CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II | IMBONG VS. OCHOA GR No. 204819, April 8, 2014
IMBONG VS. OCHOA
GR No. 204819, April 8, 2014
_________________________________________________________FACTS
The Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012 (RH Law) was passed into law in 20120. Herein Petitioner filed a petition before the Supreme Court challenging the validity of the aforementioned law. He contends that the law paves way to legalizing abortion in the country and therefore should be strike down as unconstitutional.
ISSUE
Whether or not the RH law is unconstitutional on the basis that it is contrary to the right to life because it paves way to legalizing abortion.
RULING
NO, the RH law is not contrary to the constitutional guarantee of right to life.
Human life begins at the moment of fertilization with the union of the egg and sperm resulting in the formation of a new individual, with a unique genetic composition that dictates all developmental stage that ensure.fetilization means the union of the male sperm and the female ovum. Contraceptives that kill or destroy the fertilized ovum should be deemed an abortive and thus should be prohibited. However, contraceptives that prevent the union of the male sperm and the female sperm (or prior to the fertilization) and those that similarly take action after abortion should be deemed non-abortive.
In the case at bar, the court ruled that RH Law clearly mandates that protection be afforded from the moment of fertilization. The law is consistent with prohibiting abortifacents; any drug or device which kills or destroys the fertilized ovum to reach and be implanted in the mother‟s womb.