Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Held
In their Answer dated May 27, 2002, respondents denied the
The right to personal privacy includes the abortion charges against them. Instead, they averred that petitioner was
decision, but the right is not unqualified and must be considered motivated by vindictiveness and bad faith in charging them
against important state interests in regulation. falsely. They likewise opposed their preventive suspension for
The abortion laws in effect in the majority of the States are of lack of factual and legal basis. They strongly expressed their
relatively recent vintage, deriving from statutory changes opposition to petitioner acting as complainant, prosecutor and
generally enacted in the latter half of the 19th century. At judge.
common law abortion performed before quickening (the first
recognizable movement of the fetus in utero) was not an On May 28, 2002, respondents filed with the Civil Service
indictable offense, and it is doubtful that abortion was ever a Commission (CSC) an Urgent Petition to Lift Preventive
firmly established common law crime even when it destroyed a Suspension Order. They contended that the acts they allegedly
quick fetus. committed were arbitrarily characterized as grave misconduct.
Three reasons have been advanced for the historical enactment Consistent with their stand that petitioner could not act as the
of criminal abortion laws. The first is that the laws are the product complainant, prosecutor and judge at the same time,
of a Victorian social concern to discourage illicit sexual conduct, respondents filed with the CSC a Petition to Transfer
but this argument has been taken seriously by neither courts nor Investigation to This Commission.
commentators. The second reason is that the abortion
procedure is hazardous, therefore the State’s concern is to Meanwhile, the GSIS hearing officer directed petitioners to
protect pregnant women. However, modern medical techniques submit to the jurisdiction of the investigating committee and
have altered the situation, with abortions being relatively safe required them to appear at the scheduled hearing.
particularly in the first trimester. The third reason is the State’s
interest is in protecting the prenatal life. However, this is Despite their urgent motions, the CSC failed to resolve
somewhat negated by the fact that the pregnant woman cannot respondents' motions.
be prosecuted for the act of abortion.
For the stage prior to the approximate end of the first On October 10, 2002, respondents filed with the CA a special
trimester, the abortion decision must be left to the medical civil action for certiotari and prohibition with prayer for
judgment of the pregnant woman’s attending physician, and may Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), seeking the annulment
not be criminalized by statute. and setting aside of petitioner's order directing the former to
For the stage subsequent to the approximate end of the first submit to the jurisdiction of the committee created to hear and
trimester, the State may regulate abortion in ways reasonably investigate the administrative case filed against them and
related to maternal health based upon the State’s interest in prayed that petitioner (and the committee) be prohibited from
promoting the health of the mother. conducting the
For the stage subsequent to viability, the State may scheduled hearing and from taking any action on the aforesaid
regulate and even proscribe abortion, except where necessary administrative case against respondents.
for the preservation of the mother’s life, based upon the State’s
interest in the potential of the potential life of the unborn child. CA, rendered a decision in favor of the respondents.
Due process is required notwithstanding how seriousness of Issue: W/O the respondents were fully adcorded the requisite
the judgement and evidence of guilt opportunity to be heard, were in fact heard and being heard,
and whether the conduct of preliminary investigation in
administrative proceedings is an essential requisite to the
conduct of adjudication.