Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila

PHILIPPINE ALLIANCE OF XSEMINARIANS, INC. (PAX), herein represented by its National President, ATTY. RICARDO M. RIBO, and in his own behalf, ATTY. LINO E.A. DUMAS, ROMEO B. ALMONTE, OSMUNDO C. ORLANES, ARSENIO Z. MENOR, SAMUEL J. YAP, JAIME F. MATEO, ROLLY SIGUAN, DANTE E. MAGDANGAL, MICHAEL EUGENIO O. PLANA, BIENVENIDO C. MIGUEL JR., LANDRITO M. DIOKNO AND BALDOMERO FALCONE, Petitioners, Versus HON. PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., Executive Secretary, HON. FLORENCIO B. ABAD, Secretary, Department of Budget and Management, HON. ENRIQUE T. ONA, Secretary, Department of Health, HON. ARMIN A. LUISTRO, Secretary, Department of Education, HON. MANUEL A. ROXAS II, Secretary, Department of Interior and Local Government, HON. CORAZON J. SOLIMAN, Secretary, Department of Social Welfare and Development, HON. ARSENIO BALISACAN, Director-General, National Economic and Development Authority, HON. SUZETTE H. LAZO, Director-General, Food
1

G.R. NO. ____________ For: Certiorari, Prohibition and Preliminary Injunction with Urgent Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order

and Drugs Administration, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, Philippine Health Insurance Corporation, and THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, Philippine Commission on Women, Respondents. x-----------------------------x

PETITION FOR CERTIORARI, PROHIBITION AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (With Urgent Prayer for the Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order)

Petitioners, by undersigned counsel, unto Honorable Supreme Court, respectfully allege that:

this

THE PARTIES Petitioners Petitioner, PHILIPPINE ALLIANCE OF XSEMINARIANS, Inc. (PAX) is a registered and existing non-stock, non profit corporation under the laws of the Republic of the Philippines with principal office address at Rm. 206 Reza Building, 1318 Quezon Avenue, Quezon City. It is represented herein by its National President, ATTY. RICARDO M. RIBO, of legal age, widower, Catholic, Filipino, with office address at Rm. 206 Reza Building, 1318 Quezon Avenue, Quezon City. It is a national organization of Catholic Seminaries Alumni Associations and former seminarians working in partnership with various stakeholders for the renewal of the family, the community and the nation, the earth and the Church towards the attainment of justice, peace and integrity of creation. ATTY. LINO E. A. DUMAS is of legal age, married, Filipino, Catholic and a resident of Brgy. Naga-naga, Palo, Leyte.
2

OSMUNDO C. ORLANES is of legal age, married, Filipino, Businessman, Catholic and a resident of San. Vicente St. Brgy. 1, Poblacion, Calbiga, Western Samar. ARSENIO Z. MENOR is of legal age, married, Filipino, Self-Employed, Catholic and a resident of Bayambang Road, San Vicente, Bayambang, Pangasinan. ROMEO B. ALMONTE is of legal age, married, Filipino, Government Employee, Catholic and a resident of No. 17-B Molave St. Feria Compound, Brgy. Old Balara, Quezon City. JAIME F. MATEO is of legal age, married, Filipino, Businessman, Catholic and a resident of No.41 Uphill St. Towerill Subdivision, Taytay, Rizal. MICHAEL EUGENIO O. PLANA is of legal age, married, Businessman, Filipino, Catholic and a resident of No. 4 Rome St. Loyola Grand Villas, Quezon City. SAMUEL J. YAP is of legal age, married, Filipino, Catholic, Consultant and a resident of No. 118 Granada, San Antonio Heights Sto. Tomas, Batangas. ROLLY SIGUAN is of legal age, married, Filipino, Catholic and a resident at No. 2565h Topacio St. San Andres, Manila. DANTE E. MAGDANGAL No. is of legal age, married, Filipino, Catholic, Businessman and a resident of No. 13-B Administration St. GSIS Village, Project 8, Quezon City. BIENVENIDO C. MIGUEL, JR., is of legal of age, single, Filipino, Catholic and a resident of Brgy. Del Paz, Antipolo City. LANDRITO M. DIOKNO, is of legal of age, married, Filipino, Catholic, Businessman and a resident of No. 10/56 F Bautista St. Marulas, Valenzuela City. BALDOMERO C. FALCONE, is of legal age, married, Filipino, Catholic, Businessman and a resident of 25 Scarlet St., Marikina City.

Petitioners are all taxpayers and Catholics by faith and creed. They may be served with summons and other processes of this Honorable Supreme Court through undersigned counsel at its given address.

Respondents HON. PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., Executive Secretary, Office of the President of the Philippines, Malacaan Palace, Manila; HON. FLORENCIO B. ABAD, Secretary, Department of Budget and Management (DBM), Malacaan Palace, Manila; HON. ENRIQUE T. ONA, Secretary, Department of Health (DOH), San Lazaro Compound, City of Manila; HON. ARMIN A. LUISTRO, FSC, Secretary, Department of Education (DepEd), DepEd Complex, Meralco Avenue, Pasig City; HON. MANUEL A. ROXAS II, Secretary, Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) EDSA, cor. Mapagmahal St., Diliman, Quezon City; HON. CORAZON JULIANO-SOLIMAN, Secretary, Department of Social Welfare and Development, Brgy. Batasan Hills, Quezon City. HON. ARSENIO BALISACAN, Director-General, National Economic and Development Authority, 12 Saint Josemarie Escriva Drive, Ortigas Center, Pasig City, Philippines. HON. SUZETTE H. LAZO, Director-General, Food and Drugs Administration, Civic Drive, Filinvest Corporate City, Alabang, Muntinlupa City, 1781, Philippines. THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, Philippine Health Insurance Corporation, Citystate Centre, 709 Shaw Blvd.,1603 Pasig City, Philippines. THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, Philippine Commission on Women, 1145 J.P. Laurel St., San Miguel Manila 1005 Philippines.

The above respondents are being impleaded in their respective official capacities as public officers and heads of their government offices or agencies, tasked with the
4

enforcement, implementation and administration of the assailed Act. They may be served summons and other processes of this Honorable Supreme Court at their respective offices as above indicated and/or through counsel, the Solicitor General, at 139 Amorsolo Street, Legaspi Village, Makati City.

PREFATORY STATEMENT

Restating basic concepts and principles on the hierarchy of rights, this Honorable Supreme Court in a 1973 case said:

(1) In a democracy, the preservation and enhancement of the dignity and worth of the human personality is the central core as well as the cardinal article of faith of our civilization. The inviolable character of man as an individual must be "protected to the largest possible extent in his thoughts and in his beliefs as the citadel of his person." xxxx (Philippine Blooming Mills Employment Organization vs. Philippine Blooming Mills Co., G.R. No. L31195,June 5, 1973, 51 SCRA 189, citing American Com. vs. Douds, 339 U.S. 382, 421.) Emphasis supplied.

THE MATERIAL DATES

Republic Act No. 10354 was signed by the President of the Republic of the Philippines on December 21, 2012. As of date however, petitioners are unaware of its publication in any newspaper of general circulation.

STATEMENT OF MATTERS INVOLVED The matters raised before this Honorable Supreme Court are of transcendental significance with far-reaching implications and of paramount public interest as the future of our youth, families and our nation is at stake. It involves the inherent power of the state to exercise its police power
5

and the natural and constitutional rights of those governed to hold steadfast its Filipino culture, belief and faith as embodied in our Constitution. Petitioners respectfully submit, that R.A. 10354 should be struck down as unconstitutional in so far as it promotes artificial contraception as a State Policy, requires the appropriation of public funds for that purpose, directs government institutions and agencies to implement the questioned provisions and imposes a sanction or penalty for its violation.

ISSUE

Central to the issue raised in this petition is whether or not the State in the exercise of its police powers, may validly promote artificial contraception as a State Policy.

GROUNDS RELIED UPON FOR THE ALLOWANCE OF THE PETITION

I. The assailed law does not serve public interest in that the activity sought to be regulated is outside the scope of its police power, violates human dignity and contravenes the Constitution.

II. The assailed law is unconstitutional in so far as it unduly delegates legislative authority to the Food and Drugs Administration

III. The assailed law is a violation of religious freedom guaranteed by our Constitution.

DISCUSSION

I. The assailed law does not serve public interest in that the activity sought to be regulated is outside the scope of its police power, violates Human Dignity and contravenes the Constitution.

Among the inherent powers of government, police power is the most comprehensive and pervasive. Blackstone defined police power, as xxx the police power of the State to be "the due regulation and domestic order of the kingdom; whereby the individuals of the State, like the members of a well-governed family, are bound to conform their general behavior to the rules of propriety, good neighborhood, and good manners; and to be decent, industrious, and inoffensive in their respective stations. This head of offenses must, therefore, be very miscellaneous, as it comprises all such crimes as especially affect public society." Blackstone, 4th ed., book 4, p. 163.)

It has been aptly characterized in Ermita-Malate vs Mayor of Manila asxxx the most essential, insistent and the least limitable of powers, extending as it does "to all the great public needs." It would be, to paraphrase another leading decision, to destroy the very purpose of the state if it could be deprived or allowed itself to be deprived of its competence to promote public health, public morals, public safety and the general welfare. Negatively put, police power is "that inherent and plenary power in the State which enables it to prohibit all that is hurt full to the comfort, safety, and welfare of society.(G.R. No. L-24693, 20 SCRA 849, July 31, 1967)
7

Nonetheless, its resort must be measured against requisites that underlie a valid exercise thereof, as held in the early case of US vs. Torribio (15 Phil. 85, 1910) where this Honorable Supreme Court said:

As stated by Mr. Justice Brown in his opinion in the case of Lawton vs. Steele (152 U. S., 133,136): To justify the State in thus interposing its authority in behalf of the public, it must appear, first, that the interests of the public generally, as distinguished from those of a particular classes, require such interference; and, second, that the means are reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose, and not unduly oppressive upon individuals. The legislature may not, under the guise of protecting the public interests, arbitrarily interfere with private business, or impose unusual and unnecessary restrictions upon lawful occupations. In other words, its determination as to what is a proper exercise of its police powers is not final or conclusive, but is subject to the supervision of the courts." (Emphasis supplied)

In elucidating the nature of the first requisite, a lawful subject is described as The first requisite simply means that the subject of the measure is within the scope of the police power, that is, the activity or property sought to be regulated affects the public welfare. If it does, the enjoyment of private rights may be subordinated to the interest of the greater number, on the time honored principle that the welfare of the people is the supreme law. (Cruz, Constitutional Law 1993 Ed., p.48)

A perusal of the assailed measure would show that it appears to address what the legislative department perceives as an inequality between man and woman, regardless of relationship, when it comes to reproductive health; it seeks to promote the general welfare by providing the poor, access to information, supplies, drugs and devices on artificial contraception as essential to reproductive health and family planning.

In simple terms, reproductive health must be the object, not the method; it must be the end not the means; it must be the the terminus ad quem, not the terminus a quo. Here lies a fallacy of the assailed measure - it determines and provides a National Policy for Reproductive Health and legislates the same National Policy as the means to achieve the same National Policy.

Hence, the object is more apparent than real, and even more deceitful than truthful. This can be readily gleaned from the assailed measures definition of reproductive health, to wit:

(p) Reproductive Health (RH) refers to the state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity, in all matters relating to the reproductive system and to its functions and processes. This implies that people are able to have a responsible, safe, consensual and satisfying sex life, that they have the capability to reproduce and the freedom to decide if, when, and how often to do so. This further implies that women and men attain equal relationships in matters related to sexual relations and reproduction.

With the above-quoted definition of reproductive health coupled with the definition of Sexual Health, the assailed measure contains not less than 40 instances where the sexual activity is adverted to.

(w) Sexual health refers to a state of physical, mental and social well-being in relation to sexuality. It requires a positive and respectful approach to sexuality and sexual relationships, as well as the possibility of having pleasurable and safe sexual experiences, free from coercion, discrimination and violence.

It is not therefore difficult indeed to determine that what the state seeks to regulate is the sexual act itself, the sexual intercourse between couples, without regard to marital status or even gender; it is a regulation of the conjugal expression of love.

Since it is the sexual activity sought to be regulated, and not reproductive health, then the assailed law must hurdle the test of whether the activity sought to regulated affects public welfare.

Thus, the definition of Reproductive Health (RH) under Sec. 4 (p) (supra) legislates an implication as a conditio sine qua non that xxx people are able to have a responsible, safe, consensual and satisfying sex life xxx,

and Sexual Health under Sec. 4 (w) legislates a requisite on sexuality and sexual relationships, i.e. requiring the possibility of xxx having pleasurable experiences, xxx and safe sexual

In order to achieve this hedonistic purpose, the assailed measure seeks to promote and provide access to information of an option, i.e., the option to use artificial contraceptives in the sexual act, even as it penalizes violation of what it considers a free option.

10

Emphatically however, this inherent power must not contravene our Constitution. Thus: In a republican form of government public sentiment wields a tremendous influence upon what the state may or may not do, for the protection of the health and public morals of the people. Yet, neither public sentiment, nor a desire to ameliorate the public morals of the people of the state will justify the promulgation of a law which contravenes the express provisions of the fundamental law of the people the constitution of the state. (People vs. Pomar, G.R. No. L-22008, 46 Phil. 440, November 3, 1924) (Emphasis supplied)

Petitioners respectfully submit that the assailed Act is an invalid exercise of police power as the subject of the measure is outside the realm or scope of police power even as it violates the constitutional value of human dignity and respect for human rights. Section 11. The State values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect for human rights.

A human person is an individual human being, as distinguished from an animal or a thing. (Webster Dictionary, 1977 Ed.)

What distinguishes man from other lower forms of life is his being endowed with an intellect and a will.

In its ordinary meaning, dignity refers to a quality or state of being worthy, honored or esteemed (ibid.)

11

Plainly, the dignity of every human person simply means the state or quality of each and everyone of us to be worthy of being rational beings.

Such state is not a privilege granted by the state or its government but is innate to mans being; and what makes it intrinsic, natural and innate is, to say the least, obvious. Neither is the dignity of every human person a doctrine of faith but one of nature, accessible by pure reason, regardless of race, creed or party.

As early as Raquiza vs Bradford (G.R. No. L-44. 75 Phil. 50, September 13, 1945) this Honorable Court has recognized the dignity of a human person as one of the cardinal principles of democracy. It was not a matter of delivering a certain quantity or amount of personal property but human beings who, although under custody, had to be properly housed, maintained and otherwise treated as becoming the "dignity of the human person," which is one of the cardinal principles of democracy for which the United Nations have fought in this war. (Emphasis supplied)

For indeed, the bedrock of a state is its people, individually and collectively. Our Constitution ordains such respect and value to human dignity that it incorporates the same in three (3) provisions of our Constitution, to wit: 1) Under Article II (Declaration of Principles and State Policies) Section 11. The State values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect for human rights. 2) Under Art. III (Bill of Rights) Section I. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law nor
12

shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws. 3) Article XIII (Social Justice and Human Rights) Section 1. The Congress shall give highest priority to the enactment of measures that protect and enhance the right of all the people to human dignity, reduce social, economic, and political inequalities, and remove cultural inequities by equitably diffusing wealth and political power for the common good. (Emphasis supplied)

The dignity each and everyone of us enjoy is not an empty spectacle of phonetics and dialectics. It is farreaching, encompassing and spiritual.

In Pascual vs Board of Medical Examiners (G.R. No. L25018, 28 SCRA 345, May 26, 1969) involving the right against self-incrimination, this Honorable Supreme Court held: Why it should be thus is not difficult to discern. The constitutional guarantee, along with other rights granted an accused, stands for a belief that while crime should not go unpunished and that the truth must be revealed, such desirable objectives should not be accomplished according to means or methods offensive to the high sense of respect accorded the human personality. More and more in line with the democratic creed, the deference accorded an individual even those suspected of the most heinous crimes is given due weight. To quote from Chief Justice Warren, "the constitutional foundation underlying the privilege is the respect a government . . . must accord to the dignity and integrity of its citizens." (Emphasis supplied)

13

Human dignity, as a concept spiritual in nature, was likewise asserted with respect to home and privacy when this Supreme Court said: Thus is outlawed any unwarranted intrusion by government, which is called upon to refrain from any invasion of his dwelling and to respect the privacies of his life. In the same vein, Landynski in his authoritative work could fitly characterize this constitutional right as the embodiment of "a spiritual concept: the belief that to value the privacy of home and person and to afford its constitutional protection against the long reach of government is no less than to value human dignity, and that his privacy must not be disturbed except in case of overriding social need, xxx) (Villanueva vs Querubin, G.R. No. L26177, 48 SCRA 345, December 27, 1972). (Emphasis supplied) For sure, human dignity is the life that each and everyone of us enjoy as persons; the same life that gives an individual the innate right to be respected and dignified; the same life we asserted when we abolished the death penalty and when we renounced nuclear weapons. Human dignity flows from our being endowed with the faculty of reason and will in the image and likeness of our Supreme Creator; the same Almighty God we implore in our Preamble; the same God invoked in the Oath of Office of the President of our land. Natural persons are human beings created by God through the intervention of the parents. (Paras, Civil Code, 1989 Ed., p. 203) The recognition of this immutable truth was earlier pronounced in the concurring opinion of J. Perfecto in the case of Lino vs Fugoso (G.R. No. L-1159, 43 O. G. p. 1214, January 30, 1947), to wit: The attainment of great ideals needs faith, passionate adherence to them, the militant attitude manifested in the unflinching readiness to fight and fact hardships and sacrifices, unconquerable steadfastness and unbreakable perseverance in the face of obstacles and setbacks. xxx The same
14

conditions and qualities are among those needed by all liberal and progressive spirits to keep lighted the torch of liberty, to squelch the hydra of reaction, to conserve the moral heritage of advancement and conquests in the emporium of human rights bequeathed by the champions and martyrs who waged the heroic battles for real spiritual values and for the dignity of man as the image of God. (Emphasis supplied) Likewise, in the concurring opinion of J. Barredo in National Federation of Sugar Workers vs Ovejera (G.R. No. L-59743, 114 SCRA 354, May 31, 1982) this unassailable truth was expressed in the following manner, to wit:

Verily, neither the Supreme Court nor any other court is enjoined to favor labor merely for labor's sake, even as the judiciary is duty bound never to place labor at a disadvantage, for that would not be only unconstitutional but inhuman, contrary to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and unpardonably degrading to the dignity of man who has been precisely created in the image of God. (Emphasis supplied) In line with this accepted principle of mans dignity is the acceptance of the principles of Natural Law. As early as 1957 this Honorable Court invoked its inevitable existence and influence in the construction of state policies. Thus, in Roman Catholic Apostolic Administrator vs Land Registration Commission (102 Phil. 596 [1957]), it was said:

"The most important single factor in determining the intention of the people from whom the constitution emanated is the language in which it is expressed. The words employed are to be taken in their natural sense, except that legal or technical terms are to be given their technical meaning. The imperfections of language as a vehicle for conveying meanings result in
15

ambiguities that must be resolved by resort to extraneous aids for discovering the intent of the framers. xxx The purposes of many of the broadly phrased constitutional limitations were the promotion of policies that do not lend themselves to definite and specific formulation. The courts have had to define those policies and have often drawn on natural law and natural rights theories in doing so. The interpretation of constitutions tends to respond to changing conceptions of political and social values. The extent to which these extraneous aids affect the judicial construction of constitutions cannot be formulated in precise rules, but their influence cannot be ignored in describing the essentials of the process" (Rottschaeffer on Constitutional Law, 1939 ed., p. 18-19).

In its infancy, our Supreme Court has recognized the inspiration drawn by the principles of natural law in a case involving successional rights in Mijares vs. Nery (3 Phil 195, [1904]); and in a case involving the presumption of Maternal love in US vs Aquino (34 Phil 813, [1916])

The right of a Sovereign state to prosecute and punish crimes as, in the prosecution of the crime of perjury in the case of US vs. Pablo (35 Phil. 94), was likewise declared by this Honorable Court as an attribute of Natural Law. Thus:

The right of prosecution and punishment for a crime is one of the attributes that by a natural law belongs to the sovereign power instinctively charged by the common will of the members of society to look after, guard and defend the interests of the community, the individual and social rights and the liberties of every citizen and the guaranty of the exercise of his rights. (G.R. No. 11676. October 17, 1916)

The instinctive knowledge flowing from Natural Law was also pronounced in People vs Agbot (G.R. No. L-37641, 106 SCRA 325, July 31, 1981) where this Supreme Court,
16

by way of automatic review for the crime of Murder, held that the lack of instruction may not be appreciated in favor of appellant as the taking of life being forbidden by natural law is within the instinctive knowledge and feeling of any human being not deprived of reason.

Positive law as that provided under Article 1423 of our Civil Code likewise recognizes that natural obligations, not being based on positive law, are nonetheless based on equity and natural law.

Our constitution also recognizes this truth in the following wise, thus: Section 16. The State shall protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature. (Article II); and Section 15. The State shall protect and promote the right to health of the people and instill health consciousness among them.

These are the same rights alluded to in Oposa vs Factoran (224 SCRA 792 [1993]) as belonging to a different category of rights altogether for it concerns nothing less than self-preservation and self-perpetuation; the same self-preservation of the human species in the intimacy of the conjugal act. Interestingly, in a case involving the deprivation of a patient of her reproductive system, our Supreme Court acknowledged that the fullness of their endowments and physical qualities mandated factual and legal protection and preservation, as they hold the survival of mankind and the continuity of all human endeavors and institutions.

We cannot but express the considered view of this Court that the fair sex is as much entitled to this grant of benefits not alone by reason of the frailty and fragility of their bodies and faculties but also, if not more, because in the fullness of their endowments and physical qualities
17

which must be protected and preserved in fact and in law, they hold the survival of mankind and the continuity of all human endeavors and institutions. (Almaiz vs. Workmans Compensation Commission, G.R. No. L-42794, 85 SCRA 144, August 31, 1978) (Emphasis supplied) Premised on Human Dignity and Natural law, Petitioner now pleads for its application to the provisions of the assailed measure which contravenes and degrades Human dignity and Natural law, enumerated hereunder as follows: 1) SEC.. 2. Declaration of Policy.

xxx

xxx

xxx

(d) xxx The State likewise guarantees universal access to medically-safe, non-abortifacient, effective, legal, affordable, and quality reproductive health care services, methods, devices, supplies which do not prevent the implantation of a fertilized ovum as determined by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) xxx The State shall eradicate discriminatory practices, laws and policies that infringe on a persons exercise of reproductive health rights. The State shall also promote openness to life; Provided, That parents bring forth to the world only those children whom they can raise in a truly humane way. 2) SEC. 3. Guiding Principles for Implementation. This Act declares the following as guiding principles: xxx xxx xxx (d) The provision of ethical and medically safe, legal, accessible, affordable, non-abortifacient, effective and quality reproductive health care services and supplies is essential in the promotion of peoples right to health, xxx (e) The State shall promote and provide information and access, without bias, to all methods of family
18

planning, including effective natural and modern methods which have been proven medically safe, legal, non-abortifacient, and effective xxx

3) SEC. 4. Definition of Terms. For the purpose of this Act, the following terms shall be defined as follows: (a) Abortifacient refers to any drug or device that induces abortion or the destruction of a fetus inside the mothers womb or the prevention of the fertilized ovum to reach and be implanted in the mothers womb upon determination of the FDA. (e) Family planning refers to a program which enables couples and individuals to decide freely and responsibly the number and spacing of their children and to have the information and means to do so, and to have access to a full range of safe, affordable, effective, nonabortifacient modem natural and artificial methods of planning pregnancy. (l) Modern methods of family planning refers to safe, effective, non-abortifacient and legal methods, whether natural or artificial, that are registered with the FDA, to plan pregnancy. (p) Reproductive Health (RH) refers to the state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity, in all matters relating to the reproductive system and to its functions and processes. This implies that people are able to have a responsible, safe, consensual and satisfying sex life, that they have the capability to reproduce and the freedom to decide if, when, and how often to do so. This further implies that women and men attain equal relationships in matters related to sexual relations and reproduction. (q) Reproductive health care refers to the access to a full range of methods, facilities, services and supplies that contribute to reproductive health and well-being by addressing reproductive health-related problems. It also includes sexual health, the purpose of which is the enhancement of life and personal relations. The elements of reproductive health care include the following:
19

(s) Reproductive health rights refers to the rights of individuals and couples, to decide freely and responsibly whether or not to have children; the number, spacing and timing of their children; to make other decisions concerning reproduction, free of discrimination, coercion and violence; to have the information and means to do so; and to attain the highest standard of sexual health and reproductive health: Provided, however, That reproductive health rights do not include abortion, and access to abortifacients. (w) Sexual health refers to a state of physical, mental and social well-being in relation to sexuality. It requires a positive and respectful approach to sexuality and sexual relationships, as well as the possibility of having pleasurable and safe sexual experiences, free from coercion, discrimination and violence. 4) SEC. 9. The Philippine National Drug Formulary System and Family Planning Supplies. The National Drug Formulary shall include hormonal contraceptives, intrauterine devices, injectables and other safe, legal, non-abortifacient and effective family planning products and supplies. Xxx These products and supplies shall also be included in the regular purchase of essential medicines and supplies of all national hospitals xxx 5) SEC. 18. Sexual and Reproductive Health Programs for Persons with Disabilities (PWDs). The cities and municipalities shall endeavor that barriers to reproductive health services for PWDs are obliterated by the following:

(a) Providing physical access, and resolving transportation and proximity issues to clinics, hospitals and places where public health education is provided, contraceptives are sold or distributed or other places where reproductive health services are provided; 6) SEC. 19. Duties and Responsibilities. (a) Pursuant to the herein declared policy, the DOH shall serve as the lead agency for the implementation of this
20

Act and shall integrate in their regular operations the following functions: (1) Fully and efficiently implement the reproductive health care program; (2) Ensure peoples access to medically safe, nonabortifacient, legal, quality and affordable reproductive health goods and services; and (3) Perform such other functions necessary to attain the purposes of this Act.xxx (c) The FDA shall issue strict guidelines with respect to the use of contraceptives, taking into consideration the side effects or other harmful effects of their use.xxx 8) SEC. 23. Prohibited Acts. The following acts are prohibited: (a) Any health care service provider, whether public or private, who shall: (1) Knowingly withhold information or restrict the dissemination thereof, and/or intentionally provide incorrect information regarding programs and services on reproductive health including the right to informed choice and access to a full range of legal, medically-safe, non-abortifacient and effective family planning methods; (2) Refuse to perform legal and medically-safe reproductive health procedures on any person of legal age on the ground of lack of consent or authorization of the following persons in the following instances: (i) Spousal consent in case of married persons: Provided, That in case of disagreement, the decision of the one undergoing the procedure shall prevail; and xxx (3) Refuse to extend quality health care services and information on account of the persons marital status, gender, age, religious convictions, personal circumstances, or nature of work: Provided, That the conscientious objection of a health care service provider based on his/her ethical or
21

religious beliefs shall be respected; however, the conscientious objector shall immediately refer the person seeking such care and services to another health care service provider within the same facility or one which is conveniently accessible: xxx

(b) Any public officer, elected or appointed, specifically charged with the duty to implement the provisions hereof, who, personally or through a subordinate, prohibits or restricts the delivery of legal and medicallysafe reproductive health care services, including family planning; or forces, coerces or induces any person to use such services; or refuses to allocate, approve or release any budget for reproductive health care services, or to support reproductive health programs; or shall do any act that hinders the full implementation of a reproductive health program as mandated by this Act; (c) Any employer who shall suggest, require, unduly influence or cause any applicant for employment or an employee to submit himself/herself to sterilization, use any modern methods of family planning, or not use such methods as a condition for employment, continued employment, promotion or the provision of employment benefits. Further, pregnancy or the number of children shall not be a ground for non-hiring or termination from employment;

The common denominator of all the foregoing provisions rests in the promotion of artificial contraception, expressed in the term abortifacient or non-abortifacient.

For emphasis, the definition is hereunder re-quoted as follows: (a) Abortifacient refers to any drug or device that induces abortion or the destruction of a fetus inside the mothers womb or the prevention of the fertilized ovum to reach and be implanted in the mothers womb upon determination of the FDA.

22

As worded, drugs or devices considered as abortifacient are (1)those which induce abortion or (2) those which destroy a fetus inside a mothers womb or (3) those which prevent the fertilized ovum to reach and be implanted in the mothers womb.

Conversely, non-abortifacient drugs or devices are those which do not induce the aforementioned effects. These are the artificial contraceptives promoted under the assailed measure, which prevent fertilization, the union of the sperm and the egg (such as condoms and Intrauterine devices and surgical birth control ); or inhibits ovulation or egg formation (such as Birth Control Pills). (Vide: The New Illustrated Medical Encyclopedia and Guide to Family Health, Vol. I A-D, pp. 91-103, Rev. 8th Ed., 1988)

At the core of the assailed measure is the promotion of artificial contraception, as an option to the methods of planning a family and as the means employed for the accomplishment of the objectives of the assailed measure, on the assumption of another objective.

Contraception as the term implies comes from contra, a word-forming element meaning "against, in opposition," from Latin adverb and preposition contra1 and from Latin verb concipere (pp. conceptus) "to take in and hold; become pregnant."2 Birth control (contraception) is designed to interfere with the normal process and prevent the pregnancy that could result. There are different kinds of birth control that act at different points in the process, from ovulation, through fertilization, to implantation.3

(Harper, D. (2012). Retrieved January 24, 2012, from Online Etymology Dictionary: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=contra&search mode=none) 2 (Harper, D. (2012). Retrieved January 24, 2012, from Online Etymology Dictionary: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=conceive&allowed_in_frame=0)
3

Contraception. (n.d.) Gale Encyclopedia of Medicine. (2008). Retrieved January 23 2013 from http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/contraception

23

By its etymological meaning, artificial contraception is not for the promotion of life; it is against (contra) life. It is not to support birth; it is in opposition (contra) to birth.

It may be parenthetically noted that being intrinsically opposed terms, ie. reproduction v.s, contraception, there can be no reasonable connection or relation between the subject of the assailed act and the means employed to achieve the former. The promotion of artificial contraception is thus willed obstruction of the natural law and an affront to the dignity of man, a truth we have held on with devout fervor.

For sure, each stage in the birth process is dependent upon each other, as potency is to actuality, by the natural course of procreation; a gift bestowed upon all living creatures that life may continue and not a privilege granted by positive law to prevent it.

As restated in Philippine Blooming Mills (supra.) In a democracy, the preservation and enhancement of the dignity and worth of the human personality is the central core as well as the cardinal article of faith of our civilization; and In Almaic, (supra) they hold the survival of mankind and the continuity of all human endeavors and institutions.

This process of birth was outlined in People vs Cabresos (G.R. No. 109776, 244 SCRA 362, May 26, 1995) where our Supreme Court had to occasion to state that: The trial court found that the complainant Editha Pesidas "gave birth within 300 days or 10 months allowable in medical science from conception or fertilization, implantation, gestation and to birth of the child, as a result of the sexual assault inflicted upon her by appellant. In computing the duration of pregnancy, "we should note that time is computed from the date of three different occurrences in the life of the mother: one is
24

the first day of the last menstrual period, one is the time of intercourse, and one is the time of the fertilization of the ovum. . . ." We find that the trial judge's computation in this case of the duration of complainant's pregnancy counted from the time of the fertilization of the ovum, is medically accepted and recognized. Moreover, from complainant's testimony, the uncontroverted fact is that the complainant gave birth to a baby girl 307 days or 10 months after the date of alleged rape. While the ordinary period of gestation is approximately 9 calendar months or 280 days, calculated from the first day of the last menstrual period, there is nevertheless an abundance of medical authorities recording exceptions to this general rule. In fact, it has been held that length of pregnancy varies from 220 to 330 days from date of fruitful coitus. Thus, the 280-day rule is not a hard and fast one. (Emphasis supplied)

Undoubtedly to be admitted is the fact that our Constitution protects, upholds and promotes human dignity; our leaders recognize Natural Law and the people, faith on the Almighty God.

Consistently too, any artificial intervention of elastic device, chemical or any manufactured/processed substance calculated to hinder or prevent birth, or reduce the capacity to develop and nurture life is against the dignity of man in and an abomination and distortion of the natural process of procreation or reproduction, (a biological term commonly used for the lower species) as used in the assailed measure.

Since it inhibits procreation by purposely preventing the sexual act from achieving its natural good, its intended end and purpose, the means employed are unreasonable and unnecessary for the accomplishment of promoting reproductive health in particular and the general welfare, in general.

Individualists and collectivists both have theories of justice and human rights, but they are highly
25

unsatisfactory. They are rooted in grave misunderstandings of human nature and the human good. Neither can do justice to the concept of a human personthat is, a rational animal who is a locus of intrinsic value (and, as such, an end-in-himself who may never legitimately be treated as a mere means to others ends), but whose well-being intrinsically includes relationships with others and membership in formal and informal communities in which he or she has, as a matter of justice, both rights and responsibilities. (George, Robert P. Natural Law, Harvard Journal of Law and Policy, Vol. 31. No. I, p. 173) (Emphasis supplied)

Further, since it encroaches on the freedom of each individual which is the essence of constitutional liberty, the adoption of the said artificial means becomes unduly oppressive and unreasonable to the individual. In Griswold v. Connecticut U.S. 381 U.S. 479 (1965): The Fourth and Fifth Amendments were described... as protection against all governmental invasions "of the sanctity of a man's home and the privacies of life." We have had many controversies over these penumbral rights of "privacy and repose." These cases bear witness that the right of privacy which presses for recognition here is a legitimate one. The present case, then, concerns a relationship lying within the zone of privacy created by several fundamental constitutional guarantees. And it concerns a law which, in forbidding the use of contraceptives rather than regulating their manufacture or sale, seeks to achieve its goals by means having a maximum destructive impact upon that relationship. Such a law cannot stand in light of the familiar principle, so often applied by this Court, that a "governmental purpose to control or prevent activities constitutionally subject to state regulation may not be achieved by means which sweep unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade
26

the area of protected freedoms." . Would we allow the police to search the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms for telltale signs of the use of contraceptives? The very idea is repulsive to the notions of privacy surrounding the marriage relationship. We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights - older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.

Verily, the legal basis for its proscription is the same legal basis for its promotion. There can be no other.

Stated differently, if the use of contraceptives cannot be prohibited by legislation, because it is repulsive to protected freedoms and privacy, the same reason should be applied on why the use of contraceptives cannot be promoted without encroaching upon the intimate privacy of the individual and free use of his cognitive faculties. But as ubiquitous as the police power may be, it is fortunate for individual liberty that there are still some areas of human activity that are not within its reach. This will be so where the subject sought to be regulated has no bearing whatever upon the public welfare. The police power can unquestionably impose restrictions on what a person may wear in public, but in the privacy of his own bedroom, his attire or lack of it is his own business.xxx These are entirely private matters in which the public interest is not at all involved and over which therefore the police power cannot be validly asserted. (Cruz, supra.,pp 53-54) (Emphasis supplied)

27

The protected freedoms and privacy are the same liberties each individual, as a person enjoys; a right inalienable in character and sacred in essence.

It is described under the Philippine Law Dictionary as: Liberty consists in the ability to do what one ought to desire and in not being forced to do what one ought not to desire. Freedom to do right and never wrong; it is ever guided by reason and the upright and honorable conscience of the individual. The right to liberty guaranteed by the Constitution includes the right to exist and the right to be free from arbitrary personal restraint or servitude; it is deemed to embrace the right of man to enjoy the faculties with which he has been endowed by his Creator, subject only to such restraints as are necessary for the common welfare.xxx (1972 ed.)

As accurately mentioned above, mans freedom includes his right to enjoy his cognitive faculties where he holds dear his individual integrity and the privacy we all cherish.

The right to privacy is an essential condition to the dignity and happiness and to the peace and security of every individual, whether it be of home or of persons and correspondence. People vs CFI of Rizal [G.R. No. L-41686, 101 SCRA 86, November 17, 1980.] citing Taada & Carreon, Political Law of the Philippines, Vol. 2, 139 (1962). Hence, by promoting artificial contraceptives as an option, the assailed measure seeks to allow the person to modify the sexual act with the introduction of methods, drugs and devices. Not only does it obstruct or impede the natural procreative process, it is a dubious intrusion into protected territory as well.

28

As similarly held in Adiong vs Comelec (G.R. No. 103956, 207 SCRA 712, March 31, 1992), to wit:

"The case confronts us again with the duty our system places on the Court to say where the individual's freedom ends and the State's power begins. Choice on that border, now as always delicate, is perhaps more so where the usual presumption supporting legislation is balanced by the preferred place given in our scheme to the great, the indispensable democratic freedoms secured by the first Amendment ... That priority gives these liberties a sanctity and a sanction not permitting dubious intrusions and it is the character of the right, not of the limitation, which determines what standard governs the choice .... For these reasons any attempt to restrict those liberties must be justified by clear public interest, threatened not doubtfully or remotely but by clear and present danger. The rational connection between the remedy provided and the evil to be curbed, which in other context might support legislation against attack on due process grounds, will not suffice. These rights rest on firmer foundation. Accordingly, whatever occasion would restrain orderly discussion and persuasion, at appropriate time and place, must have clear support in public danger, actual or impending. Only the greatest abuses, endangering permanent interests, give occasion for permissible limitation. (Thomas V. Collins, 323 US 516 [1945]." xxx

While the promotion of artificial contraception as a state policy may pass in other foreign jurisdictions, the same cannot be held true in our jurisdiction, without running afoul with our Constitution, crafted by men and women of proven integrity, competence and faithful stewards of a new proGod, pro-family and pro-people democracy acclaimed worldwide, through a bloodless revolution.

In a consolidated case for Habeas Corpus, this Court proudly announced: The Filipinos are a God-loving and a God-fearing people. We believe in peace and freedom.
29

We believe in the family and its strong ties.xxx [G.R. No. L-61016. April 26, 1983 and G.R. No. L-61107, April 26, 1983.] (Emphasis supplied)

The will of the sovereign Filipino people as expressed in our Constitution is God-centered where human dignity is inviolable, where the sanctity of family life and marriage is protected and where the essence of social justice and precepts of truth, justice, love, equality and peace are sacredly inscribed.

This is the standard by which the immense police power should be exercised. Beyond it is the unreachable star.

The state policies and principles are laid down in our constitution, accessible to everyone by sheer reason.

Thus, as a beacon of our journey as a nation, our PREAMBLE implores the aid of Almighty God, in order to build a just and humane society, and establish a Government that shall embody our ideals and aspirations, promote the common good, conserve and develop our patrimony, and secure to ourselves and our posterity, the blessings of independence and democracy under the rule of law and a regime of truth, justice, freedom, love, equality, and peace.

And so does Article XIV (Education, Science and Technology, Arts, Culture and Sports) Section 3(2) on inculcating, foster love of humanity, respect for human rights, , strengthen ethical and spiritual values, develop moral character; Article II, (Declaration of Principles and State Policies) Section 5 on the protection of life, liberty, and property, and promotion of the general welfare as essential in a democracy; Section 9 on the promotion of a just and dynamic social order that will free the people from poverty through policies that provide adequate social services; Section 12 on the recognition of the sanctity of family life and protection and strengthening of the family as a basic autonomous social institution, protection of the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception; and the
30

natural right and duty of parents in the rearing the youth and the development of moral character.

The protection under Article IV, (Bill of Rights) Section 1 that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws remains sacrosanct.

Human dignity remains to be guaranteed and valued as a State policy under Article II (Declaration of Principles and State Policies) Section 11 adverting to the dignity of every human person and full respect for human rights.

A separate provision, Article XIII (Social Justice and Human Rights) Section 1 gives the highest priority to the enactment of measures that protect and enhance the right of all the people to human dignity, reduce social, economic, and political inequalities, and remove cultural inequities by equitably diffusing wealth and political power for the common good.

Still another separate provision on the Filipino Family ARTICLE XV where the State recognizes the Filipino family as the foundation of the nation; Section 2 where marriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the foundation of the family and shall be protected by the State. Here lies again a chilling and perverted concept of social justice which the assailed Act flaunts to address. First, the poor, marginalized or underprivileged sectors are the primary targets as voluntary beneficiaries. This is evident from the provisions of Sec. 2 (d), Sec. 3 (d), (e), (g), (o),(r) and (aa) Secs. 7, 11, 13 and 17.

Second, the assailed law promotes sustainable human development to fight poverty as provided in Secs. 2, 3(m), (n), (o) (aa), Sec. 11.

31

Third, the assailed law is primarily about access to artificial contraception, its literature, its supplies, drugs and services.

Therefore, what is actually being said is that social justice and the distribution of the countrys wealth and social services would be better allocated if the recipients or voluntary beneficiaries are few in number. It is an iniquitous aberration of our late President Magsaysays fitting slogan viz., those who have less in life should have more in law to a depraved catchphrase - those who have less in life should be less.

Worst, the assailed measure ensures that its voluntary beneficiaries comply with its mandate by promoting openness to life with a precarious caveat, to wit:

xxxProvided, That parents bring forth to the world only those children whom they can raise in a truly humane way (Sec. 2[d]).

And in the event of violation, Sec. 24 on the imposition of penalties by imprisonment or fine would apply, by force of law.

This inhumane caveat supplements another provision directly in collision with our Constitutional protection on the Filipino family, its sanctity, protection and its strengthening (Sec. 12 Art II, Phil. Constitution), and as the foundation of the nation (Sec 1, Art XV, Phil. Constitution) as well as the defense it is entitled from the state (Sec. 3, pars. 1, 2, and 3, Art. XV, Phil. Constitution).

Thus, under Sec. 23, par. a (2)(l) on spousal consent, the assailed measure upholds the decision of the spouse undergoing the reproductive health procedure.

32

Clearly, there is no substantial distinction or reasonable classification in the procreative or reproductive process. Both man and woman, husband and wife, are indispensable.

In Tiu vs Court of Appeals (GR No. 127410, 20, 1999), this Honorable Supreme Court said:

January

Classification, to be valid, must (1) rest on substantial distinctions, (2) be germane to the purpose of the law, (3) not be limited to existing conditions only, and (4) apply equally to all members of the same class. (citing Bernas, The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines: A Commentary, 1996 ed., p. 124; quoting People v. Cayat, 68 phil 12, 18 (1939).

All told, the eradication of poverty by reducing the number of the poor, marginalized or underprivileged sectors together with the proverbial Sword of Damocles is outrageously shocking to the conscience.

Clearly, the assailed Act failed to hurdle the requisites for a valid exercise of police power, in that the interest of the public or succinctly stated, the subject of the assailed Act and the activity sought to be promoted, modified or regulated does not affect public welfare but individual liberties and a persons dignity and privacy. Neither is there a reasonable relation between the objective and means adopted, even as both appear to encroach upon constitutional guarantees.

II The assailed law is unconstitutional in so far as it unduly delegates legislative authority to the Food and Drugs Administration It may be noteworthy to state that the authority to determine what constitutes, among others, medically-safe, non-abortifacient, effective, legal, affordable, and what are quality reproductive health care services, methods, devices,
33

supplies which do not prevent the implantation of a fertilized ovum, including its legality, is vested, albeit questionably, upon the Food and Drugs Administration, an attached agency of the Department of Health. Thus,

SEC. 2. (d) xxxThe State likewise guarantees universal access to medically-safe, nonabortifacient, effective, legal, affordable, and quality reproductive health care services, methods, devices, supplies which do not prevent the implantation of a fertilized ovum as determined by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) xxx Sec. 3 (e) The State shall promote and provide information and access, without bias, to all methods of family planning, including effective natural and modern methods which have been proven medically safe, legal, non-abortifacient, and effective in accordance with scientific and evidence-based medical research standards such as those registered and approved by the FDA xxx Sec. 4 (l) Modern methods of family planning refers to safe, effective, non-abortifacient and legal methods, whether natural or artificial, that are registered with the FDA, to plan pregnancy.

The undue delegation of legislative authority when measured against the tests in Abakada Guro Party List v. Purisima, becomes evident. Thus: Two tests determine the validity of delegation of legislative power: (1) the completeness test and (2) the sufficient standard test. A law is complete when it sets forth therein the policy to be executed, carried out or implemented by the delegate. It lays down a sufficient standard when it provides adequate guidelines or limitations in the law to map out the boundaries of the delegates authority and prevent the delegation from running riot. To be sufficient, the standard must specify the limits of the
34

delegates authority, announce the legislative policy and identify the conditions under which it is to be implemented. (G.R. No. 166715, August 14, 2008, 562 SCRA 251).

There is absolutely no legal basis to delegate a very important authority of determining which gives life and which prevents it, when no sufficient standard or adequate guidelines, conditions or limitations are laid down to cover what is medically-safe, non-abortifacient, effective, legal, affordable, and what are quality reproductive health care services, methods, devices, supplies or what are effective natural and modern methods or what has been proven as medically safe, legal, non-abortifacient, and effective to draw and map out the boundaries of its delegated authority.

III. The assailed law is a violation of religious freedom guaranteed by our Constitution.

Aptly emphasizing that what is guaranteed by our Constitution is religious liberty, not mere religious toleration, this Honorable Supreme Court said:

Religious freedom, however, as a constitutional mandate is not inhibition of profound reverence for religion and is not a denial of its influence in human affairs. Religion as a profession of faith to an active power that binds and elevates man to his Creator is recognized. And, in so far as it instills into the minds the purest principles of morality, its influence is deeply felt and highly appreciated. When the Filipino people, in the preamble of their Constitution, implored "the aid of Divine Providence, in order to establish a government that shall embody their ideals, conserve and develop the patrimony of the nation, promote the general welfare, and secure to themselves and their posterity the blessings of independence under a regime of justice, liberty and democracy," they thereby manifested their
35

intense religious nature and placed unfaltering reliance upon Him who guides the destinies of men and nations. The elevating influence of religion in human society is recognized here as elsewhere. (Aglipay vs. Ruiz, G.R. No. 45459, 64 PHIL 201, March 13, 1937.)

Later, in Victoriano vs. Elizalde Rope Workers' Union, this Honorable Supreme Court upheld the exemption of members of the Iglesia ni Cristo, from the coverage of a closed shop agreement between their employer and a union because it would violate the teaching of their church not to join any labor group.

Religious beliefs are not mere beliefs, mere ideas existing only in the mind, for they carry with them practical consequences and are the motives of certain rules of human conduct and the justification of certain acts. (59 SCRA 54, [1974])

Likewise, in the consolidated case of Ebralinag vs the Division Superintendent G.R. No. 95770 and G.R. No. 95887 March 1, 1993 where this Court accorded a similar exemption to the Jehovah's Witnesses out of respect for their religious beliefs, religious freedom was described as follows:

Religious freedom is a fundamental right which is entitled to the highest priority and the amplest protection among human rights, for it involves the relationship of man to his Creator (Chief Justice Enrique M. Fernando's separate opinion in German vs. Barangan, 135 SCRA 1).

The right to religious profession and worship has a two-fold aspect, vis., freedom to believe and freedom to act on one's belief. The first is absolute as long as the belief is confined within the
36

realm of thought. The second is subject to regulation where the belief is translated into external acts that affect the public welfare (J. Cruz, Constitutional Law, 1991 Ed., pp. 176177).

As living witnesses of the Catholic Faith, we, your petitioners, believe in one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church where faith and reason unite to live a life worthy of Eternal Happiness guided by the Sacred Scriptures and the Magisterium of the Church.

If only for emphasis, petitioners beg the indulgence of this Honorable Supreme Court to cite a few teachings of the Catholic Church, to which petitioners humbly belong, in order to express its point, thus:

In Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul VI stated, "[W]e must once again declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun, and, above all, directly willed and procured abortion, even if for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as licit means of regulating birth. Equally to be excluded, as the teaching authority of the Church has frequently declared, is direct sterilization, whether perpetual or temporary, whether of the man or of the woman. Similarly excluded is every action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" (HV 14).

This was reiterated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church: "[E]very action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation
37

impossible is intrinsically evil" (CCC 2370). "Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means . . . for example, direct sterilization or contraception" (CCC 2399). The Church also has affirmed that the illicitness of contraception is an infallible doctrine: "The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable. Contraception is gravely opposed to marital chastity, it is contrary to the good of the transmission of life (the procreative.aspect of matrimony), and to the reciprocal self-giving of the spouses (the unitive.aspect of matrimony); it harms true love and denies the sovereign role of God in the transmission of human life" (Vademecum for Confessors 2:4, Feb. 12, 1997). Enlightening too, is the exposition in Encyclical of Pope Benedict XVI, Caritas in Vertitate: The Church forcefully maintains this link between life ethics and social ethics, fully aware that a society lacks solid foundations when, on the one hand, it asserts values such as the dignity of the person, justice and peace, but then, on the other hand, radically acts to the contrary by allowing or tolerating a variety of ways in which human life is devalued and violated, especially where it is weak or marginalized. (No. 15)

Adopting the same breath as expressed by the concurring opinion of J. Cruz in Ebralinag, it would thus appear that in promoting and distributing artificial contraceptives and other modern artificial family planning methods, the State declares ex cathedra that by in fact adopting or using these modern artificial family planning methods of artificial contraception, the Catholic Filipino faithful do not transgress Catholic dogma, faith and teaching.

38

Petitioners cannot tolerate the commission of an intrinsically evil act with indifference and apathy, as by whatever standard, it runs counter to the tenets of our faith and the dictates of conscience.

It is the same indifference that barred an employer from assailing his subsidiary liability in Miranda vs Malate Garage (G.R. No. L-8943, July 31, 1956); the same indifference to consequences, which this Honorable Court held to be equivalent to criminal intent in Ramos vs Sandiganbayan (G.R. No. 58876, November 27, 1990 citing People vs. Pacana, 47 Phil. 55 [1924]); and the same indifference when moral ascendency and authority is involved, as held in Legaspi vs Garrete (Adm. Matter No. MTJ-92-713, March 27, 1995)

The opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference. The opposite of art is not ugliness, it's indifference. The opposite of faith is not heresy, it's indifference. And the opposite of life is not death, it's indifference.( Elie Wiesel)

The assailed measure, petitioners strongly submit, is an unreasonable, excessive and oppressive exercise of state power being an unwarranted intrusion into our long, traditional and doctrinal religious beliefs.

For all its majesty, power and might, the state must yield this constitutional respect to the Catholic faithful, nay, to the Filipino people.

REASONS FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND/OR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

Petitioners, as taxpayers and Citizens of the Republic of the Philippines, are entitled to the reliefs demanded, and the whole or part of such relief consists in restraining the herein named respondents from enforcing, implementing and administering the assailed Act.
39

Unless enjoined, public funds would be disbursed and expended for the purpose of enforcing, implementing and administering an unconstitutional act pursuant to Section 25 thereof. Such disbursement and expenditure constitute an unlawful use and misapplication of public funds to the prejudice of the Filipino Taxpayers, petitioners included and may be without any relief, thereby rendering any judgment ineffectual.

Unless enjoined, grave and irreparable injury will result to the petitioners and the public in general, as there is a possibility, clear, real and imminent that pending judicial determination of the constitutional issues heretofore raised, public funds may be earmarked, appropriated and expended for the drafting of the Implementing Rules and Guideline per SEC. 26. of the assailed Act and other initial or preparatory acts pursuant thereto.

There is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy to urgently address the serious damage and injury to the petitioners as taxpayers, before the instant Petition could be heard by this Honorable Supreme Court.

WHEREFORE, Petitioners respectfully pray of this Honorable Supreme Court that: 1) The instant petition be given due course;

2) Republic Act No. 10354 entitled: AN ACT PROVIDING FOR A NATIONAL POLICY ON RESPONSIBLE PARENTHOOD AND REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH be declared unconstitutional; or in the alternative, the cited provisions relating to the promotion/use of Artificial Contraception and the delegation of legislative authority to the Food and Drugs Administration be declared unconstitutional.

40

3) Pending the resolution of the instant case on its merits, petitioners urgently plead that a Temporary Restraining Order be issued directing public respondents herein to cease and desist from allocating and using public funds appropriated in the current annual General Appropriations Act (GAA) for the implementation of the assailed R.A. No. 10354.

4) And after due notice and hearing, to make such injunction permanent.

Other reliefs just and equitable are also prayed for.

28 January 2013. Quezon City for Manila City.

ATTY. RICARDO M. RIBO Counsel for the Petitioners And in his own behalf Rm. 206 Reza Building 1318 Quezon Avenue, Q.C. PTR No. 7702956 1-16-13; Q.C. IBP Lifetime Roll No. 03873 Roll No. 36096 MCLE Exemption No. IV 000183 Issued on June 20, 2012 Telefax: (02) 4119306

41