Chief }ustice Seieno (Concuiiing anu Bissenting):

No neeu foi Compelling State Inteiest test to weigh the

impoitance of RB law against the iight to ieligious fieeuom
since RB Law expiessly iecognizes ieligious fieeuom.
The opt-out clause iegaiuing conscientious objectois woulu
be senseless if Congiess still has to satisfy the compelling
state inteiest test, consiueiing the fact that it has alieauy
consiueieu to auu exceptions foi conscientious objectois.
The iefeiial of conscientious objectois to othei health caie
seivice pioviueis uoes not constitute a violation of
ieligious fieeuom, since it is only one of the numeious
possibilities that the patient involveu will actually go to the
iefeiieu health caie pioviuei anu avail of contiaceptives oi
theii seivices.
The RB law is giounueu upon the infoimeu choice of the
Filipino people; conscientious objectois shoulu not hinuei
them fiom making an infoimeu choice.
Neuical piofessionals enteieu the piofession the
acceptance of the uuties they owe to theii patients. Thus,
the uuty to iefei theii patients to othei health seivice
pioviueis can not be a buiuen upon them, since they aie
bounu by theii uuty to seive those who aie in neeu.
The consent of the othei spouse neeu not be iequiieu when
the mothei ueciues whethei to unueigo iepiouuctive
health pioceuuies oi not, since the eveiy peison has the
iight to ueciue what is goou foi himheiself, anu this iight
is not lost upon maiiiage.
The Supieme Couit cannot piesume that Congiess was
willing to uestioy paiental authoiity in oiuei to puisue
population contiol. Paients aie not piohibiteu fiom
ienueiing auvice to theii chiluien who aie minois, but
these minois, especially those who have alieauy unueigone
piegnancy, have the iight to be infoimeu of the
iepiouuctive health seivices that they can avail without
being iequiieu of obtaining the consent of theii paients. All
that is iequiieu is the infoimeu consent of the minoi.
Public skilleu health piofessionals cannot be conscientious
objectois because they aie the fiont line, anu without theii
coopeiation, RB law anu its IRR woulu be ienueieu
meaningless.
Baving Phil Bealth accieuitation is a piivilege anu not a
iight. The 48 houi pio bono iepiouuctive health caie
seivice instituteu to avail of this piivilege uoesn't violate
the iights of conscientious objectois because they can
spenu all of theii 48 houis in pio bono seivices ielateu to
natuial family planning methous.

}ustice Abau (Concuiiing 0pinion):
Agiees with the Najoiity 0pinion in the issue of wheie life
begins, which was helu to be feitilization.
It is beyonu the poweis of Congiess to legislate the safe anu
non-aboitifacient status of ceitain foims of aitificial
contiaceptives. That function iemains with FBA, which is
the expeit in the mattei.
It is the ceitainty fiom the beginning, that a given
contiaceptive has an inheient anu substantial potential foi
causing aboition, that is not acceptable.
uoveinment cannot piomote family planning piogiams
that violate women's iight to health, anu a law that
misleaus women anu states that hoimonal contiaceptives
anu I0Bs aie safe violates theii constitutional iight to
health.
Legislatuies attempt to elevate its aibitiaiy finuing that
hoimonal contiaceptives anu I0Bs aie safe anu
aboitifacient is iiiational.
The iequiieu iefeiial of conscientious objectois to othei
iepiouuctive health caie seivice pioviueis makes no sense,
since it asks of the objectoi to help a peison uo something
which the objectoi uoesn't want to uo foi ieligious ieasons.
It is like asking someone else to muiuei someone foi you.
Section 2S(a)(1) uoes not state what the teim
"infoimation" means, anu the teim "knowingly" is vague as
it uoes not say how much infoimation is iequiieu in oiuei
to be penalizeu.
Also, "incoiiect" infoimation is also not uefineu, anu no
publication of what infoimation aie "coiiect" anu
"incoiiect" aie iequiieu.
Public health will be enuangeieu if Congiess can legislate a
uebatable scientific oi meuical pioposition into binuing law
anu punish all uissenteis, uepiiving them of theii fieeuom
of expiession.
Foi example, if a uoctoi ieaus the latest jouinals that I0Bs
aie not safe anu woik as aboitifacients, he will not be able
to tell his patients this infoimation until the law is iepealeu,
otheiwise he is giving incoiiect infoimation.

}ustice Biion (Sepaiate Concuiiing 0pinion)
Eveiy uoubt shoulu be iesolveu in the favoi of life, as this is
the iule of life, anywheie anu eveiywheie; any uoubt
shoulu be iesolveu in favoi of its piotection following a
ueepei law that came befoie all of us - the law commanuing
the pieseivation of the human specie.
I cannot agiee with the implieu asseition that Congiess'
ueteimination that contiaceptives aie non aboitifacients is
binuing on the couit.
o Contiaceptives to be uistiibuteu by the goveinment
unuei the RB law still has to be ueteimineu by the
FBA, anu auvance iecognition of Congiess in its
aboitifacient oi non-aboitifacient status is
piematuie.
o Applicability of 0S juiispiuuence is limiteu because
oui constitution piotects the life of the unboin fiom
conception.
Section 12 Aiticle 2 of the constitution is self-executing, anu
pievents the state fiom enacting legislation that thieatens
the iight to life of the unboin chilu.
The law allows the piocuiement of aboitifacients unuei
Section 9 only to save the life of the mothei on account of a
meuical necessity.
The Piinciple of Bouble Effect - A moial piinciple which is
applieu when the life of the mothei anu the life of the chilu
aie in uangei. Beie, the uoctoiphysician must tiy to save
both lives, but if it is meuically impossible to uo so, must act
in favoi of one, pioviueu that theie is no uiiect haim
intenueu to the othei.
The piinciple iecognizes that the use of aboitifacient-
capable uiugs aie necessaiy in oiuei to save the life of the
mothei, when such a neeu aiises.
}ustice Leonen aigues that this piinciple is a Chiistian
piinciple that may oi may not be auopteu by all meuical
piactitioneis. Bowevei, }ustice Biion believes that Sec. 12,
Ait. 2 of the constitution weie uniquely Filipino, ieflective
of oui cultuie wheie in the piimacy of life in oui hieiaichy
of values is iecognizeu.
Contiaceptives must unueigo evaluation unuei FBA. If they
aie ceitifieu as non-aboitifacients, then the B0B may
piocuie anu uistiibute these contiaceptives. Those that aie
ceitifieu as aboitifacients oi aboitifacient-capable may be
piocuieu by the B0B pioviueu that it is essentially useu foi
live-saving puiposes anu not foi othei theiapeutic puipose.
Theie is still no compelling state inteiest foi the state to
oveiiiue familial piivacy anu paiental iights to iaise theii
chiluien in accoiuance to theii beliefs.
A manuatoiy sex euucation piogiam will not be violative of
paiental piivacy if they allow paients to ieview anu excuse
theii chiluien fiom attenuing the piogiam. If not, theie
must be a compelling state inteiest to oveiiiue paiental
iights.
The effect of RB Law may biing about a change of
peiception when it comes to sex. Filipinos may become
uncaiing of the moiality of instant sex, anu even touay the
eiosion anu ueteiioiation of familial values is alieauy
eviuent.
The punishment foi pioviuing incoiiect infoimation, oi
withholuing infoimation about iepiouuctive health
seivices uue to a class with ieligious beliefs, woulu cieate a
chilling effect on speech. This will hintei uebates iegaiuing
iepiouuctive health ieseaich, anu uue to feai of
punishment, uoctois woulu be foiceu to pioviue only the
infoimation on iepiouuctive health that is consiueieu by
the goveinment as coiiect.

}ustice Reyes (Concuiiing anu Bissenting)
Re: Section 7 of RB Law: Theie exists no uistinction
between a minoi who is alieauy a paient anu a minoi who
is not. A minoi being a paient oi has hau a miscaiiiage uoes
not uoes not opeiate to iemove the paiental authoiity of
the paients ovei the minoi. This is contiaiy to the natuial
anu piimaiy iight anu uuty of the paients unuei Section 12,
Aiticle 2 of the Constitution.
Section 14: Acauemic fieeuom uoes not withuiaw fiom the
State the powei to supeivise anu iegulate euucational
institutions. The only iequiiement on the supeivision is
that it must be ieasonable, anu with the iise of teenage
piegnancies anu libeial views on sex, manuatoiy
iepiouuctive health euucation on public schools is
ieasonable. Section 14 uoes not invaue the iight of piivacy
of the paients since it pioviues that consultations with
them aie iequiieu befoie the couise content in the
euucational level shall be alloweu.
Beclaiing Section 14 unconstitutional on the giounus of
ieligious fieeuom woulu be violative of the non-
establishment clause, as it woulu amount to an
enuoisement of that ieligion.
The uuty to iefei uoes not violate ieligious fieeuom, as
Section 7 anu 2S even iecognizes it anu giants
accommouations to it. The piesent conuition of the
countiy's iepiouuctive health caie (mateinal ueaths,
millions of unintenueu piegnancies) togethei with the
Constitution's manuate to piomote anu piotect the iight to
health of the people, constitutes a compelling state inteiest
that justifies the inciuental buiuen on the ieligious fieeuom
of conscientious objectois.
0nuei the piesent ciicumstance wheiein a consiueiable
numbei of health facilities aie owneu by ieligious
institutions, the uuty to iefei imposes the least possible
inteifeience to the ieligious fieeuom of conscientious
objectois.
The health caie inuustiy is one that is imbueu with public
inteiest, anu they owe it to the public to give them the
choice on matteis affecting iepiouuctive health.
Section 2S, which pioviues foi punishing those who
knowingly gives incoiiect oi withholus infoimation on
iepiouuctive health seivices, iecognizes the piimaiy iight
of the inuiviuual to be infoimeu. Conscientious objectois
aie iecognizeu by the RB Law, but it uoesn't give them the
license to withholu oi give wiong infoimation to those who
aie seeking foi iepiouuctive health seivices.
A public officei, uelegateu with the soveieign function of
the goveinment, anu imbueu with public tiust, is uistinct
fiom a health caie seivice pioviuei. Because of this, public
officeis who aie taskeu to implement the law can be
classifieu as those who cannot be conscientious objectois
without violating the equal piotection clause. Public health
caie seivice pioviueis aie uiffeient, foi even if they aie
public officeis, they aie not the ones taskeu to implement
the law.
Section 2S, with iegaius to its penalization of those who
iefuse to peifoim iepiouuctive health pioceuuies on the
giounu of lack of consent of spouse oi the paients when
conceining a minoi, uoes not violate ieligious fieeuom. The
act of iefusal is not what is being penalizeu, but iathei, the
act of iefusal on the giounu of lack of spousal consent oi
paiental consent. They can still iefuse on the giounus of
ieligious belief, but with the uuty of iefeiiing them to
anothei.
A maiiieu inuiviuual's choice to avail of iepiouuctive
health caie seivices, uespite the absence of consent of
hishei spouse, woulu not be uisiuptive of the family. The
law iecognizes maiital piivacy iights, anu at the same time
it also iecognizes the inuiviuual iights oi peisonal
autonomy of the spouses. uiving veto poweis to spouses
whenevei theie is an objection towaius iepiouuctive
health seivices woulu amount to a stalemate, anu woulu
haiuly be consiueieu as piotecting maiiiage as an
inviolable social institution.
Section 17, which iequiies 48 houis oi pio bono seivices
foi PhilBealth accieuitation, must not exempt conscientious
objectois (the ponencia ueclaieu it unconstitutional when
applieu to them), as they may still ienuei pio bono seivices
which aie not violative of theii ieligious fieeuom, such as
pioviuing infoimation oi meuical seivice on tieatment of
bieast oi iepiouuctive canceis.

}ustice Naivic Leonen (Bissenting 0pinion)
Petitions must be uismisseu foi theie is no actual case oi
contioveisy piesent in any of them. The tianscenuental
impoitance of the issues that the petitioneis want to be
ueciueu upon will be bettei seiveu when piopei paities
suffeiing actual injuiy file theii cases, foi ueciuing upon
imagineu facts can affect ieal litigation between ieal
paities.
The couit cannot make a ueclaiation on the beginning of
life, foi this will be fiaught with contiauictions anu will
complicate futuie constitutional aujuuication.
Petitioneis have faileu to establish ieligious canon that
conflicts with Section 7, 17, anu 2S.
The majoiity, in iefusing to acknowleuge the autonomy of
inuiviuuals ovei theii own bouies in the context of
maiiiage, has just stiengtheneu patiiaichy anu spousal
abuse.
Ponencia claims that since RB law is alieauy being
implementeu anu that buugetaiy measuies to caiiy it out
have been passeu, anu since the law is seiiously allegeu to
have infiingeu constitutional iights, it is the uuty of the
}uuiciaiy to settle the uispute. Bowevei, theie is no case oi
contioveisy aiising fiom actual facts in this case, anu so the
justices weie left to giapple with theii own speculations.
RB Law is unlike the N0A-AB case, because RB law has not
yet been implementeu. The waivei of justiciability is the
exception, not the geneial iule.
"Theie must be sufficient facts to enable the couit to
intelligently aujuuicate the issues."
To invaliuate a statute on its face the piovisions in question
must be so bioau that theie is a cleai anu imminent thieat
that actually opeiates oi it can be useu as a piioi iestiaint
of speech. (0vei bieauth anu vagueness Boctiine have
special application only to fiee speech cases)
TBE B0CTRINE T0BAY: To challenge a statue on its face, it
must be violative of fieeuom of expiession oi any of its
cognates, the language of the statute is impeimissibly
vague, the vagueness allows inteipietation that will allow
piioi iestiaint, the chilling effect will aiise since the
piovision can be invokeu by law enfoiceis, the application
of the piovision will entail piioi iestiaints, the value of
speech that will be iestiaineu is such that its absence will
be socially iiiepaiable.
Fiee exeicise of one's ieligion may be a cognate of fieeuom
of expiession, but petitioneis have not shown ieligious
uogma wheie a iepugnancy can be shown.
Case shoulu be uismisseu because as a class suit, they must
be sufficiently numeious anu iepiesentative. 0posa vs.
Factoian is inapplicable because they weie alloweu to sue
on behalf of futuie geneiations on the giounu of
inteigeneiational iesponsibility, in ielation to oui
constitutional iight of a healthful anu balanceu ecology.
The views of the petitioneis may not be iepiesentative of
the class they iepiesent, foi if they iepiesent Catholics, not
all Catholics shaie the same view with them. If they
iepiesent the unboin, theie is no showing that futuie
Filipinos will accept theii point of view. TBIS IS N0T
NERELY PR0CEB0RAL, as the aiguments that the
petitioneis in a class suit will biing about a final juugment
which is binuing on all, incluuing those that they iepiesent.
When life begins is not an issue, couit shoulu not have
iuleu on the beginning of life. Reliance on the uebates of a
few in the Constitutional Commission uoes not guaiantee
that it is the coiiect infoimation. Even touay, the issue of
wheie life ieally begins is still uebatable.
The feitilizeu ovum, following the noimal couise of events,
uoes not guaiantee the uevelopment of a human being. It
even appeais that it is piegnancy wastage that is noimal
anu not uevelopment of a human being. Also, theie aie
othei species with 46 chiomosomes, those who have
uown's synuiome have 47, tuinei's synuiome 48.
The piinciple of uouble effect is tiaceable to Thomas
Aquinas, anu may oi may not be auopteu by all membeis of
the meuical community.
In vitio feitilization : The uisposal of unuseu embiyos aie
the uisposal of multiple human lives. The couit lacks
competence to auuiess wheie life begins.
Boctois' fiist consiueiation is the health of the patient.
They must also obtain fiom theii patients theii infoimeu
consent, anu when the uoctoi withholus infoimation
iegaiuing iepiouuctive health pioceuuies, then they ueny
theii patients of an infoimeu consent.
0bjection baseu on conscience is uiffeient fiom objection
baseu on ieligion. Ponencia's iuling is not cleai whethei the
piovisions on iefeiial by conscientious objectois aie
ueclaieu unconstitutional foi all ieligions oi only foi
specific ones, a natuial consequence of iuling in speculative
cases.
Bisagieements of spouses iegaiuing the unueitaking of
iepiouuctive health pioceuuies exist even without the RB
law. The law seeks to bieak this ueaulock by giving
piivilege to the one who will be unueigoing the opeiation.
The Congiess anu the Piesiuent incluueu the exception in
Section 7, which giants minois to avail of iepiouuctive
health seivices without the consent of theii paients,
because they ueemeu it woulu be best foi the minoi. 0nless
an actual contioveisy with actual facts aiises, the couit
must not ueciue on this mattei anu piesume the valiuity of
the statute.
The petitioneis ask us to ienuei an auvisoiy opinion, to
iefine the law. I uissent fiom the majoiity that we can
ieview the law. !"#$ #$ &'( )"*( )+ ,'-

}ustice Caipio (Concuiiing 0pinion)
The couit cannot ueciue when life begins, but RB law
pioviues piotection of both fiom conceptionfeitilization
anu implantation on the uteius. This is enough to iesolve
this case. All else, I agiee with the ponencia.

}ustice Peilas-Beinabe (Concuiiing anu
Bissenting)
Concui with ponencia, but uissent in stiiking uown Section
7, 2S, anu 17. Theie is actually a compelling state inteiest to
oveicome ieligious fieeuom, anu that is the iight to health.
Also, the conscientious objectoi is not piohibiteu fiom
shaiing hishei beliefs when pioviuing the necessaiy
objective infoimation to the one who seeks it. The act of
iefeiial itself is a manifestation of the health caie seivice
pioviuei's objection to those methous. The iefeiial is in
itself the act of objection.
Section 12, Aiticle II of the Constitution is not a uefinite
guiue post to ueteimine wheie life begins, but it only seives
to piotect wheie it ueems necessaiy.
RB-IRR negates the availability of the conscientious
objectoi exception to those who woulu implement the law,
something not founu in the RB Law itself. This is extenuing
the law.
Nothing in the RB Law foiecloses the exeicise of paiental
authoiity. Paients may still ueteimine if mouein uay family
planning of minois aie beneficial to the well-being of theii
chilu. uiven the stigma in oui cultuie about pie-maiital sex,
minois may finu it haiu to appioach theii paients foi
consent. The legislatuie uoes away with this in oiuei to
help them avail of the seivices neeueu foi theii
iepiouuctive health. This consent exception only conceins
infoimation uissemination, not suigical opeiations.
Also, the iemoval of spousal consent uoes not uestioy any
ieal uialogue between them. The iight to inuiviuual choice
is a ieasonable limitation in the spouses collective iight to
founu a family.
Phil Bealth is a piivilege anu the State has the iight to ueny
himhei of this if heshe uoes not fulfill the iequiiements.
Pio bono seivices aie not compulsoiy, but they aie
iequiieu to avail of a piivilege.

}ustice Bel Castillo (Concuiiing anu Bissenting)
Bow the couit can piotect the life of the unboin, in the
context of the RB law, is the cential theme of this opinion.
The couit cannot iemain an iule spectatoi when
constitutional iights aie at stake. With the penuing
implementation of the RB Law, the couit cannot tuin a
blinu eye anu must uefenu the iight to life of the unboin as
stipulateu in Section 12, Aiticle II of the Constitution. Saiu
piovision is a self-executing piovision, wheiein the fiameis
intenueu to uefine conception as the moment of
feitilization, uisabling Congiess in enacting aboition laws
anu compelling the Executive to ban aboitifacients.
In 0posa v. Factoian, the iight to a healthful anu balanceu
ecology, not containeu in the bill of iights, was given flesh
puisuant to the powei of the couit to issue iules foi the
piotection anu enfoicement of constitutional iights.
With fai gieatei powei shoulu the couit wielu this powei
heie because the unboin is totally uefenseless anu must
wholly iely on the state to iepiesent its inteiest in matteis
affecting the piotection anu pieseivation of its veiy life.
RB Law uoes not violate Section 12, Aiticle II of the
Constitution. The contiaceptives that will be maue available
unuei the law shall be non-aboitifacient. It piohibits the
use of aboitifacients (except in case of a meuical
emeigency) anu penalizes the use theieof.
The auuition of the woiu piimaiy in the RB-IRR's uefinition
of aboitifacient is ultia viies as it amenus oi contiavenes
Section 4 of RB Law. Paiallel ieasons apply as to the RB-
IRR's uefinition of contiaceptive.
Cuiient anu existing contiaceptive piouucts in the maiket
must be suspenueu, contiaiy to what the RB-IRR uictates,
while they aie being scieeneu by the FBA if they aie
aboitifacients, befoie being available again.
Changing the woiuing of Section 9 to fiom "it is not to be
useu" to "it cannot be useu" uoes not guaiantee that the
subject piouucts anu supplies will not be useu as
aboitifacients.

N0 BE CASTR0, INC0NPLETE BEL CASTILL0