Section 12, Article II of the 1987 Constitution absolutely

proscribes abortion, or the taking away of the life of the unborn,

in all cases. Since life begins at conception, or more
specifically, from fertilization, the duty of the State to protect the
unborn begins at that pointand not at the time of implantation of
the fertilized ovum in the mothers womb.

Facts:

Immediately after the Reproductive Health Law was passed, various

petitions were filed questioning the constitutionality of the said law. Among other
arguments, the petitions claim that the RH Law violates the right to life of the
unborn in violation of Section 12, Article II of the Constitution which guarantees
protection of both the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception.

Issue:

Whether the RH Law is unconstitutional for violating the right to life of the
unborn.

Ruling:

NO. Section 12, Article II of the 1987 Constitution makes it a policy of the
State to equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from
conception. The provision unequivocably proscribes abortion, or the taking away
of the life of the unborn, in all cases. Since life begins at conception, or more
specifically, from fertilization, the duty of the State to protect the unborn begins at
that pointand not at the time of implantation of the fertilized ovum in the
mothers womb. This is precisely what the RH Law seeks to achieve when it
prohibited all forms of abortifacients, which are drugs or devices which either (a)
induces abortion, (b) induces destruction of the fetus inside the mothers womb, or
(c) prevents the fetus from being implanted inside the mothers womb.

By expressly declaring that any drug or device that prevents the fertilized
ovum to reach and be implanted in the mother's womb is an abortifacient (third
kind), the RH Law recognizes that: one, there is a need to protect the fertilized
ovum which already has life, and two, the fertilized ovum must be protected the
moment it exists- all the way until it reaches and implants in the mother's womb.
After all, if life is only recognized and protection only from the moment of
implantation of the fertilized ovum, there is nothing to prevent any drug or device
from killing or destroying the fertilized ovum prior to implantation, which is
tantamount to abortion as stated in the Constitution.

JAMES M. IMBONG and LOVELY-ANN C. IMBONG, et al. v. HON.

PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., Executive Secretary, et al.
G.R. No. 204819, April 8, 2014, Mendoza, J.

While the Court has opted not to make any determination, at this stage, when life
begins, it finds that the RH Law itself clearly mandates that protection be afforded
from the moment of fertilization.

Facts:

Petitioners assailed the constitutionality of the Reproductive Health Law (RH

Law), because, among others, it violates the right to life of the unborn.
Notwithstanding its declared policy against abortion, the implementation of the RH
Law would authorize the purchase of hormonal contraceptives, intra-uterine
devices and injectables which are abortives, in violation of Section 12, Article II of
the Constitution which guarantees protection of both the life of the mother and the
life of the unborn from conception;
Issue:

Whether or not the RH Law violates the right to life of the unborn.

Ruling:

No. The Framers of the Constitution did not intend to ban all contraceptives
for being unconstitutional. Contraceptives that kill or destroy the fertilized ovum
should be deemed an abortive and thus prohibited. Conversely, contraceptives that
actually prevent the union of the male sperm and the female ovum, and those that
similarly take action prior to fertilization should be deemed non-abortive, and thus,
constitutionally permissible. The clear and unequivocal intent of the Framers of the
1987 Constitution in protecting the life of the unborn from conception was to
prevent the Legislature from enacting a measure legalizing abortion. A reading of
the RH Law would show that it is in line with this intent and actually proscribes
abortion. While the Court has opted not to make any determination, at this stage,
when life begins, it finds that the RH Law itself clearly mandates that protection be
afforded from the moment of fertilization.

However, the section of the RH-IRR allows contraceptives and recognizes as

abortifacient only those that primarily induce abortion or the destruction of a
fetus inside the mother's womb or the prevention of the fertilized ovum to reach
and be implanted in the mother's womb. This cannot be done. Evidently, with the
addition of the word primarily, in Section 3.0l(a) and G) of the RH-IRR is
indeed ultra vires. It contravenes Section 4(a) of the RH Law and should, therefore,
be declared invalid.

Section 15, Article II of the Constitution provides: The State shall protect and
promote the right to health of the people and instill health consciousness among
them. Contrary to the OSGs position, these provisions are self-executing. At this
point, the Court is of the strong view that Congress cannot legislate that hormonal
contraceptives and intra-uterine devices are safe and non-abortifacient. The
provision in Section 9 covering the inclusion of hormonal contraceptives, intra-
uterine devices, injectables, and other safe, legal, non-abortifacient and effective
family planning products and supplies by the National Drug Formulary in the EDL
is not mandatory. There must first be a determination by the FDA that they are in
fact safe, legal, non-abortifacient and effective family planning products and
supplies. There can be no predetermination by Congress that the gamut of
contraceptives are "safe, legal, non-abortifacient and effective" without the proper
scientific examination.

RH Law would authorize the purchase of hormonal contraceptives, intra-uterine

devices and injectables which are abortives, in violation of Section 12, Article II of
the Constitution which guarantees protection of both the life of the mother and the
life of the unborn from conception;

__________________________________________________________________
___________________________