Post on 04-Apr-2018
transcript
7/30/2019 Revised Petition for Certiorari vs RH -Final
1/26
Republic of the Philippines
S upreme CourtManila
SERVE LIFE CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY
INC.,represented by DR. NESTOR B.LUM ICAO, M .D. as President and in hispersonal capacity, ROSEVALEFOUNDATION INC., represented by DR.RODRIGO M . ALENTON, MD as memberof the school board and in his personalcapacity, ROSEM ARI E R. ALENTON,IM ELDA G. IBARRA, CPA, LOVENIA P.
NACES, Phd.,ANTH ONY G. NAGACEARL ANTH ONY C. GAM BE and,M ARLON I . YAP
Petitioners,
- versus OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT,SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,HON. PAQUITO N . OCHOA, JR.,
Executive Secretary,HON. FLORENCIO B. ABAD, Secretary,
Department of Budget and Management;
HON. ENRIQUE T. ONA, Secretary,
Department of Health,
HON. ARMIN A. LUISTRO, Secretary,
Department of Education and HON.
M ANUEL A. ROXAS I I , Secretary,
Department of Interior and Local
GovernmentRespondents.
G.R. No.__________________
For:
CERTIORARI and
PROHIBITION wi th a
prayer for a TEM PORARYRESTRAINING
ORDERand/ orWRIT OF
PRELIMINARYIN JUNCTION
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
PETITIONfor Cer ti or ar i and Pr ohibiti on
A milestone in the history of Philippine legislation did occur with the
passage of the Republi c Act 10354, enti tled An act Providing for a National
Policy on Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health , hereinafter
referred to for brevi ty as the RH Law , as jubilantly claimed by the
proponents thereof. The significance, however, lies not in the law itself but
7/30/2019 Revised Petition for Certiorari vs RH -Final
2/26
Peti tion for Cert iorari & Prohibit ion Page 2 of 26
in the vigorous exercise of the freedom of expression and other fundamental
rights by all citizens without discrimination. Ironically, the same law strips
the people of the very rights massively rousedby the process of its creation.
The foregoing is merely a sampling of the many transgressions upon
the dignity of the human being which the RH Law imposes. Worth
mentioning at the outset is a deviously hidden floodgate for abortifacients in
an innocuous provision, which, upon some reflection, reveals that the RH
law effectively sanctions the taking of the most basic of all ri ghts, the right to
life.
The Case& N atur e of t he Pr oceeding
Peti ti oners, through counsels, come before this Most Honorable,
Independent and Impartial Court of Last Resort, by way of Petition for
Certiorari and Prohibition with prayer for the issuance of a Temporary
Restraining Order and/ or Writ of Preliminary Injunction against the Office
of the President of the Republic of the Philippines and its instrumentalities
under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court seeking to annul the passage and
prohibit the implementation of Republic Act No. 10354for having been
enacted w ith grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack and/ or excess of
juri sdi ction.This peti ti on is f i led as an original special civ il action because
there is no remedy of appeal from the acts of Congress and the President.
Neither is there any other plain, speedy and adequate remedy available to
petitioners in the ordinary course of law.
The Part ies
The Petitioners:
A)Corporate/Institutional Petitioners
7/30/2019 Revised Petition for Certiorari vs RH -Final
3/26
Peti tion for Cert iorari & Prohibit ion Page 3 of 26
SERVE LIFE CDO INC.,hereinafter referred to as PetitionerServe
Li fe is a non-stock, non-profit corporation, duly organized in accordance
with Philippine laws as shown by the Certificate of Registration issued by
the Securities and Exchange Commission bearing No. CN200628876 dated
August 31, 2006, a photocopy of which is hereto integrally attached as
Annex A with principal place of business at 2/ F Borromeo Bui ld ing,
Daomar Street, Cagayan de Oro City w here it may be served processes of
the Honorable Supreme Court, represented herein by its President Dr.
Nestor B. Lumicao, M.D.as shown by the Corporate Secretary s Cert ifi cate of
Board Resolution dated January 12, 2013, a photocopy of which is hereto
integrally attached as Annex B .Peti tioner Serve Li fe Cdo, Inc.is composed
of a group of professionals i.e. doctors, lawyers, educators, sociologists,
businessmen & some priests & religious who organized themselves for the
Protection of Li fe, in Defense of the fami ly and the sancti ty of marriage
and the promotion of authentic health.
Peti tioner ROSEVALE FOUNDA TION INC., hereinafter referred to
as Peti tioner Rosevale isa non-stock and non-profit foundation duly
organized and existing under Philippine lawsas shown by the Certificate of
Registration issued by the Securi ti es and Exchange Commission bearing N o.
HN095-227 dated August 30, 1995, a photocopy of which is hereto integrally
attached as Annex C . It operates an educational insti tution known in the
community as ROSEVA LE SCHOOL cateri ng to preparatory, grade school
and high school levels, located at Xavier Estates Phase IV, Fr. William
Masterson SJ Avenue, Airport Road, Cagayan de Oro City, where it may be
served processes of the Honorable Supreme Court.Peti ti oner Rosevale thru
Rosevale Schoolin close collaboration w ith parents aims to provide holi stic,
relevant and exemplary academic, professional and personal formation for
the students, parents and teachers to enable them to live a virtuous and
happy life. It is represented herein by a member of the foundation and
7/30/2019 Revised Petition for Certiorari vs RH -Final
4/26
Peti tion for Cert iorari & Prohibit ion Page 4 of 26
school board namely: Dr. Rodrigo M. Alentonas shown by the Corporate
Secretarys Certificate of Board Resolution dated January 12, 2013, a
photocopy of w hich is hereto integrally attached as Annex D .
B) Individual Petitioners
Petitioners are Filipinos, medical practitioners and health professionals,
members of the Philippine Bar, educators and various professionals. They file
this petition as citizens of theRepublic of the Philippines whose sworn duty is
to uphold , support and defend its Constitution xxx. They also file this petition
as parents and as a class suit in representation of other parents and individuals
similarly situated. As parents and professionals, the RH Law hits petitioners as
oppressive, unjust and confiscatory thus, unconstitutional. Petitioners are devout
and practising Catholics whose religious beliefs find the mandatory provisions of
the RH Law obnoxious and unconscionable.
They are, namely:
Petitioner DR. NESTOR B. LUMICAO, MD, is a Filipino, of legal age,
married and a resident of BorromeoCorrales Extension, Cagayan de Oro
Cityw here he may be served processes of this Honorable Court.H e is a
medical practitioner in Cagayan de Oro City specializing in Pediatric
Surgery. He likewise fi les this petit ion in his personal capacity.
Peti tioner DR. RODRIGO ROD M. ALENTON, Fil ipino, of legal age,
married and a resident of Aluba Subdivision, Cagayan de Oro Citywhere he
may be served processes of this Honorable Cour t.He is a medical
practi tioner in Cagayan de Oro City who specializes in Cardiology and w ho
likewise joins in the petition in his personal capacity together with his wife
ROSEMA RIE R. ALENTON .
7/30/2019 Revised Petition for Certiorari vs RH -Final
5/26
Peti tion for Cert iorari & Prohibit ion Page 5 of 26
Petitioner DR. LOVENIA P. NACES, Filipino, of legal age, married
and a resident of C28, Block 17, P.N. RoaSubd.,Calaanan, Cagayan de Oro
Cityw here she may be served processes of this Honorable Court.
Petitioner IMELDA G. IBARRA,CPA, Filipino, of legal age, married
and a resident of Lot 10, Block 7, Reyes Subd., Bugo, Cagayan de Oro
Cityw here she may be served processes of this Honorable Court.
Peti tioner A NTHONY G. NAGAC, Fil ipino, of legal age, married and
a resident of Lot 12, Block 30, Phase 2, NHA, Kauswagan, Cagayan de Oro
Cityw here he may be served processes of this Honorable Court.
Petitioner EARL ANTHONY C. GAMBE, Filipino, of legal age,
married and a resident of Mandumol, Upper Macasandig, Cagayan de Oro
Cityw here he may be served processes of this Honorable Court.
Petitioner MARLON I. YAP, Filipino, of legal age, married and a
resident of Lot 39, Block 15, Westfield Subd.,Iponan, Cagayan de Oro
Cityw here he may be served processes of this Honorable Court.
The Respondents:
Respondents herein are :
The OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, Malacanang Palace, Manila;the SENATE
OF THE PHILIPPIN ES, GSIS Complex, RoxasBlvd., Pasay City; and the
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Batasan Hills, Quezon City which are impleaded
for passing and approving the law in question.
7/30/2019 Revised Petition for Certiorari vs RH -Final
6/26
Peti tion for Cert iorari & Prohibit ion Page 6 of 26
HON. PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., Executive Secretary, Office of the
President of the Philippines, Malacanang Palace, Manila; HON. FLORENCIO B.
ABAD, Secretary, Department of Budget and Management (DBM), Malacanang
Palace, Manila; HON. ENRIQUE T. ONA, Secretary, Department of H ealth (DOH),
San Lazaro Compound, Cityy of Manila; HON. ARMIN A. LUISTRO, FSC,
Secretary, Department of Education (DepEd), DepEd Complex, Meralco Avenue,
Pasig City; and HON. MANUEL A. ROXAS II, Secretary, Department of Interior
and Local Government (DILG) EDSA, cor. Mapagmahal St., Diliman, Quezon City;
they are all publ ic officials in-charge of the enforcement and administration of theAct and all laws relative to the conduct of their respective duties and functions; for
these reasons, respondents are being sued herein in their official capacities and
may be served summons and other processes at their respective offices as above
indicated and through their statutory counsel, the Solicitor General, at 139
Amorsolo Street, Legaspi Village, Makati City.
Statement of M ater ial D ates
The RH Bil l was signed into Law on December 21, 2012. Thus,
petitioners have sixty days or until February 19, 2011 within w hich to file this
petition. Accordingly, this Petition filed on January 15, 2013with the docket
and other lawful fees having been ful ly paid on the same date is timely.
T he A nt ecedent s and Pr eli mi nary Concer ns
Civic involvement in a legislative act reached a record high in the
passage of the RH Law. Almost every Filipino was aware of the law and
more often than not, he or she has strong opinions about its effects. No one
appears to have taken the middle ground and everyone freely expressed
their stance from their own vantage point.
7/30/2019 Revised Petition for Certiorari vs RH -Final
7/26
Peti tion for Cert iorari & Prohibit ion Page 7 of 26
A vast range of concerns were thus thrown in the open. This ranged
from issues based on purely subjective claims of moral superiori ty by reason
of spiritual convictions to nightmarish speculations of a rising totalitarian.
Rational discussion and information dissemination among the
underprivileged became frequent w hich w as accompanied by a
corresponding increase in the frequency of name calling and crying in the
hallowed halls of the Senate.
While it is indeed exhilarating to see democracy at its best, excessive
zeal and fervor, misplaced rationality and of course the name calling made
many of those involved lose sight of what truly matters in the passage of a
law. It was forgotten that the one true yardstick in determining the
acceptabil ity of a law is the Consti tut ion.
Consequently, it came as no surprise why both the House of
Representatives and Senate of the Philippines signified their approval of and
the Off ice of the President signed the RH Bil l into law on December 21,2012,
despite serious, patent and unmistakable constitutional flaws which should
have made a reasonably caut ious and prudent man take another look at the
bil l and his fundamental law.
It took the advocates and their predecessors fourteen years to finally
have a purported Reproductive Health Law. While their determination is
laudable, their efforts must fail.
Petitioners hasten to add that the failure is not due to some subjective
or religious moral high ground liberally sprinkled with fear of hell. RA
simply fails to pass the test of consti tutionality.
Gr oun ds for the Gr ant of t he Peti ti on
7/30/2019 Revised Petition for Certiorari vs RH -Final
8/26
7/30/2019 Revised Petition for Certiorari vs RH -Final
9/26
Peti tion for Cert iorari & Prohibit ion Page 9 of 26
D iscussion
As previously mentioned, concerns, extraneous to the passing of a
law, became the focus of many deliberations on the RH Law. Consti tutional
infi rmities have thus riddled the said law. These are as fol lows.
For clarity, the more significant constitutional infirmities shall be
presented herein in the order presented under the RH Law.
I . The Ri ght to Li fe
As it so happens, the most important r ight of all is one of the very fi rst
fatal l apse of the R.A. No. 10354. Some discernment may be necessary
inasmuch as the same has been cleverly couched in very minimalist
language amidst a deluge of not so subliminal attempts to desensitize. To
start , Section 2 of RH in part states:
SEC. 2. Declaration of Policy. xxx
xxx xxx xxx
The State likewise guarantees universal access to medically-safe, non-abortifacient, effective, legal, affordable, and quality reproductive health care services,
methods, devices, supplieswhich do not prevent the implantation of a fertilized ovumas determined by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and relevant
information and education thereon according to the priority needs of women,
children and other underprivileged sectors, giving preferential access to those
identified through the National Household Targeting System for Poverty
Reduction (NHTS-PR) and other government measures of identifying
marginalization, who shall be voluntary beneficiari es of reproductive health care,
services and supplies for free.
While Section 4 defines abort ifacients as:
SEC. 4. Definition of Terms. For the purpose of this Act, the following terms shall be
defined as follows:
7/30/2019 Revised Petition for Certiorari vs RH -Final
10/26
Peti tion for Cert iorari & Prohibit ion Page 10 of 26
(a) Abortifacient refers to any drug or device that induces abortion or the destruction of a
fetus inside the mothers womb or the prevention of the fertilized ovum to reach and be
implanted in the mother s womb upon determination of the FDA.
Taken together, the assurance of access to non-abortifacient devices
and supplies, viewed from a purely secular vantage, appears innocuous and
actually laudable. The framers of RH are apparently aware of this. Hence,
the law has been generously peppered w ith the words access and non-
abortifacient. And many were fooled.
In one innocuous section buried among all the rhetorics, the actual
danger of the devices and suppl ies to be made available is evident. Section 9
of RH provides:
SEC. 9. The Phili ppine N ational D ru g Form ulary System and Famil y Planni ng Supplies.
The National Drug Formulary shall include hormonal contraceptives, intrauterine devices,
injectables and other safe, legal, non-abortifacient and effective family planning products
and suppl ies. The Phil ippine National Drug Formulary System (PNDFS) shall be observedin selecting drugs including family planning supplies that will be included or removed
from the Essential Drugs List (EDL) in accordance with existing practice and in
consultation with reputable medical associations in the Phil ippines. For the purpose of thisAct, any product or supply included or to be included in the EDL must have a certification
from the FDA that said product and supply is made available on the condition that it isnot t o be used as an aborti facient.
These products and supplies shall also be included in the regular purchase of essential
medicines and supplies of all national hospitals: Provided, further, That the foregoingoffices shall not purchase or acquire by any means emergency contraceptive pills,
postcoit al pil ls, abortif acients t hat w il l be used for such purpose and their other forms or
equivalent.
The implications are staggering. In effect, the RH authorizes the
Government to procure and distribute supplies unceasingly marketed as
non-abortifacients by the law when in truth and in fact, the said supplies
have abortifacient properties.
True there is the caveat that the abort ifacients will not be used as such.
But given the scope of how these wi ll be made available, there is no way this
can be enforced at all. Its akin to giving a child hi s or her favori te candy with
7/30/2019 Revised Petition for Certiorari vs RH -Final
11/26
Peti tion for Cert iorari & Prohibit ion Page 11 of 26
the caveat that it is only to be used as a toy or giving a knife to your mortal
enemy with the caveat of not stabbing you in the back. Truly, no responsible
parent or person would do such a thing. And yet the Law not just authorizes
this it requi res the government to commi t such a stupid atrocity on the scale
of mil lions.
Even more bothering is the fact that the hidden meaning of non-
abortifacients, which basically states it could be an abortifacient, was so
cleverly done it could only have been deliberate. The said quali fication could
have easily been stated under the definition of terms where the public can be
fully apprised. Apparently, using the previous analogy and under the
assumption that the giving of candy to the child was no stupid mistake, it
would be like giving a child cyanide laced candy then giv ing the appearance
of responsibil ity by saying dont eat i t but nevertheless hoping the child w il l
eat the candy inasmuch as that would be one mouth less to feed and drain
the resources. This is even more alarming.
Moreover, the fact that these supplies may be abortifacient is a detail
which must be disclosed. RH has very clear provisions on a ful l disclosure of
family planning methods without qualification otherwise criminal penalties
are in order. Hence, information on abortion, which is controversial but isnevertheless a family planning method cannot be withheld. This would
include
Regardless of the motive which can only be subject to speculation, the
ultimate conclusion remains the same - RH is definitely anti-life cleverly
disguised as an enhancement to womens rights and masked as a great step
towards liberali ty. This law is designed for genocide!
7/30/2019 Revised Petition for Certiorari vs RH -Final
12/26
Peti tion for Cert iorari & Prohibit ion Page 12 of 26
Given the foregoing, no doubt exists at this early a point that it
vi olates Section 12, Art icle of the Consti tution which provides:
SECTION 12. xxx It (the state) shall equally pr otect the l ife of t hemother and the life of the un born from conception. xxx
I I . The right t o protecti on againstHazardous products
The 1987 Consti tution, in Art icle XVI, Section 9 provides and we
quote:
Section 9. The State shall protect consumers from trade
malpractices and from substandard or hazardous products .
Again, the above-quoted Consti tutional proviso stresses on the importance
of protection to l ife and is congruent to the right to li fe . Be that as it may, an
International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Study (2011) by 23 Scientists
from 10 countri es concluded that oral combined estrogen-progestogen
contraceptives are carcinogenic to humans. The said study mentions that oral
combined estrogen-progestogen contraceptives cause cancer of the breast, in-situ
and invasive cancer of the uterine cervix, and cancer of the liver. It cannot be
gainsaid as it has been duly established by scienti fi c studies that contraceptives
are hazardous to women, yet, the RH Law allots bill ions of taxpayers money forthe purchase of the contraceptives to be distr ibuted particularly to the poor. On
this score alone, the RH Law is already unconsti tutional. Treatment for cancer is
very expensive even if it is not always curative but mostly just palliative. What is
even more tragic is that when these poor women get sick of cancers, there is no
free treatment available from the government. More and more women are getting
sick of different kinds of cancers because of oral contraceptive pillsthat they
themselves personally buy for their own use, with the abundant f ree supply from
the state, it would not be farfetched to expect a deluge of cancer patients.
7/30/2019 Revised Petition for Certiorari vs RH -Final
13/26
Peti tion for Cert iorari & Prohibit ion Page 13 of 26
I I I . I nvoluntary Servit ude
In simplest terms involuntary servitude is slavery. This state of being
has been aboli shed in the Uni ted States by the 13th amendment more than a
century ago. It has been outlawed by the community of nations for being
degrading and inhuman. The magnitude of this restraint on freedom is so
abhorrent to appoint that any form of slavery is almost always ended by
revolution with many of the oppressed opting for the freedom of death. It
thus closely r ivals the importance of the right to l ife. And now, i t i s being re-
int roduced by RH.
Section 17 of RH states:
SEC. 17. Pro Bono Services for Indigent Women. Private and nongovernment
reproductive healthcare service providers including, but not limited to, gynecologists and
obstetricians, are encouraged to provide at least forty-eight (48) hours annually ofreproductive health services, ranging from providing information and education to
rendering medical serv ices, free of charge to i ndigent and low-income patients as identi fied
through the NHTS-PR and other government measures of identifying marginalization,
especially to pregnant adolescents. The forty-eight (48) hours annual pro bono servicesshall be included as a prerequisite in the accreditation under the PhilHealth.
Again ski ll ful ly veiled under the term encouraged, it would
seem like the services to be rendered is voluntary. The last sentence,
however, indicates that it i s not the case.
Nowadays, a PhilHealth accreditation spells the difference between
success and stagnation of medical practice. It is common knowledge how a
vast number of patients are either compulsory PhilHealth members by
reason of mandatory law or voluntary members thereof. The rest are
dependents. And considering the amounts saved on medical bills,
PhilHealth accredited providers are chosen in almost all instances given half
the chance. Considering further that almost all doctors are Philhealth
7/30/2019 Revised Petition for Certiorari vs RH -Final
14/26
Peti tion for Cert iorari & Prohibit ion Page 14 of 26
Accredited, lack thereof would mean omission as a choice of being the
provider unless an the provider already has an established name.
It is practically a punitive measure through economic means which
prohibits a doctor from engaging in a viable or at least lucrative practice
unless he or she gives 48 hours of work without pay. It i s sti ll forced labor in
disguise.
It may be argued that rule is justified by rendering of service to the
less privileged. Fortunately, this right is so precious the constitution only
allows two instances where involuntary serv itude is justi fied, viz:
Article II. xxx
xxx xxx xxx
SECTION 4. The pri me du ty of th e Government i s to serve and protectthe people. The Government may call upon the people to defend the Stateand, in the fulfillment thereof, all citizens may be required, underconditions provided by law, to render personal military or civil service.
and
Arti cle III. xxxxxx xxx xxx
SECTION 18xxx xxx xxx
(2) No involunt ary servit ude in any form shall exist except as apunishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been dulyconvicted.
Summarized, the two exceptions are 1) Military service; and 2)
Conviction of a crime. These exceptions are justified by no less than the
preservation of the state against actual existing danger. Compared to this
most compelling reason to restrict private rights, the mandate of RH to
render compulsory service for the sake of reproductive health pales to
shameful shade.
7/30/2019 Revised Petition for Certiorari vs RH -Final
15/26
Peti tion for Cert iorari & Prohibit ion Page 15 of 26
In short, the RH bill is justifying instead of protecting the people
from slavery with its ludicrously less compelling and completely
ignorable duty of promoting public health.
I V. Equal prot ecti on of the la w s
As if slavery is not grave enough, Section 17 further denies the equal
protection of the laws to reproductive health care providers. RH mentions
pri vate and nongover nm ent r eproducti ve healt hcar e ser vi ce provi der s in cludi ng,
but not limited to, gynecologists and obstetricians, as the ones inescapably
encouraged to provide forced serv ices. Failure is penalized w ith non-
renewal of Philhealth accreditation. Thus, Petitioners herein who are non-
obgyn medical doctors may be compelled to render annual forty-eight (48)
hours annual pro bono services shall be included as a prerequisite in the
accreditation under the PhilHealth, lest they lose their PhilHealth
accreditation.
Of course this does not immediately mean the equal protection clause
has been violated. After all, at its most basic, the equal protection clause is
against undue favor of an individual or class privilege, as well as hostile
discrimination; it does not demand absolute equality. The fundamental
guarantee is not breached by a law w hich appl ies only to those persons
falling within a specified class, if it applies alike to all persons within such
class and provided further that there is a substantial distinction between
those who fall within such class and those who do not.1The term
1
[G.R. No. 159883. March 31, 2008.]DR. PEDRO F. GOBENCIONG, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN(VISAYAS), REGIONAL DIRECTOR of the Department of Health, Region VIII, and FLORA DELAPEA, respondents.[G.R. No. 168059. March 31, 2008.]OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, petitioner, vs. DR. PEDRO F. GOBENCIONG and the HON. COURTOF APPEALS (CEBU CITY), respondents.
7/30/2019 Revised Petition for Certiorari vs RH -Final
16/26
Peti tion for Cert iorari & Prohibit ion Page 16 of 26
substantial distinction is further quali fied by the requirement that it
should be based on real differences and that it must be germane to the
purposes of the law.
With the guidance of the foregoing, however, the unequal treatment
of the RH on reproductive healthcare providers becomes even more
apparent.
Ordinarily, it is very possible for substantial distinctions to exist
betw een the di fferent medical discipl ines. In this instance, however, ul timate
purpose of RH and other health laws is the promotion of public health in
general not only reproductive health. Reproductive health is just a newly
introduced facet of public health. In fact, RH recognizes its integration into
public health policies. And although reproductive health is not the least
important aspect of publ ic health it i s also not the most important. There are
other more urgent concerns like the prevention of communicable diseases
and halting the spread of fatal ones. There is the lack of the truly essential
medicines like anti -bioti cs, anti -hypertensive , vi tamin, and the l ike.
In sum, the field of reproductive health has no real difference from
other fields considering the overall purpose of benefiting public health.There is therefore no reason substantial difference and reproductive health
professionals should not be subjected to the onerous burden under Section
17 simply by reason of their chosen field.
V. Freedom of speech a nd of expression
[G.R. No. 173212. March 31, 2008.]DR. PEDRO F. GOBENCIONG, petitioner, vs. DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN (VISAYAS), REGIONALDIRECTOR of the Department of Health, Region VIII, and FLORA DELA PEA, respondents.
7/30/2019 Revised Petition for Certiorari vs RH -Final
17/26
Peti tion for Cert iorari & Prohibit ion Page 17 of 26
Section 4 of the Bill of Rights prohibits the passage of laws abridging
the freedom of speech and of expression. Of course there are well recognized
exceptions such as the right to privacy and police power. Again the common
denominator of these exceptions is their being just as compelling,
fundamental and established as the right of f ree speech.
But RH provides -
SEC. 23. Prohibited Acts. The following acts are prohibited:
(a) Any health care service provider, whether public or private, who shall:
(1) Knowingly withhold information or restrict the dissemination thereof, and/or
intentionally provide incorrect information regarding programs and services
on reproductive health including the right to informed choice and accessto a full range of legal, medically-safe, non-abortifacient and effective family
planni ng methods;
Providers are once again victimized herein by being enjoined under
pain of fine and imprisonment to enumerate and withhold nothing on
family planning methods. Definitely, the so called right to be informed of all
family planning methods hardly matches the relevance of the
aforementioned exceptions to free speech. Nor are these methods as
established.
It must be remembered that fami ly planning methods, especially those
involving medication, are subject to a wide range of conflicting data.
Empirical evidence from some exists justifying a method while similar
studies show evidence showing otherwise. This is particularly true with
art ificial methods.
Understandably, the opinions espousing one method while dimissing
the other as fraught with too much fatalaties are varied. It would be near
7/30/2019 Revised Petition for Certiorari vs RH -Final
18/26
Peti tion for Cert iorari & Prohibit ion Page 18 of 26
impossible to determine which is correct considering that the people best
sui ted to judge are the very people who gave the confl icting opinions.
Consequently, aside from hardly qualifying as a compelling reason to
restrict the freedom of speech and expression, perceived violations of
Section 23, a, 1 could hardly be determined true beyond reasonable doubt.
Thus, healthcare providers should be given the leeway to recommend
and/ or omit to mention family planning methods they deem w ise and/ or
unsafe.
VI . Economic Pol icy
It is undeniable and actually admit ted that the ul timate goal of RH is
economic prosperi ty as seen in Section 6, aa of the law. It seeks to achieve
this by population control. It is amazing how this mode got preferential
attention despi te Art icle XII, Section 1 of the consti tution which states -
SECTION 1. The goals of the national economy are a more equitabledistribution of opportunities, income, and wealth; a sustained increase in the amountof goods and services produced by the nation for the benefit of the people; and anexpanding productivity as the key to raising the quality of life for all, especially theunderprivileged.
The State shall promote industrialization and full employment based onsound agricultural development and agrarian reform, through industries that makefull and efficient use of human and natural resources, and which are competitive inboth domestic and foreign markets. However, the State shall protect Filipinoenterprises against unfair foreign competition and trade practices.
In the pursuit of these goals, all sectors of the economy and all regions ofthe country shall be given optimum opportunity to develop. Private enterprises,including corporations, cooperatives, and similar collective organizations, shall beencouraged to broaden the base of their ownership.
The constitution is clear. Economic objectives are to be pursued
through economic policies. Health, much less reproductive health, is not
7/30/2019 Revised Petition for Certiorari vs RH -Final
19/26
Peti tion for Cert iorari & Prohibit ion Page 19 of 26
even mentioned. True, this argument may seem tenous at best but it gains
relevance when considering Section 22 of the same Art icle which states -
SECTION 22. Acts which circumvent or negate any of the provisions of thisArticle shall be considered inimical to the national interest and subject to criminaland civil sanctions, as may be provided by law.
VI I . U nw arrant ed I nterference in Educat ion
ARTICLE XIV of the Constitution on Education, Science and
Technology, Arts, Culture, and Sports in part states:
Education
(2) They shall inculcate patr iot ism and nationalism, foster love of
humanity, respect for human rights, appreciation of the role of national heroes in
the historical development of the country, teach the rights and duties of
citizenship, strengthen ethical and spiritual values, develop moral character and
personal discip line, encourage crit ical and creative thinking, broaden scienti fic and
technological knowledge, and promote vocational efficiency.
By the use of the word shall, forced inculcation can only refer to the
subjects enumerated above. Forced insertion into the curriculum of sex
education has no constitutional basis.
More importantly, thi s tampering of what to teach is an infraction of a
less known yet equall y potent consti tutional right of educational institutions
to self determination. This right can easily be gleaned from another
provision under A rt icle XIV which states:
SECTION 4. (1) The State recognizes the complementary roles of publicand private institutions in the educational system and shall exercise reasonablesupervision and regulation of all educational institutions.
The control and administration of educational institutions shall be vested incitizens of the Philippines.
7/30/2019 Revised Petition for Certiorari vs RH -Final
20/26
Peti tion for Cert iorari & Prohibit ion Page 20 of 26
Shown herein is the right of the people to control and administer
educational institutions which includes the determination of what to teach
in addition to subjects mandatorily requi red by the Consti tution. The State is
merely l imited to reasonable superv ision and regulation.
Yet, RH mandatorily imposes the teaching of sex education in schools.
This is clearly an act of control expressly made unconstitutional by the
previously mentioned provision
Republi c Act 10354, enti tl ed An a ct Pr oviding for a N at ional Poli cy on
Responsibl e Pa renthood and Reproduct iv e H eal th, a mi snomer, a
deception!
By and large, as shown above, the RH Law is a sham. Instead of
health it brings disease, instead of harmony it brings discord in the family.
In making sexual and reproductive rights a legal and demandable right for
young children and minors, rather than being responsible, it makes parents
abdicate their consti tutionall y enshrined primary role in the reari ng of their
children and thus making them vulnerable to the whims & caprices of the
state.
In sum, all the foregoing constitutional lapses taken together with the
much discussed breaches, such as the separation of church state, are too
numerous and obvious to have escaped the attention of respondents. They
thus gravely abused their discretion in knowingly and actively part icipating
in the passage of RH. It is thus incumbent that to declare RH a void law not
only for being unconstitutional but also for lack of authority on the part of
those who passed it.
A ll egati ons in Suppor t of In ju ncti ve Issuances
7/30/2019 Revised Petition for Certiorari vs RH -Final
21/26
Peti tion for Cert iorari & Prohibit ion Page 21 of 26
All the foregoing arguments are repleaded hereunder. The urgency
and meri t for the grant of the prayer for a TRO and/ or WPI under Sections 3
and 4 of Rule 58 of the Rules of Court are succinctly depicted in the
foregoing allegations and arguments.
It is reiterated that as parents and professionals, the RH Law in abdicating
their parental right over their minor children and grandchildren hits petitioners as
oppressive, unjust and confiscatory thus, unconstitutional. Petitioners are devout
and practising Catholics whose religious beliefs find the mandatory provisions of
the RH Law obnoxious and unconscionable.
If the questioned law is implemented, petitioners will suffer untold
prejudice and great damage made more evil by the fact that such stems from
a patently void issuance.
Petitioners are entitled to the relief demanded and the whole or part
of such relief pendi ng fi nal determination of this case consists in restraining
the act of Respondents in implementing or enforcing the questioned law
before it takes effect on January 17, 2013.
The implementation by Respondents of this invalid law when i t takes
effect on January 17, 2013 is in gross violation of the constitutional rights of
petitioners respecting the subject of this action or proceeding, and will
tendto render the judgment in this case ineffectual .
In view of the foregoing, there is therefore extreme urgency in this
case because Petitioners will suffer grave injustice and great or irreparable
damage or injury before the matter can be heard on notice if Respondents
will be allowed to implement and enforce questioned law which is void.
There is therefore a need to immediately preserve the status quo
meantime before the matter can be heard on notice for which a temporary
restraining order is hereby most respectfully prayed for in order to
temporarily restrain Respondents from enforcing or implementing the null
and void law.
7/30/2019 Revised Petition for Certiorari vs RH -Final
22/26
7/30/2019 Revised Petition for Certiorari vs RH -Final
23/26
Peti tion for Cert iorari & Prohibit ion Page 23 of 26
IBP Li fetime Member No. 06307
ROLL NO. 33825
MCLE COC No. 3-0001069 (03/ 23/ 09)Mobile No. 09177176231
M ARLON I. YAPRoll No. 51415
IBP O.R. No. 857246 (12/ 19/ 2012) CDO
PTR No. 2317843 A (12/ 19/ 2012) CDO
MCLE Exemption No.II I-001942 (03/ 16/ 11)
Republic of the Philippines)
City of Cagayan de Oro. . .) S.S.
V E R I F I C A T I O NWith Certification of Non-Forum Shopping
We, all of the undersigned, Filipinos, of legal age and residents of Cagayan
de Oro City, under oath, depose and state:
That w e are the Peti ti oners in the above-captioned case;
That we have caused the preparation and filing of the foregoing Petition for
Certiorari and Prohibition with an application for a Temporary Restraining Order
and or w ri t of Preliminary Injunction;
7/30/2019 Revised Petition for Certiorari vs RH -Final
24/26
Peti tion for Cert iorari & Prohibit ion Page 24 of 26
That we have read the same and the contents thereof are true and correct to
the best of our own personal knowledge and belief and based on authenti crecords;
That we hereby cert ify that we have not heretofore commenced any action
or proceeding involv ing the same issues in the Court of Appeals or any other
court, tr ibunal or agency; that to the best of our knowledge no such action
proceeding is pending in the aforementioned Courts or di fferent divisions
thereof, or any tribunal or agency; and that should we thereafter learn that a
simi lar action or proceeding has been fi led or is pending before any of the
aforesaid Courts, tribunal or agency, we hereby undertake to inform the aforesaid
Courts and such other tr ibunal or agency of that fact w ithin five (5) daystherefrom.
IN WITNESS WH EREOF, we have hereunto aff ixed our signatures, this
14th day of January 2013, in the City of Cagayan de Oro, Phil ippines.
DR. NESTOR B. LUMICAO, M D DR. ROD M . ALENTON, M DDr ivers License No.N17-74-006-494 Dr ivers License No. K03-81-006792
In his personal capacity and as In his personal capacity and as
Attorney-in-fact of SERVE LIFE Attorney-in-fact of ROSEVALE
CDO INC. FOUNDA TION INC.
DR. LOVENIA P. NACES, Phd. ROSEM ARIE R. ALENTONSSS ID No.09-0641510-0 Drivers License No. KO3-95-030987
IM ELDA G. IBARRA ANTHONY G. NAGACDr ivers License No.KO2-95-0608-22 Dr ivers License No. KO2-94-055953
EARL ANTHONY C. GAM BE M ARLON I . YAPDr ivers License No.KO1-79-007254 Tax Identi fication No.251-239-987-000
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME, this 14th day of January
2013, in the City of Cagayan de Oro, Phil ippines.
Doc. No._________;
Page No._________;
Book No._________;
Seri es of 2013
7/30/2019 Revised Petition for Certiorari vs RH -Final
25/26
Peti tion for Cert iorari & Prohibit ion Page 25 of 26
EXPLA NATION/ PROOF OF SERVICE
Pursuant to Section 11 of Rule 13 of the Rules of Court, we hereby
certify that copies of the foregoing Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition
with a prayer for a restraining order and a writ of preliminary injunction
were furnished to each of the Respondents thru registered mail on January
14, 2013 as indicated below because personal service is impractical in view of
the distance of their offices.
EARL AN THONY C. GAMBE MARLON I. YAP
CC:
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
Republ ic of the Philippines
Malacaang Palace, Manila;
Registry Receipt N o. __________ dated January 14, 2013
THE SENATE
Republ ic of the Philippines
GSIS Complex, RoxasBlvd., Pasay City
Registry Receipt N o. __________ dated January 14, 2013
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Republ ic of the Philippines
Batasan Hil ls, Quezon City
Registry Receipt N o. __________ dated January 14, 2013
HON. PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR.
Executive Secretary, Of fice of the President of the Phil ippines
Malacaang Palace, Manila;
Registry Receipt N o. __________ dated January 14, 2013
HON. FLORENCIO B. ABAD
Secretary, Department of Budget and Management (DBM)
Malacaang Palace, Manila;
Registry Receipt N o. __________ dated January 14, 2013
HON. ENRIQUE T. ONA
Secretary, Department of H ealth (DOH)
San Lazaro Compound, City of Manila;
7/30/2019 Revised Petition for Certiorari vs RH -Final
26/26
Peti tion for Cert iorari & Prohibit ion Page 26 of 26
Registry Receipt N o. __________ dated January 14, 2013
HON. ARMIN A. LUISTRO, FSCSecretary, Department of Education (DepEd)
DepEd Complex, Meralco Avenue, Pasig City;
Registry Receipt N o. __________ dated January 13, 2013
HON. MANUEL A. ROXAS II
Secretary, Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG)
EDSA cor. Mapagmahal St., Di l iman, Quezon City; and
Registry Receipt N o. __________ dated January 14, 2013
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL139 Amorsolo Street, Legaspi Vi ll age, Makati City
Registry Receipt N o. __________ dated January 14, 2013