Article IISec. 11. ACCFA V. CUCGOThese are two separate appeals
by certiorari from the decision dated March 25,1963 (G.. !o.
"#21$%$& and the order dated May 21, 196$ (G.. !o.
"#236'5&as a(rmed by the resol)tions en banc, of the *o)rt of
+nd)strial elations, in*ases !os. 3$5'#,"- and 132.#M*,
respecti/ely. The parties, e0cept the*onfederationof ,nions
inGo/ernment *orporations and1(ces (*,G*1&,bein2 practically
the same and the principal iss)es in/ol/ed related, only
onedecision is now rendered in these two cases.The 32ric)lt)ral
*redit and *ooperati/e 4inancin2 3dministration (3**43& was
a2o/ernment a2encycreated)nder ep)blic 3ct !o. %21, as amended.
+tsadministrati/e machinery was reor2ani5ed and its name chan2ed
to32ric)lt)ral *redit 3dministration (3*3& )nder the "and eform
*ode (ep)blic3ct!o. 3%$$&.1n the other hand, the
3**436)per/isors7 3ssociation(363&andthe3**438or9ers7
3ssociation(383&, hereinafter referredto as the,nions, are
labor or2ani5ations composed of the s)per/isors and the
ran9#and#:le employees, respecti/ely, in the 3**43 (now
3*3&.G.. !o. "#21$%$1n6eptember$,
1961acollecti/ebar2ainin2a2reement, whichwastobee;ecti/e for a
period of one (1& year from ority of the s)per/isors
andran9#and#:lewor9ers, respecti/ely, inthe3*3. +t f)rther
alle2edthat thepetition was premat)re, that the 3*3 was not the
proper party to be noti:edand to answer the petition, and that the
employees and s)per/isors co)ld notlawf)lly become members of the
,nions, nor be represented by them.Eowe/er, in a >oint
manifestation of the ,nions dated May ., 196$, with theconformity
of the 3*3 3dministrator and of the 32rarian *o)nsel in his
capacityas s)ch and as co)nselfor the !ational"and eform *o)ncil,
it was a2reedDthat the )nion petitioners in this case represent the
ma>ority of the employeesin their respecti/e bar2ainin2 )nitsD
and that only the le2al iss)es raised wo)ldbe s)bmitted for the
resol)tion of the trial *o)rt.4indin2 the remainin2 2ro)nds for
3*37s opposition to the petition to be witho)tmerit, thetrial *o)rt
initsorder datedMay21, 196$certi:edDthe3**4318or9ers73ssociation
and the 3**43 6)per/isors73ssociation as the sole ande0cl)si/e
bar2ainin2 representati/es of the ran9#and#:le employees
ands)per/isors, respecti/ely, of the 32ric)lt)ral *redit
3dministration.D 6aid orderwas a(rmed by the *+ en banc in its
resol)tion dated 3)2)st 2$, 196$.1n1ctober2,
196$the3*3:ledinthis*o)rtapetitionforcertiorari
with)r2entmotiontostaythe*+orderof May21, 196$.
+naresol)tiondated1ctober 6, 196$, this *o)rt dismissed the
petition for Dlac9 of adeC)atealle2ations,D b)t the dismissal was
later reconsidered when the 3*3 compliedwith the formal reC)irement
stated in said resol)tion. 3s prayed for, this *o)rtordered the *+
to stay the e0ec)tion of its order of May 21, 196$.+nthis appeal,
the3*3ine;ect challen2es the>)risdictionof the*+toentertain the
petition of the ,nions for certi:cation election on the 2ro)nd
thatit (3*3& is en2a2ed in 2o/ernmental f)nctions. The ,nions
>oin the iss)e on thissin2le point, contendin2 that the 3*3
forms proprietary f)nctions.,nder 6ection 3 of the 32ric)lt)ral
"and eform *ode the 3*3 was established,amon2 other 2o/ernmental
a2encies,1 to e0tend credit and similar assistanceto a2ric)lt)re,
in p)rs)ance of the policy en)nciated in 6ection 2 as follows=6F*.
2. Beclaration of -olicy. G +t is the policy of the 6tate=(1&
To establish owner#c)lti/atorships and the economic family#si5e
farm as thebasis of -hilippine a2ric)lt)re and, as a conseC)ence,
di/ert landlord capital ina2ric)lt)re to ind)strial
de/elopment@(2& To achie/e a di2ni:ed e0istence for the small
farmers free from pernicio)sinstit)tional restraints and
practices@(3& To create a tr)ly /iable social and economic
str)ct)re in a2ric)lt)recond)ci/e to 2reater prod)cti/ity and
hi2her farm incomes@($& To apply all labor laws eC)ally and
witho)t discrimination to both ind)strialand a2ric)lt)ral wa2e
earners@(5& To pro/ide a more /i2oro)s and systematic land
resettlement pro2ram andp)blic land distrib)tion@ and(6& To
ma9e the smallfarmers more independent, self#reliant and
responsibleciti5ens, and a so)rce of 2en)ine stren2th in o)r
democratic society.The implementation of the policy th)s
en)nciated, insofar as the role of the3*3 therein is concerned, is
spelled o)t in 6ections 11' to 11%, incl)si/e, of the"and eform
*ode. 6ection 11' pro/ides that Dthe administrati/e machinery
ofthe3**43shall bereor2ani5edtoenableit
toali2nitsacti/itieswiththereC)irements and ob>ecti/e of this
*ode and shall be 9nown as the 32ric)lt)ral*redit 3dministration.D
,nder 6ection 112 the s)mof -15',''',''' wasappropriated o)t of
national f)nds to :nance the additional credit f)nctions ofthe 3*3
as a res)lt of the land reform pro2ram laid down in the *ode.
6ection1'3 2rants the 3*3 the pri/ile2e of redisco)ntin2 with the
*entral?an9, theBe/elopment ?an9 of the -hilippines and the
-hilippine !ational ?an9. 6ection1'5 directs the loanin2 acti/ities
of the 3*3 Dto stim)late the de/elopment offarmers7 cooperati/es,D
incl)din2 those Drelatin2 to the prod)ction andmar9etin2 of
a2ric)lt)ral prod)cts and those formed to mana2e andAor own,
onacooperati/ebasis, ser/icesandfacilities,
s)chasirri2ationandtransportsystems, establishedtos)pport
prod)ctionandAor mar9etin2of a2ric)lt)ralprod)cts.D
6ection1'6dealswiththee0tensionby3*3of credit tosmallfarmers in
order to stim)late a2ric)lt)ral prod)ction. 6ections 1'. to 112
laydown certain 2)idelines to be followed in connection with the
2rantin2 of loans,s)chas sec)rity, interest ands)per/isionof
credit. 6ections 113to 11%,incl)si/e, in/est the 3*3 with certain
ri2hts and powers not accorded to non#2o/ernmental entities,
th)s=6F*. 113. 3)ditin2 of 1perations. G 4or the e;ecti/e
s)per/ision of farmers7cooperati/es, the head of the 32ric)lt)ral
*redit 3dministration shall ha/e thepowertoa)dittheiroperations,
recordsandboo9sof acco)nt andtoiss)es)bpoena and s)bpoena d)ces
tec)m to compel the attendance of witnessesand the prod)ction of
boo9s, doc)ments and records in the cond)ct of s)cha)dit or of any
inC)iry into their a;airs. 3ny person who, witho)t lawf)l
ca)se,fails to obey s)ch s)bpoena or s)bpoena d)ces tec)m shall,
)pon application ofthe head of 32ric)lt)ral *redit 3dministration
with the proper co)rt, be liable top)nishment for contempt in the
manner pro/ided by law and if he is an o(cerof the 3ssociation, to
s)spension or remo/al from o(ce.6F*. 11$. -rosec)tionof o(cials.
GThe32ric)lt)ral *redit 3dministration,thro)2h the appropriate
pro/incial or city :scal, shall ha/e the power to :le andprosec)te
any and all actions which it may ha/e a2ainst any and all o(cials
oremployees of farmers7 cooperati/es arisin2 from misfeasance or
malfeasance ino(ce.6F*. 115. 4ree !otarial 6er/ice. G 3ny
>)stice of the peace, in his capacity asnotary e0#o(cio, shall
render ser/ice free of char2e to any person applyin2 fora loan
)nder this *ode either in administerin2 the oath or in
theac9nowled2ment of instr)ments relatin2 to s)ch loan.6F*. 116.
4ree e2istration of Beeds. G 3ny re2ister of deeds shall accept
forre2istration, free of char2e any instr)ment relati/e to a loan
made )nder this*ode.6F*. 11..
8ritin2#o;,nsec)redand1)tstandin2"oans. G6)b>ect totheappro/al
of the-resident)ponrecommendationof the3)ditorGeneral,
the32ric)lt)ral *redit 3dministration may write#o; from its boo9s,
)nsec)red ando)tstandin2 loans and acco)nts recei/able which may
become )ncollectible byreason of the death or disappearance of the
debtor, sho)ld there be no /isiblemeans of collectin2 the same in
the foreseeable f)t)re, or where the debtor hasbeen /eri:ed to ha/e
no income or property whatsoe/er with which to e;ectpayment. +n all
cases, the writin2#o; shall be after :/e years from the date
thedebtor defa)lts.6F*. 11%. F0emption from B)ties, Ta0es and
"e/ies. G The 32ric)lt)ral *redit3dministrationis
herebye0emptedfromthepayment of all d)ties, ta0es,le/ies, and fees,
incl)din2 doc9et and sheri;7s fees, of whate/er nat)re or 9ind,in
the performance of its f)nctions and in the e0ercise of its powers
here)nder.Thepower toa)dit theoperations of farmers7 cooperati/es
andotherwiseinC)ireintotheir a;airs, as2i/enby6ection113,
isinthenat)reof the2/isitorial powerof theso/erei2n,
whichonlya2o/ernmenta2encyspeciallydele2ated to do so by the
*on2ress may le2ally e0ercise.1nMarch19, 196$F0ec)ti/e1rder !o.
.5wasprom)l2ated. +tisentitled=Denderin2 in 4)ll 4orce and F;ect
the -lan of eor2ani5ation -roposed by the6pecial
*ommitteeoneor2ani5ationof 32encies for "andeformfor
the3dministrati/e Machinery of the 32ric)lt)ral "and eform *ode,D
and containsthe followin2 pertinent pro/isions=6ection 3. The "and
eform -ro>ect 3dministration2 shall be considered a
sin2leor2ani5ation and the personnel complement of the member
a2encies incl)din2the le2al o(cers of the 1(ce of the 32rarian
*o)nsel which shall pro/ide le2alser/ices to the "-3 shall be
re2arded as one personnel pool from which thereC)irementsof
theoperationsshall bedrawnands)b>ectonlytotheci/ilser/icelaws,
r)lesandre2)lations, personsfromonea2encymaybefreelyassi2ned to
positions in another a2ency within the "-3 when the interest ofthe
ser/ice so demands.6ection $. The "and eform -ro>ect
3dministration shall be considered as oneor2ani5ationwithrespect
tothestandardi5ationof >obdescriptionspositionclassi:cation and
wa2e and salary str)ct)res to the end that positions in/ol/in2the
same or eC)i/alent C)ali:cations and eC)al responsibilities and
e;ort shallha/e the same rem)neration.6ection 5. The *i/il 6er/ice
laws, r)les and re2)lations with respect topromotions, partic)larly
in the consideration of person ne0t in ran9, shallbemade applicable
to the "and eform -ro>ect 3dministration as a sin2le
a2encysothat C)ali:edindi/id)alsinonemember a2encym)st
beconsideredinconsiderin2 promotion to hi2her positions in another
member a2ency.The implementation of the land reform pro2ram of the
2o/ernment accordin2to ep)blic 3ct !o. 3%$$ is most certainly a
2o/ernmental, not a proprietary,f)nction@ andfor that
p)rposeF0ec)ti/e1rder !o. .5hasplacedthe3*3)nder the "and eform
-ro>ect 3dministration to2ether with the other membera2encies,
the personnelcomplement of allof which are placed in one sin2lepool
and made a/ailable for assi2nment from one a2ency to another,
s)b>ectonly to *i/il 6er/ice laws, r)les and re2)lations,
position classi:cation and wa2estr)ct)res.The appointin2 a)thority
in respect of the o(cials and employees of the 3*3 isthe -resident
of the -hilippines, as stated in a 1st indorsement by his o(ce
tothe *hairman of the !ational eform *o)ncil dated May 22, 196$, as
follows=3ppointments of o(cials and employees of the !ational "and
eform *o)nciland its a2encies may be made only by the -resident,
p)rs)ant to the pro/isionsof 6ection .9(B& of the e/ised
3dministrati/e *ode. +n accordance with thepolicy and practice,
s)ch appointments sho)ld be prepared for the si2nat)re ofthe
F0ec)ti/e 6ecretary, D?y 3)thority ofthe -residentD.38hen the
32ric)lt)ral eform *ode was bein2 considered by the *on2ress,
thenat)re of the 3*3 was the s)b>ect of the followin2 e0position
on the 6enateHoor=6enator Tolentino= . . . . DThe 3*3 is not 2oin2
to be a pro:t ma9in2 instit)tion.+tiss)pposedtobeap)blicser/iceof
the2o/ernmenttothelesseesandfarmer#owners of the lands that may be
bo)2ht after e0propriation fromowners. +t is the 2o/ernment here
that is the lender. The 2o/ernment sho)ldnot e0act a hi2her
interest than what we are tellin2 a pri/ate landowner now inhis
relation to his tenants if we 2i/e to their farmers a hi2her rate
of interest . . ..D (pp. 1. I 1%, 6enate )st stated, if it is
accepted, will carry )s far toward the end.
F/eryopiniontendstobecomealaw. + thin9that theword7liberty,7
inthe1$th3mendment, is per/erted when it is held to pre/ent the
nat)ral o)tcome of adominant opinion, )nless it can be said that a
rational and fair man necessarilywo)ld admit that the stat)te
proposed wo)ld infrin2e f)ndamental principles asthey ha/e been
)nderstood by the traditions of o)r people and o)r law. +t doesnot
need research to show that no s)ch sweepin2 condemnation can be
passed)pon the stat)te before )s. 3 reasonable man mi2ht thin9 it a
proper meas)re5on the score of health. Men whom + certainly co)ld
not prono)nce )nreasonablewo)ld )phold it as a :rst installment of
a 2eneralre2)lation of the ho)rs ofwor9. 8hether in the latter
aspect it wo)ld be open to the char2e of ineC)ality +thin9 it
)nnecessary to disc)ss.D +t was not )ntil 19'%, in M)ller /.
1re2on,9 thatthe 3merican 6)preme *o)rt held/alid a ten#ho)r
ma0im)mfor womenwor9ersinla)ndriesandnot)ntil 191.in?)ntin2/.
1re2on1'thats)chare2)latory ten#ho)r law applied to men and women
passed the constit)tionaltest.6imilarly, state le2islation :0in2
minim)m wa2es was deemed o;ensi/e to thed)e process cla)se in a
1923 decision in 3d9ins /. *hildren7s Eospital.11 1nly in193., in
the leadin2 case of 8est *oast Eotel /. -arrish,12 was the 3d9ins
caseo/err)ledanda minim)mwa2elaw!ewLor9 stat)te )pheld.
Thesame)nsympathetic attit)de arisin2 from the laisse5#faire
concept was manifest indecisionsd)rin2s)chperiod,
therebein2the:nely#sp)ndistinctionsinthe8ol; -ac9in2 *o. /. *o)rt
of +nd)strial elations13 decision, as to when certainb)sinesses
co)ld be classi:ed as a;ected with p)blic interest to >)stify
statere2)lation as to prices. 3fter ele/en years, in 193$, in
!ebbia /. !ew Lor9,1$the air of )nreality was swept away by this
e0plicit prono)ncement from the,nited 6tates 6)preme *o)rt= DThe
phrase 7a;ected with a p)blic interest7 can,inthenat)reof thin2s,
meannomorethanthat anind)stry, foradeC)atereason, is s)b>ect to
control for the p)blic 2ood.D+t isth)sapparent that )ntil
theadministrationof -resident oose/elt, thelaisse5#faire principle
res)lted in the contraction of the sphere where2o/ernmental entry
was permissible. The ob>ect was to protect property e/en
iftherebytheneedsof the2eneral p)blicwo)ldbeleft)nsatis:ed.
Thiswasemphaticallyp)t forthinawor9of former 3ttorneyGeneral, later
)stify the re2)lation ofthe ri2ht to free e0ercise of reli2ion and
the ri2ht to free speech.$2STheE"aw/iolatestheconstit)tional
pro/isiononin/ol)ntaryser/it)de.3ccordin2tothepetitioners,
theE"aws)b>ects medical practitioners toin/ol)ntary ser/it)de
beca)se, to be accredited )nder the -hilEealth pro2ram,they are
compelled to pro/ide forty#ei2ht ($%& ho)rs of pro bona
ser/ices forindi2ent women, )nder threat of criminal prosec)tion,
imprisonment and otherforms of p)nishment.$3The petitioners e0plain
that since a ma>ority of patients are co/ered by-hilEealth, a
medical practitioner wo)ld e;ecti/ely be forced to
renderreprod)cti/ehealthser/icessincethelac9of
-hilEealthaccreditationwo)ldmean that the ma>ority of the p)blic
wo)ld no lon2er be able to a/ailof thepractitioners ser/ices.$$S
The E "aw /iolates the ri2ht to eC)al protection of the law. +t is
claimed thatthe E "aw discriminates a2ainst the poor as it ma9es
them the primary tar2etof the 2o/ernment pro2ram that promotes
contracepti/e )se. The petitionersar2)e that, rather than promotin2
reprod)cti/e health amon2 the poor, the E"awsee9s to introd)ce
contracepti/es that wo)ld e;ecti/ely red)ce then)mber of the
poor.$5S The E "aw is D/oid#for#/a2)enessD in /iolation of the d)e
process cla)se ofthe *onstit)tion. +n imposin2 the penalty of
imprisonment andAor :ne for
Dany/iolation,Ditis/a2)ebeca)seitdoesnotde:nethetypeof
cond)cttobetreated as D/iolationD of the E "aw.$6+n this
connection, it is claimed that D6ection . of the E "aw /iolates the
ri2htto d)e process by remo/in2 from them (the people& the
ri2ht to mana2e theirown a;airs and to decide what 9ind of health
facility they shall be and what9indof ser/icestheyshall o;er.D$.+t
i2noresthemana2ement prero2ati/einherent in corporations for
employers to cond)ct their a;airs in accordancewith their own
discretion and >)d2ment.S The E "aw /iolates the ri2ht to free
speech. To compel a person to e0plain af)ll ran2e of family
plannin2 methods is plainly to c)rtail his ri2ht to e0po)ndonly his
ownpreferred way of family plannin2. Thepetitioners note
thataltho)2h e0emption is 2ranted to instit)tions owned and
operated by reli2io)s2ro)ps, they are still forced to refer their
patients to another healthcare facilitywillin2 to perform the
ser/ice or proced)re.$%S The E "aw intr)des into the 5one of
pri/acy of one7s family protected by the*onstit)tion. +t is
contended that the E "aw pro/idin2 for mandatoryreprod)cti/e health
ed)cation intr)des )pon their constit)tional ri2ht to raisetheir
children in accordance with their beliefs.$9+t is claimed that, by
2i/in2 absol)te a)thority to the person who will
)nder2oreprod)cti/e health proced)re, the E "aw forsa9es any real
dialo2)e betweenthe spo)ses and impedes the ri2ht of spo)ses to
m)t)ally decide on matterspertainin2 to the o/erall well#bein2 of
their family. +n the same breath, it is alsoclaimed that the
parents of a child who has s);ered a miscarria2e are depri/edof
parental a)thority to determine whether their child sho)ld
)secontracepti/es.5'S The E "aw /iolates the constit)tional
principle of non#dele2ation ofle2islati/e a)thority. The
petitioners C)estion the dele2ation by *on2ress to the4B3 of the
power to determine whether a prod)ct is non#abortifacient and to
beincl)ded in the Fmer2ency Br)2s "ist
(FB"&.5111STheE"aw/iolatestheones)b>ectAonebill
r)lepro/ision)nder6ection26( 1 &, 3rticle K+ of the
*onstit)tion.52S The E "aw /iolates !at)ral "aw.53S The E "aw
/iolates the principle of 3)tonomy of "ocalGo/ernment
,nits("G,s& and the 3)tonomo)s e2ion of M)slimMindanao
T3MM&. +t iscontended that the E "aw, pro/idin2 for
reprod)cti/e health meas)res at thelocal 2o/ernment le/el and the
3MM, infrin2es )pon the powers de/ol/ed to"G,s and the 3MM )nder
the "ocal Go/ernment *ode and .3 . !o.
9'5$.5$Kario)spartiesalsoso)2ht andwere2rantedlea/eto:letheir
respecti/ecomments#in#inter/entionindefenseof
theconstit)tionalityof theE"aw.3side from the 1(ce of the 6olicitor
General (16G& which commented on thepetitionsinbehalf of
therespondents,55*on2ressmanFdcel *. "a2man,56former o(cialsof
theBepartment of EealthBr. Fsperan5a+. *abral, )st o/er 2.million
4ilipinos in 196', the pop)lation of the co)ntry reached o/er .6
millionintheyear 2'''ando/er
92millionin2'1'..2Thee0ec)ti/eandthele2islati/e, th)s, felt that
the meas)res were still not adeC)ate. To rein in the12problem, the
E "aw was enacted to pro/ide 4ilipinos, especially the poor
andthemar2inali5ed, accessandinformationtothef)ll ran2eof
modemfamilyplannin2 methods, and to ens)re that its ob>ecti/e to
pro/ide for the peoples7ri2ht to reprod)cti/e health be achie/ed.
To ma9e it more e;ecti/e, the E "awmade it mandatory for health
pro/iders to pro/ide information on the f)ll ran2eof modem family
plannin2 methods, s)pplies and ser/ices, and for schools topro/ide
reprod)cti/e health ed)cation. To p)t teeth to it, the E
"awcriminali5es certain acts of ref)sals to carry o)t its
mandates.6tated di;erently, the E "aw is an enhancement meas)re to
fortify and ma9ee;ecti/ethec)rrent lawsoncontraception,
women7shealthandpop)lationcontrol.-rayer of the -etitioners #
Maintain the 6tat)s U)oThe petitioners are one in prayin2 that the
entire E"awbe declared)nconstit)tional. -etitioner 3"4+,
inpartic)lar, ar2)es that the2o/ernmentsponsored contraception
pro2ram, the /ery essence of the E "aw, /iolates theri2ht to health
of women and the sanctity of life, which the 6tate is
mandatedtoprotect andpromote. Th)s, 3"4+ prays that Dthestat)s
C)oante# thesit)ationprior tothepassa2eof theE"aw# m)st
bemaintained.D.3+te0plains=0 0 0. The instant -etition does not
C)estion contraception and contracepti/esper se. 3s pro/ided )nder
ep)blic 3ct !o. 5921 and ep)blic 3ct !o. $.29,
thesaleanddistrib)tionof
contracepti/esareprohibited)nlessdispensedbyaprescription d)ly
licensed by a physician. 8hat the -etitioners :nd deplorableand
rep)2nant )nder the E "aw is the role that the 6tate and its
a2encies #theentireb)rea)cracy, fromthecabinet
secretariesdowntothebaran2ayo(cials in the remotest areas of the
co)ntry # is made to play in theimplementationof
thecontraceptionpro2ramtothef)llest e0tent possible)sin2 ta0payers7
money. The 6tate then will be the f)nder and pro/ider of allformsof
familyplannin2methodsandtheimplementer of thepro2rambyens)rin2 the
widespread dissemination of, and )ni/ersal access to, a f)ll
ran2eof family plannin2 methods, de/ices and s)pplies..$+66,F63fter
a scr)tiny of the /ario)s ar2)ments and contentions of the parties,
the*o)rt has synthesi5ed and re:ned them to the followin2 principal
iss)es=+. -1*FB,3"= 8hether the *o)rt may e0ercise its power of
>)dicialre/iewo/er the contro/ersy.1O -ower of )stice or
e0pediency of the E"aw, it may do so where an
attendant)nconstit)tionality or 2ra/eab)seof
discretionres)lts.%9The*o)rt m)stdemonstrate its )nHinchin2
commitment to protect those cherished ri2hts andprinciples embodied
in the *onstit)tion.+nthisconnection,
itbearsaddin2thatwhilethescopeof >)dicial powerofre/iew may be
limited, the *onstit)tion ma9es no distinction as to the 9ind
ofle2islation that may be s)b>ect to >)dicial scr)tiny, be it
in the form of socialle2islation or otherwise. The reason is simple
and 2oes bac9 to the earlier point.The *o)rt may pass )pon the
constit)tionality of acts of the le2islati/e and thee0ec)ti/e
branches, since its d)ty is not to re/iew their collecti/e wisdom
b)t,rather, to ma9e s)re that they ha/e acted in consonance with
their respecti/ea)thorities and ri2hts as mandated of them by the
*onstit)tion. +f after saidre/iew, the *o)rt :nds no constit)tional
/iolations of any sort, then, it has nomore a)thority of
proscribin2 the actions )nder re/iew.9' This is in line with3rticle
K+++, 6ection 1 of the *onstit)tion which e0pressly
pro/ides=6ection 1. The >)dicial power shall be /ested in one
6)preme *o)rt and in s)chlower co)rts as may be established by
law.)stice to settle act)alcontro/ersies in/ol/in2 ri2hts which are
le2ally demandable and enforceable,and to determine whether or not
there has been a 2ra/e ab)se of discretionamo)ntin2tolac9 or e0cess
of >)risdictiononthepart of any branchorinstr)mentality of the
Go/ernment. NFmphases s)ppliedO3s far bac9 as Tanada /. 3n2ara,91
the *o)rt has )neC)i/ocally declared thatcertiorari, prohibition
and mandam)s are appropriate remedies to raiseconstit)tional iss)es
and to re/iew andAor prohibitAn)llify, when proper, acts
ofle2islati/e and e0ec)ti/e o(cials, as there is no other plain,
speedy oradeC)ate remedy in the ordinary co)rse of law. This r)lin2
was later on appliedin Macalintal /. *1MF"F*,92 3ldaba /.
*1MF"F*,93 Ma2allona /. Frmita,9$ andco)ntless others. +n Tanada,
the *o)rt wrote=+nsee9in2ton)llifyanact of
the-hilippine6enateonthe2ro)ndthat itcontra/enes the *onstit)tion,
the petition no do)bt raises a >)sticiablecontro/ersy. 8here an
action of the le2islati/e branch is serio)sly alle2ed toha/e
infrin2ed the *onstit)tion, it becomes not only the ri2ht b)t in
fact thed)ty of the >)diciary to settle the disp)te. DThe
C)estion th)s posed is >)dicialrather thanpolitical. Thed)ty (to
ad>)dicate& remains to ass)rethat thes)premacyof
the*onstit)tionis )pheld. D 1nceaDcontro/ersyas totheapplicationor
interpretationof constit)tional pro/isionisraisedbeforethis*o)rt
(as in the instant case&, it becomes a le2al iss)e which the
*o)rt is bo)ndby constit)tional mandate to decide. NFmphasis
s)ppliedO+n the scholarly estimation of former 6)preme *o)rt
)dicial re/iewis essential for the maintenance and enforcement of
theseparationof powers andthebalancin2of powers
amon2thethree2reatdepartmentsof 2o/ernment
thro)2hthede:nitionandmaintenanceof thebo)ndaries of a)thority and
control between them. To him, >)dicial re/iew is thechief,
indeed the only, medi)m of participation # or instr)ment of
inter/ention #of the >)diciary in that balancin2
operation.95"est it be mis)nderstood, it bears emphasi5in2 that the
*o)rt does not ha/ethe)nbridleda)thorityto r)leon>)stanyande/ery
claimofconstit)tional/iolation. )dicial re/iewis limited by fo)r
e0actin2 reC)isites, /i5 = (a& there m)st be an act)al case
orcontro/ersy@ (b& the petitioners m)st possess loc)s standi@
(c& the C)estion ofconstit)tionality m)st be raised at the
earliest opport)nity@ and (d& the iss)e ofconstit)tionality
m)st be the lis mota of the case.963ct)al *ase or
*ontro/ersy-roponents of the E "aw s)bmit that the s)b> ect
petitions do not present anyact)al case or contro/ersy beca)se the
E "aw has yet to be implemented.9.They claim that the C)estions
raised by the petitions are not yet concrete andripe for
ad>)dication since no one has been char2ed with /iolatin2 any of
itspro/isions and that there is no showin2 that any of the
petitioners7 ri2hts hasbeenad/erselya;ectedbyits
operation.9%+nshort, it is contendedthat>)dicial re/iew of the E
"aw is premat)re.3n act)alcase or contro/ersy means an e0istin2
case or contro/ersy that isappropriate or ripe for determination,
not con>ect)ralor anticipatory, lest thedecision of the co)rt
wo)ld amo)nt to an ad/isory opinion.99 The r)le is
thatco)rtsdonotsittoad>)dicatemereacademicC)estionstosatisfyscholarlyinterest,
howe/er intellect)ally challen2in2. The contro/ersy m)st
be1$>)sticiable#de:niteandconcrete, to)chin2onthele2al relations
of partiesha/in2ad/ersele2al interests. +notherwords,
thepleadin2sm)stshowanacti/e anta2onistic assertion ofa le2alri2ht,
ontheone hand,andadenialthereof, on the other@ that is, it m)st
concern a real, tan2ible and not merely atheoretical C)estionor
iss)e. Thereo)2ht tobeanact)al ands)bstantialcontro/ersy admittin2
of speci:c relief thro)2h a decree concl)si/e in nat)re,as
distin2)ishedfromanopinionad/isin2what
thelawwo)ldbe)ponahypothetical state of facts.1''*orollary to the
reC)irement of an act)al case or contro/ersy is thereC)irement of
ripeness.1'1 3 C)estion is ripe for ad>)dication when the
actbein2 challen2ed has had a direct ad/erse e;ect on the
indi/id)al challen2in2it.4oracase to be considered ripefor
ad>)dication, it isa prereC)isite thatsomethin2 has then been
accomplished or performed by either branch before aco)rt may come
into the pict)re, and the petitioner m)st alle2e the e0istenceof an
immediate or threatened in>)ry to himself as a res)lt of the
challen2edaction.
Eem)stshowthathehass)stainedorisimmediatelyindan2erofs)stainin2
some direct in>)ry as a res)lt of the act complained of1'2+n The
-ro/ince of !orth *otabato /. The Go/ernment of the ep)blic of
the-hilippines,1'3 where the constit)tionality of an )nimplemented
Memorand)mof 32reement on the 3ncestral Bomain (M13#3B& was p)t
in C)estion, it wasar2)ed that the *o)rt has no a)thority to pass
)pon the iss)es raised as therewas yet no concrete act performed
that co)ld possibly /iolate the petitioners7and the inter/enors7
ri2hts. *itin2 precedents, the *o)rt r)led that the fact ofthe law
or act in C)estion bein2 not yet e;ecti/e does not ne2ate
ripeness.*oncrete acts )nder a law are not necessary to render the
contro/ersy ripe.F/en a sin2)lar /iolation of the *onstit)tion
andAor the law is eno)2h to awa9en>)dicial d)ty.+n this case,
the *o)rt is of the /iew that an act)al case or contro/ersy
e0istsand that the same is ripe for >)dicialdetermination.
*onsiderin2 that the E"aw and its implementin2 r)les ha/e already
ta9en e;ect and that b)d2etarymeas)res to carry o)t the law ha/e
already been passed, it is e/ident that thes)b>ect petitions
present a >)sticiable contro/ersy. 3s stated earlier, when
anactionof thele2islati/ebranchis serio)slyalle2edto
ha/einfrin2edthe*onstit)tion, it not only becomes
ari2ht,b)talsoad)ty ofthe)risdiction,
theapplicationofdoctrinesori2inatin2fromthe,.6. hasbeen 2enerally
maintained, albeit with some modi:cations. 8hile this *o)rt
haswithheld the application of facial challen2es to strictly penal
stat)es,1'% it hase0panded its scope to co/er stat)tes not only
re2)latin2 free speech, b)t alsothose in/ol/in2 reli2io)s freedom,
and other f)ndamental ri2hts.1'9 The)nderlyin2 reason for this
modi:cation is simple. 4or )nli9e its co)nterpart inthe ,.6., this
*o)rt, )nder its e0panded >)risdiction, is mandatedby
the4)ndamental "aw not only to settle act)al contro/ersies
in/ol/in2 ri2hts whichare le2ally demandable and enforceable, b)t
also to determine whether or nottherehasbeena2ra/eab)seof
discretionamo)ntin2tolac9ore0cessof>)risdiction on the part of
any branch or instr)mentality of the Go/ernment.11'Kerily, the
framers of1)r*onstit)tion en/isioned a proacti/e)ry as ares)lt of
the challen2ed 2o/ernmentalact.113 +t reC)ires a personal sta9e
inthe o)tcome of the contro/ersy as to ass)re the concrete
ad/erseness whichsharpens the presentation of iss)es )pon which the
co)rt so lar2ely dependsfor ill)mination of di(c)lt constit)tional
C)estions.11$15+n relation to loc)s standi, the Das applied
challen2eD embodies the r)le thatone can challen2e the
constit)tionality of a stat)te only if he asserts a /iolationof his
own ri2hts. The r)le prohibits one from challen2in2 the
constit)tionalityof the stat)te 2ro)nded on a /iolation of the
ri2hts of third persons not beforethe co)rt. This r)le is also
9nown as the prohibition a2ainst
third#partystandin2.115Transcendental +mportance!otwithstandin2,
the *o)rt leans on the doctrine that Dthe r)le on standin2 is
amatterof proced)re, hence, canberela0edfornon#traditional
plainti;sli9eordinary citi5ens, ta0payers, and le2islators when the
p)blic interest soreC)ires, s)ch as when the matter is of
transcendental importance, ofo/erreachin2 si2ni:cance to society,
or of paramo)nt p)blic interest.D116+n*ocon)t1il e:ners3ssociation,
+nc. /. Torres,11.the*o)rtheldthatincases of paramo)nt
importancewhereserio)s constit)tional C)estions arein/ol/ed, the
standin2 reC)irement may be rela0ed and a s)it may be allowedto
prosper e/en where there is no direct in>)ry to the party
claimin2 the ri2ht of>)dicial re/iew. +n the :rst Fmer2ency
-owers *ases,11% ordinary citi5ens andta0payers were allowed to
C)estion the constit)tionality of se/erale0ec)ti/eorders
altho)2hthey hadonlyanindirect and2eneral interest sharedincommon
with the p)blic.8ith these said, e/en if the constit)tionality of
the E "aw may not be assailedthro)2hanDas#appliedchallen2e, still,
the*o)rt hastimeanda2ainactedliberally on the loc)s s
tandireC)irement. +t has accorded certain indi/id)alsstandin2 to
s)e, not otherwise directly in>)red or with material interest
a;ectedby a Go/ernment act, pro/ided a constit)tional iss)e of
transcendentalimportanceis in/o9ed. Ther)leonloc)s standi is, after
all, aproced)raltechnicality whichthe *o)rt has, onmore thanone
occasion, wai/ed orrela0ed, th)sallowin2non#traditional plainti;s,
s)chasconcernedciti5ens,ta0payers, /oters or le2islators, to s)e in
the p)blic interest, albeit they maynot ha/e been directly
in>)red by the operation of a lawor any other2o/ernment act. 3s
held in )risdictiono/erthepetitionatbar.
1necannotdenythattheiss)esraisedherein ha/e potentially per/asi/e
inH)ence on the social and moral well bein2of this nation,
specially the yo)th@ hence, their proper and >)st determination
isanimperati/e need.This isinaccordance
withthewell#entrenchedprinciplethat r)les of proced)re are not
inHe0ible tools desi2ned to hinder or delay,
b)ttofacilitateandpromotetheadministrationof >)stice.
Theirstrictandri2idapplication, which wo)ldres)ltintechnicalities
that tend to fr)strate,ratherthan promote s)bstantial >)stice,
m)st always be eschewed. (Fmphasiss)pplied&+n /iew of the
serio)sness, no/elty and wei2ht as precedents, not only to
thep)blic, b)t also to the bench and bar, the iss)es raised m)st be
resol/ed for the2)idanceof all. 3fter all, theE"awdrasticallya;ects
theconstit)tionalpro/isions on the ri2ht to life and health, the
freedom of reli2ion and e0pressionand other constit)tional ri2hts.
Mindf)l of all these and the fact that the iss)esof
contraceptionandreprod)cti/ehealthha/ealreadyca)seddeepdi/isionamon2abroadspectr)mof
society, the*o)rtentertainsnodo)btthatthepetitions raise iss)es of
transcendental importance warrantin2 immediate
co)rtad>)dication. Moreimportantly, considerin2that itistheri2ht
tolifeof themother and the )nborn which is primarily at iss)e, the
*o)rt need not wait for alife to be ta9en away before ta9in2
action.The *o)rt cannot, and sho)ld not, e0ercise >)dicial
restraint at this time whenri2hts enshrined in the *onstit)tion are
bein2 imperilled to be /iolated. To doso, when the life of either
the mother or her child is at sta9e, wo)ld lead toirreparable
conseC)ences.Beclaratory eliefThe respondents also assail the
petitions beca)se they are essentially petitionsfor
declaratoryrelief o/er whichthe*o)rt has noori2inal
>)risdiction.12'6)(ce it to state that most of the petitions are
prayin2 for in>)ncti/e reliefs andso the *o)rt wo)ld >)st
consider them as petitions for prohibition )nder )le65, o/er
whichit hasori2inal >)risdiction.
8herethecasehasfar#reachin2implications and prays for in>)ncti/e
reliefs, the *o)rt may consider them aspetitions for prohibition
)nder )le 65.1211ne 6)b>ect#1ne TitleThe petitioners also
C)estion the constit)tionality of the E "aw, claimin2 thatit
/iolates 6ection 26(1 &, 3rticle K+ of the *onstit)tion,122
prescribin2 the ones)b>ect#one title r)le. 3ccordin2 to them,
bein2 one for reprod)cti/e health withresponsible parenthood, the
assailed le2islation /iolates the constit)tionalstandards of d)e
process by concealin2 its tr)e intent # to act as a
pop)lationcontrol meas)re.123To belittle the challen2e, the
respondents insist that the E "aw is not a birth orpop)lation
control meas)re,12$ and that the concepts of
DresponsibleparenthoodD and Dreprod)cti/e healthD are both
interrelated as they areinseparable.125Bespite e;orts to p)sh the E
"aw as a reprod)cti/e health law, the *o)rt
seesitasprincipallyapop)lationcontrol meas)re. Thecorp)sof
theE"awis2earedtowardsthered)ctionof theco)ntry7spop)lation.
8hileitclaimstosa/e li/es and 9eep o)r women and children healthy,
it also promotespre2nancy#pre/entin2 prod)cts. 3s stated earlier,
the E "aw emphasi5es theneed to pro/ide 4ilipinos, especially the
poor and the mar2inali5ed, with accessto informationonthef)ll
ran2eof modemfamily plannin2prod)cts andmethods.
Thesefamilyplannin2methods, nat)ral or modem, howe/er, areclearly
2eared towards the pre/ention of pre2nancy.4or said reason, the
manifest )nderlyin2 ob>ecti/e of the E "aw is to red)cethe
n)mber of births in the co)ntry.+t cannot be denied that the
meas)re also see9s to pro/ide pre#natal and post#natal care as
well. 3 lar2e portion of the law, howe/er, co/ers the
disseminationof informationandpro/isionsonaccesstomedically#safe,
non#abortifacient,e;ecti/e, le2al, a;ordable, and C)ality
reprod)cti/e health care ser/ices,methods, de/ices, and s)pplies,
which are all intended to pre/ent pre2nancy.16The *o)rt, th)s,
a2rees with the petitioners7 contention that the whole idea
ofcontraception per/ades the entire E "aw. +t is, in fact, the
central idea of theE "aw.126 +ndeed, remo/e the pro/isions that
refer to contraception or arerelated to it and the E "aw loses its
/ery fo)ndation.12. 3s earlier e0plained,Dthe other positi/e
pro/isions s)ch as s9illed birth attendance, maternalcareincl)din2
pre#and post#natal ser/ices, pre/ention and mana2ement
ofreprod)cti/e tract infections incl)din2 E+KA3+B6 are already
pro/ided for in theMa2na *arta for 8omen.D12%?e that as it may, the
E "aw does not /iolate the one s)b>ectAone bill r)le.
+n?en>aminF. *awalin2, ect which the stat)te see9s to e;ect,
andwhere, as here, the persons interested are informed of the
nat)re, scope andconseC)ences of the proposed law and its
operation. Moreo/er, this *o)rt hasin/ariably adopted a liberal
rather than technical constr)ction of the r)le Dso asnot to cripple
or impede le2islation.D NFmphases s)ppliedO+n this case, a te0t)al
analysis of the /ario)s pro/isions of the law shows thatboth
Dreprod)cti/e healthD and Dresponsible parenthoodD are interrelated
and2ermaneto the o/erridin2ob>ecti/e to control the
pop)lation2rowth. 3se0pressed in the :rst para2raph of 6ection 2 of
the E "aw=6F*. 2. Beclaration of -olicy. # The 6tate reco2ni5es and
2)arantees the h)manri2hts of allpersons incl)din2 their ri2ht to
eC)ality and nondiscrimination ofthese ri2hts, the ri2ht to
s)stainable h)man de/elopment, the ri2ht to healthwhich incl)des
reprod)cti/e health, the ri2ht to ed)cation and information, andthe
ri2ht to choose and ma9e decisions for themsel/es in accordance
with theirreli2io)s con/ictions, ethics, c)lt)ralbeliefs, and the
demands of
responsibleparenthood.Theones)b>ectAonetitler)lee0pressestheprinciplethatthetitleof
alawm)stnotbeDso)ncertainthatthea/era2epersonreadin2itwo)ldnotbeinformed
of the p)rpose of the enactment or p)t on inC)iry as to its
contents,or which is misleadin2, either in referrin2 to or
indicatin2 one s)b>ect whereanother or di;erent
oneisreallyembracedintheact, or inomittin2anye0pression or
indication of the real s)b>ect or scope of the
act.D129*onsiderin2 the close intimacy between Dreprod)cti/e
healthD and DresponsibleparenthoodD which bears to the attainment
of the 2oal of achie/in2Ds)stainable h)man de/elopmentD as stated
)nder its terms, the *o)rt :nds noreason to belie/e that *on2ress
intentionally so)2ht to decei/e the p)blic as tothe contents of the
assailed le2islation.++ # 6,?6T3!T+KF +66,F6=1#The i2ht to
"ife-osition of the -etitionersThe petitioners assail the E "aw
beca)se it /iolates the ri2ht to life and healthof the )nborn child
)nder 6ection 12, 3rticle ++ of the *onstit)tion. The
assailedle2islation allowin2 access to abortifacientsAaborti/es
e;ecti/ely sanctionsabortion.13'3ccordin2tothepetitioners,
despiteitse0presstermsprohibitin2abortion,6ection $(a& of the E
"aw considers contracepti/es that pre/ent the
fertili5edo/)mtoreachandbeimplantedinthemother7swombasanabortifacient@th)s,
sanctionin2 contracepti/es that ta9e e;ect after fertili5ation and
prior toimplantation, contrary to the intent of the 4ramers of the
*onstit)tion to a;ordprotection to the fertili5ed o/)m which
already has life.They ar2)e that e/en if 6ection 9 of the E "aw
allows only Dnon#abortifacientDhormonal contracepti/es,
intra)terine de/ices, in>ectables and other safe,
le2al,non#abortifacient and e;ecti/e family plannin2 prod)cts and
s)pplies, medicalresearch shows that contracepti/es )se res)lts in
abortion as they operate to9ill the fertili5ed o/)m which already
has life.1313sitopposes theinitiationoflife,which is a f)ndamental
h)man 2ood,thepetitionersassert that the6tatesanctionof
contracepti/e)secontra/enesnat)ral law and is an a;ront to the
di2nity of man.1324inally, it is contended that since 6ection 9 of
the E "aw reC)ires the 4ood andBr)2 3dministration (4B3& to
certify that the prod)ct or s)pply is not to be )sedas an
abortifacient, the assailed le2islation e;ecti/ely con:rms
thatabortifacients arenot prohibited. 3lsoconsiderin2that the4B3is
not thea2ency that will act)ally s)per/ise or administer the )se of
these prod)cts ands)pplies toprospecti/epatients, thereis nowayit
cantr)thf)llyma9eacerti:cation that it shall not be )sed for
abortifacient p)rposes.133-osition of the espondents4ortheirpart,
thedefendersoftheE"awpointo)tthattheintentofthe4ramers of the
*onstit)tion was simply the prohibition of abortion. Theycontend
that the E "aw does not /iolate the *onstit)tion since the said
lawemphasi5es that onlyDnon#abortifacientD
reprod)cti/ehealthcareser/ices,methods, de/ices prod)cts
ands)pplies shall be made accessible to
thep)blic.13$3ccordin2tothe16G,
*on2resshasmadeale2islati/edeterminationthatcontracepti/es are not
abortifacients by enactin2 the E "aw. 3s the E "awwas enacted with
d)e consideration to /ario)s st)dies and cons)ltations withthe
8orld Eealth 1r2ani5ation (8E1& and other e0perts in the
medical :eld, itis asserted that the *o)rt a;ord deference and
respect to s)ch a determinationand pass >)d2ment only when a
partic)lar dr)2 or de/ice is later on determinedas an
aborti/e.1354or hispart,respondent"a2manar2)esthat
theconstit)tionalprotection ofone7s ri2ht to life is not /iolated
considerin2 that /ario)s st)dies of the 8E1show that life be2ins
from the implantation of the fertili5ed o/)m.*onseC)ently, hear2)es
that theE"awis constit)tional since the lawspeci:cally pro/ides
that only contracepti/es that do not pre/ent theimplantation of the
fertili5ed o/)m are allowed.1361.The *o)rt7s -osition+t is a
)ni/ersally accepted principle that e/ery h)man bein2 en>oys the
ri2ht tolife.13.F/en if not formally established, the ri2ht to
life, bein2 2ro)nded on nat)rallaw, is inherent and, therefore, not
a creation of, or dependent )pon apartic)lar law, c)stom, or
belief. +t precedes and transcends any a)thority orthe laws of
men.+n this >)risdiction, the ri2ht to life is 2i/en more than
ample protection. 6ection1, 3rticle +++ of the *onstit)tion
pro/ides=6ection 1. !o person shall be depri/ed of life, liberty,
or property witho)t d)eprocess of law, nor shall any person be
denied the eC)al protection of the laws.3s e0po)nded earlier, the
)se of contracepti/es and family plannin2 methods inthe -hilippines
is not of recent /inta2e. 4rom the enactment of .3. !o.
$.29,entitledD3n3ct Toe2)lateThe6ale, Bispensation, andAor
Bistrib)tionof*ontracepti/eBr)2s andBe/ices Don)rispr)dence,
an)nbornchildhas alreadyale2al personality. +n*ontinental 6teel
Man)fact)rin2 *orporation /. Eon. 3ccredited Kol)ntary3rbitrator
3llan 6. Montano,1$. it was written="ife is not synonymo)s with
ci/il personality. 1ne need not acC)ire ci/ilpersonality :rst
before heAshe co)ld die. F/en a child inside the womb alreadyhas
life. !o less than the *onstit)tion reco2ni5es the life of the
)nborn fromconception, that the 6tate m)st protect eC)ally with the
life of the mother. +fthe )nborn already has life, then the
cessation thereof e/en prior to the childbein2 deli/ered, C)ali:es
as death. NFmphases in the ori2inalO+n Gon5ales /. *arhart,1$%
ectablesandfamilyprod)ctsands)ppliesinthe!ational Br)24orm)laryand
the incl)sion of the same in the re2)lar p)rchase of
essentialmedicinesand s)pplies of all national hospitals.1.6 *itin2
/ario)s st)dies on the matter,the petitioners posit that the ris9
of de/elopin2 breast and cer/icalcancer is2reatly
increasedinwomenwho )seoral contracepti/es as compared towomen who
ne/er )se them. They point o)t that the ris9 is decreased when
the)se of contracepti/es is discontin)ed. 4)rther, it is contended
that the )se ofcombined oral contracepti/e pills is associated with
a threefold increased ris9 of/eno)s thromboembolism, a twofold
increased ris9 of ischematic stro9e, and anindeterminate e;ect on
ris9 of myocardial infarction.1.. Gi/en the de:nition
ofDreprod)cti/e healthD and Dse0)al healthD )nder 6ections
$(p&1.% and (w&1.9of the E "aw, the petitioners assert that
the assailed le2islation only see9s toens)re that women ha/e
pleas)rable and satisfyin2 se0 li/es.1%'The 16G, howe/er, points
o)t that 6ection 15, 3rticle ++ of the *onstit)tion isnot
self#e0ec)tory, it bein2 a mere statement of the administration7s
principleand policy. F/en if it were self#e0ec)tory, the 16G posits
that medicala)thorities ref)te the claim that contracepti/e pose a
dan2er to the health ofwomen.1%1The *o)rt7s
-osition3componenttotheri2httolifeistheconstit)tional
ri2httohealth. +nthisre2ard, the *onstit)tion is replete with
pro/isions protectin2 and promotin2 theri2ht to health. 6ection 15,
3rticle ++ of the *onstit)tion pro/ides=6ection15. The6tateshall
protect andpromotetheri2ht tohealthof thepeople and instill health
conscio)sness amon2 them.3 portion of 3rticle J+++ also speci:cally
pro/ides for the 6tates7 d)ty to pro/idefor the health of the
people, /i5=EF3"TE6ection 11. The 6tate shall adopt an inte2rated
and comprehensi/e approach tohealth de/elopment which shall
endea/or to ma9e essential 2oods, health andother social ser/ices
a/ailable to all the people at a;ordable cost. There shallbe
priority for the needs of the )nderpri/ile2ed, sic9, elderly,
disabled, women,and children. The 6tate shall endea/or to pro/ide
free medical care to pa)pers.6ection 12. The 6tate shall establish
and maintain an e;ecti/e food and dr)2re2)latory system and
)nderta9e appropriate health, manpower de/elopment,and research,
responsi/e to the co)ntry7s health needs and problems.6ection 13.
The 6tate shall establish a special a2ency for disabled person
fortheir rehabilitation, self#de/elopment, andself#reliance,
andtheir inte2rationinto the mainstream of society.4inally, 6ection
9, 3rticle JK+ pro/ides=6ection 9. The 6tate shall protect
cons)mers from trade malpractices and froms)bstandard or ha5ardo)s
prod)cts.*ontrary to the respondent7s notion, howe/er, these
pro/isions are self#e0ec)tin2. ,nless the pro/isions clearly
e0press the contrary, the pro/isions
ofthe*onstit)tionsho)ldbeconsideredself#e0ec)tory. Thereis
noneedforle2islationtoimplementtheseself#e0ec)tin2pro/isions.1%2+nManila-rinceEotel
/. G6+6,1%3 it was stated=0 0 0 Eence, )nless it is e0pressly
pro/ided that a le2islati/e act is necessary toenforce a
constit)tional mandate, the pres)mption now is that all pro/isions
ofthe constit)tion are self#e0ec)tin2. +f the constit)tional
pro/isions are treated asreC)irin2le2islationinsteadof
self#e0ec)tin2,thele2islat)rewo)ldha/ethepower to i2nore and
practically n)llify the mandate of the f)ndamental law. Thiscan be
cataclysmic. That is why the pre/ailin2 /iew is, as it has always
been,that W... in case of do)bt, the *onstit)tion sho)ld be
considered self#e0ec)tin2 ratherthan non#self#e0ec)tin2. . . .
,nless the contrary is clearly intended, thepro/isions of the
*onstit)tion sho)ld be considered self#e0ec)tin2, as a contraryr)le
wo)ld 2i/e the le2islat)re discretion to determine when, or
whether, theyshall bee;ecti/e.These pro/isionswo)ldbes)bordinated
tothe willofthelawma9in2body, whichco)ld ma9e thementirely
meanin2less by simplyref)sin2 to pass the needed implementin2
stat)te. (Fmphases s)pplied&This notwithstandin2, it bears
mentionin2 that the petitioners, partic)larly 3"4+,do not C)estion
contraception and contracepti/es per se.1%$ +n fact, 3"4+
praysthatthestat)sC)o# )nder.3. !o. 5921and.3. !o. $.29,
thesaleanddistrib)tion of contracepti/es are not prohibited when
they are dispensed by aprescription of a d)ly licensed by a
physician # be maintained.1%5The le2islati/e intent in the
enactment of the E "aw in this re2ard is to lea/eintact the
pro/isions of .3. !o. $.29. There is no intention at all to do
awaywith it. +t is still a 2ood law and its reC)irements are still
in to be complied with.Th)s,the*o)rt a2reeswith theobser/ation
ofrespondent"a2man thatthee;ecti/ityof theE"awwill not
leadtothe)nmiti2atedproliferationofcontracepti/essincethesale,
distrib)tionanddispensationof contracepti/edr)2s and de/ices will
still reC)ire the prescription of a licensed physician. 8ith.3. !o.
$.29 in place, there e0ists adeC)ate safe2)ards to ens)re the
p)blicthat only contracepti/es that are safe are made a/ailable to
the p)blic. 3s aptlye0plained by respondent "a2man=B.
*ontracepti/es cannot bedispensed and )sed witho)tprescription1'%.
3sanaddedprotectionto/ol)ntary)sersof contracepti/es, thesamecannot
be dispensed and )sed witho)t prescription.1'9. ep)blic 3ct !o.
$.29 or D3n 3ct to e2)late the 6ale, Bispensation, andAor
Bistrib)tion of *ontracepti/e Br)2s and Be/icesD and ep)blic 3ct
!o. 5921or D3n3ct e2)latin2the-racticeof
-harmacyand6ettin26tandards of-harmace)tical
Fd)cationinthe-hilippinesandfor1ther-)rposesDarenot2$repealed by
the E "aw and the pro/isions of said 3cts are not inconsistentwith
the E "aw.11'. *onseC)ently, thesale, distrib)tionanddispensationof
contracepti/edr)2s and de/ices are partic)larly 2o/erned by 3 !o.
$.29 which pro/ides inf)ll=D6ection 1. +t shall be )nlawf)l for any
person, partnership, or corporation, tosell, dispense or otherwise
distrib)te whether for or witho)t consideration, anycontracepti/e
dr)2 or de/ice, )nless s)ch sale, dispensation or distrib)tion isby
a d)ly licensed dr)2 store or pharmace)tical company and with
theprescription of a C)ali:ed medical practitioner.D6ec. 2 . 4or
the p)rpose of this 3ct=D(a& D*ontracepti/e dr)2D is any
medicine, dr)2, chemical, or portion which is)sed e0cl)si/ely for
the p)rpose of pre/entin2 fertili5ation of the female
o/)m=andD(b& D*ontracepti/e de/iceD is any instr)ment, de/ice,
material, or a2entintrod)cedintothefemalereprod)cti/esystemfor
theprimaryp)rposeofpre/entin2 conception.D6ec. 3 3ny person,
partnership, or corporation, /iolatin2 the pro/isions of this3ct
shall be p)nished with a :ne of not more than :/e h)ndred pesos or
animprisonment of not less than si0 months or more than one year or
both in thediscretion of the *o)rt.DThis 3ct shall ta9e e;ect )pon
its appro/al.D3ppro/ed= ections of the followin2=(a& !)mber of
women of reprod)cti/e a2e and co)ples who want to space orlimit
their children@(b& *ontracepti/e pre/alence rate, by type of
method )sed@ and(c& *ost of family plannin2 s)pplies.-ro/ided,
That "G,smayimplement itsownproc)rement, distrib)tionandmonitorin2
pro2ram consistent with the o/erall pro/isions of this 3ct and
the2)idelines of the B1E.Th)s, in the distrib)tion by the B1E of
contracepti/e dr)2s and de/ices, it m)stconsider the pro/isions of
.3. !o. $.29, which is still in e;ect, and ens)re thatthe
contracepti/es that it will proc)re shall be from a d)ly licensed
dr)2 storeor pharmace)tical company and that the act)al
dispensation of thesecontracepti/e dr)2s and de/ices will done
followin2 a prescription of a C)ali:edmedical practitioner. The
distrib)tion of contracepti/e dr)2s and de/ices m)stnot
beindiscriminately done. Thep)blic healthm)st beprotectedby
allpossible means. 3s pointed o)t by )ry, illnessorlossof
liferes)ltin2 from or incidental to their )se.1%.3t any rate, it
bears pointin2 o)t that not a sin2le contracepti/e has yet
beens)bmitted to the 4B3 p)rs)ant to the E "aw. +t behoo/es the
*o)rt to await itsdetermination which dr)2s or de/ices are declared
by the 4B3 as safe, it bein2the a2ency tas9ed to ens)re that food
and medicines a/ailable to the p)blic aresafe for p)blic
cons)mption. *onseC)ently, the *o)rt :nds that, at this point,the
attac9 on the E "aw on this 2ro)nd is premat)re. +ndeed, the
/ario)s 9indsof contracepti/es m)st :rst be meas)red )p to the
constit)tional yardstic9 ase0po)nded herein, to be determined as
the case presents itself.3t this point, the *o)rt is of the stron2
/iew that *on2ress cannot le2islate thathormonal contracepti/es and
intra#)terine de/ices are safe and non#abortifacient. The :rst
sentence of 6ection 9 that ordains their incl)sion by
the!ationalBr)2 4orm)lary inthe FB"by)sin2 themandatory DshallDis
tobeconstr)edas operati/e only after they ha/e been tested,
e/al)ated, andappro/ed by the 4B3. The 4B3, not *on2ress, has the
e0pertise to determinewhether a partic)lar hormonal contracepti/e
or intra)terine de/ice is safe andnon#abortifacient. The pro/ision
of the third sentence concernin2 thereC)irements for the incl)sion
or remo/al of a partic)lar family plannin2 s)pplyfrom the FB"
s)pports this constr)ction.6tated di;erently, the pro/ision in
6ection 9 co/erin2 the incl)sion of hormonalcontracepti/es,
intra#)terinede/ices, in>ectables, andothersafe, le2al,
non#abortifacient and e;ecti/e family plannin2 prod)cts and
s)pplies by the!ationalBr)2 4orm)lary inthe FB"is notmandatory.
There m)st :rstbeadetermination by the 4B3 that they are in fact
safe, le2al, non#abortifacient ande;ecti/e family plannin2 prod)cts
and s)pplies. There can be no25predeterminationby*on2ress that
the2am)t of contracepti/es areDsafe,le2al, non#abortifacient and
e;ecti/eD witho)t the proper scienti:ce0amination.3 #4reedom of
eli2ionand the i2ht to 4ree 6peech-osition of the -etitioners=1. 1n
*ontraception8hile contracepti/es and proced)res li9e /asectomy and
t)bal li2ation are notco/eredbytheconstit)tional proscription,
therearethosewho, beca)seoftheir reli2io)s ed)cation and
bac92ro)nd, sincerely belie/e that contracepti/es,whether
abortifacient or not, are e/il. 6ome of these are medical
practitionerswho essentially claim that their beliefs prohibit not
only the )se ofcontracepti/es b)t also the willin2 participation
and cooperation in allthin2sdealin2 with contracepti/e )se.
-etitioner -3J e0plained that Dcontraception is2ra/ely opposed to
marital chastity, it is contrary to the 2ood of thetransmission of
life, and to the reciprocalself#2i/in2 of the spo)ses@ it harmstr)e
lo/e and denies the so/erei2n r)le of God in the transmission of
E)manlife.D1%%ThepetitionersC)estionthe6tate#sponsoredproc)rementof
contracepti/es,ar2)in2that thee0pendit)reof their ta0es
oncontracepti/es /iolates the2)arantee of reli2io)s freedom since
contracepti/es contra/ene their reli2io)sbeliefs.1%92. 1n eli2io)s
3ccommodation andThe B)ty to efer-etitioners +mbon2 and ")at note
that while the E "aw attempts to
addressreli2io)ssentimentsbyma9in2pro/isionsfor
aconscientio)sob>ector, theconstit)tional 2)arantee is
nonetheless /iolated beca)se the law also imposes)pon the
conscientio)s ob>ector the d)ty to refer the patient
see9in2reprod)cti/e health ser/ices to another medical practitioner
who wo)ld be ableto pro/ide for the patient7s needs. 4or the
petitioners, this amo)nts to reC)irin2the conscientio)s ob>ector
to cooperate with the /ery thin2 he ref)ses to dowitho)t /iolatin2
hisAher reli2io)s beliefs.19'Theyf)rtherar2)ethate/enif
theconscientio)sob>ector7sd)tytoreferisreco2ni5ed,
thereco2nitionis)nd)lylimited, beca)sealtho)2hit
allowsaconscientio)s ob>ector in 6ection 23 (a&(3& the
option to refer a patient see9in2reprod)cti/e health ser/ices and
information # no escape is a;orded theconscientio)s ob>ector in
6ection 23 (a&(l& and (2&, i.e. a2ainst a patient
see9in2reprod)cti/e health proced)res. They claim that the ri2ht of
other indi/id)als toconscientio)slyob>ect, s)chas= a&
thosewor9in2inp)blic healthfacilitiesreferred to in 6ection .@
b& p)blic o(cers in/ol/ed in the implementation of thelaw
referred to in 6ection 23(b &@ and c& teachers in p)blic
schools referred to in6ection 1$ of the E "aw, are also not
reco2ni5e.191-etitioner Fcha/e5 and the other medical practitioners
meanwhile, contend thatthe reC)irement to refer the matter to
another health care ser/ice pro/ider isstill considered a
comp)lsion on those ob>ectin2 healthcare ser/ice
pro/iders.Theyaddthatcompellin2themtodotheacta2ainsttheirwill
/iolatestheBoctrine of ?ene/olent !e)trality. 6ections 9, 1$ and 1
. of the law are toosec)lar that they tend to disre2ard the
reli2ion of 4ilipinos. 3)thori5in2 the )seof contracepti/es with
aborti/e e;ects, mandatory se0 ed)cation, mandatorypro#bono
reprod)cti/e health ser/ices to indi2ents encroach )pon the
reli2io)sfreedom of those )pon whom they are reC)ired.192-etitioner
*4* also ar2)es that the reC)irement for a conscientio)s
ob>ector torefer the person see9in2 reprod)cti/e health care
ser/ices to another pro/iderinfrin2es on one7s freedom of reli2ion
as it forces the ob>ector to become an)nwillin2 participant in
the commission of a serio)s sin )nder *atholicteachin2s. 8hile the
ri2ht to act on one7s belief may be re2)lated by the 6tate,the acts
prohibited by the E "aw are passi/e acts which prod)ce neither
harmnor in>)ry to the p)blic.193-etitioner *4* adds that the E
"aw does not show compellin2 state interest to>)stify re2)lation
of reli2io)s freedom beca)se it mentions no emer2ency, ris9or
threat that endan2ers state interests. +t does not e0plain how the
ri2hts ofthe people (to eC)ality, non#discrimination of ri2hts,
s)stainable h)mande/elopment, health, ed)cation, information,
choiceandtoma9edecisionsaccordin2 to reli2io)s con/ictions, ethics,
c)lt)ral beliefs and the demands ofresponsible parenthood& are
bein2 threatened or are not bein2 met as to >)stifythe
impairment of reli2io)s freedom.19$4inally, the petitioners also
C)estion 6ection 15 of the E "aw reC)irin2 wo)ld#be co)ples to
attend family plannin2 and responsible parenthood seminars
andtoobtainacerti:cateof compliance. Theyclaimthat
thepro/isionforcesindi/id)als to participateintheimplementationof
theE"awe/enif itcontra/enes their reli2io)s beliefs.195 3s the
assailed law dan2les the threat ofpenalty of :ne andAor
imprisonment in case of non#compliance with itspro/isions,
thepetitioners claimthat theE"awforcin2themtopro/ide,s)pport
andfacilitateaccessandinformationtocontraceptiona2ainst
theirbeliefs m)st be str)c9 down as it r)ns afo)l to the
constit)tional 2)arantee ofreli2io)s freedom.The espondents7
-ositionsThe respondents, on the other hand, contend that the E "aw
does not pro/idethat a speci:c mode or type of contracepti/es be
)sed, be it nat)ral or arti:cial.+t neither imposes nor sanctions
any reli2ion or belief.196 They point o)t
thattheE"awonlysee9stoser/ethep)blicinterestbypro/idin2accessible,e;ecti/e
and C)ality reprod)cti/e health ser/ices to ens)re maternal and
childhealth, in line with the 6tate7s d)ty to brin2 to reality the
social >)stice health2)aranteesof
the*onstit)tion,19.andthatwhatthelawonlyprohibitsarethoseactsor
practices, whichdepri/eothersof their ri2ht
toreprod)cti/ehealth.19% They assert that the assailed law only
see9s to 2)arantee informedchoice, whichisanass)rancethat noonewill
becompelledto/iolatehisreli2ion a2ainst his free will.199The
respondents add that by assertin2 that only nat)ral family plannin2
sho)ldbe allowed, the petitioners are e;ecti/ely 2oin2 a2ainst the
constit)tional ri2htto reli2io)s freedom, the same ri2ht they
in/o9ed to assail the constit)tionalityof the E "aw.2'' +n other
words, by see9in2 the declaration that the E "aw
is)nconstit)tional, the petitioners are as9in2 that the *o)rt
reco2ni5e only the26*atholic *h)rch7s sanctioned nat)ral family
plannin2 methods and impose thison the entire citi5enry.2'18ith
respect to the d)ty to refer, the respondents insist that the same
does not/iolate the constit)tional 2)arantee of reli2io)s
freedom,it bein2 acaref)llybalanced compromise between the
interests of the reli2io)s ob>ector, on onehand, who is allowed
to 9eep silent b)t is reC)ired to refer #and that of theciti5en who
needs access to information and who has the ri2ht to e0pect
thatthehealthcareprofessional infront of her will act
professionally. 4or therespondents, the concession 2i/en by the
6tate )nder 6ection . and 23(a&(3& iss)(cient accommodation
to the ri2ht to freely e0ercise one7s reli2ion witho)t)nnecessarily
infrin2in2 on the ri2hts of others.2'28hate/er b)rden is placed on
the petitioner7s reli2io)s freedom is minimal asthe d)ty to refer
is limited in d)ration, location and impact.2'3e2ardin2 mandatory
family plannin2 seminars )nder 6ection 15 , therespondents claim
that it is a reasonable re2)lation pro/idin2 an opport)nity
forwo)ld#be co)ples to ha/e access to information re2ardin2
parenthood, familyplannin2, breastfeedin2 and infant n)trition. +t
is ar2)ed that those who ob>ecttoanyinformationrecei/edonacco)nt
of their attendanceinthereC)iredseminarsarenot compelledtoaccept
information2i/entothem. Theyarecompletely free to re>ect any
information they do not a2ree with and retain thefreedomto decide
on matters of family life witho)t inter/ention of the6tate.2'$4or
their part, respondents Be Kenecia et al., disp)te the notion that
nat)ralfamilyplannin2 is theonly methodacceptableto*atholicsandthe
*atholichierarchy. *itin2 /ario)s st)dies and s)r/eys on the
matter, they hi2hli2ht thechan2in2 stand of the *atholic *h)rch on
contraception thro)2ho)t the yearsandnotethe2eneral acceptanceof
thebene:ts of contracepti/es byitsfollowers in plannin2 their
families.The *h)rch and The 6tate3t the o)tset, it cannot be denied
that we all li/e in a hetero2eneo)s society. +tis made)pof peopleof
di/erseethnic, c)lt)ral andreli2io)s beliefs andbac92ro)nds.
Eistory has shown )s that o)r 2o/ernment, in law and in
practice,has allowed these /ario)s reli2io)s, c)lt)ral, social and
racial 2ro)ps to thri/ein a sin2le society to2ether. +t has
embraced minority 2ro)ps and is toleranttowards all # the reli2io)s
people of di;erent sects and the non#belie/ers. The)ndisp)ted fact
is that o)r people 2enerally belie/e in a deity, whate/er
theyconcei/ed Eim to be, and to whom they call for 2)idance and
enli2htenment incraftin2 o)r f)ndamentallaw. Th)s, the preamble of
the present *onstit)tionreads=8e, the so/erei2n 4ilipino people,
implorin2 the aid of 3lmi2hty God, in order tob)ild a >)st and
h)mane society, and establish a Go/ernment that shall embodyo)r
ideals and aspirations, promote the common 2ood, conser/e and
de/elopo)r patrimony, andsec)retoo)rsel/esando)r posterity,
theblessin2sofindependenceanddemocracy)nderther)leof
lawandare2imeof tr)th,>)stice, freedom, lo/e, eC)ality,
andpeace,
doordainandprom)l2atethis*onstit)tion.The4ilipinopeopleinDimplorin2theaidof
3lmi2htyGodDmanifestedtheirspirit)alityinnateino)r
nat)reandconscio)snessasapeople, shapedbytraditionandhistorical
e0perience. 3sthisisembodiedinthepreamble, itmeans that the 6tate
reco2ni5es with respect the inH)ence of reli2ion in so
farasitinstillsintothemindthep)restprinciplesof
morality.2'5Moreo/er, inreco2nition of the contrib)tions of
reli2ion to society, the 1935, 19.3 and 19%.constit)tions contain
bene/olent and accommodatin2 pro/isions towardsreli2ions s)ch as
ta0 e0emption of ch)rch property, salary of reli2io)s o(cers
in2o/ernment instit)tions, and optional reli2io)s instr)ctions in
p)blic schools.The 4ramers, howe/er, felt the need to p)t )p a
stron2 barrier so that the 6tatewo)ld not encroach into the a;airs
of the ch)rch, and /ice#/ersa. The principleof separation of *h)rch
and 6tate was, th)s, enshrined in 3rticle ++, 6ection 6 ofthe 19%.
*onstit)tion, /i5=6ection 6. The separation of *h)rch and 6tate
shall be in/iolable.Kerily, theprincipleof separationof
*h)rchand6tateisbasedonm)t)alrespect.1Xwphi1 Generally, the 6tate
cannot meddle in the internala;airs ofthech)rch,
m)chlessC)estionitsfaithanddo2masor dictate)ponit. +tcannot fa/or
one reli2ion and discriminate a2ainst another. 1n the other
hand,the ch)rch cannot impose its beliefs and con/ictions on the
6tate and the restof the citi5enry. +t cannot demand that the
nation follow its beliefs, e/en if itsincerely belie/es that they
are 2ood for the co)ntry.*onsistent with the principle that not any
one reli2ion sho)ld e/er be preferredo/er another,
the*onstit)tionintheabo/e#citedpro/ision)tili5esthetermDch)rchD in
its 2eneric sense, which refers to a temple, a mosC)e, an i2lesia,
orany other ho)se of God which metaphorically symboli5es a
reli2io)sor2ani5ation. Th)s, the D*h)rchD means the reli2io)s
con2re2ations collecti/ely.?alancin2 the bene:ts that reli2ion
a;ords and the need to pro/ide an amplebarrier toprotect
the6tatefromthep)rs)it of its sec)lar ob>ecti/es,
the*onstit)tion lays down the followin2 mandate in 3rticle +++,
6ection 5 and 3rticleK+, 6ection 29 (2&, of the 19%.
*onstit)tion=6ection.5. !o lawshall be made respectin2an
establishment ofreli2ion, orprohibitin2the free e0ercise thereof.
The free e0ercise and en>oyment ofreli2io)sprofessionandworship,
witho)t discriminationor preference, shallfore/er be allowed. !o
reli2io)s test shall be reC)ired for the e0ercise of ci/il
orpolitical ri2hts.6ection 29.000.!o p)blic money or property shall
be appropriated, applied, paid, or employed,directlyor indirectly,
for the)se, bene:t, or s)pport of anysect, ch)rch,denomination,
sectarianinstit)tion, or systemof reli2ion, or of
anypriest,preacher, minister, other reli2io)s teacher, or di2nitary
as s)ch, e0cept whens)ch priest, preacher, minister, or di2nitary
is assi2ned to the armed forces, orto any penal instit)tion, or
2o/ernment orphana2e or leprosari)m.2.+n short, the constit)tional
ass)rance of reli2io)s freedompro/ides two2)arantees= the
Fstablishment *la)se and the 4ree F0ercise *la)se.The establishment
cla)se Dprincipally prohibits the 6tate from sponsorin2 anyreli2ion
or fa/orin2 any reli2ion as a2ainst other reli2ions. +t mandates a
strictne)tralityina;airsamon2reli2io)s2ro)ps.D2'6Fssentially, it
prohibitstheestablishment of a state reli2ion and the )se of p)blic
reso)rces for the s)pportor prohibition of a reli2ion.1n the other
hand, the basis of the free e0ercise cla)se is the respect for
thein/iolability of the h)man conscience.2'. ,nder this part of
reli2io)s freedom2)arantee,
the6tateisprohibitedfrom)nd)lyinterferin2withtheo)tsidemanifestations
of one7s belief and faith.2'% F0plainin2 the concept of
reli2io)sfreedom, the *o)rt, in Kictoriano /. Fli5alde ope 8or9ers
,nion2'9 wrote=The constit)tional pro/isions not only prohibits
le2islation for the s)pport of anyreli2io)s tenets or the modes of
worship of any sect, th)s forestallin2comp)lsion by law of the
acceptance of any creed or the practice of any form ofworship (,.6.
?allard, 322 ,.6. .%, %% ". ed. 11$%, 1153&, b)t also ass)res
thefree e0ercise of one7s chosen form of reli2ion within limits of
)tmost amplit)de.+t has been said that the reli2ion cla)ses of the
*onstit)tion are all desi2ned toprotect thebroadest
possiblelibertyof conscience,
toalloweachmantobelie/eashisconsciencedirects, toprofesshisbeliefs,
andtoli/eashebelie/esheo)2httoli/e, consistentwiththelibertyof
othersandwiththecommon2ood. 3ny le2islationwhose e;ect or p)rposeis
to impedetheobser/ance of one or allreli2ions, or to discriminate
in/idio)sly between thereli2ions, isin/alid,
e/entho)2htheb)rdenmaybecharacteri5edasbein2only indirect.
(6herbert /. Kerner, 3.$ ,.6. 39%, 1' ".ed.2d 965, %3 6. *t.
19.'&?)t if the state re2)lates cond)ct by enactin2, within its
power, a 2eneral lawwhich has for its p)rpose and e;ect to ad/ance
the state7s sec)lar 2oals, thestat)te is /alid despite its indirect
b)rden on reli2io)s obser/ance, )nless thestate can accomplish its
p)rpose witho)t imposin2 s)ch b)rden. (?ra)nfeld /.?rown, 366 ,.6.
599, 6 "ed. 2d. 563, %1 6. *t. 1$$@ McGowan /. Maryland, 366,.6.
$2', $$$#5 and $$9&.3s e0po)nded in Fscritor,The establishment
andfree e0ercise cla)ses were not desi2ned to ser/econtradictory
p)rposes. They ha/e a sin2le 2oal#to promote
freedomofindi/id)alreli2io)s beliefs and practices. +n simplest
terms, the free e0ercisecla)se prohibits 2o/ernment from inhibitin2
reli2io)s beliefs with penalties forreli2io)s beliefs and practice,
while the establishment cla)se prohibits2o/ernment from inhibitin2
reli2io)s belief with rewards for reli2io)s beliefs andpractices.
+nother words, thetworeli2ioncla)ses wereintendedtodeny2o/ernment
the power to )se either the carrot or the stic9 to
inH)enceindi/id)al reli2io)s beliefs and practices.21'*orollary to
the 2)arantee of free e0ercise of one7s reli2ion is the principle
thatthe 2)arantee of reli2io)s freedom is comprised of two parts=
the freedom tobelie/e, and the freedom to act on one7s belief. The
:rst part is absol)te. 3se0plained in Gerona /. 6ecretary of
Fd)cation=211The realm of belief and creed is in:nite and limitless
bo)nded only by one7sima2ination and tho)2ht. 6o is the freedom of
belief, incl)din2 reli2io)s belief,limitlessandwitho)t bo)nds.
1nemaybelie/einmost anythin2, howe/erstran2e, bi5arre
and)nreasonable thesame may appear to others, e/enheretical when
wei2hed in the scales of orthodo0y or doctrinal standards.
?)tbetween the freedom of belief and the e0ercise of said belief,
there is C)ite astretch of road to tra/el.212The second part
howe/er, is limited and s)b>ect to the awesome power of the6tate
and can be en>oyed only with proper re2ard to the ri2hts of
others. +t isDs)b>ect tore2)lationwherethebelief
istranslatedintoe0ternal actsthata;ect the p)blic
welfare.D213"e2islati/e 3cts and the4ree F0ercise *la)seTh)s, in
case of conHict between the free e0ercise cla)se and the 6tate,
the*o)rt adheres to the doctrine of bene/olent ne)trality. This has
been clearlydecided by the *o)rt in Fstrada /. Fscritor,
(Fscritor&21$ where it was statedDthat bene/olent
ne)trality#accommodation, whether mandatory or permissi/e,is the
spirit, intent and framewor9 )nderlyin2 the -hilippine
*onstit)tion.D215 +nthe same case, it was f)rther e0plained
thatDThe bene/olent ne)trality theory belie/es that with respect to
these2o/ernmental actions, accommodationof reli2ionmay be allowed,
not topromote the 2o/ernment7s fa/ored form of reli2ion, b)t to
allow indi/id)als and2ro)ps to e0ercise their reli2ion witho)t
hindrance. DThe p)rpose ofaccommodationis toremo/eab)rdenon, or
facilitatethee0erciseof, aperson7s or instit)tion7s
reli2ion.D216D8hat is so)2ht )nder thetheoryofaccommodation is not
a declaration of )nconstit)tionality of a facially ne)trallaw, b)t
an e0emption from its application or its 7b)rdensome e;ect,7
whetherby the le2islat)re or the co)rts.D21.+n ascertainin2 the
limits of the e0ercise of reli2io)s freedom, the compellin2state
interest test is proper.21% ,nderlyin2 the compellin2 state
interest test isthe notion that free e0ercise is a f)ndamental
ri2ht and that laws b)rdenin2 itsho)ld be s)b>ect to strict
scr)tiny.219 +n Fscritor, it was
written=-hilippine>)rispr)denceartic)lates se/eral tests
todeterminetheselimits.?e2innin2withthe:rst
caseonthe4reeF0ercise*la)se, 3merican?ible6ociety, the *o)rt
mentioned the Dclear and present dan2erD test b)t did notemploy it.
!e/ertheless, this test contin)ed to be cited in s)bseC)ent cases
onreli2io)s liberty. The Gerona case then prono)nced that the test
ofpermissibility of reli2io)s freedomis whether it /iolates the
establishedinstit)tions of society and law. The Kictoriano case
mentioned the Dimmediateand 2ra/e dan2erD test as well as the
doctrine that a lawof 2eneralapplicability may b)rden reli2io)s
e0ercise pro/ided the lawis the leastrestricti/e means to
accomplish the 2oal of the law. The case also )sed,
albeitinappropriately, the Dcompellin2 state interestD test. 3fter
Kictoriano , Germanwent bac9 to the Gerona r)le. Fbralina2 then
employed the D2ra/e andimmediate dan2erD test and o/err)led the
Gerona test. The fairly recent case of+2lesia ni *risto went bac9
to the D clear and present dan2erD test in the maidencase of 3
merican ?ible 6ociety. !ot s)rprisin2ly, all the cases which
employedthe Dclear and present dan2erD or D2ra/e and immediate
dan2erD test in/ol/ed,in one form or another, reli2io)s speech as
this test is often )sed in cases on2%freedom of e0pression. 1n the
other hand, the Gerona and German cases setthe r)le that reli2io)s
freedom will not pre/ail o/er established instit)tions ofsociety
and law. Gerona, howe/er, which was the a)thority cited by
Germanhasbeeno/err)led byFbralina2whichemployedtheD2ra/eand
immediatedan2erD test . Kictoriano was the only case that employed
the Dcompellin2 stateinterestD test, b)t as e0plained pre/io)sly,
the )se of the test was inappropriateto the facts of the
case.Thecaseat bar does not in/ol/espeechas
in3merican?ible6ociety,Fbralina2 and +2lesia ni *risto where the
Dclear and present dan2erD and D2ra/eand immediate dan2erD tests
were appropriate as speech has easily discernibleor
immediatee;ects. TheGeronaandGermandoctrine, asidefromha/in2been
o/err)led, is not con2r)ent with the bene/olent ne)trality
approach, th)snot appropriateinthis >)risdiction. 6imilar
toKictoriano, thepresent casein/ol/es p)relycond)ct
arisin2fromreli2io)sbelief. TheDcompellin2stateinterestD test is
proper where cond)ct is in/ol/ed for the whole 2am)t of
h)mancond)ct hasdi;erent e;ectsonthestate7sinterests=
somee;ectsmaybeimmediate and short#term while others delayed and
far#reachin2. 3 test thatwo)ldprotect theinterests of
thestateinpre/entin2a s)bstanti/ee/il,whether immediate or delayed,
is therefore necessary. Eowe/er, not anyinterest of the state wo)ld
s)(ce to pre/ail o/er the ri2ht to reli2io)s freedomas this is a
f)ndamental ri2ht that en>oys a preferred position in the
hierarchyof ri2hts # Dthe most inalienable and sacred of all h)man
ri2htsD, in the words of)st
andh)manesocietyandestablisha2o/ernment.D3sheldin6herbert,
onlythe2ra/estab)ses,
endan2erin2paramo)ntinterestscanlimitthisf)ndamentalri2ht. 3 mere
balancin2 of interests which balances a ri2ht with >)st a
colorablestate interest is therefore not appropriate. +nstead, only
a compellin2 interest ofthe state can pre/ailo/er the
f)ndamentalri2ht to reli2io)s liberty. The testreC)ires thestateto
carry ahea/y b)rden, a compellin2one, for to dootherwise wo)ld
allow the state to batter reli2ion, especially the less
powerf)lones )ntil they are destroyed. +n determinin2 which shall
pre/ail between thestate7sinterestandreli2io)sliberty,
reasonablenessshall bethe2)ide. TheDcompellin2 state interestD
ser/es the p)rpose of re/erin2 reli2io)s liberty whileat the same
time a;ordin2 protection to the paramo)nt interests of the
state.This was the test )sed in 6herbert which in/ol/ed cond)ct,
i.e. ref)sal to wor9on 6at)rdays. +n the end, the Dcompellin2 state
interestD test, by )pholdin2 theparamo)nt interests of thestate,
see9s toprotect the/erystate, witho)twhich, reli2io)s liberty will
not be preser/ed. NFmphases in the ori2inal.,nderlinin2
s)pplied.OThe *o)rt7s -osition+n the case at bench, it is not
within the pro/ince of the *o)rt to determinewhether the)seof
contracepti/es or one7s participationinthes)pport ofmodem
reprod)cti/e health meas)res is moralfrom a reli2io)s standpoint
orwhether the same is ri2ht or wron2 accordin2 to one7s do2ma or
belief. 4or the*o)rt has declared that matters dealin2 with Dfaith,
practice, doctrine, form ofworship, ecclesiastical law, c)stom and
r)le of a ch)rch ... are
)nC)estionablyecclesiasticalmatterswhichareo)tside the
pro/inceoftheci/ilco)rts.D22'The>)risdictionof the*o)rt e0tends
onlyto p)blic andsec)lar morality.8hate/er prono)ncement the*o)rt
ma9esinthecaseat benchsho)ldbe)nderstood only in this realm where
it has a)thority. 6tated otherwise, while the*o)rt stands witho)t
a)thority to r)le on ecclesiastical matters, as /an2)ard
ofthe*onstit)tion, it doesha/ea)thoritytodeterminewhether
theE"awcontra/enes the 2)arantee of reli2io)s freedom.3t :rst
bl)sh, it appears that the E "aw reco2ni5es and respects reli2ion
andreli2io)s beliefs and con/ictions. +t is replete with ass)rances
the no one can becompelled to /iolate the tenets of his reli2ion or
defy his reli2io)s con/ictionsa2ainst his free will. -ro/isions in
the E "aw respectin2 reli2io)s freedom arethe followin2=1. The
6tate reco2ni5es and2)arantees the h)manri2hts of all
personsincl)din2 their ri2ht to eC)ality and nondiscrimination of
these ri2hts, the ri2htto s)stainable h)man de/elopment, the ri2ht
to health which incl)desreprod)cti/e health,theri2httoed)cationand
information,and the ri2ht tochoose and ma9e decisions for
themsel/es in accordance with their reli2io)scon/ictions, ethics,
c)lt)ral beliefs, and the demands of responsibleparenthood.
N6ection 2, Beclaration of -olicyO2 .The 6tate reco2ni5es marria2e
asan in/iolable social instit)tion andthefo)ndation of the family
which in t)rn is the fo)ndation of the nation. -)rs)antthereto, the
6tate shall defend=(a& Theri2htof spo)sesto fo)nd a
familyinaccordance withtheir reli2io)scon/ictions and the demands
of responsible parenthood.D N6ection 2,Beclaration of -olicyO3. The
6tate shall promote and pro/ide information and access, witho)t
bias, toall methods of family plannin2, incl)din2 e;ecti/e nat)ral
and modern methodswhich ha/e been pro/en medically safe, le2al,
non#abortifacient, and e;ecti/ein accordance with scienti:c and
e/idence#based medicalresearch standardss)ch as those re2istered
and appro/ed by the 4B3 for the poor andmar2inali5ed as identi:ed
thro)2h the !ET6#- and other 2o/ernmentmeas)resof
identifyin2mar2inali5ation= -ro/ided, That the6tateshall
alsopro/ide f)ndin2 s)pport to promote modern nat)ral methods of
familyplannin2, especially the ?illin2s 1/)lation Method,
consistent with the needs ofacceptors and their reli2io)s
con/ictions. N6ection 3(e&, Beclaration of -olicyO$. The 6tate
shall promote pro2rams that= (1& enable indi/id)als and co)ples
toha/e the n)mber of children they desire with d)e consideration to
the health,partic)larly of women, and the reso)rces a/ailable and
a;ordable to them andin accordance with e0istin2 laws, p)blic
morals and their reli2io)s con/ictions.N6ection 3*Bections based on
reli2io)s or ethical beliefs.+nasit)ationwherethefreee0erciseof
reli2ionisalle2edlyb)rdenedby2o/ernmentle2islationorpractice,
thecompellin2stateinteresttestinlinewith the *o)rt7s espo)sal of
the Boctrine of ?ene/olent !e)trality in Fscritor,:ndsapplication.
+nthiscase,
theconscientio)sob>ector7sclaimtoreli2io)sfreedomwo)ldwarrant
ane0emptionfromobli2ations )nder theE"aw,)nlessthe2o/ernment
s)cceedsindemonstratin2amorecompellin2stateinterest in the
accomplishment of an important sec)lar ob>ecti/e. !ecessarilyso,
the plea of conscientio)s ob>ectors for e0emption from the E "aw
deser/esno less than strict scr)tiny.+n applyin2 the test, the :rst
inC)iry is whether a conscientio)s ob>ector7s ri2htto reli2io)s
freedom has been b)rdened. 3s in Fscritor, there is no do)bt thatan
intense t)2#of#war pla2)es a conscientio)s ob>ector. 1ne side
coa0es himinto obedience to the law and the abandonment of his
reli2io)s beliefs, whilethe other entices him to a clean conscience
yet )nder the pain of penalty.
Thescenarioisanill)strationofthepredicamentof medical
practitionerswhosereli2io)s beliefs are incon2r)ent with what the E
"aw promotes.The *o)rt is of the /iew that the obli2ation to refer
imposed by the E "aw/iolates the reli2io)s belief and con/iction of
a conscientio)s ob>ector. 1nce themedical
practitioner,a2ainsthiswill, refersa patient see9in2 information
onmodemreprod)cti/ehealthprod)cts, ser/ices, proced)resandmethods,
hisconscience is immediately b)rdened as he has been compelled to
perform anact a2ainst his beliefs. 3s *ommissioner ector to refer.
..6enior 6tate 6olicitor Eilbay=Les, )st the freedom to belie/e. +t
also meansthefreedomtoact or not toact accordin2towhat onebelie/es.
3ndthisfreedomis/iolatedwhenoneiscompelledtoacta2ainst one7sbelief
orispre/ented from actin2 accordin2 to one7s belief.2333pparently,
in these cases, there is no immediate dan2er to the life or health
ofanindi/id)al inthepercei/edscenarioofthes)b>ectpro/isions.
3fterall,aco)ple who plans the timin2, n)mber and spacin2 of the
birth of their childrenrefers to a f)t)re e/ent that is contin2ent
on whether or not the mother decidestoadoptor)setheinformation,
prod)ct, methodors)pply2i/entoherorwhether she e/en decides to
become pre2nant at all. 1n the other hand, theb)rden placed )pon
those who ob>ect to contracepti/e )se is immediate andocc)rs the
moment a patient see9s cons)ltation on reprod)cti/e
healthmatters.Moreo/er, 2rantin2 that a compellin2 interest e0ists
to >)stify the infrin2ementof the conscientio)s ob>ector7s
reli2io)s freedom, the respondents ha/e failedto demonstrate Dthe
2ra/est ab)ses, endan2erin2 paramo)nt interestsD whichco)ld limit
or o/erride a person7s f)ndamental ri2ht to reli2io)s freedom.
3lso,therespondentsha/e notpresentedany 2o/ernment e;ort e0ertedto
showthatthe meansitta9esto achie/e itsle2itimate
stateob>ecti/eisthe leastintr)si/e means.23$ 1ther than the
assertion that the act of referrin2 wo)ldonlybemomentary,
considerin2that theact of referral byaconscientio)sob>ector is
the /ery action bein2 contested as /iolati/e of reli2io)s freedom,
itbehoo/es the respondents to demonstrate that no other means can
be)nderta9en by the 6tate to achie/e its ob>ecti/e witho)t
/iolatin2 the ri2hts ofthe conscientio)s ob>ector. The health
concerns of women may still beaddressed by other practitioners who
may perform reprod)cti/e
health#relatedproced)reswithopenwillin2nessandmoti/ation.
6)(ceittosay, apersonwho is forced to perform an act in )tter
rel)ctance deser/es the protection ofthe *o)rt as the last /an2)ard
of constit)tional freedoms.3t any rate, there are other sec)lar
steps already ta9en by the "e2islat)re toens)re that the ri2ht to
health is protected. *onsiderin2 other le2islations asthey stand
now, .3 . !o. $ .29 or the *ontracepti/e 3ct, .3. !o. 6365 or
DThe-op)lation 3ct of the -hilippinesD and .3. !o. 9.1', otherwise
9nown as DTheMa2na*artaof 8omen,Damplycatertotheneedsof
womeninrelationtohealthser/ices andpro2rams. Thepertinent
pro/isionof Ma2na*artaoncomprehensi/e health ser/ices and pro2rams
for women, in fact, reads=6ection 1.. 8omen7s i2ht to Eealth. #
(a& *omprehensi/e Eealth 6er/ices. #The 6tate shall, at all
times, pro/ide for a comprehensi/e, c)lt)re#sensiti/e,
and2ender#responsi/e health ser/ices and pro2rams co/erin2 all
sta2es of awoman7s life cycle and which addresses the ma>or
ca)ses of women7s mortalityand morbidity= -ro/ided, That in the
pro/ision for comprehensi/e healthser/ices, d)e respect shallbe
accorded to women7s reli2io)s con/ictions, theri2hts of thespo)ses
tofo)ndafamilyinaccordancewiththeir reli2io)s32con/ictions,
andthedemands of responsibleparenthood, andtheri2ht ofwomen to
protection fromha5ardo)s dr)2s, de/ices, inter/entions,
ands)bstances.3ccess to the followin2 ser/ices shall be
ens)red=(1& Maternal care to incl)de pre# and post#natal
ser/ices to address pre2nancyand infant health and
n)trition@(2& -romotion of breastfeedin2@(3& esponsible,
ethical, le2al, safe, and e;ecti/e methods of family
plannin2@($&
4amilyand6tatecollaborationinyo)thse0)alityed)cationandhealthser/ices
witho)t pre>)dice to the primary ri2ht and d)ty of parents to
ed)catetheir children@(5& -re/entionandmana2ement of
reprod)cti/etract infections, incl)din2se0)ally transmitted
diseases, E+K, and 3+B6@(6& -re/ention and mana2ement of
reprod)cti/e tract cancers li9e breast andcer/ical cancers, and
other 2ynecolo2ical conditions and disorders@(.& -re/ention of
abortion and mana2ement of pre2nancy#relatedcomplications@(%&
+ncasesof /iolencea2ainst womenandchildren,
womenandchildren/ictimsands)r/i/orsshall
bepro/idedwithcomprehensi/ehealthser/icesthat incl)depsychosocial,
therape)tic, medical, andle2al inter/entionsandassistance towards
healin2, reco/ery, and empowerment@(9& -re/ention and
mana2ement of infertility and se0)al dysf)nction p)rs)antto ethical
norms and medical standards@(1'& *are of the elderly women
beyond their child#bearin2 years@ and(11&Mana2ement, treatment,
andinter/entionofmental healthproblemsofwomenand2irls. +naddition,
healthylifestyleacti/itiesareenco)ra2edandpromotedthro)2hpro2ramsandpro>ectsasstrate2iesinthepre/entionofdiseases.(b&
*omprehensi/e Eealth +nformation and Fd)cation. # The 6tate shall
pro/idewomen in all sectors with appropriate, timely, complete, and
acc)rateinformation and ed)cation on all the abo/e#stated aspects
of women7s health in2o/ernment ed)cation and trainin2 pro2rams,
with d)e re2ard to the followin2=(1&Thenat)ral
andprimaryri2htandd)tyof parentsintherearin2of theyo)th and the
de/elopment of moral character and the ri2ht of children to
bebro)2ht )p in an atmosphere of morality and rectit)de for the
enrichment andstren2thenin2 of character@(2& The formation of a
person7s se0)ality that a(rms h)man di2nity@ and(3& Fthical,
le2al, safe, and e;ecti/e family plannin2 methods incl)din2
fertilityawareness.3sanaftertho)2ht, 3sst. 6olicitorGeneral
Eilbaye/ent)allyrepliedthatthecompellin2stateinterestwasD4ifteen
maternal deathsperday,h)ndreds oftho)sands of )nintended
pre2nancies, li/es chan2ed, 0 0 0.D235 Ee, howe/er,failed to
s)bstantiate this point by concrete facts and :2)res from
rep)tableso)rces.The )ndisp)ted fact, howe/er, is that the 8orld
Eealth 1r2ani5ation reportedthat the 4ilipino maternalmortality
rate dropped to $% percent from 199' to2''%,
236altho)2htherewasstill noE"awat that time. Bespites)chre/elation,
theproponentsstill insist that s)chn)mber of maternal
deathsconstit)te a compellin2 state interest.Grantin2that
therearestill de:cienciesandHawsinthedeli/eryof socialhealthcare
pro2rams for 4ilipino women, they co)ld not be sol/ed by a
meas)rethatp)tsan)nwarrantablestran2leholdonreli2io)sbeliefsine0chan2eforblind
conformity.F0ception= "ife Threatenin2 *ases3ll
thisnotwithstandin2,
the*o)rtproperlyreco2ni5esa/alide0ceptionsetforth in the law. 8hile
2enerally healthcare ser/ice pro/iders cannot be forcedto render
reprod)cti/e health care proced)res if doin2 it wo)ld contra/ene
theirreli2io)sbeliefs, ane0ceptionm)st
bemadeinlife#threatenin2casesthatreC)ire the performance of
emer2ency proced)res. +n these sit)ations, the ri2htto life of the
mother sho)ld be 2i/en preference, considerin2 that a referral by
amedical practitioner wo)ld amo)nt to a denial of ser/ice,
res)ltin2 to)nnecessarily placin2 the life of a mother in 2ra/e
dan2er. Th)s, d)rin2 the oralar2)ments, 3tty. "iban, representin2
*4*, manifested= Dthe forced referralcla)se that we are
ob>ectin2 on 2ro)nds of /iolation of freedom of reli2ion doesnot
contemplate an emer2ency.D23.+n a conHict sit)ation between the
life of the mother and the life of a child,
thedoctorismorallyobli2edalwaystotrytosa/ebothli/es. +f, howe/er,
itisimpossible, theres)ltin2deathtoonesho)ldnotbedeliberate. 3tty.
!ochee0plained=-rinciple of Bo)ble#F;ect. # May we please remind
the principal a)thor of theE ?ill in the Eo)se of epresentati/es of
the principle of do)ble#e;ect whereinintentional harm on the life
of either the mother of the child is ne/er >)sti:ed tobrin2
abo)t a D2oodD e;ect. +n a conHict sit)ation between the life of
the childand the life of the mother, the doctor is morally obli2ed
always to try to sa/eboth li/es. Eowe/er, he can act in fa/or of
one (not necessarily the mother&when it is medically impossible
to sa/e both, pro/ided that no direct harm isintendedtotheother. +f
theabo/eprinciplesareobser/ed, thelossof thechild7s life or the
mother7s life is not intentionaland, therefore, )na/oidable.Eence,
thedoctorwo)ldnotbe2)iltyof abortionorm)rder. Themotherisne/er
pitted a2ainst the child beca)se both their li/es are eC)ally
/al)able.23%3ccordin2ly, if it is necessary to sa/e the life of a
mother, proced)resendan2erin2thelifeof
thechildmayberesortedtoe/enif isa2ainst thereli2io)ssentimentsof
themedical practitioner. 3sC)otedabo/e, whate/er33b)rden imposed
)pon a medical practitioner in this case wo)ld ha/e been morethan
>)sti:ed considerin2 the life he wo)ld be able to sa/e.4amily
-lannin2
6eminars3nentthereC)irementimposed)nder6ection15239asaconditionfortheiss)ance
of a marria2e license, the *o)rt :nds the same to be a
reasonablee0ercise of police power by the 2o/ernment. 3 c)rsory
readin2 of the assailedpro/isionbares that thereli2io)s freedomof
thepetitioners is not at all/iolated. 3llthe law reC)ires is for
wo)ld#be spo)ses to attend a seminar onparenthood, family plannin2
breastfeedin2 and infant n)trition. +t does not e/enmandate the
type of family plannin2 methods to be incl)ded in the
seminar,whether they be nat)ral or arti:cial. 3s correctly noted by
the 16G, those whorecei/e any information d)rin2 their attendance
in the reC)ired seminars arenot compelled to accept the information
2i/en to them, are completely free tore>ect the information they
:nd )nacceptable, and retain the freedom to decideon matters of
family life witho)t the inter/ention of the 6tate.$#The 4amily and
the i2ht to -ri/acy-etitioner *4* assails the E "aw beca)se 6ection
23(a& (2& (i& thereof /iolatesthe pro/isions of the
*onstit)tion by intr)din2 into marital pri/acy anda)tonomy. +t
ar2)esthat it c)lti/atesdis)nityandfostersanimosityinthefamily
rather than promote its solidarity and total de/elopment.2$'The
*o)rt cannot b)t a2ree.The 19%. *onstit)tion is replete with
pro/isions stren2thenin2 the family as it isthe basic social
instit)tion. +n fact, one article, 3rticle JK, is de/oted entirely
tothe family.3T+*"F JKTEF 43M+"L6ection1.
The6tatereco2ni5esthe4ilipinofamilyasthefo)ndationof thenation.
3ccordin2ly,it shall stren2then its solidarity andacti/ely promote
itstotal de/elopment.6ection 2. Marria2e, as an in/iolable social
instit)tion, is the fo)ndation of thefamily and shall be protected
by the 6tate.6ection 3. The 6tate shall defend=Theri2ht of spo)ses
tofo)ndafamilyinaccordancewiththeir reli2io)scon/ictions and the
demands of responsible parenthood@Theri2htof childrentoassistance,
incl)din2proper careandn)trition, andspecial protectionfromall
formsof ne2lect, ab)se, cr)elty, e0ploitationandother conditions
pre>)dicial to their de/elopment@The ri2ht of the family to a
family li/in2 wa2e and income@ andThe ri2ht of families or family
assoc1at1ons to participate in the plannin2 andimplementation of
policies and pro2rams that a;ect them.+nthis case, theE"aw,
initsnot#so#hiddendesiretocontrol pop)lation2rowth,
containspro/isionswhichtendtowrec9thefamilyasasolidsocialinstit)tion.
+t barstheh)sbandandAor thefather
fromparticipatin2inthedecisionma9in2processre2ardin2theircommonf)t)repro2eny.
+t li9ewisedepri/es the parents of their a)thority o/er their minor
da)2hter simplybeca)se she is already a parent or had s);ered a
miscarria2e.The 4amily and 6po)sal *onsent6ection 23(a& (2&
(i& of the E "aw states=The followin2 acts are
prohibited=(a& 3ny health care ser/ice pro/ider, whether p)blic
or pri/ate, who shall= ...(2& ref)se to perform le2al and
medically#safe reprod)cti/e health proced)reson any person of le2al
a2e on the 2ro)nd of lac9 of consent or a)thori5ation ofthe
followin2