Republic of the Philippines

Supreme Court
Manila
SERVE LIFE CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY INC.,represented by DR. NESTOR B. LUMICAO, M.D. as President and in his personal capacity, ROSEVALE FOUNDATION INC., represented by DR. RODRIGO M. ALENTON, MD as member of the school board and in his personal capacity, ROSEMARIE R. ALENTON, IMELDA G. IBARRA, CPA, LOVENIA P. NACES, Phd.,ANTHONY G. NAGAC EARL ANTHONY C. GAMBE and, MARLON I. YAP Petitioners, - versus OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, HON. PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., Executive Secretary, HON. FLORENCIO B. ABAD, Secretary, Department of Budget and Management; HON. ENRIQUE T. ONA, Secretary, Department of Health, HON. ARMIN A. LUISTRO, Secretary, Department of Education and HON. MANUEL A. ROXAS II, Secretary, Department of Interior and Local Government Respondents. G.R. No.__________________

For:

CERTIORARI and PROHIBITION with a prayer for a TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDERand/orWRIT OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

PETITION
for Certiorari and Prohibition

A milestone in the history of Philippine legislation did occur with the passage of the Republic Act 10354, entitled An act Providing for a National Policy on Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health, hereinafter referred to for brevity as the RH Law, as jubilantly claimed by the proponents thereof. The significance, however, lies not in the law itself but

Petition for Certiorari & Prohibition

Page 2 of 26

in the vigorous exercise of the freedom of expression and other fundamental rights by all citizens without discrimination. Ironically, the same law strips the people of the very rights massively rousedby the process of its creation. The foregoing is merely a sampling of the many transgressions upon the dignity of the human being which the RH Law imposes. Worth mentioning at the outset is a deviously hidden floodgate for abortifacients in an innocuous provision, which, upon some reflection, reveals that the RH law effectively sanctions the taking of the most basic of all rights, the right to life.

The Case& Nature of the Proceeding

Petitioners, through counsels,

come before this Most Honorable,

Independent and Impartial Court of Last Resort, by way of Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with prayer for the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction against the Office of the President of the Republic of the Philippines and its instrumentalities under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court seeking to annul the passage and prohibit the implementation of Republic Act No. 10354for having been enacted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack and/or excess of jurisdiction.This petition is filed as an original special civil action because there is no remedy of appeal from the acts of Congress and the President. Neither is there any other plain, speedy and adequate remedy available to petitioners in the ordinary course of law.

The Parties The Petitioners:

A) Corporate/Institutional Petitioners

Petition for Certiorari & Prohibition

Page 3 of 26

SERVE LIFE CDO INC.,hereinafter referred to as PetitionerServe Lifeis a non-stock, non-profit corporation, duly organized in accordance with Philippine laws as shown by the Certificate of Registration issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission bearing No. CN200628876 dated August 31, 2006, a photocopy of which is hereto integrally attached as Annex Awith principal place of business at 2/F Borromeo Building, Daomar Street, Cagayan de Oro City where it may be served processes of the Honorable Supreme Court, represented herein by its President Dr. Nestor B. Lumicao, M.D.as shown by the Corporate Secretarys Certificate of Board Resolution dated January 12, 2013, a photocopy of which is hereto integrally attached as Annex B.Petitioner Serve Life Cdo, Inc.is composed of a group of professionals i.e. doctors, lawyers, educators, sociologists, businessmen & some priests & religious who organized themselves for the Protection of Life, in Defense of the family and the sanctity of marriage and the promotion of authentic health.

Petitioner ROSEVALE FOUNDATION INC., hereinafter referred to as Petitioner Rosevaleisa non-stock and non-profit foundation duly organized and existing under Philippine lawsas shown by the Certificate of Registration issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission bearing No. HN095-227 dated August 30, 1995, a photocopy of which is hereto integrally attached as Annex C. It operates an educational institution known in the community as ROSEVALE SCHOOL catering to preparatory, grade school and high school levels, located at Xavier Estates Phase IV, Fr. William Masterson SJ Avenue, Airport Road, Cagayan de Oro City, where it may be served processes of the Honorable Supreme Court.Petitioner Rosevale thru Rosevale Schoolin close collaboration with parents aims to provide holistic, relevant and exemplary academic, professional and personal formation for the students, parents and teachers to enable them to live a virtuous and happy life. It is represented herein by a member of the foundation and

Petition for Certiorari & Prohibition

Page 4 of 26

school board namely: Dr. Rodrigo M. Alentonas shown by the Corporate Secretarys Certificate of Board Resolution dated January 12, 2013, a photocopy of which is hereto integrally attached as Annex D.

B) Individual Petitioners

Petitioners are Filipinos, medical practitioners and health professionals, members of the Philippine Bar, educators and various professionals. They file this petition as citizens of theRepublic of the Philippines whose sworn duty is to uphold , support and defend its Constitution xxx. They also file this petition as parents and as a class suit in representation of other parents and individuals similarly situated. As parents and professionals, the RH Law hits petitioners as oppressive, unjust and confiscatory thus, unconstitutional. Petitioners are devout and practising Catholics whose religious beliefs find the mandatory provisions of the RH Law obnoxious and unconscionable.

They are, namely:

Petitioner DR. NESTOR B. LUMICAO, MD, is a Filipino, of legal age, married and a resident of BorromeoCorrales Extension, Cagayan de Oro Citywhere he may be served processes of this Honorable Court.He is a medical practitioner in Cagayan de Oro City specializing in Pediatric Surgery. He likewise files this petition in his personal capacity.

Petitioner DR. RODRIGOROD M. ALENTON, Filipino, of legal age, married and a resident of Aluba Subdivision, Cagayan de Oro Citywhere he may be served processes of this Honorable Court.He is a medical practitioner in Cagayan de Oro City who specializes in Cardiology and who likewise joins in the petition in his personal capacity together with his wife
ROSEMARIE R. ALENTON.

Petition for Certiorari & Prohibition

Page 5 of 26

Petitioner DR. LOVENIA P. NACES, Filipino, of legal age, married and a resident of C28, Block 17, P.N. RoaSubd.,Calaanan, Cagayan de Oro Citywhere she may be served processes of this Honorable Court.

Petitioner IMELDA G. IBARRA,CPA, Filipino, of legal age, married and a resident of Lot 10, Block 7, Reyes Subd., Bugo, Cagayan de Oro Citywhere she may be served processes of this Honorable Court.

Petitioner ANTHONY G. NAGAC, Filipino, of legal age, married and a resident of Lot 12, Block 30, Phase 2, NHA, Kauswagan, Cagayan de Oro Citywhere he may be served processes of this Honorable Court.

Petitioner EARL ANTHONY C. GAMBE, Filipino, of legal age, married and a resident of Mandumol, Upper Macasandig, Cagayan de Oro Citywhere he may be served processes of this Honorable Court.

Petitioner MARLON I. YAP, Filipino, of legal age, married and a resident of Lot 39, Block 15, Westfield Subd.,Iponan, Cagayan de Oro Citywhere he may be served processes of this Honorable Court.

The Respondents:

Respondents herein are :

The OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, Malacanang Palace, Manila;the SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES, GSIS Complex, RoxasBlvd., Pasay City; and the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Batasan Hills, Quezon City which are impleaded for passing and approving the law in question.

Petition for Certiorari & Prohibition

Page 6 of 26

HON. PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., Executive Secretary, Office of the President of the Philippines, Malacanang Palace, Manila; HON. FLORENCIO B. ABAD, Secretary, Department of Budget and Management (DBM), Malacanang Palace, Manila; HON. ENRIQUE T. ONA, Secretary, Department of Health (DOH), San Lazaro Compound, Cityy of Manila; HON. ARMIN A. LUISTRO, FSC, Secretary, Department of Education (DepEd), DepEd Complex, Meralco Avenue, Pasig City; and HON. MANUEL A. ROXAS II, Secretary, Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) EDSA, cor. Mapagmahal St., Diliman, Quezon City; they are all public officials in-charge of the enforcement and administration of the Act and all laws relative to the conduct of their respective duties and functions; for these reasons, respondents are being sued herein in their official capacities and may be served summons and other processes at their respective offices as above indicated and through their statutory counsel, the Solicitor General, at 139 Amorsolo Street, Legaspi Village, Makati City.

Statement of Material Dates

The RH Bill was signed into Law on December 21, 2012. Thus, petitioners have sixty days or until February 19, 2011 within which to file this petition. Accordingly, this Petition filed on January 15, 2013 with the docket and other lawful fees having been fully paid on the same date is timely.

The Antecedents and Preliminary Concerns

Civic involvement in a legislative act reached a record high in the passage of the RH Law. Almost every Filipino was aware of the law and more often than not, he or she has strong opinions about its effects. No one appears to have taken the middle ground and everyone freely expressed their stance from their own vantage point.

Petition for Certiorari & Prohibition

Page 7 of 26

A vast range of concerns were thus thrown in the open. This ranged from issues based on purely subjective claims of moral superiority by reason of spiritual convictions to nightmarish speculations of a rising totalitarian. Rational discussion and information frequent which dissemination was among by the a

underprivileged

became

accompanied

corresponding increase in the frequency of name calling and crying in the hallowed halls of the Senate. While it is indeed exhilarating to see democracy at its best, excessive zeal and fervor, misplaced rationality and of course the name calling made many of those involved lose sight of what truly matters in the passage of a law. It was forgotten that the one true yardstick in determining the acceptability of a law is the Constitution.

Consequently, it came as no surprise why both the House of Representatives and Senate of the Philippines signified their approval of and the Office of the President signed the RH Bill into law on December 21,2012, despite serious, patent and unmistakable constitutional flaws which should have made a reasonably cautious and prudent man take another look at the bill and his fundamental law. It took the advocates and their predecessors fourteen years to finally have a purported Reproductive Health Law. While their determination is laudable, their efforts must fail.

Petitioners hasten to add that the failure is not due to some subjective or religious moral high ground liberally sprinkled with fear of hell. RA simply fails to pass the test of constitutionality.

Grounds for the Grant of the Petition

Petition for Certiorari & Prohibition

Page 8 of 26

It is humbly posited that -

1. The House of Representatives, for approving HB No.4244 despite obvious, patent and unmistakable constitutional flaws, 2. The Senate of the Philippines, for approving HB No. 4244 despite obvious, patent and unmistakable constitutional flaws, 3. Office of the President, for signing HB4244 No. into Republic Act No. 10354, despite obvious, patent and unmistakable constitutional flaws,

Gravely abused their discretion in a manner tantamount to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

4. Consequently, and in addition to the great damage and prejudice posed by the law, respondents HON. FLORENCIO B. ABAD, Secretary, Department of Budget and Management; HON. ENRIQUE T. ONA, Secretary, Department of Health, HON. ARMIN A. LUISTRO, Secretary, Department of Education and HON. MANUEL A. ROXAS II, Secretary, Department of Interior and Local Government must be enjoined from implementing the law.

Issues

Respondents abuse discretion is best illustrated by showing that they have passed an unmistakably illegal enactment. Hence, the core question for determination is:

Whether the RH Law is unconstitutional.

Petition for Certiorari & Prohibition

Page 9 of 26

Discussion

As previously mentioned, concerns, extraneous to the passing of a law, became the focus of many deliberations on the RH Law. Constitutional infirmities have thus riddled the said law. These are as follows.

For clarity, the more significant constitutional infirmities shall be presented herein in the order presented under the RH Law.

I.

The Right to Life

As it so happens, the most important right of all is one of the very first fatal lapse of the R.A. No. 10354. Some discernment may be necessary inasmuch as the same has been cleverly couched in very minimalist language amidst a deluge of not so subliminal attempts to desensitize. To start, Section 2 of RH in part states:

SEC. 2. Declaration of Policy. xxx

xxx

xxx

xxx

The State likewise guarantees universal access to medically-safe, nonabortifacient, effective, legal, affordable, and quality reproductive health care services, methods, devices, supplies which do not prevent the implantation of a fertilized ovum as determined by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and relevant information and education thereon according to the priority needs of women, children and other underprivileged sectors, giving preferential access to those identified through the National Household Targeting System for Poverty Reduction (NHTS-PR) and other government measures of identifying marginalization, who shall be voluntary beneficiaries of reproductive health care, services and supplies for free.

While Section 4 defines abortifacients as:

SEC. 4. Definition of Terms. For the purpose of this Act, the following terms shall be defined as follows:

Petition for Certiorari & Prohibition

Page 10 of 26

(a) Abortifacient refers to any drug or device that induces abortion or the destruction of a fetus inside the mothers womb or the prevention of the fertilized ovum to reach and be implanted in the mothers womb upon determination of the FDA.

Taken together, the assurance of access to non-abortifacient devices and supplies, viewed from a purely secular vantage, appears innocuous and actually laudable. The framers of RH are apparently aware of this. Hence, the law has been generously peppered with the words access and nonabortifacient. And many were fooled.

In one innocuous section buried among all the rhetorics, the actual danger of the devices and supplies to be made available is evident. Section 9 of RH provides:

SEC. 9. The Philippine National Drug Formulary System and Family Planning Supplies. The National Drug Formulary shall include hormonal contraceptives, intrauterine devices, injectables and other safe, legal, non-abortifacient and effective family planning products and supplies. The Philippine National Drug Formulary System (PNDFS) shall be observed in selecting drugs including family planning supplies that will be included or removed from the Essential Drugs List (EDL) in accordance with existing practice and in consultation with reputable medical associations in the Philippines. For the purpose of this Act, any product or supply included or to be included in the EDL must have a certification from the FDA that said product and supply is made available on the condition that it is not to be used as an abortifacient. These products and supplies shall also be included in the regular purchase of essential medicines and supplies of all national hospitals: Provided, further, That the foregoing offices shall not purchase or acquire by any means emergency contraceptive pills, postcoital pills, abortifacients that will be used for such purpose and their other forms or equivalent.

The implications are staggering. In effect, the RH authorizes the Government to procure and distribute supplies unceasingly marketed as non-abortifacients by the law when in truth and in fact, the said supplies have abortifacient properties.

True there is the caveat that the abortifacients will not be used as such. But given the scope of how these will be made available, there is no way this can be enforced at all. Its akin to giving a child his or her favorite candy with

Petition for Certiorari & Prohibition

Page 11 of 26

the caveat that it is only to be used as a toy or giving a knife to your mortal enemy with the caveat of not stabbing you in the back. Truly, no responsible parent or person would do such a thing. And yet the Law not just authorizes this it requires the government to commit such a stupid atrocity on the scale of millions.

Even more bothering is the fact that the hidden meaning of nonabortifacients, which basically states it could be an abortifacient, was so cleverly done it could only have been deliberate. The said qualification could have easily been stated under the definition of terms where the public can be fully apprised. Apparently, using the previous analogy and under the assumption that the giving of candy to the child was no stupid mistake, it would be like giving a child cyanide laced candy then giving the appearance of responsibility by saying dont eat it but nevertheless hoping the child will eat the candy inasmuch as that would be one mouth less to feed and drain the resources. This is even more alarming.

Moreover, the fact that these supplies may be abortifacient is a detail which must be disclosed. RH has very clear provisions on a full disclosure of family planning methods without qualification otherwise criminal penalties are in order. Hence, information on abortion, which is controversial but is nevertheless a family planning method cannot be withheld. This would include

Regardless of the motive which can only be subject to speculation, the ultimate conclusion remains the same - RH is definitely anti-life cleverly disguised as an enhancement to womens rights and masked as a great step towards liberality. This law is designed for genocide!

Petition for Certiorari & Prohibition

Page 12 of 26

Given the foregoing, no doubt exists at this early a point that it violates Section 12, Article of the Constitution which provides:

SECTION 12. xxx It (the state) shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception. xxx

II.

The right to protection against Hazardous products

The 1987 Constitution, in Article XVI, Section 9 provides and we quote:

Section 9. The State shall protect consumers from trade malpractices and from substandard or hazardous products.

Again, the above-quoted Constitutional proviso stresses on the importance of protection to life and is congruent to the right to life. Be that as it may, an International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Study (2011) by 23 Scientists from 10 countries concluded that oral combined estrogen-progestogen

contraceptives are carcinogenic to humans. The said study mentions that oral combined estrogen-progestogen contraceptives cause cancer of the breast, in-situ and invasive cancer of the uterine cervix, and cancer of the liver. It cannot be gainsaid as it has been duly established by scientific studies that contraceptives are hazardous to women, yet, the RH Law allots billions of taxpayers money for the purchase of the contraceptives to be distributed particularly to the poor. On this score alone, the RH Law is already unconstitutional. Treatment for cancer is very expensive even if it is not always curative but mostly just palliative. What is even more tragic is that when these poor women get sick of cancers, there is no free treatment available from the government. More and more women are getting sick of different kinds of cancers because of oral contraceptive pillsthat they themselves personally buy for their own use, with the abundant free supply from the state, it would not be farfetched to expect a deluge of cancer patients.

Petition for Certiorari & Prohibition

Page 13 of 26

III. Involuntary Servitude

In simplest terms involuntary servitude is slavery. This state of being has been abolished in the United States by the 13th amendment more than a century ago. It has been outlawed by the community of nations for being degrading and inhuman. The magnitude of this restraint on freedom is so abhorrent to appoint that any form of slavery is almost always ended by revolution with many of the oppressed opting for the freedom of death. It thus closely rivals the importance of the right to life. And now, it is being reintroduced by RH.

Section 17 of RH states:

SEC. 17. Pro Bono Services for Indigent Women. Private and nongovernment reproductive healthcare service providers including, but not limited to, gynecologists and obstetricians, are encouraged to provide at least forty-eight (48) hours annually of reproductive health services, ranging from providing information and education to rendering medical services, free of charge to indigent and low-income patients as identified through the NHTS-PR and other government measures of identifying marginalization, especially to pregnant adolescents. The forty-eight (48) hours annual pro bono services shall be included as a prerequisite in the accreditation under the PhilHealth.

Again skillfully veiled under the term encouraged, it would seem like the services to be rendered is voluntary. The last sentence, however, indicates that it is not the case.

Nowadays, a PhilHealth accreditation spells the difference between success and stagnation of medical practice. It is common knowledge how a vast number of patients are either compulsory PhilHealth members by reason of mandatory law or voluntary members thereof. The rest are dependents. And considering the amounts saved on medical bills, PhilHealth accredited providers are chosen in almost all instances given half the chance. Considering further that almost all doctors are Philhealth

Petition for Certiorari & Prohibition

Page 14 of 26

Accredited, lack thereof would mean omission as a choice of being the provider unless an the provider already has an established name.

It is practically a punitive measure through economic means which prohibits a doctor from engaging in a viable or at least lucrative practice unless he or she gives 48 hours of work without pay. It is still forced labor in disguise.

It may be argued that rule is justified by rendering of service to the less privileged. Fortunately, this right is so precious the constitution only allows two instances where involuntary servitude is justified, viz:

Article II. xxx xxx xxx xxx

SECTION 4. The prime duty of the Government is to serve and protect the people. The Government may call upon the people to defend the State and, in the fulfillment thereof, all citizens may be required, under conditions provided by law, to render personal military or civil service.

and
Article III. xxx xxx xxx

xxx SECTION 18 xxx

xxx xxx

(2) No involuntary servitude in any form shall exist except as a punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.

Summarized, the two exceptions are 1) Military service; and 2) Conviction of a crime. These exceptions are justified by no less than the preservation of the state against actual existing danger. Compared to this most compelling reason to restrict private rights, the mandate of RH to render compulsory service for the sake of reproductive health pales to shameful shade.

Petition for Certiorari & Prohibition

Page 15 of 26

In short, the RH bill is justifying instead of protecting the people from slavery with its ludicrously less compelling and completely ignorable duty of promoting public health.

IV. Equal protection of the laws

As if slavery is not grave enough, Section 17 further denies the equal protection of the laws to reproductive health care providers. RH mentions private and nongovernment reproductive healthcare service providers including, but not limited to, gynecologists and obstetricians, as the ones inescapably encouraged to provide forced services. Failure is penalized with nonrenewal of Philhealth accreditation. Thus, Petitioners herein who are nonobgyn medical doctors may be compelled to render annual forty-eight (48) hours annual pro bono services shall be included as a prerequisite in the accreditation under the PhilHealth, lest they lose their PhilHealth accreditation.

Of course this does not immediately mean the equal protection clause has been violated. After all, at its most basic, the equal protection clause is against undue favor of an individual or class privilege, as well as hostile discrimination; it does not demand absolute equality. The fundamental guarantee is not breached by a law which applies only to those persons falling within a specified class, if it applies alike to all persons within such class and provided further that there is a substantial distinction between those who fall within such class and those who do not. 1The term
1

[G.R. No. 159883. March 31, 2008.] DR. PEDRO F. GOBENCIONG, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN (VISAYAS), REGIONAL DIRECTOR of the Department of Health, Region VIII, and FLORA DELA PEA, respondents. [G.R. No. 168059. March 31, 2008.] OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, petitioner, vs. DR. PEDRO F. GOBENCIONG and the HON. COURT OF APPEALS (CEBU CITY), respondents.

Petition for Certiorari & Prohibition

Page 16 of 26

substantial distinction is further qualified by the requirement that it should be based on real differences and that it must be germane to the purposes of the law.

With the guidance of the foregoing, however, the unequal treatment of the RH on reproductive healthcare providers becomes even more apparent.

Ordinarily, it is very possible for substantial distinctions to exist between the different medical disciplines. In this instance, however, ultimate purpose of RH and other health laws is the promotion of public health in general not only reproductive health. Reproductive health is just a newly introduced facet of public health. In fact, RH recognizes its integration into public health policies. And although reproductive health is not the least important aspect of public health it is also not the most important. There are other more urgent concerns like the prevention of communicable diseases and halting the spread of fatal ones. There is the lack of the truly essential medicines like anti-biotics, anti-hypertensive , vitamin, and the like.

In sum, the field of reproductive health has no real difference from other fields considering the overall purpose of benefiting public health. There is therefore no reason substantial difference and reproductive health professionals should not be subjected to the onerous burden under Section 17 simply by reason of their chosen field.

V. Freedom of speech and of expression

[G.R. No. 173212. March 31, 2008.] DR. PEDRO F. GOBENCIONG, petitioner, vs. DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN (VISAYAS), REGIONAL DIRECTOR of the Department of Health, Region VIII, and FLORA DELA PEA, respondents.

Petition for Certiorari & Prohibition

Page 17 of 26

Section 4 of the Bill of Rights prohibits the passage of laws abridging the freedom of speech and of expression. Of course there are well recognized exceptions such as the right to privacy and police power. Again the common denominator of these exceptions is their being just as compelling, fundamental and established as the right of free speech.

But RH provides SEC. 23. Prohibited Acts. The following acts are prohibited: (a) Any health care service provider, whether public or private, who shall: (1) Knowingly withhold information or restrict the dissemination thereof, and/or intentionally provide incorrect information regarding programs and services on reproductive health including the right to informed choice and access to a full range of legal, medically-safe, non-abortifacient and effective family planning methods;

Providers are once again victimized herein by being enjoined under pain of fine and imprisonment to enumerate and withhold nothing on family planning methods. Definitely, the so called right to be informed of all family planning methods hardly matches the relevance of the

aforementioned exceptions to free speech. Nor are these methods as established.

It must be remembered that family planning methods, especially those involving medication, are subject to a wide range of conflicting data. Empirical evidence from some exists justifying a method while similar studies show evidence showing otherwise. This is particularly true with artificial methods.

Understandably, the opinions espousing one method while dimissing the other as fraught with too much fatalaties are varied. It would be near

Petition for Certiorari & Prohibition

Page 18 of 26

impossible to determine which is correct considering that the people best suited to judge are the very people who gave the conflicting opinions.

Consequently, aside from hardly qualifying as a compelling reason to restrict the freedom of speech and expression, perceived violations of Section 23, a, 1 could hardly be determined true beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, healthcare providers should be given the leeway to recommend and/or omit to mention family planning methods they deem wise and/or unsafe.

VI. Economic Policy

It is undeniable and actually admitted that the ultimate goal of RH is economic prosperity as seen in Section 6, aa of the law. It seeks to achieve this by population control. It is amazing how this mode got preferential attention despite Article XII, Section 1 of the constitution which states -

SECTION 1. The goals of the national economy are a more equitable distribution of opportunities, income, and wealth; a sustained increase in the amount of goods and services produced by the nation for the benefit of the people; and an expanding productivity as the key to raising the quality of life for all, especially the underprivileged. The State shall promote industrialization and full employment based on sound agricultural development and agrarian reform, through industries that make full and efficient use of human and natural resources, and which are competitive in both domestic and foreign markets. However, the State shall protect Filipino enterprises against unfair foreign competition and trade practices. In the pursuit of these goals, all sectors of the economy and all regions of the country shall be given optimum opportunity to develop. Private enterprises, including corporations, cooperatives, and similar collective organizations, shall be encouraged to broaden the base of their ownership.

The constitution is clear. Economic objectives are to be pursued through economic policies. Health, much less reproductive health, is not

Petition for Certiorari & Prohibition

Page 19 of 26

even mentioned. True, this argument may seem tenous at best but it gains relevance when considering Section 22 of the same Article which states -

SECTION 22. Acts which circumvent or negate any of the provisions of this Article shall be considered inimical to the national interest and subject to criminal and civil sanctions, as may be provided by law.

VII. Unwarranted Interference in Education

ARTICLE XIV of the Constitution on Education, Science and Technology, Arts, Culture, and Sports in part states:
Education (2) They shall inculcate patriotism and nationalism, foster love of humanity, respect for human rights, appreciation of the role of national heroes in the historical development of the country, teach the rights and duties of citizenship, strengthen ethical and spiritual values, develop moral character and personal discipline, encourage critical and creative thinking, broaden scientific and technological knowledge, and promote vocational efficiency.

By the use of the word shall, forced inculcation can only refer to the subjects enumerated above. Forced insertion into the curriculum of sex education has no constitutional basis.

More importantly, this tampering of what to teach is an infraction of a less known yet equally potent constitutional right of educational institutions to self determination. This right can easily be gleaned from another provision under Article XIV which states:

SECTION 4. (1) The State recognizes the complementary roles of public and private institutions in the educational system and shall exercise reasonable supervision and regulation of all educational institutions. The control and administration of educational institutions shall be vested in citizens of the Philippines.

Petition for Certiorari & Prohibition

Page 20 of 26

Shown herein is the right of the people to control and administer educational institutions which includes the determination of what to teach in addition to subjects mandatorily required by the Constitution. The State is merely limited to reasonable supervision and regulation.

Yet, RH mandatorily imposes the teaching of sex education in schools. This is clearly an act of control expressly made unconstitutional by the previously mentioned provision

Republic Act 10354, entitled An act Providing for a National Policy on Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health, a misnomer, a deception! By and large, as shown above, the RH Law is a sham. Instead of health it brings disease, instead of harmony it brings discord in the family. In making sexual and reproductive rights a legal and demandable right for young children and minors, rather than being responsible, it makes parents abdicate their constitutionally enshrined primary role in the rearing of their children and thus making them vulnerable to the whims & caprices of the state.

In sum, all the foregoing constitutional lapses taken together with the much discussed breaches, such as the separation of church state, are too numerous and obvious to have escaped the attention of respondents. They thus gravely abused their discretion in knowingly and actively participating in the passage of RH. It is thus incumbent that to declare RH a void law not only for being unconstitutional but also for lack of authority on the part of those who passed it. Allegations in Support of Injunctive Issuances

Petition for Certiorari & Prohibition

Page 21 of 26

All the foregoing arguments are repleaded hereunder. The urgency and merit for the grant of the prayer for a TRO and/or WPI under Sections 3 and 4 of Rule 58 of the Rules of Court are succinctly depicted in the foregoing allegations and arguments.

It is reiterated that as parents and professionals, the RH Law in abdicating their parental right over their minor children and grandchildren hits petitioners as oppressive, unjust and confiscatory thus, unconstitutional. Petitioners are devout and practising Catholics whose religious beliefs find the mandatory provisions of the RH Law obnoxious and unconscionable.
If the questioned law is implemented, petitioners will suffer untold prejudice and great damage made more evil by the fact that such stems from a patently void issuance. Petitioners are entitled to the relief demanded and the whole or part of such relief pending final determination of this case consists in restraining the act of Respondents in implementing or enforcing the questioned law before it takes effect on January 17, 2013. The implementation by Respondents of this invalid law when it takes effect on January 17, 2013 is in gross violation of the constitutional rights of petitioners respecting the subject of this action or proceeding, and will tendto render the judgment in this case ineffectual. In view of the foregoing, there is therefore extreme urgency in this case because Petitioners will suffer grave injustice and great or irreparable damage or injury before the matter can be heard on notice if Respondents will be allowed to implement and enforce questioned law which is void. There is therefore a need to immediately preserve the status quo meantime before the matter can be heard on notice for which a temporary restraining order is hereby most respectfully prayed for in order to temporarily restrain Respondents from enforcing or implementing the null and void law.

Petition for Certiorari & Prohibition

Page 22 of 26

Prayer

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court :

A) To forthwith issue a temporary restraining order to preserve the status quo restraining the Respondents from implementing Republic Act No. 10354 entitled An Act Providing for a National Policy on Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health dated December 21, 2012, and, after due notice and hearing, issue the corresponding writ preliminary injunction pending the final determination of this case;

B) After due notice and hearing, to render judgment,granting:

1)

a writ of certiorari declaring Republic Act No. 10354 null and void ab initio for being constitutionally infirm; and

2)

a writ of prohibition directing respondents to refrain and or cease and desist from implementing Republic Act No. 10354.

Other remedies just and equitable are likewise prayed for. Cagayan de Oro City for Manila, January 14, 2013, Philippines.

GAMBE & YAP LAW OFFICES Counsels for Petitioners Mandumol, Upper Macasandig Cagayan de Oro City Tel No. (08822) 72-15-75

EARL ANTHONY C. GAMBE

Email Address: gambilocdo@gmail.com PTR No. 3103966 (01/11/13) CDO

Petition for Certiorari & Prohibition

Page 23 of 26

IBP Lifetime Member No. 06307 ROLL NO. 33825 MCLE COC No. 3-0001069 (03/23/09) Mobile No. 09177176231

MARLON I. YAP
Roll No. 51415 IBP O.R. No. 857246 (12/19/2012) CDO PTR No. 2317843 A (12/19/2012) CDO MCLE Exemption No.III-001942 (03/16/11)

Republic of the Philippines) City of Cagayan de Oro. . .) S.S.

VERIFICATION With Certification of Non-Forum Shopping

We, all of the undersigned, Filipinos, of legal age and residents of Cagayan de Oro City, under oath, depose and state: That we are the Petitioners in the above-captioned case; That we have caused the preparation and filing of the foregoing Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with an application for a Temporary Restraining Order and or writ of Preliminary Injunction;

Petition for Certiorari & Prohibition

Page 24 of 26

That we have read the same and the contents thereof are true and correct to the best of our own personal knowledge and belief and based on authentic records; That we hereby certify that we have not heretofore commenced any action or proceeding involving the same issues in the Court of Appeals or any other court, tribunal or agency; that to the best of our knowledge no such action proceeding is pending in the aforementioned Courts or different divisions thereof, or any tribunal or agency; and that should we thereafter learn that a similar action or proceeding has been filed or is pending before any of the aforesaid Courts, tribunal or agency, we hereby undertake to inform the aforesaid Courts and such other tribunal or agency of that fact within five (5) days therefrom. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto affixed our signatures, this 14th day of January 2013, in the City of Cagayan de Oro, Philippines.

DR. NESTOR B. LUMICAO, MD

Drivers License No.N17-74-006-494 In his personal capacity and as Attorney-in-fact of SERVE LIFE CDO INC.

DR. ROD M. ALENTON, MD

Drivers License No. K03-81-006792 In his personal capacity and as Attorney-in-fact of ROSEVALE FOUNDATION INC.

DR. LOVENIA P. NACES, Phd.

SSS ID No.09-0641510-0

ROSEMARIE R. ALENTON
Drivers License No. KO3-95-030987

IMELDA G. IBARRA
Drivers License No.KO2-95-0608-22

ANTHONY G. NAGAC
Drivers License No. KO2-94-055953

EARL ANTHONY C. GAMBE

Drivers License No.KO1-79-007254

MARLON I. YAP
Tax Identification No.251-239-987-000

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME, this 14th day of January 2013, in the City of Cagayan de Oro, Philippines.

Doc. No._________; Page No._________; Book No._________; Series of 2013

Petition for Certiorari & Prohibition

Page 25 of 26

EXPLANATION/PROOF OF SERVICE

Pursuant to Section 11 of Rule 13 of the Rules of Court, we hereby certify that copies of the foregoing Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with a prayer for a restraining order and a writ of preliminary injunction were furnished to each of the Respondents thru registered mail on January 14, 2013 as indicated below because personal service is impractical in view of the distance of their offices.

EARL ANTHONY C. GAMBE

MARLON I. YAP

CC: OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT Republic of the Philippines Malacaang Palace, Manila; Registry Receipt No. __________ dated January 14, 2013 THE SENATE Republic of the Philippines GSIS Complex, RoxasBlvd., Pasay City Registry Receipt No. __________ dated January 14, 2013 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Republic of the Philippines Batasan Hills, Quezon City Registry Receipt No. __________ dated January 14, 2013 HON. PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR. Executive Secretary, Office of the President of the Philippines Malacaang Palace, Manila; Registry Receipt No. __________ dated January 14, 2013 HON. FLORENCIO B. ABAD Secretary, Department of Budget and Management (DBM) Malacaang Palace, Manila; Registry Receipt No. __________ dated January 14, 2013 HON. ENRIQUE T. ONA Secretary, Department of Health (DOH) San Lazaro Compound, City of Manila;

Petition for Certiorari & Prohibition

Page 26 of 26

Registry Receipt No. __________ dated January 14, 2013 HON. ARMIN A. LUISTRO, FSC Secretary, Department of Education (DepEd) DepEd Complex, Meralco Avenue, Pasig City; Registry Receipt No. __________ dated January 13, 2013 HON. MANUEL A. ROXAS II Secretary, Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) EDSA cor. Mapagmahal St., Diliman, Quezon City; and Registry Receipt No. __________ dated January 14, 2013 THE SOLICITOR GENERAL 139 Amorsolo Street, Legaspi Village, Makati City Registry Receipt No. __________ dated January 14, 2013