You are on page 1of 21

QUESTION 1

ANSWER:

a. No. Majority of the Members of the Court believe that the question of when life begins is a scientific and
medical issue that should not be decided, at this stage, without proper hearing and evidence. However, they
agreed that individual Members could express their own views on this matter.

Article II, Section 12 of the Constitution states: “The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect
and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution. It shall equally protect the life of the mother
and the life of the unborn from conception.”
In its plain and ordinary meaning (a canon in statutory construction), the traditional meaning of “conception”
according to reputable dictionaries cited by the ponente is that life begins at fertilization. Medical sources also
support the view that conception begins at fertilization.

The framers of the Constitution also intended for (a) “conception” to refer to the moment of “fertilization” and
(b) the protection of the unborn child upon fertilization. In addition, they did not intend to ban all contraceptives
for being unconstitutional; only those that kill or destroy the fertilized ovum would be prohibited.
Contraceptives that actually prevent the union of the male sperm and female ovum, and those that similarly
take action before fertilization should be deemed non-abortive, and thus constitutionally permissible.

The intent of the framers of the Constitution for protecting the life of the unborn child was to prevent the
Legislature from passing a measure prevent abortion. The Court cannot interpret this otherwise. The RH Law is
in line with this intent and actually prohibits abortion. By using the word “or” in defining abortifacient (Section
4(a)), the RH Law prohibits not only drugs or devices that prevent implantation but also those that induce
abortion and induce the destruction of a fetus inside the mother’s womb. The RH Law recognizes that the
fertilized ovum already has life and that the State has a bounded duty to protect it.

However, the authors of the IRR gravely abused their office when they redefined the meaning of abortifacient
by using the term “primarily”. Recognizing as abortifacients 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” (Sec. 3.01(a) of the IRR) would pave the way for the approval of
contraceptives that may harm or destroy the life of the unborn from conception/fertilization. This violates
Section 12, Article II of the Constitution. For the same reason, the definition of contraceptives under the IRR (Sec
3.01(j)), which also uses the term “primarily”, must be struck down.

b. No. The requirement under Sec. 17 of the RH Law for private and non-government health care service providers
to render 48 hours of pro bono RH services does not amount to involuntary servitude, for two reasons. First, the
practice of medicine is undeniably imbued with public interest that it is both the power and a duty of the State
to control and regulate it in order to protect and promote the public welfare. Second, Section 17 only
encourages private and non-government RH service providers to render pro bono service. Besides the PhilHealth
accreditation, no penalty is imposed should they do otherwise.

However, conscientious objectors are exempt from Sec. 17 as long as their religious beliefs do not allow them to
render RH service, pro bono or otherwise (See Part 3b of this digest.)

c. No. The State may pursue its legitimate secular objectives without being dictated upon the policies of any one
religion. 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. Thus, the State can enhance its population control program through the RH Law
even if the promotion of contraceptive use is contrary to the religious beliefs of e.g. the petitioners.
QUESTION 2

ANSWER:

a. Yes. Sec. 14 of Rules on Writ of Amparo provides for Interim Reliefs which the court, justice or judge may grant
upon filing of the petition or at anytime before final judgment. Among this reliefs is the Temporary Protection
Order. In the case of Yano v Sanchez, since the Court granted the petitioner the privilege of the writ of amparo,
there is no need to issue a temporary protection order independently of the privilege of writ of amparo. Hence,
the CA was correct in saying that the writ of amparo rendered unnecessary the issuance of a temporary
protection order.

b. No. Once out of office, even before the end of the six year term, immunity for non-official acts is lost. Such was
the case of Joseph Estrada. It could not be used to shield a non-sitting President from prosecution for alleged
criminal acts done while sitting in office as held in Estrada v. Disierto.
QUESTION 3

ANSWER:

a. No law granting any tax exemption shall be passed without the concurrence of a majority of all the Members
of the Congress. (Art VI Sec 27 p4)
b. The Congress, by a vote of two-thirds of both Houses in joint session assembled, voting separately, shall have
the sole power to declare the existence of a state of war. (Art VI Sec 23 p1)
c.
d. in case two or more shall have an equal and highest number of votes, one of them shall forthwith be chosen
by the vote of a majority of all the Members of both Houses of the Congress, voting separately. (Art VII Sec 4
p5)
e. Upon the initiative of the President, the Congress may, in the same manner, extend such proclamation or
suspension for a period to be determined by the Congress, if the invasion or rebellion shall persist and public
safety requires it. (Art VII Sec 18 p1)
QUESTION 4

ANSWER:
QUESTION 5

ANSWER:
QUESTION 6

ANSWER:
QUESTION 6

ANSWER:
QUESTION 8

ANSWER:
QUESTION 9

ANSWER:
QUESTION 10

ANSWER:
QUESTION 11

ANSWER:
QUESTION 12

ANSWER:
QUESTION 13

ANSWER:
QUESTION 14

ANSWER:
QUESTION 15

ANSWER:
QUESTION 16

ANSWER:
QUESTION 17

ANSWER:
QUESTION 18

ANSWER:
QUESTION 19

ANSWER:
QUESTION 20

ANSWER:

You might also like