RA 10354 Petition SC James Imbong

7/30/2019 RA 10354 Petition SC James Imbong

1/25

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

SUPREME COURT

Manila, Philippines

JAMES M. IMBONG and

LOVELY-ANN C. IMBONG, for themselves

and in behalf of their minor children,

LUCIA CARLOS IMBONG and

BERNADETTE CARLOS IMBONG, and

MAGNIFICAT CHILD DEVELOPMENT

CENTER, INC.,

Petitioners,

-- versus -- G.R. No. ____________

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. MANUEL A. ROXAS II, Secretary,

Department of Interior and Local Government.

Respondents.

x ----------------------------------------------------- x

For Certiorari and

Prohibition, with a

Prayer for a Writ of

Injunction

PETITION FOR CERTIORARI AND PROHIBITION

Petitioners, by counsel, and to this Honorable Court respectfully state:

Prefatory Statement

1. This case is an ideal vehicle for the Court to resolve serious

constitutional questions arising out of Republic Act No. 10354 entitled AN

ACT PROVIDING FOR A NATIONAL POLICY ON RESPONSIBLE PARENTHOODAND REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH (the Act). It represents an unprecedented

challenge to an unprecedented statute because the Act implants an agenda

that strikes at the heart of the peoples objective to establish a Government

that shall embody the ideals and aspirations of the sovereign Filipino

people as enshrined all over the Constitution.

204819


2/25

Petition for Certiorari

Imbong, et al. vs. Executive Secretary, et al.

G.R. No.

----------------------------------------------

2

2. This case will present the illegality of the Act as it mocks the

nations Filipino culturenoble and lofty in its values and holdings on life,motherhood and family lifenow the fragile lifeblood of a treasured culture

that today stands solitary but proud in contrast to other nations.

3. This Court should grant certiorari because the Act takes the

meaning of police power to such a perilous level never before implemented

in our Philippine shores, never before barging into our Philippine schools,

never before impinging on our Filipino homes, never before debasing our

Filipino youth, and never before paired against our Constitutional ideals and

aspirations.

4. The petitioners maintain that the remainder of the Act cannot stand

without the unconstitutional provisions.

Questions Presented

1. DOES CONGRESS EXCEED ITS LEGISLATIVE POWERS AND

VIOLATE BASIC PRINCIPLES OF THE CONSTITUTION WHEN IT

MANDATES A POLICY THAT NEGATES AND FRUSTRATES THE

IDEALS AND ASPIRATIONS OF THE SOVEREIGN FILIPINO PEOPLE

ENSHRINED IN THE CONSTITUTION?

2. DOES THE EXECUTIVE EXCEED ITS POWERS WHEN IT

IMPLEMENT A POLICY THAT NEGATES AND FRUSTRATES BASIC

CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES?

3. CAN THE REMAINING PROVISIONS OF THE ACT STAND

WITHOUT THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS?

Nature of the Petition

5. This is an original petition for certiorari and prohibition under Rule

65 of the Rules of Court with a prayer for a permanent injunction against the

Chief Executive and its instrumentalities. The petition is filed as an original

special civil action because there is no remedy of appeal from the acts ofCongress and the President, and neither is there any other plain, speedy and

adequate remedy available to petitioners in the ordinary course of law.


3/25



G.R. No.

----------------------------------------------

3

Parties to the Proceeding

6. The petitioners are a family. Petitioners James and Lovely-AnnImbong are spouses and became members of the Philippine Bar on 29 April

2005 and reside at The Magnificat Center, Km. 75, MacArthur Highway,

Sindalan, City of San Fernando, Pampanga. They file this petition as citizens

and members of the Philippine Bar pursuant to their solemn oath to

maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and 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. Petitioners James and Lovely-Ann Imbong are Catholics who have

deeply-held religious beliefs upon which Faith their conscience is rootedagainst complying with the mandates of the Act.

7. Petitioner Magnificat Child Development Center, Inc., (the

Corporation) is an educational institution duly registered with the

Securities and Exchange Commission, with principal address at The

Magnificat Center, Km. 75, MacArthur Hi-way, Sindalan, City of San

Fernando, Pampanga. Petitioner corporation is a private employer covered

by the provisions of the Act. Petitioner corporation is engaged in the

operation of a school founded on Catholic religious principles that form thecornerstone of the values on life, motherhood and family life, in

contradiction to the mandates of the Act.

8. The respondents are public officials having charge of the

enforcement and administration of the Act and all laws relative to the

conduct of their respective duties and functions as such. For this reason, the

following respondents are sued in their official capacities and may be served

summons and other processes at their respective offices at:

1) Hon. Paquito N. Ochoa, Jr.,Executive SecretaryOffice of the President of the Philippines

Malacaang Palace, City of Manila

2) Hon. Florencio B. Abad, SecretaryDepartment of Budget and Management (DBM)

Malcaang, City of Manila

3) Hon. Enrique T. Ona, M.D., SecretaryDepartment of Health (DOH)San Lazaro Compound, City of Manila

4) Hon. Armin A. Luistro, FSC, SecretaryDepartment of Education (DepEd)

DepEd Complex, Meralco Avenue, Pasig City


4/25



G.R. No.

----------------------------------------------

4

5) Hon. Manuel A. Roxas II, SecretaryDepartment of Internal and Local Government (DILG)EDSA cor. Mapagmahal St., Diliman, Quezon City

and through their statutory counsel, the Solicitor General, at 139 Amorsolo

Street, Legaspi Vilage, Makati City.

Reasons for Granting the Petition

1. THE ACT INTRODUCES POLICIES THAT NEGATE AND

FRUSTRATE THE FOUNDATIONAL IDEALS AND ASPIRATIONS OF

THE SOVEREIGN FILIPINO PEOPLE AS ENSHRINED IN THE

CONSTITUTION.

2. THE ACT CANNOT BE IMPLEMENTED WITHOUT

EXCEEDING THE BOUNDARIES OF GOVERNMENT ACTION AS

ESTABLISHED IN THE CONSTITUTION.

Arguments

I. THE ACT INTRODUCES POLICIES THAT NEGATE AND FRUSTRATE THE

FOUNDATIONAL IDEALS AND ASPIRATIONS OF THE SOVEREIGN

FILIPINO PEOPLE AS ENSHRINED IN THE CONSTITUTION.

A. EVERY PROVISION OF THE CONSTITUTION IS AN EMBODIMENT OF AN

IDEAL AND ASPIRATION OF THE SOVEREIGN FILIPINO PEOPLE

BECAUSE THAT IS THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE CONSTITUTION WAS

PROMULGATED AND RATIFIED BY THE FILIPINO PEOPLE THEMSELVES.

9. On June 2, 1986, forty-eight Filipinos were chosen by fate to meet

together and thresh out in the most exacting language, a document that

would embody what they deemed was best for our political, social,

economic, ethical, spiritual, and moral futurein other words, a document

that would best secure the future of our nation. That is exactly what they did

for the next sixteen weeks, such that on October 15, 1986, they all agreed, to

their satisfaction, to conclude their solemn undertaking by attesting to thecreation of a new Philippine Constitution that begins with the following

solemn declaration:


5/25



G.R. No.

----------------------------------------------

5

We, the sovereign Filipino people, imploring the aid of

Almighty God, in order to build a just and humane society, and

establish a Government that shall embody our ideals andaspirations, promote the common good, conserve and develop

our patrimony, and secure to ourselves and our posterity, the

blessings of independence and democracy under the rule of law

and a regime of truth, justice, freedom, love, equality, and

peace, do ordain and promulgate this Constitution. (Preamble)

10. Nowhere else in the Constitution will we read an express

statement that directly answers the question: WHY did WE, the sovereign

Filipino people, ordain and promulgate the Constitution? In other words,what are those great national purposes and aims

1 for which reason the

people have come to promulgate the Constitution? The Constitution supplies

the answer in no unclear terms, as embodied in the Preamble itself, that is:

1. To build a just and humane society; and2. To establish a government that shall:

a) embody the ideals and aspirations of the sovereignFilipino people;b)promote the common good, conserve and develop our

patrimony; and

c) secure to the Filipino people and the peoples posteritythe blessings of independence and democracy under the

rule of law and a regime of truth, justice, freedom, love,

equality, and peace. (Preamble)

11. And what are these ideals and aspirations for which the

Constitution was promulgated to secure and to be embodied by the

establishment of a government? On this point, it bears to stress that the

Preamble was written and approved before any other textual provision of the

Constitution was approved by the Commission. This fact reveals one thing:

that the Constitutional Commission began its work having the end in

mind. Thus, it goes without saying that the solemn burden of the

Constitutional Commission was apparent from the very start: that for the

next fourteen weeks, they were to be guided by the mandate of thePreamble: to found a Constitution that is truthful to the ideals and aspirations

1 See RECORD OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION, 10 June 1986 Session, Resolution No. 72:

RESOLUTION PROPOSING TO ADOPT A PREAMBLE TO THE CONSTITUTION, approved on

11 June 1986 Session.


6/25



G.R. No.

----------------------------------------------

6

of the sovereign Filipino people. And so every time the Constitution is cited,

it is by no accident that it is actually the ideals and aspirations of the people

that are being sought as authority.

12. It is in this light that petitioners hold that the Constitutional

Commission began with the promulgation of the Preamble not by accident,

but rather by design. And that design is the same structure upon which this

petition is being brought, such that at the end of the day, after all has been

said, the question that should be asked is whether or not the subject Act

creates a Government that embodies the ideals and aspirations of the

sovereign Filipino people.

B. AS REGARDS THE VALUE OF HUMAN LIFE AND ITS SUSTAINANCE, THE

CONSTITUTION UPHOLDS THE IDEAL OF AN UNCONDITIONAL RESPECT

FOR LIFE AND ASPIRES FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF POLICIES THAT

CREATE OPPORTUNITIES TO HARNESS THE ECONOMIC POTENTIAL OF

EVERY FILIPINO.

13. The Constitutions openness to human life is a simple, complete,

and unconditional policy, as stated in Art. II, Sec. 12:

Section 12. The State recognizes the sanctity of family

life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic

autonomous social institution. It shall equally protect the life of

the mother and the life of the unborn from conception. The

natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of

the youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral

character shall receive the support of the Government.

14. There is neither a charge nor qualification to that policy, except

that the life of the mother is equally important as the life of the unbornand

rightly so. In fact, the charge is against the State itselfthat it shall do one

thing when it comes to the potential of human life: to protect it from the

moment of conception.

15. In contrast, in the last paragraph of Section 2 of the Act, the State

is now mandated to promote openness to life, qualified by a reference to the

couples ability to raise their intended child or children in a truly humaneway:

Sec. 2. Declaration of Policy. x x x


7/25



G.R. No.

----------------------------------------------

7

x x x The State shall also promote openness to life:

Provided, That parents bring forth to the world only those

children whom they can raise in a truly humane way.

16. This means that if a certain group of parents are not in a position

to raise children in a truly humane way, the State has a duty not to

promote openness to life as regards such parents. This conclusion is

reflective of the policy enunciated in different parts of the Act, such as in the

ninth paragraph of Section 2 that mandates the State to prioritize women and

children in poor households; in Section 3(d) that makes reproductive health

care services an essential component of health care for the poor; in Section

3(e) that mandates the provision of family planning methods for the poor; inSection 3(g) that mandates the national government to take the lead in

providing reproductive health care to the poor; in Section 4(r) that prioritizes

the delivery of reproductive health care to the poor; in Section 4(v) that

defines responsible parenthood in light of the economic concerns of

parents; in Section 11 that integrates reproductive health care into anti-

poverty programs; and in Section 17 that mandates free reproductive health

services to indigents and low-income patients.

17. A plain reading of those provisions simply reveals the intention ofthe Act to bring reproductive health care services within easy reach of the

poor. By doing so, the poor become the primary targets of the States

planned-parenthood policya subtle way of telling the poor that the State

will subsidize their right to have access to modern methods of family

planning simply because they are poor.

18. On the other hand, the Constitution mandates a totally opposite

approach that, to the contrary, empowers and encourages the poor to be

direct agents of change and primary beneficiaries of social services andeconomic opportunity, as expressly stated in Article VI, Section 5.2 and

Article II, Section 9:

Section 5. x x x 2. The party-list representatives shall

constitute twenty per centum of the total number of

representatives including those under the party list. For three

consecutive terms after the ratification of this Constitution, one-

half of the seats allocated to party-list representatives shall be

filled, as provided by law, by selection or election from thelabor, peasant, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities,

women, youth, and such other sectors as may be provided by

law, except the religious sector. x x x (Underline ours)


8/25



G.R. No.

----------------------------------------------

8

Section 9. The State shall promote a just and dynamic

social order that will ensure the prosperity and independence of

the nation and free the people from poverty through policiesthat provide adequate social services, promote full employment,

a rising standard of living, and an improved quality of life for

all.

19. The contradiction is clear and unavoidable. On one hand, the Act

mandates the use of public money to bring the poor closer to a culture of

planned-parenthood through the provision of supplies and methods that will

enable them to determine their ability to bring forth to the world only those

children whom they can raise in a truly humane way. On the other hand, theConstitution mandates the State to bring the poor closer to receiving

adequate social services, full employment, a rising standard of living, and an

improved quality life.

20. But is not State-subsidized planned-parenthood a form of social

service? Is not State-sponsored family planning a form of poverty-reduction

that leads the poor to a rising standard of living and an improved quality

life?

21. The answer to those questions makes the contradiction more

apparent. First, social service, according to the Act, is about bringing the

poor closer to having fewer children, because, after all, who else are at a

social disadvantage in bringing forth children whom they can raise in a

truly humane way? The upper class? The middle class? The lower middle

class? Or the poor? Second, social service, according to the Act, is about

reducing the poor population by directly reducing their numbers. The Act

does not say it that way, but it actually moves in that direction and leads the

poor toward that path thru the subsidy incentive it provides them.

22. If that is how the Act redefines social service for the poor, what

then do we make of the following express Constitutional provisions that

demand from the State an active role in alleviating poverty and harnessing

the economic potential of the every Filipino, rather than reducing their

numbers?:

1. Constitutional mandate for the State to serve the people (Art.II, Sec. 4);

2. Constitutional mandate for the State to provide adequatesocial services (Art. II, Sec. 9);


9/25



G.R. No.

----------------------------------------------

9

3. Constitutional mandate for the State to increase productionof goods and services (Art. XII, Sec. 1);

4. Constitutional mandate for the State to provide decenthousing for the homeless in urban centers (Art. XIII, Sec. 9);

5. Constitutional mandate for the State to promote productivityof citizens for nation-building (Art. XII, Sec. 14);

6. Constitutional mandate for the State to create economicopportunities (Art. XIII, Sec. 2);

7. Constitutional recognition of the economic potential ofFilipino labor (Art. II, Sec. 18; Art. XII, Sec. 12; Art. XIV,

Section 2.5);

8. Constitutional mandate for the State to promote fullemployment (Art. II.9, Art. XII.1, Art. XIII.3);

9. Constitutional mandate for the State to allow labor to have ajust share in the fruits of production (Art. XIII, Sec. 3);

10.Constitutional mandate for the State to accelerate socialprogress (Art. II, Sec. 17);

11.Constitutional mandate for the State to establish aneconomic order conducive to the equitable distribution of

opportunity, income, and wealth (Art. XII, Sec. 1);

12.Constitutional mandate for the State to prioritize equaldistribution of wealth and political power (Art. XIII, Sec. 1);

13.Constitutional mandate for the State to prioritize thereduction of socio-economic-political inequalities (Art. XIII,

Sec. 1);

14.Constitutional mandate for the State to provide qualityeducation at all levels to all citizens (Article XIV, Sec. 1);

15.Constitutional mandate for the State to sustain the productivesystems of the country (Art. XIV, Sec. 10);

16.Constitutional mandate for the State to promote productivityin all regions of the country (Art. X, Sec. 14);


10/25



G.R. No.

----------------------------------------------

10

23. It is also worth pointing out that the Act refers to the poor

consistently and repeatedly as preferred beneficiaries of State-sponsored

planned-parenthood in many provisions of the Act. On the other hand, theConstitution refers to the poor sparingly and only in with reference to two

policies: (1) the preference given to the poor as having a direct seat in

Congress as a party-list representative (Art. VI, Sec. 5.2); and (2) the

preference given to urban and rural poor dwellers against unjust and

inhumane eviction form their dwellings (Art. II, Sec. 9).

24. People, as human capital, is a nations wealth. Despite a

disclaimer in the Act that

(l) There shall be no demographic or population targets

and the mitigation, promotion and /or stabilization of the

population growth rate is incidental to the advancement of

reproductive health; (Sec. 2)

the measures and programs in the Act, working together, will result in a

decrease in an otherwise robust population growth rate, a dire consequence

that puts to naught the modest but promising economic gains now seen in

the countrys economy.

25. Petitioners respectfully request that the Court take judicial notice

of the demographic trends that have brought about at this time the faltering

economies of the erstwhile rich nations that have through many years

strongly and actively adopted and enforced population control programs

including abortion.

26. While these rich countries are frantically striving to reverse their

mistakes and address their self-induced economic and demographic woes,respondents, through the Act, are embarking on a similar mistake, thereby

jeopardizing our common good. Ben J. Watenberg, writing in Fewer: How

the New Demography of Depopulation Will Shape Our Future (2004,

Chicago), found:

Never have birth and fertility rates fallen so far, so fast,

so low; for so long, in so many places, so surprisingly.

Depopulation is already proceeding in many of themodern developed nations. Europe is now losing about

700,000 people each year, a figure that will grow to about 3

million a year, or more, by midcentury. Russia alone is losing

close to a million people each year. With the next few years

Japan will begin losing population. The steep trend toward


11/25



G.R. No.

----------------------------------------------

11

fewer children per woman in the modern nations has been near

universal. x x x

But whats going on is not restricted to the well-to-do

modern nations. The poorer, Less Developed Cuontries

(LDCs), still have higher birth and fertility rates than the rich

countries. But rates in the LDCs are typically falling at a more

rapid rate than ever experienced in the rich countries. As

recently as 1970 the typical woman in an LDC nation bore 6.0

children per woman.

27. Based on extensive demographic data on international trends fromthe United Nations Population Division, World Population Prospects, 2002,

Watenberg writes:

Today, in the midst of a fertility free-fall, the rate is about

2.8 or 2.7 children per woman and rapidly continuing

downward. Such patterns have beren observed in India,

Indonesia, Brazil, Egypt, Iran, and critically, Mexico, only to

begin a long list.

28. The Philippine demographic landscape presents a challenge to

government. According to Jose Ramon G. Albert, Secretary General of the

National Statistical Coordination Board (NSCB), an attached agency of the

National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA), the Philippines

has one of the youngest populations in Southeast Asia with a median age of

23 years, considered as a major economic advantage moving forward, and

this growing labor force can be beneficial to the economy assuming that

enough jobs will be available whether here or overseas.

29. The Philippines demographic data, however, positions the

country into the same demographic fall as the rest of the world. Philippine

population growth has steadily declined from below 3.5 % in 1960 to below

2% or a just a little over 1.5% annually (already lower than the demographic

replacement rate) in 2011.2

An Act that brings about an inexorable

population decline will effectively erase the modest but promising economic

gains proudly claimed by the countrys economic leaders and noticed by the

world. Enforcing the Act is the same as shooting ourselves in the foot and

like prodigals, throwing our winnings to the winds.

2World Bank Data, Updated October 31, 2012.

https://www.google.com.ph/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=sp_pop_grow&idim=cou

ntry:PHL&dl=en&hl=en&q=population%20growth, Accessed January 1, 2013.


12/25



G.R. No.

----------------------------------------------

12

30.Watenbergcontinues:

x x x If we are aware of the accelerating trends, we maywant to try to shape our demography and consequently help

shape our destiny.

The advent of the New Demography portends a different

world. Joseph Chamie, director of the UN Population Division

(UNPD), puts it this way: There was the Industrial Revolution.

There was The Information Age. Now there is the

Demographic Revolution.

At root the situation is fairly simple: the numbers of

people on earth will grow by an ever-diminishing rate, level off,

then begin shrinking. World population now numbers about six

billion. That number will grow to eight to nine billion,

depending on whose numbers you accept. Then population will

decrease, perhaps by many billions. What is not so simple is

how life plays out as this happenswho does it help and who

does it hurt; why is it happening; can we do anything about it,

whould we, and if so, what.

31. Based on the foregoing, the following provisions of the Act must

be declared unconstitutional: paragraph 9 of Sec. 2; the last paragraph of

Sec. 2; Secs. 3(d), (e), (g), (i); Sec. 4(r); Sec. 7; Sec. 11; Sec. 13; Sec. 17.

C. AS REGARDS THE VALUE AND EXCEPTIONAL STATUS OF THE FILIPINO

FAMILY, THE CONSTITUTION UPHOLDS THE IDEAL OF AN

UNCONDITIONAL RESPECT FOR ITS INHERENT SANCTITY AND

AUTONOMY AS AGAINST THE STATE ITSELF.

32. The Philippine Constitution is exceptional when it comes to the

Filipino family, as expressed in Art. II, Sec. 12 and Art. XV:

Section 12. The State recognizes the sanctity of family

life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic

autonomous social institution. It shall equally protect the life of

the mother and the life of the unborn from conception. The

natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing ofthe youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral

character shall receive the support of the Government. (Art. II,

Sec. 12) (Underline ours)


13/25



G.R. No.

----------------------------------------------

13

x x x Section 1. The State recognizes the Filipino family

as the foundation of the nation. Accordingly, it shall strengthen

its solidarity and actively promote its total development.

Section 2. Marriage, as an inviolable social institution, is

the foundation of the family and shall be protected by the State.

Section 3. The State shall defend:

1. The right of spouses to found a family in accordance withtheir religious convictions and the demands ofresponsible parenthood;

2. The right of children to assistance, including proper careand nutrition, and special protection from all forms of

neglect, abuse, cruelty, exploitation and other conditions

prejudicial to their development;

3. The right of the family to a family living wage andincome; and

4. The right of families or family associations to participatein the planning and implementation of policies and

programs that affect them.

Section 4. The family has the duty to care for its elderly

members but the State may also do so through just programs of

social security. (Art. XV) (Underlines ours)

33. The ideals of the Constitution on the family are apparent in these

provisions: First, it recognizes its sanctity as a basic and autonomous

institution. Second, it describes its natural character of being the seedbed of

human life. Third, it celebrates motherhood. Fourth, it describes the Filipino

family as the foundation of the nation. Fifth, it defines the foundation of the

Filipino familymarriage. Sixth, it expressly elevates the right of the

parents beyond the reach of the State, insofar as the moral and civic

development of the youth is concerned. Seventh, it lays a basic formula forits sustenance and health: (1) religious instruction of children from their

parents; (2) proper nutrition and care; (3) a family living wage; and (4)

participation in family policies.


14/25



G.R. No.

----------------------------------------------

14

34. The use of the word recognizes in Article II, Section 12 of the

Constitution signals the States acknowledgment that the attributes of

sanctity and autonomy are inherent in the institutions of marriage and thefamily. This is a statement of recognition and acceptance of pre-existing and

natural attributes that the State did not create nor infuse, hence, it can only

acknowledge.

35. There is more. The sanctity of family and its natural and inherent

rights precludes interference, such as regulation by the State. The sacredness

of the bondacknowledged by the Stateunderscores the supernatural

nature of a spousal relationship, placing marriage and founding of a family

beyond the reach of the States hand and prying influence. The autonomy ofthe familyfurther acknowledged by the Statereinforces and shields its

sanctity from State and other intrusions.

36. These attributes of sanctity and autonomy protect the other

functions of the family, particularly its role of parenting and nurturance.

These include procreation and generation of offspring, the upbringing and

molding of moral character of the children in the paths of goodness and

virtuefunctions which parents are meant to discharge by nature.

37. State-mandated and non-parental mandatory sex education of the

content described in the Act unleashes a values revolution among the young,

changes childrens attitudes and conceptions of the good life, a mind-set

reinforced by media via a cultural message of individualism that that people

who live quality life free and self-fulfilled are those people who have at

most one or two children and who do not let their parental roles dominate

their exciting lives.

38. The quality of life that the Constitution speaks of in Article II,Section 9 encompasses a moral life, since fostering the material well-being

of children is only one component of parenting. And because marriage and

family life are sacred institutions, the care for the heart and soul of them

offspring is a major part of their nurturance. This completes the right to

found a family, a founding set on a strong foundation of the parents

religious convictions.

39. The exercise of the constitutional right of spouses to found a

family is guided by their religious convictions. Responsible parenthood isembraced in religious belief on life and family and its exercise is tied to

religious convictions, hence, religious belief on parenting is to be respected,

not provoked into its violation. The key word is respect. This installs a

hands off paradigm upon the State. It may not intrude into what is a

natural spousal and family right. The state may not, for any excuse, regulate


15/25



G.R. No.

----------------------------------------------

15

family and spousal decisions. Respect also necessarily demands and includes

not creating the conditions for the free exercise of the right, untrammeled by

contrary legislation.

40. There is more to the attribute of inviolability of the Filipino

family. Inviolability protects the familys moral culture built by the spouses

from their traditions and religious upbringing into a virtual bloodline which

contains family values, moral holdings, and virtue which are shielded from

contrary teachings by the State through mandated sex education programs.

Thus

The natural and primary right and duty of parents in therearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of

moral character shall receive the support of the Government.

(Art. II, Sec. 12, final sentence.)

The key word is support, not supplant.

41. The Act provides:

SEC. 3. Guiding Principles for Implementation.This

Act declares the following as guiding principles: x x x

x x x (b) Respect for protection and fulfillment of

reproductive health and rights which seek to promote the rights

and welfare of every person particularly couples, adult

individuals, women and adolescents; (Underline ours.)

42. The Acts guarantee of choice and non-discrimination regardlessof age supplants and overrides the primary domain of parents. The Acts

mandatory sex education program mocks the sanctity, autonomy and

inviolability of marriage and the family, making these attributes meaningless

empty embellishments. Its enforcement in all educations institutionspublic

and private schools, vocational and other systemssteals the heart and soul

of children, inveigling and wresting them out of the familys protective

embrace.

43. On the other hand, the Act makes of the family an institutiondependent on factors other than those outlined in the Constitution, as

revealed by Sec. 4(v):


16/25



G.R. No.

----------------------------------------------

16

SEC. 4. Definition of Terms. For the purposes of this

Act, the following terms shall be defined as follows: x x x

x x x (v) Responsible parenthood refers to the will and

ability of a parent to respond to the needs and aspirations of the

family and children. It is likewise a shared responsibility

between parents to determine and achieve the desired number

of children, spacing and timing of their children according to

their own family life aspirations, taking into account

psychological preparedness, health status, sociocultural and

economic concerns consistent with their religious convictions.

44. Thus, based on the Act, the State has actually managed to

establish additional characteristics that the Filipino family should now

carrycharacteristics which exact demands on parents (and prospective

parents) that directly negate and frustrate the Constitutions intention to limit

a description of the Filipino family to what a Filipino family needs in

general, and not what parents of those families should be or what they

should have.

45. The contradiction is clear and unavoidable. On one hand, theConstitution respects the family for what, by nature, it is: unified and

inviolable. Moreover, the Constitution further takes the family to an

exceptional status when it mandates the State to: (1) protect the family and

children from harm; (2) allow its participation in policy-making; and (3)

assure its sustenance with a family living wage. It goes without saying that

these are actually constitutive of the elements of responsible parenthood.

Simply put, a responsible parent is one who (1) protects the life of the

mother and unborn child with equal love; (2) rears children for their moral

and civic development; (3) protects the family from harm; (4) ensures thefamilys nutrition; and (5) seeks the ideal of a family living wage.

46. In fact, the above-cited provisions are actually demands on the

State for its support, considering the clear status of the family as being the

foundation of the nation. Hence, the demand for a family living wage, for

example.

47. On the other hand, the Act introduces a certain kind of parenthood

that exacts vague and broad demands on parents to the point that it makes ofthem an unintelligible and impossible task. As Section 4(v) reveals,

responsible parenthood means having the psychological, physical, social,

cultural, and economic preparedness to determine whether or not the

parents desire to have another child is proper and timely.


17/25



G.R. No.

----------------------------------------------

17

48. Based on the foregoing, Sec. 4(v) of the Act must be declared

unconstitutional.

D. AS REGARDS THE SOVEREIGN AND DEMOCRATIC NATURE OF THE

PHILIPPINE NATION AND ITS GOVERNMENT, THE CONSTITUTION

MANDATES THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A GOVERNMENT THAT

EMBODIES THE IDEALS AND ASPIRATIONS OF THE SOVEREIGN

FILIPINO PEOPLE.

49. The mandate of the State in the Preamble of the Constitution is

worth restating, that is: to establish a Government that is truthful to the

ideals and aspirations of the sovereign Filipino people.

50. In flagrant contrast, Sec. 3(h) of the Act creates a novel and

unprecedented policy of tying the hands of the State to so-called

obligations under various human rights instrumentsinstruments

which, are international in nature:

SEC. 3. Guiding Principles for Implementation. This

Act declares the following as guiding principles: x x x

x x x (h) The State shall respect individuals preferences

and choice of family planning methods that are in accordance

with their religious convictions and cultural beliefs, taking into

consideration the States obligations under various human

rights instruments; x x x

51. This is patently contrary to the basic principle of the Constitution

in Art. II, Sec. 2, giving legal recognition only to those international

principles which are generally accepted by all civilized nations, thus:

Section 2. The Philippines renounces war as an

instrument of national policy, adopts the generally accepted

principles of international law as part of the law of the land and

adheres to the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom,

cooperation, and amity with all nations.

52. Nowhere in the Constitution is there a blanket adoption of

principles contained in international human rights instruments. If formal

acts of Government in treaties and international agreements require

concurrence of at least two-thirds of all the members of the Philippine

Senate before their effectivity (Art. VII, Sec. 21), what more for mere


18/25



G.R. No.

----------------------------------------------

18

international instruments? In fact, when it comes to human rights, the

Constitution mandates State compliance and monitoring on human rights

obligations contained in international treatiesa principle which the Actcannot possibly supplant or expand. Moreover, the national interest,

sovereignty and self-determination are paramount.

Sec. 7. The State shall pursue an independent foreign

policy. In its relations with other states the paramoung

consideration shall be national sovereignty, territorial integrity,

national interest, and the right to self-determination. (Art. II,

Constitution)

53. That is why, Republic Act No. 386, as amended (The Civil Code

of the Philippines) provides that:

Art. 17. x x x

Prohibitive laws concerning persons, their acts or

property, and those which have for their object public order,

public policy and good customs shall not be rendered

ineffective by laws or judgments promulgated, or bydeterminations or conventions agreed upon in a foreign

country.

54. Based on the foregoing, Sec. 3(h) of the Act must be declared

unconstitutional.

E. THE CONSTITUTION IS A PROTECTOR OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM AND

FREEDOM OF SPEECH IN THOUGHT AND ACTION AGAINST ANY

SUBSTANTIAL BURDEN OF GOVERNMENT INTRUSION.

55. The Act threatens petitioners and others similarly situated with

penalties for expressing their religious beliefs and professed values relating

to life and family values through teachings, talks, and public discussions

with parents and other audiences.

Art. II, Sec. 5 of the Constitution states:

Section 5. No law shall be made respecting an

establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise

thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession

and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever


19/25



G.R. No.

----------------------------------------------

19

be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise

of civil or political rights.

56. This provision means more than just the freedom of a person to

believe in the tenets of a religion. It also means the freedom to act or not to

act according to what a person believes. On this point, the disquisition of

this Honorable Court in Centeno v. Hon. Villalon-Pornillos, 236 SCRA 197

(1994), is worth restating, thus:

The constitutional inhibition of legislation on the subject

of religion has a double aspect. On the one hand, it forestalls

compulsion by law of the acceptance of any creed or thepractice of any form of worship. Freedom of conscience and

freedom to adhere to such religious organization or form of

worship as the individual may choose cannot be restricted by

law. On the other hand, it safeguards the free exercise of the

chosen form of religion. Thus, the constitution embraces two

concepts, that is, freedom to believe and freedom to act. The

first is absolute but, in the nature of things, the second cannot

be. x x x Whence, even the exercise of religion may be

regulated, at some slight inconvenience, in order that the Statemay protect its citizens from injury. x x x

57. In Sec. 17 of the Act, the State is given the power to mandate

persons and institutions to provide reproductive health services to indigent

and low-income patients. In Sec. 23(a)(1) of the Act, the State is given the

power to prosecute any health care provider who intentionally provides

incorrect information on any matter covered by the Act insofar as

reproductive health and family planning is concerned. In Sec. 23(a)(3) of the

Act, the State is further given the power to require a conscientious objectorto refer a potential reproductive health care patient to another provider. In

all these cases, the violator can be prosecuted and, if found guilty, be

imprisoned from one (1) month to six (6) months and/or fined Ten Thousand

(P10,000.00) to One Hundred Thousand (P100,000.00) Pesos.

58. In goes without saying that these provisions do not bring a mere

slight inconvenience to a conscientious objector who is commanded to do

as the Act prescribes contrary to his religious convictions. Nothing can be

more burdensome to a persons freedom of religion than to act (not act)under pain of criminal prosecution and imprisonment.

59. Under the same principle, Sec. 23(a)(1) of the Act is a direct and

flagrant violation of Art. II, Sec. 4 of the Constitution, which states:


20/25



G.R. No.

----------------------------------------------

20

Section 4. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom

of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the

people peaceably to assemble and petition the government forredress of grievances.

60. Based on the foregoing, Sec. 17, Sec. 23, and Sec. 24 of the Act

must be declared unconstitutional.

F. THE GRANT OF REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS AS DESCRIBED IN THE ACT

CREATES DOUBTFUL OR SPURIOUS RIGHTS.

61. The Act states:

Sec. 2. Declaration of Policy.The State recognizes and

guarantees the human rights of all persons including their right

to equality and nondiscrimination of these rights, the right to

sustainable human development, the right to health which

includes reproductive health x x x

x x x The State shall eradicate discriminatory practices,laws and policies that infringe on a persons exercise of

reproductive health rights. (Underlines ours.)

while Section 3 states:

Reproductive Health (RH) refers to the state of

complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely

the absence of disease or infirmity, in all matters relating to the

reproductive system and to its functions and processes. Thisimplies that people are able to have a responsible, safe,

consensual and satisfying sex life, that they have the capability

to reproduce and the freedom to decide if, when, and how often

to do so. This further implies that women and men attain equal

relationships in matters related to sexual relations and

reproduction. (Underlines ours.)

62. The grant and guarantee of reproductive health rights to all

persons (which will include children and adolescents), and the State policyto remove (eradicate) all impediments to the exercise of those rights creates

an alarming license of untrammeled individualistic autonomy that weakens

the essence of marriage, family, and parenting which is the sincere gift of

self. The giving of self is the kernel of family life and inter-generational


21/25



G.R. No.

----------------------------------------------

21

solidarity and strength, a value that permeates and reverberates in the pro-

family provisions of the Constitution.

63. The grant and legislation of reproductive rights should satisfy

the nature and purpose of human rights. A grant of other rights apart from

the basic and fundamental human rights must satisfy the demands of human

nature. After all, the fundamental human rights arise from the very nature of

the human personin his dignity and his teleological nature. This makes

for authentic human rights. Failing this compliance, any legislative

enshrinement of other rights satisfies and addresses mere interests, lifestyles,

or desireswhich are not, in essence, rights. We shall explain.

Authentic human rights

1. Are inherent and infused by nature, not by human authority;2. Are in harmony with human nature and the natural processes of

the human body;

3. Are at the service of the dignity of the human person;4. Are ordered to the good of the human person, since those rights are

by nature and from nature;

5. Edify the person who possesses and enjoys the rights;6. Are inalienable and protected from impairment or withdrawal by

human authority;

7. Are demandable forbearances upon the rest of the community;8. When denied or transgressed, there is injustice;9. Serve and foster the good not only of the possessor of the rights

but also the good of the community, hence, the common good;

On the other hand, spurious rights

1. Are legislated and granted by human authority;2. Defy human nature and the natural processes of the human body;3. Violate human dignity;4. Being against human nature, they defile the human body and

brings harm instead of well-being;

5. Demean the person who is given such rights;6. May be withdrawn, diminished, and disturbed in its exercise and

enjoyment by the granting authority;

7. May not be a forbearance from the rest of the community whohave valid objections to such non-rights;

8. When withheld, do not constitute an injustice, for nothing that isevil or contrary to human nature is due;

9. Jeopardize and harm the common good.


22/25



G.R. No.

----------------------------------------------

22

II. THE ACT CANNOT BE IMPLEMENTED WITHOUT EXCEEDING THE

BOUNDARIES OF GOVERNMENT ACTION AS ENSHRINED IN THECONSTITUTION.

64. Section 26 of the Act mandates the respondents to promulgate the

implementing rules of the Act. Considering that the statutory standards upon

which the rules are to be based are unconstitutional as discussed above, the

Act cannot be implemented without exceeding the Constitutional boundaries

and limitations imposed on Government, for:

x x x A constitution is a system of fundamental laws forthe governance and administration of a nation. It is supreme,

imperious, absolute and unalterable except by the authority

from which it emanates. It has been defined as the fundamental

and paramount law of the nation. It prescribes the permanent

framework of a system of government, assigns to the different

departments their respective powers and duties, and establishes

certain fixed principles on which government is founded. The

fundamental conception in other words is that it is a supreme

law to which all other laws must conform and in accordancewith which all private rights must be determined and all public

authority administered.3

65. For the same reason, the remaining provisions of the Act cannot

stand without the unconstitutional provisions herein discussed.

Grounds for the Issuance of a

Temporary Restraining Order/Preliminary Injunction

66. The question may be asked: Is the petition not premature

considering that the Act is not yet effective, it not having been published

yet? The answer is in the negative because petitioners asked not only that the

law be invalidated, but also that a writ of preliminary injunction be issued.

This remedy is available only before the contemplated illegal act is done. It

will be too late to wait for the day the law becomes effective for by then, an

illegal disbursement and use of public funds can already be made by

respondents before the Honorable Court can deliberate on the propriety ofissuing the preliminary injunction against said disbursement.

67. According to Rule 58, Revised Rules of Court, to wit:

3Manila Prince Hotel v. Government Insurance System, 267 SCRA 408, 1997.


23/25



G.R. No.

----------------------------------------------

23

Sec. 3. Grounds for issuance of preliminary injunction. -

A preliminary injunction may be granted when it is established.

a) That the applicant is entitled to the relief demanded, andthe whole or part of such relief consists in restraining the

commission or continuance of an act or acts, either for a

limited period or perpetually;

b) That the commission, continuance or non-performance ofthe act or acts complained of during the litigation would

probably work injustice to the applicant; or

c) That a party, court, agency or a person is doing,threatening, or is attempting to do, or is procuring or

suffering to be done some act or acts probably in

violation of the rights of the applicant respecting the

subject of the action or proceeding, and tending to render

the judgment ineffectual.

x x x Sec. 5. Preliminary injunction not granted without

notice; exception. No preliminary injunction shall be granted

without hearing and prior notice to the party or person sought to

be enjoined. If it shall appear from facts shown by affidavits or

by the verified application that great or irreparable injury would

result to the applicant before the matter can be heard on notice,

the court to which the application for preliminary injunction

was made, may issue ex parte a temporary restraining order to

be effective only for a period of twenty (20) days from serviceon the party or person sought to be enjoined, except as herein

provided. Within the said twenty-day period, the court must

order said party or person to show cause, at a specified time and

place, why the injunction should not be granted, determine

within the same period whether or not the preliminary

injunction shall be granted, and accordingly issue the

corresponding order. x x x

68. Petitioners have established that the injury complained of is ofsuch imminence that there is a clear and present need for equitable relief to

prevent irreparable harm.

69. Considering that as shown above, petitioners are entitled to the

relief demanded that is, such relief consists in restraining the enforcement of


24/25



G.R. No.

----------------------------------------------

24

R.A. 10354 and that its enforcement will work injustice to the petitioners

and to others similarly situated; considering that the case presents questions

going to the merits of so serious and substantial questions deserving of moredeliberate consideration; that respondents are attempting to enforce the

aforesaid Act that tends to render the judgment hereof ineffectual, issuance

of a writ of preliminary injunction hereof is hence warranted. And

considering that great and irreparable injury would result to the petitioners

before the matter can be heard on notice, temporary restraining order hereof

is hence imperative to preserve thestatus quo.

Prayer

WHEREFORE, premises considered, petitioners respectfully pray

that the Honorable Court issue a decision:

1. declaring null and void, for being unconstitutional, RepublicAct No. 10354, entitled AN ACT PROVIDING FOR A

NATIONAL POLICY ON RESPONSIBLE PARENTHOOD

AND REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH;

2. commanding the respondents and all persons acting on the basisof the Act to cease from implementing the said law;

3. and, pending the resolution of this case, that the HonorableCourt issue a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of

Preliminary Injunction enjoining the respondents from

implementing the Act, and upon the final resolution of this

case, to make the injunction permanent.

The petitioners pray for other just and equitable remedies.

Quezon City for Manila, 02 January 2013.

IMBONG & CASTRO LAW OFFICES

Unit 304 Seor Ivan de Palacio Building

139 Malakas St., Diliman, Quezon City

Tel. No. 9294699


25/25



G.R. No.

----------------------------------------------

25

By:

(original signed)

JAMES M. IMBONGFor himself and as

Counsel of Petitioners

Roll of Attorneys No. 51157

PTR No. 26307017 / 04 Jan. 2012 / Angeles City

IBP No. 899666 / 17 July 2012 / Angeles City

M.C.L.E. Compliance No. III-0018381 / 11 Aug. 2010 --

[email protected]

Mobile No. 0932-4836601

(original signed)

JO AUREA M. IMBONG

Collaborating Counsel

Roll of Attorneys No. 23185

PTR No. 4038201 / 20 Jan. 2012 / Marikina City

IBP No. 801862/ 01 Jan. 2012 / Marikina City

M.C.L.E. Compliance No. III-0019478 / 11 Aug. 2010 --

Mobile No. 0932-8517878

COPY FURNISHED:

Hon. Paquito N. Ochoa, Jr.,Executive Secretary

Office of the President of the Philippines

Malacaang Palace, City of Manila

Hon. Florencio B. Abad, Secretary

Department of Budget and Management (DBM)

Malcaang, City of Manila

Hon. Enrique T. Ona, M.D., Secretary

Department of Health (DOH)

San Lazaro Compound, City of Manila

Hon. Armin A. Luistro, FSC, Secretary

Department of Education (DepEd)

DepEd Complex, Meralco Avenue, Pasig City

Hon. Manuel A. Roxas II, Secretary

Department of Internal and Local Government (DILG)

EDSA cor. Mapagmahal St., Diliman, Quezon City

Hon. Francis H. Jardeleza

Solicitor General

139 Amorsolo Street

Legaspi Village, Makati City

Documents

RA 10354 Petition SC James Imbong