Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Imbong vs. Ochoa Case Digest
Imbong vs. Ochoa Case Digest
Facts:
Republic Act No. 10354, otherwise known as the Responsible Parenthood
and Reproductive Health Act of 2012 (RH Law), was enacted by the Congress on
December 21, 2021. Shortly after President Benigno Aquino III placed his
imprimatur on the said law, challengers from various sectors of the society came
knocking on the doors of the Court, beckoning it to wield the sword that strikes
down constitutional disobedience. The Court now faces the juris controversy, as
presented in fourteen (14) petitions and two (2) petition-in-intervention.
Substantive Issues:
Whether or not the Reproductive Health Law is unconstitutional, with
regards to:
1. Right to Life
2. Right to Health
3. Freedom of Religion and Right to Free Speech
4. The Family
5. Freedom of Expression and Academic Freedom
6. Due Process
7. Equal Protection
8. Involuntary Sertivitude
9. Delegation of Authority to the FDA
10. Autonomy of Logal Governments/ARMM
Held:
1. No, the RH Law is not unconstitutional in regards to right to life. It is a
universally accepted principle that every human being enjoys the right to
life. The right to life, being grounded on natural law, is inherent and
therefore, not a creation of or dependent upon particular law, custom or
belief. It precedes and transcends any authority or laws of men.
2. No. The Court finds that the attack on the RH Law on the ground of right to
health is premature, because not a single contraceptive has yet been
submitted to the FDA pursuant to the RH Law. It behooves the Court to
await its determination which drugs or devices are declared by the FDA as
safe, it being the agency tasked to ensure that food and medicines available
to the public are safe for public consumption. There must first be a
determination by the FDA that they are in fact safe, legal, no-abortifacient
and effective family products and supplies. There can be no
predetermination by Congress that the gamut of contraceptives are “safe,
legal, non-abortifacient and effective” without proper scientific
examination.
It is not within the province of the Court to determine whether the use of
contraceptives or one’s participation in the support of modem reproductive
health measures is moral from a religious standpoint or whether the same
is right or wrong according to one’s belief. While the Court stands without
the authority to rule on ecclesiastical matters, as vanguard of the
Constitution, it does have the authority to determine whether the RH Law
contravenes the guarantee of religious freedom.
5. No. The Court finds that the attack on the RH Law on this ground is
premature on the grounds of Freedom of Expression and Academic
Freedom, because there is no sexual education curriculum existing yet.
Any 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
curriculum on age-appropriate reproductive health education. One can only
speculate on the content, manner and medium of instruction that will be
used to educate the adolescents and whether they will contradict the
religious beliefs on the petitioners and validate their apprehensions.
The Court finds nothing wrong with the delegation. The FDA does not only
have the power but also the competency to evaluate, register and cover
health services and methods. It is the only government entity empowered
to render such services and high proficient to do so. Being the sole agency
that ensures safety of food and medicines available to the public, the FDA
was equipped with necessary power and functions to make it effective.
10. No. The RH Law is not unconstitutional with regards to the Autonomy of
Local Government and the ARMM.
Local Autonomy is not absolute. The national government still has the say
when it comes to national priority programs. There is nothing in the
wording of the law which can be construed as making the availability of
these services mandatory for the Local Government Units. It cannot be said
that the RH Law amounts to an undue encroachment by the nation
government upon the autonomy enjoyed by the local governments.