ROWARD TUBOG
USJR – School of Law
Subject: Constitutional Law 2
Topic: Freedom of Religion
Title: 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., Petitioners,
vs.
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,
Culture and Sports and HON. MANUEL A. ROXAS II, Secretary, Department of Interior and
Local Government, Respondents.
Citation: G.R. No. 204819 April 8, 2014
Facts:
Congress enacted R.A. No. 10354, otherwise known as the Responsible Parenthood and
Reproductive Health Act of 2012 (RH Law), to provide Filipinos, especially the poor and the
marginalized, access and information to the full range of modern family planning methods,
and to ensure that its objective to provide for the peoples’ right to reproductive health be
achieved. Stated differently, the RH Law is an enhancement measure to fortify and make
effective the current laws on contraception, women’s health and population control.
Shortly after, challengers from various sectors of society moved to assail the constitutionality
of RH Law.
Among others, the petitioners questions the constitutionality of RH law claiming that it violates
right to religious freedom. The petitioners contend that the RH Law violates the constitutional
guarantee respecting religion as it authorizes the use of public funds for the procurement of
contraceptives. For the petitioners, the use of public funds for purposes that are believed to
be contrary to their beliefs is included in the constitutional mandate ensuring religious
freedom
Issues:
Whether or not RH Law violates Freedom of Religion.
Ruling:
No.
It is not within the province of the Court to determine whether the use of contraceptives or
one’s participation in the support of modem reproductive health measures is moral from a
religious standpoint or whether the same is right or wrong according to one’s dogma or belief.
For the Court has declared that matters dealing with “faith, practice, doctrine, form of worship,
ecclesiastical law, custom and rule of a church … are unquestionably ecclesiastical matters
which are outside the province of the civil courts.” The jurisdiction of the Court extends only to
public and secular morality. Whatever pronouncement the Court makes in the case at bench
should be understood only in this realm where it has authority. Stated otherwise, while the
Court stands without authority to rule on ecclesiastical matters, as vanguard of the
Constitution, it does have authority to determine whether the RH Law contravenes the
guarantee of religious freedom.
ROWARD TUBOG
USJR – School of Law
Consequently, the petitioners are misguided in their supposition that the State cannot
enhance its population control program through the RH Law simply because the promotion of
contraceptive use is contrary to their religious beliefs. Indeed, the State is not precluded to
pursue its legitimate secular objectives without being dictated upon by the policies of any one
religion. One cannot refuse to pay his taxes simply because it will cloud his conscience.
The demarcation line between Church and State demands that one render unto Caesar the
things that are Caesar’s and unto God the things that are God’s. The Court is of the view that
the obligation to refer imposed by the RH Law violates the religious belief and conviction of a
conscientious objector. Once the medical practitioner, against his will, refers a patient seeking
information on modem reproductive health products, services, procedures and methods, his
conscience is immediately burdened as he has been compelled to perform an act against his
beliefs. As Commissioner Joaquin A. Bernas (Commissioner Bernas) has written, “at the
basis of the free exercise clause is the respect for the inviolability of the human conscience.
