G.R. No. 204819: JAMES M. IMBONG and LOVELY ANN C.

IMBONG, for themselves and in behalf of their minor children, LUCIA CARLOS IMBONG and BERNADETTE CARLOS IMBONG, and MAGNIFICAT CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER INC. vs. HON. PAQUITO OCHOA, JR, HON. FLORENCIO ABAD, HHON. ENRIQUE T. ONA, HON. ARMIN A. LUISTRO and HON. MANUEL A. ROXAS II On January 02, 2013, petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition, with a Prayer for a Writ of Injunction, assailing the constitutionality of RA 10354. They post the following grounds and arguments in support of the petition: 1. The Act introduces policies that negate and frustrate the foundational ideals and aspirations of the sovereign Filipino people as enshrined in the Constitution. a. Every provision of the Constitution is an embodiment of an ideal and aspiration of the sovereign Filipino people because that is the purpose for which the Constitution was promulgated and ratified by the Filipino people themselves. b. As regards the value of human life and its sustenance, the Constitution upholds the ideal of an unconditional respect for life and aspires for the establishment of policies that create opportunities to harness the economic potential of every Filipino. c. As regards the value and exceptional status of the Filipino family, the Constitution upholds the ideal of an unconditional respect for its inherent sanctity and autonomy as against the State itself. d. As regards the sovereign and democratic nature of the Philippine nation and its Government, the Constitution mandates the establishment of a government that embodies the ideals and aspirations of the sovereign Filipino people. e. The Constitution is a protector of religious freedom and freedom of speech in thought and action against any substantial burden of government intrusion. f. The grant of reproductive rights as described in the Act creates doubtful or spurious rights. The Act cannot be implemented without exceeding the boundaries of government action as established in the Constitution.

marriage, to promote family solidarily, and to protect life at all stages of development. ALFI, which was actively involved in efforts to prevent the passage of the then Reproductive Health Bill in Congress, is represented by its President Atty. Maria Concepcion S. Noche, who is also a petitioner in her personal capacity. All the petitioners who are Filipino citizens are bringing this suit because of farreaching implications of RA 10354 to their life, their family, and their faith. Named as respondents are public officials in charge of the enforcement and administration of RA 10354. They are Executive Secretary Paquito N. Ochoa, Jr., Health Secretary Enrique T. Ona, Education Secretary Armin A. Luistro, Solcial Welfare and Development Secretary Corazon Soliman, Interior and Local Government Secretary Manuel A. Roxas II, Budget and Management Secretary Florencio B. Abad, and Socio-Economic Planning Secretary Arsenio M. Balicasan. Also named respondents are the Philippine Commission on Women through its Chairperson Remedios Ignacio-Rikken, the Philippine Health Insurance Corporation through its President Eduardo Banzon, League of Provinces of the Philippines through its President Alfonso Umali, League of Cities of the Philippines through its President Oscar Rodriguez, and League of Municipalities of the Philippines through its President Donato Marcos. In assailing the RH law, petitioners raised the following grounds: 1. RA 10354 violates the right to life and protection of life from conception under Section 12, Article II of the Constitution in allowing the use of abortifacient devices and drugs; RA 10354 violates the right to health under Section 15, Article II of the Constitution in mandating the universal access to dispensation and use of harmful substances and devices; The delegation of certain powers and duties to the Food and Drug Administration which are not found in its enabling law constitutes undue delegation of legislative powers; RA 10354 violates the right to free exercise of religion under Section 5, Article III of the Constitution; and RA 10354 violates the right of spouses to found a family in accordance with their religious convictions under Section 3(1), Article XV of the Constitution in making reproductive health education mandatory, hence interfering in the right of the parents to educate their children in the manner they deem fit under Section 12, Article II.

2.

3.

4. 5.

2.

Petitioners claim that the prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order/ preliminary injunction is not premature, as the remedy is available before the contemplated illegal act is done. They state that it will be too late for the day the law becomes effective for by then an illegal disbursement and use of public funds can be made before the Honorable Court can deliberate on the propriety of issuing the preliminary injunction against the disbursement. G.R. No. 204934: ALLIANCE FOR THE FAMILY FOUNDATION PHILIPPINES, INC., et al. v.Hon. paquito n. ochoa, jr., Executive Secretary, et al. Petitioners Alliance for the Family Foundation Philippines, Inc. (ALFI), et al. filed a Petition for Prohibition with Prayer for the Urgent Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction challenging the constitutionality of RA 10354, Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012. ALFI, a foundation duly organized and existing under the laws of the Republic of the Philippines, was incorporated to undertake every kind of initiative in order to foster and defend the sanctity of

ARGUMENTS/DISCUSSIONS: RA 10354 violates the right to life and protection of life from conception under Section 12, Article II of the Constitution in allowing the use of abortifacient devices and drugs The 1987 Constitution holds sacrosanct the right to life from conception. Section 12, Article II, in no uncertain terms, recognizes the existence of life at conception and guarantees the protection of that life from conception. Therefore, the Constitution acknowledges the right to life of the unborn from conception. Concomitant to the protection of life and the recognition of the right to life from conception, the Constitution likewise protects the right to health. Based on the record of its deliberations, it is clear that the members of the Constitution Commission agreed that: (a) the meeting of the

egg and the sperm is referred to as fertilization which results in a fertilized ovum. And conception as appearing in the proposed constitutional provision (which eventually became Section 12) likewise refers to fertilization; (b) the fertilized ovum has life; (c) the fertilized ovum is human; and (d) that life that exists in the fertilized ovum is human life. The framers of the 1987 Constitution decided to include in the Constitution a statement on the beginning of life because they acknowledged that, as since itself has determined, life begins from the moment of conception. The constitutional mandate to protect life, particularly the life of the unborn from conception, was passionately and meticulously deliberated upon by our constitutional fathers, as documented in the records of the Constitutional Commission. On the deliberations regarding contraceptives, in relation to the protection of the unborn from conception, it was also recognized that, among others, contraceptives that deter the rooting of the ovum in the uterus or stop the opportunity for the fertilized ovum to reach the uterus are abortifacients. RA 10354 violates the right to life because it provides for abortifacient contraceptive products and supplies to be included in the regular purchase of essential medicines and supplies of all national hospitals. The assailed law, based on the reading of its text as a whole, allows abortifacient devices and substances to be used in family planning. While the term non-abortifacient is used in the text of RA 10354 several times, such use is merely in connection with the definition of terms and the guiding principles of the law. On the other hand, the specific provisions detailing its application those which will specifically be implemented in fact, allow abortifacient contraceptive supplies and devides. Section 9 of RA 10354 clearly creates and provides an environment open to the use of abortifacient contraceptives. Similarly, the same provision provides that hormonal contraceptives are also to be included in the National Drug Formulary System. Construed as a whole, RA 10354 authorizes and prescribes the use of abortifacient family planning methods: first, by prescribing the use of intrauterine devices (IUDs) and hormonal contraceptives; second, drugs which have the capacity of being abortifacients may be included in the Essential Drugs List (EDL), and are in fact included in the National Drug Formulary System; third, the prohibition extends only to the purchase of abortifacients which will be used for that purpose:, hence, the purchase of abortifacients is possible under the provision all in derogation of the right to life of the unborn, and the right for the protection of that life. RA 10354 violates the right to health under Section 15, Article II of the Constitution in mandating the universal access to dispensation and use of harmful substances and devices; RA 10354, in guaranteeing universal access to hormonal contraceptives and devices, ensures access of women to carcinogenic drugs, in further violation of the right to life, which necessarily includes the right to health as guaranteed in Article II, Section 15 of the Constitution. Studies have established use of oral contraceptives increases the risk of breast and cervical cancer.

The delegation of certain powers and duties to the Food and Drug Administration which are not found in its enabling law constitutes undue delegation of legislative powers; An agency of the government cannot go beyond the powers conferred on it by its enabling law; otherwise, the agencys acts would be ultra vires. A close look at the coverage of its duties shows that the Food and Drug Administration has been tasked by RA 10354 to cover not only reproductive health products and supplies and devices, but also services and methods. FDAs enabling law, RA 9711, however, makes clear that FDAs functions only cover health establishments, health products and supplies.Nowhere in the enabling law is there any mention that FDA is tasked to evaluate, register or cover health series as well. The task therefore that RA 10354 has allotted to the FDA to cover reproductive health services constitutes a peculiar instance of undue delegation of power to the FDA which is not so granted by its enabling law. In the absence of a specific mandate from its enabling law allowing the FDA to look into health services, this undue delegation of power is void. RA 10354 violates the right to free exercise of religion under Section 5, Article III of the Constitution; and The whole policy of the State under RA 01354 to promote a reproductive health program that disseminates information about, disburses public funds for, encourages the use of, and distributes the products related to artificial contraception, as well as mandates children and the youth to undergo a sex education program that is against their moral conviction and religious belief, infringes upon religious freedom. Specifically, Section 15 of RA 10354 makes it mandatory for couples to undergo a seminar or program on responsible parenthood and family planning covering even the use of artificial contraceptives as a pre-requisite to securing a marriage license, even if these acts go against their moral conviction and religious belief. Section 23 of RA 10354 enumerates the prohibited acts under it that violate the free exercise of religion. A health care service provider is constrained to provide information regarding programs and services on reproductive health, even if these programs and services are offensive to him or her as they violate his or her moral conviction and religious belief. Moreover, the health care service provider is compelled to extend health services and disseminate information regarding the said programs and services, even if these acts are against his or her moral convictions and religious belief. In the case of a public official who is elected or appointed, specifically charged with the duty to implement the provisions of the Act, he or she personally or through a subordinate, is required not to prohibit or restrict the delivery of legal and medically-safe reproductive health care services, including family planning, and not to refuse to allocate, approve or release any budget for reproductive health care services. Moreover, such public officer is constrained to support reproductive health programs; and he or she shall not do any act that hinders the full implementation of a reproductive health program as mandated by RA 10354, even if these acts go against his or her religious beliefs. If the State is allowed to compel its citizens to submit to a State policy under RA 10354 which violates their moral conviction and religious belief, then the State would be allowed to abdicate, nay disregard and trample upon, the very duty that it is mandated to do

to give the highest protection to the most fundamental rights of its citizens. RA 10354 violates the right of spouses to found a family in accordance with their religious convictions under Section 3(1), Article XV of the Constitution in making reproductive health education mandatory, hence interfering in the right of the parents to educate their children in the manner they deem fit under Section 12, Article II. RA 10354 constitutes an unlawful and unconstitutional intrusion into the right of parents to found a family according to the beliefs and convictions that they hold as well as rear and educate their children in the most appropriate manner they deem fit. The questioned law legislates criteria for parents to observe in raising their family and educating their children which may run counter to their personal beliefs, and religious convictions. The State violated the sanctity of the family home and usurped the rights and duties of parents to rear and educate their children in accordance with their religious conviction by forcing some rules and State programs for reproductive health contrary to their religious belief. In the matter of education, and especially sexuality education, the parents have the primary duty to undertake this task for their children. For the State to interfere in such a delicate parental task is unwarranted and should not be countenanced because the duty of the State is merely to support, nor supplant, the parents in their moral duty to form the consciences of their children. Petitioners pray that the Honorable Court: 1. Issue a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction enjoining the respondent public officers, and all persons acting on their behalf, from implementing the same; Issue a judgment declaring RA 10354, Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012, as unconstitutional in violation of Section 12 and 15, Article II; Section 5, Article III; Section 2(2), Article XIV; and Section 3, Article XV of the 1987 Constitution; hence, null and void; Issue a judgment permanently enjoining the respondent public officers, and all persons acting on their behalf, to cease and desist from implementing RA 10354; Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.

2.

3.

13. 14.

4.

G.R. No. 204957: Task Force for Family and Life Visayas, Inc. and Valeriano S. Avila v. Hon. Paquito N. Ochoa, Jr., Executive Secretary, et. al. On January 21, 2013, Petitioner association filed its Amended Petition for Certiorari with Prayer for Injunction against respondents Paquito Ochoa (Executive Secretary), Florencio Abad (DBM Secretary), Enrique Ona (DOH Secretary) and Manuel Roxas (DILG Secretary) as the public officials in-charge of the enforcement and administration of Republic Act No. 10354 also known as the RH Law. The petition alleges that the RH Law is unconstitutional because of the following reasons: 1. The Act violates the One-Subject-One-Bill Rule provided for under Section 26(1), Article VI of the Constitution, as it carries two subjects namely: Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health where both are believed to have effectively concealed from and misled the public as to the

perceived evil it packaged Death to the Filipino nation through modern methods of contraception, as a tool for a massive, permanent and unbridled population control also in violation of the peoples constitutional right to information under Sections 24 and 28, Article II of the Constitution; The Act is a departure from the manifestly Pro-God 1987 Philippine Constitution as etched in its Preamble since (a) the 1987 Philippine Constitution is a (sic) Pro-God; (b) the Philippine Constitution embodies Gods decree on the sanctity of family, life and marriage; and (c) the act is antiGod; The Act betrays its own Declaration of Policies and Guiding Principles since (a) it udnermines the survival of the Filipino nation through the decimation, weakening and eventual disintegration of Filipino families, its very foundation; and (b) it undermines the inviolability and sanctity of marriage, as the recognized foundation of family of every Filipino family; The Act violates the duty of the State to promote and respect the sanctity of family life and in the protection and strenthening of the family as a basic autonomous social institution; instead of protecting, it endangers or exposes the life of the unborn to abortion; The Act interferes in the natural and primary right and duty of parents in the development of the moral character of their children; The Act violates the constitutional rights of families or family associations to participate in the planning and implementation of policies and programs that affect their children; The Act exposes the life of the unborn to abortion; The Act violates the freedom of the free exercise of religion; The Act violates on the areas of priorities enumerated under Section 17, Article II of the Constitution; The Act robs the Filipino people of their ultimate and most treasured wealth, their faith and religiosity; The Act promotes the worst kind of corruption, the corruption against life, family and marriage; The Act violates the constitutional provision on health s provided for under Section 11, Article XIII of the Constitution; The Act is discriminatory and is a class legislation; and The Act, instead of bringing unity and peace will cause division as it agitates hate between the rich and the poor, between the government and the church, the very institution that introduces and brings god in the midst of the Filipino people.

From the aforementioned allegations, the petitioner prays that the Honorable Court declare the entire RA No. 10354 unconstitutional after the parties are heard. G.R. No. 205003: Expedito A. Bugarin, Jr., Petitioner, v. Offices of the Hon. President of the Republic of the Philippines, Hon. Senate President, Hon. Speaker of the House of Representatives and Hon. Solicitor General, SUMMARY OF THE PETITION FACTS: Petitioner Expedito A. Bugarin, Jr., a resident of Cebu City, seeks to nullify and declare as unconstitutional RA 10345, the The Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012 , arguing that the said law violates several provisions of the 1987

Philippine Constitution. He likewise implores the Court (at least for reasons of fairness and Christian compassion) not to dismiss his petition outright since this case involves the very survival and future of our nation. Named as respondents are the Office of the President, Office of the Senate President, Office of the House Speaker, and Office of the Solicitor General. ISSUES/GROUNDS: RA 10354, The Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012 is

After having committed abortion and experienced unrestricted sex, why would there be a need for the Sacrament of Marriage? If the sexual act is already accepted even outside the marriage, then why get married and be saddled with heavy responsibilities and a single partner for life? When this happens, the family, which is the nucleus of society and the Church is destroyed.

RA 10354 violates Section 4, Article III, Bill of Rights, which states that: No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievance. Section 23 of RA 10354 is very broad and all-encompassing and could be interpreted and made to apply to persons in the act of engaging in information dissemination against the assailed law. The assailed provision can be used by the governments vast law enforcement and prosecutorial resources to clamp down on dissent, by accusing dissenters of engaging in acts of disinformation which hinder the full implementation of RA 10354. RA 10354 violates Sections 1 and 2 of Article XV of the Constitution The assailed law destroys the Filipino family, the very foundation of the nation, as well as marriage, which in turn is the very foundation of the family as it promotes promiscuity.

Violative of Sec. 8 under State Policies of the Constitution; Violative of Sec. 12 under State Policies of the Constitution; Violative of Sec. 4, Article III of the Constitution under the Bill of Rights; Violative of Sec. 1, Article XV of the Constitution under The Family; and Violative of Sec. 2, Article XV of the Constitution under The Family.

ARGUMENTS/DISCUSSIONS: RA 10354 violates Sec. 8 of the State Policies states that The Philippines, consistent with the national interest, adopts and pursues a policy of freedom from nuclear weapons in its territory. Petitioner claims it was a relief for most Filipinos when military bases in the country were closed as it removed the country from being a target of nuclear missiles from other countries threatened by the said bases. The fact that the government involved, neither confirmed nor denied the existence of nuclear weapons in Philippine territory did not in any way, shape or form help to mitigate a possible nuclear strike against our country. While this argument on the surface may seem irrelevant not to mention absurd to some, to one who has an open mind, looking deeper at it in relation to our recently passed Reproductive Health Law still makes sense. This is so because the passage of Republic Act No. 10354 which is the first anti-family and anti-life law in this country, will pave the way for the passage of other anti-life and anti-family laws such as: (a) Same Sex Marriage Law; (b) Divorce Law; (c) Laws punishing criticisms of gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgenders; and (d) Abortion Law. Sex which is intended only to preserve the human race is done to the excess even by those not bound by the Sacrament of Marriage. Many young people are drawn to a promiscuous lifestyle because of the contraceptive mentality promoted in most school systems which governments also encourage. Contraceptive mentality gives license to extramarital relationships and worse to incest. Once discovered, this infidelity creates tension in the home and inflicts incurable wounds in family relationships. PRAYER: 1. 2. 3. Nullify and declare as unconstitutional RA 10354; Not to dismiss petition outright since this case involves the very survival and future of our nation; and Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises.

RA 10354 violates Section 12 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. Anti-life and anti-family groups tell the word that reproductive right or reproductive health means the inalienable right of women to take care of their health and provide for its welfare. Others even believe that it is the right of one to reproduce because reproduction refers to multiplication of species and not its extermination! Unfortunately, unsuspecting women would not know that reproductive right and reproductive health in fact mean the inalienable, absolute right of women to abort and to engage in sexual activity without the burden of unwanted pregnancy. They even added the word safe to abortion, to make the whole matter palatable and lure men and women into the bait of contraception.

G.R. No. 205138: PHILIPPINE ALLIANCE OF XSEMINARIANS INC. (PAX) vs. HON. PAQUITO N. OCHOA et al. On January 28, 2013, PAX filed a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and Preliminary Injunction with Urgent Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order against RA 10354. PAX is a national organization of Catholic Seminaries Alumni Association and former seminarians. According to the petitioner, RA 10354 or certain parts of the said law should be struck down as unconstitutional in so far as it promotes artificial contraception as a State policy, requires the appropriation of public funds, directs government institutions to implement the provisions of the law and imposes penalties for its violation. PAX raises the issue of whether or not the State, in its exercise of its police powers, may validly promote artificial contraception as a State policy. The grounds to support the petition are as follows:

1.

2.

3.

The assailed law does not serve public interest in that the activity sought to be regulated is outside the scope of its police power, violates human dignity and contravenes the Constitution. The assailed law is unconstitutional insofar as it unduly delegates legislative authority to the Food and Drugs Administration. The assailed law is a violation of religious freedom guaranteed by our Constitution.

Petitioners argue that the RH Law violates the right to life, the right to protection against hazardous products, involuntary servitude, equal protection of the laws, economic policy and presents an unwarranted interference in education. Petitioners state that the RH Law hits them as oppressive, unjust and confiscatory. They are devout Catholics whose religious beliefs find the mandatory provisions of the assailed Act obnoxious and unconscionable. Hence, unless restrained, the law would be implemented, to the damage and prejudice of the petitioners. Petitioners pray for the Supreme Court: 1. To issue a Temporary restraining order to preserve the status quo restraining the respondents from implementing RA 10354, and after due notice and hearing, issue the corresponding writ of preliminary injunction pending the final determination of the case. After due notice and hearing, to render judgment granting: : a. A writ of certiorari declaring RA 10354 null and void ab initio for being constitutionally infirm; and b. A writ of prohibition directing respondents to refrain and/or cease and desist from implementing RA 10354.

In support of the prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order, PAX states that unless enjoined, public funds would be unlawfully disbursed for the enforcement and implementation of the law. PAX prays that: 1. 2. The petition be given due course. RA 10354 be declared unconstitutional; or in the alternative, the cited provisions relating to the promotion/use of artificial contraception and the delegation of legislative authority to the Food and Drugs Administration be declared unconstitutional. Pending the resolution of the instant case, a TRO be issued directing the public respondents to cease and desist from allocating and using public funds appropriated in the current General Appropriations Act for the implementation of the assailed law. The injunction be made permanent after due notice and hearing.

2.

3.

4.

G.R. No. 204988: SERVE LIFE CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY, INC. et al. vs. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT et al. Serve Life et al. filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with a prayer for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction on January 15, 2013, seeking to annul the passage and prohibit the implementation of RA 1054 for having been enacted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack and/or excess of jurisdiction. Petitioners claim that the law fails to pass the test of constitutionality and posit the following grounds to support their petition: 1. The House of Representatives, for approving HB No. 4244, despite the obvious, patent and unmistakable constitutional flaws;

G.R. No. 204988: SERVE LIFE CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY, INC. et al. vs. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT et al. Serve Life et al. filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with a prayer for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction on January 15, 2013, seeking to annul the passage and prohibit the implementation of RA 1054 for having been enacted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack and/or excess of jurisdiction. Petitioners claim that the law fails to pass the test of constitutionality and posit the following grounds to support their petition: 1. The House of Representatives, for approving HB No. 4244, despite the obvious, patent and unmistakable constitutional flaws;

The Senate of the Philippine, for approving HB No. 4244 despite obvious, patent and unmistakable constitutional flaws; The Office of the President, for signing HB No. 4244 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. 2. Consequently, and in addition to the damage and prejudice posed by the law, Hon. Florencio Abad, Secretary of the Department of Budget and Management; Hon. Enrique T. Ona, Secretary ofthe Department of Health; Hon. Armin A. Luistro, Secretary of the Department of Education;and Hon. Manuel A. Roxas II, Secretary of the Department of Interior and Local Government, must be enjoined from implementing the law.

The Senate of the Philippine, for approving HB No. 4244 despite obvious, patent and unmistakable constitutional flaws; The Office of the President, for signing HB No. 4244 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. 2. Consequently, and in addition to the damage and prejudice posed by the law, Hon. Florencio Abad, Secretary of the Department of Budget and Management; Hon. Enrique T. Ona, Secretary ofthe Department of Health; Hon. Armin A. Luistro, Secretary of the Department of Education;and Hon. Manuel A. Roxas II, Secretary of the Department of Interior and Local Government, must be enjoined from implementing the law.

The issue presented by Serve Life before the Court is whether the RH Law is unconstitutional. Petitioners argue that the RH Law violates the right to life, the right to protection against hazardous products, involuntary servitude, equal protection of the laws, economic policy and presents an unwarranted interference in education. Petitioners state that the RH Law hits them

The issue presented by Serve Life before the Court is whether the RH Law is unconstitutional.

as oppressive, unjust and confiscatory. They are devout Catholics whose religious beliefs find the mandatory provisions of the assailed Act obnoxious and unconscionable. Hence, unless restrained, the law would be implemented, to the damage and prejudice of the petitioners. Petitioners pray for the Supreme Court:

Reynaldo J. Echavez, M.D., Jacqueline H. King, M.D., Cynthia T. Domingo, M.D., and JosephiNe Millado-Lumitao, M.D., collectively known as Doctors for Life, and anthony perez, michael anthony G. MApa, carLos antonio palad, wilfredo jose, claire navarro, anna cosio, and gabriel dy liacco collectively known as FILIPINOS FOR LIFE, Petitioners versus

1.

2.

To issue a Temporary restraining order to preserve the status quo restraining the respondents from implementing RA 10354, and after due notice and hearing, issue the corresponding writ of preliminary injunction pending the final determination of the case. After due notice and hearing, to render judgment granting: : a. A writ of certiorari declaring RA 10354 null and void ab initio for being constitutionally infirm; and b. A writ of prohibition directing respondents to refrain and/or cease and desist from implementing RA 10354.

Hon. paquito n. ochoa, jr., Executive Secretary; hon. florencio b. abad, Secretary of the Department of Budget and Management; Hon. Enrique T. Ona, Secretary of the Department of Health; Hon. Armin A. Luistro, Secretary of the Department of Education; and Hon. Manuel A. Roxas, Secretary of the Department of Interior and Local Government, Respondents, SUMMARY OF THE PETITION FACTS: Petitioners Echavez, et al. are all Filipinos, taxpayers, and members of the medical profession, who are assailing the constitutionality of RA 10354, The Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012, which passage they claim has a clear and present danger to their rights. They also assert that they will be prejudiced by the disbursement of public funds for the purposes of fulfilling the mandates of RA 10354. Named as respondents are the Executive Secretary Ochoa, Jr., Budget and Management Sec. Abad, Health Sec. Enrique T. Ona, Education Sec. Armin A. Luistro, and Interior and Local Government Sec. Roxas. ISSUES/GROUNDS: I. RA 10354 violates the Doctrine of Benevolent Neutrality under the Freedom of Religion Clause which is safeguarded by our countrys Bill of Rights; RA 10354 violates our constitutionally-protected right against Involuntary Servitude; RA 10354 violates the basic Constitutional principle that laws shall embrace only one subject which shall be expressed in the title thereof; RA 10354 violates an individuals basic Right to Life; RA 10354 is detrimental to the growth of our National because it allows the State to control the private education sector and medical industry; and RA 10354 encourages the establishment on monopolies, which is not only unconstitutional but stunts the growth of the manufacturers and service providers in the medical industry.

G.R. No. 205043: Eduardo Olaguer and the Catholic Xybrspace Apostolate of the Philippines v. DOH Secretary Enrique Ona, FDA Director Suzette Lazo, DBM Secretary Florencio Abad, DILG Secretary Manuel Roxas and DECS Secretary Armin Luistro On January 21, 2013, petitioners filed this Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with the allegation that RA No. 1035 4 (RH Law) is patently and demonstrably in violation of specific provisions of the Philippine Constitution and Philippine laws. In support of the allegation, petitioners raised the following arguments: 1. R.A. 10354 is patently, grossly and incurably discriminatory against persons known and defined as the unborn, who are indisputably entitled to equal protection per Section 12 of Article II and Section 1 of Article III (of the Constitution) The law is discriminatory against faithful husbands and/or wives, when one spouse insists on using contraceptives without the consent and/or despite the conscientious objection of the other spouse. Hence the RH law has also effectively impaired the conjugal obligations in their marital vows in violation of Section 10 of Article III, as well as being in contravention of Section 12 of Article II. The law is violative of Section 13 of Article VII of the Constitution due to the resulting conflicting roles of the Cabinet Secretaries and the offices/subordinates under them who are supposed to be the primary guardians of the health of the citizenry are now statutorily tasked under Articles 19(b)(2) and 19(b)(4) to provide assistance to privatesectors for the delivery, production, distribution, purchasing and planning of all contraceptives goods and supplies.

2.

II. III.

3.

IV. V.

VI.

ARGUMENTS/DISCUSSIONS:

Petitioners pray that the Honorable Court render judgment declaring RA 10354 as unconstitutional thus viod ab initio in its entirety. On May 17, 2013, petitioners in G.R. No. 205043 filed their Reply to the Consolidated Comment of the Office of the Solicitor General. In the said reply, petitioners reiterated the arguments raised in their petition dated January 21, 2013. GR No. 205478

RA 10354 violates the Doctrine of Benevolent Neutrality under the Freedom of Religion Clause

Provisions of this case, particularly Section 9, 14, and 17, are clearly too secular that it disregards the religion of Filipinos. Provisions authorizing the use of contraceptives with abortive effects, mandatory sex education, mandatory pro-bono reproductive health services to indigents among others, encroach upon the religious freedom of those upon whom they are required. Therefore, it

runs counter to the Constitution, because as ruled by the Supreme Court in the case of Estrada v. Escritor, the Constitution prescribes benevolent neutrality, not a strict one. Thus laws must be interpreted such that they be considered taking into consideration its effect on peoples religion.

legal, non-abortificient and effective family planning products and supplies.

RA 10354 violates the Constitutional proscription against Involuntary Servitude

Section 4 of RA 10354 defines abortifacient in the law as 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. Section 9 of RA 10354, which provides a list of allowable drugs and devices for the public to use as part of family planning, states that The National Drug Formulary shall include hormonal contraceptives, intrauterine devices, injectables, and other safe, legal, non-abortifacient and effective family planning products and supplies. However, the list does not conform to the constitutional provision since not all the drugs that were listed in the law are non-abortifacients. The Constitution itself says that the right of the individual is protected from the moment of conception. Thus, medicines such as hormonal contraceptives, intrauterine devices, injectables, and even birth control pills, which prevent or impair fertilization are considered abortifacient. The law not only violates the right to the life of the unborn, but endangers the life of the mother as well. Both the life of the mother and the unborn are protected by the Constitution. However, RA 10354 allows women to use certain drugs that are not only abortifacients, but also cause long-term illnesses to women such as breast cancer, cervical cancer, among others. Furthermore, RA 10354 allows midwives to both prescribe and dispense drugs in contradiction to the Pharmacy Law and Medical law which provide that only medical practitioners can prescribe medicines and only pharmacists can dispense the same.

Paragraph 3 of Section 23 of RA 10354, allows a health care service provider to refuse to extend quality health care services and information on account of the persons marital status, gender, age, religious convictions, personal circumstances, or nature of workhowever, the conscientious objector shall immediately refer the person seeking such care and services to another health care service provider within the same facility or one which is conveniently accessible. Although it mentions that ethical or religious beliefs shall be respected, the requirement to immediately refer the matter to another health care service provider is still considered a compulsion of these practices on the health care service provider who objected. In turn, it also prohibits the free exercise of religion, in case their religion prohibits such kind of service as a practice. The provision requiring medical practitioners to provide at least 48 hours annually of reproductive health services pro bono services for indigent women does not only mandate involuntary servitude but is also a form of harassment. The said RA provides for penalties for violations in case of breach of any of its prohibited acts, with penalties ranging from fine to imprisonment, or both fine and imprisonment.

The title of the law embraces more than one subject

The title The Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012 shows two subjects Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health. Since these two subjects fall under two different provisions of the Constitution, they should be covered by different laws as well. Section 26, Paragraph 1 of the Article VI of the 1987 Constitution provides that every bill passed by Congress shall embrace only one subject which shall be expressed in the title thereof.

RA 10354 is detrimental to the growth of our National because it allows the State to control the private education sector and medical industry; and

RA 10354 violates an individuals basic Right to Life

In violation of Section 12, Article II of the Constitution which states that the State shall equally protect the lift of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception, Section 9 of RA 10354 actually destroy instead of protect life. The assailed section states: The National Drug Formulary shall include hormonal contraceptives, intrauterine devices, injectables and other safe,

A provision of RA 10354 provides for the inclusion of Reproductive Health as part of the school curriculum which is contrary to the tenets of the Constitution on Academic Freedom since school owners will be compelled to teach a subject that they feel might not be suitable to be taught to their students. The law does not only violate Academic Freedom but also mandates involuntary servitude on private school owners and teachers.

RA 10354 encourages the establishment on monopolies, which is not only unconstitutional but stunts the growth of the manufacturers and service providers in the medical industry.

While the Constitution regulates and protects fair trade, Section 9 of RA 10354 makes hormonal

contraceptives, intrauterine devices, injectables and other safe, legal, non-abortifacient and effective family planning products and supplies essential drugs and thus producers of these products are already given an advantage over all others, thereby contributing to the uneven distribution of wealth in our country. Simply put, it shows an early sign of monopoly. PRAYER: 1. Issue a temporary restraining order, status quo ante order, and/or a writ of preliminary injunction compelling public respondents to refrain from implementing RA 10354; Declare the unconstitutionality of RA 10354; Restrain the Departments of Budget and Management, and Finance, and the Bureau of Treasury from disbursing any funds for the purpose of implementing RA 10354; Restrain the other public respondents from implementing the provisions and mandates of RA 10354; Issue other reliefs, just and equitable under the premises.

restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction, seeking to annul RA 10354 and prohibit the implementation of the said law. Petitioners claim that RA 10354 is unconstitutional for the following reasons: 1. RA 10354 is unconstitutional for being a law that constitutes a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of or excess of jurisdiction by the Congress, which the Supreme Court is authorized to review under Article VII.1 of the Constitution. RA 10354 is unconstitutional for violating religious freedom provided for under the Bill of Rights and international law. RA 10354 is unconstitutional for violating the inherently pro-family nature of the Constitution, and being void for vagueness, in violation of the due process clause in the Constitution

2.

2. 3.

3.

4. 5.

G.R. No. 205491: Spouses Francisco S. Tatad and Maria Fenny C. Tatad & Alan F. Paguia v. Office of the President On February 14, 2013, petitioners filed this action under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court to stop the office of the President of the Republic of the Philippines from implementing RA No. 10354 or The Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012 on the ground that it is unconstitutional and therefore null and viod ab initio. In support of their allegation, the petitioners raised the following arguments: 1. The State can not routinely invade the privacy of married couples in the exercise of their most intimate rights and duties to their respective spouses. The RH Law cannot impose birth control on married couples, regardless of their moral convictions or religious belief on the rightness or wrongness of birth control, especially contraceptive birth control, or impose birth control on those who hold, as a matter of moral conviction or religious belief, that contraception is intrinsically evil. The RH Law is an attack against the constitutional existence of Filipino posterity. The RH Law is contrary to public morals and destructive of the harmony and peace of society.

Unless a TRO be issued, petitioners allege that grave and irreparable injury will be suffered by them and all those similarly situated. Also, there is a possibility that those who oppose the law will be subject to criminal prosecution, that Catholic schools will be forced to offer sex education even if contrary to their religions, physicians who are Catholics will be forced into involuntary servitude, contraceptives with abortive effects will proliferate the market and public funds will be used to buy contraceptives which are actually abortifacientsall to the damage of the Filipino nation. Petitioners pray: 1. That a temporary restraining order be used to immediately preserve the status quo ante, restraining the respondents from implementing RA 10354, and after due notice and hearing, issue the corresponding writ of preliminary injunction; For the Supreme Court to render judgment granting a writ of certiorari declaring RA 1354 unconstitutional, void and without any force and effect and a writ of prohibition directing respondents to refrain and/or cease and desist from implementing RA 10354. Other remedies just and equitable are also prayed for.

2.

2.

3. 4.

On May 20, 2013, Pro-Life et al filed their Reply to the Office of the Solicitor Generals (OSG) Consolidated Comment. The points raised by the Petitioner in its Reply are as follows: 1. Petitioners state that the OSGs arguments must be ignored for being merely general denials, failing to specifically deny or refute the petitioners material allegations. The OSGs attempt to shield RA 10354 from judicial review by stating that it is social welfare legislation ignores the mandate of Article VIII, Section 1 of the Constitution. The fact that RA 10354 has not yet been implemented is no obstacle to judicial review, as seen inProvince of North Cotabato v. Government of the Republic of the Philippines. Petitioners main position is that government subsidy for reproductive health devices constitute grave abuse of discretion for subsidizing an act contrary to natural law. No issue could be of more transcendental importance than that of whether or not statues must conform to an objective standard of right or wrong based on right reason. The OSGs contention that natural law has no universal character betrays a misunderstanding of natural law. Universality is not the same as being the product of a general consensus

Premises considered, petitioners pray for the Honorable Court to: 1. Issue a temporary restraining order to preserve the status quo ante, restraining the respondents from implementing RA 10354, and after due notice and hearing, to issue the corresponding writ of preliminary injunction pending the final determination of the case; Render judgment after due notice and hearing, granting (a) a writ of certiorari declaring RA 10354 null and void ab intiio for being unconstitutional; and (b) a writ of prohibition directing the respondent to refrain and/or cease and desist from implementing RA 10354.

2.

3.

2.

4.

5. G.R. No. 205720: PRO-LIFE PHILIPPINES FOUNDATION INC. et al vs. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT et al. On February 28, 2013, Pro-Life Philippines Foundation filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with Prayer for a Temporary

6.

7. 8.

The OSG failed to refute the argument that RA 10354 violates religious freedom. The OSG failed to address the void-for-vagueness argument.

G.R. No. 206355 Millennium Saint Foundation, Inc. Atty. Ramon Pedrosa, Atty. Cita Borromeo-Garcia, Stella Acedera, Atty. Berteni Catalua Causing, Petitioners Versus Office Of The President, Office Of The Executive Secretary, Department Of Health, Department Of Education, Respondents, SUMMARY OF THE PETITION FACTS: Petitioners Millennium Saint Foundation, Inc., et al. filed a Petition for Prohibition seeking to declare as unconstitutional RA 10354, The Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012. They argued that some provisions offend and assault the religious beliefs of the petitioners who are all Catholic. As Catholics, they feel insulted that while their religious belief prohibits artificial contraceptives because these kill life, the State on the other hand blatantly insists on artificial contraceptives They see this as a destruction of their religion. Millennium is an entity organized under the Philippines laws whose objective includes promotion and dissemination of Spiritual Childhood as taught and lived by St. Therese of the Child Jesus of the Holy Face, Doctor of the Universal Church and Saint of the Third Millennium. It works towards the development of traditional Filipino values rooted in the Catholic faith through education and formation as inspired by St. Therese. Its board has authorized fellow petitioners Atty. Ramon Pedrosa, Mrs. Stella Acedera, and Atty. Cita BorromeoGarcia to file the petition in the Foundations behalf. Fellow petitioner Atty. Berteni Catalua Causing also serves as the counsel for all petitioners. Named as respondents are the Office of the President, the Office of the Executive Secretary, the Department of Health, and the Department of Education. ISSUES/GROUNDS: I. II. III. IV. V. VI. VII. RA 10354 violates the right to life RA 10354 violates the freedom of speech RA 10354 violates the freedom of religion RA 10354 violates the marriage rights of Catholics RA 10354 violates the primary right of parents on moral development RA 10354 violates the equal protection clause RA 10354 oppresses taxpayers

Petitioners reiterate their prayer in their Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition. On June 17, 2013, Pro-Life et al filed their Reply to the Commentsin-intervention of Joan A. de Venecia et al. and former DOH Secretaries Dr. Esperanza I. Cabral et al. As to the Comment-in- intervention filed by Joan A. De Venecia et. al., petitioners contend that the arguments raised by the intervenors are weak, confused, contrived and ill-informed. Petitioners state that: 1. 2. The intervenors motion demonstrates the danger of uniuslibri or of studying only one book. Intervenors perceived contradiction between petitioners positions regarding natural family planning (NFP) and contraception is irrelevant. The issue put forth by the petitioners is contraceptions violation of natural law, not that of NFP. Intervenors allegations regarding Catholic Church teaching is a separate issue from petitioners assertion of natural law which remains unrefuted by the intervenors. Intervenors allege that natural law does not exist, ignoring decades of pronouncements by the Supreme Court regarding natural law. Intervenors motion confuses population control programs with RA 10354, which, it must be emphasized, Congress repeatedly denied it to be. Intervenors failed to refute petitioners assertion of the precautionary principle and demonstrate the presence of opinion juris regarding contraceptives.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Petitioners reiterate their prayer in their petition and pray that the Court disregard the Comment-in-intervention. As to the Comment- inintervention filed by former DOH Secretaries Dr. Esperanza I. Cabral, Dr. Jamie Galvez-Tan and Dr. Alberto G. Romualdez, Jr, petitioners submit that: 1. There is an actual case of controversy which has already become ripe for adjudication. The mere enactment of the law, even before it is implemented, is enough to create an actual case of controversy that is ripe for adjudication. As the case involves public rights, petitioners have standing as citizens. Also, since the petition alleges the unlawful expenditure of public funds, petitioners have standing as taxpayers. The Court may relax the rules on standing, as the petition raises novel matters which are of transcendental importance. Interventors invocation of the right to privacy is irrelevant to the case, as the issue in the case is the use of government funds and resources to subsidize and guarantee access to contraceptives. Intervenors failed to establish the existence of a right to contraception under international law. There is no unmet need for access to contraception. Intervenors failed to disprove Petitioners assertions that Catholic doctrine considers contraception immoral and that RA 10354 imposes burdens on Catholics right to act consistently with their religious belief.

2.

3.

4. 5. 6.

ARGUMENTS/DISCUSSIONS: The Houses of Congress and the Office of the President committed grave abuse of discretion in making and signing into law RA 10354, which has provisions violative of the Constitution. Contrary to life Violates Section 12, Article II of the Constitution which provides that the State shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception;

Petitioners reiterate their prayer in their petition and pray that the Comment-in-intervention by Dr. Cabal et al. be denied.

Constitution is clear that the injunction against any danger to the life of the unborn begins from conception, which occurs at the time of fertilization of an egg by a sperm; RA10354 expressly violated this by instructing the FDA to determine and allow only those contraceptives that prevent implantation of the fertilized egg in the uterus as expressed in Section 2(d) of the assailed law; Violation of the freedom of speech Section 23 of RA 10354, which prohibits any health care service provider from intentionally providing incorrect information regarding programs and services on reproductive health, violates Section 4, Article III of the Constitution which states that: No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of expression, of speech, and of the press; No one has the monopoly of what is correct and what is incorrect; the essence of the freedom of speech is the freedom to express ones opinion, no matter the opinion is incorrect; If assailed law is allowed to exists, it will imprison health service providers, including Catholic hospitals, Catholic doctors and nurses, who would express opinions contrary to the programs under the RH Law Violation of religious freedom Section 23 (a) (3) compels health service providers, who would refuse to render services if artificial contraceptives are involves because of religious beliefs, to refer the patient or client to a health service provider that renders the same. The act of referring is the same as the Catholic hospitals and doctors and nurses committing sin against the doctrine of the Catholic on life. Violation of marriage rights of Catholics The compulsion by the assailed law to require marrying couples to undergo seminar on reproductive health and other related matters violates the freedom of religion of couples; an act of assaulting the Catholic religion Destruction or de-establishment of Catholic religion

Catholic religion; such will diminish the respect and belief of many Catholics to the religion; Giving free artificial contraceptives will oppress the Catholics and assault the Catholic religion; Means employed will actually not advance the purposes of the assailed law because the government cannot be assured that when the couples go to bed they will use the condoms and other contraceptive drugs or devices or instruments they availed from the government; There are better means available to achieve responsible parenthood and reproductive health that the State can rely on such as conducting massive education or information campaign about their importance which can be achieved by natural family planning methods, including the proven-effective Billings Ovulation Method Law violates the primary right of parents on moral development The State cannot decide or compel unto the parents on how to rear their children for moral development pursuant to Sections 12 and 13 of Article II of the Constitution; By passing RA 10354, the State is unwittingly creating a system whereby it diminishes the parents effectiveness in rearing their children in developing their moral character; Educating the young ones on the artificial modes of contraceptives would demean the teachings of the Catholics that sex is sacred and it is only for the married couples; will give ideas to sex among unmarried couples that can become massive because of the lack of fear of unwanted pregnancy; If law is allowed to run its full course, we will see the moral values running low; The effect of the educational system as the device to be used to teach children of various products that prevent pregnancies through artificial means would even embolden the teenagers to try premarital sex for they would be assured that there are modes available and free to be used to prevent pregnancy; gone will be the fear of pregnancy that has played a major role in keeping young people within the zone of morality; The law promotes crime and immorality rather than morality

The Constitutional prohibition against the establishment of religion also goes with the prohibition against de-establishment or destruction of religion; The State destroys the Catholic by officially promoting the doing of acts that are blatantly against the doctrine of life of the Catholics and the people who embrace this religion; Does not only offend the Catholic faith but also does the same on the Islam religion exercised by Filipino Muslims The means employed does not advance the end and is oppressive Giving artificial contraceptives is oppressive because it offends the Catholic religion, no matter the fact that it is on a voluntary basis; Will make many Catholic faithful who may have been duped or convinced to avail of artificial contraceptives that are loath at by the

Law violates equal protection clause Assailed law classifies the poor from the rich and then gives them all free contraceptives in queues; such classification renders prejudice to the indigent who, wittingly or unwittingly, will be ostracized as palamunin and an outcast of the society for it will appear they are being blamed for the miseries of the country; Giving free contraceptives is undoubtedly targeting the poor; the sight of the poor in queues asking for condoms, pills or for other contraception devices every day destroys their dignity as human beings Oppressive to taxpayers Assailed law constitutes unjust compensation to the taxpayers because a part of the taxes they paid are not giving back the equivalent value of government service;

Imagine that the persons who would avail of contraceptives to enjoy the worldly desires are to use the contraceptives paid for by others, the taxpayers. PRAYER: 1. Declare RA 10354 unconstitutional

c.

The law violates substantial due process by trampling on fundamental human rights. Petitioners posit that the law tramples on the following rights: i. ii. The right to marry The right to reproductive integrity, spousal privacy and autonomy, which are inherent in the right to found a family Spousal autonomy Natural and fundamental right of parents to nurture their own children in the ways of morality Freedom of speech and expression Free exercise clause

G.R. No. 207111: JOHN WALTER B. JUAT, MARY M. IMBONG, ANTHONY VICTORIO B. LUMICAO, JOSEPH MARTIN Q. VERDEJO, ANOTNIO EMMA R. ROXAS and LOTA LAT-GUERRERO vs. HON. PAQUITO N. OCHOA JR. et al On May 29, 2013, Petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with prayer for a Writ of Preliminary Injunction, assailing the constitutionality of RA 10354. To support their contention that the law must be declared null and void for being unconstitutional, the petitioners set forth the following grounds and arguments: 1. The law violates due substantial due process. a. The law violates substantial due process by creating vague terms and overbroad concepts. Petitioners state that the law introduces the following vague and overbroad concepts: i. ii. iii. safe xxx and satisfying sex life enhancement of life and personal relations The highest standard of sexual health and reproductive health and to make other decisions concerning reproduction Pleasurable and safe sexual experiences Life skills and other approaches Incorrect information regarding programs and services on health Any violation of this Act Discriminatory practices Other Interest groups obligations under

iii. iv.

v. vi. 2.

In prioritizing the poor, the needy and the marginalized, the law mocks social justice and abets an abusive exercise of police power.

Petitioners pray that the Supreme Court render a decision declaring RA 10354 null and void for being unconstitutional and ordering respondents and all persons acting on the basis of the law to cease from implementing the said law. G.R. No. 207172: Couples for Christ Foundation, Inc. Spouses Juan Carlos Artadi Sarmiento and Francesca Isabelle BesingaSarmiento, and Spouses Luis Francis A. Rodrigo, Jr. and Deborah Marie Veronica N. Rodrigo v. Hon. Paquito N. Ochoa, Jr., Executive Secretary; Hon. Florencio B. Abad, Secretary of the Department of Budget and Management; Hon. Enrique T. Ona, Secretary of the Department of Health; Hon. Armin A. Luistro, Secretary of the Department of Education; Hon. Manuel A. Roxas, Secretary of the Department of Interior and Local Government Petitioners Couples for Christ Foundation, Inc., et. al. filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition asking the Court to declare Republic Act No. 10354, otherwise known as An Act Providing for a National Policy on Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health (RH Law) void for being unconstitutional. Petitioners argue that: 1. 2. 3. Sections 23(a)(1) and (3) in relation to Section 24 of the RH Law violate the right to free exercise of religion. Sections 23(a)(1) and (3) in relation to Section 24 of the RH Law violate the right to free speech and expression. The RH Law fails to satisfy the clear and present danger test and the compelling state interest test to justify state regulation of the right to free exercise of religion and the right to free speech. Section 14 of the RH Law violates the equal protection clause, the primary and natural right of parents to rear their children, as well as the right of free exercise of religion. Sections 23(a)(2)(i) of the RH Law violates the right to privacy, the provisions on family and marriage in the Constitution, and the right ti free exercise of religion. Section 7 of the RH Law violates the due process and free exercise clauses of the Constitution. Sections 23(a)(1) in relation to Section 24 of the RH Law violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution. The RH Law, as a population control measure, impinges on the right to free exercise of religion.

iv. v. vi. vii. viii. ix. x. b.

The law violates substantial due process by creating measures that defy and violate its guiding principles. Petitioners point out that the measures in the law contradict its expressed platitudes, as shown by the provisions: i. ii. iii. iv. v. vi. Targeting women of reproductive age for barrenness Impairing and ensuring male infertility Providing irreversible methods of bringing about infertility Obstructing and hindering natural processes of the reproductive system Impeding or preventing the occurrence of conception Enshrining childlessness as a reproductive health right as a way of attaining the highest standard of sexual health and reproductive health Denigrating motherhood and maternity

4.

5.

6. 7. 8.

vii.

9.

Minus the unconstitutional provisions, whatever remaining valid provisions the RH law may have cannot stand on their own. 10. The RH Law, as a whole, violates the equal protection clause. 11. The RH Law violates the LGUs constitutional right to local autonomy. In light of the foregoing, petitioners pray that judgment be rendered by the Court to: 1. Declare RA 10354 as null and void for being unconstitutional; or in the alternative, declare Sections 7, 14, 23(a)(1), 23(a)(2)(i), and 23(a)(3) as invalid for being violative of the Constitution; Prohibit all respondents from implementing the RH law or the assailed provisions of the law; and Issue a temporary restraining order (pending resolution of the case) to enjoin respondents from implementing the entire law or its assailed provisions. TILLAH and v. Executive

2. 3.

G.R. No. 207563: ALMARIM CENTI ABDULHUSSEIN M. KASHIM Secretary PAQUITO N. OCHOA, Jr., et. al.

On June 28, 2013, petitioners who are residents of Sapa Sapa, Tawi Tawi filed a petition for the special civil action of Prohibition asking the Court to enjoin the respondents from implementing Republic Act No. 10354, otherwise known as the Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012 (RH Law) within the jurisdiction of the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao. Petitioners argue that: 1. The implementation of the RH law within the jurisdiction of the ARMM violates its regional autonomy for the law infringes on the areas of health and education that have been fully devolved to the ARMM; Several provisions of the RH law infringe on the devolved powers of the Regional Government by dictating upon the LGUs of the ARMM the kind of reproductive health measures to spend/implement on and on the reproductive health education to teach; and The implementation of the RH law in the ARMM will amount to an amendment of the ARMM's organic acts, without the benefit of a plebiscite.

2.

3.

In light of the foregoing, petitioners pray that the Court render judgment to permanently enjoin the respondents from implementing the RH law within the ARMM.