Republic of the Philippines

Supreme Court
Taguig City, Philippines
Julius Eric T. Alcantara
Petitioner,
-- versus --

For Certiorari and

Prohibition.
HON. RACHEL GREEN
Executive Secretary;
HON. CHLOE GRACE MORETZ,Secretary
Department of Social Welfare and Development
HON. LIZA SOBERANO,Secretary
Department of Health
Respondents,
x--------------------------------------------------------x

PETITION FOR CERTIORARI AND PROHIBITION

Petitioners, by counsel, and to this Honorable Court
respectfully state:
Prefatory Statement
1. This case is an ideal vehicle for the Court to resolve
serious constitutional questions arising-out of Republic Act
No. 10354 entitled "AN ACT PROVIDING FOR A NATIONAL
POLICY ON RESPONSIBLE PARENTHOOD AND REPRODUCTIVE
HEALTH" hereafter known as the act. It represents an
unprecedented challenge to an unprecedented statute
because the Act implants an agenda that strikes at the heart
of the people's objective to establish a Government that

shall "embody the ideals and aspirations" of the "sovereign

Filipino people" as enshrined all over the constitution.
2. This case will present the illegality of the Act as it
mocks the nation's culturenoble and lofty in its values and
holdings in life, motherhood and family lifenow the fragile
lifeblood of a treasured culture that today stands solitary but
proud in contrast to other nations.
3. The court should grant certiorari because the act takes
the meaning of police power to such a perilous level never
before implemented in our Philippine shores, never before
barging in our Philippine schools, never before impinging on
our Filipino homes, and never before paired against our
constitutional ideals and aspirations.
Questions Presented
1. Does the Congress exceed its legislative powers and
violate basic principles of the constitution when it mandates
a policy that negates and frustrates the ideals and
aspirations of the sovereign Filipino people enshrined in the
constitution?
2. Does the executive exceed its powers when it implements
a policy that negates and frustrates basic constitutional
principles?
Nature of the Petition
This is an original petition for certiorari and prohibition
under Rule 65 of the rules of court. The petition is filed as an
original special civil action because there is no remedy of
appeal from the acts of Congress and the President, and

neither is there any other plain, speedy, and adequate

remedy available to petitioners in the ordinary course of law.
Parties to the Proceeding
The petitioner is Mr. Julius Eric T. Alcantara as a class
suit in representation of other parents and individuals who
hold their religious beliefs deeply and whose conscience s
rooted upon their faith which is against complying with the
mandates of the Act.
Reasons for Granting 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.
2. The act cannot be implemented without exceeding
the boundaries of government action as established in the
constitution.

Arguments
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.
The Constitutional Commission began with the promulgation
of the Preamble not by accident, but rather by design. That
design is the same structure upon which this petition is
being brought, such that at the end of the day, after all has
been said, the question shall be asked whether or not the Act
creates a government that embodies the ideals and
aspirations of the "sovereign Filipino people".
B.

AS REGARDS TO THE VALUE OF HUMAN LIFE AND ITS

SUSTENANCE, THE CONSTITUTION UPHOLDS THE IDEA
OF AN UNCONDITIONAL RESPECT FOR LIFE AND

ASPIRES THE ESTABLISHMENT OF POLICIES THAT CREATE

OPPORTUNIES TO HARNESS THE ECONOMICAL
POTENTIAL OF EVERY PILIPINO.
1. The constitution's openness to human life is a simple,
complete, and unconditional policy as stated in Art. II, Sec.
12
"Section 12. The state 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 unborn from conception. The
natural and primary right and duty of parents in rearing of
the youth for civic efficiency and development of moral
character shall receive the support from the government."
2. There is neither a charge nor qualification to that
policy, except that the life of the mother is equally important
to the life of the unborn and rightly so. In fact, it is against

the State itself, that it shall do one thing when it comes to

the potential of human life: to protect it from the moment of
conception.
3. In contrast, in the last paragraph of Section 2 of the
act, the State is now mandated to promote the openness of
life, qualified by the reference to the couple's ability to raise
their intended child or children in a truly humane way.
4. The constitution is clear and unavoidable. On one
hand, the constitution respects the family for what, by
nature, it is: unified and unavoidable. Moreover, the
constitution takes the family to an exceptional status when it
mandates the State to:
1) protect the family and children from harm, 2) allow its
participation to policy making, and 3) assure its sustenance
with a family living wage. It goes without saying that these
are actually constitutive elements of "responsible
parenthood". Simply put, a responsible parent is one who 1)
protects the life of the mother and the unborn child with
equal love; 2) rears children for their moral and civic
development, 3) protects the family from harm, 4) ensures
the family nutrition, and 5) seeks the ideal of a family living
wage.
C. THE GRANT OF REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS AS DESCRIBED IN
THE ACT CREATES DOUBTFUL OR SPURIOUS RIGHTS.
1. The act states:
SEC. 2. Declaration of Policy. The State recognizes and
guarantees the human rights of all persons including their
right to equality and non-discrimination of these rights, the

right to sustainable human development, the right to health

which includes reproductive health x xx
x xx The State shall eradicate discriminatory practices, laws
and policies that infringe on a persons exercise of
reproductive health rights.
while Section 3 states:
"Reproductive Health (RH) refers to the state of
complete physical, metal and social well-being and not
merely the absence of disease or infirmity , in all matters
relating to the reproductive system and to its functions and
processes. This implies that people are able to have a
responsible, consensual and satisfying sex life, that they
have the capability to reproduce and the freedom to decide
if, when and how often to do so. This further implies that
women and men attain equal relationship in matters related
to sexual relations and reproduction."
2. The grant and guarantee of reproductive health
rights to all persons including children and adolescents
and the state policy removing all impediments to exercise
these rights create an alarming of untrammelled
individualistic autonomy that weakens the essence of
marriage, family, and parenting which is the sincerest gift of
self. The giving of self, is the kernel of family life and intergenerational solidarity and strength, a value that permeates
and reverberates in the pro-family provision of the
constitution.
II.

THE ACT CANNOT BE IMPLEMENTED WITHOUT

EXCEEDING THE BOUNDARIES OF

GOVERNMENTACTION AS ENSHRINED IN THE

CONSTITUTION.
1. Section 26 of the Act mandates the respondents to
promulgate the implementing rules of the Act. Considering
the statutory standards upon which the rules are to be based
are unconstitutional as discussed above, the Act cannot be
implemented without exceeding the Constitutional
boundaries and limitation imposed on the government for:
"x xx A constitution is a system of fundamental laws for the
governance and administration of the nation. It is supreme,
imperious, absolute, and unalterable except by authority
from which it emanates. It has been defined as the
fundamental and paramount law of the nation. It prescribes
the permanent framework of a system of government,
assigns the different departments their respective powers
and duties, and establishes certain fixed principles upon
which the government is founded. The fundamental
conception in other words is that it is a supreme law to which
other laws must confirm to be determined and all
administered.
2. For the same reason, the remaining provision of the
act cannot stand without the unconstitutional provision
herein discussed.
Prayer
Wherefore, premises considered, the petitioners
respectfully pray that the Honorable Court issue a decision:

1. declaring null and void, for being unconstitutional,

Republic Act No. 10354, entitled "AN ACT PROVIDING FOR A
NATIONAL POLICY ON RESPONSIBLE PARENTHOOD AND
REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH;" and;
2. commanding all the respondents and persons acting
on the basis of the Act to cease from implementing the said
law;
The petitioners pray for other just and equitable
remedies.
Taguig City for Manila March 30, 2016.

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION

I, Julius Eric T. Alcantara, of legal age, married, Filipino

Citizen and a resident of Upper Bicutan, Taguig City, after
being sworn according to law, hereby depose and state that;
1.
I am the petitioner in the case entitled Julius Eric T.
Alcantara vs. Executive Secretary, et al., to be filed before
the Supreme Court of
the Philippines.
2.
I have caused the preparation of the foregoing Petition
for Certiorari and Prohibition, the contents of which we have
read, and we attest the same are true and correct of our own
personal knowledge on the basis of the authentic records in
our possession.
3.
I have not commended any other action or proceeding
involving the same issues before this Honorable Court, the
Court of Appeals, or any division thereof, or any other lower
court, tribunal or agency.
4.
Should I learn that a similar action or proceeding has
been previously filed or is pending before the Honorable
Court, or any division thereof, or any other tribunal or
agency, we undertake to promptly inform this Court and the
tribunal or agency concerened within five days therefrom.
AFFIANT FURTHER SAYETH NAUGHT.
IN WITNESS THEREOF, we have hereunto set our hands
this 30th day of March, 2016 in Taguig City, Philippines.
Julius Eric T. Alcantara
Affiant
SUBSCRIBE AND SWORN to before me this 30th day of
March, 2016, in Taguig City, Philippines, affiant exhibiting to
me the following competent evidence of their identities.
Name
Date/Place Issued

Government-Issued ID

Julius Eric T. Alcantara

2014, Taguig City

Driver's License No.

15 March

and that he is the same person who personally signed before

me the foregoing "Verification and Certification" and
acknowledgement that they executed the same.