Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 57 views

    Imbong vs. Ochoa

    Uploaded by

    Ron Ace
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines largely upheld the Reproductive Health Law of 2012, which guaranteed universal access to contraceptives. However, it struck down some provisions, including requiring certification that contraceptives are not abortifacients and exempting individuals, hospitals, and providers from complying with the law if they have a conscientious objection. The Court also ruled that spousal consent is needed in non-emergency situations and parental consent is required for minors to access reproductive healthcare services.

    Copyright:

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

    Imbong vs. Ochoa

    Uploaded by

    Ron Ace
    57 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines largely upheld the Reproductive Health Law of 2012, which guaranteed universal access to contraceptives. However, it struck down some provisions, including requiring certification that contraceptives are not abortifacients and exempting individuals, hospitals, and providers from complying with the law if they have a conscientious objection. The Court also ruled that spousal consent is needed in non-emergency situations and parental consent is required for minors to access reproductive healthcare services.

    Original Title

    6. Imbong vs. Ochoa

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court of the Philippines largely upheld the Reproductive Health Law of 2012, which guaranteed universal access to contraceptives. However, it struck down some provisions, including requiring certification that contraceptives are not abortifacients and exempting individuals, hospitals, and providers from complying with the law if they have a conscientious objection. The Court also ruled that spousal consent is needed in non-emergency situations and parental consent is required for minors to access reproductive healthcare services.

    Copyright:

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

    Imbong vs. Ochoa

    Uploaded by

    Ron Ace
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines largely upheld the Reproductive Health Law of 2012, which guaranteed universal access to contraceptives. However, it struck down some provisions, including requiring certification that contraceptives are not abortifacients and exempting individuals, hospitals, and providers from complying with the law if they have a conscientious objection. The Court also ruled that spousal consent is needed in non-emergency situations and parental consent is required for minors to access reproductive healthcare services.

    Copyright:

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

    In 2012, the Philippines enacted the Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012,

    known as the Reproductive Health Law (RH Law), which guaranteed universal and free access to nearly
    all modern contraceptives to all citizens, including those living in poverty, through government health
    centers. The law also mandated reproductive health education in government schools and recognized
    the right to post-abortion care as part of the right to reproductive healthcare.

    The RH Law was immediately challenged by various religious and conservative groups. The Supreme
    Court of the Philippines issued an order preventing the law from going into effect pending a final
    judgment. The RH Law was challenged on the grounds that it violated a range of constitutional rights,
    such as the rights to life, health, freedom of religion and speech, and privacy.

    Decision:

    The Supreme Court upheld most of the RH Law as “not unconstitutional,” while striking down eight
    individual provisions that the Court determined violated constitutionally-protected rights.

    First, on the right to life of the unborn, while the Court opted not to make any determination on when
    life begins, it found that the RH Law itself clearly mandated that protection be afforded from the
    moment of fertilization. The Court then noted that the RH Law contains provisions embodying the policy
    of the law to protect the fertilized ovum and that the fertilized ovum should be afforded safe travel to
    the uterus for implantation. To date, this determination has resulted in the requirement that
    contraceptives be certified as non-abortifacients before being made publicly available.

    Second, on petitioners’ claim that there are health risks to women who use oral contraceptives as
    compared to women who never use them, the Court noted that the attack on the Law is premature
    because not a single contraceptive had yet been submitted to the FDA for approval pursuant to the RH
    Law.

    The Court also ruled that, in accordance with the principle of non-coercion, an individual conscientious
    objector should be exempt from compliance with the RH Law’s mandates. The Court also applied the
    same exemption to non-maternity specialty hospitals owned and operated by a religious group and
    health care service providers, as it found no compelling state interest which would limit conscientious
    objectors’ free exercise of their rights in this regard.

    On the right to privacy, the Court noted that decision-making on a reproductive health procedure is a
    private matter which belongs to the couple, not just the individual, and that it is “anti-family” to allow
    minors to access non-emergency reproductive health services, including contraceptives, without written
    parental consent.

    As a result, the government is still mandated to provide free contraceptive services, ensure inclusion of
    adolescents’ reproductive health education in the educational system, and ensure access to post-
    abortion care services. However, because the Court found certain provisions unconstitutional, health
    care providers are able to deny reproductive health services to patients based on personal or religious
    beliefs in non-emergency situations. In addition, spousal consent for women in non-life-threatening
    circumstances will be required to access reproductive health care, and parental consent will be required
    in order for minors who have been pregnant or who had a miscarriage to access contraceptive services
    or undergo elective reproductive health procedures.

    You might also like