IMBONG vs. Hon. Paquito Ochoa

IMBONG VS OCHOA (2014)

Topic: Right of Life of the Unborn

FACTS:

Congress enacted R.A. No. 10354, otherwise known as the Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012 (RH Law).

The purpose of the law is to provide Filipinos, especially the poor and the marginalized, access and information to the full range of modern family planning methods.

Challengers from various sectors of society came knocking on the doors of the Court, beckoning it to wield the sword that strikes down constitutional disobedience.

According to the petitioners, notwithstanding its declared policy against abortion, the implementation of the RH Law would authorize the purchase of hormonal contraceptives, intra-uterine devices and injectables which are abortives, in violation of Section 12, Article II of the Constitution which guarantees protection of both the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception.

ISSURE: Whether or not the RH Law violates the right to life and health of the unborn child under Section 12, Article II. 

HELD:

No. The clear and unequivocal intent of the Framers of the 1987 Constitution in protecting the life of the unborn from conception was to prevent the Legislature from enacting a measure legalizing abortion.

The constitutional protection of one's 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 specifically provides that only contraceptives that do not prevent the implantation of the fertilized ovum are allowed.

The traditional meaning of the word "conception" which, as described and defined by all reliable and reputable sources, means that life begins at fertilization.

It is apparent that the Framers of the Constitution emphasized that the State shall provide equal protection to both the mother and the unborn child from the earliest opportunity of life, that is, upon fertilization or upon the union of the male sperm and the female ovum. It is also apparent is that the Framers of the Constitution intended that to prohibit Congress from enacting measures that would allow it determine when life begins.

Side notes:

The Philippine national population program has always been grounded two cornerstone principles: “principle of no-abortion” and the “principle of non-coercion.” 

The Court agrees with ALFI that the authors of the RH-IRR gravely abused their office when they redefined the meaning of abortifacient. It allows “contraceptives” and recognizes as “abortifacient” only those that primarily induce abortion or the destruction of a fetus inside the mother’s womb or the prevention of the fertilized ovum to reach and be implanted in the mother’s womb. 

Evidently, the addition of the word “primarily,” in Section 3.01(a) and (j) of the RH-IRR is indeed ultra vires. It contravenes Section 4(a) of the RH Law and should, therefore, be declared invalid. There is danger that the insertion of the qualifier “primarily” will pave the way for the approval of contraceptives which may harm or destroy the life of the unborn from conception/fertilization in violation of Article II, Section 12 of the Constitution. With such qualification in the RH-IRR, it appears to insinuate that a contraceptive will only be considered as an “abortifacient” if its sole known effect is abortion or, as pertinent here, the prevention of the implantation of the fertilized ovum. 

Thus, the word “primarily” in Section 3.01(a) and (j) of the RH-IRR should be declared void.

Nota Bene:

Section 12. The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution. It shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception. The natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral character shall receive the support of the Government.

Subject: Political Law Case Digest

Supreme Court En Banc? YES.

Date: April 08, 2014

G.R. No. 204819

Where there Separate Opinions? Yes. 

Dissenting opinions and Concurring opinions: 

♦ Decision, Mendoza [J]
♦ Concurring and Dissenting Opinion, Sereno [J]
♦ Concurring and Dissenting Opinion, Del Castillo [J]
♦ Concurring and Dissenting Opinion, Reyes [J]
♦ Concurring and Dissenting Opinion, Perlas-Bernabe [J]
♦ Concurring Opinion, Carpio [J]
♦ Concurring Opinion, Leonardo-De Castro [J]
♦ Concurring Opinion, Abad [J]
♦ Separate Concurring Opinion, Brion [J]
♦ Dissenting Opinion, Leonen [J]

Link to Full Case: LAWPHIL