Professional Documents
Culture Documents
V. STC
WRIT OF HABEAS
DATA
NEXUS BETWEEN
DISINI V. SEC. OF
JUSTICE
SPAMMING
WARRANTLESS
COLLECTION OF
ONLINE DATA
AUTHORITY OF
THE DOJ TO
RESTRICT ACCESS
TO COMPUTER
DATA
IMBONG V.
OCHOA
Note: Boxes
with
black
background
are the aspects
of RH law
rendered
UNCONSTITU
TIONAL
RIGHT TO LIFE
OF THE UNBORN
RE: ABORTION
RIGHT TO
HEALTH
RE: UNSAFE
CONTRACEPT-
IVES
Petitioners are assailing the constitutionality of RH Law and its IRR on the
violations of:
(1)
CERTAIN PROVISIONS BILL OF RIGHTS (discussed in detail through the
tables below)
(2)
UNDUE DELEGATION: Petitioners are attacking the delegation of
authority to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to determine a
supply or product is to be included in the Essential Drugs List is valid
RULING: There is no undue delegation of powers
The delegation by Congress to the FDA of the power to determine
whether or not a supply or product is to be included in the
Essential Drugs List is valid, as the FDA not only has the power but
also the competency to evaluate, register and cover health
services and methods (under RA 3720 as amended by RA 9711 or
the FDA Act of 2009).
(3)
LOCAL AUTONOMY: Petitioners argue that the RH Law infringes
upon the powers devolved to Local Governments and the Autonomous
Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM)
RULING: Local autonomy is not violated
LGUs are merely encouraged to provide RH services. Provision of
these services are not mandatory. Therefore, the RH Law does not
amount to an undue encroachment by the national government
upon the autonomy enjoyed by LGUs.
Article III, Sections 6, 10, and 11 of RA 9054 or the Organic Act of
the ARMM merely delineates the powers that may be exercised by
the regional government. These provisions cannot be seen as an
abdication by the State of its power to enact legislation that would
benefit the general welfare.
RH LAW IS CONSTITUTIONAL BUT THE IRR IS NOT
The RH Law is in line with intent THE IRR IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL
of framers of the Constitution to BECAUSE
IT
REDEFINED
prohibits abortion.
ABORTIFICIENTS.
The RH Law prohibits not only This redefinition paves the way for
drugs or devices that prevent the approval of contraceptives that
implantation but also those that may harm or destroy the life of the
induce abortion and induce the unborn
from
destruction of a fetus inside the conception/fertilization.
mothers womb. Thus, the RH Law
recognizes that the fertilized ovum
already has life and that the State
has a bounded duty to protect it.
Petitioners cite risks of getting diseases gained by using e.g. oral
contraceptive pills.
Adequate safeguards exist to ensure that only safe contraceptives
are made available to the public under RA 4729:
MEDICALLY PRESCRIBED: contraceptives it will procure shall be
from a duly licensed drug store or pharmaceutical company and
that the actual distribution of these contraceptive drugs and
devices will be done following a prescription of a qualified medical
practitioner.
FDA tested: Under Sec. 9, these devices and materials to be used
must have been tested, evaluated and approved by the FDA.
RELIGIOUS
FREEDOMS
FAMILY
RIGHTS/
CONSENT OF
SPOUSE OR
PARENTS
RH LAW
EDUCATION
RIGHT TO DUE
PROCESS
NON-ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE
To allow religious sects to dictate
policy
or
restrict
other
groups would violate Article III,
Section 5 of the Constitution or the
Establishment Clause. This would
cause the State to adhere to a
particular religion, and thus,
establishes a state religion.
The State may pursue its legitimate
secular objectives without being
dictated upon the policies of any one
religion.
MANDATORY FAMILY PLANNING:
reasonable exercise of police power
by the government. Those who
attend the seminar are free to
accept or reject information they
receive and they retain the freedom
to decide on matters of family life
without the intervention of the
State.
MARITAL PRIVACY AND AUTONOMY
Section
23
(a)
(2
)(i)
permitting RH procedures
even
with only the consent of the spouse
undergoing the provision (thus,
disregarding spousal content)
intrudes into martial privacy and
autonomy and goes against the
constitutional safeguards for the
family as the basic social
institution.
DECISION MUST BE MUTUAL: RH Law
cannot infringe upon the mutual
decision-making mandated under
the Constitution.
The Court declined to rule on the constitutionality of Section 14 of the RH
Law, which mandates the State to provide Age-and DevelopmentAppropriate Reproductive Health Education. Although educators might
raise their objection to their participation in the RH education program,
the Court reserves its judgment should an actual case be filed before it.
PREMATURE: Any attack on its constitutionality is premature because the
Department of Education has not yet formulated a curriculum on ageappropriate reproductive health education.
DEFINITIONS ARE NOT VAGUE: The RH Law does not violate the due process
clause of the Constitution as the definitions of several terms as
observed by the petitioners are not vague.
The definition of private health care service provider must be
seen in relation to Section 4(n) of the RH Law which defines a
public health service provider. The private health care
EQUAL
PROTECTION
CLAUSE
INVOLUNTARY
SERVITUDE