University of Santo Tomas

Faculty of Civil Law

FINAL EXAMINATION
LEGAL RESEARCH
1st Sem., 2013-2014
Atty. Joeven D. Dellosa
2009-002510

1BB

I. Introduction
The Philippines is one of the most populous countries in the world, with a
population of 92,337,852 based on the 2010 Census of Population and Housing as of May 1,
2010.1 This number became an indicator of how much has the population been growing for the
past three decades (from 1990 2010). The rising population has contributed to different other
factors in the society, one example is on employment. Based on the July 2013 Labor Force
Survey (LFS), the employment rate in July 2013 is estimated at 92.7 percent. In comparison, the
employment rate reported for the same month of 2012 was 93.0 percent; 2 in relation to this, as
released by the National Statistics Office in February 4, 2011, Filipino families earned 206
thousand pesos yearly, on the average, according to the 2009 Family Income and Expenditure
Survey (FIES). Families in the bottom 30 percent income group, which may be considered as
poor families, had much smaller yearly earnings at an average of 62 thousand pesos. 3 The
correlation the variables (population, employment/unemployment and family income) is clear, as
the population grows so is the demand for work for the people to attend to the basic needs in
order for them to survive even for a day-to-day basis.

Family is defined as a group of people who are related to each other; a group of
individuals living under one roof and usually under one head; or a people or group of peoples
regarded as deriving from a common stock.4 All nations are composed of families, usually by
1

<http://www.census.gov.ph/content/2010-census-population-and-housing-revealsphilippine-population-9234-million>
2

<http://www.census.gov.ph/content/employment-rate-july-2013-estimated-927-percent>
<http://www.census.gov.ph/content/families-bottom-30-percent-income-group-earned-62thousand-pesos-2009-final-results-2009>
4
<http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/family >
3

different families who even derive their origin from other parts of the world. In the Philippines,
family is considered as a very important unit of the society, as provided in Section 12, Article II
of the 1987 Constitution:
Sec. 12. 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. The natural and primary right and
duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and
the development of moral character shall receive the support of the
Government.5
Furthermore it is provided in Article 149 of Title V, Chapter 1, of the Family Code of the
Philippines:
The family, being the foundation of the nation, is a basic social
institution which public policy cherishes and protects.
Consequently, family relations are governed by law and no custom,
practice or agreement destructive of the family shall be recognized
or given effect;6
Relying on the definition provided by the law, laws in the Philippines gives a high regard on the
family that laws are made to respect it in such a way that it cannot be violated by any ordinance
of reason whether it be made by a competent legislature; in congruent with this principle and as
an answer to the growing issues of the country regarding population growth and all its
contributing factors, the legislature has recently passed Republic Act No. 10354 or the The
Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012 which was signed by President
Benigno S. Aquino III on December 21, 2012. This particular law has been a topic of many
organizations, social groups, the government, and the ordinary people. The main issue posed by
many groups especially the Catholic Church is the laws violation of the doctrine of the church
regarding life; it was opined by some members of the Catholic church that Republic Act No.
10354 also known as the Reproductive Health Bill (RH Bill), during the time it was in the
process of becoming a law, that there has been a clear violation of the said law of the peoples
right to life, contesting that the law seeks to stop life even before it could form by using artificial
modes of contraception, specifically the use of condoms, pills, injectables, and other
contraceptives and modes of family planning as defined by the bill. Because of the pertinent
provisions of Republic Act No. 10354, some have contested its validity and furthermore the
5
6

CONSTI, art. II.

FAMILY CODE, ART. 149.

constitutionality of it; many has raised the questions of whether or not it is violates the right to
live of unborn children which further raised the question on how and when life starts; the
inconsistency on the doctrines of the Catholic Church, its involvement and the separation of the
church and state. Discussed here are different aspects of Republic Act No. 10354, particularly its
constitutionality, nature, sufficiency as a law, and its furtherance of general welfare.

II. Constitutionality of R.A. 10354

In statutory construction, laws are presumed constitutional. To justify nullification
of a law, there must be a clear and unequivocal breach of the constitution, not a doubtful and
argumentative implication; a law shall not be declared invalid unless the conflict with the
constitution is clear beyond reasonable doubt.7 There is a foregoing question about the
constitutionality of Republic Act No. 10354 particularly in its connection to Section 5 of Article
III of the 1987 Constitution which reads:
Sec. 5. No law shall be made respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise
and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without
discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious
test shall be required for the exercise of civil and political rights. 8
The provision in question is Section 23 (a)(1), (2)(i) and (3) of RA No. 10354 states that:
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:

7
8

Aris Phil., Inc. vs. NLRC, 200 SCRA 246 (1991)

CONSTI. art. III.

(i) Spousal consent in case of married persons: Provided,

That in case of disagreement, the decision of the one
undergoing the procedure shall prevail...
(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 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: Provided, further, That the person is not in
an emergency condition or serious case as defined in Republic Act
No. 8344, which penalizes the refusal of hospitals and medical
clinics to administer appropriate initial medical treatment and
support in emergency and serious cases;9
In a reading of the provision of Section 5 of Article III of the 1987 Constitution, it has been
stated clearly what are prohibited and that is any law which are made to respect any
establishment for religious purposes and the prohibition of the practice of religion, the profession
in relation thereof and the free choice of religion. Furthermore, it can be interpreted from the
provision that religion is not a requirement for the exercise of civil or political rights. In the
foregoing provision of Republic Act No. 10354, it is prohibited to:
...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 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: Provided, further, That the person is not in
an emergency condition or serious case as defined in Republic Act
No. 8344...10
which if given a direct interpretation makes the provision itself unconstitutional simply referring
to the conscientious objection of a health care service provider based on his/her ethical or
religious beliefs shall be respected being stated as a proviso in the certain part of R.A. No.
10354s provision; it violates Section 5 of Article III of the 1987 Constitution because of the
inconsistency pertaining to freedom of religion and practice thereof; said provision does provide
for freedom of religion and practice but it provides for a limitation for itself that No religious
test shall be required for the exercise of civil and political rights --- every persons right to
9

<http://www.gov.ph/2012/12/21/republic-act-no-10354/
Ibid.

10

receive adequate medical attention is in violation of a persons civil rights. An objection by a

medical provider to render quality medical services to a person by reason of religion is already a
very clear indicative that Section 5, Article III of the 1987 Constitution is violated, therefore
rendering Section 23 (a)(1), (2)(i) and (3) of RA No. 10354 unconstitutional. In relation to these
provisions, R.A. No. 10354 also provides for punishments for its violation, Section 24 so
provides:
SEC. 24. Penalties. Any violation of this Act or commission of
the foregoing prohibited acts shall be penalized by imprisonment
ranging from one (1) month to six (6) months or a fine of Ten
thousand pesos (P10,000.00) to One hundred thousand pesos
(P100,000.00), or both such fine and imprisonment at the
discretion of the competent court: Provided, That, if the offender is
a public officer, elected or appointed, he/she shall also suffer the
penalty of suspension not exceeding one (1) year or removal and
forfeiture of retirement benefits depending on the gravity of the
offense after due notice and hearing by the appropriate body or
agency.11
The punishments set forth by R.A. No. 10354 is also inconsistent with Section 3, Article III of
the 1987 Constitution because to punish a person for doing service to any person who is in need
of proper and quality medical attention. The purpose of any law is to promote the common good
and further justice to every individual in the State which the Constitution so provides as the
fundamental law of the land and in congruence with this, Section 1, Article XIII of the 1987
Constitution provides:
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.12
To add, there is also civil liability to a person who fails to do his/her duty to a fellowmen, Article
19 of the New Civil Code provides that:
Art. 19. Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the
performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due,
and observe honesty and good faith.13

III. Penal Character of R.A. No. 10354

11
12
13

<http://www.gov.ph/2012/12/21/republic-act-no-10354/
CONSTI, art. XIII
CIVIL CODE, ART. 19.

Crime is an act committed or omitted in violation of a public law; 14 Based on the

given definition, it can be interpreted that Republic Act No. 10354 is a public and special law
that is also punitive in nature considering that it provides for its own punishments pursuant to
any violation against its prohibited acts and such crimes that can be committed are enumerated in
Article 23 of Republic Act 10354:
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
(ii) Parental consent or that of the person exercising parental
authority in the case of abused minors, where the parent or the
person exercising parental authority is the respondent, accused or
convicted perpetrator as certified by the proper prosecutorial office
of the court. In the case of minors, the written consent of parents or
legal guardian or, in their absence, persons exercising parental
authority or next-of-kin shall be required only in elective surgical
procedures and in no case shall consent be required in emergency
or serious cases as defined in Republic Act No. 8344; and
(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 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: Provided, further, That the person is not in
an emergency condition or serious case as defined in Republic Act
No. 8344, which penalizes the refusal of hospitals and medical
clinics to administer appropriate initial medical treatment and
support in emergency and serious cases;

14

L. REYES, THE REVISED PENLAL CODE, CRIMINAL LAW 1.

(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 medically-safe 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;
(d) Any person who shall falsify a Certificate of Compliance as
required in Section 15 of this Act; and
(e) Any pharmaceutical company, whether domestic or
multinational, or its agents or distributors, which directly or
indirectly colludes with government officials, whether appointed or
elected, in the distribution, procurement and/or sale by the national
government and LGUs of modern family planning supplies,
products and devices.15
There is a distinction between paragraph 3 and paragraphs 1 and 2; paragraphs 1 and 2 seeks to
prohibit the refusal the disclosure of certain information to those whom are entitled to be given
such information while in paragraph 3 there is an exemption the religious or conscientious
objector; the reasoning behind this distinction could be that in paragraphs 1 and 2, based its
wording and rationale from Section 7 of Article III of the 1987 Constitution which provides:
Sec. 6. The right of people to information on matters of public
concern shall be recognized.16
and that paragraph 3 of R.A. No. 10354 has its basis from Section 5 of Article III of the 1987
Constitution which provides:
...the free exercise and enjoyment of religious worship, without
discrimination or preference shall forever be allowed.
In paragraph 1 and 2, right of a person to be given information regarding matters which may
affect his/her well-being or health is an indispensable requirement in any procedure provided that
the person gives his/her consent to be given such medical treatment; in here, freedom is given in
15

<http://www.gov.ph/2012/12/21/republic-act-no-10354/

16

Ibid.

relation to a persons medical preference. On the other hand, paragraph 3 of R.A. 10354 gives it
a character respecting religious freedom and preference, the same paragraph provides for a
liberal view of the medical objectors choice to render medical service to any person who also
has the choice to refuse such treatment or not.
In paragraph 23 of R.A. No. 10354, there can be a situation where refusal made by
the objector is not on account of one's marital status, gender, age, religious convictions, personal
circumstances, or nature of work, or if the objector simply refuses medical attention without any reason at
all is expressly punishable be Section 24 of Republic Act No. 10354.

Section 24 of Republic Act No. 10354 provides that:

SEC. 24. Penalties. Any violation of this Act or commission of the
foregoing prohibited acts shall be penalized by imprisonment ranging
from one (1) month to six (6) months or a fine of Ten thousand pesos
(P10,000.00) to One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00), or both such
fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the competent court: Provided,
That, if the offender is a public officer, elected or appointed, he/she shall
also suffer the penalty of suspension not exceeding one (1) year or
removal and forfeiture of retirement benefits depending on the gravity of
the offense after due notice and hearing by the appropriate body or
agency.17
This portion of the provision provides that in case the offender is a juridical person, the penalties in the
statute shall be imposed on the president or any responsible officer. Section 24 of Republic Act No. 10354
is in relation and is supplied by Section 5, Article 174 of the Revised Penal Code which provides that:

Section Five. Falsification of medical certificates,

certificates of merit or services and the like.
Art. 174. False medical certificates, false certificates of merits or
service, etc. The penalties of arresto mayor in its maximum
period to prision correccional in its minimum period and a fine not
to exceed P1,000 pesos shall be imposed upon:
1. Any physician or surgeon who, in connection, with the practice
of his profession, shall issue a false certificate; and
2. Any public officer who shall issue a false certificate of merit of
service, good conduct or similar circumstances.
The penalty of arresto mayor shall be imposed upon any private
person who shall falsify a certificate falling within the classes
mentioned in the two preceding subdivisions.18

17
18

Ibid.
REV. PEN. CODE., ART. 174.

Stating a pertinent provision of the Revised Penal Code, a responsible officer, even if not
involved in the medical proceedings, an officer may be held liable for acts which affect the
welfare of the person in need of medical treatment.
Also as provided in Section 11 of Article XIII of the 1987 Constitution:
Sec. 11. The State shall adopt an integrated and comprehensive
approach to health development which shall endeavor to make
essential goods, health and other social services available to all the
people at affordable cost. There shall be priority for the needs of
the underprivileged sick, elderly, disabled, women, and children.
The State shall endeavor to provide free medical care to paupers.19

III. Republic Act No. 10354 as a Law

It is a rule in statutory construction that the legislature intends to impart to its
enactments such a meaning as will render the, operative and effective, and to prevent persons
from eluding or defeating them. Accordingly, in case of any doubts or obscurity, the construction
will be such as to carry out those objects.20
The objective of Republic Act No. 10354 or the The Responsible Parenthood and
Reproductive Health Act of 2012 is clearly expressed that:
SEC. 2. Declaration of Policy. The State recognizes and
guarantees the human rights of all persons including their right to
equality and nondiscrimination of these rights, the right to
sustainable human development, the right to health which includes
reproductive health, the right to education and information, and the
right to choose and make decisions for themselves in accordance
with their religious convictions, ethics, cultural beliefs, and the
demands of responsible parenthood.
Pursuant to the declaration of State policies under Section 12,
Article II of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, it is the duty of the
State to protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous
social institution and equally protect the life of the mother and the
life of the unborn from conception. The State shall protect and
promote the right to health of women especially mothers in
particular and of the people in general and instill health
consciousness among them. The family is the natural and
fundamental unit of society. The State shall likewise protect and
19
20

CONSTI, art. XIII

BLACK, CONSTURUCTION AND INTERPRETTAION OF LAWS, p. 132, 2nd ed.

advance the right of families in particular and the people in general

to a balanced and healthful environment in accord with the rhythm
and harmony of nature. The State also recognizes and guarantees
the promotion and equal protection of the welfare and rights of
children, the youth, and the unborn.
Moreover, the State recognizes and guarantees the promotion of
gender equality, gender equity, women empowerment and dignity
as a health and human rights concern and as a social responsibility.
The advancement and protection of womens human rights shall be
central to the efforts of the State to address reproductive health
care.
The State recognizes marriage as an inviolable social institution
and the foundation of the family which in turn is the foundation of
the nation. Pursuant thereto, the State shall defend:
(a) The right of spouses to found a family in accordance with their
religious convictions and the demands of responsible parenthood;
(b) The right of children to assistance, including proper care and
nutrition, and special protection from all forms of neglect, abuse,
cruelty, exploitation, and other conditions prejudicial to their
development;
(c) The right of the family to a family living wage and income; and
(d) The right of families or family associations to participate in the
planning and implementation of policies and programs
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) and relevant
information and education thereon according to the priority needs
of women, children and other underprivileged sectors, giving
preferential access to those identified through the National
Household Targeting System for Poverty Reduction (NHTS-PR)
and other government measures of identifying marginalization,
who shall be voluntary beneficiaries of reproductive health care,
services and supplies for free.
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.21
It is also a rule in statutory construction that laws are to be given their natural and plain
definition. Republic Act No. 10354 has clearly stated its objective which is also consistent with
the objective laid down by the 1987 Constitution, to ...adopt an integrated and comprehensive
approach to health development which shall endeavor to make essential goods, health and other

21

<http://www.gov.ph/2012/12/21/republic-act-no-10354/>

10

social services available to all the people at affordable cost. There shall be priority for the needs
of the underprivileged sick, elderly, disabled, women, and children. The State shall endeavor to
provide free medical care to paupers,22 a basic rule followed i pursuant of social justice. With
the preceding arguments it was shown that Republic Act. No. 10354 contains in some of its
provisions that it has violated some provisions provided by the fundamental law of the land,
unconstitutional it may be but as provided in Article 10 of the New Civil Code that, in case of
doubt in the interpretation or application of laws, it is presumed that the lawmaking body
intended right and justice to prevail,23 making it clear and unambiguous.

22
23

CONSTI. art. XIII

CIVIL CODE, ART. 10.

11