Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 69 views

    British American Tobacco Vs Camacho 562 SCRA 511 DIGEST

    Uploaded by

    Maica Mahusay
    This case involved a petition challenging the constitutionality of the Reproductive Health Law (R.A. No. 10354) passed in 2012. The Supreme Court found that most provisions of the law were constitutional but ruled that sections requiring spousal consent and parental consent for minors were unconstitutional. The Court also found the provision regarding "primary" abortifacients to be unconstitutional. Overall, the Court upheld the law but struck down these specific provisions for violating individuals' rights.

    Copyright:

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

    British American Tobacco Vs Camacho 562 SCRA 511 DIGEST

    Uploaded by

    Maica Mahusay
    69 views2 pages
    This case involved a petition challenging the constitutionality of the Reproductive Health Law (R.A. No. 10354) passed in 2012. The Supreme Court found that most provisions of the law were constitutional but ruled that sections requiring spousal consent and parental consent for minors were unconstitutional. The Court also found the provision regarding "primary" abortifacients to be unconstitutional. Overall, the Court upheld the law but struck down these specific provisions for violating individuals' rights.

    Original Description:

    case

    Original Title

    British American Tobacco vs Camacho 562 SCRA 511 DIGEST

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involved a petition challenging the constitutionality of the Reproductive Health Law (R.A. No. 10354) passed in 2012. The Supreme Court found that most provisions of the law were constitutional but ruled that sections requiring spousal consent and parental consent for minors were unconstitutional. The Court also found the provision regarding "primary" abortifacients to be unconstitutional. Overall, the Court upheld the law but struck down these specific provisions for violating individuals' rights.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    69 views2 pages

    British American Tobacco Vs Camacho 562 SCRA 511 DIGEST

    Uploaded by

    Maica Mahusay
    This case involved a petition challenging the constitutionality of the Reproductive Health Law (R.A. No. 10354) passed in 2012. The Supreme Court found that most provisions of the law were constitutional but ruled that sections requiring spousal consent and parental consent for minors were unconstitutional. The Court also found the provision regarding "primary" abortifacients to be unconstitutional. Overall, the Court upheld the law but struck down these specific provisions for violating individuals' rights.

    Copyright:

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

    IMBONG VS OCHOA

    G.R. No. 204819 April 8, 2014

    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. MANUELA. ROXAS II,
    Secretary, Department of Interior and Local Government, Respondents.

    Facts:

    December 21, 2012-R.A No. 10354, known as the Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act
    of 2012 was enacted by congress.

    Various sectors of society challenged the Court crtiticizing constitutionality of the RH Law.

    Procedural Issues:

    WON The court may exercise its power of judicial review over the controversy

    1. Power of judicial Review- Rh Law has already took effect and budgetary measures have been
    passed. Petitioners stands that the medical practitioners are in danger of being persecuted due
    to vagueness.
    2. Actual Controversy- alleged that the constitutional human rights to life, speech and religion have
    been violated by the assailed legislation, the court has the authority to take organize.
    3. Locus Standi- “Legal standing”, a procedural technicality which the Court has, on more than one
    occasion, waived or relaxed, thus allowing non-traditional plaintiffs, such as concerned citizens,
    taxpayers, voters or legislators, to sue in the public interest, albeit they may not have been
    directly injured by the operation of a law or any other government act.
    >The transcendental importance of the issues involved in this case warrants that the Court set
    aside the technical defects and take primary jurisdiction over the petition at bar. One cannot
    deny that the issues raised herein have potentially pervasive influence on the social and moral
    wellbeing of this nation, specially the youth; hence, their proper and just determination is an
    imperative need.

    4. The courts have considered reliefs as prohibitions


    5. The close intimacy between “reproductive health” and “responsible parenthood” which bears to
    the attainment of the goal of achieving “sustainable human development” the Court finds no
    reason to believe that Congress intentionally sought to deceive the public as to the contents of
    the assailed legislation.

    Substantive Issues:

    1. RH Law violates the rights of the unborn. Article II, Section 12 of the Constitution states: “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 the
    unborn from conception.”
    2. RH Law violates the right to health and the right to protection against hazardous products
    3. Violation of religious freedom. The Court cannot determine whether or not the use of
    contraceptives or participation in support of modern RH measures (a) is moral from a religious
    standpoint; or, (b) right or wrong according to one’s dogma or belief. However, the Court has
    the authority to determine whether or not the RH Law contravenes the Constitutional guarantee
    of religious freedom.
    4. The family and the right to privacy.
    5. Academic freedom- judicial review not applicable for the sec. 14 is not yet on the curriculum as
    there is no actual case or controversy.
    6. Violation pf due process clause due to vagueness- the definition of several terms are clear like
    methods, services, incorrect information etc.
    7. Violation of equal protection clause -Rh Law discriminates against the poor and reduce the
    number. Pursuant to Art. 13 sec. 11 the state shall prioritize the needs of the underprivileged,
    sick, elderly, disabled, woman, and children that it shall endeavor to provide medical care to
    paupers.
    8. RH Law is involuntary servitude- 48 hours of pro bono RH services does not amount to
    involuntary servitude, no penalty is imposed should they do otherwise.

    Ruling:

    Petition partially granted.

    R.A. 10354 is not unconstitutional except Sec. 7 and Sec. 23(a)(1); on spousal and parental consent

    Sec. 3. 01(a) on “primary” abortifacients

    You might also like