“One render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that

are God’s”
RH Law; Religion; Separation of Church and State; Family
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.

FACTS:
Shortly after the passage of RA 10354 or the Responsible Parenthood and
Reproductive Health Act of 2012 (RH Law), it was challenged by various sectors of
society for its seemingly constitutional disobedience. One of its challengers is the
petition for certiorari and prohibition1 filed by spouses Attys. James Imbong and
Lovely Imbong, in their personal capacities as citizens, lawyers, and taxpayers,
assailing the constitutionality of the RH Law in violation of the following:

 Right to religious freedom – RH Law violates the constitutional guarantee

respecting religion as it allows the use of public funds for the procurement of
contraceptives which is contrary to their belief, wherein that belief is included
in the constitutional mandate ensuring religious freedom
 Zone of privacy of one’s family – RH Law provides for mandatory
reproductive health education which is an intrusion to the parents’
constitutional right to raise their children according to their beliefs. RH Law
impedes the right of spouses to mutually decide on matters pertaining to the
overall well-being of their family by giving absolute authority to the parent who
will undergo the reproductive health procedure
 Right to life of the unborn – RH Law’s implementation would authorize the
purchase of abortives2 which is a violation of Constitution, Art. 2, Sec. 12,
which guarantees protection of both the life of the mother and the life of the
unborn from conception
ISSUE:3
Whether the RH Law is unconstitutional as to contentions regarding:

 Freedom of religion
 Family privacy
 Right to life

1
Certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus are appropriate remedies to raise constitutional issues and to review
and/or prohibit/nullify, when proper, acts of legislative and executive officials, as there is no other plain,
speedy, or adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law (Tanada v. Angara)
2
Abortives such as hormonal contraceptives, intra-uterine devices, and injectibles
3
There are various arguments and contentions of the parties which the Court has synthesized to principal
issues: procedural and substantive. Substantive issues deal with numerous contentions but only the issues on
religious freedom and family privacy were taken in relation to State Principles and Policies
HELD:
(Separation of Church and State)
Freedom of religion. There are those who believe that contraceptives,
whether abortifacient4 or not, are evil because of their religious education and
background. The petitioners question the State-sponsored procurement of
contraceptives, arguing that the expenditure of their taxes on contraceptives violates
the guarantee of religious freedom since contraceptives contravenes their religious
beliefs.
The principle of separation of Church and State was enshrined by the
Framers of the Constitution which was based on mutual respect. Generally, the State
cannot meddle in the internal affairs of the Church, question its faith and dogmas, or
dictate upon. The State cannot favor one religion and discriminate another. On the
other hand, the Church cannot impose its beliefs and convictions on the State and
the rest of the citizenry. The Church cannot demand the nation to follow its beliefs,
whatever the wellness it can provide to the country. Moreover, Art. 3, Sec. 5 and Art.
6, Sec. 29 of the 1987 Constitution assures religious freedom as it provides two
guarantees: the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause.
The establishment clause “principally prohibits the State from sponsoring
any religion or favouring any religion as against other religions. It mandates strict
neutrality in affairs among religious groups.” Essentially, it prohibits the
establishment of a state religion and the use of public resources for the support or
prohibition of a religion. On the other hand, free exercise clause is geared to the
respect for the inviolability of the human conscience. The State is prohibited from
unduly interfering with the outside manifestations of one’s belief and faith.
These two clauses have a single goal—to promote freedom of individual
religious beliefs and practices. These clauses were intended to deny government the
power to use either rewards or punishment to influence individual religious beliefs
and practices.
The Court cannot determine whether the use of contraceptives or one’s
participation in support of modern reproductive health measures is moral from a
religious standpoint; or, whether the same is right or wrong according to one’s
dogma or belief as these concern ecclesiastical matters which are outside the
province of the civil courts. However, the Court has the authority to determine
whether or not the RH Law contravenes the guarantee of religious freedom.
(Family and Youth)
The family and the right to privacy. In this case, the RH Law contains
provisions which tend to wreck the family as a solid social institution. It bars the
husband and/or the father from participating in the decision-making process
regarding their common future children. Sec. 23(a)(2)(i) of the RH Law provides that
in case of disagreement, the decision of the one undergoing the procedures shall
prevail. This provision refers to reproductive health procedures like tubal litigation
and vasectomy which should require mutual consent and decision between spouses
as they affect issues intimately related to the founding of the family. Art. 15, Sec. 3 of
the 1987 Constitution says otherwise, stating, that the State shall defend the right of
the spouses to found a family. One person cannot found a family; therefore, the right
must be shared by both spouses because decision-making involving a reproductive
4
RH Law, Sec. 4(a) – Abortifacient refers to any drug or device that induces abortion or the destruction of a
fetus inside the mother’s womb or the prevention of the fertilized ovum to reach and be implanted in the
mother’s womb upon determination of the FDA
health procedure is a private matter which belongs to both of them, and that any
decision they would reach would affect their future as a family. The decision whether
or not to undergo the procedure belongs exclusively to, and shared by, both spouses
as one cohesive unit as they chart their own destiny—which is a constitutionally
guaranteed private right. Said provision of the RH Law was declared
unconstitutional.
(Family and Youth)
Right to life of the unborn. According to petitioners, Sec. 4(a) of the RH Law
considers contraceptives that prevent the fertilized ovum to reach and be implanted
in the mother’s womb as an abortifacient; thus, sanctioning contraceptives that take
effect after fertilization and prior to implantation, which is contrary to the intent of the
Framers of the Constitution to afford protection to the fertilized ovum which already
has life.
The intent of the Framers clarified the term “conception.” Conception clearly
refers to the moment of “fertilization.” Consequently, fertilization, in its scientific
sense, means “fertilized ovum.” Neither the word “fertilized ovum” nor “fertilization”
was used by the Constitution as it may be beyond the comprehension of some
people that is why the phrase “from the moment of conception” was used instead.
Further, conception is the moment where the egg meets the sperm making the ovum
fertilized by the sperm. This union of the male sperm and the female ovum marks the
beginning of life—a life which must be protected and is bound by the Constitution.
Contraceptives that kill or destroy the fertilized ovum should be deemed as
abortive and thus prohibited. Conversely, contraceptives that only prevent the union
of the sperm and the ovum, and those that similarly take action prior to fertilization
should be deemed as non-abortive, and thus, constitutionally permissible.
Contraceptive such as a condom is permissible because the use of a condom only
prevents the union of the sperm and the ovum. In other words, no fertilization took
place, therefore there is no life yet, and no life yet to be protected. Hence, RH Law
does not permit abortion.
The particular provision that the petitioners was assailing was the grave
abuse of power by the RH-IRR5 when it redefined the RH Law’s definitions for
“abortifacient” and “contraceptive” by adding the qualifier word “primarily” as found in
Sec. 3.01(a) and Sec. 3.01(j) of the IRR, respectively. The insertion of the word
“primarily” is an ultra vires.6 It contravenes Sec. 4(a) of the RH Law and should,
therefore, be declared invalid. There is danger that the insertion of the qualifier word
will pave the way for the approval of contraceptives which may harm or destroy the
life of the unborn from conception/fertilization in violation of Art. 2, Sec. 12 of the
Constitution. Laws should be construed in a manner that its constitutionality is
sustained. The RH Law and its implementing rules (RH-IRR) must be consistent
with each other in prohibiting abortion. Thus, said provisions of the RH-IRR
should be declared void.

- - -
The RH Law does not sanction the taking away of life. It does not allow
abortion in any shape or form. It only seeks to enhance the population control

5
RH-IRR – Implementing Rules and Regulations for RH Law
6
Ultra vires – beyond one’s legal power or authority
program of the government by providing information and making non-abortifacient
contraceptives more readily available to the public, especially to the poor.
Be that as it may, the RH Law is a mere compilation and enhancement of the
prior existing contraceptive and reproductive health laws. Even if RH Law has been
decreed unconstitutional, there will still be RA 6365 (Population Act), RA 4729
(Contraceptive Act), and RA 9710 (Magna Carta of Women). Nonetheless, the Court
declared RA 10354 or the RH Law as NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL except with
respect to certain provisions which were declared unconstitutional:
- Sec. 23(a)(2)(i) of the RH Law - the allowing of a married individual, who is
not in an emergency or life-threatening situation, to undergo reproductive
health procedure without the consent of the spouse
- Sec. 3.01(a) and Sec. 3.01(j) of the RH-IRR – the addition of the qualifier
“primarily” in defining abortifacients and contraceptives, as they are ultra
vires and, therefore, null and void for contravening Sec. 4(a) of the RH
Law and violating Sec. 12, Art. 2 of the Constitution