Freedom of religion and right to free speech

1. WON the RH Law violates the guarantee of religious freedom since it mandates the State- sponsored procurement
of contraceptives, which contravene the religious beliefs of e.g. the petitioners - NO

2. WON the RH Law violates the guarantee of religious freedom by compelling medical health practitioners,
hospitals, and health care providers, under pain of penalty, to refer patients to other institutions despite their
conscientious objections - YES

3. 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 seminar on parenthood, family planning, breastfeeding and infant
nutrition - NO

3.) The Court cannot determine whether or not the use of contraceptives or participation in support of modern RH
measures (a) is moral from a religious standpoint; or, (b) right or wrong according to ones dogma or belief.
However, the Court has the authority to determine whether or not the RH Law contravenes the Constitutional
guarantee of religious freedom.

3a.) 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 groups would violate Article III, Section 5 of the
Constitution or the Establishment Clause. This would cause the State to adhere to a particular religion, and thus,
establishes a state religion. Thus, the State can enhance its population control program through the RH Law even if
the promotion of contraceptive use is contrary to the religious beliefs of e.g. the petitioners.

3b.) Sections 7, 23, and 24 of the RH Law obliges a hospital or medical practitioner to 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. These provisions violate the religious belief and conviction of a
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 inviolability of the human conscience. The provisions in the RH Law
compelling non-maternity specialty hospitals and hospitals owned and operated by a religious group and health care
service providers to refer patients to other providers and penalizing them if they fail to do so (Sections 7 and
23(a)(3)) as well as compelling them to disseminate information and perform RH procedures under pain of penalty
(Sections 23(a)(1) and (a) (2) in relation to Section 24) also violate (and inhibit) the freedom of religion. While
penalties may be imposed by law to ensure compliance to it, a constitutionally-protected right must prevail over the
effective implementation of the law. Excluding public health officers from being conscientious objectors (under Sec.
5.24 of the IRR) also violates the equal protection clause. There is no perceptible distinction between public health
officers and their private counterparts. In addition, the freedom to believe is intrinsic in every individual and the
protection of this freedom remains even if he/she is employed in the government. Using the compelling state interest
test, there is no compelling state interest to limit the free exercise of conscientious objectors. There is no immediate
danger to the life 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. The respondents also failed to show that these provisions are least
intrusive means to achieve a legitimate state objective. The Legislature has already taken other secular steps to
ensure that the right to health is protected, such as RA 4729, RA 6365 (The Population Act of the Philippines)
(http://philippinelaw.info/statutes/ra6365-population-act-of-the-philippines.html) and RA 9710 (The Magna Carta of
Women) (http://www.gov.ph/2009/08/14/republic-act-no-9710/ ).

3c.) Section 15 of the RH Law, which requires would-be spouses to attend a seminar on 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 government. The law does not even mandate the type of family planning methods to
be included in the seminar. Those who attend the seminar are free to accept or reject information they receive and
they retain the freedom to decide on matters of family life without the intervention of the State.