Supreme Court PIO · @SCPh_PIO
8th Apr 2014 from TwitLonger
| G.R. NO. 204819 (James M. Imbong and Lovely-Ann C. Imbong, et al., petitioners, v. Hon. Paquito N. Ochoa, Jr., et al.) | G.R. NO. 204934 (Alliance for the Family Foundation, Philippines, Inc, et al., petitioners, v. Hon. Paquito N. Ochoa, et al., respondents) | G.R. NO. 204957 (Task Force for Family and Life Visayas Inc., et al., petitioners, v. Hon. Paquito N. Ochoa, et al., respondents) | G.R. NO. 204988 (Serve Life Cagayan de Oro City, Inc., et al., petitioners, v. Office of the President, et al., respondents) | G.R. NO. 205003 (Expedito Bugarin Jr., petitioner, v. Office of the President, et al., respondents) | G.R. NO. 205043 (Eduardo B. Olaguer, et al., petitioners, v. DOH Secretary Enrique Ona, et al., respondents) | G.R. NO. 205138 (Philippine Alliance of XSeminarians, Inc., et al., petitioners, v. Hon. Paquito N. Ochoa, Jr., respondents) | G.R. NO. 205478 (Reynaldo J. Echavez, M.D., et al., petitioners, v. Hon. Paquito N. Ochoa, Jr., respondents) | G.R. NO. 205491 (Spouses Francisco S. Tatad and Maria Fenny C. Tatad, petitioners, v. Office of the President, respondent) | G.R. NO. 205720 (Pro-Life Philippines Foundation, Inc., et al., petitioners, v. Office of the President, et al., respondents) | G.R. NO. 206355 (Millennium Saint Foundation Inc., et al., petitioners, v. Office of the President, et al., respondents) | G.R. NO. 207111 (John Walter B. Juat, et al., petitioners, v. Hon. Paquito N. Ochoa, Jr., et al., respondents) | G.R. NO. 207172 (Couples for Christ Foundation, Inc., et al., petitioners, v. Hon. Paquito N. Ochoa, Jr., et al., respondents) | G.R. NO. 207563 (Almarim Centi Tillah, et al., petitioners, v. Hon. Paquito N. Ochoa, Jr., et al., respondents) |
The Court, after a scrutiny of the various arguments and contentions of the parties in the foregoing consolidated cases consisting of 14 petitions challenging its constitutionality and 2 interventions to uphold its constitutionality, unanimously held that Republic Act No. 10354 is NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL* based on the grounds raised, except with respect to the following items, to wit:
a) Section 7, and the corresponding provision in the RH-IRR insofar as they: (a) require private health facilities and non-maternity specialty hospitals and hospitals owned and operated by a religious group to refer patients, not in an emergency or life-threatening case, as defined under Republic Act No. 8344, to another health facility which is conveniently accessible; and (b) allow minor-parents or minors who have suffered a miscarriage access to modern methods of family planning without written consent from their parents or guardian/s;
b) Section 23(a)(1) and the corresponding provision in the RH-IRR, particularly section 5.24 thereof, insofar as it punishes any health care provider who fails or refuses to disseminate information regarding programs and services on reproductive health regardless of his or her religious beliefs.
c) Section 23(a)(2)(i) and the corresponding provision in the RH-IRR insofar as they allow a married individual, not in an emergency or life-threatening case, as defined under Republic Act No. 8344, to undergo reproductive health procedures without the consent of the spouse;
d) Section 23(a)(3) and the correspondiong provision in the RH-IRR, particularly section 5.24 thereof, insofar as they punish any health care provider who fails and/or refuses to refer a patient not in an emergency or life-threatening case, as defined under Republic Act No. 8344, to another health care service provider within the same facility or one which is conveniently accessible regardless of his or religious beliefs;
e) Section 23(b) and the corresponding provision in the RH-IRR, particularly section 5.24 thereof, insofar as they punish any public officer who refuses to support reproductive health programs or shall do any act that hinders the full implementation of a reproductive health program, regardless of his or her religious beliefs.
f) Section 17 and the corresponding provision in the RH-IRR regarding the rendering of pro-bono reproductive health service, insofar as they affect the conscientious objector in securing PhilHealth accreditation.
g) Section 3.01(a) and (j) of the RH-IRR insofar as it uses the qualifier “primarily” for contravening sec. 4(a) of the RH Law and violating section 12, Article II of the Constitution.
h) Section 23(a)(2)(ii) insofar as it penalizes a health service provider who will require parental consent from the minor in not emergency or serious situations,
which are declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL. On these items, the Court took separate votes, with the following results:
1) Section 7, and the corresponding provision in the RH-IRR insofar as they:
(a) require private health facilities and non-maternity specialty hospitals and hospitals owned and operated by a religious group to refer patients, not in an emergency or life-threatening case, as defined under Republic Act No. 8344, to another health facility which is conveniently accessible;
(Voting: 11-4 [Sereno, CJ., Reyes, Perlas-Bernabe, Leonen, JJ, dissenting])
(b) allow minor-parents or minors who have suffered a miscarriage access to modern methods of family planning without written consent from their parents or guardian/s; (Voting: 11-4 [Sereno, CJ., Reyes, Perlas-Bernabe, Leonen, JJ, dissenting])
2) Section 23(a)(1) and the corresponding provision in the RH-IRR, xxx, insofar as it punishes any health care provider who fails or refuses to disseminate information regarding programs and services on reproductive health regardless of his or her religious beliefs. (Voting: 10-5 [Sereno, CJ., Del Castillo, Reyes, Perlas-Bernabe, Leonen, JJ., dissenting])
“…particularly section 5.24 thereof, insofar as it punishes any health care provider who fails or refuses to disseminate information regarding programs and services on reproductive health regardless of his or her religious beliefs.” (Voting: 12-3 [Sereno, CJ., Reyes, Leonen, JJ., dissenting])
3) Section 23(a)(2)(i) and the corresponding provision in the RH-IRR insofar as they allow a married individual, not in an emergency or life-threatening case, as defined under Republic Act No. 8344, to undergo reproductive health procedures without the consent of the spouse; (Voting: 11-4 [Sereno, CJ; Reyes, Perlas-Bernabe, Leonen, JJ., dissenting)
4) Section 23(a)(3) and the correspondiong provision in the RH-IRR, particularly section 5.24 thereof, insofar as they punish any health care provider who fails and/or refuses to refer a patient not in an emergency or life-threatening case, as defined under Republic Act No. 8344, to another health care service provider within the same facility or one which is conveniently accessible regardless of his or religious beliefs; (Voting: 11-4 [Sereno, CJ; Reyes, Perlas-Bernabe, Leonen, JJ., dissenting])
5) Section 23(b) and the corresponding provision in the RH-IRR, particularly section 5.24 thereof, insofar as they punish any public officer who refuses to support reproductive health programs or shall do any act that hinders the full implementation of a reproductive health program, regardless of his or her religious beliefs. (Voting: 10-5 [Sereno, CJ.; Del Castillo, Reyes, Perlas-Bernabe, Leonen, JJ., dissenting])
6) Section 17 and the corresponding provision in the RH-IRR regarding the rendering of pro-bono reproductive health service, insofar as they affect the conscientious objector in securing PhilHealth accreditation. (Voting: 11-4 [Sereno, CJ; Reyes, Perlas-Bernabe, Leonen, JJ., dissenting])
7) Section 3.01(a) and (j) of the RH-IRR insofar as it uses the qualifier “primarily” for contravening sec. 4(a) of the RH Law and violating section 12, Article II of the Constitution. (Voting: 14-1 [Leonen, J., dissent])
8) Section 23(a)(2)(ii) insofar as it penalizes a health service provider who will require parental consent from the minor in not emergency or serious situations. (Voting: 11-4 [Sereno, CJ., Reyes, Perlas-Bernabe, Leonen, JJ., dissenting])
The Opinion of the Court was written by Associate Justice Jose Catral Mendoza, with the following submitting separate Opinions: (a) The Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno (Pagsang-ayon at Pagsalungat; her opinion is written entirely in Filipino); (b) Senior Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio, (c) Associate Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro; (d) Associate Justice Arturo D. Brion; (e) Associate Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo; (f) Associate Justice Roberto A. Abad; (g) Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes; (h) Associate Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe; and (i) Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen.
The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the petitions are PARTIALLY GRANTED.
Accordingly, the Court declares R.A. No. 10354 as NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL except with respect to the following provisions which are declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL:
1) Section 7, and the corresponding provision in the RH-IRR insofar as they: (a) require private health facilities and non-maternity specialty hospitals and hospitals owned and operated by a religious group to refer patients, not in an emergency or life-threatening case, as defined under Republic Act No. 8344, to another health facility which is conveniently accessible; and (b) allow minor-parents or minors who have suffered a miscarriage access to modern methods of family planning without written consent from their parents or guardian/s;
2) Section 23(a)(1) and the corresponding provision in the RH-IRR, particularly section 5.24 thereof, insofar as it punishes any health care provider who fails or refuses to disseminate information regarding programs and services on reproductive health regardless of his or her religious beliefs.
3) Section 23(a)(2)(i) and the corresponding provision in the RH-IRR insofar as they allow a married individual, not in an emergency or life-threatening case, as defined under Republic Act No. 8344, to undergo reproductive health procedures without the consent of the spouse;
4) Section 23(a)(3) and the correspondiong provision in the RH-IRR, particularly section 5.24 thereof, insofar as they punish any health care provider who fails and/or refuses to refer a patient not in an emergency or life-threatening case, as defined under Republic Act No. 8344, to another health care service provider within the same facility or one which is conveniently accessible regardless of his or religious beliefs;
5) Section 23(b) and the corresponding provision in the RH-IRR, particularly section 5.24 thereof, insofar as they punish any public officer who refuses to support reproductive health programs or shall do any act that hinders the full implementation of a reproductive health program, regardless of his or her religious beliefs.
6) Section 17 and the corresponding provision in the RH-IRR regarding the rendering of pro-bono reproductive health service, insofar as they affect the conscientious objector in securing PhilHealth accreditation.
7) Section 3.01(a) and (j) of the RH-IRR insofar as it uses the qualifier “primarily” for contravening sec. 4(a) of the RH Law and violating section 12, Article II of the Constitution.
8) Section 23(a)(2)(ii) insofar as it penalizes a health service provider who will require parental consent from the minor in not emergency or serious situations.
A summary of the reasoning of the Court will be released by email within the day. ### [tot]
_______
* The formulation that uses the double negative "not unconstitutional" is peculiar to constitutional adjudication and is premised on the presumption that all laws are presumed to be constitutional and the burden of showing that a law is unconstitutional is on the petitioner. Failing that burden, the declaration is in the double negative—“not unconstitutional.” To assert that it is “constitutional” would presume that the law operates on a starting point of unconstitutionality, which is not the situation; also to declare that a law is "constitutional" connotes a degree of permanent immutability, i.e., that the law can never be declared unconstitutional.