Spouses Imbong vs. Ochoa [April 8, 2014]

G.R. Nos. 204819, 204934, 204957, 204988, 205003, 205043, 205138, 205478, 205491, 205720, 206355, 207111, 207172 & 207563

MENDOZA, J.

Facts

Even before RH Law, several other laws were enacted regulating, among others, contraceptive use as:

The relevant dates follow:

The petitioners argued that the RH Law is unconstitutional because it violates the fundamental rights enunciated in the Constitution (mostly under Arts. III and II), to wit:

They also contend that the RH Law also violates other legal principles as:

Issues

Procedural issues

1. May the court exercise judicial review?
2. Is there an actual case or controversy?
3. May the RH Law be challenged ‘on its face’ (facial challenge)?
4. Do petitioners possess locus standi?
5. Does the court have jurisdiction to try petitions for declaratory relief?
6. Does the RH Law violate the one subject/one bill rule?

Substantive issues

1. Does the RH Law violate the Constitutional grant of the Right to Life?
2. Does the RH Law violate the Constitutional grant of the Right to health?
3. Does the RH Law violate the Constitutional grant of Freedom of Religion and the Right of Free Speech?
4. Does the RH Law violate the Constitutional protection of the family and the grant of the right to privacy?
5. Does the RH Law violate Constitutional protection of academic freedom?
6. Does the RH Law violate due process?
7. Does the RH Law violate equal protection?
8. Does the RH Law violate the people’s right against involuntary servitude?
9. Was there an invalid delegation of authority to the FDA under the RH law?
10. Does the RH law violate the principle of autonomy of the LGUs and the ARMM?
11. Does the RH law violate the natural law?

Ruling and Discussion

Procedural issues

1. Yes. The court may exercise judicial review.
   
   The separation of powers is accorded high regard in our legal system. However, in times of social disquietude or political instability, the judiciary is allowed to cross the line of separation but only on a very limited and specific point – to determine whether the acts of the executive and the legislative branches are null because they were undertaken with grave abuse of discretion. While the scope of judicial review is limited, there is no distinction as to the kind of legislation that may be subjected to it. Social legislation as the RH Law may be the subject of judicial review. There are stringent rules on the power of judicial review. The following requisites must be satisfied first before it can be exercised: (a) actual case or controversy; (b) locus standi of petitioners; (c) question of constitutionality raised at the earliest opportunity; and (d) issue of constitutionality is the very lis mota of the case.
2. Yes. An actual case or controversy exists, and the same is ripe for judicial determination.
   
   RH Law and its IRR have already taken effect, and the budgetary measures to carry out the law have been passed. Moreover, medical providers are in danger of being criminally prosecuted for vague violations thereof. Public health officers threatened to be dismissed from the service with forfeiture of retirement and other benefits must be heard now.
3. Yes. The RH Law may be challenged ‘on its face’, The Court has the authority to take cognizance of these kindred petitions and to determine if the RH Law can indeed pass constitutional scrutiny.
   
   Under US jurisprudence, a facial challenge is launched to assail the validity of statutes concerning protected speech and other rights about freedom of expression. In the Ph jurisdiction, the scope of facial challenge is expanded to cover statutes not only regulating free speech, but also those involving religious freedom, and other fundamental rights. Unlike in the US, Philippine courts are mandated by the Constitution not only to settle actual controversies… but also to determine whether… there has been a grave abuse of discretion of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.
4. The court did not expressly say ‘No,’ but implied the same by taking cognizance of the case on account of its transcendental importance.
   
   The rule on standing is merely procedural and may be relaxed when the public interest so requires, such as when the matter is of transcendental importance. Given the seriousness, novelty, and weight as precedents, not only to the public but also the bench and bar, the issues raised must be resolved for the guidance of all. The RH Law drastically affects the constitutional provisions on the right to life and health, the freedom of religion and expression, and other constitutional rights. Contraception and RH issues have already caused deep divisions among broad spectrums of society. The right to life of the mother and the unborn is at the heart of the petitions. Rights enshrined in the Constitution are being violated.
5. Yes. The court has the jurisdiction to try petitions for declaratory relief.
   
   [SC does not have original jurisdiction over petitions for declaratory relief but] where the case has far-reaching implications and prays for injunctive reliefs, the Court may consider them petitions for prohibition under Rule 65.
6. No. The RH Law does not violate the one subject/one bill rule. Congress did not intentionally seek to deceive the public regarding the contents of the RH Law.
   
   Petitioners contend that the title conceals the true intention of the law: to act as a population control measure. The court agrees with the petitioner and finds that contraception is central to the RH Law, but it does not violate the one subject/one bill rule. The rule is sufficiently complied with if the title is comprehensive enough as to include the general object which the statute seeks to effect… this Court has invariably adopted a liberal rather than technical construction of the rule ‘so as not to cripple or impede legislation’ [Benjamin E. Cawaling, Jr. v. COMELEC and Rep. Francis Joseph G Escudero]. “reproductive health” and “responsible parenthood” are interrelated and germane to the overriding objective to control the population growth.

Substantive issues

1. No. The RH Law does not violate the Constitutional grant of the Right to Life. However, the RH-IRR does.
   
   The RH Law is consistent with the Constitutional mandate of protecting life from the moment of conception. However, the authors of the RH-IRR gravely abused their office when they redefined ‘abortifacient’ and ‘contraceptives’. It is inconsistent with the RH Law and the Constitution and thus must be declared void.
   
   Philippine national population program has always been grounded in two cornerstone principles: (1) the principle of no-abortion; and (2) the principle of non-coercion.
   
   Consistency of RH Law with the Constitution
   
   The moment of conception is reckoned from fertilization. ‘Conception as referred to in Sec. 12, Art. 2 is to be understood as the time of fertilization vs implantation, as contended by Hon. Lagman. This is true given the following as cited by the Court: (a) the plain and legal meaning of the text; and the traditional meaning as ordinarily understood (verba legis); (b) jurisprudence; (c) intent of Framers; and (d) medical meaning.
   
   The implication of protecting the life of the unborn from conception is to proscribe abortion (which is the intent of the Framers), to which the RH Law faithfully complied: (a) it recognized abortion as a crime under the RPC; (b) it prohibits abortifacients (any drug or device that: induces abortion; or prevents implantation of the ovum in the mother’s womb.
   
   Inconsistency of the RH-IRR with the RH Law and the Constitution
   
   Redefining the terms under the RH Law (by adding the word primarily) will pave the way for the approval of contraceptives which may harm or destroy human life.
   
   ABORTIFACIENTS is defined as ‘any drug or device that primarily induces 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…’; and
   
   CONTRACEPTIVES is defined as ‘any… family planning method, device, or health product… that prevents pregnancy but does not primarily destroy a fertilized ovum or prevent a fertilized ovum from being implanted in the mother’s womb…
   
   It then contravenes RH Law’s declared policy against abortion prohibiting contraceptives that have both primary and secondary actions as causing abortion. Thus, void.
2. No. The RH Law does not violate the Constitutional grant of the Right to Health.
   
   RH Law will not lead to the unmitigated proliferation of contraceptives. It will still be regulated by previous laws, R.A. No. 4729 (still good law), in particular, the provisions of which are intended to be kept intact. It requires: (a) contraceptives to be procured only from licensed drug stores; and (b) prescription from a qualified medical practitioner.
   
   There exist adequate safeguards (in the RH Law itself and relevant statutes) to ensure that only safe contraceptives are made available to the public. The attack of RH Law on this ground is premature: not a single contraceptive has yet been submitted to the FDA under the RH Law.
3. The court’s jurisdiction does not extend to ecclesiastical matters, but the duty to refer Violates the conscientious objector’s religious belief and convictions, the latter must be exempted from its application.
   
   Jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of the court extends only to public and secular morality, not ecclesiastical matters. The Court has no jurisdiction in determining whether (1) contraceptive use; or (2) participation in the support of modern RH measures is moral from a religious standpoint or whether the same is right or wrong according to one’s belief. But it does have the authority to determine whether RH Law contravenes the guarantee of religious freedom.
   
   On contraceptives. Religion cannot compel the State to adopt its doctrines.
   
   On the Separation of Church and State. in the same way that the State cannot meddle in Church affairs, the Church also cannot compel the State to adopt its doctrine as a policy for everyone, nor can it cause the government to restrict other groups.
   
   On the Duty to refer. Violative of a conscientious objector’s religious belief and convictions. Latter must be exempt from its application. Moreover, Sec. 24 (imposing penalties) is violative of the freedom of religion and must be struck down.
   
   Sections 7, 23, and 24 commonly mandate that a hospital or a medical practitioner immediately refer a person seeking health care and services under the law to another accessible healthcare provider despite their conscientious objections based on religious or ethical beliefs. This burdens the conscience of the objector being compelled to act against his beliefs. The right to free speech, being an externalization of one’s thoughts and conscience, is necessarily intertwined with religious freedom. This includes the right to be silent. In case of conflict between religious beliefs and State interest, in the matter of providing access and information on RH products, services, procedures, and methods… the religious freedom of health providers… should be accorded primacy. Thus, a conscientious objector should be exempt from compliance… This is consistent with “the principle of non-coercion” enshrined in the constitutional right to free exercise of religion. Section 24 of the RH Law penalizes such institutions should they fail or refuse to comply with their duty to refer… it must be struck down for being violative of the freedom of religion. When what is bartered for an effective implementation of a law is a constitutionally protected right the Court firmly chooses to stamp its disapproval.
   
   On the non-exemption of conscientious objectors who are also public officials under the RH-IRR. The same shall be void for being discriminatory, violative of the equal protection clause, and inconsistent with the RH Law where no such exception is provided (in case of conflict, RH Law must prevail).
   
   No compelling state interest. Only the prevention of an immediate and grave danger to the security and welfare of the community can justify the infringement of religious freedom. And this has to be proven, which the government failed to do. The number of maternal deaths cited as compelling state interest is unsubstantiated with statistics.
   
   Exceptions recognized. (a) In Life-threatening cases. Medical practitioners may be compelled to perform a procedure even if against their conscience if the matter is of life and death. Whatever burden imposed upon a medical practitioner in this case would have been more than justified considering the life he would be able to save. (b) In Family Planning Seminars. Requiring this is not a violation of religious freedom. Reasonable exercise of police power. Not compelled to accept the information given to them.
4. Yes. The RH Law violates the Constitutional protection to the family and the grant of right to privacy, subject to exceptions.
   
   Removing the requirement of mutual consent of the spouses in matters of RH procedures is unconstitutional. It intrudes on marital privacy and autonomy; cultivates disunity and fosters animosity in the family. The State must strengthen the family as the basic social institution. RH procedures like tubal litigation and vasectomy which… should require mutual consent and decision between the husband and the wife as they affect issues intimately related to the founding of a family. By giving only one spouse the absolute authority to decide whether to undergo the RH procedure, the constitutional mandate is violated.
   
   In matters of access to modern family planning methods, deprivation of parental consent/authority from minor children, if already a parent or has had a miscarriage, is unconstitutional. The provision is anti-family. 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 (Consti).
   
   Exceptions. (a) Access to information. Access to information vs access to RH procedures. While there are limitations imposed upon the latter as above, there is no constitutional objection to the former. This information enables to person to make informed decisions. (b) Life-threatening cases. The minor or spouse should not be put at grave risk simply for lack of consent.
5. The SC did not rule on the issue for being premature.
   
   DECS has yet to formulate a curriculum on age-appropriate reproductive health education.
   
   The content, manner, and medium of instruction and whether these will contradict the religious beliefs of the petitioners is merely speculative at this point.
   
   Section 11.01 of the RH-IRR and Section 4(t) of the RH Law itself provide for the teaching of responsible teenage behavior, gender sensitivity, and physical and emotional changes among adolescents, supplementing the constitutional mandate.
   
   The RH education program shall be developed in conjunction with parent-teacher-community associations.
6. No, The RH Law does not violate due process.
   
   The petitioners contend that the law is vague because it does not define ‘public health care service provider’. However, the Supreme Court said that in defining this, reference should be made to other parts of the law, i.e. Sec. 4(n). Rule on statutory construction: every part of the statute must be interpreted concerning the context… every part of it must be construed together with the other parts and kept subservient to the general intent of the whole enactment.
   
   The petitioners also contend that the law is vague because it does not provide whether exemption by hospitals operated by religious groups from rendering RH services and modern family planning methods extend to exemption to provide RH information. However, the Supreme Court said that the former exemptions necessarily include the latter. The terms ‘service’ and ‘methods’ are broad enough to encompass both of these.
7. No. The RH Law does not violate equal protection.
   
   Petitioners contend that RH law is: (a) discriminatory against the poor. Being the primary target of the RH Law, they argue that it aims to reduce the number of the poor; and (b) The exclusion of private educational institutions from the mandatory reproductive health education program is unconstitutional.
   
   Equal protection does not require the universal application of the laws to all without distinction. Classifications may be sanctioned. What is required is equality among equals.
   
   The RH Law does not discriminate against the poor, it is in fact, under Sec. 11, Art. XIII recognizes the distinct necessity to address the needs of the underprivileged by prioritizing them in health development matters. There is also a substantial distinction between public and private educational institutions that justifies the latter’s exemption as there is a need to recognize the academic freedom of private educational institutions, especially concerning religious instruction, and to consider their sensitivity towards the teaching of reproductive health education.
8. No. The RH Law does not violate the people’s right against involuntary servitude.
   
   Medical practice is imbued with public interest that the State cannot but regulate it. There is no compulsion to render pro bono service, it is merely encouraged. There is no penalty imposed. The only consequence for non-compliance is non-accreditation with PhilHealth. This is not considered an unreasonable burden, but a necessary incentive imposed by Congress in the furtherance of a perceived legitimate state interest. Health providers have the liberty to choose the kind of health care service to provide, when, where, and how to provide it, under no compulsion or threat.
9. No. There was no invalid delegation of authority to the FDA under the RH law.
   
   Delegation of power to determine whether a product is to be included in the Essential Drugs List (EDL) by Congress to the FDA is proper as it has the competency to evaluate, register, and cover health services and methods. FDA has the powers and functions to effectively carry out the mandates of the law.
10. No. The RH law did not violate the principle of autonomy of the LGUs and the ARMM.
    
    On the LGUs. The LGU Code charges the former to take on the functions and responsibilities of providing basic services and facilities in their jurisdiction, as transferred by the national government. Exceptions are nationally funded projects, facilities, programs, and services, as in the case of the RH Law. The LGU code provides for this express reservation of power by the national government.
    
    On the ARMM. Except for the express and implied limitations imposed on it by the Constitution, Congress cannot be restricted to exercise its inherent and plenary power to legislate on all subjects which extends to all matters of general concern or common interest.
11. The SC did not rule on the issue.
    
    The alleged violation of natural law is not a legal basis for invalidating the RH law.
    
    The Court is under no obligation to check the conformance of a statute with a Natural Law. Unless the natural law has been transformed into a written law, it cannot serve as a basis to strike down a law.

Dispositive

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

1. Section 7 and the corresponding provision in the RH-IRR insofar as they: a) require private health facilities and non-maternity specialty hospitals and hospitals owned and operated by a religious group to refer patients, not in an emergency or life-threatening case, as defined under Republic Act No. 8344, to another health facility which is conveniently accessible; and b) allow minor-parents or minors who have suffered a miscarriage access to modem methods of family planning without written consent from their parents or guardian/s;
2. Section 23(a)(l) and the corresponding provision in the RH-IRR, particularly Section 5 .24 thereof, insofar as they punish any healthcare service provider who fails and or refuses to disseminate 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 RH-IRR insofar as they allow a married individual, not in an emergency or life-threatening case, as defined under Republic Act No. 8344, to undergo reproductive health procedures without the consent of the spouse;
4. Section 23(a)(2)(ii) and the corresponding provision in the RH-IRR insofar as they limit the requirement of parental consent only to elective surgical procedures;
5. Section 23(a)(3) and the corresponding provision in the RH-IRR, particularly Section 5.24 thereof, insofar as they punish any healthcare service provider who fails and/or refuses to refer a patient not in an emergency or life-threatening case, as defined under Republic Act No. 8344, to another health care service provider within the same facility or one which is conveniently accessible regardless of his or her religious beliefs;
6. Section 23(b) and the corresponding provision in the RH-IRR, particularly Section 5 .24 thereof, insofar as they punish any public officer who refuses to support reproductive health programs or shall do any act that hinders the full implementation of a reproductive health program, regardless of his or her religious beliefs;
7. Section 17 and the corresponding prov1s10n in the RH-IRR regarding the rendering of pro bona reproductive health service in so far as they affect the conscientious objector in securing PhilHealth accreditation; and
8. Section 3.0l(a) and Section 3.01 G) of the RH-IRR, which added the qualifier “primarily” in defining abortifacients and contraceptives, as they are ultra vires and, therefore, null and void for contravening Section 4(a) of the RH Law and violating Section 12, Article II of the Constitution.

The Status Quo Ante Order issued by the Court on March 19, 2013 as extended by its Order, dated July 16, 2013, is hereby LIFTED, insofar as the provisions of R.A. No. 10354 which have been herein declared as constitutional.