IMBONG V.

OCHOA
[GR. No. 203335; February 18, 2014]
Facts:
• Various rights groups brought actions before the Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of the
Reproductive Health Law
• Their claim is based on the following grounds (among others):
o RH law violates the right to life of the unborn
o Violates the right to health and right to protection against hazardous products
o Violates right to religious freedom
o Violates equal protection claus
Issue/s:
WON the RH Law is constitutional
Held: The court held that Sections 7, 23-A-1, 23-A-2-I, 23-A-3, 23-B, 17, 23-A-2-ii, and Section 3.01-A
and J of the IRR are unconstitutional. • Section 7 was declared unconstitutional only insofar as it: (a) requires
private health facilities, non-maternity specialty hospitals, and hospitals owned by religious groups to refer
patients not in an emergency or life-threatening situation to another health facility which is conveniently
accessible (b) provides access to family planning and RH services to minors who have been pregnant or had a
miscarriage without a parental consent
• Section 23-A-1, punishes RH providers, regardless of their religious belief, who fail or refuse to dissiminate
information regarding RH services and programs.
• Section 23-A-2-i, allows a married individual not in a life-threatening case to access RH
procedures without the consent of the spouse.
• Section 23-A-3, insofar as it punishes an RH provider who fails to refer any non-life-threatening case to
another RH provider.
• Section 23-B, insofar as it punishes any public officer who refuses to support RH programs
• Section 17, which mandates a 40-hour pro bono service by private and nongovernment RH service providers,
including gynecologists and obstetricians, as a prerequisite for PhilHealth accreditation.
• Section 3.01-A and J of the RH law Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR), which defines abortifacients
as "primarily" inducing abortion instead of simply inducing abortion
• Section 23-A-2-ii, which prohibits RH service providers from refusing to perform legal and medically-safe
reproductive health procedures on minors in non-life-threatening situations without parental consent
Right to Life - Constitution affords protection to the unborn from conception (life begins at fertilization). The
Framers of the Constitution did not intend to ban all contraceptives from being unconstitutional. The
clear and unequivocal intent of the Framers in protecting the life of the unborn from conception was to prevent
the Legislature from enacting measures that legalized abortion.
Right to Health – Unless provisions clearly express the contrary, the provisions of the Constitution should be
considered self-executory.
Religious Freedom – Constitutional assurance of religious freedom provides two guarantees: Establishment
Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. Under the Free Exercise Clause, the State is prohibited from unduly
interfering wit the outside manifestation of one’s belief and faith. The obligation to refer under the RH Law
violates the religious belief and conviction of a conscientious objector.
Family Planning Seminars -- The requirement of attendance to a family planning seminar as a condition for
the issuance of a marriage license is a reasonable exercise of police power by the government. The religious
freedom of the petitioners is not at all violated. Those who receive any information during their attendance in
the required seminars are not compelled to accept the information given to them, are completely free to reject
the information they find unacceptable, and retain the freedom to decide on matters of family life without the
intervention of the State.
Right to Marital Privacy -- Reproductive health procedures like tubal litigation and vasectomy, by their very
nature, should require mutual consent and decision between the husband and the wife. The RH Law cannot be
allowed to infringe upon this mutual decision making by giving absolute authority to the spouse who would
undergo a procedure, and barring the other spouse from participating in the decision. Decision-making
involving a reproductive health procedure is a private matter which belongs to the couple, not just one of them.
It is a constitutionally guaranteed private right. The right to chart their own destiny together falls within the
protected zone of marital privacy and such state intervention would encroach into the zones of spousal privacy
guaranteed by the Constitution. At any rate, in case of conflict between the couple, the courts will decide.
Parental Consent - The State cannot, without a compelling state interest, take over the role of parents in the
care and custody of a minor child, whether or not the latter is already a parent or has had a miscarriage. There
must be a differentiation between access to information about family planning services, on one hand, and
access to the reproductive health procedures and modern family planning methods themselves, on the other. By
way of exception, insofar as access to information is concerned, the Court finds no constitutional objection to
the acquisition of information by the minor even without parental consent. Moreover, an exception must be
made in life-threatening cases that require the performance of emergency procedures. In such cases, the life of
the minor who has already suffered a miscarriage and that of the spouse should not be put at grave risk simply
for lack of consent.
In this connection, the second sentence of Section 23(a)(2)(ii) 249 should be struck down. By effectively
limiting the requirement of parental consent to "only in elective surgical procedures," it denies 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, the parents should not be deprived of
their constitutional right of parental authority.