* SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES: 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
A. On the constitutionality of RA 10354/Reproductive Health (RH) Law mother’s womb” (Sec. 3.01(a) of the IRR) would pave the way for the approval of
contraceptives that may harm or destroy the life of the unborn from
1. Whether or not (WON) RA 10354/Reproductive Health (RH) Law is conception/fertilization. This violates Section 12, Article II of the Constitution. For the
unconstitutional for violating the right to life: same reason, the definition of contraceptives under the IRR (Sec 3.01(j)), which also uses
the term “primarily”, must be struck down.
NO. Majority of the Members of the Court believe that the question of when life begins is
a scientific and medical issue that should not be decided, at this stage, without proper 2. Whether or not (WON) RA 10354/Reproductive Health (RH) Law is
hearing and evidence. However, they agreed that individual Members could express their unconstitutional for violating the right to health
own views on this matter.
NO. Petitioners claim that the right to health is violated by the RH Law because it
Ponente’s view (Justice Mendoza): Article II, Section 12 of the Constitution states: “The requires the inclusion of hormonal contraceptives, intrauterine devices, injectables and
State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a other safe, legal, non-abortifacient and effective family planning products and supplies in
basic autonomous social institution. It shall equally protect the life of the mother and the the National Drug Formulary and in the regular purchase of essential medicines and
life of the unborn from conception. supplies of all national hospitals (Section 9 of the RH Law). They cite risks of getting
diseases gained by using e.g. oral contraceptive pills.
In its plain and ordinary meaning (a canon in statutory construction), the traditional
meaning of “conception” according to reputable dictionaries cited by the ponente is that life Some petitioners do not question contraception and contraceptives per se. Rather, they
begins at fertilization. Medical sources also support the view that conception begins at pray that the status quo under RA 4729 and 5921 be maintained. These laws prohibit the
fertilization. sale and distribution of contraceptives without the prescription of a duly-licensed
physician.
The framers of the Constitution also intended for (a) “conception” to refer to the moment of
“fertilization” and (b) the protection of the unborn child upon fertilization. In addition, they The RH Law does not intend to do away with RA 4729 (1966). With RA 4729 in place,
did not intend to ban all contraceptives for being unconstitutional; only those that kill or the Court believes adequate safeguards exist to ensure that only safe
destroy the fertilized ovum would be prohibited. Contraceptives that actually prevent the contraceptives are made available to the public. In fulfilling its mandate under Sec. 10
union of the male sperm and female ovum, and those that similarly take action before of the RH Law, the DOH must keep in mind the provisions of RA 4729:
fertilization should be deemed non-abortive, and thus constitutionally permissible. the contraceptives it will procure shall be from a duly licensed drug store or
pharmaceutical company and that the actual distribution of these contraceptive
The intent of the framers of the Constitution for protecting the life of the unborn
drugs and devices will be done following a prescription of a qualified medical
child was to prevent the Legislature from passing a measure prevent abortion. The
practitioner.
Court cannot interpret this otherwise. The RH Law is in line with this intent and
actually prohibits abortion. By using the word “or” in defining abortifacient (Section Meanwhile, the requirement of Section 9 of the RH Law is to be considered
4(a)), the RH Law prohibits not only drugs or devices that prevent implantation but also “mandatory” only after these devices and materials have been tested, evaluated
those that induce abortion and induce the destruction of a fetus inside the mother’s and approved by the FDA. Congress cannot determine that contraceptives are “safe,
womb. The RH Law recognizes that the fertilized ovum already has life and that the State legal, non-abortificient and effective”.
has a bounded duty to protect it.
3. Whether or not (WON) RA 10354/Reproductive Health (RH) Law is
However, the authors of the IRR gravely abused their office when they redefined the unconstitutional for violating the freedom of religion and right to free speech
meaning of abortifacient by using the term “primarily”. Recognizing as abortifacients
The Court cannot determine whether or not the use of contraceptives or participation in Excluding public health officers from being conscientious objectors (under Sec. 5.24 of
support of modern RH measures (a) is moral from a religious standpoint; or, (b) right or the IRR) also violates the equal protection clause. There is no perceptible distinction
wrong according to one’s dogma or belief. However, the Court has the authority to between public health officers and their private counterparts. In addition, the freedom to
determine whether or not the RH Law contravenes the Constitutional guarantee of believe is intrinsic in every individual and the protection of this freedom remains even if
religious freedom. he/she is employed in the government.

a.) WON the RH Law violates the guarantee of religious freedom since it mandates Using the compelling state interest test, there is no compelling state interest to limit
the State-sponsored procurement of contraceptives, which contravene the the free exercise of conscientious objectors. There is no immediate danger to the life
religious beliefs of e.g. the petitioners or health of an individual in the perceived scenario of the above-quoted provisions. In
addition, the limits do not pertain to life-threatening cases.
NO. The State may pursue its legitimate secular objectives without being dictated upon
the policies of any one religion. To allow religious sects to dictate policy or restrict other The respondents also failed to show that these provisions are least intrusive
groups would violate Article III, Section 5 of the Constitution or the Establishment means to achieve a legitimate state objective. The Legislature has already taken other
Clause. This would cause the State to adhere to a particular religion, and thus, establishes secular steps to ensure that the right to health is protected, such as RA 4729, RA 6365
a state religion. Thus, the State can enhance its population control program through the (The Population Act of the Philippines) and RA 9710 (The Magna Carta of Women).
RH Law even if the promotion of contraceptive use is contrary to the religious beliefs of
e.g. the petitioners. c.) WON the RH Law violates the guarantee of religious freedom by requiring
would-be spouses, as a condition for the issuance of a marriage license, to attend a
b.) WON the RH Law violates the guarantee of religious freedom by compelling seminar on parenthood, family planning, breastfeeding and infant nutrition
medical health practitioners, hospitals, and health care providers, under pain of
penalty, to refer patients to other institutions despite their conscientious NO. Section 15 of the RH Law, which requires would-be spouses to attend a seminar on
objections parenthood, family planning, breastfeeding and infant nutrition as a condition for the
issuance of a marriage license, is a reasonable exercise of police power by the
YES. Sections 7, 23, and 24 of the RH Law obliges a hospital or medical practitioner to government. The law does not even mandate the type of family planning methods to be
immediately refer a person seeking health care and services under the law to another included in the seminar. Those who attend the seminar are free to accept or reject
accessible healthcare provider despite their conscientious objections based on religious information they receive and they retain the freedom to decide on matters of family life
or ethical beliefs. These provisions violate the religious belief and conviction of a without the intervention of the State.
conscientious objector. They are contrary to Section 29(2), Article VI of the
Constitution or the Free Exercise Clause, whose basis is the respect for the 4. Whether or not (WON) RA 10354/Reproductive Health (RH) Law is
inviolability of the human conscience. unconstitutional for violating the right to privacy (marital privacy and autonomy)

The provisions in the RH Law compelling non-maternity specialty hospitals and hospitals YES. Section 23(a)(2)(i) of the RH Law, which permits RH procedures even with only the
owned and operated by a religious group and health care service providers to consent of the spouse undergoing the provision (disregarding spousal content), intrudes
refer patients to other providers and penalizing them if they fail to do so (Sections 7 and into martial privacy and autonomy and goes against the constitutional safeguards
23(a)(3)) as well as compelling them to disseminate information and perform for the family as the basic social institution. Particularly, Section 3, Article XV of the
RH procedures under pain of penalty (Sections 23(a)(1) and (a)(2) in relation to Section Constitution mandates the State to defend: (a) the right of spouses to found a family in
24) also violate (and inhibit) the freedom of religion. While penalties may be imposed by accordance with their religious convictions and the demands of responsible parenthood
law to ensure compliance to it, a constitutionally-protected right must prevail over and (b) the right of families or family associations to participate in the planning and
the effective implementation of the law. implementation of policies and programs that affect them. The RH Law cannot infringe
upon this mutual decision-making, and endanger the institutions of marriage and the By incorporating parent-teacher-community associations, school officials, and other
family. interest groups in developing the mandatory RH program, it could very well be said that
the program will be in line with the religious beliefs of the petitioners.
The exclusion of parental consent in cases where a minor undergoing a procedure is
already a parent or has had a miscarriage (Section 7 of the RH Law) is also anti-family 6. Whether or not (WON) RA 10354/Reproductive Health (RH) Law is
and violates Article II, Section 12 of the Constitution, which states: “The natural and unconstitutional for violating the due process clause
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.” In NO. The RH Law does not violate the due process clause of the Constitution as the
addition, the portion of Section 23(a)(ii) which reads “in the case of minors, the written definitions of several terms as observed by the petitioners are not vague.
consent of parents or legal guardian or, in their absence, persons exercising parental
authority or next-of-kin shall be required only in elective surgical procedures” is invalid The definition of “private health care service provider” must be seen in relation to
as it denies the right of parental authority in cases where what is involved is “non- Section 4(n) of the RH Law which defines a “public health service provider”. The “private
surgical procedures.” health care institution” cited under Section 7 should be seen as synonymous to “private
health care service provider.”
However, a minor may receive information (as opposed to procedures) about family
planning services. Parents are not deprived of parental guidance and control over their The terms “service” and “methods” are also broad enough to include providing of
minor child in this situation and may assist her in deciding whether to accept or reject information and rendering of medical procedures. Thus, hospitals operated by religious
the information received. In addition, an exception may be made in life-threatening groups are exempted from rendering RH service and modern family planning methods
procedures. (as provided for by Section 7 of the RH Law) as well as from giving RH information and
procedures.
5. Whether or not (WON) RA 10354/Reproductive Health (RH) Law is
unconstitutional for violating the freedom of expression and academic freedom The RH Law also defines “incorrect information”. Used together in relation to Section 23
(a)(1), the terms “incorrect” and “knowingly” connote a sense of malice and ill motive to
NO. The Court declined to rule on the constitutionality of Section 14 of the RH Law, mislead or misrepresent the public as to the nature and effect of programs and services
which mandates the State to provide Age-and Development-Appropriate Reproductive on reproductive health.
Health Education. Although educators might raise their objection to their participation in
the RH education program, the Court reserves its judgment should an actual case be filed 7. Whether or not (WON) RA 10354/Reproductive Health (RH) Law is
before it. unconstitutional for violating the equal protection clause

Any attack on its constitutionality is premature because the Department of Education has NO. To provide that the poor are to be given priority in the government’s RH
not yet formulated a curriculum on age-appropriate reproductive health education. program is not a violation of the equal protection clause. In fact, it is pursuant to
Section 11, Article XIII of the Constitution, which states that the State shall prioritize
Section 12, Article II of the Constitution places more importance on the role of parents in the needs of the underprivileged, sick, elderly, disabled, women, and children and
the development of their children with the use of the term “primary”. The right of that it shall endeavor to provide medical care to paupers.
parents in upbringing their youth is superior to that of the State.
The RH Law does not only seek to target the poor to reduce their number, since Section 7
The provisions of Section 14 of the RH Law and corresponding provisions of the IRR of the RH Law prioritizes poor and marginalized couples who are suffering from fertility
supplement (rather than supplant) the right and duties of the parents in the moral issues and desire to have children. In addition, the RH Law does not prescribe the
development of their children. number of children a couple may have and does not impose conditions upon couples who
intend to have children. The RH Law only seeks to provide priority to the poor.
The exclusion of private educational institutions from the mandatory RH education appropriations act, even if the program involves the delivery of basic services within the
program under Section 14 is valid. There is a need to recognize the academic freedom of jurisdiction of the LGU.
private educational institutions especially with respect to religious instruction and to
consider their sensitivity towards the teaching of reproductive health education. In addition, LGUs are merely encouraged to provide RH services. Provision of these
services are not mandatory. Therefore, the RH Law does not amount to an undue
8. Whether or not (WON) RA 10354/Reproductive Health (RH) Law is encroachment by the national government upon the autonomy enjoyed by LGUs.
unconstitutional for violating the prohibition against involuntary servitude
Article III, Sections 6, 10, and 11 of RA 9054 or the Organic Act of the ARMM merely
NO. The requirement under Sec. 17 of the RH Law for private and non-government delineates the powers that may be exercised by the regional government. These
health care service providers to render 48 hours of pro bono RH services does not provisions cannot be seen as an abdication by the State of its power to enact legislation
amount to involuntary servitude, for two reasons. First, the practice of medicine is that would benefit the general welfare.
undeniably imbued with public interest that it is both the power and a duty of the State
to control and regulate it in order to protect and promote the public welfare. Second,
Section 17 only encourages private and non-government RH service providers to
render pro bono service. Besides the PhilHealth accreditation, no penalty is imposed
should they do otherwise.

However, conscientious objectors are exempt from Sec. 17 as long as their religious
beliefs do not allow them to render RH service, pro bono or otherwise (See Part 3b of this
digest.)

B. WON the delegation of authority to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to
determine WON a supply or product is to be included in the Essential Drugs List is
valid

NO. The delegation by Congress to the FDA of the power to determine whether or not a
supply or product is to be included in the Essential Drugs List is valid, as the FDA not
only has the power but also the competency to evaluate, register and cover health
services and methods (under RA 3720 as amended by RA 9711 or the FDA Act of 2009).

C. WON the RH Law infringes upon the powers devolved to Local Governments and
the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM)

NO. The RH Law does not infringe upon the autonomy of local governments. Paragraph
(c) of Section 17 provides a categorical exception of cases involving nationally-funded
projects, facilities, programs and services. Unless a local government unit (LGU) is
particularly designated as the implementing agency, it has no power over a program for
which funding has been provided by the national government under the annual general