lalo na ang mga e)Other requirements as determined by the DOH.
maralitang bahagya na ngang makabili ng sapat na pagkain sa araw- In the event where the public skilled health professional cannot comply
araw. with all of the above requirements, he or she shall deliver the clients
Sa puntong ito, binibigyang-diin na maaaring maging desired reproductive health care service or information without further
conscientious objectors ang mga pampublikong health ofcers. delay. (Emphasis supplied)
Malinaw ito sa RH Law mismo na naglatag ng karapatan sa
conscientious objection nang walang pasubali sa pagitan ng pribado
at pampublikong health professionals. Pinagtitibay ito ng IRR ng Sa gayon, hindi karapat-dapat na sabihing lumalabag sa equal
RH Law na nagsasabing maaring maging con- protection clause ng ating Saligang Batas ang RH Law at IRR nito.
Kaugnay nito, tinutuligsa ang sumusunod na bahagi ng Section 5.24
ng IRR ng RH Law:
_______________
58 Id. Provided, That skilled health professionals such as provincial, city, or
59 Id. municipal health ofcers, chiefs of hospital, head nurses, supervising
60 Estampa, Jr. v. City Government of Davao, G.R. No. 190681, 21 June 2010, midwives, among others, who by virtue of their ofce are specically
621 SCRA 350. charged with the duty to implement the provi-
61 CONSTITUTION, Article XI, Section 1; Amit v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No.
176172, 20 November 2012, 686 SCRA 10; San Jose, Jr. v. Camurongan, 522 Phil. 411

80; 488 SCRA 102 (2006).

sions of the RPRH Act and these Rules, cannot be considered as

conscientious objectors. (Emphasis supplied)
410

Itinatadhana nito na hindi maaaring maging conscientious
scientious objectors ang mga pampublikong skilled health objectors ang mga pampublikong skilled health professionals na
professionals sa ilalim ng bahaging ito: mismong inatasang magsagawa ng mga kautusan at programa
sa ilalim ng RH Law at IRR nito. Malinaw ang dahilan nito.
SECTION5.24.Public Skilled Health Professional as a Conscientious
Walang makabuluhang pagsasakatuparan ng RH Law, at
Objector.In order to legally refuse to deliver reproductive health
pangangalaga sa reproductive health ng sambayanan, kung hahayaan
care services or information as a conscientious objector, a public
ang mga provincial, city, o municipal health ofcers, chiefs of
skilled health professional shall comply with the following
hospital, head nurses at supervising midwives iyong mga
requirements:
itinuturing na nasa frontline ng paghahatid ng serbisyong
a)The skilled health professional shall explain to the client the limited range
pangkalusugan na tumangging magbigay ng reproductive health
of services he/she can provide;
care services at mahalagang kaalaman ukol dito.
b)Extraordinary diligence shall be exerted to refer the client seeking care to
Makikitang hindi discriminatory ang nasabing probisyon kapag
another skilled health professional or volunteer willing and capable of
inilapat ang test of reasonableness.62 Sakop lamang nito ang mga
delivering the desired reproductive health care service within the same
public skilled health professionals na inatasang isagawa ang mga
facility;
kautusan at programa sa ilalim ng RH Law at IRR nito. Makikita na
c) If within the same health facility, there is no other skilled health
iyon lamang mga may management prerogative at kapangyarihang
professional or volunteer willing and capable of delivering the desired
mag-impluwensiya ng pamamalakad ng kanilang institusyon ang
reproductive health care service, the conscientious objector shall refer
hindi maaaring tumangging maghatid ng reproductive health care
the client to another specic health facility or provider that is
services at mahalagang kaalaman ukol dito. Malinaw ang
conveniently accessible in consideration of the clients travel
pagkakaiba nila sa ibang pampublikong health professionals na
arrangements and nancial capacity;
maaaring maging conscientious objectors.
 Malinaw din na may kaugnayan sa layunin ng RH Law ang tinututulan ang pagpapahalaga sa reproductive health ng mga
pagbubukod sa mga skilled health professionals gaya ng provincial, mamamayan, partikular na ang mga maralita.
city, o municipal health ofcers, chiefs of hospital, head nurses at
413
supervising midwives. Walang sinuman ang makapagsasabi na ito ay
palpably arbitrary or capricious63 gayong ang sakop nito ay iyon
lamang mga itinuturing na Tinutukoy sa Section 17 ang pagbibigay ng libreng reproductive
health care services.
_______________ Batay sa RH Law, tumutukoy ang reproductive health care sa
62 Biraogo v. The Philippine Truth Commission of 2010, G.R. Nos. 192935 and paghahatid ng lahat ng serbisyo, kagamitan, pamamaraan at facilities
193036, 7 December 2010, 637 SCRA 78. na makatutulong sa ikabubuti ng reproductive health sa
63 Quinto v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 189698, 22 February 2010, 613 SCRA 385. pamamagitan ng pagtugon sa mga sakit na kaugnay nito.64 Kasama
dito ang pagpapanatili ng sexual health upang mapabuti ang antas ng
412 buhay at personal relations ng mga mamamayan. Saklaw ng
reproductive health care ang mga sumusunod na bahagi nito:
pinuno ng mga pampublikong institusyon. Walang dahilan upang
1) Family planning information and services which shall include as a rst
ipangamba na ipatutupad lamang ang pagbubukod na ito sa umiiral
priority making women of reproductive age fully aware of their
na kalagayan o kaya hindi ito ipatutupad sa lahat ng provincial, city,
respective cycles to make them aware of when fertilization is highly
o municipal health ofcers, chiefs of hospital, head nurses at
probable, as well as highly improbable;
supervising midwives.
2)Maternal, infant and child health and nutrition, including breastfeeding;
Bilang mga kawani ng pamahalaan, nalalagay sa isang
3)Proscription of abortion and management of abortion complications;
pambihirang katayuan ang mga public ofcers para isakatuparan ang
4)Adolescent and youth reproductive health guidance and counseling;
mga nilalayon ng pamahalaan. Dahil dito, malaki ang nakaatang na
5) Prevention, treatment and management of reproductive tract infections
responsibilidad sa kanila upang ilunsad ang mga balakin ng
(RTIs), HIV and AIDS and other sexually transmittable infections
pamahalaan. Pagdating sa reproductive health programs, magiging
(STIs);
kahangalan para sa pamahalaan kung hahayaan nito na sariling mga
6)Elimination of violence against women and children and other forms of
kawani ang humadlang sa pamamagitan ng paglalatag ng mga
sexual and gender-based violence;
salungat na patakaran gamit ang makinarya ng pamahalaan.
7)Education and counseling on sexuality and reproductive health;
Samakatuwid, hindi dapat payagang tumalikod sa tungkulin ang
8) Treatment of breast and reproductive tract cancers and other
isang public ofcer na mismong inatasang isagawa ang mga
gynecological conditions and disorders;
kautusan at programa sa ilalim ng RH Law at IRR nito, o biguin nito
9)Male responsibility and involvement and mens reproductive health;
ang paglulunsad ng isang reproductive health program.
10) Prevention, treatment and management of infertility and sexual
PhilHealth Accreditation
dysfunction;
Sa ilalim ng Section 17 ng RH Law, hinihikayat ang mga
pribadong reproductive health care service providers, gaya ng
_______________
gynecologists at obstetricians, na magbigay ng libreng reproductive
64 Section 4(q).
health care services katumbas ng 48 oras bawat taon sa mga
maralitang pasyente. Itinatakda din ng Section 17 na kailangang 414
magbigay ng nasabing serbisyo katurnbas ng 48 oras ang mga
medical professionals upang magkaroon sila ng PhilHealth
11)Reproductive health education for the adolescents; and
accreditation. Ayon sa Decision, nararapat na bigyan din ng
12) Mental health aspect of reproductive health care.65
exemption ang mga conscientious objectors sa panuntunang ito dahil
sa kanilang religious beliefs na nagbabawal sa kanilang magbigay ng
serbisyo ukol sa reproductive health. Makikita sa listahang ito ang lawak ng saklaw ng reproductive
Ayon sa petitioners, tinututulan nila ang pagpapalaganap ng health care na tinutukoy sa Section 17. Masasabing isa lamang sa
contraceptives, na itinuturing nilang likas na masama. Hindi nila family planning information and services ang contraceptives at
contraception na tinututulan ng mga conscientious objectors. Pinapayagan ang lahat ng methods of contraception hanggat ang
Mayroon pang labing-isang bahagi ng reproductive health care na mga ito ay ligtas, naaayon sa batas, aprobado ng medical
kasunod nito. Maaaring gamitin ng mga reproductive health care professionals at alinsunod sa Islamic Shariah. Wala ring nakikitang
service providers ang mga libreng serbisyo na mapapaloob sa pagtutol ang Shariah sa pakahulugan ng International Conference on
anumang bahagi ng reproductive health care upang mabuo ang 48 Population and Development sa reproductive health,66 pati na ang
oras na kakailanganin nila para sa kanilang PhilHealth mga prinsipyo nito ukol sa pagpapasiya sa dami at pag-aagwat ng
accreditation. Maaari ngang ibuhos ng conscientious objector ang mga anak, pagkakaroon ng kaalaman ukol sa sariling sekswalidad,
lahat ng 48 oras sa pagpapalaganap ng natural family planning pagiging ligtas sa mga sakit kaugnay sa reproduction, at
method. Alalahanin ng lahat na pribilehiyo at hindi karapatan ang pagkakaroon ng safe at satisfying sex life sa pagitan ng mag-asawa.
magkaroon ng PhilHealth accreditation kayat tama lang na isukli Kung susukatin ang mga adhikain ng RH Law batay sa religious
ng gynecologists at obstetricians ang 48 oras na pro bono service sa freedom ng mga Muslim, na bumubuo sa limang porsiyento ng mga
maralita upang mapangalagaan ang kanilang reproductive health. Pilipino, wala itong hatid na ligalig o pasanin.
Kung tutuusin, reproductive health care ng mga pasyente ang Sa likod ng karapatan sa malayang pagsamba at pagpapahayag
pangunahing pinagtutuunan ng pansin ng mga gynecologists at ng relihiyon ay ang pagrespeto sa paniniwala ng iba. Hati-hati
obstetricians. Kung bibigyan sila ng exemption sa Section 17 dahil maging ang mga opinyon ng mga Katoliko pagdat-
conscientious objector sila, ang tanging magiging epekto nito ay
hindi nila kakailanganing magbigay ng anumang libreng serbisyo. _______________
Kung gayon, mawawalan ng saysay ang layunin ng pamahalaan sa 66 Ang kahulugan ng reproductive health ay a state of complete physical, mental
ilalim ng RH Law na ihatid sa mga maralitang mamamayan ang and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or inrmity in all matters
kadalubhasaan ng mga pribadong reproductive health care service relating to the reproductive system and to its functions and processes.
providers.
Pahuling Pasabi 416
Walang pinapanigan ang Korte Suprema kundi ang Saligang
Batas, at pinakinggan ang lahat ng dumulog dito sa usapin ng RH
ing sa reproductive health at family planning. Malaking bahagi ng
Law. Hati-hati ang opinyon pagdating sa re-
mga Katoliko ang sumusuporta sa RH Law at mga layunin nito.
Dahil dito, walang maituturing na iisang awtoridad pagdating sa
_______________ usaping ito kundi ang Saligang Batas. Ito ang nag-iisang batayan na
65 Id. isasaalang-alang upang makarating ang Korte Suprema sa
konklusyong makatarungan para sa lahat.
415
AKO AY SANG-AYON sa Decision na ang SECTIONS 4(A),
9, 15, 17 AT 24 NG RH LAW AY HINDI LABAG SA
productive health at family planning. Halimbawa, bagamat may SALIGANG BATAS. SANG-AYON DIN AKO na ang RH LAW
mga pagtutol ang bahagi ng Simbahang Katolika sa reproductive AY HINDI LABAG SA RIGHT TO LIFE, RIGHT TO HEALTH,
health at family planning, itinuturing naman itong alinsunod sa mga RIGHT TO EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW AT RIGHT
aral ng Islam. Ayon sa fatwah na inilabas ng Assembly of Darul-Iftah TO DUE PROCESS OF THE LAW ng mga mamamayan. Bukod
of the Philippines kaugnay sa reproductive health at family planning, dito, SANG-AYON AKO NA ANG RH LAW AY HINDI
walang kasulatang napapaloob sa Quran na nagbabawal sa pagpigil LABAG SA PRINCIPLE OF NON-DELEGATION OF
at pag-aagwat sa pagbubuntis at pagbabawas sa dami ng anak. LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY, ONE SUBJECT-ONE BILL RULE
Ayon din sa kanila, hindi salungat sa konsiyensiya ang family AT AWTONOMIYA ng mga pamahalaang lokal at ng Autonomous
planning. Sa katunayan, itinataguyod ito ng Shariah. Itinakda ng Region of Muslim Mindanao sa ilalim ng Saligang Batas.
Quran na kailangang pasusuhin ng ina ang sanggol hanggang ito ay SANG-AYON AKO na HINDI PA NAPAPANAHON UPANG
dalawang taong gulang, at nagbabala ang Propeta laban sa MAGPAHAYAG ANG KORTE SUPREMA UKOL SA
pagpapasuso ng inang nagdadalang-tao. Malinaw dito ang layuning PAGPAPAWALANG-BISA NG SECTION 14 dahil hindi pa
pag-aagwat ng pagbubuntis, kung saan kinakailangang hindi nakabubuo ng curriculum ang Department of Education. Hindi pa
mabuntis ang ina sa loob ng dalawang taon na ito ay nagpapasuso. rin napapanahon upang ipahayag kung ang RH Law ay labag sa
right to health ng mga mamamayan dahil wala pang contraceptive access only to medically-safe, non-abortifacient, effective, legal,
na naisusumite para sa pagsusuri ng FDA sa ilalim ng RH Law. affordable, and quality repro-
SANG-AYON AKO na nararapat na IPAWALANG-BISA ANG
418
SECTION 3.01(A) AT 3.01(J) NG IRR NG RH LAW dahil
nagdadagdag ito ng salitang primarily sa kahulugan ng
abortifacient, na hindi naman ayon sa mga titik ng Section 4(a) ng ductive health care services, methods, devices, supplies which do
RH Law. not prevent the implantation of a fertilized ovum as determined
GAYUNPAMAN, hindi nito maaapektuhan ang paniniwala kong by the Food and Drug Administration.1 R.A. No. 10354 protects the
ang LAHAT NG MGA PROBISYON NG RH LAW NA fertilized ovum by prohibiting services, methods, devices or supplies
TINUTULIGSA NG PETITIONERS AY PAWANG that prevent its implantation on the uterus wall.
KONSTITUSYONAL. Accordingly, I concur in the ponencia of Justice Jose Catral
Mendoza.
417
CONCURRING OPINION
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,J.:
SAMAKATUWID, ako ay bumoboto para ipahayag na HINDI The question of validity or nullity of laws is not determined by
LABAG SA SALIGANG BATAS ang SECTIONS 7, 17, 23(A)(1), who makes the most popular of arguments in legislative or academic
23(A)(2)(I), 23(A)(2)(II), 23(A)(3) AT 23(B) NG RH LAW. halls, or the most passionate of pleas in the parliament of the streets.
The issue of validity of laws is not a matter of popularity or passion
CONCURRING OPINION but is a question of conformity with the Constitution. And in our
legal system, this Court, as the nal interpreter of the Constitution
CARPIO,J.: and the articulator of its underlying principles, has been conferred
the power to determine whether a law is in harmony with the
I concur in the ponencia of Justice Jose Catral Mendoza.
Constitution.
However, my opinion is that at this stage, the Court is simply not
Arguably, no law has been as controversial under the regime of
competent to declare when human life begins, whether upon
the 1987 Constitution as Republic Act No. 10354, otherwise known
fertilization of the ovum or upon attachment of the fertilized ovum
as The Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of
to the uterus wall. The issue of when life begins is a scientic and
2012, and more commonly known as the Reproductive Health
medical issue that cannot be decided by this Court without the
(RH) Law. It is not merely a collision of the conservative and
proper hearing and evidence. This issue has not even been settled
liberal sectors of Philippine society, or a colossal clash between the
within the scientic and medical community.
(Catholic) Church and the State as some project it to be, or the
R.A. No. 10354, however, protects the ovum upon its fertilization
paradox of an irresistible force meeting an immovable object. It is
without saying that life begins upon fertilization. This should be
perceived to have started a cultural war and spawned these
sufcient for purposes of resolving this case for whether life
consolidated cases,
begins upon fertilization or upon implantation of the fertilized ovum
on the uterus wall, R.A. No. 10354 protects both asserted starting
points of human life. Absent a denitive consensus from the _______________
scientic and medical community, this Court cannot venture to 1 Section 2(d), second paragraph, R.A. No. 10354.
pronounce which starting point of human life is correct. We can only
419
reiterate what Section 12, Article II of the Constitution provides, that
the State shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of
the unborn from conception xxx. which highlight a deep disagreement and an intense debate on the
Section 12, Article II of the Constitution is repeated in Section 2 implications of the law on various fundamental rights.
of R.A. No. 10354. The law does not provide a denition of I submit this Opinion in the hope of contributing to our peoples
conception. However, the law is replete with provisions that embody appreciation of the issues involved so that we may continue to
the policy of the State to protect the travel of the fertilized ovum to collectively look for ways to promote our democratic institutions
the uterus wall. In fact, the law guarantees that the State will provide and protect individual liberties.
The RH Law: Legislating RH Rights fertilized ovum as determined by the Food and Drug Administration
After more than a decade of deliberation in Congress, the RH (FDA).3
Law was enacted by the Fifteenth Congress as Republic Act No. The RH Law and Constitutional Questions
10354 on December 12, 2012. Anti-RH Law advocates did not waste time in questioning the
In connection with the Presidents signing of the RH Law, the constitutionality of the law. The rst petition against the said law,
Ofce of the President issued a statement that said: G.R. No. 204819, was led in this Court on January 2, 2013.
Thirteen petitions were subsequently led.
The passage into law of the Responsible Parenthood Act closes a highly The common arguments of the various petitioners against the RH
divisive chapter of our history a chapter borne of the convictions of those Law are as follows:
who argued for, or against this Act, whether in the legislative branch or in (1)the RH Law violates the constitutional safeguard for the sanctity
civil society. At the same time, it opens the possibility of cooperation and of the family under Section 12, Article II, and Article XV or the
reconciliation among different sectors in society: engagement and dialogue 1987 Constitution;
characterized not by animosity, but by our collective desire to better the (2) the RH Law defeats the constitutional protection for the life of
welfare of the Filipino people. the unborn from conception under Section 12, Article II of the
This is the mark of a true democracy: one in which debate that spans all 1987 Constitution;
levels of society is spurred by deeply-held beliefs and values, enriching and (3) the RH Law prejudices the right to health of the people,
elevating public discourse, as we all work together to nd ways to improve particularly of women, contrary to Section 15, Article II of the
the lives of our fellow citizens.1 1987 Constitution;
(4) the RH Law unduly constricts the freedom of religion,

particularly the free exercise of ones spiritual
The RH Law creates a bundle or rights known as the RH rights
dened as follows:
_______________
Reproductive health rights refers to the rights of individuals and couples, 2 Section 4(s), RH Law.
to decide freely and responsibly whether or not to have 3 Section 2, RH Law.

421
_______________
1 Statement dated December 29, 2012 of Deputy Presidential Spokesperson Abigail Valte
on the RH Law, http//www.gov.ph/2012/12/29/statement-the-deputy-presidential-spokesperson- faith, guaranteed under Section 5, Article III of the 1987
on-the-responsible parenthood-and-reproductive-health-act-of-2012/, last visited September 30, Constitution; and
2013. (5)the RH Law unduly restrains the right to free speech guaranteed
under Section 4, Article III of the 1987 Constitution.

In defense of the RH Law, the Government, through the Ofce of
420 the Solicitor General, asserts that the RH Law is a landmark piece of
social welfare legislation that seeks to promote the health and
children; the number, spacing and timing of their children; to make other welfare or mothers, infants, children and the Filipino family as a
decisions concerning reproduction, free of discrimination, coercion and whole. It gives the people, especially the poor and the marginalized,
violence; to have the information and means to do so; and to attain the access to information and essential reproductive health care services
highest standard of sexual health and reproductive health: Provided, and supplies. It is the States response to the need to address the
however, That reproductive health rights do not include abortion, and access reproductive health concerns of its citizens. Particularly, the law
to abortifacients.2 intends to save the lives of mothers and new born infants.4
The Government further describes the RH Law as, at its core, a
The RH rights are fortied by the concept of universal access government subsidy designed to make reproductive health devices
to so-called medically-safe, non-abortifacient, effective, legal, and services available to the public. As the power of Congress to
affordable, and quality reproductive health care services, methods, subsidize education, public utilities and food is generally considered
devices, supplies which do not prevent the implantation of a to be within its constitutional authority, the power of Congress to
subsidize reproductive health devices and services should similarly The Government, invoking Estrada v. Sandiganbayan,9 argues
be viewed as not susceptible to constitutional attacks.5 that legitimate facial attacks upon legislation constitute
The Government insists that the RH Law as a legislative act,
which has been approved by the executive, enjoys the presumption _______________
of constitutionality. In enacting the RH Law, Congress effectuated 6 Id.
the constitutional prohibition against abortion. In particular, in 7 O Grady, Catherine, The Role of Speculation in Facial Challenges, 53 ARIZ.
dening abortifacients, the legislature implemented the L.Rev. 867, 871 (2011).
constitutional intent to protect life from conception. Moreover, in 8 Rosenkranz, Nicholas Quinn, The Subjects of the Constitution, 62 STAN. L.Rev.
providing that the National Drug Formulary shall include hormonal 1209, 1238 (2010).
contraceptives, [and] intrauterine devices [(IUDs)], Congress made 9 421 Phil. 290; 369 SCRA 394 (2001).
a legislative nding of fact that contraceptives and IUDs are safe
and 423

_______________ a rare exception to the exercise of this Courts jurisdiction.10 This

4 Consolidated Comment, p. 4. is the conventional wisdom and it is principally based on the
5 Id., at p. 5. American Salerno11 rule that a facial challenge to a legislative act is
the most difcult challenge to mount successfully, since the
422
challenger must establish that no set of circumstances exists under
which the law would be valid.12 It has been previously pointed out,
non-abortifacient. The Government contends that, this nding, however, that the American Salerno rule has not been met with
supported in the legislative records by evidence-based medical and unanimity in the American legal community.13 It has also been
scientic testimony, is entitled to great weight and deference by this pointed out that Philippine jurisprudence has traditionally deigned
Court.6 to nullify or facially invalidate statutes or provisions thereof without
The parties were then heard in oral arguments to give them an need of considering whether no set of circumstances exists under
opportunity to exhaustively discuss their respective arguments as which the [law or provision] would be valid.14 A good example is
well as to inform the public of the constitutional and legal issues the recent case of Biraogo v. Philippine Truth Commission.15
involved in these cases. More signicantly, laws that violate important individual rights
On Procedural Issues uniquely and distinctly warrant facial invalidation.16 This is
I concur with the majority opinion on procedural issues relating, grounded on the following justication:
among others, to the exercise of the power of judicial review, the
existence of an actual case or controversy which is ripe for judicial [W]here constitutional values are unusually vulnerable the Supreme Court
determination and the propriety of facial challenge in the case of the can authorize the robust protection afforded by tests that invite rulings of
RH Law. facial invalidity and preclude the case-by-case curing of statutory defects.
I wish to add that, in general, a facial challenge is a constitutional This approach most commends itself when a constitutional provision both
challenge asserting that a statute is invalid on its face as written and affords protection to speech or conduct
authoritatively construed, when measured against the applicable
constitutional doctrine, rather than against the facts and 10 Consolidated Comment, p. 16.
circumstances or a particular case.7 The inquiry uses the lens of 11 United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987).
relevant constitutional text and principle and focuses on what is 12 Id., at p. 745.
within the four corners of the statute, that is, on how its provisions 13 Romualdez v. Commission on Elections, 576 Phil. 357, 453; 553 SCRA 370, 486 (2008).
are worded. The constitutional violation is visible on the face of the Tinga, J., dissenting. More recent proof of this is Richard Fallon, Jr.s Fact and Fiction About
statute. Thus, a facial challenge is to constitutional law what res ipsa Facial Challenges, 99 CAL. L.Rev. 915, 917 (2011) (claiming that facial challenges to statutes
loquitur is to facts in a facial challenge, lex ipsa loquitur: the law are common, not anomalous).
speaks for itself.8 14 Id., at p. 454.

The Government, invoking Estrada v. Sandiganbayan,9 argues

 15 G.R. Nos. 192935 & 193036, December 7, 2010, 637 SCRA 78. While what was 17 Id., at p. 566, quoting Richard Fallon, Jr.s As-Applied and Facial Challenges
involved in this case was Executive Order No. 1, an executive issuance and not a legislative and Third Party Standing, 113 HARV. L.REV. 1321, 1352 (2000).
enactment, the point is that the Court actually engaged in a facial invalidation without reference
to the standard of no set of circumstances exists under which the [law or provision] would be
425

valid.
16 Borgmann, Caitlin, Holding Legislatures Constitutionally Accountable Through Facial The scientic evidence supports the conclusion that a zygote is a human
Challenges, 36 HASTING CONST. L.Q. 563, 565 (2009). organism and that the life of a new human being commences at a
scientically well dened moment of conception. This conclusion is

objective, consistent with the factual evidence, and independent of any
424 specic ethical, moral, political, or religious view of human life or of human
embryos.
that is especially prone to chill and reects a value that legislatures may
Since the Constitution protects the life of the unborn from
be unusually disposed to undervalue in the absence of a signicant judicially
conception, abortion of the fertilized ovum cannot be allowed by
established disincentive.17
law. Thus, the RH Law denes an abortifacient as follows:
SEC.4.Denition of Terms.For the purpose of this Act, the
As worded, the RH Law goes against a number of signicant following terms shall be dened as follows:
constitutional guarantees and principles. For this reason, I join the (a)Abortifacient refers to any drug or device that induces abortion or
majority in declaring unconstitutional certain provisions of the RH the destruction of a fetus inside the mothers womb or the prevention of the
Law that are inconsistent and incompatible with the constitutional fertilized ovum to reach and be implanted in the mothers womb upon
guarantee of fundamental rights such as the freedom of religion and determination of the FDA.
freedom of speech and the protection of the sanctity of the family,
including the corresponding rights of the husband and the wife as While an abortifacient is outlawed by the Constitution and the
spouses and as parents. A close scrutiny of the law is imperative to RH Law, the practical problem in its enforcement lies in the
see to it that it does not imperil the constitutionally guaranteed right determination of whether or not a contraceptive drug or device is an
to life and health of the unborn from conception, and of women. All abortifacient. This is where expert medical opinion is imperative.
of these sustain the facial challenge against certain provisions of the The character of the contraceptive as an abortifacient or non-
RH Law. abortifacient cannot be legislated or xed by law and should be
conned to the domain of medical science. It is in this light that the
On the Substantive Issues provision of Section 9 of the RH Law quoted below should be
The Right to Life construed if it is to be saved from constitutional attack:
I fully concur with the comprehensive and exhaustive discussion
in the majority opinion penned by the Honorable Justice Jose Catral SEC.9.The Philippine National Drug Formulary System and Family
Mendoza, as to the plain meaning and jurisprudential and medical Planning Supplies.The National Drug Formulary shall include hormonal
foundation of the Courts conclusion that the moment of conception contraceptive intrauterine devices, injectables and other safe, legal, non-
is reckoned from fertilization; that the fertilized ovum, known as abortifacient and effective family planning products and supplies. The
zygote, is the beginning of a human being; and that the theory of Philippine National Drug Formulary System (PNDFS) shall be observed in
implantation as the beginning of life is devoid of any legal or selecting drugs including family planning supplies that will be included or
scientic mooring or basis as it pertains not to the beginning of life removed from the Essential Drugs List (EDL) in accordance with existing
but to the viability of the fetus. The fertilized ovum is able to attach practice and in consultation with reputable medical associations in the
or implant itself to the uterine wall because it is a living human Philippines. For the purpose of this Act, any product or supply included or
being. The majority opinion aptly quoted with favor the following to be included in the EDL must have a certication from the FDA
statement of the Philippine Medical Association:
426

_______________
that said product and supply is made available on the condition that it is not of the fertilized ovum to reach and be implanted in the mothers womb
to be used as an abortifacient. upon determination of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
These products and supplies shall also be included in the regular purchase of (Emphasis supplied)
essential medicines and supplies of all national hospitals: Provided, further,
That the foregoing ofces shall not purchase or acquire by any means As reworded, it will allow the approval of contraceptives which
emergency contraceptive pills, postcoital pills, abortifacients that will be has a secondary effect of inducing abortion or the destruction of the
used for such purpose and their other forms or equivalent. fetus or the prevention of implantation of the fertilized ovum in the
mothers womb. This secondary effect is the fail-safe mechanism,
There is no unanimity of opinion whether hormonal which is contrary to Section 12, Article II of the 1987 Constitution
contraceptives and intrauterine devices are in fact non- and Section 4(a) of the RH Law.
abortifacient and safe. In fact, in the last sentence of Section 9, The RH Law and the Peoples Right to Health
there is a tacit admission that said hormonal contraceptives or The relevant portion of Section 2 of the RH Law declares as a
intrauterine devices are abortifacient but they are not to be used as policy the centrality of the advancement and protection of womens
such. human rights in the matter of reproductive health care:
Accordingly, since Section 9 admits that only safe, legal and non-
abortifacient contraceptives, injectables and devices can be lawfully SEC.2.Declaration of Policy.xxx
included in the National Drug Formulary, I join the majority opinion Moreover, the State recognizes and guarantees the promotion of gender
in holding that Section 9 should be read to mean that there is no equality, gender equity, women empowerment and dignity as a health and
legal compulsion to include hormonal contraceptives, injectables human rights concern and as a social responsibility. The advancement and
and devices in the National Drug Fomulary unless they are safe, protection of womens human rights shall be central to the efforts of the
legal and non-abortifacient, which obligatory preconditions must be State to address reproductive health care. xxx (Emphasis supplied)
determined by the appropriate government agency, in this case the
428
Food and Drug Administration (FDA). I concur in principle with
Justice Mariano C. Del Castillos opinion that the FDA must
formulate stringent and transparent rules of procedure in the The policy of the centrality of womens human rights in the
screening, evaluation and approval of all contraceptive drugs and matter of reproductive health care seeks to empower women. The
devices to ensure that they are safe, non-abortifacient and legal or importance of the centrality of womens human rights in the matter
compliant with the mandate of the Constitution and the law. The of reproductive health care is underscored by its reiteration in
government should be accountable or held liable whenever Section 3(m),18 the guiding principles for the laws implementation,
deleterious consequences to the health or life of the unborn or the and its privileged status in Section 2719 as the determining factor in
mother result from the latters availment of government supplied interpreting or construing the law. The policy of centrality of
contraceptive drugs or devices and the governments inability to womens human rights in the matter of reproductive health care nds
provide adequate medical attention or supervision dictated by the its rationale in the biological function and anatomical make-up of
individual health condition of a woman beneciary. the woman in relation to reproduction. This nds expression in the
last part of Section 4(h) on gender equity which states that while
427 [RH] involves women and men, it is more critical for womens
health. In other words, the law acknowledges that, while both man
I also agree with Justice Mendozas ponencia and Justice del and woman are entitled to RH rights, the RH rights are more
Castillos objection to Section 3.01 of the RH Laws Implementing signicant for the woman as she is the one who gets pregnant, bears
Rules and Regulations (IRR) that the latter cannot redene the term the unborn child in her womb for nine months, and gives birth to the
abortifacient by the addition of the word primarily as follows: child.
Thus, if the RH Law is to really protect and empower women, the
Section3.01.For purposes of these Rules the terms shall be dened as RH Laws universal access policy should be read and implemented
follows: in a manner that does not put the health of women at risk or impair
a)Abortifacient refers to any drug or device that primarily induces abortion their right to health.
or the destruction of a fetus inside the mothers womb or the prevention Section 15, Article II of the 1987 Constitution provides:
 Section15.The State shall protect and promote the right to health of _______________
the people and instill health consciousness among them. 20 Bernas, Joaquin, THE 1987 CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES: A
COMMENTARY (2009), p. 1270.
The right to health is a necessary element of the right to life. 21 See Section 2, Article II, 1987 CONSTITUTION.
More importantly, the right to health is, in itself, a fundamental 22 Section 4(p), RH Law.
human right. This is a consequence of the Philip- 23 Petition for Prohibition in G.R. No. 204934, pp. 24-26.

430
_______________
18 Section 3(m) provides: (m) Gender equality and women empowerment are
central elements of reproductive health and population and development: xxx xxx an International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Study (2011)
19 Section 27 provides: SEC.27.Interpretation Clause.This Act shall be by 23 scientists from 10 countries concluded that oral combined strogen-
liberally construed to ensure the provision, delivery and access to reproductive health progestogen contraceptives are carcinogenic to humans.[] The study
care services, and to promote, protect and fulll womens reproductive health and mentions that oral combined estrogen-progestogen contraceptives cause
rights. cancer or the breast, in-situ and invasive cancer or the uterine cervix, and
cancer of the liver. It cannot be gainsaid as it has been established by
429 scientic studies that contraceptives are hazardous to women, yet, the RH
Law allots billions of taxpayers money for the purchase of the
pines being a party to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights contraceptives to be distributed particularly to the poor. On this score alone,
and the Alma Conference Declaration of 1978,20 as well as the the RH Law is already unconstitutional. Treatment for cancer is very
countrys adoption or generally accepted principles of international expensive even if it is not always curative but mostly just palliative. What is
law.21 Reproductive health is dened as the state of complete even more tragic is that when these poor women get sick of cancers, there is
physical, mental and social well-being, and not merely the absence no free treatment available from the government. More and more women
or disease or inrmity, in all matters relating to the reproductive are getting sick of different kinds of cancers because of oral contraceptive
system and to its functions and processes.22 Thus, the right to health pills that they themselves buy for their own use, with the abundant free
is greater than and subsumes reproductive health. supply from the [State], it would not be farfetched to expect a deluge or
The petitioners assert that, rather than promoting the health of cancer patients.24
women, the State is exposing women to serious illnesses in its xxxxx
enactment of the RH Law and sponsorship of the universal access of The [RH] law not only violates the right to life of the
so-called modern means of family planning. According to them: unborn,
But endangers the life of the mother as well
Studies have established that use of oral contraceptives increases the risk 51. Both the life of the mother and the unborn are protected by the
of breast and cervical cancer. Advocates of oral contraceptives have brushed Constitution. However, the law subject of this petition allows women to use
aside these harmful effects. To do so in tight of the magnitude of the adverse certain drugs that are not only abortifacients, but also cause long-term
side-effects of oral contraceptives which have been documented is a woeful illnesses to women.
ignorance of the facts or a deliberate and cynical act of injustice to women. 52. A monograph released last year (2011) by a working group under
xxx xxx xxx the WHOs International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) made an
To provide a graphic example, the [RH Law] would almost have the overall evaluation that combined oral estrogen-progesterone
same effect as the government funding the purchase of cigarettes another contraceptives are carcinogenic to humans. The 2011 report classied the
known carcinogenic as basic goods, distributing them for free (especially pill as a Group 1 carcinogen, which means the highest level of evidence
to the poor) and prescribing their use. We can say, therefore, that [the RH of cancer risk. There is sufcient evidence in humans for the
Law] does not promote reproductive health, but sickness and death. carcinogenicity of oral combined estrogen-progesterone contraceptive. Oral
This being so, [the RH Law] not only allows the violation of womens combined estrogen-progesterone contraceptives cause cancer of the breast,
right to health, but encourages and funds the purchase of such carcinogenic in-situ and invasive cancer of the uterine cervix, and cancer of the liver,
substances which clearly endanger womens health. As such, the law should said
be declared unconstitutional and void.23
 _______________ 66.Thus, among just some of the specic dangers alleged are neural
24 Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition in G.R. No. 204988, p. 12. tube defects (from a study by the Department of Epidemiology, School of
Public Health, China Medical University; 2011), childhood strokes
431
(Christerson, Stromberg, Acta; 2010), and a disturbing hypothesis regarding
hypoplastic left heart syndrome and gastroschisis (by Walter, DK, et al.,
the 40-page section on oral contraceptive pills of the WHO-IARC University of Texas, Houston Health Science Center; 2010).
monograph. 67. To women themselves, the dangers arising from contraceptive use
53.On breast cancer, the Mayo Clinic, consistently considered as one are apparently endless: breast cancer, cervical cancer, high blood pressure,
of the best hospitals in the world, published in 2006, an article entitled Oral heart attacks, venous thrombosis (or blood clotting), excessive bleeding,
Contraceptive Use as a Risk Factor for Premenopausal Breast Cancer: A menstruation difculties, permanent infertility (making even articial
Meta-analysis. The meta-analysis, a study of world scientic literature on insemination ineffective), migraines and bone damage. Jenn Giroux
this issue, concluded that use of the pill is linked with statistically signicant (longtime commentator on contraception and with decades of experience in
association with pre-menopausal breast cancer. The association was 44% health service), writing for the Washington Times (Killer Compromise:
over baseline in women who have been pregnant and took the pill before Plan to give birth control to women will raise body count; 13 February
their rst pregnancy. 2012) found:
54. On cervical cancer, a systemic review of literature of 2003
published at the Lancet, one of the leading medical journals in the world, .Since 1975 there has been a 400% increase in in situ breast cancer
stated: long duration use of hormonal contraceptives is associated within among pre-menopausal women under 50 years old. This mirrors the
increased risk or cervical cancer. increased use of birth control these same years.
55. On heart attacks, a 2005 meta-analysis at The Journal of Clinical .A Mayo Clinic study conrms that any young girl or woman who is on
Endocrinology & Metabolism stated that a rigorous meta-analysis of the hormonal birth control for 4 years prior to rst full term pregnancy
literature suggests that current use of low-dose OCs signicantly increases increases their breast cancer risk by 52%.
the risk of both cardiac and vascular arterial events. .Women who use hormonal birth control for more than ve years are
56. On stroke, one of the leading scientic journals of the American four times more likely to develop cervical cancer.
Heart Association, published a study precisely titled as STROKE in 2002, .The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a research
concluded that indeed the pill confers the risk of rst ischemic stroke. arm of the World Health Organization classies all forms of hormonal
57.Considering the foregoing long-term effects of contraceptives on contraception as a Group 1 carcinogen. This group of cancer causing
women the law allowing the use of such contraceptives clearly violate[s] agents also includes cigarettes and asbestos.
one of the most important tenets of the Constitution. The drugs allowed by
.In October 2010 the NY Times carried an article about Hormone
the law not only harm the unborn, but endanger the life of the mother as
Replacement Therapy drugs. It quoted the American Medical Association
well.25
(AMA) as warning women that these post-menopausal drugs which were
xxxxx
originally marketed as keeping a woman young and sexy were
Medical consequences
discovered instead to be more likely to cause advanced and deadly breast
65. In the case of contraception, the medical harm caused by
cancer. It stopped short of making one other startling revelation: The only
contraceptives are well-documented. Strong links have been established, for
difference between hormone
example, between the pill and cancer, stroke and heart attacks, while the
availability of condoms has been statistically shown to spread AIDS, rather 433
than suppress it.

replacement therapy drugs which cause deadly breast cancer and the
_______________
hormonal birth control drugs (now mandated by the Obama
25 Petition in G.R. No. 205478, pp. 11-12.
administration) is that the birth control drugs are six times the dosage
and are the very same drug[s]!

432 68. Lori Chaplin reported (Want to Find a Good Husband and Have a
Family? Dont Use the Pill, National Catholic Register, 10 November 2012;
citing a 2009 U.K. study Does the Contraceptive Pill Alter Mate Choice in using NuvaRing. On October 27, 2011 they released a report titled,
Humans?) that, aside from making women less attractive (due to the Combined Hormonal contraceptives (CHCs) and the Risk of
contraceptives prevention of ovulation, thus, interfering with a womans Cardiovascular Disease Endpoints, which showed vaginal ring
appearance, odor and voice pitch to which men are sensitive), contraceptives could increase the risk of blood clots by as much as 56%.26
contraceptives also unquestionably cause harm to womens bodies.
69.Chaplin describes such serious dangers to include increased The Government refutes the allegations of petitioners by
likelihood of breast cancer, heart attack, strokes, blood clots, high blood invoking its own set of authorities and expert opinions:
pressure, liver tumors and gallstones. The pill also heightens infertility. The RH Law does not violate the right to health provision under
When a hormone is chronically changed, it actually changes the entire Section 15, Article II, nor the right to protection against
system of hormones. It changes the master hormones and how they excrete. hazardous products in Section 9, Article XVI of the
The result of this is when a woman does want to become pregnant and stops Constitution.
the pill, the body continues to act as if the pill is still being taken. That is ---------------------------------------------------
one of the reasons why women who have been on contraceptives for a long Preliminarily, the above constitutional provisions allegedly
period of time cant get pregnant! violated by respondents are mere statements of principles and
70. The aforementioned UK study further noted contraceptives policies. Hence, they cannot give rise to a cause of action in the
detrimental effects on future generations, stressing that more studies need courts; they do not embody judicially enforceable constitutional
to be conducted. They predict that offspring of pill users will by rights.
homozygous (possessing two identical forms of a particular gene), which Even assuming that the said constitutional provisions may he
can be related to impaired immune function, an increase of genetic diseases, considered self-executory, they were not violated.
as well as decreased perceived health and attractiveness. In the aforementioned Medical Experts Declaration on the
71. Reuters (7 November 2011) also reported on studies indicating that Action of Contraceptives dated August 8, 2011 prepared by UHC
the risk for venous blood clots was 43 percent to 65 percent higher with Study
drospirenone-containing pills, compared with older, so-called second- and
third-generation pills. _______________
72. Contraceptives are obviously so dangerous to health that the US 26 Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition in G.R. No. 205720, pp. 28-31.
Federal Drug Agency, within the last year alone, had to either oversee the
recall of or order increased warnings on two separate oral contraceptive 435

brands due to the possible serious adverse health problems that they could
cause. It is a fact that numerous lawsuits Group, Annex 5 hereof, the medical experts made the following
conclusions:
434
xxxxxxxxx
8.Like all medical products and interventions, contraceptives
have been led against manufacturers of contraceptives over the health must rst be approved for safety and effectiveness by drug
problems they caused. They are of such grave medical concern that regulatory agencies. Like all approved drugs, contraceptives have
numerous doctors in the United States (see the group One More Soul, for side effects and adverse reactions, which warrant their use based
example) have decided not to prescribe contraceptives to their patients. on risk-benet balance and the principles of Rational Drug Use.
73. As mentioned in the immediately foregoing paragraphs, the perils Risk-benet balance also applies when doing not[h]ing or not
accompanying contraceptives are such that liability lawsuits are a growing providing medicines which can result in greater morbidities and
industry in the West. Legal aid group Lawyers and Settlements reported that death.
as of March 2012, approximately 12,000 lawsuits have been brought In case of contraceptives, which are 50[-][year] old medicines,
against the manufacturer of widely used contraceptives Yasmin, Yaz, the Medical Eligibility Criteria (MEC) developed by the WHO is the
Beyaz and Safyral, alleging an increased risk of blood clots (deep vein comprehensive clinicians reference guiding the advisability of
thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE) and gallbladder problems. contraceptives for particular medical conditions.
NuvaRing Resource Center, a patient advocacy group, also reported that 9.The benets of the rational use of contraceptives far
the FDA has received 1,000 reports of blood clot injury or death in patients outweight the risk. The risk of dying from pregnancy and childbirth
complications is high (1 to 2 per 1000 live births, repeated with national family planning/reproductive health programs in the
every pregnancy). Compared to women nonsmokers aged below 35 preparation of guidelines for service delivery of contraceptives.
who use contraceptive pills, the risk of dying from pregnancy and The MEC has since been translated by the DOH into the Family
delivery complications is about 2,700 times higher. Planning Manual which is a ready clinical reference to guide health
10.The risk of cardiovascular complications from the care providers in advising their patients on the best possible family
appropriate use of hormonal contraceptives is low. While the risk for planning drug, device, method or service that would maximize
venous thromboembolism (blood clotting in the veins among oral benets and minimize risks given their individual circumstances.
contraceptive users is increased, the risk of dying is low, 900 times To repeat, the RH Law simply guarantees access to
lower than the risk of dying from pregnancy and childbirth contraceptives which are medically-safe, non-abortifacient, legal and
complications. Heart attack and stroke are also rare in women of effective in accordance with scientic and evidence-based medical
reproductive age and occur in women using hormonal contraceptives research standards such as those registered and approved by the
only in the presence of risk factors like smoking, hypertension FDA. The FDA shall rst determine and certify the safety, efcacy,
and diabetes. The MEC will guide providers in handling patients and classication of products and supplies for modern family
with cardiovascular conditions. planning methods prior to their procurement, distribution, sale and
11.The risk of breast cancer from the use of combined use.
hormonal pills (exogenous estrogen or estrogen from external The RH Law also provides that the FDA shall issue strict
sources) is lower than the risk from prolonged exposure to guidelines with respect to the use of contraceptives, taking into
endogenous estrogens (hormones naturally present in the body). consideration the side effects or other harmful effects of their use.
Current users of oral contraceptives have a risk of 1.2 compared to
437
1.9 among women who had early menarche (rst

436
Likewise, it provides that [t]he State shall promote programs that:
x x x (5) conduct scientic studies to determine the safety and
menstruation) and late menopause, and 3.0 among women who had efcacy of alternative medicines and methods for reproductive
their rst child after age 35. The risk of breast cancer from oral health care development. Furthermore, the selection of drugs
contraceptive use also completely disappears after 10 years of including family planning supplies that will be included or removed
discontinuing use. from the Essential Drugs List (EDL) shall be in accordance with
Combined hormonal pills are known to have protective effects existing practice and in consultation with reputable medical
against ovarian, endometrial and colorectal cancer. associations in the Philippines. It is thus very clear that before
12.The safety and efcacy of contraceptives which passed the contraceptives are made available to the public, the same shall have
scientic scrunity of the most stringent drug regulatory agencies, rst been the subject of strict scrutiny by the FDA.
including the US FDA, warranted their inclusion in the WHOs The RH Law promotes, protects and enhances the peoples right to
core list of Essential Medicines since 1977. The core list health, particularly of mothers and infants.
enumerates minimum medicine needs for a basic health care ---------------------------------------------------
system listing the most efcacious, safe and cost-effective medicines Section 11, Article XIII of the 1987 Constitution provides:
for priority conditions. Section11.The State shall adopt an integrated and
13.Contraceptives are included in the Universal Health comprehensive approach to health development which shall
package of the Department of Health. The use of contraceptives in endeavor to make essential goods, health and other social
Family Planning programs are known to reduce maternal mortality services available to all the people at affordable cost. There
by 35% through the elimination of unintended pregnancy and unsafe shall be priority for the needs of the underprivileged, sick,
induced abortions. elderly, disabled, women, and children. The State shall
Moreover, the WHO regularly publisher a monograph entitled endeavor to provide free medical care to paupers.
Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use (MEC) to further The expression of an integrated and comprehensive approach to
ensure the general safety and efcacy of modern articial health development sums up two principles premised on the
contraceptives. This monograph aims to provide guidance to understanding that the high level of health of the people and of the
country can be attained only through a combination of social, this connection, two legal principles nd relevance: the principle of
economic, political and culture conditions. Integration connotes a prudence and the precautionary principle.
unied health delivery system, a combination of private and public Fr. Joaquin Bernas, S.J., a member of the Constitutional
sectors, and a blend of western medicine and traditional health care Commission explained the principle of prudence:
modalities. Comprehensiveness includes health promotion, disease
prevention, education, and planning. And all of these are a _______________
recognition of the peoples right to health. 27 Consolidated Comment, pp. 50-55.
Moreover, the right to health is not to be understood as a right to
be healthy. The right to health contains both freedoms and 439
entitlements. The freedoms include the right to control ones health
and body, including sexual and reproductive freedom, and the right The unborns entitlement to protection begins from conception, that is,
to be free from interference, such as the right to be free from torture, from the moment of conception. The intention is to protect life from its
non-consensual medical treatment and experimentation. By contrast, beginning, and the assumption is that human life begins at conception and
the entitlements include the right to a system of health protection that conception takes place at fertilization. There is, however, no attempt to
which pin-point the exact moment when conception takes place. But while the
438 provision does not assert with certainty when human life precisely begins, it
reects the view that, in dealing with the protection of life, it is necessary
to take the safer approach.28 (Emphasis supplied)
provides equ ality of opportunity for people to enjoy the highest
attainable level of health. The comment of Bishop Teodoro Bacani, another member of the
Consequently, the promotion of reproductive health development Constitutional Commission, during the discussion of the provision
includes, among others, access to a full range of modern methods of affording protection to the life of the unborn from conception is also
family planning which includes medically-safe and effective relevant:
contraceptives even to the poor.
In Del Rosario vs. Bengzon, wherein the Philippine Medical BISHOP BACANI.Madam President, may I again intervene. First of
Association (PMA) questioned the Generics Act, this Honorable all, my personal belief is that this provision does not even depend on
Court held that the PMA misread the laws purpose which is to whether or not we recognize a strict right to life, that is why I proposed the
fulll the constitutional command to make health care affordable. family rights provision which, I believe, is a stronger one. And, secondly,
The RH Law therefore does not violate the constitutional right to Commissioner Aquino said that we cannot deal with speculation. Let me put
health; rather it promotes, protects and enhances the same by it this way. On the other hand, when there is a doubt regarding questions
reducing maternal and infant mortality rates through access to safe, of life and respect for human life, one must try to be on the safe side.
legal, affordable, effective and essential reproductive health care For example, if one doubts whether a person is really still alive or is already
services and supplies. Studies show that maternal deaths in the dead, he is not going to bury that person. He is going to make sure rst that
Philippines continue to rise simply because these mothers were not the person is really dead because if he buries that person and says: Well, I
given the proper health care and access to key reproductive health cannot rely on speculation. I cannot be completely certain, then he is
information.27 hurting life or risks hurting life. Suppose there is an object moving in the
Thus, the disagreement on the safety of the use of hormonal pills thickets; I see it and as a hunter I say, Well, I am not sure whether it is a
and IUDs by women is actually a result of reliance by the parties on human being or an animal; but nevertheless I am hunting now, I will shoot.
conicting scientic ndings on the matter. How should this Court I do not think that that is a very prudent thing to do.29 (Emphasis supplied)
address the constitutional concerns raised in these cases in the light
The gist of the principle of prudence, therefore, is that, in
of the divergence of position of the parties considering their
questions relating to life, one should err on the side of life.
signicant implications on the constitutionally guaranteed right to
health of the people, particularly of women?
_______________
The contending parties have presented a plethora of ndings of
28 Bernas, supra note 20 at p. 84.
experts in the medical eld to support their respective positions. In
 29 IV Records 707. that there are reasonable grounds for concern that there are
potentially dangerous effects on the environment, human, animal, or
440
planet health. For this reason, the precautionary principle requires
those who have the means, knowledge, power, and resources to take
Should there be the slightest iota of doubt, life should be action to prevent or mitigate the harm to the environment or to act
afrmed.30 On the other hand, in cases involving the environment, when conclusively ascertained understanding by science is not yet
there is a precautionary principle which states that when human available.32
activities may lead to threats of serious and irreversible damage to The right to health, which is an indispensable element of the right
the environment that is scientically plausible but uncertain, actions to life, deserves the same or even higher degree of protection. Thus,
shall be taken to avoid or diminish that threat.31 The Rules of if it is scientically plausible but uncertain that any foreign
Procedure for Environmental Cases provides: substance or material ingested or implanted in the womans body
may lead to threats or serious and irreversible damage to her or her
unborn childs right life or health, care should be taken to avoid or
RULE 20 diminish that threat. The principle of prudence requires that such a
PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE rule be adopted in matters concerning the right to life and health. In
Section1.Applicablity.When there is a lack of full scientic the face of the conicting claims and ndings presented by the
certainty in establishing a causal link between human activity and parties, and considering that the right to health is inextricably
environmental effect, the court shall apply the precautionary principle in intertwined with the right to life, it is proper to refer to the principle
resolving the case before it. of prudence, which is the principle relied on by the framers of the
The constitutional right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology 1987 Constitution on matters affecting the right to life. Thus, any
shall be given the benet of the doubt. uncertainty on the adverse effects of making contraceptives
Section 2.Standards for application.In applying the precautionary universally accessible on the life and health of the people, especially
principle, the following factors, among others, may be considered: (1) of women, should be resolved in a way that will promote life and
threats to human life or health; (2) inequity to present or future generations; health.
or (3) prejudice to the environment without legal consideration of the In the same vein, the application by logical and actual necessity of
environmental rights of those affected. the precautionary principle also gains relevance in the discussion of
the implications of the RH Law on the peoples right to health. The
The precautionary principle seeks to protect the rights of the
unresolved medical issue on the potentially life-threatening effects
present generation as well as to enforce intergenerational
of hormonal contraceptives and IUDs demands a cautious approach
responsibility, that is, the present generation should promote
in the face of risk and uncertainty so as to prevent or mitigate the
sustainable development and act as stewards or caretakers of the
harm or threat of harm to the people, particularly to women.
environment for the benet of generations yet unborn. In its essence,
the precautionary principle calls for the exercise of caution in the
face of risk and uncertainty. It acknowledges the peculiar _______________

circumstances surrounding environmental cases in that scientic 32 Annotation to the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases.

evidence is usually insufcient, inconclusive or uncertain and 442

preliminary scientic evaluation indicates

_______________
The principle of prudence and the precautionary principle in
30 Id., at p. 802.
matters concerning the right to life and health may be better
31 Section 4(f), RULES OF PROCEDURE IN ENVIRONMENTAL CASES.
promoted by continuing the regulation of the sale, dispensation and
distribution of contraceptive drugs and devices under Republic Act
441 No. 4729:33

Section1.It shall be unlawful for any person, partnership, or

corporation, to sell, dispense or otherwise distribute whether for or
without consideration, any contraceptive drug or device, unless such freedoms are seriously infringed by the RH Law.
sale, dispensation or distribution is by a duly licensed drug store or Freedom of Religion
pharmaceutical company and with the prescription of a qualied Religious freedom is guaranteed under Section 5, Article III of
medical practitioner. (Emphasis supplied) the 1987 Constitution:

Section5.No law shall be made respecting an establishment of

Republic Act No. 4729 provides for a controlled access policy religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and
and requires that the sale, dispensation or distribution of any enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or
contraceptive drug or device should be made only by a duly licensed preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for
drug store or pharmaceutical company pursuant to a doctors the exercise of civil or political rights.
prescription. On the other hand, with its thrust of providing
universal access to contraceptives, the RH Law gives the impression According to petitioners, the RH Law compels them to act
that it requires, under pain of criminal prosecution, even persons against their religious beliefs and threatens them with criminal
other than doctors of medicine (such as nurses, midwives, public sanction if they insist on exercising the teachings of their faith. They
health workers, and barangay health workers) to distribute point to Sections 7 and 23(a)(3) of the RH Law as the provisions
contraceptives.34 impinging on their religious freedom.
Considering the relevant medical issues and health concerns in Petitioners assail Section 7s directive to extend family planning
connection with contraceptives and devices, the regulated services to paying patients of private health facilities with the
framework under Republic Act No. 4729 where contraceptive drugs exception of non-maternity specialty hospitals and hospitals owned
and devices are sold, dispensed or distributed only by duly licensed and operated by a religious group. The exception is, however,
drug stores or pharmaceutical companies pursuant to a doctors subject to the alternative mandate of referring the person seeking
prescription is no doubt more in harmony with the principle of reproductive health care and services to another health facility which
prudence and the precautionary principle than the apparently is conveniently accessible. Thus, while private health facilities run
unrestricted or universal access approach under the RH Law. This is by conscientious objectors have no duty to render the reproductive
so as the bodies of health

444
_______________
33 Otherwise known as AN ACT TO REGULATE THE SALE, DISPENSATION AND/OR
care and services required under the RH Law, such facilities are
DISTRIBUTION OF CONTRACEPTIVE DRUGS AND DEVICES.
mandated to refer the patient to another health facility which will
34 See Section 23(a), RH Law in conjunction with Section 4(n), RH Law.
perform the said services. This same obligation to refer to another
health care provider is found in Section 23(a)(3), which imposes
criminal sanctions on any private or public health care provider
443 which refuses to extend quality health care services and information
to a person seeking reproductive health service and information.
women may react differently to said drugs or devices depending on Petitioners claim that the RH Law does not truly respect the
many factors that only a licensed doctor is capable of determining. religious freedom of a conscientious objector when it imposes upon
Thus, the universal access policy should be read as qualied by the the latter the duty to refer a person seeking reproductive health
regulated framework under Republic Act No. 4729 rather than as services to another health care provider. The imposition of such duty
impliedly repealing the said law. to refer makes the referring objector complicit to the methods and
acts of the referred health care provider. Thus, petitioners assert that
The RH Law and the Freedom of while the law does not directly violate the religious freedom of the
Religion and Freedom of Speech conscientious objector, there is still an indirect violation of religious
Freedom of religion and freedom of speech are among our freedom.
peoples most cherished liberties. Petitioners assert that these For its part, the Government claims that, contrary to petitioners
contention, the RH Law does not violate petitioners religious
freedom. Rather, the RH Law recognizes and accommodates a Having the choice is the essence of religious liberty. Since these private
persons right to exercise his or her religion. According to the health facilities and health care providers are not compelled to disobey their
Government, the mandate of Section 5, Article III of the 1987 religious beliefs, their freedom of religion is not offended.36
Constitution is to protect and promote religious liberty; the freedom
from any government compulsion to adhere to a specic religion or
to none at all. Congress, in enacting the RH Law, recognized and The Government further explains that the requirement to
acknowledged a persons right to his faith by expressly providing in immediately refer a person to another health facility and health care
Section 2 of the RH Law that the State recognizes and guarantees provider does not offend religious freedom. Section 5, Article III of
the right to choose and make decisions for themselves in the 1987 Constitution is a protection against dogmatic compulsion
accordance with their religious convictions, particularly, the right and not a shield against civic
or spouses to found a family in accordance with their religious
convictions and the demands of responsible parenthood. Moreover, _______________
Section 3, which lays down the guiding principles for the 35 Consolidated Comment, pp. 56-58.
implementation of the RH Law, expressly provides in its paragraph 36 Id., at p. 58.
(h) that the State shall respect individuals preferences and choice
446
of family planning methods that are in accordance

445
obligations. Sections 7 and 23(a)(3) of the RH Law generally
allow private health facilities and health care providers to refuse,
with their religious convictions and cultural beliefs, taking into based on religious grounds, to extend services and information to
consideration the States obligations under various human rights persons requesting for such. This opt-out clause is the
instruments. Clearly, therefore, the RH Law was crafted within the Governments accommodation to the religious beliefs of these
context that each person has a religious belief deserving of private health facilities and health care providers. There is therefore
recognition and respect. The general direction of the RH Law no burden on their religious freedom and the opt-out clause does
therefore is to accommodate. This principle of religious tolerance not offend the objectors religious freedom.37
and acceptance is concretized in its Sections 7 and 23.35 According For the Government, religious liberty is the freedom from
to the Government: coercion by the State to adhere either to a specic religion or to none
at all. The act of referring a person to another health facility or
Based on Section 7, a private health facility owned and operated by a health care provider is not a compulsion for the religious private
religious group has the option to provide the full range of modern family health facility and health care provider either to violate their
planning methods. However, if due to its religious convictions it shall opt religious beliefs or to accept anothers beliefs. Moreover, the
not to do so, it is duty bound to immediately refer the person seeking such accommodation afforded by the State to religion is not a shield
care to a conveniently accessible health facility which is capable of doing against civic obligations, but must be balanced with anothers right
so. to health and information. That is the very purpose of the proviso
Section 23(a)(3) similarly affords a health care provider the right to that a religious private health facility or a health care provider who
refuse to treat a person due to his religious convictions, on the condition that has a conscientious objection must nonetheless refer the patient to
he must also refer the person to another health care provider who is capable another non-objecting facility and health care provider.38
and willing to extend the service. The position of petitioners is correct.
The RH Law excludes from its coverage private health facilities owned Estrada v. Escritor39 established the test to be used in deciding
and operated by religious groups and health care providers, who have cases involving freedom of religion:
objections based on their religious convictions. The exemption provides that
these private health facilities and health care providers cannot be compelled x x x in resolving claims involving religious freedom (1) benevolent
or coerced to provide reproductive health services when such would be in neutrality or accommodation, whether mandatory or permissive, is the
conict with their religious beliefs. spirit, intent and framework underlying the religion clauses in our
Constitution; and (2) in deciding [a] plea of exemption based on the Free
Exercise Clause ...., it is the compelling state interest test, the strictest test, 448
which must be applied.

required a showing by the Government of a compelling state

_______________ interest to justify the curtailment of the right to freely exercise ones
37 Id., at pp. 58-59. religious beliefs. In these present cases, the Government failed to
38 Id., at pp. 59-62. pass strict scrutiny as it was not able to give any clear compelling
39 A.M. No. P-02-1651 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 00-1021-P), June 22, 2006, 492 state interest. Worse, as pointed out by the ponencia of Justice
SCRA 1. Mendoza, during the oral arguments, the Government did not even
447
see the need to show a compelling state interest on the imsy and
off-tangent argument that the legal obligations imposed by the law is
an ordinary health legislation and not a pure free exercise
In addressing the constitutionally guaranteed religious freedom matter. Yet, by recognizing conscientious objectors as constituting a
of the people, the State should adopt an attitude or benevolent class or group that is exempt from certain legal obligations under
neutrality or accommodation. And on the matter of carving an Sections 7 and 23(a)(3), the RH Law itself acknowledges that the
exemption to the free exercise aspect of religious freedom, a religious beliefs of conscientious objectors and their constitutionally
compelling state interest must be shown and the least restrictive guaranteed right to the free exercise of such beliefs are entitled to
approach should be taken. respect and protection. This recognition afforded by the RH Law to
The Government essentially agrees with petitioners that the duty conscientious objectors is irreconcilable with the Governments
to refer is a condition imposed on conscientious objectors or those, position that the imposition of the substitute duty to refer is outside
who on the basis of their religious beliefs, are exempted from the the protection afforded to free exercise. It also contradicts the
legal obligations to provide a full range of modern family planning Governments stance that the compelling interest test should not be
methods under Section 7. They are required to immediately refer a applied because the accommodation given by the RH Law to
person seeking reproductive health care and services to another conscientious objectors is justied by the standard of the balancing
health care service provider within the same facility or one which is of the freedom of religion of conscientious objectors with the
conveniently accessible under Section 23(a)(3) of the RH Law. The interests of patients to health and information.
contending parties, however, disagree on the implications of such The guarantee of free exercise of religion proscribes the
duty to refer as a condition on a conscientious objectors right to free imposition of substantial burden upon the said right absent any
exercise of religion. Petitioners posit that such a condition is compelling state interest to justify the same. A governmental
unconstitutional for being an undue burden on their right to freely restriction substantially burdens religious freedom when it bans
exercise their religious beliefs, while the Government maintains that behavior that the objectors see as religiously compelled, or mandates
it is a constitutionally valid limitation on the religious freedom of behavior that the objectors see as religiously prohibited.40 Requiring
religious objectors. people to do something that
I join the majority in upholding the petitioners position.
The duty to refer as a condition on conscientious objection is a _______________
restriction of a conscientious objectors freedom to exercise his or 40 Volokh Eugene, What is the Religious Freedom Restoration Act?, citing
her religious beliefs. While a conscientious objector is allowed, on Sherbert v. Verner (374 U.S. 398 [1963]) and Wisconsin v. Yoder (406 U.S. 205
grounds of religious freedom, to be exempted from the legal [1972]), posted on December 2, 2013. www.volokh.com/2013/12/02/la-religious-
obligations imposed under Sections 7 and 23(a)(3) of the RH Law, freedom-restoration-act/, last visited April 7, 2014.
he or she is nonetheless imposed a substitute duty, that of referral of
a person seeking reproductive health care and services to another
health care service provider who may be willing and able to provide
449
a full range of modern family planning methods or reproductive
health care services.
Estrada v. Escritor, in recognition of freedom of religion as a is forbidden by [their] faith qualies as a substantial burden on
preferred right, observed the standard of strict scrutiny and religious practice.41 While the compulsion may be indirect, the
infringement upon free exercise is nonetheless substantial and that The right to speak freedom of speech is a fundamental
is so even where the relevant conduct proscribed by a religious right.45 That liberty is specically protected under Section 4, Article
faith is indirect complicity in other conduct, and the complicity line III of the 1987 Constitution:
that the religious claimant draws appears inconsistent or unsound to
the reviewing court because [i]t is not for [secular courts] to say Section4.No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech,
that the line [the claimant] drew was an unreasonable one.42 Thus, of expression, or the press or the right of the people peaceably to assemble
the law recognizes that requiring a person to do something that he or and petition the government for redress or grievances. (Emphasis supplied)
she sincerely sees as sinful is a substantial burden on his/her
Petitioners argue that the RH Law unduly restricts the freedom of
religion, and peoples denition of sinful often includes sins of
expression and compels private health care service providers which
complicity and not just sins of direct action.43
conscientiously object to the RH Law to be a mouthpiece of the
Viewed under the lens of the above substantial burden standard,
Governments RH Law program. They are required under
the substitute duty to refer imposed on conscientious objectors under
subparagraphs (1) and (3), paragraph (a) of Section 23 to participate
Sections 7 and 23(a)(3) is a substantial burden on a conscientious
in the information dissemination component of the Governments
objectors right to the free exercise of religious beliefs as it mandates
RH Law program, under pain of criminal sanction. The assailed
behavior that the objectors see as religiously prohibited even if done
provision reads:
indirectly through complicity and not directly or personally. It places
conscientious objectors in an unconscionable dilemma either to SEC.23.Prohibited Acts.The following acts are prohibited:
violate the law or to violate their faith. Therefore, the substitute duty
to refer under the said provisions of the RH Law violates the right to _______________
free exercise of religion of conscientious objectors. In the matter of 44 Galston, William and Melissa Rogers, Health Care Providers Consciences and Patients
free exercise of religion, what cannot be compelled to be done Need: The Quest for Balance,
directly may also not be compelled to be done indirectly. http://www.brookings.edu/-/media/research/les/papers/2012/2/23%20health%
20care%20galston%20rogers/0223_health_care_galston_rogers.pdf, last accessed on
_______________ November 11, 2013.
41 Volokh Eugene, A Brief Note on the Substantial Burden Requirement, citing 45 See Social Weather Stations, Inc. v. Commission on Elections, 409 Phil. 571, 590; 357
United States v. Lee (455 U.S. 252 [1982]) and Hernandez v. Commissioner (490 U.S. SCRA 496, 517 (2001) speaking of the fundamental right of expression: and MVRS
680 [1989]), posted on December 5, 2013, www.volokh.com/wp- Publications, Inc. v. Islamic Dawah Council of the Philippines, Inc., 444 Phil. 230, 253; 396
content/uploads/2013/12/hobbylobby.docx, last visited April 7, 2014. SCRA 210, 229 (2003), speaking of the fundamental right to free speech.
42 Id., quoting Thomas v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security

Division (450 U.S. 707 [1981]).
43 Volokh Eugene, Hobby Lobby, the Employer Mandate, and Religious 451
Exemptions, posted on December 2, 2013. www.volokh.com/2013/12/02/hobby-
lobby-employer-mandate-religiousexemptions/, last visited April 7, 2014.
(a)Any health care service provider, whether public or private, who
shall:
(1)Knowingly, withhold information or restrict the
450 dissemination thereof, and/or intentionally provide incorrect
information regarding programs and services on reproductive health
Religious or moral diversity in the health care profession is a including the right to informed choice and access to a full range or
public good. Preserving religious and moral diversity within the legal, medically-safe, non-abortifacient and effective family planning
health care profession helps to guard against the tragic ethical methods;
mistakes that occur when dissent is silenced.44 This is true as regards xxx xxx xxx
the free exercise of religion. This is also true as regards the freedom (3)Refuse to extend quality health care services and
of speech of medical practitioners. information on account of the persons marital status, gender,
Freedom of Speech age, religious convictions, personal circumstances, or nature of
 work: Provided, That the conscientious objection of a health care Utterances not elemental but inevitably incidental to the doing or
service provider based on his/her ethical or religious beliefs shall be the criminal conduct alter neither the intent of the law to punish
respected; however, the conscientious objector shall immediately socially harmful nor the essence of the whole act as conduct and not
refer the person seeking such care and services to another health care speech.
service provider within the same facility or one which is The fact, therefore, that the conduct proscribed under Section 23(A)(1)
conveniently accessible: Provided, further, That the person is not in may be carried out accompanied with some speech does not make it
an emergency condition or serious case as dened in Republic Act protected speech under Section 4, Article III of the Constitution. It rarely
No. 8344, which penalties the refusal or hospitals and medical clinics has been suggested that the constitutional freedom of speech and press
to administer appropriate initial medical treatment and support in extends its immunity to speech of writing used as an integral part of conduct
emergency and serious cases; xxx (Emphases supplied) in violation of a valid criminal statute. As elucidated in the leading case of
Giboney v. Empire Storage & Ice Co.:
The Government responds to the contention of the petitioners in xxx But placards used as an essential and inseparable part of a
this way: grave offense against an important public law cannot immunize that
Section 23(A)(1) of the RH Law does not violate the freedom of unlawful conduct from state control. Virginia Electric Co. v. Board,
expression under Section 4, Article III of the 1987 Philippine 319 U.S. 533, 319 U.S. 539; Thomas v. Collins, 323 U.S. 516, 323,
Constitution. U.S. 536, 323 U.S. 537, 323 U.S. 538, 323 U.S. 539-540. Nor can we
------------------------------------------------------- say that the publication here should not have been restrained because
The prohibition in Section 23(A)(1) of the RH Law is against of the possibility
prohibited conduct, not speech.
------------------------------------------------------- 453

of separating the picketing conduct into illegal and legal parts.
It bears repeating at the outset that Congress has the inimitable power to
Thomas v. Collins, supra, at 323 U.S. 547. For the placards were to
dene unlawful acts that need to be regulated or prohib-
effectuate the purposes of an unlawful combination, and their sole,
452 unlawful immediate objective was to induce Empire to violate the
Missouri law by acquiescing in unlawful demands to agree not to sell
ice to non-union peddlers. It is true that the agreements and
ited. The power to dene crimes and prescribe their corresponding penalties
course of conduct here were, as in most instances, brought about
is legislative in nature and inherent in the sovereign power of the State to
through speaking or writing. But it has never been deemed an
maintain social order as an aspect of police power. The legislature may even
abridgment of freedom of speech or press to make a course of
forbid and penalize acts formerly considered innocent and lawful provided
conduct illegal merely because the conduct was in part initiated,
that no constitutional rights have been abridged.
evidenced, or carried out by means of language, either spoken,
Withholding or restricting information or providing incorrect information
written, or printed. See e.g., Fox v. Washington, 236 U.S. 273, 236
primarily contemplate actions and not speech. To argue otherwise on the
U.S. 277; Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568. Such an
basis that speech accompanies the prohibited conduct is to improperly de-
expansive interpretation of the constitutional guaranties or speech
compartmentalize the act. The rule is that conduct may be regulated even
and press would make it practically impossible ever to enforce laws
though it is intertwined with expression. The ruling of this Honorable Court
against agreements in restraint of trade, as well as many other
in Southern Hemisphere Engagement vs. Anti-Terrorism Council is
agreements and conspiracies deemed injurious to society.
instructive:
Similarly in the instant case, any speech or communication used as an
Petitioners notion on the transmission of message is entirely
essential and inseparable part of a grave offense against an important public
inaccurate, as it unduly focuses on just one particle of an element of
law cannot immunize that unlawful conduct from state control. To reiterate,
the crime. Almost every commission of a crime entails some mincing
the important public interest advanced by the RH Law is to provide
of words on the part of the offender like in declaring to launch overt
accessible, effective and quality reproductive health care services to ensure
criminal acts against a victim, in haggling on the amount of ransom
maternal and child health, the health of the unborn, safe delivery and birth
or conditions, or in negotiating deceitful transaction. xxx xxx
of healthy children, and sound replacement rate, in line with the States duty
xxx
to promote the health, responsible parenthood, social justice and full human health care service provider to the public in general, such as an
development. This objective of the State will be rendered inutile without Opinion-Editorial (Op-Ed)48 piece submitted to a newspaper or a
giving the people full, unbiased and accurate information about reproductive
health care services. This is what Section 23(A)(1) of the RH Law wishes to _______________
secure. 46 Consolidated Comment, pp. 79-82.
Also, it must be underscored that the RH Law promotes the ideas of 47 See Post, Robert, Informed Consent to Abortion: A First Amendment Analysis
informed choice and voluntarism. Informed choice and voluntarism means of Compelled Physician Speech, U. Ill. L.Rev. 939, 947 (2007).
effective access to information that allows individuals to freely make their 48 Id.
own decision, upon the exercise of free choice and not obtained by any
special inducements or forms of coercion or misinterpretation, based on 455
accurate and complete information on a broad range of reproductive health
services. Thus, in achieving this end, a health care service provider must act
speech given in a conference or statements given during an
with good faith in the
interview.49
454 The prohibition against the acts covered under Section 23 (a)(1)
is aimed at promoting the universal access policy of the RH Law. In
particular, it mandates doctors and other health care service
exercise of his or her duties. By good faith means refraining from coercing
providers, when speaking to a specic client or to the public at large,
or misleading patients with incomplete, inaccurate and incorrect
to provide and disseminate full information on modern family
information. It cannot be gainsaid that the State has the right and duty to
planning methods, especially the use of IUDs and contraceptives, in
prohibit and penalize a health care service provider who acts otherwise.
line with the Governments universal access policy. In accordance
Fittingly, legislative determination of the breadth of public interest
with Section 23(a)(1), doctors and other health care service
should command respect for Congress is the constitutional body vested with
providers must give patients and the public alike information and
the power to enact laws. Its representative composition induces judgment
advice on the merits of reproductive health, the benets of family
culled from the diverse regions of the country. Normally, this should assure
planning, and the advantages of the use of contraceptives as legal,
that a piece of police legislation is a reection of what public interest
medically-safe, non-abortifacient and effective family planning
contemporaneously encompasses.46
methods. Thus, the Government has determined the content of the
information to be given and disseminated by doctors and health care
Section 23(a)(1) of the RH Law declares the following acts, if service providers.
committed by any health care service provider, as criminal: In its proper context, the prohibited act of either withholding or
(a)knowingly withholding information or restricting the restricting the dissemination of information on reproductive health
dissemination of such information; and covers the decision of a doctor or a health care service provider in
(b)intentionally providing incorrect information regarding his/her personal and professional capacity not to indorse or
programs and services on reproductive health, including the right to unfavorably talk about the use of contraceptives. On the other hand,
informed choice and access to a full range of legal, medically-safe, the prohibited act of intentionally providing incorrect information
non-abortifacient and effective family planning methods. on reproductive health programs and services logically covers the
Section 23(a)(1) of the RH Law regulates both the professional medical opinion of a doctor that is critical of the use of
speech and speech as a professional of a doctor or a health care contraceptives and contradicts the FDA, such as giving advice that
service provider. Professional speech refers to the communication the use of IUDs and contraceptives may be unhealthy to women.
between doctor and patient that occurs in the course or ongoing Thus, Section 23(a)(1) of the RH Law includes both the act of not
medical consultation or treatment. It pertains to speech uttered (in giving the Government-mandated information and the act of giving
the case of Section 23(a)(1), speech either not uttered or should not information contrary to or different from that mandated by the
have been uttered) in the course and conduct of professional practice Government, whether the basis of the doctor or health care service
of the doctor or health care provider.47 Speech of/as a provider is his or her religious belief or profes-
professional, on the other hand, is the speech made by a doctor or
_______________
 49 Id. information) as conduct, not speech, and therefore not covered by
the constitutional guarantee on freedom of speech.50
456
However, the conduct penalized under Section 23(a)(1) is
essentially the act of not speaking or speaking against the
sional opinion. In this connection, it is worth noting that there is no Governments RH Law message, particularly about articial
provision to accommodate the conscientious objector under Section methods of family planning. What the law punishes, therefore, is the
23(a)(1). Nor does Section 23(a)(1) have room for a doctor or health assertion by the doctor or health care service provider of his or her
care service provider who acts against the said provision on the freedom of the mind as a professional.
ground of that doctors well-considered professional opinion. The freedom of speech is a protection of the individuals freedom
Under Section 23(a)(1), the dissemination of information is of thought and it includes both the right to speak freely and the right
strictly regimented. Every doctor or health care provider should to refrain from speaking at all. The right to speak and the right to
walk in unison and march in cadence to the RH Laws tune. Under refrain from speaking are complementary components of the broader
pain of criminal prosecution, no doctor or health care service concept of individual freedom of mind.51 In other words, the
provider may refuse to march, or follow the beat of a different freedom of speech guarantees that no person can be compelled by
drummer, or hum his own tune. In practical application, regardless the Government to carry and convey the Governments ideology.
of their religious convictions, it is felonious for doctors and other Compelled speech is not free speech. One who is free to speak
health care service providers to talk of natural family planning only cannot be made to say something against his will or violative of his
or to limit their advice, whether in personal or professional capacity, beliefs. The Government may not require a person to subscribe to
to natural methods of family planning only. Regardless of their and promote the Governments ideology. Government action that
religious convictions and professional opinion, too, it is criminal for sties speech on account of its message, or that requires the
them to make statements about the risks IUDs and contraceptives utterance of a particular message favored by the Government,
pose to both the unborn and the mother where the FDA has already contravenes freedom of expression.52
made a determination that such IUDs and contraceptives are legal, Indeed, a society that tells its doctors under pain of criminal
medically-safe, non-abortifacient and effective family planning penalty what they may not tell their patients is not a free
methods.
Thus, Section 23(a)(1) effectively compels the doctor or health _______________
care provider to make a speech that promotes the Governments RH 51 Consolidated Comment, pp. 79-82.
Law program, particularly the use of contraceptive drugs and 52 Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705, 714 (1977).
devices, regardless of the doctors religious conviction or well- 53 Turner Broadcasting System v. Federal Communication Commission, 512 U.S.
considered professional opinion. It dictates upon the doctor what 622, 640 (1994).
should be said and what should not be said in matters of
reproductive health. In other words, Section 23(a)(1) requires the 458
doctor or health care service provider to make a compelled speech, a
speech that may be against the doctors spiritual belief or society.53 The RH Law, however, precisely does that to our society.
professional opinion. Moreover, the threat of criminal sanction It dictates upon the doctor what to tell his/her patients in matters of
enhances the chilling effect of the law and serves to deter a health family planning, and threatens the doctor with criminal prosecution
care service provider from expressing his professional views or in case of non-compliance. Laws of this sort pose the inherent risk
exercising his religious reservations. that the Government seeks not to advance a legitimate regulatory
457
goal, but to suppress unpopular ideas or information or to
manipulate the public debate through coercion rather than
persuasion.54
The ratiocination of the Government utilizing the speech-conduct The value of free speech concerning the matter of the RH Law
dichotomy does not hold water. In particular, the Government for health care providers in the marketplace of ideas is signicant:
characterizes the acts punished under Section 23(a)(1) (namely,
withholding or restricting information or providing incorrect
[T]he driving force and strongest argument for retaining room for moral that of a free and diverse civil society whose institutions help shape
refusers in the profession is the fact that many of the issues facing individuals and provide alternatives to publicly dened conceptions
physicians raises metaphysical questions entirely immune to empirical of the human and civic good.59 Thus, information on RH matters
testing or any other comprehensive doctrine for distinguishing right from that is strictly regimented and severely regulated by the Government
wrong .... [We] benet from maintaining diverse viewpoints, excluding only stunts rather than promotes fully informed decisions.
arguments that are entirely illogical, for the ensuing debate will help siphon The rule is that a content-based regulation bears a heavy
out the most accurate version of moral truth as errors are revealed and presumption of invalidity and is measured against the clear and
persuasive arguments are strengthened through their collision with error.55 present danger rule. It will pass constitutional muster only if
justied by a compelling reason, and the restrictions imposed are
Chavez v. Gonzales,56 further expounds on the constitutional neither overbroad nor vague.60
value of free speech: Section 23(a)(1), a content-based regulation, is heavily burdened
by a presumption of unconstitutionality. Placed under the test of
strict scrutiny,61 the Government miserably failed
Freedom of speech and of the press means something more than the right
to approve existing political beliefs or economic arrangements, to lend
support to ofcial measures, and to take refuge in the existing climate of _______________
opinion on any matter of public consequence. When atrophied, the right 57 Id., at pp. 197-198; pp. 484-485.
becomes meaningless. The right belongs as well if not more to 58 Chemerinsky, Erwin, CONSTITUTIONAL LAWS: PRINCIPLES AND POLICIES, p. 934
those who question, who do not conform, who differ. The ideas that may (2006).
be expressed 59 Galston and Rogers, supra note 44.
60 Chavez v. Gonzales, supra note 56 at pp. 207-208; p. 496.

_______________
61 See Newsounds Broadcasting Network, Inc. v. Dy, G.R. Nos. 170270 &

53 Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497 (1961), Douglas, J., Dissenting.

179411, April 2, 2009, 583 SCRA 333, 355. In particular, the Court said in this case:

54 Turner Broadcasting System v. Federal Communication Commission, supra note 52 at p.

641.
55 Holly Fernandez Lynch, Conicts of Conscience in Health Care: An Institutional 460
Compromise, pp. 84-85, cited in Galston and Rogers, supra note 44.
56 569 Phil. 155; 545 SCRA 441 (2008).
to advance a compelling reason that would overcome the
459 presumption of the RH Laws invalidity. The Government simply
invokes the universal access policy but such policy may be advanced
without unnecessarily curtailing the right of the doctors or health
under this freedom are conned not only to those that are conventional or
care service providers to speak their minds freely, and not what the
acceptable to the majority. To be truly meaningful, freedom of speech and of
Government commands. In particular, doctors or health care service
the press should allow and even encourage the articulation of the
providers could have been allowed to express their considered
unorthodox view, though it be hostile to or derided by others; or though
professional opinion with the requirement to disclose the fact that
such view induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with
their opinion differs from the Governments stand or policy in order
conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger. To paraphrase Justice
to ensure a free and well-informed decision on the matter. Moreover,
Holmes, it is freedom for the thought that we hate, no less than for the
the overly broad and vague language of Section 23(a)(1) primarily
thought that agrees with us.57
contributes to the negative chilling impact of that provision on even
To allow the Government to target particular views or subjects the health care service providers speech as a professional.
permits the Government to greatly distort the marketplace of ideas.58 The Government also failed to show that speech may be
Worse, to impose the Governments ideology and restrict the compelled or restrained because there is substantial danger that the
available speech in the market only to Government-manufactured speech will likely lead to an evil the government has a right to
and mandated speech is a monopoly of ideas that is anathema to and prevent. There is no demonstration of evil consequences sought to
destructive of a marketplace. It defeats the public good, particularly be prevented which are substantive, extremely serious and highly

imminent.62 In other words, no clear and present danger to be

imminent.62 In other words, no clear and present danger to be the right to life of the unborn and a womans right to health.
prevented has been established. Informed decision-making involves informed consent and there can
All told, Section 23(a)(1) of the RH Law, a tool to promote the be no real informed consent until and unless one is provided full
universal access policy established in Section 7 of that information about the benets, risks and alternatives, taking into
account the persons physical well-being, personal circumstances,
_______________ beliefs, and priorities.
The Court is of the position that the actions of the respondents warrant heightened The RH Law and the Sanctity of the Family
or strict scrutiny from the Court, the test which we have deemed appropriate in The RH Law has a substantial and signicant impact on the
assessing content-based restrictions on free speech, as well as for laws dealing with declared State policy on family in Section 12, Article II of the 1987
freedom of the mind or restricting the political process, of laws dealing with the Constitution:
regulation of speech, gender, or race as well as other fundamental rights as expansion
462
from its earlier applications to equal protection. The immediate implication of the
application or the strict scrutiny test is that the burden falls upon respondents as
agents of government to prove that their actions do not infringe upon petitioners Section12.The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall
constitutional rights. As content regulation cannot be done in the absence of any protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution. It
compelling reason, the burden lies with the government to establish such compelling shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from
reason to infringe the right to free expression. conception. The natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing
62 Chavez v. Gonzales, supra note 56 at p. 200; p. 488. of the youth for civic efciency and the development of moral character
shall receive the support of the Government.
461
The above constitutional provision has three interrelated and
complementary parts.
law, constitutes an undue and unconstitutional restriction of the
First, it is a recognition of the family as a basic autonomous
freedom of speech.
social institution. It is an assertion that the family is anterior to the
Section 23(a)(1) of the RH Law is constitutionally inrm on
State and not a creation of the State. It is a guarantee that the family
another ground. It defeats and contradicts the RH Laws own
may not be subjected to instrumentalization by the State.63
declared policy in the rst paragraph of its Section 2 that the State
Second, it is a guarantee of equal protection to the lives of both
recognizes and guarantees the right of all persons to education and
the mother and the unborn. The unborns entitlement to protection
information, and the right to choose and make decisions for
commences from conception, that is, from the moment of
themselves in accordance with their religious convictions, ethics,
conception. The intention is to protect life from its beginning, and
cultural beliefs, and the demands of responsible parenthood, as well
the assumption is that human life begins at conception and that
as the guiding principle in its Section 3 that the right to make free
conception takes place at fertilization. While it does not assert with
and informed decisions, which is central to the exercise of any right,
certainty when human life precisely begins, it reects the view that,
shall not be subjected to any form of coercion and must be fully
in dealing with the protection of life, it is necessary to take the safer
guaranteed by the State, like the right itself. More importantly, it
approach.64
deprives the people of their constitutional right to information on
The provision on the protection of the unborn is an afrmation
matters of public concern, which is guaranteed under Section 7,
that, save in emergency or serious cases where the life of the mother
Article III of the 1987 Constitution. The doctors are being coerced to
is at stake, the life of the unborn may not be sacriced merely to
toe the line in RH matters by compelling them, under pain of
save the mother from emotional suffering or to spare the child from
criminal sanction, to promote the Governments RH Law program
a life of poverty. Moreover, the provision is intended to prevent the
and prohibiting them from contradicting the said government-
adoption by the State of the doctrine in Roe v. Wade,65 the American
sponsored RH Law program, even if it may go against his well-
abortion case.66
studied professional opinion. It therefore denies the target
beneciary of the program, the recipients of contraceptive drugs and
devices, of valuable information that is the premise of the right to _______________

make a truly free and fully informed decision on a matter affecting

 63 Bernas, supra note 20 at p. 83, pointing to I RECORDS, pp. 689-698, 721-723, IV 464
RECORDS pp. 596-602, 668-700, 705-761.
64 Id., at p. 84.
2.The right of children to assistance, including proper care and
65 410 U.S. 113 (1973).
nutrition, and special protection from all forms of neglect, abuse,
66 Bernas, supra note 20 at p. 83.
cruelty, exploitation and other conditions prejudicial to their
development;
3.The right of the family to a family living wage and income; and
463 4.The right of families or family associations to participate in the
planning and implementation of policies and programs that affect
them.
Third, it is an acknowledgment of the natural right and duty of
Section4.The family has the duty to care for its elderly members but
parents, as heads of the family, in preparing their children for a
the State may also do so through just programs of social security.
socially useful and upright life. The 1987 Constitution modies the
right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic
efciency and the development of moral character under the 1935 The signicance of Article XV is explained by Justice Cecilia
and 1973 Constitutions and characterizes such right and duty not Muoz Palma, President of the Constitutional Commission which
only as natural but also as primary. Such modication means drafted the 1987 Constitution, to wit:
that the right and duty of parents is superior to and precedes that of
the State.67 For the rst time, the Constitution devotes a separate Article on the
In the exercise of their natural right and duty, parents are entitled Family thereby giving due recognition to the fact that the family is a
to the support of laws designed to aid them in the discharge of their basic autonomous social institution and, therefore, the State shall
responsibility. Moreover, in recognition of the supporting role of the uphold the sanctity of family life, protect the stability of marriage
State in the upbringing of the children, the law recognizes in the and the right to found a family in accordance with ones religious
State a power of control over the conduct of children which reaches beliefs and convictions, and responsible parenthood. At this time in
beyond the scope of its authority over adults.68 the history not only of our country but of all mankind when the
To further emphasize the importance of the family as an institution of the family is subjected to assaults against its inherent
institution in our society, for the rst time in our constitutional dignity as an instrument to Gods creation, constitutional provisions
history, the Constitution devoted an entire Article on the family, which give protection and guarantees to rights and duties of parents
Article XV: are safeguards against the erosion of moral and spiritual values.69
Article XV
The Family Together, Section 12, Article II, and the entire Article XV are the
Section1.The State recognizes the Filipino family as the foundation provisions relating to the family or Family Provisions of the
of the nation. Accordingly, it shall strengthen its solidarity and actively Constitution. They form one of the common threads that runs
promote its total development. through the instant petitions. Also, these Family Provisions purport
Section2.Marriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the to be the heart of the RH Law as they are among the declared
foundation of the family and shall be protected by the State. policies of the law. Upon careful dissection in the pleadings of the
Section3.The State shall defend: parties, the oral arguments,
1.The right of spouses to found a family in accordance with their
religious convictions and the demands of responsible parenthood;
_______________
69 Closing remarks delivered on the nal session of the Constitutional
_______________
Commission, October 15, 1986, Batasang Pambansa, Quezon City.
67 Id., at p. 85, citing IV RECORDS, p. 809.
68 Id., at p. 86, citing Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944) and Ginsberg v. New 465
York, 390 U.S. 629 (1968).
and the deliberations of the members of the Court, that heart has war on the family has great collateral damage, particularly on the
been exposed as articial and incapable of sustaining the RH Laws married spouses and on minors.
Family Provisions. An essential and necessary element of the constitutional
The RH Law as worded contradicts the constitutional text of the protection for the family is the duty and undertaking of the State to
Family Provisions as well as the established constitutional principles strengthen its solidarity by, among others, defending the right or
on the family. The pertinent policy declarations are contained in spouses to found a family in accordance with their religious
Section 2 of the RH Law quoted hereunder: convictions and the demands of responsible parenthood.70
In line with the duty of the State to defend the right of spouses to
SEC.2.Declaration of Policy.xxx found a family, as well as with the constitutional recognition of the
Moreover, the State recognizes and guarantees the promotion of gender fundamental equality before the law of women and men,71 the
equality, gender equity, women empowerment and dignity as a health and Family Code has adopted the theory of unity of direction, under
human rights concern and as a social responsibility. The advancement and which the spouses enjoy legal equality, and discarded the doctrine of
protection of womens human rights shall be central to the efforts of the marital authority of the husband under the Civil Code.72
State to address reproductive health care. Among the manifestations of the theory of unity of direction in
xxx xxx xxx the Family Code are the joint authority of husband and wife to x
The State likewise guarantees universal access to medically-safe, the family domicile,73 the joint responsibility of
non-abortifacient, effective, legal, affordable, and quality reproductive
health care services, methods, devices, supplies which do not prevent
70 See Sections 1 and 3(1), ARTICLE XV, 1987 CONSTITUTION.
the implantation of a fertilized ovum as determined by the Food and
71 See Section 14, ARTICLE II, 1987 CONSTITUTION.
Drug Administration (FDA) and relevant information and education
72 Tolentino, Arturo, I COMMENTARIES AND JURISPRUDENCE ON THE CIVIL CODE OF THE
thereon according to the priority needs of women, children and other
PHILIPPINES, p. 344.
underprivileged sectors, giving preferential access to those identied
73 Article 69, Family Code. In contrast, under Article 110 of the Civil Code, the
through the National Household Targeting System for Poverty Reduction
authority to x the family domicile was given to the husband alone.
(NHTS-PR) and other government measures of identifying marginalization,
who shall be voluntary beneciaries of reproductive health care, services 467
and supplies for free.

As will be shown below, in relation to other provisions of the RH the spouses to support the family,74 the mutual right and duty of
Law, the guarantee of universal access to so-called medically- the spouses in the management of the household,75 the joint
safe, non-abortifacient, effective, legal, affordable, and quality administration and enjoyment by the spouses of the community
reproductive health care services, methods, devices, supplies property or conjugal partnership,76 and the joint parental authority of
ensured by the RH Law provisions contradicts or, at the very least, the father and the mother over the persons of their common
seriously impairs the constitutional protections extended to the children.77
family. With respect to the founding of a family, Section 19(c) of
Republic Act No. 9710, otherwise known as the Magna Carta of
466 Women, provides that women shall have equal rights in all matters
relating to marriage and family relations, including the joint
Spousal Consent decision on the number and spacing of their children. Another
The RH Law mounts an attack on the sanctity of the family on specic provision of the Family Code recognizing the theory of
two fronts, one of which is through its penal provision, particularly unity of direction in relation to the right of the spouses to found a
Section 23(a). Acts of health care service providers, whether public family is the requirement under Article 164 of that law that both
or private, that will impede or prevent the universal access policy are spouses must authorize a decision to have a child through articial
meted penal sanction. Also, the spousal consent requirement under insemination.78 Also, Republic Act No. 8552, otherwise known as
Section 23(a)(2)(i) negatively impacts on the family, in general, and the Domestic Adoption Act of 1988, mandates that, as a rule,
on the relationship of the spouses, in particular. Thus, the RH Laws husband and wife shall
_______________ As discussed above, the Family Code provisions reecting the
74 Article 70, FAMILY CODE. In contrast, under Article III of the Civil Code, it was theory of unity of direction of the spouses operate on the principle
the responsibility of the husband to support the wife and the rest of the family. that the husband and the wife enjoy equality before the law, that is, a
75 Article 71, FAMILY CODE. In contrast, under Article 115 of the Civil Code, the parity of rights and obligations.81
wife manages the affairs of the household.
76 Articles 96 and 124, FAMILY CODE. While both spouses are the joint 79 See the relevant portion of Section 7, Republic Act No. 8552. The exceptions to
administrators of the community property under Article 206 of the Civil Code, the the general rule that husband and wife shall jointly adopt are as follows: (i) if one
husband was the administrator of conjugal partnership under Article 165 of the Civil spouse seeks to adopt the legitimate son/daughter of the other; or (ii) if one spouse
Code. seeks to adopt his/her own illegitimate son/
77 Article 211, FAMILY CODE; Article 172, CIVIL CODE; ARTICLE 17, CHILD AND
daughter, with the other spouses consent; and (iii) if the spouses are legally separated
YOUTH WELFARE CODE. from each other.
78 In particular, Article 164 of the Family Code provides: 80 Section 3(v), RH Law.
Art.164.Children conceived or born during the marriage of the parents are 81 Tolentino, supra note 72 at p. 344.
legitimate.
Children conceived as a result of articial insemination of the wife with the sperm 469
of the husband or that of a donor or both are likewise legitimate children of the
husband and his wife, provided, that both or them authorized or ratied such
In connection with the womens right to health, the pertinent part
insemination in a written instrument executed and signed by them before the birth of
of Section 17 of the Magna Carta of Women provides:
the child. The instrument shall be recorded in the civil registry together with the birth
certicate of the child. Section17.Womens Right to Health.(a) Comprehensive Health
Services.The State shall, at all times, provide for a comprehensive,
468
culture-sensitive, and gender-responsive health services and programs
covering all stages of a womans life cycle and which addresses the major
adopt jointly.79 These provisions recognize that the right to found causes of womens mortality and morbidity: Provided, That in the
a family pertains to both of the spouses and should be exercised by provision for comprehensive health services, due respect shall be
them jointly. They are an acknowledgment that the right to sexual accorded to womens religious convictions, the rights of the spouses to
intimacy mutually pertains to the spouses and, therefore, the found a family in accordance with their religious convictions, and the
concomitant right to procreate mutually pertains to the spouses and demands of responsible parenthood, and the right of women to
are jointly decided by them. A marriage cannot be viewed as protection from hazardous drugs, devices, interventions, and
harmonious if the marriage partners are fundamentally divided on substances. xxx (Emphasis supplied)
the important and vital issue of having children. The RH Law is
cognizant of this when it refers to responsible parenthood as a
shared responsibility between parents to determine and achieve Section 17 of the Magna Carta of Women is clear in its
the desired number of children, spacing and timing of their children recognition that the right to health of a woman is qualied by
according to their own family life aspirations, taking into account various factors, including the right of the spouses to found a family
psychological preparedness, health status, socio-cultural and in accordance with their religious convictions and the demands of
economic concerns consistent with their religious convictions.80 responsible parenthood. It therefore takes into due consideration
Another relevant constitutional principle is the fundamental the concern that, when the right to health of a married woman will
equality before the law of men and women under Section 14, Article have implications on her rights and obligations as a wife and/or a
II of the 1987 Constitution: mother, her right to health is important to her not merely as an
individual woman but as a spouse and as a parent.
Section14.The State recognizes the role of women in nation-building, Yet, Section 23(a)(2)(i) of the RH Law provides:
and shall ensure the fundamental equality before the law of women and
men. SEC.23.Prohibited Acts.The following acts are prohibited:
(a)Any health care service provider, whether public or private, who
shall:
 xxx xxx xxx SEC.7.Access to Family Planning.All accredited public health
(2) Refuse to perform legal and medically-safe reproductive health facilities shall provide a full range of modern family planning methods,
procedures on any person of legal age on the ground of lack of consent or which shall also include medical consultations, supplies and necessary and
authorization of the following persons in the following instances: reasonable procedures for poor and marginalized couples having infertility
issues who desire to have children: Provided, That family planning services
470
shall likewise be extended by private health facilities to paying patients with
the option to grant free care and services to indigents, except in the case of
(i) Spousal consent in case or married persons: Provided, That in case non-maternity specialty hospitals and hospitals owned and operated by a
of disagreement, the decision of the one undergoing the procedure shall religious group, but they have the option to provide such full range of
prevail; xxx modern family planning methods: Provided, further, That these hospitals
shall immediately refer the person seeking such care and services to another
health facility which is conveniently accessible: Provided, nally, That the
As worded, Section 23(a)(2)(i) allows one of the spouses to person is not in an emergency condition or serious case as dened in
undergo reproductive health procedures without need of the consent Republic Act No. 8344.
of the other spouse. The provision does away with spousal consent. No person shall be denied information and access to family planning
Under pain of criminal sanction, it prohibits any health care service services, whether natural or articial: Provided, That minors will not be
provider from refusing to perform reproductive health procedures on allowed access to modern methods of family planning without written
any married person on the ground of lack of spousal consent or consent from their parents or guardian/s except when the minor is already a
authorization. In other words, lack of spousal consent or parent or has had a miscarriage. (Emphases supplied)
authorization may not be invoked by a health care service provider
as a ground to refuse to perform reproductive health procedures on a The RH Law mandates that [n]o person shall be denied
married person. The proviso even strengthens the dispensable nature information and access to family planning services, whether natural
of the consent of the other spouse because the decision of the one or articial.82 Minors are supposed to be excluded from the said
undergoing the procedure trumps the other spouses opposition. mandate but this exclusion is diluted by the same provision. While it
Clearly, on its face, Section 23(a)(2)(i) contradicts the unity of requires minors to secure written parental or guardians consent
direction of the spouses, conicts with the solidarity of the family, before they can have access to family planning services, any minor
and collides with the fundamental equality before the law of men who is already a parent or has had a miscarriage may have access to
and women. In particular, it goes against the constitutional right of modern family planning methods without need of written parental
the spouses to found a family and to jointly decide on the number consent. The said exception to the requirement of written parental
and spacing of their children. Rather than fostering unity between consent is objectionable on constitutional ground.
the spouses, it tends to foment discord and sow division between
them. _______________
Parental Authority 82 See last paragraph of Section 7, RH Law.
The second front, through which the attack on the sanctity of the
family is mounted, is Section 7 of the RH Law. The belligerent act 472
consists of the provisions effect of giving substance to the RH
rights and its categorical mandate that [n]o person shall be denied
The full signicance of this exemption from parental consent can
information and access to family planning services, whether natural
be understood better in the light of the following provisions of the
or articial, except a minor who has not secured a written parental
Family Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 6809:
or guardians consent, but the said consent is dispensed with if the
minor is Art.234.Emancipation takes place by the attainment of majority.
Unless otherwise provided, majority commences at the age of eighteen
471
years.
xxx xxx xxx
already a parent, or has had a miscarriage. The provision states:
 Art. 236.Emancipation shall terminate parental authority over the class of minors mentioned in the RH Law. This Court has
the person and property of the child who shall then be qualied and already ruled in Malto v. People:85
responsible for all acts of civil life, save the exceptions established by
existing laws in special cases. A child cannot give consent to a contract under our civil laws. This is on
Contracting marriage shall require parental consent until the age of the rationale that she can easily be the victim of fraud as she is not capable
twenty-one. of fully understanding or knowing the nature or import of her actions. The
Nothing in this Code shall be construed to derogate from the duty or State, as parens patriae, is under the obligation to minimize the risk of harm
responsibility of parents and guardians for children and wards below to those who, because of their minority, are as yet unable to take care of
twenty-one years of age mentioned in the second and third paragraphs of themselves fully. Those of tender years deserve its protection.
Article 2180 of the Civil Code. (Emphases supplied) The harm which results from a childs bad decision in a sexual encounter
may be innitely more damaging to her than a bad business deal. Thus, the
For purposes of marriage, the person who is already emancipated law should protect her from the harmful consequences of her attempts at
but is below 21 years old still requires parental consent.83 Thus, a adult sexual behavior. For this reason, a child should not be deemed to
person who is no longer under parental authority of his or her have validly consented to adult sexual activity and to surrender herself
parents for being already or legal age but below 21 years of age still in the act of ultimate physical intimacy under a law which seeks to
cannot exercise the right to sexual intimacy in marriage unless he or afford her special protection against abuse, exploitation and
she has parental consent. For such person, parental consent is discrimination. xxx In other words, a child is presumed by law to
indispensable even if he or she is already a parent or has had
miscarriage. Yet, under the RH Law, a minor, who is still under _______________
parental authority of his or her parents as he or she is not yet 84 Section 3(p), RH Law.
emancipated, can exercise the right to sexual intimacy simply 85 560 Phil. 119, 139-141; 533 SCRA 643, 662-663 (2007).
because he or she is already a parent or she has had a miscarriage.
Therefore, through the RH Law, the Government gives such minors 474

freedom from parental authority and the opportunity, if not a

be incapable of giving rational consent to any lascivious act or sexual
_______________ intercourse.
83 Article 14, FAMILY CODE. This must be so if we are to be true to the constitutionally enshrined
State policy to promote the physical, moral, spiritual, intellectual and
social well-being of the youth. (Emphases supplied)

473
Another anomalous and absurd consequence of the RH Laws
license, to further engage in the sexual act by virtue of their exemption of minors who are already parents or have had
entitlement under the RH Law to have access to modern methods of miscarriage is undue inequality of treatment. It violates the right of
family planning. The RH Law therefore recognizes that such minors, minors to equal protection because the classication it creates is not
regardless of their young age, are entitled to responsible, safe, based on any substantial distinction.86 The fact that the said minors
consensual and satisfying sex life and that they have the capability are themselves already parents or have had a miscarriage does not
to reproduce and the freedom to decide if, when, and how often to make them less of a minor. Nor does it emancipate them. In fact,
do so,84 without need of parental consent. such minors, by virtue of their situation as minors who are at the
The overly liberal stance or the RH Law as regards the access of same time parents or who have undergone the traumatic experience
minors, who are already parents or have had a miscarriage, to of miscarriage, are more vulnerable to conditions that will adversely
modern family planning methods without need of parental consent is affect their development. They have a stronger need for the advice
contrary to the provision of Section 12, Article II of the 1987 and support of their family, particularly of their parents. Yet, Section
Constitution. It is also seriously doubtful if the elimination of the 7 of the RH Law treats them as if they are no longer minors and
requirement for parental consent with redound to the best interest of already emancipated from parental authority. By depriving the
parents of these minors of their authority with respect to something
that may be life-dening for the said minors, the latter are likewise upbringing in keeping with their means;
deprived of the instruction, guidance and counsel of their parents on
a very important matter. Such minors are effectively denied of their _______________
constitutional right as children to assistance and special pro- 87 Section 3(2), ARTICLE XV, 1987 CONSTITUTION.
88 Section 12, ARTICLE II, 1987 CONSTITUTION.
_______________ 89 Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753 (1982).
86 The equal protection clause does not require the universal application of the 90 Santos, Sr. v. Court of Appeals, 312 Phil. 482, 487; 242 SCRA 407, 411 (1995).
laws to all persons or things without distinction. What it simply requires is equality
476
among equals as determined according to a valid classication. Indeed, the equal
protection clause permits classication. Such classication, however, to be valid must
pass the test of reasonableness. The test has four requisites: (1) The classication (2)To give them love and affection, advice and counsel, companionship
rests on substantial distinctions; (2) It is germane to the purpose of the law; (3) It is and understanding;
not limited to existing conditions only; and (4) It applies equally to all members of the (3) To provide them with moral and spiritual guidance, inculcate in
same class (Biraogo v. Philippine Truth Commission, supra note 15 at p. 168). them honesty, integrity, self-discipline, self-reliance, industry and thrift,
stimulate their interest in civic affairs, and inspire in them compliance
475 with the duties of citizenship;
(4)To enhance, protect, preserve and maintain their physical and
mental health at all times;
tection from conditions that may be prejudicial to their
(5) To furnish them with good and wholesome educational materials,
development.87
supervise their activities, recreation and association with others, protect
The other side of the coin, which is the access of certain minors
them from had company, and prevent them from acquiring habits
to modern family planning methods without need of parental
detrimental to their health, studies and morals;
consent, is the collateral damage on what the Constitution
(6)To represent them in all matters affecting their interests;
recognizes as the primary and natural right and duty of parents in
(7)To demand from them respect and obedience;
the rearing of the youth for civic efciency and the development of
(8)To impose discipline on them as may be required under the
moral character.88 Parents have a fundamental liberty interest in the
circumstances; and
care, custody and management of their child.89
(9)To perform such other duties as are imposed by law upon parents and
In this connection, Article 209 of the Family Code provides:
guardians.91 (Emphases supplied)
Art.209.Pursuant to the natural right and duty of parents over the
person and property of their unemancipated children, parental authority and Parental consent is the tangible manifestation of the exercise of
responsibility shall include the caring for and rearing them for civic parental authority with respect to the access by minors to modern
consciousness and efciency and the development of their moral, mental methods of family planning. Parents are naturally and primarily
and physical character and well-being. interested in the welfare of their children and the parental consent
requirement is an appropriate method of giving the parents an
opportunity to foster that welfare by helping their minor child to
Parental authority is that mass of rights and obligations which the make and adopt a correct decision, especially when that child is
law confers on parents for the purpose of the childrens physical distressed for being already a parent or having had a miscarriage.
preservation and development, as well as the cultivation of their Our existing laws governing the suspension or termination of
intellect and the education of their hearts and minds.90 In particular, parental authority reects the constitutional rule on the natural and
it consists of the following rights and duties: primary right of parents in the rearing of their

Art.220.The parents and those exercising parental authority shall

_______________
have with the respect to their unemancipated children on wards the
91 Article 220, Family Code.
following rights and duties:
(1)To keep them in their company, to support, educate and instruct 477
them by right precept and good example, and to provide for their
children.92 They show that termination of parental authority is
children.92 They show that termination of parental authority is detrimental to their health, studies and morals; and, to represent
such a drastic step that it can be allowed on the basis of justiable them in all matters affecting their interests.
legal grounds provided by law, such as, emancipation of the child, While not all deprivations of rights or liberty are constitutionally
death of either the parent or the child, adoption of the child, proscribed but only deprivations without due process of law,95 the
appointment of a general guardian for the child, judicial declaration fundamental right to parental authority over their minor children has
of abandonment of the child, nal judgment of a competent court been taken away from the parents without due process of law. It is
divesting the parent of parental conviction of the parent of a crime neither fair nor just to ascribe the condition of a minor of either
with civil interdiction as an accessory penalty, excessive harshness already having a child or having had a miscarriage as a fault or
or cruelty of the parent towards the child, giving the child corrupting shortcoming of the parents as to outrightly or by operation of law
orders, compelling the child to beg, subjecting the child to acts of deprive the latter of their natural and primary right. There is
lasciviousness, etc.93 Doing away with parental consent in therefore no compelling interest, or even rational basis, to deprive
connection with a minors access to so-called modern methods of parents of their constitutionally recognized natural and primary right
family planning, like IUDs and contraceptive drugs and devices, to rear their children under the circumstances provided in the proviso
means taking away parental authority in the said area. However, the of the second paragraph of Section 7 of the RH Law.
conditions which trigger the partial loss of parental authority under In this connection, the second sentence of Section 23(a)(2)(ii)
the RH Law (that is, that minors either already have children or have expands the infringement on parental authority caused by Section 7,
had miscarriage) are unreasonable and insufcient to justify the as the said section requires parental consent only in elective surgical
restriction of parental authority imposed by the said law. procedures. For the same grounds mentioned above, this provision
The education of the children, the vigilance over their conduct, also suffers from constitutional inrmity.
and the formation of their character, are very essential parts of the
mission and vocation of the parents.94 In giving minors who are _______________
already parents or have had miscarriage access to modern methods 95 Section 1, Article III, 1987 CONSTITUTION: No person shall be deprived of life,
of family planning or safe, effective, non-abortifacient and legal liberty, or property without due process or law...
methods, whether natural or articial, that are registered with the the liberty, against deprivation of which without due process the Fourteenth
FDA, to plan pregnancy without need of parental consent, the Amendment protects, embraces more than the rights found in the Bill of Rights. But
Government is disregarding the natural and primary right and duty that liberty is not guaranteed absolutely against deprivation, only against deprivation
of parents to exercise parental authority over the said minors. The without due process of law (Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), Rehnquist, J.,
matter of access of such minors to modern methods of family Dissenting).
planning is something that is of great consequence to the said minor
children and their respective families. Yet, the Gov- 479

_______________ The RH Law: Devaluing Societys Values

92 See Articles 228-231, FAMILY CODE. It is the very purpose of a Constitution and particularly of the
93 Id. Bill of Rights to declare certain values transcendent, beyond the
94 Tolentino, supra note 72 at p. 622. reach of temporary political majorities.96 The question of
constitutionality is not a matter of popularity or public perception
478
but of consistency with the constitutional text and principles. It is
not determined at the polls or by surveys but by adherence to the
ernment usurps the natural and primary right of the parents of such Constitution. Thus, while policies crafted by the legislative and
minors who are obligated to educate and instruct their children by executive departments may cater to the public clamor, constitutional
right precept and good example; to give them advice and counsel; to construction by courts caters solely to constitutional text and intent.
provide them with moral and spiritual guidance; to furnish them To reiterate, the Constitution is the fundamental expression of our
with good and wholesome educational materials, supervise their democratic principles and deeply-held values as a people. Thus, we
activities, recreation and association with others, protect them from adopt the following principles which are in harmony with the
bad company, and prevent them from acquiring habits that may be constitutionally mandated power of the Judiciary:
[T]he Courts job is to preserve our societys values, as those values are considered professional opinion differs from the laws policy and
embodied in a Constitution, which provides a oor below which the program on reproductive health.
citizenry cannot choose to descend.97 As certain provisions of the RH Law, on its face and as worded,
xxxxx contradicts the constitutional values which we have sworn to protect
A Madisonian system [of rule by the majority and respect for the rights of and promote, those provisions of the RH Law must be invalidated if
the minority] avoids either minority or majority tyranny by giving this Court is to be faithful to its duty to preserve our nations deeply-
substantial power to the majority while preserving basic rights for the held values.
minority. In such a system, the judges are simply imposing their own values In view of the foregoing reasons, I agree with Justice Jose C.
and engaging in judicial tyranny, unless they can derive their conclusions Mendoza that the following provisions of Republic Act No. 10354,
from the Constitutions values and not simply their own.98 otherwise known as The Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive
Health Act of 2012, should be declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL
_______________ and, therefore, null and void:
96 Brennan, Williams speech given at the Text and Teaching Symposium,

Georgetown University October 12, 1985, Washington, D.C.,
(1)Section 7 insofar as it (a) requires private health facilities and non-
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/democracy/souces/document/html. (last
maternity specialty hospitals and hospi-
accessed November 15, 2013).
97 Watson, Bradley, OURSELVES AND OUR POSTERITY, Lexington Books (2009), p. 481
xiv citing Justice Antonio Scalia of the U.S. Supreme Court.
98 Harrison, John, In Memoriam: Robert Bork, 36 HARV.J.L.&PUB.POLY 1245,
tals owned and operated by a religious group to refer patients, not in an
1246 (2013).
emergency or life-threatening condition as dened under Republic Act No.
8344, to another facility which is conveniently accessible, and (b) allows
minor-parents and minors who have had a miscarriage access to modern
480 methods of family planning without the written consent of their parents or
guardian/s;
(2)Section 23(a)(1) insofar as it penalizes any health care service
Bearing the above fundamental premises in mind, the
provider, whether public or private, who shall knowingly withhold
constitutionality of the RH Law ought to be judged based on its
information or restrict the dissemination thereof, and/or intentionally
implications on the relevant and treasured values of the Filipino
provide incorrect information regarding programs and services on
society as shown by the Filipino peoples history and tradition as
reproductive health;
enshrined in the Constitution. These cherished values are as follows:
(3)Section 23(a)(2) insofar as it penalizes any health care service provider
the sanctity of the family; the natural joint right of the spouses to
who refuses to perform reproductive health procedures on account of his or
found a family; the natural and primary right and duty of parents in
her religious beliefs;
the rearing of their children; and the right to health or the people,
(4)Section 23(a)(2)(i) insofar as it allows a married individual, not in an
particularly of women; and the fundamental equality before the law
emergency or life-threatening condition, as dened in Republic Act No.
of women and men. These transcendental values include the
8344, to undergo reproductive health procedures without the consent or the
protection of the freedom of religion and freedom of speech.
spouse;
As discussed above, on its face and as worded, certain provisions
of the RH Law do not promote the said values but instead undermine
them. The RH Law dilutes the traditional prerogatives of spouses, (5)Section 23(a)(2)(ii), second sentence insofar as it penalizes a health care
defeats the unity of direction of the spouses and erodes the natural service provider, whether private or public, for requiring written parental consent
from minors before undergoing reproductive health procedures, except only in
and primary right of parents in the rearing of their children through
elective surgical procedures;
its respective provisions on spousal and parental consent.
On its face and as worded, certain provisions of the RH Law run (6)Section 23(a)(3) insofar as it punishes any health care service provider
counter to the freedom of religion and freedom of speech of who fails and/or refuses to refer a patient not in an emergency or life-
physicians and health care service providers whose spiritual belief or threatening case, as dened under Republic Act No. 8344, to another health
care service provider within the same facility or one which is conveniently not appropriate for the exercise of the Courts power of judicial
accessible regardless of his or her religious beliefs; review.
I also agree with the ponencia that the Reproductive Health (RH)
482
law protects and promotes the right to life by its continued
prohibition on abortion and distribution of abortifacients. I exclude
(7)Section 23(b) insofar as it punishes any public ofcer who refuses to from this concurrence Section 9 of the RH law and its
support reproductive health programs or shall do any act that hinders the full Implementing Rules and Regulation (IRR) which, in my view, fail
implementation of a reproductive health program, regardless of his or her in their delity to the constitutional commands and to those of the
religious beliefs; RH Law itself; for one, they fail to adopt the principle of double
(8)Section 17 regarding the rendition of pro bono reproductive health effect under Section 12, Article II of the 1987 Constitution (Section
service insofar as they affect the conscientious objector in securing 12).
PhilHealth accreditation; and For these reasons, I cannot wholly agree that the RH Law is fully
(9)Section 3.01(a) and (j) of the IRR insofar as it uses the qualier protective of the unborn from conception. I submit, too, that the
primarily for contradicting Section 4(a) of the RH Law and violating Court should formulate guidelines on what the government can
Section 12, Article II of the 1987 Constitution. actually procure and distribute under the RH law, consistent with its
authority under this law and Section 12, Article II to achieve the full
protection the Constitution envisions.
Section 9 of the RH Law insofar as its rst sentence directs that I also agree that the challenge to Section 14 of the RH Law is
hormonal contraceptives and intrauterine devices shall be included premature. However, I submit my own views regarding the
in the National Drug Formulary should neither be interpreted as mandatory sex education in light of the natural and primary right of
mandatory nor as an infallible legislative pronouncement that they parents to raise their children according to their religious beliefs. My
are safe, legal and non-abortifacient, as compliance with these discussion on this topic also responds to the position of Mr. Justice
prerequisites cannot be legislated by law but is dependent on expert Bienvenido Reyes that the challenge to the constitutionality is ripe
scientic evaluation. Likewise, the law cannot foreclose or predict and that the government has a compelling interest in enacting a
the outcome of future scientic study on this matter. mandatory sex education program.
A nal note: A heavy responsibility and burden are assumed by Lastly, I nd the RH laws Section 23(a)(1), which penalizes
the government in supplying contraceptive drugs and devices, for it healthcare providers who knowingly withhold information or
may be held accountable for any injury, illness or loss of life restrict the dissemination thereof, and/or intentionally provide
resulting from or incidental to their use. incorrect information regarding programs and ser-
SEPARATE CONCURRING OPINION 484

BRION,J.:
vices on reproductive health to be unconstitutional for violating the
I submit this Separate Concurring Opinion to reect my views on freedom of speech.
selected constitutional issues submitted to the Court. For easy reference and for convenience, this Opinion shall
I agree with the ponencias conclusion that the petitions before proceed under the following structure:
the Court are ripe for judicial review, but I do so un- I.Preliminary Considerations
A.The petitions are ripe for judicial review: the fresh
483
approach under the 1987 Constitution
a.The Historical Context of Judicial Power
der a fresh approach that meets head-on the recurring problems the b.Analysis of Section 1, Article VIII of the 1987
Court has been meeting in handling cases involving constitutional Constitution.
issues. My discussions on this point are likewise submitted to reply b.1.The Power of Judicial Review
to the position of Mr. Justice Marvic Leonen that the petitions are b.2.The New and Expanded Power
B.The Three Types of Adjudicative Judicial Power
 C.The Court is duty bound to resolve the present petitions, and the innovations it introduced on the Judicial Department,
not merely dismiss them. specically, on the expansion of the Courts adjudicative judicial
II.Substantive Discussions power.
A. The RH Law does not fully protect the right to life
486
of the unborn child
a.Overview
i. The primacy of life in the Philippine a.The Historical Context of Judicial Power.
context The 1935 Constitution mentioned the term judicial power but
b.The 1987 Constitution did not dene it. The Constitution simply located the seat of this
i. The status of the unborn under the 1987 power in one Supreme Court and in such inferior courts as may be
Constitution established by law.
ii. The constitutional meaning of conception and The 1973 Constitution, for its part, did not substantially depart
to whom this right to life extends from the 1935 formulation; it merely repeated this same statement
iii.Section 12, Article II of the 1987 Constitution and incorporated part of what used to be another section in the 1935
as a self-executing provision Constitution into its Section 1. Thus, Section 1 of the Article on the
c. Section 12, Article II of the 1987 Constitution and Judicial Department of the 1973 Constitution provided:
Roe v. Wade
The Judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such
485 inferior courts as may be established by law. The National Assembly shall
have the power to dene, prescribe, and apportion the jurisdiction of the
d.Abortion, abortifacients and the RH Law various courts, but may not deprive the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction
e. The RH laws denition of abortifacient textually over cases enumerated in Section ve thereof.
complies with Section 12, Article II, 1987 Constitution
The 1987 Constitution, in contrast with the preceding
f.The principle of double effect
Constitutions, substantially eshed out the meaning of judicial
i.The role of the DOH
power, not only by conrming the meaning of the term as
ii.Guidelines
understood by jurisprudence up to that time, but by going beyond
B.Parental Rights
the accepted jurisprudential meaning of the term. The changes are
a.Parental rights in the Filipino context
readily apparent from a plain comparison of the provisions. The
b.Parental rights and the States interest in the youth
same Section 1 under Judicial Department (Article VIII) now reads:
c. The state has failed to show a compelling State
interest to override parental rights in reproductive health The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such
education lower courts as may be established by law.
d. The question on Section 14s constitutionality is Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual
premature controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and
C. Disturbing observations and concerns: The Effects enforceable, AND to determine whether or not there has been a grave
of Contraceptives on national, social and cultural values abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of
D. Freedom of Expression of Health Practitioners and any branch or instrumentality of the Government. (emphasis and
the RH Law underscoring supplied)

I.Preliminary Considerations 487

A. The petitions are ripe for judicial

review: the fresh approach under b. Analysis of Section 1, Article
the 1987 Constitution VIII of the 1987 Constitution.
I submit that the petitions are ripe for judicial review. My This simple comparison readily yields the reading through the
approach is anchored on a fresh look at the 1987 Constitution repetition of the sentence that both the 1935 and the 1973
Constitutions contained that the 1987 Judiciary provisions retain prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus.
the same judicial power that it enjoyed under the 1935 and the (2)Review, revise, reverse, modify, or afrm on appeal or certiorari,
1973 Constitutions. as the law or the Rules of Court may provide, nal judgments and orders of
In addition, the 1987 Constitution, through the 2nd paragraph of lower courts in:
its Section 1, conrms that judicial power is wider than the power of (a)All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty,
adjudication that it traditionally carried (by using the word international or executive agreement, law, presidential decree,
includes) and at the same time incorporated the basic proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in question.
requirements for adjudication in the traditional concept, namely, the (b)All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost, assessment, or
presence of actual controversies, based on rights which are toll, or any penalty imposed in relation thereto.
legally demandable and enforceable. (c)All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue.
The conrmation expressly mentions that the power is granted to (d)All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion
courts of justice and, aside from being a power, is imposed as a perpetua or higher.
duty of the courts. Thus, the Constitution now lays the courts open (e)All cases in which only an error or question of law is involved.
to the charge of failure to do their constitutional duty when and if (3) Assign temporarily judges of lower courts to other stations as
they violate the obligations imposed in Section 1, Article VIII of the public interest may require. Such temporary assignment shall not exceed six
1987 Constitution. months without the consent of the judge concerned.
Section 5, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution further eshes (4)Order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a miscarriage of
out the irreducible powers of the Supreme Court1 in terms of its justice.
original, appellate, and review adjudicative powers and its other (5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of
non-adjudicative powers.2 In so doing, Section 5 also conrmed the constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, the
extent of the constitutionally-granted adjudicative power of the admission to the practice of law, the Integrated Bar, and legal assistance to
lower courts that Congress has the authority to create (by dening, the underprivileged. Such rules shall provide a simplied and inexpensive
prescribing and apportioning their jurisdictions),3 as well as the procedure for the speedy disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all courts
grant of admin- of the same grade, and shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive
rights. Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall
_______________ remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court.
1 Section 2, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution reads:
489
Section 2.The Congress shall have the power to dene, prescribe, and
apportion the jurisdiction of various courts but may not deprive the Supreme Court of
(6)Appoint all ofcials and employees of the Judiciary m accordance
its jurisdiction over cases enumerated in Section 5 hereof.
with the Civil Service Law.
2 Section 6, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution reads:
Section 6 provides that The Supreme Court shall have administrative supervision
over all courts and the personnel thereof.
b.1.The Power of Judicial Review.
3 Batas Pambansa Blg. 129.
In the process of making judicial power more specic and in
outlining the specic powers of the Supreme Court, the Constitution
made express the power of judicial review, i.e., the power to pass
488 upon the constitutional validity of any treaty, international or
executive agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation, order,
instruction, ordinance, or regulation,4 as the law or the Rules of
istrative, executive and quasi-legislative powers to the Supreme
Court may provide.
Court, all within the sphere of its judicial operations.
This formulation recognizes that the Supreme Court, even before
Section 5 now provides:
the 1987 Constitution came, already had workable rules of
SECTION5.The Supreme Court shall have the following powers: procedure in place for the courts. These rules cover ordinary actions,
(1)Exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors, special civil actions, special proceedings, criminal proceedings, and
other public ministers and consuls, and over petitions for certiorari, the rules of evidence in these proceedings, all of which the 1987
Constitution recognized when it mentioned the Rules of Court, but In the process of lawmaking or rulemaking, for example, an
subject to the Supreme Courts power of amendment. actual controversy is already present when the law or rule is shown
b.2.The New and Expanded Power. to have been attended by grave abuse of discretion because it was
Still another addition, a completely new one, to the concept of passed; it operates; or its substantive contents fall, outside the
judicial power under the 1987 Constitution is the power to contemplation of the Constitution.6 This should be contrasted with
determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of allegations of constitutional invalidity in the traditional justiciable
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part cases where, by express constitutional requirement, the elements of
of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.5 This new (1) actual contro-
power is innovative since its recognition is separate from the
traditional adjudicative power that Section 1 earlier conrms and _______________
which Section 5 in part eshes out. 6 Pimentel v. Aguirre, G.R. No. 132988, July 19, 2000, 336 SCRA 201; and
Taada v. Angara, G.R. No. 118295, May 2, 1997, 272 SCRA 18.
_______________
491
4 This same power was only implied in the US Constitution and was expressly
recognized only through jurisprudence (Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 [1803]). Our
1935 and the 1973 Constitutions followed this approach. versy involving (2) demandable and enforceable rights, must be
5 CONSTITUTION, Article VIII, Section 1. present because what essentially comes to court is the traditional
justiciable case, interwoven with constitutional validity questions.
490
In the expanded judicial power, any citizen of the Philippines to
whom the assailed law or rule is shown to apply necessarily has
It is likewise a denitive expansion of judicial power as its locus standi since a constitutional violation constitutes an affront or
exercise is not over the traditional justiciable cases handled by injury to the affected citizens of the country. If at all, a less stringent
judicial and quasi-judicial tribunals. Notably, judicial power is requirement of locus standi only needs to be shown to differentiate a
extended over the very powers exercised by other branches or justiciable case of this type from the pure or mere opinion that the
instrumentalities of government when grave abuse of discretion is courts cannot render.
present. In other words, the expansion empowers the judiciary, as a Necessarily, too, a matter is ripe for adjudication if the assailed
matter of duty, to inquire into acts of lawmaking by the legislature law or rule is already in effect. The traditional rules on hierarchy of
and into law implementation by the executive when these other courts and transcendental importance, far from being grounds for
branches act with grave abuse of discretion. the dismissal of the petition raising the question of
This expansion takes on special meaning when read with the unconstitutionality, may be reduced to rules on the level of court that
powers of the Court under Section 5, particularly in relation with the should handle the controversy, as directed by the Supreme Court.
Courts power of judicial review, i.e., the power to declare a treaty, Thus, when grave abuse of discretion amounting to a clear
international or executive agreement, law, presidential decree, constitutional violation is alleged and preliminarily shown, the
proclamation, order, instruction, ordination or regulation Supreme Court is duty-bound to take cognizance of the case, or at
unconstitutional. least to remand it to the appropriate lower court, based on its
Under the expanded judicial power, justiciability expressly consideration of the urgency, importance or evidentiary
depends only on the presence or absence of grave abuse of requirements of the case.
discretion, as distinguished from a situation where the issue of B. The three types of Adjudicative Judicial Powers.
constitutional validity is raised within a traditionally justiciable case In sum, judicial power, as now provided under the 1987
where the elements of actual controversy based on specic legal Constitution, involves three types of controversies, namely:
rights must exist. In fact, even if the requirements for strict (1) the traditional justiciable cases involving actual disputes
justiciability are applied, these requisites can already be taken to be and controversies based purely on demandable and
present once grave abuse of discretion is prima facie shown to be enforceable rights;
present. (2) the traditional justiciable cases as understood in (1), but
additionally involving jurisdictional and constitutional
 issues; Thus, in the present case, the Court must be guided strictly by the
express constitutional command. If past jurisprudence will be made
492
to apply at all, they should be closely read and adjusted to the reality
of the third or new type of judicial adjudicative power.
(3) pure constitutional disputes attended by grave abuse of C. The Court is duty bound to
discretion in the process involved or in their result/s. resolve the present petitions,
The rst two types are already covered by the Rules of Court not simply dismiss them.
that, as recognized by Section 5, are already in place, subject to the
amendments that the Supreme Court may promulgate. The consolidated petitions before the Court raise several
The third type may inferentially be covered by the current constitutional challenges against the RH Law, ranging from
provisions of the Rules of Court, specically by the rules on violations of the right to life of the unborn (and, concomitantly, of
certiorari, prohibition and mandamus but, strictly speaking, requires the constitutional prohibition against abortion); violations of the
special rules that the current Rules of Court do not provide since the freedom of religion and of speech; violations of the rights of parents
third type does not involve disputes arising as traditionally and protected familial interests; down to the mostly benign
justiciable cases. Most importantly, the third type does not involve allegations of violation of natural law.
judicial or quasi-judicial exercise of adjudicative power that the An important and insightful approach is the petitioners attack on
Supreme Court has traditionally exercised over lower tribunals7 to the RH law by considering it as a population control measure that is
ensure that they stay within the connes of their adjudicative beyond the power of the government to carry out. The respondents
jurisdiction. parry this attack by arguing that whatever impact the RH law would
In the petitions now before us, these new realities on judicial have on the population would only be incidental, as the main target
power necessarily must be considered as the petitions allege actions of the law is to recognize and enhance the reproductive health rights
by the legislature and by the executive that lie outside the of women. I agree with the ponencias analysis of what the RH
contemplation of the Constitution. Specically, they involve the Law really is, and adopt this analysis and conclusion for
constitutionally inrm provisions of the RH Law passed by purposes of my own discussions in this Opinion.
Congress and of the IRR of the law that the executive promulgated This snapshot of the petitions strongly shows how the economic,
through the Department of Health. social, cultural and religious dimensions of the RH law cut a swath
To be sure, the absence of specically applicable rules cannot be through the traditional legal and constitutional realm of adjudication.
a judicial excuse for simply bodily lifting the rules for the traditional It is no surprise that it took the RH bill fourteen years in Congress
justiciable cases which the present cases are not. In fact, the Court before it was enacted into law.
should not even be heard to give an excuse as it is not undertaking a
494
power that it may exercise at its discretion; the Court is discharging
an express duty imposed by the Constitution itself.
In providing for procedural parameters, the Court may not simply The sharp divide between the laws proponents and opponents
hark back to jurisprudence before the 1987 Constitu- views and beliefs on the propriety of the RH law, within and outside
its legal and constitutional dimensions, reect the laws
_______________ encompassing impact: its implementation could, quite possibly,
7
Through the writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus over lower courts and change the face of Philippine society as we know it today. In fact, in
quasi-judicial bodies in the exercise of their adjudicative functions. this Separate Opinion, I add my own nagging concerns and
observations although I know that these may go into the wisdom of
493 the law and are not appropriate for adjudication. I do this, however,
in the name of judicial license that should allow me, as a citizen, to
tion as they will not obviously apply, nor to jurisprudence after the express my own personal observations on the dispute at hand.
1987 Constitution that failed to recognize the third type of Indeed, if the RH law seeks to bring about strong, socio-political
justiciable controversy for what it is. and economic changes even at the price of our historical identity,
culture and traditions, then so be it, but the affected public should
know the impact of the issues that soon enough will confront the A sure measure to best ensure proper action is to consider the
nation. It is important, too, that changes should not come at the petitions under the third type of judicial adjudications power
expense of the provisions of the Constitution the only document (dened above) that we rst consciously utilize under the present
that holds the nation together during times of social disquietude or Constitution. In this way, we give full respect to the separation of
political excitement, as in the present case. This should not be lost powers; we step in only when the legislative and the executive step
on us, as a Court, and should be a primary consideration in our out of the bounds dened for them by the Constitution.
present task. For all these reasons, I join the ponencias result in its ruling that
At the core of the petitions is the RH laws alleged violation of a controversy exists appropriate for this Courts initial consideration
the right to life of the unborn. I view the unborns right to life within of the presence of grave abuse of discretion,
the much broader context of Article II, Section 12 of the 1987
496
Constitution recognizing the sanctity and autonomy of familial
relations and the natural and primary parental right in child-rearing,
on the one hand, and Article XV, Sections 1 and 3, recognizing the and consequent adjudication if the legislative and executive actions
key role of the family, on the other. can be so characterized.
These constitutional provisions serve as the compass guiding this
Opinion and should in fact serve as well for the Courts own II.Substantive Discussions
decision-making. Even those in the political departments of
government should pay them heed, separately from the political and A. The RH Law does not fully protect the right to life of the
economic considerations that, from the unborn child.
a.Overview
495 The 1987 Constitution has implicitly recognized the right to life
of the unborn child under its Section 12 when it gave the mandate,
terms of the RH law and its IRR, obviously served as the political under the Sections second sentence, to protect the unborn life from
departments driving force. its conception, equally with the life of mother.
Under our constitutional regime, the judicial department is the I agree with the ponencias conclusion that under Section 12, the
only organ of government tasked to guard and enforce the conception that the Constitution expressly speaks of, occurs upon
boundaries and limitations that the people had put in place in fertilizations of the ovum. Thus, the RH law cannot be faulted in its
governing themselves. This constitutional duty of the Court has been denition of an abortifacient to be any drug or device that kills or
expanded by the additional power of judicial review under the 1987 destroys the fertilized ovum or prevents its implantation in the
Constitution to determine whether or not there has been a grave uterus.
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the I slightly differ, however, from the way the ponencia arrived at
part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government. its conclusion. To me, the Constitution never raised the question of
These are awesome powers carrying deep and far-ranging duties when life begins;8 in fact, this is a question that the framers of the
that we can only discharge while fully aware of their accompanying Constitution sensibly avoided by simply adopting the formulation
responsibilities and pre-ordained limits. The present Court, I am the life of the unborn from conception. Interestingly, they even
sure, is fully aware of the extent of these duties and the limitations, dropped the term moment of conception since this precise moment
particularly of the rule that we cannot set new polices nor seek to cannot be determined with certainty. The answer the framers decided
implement current ones as these involve roles that are not upon
constitutionally ours to undertake.
I am aware, too, that the RH Law now before us carries multi- _______________
dimensional repercussion, not all of them within the legal and 8 As petitioner Alliance for Family Foundation, Inc. states, the question of when
constitutional realms. These realities, however, should not leave us life begins is neither metaphysical nor theological it is scientic; (Memorandum,
timid in undertaking our tasks; for as long as we act within the p. 48) and unless the scientic community has become unanimous on a question that
connes of our constitutionallydened roles, we cannot go wrong. transcends every culture, race, and religion, this Court cannot consider itself adequate
to answer the question. Indeed, the question of when life begins? is not simply a
question of law that this Court can conclusively answer; it is not also simply a 498
question of policy that Congress can conclusively determine. What the Court does
know is that it is question that is as old as humanity itself.
its earliest inception carries deep roots in the Philippine legal
497 system.
The idea of life as a fundamental constitutional value from its
earliest inception is not of recent vintage although our previous
(reinforced by undisputed medical authorities) and which they hope constitutions did not have a provision equivalent to the present
future constitutional leaders and decision-makers will grasp and Section 12, Article II. Our legal history shows that abortion laws
respect is that once the sperm cell and the egg cell unite (resulting have been in existence even during the Spanish regime when the
in the combination of their genetic materials to form the fertilized Spanish Penal Code was made applicable in the Philippines. When
egg or the zygote),9 the protection intended for the unborn should the Revised Penal Code was enacted in 1930, the life of the unborn
be triggered with full force. I write this Opinion with full respect for was also considered by suspending the execution of the death
this hope. sentence10 on a pregnant woman. Under the New Civil Code of
Thus, I agree with the ponencia that the RH law protects and 1950, an unborn child is granted presumptive personality from the
promotes the right to life of the unborn by its continued prohibition time of its conception for civil purposes that are favorable to it,
on abortion and distribution of abortifacients. I do recognize, although subject to the condition that it be born later.11 To a certain
however, that while the RH law generally protects and promotes the extent, this presumptive personality is already recognized under our
unborns right to life, its Section 9 and its IRR fail in their delity penal laws. Under Title I (Crimes Against Persons), Chapter 8
to the Constitution and to the very terms of the RH Law itself. For (Destruction of Life) of the Revised Penal Code, the killing of
one, it fails to adopt the principle of double effect under Section viable, and even non-viable, fetuses may result in criminal
12, Article II of the 1987 Constitution, as more fully discussed liability.12
below. The continued efcacy of these statutory provisions evidences
For these reasons, I cannot wholly concur that the RH law and its our societys high regard for the life of the unborn; thus, our present
IRR, as they came to this Court, were fully protective of the right to Constitution allows us to disregard it only for the equally paramount
life of the unborn. In fact, the Court should lay down guidelines, necessity of saving the life of the unborns mother. It also reects
culled from a constitutionally-valid RH Law, of what the not only our societys recognition of and respect for the life of the
government can actually procure and distribute under the RH law, unborn as a Filipino ideal
consistent with its authority under this law and Section 12, Article II
of the Constitution.
_______________
i.The primacy of life in the Philippine context 10 Article 83 of the Revised Penal Code.
11 See also Presidential Decree (PD) No. 603. The effect of this grant of
The primacy of life from its earliest inception is a constitutional presumptive personality is illustrated in Geluz v. Court of Appeals (No. L-16439, July
ideal unique to the 1987 Philippine Constitution. While our system 20, 1961, 2 SCRA 801) where the Court, denied recovery of damages for the death of
of government of tripartite allocation of powers (Articles VI to an unborn because it is not yet endowed with personality. Nevertheless, the Court
VIII), the concept of our Bill of Rights (Article III) and even the recognized that an unborn fetus has a right to life and physical integrity.
traditional concept of judicial review (Section 1, Article VIII) may Similarly in Quimiging v. Icao (G.R. No. 26795, July 31, 1970, 34 SCRA 132), the
have been of American origin, the idea of life itself as a fundamental Court ruled an unborn child is entitled to receive support from its progenitors.
constitutional value from 12 See Arts. 255-259 of the Revised Penal Code.

499
_______________
9http://psychology.about.com/od/developmentalpsychology/a/prenatal
develop.htm. to be pursued under the 1987 Philippine Constitution, but of the
countrys own cultural values as a people.13

 That this same respect is now expressly provided under the 1987 conception. To be precise, Section 12, Article II of the 1987
Constitution is not so much for the purpose of creating a right, but Constitution provides:
for the purpose of strengthening the protection we extend to the
unborn life against varied external threats to it.14 It would indeed be Section12.The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall
very ironic if the threat would come from our own government via protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution. It
the abortifacients it hopes to distribute under the RH Laws IRR. shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from
b.The 1987 Constitution conception. The natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing
i. The status of the unborn under the 1987 of the youth for civic efciency and the development of moral character
Constitution shall receive the support of the Government.
Although the framers of the Constitution expressly recognized
ii. The constitutional meaning
the unborns right to life from conception, they did not intend to give
of conception and to whom
the unborn the status of a person under the law.
is this right to life extended
Instead, the framers distinguished between the unborns right to
Unlike the ponencia, I take the view that the question of when the
life and the rights resulting from the acquisition of
life of the unborn begins cannot strictly be answered with reference
to time, i.e., the exact time the sperm cell fertilized the egg cell. But
_______________ other than this uncertainty, the germinal stage17 of prenatal
13 The Preamble of the 1987 Constitution reads: development18 that transpires (after
We, the sovereign Filipino people, imploring the aid of Almighty God, in order to
build a just and humane society, and establish a Government that shall embody our
_______________
ideals and aspirations, promote the common good, conserve and develop our
15 Records of the Constitutional Commission (RCC), July 17, 1986, p. 56.
patrimony, and secure to ourselves and our posterity, the blessings of independence
16 A heated and prolonged debated ensued on the question of whether a provision
and democracy under the rule of law and a regime of truth, justice, freedom, love,
protecting the life of the unborn should ever be written in the Constitution.
equality, and peace, do ordain and promulgate this Constitution.
17 There are three basic stage of prenatal development: germinal stage, embryonic
14 This conclusion is reached by a reading of Section 12, Article II in relation with
stage and fetal stage
the other provisions in the 1987 Constitution. Unlike the US Constitution, the idea of
(http://psychology.about.com/od/developmentalpsychology/a/prenataldevelop.htm.)
respect for life and for human dignity permeates the Philippine Constitution, viz.:
last accessed March 20, 2014.
Section 5, Article II on the protection of life under a democracy; Section 9, Article II
18 The process of growth and development within the womb in which a zygote
on a social order that ensures quality life for all; Article II in relation to Article XIII
(the cell formed by the combination of a sperm and an egg) becomes an
on its special regard for the youth, women, health, and ecology as factors affecting the
life of the people; Section 1, Article III on the protection of life through the 501
observance of due process; Section 1, Article XII on national economy that fosters
equality of life for all.
the union of the sperm cell and the egg cell and the combination of
500 their genetic material materialized to form the fertilized egg or the
zygote) is not debatable.
Upon fertilization, a complex sequence of events is initiated by
legal personality upon birth in accordance with law. Unlike the
the zygote to establish the molecular conditions required for
rights emanating from personhood, the right to life granted to the
continued embryonic development. The behavior of the zygote at
unborn is in itself complete from conception, unqualied by any
this point is radically unlike that of either sperm or egg separately; it
condition.
exhibits signs of independent life characteristic of a human
Although Section 12, Article II of the Constitution does not
organism.19
consider the unborn a person, its terms reect the framers clear
Since the constitutional intent is to protect the life of the unborn,
intent to convey an utmost respect for human life15 that is not merely
and the fertilized egg (or the zygote) already exhibits signs and
co-extensive with civil personality.16 This intent requires the
characteristics of life, then this fertilized egg is already entitled to
extension of State protection to the life of the unborn from
constitutional protection. I say this even if this fertilized egg may not contraceptive depends, must depend in the rst place on the extent
always naturally develop into a baby or a person. of the prohibition dened in the Constitution, not as dened by
I submit that for purposes of constitutional interpretation, every Congress.21
doubt should be resolved in favor of life, as this is the rule of life,
anywhere, everywhere; any doubt should be resolved in favor of its _______________21 While the US Supreme Court recently reversed the trend of
protection following a deeper law that came before all of us the reviewing congressional ndings of fact in Gonzales v. Carhart (550 U.S. 124 [2007])
law commanding the preservation of the human specie. This must it formally disavowed judicial deference on the US Congresss ndings:
have been the subconscious reason why even those who voted Although we review congressional fact nding under a deferential standard, we do
against the inclusion of the second sentence of Section 12 in Article not in the circumstances here place dispositive weight on Congress ndings. The
II of the Constitution conceded that a fertilized ovum the word Court retains an independent constitutional duty to review factual ndings where
originally used prior to its substitution by the word unborn is constitutional rights are at stake. See Crowell v. Benson, 285 U.S. 22, 60 (1932) (In
possessed of human life although they disagreed that a right to life cases brought to enforce constitutional rights, the judicial power of the United States
itself should be extended to it in the Constitution.20 necessarily extends to the independent determination of all questions, both of fact and
It is in these lights that I dispute the Solicitor Generals argument law, necessary to the performance of that supreme function)
that Congress determination (that contraceptives are not
abortifacients) is entitled to the highest respect from 503

_______________ Third, and more importantly, while US case law has established
embryo, a fetus, and then a baby (http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp? Congress broad discretion in areas where medical uncertainty
articlekey=11899). exists, none of these cases22 involved a challenge on congressional
19 (http://psychology.about.com/od/developmentalpsychology/a/prenatal- discretion and its collision with a specic constitutional provision
develop.htm). last accessed March 20, 2014. protecting the life of the unborn from conception. This aspect of the
20 RCC, July 17, 1986. present cases uniquely distinguishes them from the cases cited by
the respondents. In the same vein, the specic provisions unique to
502
the 1987 Constitution limit the applicability of parallel US
jurisprudence in resolving issues through solutions consistent with
this Court since it was arrived at after receiving, over the years, our own aspirations and ideals as a nation and our own tradition
evidence, expert testimonies and position papers on the distinction and cultural identity as a people.
between contraceptives and abortifacients. Fourth and last, this Court cannot be deferential to any ofcial,
The Solicitor General argues that even assuming medical institution or entity, in the discharge of the Courts duty to
uncertainty on the mechanisms of contraceptives and Intrauterine interpret the Constitution, most specially when the existence of the
Devises in view of the contrary opinions of other medical experts, most important physical and spiritual being on earth
this uncertainty does not prevent Congress from passing the RH law humankind is at stake. Let it not be said hereafter that this Court
because legislative options in areas fraught with medical and did not exert its all in this task. When God forbid! fetuses
scientic uncertainties must be especially broad and calls for begin
judicial deference until an actual case exists.
I cannot agree with the implied assertion that Congress _______________
determination that contraceptives are not abortifacients is 22 See Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124, (2007); Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S.
binding on the Court. 346 (1997); Jones v. United States, 463 U.S. 354 (1983).
First, the nature of a particular contraceptive to be distributed by In Gonzales v. Carhart, the Court was confronted with a medical disagreement
the government under the RH law still has to be determined by the whether the laws prohibition on a particular abortion procedure would ever impose
FDA and any advance recognition by Congress of its abortifacient or signicant health risks on women seeking abortion. The Court upheld the prohibition
non-abortifacient character would be premature. as being consistent with the States interest in promoting respect for human life at all
Second, as will be discussed shortly, the statutory meaning of stages in the pregnancy. The medical uncertainty provides a sufcient basis to
abortifacient, on which the constitutional acceptability of a conclude in this facial attack that the Act does not impose an undue burden. In US v.
Marshall, 414 U.S. 417 (1974), which the public respondents cited, after Robert 505
Edward Marshall pleaded guilty to an indictment charging him with entering a bank
with intent to commit a felony, he requested that he be considered for treatment as a
is within this context that Congress enacted the RH Laws
narcotic addict pursuant to law. The court denied his request because his prior two
provisions,23 as well as prior laws24 that provide healthcare measures
felony convictions statutorily excluded him from the discretionary commitment
for the mother and her child during and after pregnancy.
provision of the law. Marshall questioned the denial on due process grounds. The
Second, Section 12, Article II provides a negative command
Court denied the challenge. After considering the limited resources to fund the
against the State to refrain from implementing programs that
program and the lack of generally accepted medical view as to the efcacy of
threaten the life of the unborn child or that of the mother. This is a
presently known therapeutic methods of treating addicts, the Court said that
constitutional directive to the Executive Department.
Congress simply made a policy choice in an experimental program that it deems
By commanding the State to equally protect the life of the unborn
more benecial to the society.
child and the life of the mother, the Constitution not only recognizes
504 these rights, but provides a minimum level of protection in the case
of the unborn child. In effect, the Constitution prohibits the State
from implementing programs that are contrary to its avowed
dying because abortifacients have been improvidently distributed by policies; in the case of the unborn child, the State cannot go lower
government, let not the blame be lain at the door of this Court. than the minimum level of protection demanded by the Constitution.
iii. Section 12, Article II of the In concrete terms, the State cannot, in the guise of enacting
1987 Constitution as a self- social welfare legislation, threaten the life of the unborn child after
executing provision conception. The State recognizes the right to
The respondents argue that the recognition of a right under the
Constitution does not automatically bestow a right enforceable
_______________
through adjudication. Thus, they claim that Section 12, Article II of
23 Section 3(c); Section 4(c), (d), (q)2; and Section 5, Republic Act (RA) No.
the 1987 Constitution is not a self-executing provision; while this
10354.
Section recognizes the right to life of the unborn child, it leaves to
24 Under Section 17a(1) and (3) of RA No. 9710 (AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE
Congress the discretion on how it is to be implemented. The RH law
MAGNA CARTA OF WOMEN), women are granted, among others, access to maternal care
actually embodies the exercise of Congress prerogative in this area
which includes access to pre-natal and post-natal services to address pregnancy and
when it prohibited abortion and access to abortifacients.
infant health and nutrition and legal, safe and effective methods of family planning.
I submit that the mandate to equally protect the life of the mother
Under Section 3(f) of RA No. 6972 (AN ACT ESTABLISHING A DAYCARE CENTER IN
and the life of the unborn child from conception under Section 12,
EVERY BARANGAY, INSTITUTING THEREIN A TOTAL DEVELOPMENT AND PROTECTION OF
Article II of the Constitution is self-executing to prevent and
CHILDREN PROGRAM, APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES) the
prohibit the state from enacting legislation that threatens the right
total development and protection of children program at the barangay level include a
to life of the unborn child.
referral and support system for pregnant mothers for pre-natal and neo-natal care.
To my mind, Section 12, Article II should not be read narrowly
Under Section 3(a) of RA No. 8980 (AN ACT PROMULGATING A COMPREHENSIVE POLICY
as a mere policy declaration lest the actual intent of the provision be
AND A NATIONAL SYSTEM FOR EARLY CHILDHOOD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT PROVIDING
effectively negated. While it is indeed a directive to the State to
FUNDS THEREFOR AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES), the early childhood and development
equally protect the life of the mother and the unborn child, this
system under the law aims to make adequate health and nutrition programs accessible
command cannot be accomplished without the corollary and indirect
to mothers as early as the pre-natal period.
mandate to the State to inhibit itself from enacting programs that
contradict protection for the life of the unborn. 506
Read closely, the second paragraph of Section 12, Article II
contains two mandates for the State to comply with:
First, it contains a positive command for the State to enact life of the unborn child from conception, and this should not be
legislation that, in line with the broader context of protecting and imperiled by the State itself in the course of reproductive health
strengthening the Filipino family, recognizes and protects equally programs that promote and provide contraceptives with abortifacient
the life of the unborn child and the mother. It properties. In more specic terms under the circumstances of this
case, the State cannot, through the legislature, pass laws seemingly In the landmark case of Roe v. Wade, a Texas statute made it a
paying respect and rendering obedience to the Constitutional crime to procure or attempt an abortion except when necessary to
mandate while, through the executive, promulgating Implementing save the life of the mother. After discussing abortion from a
Rules and Regulations that deviously circumvent the Constitution historical perspective, the US Supreme Court noted the three reasons
and the law. behind the enactment of criminal abortion laws in the different states
To recapitulate, the State, through Congress, exercises full in the United States, viz.: rst, the law sought to discourage illicit
authority in formulating programs that reect the Constitutions sexual conduct a reason that has not been taken seriously; second,
policy directive to equally protect the life of the mother and the since the medical procedure involved was then hazardous to the
unborn child and strengthen the Filipino family while the Executive woman, the law seeks to restrain her from submitting to a procedure
carries the role of implementing these programs and polices. This that placed her life in serious jeopardy; third, the law advances the
discretion, however, is limited by the ipside of Section 12, Article States interest in protecting prenatal life25
IIs directive i.e., these programs cannot contradict the equal
protection granted to the life of the unborn child from conception _______________
and the life of the mother. 25 On this third reason, the US Supreme Court added:
I now proceed to my reading and appreciation of whether the Some of the argument for this justication rests on the theory that a new human
right to protection, both of the mother and the unborn, are fully life is present from the moment of conception. The States interest and general
respected under the RH law. obligation to protect life then extends, it is argued, to pre-natal life. Only when the life
At the outset, I note that both the petitioners and the respondents of the pregnant mother herself is at stake, balanced against the life she carries within
agree that Section 12, Article II of the 1987 Constitution prohibits her, should the interest of the embryo or fetus not prevail. Logically, of course, a
abortion in the Philippines. This point of agreement not only legitimate state interest in this area need not stand or fall on acceptance of the belief
strengthens my argument regarding the self-executing nature of the that life begins at conception or at some other point prior to live birth. In assessing the
negative command implicit in the provision, but also sets the stage States interest, recognition
for the point of constitutional query in the present case.
To me, the question in the present case involves the scope of the 508
level of protection that Section 12, Article II recognizes for the
unborn child: to what extent does Section 12, Article II of the 1987
a reason that is disputed because of the absence of legislative
Constitution protect the unborns right to life? And does the RH Law
history that supports such interest. The Court said that it is with
comply with the protection contemplated under this constitutional
these interests, and the weight to be attached to them, that this case
provision?
is concerned. Unhesitatingly, the US Supreme Court struck down
507 the law as unconstitutional and ruled that the right to privacy
extends to a pregnant womans decision whether to terminate her
pregnancy.26 It observed:
According to the OSG, the RH law does not violate the right to
life provision under the Constitution because the law continues to This right of privacy, x x x is broad enough to encompass a womans
prohibit abortion and excludes abortifacients from the provision of decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. The detriment that the
access to modern family planning products and device. By anti- State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice
abortion, the public respondents meant preventing the Supreme altogether is apparent. Specic and direct harm medically diagnosable
Court from creating a Roe v. Wade rule a rule that granted women even in early pregnancy may be involved. Maternity, or additional offspring,
the right to terminate pregnancy under the trimestral rule. may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm
c. Section 12, Article II of the 1987 may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care.
Constitution and Roe v. Wade There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted
I submit that the scope and level of protection that Section 12, child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already
Article II of the 1987 Constitution is deeper and more meaningful unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. In other cases, as in
than the prohibition of abortion within the meaning of Roe v. Wade. this one, the additional difculties and continuing stigma of unwed
motherhood may be involved. All these are factors the woman and her 30 The following is Roes trimester framework.
responsible physician necessarily will consider in consultation. (a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the rst trimester, the abortion
decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant
Among the cases that Roe cited in support of its ruling, anchored womans attending physician.
on the right to privacy, are the cases of Griswold v. Connecticut27 (b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the rst trimester, the
and Eisenstadt v. Baird.28 In Griswold, the Court invalidated a State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate
Connecticut law that made it a crime to use and abet the use of the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.
contraceptives for violating a married couples right to privacy. In (c) For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the
Eisenstadt, the Court extended potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion
except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the
_______________ life or health of the mother.
may be given to the less rigid claim that as long as at least potential life is involved, 31 The cases (e.g., Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 [1965] and Eisenstadt v.
the State may assert interests beyond the protection of the pregnant woman alone. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 [1971]) that set the stage for Roe v. Wade essentially reect what
26 Roe challenged the constitutionality of a Texas criminal abortion law that the American constitutional law thinking is on the matter of pregnancy, abortion, and
proscribes procuring or attempting an abortion except on medical advice for the the States intervention. The apprehen
purpose of saving the mothers life.
27 381 U.S. 479 (1965). The Court reversed the conviction of the appellants who 510

prescribed contraceptives to married couples.

28 405 U.S. 438 (1971). the power to determine that only at a certain stage of prenatal
development can the constitutional protection intended for the life
509
unborn be triggered.32 In short, the clear intent of the Framers was to
prevent both Congress and the Supreme Court from making
the protection of the right to privacy even to unmarried abortion possible.
individuals by invalidating a Massachusetts law that penalized Indeed, in discussing the third reason for the enactment of a
anyone who distributed contraceptives except if done by a physician criminal abortion law, Roe avoided any reliance on the theory that
to married couples.29 life begins at conception, much less on the principle that
While Roe recognized the states legitimate interest in protecting accompanies the theory that there must be a protected right to life at
the pregnant womans health and the potentiality of human life, it that stage. Instead the U.S. Supreme Court merely deferred to the
considered the pregnant womans decision to terminate her States legitimate interest in potential life. In the 1987 Philippine
pregnancy prior to the point of fetal viability (under a trimestral Constitution, by inserting the second sentence of Section 12, Article
framework)30 as a liberty interest that should prevail over the state II, the framers sought to make an express rejection of this view in
interest. Roe.
Apart from the context in which the U.S. decision is written, a Thus, while this Court or Congress cannot conclusively answer
reading of the second sentence of Section 12, Article II, in light of the question of when life begins as in Roe, Philippine
the framers intent in incorporating it in the Constitution, reveals constitutional law rejects the right to privacy as applied in Roe by
more distinctions from Roe than what the public respondents claim. granting a right to life to the unborn (even as a fertilized egg or
The framers did not only intend to prevent the Supreme Court zygote) instead of gratuitously assuming that the State simply has an
from having a Philippine equivalent of a Roe v. Wade decision,31 interest in a potential life that would be subject to a balancing of
they also unequivocally intended to deny Congress interest test other than the interest that the Constitution expressly
recognizes.
_______________ Interestingly, in Carey v. Population Services, Intl.,33 in striking
29 The US Supreme Court said that if the right of privacy means anything, it is down a New York law criminalizing the sale, distri-
the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted
governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the _______________
decision whether to bear or beget a child.
sion of the Framers of the constitution that this individualist American ideal of 36 In this case, the constitutionality of a Pennsylvania statute which imposes
privacy to justify abortion might nd their way in our statute books and jurisprudence certain requirements before and after an abortion was challenged. The US Supreme
must be understood in light of this apprehension. What is distinctly noticeable in Court abandoned the trimester framework in Roe by replacing it with the undue
these American cases that set it apart from the case before us is the reversal of roles burden standard i.e., maintaining the right of the pregnant woman to terminate
between the exercise of governmental power and the assertion of fundamental rights. her pregnancy subject to state regulations that does not amount to an undue burden
These American cases basically involved the governments assertion of its interest for the exercise of the right. Nonetheless, the Court emphasized that it afrms Roes
over potential life as opposed to a womans privacy and liberty interest to terminate central holding which consists of three parts: rst, a recognition of the right of the
that potential life. In the case before us, it is the government which is accused of woman to choose to have an abortion before viability without undue interference
threatening a potential life through the RH law. from the State; second, a conrmation of the States power to restrict abortions after
32 R.C.C., September 16, 1986. fetal viability, if the law contains exceptions for pregnancies which endanger
33 431 U.S. 678 (1977). The Court struck down a New York law criminalizing the
sale, distribution (except by a licensed pharmacist to a person sixteen 512

511
jurisdiction, these legitimate interests rest on a higher and
stronger ground not only because they are commanded by our
Constitution but because these legitimate interests were made to
bution34 and advertisement of nonprescription contraceptives, the extend to the life of the unborn from conception. The mandatory
US Supreme Court claried that they so rule not because there is an command of the Constitution to protect the life of the unborn by
independent fundamental right of access to contraceptives, but itself limits the power of Congress in enacting reproductive health
because such access is essential to the exercise of the laws, particularly on subsidizing contraceptives.
constitutionally protected right of decision in matters of childbearing d.Abortion, abortifacients and the RH Law
that is the underlying foundation of the holdings in Griswold, As I earlier noted, both petitioners and the respondents agree that
Eisenstadt v. Baird, and Roe v. Wade. Accordingly, the State cannot Section 12, Article II of the 1987 Constitution prohibits
pass a law impeding its distribution on pain of prosecution. No such abortion. As to what abortion is and when pregnancy is
law is involved in the present case. established, the Medical Experts Declaration cited by the
In Planned Parenthood v. Casey,35 the US Supreme Court respondents themselves is instructive:
reafrmed the central holding in Roe v. Wade, among others, that
the State has legitimate interests from the outset of the pregnancy in 1.xxx
protecting the health of the woman and the life of the fetus that may 2.xxx
become a child.36 In the Philippine 3.All contraceptives, including hormonal contraceptives and IUDs, have
been demonstrated by laboratory and clinical studies, to act primarily
prior to fertilization. Hormonal contraceptives prevent ovulation and
_______________
make cervical mucus impenetrable to sperm. Medicated IUDs act
years of age or over) and advertisement of nonprescription contraceptives because
like hormonal contraceptives. Copper T IUDs incapacitate sperm and
the limitation on the distribution imposed a signicant burden on the right of the
prevent fertilization.
individuals to use contraceptives if they choose to do so. The Court ruled that since a
4. The thickening or thinning of the endometrium (inner lining of the
decision on whether to bear or beget a child involves a fundamental right, regulations
uterus) associated with the use of hormonal contraceptives has not
imposing a burden on it may be justied only by compelling state interests, and must
been demonstrated to exert contraceptive action, i.e., if ovulation
be narrowly drawn to express only those interests something which is absent in
happens and there is fertilization, the developing fertilized egg
this case. The Court said:
(blastocyst) will implant and result in a pregnancy (contraceptive
The Constitution protects individual decisions in matters of childbearing from
failure). In fact, blastocysts have been shown to implant in
unjustied intrusion by the State. Restrictions on the distribution of contraceptives
inhospitable sites without an endometrium, such as in Fallopian
clearly burden the freedom to make such decisions.
tubes.
34 Except by a licensed pharmacist and only to a person sixteen years of age or
over.
_______________
35 505 U.S. 833 (1992).
 the womans life or health; third, the principle that the State has legitimate interests Constitution; Section 9
from the outset of the pregnancy in protecting the health of the woman and the life of negates this conclusion.
the fetus that may become a child In this regard, I nd that despite the recognition of abortion only
at a late stage from the strict medical viewpoint, the RH laws
513
implied denition of abortion is broad enough to extend the
prohibition against abortion to cover the fertilized egg or the zygote.
5. Pregnancy can be detected and established using currently Consistent with the constitutional protection of a fertilized egg or
available laboratory and clinical tests e.g., blood and urine levels zygote, the RH Law denes an abortifacient as:
of HCG (Human Chorionic Gonadotrophin) and ultrasound only
after implantation of the blastocyst. While there are efforts to study any drug or device that induces abortion or the destruction of a fetus inside
chemical factors associated with fertilization, currently there is no the mothers womb or the prevention of the fertilized ovum to reach and be
test establishing if and when it occurs. implanted in the mothers womb upon determination of the FDA.
6. Abortion is the termination of an established pregnancy before
fetal viability (the fetus ability to exist independently of the mother).

Aside from the 50% of zygotes that are naturally unable to implant,
By considering a drug or device that prevents the fertilized ovum
an additional wastage of about 20% of all fertilized eggs occurs due
from reaching and implanting in the mothers womb as an
to spontaneous abortions (miscarriages).
abortifacient, the law protects the unborn at the earliest stage of its
7. Abortifacient drugs have different chemical properties and actions
pre-natal development.
from contraceptives. Abortifacients terminate an established
Thus, I agree with the ponencia that the RH laws denition of
pregnancy, while contraceptives prevent pregnancy by preventing
abortifacient is constitutional. The law, however, still leaves a
fertilization.
nagging and contentious question relating to the provision of its
8.xxx
Section 9, which reads:

SEC.9.The Philippine National Drug Formulary System and Family

Planning Supplies.The National Drug Formulary shall include hormonal
Based on paragraph number 6 of the Medical Experts
contraceptives, intrauterine devices, injectables and other safe, legal, non-
Declaration, abortion is the termination of established pregnancy
abortifacient and effective family planning products and supplies. The
and that abortifacients, logically, terminate this pregnancy. Under
Philippine National Drug Formulary System (PNDFS) shall be observed in
paragraph number 5, pregnancy is established only after the
selecting drugs including family planning supplies that will be included or
implantation of the blastocysts or the fertilized egg. From this
removed from the Essential Drugs List (EDL) in accordance with existing
medical viewpoint, it is clear that prior to implantation, it is
practice and in consultation with reputable medical associations in the
premature to talk about abortion and abortifacient as there is nothing
Philippines. For the purpose of this Act, any product or supply included
yet to abort.
or to be included in the EDL must have a
If the constitutional framers simply intended to adopt this
medical viewpoint in crafting Section 12, Article II, there would 515
have been no real need to insert the phrase from conception.
This should be obvious to a discerning reader. Since conception
certication from the FDA that said product and supply is made
was equated with fertilization, as borne out by Records of the
available on the condition that it is not to be used as an abortifacient.
Constitutional Commission, a fertilized egg or zygote, even
These products and supplies shall also be included in the regular purchase of
without being implanted in the uterus, is therefore already
essential medicines and supplies of all national hospitals: Provided, further,
entitled to constitutional protection from the State.
That the foregoing ofces shall not purchase or acquire by any means
514 emergency contraceptive pills, postcoital pills, abortifacients that will
be used for such purpose and their other forms or equivalent. [emphases
ours]
e. The RH laws denition of abor-
tifacient textually complies
with Section 12, Article II, 1987
 Section 9 includes hormonal contraceptives, intrauterine devices Thus, in one breath, Section 9 of the RH law allows the inclusion
and injectables (collectively, contraceptives) among the family of non-abortifacients only in the National Drug Formulary and in
planning products and supplies in the National Drug Formulary, and another breath allows the distribution of abortifacients based solely
makes them part of the products and supplies included in the regular on the FDA certication that these abortifacients should not be used
purchase of all national hospitals. While the FDA still has to as such. To address this conict, the ponencia submits that the
determine whether a particular contraceptive is abortive in nature, FDAs certication in the last sentence of paragraph 1 of Section 9
the underscored portion of paragraph 2 of Section 9 strongly should mean
indicates that abortifacients will be available for procurement and
distribution by the government. In short, the second paragraph of _______________
Section 9 itself conrms that the contraceptives to be distributed by 38 Section 7.04 of the IRR also reads:
the government are abortifacient-capable depending only on its Section 7.04.FDA Certication of Family Planning Supplies.The FDA must
use.37 certify that a family planning drug or device is not an abortifacient in dosages of its
That abortifacient-capable contraceptives will be procured and approved indication (for drugs) or intended use (for devices) prior to its inclusion in
distributed by the government (necessarily using State funds) under the EDL. The FDA shall observe the following guidelines in the determination of
Section 9 of the RH law is conrmed by the Implementing Rules whether or not a drug or device is an abortifacient:
and Regulations (IRR) of the RH law itself. a) As dened in Section 3.01(a) of these Rules, a drug or device is
The IRR denes an abortifacient as any drug or device that deemed to be an abortifacient if it is proven to primarily induce abortion or
primarily induces abortion or the destruction of a fetus inside the the destruction of a fetus inside the mothers womb or the prevention of the
mothers womb or the prevention of the fertilized fertilized ovum to reach and be implanted in the mothers womb;
xxx
_______________
37 Petitioner ALFI correctly pointed out that under the Implementing Rules and

Regulations (IRR) of RA No. 10354 (Sections 3.01a and 7.04a), a drug or device will 517
be considered an abortifacient only if it primarily induces the abortion, destruction
of fetus inside the mothers womb or the prevention of the fertilized ovum to reach
and be implanted in the uterus (Memorandum, p. 168). that the contraceptives to be made available cannot instead of
is not be used as abortifacient, following the no-abortion
516 principle under the Constitution.
To my mind, this inconsistency within the provision of Section 9,
ovum to reach and be implanted in the mothers womb upon as reinforced by the RH laws IRR, should be addressed by
determination of the Food and Drug Administration. It also denes construing it in relation with the entirety of the RH law.
a contraceptive as any safe, legal, effective, and scientically One of the guiding principles under the RH law is the primacy
proven modern family planning method, device, or health product, given to effective and quality reproductive health care services to
whether natural or articial, that prevents pregnancy but does not ensure maternal and child health.39 Towards this end, the RH law
primarily destroy a fertilized ovum or prevent a fertilized ovum allows properly trained and certied midwives and nurses to
from being implanted in the mothers womb.38 administer life-saving drugs such as, but not limited to, oxytoxin
By these denitions, the RH laws IRR has added a and magnesium sulfate, in accordance with the guidelines set by the
qualication to the denition of an abortifacient that is not found DOH, under emergency conditions and when there are no physicians
in the law. Under the IRR of the RH law, a drug or device is an available.40 Similarly, the RH law included in the denition of
abortifacient only if its primary mechanism as opposed to Basic Emergency Obstetric and Newborn Care (BEMONC) the
secondary mechanism, which the petitioners have strongly asserted administration of certain drugs as part of life-saving services for
is abortive in nature. This added qualication to the denition of emergency maternal and newborn conditions/complications. These
an abortifacient is a strong argument in favor of the petitioners that provisions are consistent with the States commitment to reduce both
the contraceptives to be distributed by the state are abortifacient- maternal and infant mortality, and to ultimately save lives.41
capable.
 The life-saving thrust of the law is complemented by the RH possibly be abused, this mother must now die despite giving birth to a
laws provisions that continues to prohibit abortion and prohibits the healthy baby?
procurement and distribution of abortifacients. The RH law also Mr. President, we clearly need to make distinctions. These life saving drugs
limited the extent of the reproductive health rights it grants by SHOULD NOT BE USED on any circumstances for purposes of carrying
excluding from its coverage abortion and access to abortifacients.42 out an abortion. But under strict guidelines by the FDA, they can be used by
More specically, it broadly dened abortifacients to include any a health practitioner to save a mothers life.
drug or device that prevents the fertilized ovum from reaching and
implanting in the womb. Thus, the RH law protects the fertilized
ovum (zygote) consistent with Section 12, Article II of the 1987 In short, the law allows the procurement of abortifacients under
Constitution. Section 9 only for the equally compelling interest of the State to
save the life of the mother on account of a medical necessity.
39 Section 2(c), RA No. 10354. 519
40 Section 5, RA No. 10354.
41 Public Respondents Comment, pp. 4-5.
42 Section 4(s), RA No. 10354.
f.The principle of double effect
In situations where the life of the unborn and the life of the
mother collide with each other, the principle of double effect under
Section 12, Article II must be applied. The Sponsorship Speech of
518 Constitutional Commissioner Villegas discussed the principle of
double effect, as follows:
Considering the life-saving thrust of the law, the procurement

and distribution of abortifacients allowed under Section 9 should be
What if a doctor has to choose between the life of the child and the life of
interpreted with this life-saving thrust in mind. As an aid in
the mother? Will the doctor be guilty of murder if the life of the child is
understanding this approach, I quote respondent Senator Cayetanos
lost? The doctor is morally obliged always to try to save both lives.
explanation, cited by the public respondents:
However, he can act in favor of one when it is medically impossible to save
Allow me to explain. A careless phrase like no drug known to be an both, provided that no direct harm is intended to the other. If the above
abortifacient will be made available in the Philippines sounds like a principles are observed, the loss of the childs life is not intentional and,
statement we could all support. But what most of us do not understand is the therefore, unavoidable. Hence, the doctor would not be guilty of abortion or
fact that many life-saving drugs are made available to an ailing mother to murder.
address her medical condition although there is a possibility that they may I am sure Commissioner Nolledo can give the jurisprudence on this case, the
be harmful to a pregnant mother and her fetus. Thus, we have for instance, application of the moral principle called the principle of double effect. In a
drugs for diseases of the heart, hypertension, seizures, ulcers and even acne, medical operation performed on the mother, the indirect sacrice of the
all of which are to be taken only under doctors prescription and supervision childs life is not murder because there is no direct intention to kill the child.
precisely because of their harmful effects. The direct intention is to operate on the mother and, therefore, there is no
Making a blanket statement banning all medicines classied as dilemma. And let me say that medical science has progressed so much that
abortifacients would put all these mothers and their childrens lives in those situations are very few and far between. If we can produce babies in
greater danger. For decades, these mothers have relied on these medicines test tubes I can assure you that those so-called dilemma situations are very
to keep them alive. I would like to give another example. A known rare, and if they should occur there is a moral principle, the principle of
abortifacient, misoprostol commonly known as cytotec, is one of the drugs double effect, that can be applied.
that can save a mothers life. I am talking about a mother who just gave What would you say are the solutions to these hard cases? The most radical
birth but has internal hemorrhage and in danger of bleeding to death. Her solution to these hard cases would be a caring and loving society that would
child has been born. Her child will live but she will die without this drug to provide services to support both the woman and the child physically and
stop her bleeding. Are we now to ban the use of this drug? Are we now to psychologically. This is the pro-life solution. The abortion solution, on the
say that because it could possibly be used as an abortifacient, it could other hand, not only kills the fetus but also kills any care and love that
society could have offered the aggrieved mother.
Implicit in all these arguments is the petition for the Constitution, the to medically safe, non-abortifacient, legal, quality and affordable
arguments against Section 9, requiring the State to equally protect the life of reproductive health goods and services[.]43 This is consistent with
the mother and the life of the unborn from the moment of conception. These the RH laws policy which guarantees universal access [only] to
arguments want the Constitution to be open to the possibility of legalized medically-safe [and] non-abortifacient contraceptives. The law also
abortion. The arguments have provides that these contraceptives do not prevent the implantation
of a fertilized ovum as determined by the FDA.44
520
Accordingly, DOH is tasked to procure and distribute to local
government units (LGUs) family planning supplies for the whole
been put on record for the reference of future legislation and jurisprudence. country and to monitor their usage.45 Once delivered to the LGUs,
xxx the responsible health ofcials shall assume responsibility for the
supplies and ensure their distribution in accordance with DOH
guidelines.46 For this purpose, a regional ofcer appointed by the
I wholly agree with this position. Thus, to me, the general rule is DOH shall oversee the supply chain management of reproductive
that both the life of the unborn and the life of the mother should be health supplies and/or health products in his or her respective area.47
protected. However, in case of exceptional conict situations, the The RH law also authorizes LGUs to implement its own
life of one may be preferred over the life of the other where it procurement, distribution and monitoring program consistent with
becomes medically necessary to do so. The principle of double the overall provisions of this Act and the guidelines of the DOH.48
effect recognizes that in some instances, the use or administration of
certain drugs that are abortifacient-capable are necessary in order to
_______________
save the life of the mother. The use in administration of these drugs
43 Section 19, RA No. 10354.
in these instances is and should be allowed by Section 12, Article II
44 Section 2, RA No. 10354; See also Section 3, RA No. 10354.
of the Constitution since the policy is equal protection.
45 Section 10, RA No. 10354.
Justice Leonen argues in this regard that the principle of double
46 Section 8.08, IRR of RA No. 10354.
effect is a Christian principle that may or may not be adopted by all
47 Id.
of the medical community. He even claims that there are some who
48 Section 10, RA No. 10354; Section 8.09 and Section 12.02k, IRR of RA No.
recommended its abandonment.
10354. To ensure the effective implementation of RA No. 10354, [See Section 3(i)],
I submit that the religious roots of a principle adopted by the
the DOH is required to facilitate the involvement and participation of [non-
Constitution, is not a valid ground to ignore the principle altogether.
government organization] and the private sector... in the production, distribution and
While some parts of the Constitution were of foreign origin, some
delivery of quality reproductive health and family planning supplies and commodities
parts including the entire text of Section 12, Article II were
[See Section 19b(2), RA No. 10354; Section 12.01k and Section 12.04 of the IRR of
uniquely Filipino, intended to be reective of our own Filipino
RA No. 10354]. Towards this end, the IRR of RA No. 10354 provides that where
culture and tradition. I particularly refer to the primacy of life in our
practicable, the DOH or LGUs may engage [the services of] civil society
hierarchy of values. Not surprisingly, the public respondents do not
organizations or private sector distributors [Section 8.08 of the IRR of RA No.
dispute this principle of double effect and even allowed abortifacient
10354].
to be used only for the purpose of equally safeguarding the life of
the mother. The representatives of the people themselves recognized 522
the primacy of life and the principle of double effect in Section 12,
Article II when it gave a broad denition of an abortifacient to
extend the protection to life to the fertilized ovum (zygote). These i.Guidelines
reasons effectively refute Justice Leonens positions. Under the RH law, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is
tasked to determine whether a drug or device is abortifacient in
521 nature. Once it determines that it is non-abortifacient, then the DOH
may validly procure them.
k.The role of the DOH However, if the FDA determines that the drug or device is
As the lead agency in the implementation of the RH law, the abortifacient then as a rule, the DOH may not validly procure, much
Department of Health (DOH) is tasked to [e]nsure peoples access less distribute, them. Consistent with the primacy of life under
Section 12, Article II of the 1987 Constitution and the RH laws these based on DOH guidelines that limit its distribution strictly for
provisions prohibiting abortion and the distribution of abortifacients, life-saving, medically-supervised and, therefore, non-abortive
the government cannot procure and distribute these abortifacients. purpose.
By this, I refer to the denition of an abortifacient under the RH law, I note in this regard that under the second paragraph of Section
i.e., without qualication on whether the nature of its action (to 9, the procurement and distribution of emergency contraceptive
induce abortion, or the destruction of a fetus inside the mothers pills, postcoital pills, abortifacients
womb or the prevention of the fertilized ovum to reach and be
implanted in the mothers womb) is primary or secondary. _______________
As a matter of exception, the government should be able to cians available. The certication shall be issued by DOH-recognized training centers
procure and distribute abortifacients or drugs with abortifacient upon satisfactory completion of a training course. The curriculum for this training
properties but solely for the purpose of saving the life of the course shall be developed by the DOH in consultation with the relevant societies of
mother. Specically, the procurement and distribution of these skilled health professionals.
abortifacients may be allowed only in emergency cases and should Within sixty (60) days from effectivity of these Rules, the DOH shall develop
thus be made under medical supervision.49 The IRR of the RH law guidelines for the implementation of this provision. The guidelines shall include
denes an emergency as a provisions for immediate referral and transport of the patient upon administration of
these life-saving drugs.
_______________ Section4.13.Certication for LGU-Based Midwives and Nurses for the
49 See Section 5 of RA No. 10354. Sections 4.11 to 4.13 of the IRR of RA No. Administration of Life-Saving Drugs.The LGUs, in coordination with the DOH,
10354 reads: shall endeavor that all midwives and nurses assigned to public primary health care
Section4.11.Provision of Life-Saving Drugs During Maternal Care Emergencies. facilities such as Rural Health Units (RHUs) be given training and certication by a
Midwives and nurses shall be allowed to administer life-saving drugs, such as but DOH-recognized training center to administer life-saving drugs within one (1) year
not limited to oxytocin and magnesium sulfate, in accordance with the guidelines set from the effectivity of these Rules.
by the DOH, under emergency conditions and when there are no physicians available: 50 Section 3.01k of the IRR of RA No. 10354.
Provided, That they are properly trained and certied to administer these life-saving 51 See Section 2, Section 3(e), and Section 4(a) of RA No. 10354.
drugs.
Section4.12.Policies on Administration of Life-Saving Drugs.Properly

trained and certied midwives and nurses shall be allowed to administer intravenous 524
uids, oxytocin, magnesium sulfate, or other life-saving drugs in emergency
situations and when there are no physi-
is subject to a similar condition that it will not be used for
523 abortifacient purpose. This condition is also a recognition of the
abortifacient-capable nature of emergency contraceptive pills.
condition or state of a patient wherein based on the objective Given this nature, their procurement and distribution must likewise
ndings of a prudent medical ofcer on duty for the day there is involve emergency situation. However, the IRRs own denition of
immediate danger and where delay in initial support and treatment an emergency contraceptive pills does not contemplate an
may cause loss of life or cause permanent disability to the patient.50 emergency situation that permits its procurement and distribution.
In short, after the FDAs prior determination that the drug or 1)Emergency Contraceptive Pills, also known as Postcoital Pills refers to
device is abortifacient-capable,51 the FDA will have to issue a methods of contraception that can be used to prevent pregnancy in the rst
certication that these drugs or devices are not to be used as few days after intercourse intended for emergency use following
abortifacients whether under the rst or second paragraphs of unprotected intercourse, contraceptive failure or misuse, xxx 52
Section 9. The DOH may (i) procure these contraceptives strictly
following its (DOH) own guidelines that list the drugs or devices
that are essentially used for life-saving purposes; if the drug certied The emergency situation contemplated under the denition of
by the FDA to be abortifacient is not essentially used for life saving an emergency contraceptive pills as quoted above is not the
purpose, then the DOH may not procure them; and (ii) distribute emergency situation under the principle of double effect in Section
12, Article II of the 1987 Constitution or the emergency as dened _______________
in the same IRR of the RH law. Should the FDA nd, pursuant to its 53 Section 3(l) of RA No. 10354 reads:
mandate under the RH law, that an emergency contraceptive pill or (l) Modern methods of family planning refers to safe, effective, non-
post-coital pill is abortifacient or is abortifacient-capable, then their abortifacient and legal methods, whether natural or articial, that are registered with
distribution and procurement should follow the guideline under the the FDA, to plan pregnancy.
exception. 54 AN ACT STRENGTHENING AND RATIONALIZING THE REGULATORY CAPACITY OF THE

If an abortifacient-capable drug essentially serves a purpose other BUREAU OF FOOD AND DRUG BY ESTABLISHING ADEQUATE TESTING LABORATORIES AND

than saving the life of the mother and is, therefore, not included FIELD OFFICES, UPGRADING ITS EQUIPMENT, AUGMENTING ITS HUMAN RESOURCE
in the DOH guidelines that list what drugs or device are essentially COMPLEMENT, GIVING AUTHORITY TO RETAIN ITS INCOME, RENAMING THE FOOD AND DRUG
used for life-saving purposes then the general rule applies: the ADMINISTRATION, AMENDING CERTAIN SECTIONS OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 3720, AS AMENDED,

government may not procure and distribute it. AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR.
Lastly, under Section 7.03 of the IRR of the RH law drugs,
526
medicines, and health products for reproductive health services that
are already included in the Essential Drug List as of the effectivity
of the IRR shall remain in the EDL, pending B. Parental Rights
I also agree with the ponencia that an attack on Section 14 of
_______________ the RH law is premature, but for my own reasons and
52 Section 3.01(1) of the IRR of RA No. 10354. qualications.
Section 14 of the RH Law mandates the provision of age-and-
525 development-appropriate reproductive health education in both the
formal and nonformal education system in the country, and for its
FDA certication that these are not to be used as abortifacients. integration in relevant subjects in the curriculum, thus:
Since these are contraceptives that are already registered with the
SEC.14.Age- and Development-Appropriate Reproductive Health
FDA53 under RA No. 3720 as amended by RA No. 9711,54 these
Education.The State shall provide age- and development-appropriate
contraceptives must undergo evaluation by the FDA under the
reproductive health education to adolescents which shall be taught by
provisions of the RH law to determine whether these are
adequately trained teachers in formal and nonformal educational system and
abortifacients as dened by law and not by the IRR. In either
integrated in relevant subjects such as, but not limited to, values formation;
case, the general rule and the exception I have laid down above
knowledge and skills in self-protection against discrimination; sexual abuse
should apply. On the one hand, if these products are non-
and violence against women and children and other forms of gender based
abortifacients as dened under the RH law, then the government
violence and teen pregnancy; physical, social and emotional changes in
may procure and distribute them; on the other hand, if these products
adolescents; womens rights and childrens rights; responsible teenage
are abortifacients or are abortifacient-capable, the FDA may issue its
behavior; gender and development; and responsible parenthood: Provided,
certication under Section 7.03 of the IRR if the product is
That exibility in the formulation and adoption of appropriate course
essentially used for life-saving purposes.
content, scope and methodology in each educational level or group shall be
If the DOH determines that the product is essentially used for
allowed only after consultations with parents-teachers-community
life-saving or emergency purposes, the DOH may (i) procure these
associations, school ofcials and other interest groups. The Department of
contraceptives strictly following its (DOH) own guidelines that list
Education (DepED) shall formulate a curriculum which shall be used by
the drugs or devices that are essentially used for life-saving
public schools and may be adopted by private schools.
purposes; and (ii) distribute these based on DOH guidelines that
limit its distribution strictly for life-saving, medically-supervised According to the petitioners, the mandatory RH education in
and, therefore, non-abortive purpose. If the product is essentially for schools deprives parents of their natural and primary right to raise
other therapeutic purpose, the FDA may not issue the certication their children according to their religious beliefs, and should thus be
under Section 7.03 of the IRR since the product may not be procured held unconstitutional.
and distributed by the government in the rst place. The ponencia, while recognizing the primacy of parental rights
under the 1987 Constitution, holds that it is premature to rule on the
constitutionality of the mandatory RH education program, as the reinforced in other provisions of the Constitution: Article II, Section
Department of Education has yet to formulate the curriculum 12 recognizes the natural and primary right and duty of parents in
implementing it. The Court is thus rearing the youth; Article XV, Section 3 mandates the State to
defend the right of spouses to found a family in accordance with
527
their religious convictions and the demands of responsible
parenthood and the right of families or family associations to
not in the position to speculate on its contents and determine participate in the planning and implementation of policies and
whether they adhere to the Constitution. programs that affect them.
I agree with the ponencias observation that the lack of a These constitutional provisions reect the Filipino ideals and
curriculum renders the petitioners allegations premature, and aspirations which the Constitution requires the government to
dispute Justice Reyess position that the issue of Section 14s promote and strengthen. Historically, these provisions show a
constitutionality is ripe for adjudication and that based on this, we strong tradition of parental concern for the nurture and upbringing of
can already rule with nality that Section 14 is constitutional. their children55 that makes us, as a people, stand out from the rest
We cannot, without rst examining the actual contents of the of worlds cultures and traditions. We stand out for the way we, as a
curriculum and the religious beliefs and personal convictions of the family, care for our young and for the aged. To us, family ties extend
parents that it could affect, declare that the mandatory RH education from before the cradle and beyond the grave. I do hope this remains
is consistent with the Constitution. In other words, we cannot a tradition and can stand the tests of time and governmental
declare that the mandatory RH education program does not violate intervention.
parental rights when the curriculum that could possibly supplant it is The relationship created by and resulting from a family naturally
not yet in existence. Given the primacy of the natural and extends to and involves other personal decisions that relate to child
fundamental rights of parents to raise their children, we should not rearing and education. Parents have the natural right, as well as the
pre-empt a constitutional challenge against its possible violation, moral and legal duty, to care for their children, see to their proper
especially since the scope and coercive nature of the RH mandatory upbringing and safeguard their best interest and welfare.56 These
education program could prevent the exercise of these rights. array of personal deci-
Further, I am uneasy to join the ponencias conclusion that, at
any rate, Section 14 is constitutional. I express misgivings on the _______________
constitutionality of this provision, which does not on its face provide 55 Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205.
for an opt-out clause for parents whose religious beliefs conict with 56 Silva v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 114742, July 17, 1997, 275 SCRA 604.
the States program.
a.Parental rights in the 529
Filipino context
The 1987 Constitution introduced an entire section on the Family sions are protected by the constitutional right to privacy to be
that, in essence, recognizes the Filipino family as the foundation of free from unwarranted governmental intrusion. Pursuant to this
the nation and mandates the State to strengthen its solidarity and natural right and duty of parents over the person of their minor
actively promote its total development. children, parental authority and responsibility include the caring for
528
and rearing them for civic consciousness and efciency and the
development of their moral, mental and physical character and well-
being.57
Corollary to the importance that the Constitution gives the b.Parental rights and the
Filipino family is the States mandate to protect and strengthen it. It states interest in the youth
is not by coincidence that the Constitution, in requiring the State to The Constitution provides that the familys autonomy is not
protect and strengthen the Filipino family, describes it as a basic and without limits since the State similarly has a role and interest in
autonomous social institution. protecting children rights and advancing their welfare.
This is a recognition of and deference to the decisional privacy While parents are given a wide latitude of discretion and support
inherent in every family, a recognition that is reected and in rearing their children, their well-being is of course a subject
within the States constitutional power to regulate.58 Specically, the
within the States constitutional power to regulate.58 Specically, the While we conducted a balancing process in Ebralinag, we have
Constitution tasked the State to promote and protect their moral, yet to formally enunciate a doctrinal test regarding its operation. In
spiritual, intellectual and social development, and to recognize and the context of the present case, we might ask when does a State
support their vital role in nation-building.59 In this undertaking, the program unlawfully intrude upon the parents right to raise their
State acts in its capacity as parens patriae. children according to their own religious convictions? Stated
Concededly, the State as parens patriae has the right and differently, how far can the State go in interfering with this right
duty to minimize the risk of harm, arising from the acquisition of based on the States demands for responsible parenthood?
knowledge from polluted sources, to those who are as yet unable to
take care of themselves fully. _______________
In other words, the family itself and the rights of parenthood are 60 Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944), citing Reynolds v. United States,
not completely beyond regulation; parental freedom 98 U.S. 145; Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333.
61 G.R. No. 95770, December 29, 1995, 251 SCRA 569.
_______________ 62 Id.
57 Art. 209, Executive Order No. 209.
531
58 Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629 (1968).
59 Article II, Section 13 of the 1987 Constitution reads:
Section 13.The State recognizes the vital role of the youth in nation-building Case law from the U.S., from where our Bill of Rights originated,
and shall promote and protect their physical, moral, spiritual, intellectual, and social has developed a body of jurisprudence regarding the resolution of
well-being. It shall inculcate in the youth patriotism and nationalism, and encourage clashes between parental rights and the States parens patriae
their involvement in public and civic affairs. interests.
A survey of US jurisprudence shows that the custody, care and
530
nurture of the child, including his preparation for civic obligations,
reside rst in the parents, and these functions and freedoms are
and authority in things affecting the childs welfare, including, to accorded recognition and respect by the State. In the words of Pierce
some extent, matters of conscience and religious conviction are not v. Society Sisters:63
totally beyond State authority.60 It is in this area that the parents
right to raise their children and the States interest in rearing the The fundamental theory of liberty upon which all governments in this
youth clash. Union repose excludes any general power of the State to standardize its
In our jurisdiction, the case of Ebralinag v. The Division children by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers only.
Superintendent of Schools of Cebu61 presents the Courts resolution The child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and
of the conict between the parents right to raise their children direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize
according to their religious beliefs, and the States interest in and prepare him for additional obligations.
inculcating civic consciousness among the youth and teaching them
Thus, in Meyer v. Nebraska,64 Pierce v. Society of Sisters65 and
the duties of citizenship.
Wisconsin v. Yoder,66 the US Supreme Court struck down as
In Ebralinag, we annulled the expulsion orders issued by the
unconstitutional various laws regarding the education of children in
respondent schools against students who refused to attend the ag
public schools. In these cases, the parents were compelled to follow
ceremony on the ground that it violates their religious convictions.
state directives under pain of sanction; all of the assailed statutes had
We said that while the State has the right and responsibility to teach
penal clauses for noncompliant parents and guardians. The State
the youth the values of patriotism and nationalism, this interest is
unlawfully intruded into the parents natural right to raise their
subject to a balancing process when it intrudes into other
children because they were coerced into following a mandatory
fundamental rights such as those specically protected by the Free
governmental action, without any opting out or excusal system
Exercise Clause, the constitutional right to education and the
provided for objecting parents.67
unassailable interest of parents to guide the religious upbringing of
Indeed, several state courts in the US have upheld the validity of
their children in accordance with the dictates of their conscience and
state-directed sex education programs because it gives parents the
their sincere religious beliefs.62
option to excuse their children from attend- 72 Hobolth v. Greenway, 52 Mich. App. 682, 684 (1974).

533
_______________
63 268 U.S. 510 (1925).
64 262 U.S. 390 (1923). vacy and the parents rights to raise their children in accordance
65 268 U.S. 510 (1925). with their beliefs.
66 406 U.S. 205 (1972). I submit that, for now, the government has not provided any
67 See Curtis v. School Comm., 420 Mass. 749 (1995). sufciently compelling state interest to override parental rights;
neither has it proven that the mandatory RH education program has
532 been narrowed down to the least intrusive means to achieve it.
I likewise disagree with Justice Reyes argument that the rise of
ing it.68 The Supreme Court of Hawaii69 and the Court of Appeals of teenage pregnancies in the recent years, coupled with our ballooning
California,70 for instance, have upheld similarly phrased laws population, is a compelling state interest it is, at most a
mandating sex education in public schools. They both noted that the reasonable state interest, but not one compelling enough to override
sex education program in their states allows the parents to rst parental rights.
review the programs contents, and excuse their childrens What constitutes compelling state interest is measured by the
attendance should they nd the program objectionable. The scale of rights and powers arrayed in the Constitution and calibrated
Michigan Court of Appeals71 also upheld the validity of its States by history. It is akin to the paramount interest of the State for which
sex education program, as it was completely voluntary and requires some individual liberties must give way, such as the public interest
parental authorization. The Michigan law also permits parents to in safeguarding health or maintaining medical standards, or in
excuse their children from attending the sex education program, and maintaining access to information on matters of public concern.73 It
categorically provides that unwilling parents would not be punished essentially involves a public right or interest that, because of its
for opting out of the program.72 primacy, overrides individual rights, and allows the former to take
In these lights, a mandatory reproductive health education precedence over the latter.
program in public schools does not violate parental privacy if The prevalence of teenage pregnancies, at most, constitutes a
they allow parents to review and excuse their children from matter of public concern. That its impact to society and to the
attending the program, or if the State shows a compelling state teenage mother is important cannot be denied, but that it is important
interest to override the parents choice and compel them to allow enough to defeat privacy rights is another matter.
their children to attend the program. I take exception to the comparison between societal problems
c.The State has failed to show such as alcohol and drugs abuse with teenage pregnancies. Indeed,
any compelling state interest to alcohol and drugs are societal evils that beget even more evils, such
override parental rights in re- as increases in crime rates and familial discord. The same cannot be
productive health education said of teenage pregnancies. I do
I disagree with Justice Reyess assertion that the mandatory
reproductive health education program has already passed the _______________
compelling state interest test used to determine whether a 73 Serrano v. Gallant Maritime Services, G.R. No. 167614, March 24, 2009, 582
governmental program may override familial pri- SCRA 254.

534
_______________
68 See The Courts and Education, Volume 77, Part 1, Edited by Clifford P.
Hooker, University of Chicago Press, 1978, pp. 157-158. not believe that begetting a child at a young age would have a direct
69 Medeiros v. Kiyosaki, 478 P. 2d 314 (1970). correlation to crimes and the breaking up of families.
70 Citizens for Parental Rights v. San Mateo County Bd. of Education, 51 Cal. Neither can I agree that the consultations with parents and
App. 3d 1 (1976). teachers associations prior to the curriculums formulation make the
71 Hobolth v. Greenway, 52 Mich. App. 682 (1974). mandatory RH education as the least intrusive means to address
increases in teenage pregnancies. Consultations are informative, at program while respecting parental rights, and saves it from questions
least, and deliberative and suggestive, at most; they cannot, with of constitutionality.
certainty, immediately guarantee that parents familial privacy rights In these lights, I agree with Justice Mendozas conclusion
would be respected. that the challenge to the constitutionality of Section 14 of the RH
Notable, too, is the all-encompassing penal clause that penalizes Law is premature.
any violation of the RH Law. On its face, this penal clause, together C. Disturbing observation and con-
with the wide scope of the mandatory RH education program, cerns: The effects on contraceptives
actually makes the program coercive for parents. It could be read as on the national, social, cultural and
a compulsion on parents, under pain of ne and imprisonment, to religious values
allow their children to attend the RH education program. Even As I earlier mentioned, the implementation of the RH law cannot
assuming that the penal clause will not apply to refusing parents, the but leave lasting imprints on Philippine society, some of them
scope of the RH education program gives them very little choice. positive and some negative. I do not here question the wisdom of the
To my mind, the Solicitors argument that the RH education law, as matters of wisdom and policy are outside judicial realm. I
program allows parents to exercise their preferences because they claim judicial license in this regard if I intrude into prohibited
can choose to send their children to private schools is not territory in the course of expressing disturbing concerns that come to
sufciently persuasive as it ignores the environment on which the mind.
Philippine education system operates. This choice is supercial for The Philippines to be sure, is not the rst country to use
many families, as most of them rely on public schools for the contraceptives and the mixed results from countries that have long
education of their children.74 For most parents, sending their travelled this road are, to my mind, not very encouraging. One
children to private schools is a luxury that only a few can afford. obvious discouraging effect of controlled population

536
_______________
74 As of the year 2000, only 7.76% of the total elementary school students and
22.67% of the total high school students are enrolled in private institutions. Andrabi, growth is on the economy of some of these countries which now
et al., Private Schooling: Limits and Possibilities, October 2005, accessed from have to secure foreign labor to balance their nances. This
http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/akhwaja/papers/ development has been a boon for a country like the Philippines with
PrivateSchoold_Final_Nov5.pdf, citing Edstats, The World Bank, Washington, D.C. a fast-growing population; we are enjoying now the benets of our
fast-growing population through the returns our migrating Filipino
workers bring back to the Philippines from their work in labor-
535
starved countries. This has become possible because host countries
like Japan and the more economically advanced European countries
need workers to man their industries and supply their economies.
d.The question of Section 14s Another economic effect is on retirement systems that have been
constitutional prematurity burdened by predominantly aging populations. For this same reason,
I do admit that some of the topics enumerated in the RH some countries even face impending economic slowdown in the
education program are, on their face, not objectionable, and are middle term75 unless they can effectively remedy their manpower
within the States authority to include in the curriculum of public shortage.
school education. But at this point, without the specics of what But more than the political and economic consequences, I believe
would be taught under the RH education program, we cannot that the RH Laws implementation could usher in societal and
determine how it would exactly affect parental rights and the right of individual behaviors and norms vastly different from the traditional.
parents to raise their children according to their religious beliefs. Already, some of our traditions are giving way, brought about alone
Too, we cannot determine whether the Department of Education by advances in computerization and communication. Factoring in
will or will not provide parents the right to review the contents of contraceptives and birth control may immeasurably hasten the
the curriculum and opt to excuse their children from attending these changes for the worse.
subjects. This option allows the implementation of the RH education
 In the family front alone, the ideals expressed in our Constitution erosion in familial values already becoming evident in our society. I
about the Filipino family may soon just be unreachable ideals that hope that in this instance, history would prove me wrong.
we can only long for. Access to modern methods of family planning,
unless closely regulated, can shape individual preferences and _______________
behavior, that, when aggregated, could lead to entirely different 77 See, for instance, Article 11, Section 12 and Article XV of the 1987
societal perception on sex, marriage, family and parenthood.76 Constitution.

538
_______________
75 See Peter G. Peterson, Gray Dawn: The Global Aging Crisis, Foreign Affairs,
Vol. LXXVIII, No. 1 (Jan.-Feb., 1999), available at http://www.jstor.org; European D. Freedom of Expression of Health
Union Center of North Carolina, EU Briengs: The EUs Demographic Crisis, March Practitioners and the RH Law
2008, at http://europe.unc.edu/wp-content/ I submit that Section 23(a)(1) of the RH law, which penalizes
uploads/2013/08/Brief9-0803-demographic-crisis.pdf. healthcare providers who knowingly withhold information or
76 Prolife petition, pp. 34-37. restrict the dissemination thereof, and/or intentionally provide
incorrect information regarding programs and services on
537
reproductive health is an unconstitutional subsequent punishment
of speech.
The effect of the RH law on parents capacity to inuence Broken down to its elements, Section 23(a)(1)78 of the RH law
children about reproductive health could, in a couple of years, penalizes health care providers who (1) knowingly withhold
produce a generation with very different moral views and beliefs information about programs and services on reproductive health; (2)
from the parents and the adults of this generation, resulting in a knowingly restrict the dissemination of these programs and services;
possible schism between the younger and elder members of the or (3) intentionally provide incorrect information regarding them.
family. Their polarized views could lead to the deterioration of the These prohibited acts are, by themselves, communicative and
strong ties that bind the Filipino family. expressive, and thus constitute speech. Intentionally providing
Contraceptives and birth control devices, distributed even among incorrect information cannot be performed without uttering, verbally
the young because of lack of stringent control, can lead to a or otherwise, the information that the RH Law deems to be
generation of young Filipinos uncaring about the morality of instant incorrect. The information that is illegal to withhold or restrict under
sex and irresponsible in their view about pregnancies and the Section 23 also constitutes speech, as it is an expression of data and
diseases that sexual promiscuity can bring. Even in the near term, opinions regarding reproductive health services and programs; thus,
this development can affect views about marriage and the rearing of the prerogative to not utter these pieces of information also
the young. constitutes speech.79
For those already married, contraceptives and birth control
devices of course offer greater opportunities for sex outside of _______________
marriage, both for the husband and the wife. The effects of these 78 Section 23 of RA 10354 reads:
outside opportunities on marriage may already be with us. Perhaps, SEC.23.Prohibited Acts.The following acts are prohibited:
more than at any other time, we have a record number now of (a)Any health care service provider, whether public or private, who shall:
separated couples and wrecked marriages, to the prejudice of the (1) Knowingly withhold information or restrict the dissemination thereof, and/or
family and the children caught in between. intentionally provide incorrect information regarding programs and services on
In hindsight, the 1987 Constitutions painstaking efforts to reproductive health including the right to informed choice and access to a full range
include provisions on the family, parenthood and marriage reect of legal, medically-safe, non-abortifacient and effective family planning methods;
our cultural identity as a Filipino people.77 I do not believe it to be 79 The right to speak includes the right not to speak, J. Cruz, Separate Opinion in
disputable that the heart of the Filipino society is the family. Ebralinag v. Division Schools Superintendent of Cebu, G.R. No. 95770, March 1,
Congress, in introducing innovations to reproductive health might 1993, 219 SCRA 256.
have tried to respect this ideal but I have serious doubts and
misgivings on whether we can succeed given the deterioration and 539
 By penalizing these expressive acts, Section 23 imposes a distinction is not provided in Section 23(a)(1) of the RH Law, and
subsequent punishment on speech, which as a counterpart to the we cannot create a distinction in the law when it provides none.
prohibition against prior restraint, is also generally prohibited under Thus, I submit that Section 23(a)(1) violates the right of health
the constitutional guarantee of freedom of expression. Without an practitioners to speak in public about reproductive health and
assurance that speech would not be subsequently penalized, people should simply be struck down.
would hesitate to speak for fear of its consequences; there would be In particular, Section 23(a)(1) of the RH Law fails to pass the
no need for prior restraints because the punishment itself would balancing of interests test designed to determine the validity of
effectively serve as a chilling effect on speech.80 subsequent punishments that do not involve the states interests in
While I am aware of the states interest in regulating the practice national security crimes. Under this test, the Court is tasked to
of medicine and other health professions, including the determine which of the competing legitimate interests that the law
communications made in the course of this practice, I believe that pits against each other demands the greater protection under
Section 23(a)(1) of the RH Law has overreached the permissible particular circumstances.84
coverage of regulation on the speech of doctors and other health In the present case, Section 23(a)(1) of the RH law pits against
professionals. each other the States interest in promoting the health and welfare of
Jurisprudence in the United States regarding the speech of women on the one hand, and the freedom of expression of health
medical practitioners has drawn a distinction between speech in the practitioners, on the other. The Solicitor General, in particular,
course of their practice of medicine, and speech in public.81 When a emphasized the need for Section 23(a)(1) to fulll the States goal to
doctor speaks to his patient, his speech may be subjected to secure the peoples access to full, unbiased and accurate information
reasonable regulation by the state to ensure the accuracy of the about reproductive health services.
information he gives his patient and the quality of healthcare he While I do not wish to underestimate the States interest in
provides.82 But when the doctor speaks to providing accurate information on reproductive health, I be-

_______________ _______________
80 See Todd F. Simon, First Amendment in the Twentieth Century U.S. Supreme texts the regulation of professional speech is theoretically and practically inseparable
Court begins to dene freedoms of speech and press, in HISTORY OF MASS MEDIA IN from the regulation of medicine. Id., at pp. 950-951.
THE UNITED STATES: AN ENCYCLOPEDIA (1999), p. 223; New York Times Co. v. 83 See Bailey v. Huggins Diagnostic & Rehabilitation Center, 952 P. 2d 768
Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964). (Colo. Ct, App 1997), where the Colorado Supreme Court made a distinction between
81 See Robert C. Post, Informed Consent to Abortion: A First Amendment a dentists speech made in the course of a dental treatment, and his speech in books
Analysis of Compelled Physician Speech, 3 Univ. of Illinois Law Rev. 939, 2007, and opinion articles; the former may be the subject of a malpractice suit; the latter, on
available at http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent. the other hand, is not.
cgi?article=1169&context=fss_papers. 84 American Communications Assoc. v. Douds, 339 U.S. 282, as cited in Gonzales
82 The practice of medicine, like all human behavior, transpires through the v. COMELEC, 27 SCRA 835 (1969).
medium of speech. In regulating the practice, therefore, the state must necessarily also
541
regulate professional speech. Without so much as a nod to the First Amendment,
doctors are routinely held liable for malpractice for speaking, or for failing to speak.
Doctors commit malpractice for failing to inform patients in a timely way of an lieve that the freedom of expression of medical health practitioners,
accurate diagnosis, for failing to give patients proper instructions, for failing to ask particularly in their communications to the public, outweighs this
patients necessary questions, or for failing to refer a patient to an appropriate State interest for the following reasons:
specialist. In all these con- First, we must consider that the RH Law already puts the entire
State machinery in providing an all-encompassing, comprehensive,
540
and nationwide information dissemination program on family
planning and other reproductive health programs and services. The
the public, his speech becomes protected speech, and the RH law commands the State to have an ofcial stand on
guarantees against prior restraint and subsequent punishment applies reproductive health care and the full-range of family planning
to his expressions that involves medicine or any other topic.83 This methods it supports, from natural to articial contraceptives. It then
requires the national government to take the lead in the the provision of inaccurate information or the withholding of
implementation of the information dissemination campaign,85 and relevant medical information belongs.
local government units to toe the line that the national government Under our laws, an erring health practitioner may be subjected to
draws.86 three separate proceedings. Depending on the act he or she has
The RH Law even requires both public and private hospitals to committed, the health practitioner may be held criminally and civilly
provide a full-range of modern family planning services, including liable by our courts,87 and administratively liable by their
both natural and articial means. This necessarily means that professional regulation board.88 For gov-
hospitals (where the health practitioners work) are required by law
and under pain of penal punish- _______________
87 In this jurisdiction, however, such claims are most often brought as a civil
_______________ action for damages under Article 2176 of the Civil Code, and in some instances, as a
85 It mandates the Department of Health and local government units to initiate criminal case under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code, Cruz v. Court of Appeals,
and sustain a heightened nationwide multimedia-campaign to raise the level of public G.R. No. 122445, November 18, 1997, 282 SCRA 188.
awareness on reproductive health, including family planning, and mandates local 88 Under Presidential Decree No. 223, the Professional Regulation Commission
governments in highly-urbanized cities to operate mobile health care services, which exercises supervisory powers over professional boards; these professional boards
shall, aside from providing health care goods and services, disseminate knowledge exercise administrative, quasi-legislative, and quasi-judicial powers over their
and information on reproductive health. respective professions. This includes investigating and adjudicating administrative
Aside from capacity-building, the DOH is also required to update local cases against professionals. Professional Regulation Commission, Professional
government units with appropriate information and resources to keep the latter Regulatory Boards, at http://www.prc.gov.ph/prb/. Doctors, for instance, follow the
updated on current studies and researches relating to family planning. These pieces of Code of Ethics of the Board of Medicine of the Philippine Regulatory Commission
information shall, presumably, include information issued by the Food and Drug (PRC) and the Code of Ethics of Medical Profession of the Philippine Medical
Administration regarding the use of and safety of contraceptives. Association (PMA). Complaints regarding a violation of these codes may be taken
86 Further, the RH Law mandates the DOH to disseminate information and train cognizance by
local governments as regards its reproductive health care programs, and provide them
543
with the necessary supplies and equipment. Local government units, in turn, are
mandated to train their respective barangay health workers and other barangay
volunteers on the promotion of reproductive health. ernment employees, they can also be held administratively liable
under civil service laws.89
542
Thus, I do not see any reason to add another penalty specic to
speech that covers reproductive health, especially since, as pointed
ment, to disseminate information about all available reproductive out earlier, state interests in providing accurate information about
health services. RH services are already fully covered.
To my mind, this information dissemination program, along with Lastly, and what, to me, tips the balance overwhelmingly in favor
the mandatory requirement for hospitals to provide a full range of of speech, the chilling effect that Section 23(a)(1) creates against the
family planning services, sufciently cover the states interest in expression of possible ideas, discussions and opinions could
providing accurate information about available reproductive health eventually hinder progress in the science and research on
services and programs. If, corollary to the States interest to promote reproductive health. Health professionals are the most qualied to
accurate information about reproductive health, it intended to make debate about the efcacy and side effects of reproductive health
health care practitioners accountable for any negligence they may services, and the penalty against uttering incorrect information about
commit in the course of their practice, I submit that, as my second reproductive health services could silence them. Even worse, the
argument will further expound, the existing regulatory framework requirement for them to provide information on all reproductive
for their practice already sufciently protects against such health programs of the government could add to the chilling effect,
negligence and malpractice. as it sends a signal that the only information on reproductive health
Second, the existing regulatory framework for the practice of that should be considered as correct is that of the government.
medicine sufciently penalizes negligence and malpractice, to which
 In these lights, I concur with the ponencias conclusions, subject issue rules for the protection and enforcement of constitutional
to the points I raised in this Separate Opinion. rights.3 The Court cannot, therefore, remain an idle spectator or a
CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION disinterested referee when constitutional
DEL CASTILLO,J.:
Our nation is at a crossroads. _______________
Perhaps no other piece of legislation in recent history has so 1 Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012.
bitterly and piercingly divided us as much as Republic Act 2 CONSTITUTION, Article VIII, Section 1.
3 CONSTITUTION, Article VIII, Section 5(5).
_______________
545
the Commission on Ethics of the PMA (Section 3A, PMA By-laws), or by the Board
of Medical Examiners (Section 22, Rep. Act No. 2382).
89 Doctors who are public ofcials are subject to Civil Service Laws and the Code rights are at stake. It is its duty to protect and defend constitutional
of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Ofcials and Employees. See, for rights for otherwise its raison detre will cease.
instance, Ofce of the Ombudsman v. Court of Appeals and Dr. Macabulos, G.R. No. With these considerations in mind, I am of the view that the
159395, May 7, 2008, 554 SCRA 75. social gains or ills, whether imagined or real, resulting from the
implementation of the RH Law is beyond the scope of judicial
544
review. Thus, even if we assume that the grave and catastrophic
predictions of the opponents of the RH Law manifest itself later on,
No. 103541 or more popularly known as the RH Law. That this law the remedy would lie with Congress to repeal or amend the law. We
has cut deeply into the consciousness and wounded the soul of our have entrusted our destiny as a nation to this system of government
nation is evident from the profound depth of conviction with which with the underlying hope that Congress will nd the enlightenment
both proponents and opponents of this law have argued their cause and muster the will to change the course they have set under this law
before the bar of public opinion, Congress, and now, before this should it prove unwise or detrimental to the life of our nation. The
Court. battle in this regard remains within the legislative sphere. And there
With the passage of the RH Law, the present case before us is the is no obstacle for the laws opponents to continue ghting the good
last remaining obstacle to its implementation. ght in the halls of Congress, if they so choose. Thus, the Court will
The RH Law is primarily a national family planning policy with refrain from ruling on the validity of the RH Law based on its
universal access to contraceptives and informed-free choice as its wisdom or expediency.
centerpiece. Its proponents laud the law for what they perceive as a This is not to say, however, that this law is beyond judicial
sound and aggressive contraceptive strategy geared towards scrutiny. While I will tackle several constitutional questions
population control, poverty alleviation, women empowerment, and presented before this Court in this Opinion, it is my considered view
responsible parenthood. Its opponents, however, deplore the law for that the paramount issue, which is properly the subject of
what they claim brings about a contraceptive mentality leading to constitutional litigation, hinges on two vital questions: (1) when
the lowering of moral standards, destruction of marriage and the does the life of the unborn begin? and (2) how do we ought to
family, a population winter, and a culture of death. protect and defend this life?
The path that we, as a nation, will take has already been decided On the rst question, I am fully in accord with the result reached
by Congress, as representatives of the people, under our system of by the ponencia. Absent a clear and unequivocal constitutional
government. The task before the Court, then, is not to say which prohibition on the manufacture, distribution, and use of
path we ought to take but to determine if the chosen path treads on contraceptives, there is nothing to prevent Congress from adopting a
unconstitutional grounds. But this is not all. For the Court, which national family planning policy provided that the contraceptives that
was once generally a passive organ in our constitutional order, has will be used pursuant thereto do not harm or destroy the life of the
been given expanded powers under the present Constitution. It is unborn from conception, which is synonymous to fertilization, under
now not only its right but its bounden duty to determine grave abuse Arti-
of discretion on the part of any branch, instrumentality or agency of
546
government,2 and, equally important, it has been given the power to
cle II, Section 124 of the Constitution. The plain meaning of this
cle II, Section 124 of the Constitution. The plain meaning of this of the Constitution.
constitutional provision and the deliberations of the Constitutional Article II, Section 12 of the Constitution provides, in part:
Commission bare this out.
It is upon the answer to the second question, however, where I Section12.The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall
nd myself unable to fully agree with the ponencia. Congress protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution. It
accomplished a commendable undertaking when it passed the RH shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from
Law with utmost respect for the life of the unborn from conception. xxx (Emphasis supplied)
conception/fertilization. Indeed, this law is replete with provisions Article II, Section 12 of the present Constitution was originally Article
seeking to protect and uphold the right to life of the unborn in II, Section 9 of the draft of the Constitution:
consonance with the Constitution. Section 9.The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall
However, where the task of Congress ends, the Courts charge protect and strengthen the family as a basic social institution. The State shall
begins for it is mandated by the Constitution to protect and defend equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from the
constitutional rights. With the impending implementation of the RH moment of conception.5 xxx (Emphasis supplied)
Law, the Court cannot turn a blind eye when the right to life of the
The draft of the Constitution was slightly differently worded as it
unborn may be imperiled or jeopardized. Within its constitutionally-
made use of the phrase from the moment of conception while its
mandated role as guardian and defender of constitutional rights, in
present wording is from conception. The change in wording, as
general, and its expanded power to issue rules for the protection and
will be discussed later, was to simplify the phraseology. But the
enforcement of such rights, in particular, the Court may, thus, issue
intended meaning of both phrases, as deliberated by the
such orders as are necessary and essential to protect, defend and
Constitutional Commission, is the same.
enforce the right to life of the unborn.
The background and basis of the subject constitutional provision
The framers of, and the people who ratied the Constitution set
were explained in the sponsorship speech of Commissioner Villegas.
in bold and deft strokes the protection of the life of the unborn from
He emphasized that, based on incontrovertible scientic evidence,
conception/fertilization because it is precious, sacred and inviolable.
the fertilized ovum is alive; that this life is human; and that the
For as long as this precept remains written in our Constitution, our
fertilized ovum is a human person.
solemn duty is to stay the course in delity to the most cherished
values and wisdom of those who came before us and to whom we
_______________
entrusted the writing and ratication of our Constitution. History
5 IV RECORD, CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION 579 (September 12, 1986).
will judge this Court on what it did or did not do to protect the life of
the 548

_______________
4 The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen
Though that last point, he acknowledged, was highly contested in
the family as a basic autonomous social institution. It shall equally protect the life
law. Commissioner Villegas went on to discuss why abortion could
of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception. The natural and primary
not be justied even in so-called hard cases such as pregnancies
right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efciency and the
resulting from rape or incest; pregnancies of mentally ill mothers;
development of moral character shall receive the support of the Government.
and pregnancies of mothers mired in abject poverty.
(Emphasis supplied)
The justication for disallowing abortion in hard cases sets the
tone on the nature of the right to life of the unborn, as a fundamental
547 right, that recurs throughout the deliberations:

The main reason why we should say no (to abortion in hard cases) are:
unborn from conception/fertilization. There is, therefore, no other (1) a wrong cannot be righted by another wrong, (2) no one should be
recourse but for this Court to act in defense of the life of the unborn. deprived of human life without due process and we have established
These reasons primarily impel the writing of this Opinion. scientically that from the moment of conception, the fertilized ovum has
Deliberations of the Constitutional already life; and (3) a fetus, just like any human, must be presumed
Commission on Article II, Section 12
innocent unless proven guilty. It is quite obvious that the fetus has done no Padilla observed:
wrong. Its only wrong is to be an unwanted baby.6 (Emphasis supplied)
Madam President, after the sponsorship of Commissioner Villegas on
Section 9, I wanted to state that I fully concur with his views in support of
Commissioner Villegas would later re-emphasize this point at the Section 9 on the right of the unborn from conception. I found his exposition
end of his sponsorship speech, thus: to be logical, not necessarily creative, much less critical, but logical. Madam
President, I would like to state that the Revised Penal Code does not only
What is being afrmed in this formulation is the moral right as well as penalize infanticide but it has various provisions penalizing abortion; Article
the constitutional right of the unborn child to life. x x x The views I 256, intentional abortion; Article 257, unintentional abortion; Article 258,
express here transcend religious differences. As I have declared in another abortion practiced by the woman herself or by her parents; and Article 259,
occasion, this is not a Roman Catholic position. Since time immemorial, abortion practiced by a physician or midwife and dispensing of abortives.
even before Christianity was brought to our soil, as you very well know, our However, I believe the intention of the proponents of Section 9 is not
ancestors referred to the baby in the womb of the mother as tao siyay only to afrm this punitive provision in the Penal Code but to make clear
nagdadalang-tao. Ang dinadala ay tao; hindi halaman, hindi hayop, hindi that it is a fundamental right that deserves to be mentioned in the
palaka tao. Constitution.9 (Emphasis supplied)
Madam President, let me also quote from a non-Christian in our
Commission. In a public hearing, the honorable Commissioner Uka said the
_______________
following: As a Muslim, I believe in the Ten Commandments, and one of
7 IV RECORD, CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION 599 (September 12, 1986).
the Ten Commandments is Thou shalt not kill. From the time of
8 IV RECORD, CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION 600 (September 12, 1986).
conception, there is already life. Now if you put down that life, there is
9 IV RECORD, CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION 602 (September 12, 1986).
already killing, a violation of one of the Ten Commandments. The
overwhelming majority of Filipinos agree

_______________ 550
6 IV RECORD, CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION 597 (September 12, 1986).

549
The unique status of the fundamental right accorded to the
unborn was explored in later discussions. It was emphasized that the
subject constitutional provision was intended to protect only the
with Commissioner Uka that we should support Section 9. We have received right to life of the unborn unlike the human person who enjoys the
up to now more than 50,000 signatures from all over the Philippines, from right to life, liberty and property:
individuals belonging to all walks of life. I do not think there is any other
issue in which we have been bombarded with more numerous signatures. MR. SUAREZ. Going to these unborn children who will be given
Let us, therefore, listen to all of them and mandate that the State should protection from the moment of conception, does the Commissioner have in
equally protect the life of the mother and the unborn from the moment of mind giving them also proprietary rights, like the right to inheritance?
conception.7 (Emphasis supplied) MR. VILLEGAS. No, Madam President. Precisely, the question of
whether or not that unborn is a legal person who can acquire property is
Subsequently, Commissioner Nolledo would re-echo these views: completely a secondary question. The only right that we want to protect
from the moment of conception is the right to life, which is the
Killing the fetus, while categorized as abortion in our Revised Penal
beginning of all other rights.
Code, is plain murder because of its inability to defend itself. Let the
MR. SUAREZ. So, only the right to life.
unborn, Madam President, the unborn which is cherished, precious and
MR. VILLEGAS. Yes, it is very clear, only the right to life.
loving gift of God, enjoy constitutional protection in a Christian country like
MR. SUAREZ. That is the only right that is constitutionally
ours.8
protected by the State.
MR. VILLEGAS. That is right, Madam President.10 (Emphasis supplied)
The subject constitutional provision, thus, sought to recognize the
right to life of the unborn as a fundamental right. As Commissioner
 The deliberations also revealed that the subject constitutional MR. SUAREZ. So, principally and exclusively, if I may so, what the
provision was intended to prevent the Court from making a Roe v. commissioner has in mind is only an act outlawing abortion.
Wade11 ruling in our jurisdiction: MR. VILLEGAS. Exactly, Madam President.
MR. SUAREZ. So that is the real thrust and meaning of this particular
MR. VILLEGAS. Yes, Madam President. As Commissioner Padilla provision.
already said, it is important that we have a constitutional provision that is MR. VILLEGAS. That is right.
more basic than the existing laws. In countries like the United States, they
get involved in some ridiculous internal contradictions in their laws when
_______________
they give the child the right to damages received while yet unborn, to
12 IV RECORD, CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION 682 (September 16, 1986).
inheritance, to blood transfusion over its mothers objection, to have a
13 IV RECORD, CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION 707 (September 17, 1986).
guardian appointed and other rights of citizenship; but they do not give him
the right to life. 552
As has happened after that infamous 1972 U.S. Supreme Court decision
(Roe v. Wade), babies can be killed all the way up to 8 and 8 MR. SUAREZ. Can we not just spell it out in our Constitution that
abortion is outlawed, without stating the right to life of the unborn from the
_______________ moment of conception, Madam President?
545 IV RECORD, CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION 683 (September 16, 1986). MR. VILLEGAS. No, because that would already be getting into the
546410 U.S. 113 (1973). legal technicalities. That is already legislation. The moment we have this
provision, all laws making abortion possible would be unconstitutional. That
551
is the purpose of this provision, Madam President.14
xxxx
1/2 months. So precisely this basic provision is necessary because inferior MR. NATIVIDAD. Madam President, I rose to ask these questions
laws are sometimes imperfect and completely distorted. We have to make because I had the impression that this provision of the Constitution would
sure that the basic law will prevent all of these internal contradictions found prevent future Congresses from enacting laws legalizing abortion. Is my
in American jurisprudence because Filipino lawyers very often cite perception correct, Madam President?
American jurisprudence.12 MR. VILLEGAS. Exactly. Congress cannot legalize abortion. It would
xxxx be unconstitutional.
MR. VILLEGAS. As I have said, we must prevent any possibility of MR. NATIVIDAD. In what way will it collide with this provision?
legalized abortion, because there is enough jurisprudence that may be used MR. VILLEGAS. Any direct killing of the unborn from the moment of
by Congress or by our Supreme Court. conception would be going against the Constitution and, therefore, that law
Let me just read what happened after the Roe v. Wade decision in the would be, if Congress attempts to make it legal, unconstitutional.15
U.S. Supreme Court. xxx The sole exception to this constitutional prohibition against abortion is
So, these are the oodgates that are open? when there is a need, in rare cases, to save the life of the mother which
REV. RIGOS. Which are? indirectly sacrices the unborns life under the principle of double effect:
MR. VILLEGAS. As I said, American jurisprudence looms large on MR. BENNAGEN. In making a decision as to which life takes priority,
Philippine practice and because it is a transcendental issue, we have to the life of the mother or the life of the unborn, what criteria are
completely remove the possibility of our Congress and our Supreme Court contemplated by the committee on which to base the decision?
following this tragic trail.13 MR. VILLEGAS. We have articulated this moral principle called the
There was, thus, a clear rejection of the theory used in Roe v. Wade that principle of double effect. Whenever there is need, for example, to perform
the test of human personality was viability. Further, the subject a surgical operation on the mother because of a disease or some organic
constitutional provision was intended to prohibit Congress from legalizing malfunctioning, then the direct intention is to save the mother. And if
abortion: indirectly the childs life has to be sacriced, that would not be abortion,
MR. VILLEGAS. Protection means any attempt on the life of the child that would not be killing. So, in
from the moment of conception can be considered abortion and can be
criminal.
_______________
 14 Supra note 10. When is the moment of conception?
15 IV RECORD, CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION 698 (September 17, 1986). xxxx
MR. VILLEGAS. As I explained in the sponsorship speech, it is when

the ovum is fertilized by the sperm that there is human life. Just to
553 repeat: rst, there is obviously life because it starts to nourish itself, it starts
to grow as any living being, and it is human because at the moment of
fertilization, the chromosomes that combined in the fertilized ovum are the
those situations which we said are becoming rarer and rarer because of the
chromosomes that are uniquely found in human beings and are not found in
tremendous advance of medical science, the mothers life is safe.16
any other living being.18 (Emphasis supplied)
Intricately related to the prohibition of legalizing abortion was the
Signicantly, the framers intentionally made use of the term
intention to prevent Congress, through future legislation, from
from the moment of conception so that the people who will ratify
dening when life begins other than at the time of fertilization:
the Constitution would easily understand its meaning:
MR. DAVIDE. Precisely. So, insofar as the unborn is concerned, life
MR. TINGSON. We would like Commissioner Rigos to know that the
begins at the rst moment of conception. Therefore, there is no need to
phrase from the moment of conception was described by us here before
delete. There is no need to leave it to Congress because that is a matter
with the scientic phrase fertilized ovum. However, we gured in the
settled in medicine.
committee that the phrase fertilized ovum may be beyond the
xxxx
comprehension of some people; we want to use the simpler phrase from
REV. RIGOS. Yes, we think that the word unborn is sufcient for the
the moment of conception.19
purpose of writing a Constitution, without specifying from the moment of
conception. During the deliberations, the meaning of from the moment of
MR. DAVIDE. I would not subscribe to that particular view because conception was repeatedly reafrmed as pertaining to the
according to the Commissioners own admission, he would leave it to fertilization of the egg by the sperm. As a necessary consequence of
Congress to dene when life begins. So, Congress can dene life to begin this denition, any drug or device that harms the unborn from the
from six months after fertilization; and that would really be very, very moment of fertilization is considered an abortifacient and should be
dangerous. It is now determined by science that life begins from the moment banned by the State:
of conception. There can be no doubt about it. So, we should not give any
doubt to Congress, too. MR. GASCON. Mr. Presiding Ofcer, I would like to ask a question on
Thank you, Madam President. (Applause)17 (Emphasis supplied) that point. Actually that is one of the questions I was going to raise during
the period of interpellations but it has been expressed already. The
Much of the debates, however, centered on the meaning of the provision, as it is proposed right now, states:
phrase from the moment of conception. It is clear from the
deliberations that the intended meaning of the phrase from the
_______________
moment of conception was fertilization or the moment the egg is
18 IV RECORD, CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION 668 (September 16, 1986).
fertilized by the sperm.
19 IV RECORD, CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION 669 (September 16, 1986).
REV. RIGOS. In Section 9, page 3, there is a sentence which reads:
555

_______________
16 IV RECORD, CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION 803 (September 19, 1986). The State shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life
17 IV RECORD, CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION 800 (September 19, 1986). of the unborn from the moment of conception.

554 When it speaks of from the moment of conception, does this mean
when the egg meets the sperm?
MR. VILLEGAS. Yes, the ovum is fertilized by the sperm.
The State shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the
unborn from the moment of conception.
 MR. GASCON. Therefore, that does not leave to Congress the right to the life of the unborn from the moment of conception to protect
determine whether certain contraceptives that we know of today are the life of the mother and the life of the unborn. In other words,
abortifacient or not because it is a fact that some of these so-called there was a move to delete the phrase from the moment of
contraceptives deter the rooting of the fertilized ovum in the uterus. If conception. Opponents of the subject constitutional provision
fertilization has already occurred, the next process is for the fertilized ovum argued that the determination of when life begins should be left to
to travel towards the uterus and to take root. What happens with some Congress to address in a future legislation where there is greater
contraceptives is that they stop the opportunity for the fertilized ovum to opportunity to debate the issues dealing with human personality and
reach the uterus. Therefore, if we take the provision as it is proposed, these when it begins.23
so-called contraceptives should be banned. After a lengthy exchange, the proponents of the subject
MR. VILLEGAS. Yes, if that physical fact is established, then that is constitutional provision scored a decisive victory when the nal
what we call abortifacient and, therefore, would be unconstitutional voting on whether to retain or delete the phrase from the moment of
and should be banned under this provision.20 (Emphasis supplied) conception was held:

This was further conrmed in the following exchanges:

_______________
MR.GASCON. xxx 21 IV RECORD, CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION 745 (September 17, 1986).
xxxx 22 IV RECORD, CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION 801-802 (September 19, 1986).
I mentioned that if we institutionalize the term the life of the unborn 23 IV RECORD, CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION 668 (September 16, 1986); IV RECORD,
from the moment of conception, we are also actually saying no, not CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION 705, 708, 724 (September 17, 1986); IV RECORD,
maybe to certain contraceptives which are already being encouraged at CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION 800 (September 19, 1986).
point in time. Is that the sense of the committee or does it disagree with me?
557
MR. AZCUNA. No, Mr. Presiding Ofcer, because contraceptives would
be preventive. There is no unborn yet. That is yet unshaped.
MR. GASCON. Yes, Mr. Presiding Ofcer, but I was speaking more THE PRESIDENT. xxx So, if the vote is yes, it is to delete from the
about some contraceptives, such as the intra-uterine device which actually moment of conception. If the vote is no, then that means to say that the
stops the egg which has already been fertilized from phrase from the moment of conception remains.24
xxxx
_______________ THE PRESIDENT. The results show 8 votes in favor and 32 against; so,
20 IV RECORD, CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION 711 (September 17, 1986). the proposed Rigos amendment is lost.25

556
Hence, the phrase from the moment of conception was
taking route to the uterus. So, if we say from the moment of conception, retained. Subsequently, the Padilla amendment was put to a vote.
what really occurs is that some of these contraceptives will have to be With a vote of 33 in favor, 3 against, and 4 abstentions, the Padilla
unconstitutionalized. amendment was approved. Thus, the present wording of the second
MR. AZCUNA. Yes, to the extent that it is after the fertilization, Mr. sentence of Article II, Section 12 of the Constitution makes use of
Presiding Ofcer.21 (Emphasis supplied) the simplied phrase from conception.
Key Characteristics of Article II,
Later, Commissioner Padilla initiated moves to reword the phrase Section 12
from the moment of conception to from conception to simplify Several important characteristics or observations may be made on
the phraseology of the subject constitutional provision without the nature, scope and signicance of Article II, Section 12 of the
deviating from its original meaning, that is, conception pertains to Constitution relative to the protection of the life of the unborn based
fertilization.22 on the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission.
The real challenge to the proponents of the subject constitutional First, the framers were unequivocal in their intent to dene
provision, however, was the move by several members of the conception as the fertilization of the egg by the sperm and to
Commission to change the phrase protect the life of the mother and accord constitutional protection to the life of the unborn from the
moment of fertilization. The plain meaning of the term _______________
conception, as synonymous to fertilization, based on dictionaries 27 See Civil Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 83896, February 22,
and medical textbooks, as aptly and extensively discussed by the 1991, 194 SCRA 317, 337-338.
ponencia, conrm this construction. In addition, petitioners correctly 28 Supra note 11.
argue that the denition of conception, as equivalent to
559
fertilization, was the same denition prevailing during the 1980s or
at around the time the 1987 Constitution was ratied.26 Hence, under
the rule of born from conception/fertilization and elevated it to the status of a
constitutional right.
_______________ Fourth, because the unborn has been accorded a constitutional
24 IV RECORD, CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION 807 (September 19, 1986). right to life from conception/fertilization under Article II, Section
25 IV RECORD, CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION 808 (September 19, 1986). 12, this right falls within the ambit of the Courts power to issue
26 Memorandum for Alliance for the Family Foundation Philippines, Inc. (ALFI) rules for the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights
et al. (Vol. I), pp. 41-43. under Article VIII, Section 5(5) of the Constitution:

558 Section5.The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:

xxxx
(5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of
constitutional construction, which gives weight to how the term was
constitutional rights, xxx. Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-
understood by the people who ratied the Constitution,27
judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme
conception should be understood as fertilization.
Court.
Second, the protection of the life of the unborn under Article II,
Section 12 is a self-executing provision because: This is signicant because it imposes upon this Court the duty to
(1) It prevents Congress from legalizing abortion; from passing protect such right pursuant to its rule-making powers. In recent
laws which authorize the use of abortifacients; and from passing times, the Court acknowledged that the right of the people to a
laws which will determine when life begins other than from the balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and
moment of conception/fertilization; harmony of nature under Article II, Section 16 of the Constitution,
(2)It prevents the Supreme Court from making a Roe v. Wade28 though found in the Declaration of Principles and Policies (like the
ruling in our jurisdiction; and subject right to life of the unborn) and not in the Bill of Rights, may
(3)It obligates the Executive to ban contraceptives which act as be given esh pursuant to the power of the Court to issue rules for
abortifacients or those which harm or destroy the unborn from the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights. It, thus,
conception/fertilization. proceeded to promulgate the rules governing the Writ of
Article II, Section 12 is, thus, a direct, immediate and effective Kalikasan.29
limitation on the three great branches of government and a positive With far greater reason should the Court wield this power here
command on the State to protect the life of the unborn. because the unborn is totally defenseless and must rely wholly on
Third, Article II, Section 12 recognized a sui generis the State to represent its interest in matters affecting the protection
constitutional right to life of the unborn. The framers repeatedly and preservation of its very life. It does not necessarily follow,
treated or referred to the right to life of the unborn as a fundamental however, that the Court should issue a set of rules to protect the life
right and thereby acknowledged that the unborn is a proper subject of the unborn like the Writ of Kalikasan. How the Court is to protect
of a constitutional right. That this right is founded on natural law and enforce the consti-
and is self-executing further provides the unmistakable basis and
intent to accord it the status of a constitutional right. However, it is
_______________
sui generis because, unlike a person who possesses the right to life,
29 RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CASES, Rule 7.
liberty and property, the unborns fundamental right is solely limited
to the right to life as was the intention of the framers. Clearly, then, 600
Article II, Section 12 recognized a sui generis right to life of the un-
tutional right to life of the unborn, within the context of the RH Law, methods of family planning, especially the Billings Ovulation Method,
is the central theme of this Opinion. consistent with the needs of acceptors and their religious convictions; xxx
With the groundwork constitutional principles in place, I now j) While this Act recognizes that abortion is illegal and punishable
proceed to tackle the constitutionality of the RH Law and its by law, the government shall ensure that all women needing care for post-
Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR). abortive complications and all other complications arising from pregnancy,
The RH Law does not contravene Article labor and delivery and related issues shall be treated and counseled in a
II, Section 12 of the Constitution. humane, nonjudgmental and compassionate manner in accordance with law
The RH Law prohibits the use of abortifacients in several and medical ethics; (Emphasis supplied)
provisions in consonance with Article II, Section 12 of the
Constitution, to wit:
(1)Section 2: (3)Section 4:

SEC.2.Declaration of Policy. xxx SEC.4.Denition of Terms.For the purpose of this Act, the
The State likewise guarantees universal access to medically-safe, non-- following terms shall be dened as follows: xxx
abortifacient, effective, legal, affordable, and quality reproductive health (a)Abortifacient refers to any drug or device that induces abortion
care services, methods, devices, supplies which do not prevent the or the destruction of a fetus inside the mothers womb or the prevention
implantation of a fertilized ovum as determined by the Food and Drug of the fertilized ovum to reach and be implanted in the mothers womb
Administration (FDA) and relevant information and education thereon upon determination of the FDA.
according to the priority needs of women, children and other xxxx
underprivileged sectors, giving preferential access to those identied (e) Family planning refers to a program which enables couples and
through the National Household Targeting System for Poverty Reduction individuals to decide freely and responsibly the number and spacing of their
(NHTS-PR) and other government measures of identifying marginalization, children and to have the information and means to do so, and to have access
who shall be voluntary beneciaries of reproductive health care, services to a full range of safe, affordable, effective, non-abortifacient modern
and supplies for free. (Emphasis supplied) natural and articial methods of planning pregnancy.
xxxx
(2)Section 3:
562
SEC.3.Guiding Principles for Implementation. This Act declares
the following as guiding principles: xxx (l) Modern methods of family planning refers to safe, effective, non-
(d)The provision of ethical and medically safe, legal, accessible, abortifacient and legal methods, whether natural or articial, that are
affordable, non-abortifacient, effective and quality reproductive health care registered with the FDA, to plan pregnancy.
services and supplies is essential in the promotion of peoples right to xxxx
health, especially those of women, the poor, and the marginalized, and shall (s) Reproductive health rights refers to the rights of individuals and
be incorporated as a component of basic health care; couples, to decide freely and responsibly whether or not to have children;
the number, spacing and timing of their children; to make other decisions
561
concerning reproduction, free of discrimination, coercion and violence; to
have the information and means to do so; and to attain the highest standard
(e) The State shall promote and provide information and access, of sexual health and reproductive health: Provided, however, That
without bias, to all methods of family planning, including effective natural reproductive health rights do not include abortion, and access to
and modern methods which have been proven medically safe, legal, non- abortifacients. (Emphasis supplied)
abortifacient, and effective in accordance with scientic and evidence-
based medical research standards such as those registered and approved by
the FDA for the poor and marginalized as identied through the NHTS-PR (4)Section 9:
and other government measures of identifying marginalization: Provided,
That the State shall also provide funding support to promote modern natural SEC.9.The Philippine National Drug Formulary System and Family
Planning Supplies.The National Drug Formulary shall include hormonal
contraceptives, intrauterine devices, injectables and other safe, legal, non--
abortifacient and effective family planning products and supplies. The abortifacient in SEC. 4 (a) of the RH Law, such that in the IRRs, the
Philippine National Drug Formulary System (PNDFS) shall be observed in term has, in effect, been re-dened.
selecting drugs including family planning supplies that will be included or 9.1.10 Rule 3Denition of Terms, Section 3.01 (a) of the IRRs, as
removed from the Essential Drugs List (EDL) in accordance with existing signed, states:
practice and in consultation with reputable medical associations in the Abortifacient refers to any drug or device that primarily induces abortion
Philippines. For the purpose of this Act, any product or supply included or or the destruction of a fetus inside the mothers womb or the prevention
to be included in the EDL must have a certication from the FDA that of the fertilized ovum to reach and be implanted in the mothers womb
said product and supply is made available on the condition that it is not upon determination of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
to be used as an abortifacient.
564
These products and supplies shall also be included in the regular
purchase of essential medicines and supplies of all national hospitals:
Provided, further, That the foregoing ofces shall not purchase or And primarily means the drug or device has no other known effect
acquire by any means emergency contraceptive pills, postcoital pills, aside from abortion. (footnote 14, IRRs)
abortifacients that will be used for such purpose and their other forms 9.1.11xxxx
or equivalent. (Emphasis supplied) 9.1.12 One can readily spot how the insertion of the word primarily
has radically, if not deceptively, changed the meaning of Abortifacient
The key provision is found in Section 4(a) which denes an under the RH Law. As explained above, the primary mechanism of
abortifacient as any drug or device that induces abortion or action of contraceptives is really to prevent ovulation or fertilization, but
this does not happen all the time because in some instances breakthrough
563
ovulation occurs and the built-in and back-up abortive action sets in.
With the denition under the IRR, abortifacient contraceptives will not
the destruction of a fetus inside the mothers womb or the prevention be classied as abortifacients because they do not primarily and
of the fertilized ovum to reach and be implanted in the mothers solely cause abortion or are abortive. Well, this should not be
womb upon determination of the FDA. That last phrase which surprising anymore because as indicated in the explanatory note of the
effectively bans contraceptives that prevent the fertilized ovum from IRRs, the only goal is to save [the] mothers lives and to reduce maternal
reaching and being implanted in the mothers womb guarantees that mortality rate, without any reference to saving the life of the unborn
the fertilized ovum will not be banned or destroyed from the child or decreasing infant mortality rate.
moment of fertilization until its implantation. Thus, the RH Law 9.1.13 Clearly, but unfortunately, the true legislative intent is: for the
protects the unborn from conception/fertilization in consonance with State to fund and fully implement the procurement and widespread
the Constitution. dissemination and use of all forms of contraceptive products, supplies
As earlier noted, the RH Law is to be commended for its zealous and devices, even if they are abortifacients and harmful to the health
protection of the life of the unborn from conception/fertilization. It of women. This goes counter to the constitutional intent of Section 12,
repeatedly emphasizes that the contraceptives which will be made Article II which is to afford protection to the unborn child from the
available under the law should be non-abortifacient. It prohibits the incipient stage of the existence of life, that is, from the very moment of
use of abortifacients and penalizes the use thereof. Thus, it cannot be conception or fertilization, and to give equal protection to the life of the
said that the law violates Article II, Section 12 of the Constitution. mother and the life of the unborn from conception.30
The IRRs denition of abortifacient
and contraceptive contravenes Article
II, Section 12 of the Constitution and I agree.
the RH Law itself. Section 3.01(a) of the IRR denes abortifacient as:
Petitioners Alliance for the Family Foundation Philippines, Inc.
(ALFI) et al. argue: _______________
30 Memorandum for Petitioners ALFI, et al. (Vol. I), pp. 168-169.
9.1.9 The IRRs, which have been signed by the Secretary of Health
himself, among others, veer away from the denition of the term
 565 fertilization and (2) only secondarily prevents the implantation of
the fertilized ovum in case fertilization still occurs.
However, a drug or device that cannot provide a 100% guarantee
Section 3.01 For purposes of these Rules, the terms shall be
that it will prevent fertilization and has a fail-safe mechanism which
dened as follows:
prevents implantation of the fertilized ovum (or harming/destroying
a) Abortifacient refers to any drug or device that primarily induces the fertilized ovum in any way) if fertilization occurs is
abortion or the destruction of a fetus inside the mothers womb or the unconstitutional under Article II, Section 12 and must be banned by
prevention of the fertilized ovum to reach and be implanted in the mothers the State. In more concrete terms, if a drug or device provides only a
womb upon determination of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). 90% guarantee of prevention of fertilization, then there is a 10%
(Emphasis supplied) chance that fertilization will still occur and the fertilized ovum
would be destroyed by the fail-safe mechanism of the contraceptive.
We cannot play the game of probabilities when life is at stake.
On the other hand, the RH Law denes abortifacient thus: The destruction or loss of life is permanent and irrevocable. Our
constitutional mandate is to protect the life of the unborn from
SEC.4.Denition of Terms.For the purpose of this Act, the
conception/fertilization. We cannot protect this life 90% of the time
following terms shall be dened as follows:
and allow its destruction 10% of the time. We either protect this life
(a)Abortifacient refers to any drug or device that induces abortion or the
or we do not. There is nothing in between.
destruction of a fetus inside the mothers womb or the prevention of the
If we are to truly give esh to the constitutional precept that the
fertilized ovum to reach and be implanted in the mothers womb upon
life of the unborn from conception/fertilization is precious, sacred
determination of the FDA.
and inviolable, all reasonable doubts should be resolved in favor of
Clearly, the addition of the word primarily in the IRR is ultra the protection and preservation of the life of the unborn, and any
vires for it amends or contravenes Section 4(a) of the RH Law. probability of destruction or loss of such life should be absolutely
More importantly, I agree that the insertion of the qualier proscribed. The supreme law of the land commands no less.
primarily will open the oodgates to the approval of For parallel reasons, the IRRs denition of contraceptive
contraceptives which may harm or destroy the life of the unborn under Section 3.01(j) is unconstitutional because of the insertion of
from conception/fertilization in violation of Article II, Section 12 of the qualier primarily, to wit:
the Constitution. As dened in the IRR, a drug or device is 567
considered an abortifacient if it primarily induces abortion or the
destruction of a fetus inside the mothers womb or the prevention of
the fertilized ovum to reach and be implanted in the mothers womb; Section3.01.For purposes of these Rules, the terms shall be dened
where primarily means that the drug or device has no other known as follows:
effect aside from abortion. In other words, under the IRR, a xxxx
contraceptive will only be considered as an abortifacient if its sole j)Contraceptive refers to any safe, legal, effective and scientically proven
known effect is abortion or, as pertinent here, the prevention of the modern family planning method, device, or health product, whether
implantation of the fertilized ovum. natural or articial, that prevents pregnancy but does not primarily
destroy a fertilized ovum or prevent a fertilized ovum from being
566 implanted in the mothers womb in doses of its approved indication as
determined by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). (Emphasis
supplied)
Consequently, a drug or device which (a) prevents fertilization,
(b) but does not provide a 100% guarantee of such prevention, and Although the RH Law does not provide a denition of
(c) has a fail-safe mechanism which will prevent the implantation of contraceptive, a reasonable and logical deduction is that
the fertilized ovum in case fertilization still occurs will not be contraceptive (or allowable contraceptive to be more precise) is
considered an abortifacient because the known effect thereof is not the opposite of abortifacient as dened under the RH Law. This
solely prevention of implantation since (1) it primarily prevents seems to be the tack adopted by the IRR in dening contraceptive.
However, the IRRs denition of contraceptive again added the The rule making power of this Court was expanded. This Court
qualier primarily. For similar reasons with the previous for the rst time was given the power to promulgate rules
discussion on the IRRs denition of abortifacient, this denition concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights.
of contraceptive opens the oodgates to the approval of The Court was also granted for the rst time the power to disapprove
contraceptives which are actually abortifacients because of their fail- rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies. xxx32
safe mechanism. Hence, the qualier primarily in Section 3.01(j)
is, likewise, void. _______________
In view of the foregoing, the word primarily in Section 3.01(a) 31 361 Phil. 73; 301 SCRA 96 (1999).
and (j) of the IRR should be declared void for (1) contravening 32 Id., at p. 88; pp. 111-112.
Section 4(a) of the RH Law and (2) violating Article II, Section 12
of Constitution. 569
Within the framework of implementation
of the RH Law, it is necessary for this
Viewed in light of the broad power of the Court to issue rules for
Court to exercise its expanded jurisdiction
the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, the power to
and power to issue rules for the protection
disapprove the rules of procedure of quasi-judicial bodies is
and enforcement of constitutional rights
signicant in that it implies the power of the Court to look into the
in order to adequately protect the right to
sufciency of such rules of procedure insofar as they adequately
life of the unborn.
protect and enforce constitutional rights. Moreover, the power to
568 disapprove the aforesaid rules of procedure necessarily includes or
implies the power to approve or modify such rules or, on the one
extreme, require that such rules of procedure be issued when
The Court should not limit its scrutiny to the constitutional necessary to protect and enforce constitutional rights. In other
validity of the RH Law and its IRR. This is because the right to life words, within and between the broader power to issue rules for the
of the unborn from conception/fertilization is a constitutional right protection and enforcement of constitutional rights and the narrower
properly within the ambit of the Courts power to issue rules for the power to disapprove the rules of procedure of quasi-judicial bodies,
protection and enforcement of constitutional rights under Article there exist penumbras of this power that the Court may exercise in
VIII, Section 5(5) of the Constitution. In Echegaray v. Secretary of order to protect and enforce constitutional rights.
Justice,31 the Court described this power to issue rules as one of the Furthermore, the power to determine when the aforesaid powers
innovations of the present Constitution to expand the powers of the may be exercised should be understood in conjunction with the
Court: Courts expanded jurisdiction, under Article VIII, Section 1 of the
The 1987 Constitution molded an even stronger and more independent
Constitution, to determine whether or not there has been a grave
judiciary. Among others, it enhanced the rule making power of this Court.
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the
Its Section 5(5), Article VIII provides:
part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.
xxxxxxxxx
Taken together, the expanded jurisdiction of the Court and the
Section 5.The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:
power to issue rules for the protection and enforcement of
xxxxxxxxx
constitutional rights provide the bases for the Court (1) to look into
(5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of
the sufciency of safeguards in the implementation of the RH Law
constitutional rights, pleading, practice and procedure in all courts, the
insofar as it will adversely affect the right to life of the unborn, and
admission to the practice of law, the Integrated Bar, and legal assistance to
(2) to issue such orders as are necessary and essential in order to
the underprivileged. Such rules shall provide a simplied and inexpensive
protect and enforce the constitutional right to life of the unborn. This
procedure for the speedy disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all courts
is especially true in this case because the expanded powers of the
of the same grade, and shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive
Court was granted to it to prevent a repeat of the bitter experiences
rights. Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall
during martial law years when rampant human rights violations
remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court.
occurred. Verily, the expanded powers were conferred on this Court
at a great price and were given for a clear purpose.
 570 Counsel, just a few follow-up questions on contraceptives.
Atty. Noche:
Yes, Your Honor.
Here, a more basic right the right to life of the unborn is at
Justice Del Castillo:
stake; the right from which all human rights emanate.
You have identied contraceptives as abortifacient.
It should come as no surprise that at a time our nation is set to
Atty. Noche:
embark on a great social experiment, where the full machinery of the
Yes, Your Honor.
State will be utilized to implement an aggressive national family
Justice Del Castillo:
planning policy, the Court should nd itself reecting on the
There are so many contraceptives and the respondents have taken the view that not
threshold of its constitutionally-mandated powers. The Court is
all are abortifacients. So to resolve this issue, why dont you identify, why
beckoned to courageously sail forth to the new frontiers of its
dont you name these contraceptives and then lets test them if they are
powers in order to stem the tide of oppression, nay destruction,
abortifacient then the issue is settled, so instead of making generalization that
against a most vulnerable group that may be trampled upon by this
all contraceptives are abortifacient, dont you think that the proper course of
great social experiment. For can there be any group more vulnerable
action to take is to identify all these because practically all drugs are
than the unborn?
abortifacients, even a simple aspirin, so these are [as a] matter of degree. So,
As they say, we stand on the shoulders of giants. They have
perhaps those that would cause tremendous harm and maybe we can ban
blazed the trail for this Court in order that we may see clearly what
them. But unless we have not identied them just to say that all abortifacients,
we can and ought to do in defense of the life of the unborn. They
dont you think that.......
have seen t to equip this Court with expanded powers in
Atty. Noche:
preparation for a future that they must have known would involve
If Your Honor, please, hormonal contraceptives, what were saying is that
moments of great clashes between the juggernaut of majoritarian
hormonal contraceptives which include, you know, the pills, and the
interests and the politically powerless and marginalized. We are in
injectables, and intrauterine devices, Your Honor, and the patches, Your
that moment. And we ought to rmly stand by the legacy and
Honor, implants theyre proven to be abortifacients, Your Honor. Vasectomy,
solemn charge that the framers of, and the people who ratied our
sterilization procedures, Your Honor, they are also referred to as
Constitution conferred upon us.
contraceptives, Your Honor, but they are not abortifacients because they dont
Against this backdrop, I delineate what the Court in the exercise
contain hormones, Your Honor.
of its expanded jurisdiction and power to issue rules for the
protection and enforcement of constitutional rights is mandated to 572

do in defense of the life of the unborn within the framework of

implementation of the RH Law. Justice Del Castillo:
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) No, I was suggesting that because the respondents would also come out with their
should be directed to issue the proper rules own authorities, so to resolve it once and for all, lets test them.
of procedure that will sufciently safe- Atty. Noche:
guard the right to life of the unborn. If Your Honor, please, we also have an objection about giving, of course, Im sure,
Preliminarily, central to the protection of the right to life of the Your Honor, Ive been referring to delegating the authority to the Food and
unborn is the proper determination, through screening, Drug Administration, so we have a problem with that, Your Honor, because, I
mean, these hormonal contraceptives are proven to be abortifacients, Your
571
Honor, and.... (interrupted)
Justice Del Castillo:
testing and/or evaluation, by the FDA, using the standard under the I am not just referring to the Food and Drug Administration. My point is, lets put it
Constitution, as adopted under the RH Law, on what will constitute to test because this is just x x x evidentiary, its a matter of fact, we cannot
allowable contraceptives under the RH Law. During the oral make generalizations. [Theyre] saying that these are not abortifacients, you
arguments of this case, I delved upon the crucial task that lay ahead are saying xxx that they are abortifacients, then lets prove it. That is just my
for the FDA: suggestion.
Atty. Noche:
Justice Del Castillo:
 If Your Honor, please, may I, you know, bring out the very important point that we
have always tried to bring out, Your Honor. Section 12, otherwise, we forget
this, Section 12, Article II mandates the protection of the unborn from
conception. And that protection is not just from death but from any risks or
threat of harm, or injury or any form or degree, remote or direct, momentary
or permanent and it has proven already that anything, Your Honor, that you
introduce into the body that disrupts the, you know, workings in the uterus or
the physiology in the uterus is harmful to the fertilized ovum so.....
(interrupted)
Justice Del Castillo:
Yes, Counsel, but the protection comes in only after, if I may grant you, the
fertilization. But before that, the unborn is not protected, the unborn is prote