Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 2

Imbong v. Ochoa, G.R. No.

204819, 8 April 2014


Basic Principle:
The respondents also assail the petitions because they are essentially petitions for declaratory relief over
which the Court has no original jurisdiction.120 Suffice it to state that most of the petitions are praying for
injunctive reliefs and so the Court would just consider them as petitions for prohibition under Rule 65, over
which it has original jurisdiction. Where the case has far-reaching implications and prays for injunctive
reliefs, the Court may consider them as petitions for prohibition under Rule 65.
Facts:
This is a consolidated petition which assails the constitutionality of , Republic Act (R.A.) No. 10354,
otherwise known as the Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012 (RH Law), was
enacted by Congress on December 21, 2012.
Petitioners argue that the assailed law violates various constitutional provisions which includes but not
limited to these grounds:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.

The right to life


The right to health,
The right to protection against hazardous substances
The right to religious freedom
The right against involuntary servitude
The right to due process
The right to family
The right to privacy

The respondents, aside from traversing the substantive arguments of the petitioners, pray for the
dismissal of the petitions for the principal reasons that 1] there is no actual case or controversy and,
therefore, the issues are not yet ripe for judicial determination.; 2] some petitioners lack standing to
question the RH Law; and 3] the petitions are essentially petitions for declaratory relief over which the
Court has no original jurisdiction.
Issue:
Whether or not the petitions assailing the constitutionality of the RH Law partakes of a declaratory relief
over which this court has no Jurisdiction.
Held:
No.
The respondents also assail the petitions because they are essentially petitions for declaratory relief over
which the Court has no original jurisdiction. Suffice it to state that most of the petitions are praying for
injunctive reliefs and so the Court would just consider them as petitions for prohibition under Rule 65, over
which it has original jurisdiction. Where the case has far-reaching implications and prays for injunctive
reliefs, the Court may consider them as petitions for prohibition under Rule 65.