Imbong vs Ochoa

Gr No. 204819
April 8, 2014

Doctrine: Sec. 12 (Family Code): “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.”

Facts of the Case:

The Republic Act (R.A.) No. 10354, otherwise known as the Responsible Parenthood and
Reproductive Health Act of 2012 (RH Law) was enacted by Congress on December 21, 2012.
Shortly after the President placed his imprimatur on the said law, 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. Aware of the profound and lasting impact that its
decision may produce, the Court now faces the iuris controversy, as presented in fourteen (14)
petitions and two (2) petitions- in-intervention.

The petitioners claim that the RH Law violates Section 12, Article II of the Constitution
which states “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.” This Section in the Constitution is meant to guarantee protection of
both the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception. According to the
petitioners, permitting of abortifacients consequently sanctions abortion. Even though the
legislation claims to have declared policy against abortion, the implementation of the RH Law
would still authorize the purchase abortifacients in the form of hormonal contraceptives, intra-
uterine devices and injectables.

Issues of the Case:

Whether or not Republic Act (R.A.) No. 10354 (RH Law) is unconstitutional as it
violates Section 12, Article II of the 1987 Constitution.

Held/Decision of the Case:

Whether or not Republic Act (R.A.) No. 10354 (RH Law) is unconstitutional – No, save
for a few provisions which are declared Unconstitutional

“Section 3.0l (a) of the IRR, however, redefines "abortifacient" as:

Section 3.01 For purposes of these Rules, the terms shall be defined as follows:

Santos, Ray Paolo B.

1E
a) Abortifacient refers to 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 upon determination of the Food and Drug Administration
(FDA). [Emphasis supplied]

Again in Section 3.0lG) of the RH-IRR, "contraceptive," is redefined, viz:

j) Contraceptive refers to any safe, legal, effective and scientifically proven modern family
planning method, device, or health product, whether natural or artificial, that prevents pregnancy
but does not primarily destroy a fertilized ovum or prevent a fertilized ovum from being
implanted in the mother's womb in doses of its approved indication as determined by the Food
and Drug Administration (FDA).”

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.

Santos, Ray Paolo B.

1E