04.08.
14 (PRESS RELEASE) After more than a year deliberating the constitutionality
of the country’s historic Reproductive Health Law passed in 2012, the Philippine
Supreme Court has upheld the law.
The Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012, known as the RH
Law, is a groundbreaking law that guarantees universal and free access to nearly all
modern contraceptives for all citizens, including impoverished communities, at
government health centers. The law also mandates reproductive health education in
government schools and recognizes a woman’s right to post-abortion care as part of
the right to reproductive healthcare.
“With universal and free access to modern contraception, millions of Filipino
women will finally be able to regain control of their fertility, health, and
lives,” said Nancy Northup, president and CEO at the Center for Reproductive
Rights. “The Reproductive Health Law is a historic step forward for all women in
the Philippines, empowering them to make their own decisions about their health
and families and participate more fully and equally in their society.”
The Philippines Decriminalizes Consensual Adolescent Sexual
President Benigno S. Aquino III signed the RH Law in December 2012, which was
immediately challenged in court by various conservative Catholic groups. On March
19, the Supreme Court issued a status quo ante order for 120 days that was later
extended indefinitely, halting the RH Law from going into effect. Fourteen petitions
questioning the constitutionality of the law on the grounds that it violated a range of
rights, including freedom of religion and speech, were consolidated for oral arguments
that began on July 9, 2013 that continued through August 2013.
In today’s decision the Supreme Court struck down a number of provisions in the RH
Law. Health care providers will be able to deny reproductive health services to
patients based on their personal or religious beliefs in non-emergency situations.
Spousal consent for women in non life-threatening circumstances will be required to
access reproductive health care. Parental consent will also be required for minors
seeking medical attention who have been pregnant or had a miscarriage. Petitioners in
the case will now have 15 days to appeal the Supreme Court decisio
Case Digest: Imbong v. Ochoa 721 SCRA
146
6/21/2020
0 COMMENTS
ISSUE: Whether or not RH Law violated the one subject-one title rule under the Constitution
FACTS: Petitioners question the constitutionality of the RH Law, claiming that it violates Section
26(1), Article VI of the Constitution, prescribing the one subject-one title rule. According to
them, being one for reproductive health with responsible parenthood, the assailed legislation
violates the constitutional standards of due process by concealing its true intent – to act as a
population control measure. On the other hand, respondents insist that the RH Law is not a birth
or population control measure, and that the concepts of “responsible parenthood” and
“reproductive health” are both interrelated as they are inseparable.
DECISION: Partly Granted
RATIO DECIDENDI: No. In this case, a textual analysis of the various provisions of the law
shows that both “reproductive health” and “responsible parenthood” are interrelated and
germane to the overriding objective to control the population growth. Considering the close
intimacy between “reproductive health” and “responsible parenthood” which bears to the
attainment of the goal of achieving “sustainable human development” as stated under its terms,
the Court finds no reason to believe that Congress intentionally sought to deceive the public as
to the contents of the assailed legislation.
