Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 15 views

    Imbong, Et Al v. Ochoa

    Uploaded by

    AlexandraSoledad
    The document summarizes the Supreme Court case Imbong et al v. Ochoa which ruled on the constitutionality of the Reproductive Health Law of 2012. The Supreme Court found that the law was constitutional but struck down some provisions. It ruled that life begins at conception but the law aims to protect mother and child. It upheld the FDA's role in determining if drugs are abortifacient. However, it found that requiring doctors to refer patients against their beliefs violated religious freedom. It also removed a provision that did not exempt certain government health workers from being conscientious objectors.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Imbong, Et Al v. Ochoa

    Uploaded by

    AlexandraSoledad
    15 views2 pages
    The document summarizes the Supreme Court case Imbong et al v. Ochoa which ruled on the constitutionality of the Reproductive Health Law of 2012. The Supreme Court found that the law was constitutional but struck down some provisions. It ruled that life begins at conception but the law aims to protect mother and child. It upheld the FDA's role in determining if drugs are abortifacient. However, it found that requiring doctors to refer patients against their beliefs violated religious freedom. It also removed a provision that did not exempt certain government health workers from being conscientious objectors.

    Original Description:

    Admin Law

    Original Title

    7. Imbong, Et Al v. Ochoa

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document summarizes the Supreme Court case Imbong et al v. Ochoa which ruled on the constitutionality of the Reproductive Health Law of 2012. The Supreme Court found that the law was constitutional but struck down some provisions. It ruled that life begins at conception but the law aims to protect mother and child. It upheld the FDA's role in determining if drugs are abortifacient. However, it found that requiring doctors to refer patients against their beliefs violated religious freedom. It also removed a provision that did not exempt certain government health workers from being conscientious objectors.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    15 views2 pages

    Imbong, Et Al v. Ochoa

    Uploaded by

    AlexandraSoledad
    The document summarizes the Supreme Court case Imbong et al v. Ochoa which ruled on the constitutionality of the Reproductive Health Law of 2012. The Supreme Court found that the law was constitutional but struck down some provisions. It ruled that life begins at conception but the law aims to protect mother and child. It upheld the FDA's role in determining if drugs are abortifacient. However, it found that requiring doctors to refer patients against their beliefs violated religious freedom. It also removed a provision that did not exempt certain government health workers from being conscientious objectors.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    SOLEDAD, ALEXANDRA G|DLSU

    ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

    IMBONG, ET AL V. OCHOA e. The RH Law violates the constitutional principle of non-delegation of


    G.R. NO. 204819 |APRIL 8,2014| MENDOZA, J legislative authority because FDA is then given the power to determine whether a
    product is non-abortifacient and to be included in the Emergency Drugs List.
    PARTIES:
    PROCEDURE:
    Petitioner: JAMES M. IMBONG and LOVELY-ANN C. IMBONG, for themselves and in SC: Petitions for certiorari and prohiobition and interventions alleging that RA
    behalf of their minor children, LUCIA CARLOS IMBONG and BERNADETTE CARLOS 10354 is unconstitutional
    IMBONG and MAGNIFICAT CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER, INC Status Quo Ante (SQAO) was issued enjoining the effects and implementation for
    Respondents: HON. PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., Executive Secretary, HON. FLORENCIO 120 days/ The cases were heard for oral arguments. On July 16, 2013, the SQAO
    B. ABAD, Secretary, Department of Budget and Management, HON. ENRIQUE T. was ordered extended until further orders of teh COurt.
    ONA, Secretary, Department of Health, HON. ARMIN A. LUISTRO, Secretary,
    Department of Education, Culture and Sports and HON. MANUELA. ROXAS II, ISSUE: Is the RH Law unonstitutional as to Right to Life, Freedom of Religion, and
    Secretary, Department of Interior and Local Government teh RIght to Free Speech, Freedom of Expression and Academic Freedom,
    Involuntary Servitud and Delegation of Authority to the FDA?
    FACTS:
    Republic Act No. 10354 of the Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive health RULING: Partially granted teh petition.
    Act of 2012 (RH Law), was enacted by Congress on December 21, 2012. However,
    just after the president signed his approval, a total of 14 petitions and two RATIONALE:
    interventions were filed to assail its validity. The following are some of the grounds
    of petitioners: The Supreme Court finds the RH Law obvedient to the constitutional mandate to
    a. The RH Law violates the right to life of the unborn because of authorizing the Right to Life. It initially defined when life begins. The records of the
    the purchase of hormonal contraceptives, intra-uterine devices and injectables Constituional Convention revealed that the framers intended that the life begins at
    which are allegedly abortive. the moment of fertilization. Nevertheless such did not intend to ban all
    b. The RH Law violates religious freedom since it authorizes the use of public contraceptives for being unconstituional and ot was for the courts to decide based
    funds for the procurement of contraceptives which is against the religious beliefs of on evidence. The RH Law is actually full of provisions which aim to protect the
    the petitioners pregnant mother and the offspring from the moment of fertilization. It even
    c. The RH Law threatens conscientious objectors of criminal recognizes abortion as a crime.
    prosecution,imprisonment and other forms of ounsihment, as it is a form of
    compulsion for medical doctors to refer to other doctors and provide health The SC also upheld the power of teh FDA to determine whether the drug is
    education contrary to their beliefs. abortifacient or not since FDA, not COngress, has the expertise to perform such
    d. The RH Law violates the constitutional provision of involuntary servitude function.
    because medical practitioners to be accredited must proide 48 hours of pro-bono
    services for indigent women. As to the perceived contravention to the Freedom of Religion, teh SC believe sthat
    teh obligation to refer goes against the religious belief and conviction of a
    SOLEDAD, ALEXANDRA G|DLSU
    ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

    conscientious objector. Once the medical practitioner , agaisnt his wil, refers a
    patient seeking information on modern reproductive health products, services,
    procedures and methods, his conscience is immediately burdened as he has been
    compelled to perform an act agaisnt his neliefs.

    Religious freedom of health providers, both public and private, should be more
    important than the likes of family planning. Otherwise, it will result to unwarranted
    coercion in the exercise of beliefs.
    The Supreme Court held the implementing rules and regulations provision on non-
    exemption of the certain skilled health professionls such as provincial, city or
    municipal; health officers, chiefs of hospital, head nurses, supervising midwives,
    aong others, as being conscientious objectors, as unconsitutional. This is because
    of two reasons. First, because such provision and non-exemption was not provided
    in the law. And second, becaus eit infringes on the equal protection clause which
    should have applied equally to health professionals whether working in the public
    or private sector.

    Regarding the involuntary servitude transgression, it was held by the Supreme


    Court that the reproductive health care service providers actually have the
    discretion on the manner and time of giving pro-bono services(48 hours). Being a
    prerequisite to the accreditation of medical practitioners with PhilHealth, it violates
    no leagl provision as accreditation itself is a mere privilege and not a right.

    Other contentions such as on Reproductive Health Education in schools were


    passed lightly by the Supreme Court as the issues were to premature to be decided
    as the Department of Education is yet to produce a curriculum for the same.

    You might also like