Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
1. IMBONG V OCHOA
Lessons Applied: Constitutionality
FACTS
Petition: To declare Republic Act No. 10354 known as the Responsible Parenthood and
Reproductive Health Act of 2012 (RH LAW) as unconstitutional.
December 21, 2012: Congress enacted RA No. 10354 also known as the Responsible
Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012 (RH LAW)
All in all, 14 petitions and 2 petitions-in-intervention were filed. The president’s
imprimatur and support for the said law lead to a range of petitions against the law
leading to iuris controversy in court.
March 15, 2013: the RH-IRR or enforcement of the law took place
Due to further arguments and debates from opposing parties, the SQAO was extended
until further orders of the court last July 16, 2013
Position of Petitioner:
Unconstitutional because of the ff.;
The RH Law violates the right to life of the unborn. It would authorize the purchase of
hormonal contraceptives, intra-uterine devices and injectables which are abortives, in
violation of Section 12, Article II of the Constitution which guarantees protection of
both the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception.
The RH Law violates the right to health and the right to protection against hazardous
products which are hazardous to one's health, as it causes cancer and other health
problems.
The RH Law violates the right to religious freedom. For the petitioners, the use of public
funds for purposes that are believed to be contrary to their beliefs.
Position of Respondent
1.There is no actual case or controversy and, therefore, the issues are not yet ripe for
judicial determination
2. Some petitioners lack standing to question the RH Law
3. The petitions are essentially petitions for declaratory relief over which the Court has no
original jurisdiction.
March 19, 2013: After deliberating the issues and arguments raised, the court issued
Status Quo Ante Order (SQAO) which lead to a 120 day halt on the implementation of
the legislation
ISSUES
Procedural
1. Whether or not the Court may exercise its power of judicial review
2. Whether or not there is an actual case or controversy
Whether the Court may apply facial challenge
Whether or not the petitions are praying for declaratory relief
Whether the petitions violate the One Subject/One Title Rule
Substantive
HELD
RULING ON PROCEDURAL ISSUES
1. Whether the Court can exercise its power of judicial review over the controversy.
Yes. The Court’s duty is to make sure that they have acted in consonance with their respective
authorities and rights as mandated of them by the Constitution. This is in line with Article VIII,
Section 1 of the Constitution which expressly provides:
Judicial review is limited by four exacting requisites, viz : (a) there must be an actual case or
controversy; (b) the petitioners must possess locus standi; (c) the question of constitutionality
must be raised at the earliest opportunity; and (d) the issue of constitutionality must be the lis
mota of the case.
All requisites were met.