revised petition for certiorari vs rh -final

7/30/2019 Revised Petition for Certiorari vs RH -Final

1/26

Republic of the Philippines

S upreme CourtManila

SERVE LIFE CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY

INC.,represented by DR. NESTOR B.LUM ICAO, M .D. as President and in hispersonal capacity, ROSEVALEFOUNDATION INC., represented by DR.RODRIGO M . ALENTON, MD as memberof the school board and in his personalcapacity, ROSEM ARI E R. ALENTON,IM ELDA G. IBARRA, CPA, LOVENIA P.

NACES, Phd.,ANTH ONY G. NAGACEARL ANTH ONY C. GAM BE and,M ARLON I . YAP

Petitioners,

- versus OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT,SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,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 and HON.

M ANUEL A. ROXAS I I , Secretary,

Department of Interior and Local

GovernmentRespondents.

G.R. No.__________________

For:

CERTIORARI and

PROHIBITION wi th a

prayer for a TEM PORARYRESTRAINING

ORDERand/ orWRIT OF

PRELIMINARYIN JUNCTION

x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

PETITIONfor Cer ti or ar i and Pr ohibiti on

A milestone in the history of Philippine legislation did occur with the

passage of the Republi c Act 10354, enti tled An act Providing for a National

Policy on Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health , hereinafter

referred to for brevi ty as the RH Law , as jubilantly claimed by the

proponents thereof. The significance, however, lies not in the law itself but


2/26

Peti tion for Cert iorari & Prohibit ion Page 2 of 26

in the vigorous exercise of the freedom of expression and other fundamental

rights by all citizens without discrimination. Ironically, the same law strips

the people of the very rights massively rousedby the process of its creation.

The foregoing is merely a sampling of the many transgressions upon

the dignity of the human being which the RH Law imposes. Worth

mentioning at the outset is a deviously hidden floodgate for abortifacients in

an innocuous provision, which, upon some reflection, reveals that the RH

law effectively sanctions the taking of the most basic of all ri ghts, the right to

life.

The Case& N atur e of t he Pr oceeding

Peti ti oners, through counsels, come before this Most Honorable,

Independent and Impartial Court of Last Resort, by way of Petition for

Certiorari and Prohibition with prayer for the issuance of a Temporary

Restraining Order and/ or Writ of Preliminary Injunction against the Office

of the President of the Republic of the Philippines and its instrumentalities

under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court seeking to annul the passage and

prohibit the implementation of Republic Act No. 10354for having been

enacted w ith grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack and/ or excess of

juri sdi ction.This peti ti on is f i led as an original special civ il action because

there is no remedy of appeal from the acts of Congress and the President.

Neither is there any other plain, speedy and adequate remedy available to

petitioners in the ordinary course of law.

The Part ies

The Petitioners:

A)Corporate/Institutional Petitioners


3/26


SERVE LIFE CDO INC.,hereinafter referred to as PetitionerServe

Li fe is a non-stock, non-profit corporation, duly organized in accordance

with Philippine laws as shown by the Certificate of Registration issued by

the Securities and Exchange Commission bearing No. CN200628876 dated

August 31, 2006, a photocopy of which is hereto integrally attached as

Annex A with principal place of business at 2/ F Borromeo Bui ld ing,

Daomar Street, Cagayan de Oro City w here it may be served processes of

the Honorable Supreme Court, represented herein by its President Dr.

Nestor B. Lumicao, M.D.as shown by the Corporate Secretary s Cert ifi cate of

Board Resolution dated January 12, 2013, a photocopy of which is hereto

integrally attached as Annex B .Peti tioner Serve Li fe Cdo, Inc.is composed

of a group of professionals i.e. doctors, lawyers, educators, sociologists,

businessmen & some priests & religious who organized themselves for the

Protection of Li fe, in Defense of the fami ly and the sancti ty of marriage

and the promotion of authentic health.

Peti tioner ROSEVALE FOUNDA TION INC., hereinafter referred to

as Peti tioner Rosevale isa non-stock and non-profit foundation duly

organized and existing under Philippine lawsas shown by the Certificate of

Registration issued by the Securi ti es and Exchange Commission bearing N o.

HN095-227 dated August 30, 1995, a photocopy of which is hereto integrally

attached as Annex C . It operates an educational insti tution known in the

community as ROSEVA LE SCHOOL cateri ng to preparatory, grade school

and high school levels, located at Xavier Estates Phase IV, Fr. William

Masterson SJ Avenue, Airport Road, Cagayan de Oro City, where it may be

served processes of the Honorable Supreme Court.Peti ti oner Rosevale thru

Rosevale Schoolin close collaboration w ith parents aims to provide holi stic,

relevant and exemplary academic, professional and personal formation for

the students, parents and teachers to enable them to live a virtuous and

happy life. It is represented herein by a member of the foundation and


4/26


school board namely: Dr. Rodrigo M. Alentonas shown by the Corporate

Secretarys Certificate of Board Resolution dated January 12, 2013, a

photocopy of w hich is hereto integrally attached as Annex D .

B) Individual Petitioners

Petitioners are Filipinos, medical practitioners and health professionals,

members of the Philippine Bar, educators and various professionals. They file

this petition as citizens of theRepublic of the Philippines whose sworn duty is

to uphold , support and defend its Constitution xxx. They also file this petition

as parents and as a class suit in representation of other parents and individuals

similarly situated. As parents and professionals, the RH Law hits petitioners as

oppressive, unjust and confiscatory thus, unconstitutional. Petitioners are devout

and practising Catholics whose religious beliefs find the mandatory provisions of

the RH Law obnoxious and unconscionable.

They are, namely:

Petitioner DR. NESTOR B. LUMICAO, MD, is a Filipino, of legal age,

married and a resident of BorromeoCorrales Extension, Cagayan de Oro

Cityw here he may be served processes of this Honorable Court.H e is a

medical practitioner in Cagayan de Oro City specializing in Pediatric

Surgery. He likewise fi les this petit ion in his personal capacity.

Peti tioner DR. RODRIGO ROD M. ALENTON, Fil ipino, of legal age,

married and a resident of Aluba Subdivision, Cagayan de Oro Citywhere he

may be served processes of this Honorable Cour t.He is a medical

practi tioner in Cagayan de Oro City who specializes in Cardiology and w ho

likewise joins in the petition in his personal capacity together with his wife

ROSEMA RIE R. ALENTON .


5/26


Petitioner DR. LOVENIA P. NACES, Filipino, of legal age, married

and a resident of C28, Block 17, P.N. RoaSubd.,Calaanan, Cagayan de Oro

Cityw here she may be served processes of this Honorable Court.

Petitioner IMELDA G. IBARRA,CPA, Filipino, of legal age, married

and a resident of Lot 10, Block 7, Reyes Subd., Bugo, Cagayan de Oro

Cityw here she may be served processes of this Honorable Court.

Peti tioner A NTHONY G. NAGAC, Fil ipino, of legal age, married and

a resident of Lot 12, Block 30, Phase 2, NHA, Kauswagan, Cagayan de Oro

Cityw here he may be served processes of this Honorable Court.

Petitioner EARL ANTHONY C. GAMBE, Filipino, of legal age,

married and a resident of Mandumol, Upper Macasandig, Cagayan de Oro


Petitioner MARLON I. YAP, Filipino, of legal age, married and a

resident of Lot 39, Block 15, Westfield Subd.,Iponan, Cagayan de Oro


The Respondents:

Respondents herein are :

The OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, Malacanang Palace, Manila;the SENATE

OF THE PHILIPPIN ES, GSIS Complex, RoxasBlvd., Pasay City; and the

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Batasan Hills, Quezon City which are impleaded

for passing and approving the law in question.


6/26


HON. PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., Executive Secretary, Office of the

President of the Philippines, Malacanang Palace, Manila; HON. FLORENCIO B.

ABAD, Secretary, Department of Budget and Management (DBM), Malacanang

Palace, Manila; HON. ENRIQUE T. ONA, Secretary, Department of H ealth (DOH),

San Lazaro Compound, Cityy of Manila; HON. ARMIN A. LUISTRO, FSC,

Secretary, Department of Education (DepEd), DepEd Complex, Meralco Avenue,

Pasig City; and HON. MANUEL A. ROXAS II, Secretary, Department of Interior

and Local Government (DILG) EDSA, cor. Mapagmahal St., Diliman, Quezon City;

they are all publ ic officials in-charge of the enforcement and administration of theAct and all laws relative to the conduct of their respective duties and functions; for

these reasons, respondents are being sued herein in their official capacities and

may be served summons and other processes at their respective offices as above

indicated and through their statutory counsel, the Solicitor General, at 139

Amorsolo Street, Legaspi Village, Makati City.

Statement of M ater ial D ates

The RH Bil l was signed into Law on December 21, 2012. Thus,

petitioners have sixty days or until February 19, 2011 within w hich to file this

petition. Accordingly, this Petition filed on January 15, 2013with the docket

and other lawful fees having been ful ly paid on the same date is timely.

T he A nt ecedent s and Pr eli mi nary Concer ns

Civic involvement in a legislative act reached a record high in the

passage of the RH Law. Almost every Filipino was aware of the law and

more often than not, he or she has strong opinions about its effects. No one

appears to have taken the middle ground and everyone freely expressed

their stance from their own vantage point.


7/26


A vast range of concerns were thus thrown in the open. This ranged

from issues based on purely subjective claims of moral superiori ty by reason

of spiritual convictions to nightmarish speculations of a rising totalitarian.

Rational discussion and information dissemination among the

underprivileged became frequent w hich w as accompanied by a

corresponding increase in the frequency of name calling and crying in the

hallowed halls of the Senate.

While it is indeed exhilarating to see democracy at its best, excessive

zeal and fervor, misplaced rationality and of course the name calling made

many of those involved lose sight of what truly matters in the passage of a

law. It was forgotten that the one true yardstick in determining the

acceptabil ity of a law is the Consti tut ion.

Consequently, it came as no surprise why both the House of

Representatives and Senate of the Philippines signified their approval of and

the Off ice of the President signed the RH Bil l into law on December 21,2012,

despite serious, patent and unmistakable constitutional flaws which should

have made a reasonably caut ious and prudent man take another look at the

bil l and his fundamental law.

It took the advocates and their predecessors fourteen years to finally

have a purported Reproductive Health Law. While their determination is

laudable, their efforts must fail.

Petitioners hasten to add that the failure is not due to some subjective

or religious moral high ground liberally sprinkled with fear of hell. RA

simply fails to pass the test of consti tutionality.

Gr oun ds for the Gr ant of t he Peti ti on


8/26


9/26


D iscussion

As previously mentioned, concerns, extraneous to the passing of a

law, became the focus of many deliberations on the RH Law. Consti tutional

infi rmities have thus riddled the said law. These are as fol lows.

For clarity, the more significant constitutional infirmities shall be

presented herein in the order presented under the RH Law.

I . The Ri ght to Li fe

As it so happens, the most important r ight of all is one of the very fi rst

fatal l apse of the R.A. No. 10354. Some discernment may be necessary

inasmuch as the same has been cleverly couched in very minimalist

language amidst a deluge of not so subliminal attempts to desensitize. To

start , Section 2 of RH in part states:

SEC. 2. Declaration of Policy. xxx

xxx xxx xxx

The State likewise guarantees universal access to medically-safe, non-abortifacient, effective, legal, affordable, and quality reproductive health care services,

methods, devices, supplieswhich do not prevent the implantation of a fertilized ovumas 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 beneficiari es of reproductive health care,

services and supplies for free.

While Section 4 defines abort ifacients as:

SEC. 4. Definition of Terms. For the purpose of this Act, the following terms shall be

defined as follows:


10/26


(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 mother s womb upon determination of the FDA.

Taken together, the assurance of access to non-abortifacient devices

and supplies, viewed from a purely secular vantage, appears innocuous and

actually laudable. The framers of RH are apparently aware of this. Hence,

the law has been generously peppered w ith the words access and non-

abortifacient. And many were fooled.

In one innocuous section buried among all the rhetorics, the actual

danger of the devices and suppl ies to be made available is evident. Section 9

of RH provides:

SEC. 9. The Phili ppine N ational D ru g Form ulary System and Famil y Planni ng Supplies.

The National Drug Formulary shall include hormonal contraceptives, intrauterine devices,

injectables and other safe, legal, non-abortifacient and effective family planning products

and suppl ies. The Phil ippine National Drug Formulary System (PNDFS) shall be observedin selecting drugs including family planning supplies that will be included or removed

from the Essential Drugs List (EDL) in accordance with existing practice and in

consultation with reputable medical associations in the Phil ippines. For the purpose of thisAct, any product or supply included or to be included in the EDL must have a certification

from the FDA that said product and supply is made available on the condition that it isnot t o be used as an aborti facient.

These products and supplies shall also be included in the regular purchase of essential

medicines and supplies of all national hospitals: Provided, further, That the foregoingoffices shall not purchase or acquire by any means emergency contraceptive pills,

postcoit al pil ls, abortif acients t hat w il l be used for such purpose and their other forms or

equivalent.

The implications are staggering. In effect, the RH authorizes the

Government to procure and distribute supplies unceasingly marketed as

non-abortifacients by the law when in truth and in fact, the said supplies

have abortifacient properties.

True there is the caveat that the abort ifacients will not be used as such.

But given the scope of how these wi ll be made available, there is no way this

can be enforced at all. Its akin to giving a child hi s or her favori te candy with


11/26


the caveat that it is only to be used as a toy or giving a knife to your mortal

enemy with the caveat of not stabbing you in the back. Truly, no responsible

parent or person would do such a thing. And yet the Law not just authorizes

this it requi res the government to commi t such a stupid atrocity on the scale

of mil lions.

Even more bothering is the fact that the hidden meaning of non-

abortifacients, which basically states it could be an abortifacient, was so

cleverly done it could only have been deliberate. The said quali fication could

have easily been stated under the definition of terms where the public can be

fully apprised. Apparently, using the previous analogy and under the

assumption that the giving of candy to the child was no stupid mistake, it

would be like giving a child cyanide laced candy then giv ing the appearance

of responsibil ity by saying dont eat i t but nevertheless hoping the child w il l

eat the candy inasmuch as that would be one mouth less to feed and drain

the resources. This is even more alarming.

Moreover, the fact that these supplies may be abortifacient is a detail

which must be disclosed. RH has very clear provisions on a ful l disclosure of

family planning methods without qualification otherwise criminal penalties

are in order. Hence, information on abortion, which is controversial but isnevertheless a family planning method cannot be withheld. This would

include

Regardless of the motive which can only be subject to speculation, the

ultimate conclusion remains the same - RH is definitely anti-life cleverly

disguised as an enhancement to womens rights and masked as a great step

towards liberali ty. This law is designed for genocide!


12/26


Given the foregoing, no doubt exists at this early a point that it

vi olates Section 12, Art icle of the Consti tution which provides:

SECTION 12. xxx It (the state) shall equally pr otect the l ife of t hemother and the life of the un born from conception. xxx

I I . The right t o protecti on againstHazardous products

The 1987 Consti tution, in Art icle XVI, Section 9 provides and we

quote:

Section 9. The State shall protect consumers from trade

malpractices and from substandard or hazardous products .

Again, the above-quoted Consti tutional proviso stresses on the importance

of protection to l ife and is congruent to the right to li fe . Be that as it may, an

International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Study (2011) by 23 Scientists

from 10 countri es concluded that oral combined estrogen-progestogen

contraceptives are carcinogenic to humans. The said study mentions that oral

combined estrogen-progestogen contraceptives cause cancer of the breast, in-situ

and invasive cancer of the uterine cervix, and cancer of the liver. It cannot be

gainsaid as it has been duly established by scienti fi c studies that contraceptives

are hazardous to women, yet, the RH Law allots bill ions of taxpayers money forthe purchase of the contraceptives to be distr ibuted particularly to the poor. On

this score alone, the RH Law is already unconsti tutional. Treatment for cancer is

very expensive even if it is not always curative but mostly just palliative. What is

even more tragic is that when these poor women get sick of cancers, there is no

free treatment available from the government. More and more women are getting

sick of different kinds of cancers because of oral contraceptive pillsthat they

themselves personally buy for their own use, with the abundant f ree supply from

the state, it would not be farfetched to expect a deluge of cancer patients.


13/26


I I I . I nvoluntary Servit ude

In simplest terms involuntary servitude is slavery. This state of being

has been aboli shed in the Uni ted States by the 13th amendment more than a

century ago. It has been outlawed by the community of nations for being

degrading and inhuman. The magnitude of this restraint on freedom is so

abhorrent to appoint that any form of slavery is almost always ended by

revolution with many of the oppressed opting for the freedom of death. It

thus closely r ivals the importance of the right to l ife. And now, i t i s being re-

int roduced by RH.

Section 17 of RH states:

SEC. 17. Pro Bono Services for Indigent Women. Private and nongovernment

reproductive healthcare service providers including, but not limited to, gynecologists and

obstetricians, are encouraged to provide at least forty-eight (48) hours annually ofreproductive health services, ranging from providing information and education to

rendering medical serv ices, free of charge to i ndigent and low-income patients as identi fied

through the NHTS-PR and other government measures of identifying marginalization,

especially to pregnant adolescents. The forty-eight (48) hours annual pro bono servicesshall be included as a prerequisite in the accreditation under the PhilHealth.

Again ski ll ful ly veiled under the term encouraged, it would

seem like the services to be rendered is voluntary. The last sentence,

however, indicates that it i s not the case.

Nowadays, a PhilHealth accreditation spells the difference between

success and stagnation of medical practice. It is common knowledge how a

vast number of patients are either compulsory PhilHealth members by

reason of mandatory law or voluntary members thereof. The rest are

dependents. And considering the amounts saved on medical bills,

PhilHealth accredited providers are chosen in almost all instances given half

the chance. Considering further that almost all doctors are Philhealth


14/26


Accredited, lack thereof would mean omission as a choice of being the

provider unless an the provider already has an established name.

It is practically a punitive measure through economic means which

prohibits a doctor from engaging in a viable or at least lucrative practice

unless he or she gives 48 hours of work without pay. It i s sti ll forced labor in

disguise.

It may be argued that rule is justified by rendering of service to the

less privileged. Fortunately, this right is so precious the constitution only

allows two instances where involuntary serv itude is justi fied, viz:

Article II. xxx

xxx xxx xxx

SECTION 4. The pri me du ty of th e Government i s to serve and protectthe people. The Government may call upon the people to defend the Stateand, in the fulfillment thereof, all citizens may be required, underconditions provided by law, to render personal military or civil service.

and

Arti cle III. xxxxxx xxx xxx

SECTION 18xxx xxx xxx

(2) No involunt ary servit ude in any form shall exist except as apunishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been dulyconvicted.

Summarized, the two exceptions are 1) Military service; and 2)

Conviction of a crime. These exceptions are justified by no less than the

preservation of the state against actual existing danger. Compared to this

most compelling reason to restrict private rights, the mandate of RH to

render compulsory service for the sake of reproductive health pales to

shameful shade.


15/26


In short, the RH bill is justifying instead of protecting the people

from slavery with its ludicrously less compelling and completely

ignorable duty of promoting public health.

I V. Equal prot ecti on of the la w s

As if slavery is not grave enough, Section 17 further denies the equal

protection of the laws to reproductive health care providers. RH mentions

pri vate and nongover nm ent r eproducti ve healt hcar e ser vi ce provi der s in cludi ng,

but not limited to, gynecologists and obstetricians, as the ones inescapably

encouraged to provide forced serv ices. Failure is penalized w ith non-

renewal of Philhealth accreditation. Thus, Petitioners herein who are non-

obgyn medical doctors may be compelled to render annual forty-eight (48)

hours annual pro bono services shall be included as a prerequisite in the

accreditation under the PhilHealth, lest they lose their PhilHealth

accreditation.

Of course this does not immediately mean the equal protection clause

has been violated. After all, at its most basic, the equal protection clause is

against undue favor of an individual or class privilege, as well as hostile

discrimination; it does not demand absolute equality. The fundamental

guarantee is not breached by a law w hich appl ies only to those persons

falling within a specified class, if it applies alike to all persons within such

class and provided further that there is a substantial distinction between

those who fall within such class and those who do not.1The term

1

[G.R. No. 159883. March 31, 2008.]DR. PEDRO F. GOBENCIONG, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN(VISAYAS), REGIONAL DIRECTOR of the Department of Health, Region VIII, and FLORA DELAPEA, respondents.[G.R. No. 168059. March 31, 2008.]OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, petitioner, vs. DR. PEDRO F. GOBENCIONG and the HON. COURTOF APPEALS (CEBU CITY), respondents.


16/26


substantial distinction is further quali fied by the requirement that it

should be based on real differences and that it must be germane to the

purposes of the law.

With the guidance of the foregoing, however, the unequal treatment

of the RH on reproductive healthcare providers becomes even more

apparent.

Ordinarily, it is very possible for substantial distinctions to exist

betw een the di fferent medical discipl ines. In this instance, however, ul timate

purpose of RH and other health laws is the promotion of public health in

general not only reproductive health. Reproductive health is just a newly

introduced facet of public health. In fact, RH recognizes its integration into

public health policies. And although reproductive health is not the least

important aspect of publ ic health it i s also not the most important. There are

other more urgent concerns like the prevention of communicable diseases

and halting the spread of fatal ones. There is the lack of the truly essential

medicines like anti -bioti cs, anti -hypertensive , vi tamin, and the l ike.

In sum, the field of reproductive health has no real difference from

other fields considering the overall purpose of benefiting public health.There is therefore no reason substantial difference and reproductive health

professionals should not be subjected to the onerous burden under Section

17 simply by reason of their chosen field.

V. Freedom of speech a nd of expression

[G.R. No. 173212. March 31, 2008.]DR. PEDRO F. GOBENCIONG, petitioner, vs. DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN (VISAYAS), REGIONALDIRECTOR of the Department of Health, Region VIII, and FLORA DELA PEA, respondents.


17/26


Section 4 of the Bill of Rights prohibits the passage of laws abridging

the freedom of speech and of expression. Of course there are well recognized

exceptions such as the right to privacy and police power. Again the common

denominator of these exceptions is their being just as compelling,

fundamental and established as the right of f ree speech.

But RH provides -

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 accessto a full range of legal, medically-safe, non-abortifacient and effective family

planni ng methods;

Providers are once again victimized herein by being enjoined under

pain of fine and imprisonment to enumerate and withhold nothing on

family planning methods. Definitely, the so called right to be informed of all

family planning methods hardly matches the relevance of the

aforementioned exceptions to free speech. Nor are these methods as

established.

It must be remembered that fami ly planning methods, especially those

involving medication, are subject to a wide range of conflicting data.

Empirical evidence from some exists justifying a method while similar

studies show evidence showing otherwise. This is particularly true with

art ificial methods.

Understandably, the opinions espousing one method while dimissing

the other as fraught with too much fatalaties are varied. It would be near


18/26


impossible to determine which is correct considering that the people best

sui ted to judge are the very people who gave the confl icting opinions.

Consequently, aside from hardly qualifying as a compelling reason to

restrict the freedom of speech and expression, perceived violations of

Section 23, a, 1 could hardly be determined true beyond reasonable doubt.

Thus, healthcare providers should be given the leeway to recommend

and/ or omit to mention family planning methods they deem w ise and/ or

unsafe.

VI . Economic Pol icy

It is undeniable and actually admit ted that the ul timate goal of RH is

economic prosperi ty as seen in Section 6, aa of the law. It seeks to achieve

this by population control. It is amazing how this mode got preferential

attention despi te Art icle XII, Section 1 of the consti tution which states -

SECTION 1. The goals of the national economy are a more equitabledistribution of opportunities, income, and wealth; a sustained increase in the amountof goods and services produced by the nation for the benefit of the people; and anexpanding productivity as the key to raising the quality of life for all, especially theunderprivileged.

The State shall promote industrialization and full employment based onsound agricultural development and agrarian reform, through industries that makefull and efficient use of human and natural resources, and which are competitive inboth domestic and foreign markets. However, the State shall protect Filipinoenterprises against unfair foreign competition and trade practices.

In the pursuit of these goals, all sectors of the economy and all regions ofthe country shall be given optimum opportunity to develop. Private enterprises,including corporations, cooperatives, and similar collective organizations, shall beencouraged to broaden the base of their ownership.

The constitution is clear. Economic objectives are to be pursued

through economic policies. Health, much less reproductive health, is not


19/26


even mentioned. True, this argument may seem tenous at best but it gains

relevance when considering Section 22 of the same Art icle which states -

SECTION 22. Acts which circumvent or negate any of the provisions of thisArticle shall be considered inimical to the national interest and subject to criminaland civil sanctions, as may be provided by law.

VI I . U nw arrant ed I nterference in Educat ion

ARTICLE XIV of the Constitution on Education, Science and

Technology, Arts, Culture, and Sports in part states:

Education

(2) They shall inculcate patr iot ism and nationalism, foster love of

humanity, respect for human rights, appreciation of the role of national heroes in

the historical development of the country, teach the rights and duties of

citizenship, strengthen ethical and spiritual values, develop moral character and

personal discip line, encourage crit ical and creative thinking, broaden scienti fic and

technological knowledge, and promote vocational efficiency.

By the use of the word shall, forced inculcation can only refer to the

subjects enumerated above. Forced insertion into the curriculum of sex

education has no constitutional basis.

More importantly, thi s tampering of what to teach is an infraction of a

less known yet equall y potent consti tutional right of educational institutions

to self determination. This right can easily be gleaned from another

provision under A rt icle XIV which states:

SECTION 4. (1) The State recognizes the complementary roles of publicand private institutions in the educational system and shall exercise reasonablesupervision and regulation of all educational institutions.

The control and administration of educational institutions shall be vested incitizens of the Philippines.


20/26


Shown herein is the right of the people to control and administer

educational institutions which includes the determination of what to teach

in addition to subjects mandatorily requi red by the Consti tution. The State is

merely l imited to reasonable superv ision and regulation.

Yet, RH mandatorily imposes the teaching of sex education in schools.

This is clearly an act of control expressly made unconstitutional by the

previously mentioned provision

Republi c Act 10354, enti tl ed An a ct Pr oviding for a N at ional Poli cy on

Responsibl e Pa renthood and Reproduct iv e H eal th, a mi snomer, a

deception!

By and large, as shown above, the RH Law is a sham. Instead of

health it brings disease, instead of harmony it brings discord in the family.

In making sexual and reproductive rights a legal and demandable right for

young children and minors, rather than being responsible, it makes parents

abdicate their consti tutionall y enshrined primary role in the reari ng of their

children and thus making them vulnerable to the whims & caprices of the

state.

In sum, all the foregoing constitutional lapses taken together with the

much discussed breaches, such as the separation of church state, are too

numerous and obvious to have escaped the attention of respondents. They

thus gravely abused their discretion in knowingly and actively part icipating

in the passage of RH. It is thus incumbent that to declare RH a void law not

only for being unconstitutional but also for lack of authority on the part of

those who passed it.

A ll egati ons in Suppor t of In ju ncti ve Issuances


21/26


All the foregoing arguments are repleaded hereunder. The urgency

and meri t for the grant of the prayer for a TRO and/ or WPI under Sections 3

and 4 of Rule 58 of the Rules of Court are succinctly depicted in the

foregoing allegations and arguments.

It is reiterated that as parents and professionals, the RH Law in abdicating

their parental right over their minor children and grandchildren hits petitioners as

oppressive, unjust and confiscatory thus, unconstitutional. Petitioners are devout

and practising Catholics whose religious beliefs find the mandatory provisions of

the RH Law obnoxious and unconscionable.

If the questioned law is implemented, petitioners will suffer untold

prejudice and great damage made more evil by the fact that such stems from

a patently void issuance.

Petitioners are entitled to the relief demanded and the whole or part

of such relief pendi ng fi nal determination of this case consists in restraining

the act of Respondents in implementing or enforcing the questioned law

before it takes effect on January 17, 2013.

The implementation by Respondents of this invalid law when i t takes

effect on January 17, 2013 is in gross violation of the constitutional rights of

petitioners respecting the subject of this action or proceeding, and will

tendto render the judgment in this case ineffectual .

In view of the foregoing, there is therefore extreme urgency in this

case because Petitioners will suffer grave injustice and great or irreparable

damage or injury before the matter can be heard on notice if Respondents

will be allowed to implement and enforce questioned law which is void.

There is therefore a need to immediately preserve the status quo

meantime before the matter can be heard on notice for which a temporary

restraining order is hereby most respectfully prayed for in order to

temporarily restrain Respondents from enforcing or implementing the null

and void law.


22/26


23/26


IBP Li fetime Member No. 06307

ROLL NO. 33825

MCLE COC No. 3-0001069 (03/ 23/ 09)Mobile No. 09177176231

M ARLON I. YAPRoll No. 51415

IBP O.R. No. 857246 (12/ 19/ 2012) CDO

PTR No. 2317843 A (12/ 19/ 2012) CDO

MCLE Exemption No.II I-001942 (03/ 16/ 11)

Republic of the Philippines)

City of Cagayan de Oro. . .) S.S.

V E R I F I C A T I O NWith Certification of Non-Forum Shopping

We, all of the undersigned, Filipinos, of legal age and residents of Cagayan

de Oro City, under oath, depose and state:

That w e are the Peti ti oners in the above-captioned case;

That we have caused the preparation and filing of the foregoing Petition for

Certiorari and Prohibition with an application for a Temporary Restraining Order

and or w ri t of Preliminary Injunction;


24/26


That we have read the same and the contents thereof are true and correct to

the best of our own personal knowledge and belief and based on authenti crecords;

That we hereby cert ify that we have not heretofore commenced any action

or proceeding involv ing the same issues in the Court of Appeals or any other

court, tr ibunal or agency; that to the best of our knowledge no such action

proceeding is pending in the aforementioned Courts or di fferent divisions

thereof, or any tribunal or agency; and that should we thereafter learn that a

simi lar action or proceeding has been fi led or is pending before any of the

aforesaid Courts, tribunal or agency, we hereby undertake to inform the aforesaid

Courts and such other tr ibunal or agency of that fact w ithin five (5) daystherefrom.

IN WITNESS WH EREOF, we have hereunto aff ixed our signatures, this

14th day of January 2013, in the City of Cagayan de Oro, Phil ippines.

DR. NESTOR B. LUMICAO, M D DR. ROD M . ALENTON, M DDr ivers License No.N17-74-006-494 Dr ivers License No. K03-81-006792

In his personal capacity and as In his personal capacity and as

Attorney-in-fact of SERVE LIFE Attorney-in-fact of ROSEVALE

CDO INC. FOUNDA TION INC.

DR. LOVENIA P. NACES, Phd. ROSEM ARIE R. ALENTONSSS ID No.09-0641510-0 Drivers License No. KO3-95-030987

IM ELDA G. IBARRA ANTHONY G. NAGACDr ivers License No.KO2-95-0608-22 Dr ivers License No. KO2-94-055953

EARL ANTHONY C. GAM BE M ARLON I . YAPDr ivers License No.KO1-79-007254 Tax Identi fication No.251-239-987-000

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME, this 14th day of January

2013, in the City of Cagayan de Oro, Phil ippines.

Doc. No._________;

Page No._________;

Book No._________;

Seri es of 2013


25/26


EXPLA NATION/ PROOF OF SERVICE

Pursuant to Section 11 of Rule 13 of the Rules of Court, we hereby

certify that copies of the foregoing Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition

with a prayer for a restraining order and a writ of preliminary injunction

were furnished to each of the Respondents thru registered mail on January

14, 2013 as indicated below because personal service is impractical in view of

the distance of their offices.

EARL AN THONY C. GAMBE MARLON I. YAP

CC:

OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

Republ ic of the Philippines

Malacaang Palace, Manila;

Registry Receipt N o. __________ dated January 14, 2013

THE SENATE


GSIS Complex, RoxasBlvd., Pasay City


THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES


Batasan Hil ls, Quezon City


HON. PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR.

Executive Secretary, Of fice of the President of the Phil ippines



HON. FLORENCIO B. ABAD

Secretary, Department of Budget and Management (DBM)



HON. ENRIQUE T. ONA

Secretary, Department of H ealth (DOH)

San Lazaro Compound, City of Manila;


26/26



HON. ARMIN A. LUISTRO, FSCSecretary, 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., Di l iman, Quezon City; and


THE SOLICITOR GENERAL139 Amorsolo Street, Legaspi Vi ll age, Makati City


revised petition for certiorari vs rh -final

Documents