Article IISec. 11. ACCFA V. CUCGOThese are two separate appeals by certiorari from the decision dated March 25,1963 (G.. !o. "#21$%$& and the order dated May 21, 196$ (G.. !o. "#236'5&as a(rmed by the resol)tions en banc, of the *o)rt of +nd)strial elations, in*ases !os. 3$5'#,"- and 132.#M*, respecti/ely. The parties, e0cept the*onfederationof ,nions inGo/ernment *orporations and1(ces (*,G*1&,bein2 practically the same and the principal iss)es in/ol/ed related, only onedecision is now rendered in these two cases.The 32ric)lt)ral *redit and *ooperati/e 4inancin2 3dministration (3**43& was a2o/ernment a2encycreated)nder ep)blic 3ct !o. %21, as amended. +tsadministrati/e machinery was reor2ani5ed and its name chan2ed to32ric)lt)ral *redit 3dministration (3*3& )nder the "and eform *ode (ep)blic3ct!o. 3%$$&.1n the other hand, the 3**436)per/isors7 3ssociation(363&andthe3**438or9ers7 3ssociation(383&, hereinafter referredto as the,nions, are labor or2ani5ations composed of the s)per/isors and the ran9#and#:le employees, respecti/ely, in the 3**43 (now 3*3&.G.. !o. "#21$%$1n6eptember$, 1961acollecti/ebar2ainin2a2reement, whichwastobee;ecti/e for a period of one (1& year from ority of the s)per/isors andran9#and#:lewor9ers, respecti/ely, inthe3*3. +t f)rther alle2edthat thepetition was premat)re, that the 3*3 was not the proper party to be noti:edand to answer the petition, and that the employees and s)per/isors co)ld notlawf)lly become members of the ,nions, nor be represented by them.Eowe/er, in a >oint manifestation of the ,nions dated May ., 196$, with theconformity of the 3*3 3dministrator and of the 32rarian *o)nsel in his capacityas s)ch and as co)nselfor the !ational"and eform *o)ncil, it was a2reedDthat the )nion petitioners in this case represent the ma>ority of the employeesin their respecti/e bar2ainin2 )nitsD and that only the le2al iss)es raised wo)ldbe s)bmitted for the resol)tion of the trial *o)rt.4indin2 the remainin2 2ro)nds for 3*37s opposition to the petition to be witho)tmerit, thetrial *o)rt initsorder datedMay21, 196$certi:edDthe3**4318or9ers73ssociation and the 3**43 6)per/isors73ssociation as the sole ande0cl)si/e bar2ainin2 representati/es of the ran9#and#:le employees ands)per/isors, respecti/ely, of the 32ric)lt)ral *redit 3dministration.D 6aid orderwas a(rmed by the *+ en banc in its resol)tion dated 3)2)st 2$, 196$.1n1ctober2, 196$the3*3:ledinthis*o)rtapetitionforcertiorari with)r2entmotiontostaythe*+orderof May21, 196$. +naresol)tiondated1ctober 6, 196$, this *o)rt dismissed the petition for Dlac9 of adeC)atealle2ations,D b)t the dismissal was later reconsidered when the 3*3 compliedwith the formal reC)irement stated in said resol)tion. 3s prayed for, this *o)rtordered the *+ to stay the e0ec)tion of its order of May 21, 196$.+nthis appeal, the3*3ine;ect challen2es the>)risdictionof the*+toentertain the petition of the ,nions for certi:cation election on the 2ro)nd thatit (3*3& is en2a2ed in 2o/ernmental f)nctions. The ,nions >oin the iss)e on thissin2le point, contendin2 that the 3*3 forms proprietary f)nctions.,nder 6ection 3 of the 32ric)lt)ral "and eform *ode the 3*3 was established,amon2 other 2o/ernmental a2encies,1 to e0tend credit and similar assistanceto a2ric)lt)re, in p)rs)ance of the policy en)nciated in 6ection 2 as follows=6F*. 2. Beclaration of -olicy. G +t is the policy of the 6tate=(1& To establish owner#c)lti/atorships and the economic family#si5e farm as thebasis of -hilippine a2ric)lt)re and, as a conseC)ence, di/ert landlord capital ina2ric)lt)re to ind)strial de/elopment@(2& To achie/e a di2ni:ed e0istence for the small farmers free from pernicio)sinstit)tional restraints and practices@(3& To create a tr)ly /iable social and economic str)ct)re in a2ric)lt)recond)ci/e to 2reater prod)cti/ity and hi2her farm incomes@($& To apply all labor laws eC)ally and witho)t discrimination to both ind)strialand a2ric)lt)ral wa2e earners@(5& To pro/ide a more /i2oro)s and systematic land resettlement pro2ram andp)blic land distrib)tion@ and(6& To ma9e the smallfarmers more independent, self#reliant and responsibleciti5ens, and a so)rce of 2en)ine stren2th in o)r democratic society.The implementation of the policy th)s en)nciated, insofar as the role of the3*3 therein is concerned, is spelled o)t in 6ections 11' to 11%, incl)si/e, of the"and eform *ode. 6ection 11' pro/ides that Dthe administrati/e machinery ofthe3**43shall bereor2ani5edtoenableit toali2nitsacti/itieswiththereC)irements and ob>ecti/e of this *ode and shall be 9nown as the 32ric)lt)ral*redit 3dministration.D ,nder 6ection 112 the s)mof -15',''',''' wasappropriated o)t of national f)nds to :nance the additional credit f)nctions ofthe 3*3 as a res)lt of the land reform pro2ram laid down in the *ode. 6ection1'3 2rants the 3*3 the pri/ile2e of redisco)ntin2 with the *entral?an9, theBe/elopment ?an9 of the -hilippines and the -hilippine !ational ?an9. 6ection1'5 directs the loanin2 acti/ities of the 3*3 Dto stim)late the de/elopment offarmers7 cooperati/es,D incl)din2 those Drelatin2 to the prod)ction andmar9etin2 of a2ric)lt)ral prod)cts and those formed to mana2e andAor own, onacooperati/ebasis, ser/icesandfacilities, s)chasirri2ationandtransportsystems, establishedtos)pport prod)ctionandAor mar9etin2of a2ric)lt)ralprod)cts.D 6ection1'6dealswiththee0tensionby3*3of credit tosmallfarmers in order to stim)late a2ric)lt)ral prod)ction. 6ections 1'. to 112 laydown certain 2)idelines to be followed in connection with the 2rantin2 of loans,s)chas sec)rity, interest ands)per/isionof credit. 6ections 113to 11%,incl)si/e, in/est the 3*3 with certain ri2hts and powers not accorded to non#2o/ernmental entities, th)s=6F*. 113. 3)ditin2 of 1perations. G 4or the e;ecti/e s)per/ision of farmers7cooperati/es, the head of the 32ric)lt)ral *redit 3dministration shall ha/e thepowertoa)dittheiroperations, recordsandboo9sof acco)nt andtoiss)es)bpoena and s)bpoena d)ces tec)m to compel the attendance of witnessesand the prod)ction of boo9s, doc)ments and records in the cond)ct of s)cha)dit or of any inC)iry into their a;airs. 3ny person who, witho)t lawf)l ca)se,fails to obey s)ch s)bpoena or s)bpoena d)ces tec)m shall, )pon application ofthe head of 32ric)lt)ral *redit 3dministration with the proper co)rt, be liable top)nishment for contempt in the manner pro/ided by law and if he is an o(cerof the 3ssociation, to s)spension or remo/al from o(ce.6F*. 11$. -rosec)tionof o(cials. GThe32ric)lt)ral *redit 3dministration,thro)2h the appropriate pro/incial or city :scal, shall ha/e the power to :le andprosec)te any and all actions which it may ha/e a2ainst any and all o(cials oremployees of farmers7 cooperati/es arisin2 from misfeasance or malfeasance ino(ce.6F*. 115. 4ree !otarial 6er/ice. G 3ny >)stice of the peace, in his capacity asnotary e0#o(cio, shall render ser/ice free of char2e to any person applyin2 fora loan )nder this *ode either in administerin2 the oath or in theac9nowled2ment of instr)ments relatin2 to s)ch loan.6F*. 116. 4ree e2istration of Beeds. G 3ny re2ister of deeds shall accept forre2istration, free of char2e any instr)ment relati/e to a loan made )nder this*ode.6F*. 11.. 8ritin2#o;,nsec)redand1)tstandin2"oans. G6)b>ect totheappro/al of the-resident)ponrecommendationof the3)ditorGeneral, the32ric)lt)ral *redit 3dministration may write#o; from its boo9s, )nsec)red ando)tstandin2 loans and acco)nts recei/able which may become )ncollectible byreason of the death or disappearance of the debtor, sho)ld there be no /isiblemeans of collectin2 the same in the foreseeable f)t)re, or where the debtor hasbeen /eri:ed to ha/e no income or property whatsoe/er with which to e;ectpayment. +n all cases, the writin2#o; shall be after :/e years from the date thedebtor defa)lts.6F*. 11%. F0emption from B)ties, Ta0es and "e/ies. G The 32ric)lt)ral *redit3dministrationis herebye0emptedfromthepayment of all d)ties, ta0es,le/ies, and fees, incl)din2 doc9et and sheri;7s fees, of whate/er nat)re or 9ind,in the performance of its f)nctions and in the e0ercise of its powers here)nder.Thepower toa)dit theoperations of farmers7 cooperati/es andotherwiseinC)ireintotheir a;airs, as2i/enby6ection113, isinthenat)reof the2/isitorial powerof theso/erei2n, whichonlya2o/ernmenta2encyspeciallydele2ated to do so by the *on2ress may le2ally e0ercise.1nMarch19, 196$F0ec)ti/e1rder !o. .5wasprom)l2ated. +tisentitled=Denderin2 in 4)ll 4orce and F;ect the -lan of eor2ani5ation -roposed by the6pecial *ommitteeoneor2ani5ationof 32encies for "andeformfor the3dministrati/e Machinery of the 32ric)lt)ral "and eform *ode,D and containsthe followin2 pertinent pro/isions=6ection 3. The "and eform -ro>ect 3dministration2 shall be considered a sin2leor2ani5ation and the personnel complement of the member a2encies incl)din2the le2al o(cers of the 1(ce of the 32rarian *o)nsel which shall pro/ide le2alser/ices to the "-3 shall be re2arded as one personnel pool from which thereC)irementsof theoperationsshall bedrawnands)b>ectonlytotheci/ilser/icelaws, r)lesandre2)lations, personsfromonea2encymaybefreelyassi2ned to positions in another a2ency within the "-3 when the interest ofthe ser/ice so demands.6ection $. The "and eform -ro>ect 3dministration shall be considered as oneor2ani5ationwithrespect tothestandardi5ationof >obdescriptionspositionclassi:cation and wa2e and salary str)ct)res to the end that positions in/ol/in2the same or eC)i/alent C)ali:cations and eC)al responsibilities and e;ort shallha/e the same rem)neration.6ection 5. The *i/il 6er/ice laws, r)les and re2)lations with respect topromotions, partic)larly in the consideration of person ne0t in ran9, shallbemade applicable to the "and eform -ro>ect 3dministration as a sin2le a2encysothat C)ali:edindi/id)alsinonemember a2encym)st beconsideredinconsiderin2 promotion to hi2her positions in another member a2ency.The implementation of the land reform pro2ram of the 2o/ernment accordin2to ep)blic 3ct !o. 3%$$ is most certainly a 2o/ernmental, not a proprietary,f)nction@ andfor that p)rposeF0ec)ti/e1rder !o. .5hasplacedthe3*3)nder the "and eform -ro>ect 3dministration to2ether with the other membera2encies, the personnelcomplement of allof which are placed in one sin2lepool and made a/ailable for assi2nment from one a2ency to another, s)b>ectonly to *i/il 6er/ice laws, r)les and re2)lations, position classi:cation and wa2estr)ct)res.The appointin2 a)thority in respect of the o(cials and employees of the 3*3 isthe -resident of the -hilippines, as stated in a 1st indorsement by his o(ce tothe *hairman of the !ational eform *o)ncil dated May 22, 196$, as follows=3ppointments of o(cials and employees of the !ational "and eform *o)nciland its a2encies may be made only by the -resident, p)rs)ant to the pro/isionsof 6ection .9(B& of the e/ised 3dministrati/e *ode. +n accordance with thepolicy and practice, s)ch appointments sho)ld be prepared for the si2nat)re ofthe F0ec)ti/e 6ecretary, D?y 3)thority ofthe -residentD.38hen the 32ric)lt)ral eform *ode was bein2 considered by the *on2ress, thenat)re of the 3*3 was the s)b>ect of the followin2 e0position on the 6enateHoor=6enator Tolentino= . . . . DThe 3*3 is not 2oin2 to be a pro:t ma9in2 instit)tion.+tiss)pposedtobeap)blicser/iceof the2o/ernmenttothelesseesandfarmer#owners of the lands that may be bo)2ht after e0propriation fromowners. +t is the 2o/ernment here that is the lender. The 2o/ernment sho)ldnot e0act a hi2her interest than what we are tellin2 a pri/ate landowner now inhis relation to his tenants if we 2i/e to their farmers a hi2her rate of interest . . ..D (pp. 1. I 1%, 6enate )st stated, if it is accepted, will carry )s far toward the end. F/eryopiniontendstobecomealaw. + thin9that theword7liberty,7 inthe1$th3mendment, is per/erted when it is held to pre/ent the nat)ral o)tcome of adominant opinion, )nless it can be said that a rational and fair man necessarilywo)ld admit that the stat)te proposed wo)ld infrin2e f)ndamental principles asthey ha/e been )nderstood by the traditions of o)r people and o)r law. +t doesnot need research to show that no s)ch sweepin2 condemnation can be passed)pon the stat)te before )s. 3 reasonable man mi2ht thin9 it a proper meas)re5on the score of health. Men whom + certainly co)ld not prono)nce )nreasonablewo)ld )phold it as a :rst installment of a 2eneralre2)lation of the ho)rs ofwor9. 8hether in the latter aspect it wo)ld be open to the char2e of ineC)ality +thin9 it )nnecessary to disc)ss.D +t was not )ntil 19'%, in M)ller /. 1re2on,9 thatthe 3merican 6)preme *o)rt held/alid a ten#ho)r ma0im)mfor womenwor9ersinla)ndriesandnot)ntil 191.in?)ntin2/. 1re2on1'thats)chare2)latory ten#ho)r law applied to men and women passed the constit)tionaltest.6imilarly, state le2islation :0in2 minim)m wa2es was deemed o;ensi/e to thed)e process cla)se in a 1923 decision in 3d9ins /. *hildren7s Eospital.11 1nly in193., in the leadin2 case of 8est *oast Eotel /. -arrish,12 was the 3d9ins caseo/err)ledanda minim)mwa2elaw!ewLor9 stat)te )pheld. Thesame)nsympathetic attit)de arisin2 from the laisse5#faire concept was manifest indecisionsd)rin2s)chperiod, therebein2the:nely#sp)ndistinctionsinthe8ol; -ac9in2 *o. /. *o)rt of +nd)strial elations13 decision, as to when certainb)sinesses co)ld be classi:ed as a;ected with p)blic interest to >)stify statere2)lation as to prices. 3fter ele/en years, in 193$, in !ebbia /. !ew Lor9,1$the air of )nreality was swept away by this e0plicit prono)ncement from the,nited 6tates 6)preme *o)rt= DThe phrase 7a;ected with a p)blic interest7 can,inthenat)reof thin2s, meannomorethanthat anind)stry, foradeC)atereason, is s)b>ect to control for the p)blic 2ood.D+t isth)sapparent that )ntil theadministrationof -resident oose/elt, thelaisse5#faire principle res)lted in the contraction of the sphere where2o/ernmental entry was permissible. The ob>ect was to protect property e/en iftherebytheneedsof the2eneral p)blicwo)ldbeleft)nsatis:ed. Thiswasemphaticallyp)t forthinawor9of former 3ttorneyGeneral, later )stify the re2)lation ofthe ri2ht to free e0ercise of reli2ion and the ri2ht to free speech.$2STheE"aw/iolatestheconstit)tional pro/isiononin/ol)ntaryser/it)de.3ccordin2tothepetitioners, theE"aws)b>ects medical practitioners toin/ol)ntary ser/it)de beca)se, to be accredited )nder the -hilEealth pro2ram,they are compelled to pro/ide forty#ei2ht ($%& ho)rs of pro bona ser/ices forindi2ent women, )nder threat of criminal prosec)tion, imprisonment and otherforms of p)nishment.$3The petitioners e0plain that since a ma>ority of patients are co/ered by-hilEealth, a medical practitioner wo)ld e;ecti/ely be forced to renderreprod)cti/ehealthser/icessincethelac9of -hilEealthaccreditationwo)ldmean that the ma>ority of the p)blic wo)ld no lon2er be able to a/ailof thepractitioners ser/ices.$$S The E "aw /iolates the ri2ht to eC)al protection of the law. +t is claimed thatthe E "aw discriminates a2ainst the poor as it ma9es them the primary tar2etof the 2o/ernment pro2ram that promotes contracepti/e )se. The petitionersar2)e that, rather than promotin2 reprod)cti/e health amon2 the poor, the E"awsee9s to introd)ce contracepti/es that wo)ld e;ecti/ely red)ce then)mber of the poor.$5S The E "aw is D/oid#for#/a2)enessD in /iolation of the d)e process cla)se ofthe *onstit)tion. +n imposin2 the penalty of imprisonment andAor :ne for Dany/iolation,Ditis/a2)ebeca)seitdoesnotde:nethetypeof cond)cttobetreated as D/iolationD of the E "aw.$6+n this connection, it is claimed that D6ection . of the E "aw /iolates the ri2htto d)e process by remo/in2 from them (the people& the ri2ht to mana2e theirown a;airs and to decide what 9ind of health facility they shall be and what9indof ser/icestheyshall o;er.D$.+t i2noresthemana2ement prero2ati/einherent in corporations for employers to cond)ct their a;airs in accordancewith their own discretion and >)d2ment.S The E "aw /iolates the ri2ht to free speech. To compel a person to e0plain af)ll ran2e of family plannin2 methods is plainly to c)rtail his ri2ht to e0po)ndonly his ownpreferred way of family plannin2. Thepetitioners note thataltho)2h e0emption is 2ranted to instit)tions owned and operated by reli2io)s2ro)ps, they are still forced to refer their patients to another healthcare facilitywillin2 to perform the ser/ice or proced)re.$%S The E "aw intr)des into the 5one of pri/acy of one7s family protected by the*onstit)tion. +t is contended that the E "aw pro/idin2 for mandatoryreprod)cti/e health ed)cation intr)des )pon their constit)tional ri2ht to raisetheir children in accordance with their beliefs.$9+t is claimed that, by 2i/in2 absol)te a)thority to the person who will )nder2oreprod)cti/e health proced)re, the E "aw forsa9es any real dialo2)e betweenthe spo)ses and impedes the ri2ht of spo)ses to m)t)ally decide on matterspertainin2 to the o/erall well#bein2 of their family. +n the same breath, it is alsoclaimed that the parents of a child who has s);ered a miscarria2e are depri/edof parental a)thority to determine whether their child sho)ld )secontracepti/es.5'S The E "aw /iolates the constit)tional principle of non#dele2ation ofle2islati/e a)thority. The petitioners C)estion the dele2ation by *on2ress to the4B3 of the power to determine whether a prod)ct is non#abortifacient and to beincl)ded in the Fmer2ency Br)2s "ist (FB"&.5111STheE"aw/iolatestheones)b>ectAonebill r)lepro/ision)nder6ection26( 1 &, 3rticle K+ of the *onstit)tion.52S The E "aw /iolates !at)ral "aw.53S The E "aw /iolates the principle of 3)tonomy of "ocalGo/ernment ,nits("G,s& and the 3)tonomo)s e2ion of M)slimMindanao T3MM&. +t iscontended that the E "aw, pro/idin2 for reprod)cti/e health meas)res at thelocal 2o/ernment le/el and the 3MM, infrin2es )pon the powers de/ol/ed to"G,s and the 3MM )nder the "ocal Go/ernment *ode and .3 . !o. 9'5$.5$Kario)spartiesalsoso)2ht andwere2rantedlea/eto:letheir respecti/ecomments#in#inter/entionindefenseof theconstit)tionalityof theE"aw.3side from the 1(ce of the 6olicitor General (16G& which commented on thepetitionsinbehalf of therespondents,55*on2ressmanFdcel *. "a2man,56former o(cialsof theBepartment of EealthBr. Fsperan5a+. *abral, )st o/er 2.million 4ilipinos in 196', the pop)lation of the co)ntry reached o/er .6 millionintheyear 2'''ando/er 92millionin2'1'..2Thee0ec)ti/eandthele2islati/e, th)s, felt that the meas)res were still not adeC)ate. To rein in the12problem, the E "aw was enacted to pro/ide 4ilipinos, especially the poor andthemar2inali5ed, accessandinformationtothef)ll ran2eof modemfamilyplannin2 methods, and to ens)re that its ob>ecti/e to pro/ide for the peoples7ri2ht to reprod)cti/e health be achie/ed. To ma9e it more e;ecti/e, the E "awmade it mandatory for health pro/iders to pro/ide information on the f)ll ran2eof modem family plannin2 methods, s)pplies and ser/ices, and for schools topro/ide reprod)cti/e health ed)cation. To p)t teeth to it, the E "awcriminali5es certain acts of ref)sals to carry o)t its mandates.6tated di;erently, the E "aw is an enhancement meas)re to fortify and ma9ee;ecti/ethec)rrent lawsoncontraception, women7shealthandpop)lationcontrol.-rayer of the -etitioners # Maintain the 6tat)s U)oThe petitioners are one in prayin2 that the entire E"awbe declared)nconstit)tional. -etitioner 3"4+, inpartic)lar, ar2)es that the2o/ernmentsponsored contraception pro2ram, the /ery essence of the E "aw, /iolates theri2ht to health of women and the sanctity of life, which the 6tate is mandatedtoprotect andpromote. Th)s, 3"4+ prays that Dthestat)s C)oante# thesit)ationprior tothepassa2eof theE"aw# m)st bemaintained.D.3+te0plains=0 0 0. The instant -etition does not C)estion contraception and contracepti/esper se. 3s pro/ided )nder ep)blic 3ct !o. 5921 and ep)blic 3ct !o. $.29, thesaleanddistrib)tionof contracepti/esareprohibited)nlessdispensedbyaprescription d)ly licensed by a physician. 8hat the -etitioners :nd deplorableand rep)2nant )nder the E "aw is the role that the 6tate and its a2encies #theentireb)rea)cracy, fromthecabinet secretariesdowntothebaran2ayo(cials in the remotest areas of the co)ntry # is made to play in theimplementationof thecontraceptionpro2ramtothef)llest e0tent possible)sin2 ta0payers7 money. The 6tate then will be the f)nder and pro/ider of allformsof familyplannin2methodsandtheimplementer of thepro2rambyens)rin2 the widespread dissemination of, and )ni/ersal access to, a f)ll ran2eof family plannin2 methods, de/ices and s)pplies..$+66,F63fter a scr)tiny of the /ario)s ar2)ments and contentions of the parties, the*o)rt has synthesi5ed and re:ned them to the followin2 principal iss)es=+. -1*FB,3"= 8hether the *o)rt may e0ercise its power of >)dicialre/iewo/er the contro/ersy.1O -ower of )stice or e0pediency of the E"aw, it may do so where an attendant)nconstit)tionality or 2ra/eab)seof discretionres)lts.%9The*o)rt m)stdemonstrate its )nHinchin2 commitment to protect those cherished ri2hts andprinciples embodied in the *onstit)tion.+nthisconnection, itbearsaddin2thatwhilethescopeof >)dicial powerofre/iew may be limited, the *onstit)tion ma9es no distinction as to the 9ind ofle2islation that may be s)b>ect to >)dicial scr)tiny, be it in the form of socialle2islation or otherwise. The reason is simple and 2oes bac9 to the earlier point.The *o)rt may pass )pon the constit)tionality of acts of the le2islati/e and thee0ec)ti/e branches, since its d)ty is not to re/iew their collecti/e wisdom b)t,rather, to ma9e s)re that they ha/e acted in consonance with their respecti/ea)thorities and ri2hts as mandated of them by the *onstit)tion. +f after saidre/iew, the *o)rt :nds no constit)tional /iolations of any sort, then, it has nomore a)thority of proscribin2 the actions )nder re/iew.9' This is in line with3rticle K+++, 6ection 1 of the *onstit)tion which e0pressly pro/ides=6ection 1. The >)dicial power shall be /ested in one 6)preme *o)rt and in s)chlower co)rts as may be established by law.)stice to settle act)alcontro/ersies in/ol/in2 ri2hts which are le2ally demandable and enforceable,and to determine whether or not there has been a 2ra/e ab)se of discretionamo)ntin2tolac9 or e0cess of >)risdictiononthepart of any branchorinstr)mentality of the Go/ernment. NFmphases s)ppliedO3s far bac9 as Tanada /. 3n2ara,91 the *o)rt has )neC)i/ocally declared thatcertiorari, prohibition and mandam)s are appropriate remedies to raiseconstit)tional iss)es and to re/iew andAor prohibitAn)llify, when proper, acts ofle2islati/e and e0ec)ti/e o(cials, as there is no other plain, speedy oradeC)ate remedy in the ordinary co)rse of law. This r)lin2 was later on appliedin Macalintal /. *1MF"F*,92 3ldaba /. *1MF"F*,93 Ma2allona /. Frmita,9$ andco)ntless others. +n Tanada, the *o)rt wrote=+nsee9in2ton)llifyanact of the-hilippine6enateonthe2ro)ndthat itcontra/enes the *onstit)tion, the petition no do)bt raises a >)sticiablecontro/ersy. 8here an action of the le2islati/e branch is serio)sly alle2ed toha/e infrin2ed the *onstit)tion, it becomes not only the ri2ht b)t in fact thed)ty of the >)diciary to settle the disp)te. DThe C)estion th)s posed is >)dicialrather thanpolitical. Thed)ty (to ad>)dicate& remains to ass)rethat thes)premacyof the*onstit)tionis )pheld. D 1nceaDcontro/ersyas totheapplicationor interpretationof constit)tional pro/isionisraisedbeforethis*o)rt (as in the instant case&, it becomes a le2al iss)e which the *o)rt is bo)ndby constit)tional mandate to decide. NFmphasis s)ppliedO+n the scholarly estimation of former 6)preme *o)rt )dicial re/iewis essential for the maintenance and enforcement of theseparationof powers andthebalancin2of powers amon2thethree2reatdepartmentsof 2o/ernment thro)2hthede:nitionandmaintenanceof thebo)ndaries of a)thority and control between them. To him, >)dicial re/iew is thechief, indeed the only, medi)m of participation # or instr)ment of inter/ention #of the >)diciary in that balancin2 operation.95"est it be mis)nderstood, it bears emphasi5in2 that the *o)rt does not ha/ethe)nbridleda)thorityto r)leon>)stanyande/ery claimofconstit)tional/iolation. )dicial re/iewis limited by fo)r e0actin2 reC)isites, /i5 = (a& there m)st be an act)al case orcontro/ersy@ (b& the petitioners m)st possess loc)s standi@ (c& the C)estion ofconstit)tionality m)st be raised at the earliest opport)nity@ and (d& the iss)e ofconstit)tionality m)st be the lis mota of the case.963ct)al *ase or *ontro/ersy-roponents of the E "aw s)bmit that the s)b> ect petitions do not present anyact)al case or contro/ersy beca)se the E "aw has yet to be implemented.9.They claim that the C)estions raised by the petitions are not yet concrete andripe for ad>)dication since no one has been char2ed with /iolatin2 any of itspro/isions and that there is no showin2 that any of the petitioners7 ri2hts hasbeenad/erselya;ectedbyits operation.9%+nshort, it is contendedthat>)dicial re/iew of the E "aw is premat)re.3n act)alcase or contro/ersy means an e0istin2 case or contro/ersy that isappropriate or ripe for determination, not con>ect)ralor anticipatory, lest thedecision of the co)rt wo)ld amo)nt to an ad/isory opinion.99 The r)le is thatco)rtsdonotsittoad>)dicatemereacademicC)estionstosatisfyscholarlyinterest, howe/er intellect)ally challen2in2. The contro/ersy m)st be1$>)sticiable#de:niteandconcrete, to)chin2onthele2al relations of partiesha/in2ad/ersele2al interests. +notherwords, thepleadin2sm)stshowanacti/e anta2onistic assertion ofa le2alri2ht, ontheone hand,andadenialthereof, on the other@ that is, it m)st concern a real, tan2ible and not merely atheoretical C)estionor iss)e. Thereo)2ht tobeanact)al ands)bstantialcontro/ersy admittin2 of speci:c relief thro)2h a decree concl)si/e in nat)re,as distin2)ishedfromanopinionad/isin2what thelawwo)ldbe)ponahypothetical state of facts.1''*orollary to the reC)irement of an act)al case or contro/ersy is thereC)irement of ripeness.1'1 3 C)estion is ripe for ad>)dication when the actbein2 challen2ed has had a direct ad/erse e;ect on the indi/id)al challen2in2it.4oracase to be considered ripefor ad>)dication, it isa prereC)isite thatsomethin2 has then been accomplished or performed by either branch before aco)rt may come into the pict)re, and the petitioner m)st alle2e the e0istenceof an immediate or threatened in>)ry to himself as a res)lt of the challen2edaction. Eem)stshowthathehass)stainedorisimmediatelyindan2erofs)stainin2 some direct in>)ry as a res)lt of the act complained of1'2+n The -ro/ince of !orth *otabato /. The Go/ernment of the ep)blic of the-hilippines,1'3 where the constit)tionality of an )nimplemented Memorand)mof 32reement on the 3ncestral Bomain (M13#3B& was p)t in C)estion, it wasar2)ed that the *o)rt has no a)thority to pass )pon the iss)es raised as therewas yet no concrete act performed that co)ld possibly /iolate the petitioners7and the inter/enors7 ri2hts. *itin2 precedents, the *o)rt r)led that the fact ofthe law or act in C)estion bein2 not yet e;ecti/e does not ne2ate ripeness.*oncrete acts )nder a law are not necessary to render the contro/ersy ripe.F/en a sin2)lar /iolation of the *onstit)tion andAor the law is eno)2h to awa9en>)dicial d)ty.+n this case, the *o)rt is of the /iew that an act)al case or contro/ersy e0istsand that the same is ripe for >)dicialdetermination. *onsiderin2 that the E"aw and its implementin2 r)les ha/e already ta9en e;ect and that b)d2etarymeas)res to carry o)t the law ha/e already been passed, it is e/ident that thes)b>ect petitions present a >)sticiable contro/ersy. 3s stated earlier, when anactionof thele2islati/ebranchis serio)slyalle2edto ha/einfrin2edthe*onstit)tion, it not only becomes ari2ht,b)talsoad)ty ofthe)risdiction, theapplicationofdoctrinesori2inatin2fromthe,.6. hasbeen 2enerally maintained, albeit with some modi:cations. 8hile this *o)rt haswithheld the application of facial challen2es to strictly penal stat)es,1'% it hase0panded its scope to co/er stat)tes not only re2)latin2 free speech, b)t alsothose in/ol/in2 reli2io)s freedom, and other f)ndamental ri2hts.1'9 The)nderlyin2 reason for this modi:cation is simple. 4or )nli9e its co)nterpart inthe ,.6., this *o)rt, )nder its e0panded >)risdiction, is mandatedby the4)ndamental "aw not only to settle act)al contro/ersies in/ol/in2 ri2hts whichare le2ally demandable and enforceable, b)t also to determine whether or nottherehasbeena2ra/eab)seof discretionamo)ntin2tolac9ore0cessof>)risdiction on the part of any branch or instr)mentality of the Go/ernment.11'Kerily, the framers of1)r*onstit)tion en/isioned a proacti/e)ry as ares)lt of the challen2ed 2o/ernmentalact.113 +t reC)ires a personal sta9e inthe o)tcome of the contro/ersy as to ass)re the concrete ad/erseness whichsharpens the presentation of iss)es )pon which the co)rt so lar2ely dependsfor ill)mination of di(c)lt constit)tional C)estions.11$15+n relation to loc)s standi, the Das applied challen2eD embodies the r)le thatone can challen2e the constit)tionality of a stat)te only if he asserts a /iolationof his own ri2hts. The r)le prohibits one from challen2in2 the constit)tionalityof the stat)te 2ro)nded on a /iolation of the ri2hts of third persons not beforethe co)rt. This r)le is also 9nown as the prohibition a2ainst third#partystandin2.115Transcendental +mportance!otwithstandin2, the *o)rt leans on the doctrine that Dthe r)le on standin2 is amatterof proced)re, hence, canberela0edfornon#traditional plainti;sli9eordinary citi5ens, ta0payers, and le2islators when the p)blic interest soreC)ires, s)ch as when the matter is of transcendental importance, ofo/erreachin2 si2ni:cance to society, or of paramo)nt p)blic interest.D116+n*ocon)t1il e:ners3ssociation, +nc. /. Torres,11.the*o)rtheldthatincases of paramo)nt importancewhereserio)s constit)tional C)estions arein/ol/ed, the standin2 reC)irement may be rela0ed and a s)it may be allowedto prosper e/en where there is no direct in>)ry to the party claimin2 the ri2ht of>)dicial re/iew. +n the :rst Fmer2ency -owers *ases,11% ordinary citi5ens andta0payers were allowed to C)estion the constit)tionality of se/erale0ec)ti/eorders altho)2hthey hadonlyanindirect and2eneral interest sharedincommon with the p)blic.8ith these said, e/en if the constit)tionality of the E "aw may not be assailedthro)2hanDas#appliedchallen2e, still, the*o)rt hastimeanda2ainactedliberally on the loc)s s tandireC)irement. +t has accorded certain indi/id)alsstandin2 to s)e, not otherwise directly in>)red or with material interest a;ectedby a Go/ernment act, pro/ided a constit)tional iss)e of transcendentalimportanceis in/o9ed. Ther)leonloc)s standi is, after all, aproced)raltechnicality whichthe *o)rt has, onmore thanone occasion, wai/ed orrela0ed, th)sallowin2non#traditional plainti;s, s)chasconcernedciti5ens,ta0payers, /oters or le2islators, to s)e in the p)blic interest, albeit they maynot ha/e been directly in>)red by the operation of a lawor any other2o/ernment act. 3s held in )risdictiono/erthepetitionatbar. 1necannotdenythattheiss)esraisedherein ha/e potentially per/asi/e inH)ence on the social and moral well bein2of this nation, specially the yo)th@ hence, their proper and >)st determination isanimperati/e need.This isinaccordance withthewell#entrenchedprinciplethat r)les of proced)re are not inHe0ible tools desi2ned to hinder or delay, b)ttofacilitateandpromotetheadministrationof >)stice. Theirstrictandri2idapplication, which wo)ldres)ltintechnicalities that tend to fr)strate,ratherthan promote s)bstantial >)stice, m)st always be eschewed. (Fmphasiss)pplied&+n /iew of the serio)sness, no/elty and wei2ht as precedents, not only to thep)blic, b)t also to the bench and bar, the iss)es raised m)st be resol/ed for the2)idanceof all. 3fter all, theE"awdrasticallya;ects theconstit)tionalpro/isions on the ri2ht to life and health, the freedom of reli2ion and e0pressionand other constit)tional ri2hts. Mindf)l of all these and the fact that the iss)esof contraceptionandreprod)cti/ehealthha/ealreadyca)seddeepdi/isionamon2abroadspectr)mof society, the*o)rtentertainsnodo)btthatthepetitions raise iss)es of transcendental importance warrantin2 immediate co)rtad>)dication. Moreimportantly, considerin2that itistheri2ht tolifeof themother and the )nborn which is primarily at iss)e, the *o)rt need not wait for alife to be ta9en away before ta9in2 action.The *o)rt cannot, and sho)ld not, e0ercise >)dicial restraint at this time whenri2hts enshrined in the *onstit)tion are bein2 imperilled to be /iolated. To doso, when the life of either the mother or her child is at sta9e, wo)ld lead toirreparable conseC)ences.Beclaratory eliefThe respondents also assail the petitions beca)se they are essentially petitionsfor declaratoryrelief o/er whichthe*o)rt has noori2inal >)risdiction.12'6)(ce it to state that most of the petitions are prayin2 for in>)ncti/e reliefs andso the *o)rt wo)ld >)st consider them as petitions for prohibition )nder )le65, o/er whichit hasori2inal >)risdiction. 8herethecasehasfar#reachin2implications and prays for in>)ncti/e reliefs, the *o)rt may consider them aspetitions for prohibition )nder )le 65.1211ne 6)b>ect#1ne TitleThe petitioners also C)estion the constit)tionality of the E "aw, claimin2 thatit /iolates 6ection 26(1 &, 3rticle K+ of the *onstit)tion,122 prescribin2 the ones)b>ect#one title r)le. 3ccordin2 to them, bein2 one for reprod)cti/e health withresponsible parenthood, the assailed le2islation /iolates the constit)tionalstandards of d)e process by concealin2 its tr)e intent # to act as a pop)lationcontrol meas)re.123To belittle the challen2e, the respondents insist that the E "aw is not a birth orpop)lation control meas)re,12$ and that the concepts of DresponsibleparenthoodD and Dreprod)cti/e healthD are both interrelated as they areinseparable.125Bespite e;orts to p)sh the E "aw as a reprod)cti/e health law, the *o)rt seesitasprincipallyapop)lationcontrol meas)re. Thecorp)sof theE"awis2earedtowardsthered)ctionof theco)ntry7spop)lation. 8hileitclaimstosa/e li/es and 9eep o)r women and children healthy, it also promotespre2nancy#pre/entin2 prod)cts. 3s stated earlier, the E "aw emphasi5es theneed to pro/ide 4ilipinos, especially the poor and the mar2inali5ed, with accessto informationonthef)ll ran2eof modemfamily plannin2prod)cts andmethods. Thesefamilyplannin2methods, nat)ral or modem, howe/er, areclearly 2eared towards the pre/ention of pre2nancy.4or said reason, the manifest )nderlyin2 ob>ecti/e of the E "aw is to red)cethe n)mber of births in the co)ntry.+t cannot be denied that the meas)re also see9s to pro/ide pre#natal and post#natal care as well. 3 lar2e portion of the law, howe/er, co/ers the disseminationof informationandpro/isionsonaccesstomedically#safe, non#abortifacient,e;ecti/e, le2al, a;ordable, and C)ality reprod)cti/e health care ser/ices,methods, de/ices, and s)pplies, which are all intended to pre/ent pre2nancy.16The *o)rt, th)s, a2rees with the petitioners7 contention that the whole idea ofcontraception per/ades the entire E "aw. +t is, in fact, the central idea of theE "aw.126 +ndeed, remo/e the pro/isions that refer to contraception or arerelated to it and the E "aw loses its /ery fo)ndation.12. 3s earlier e0plained,Dthe other positi/e pro/isions s)ch as s9illed birth attendance, maternalcareincl)din2 pre#and post#natal ser/ices, pre/ention and mana2ement ofreprod)cti/e tract infections incl)din2 E+KA3+B6 are already pro/ided for in theMa2na *arta for 8omen.D12%?e that as it may, the E "aw does not /iolate the one s)b>ectAone bill r)le. +n?en>aminF. *awalin2, ect which the stat)te see9s to e;ect, andwhere, as here, the persons interested are informed of the nat)re, scope andconseC)ences of the proposed law and its operation. Moreo/er, this *o)rt hasin/ariably adopted a liberal rather than technical constr)ction of the r)le Dso asnot to cripple or impede le2islation.D NFmphases s)ppliedO+n this case, a te0t)al analysis of the /ario)s pro/isions of the law shows thatboth Dreprod)cti/e healthD and Dresponsible parenthoodD are interrelated and2ermaneto the o/erridin2ob>ecti/e to control the pop)lation2rowth. 3se0pressed in the :rst para2raph of 6ection 2 of the E "aw=6F*. 2. Beclaration of -olicy. # The 6tate reco2ni5es and 2)arantees the h)manri2hts of allpersons incl)din2 their ri2ht to eC)ality and nondiscrimination ofthese ri2hts, the ri2ht to s)stainable h)man de/elopment, the ri2ht to healthwhich incl)des reprod)cti/e health, the ri2ht to ed)cation and information, andthe ri2ht to choose and ma9e decisions for themsel/es in accordance with theirreli2io)s con/ictions, ethics, c)lt)ralbeliefs, and the demands of responsibleparenthood.Theones)b>ectAonetitler)lee0pressestheprinciplethatthetitleof alawm)stnotbeDso)ncertainthatthea/era2epersonreadin2itwo)ldnotbeinformed of the p)rpose of the enactment or p)t on inC)iry as to its contents,or which is misleadin2, either in referrin2 to or indicatin2 one s)b>ect whereanother or di;erent oneisreallyembracedintheact, or inomittin2anye0pression or indication of the real s)b>ect or scope of the act.D129*onsiderin2 the close intimacy between Dreprod)cti/e healthD and DresponsibleparenthoodD which bears to the attainment of the 2oal of achie/in2Ds)stainable h)man de/elopmentD as stated )nder its terms, the *o)rt :nds noreason to belie/e that *on2ress intentionally so)2ht to decei/e the p)blic as tothe contents of the assailed le2islation.++ # 6,?6T3!T+KF +66,F6=1#The i2ht to "ife-osition of the -etitionersThe petitioners assail the E "aw beca)se it /iolates the ri2ht to life and healthof the )nborn child )nder 6ection 12, 3rticle ++ of the *onstit)tion. The assailedle2islation allowin2 access to abortifacientsAaborti/es e;ecti/ely sanctionsabortion.13'3ccordin2tothepetitioners, despiteitse0presstermsprohibitin2abortion,6ection $(a& of the E "aw considers contracepti/es that pre/ent the fertili5edo/)mtoreachandbeimplantedinthemother7swombasanabortifacient@th)s, sanctionin2 contracepti/es that ta9e e;ect after fertili5ation and prior toimplantation, contrary to the intent of the 4ramers of the *onstit)tion to a;ordprotection to the fertili5ed o/)m which already has life.They ar2)e that e/en if 6ection 9 of the E "aw allows only Dnon#abortifacientDhormonal contracepti/es, intra)terine de/ices, in>ectables and other safe, le2al,non#abortifacient and e;ecti/e family plannin2 prod)cts and s)pplies, medicalresearch shows that contracepti/es )se res)lts in abortion as they operate to9ill the fertili5ed o/)m which already has life.1313sitopposes theinitiationoflife,which is a f)ndamental h)man 2ood,thepetitionersassert that the6tatesanctionof contracepti/e)secontra/enesnat)ral law and is an a;ront to the di2nity of man.1324inally, it is contended that since 6ection 9 of the E "aw reC)ires the 4ood andBr)2 3dministration (4B3& to certify that the prod)ct or s)pply is not to be )sedas an abortifacient, the assailed le2islation e;ecti/ely con:rms thatabortifacients arenot prohibited. 3lsoconsiderin2that the4B3is not thea2ency that will act)ally s)per/ise or administer the )se of these prod)cts ands)pplies toprospecti/epatients, thereis nowayit cantr)thf)llyma9eacerti:cation that it shall not be )sed for abortifacient p)rposes.133-osition of the espondents4ortheirpart, thedefendersoftheE"awpointo)tthattheintentofthe4ramers of the *onstit)tion was simply the prohibition of abortion. Theycontend that the E "aw does not /iolate the *onstit)tion since the said lawemphasi5es that onlyDnon#abortifacientD reprod)cti/ehealthcareser/ices,methods, de/ices prod)cts ands)pplies shall be made accessible to thep)blic.13$3ccordin2tothe16G, *on2resshasmadeale2islati/edeterminationthatcontracepti/es are not abortifacients by enactin2 the E "aw. 3s the E "awwas enacted with d)e consideration to /ario)s st)dies and cons)ltations withthe 8orld Eealth 1r2ani5ation (8E1& and other e0perts in the medical :eld, itis asserted that the *o)rt a;ord deference and respect to s)ch a determinationand pass >)d2ment only when a partic)lar dr)2 or de/ice is later on determinedas an aborti/e.1354or hispart,respondent"a2manar2)esthat theconstit)tionalprotection ofone7s ri2ht to life is not /iolated considerin2 that /ario)s st)dies of the 8E1show that life be2ins from the implantation of the fertili5ed o/)m.*onseC)ently, hear2)es that theE"awis constit)tional since the lawspeci:cally pro/ides that only contracepti/es that do not pre/ent theimplantation of the fertili5ed o/)m are allowed.1361.The *o)rt7s -osition+t is a )ni/ersally accepted principle that e/ery h)man bein2 en>oys the ri2ht tolife.13.F/en if not formally established, the ri2ht to life, bein2 2ro)nded on nat)rallaw, is inherent and, therefore, not a creation of, or dependent )pon apartic)lar law, c)stom, or belief. +t precedes and transcends any a)thority orthe laws of men.+n this >)risdiction, the ri2ht to life is 2i/en more than ample protection. 6ection1, 3rticle +++ of the *onstit)tion pro/ides=6ection 1. !o person shall be depri/ed of life, liberty, or property witho)t d)eprocess of law, nor shall any person be denied the eC)al protection of the laws.3s e0po)nded earlier, the )se of contracepti/es and family plannin2 methods inthe -hilippines is not of recent /inta2e. 4rom the enactment of .3. !o. $.29,entitledD3n3ct Toe2)lateThe6ale, Bispensation, andAor Bistrib)tionof*ontracepti/eBr)2s andBe/ices Don)rispr)dence, an)nbornchildhas alreadyale2al personality. +n*ontinental 6teel Man)fact)rin2 *orporation /. Eon. 3ccredited Kol)ntary3rbitrator 3llan 6. Montano,1$. it was written="ife is not synonymo)s with ci/il personality. 1ne need not acC)ire ci/ilpersonality :rst before heAshe co)ld die. F/en a child inside the womb alreadyhas life. !o less than the *onstit)tion reco2ni5es the life of the )nborn fromconception, that the 6tate m)st protect eC)ally with the life of the mother. +fthe )nborn already has life, then the cessation thereof e/en prior to the childbein2 deli/ered, C)ali:es as death. NFmphases in the ori2inalO+n Gon5ales /. *arhart,1$% ectablesandfamilyprod)ctsands)ppliesinthe!ational Br)24orm)laryand the incl)sion of the same in the re2)lar p)rchase of essentialmedicinesand s)pplies of all national hospitals.1.6 *itin2 /ario)s st)dies on the matter,the petitioners posit that the ris9 of de/elopin2 breast and cer/icalcancer is2reatly increasedinwomenwho )seoral contracepti/es as compared towomen who ne/er )se them. They point o)t that the ris9 is decreased when the)se of contracepti/es is discontin)ed. 4)rther, it is contended that the )se ofcombined oral contracepti/e pills is associated with a threefold increased ris9 of/eno)s thromboembolism, a twofold increased ris9 of ischematic stro9e, and anindeterminate e;ect on ris9 of myocardial infarction.1.. Gi/en the de:nition ofDreprod)cti/e healthD and Dse0)al healthD )nder 6ections $(p&1.% and (w&1.9of the E "aw, the petitioners assert that the assailed le2islation only see9s toens)re that women ha/e pleas)rable and satisfyin2 se0 li/es.1%'The 16G, howe/er, points o)t that 6ection 15, 3rticle ++ of the *onstit)tion isnot self#e0ec)tory, it bein2 a mere statement of the administration7s principleand policy. F/en if it were self#e0ec)tory, the 16G posits that medicala)thorities ref)te the claim that contracepti/e pose a dan2er to the health ofwomen.1%1The *o)rt7s -osition3componenttotheri2httolifeistheconstit)tional ri2httohealth. +nthisre2ard, the *onstit)tion is replete with pro/isions protectin2 and promotin2 theri2ht to health. 6ection 15, 3rticle ++ of the *onstit)tion pro/ides=6ection15. The6tateshall protect andpromotetheri2ht tohealthof thepeople and instill health conscio)sness amon2 them.3 portion of 3rticle J+++ also speci:cally pro/ides for the 6tates7 d)ty to pro/idefor the health of the people, /i5=EF3"TE6ection 11. The 6tate shall adopt an inte2rated and comprehensi/e approach tohealth de/elopment which shall endea/or to ma9e essential 2oods, health andother social ser/ices a/ailable to all the people at a;ordable cost. There shallbe priority for the needs of the )nderpri/ile2ed, sic9, elderly, disabled, women,and children. The 6tate shall endea/or to pro/ide free medical care to pa)pers.6ection 12. The 6tate shall establish and maintain an e;ecti/e food and dr)2re2)latory system and )nderta9e appropriate health, manpower de/elopment,and research, responsi/e to the co)ntry7s health needs and problems.6ection 13. The 6tate shall establish a special a2ency for disabled person fortheir rehabilitation, self#de/elopment, andself#reliance, andtheir inte2rationinto the mainstream of society.4inally, 6ection 9, 3rticle JK+ pro/ides=6ection 9. The 6tate shall protect cons)mers from trade malpractices and froms)bstandard or ha5ardo)s prod)cts.*ontrary to the respondent7s notion, howe/er, these pro/isions are self#e0ec)tin2. ,nless the pro/isions clearly e0press the contrary, the pro/isions ofthe*onstit)tionsho)ldbeconsideredself#e0ec)tory. Thereis noneedforle2islationtoimplementtheseself#e0ec)tin2pro/isions.1%2+nManila-rinceEotel /. G6+6,1%3 it was stated=0 0 0 Eence, )nless it is e0pressly pro/ided that a le2islati/e act is necessary toenforce a constit)tional mandate, the pres)mption now is that all pro/isions ofthe constit)tion are self#e0ec)tin2. +f the constit)tional pro/isions are treated asreC)irin2le2islationinsteadof self#e0ec)tin2,thele2islat)rewo)ldha/ethepower to i2nore and practically n)llify the mandate of the f)ndamental law. Thiscan be cataclysmic. That is why the pre/ailin2 /iew is, as it has always been,that W... in case of do)bt, the *onstit)tion sho)ld be considered self#e0ec)tin2 ratherthan non#self#e0ec)tin2. . . . ,nless the contrary is clearly intended, thepro/isions of the *onstit)tion sho)ld be considered self#e0ec)tin2, as a contraryr)le wo)ld 2i/e the le2islat)re discretion to determine when, or whether, theyshall bee;ecti/e.These pro/isionswo)ldbes)bordinated tothe willofthelawma9in2body, whichco)ld ma9e thementirely meanin2less by simplyref)sin2 to pass the needed implementin2 stat)te. (Fmphases s)pplied&This notwithstandin2, it bears mentionin2 that the petitioners, partic)larly 3"4+,do not C)estion contraception and contracepti/es per se.1%$ +n fact, 3"4+ praysthatthestat)sC)o# )nder.3. !o. 5921and.3. !o. $.29, thesaleanddistrib)tion of contracepti/es are not prohibited when they are dispensed by aprescription of a d)ly licensed by a physician # be maintained.1%5The le2islati/e intent in the enactment of the E "aw in this re2ard is to lea/eintact the pro/isions of .3. !o. $.29. There is no intention at all to do awaywith it. +t is still a 2ood law and its reC)irements are still in to be complied with.Th)s,the*o)rt a2reeswith theobser/ation ofrespondent"a2man thatthee;ecti/ityof theE"awwill not leadtothe)nmiti2atedproliferationofcontracepti/essincethesale, distrib)tionanddispensationof contracepti/edr)2s and de/ices will still reC)ire the prescription of a licensed physician. 8ith.3. !o. $.29 in place, there e0ists adeC)ate safe2)ards to ens)re the p)blicthat only contracepti/es that are safe are made a/ailable to the p)blic. 3s aptlye0plained by respondent "a2man=B. *ontracepti/es cannot bedispensed and )sed witho)tprescription1'%. 3sanaddedprotectionto/ol)ntary)sersof contracepti/es, thesamecannot be dispensed and )sed witho)t prescription.1'9. ep)blic 3ct !o. $.29 or D3n 3ct to e2)late the 6ale, Bispensation, andAor Bistrib)tion of *ontracepti/e Br)2s and Be/icesD and ep)blic 3ct !o. 5921or D3n3ct e2)latin2the-racticeof -harmacyand6ettin26tandards of-harmace)tical Fd)cationinthe-hilippinesandfor1ther-)rposesDarenot2$repealed by the E "aw and the pro/isions of said 3cts are not inconsistentwith the E "aw.11'. *onseC)ently, thesale, distrib)tionanddispensationof contracepti/edr)2s and de/ices are partic)larly 2o/erned by 3 !o. $.29 which pro/ides inf)ll=D6ection 1. +t shall be )nlawf)l for any person, partnership, or corporation, tosell, dispense or otherwise distrib)te whether for or witho)t consideration, anycontracepti/e dr)2 or de/ice, )nless s)ch sale, dispensation or distrib)tion isby a d)ly licensed dr)2 store or pharmace)tical company and with theprescription of a C)ali:ed medical practitioner.D6ec. 2 . 4or the p)rpose of this 3ct=D(a& D*ontracepti/e dr)2D is any medicine, dr)2, chemical, or portion which is)sed e0cl)si/ely for the p)rpose of pre/entin2 fertili5ation of the female o/)m=andD(b& D*ontracepti/e de/iceD is any instr)ment, de/ice, material, or a2entintrod)cedintothefemalereprod)cti/esystemfor theprimaryp)rposeofpre/entin2 conception.D6ec. 3 3ny person, partnership, or corporation, /iolatin2 the pro/isions of this3ct shall be p)nished with a :ne of not more than :/e h)ndred pesos or animprisonment of not less than si0 months or more than one year or both in thediscretion of the *o)rt.DThis 3ct shall ta9e e;ect )pon its appro/al.D3ppro/ed= ections of the followin2=(a& !)mber of women of reprod)cti/e a2e and co)ples who want to space orlimit their children@(b& *ontracepti/e pre/alence rate, by type of method )sed@ and(c& *ost of family plannin2 s)pplies.-ro/ided, That "G,smayimplement itsownproc)rement, distrib)tionandmonitorin2 pro2ram consistent with the o/erall pro/isions of this 3ct and the2)idelines of the B1E.Th)s, in the distrib)tion by the B1E of contracepti/e dr)2s and de/ices, it m)stconsider the pro/isions of .3. !o. $.29, which is still in e;ect, and ens)re thatthe contracepti/es that it will proc)re shall be from a d)ly licensed dr)2 storeor pharmace)tical company and that the act)al dispensation of thesecontracepti/e dr)2s and de/ices will done followin2 a prescription of a C)ali:edmedical practitioner. The distrib)tion of contracepti/e dr)2s and de/ices m)stnot beindiscriminately done. Thep)blic healthm)st beprotectedby allpossible means. 3s pointed o)t by )ry, illnessorlossof liferes)ltin2 from or incidental to their )se.1%.3t any rate, it bears pointin2 o)t that not a sin2le contracepti/e has yet beens)bmitted to the 4B3 p)rs)ant to the E "aw. +t behoo/es the *o)rt to await itsdetermination which dr)2s or de/ices are declared by the 4B3 as safe, it bein2the a2ency tas9ed to ens)re that food and medicines a/ailable to the p)blic aresafe for p)blic cons)mption. *onseC)ently, the *o)rt :nds that, at this point,the attac9 on the E "aw on this 2ro)nd is premat)re. +ndeed, the /ario)s 9indsof contracepti/es m)st :rst be meas)red )p to the constit)tional yardstic9 ase0po)nded herein, to be determined as the case presents itself.3t this point, the *o)rt is of the stron2 /iew that *on2ress cannot le2islate thathormonal contracepti/es and intra#)terine de/ices are safe and non#abortifacient. The :rst sentence of 6ection 9 that ordains their incl)sion by the!ationalBr)2 4orm)lary inthe FB"by)sin2 themandatory DshallDis tobeconstr)edas operati/e only after they ha/e been tested, e/al)ated, andappro/ed by the 4B3. The 4B3, not *on2ress, has the e0pertise to determinewhether a partic)lar hormonal contracepti/e or intra)terine de/ice is safe andnon#abortifacient. The pro/ision of the third sentence concernin2 thereC)irements for the incl)sion or remo/al of a partic)lar family plannin2 s)pplyfrom the FB" s)pports this constr)ction.6tated di;erently, the pro/ision in 6ection 9 co/erin2 the incl)sion of hormonalcontracepti/es, intra#)terinede/ices, in>ectables, andothersafe, le2al, non#abortifacient and e;ecti/e family plannin2 prod)cts and s)pplies by the!ationalBr)2 4orm)lary inthe FB"is notmandatory. There m)st :rstbeadetermination by the 4B3 that they are in fact safe, le2al, non#abortifacient ande;ecti/e family plannin2 prod)cts and s)pplies. There can be no25predeterminationby*on2ress that the2am)t of contracepti/es areDsafe,le2al, non#abortifacient and e;ecti/eD witho)t the proper scienti:ce0amination.3 #4reedom of eli2ionand the i2ht to 4ree 6peech-osition of the -etitioners=1. 1n *ontraception8hile contracepti/es and proced)res li9e /asectomy and t)bal li2ation are notco/eredbytheconstit)tional proscription, therearethosewho, beca)seoftheir reli2io)s ed)cation and bac92ro)nd, sincerely belie/e that contracepti/es,whether abortifacient or not, are e/il. 6ome of these are medical practitionerswho essentially claim that their beliefs prohibit not only the )se ofcontracepti/es b)t also the willin2 participation and cooperation in allthin2sdealin2 with contracepti/e )se. -etitioner -3J e0plained that Dcontraception is2ra/ely opposed to marital chastity, it is contrary to the 2ood of thetransmission of life, and to the reciprocalself#2i/in2 of the spo)ses@ it harmstr)e lo/e and denies the so/erei2n r)le of God in the transmission of E)manlife.D1%%ThepetitionersC)estionthe6tate#sponsoredproc)rementof contracepti/es,ar2)in2that thee0pendit)reof their ta0es oncontracepti/es /iolates the2)arantee of reli2io)s freedom since contracepti/es contra/ene their reli2io)sbeliefs.1%92. 1n eli2io)s 3ccommodation andThe B)ty to efer-etitioners +mbon2 and ")at note that while the E "aw attempts to addressreli2io)ssentimentsbyma9in2pro/isionsfor aconscientio)sob>ector, theconstit)tional 2)arantee is nonetheless /iolated beca)se the law also imposes)pon the conscientio)s ob>ector the d)ty to refer the patient see9in2reprod)cti/e health ser/ices to another medical practitioner who wo)ld be ableto pro/ide for the patient7s needs. 4or the petitioners, this amo)nts to reC)irin2the conscientio)s ob>ector to cooperate with the /ery thin2 he ref)ses to dowitho)t /iolatin2 hisAher reli2io)s beliefs.19'Theyf)rtherar2)ethate/enif theconscientio)sob>ector7sd)tytoreferisreco2ni5ed, thereco2nitionis)nd)lylimited, beca)sealtho)2hit allowsaconscientio)s ob>ector in 6ection 23 (a&(3& the option to refer a patient see9in2reprod)cti/e health ser/ices and information # no escape is a;orded theconscientio)s ob>ector in 6ection 23 (a&(l& and (2&, i.e. a2ainst a patient see9in2reprod)cti/e health proced)res. They claim that the ri2ht of other indi/id)als toconscientio)slyob>ect, s)chas= a& thosewor9in2inp)blic healthfacilitiesreferred to in 6ection .@ b& p)blic o(cers in/ol/ed in the implementation of thelaw referred to in 6ection 23(b &@ and c& teachers in p)blic schools referred to in6ection 1$ of the E "aw, are also not reco2ni5e.191-etitioner Fcha/e5 and the other medical practitioners meanwhile, contend thatthe reC)irement to refer the matter to another health care ser/ice pro/ider isstill considered a comp)lsion on those ob>ectin2 healthcare ser/ice pro/iders.Theyaddthatcompellin2themtodotheacta2ainsttheirwill /iolatestheBoctrine of ?ene/olent !e)trality. 6ections 9, 1$ and 1 . of the law are toosec)lar that they tend to disre2ard the reli2ion of 4ilipinos. 3)thori5in2 the )seof contracepti/es with aborti/e e;ects, mandatory se0 ed)cation, mandatorypro#bono reprod)cti/e health ser/ices to indi2ents encroach )pon the reli2io)sfreedom of those )pon whom they are reC)ired.192-etitioner *4* also ar2)es that the reC)irement for a conscientio)s ob>ector torefer the person see9in2 reprod)cti/e health care ser/ices to another pro/iderinfrin2es on one7s freedom of reli2ion as it forces the ob>ector to become an)nwillin2 participant in the commission of a serio)s sin )nder *atholicteachin2s. 8hile the ri2ht to act on one7s belief may be re2)lated by the 6tate,the acts prohibited by the E "aw are passi/e acts which prod)ce neither harmnor in>)ry to the p)blic.193-etitioner *4* adds that the E "aw does not show compellin2 state interest to>)stify re2)lation of reli2io)s freedom beca)se it mentions no emer2ency, ris9or threat that endan2ers state interests. +t does not e0plain how the ri2hts ofthe people (to eC)ality, non#discrimination of ri2hts, s)stainable h)mande/elopment, health, ed)cation, information, choiceandtoma9edecisionsaccordin2 to reli2io)s con/ictions, ethics, c)lt)ral beliefs and the demands ofresponsible parenthood& are bein2 threatened or are not bein2 met as to >)stifythe impairment of reli2io)s freedom.19$4inally, the petitioners also C)estion 6ection 15 of the E "aw reC)irin2 wo)ld#be co)ples to attend family plannin2 and responsible parenthood seminars andtoobtainacerti:cateof compliance. Theyclaimthat thepro/isionforcesindi/id)als to participateintheimplementationof theE"awe/enif itcontra/enes their reli2io)s beliefs.195 3s the assailed law dan2les the threat ofpenalty of :ne andAor imprisonment in case of non#compliance with itspro/isions, thepetitioners claimthat theE"awforcin2themtopro/ide,s)pport andfacilitateaccessandinformationtocontraceptiona2ainst theirbeliefs m)st be str)c9 down as it r)ns afo)l to the constit)tional 2)arantee ofreli2io)s freedom.The espondents7 -ositionsThe respondents, on the other hand, contend that the E "aw does not pro/idethat a speci:c mode or type of contracepti/es be )sed, be it nat)ral or arti:cial.+t neither imposes nor sanctions any reli2ion or belief.196 They point o)t thattheE"awonlysee9stoser/ethep)blicinterestbypro/idin2accessible,e;ecti/e and C)ality reprod)cti/e health ser/ices to ens)re maternal and childhealth, in line with the 6tate7s d)ty to brin2 to reality the social >)stice health2)aranteesof the*onstit)tion,19.andthatwhatthelawonlyprohibitsarethoseactsor practices, whichdepri/eothersof their ri2ht toreprod)cti/ehealth.19% They assert that the assailed law only see9s to 2)arantee informedchoice, whichisanass)rancethat noonewill becompelledto/iolatehisreli2ion a2ainst his free will.199The respondents add that by assertin2 that only nat)ral family plannin2 sho)ldbe allowed, the petitioners are e;ecti/ely 2oin2 a2ainst the constit)tional ri2htto reli2io)s freedom, the same ri2ht they in/o9ed to assail the constit)tionalityof the E "aw.2'' +n other words, by see9in2 the declaration that the E "aw is)nconstit)tional, the petitioners are as9in2 that the *o)rt reco2ni5e only the26*atholic *h)rch7s sanctioned nat)ral family plannin2 methods and impose thison the entire citi5enry.2'18ith respect to the d)ty to refer, the respondents insist that the same does not/iolate the constit)tional 2)arantee of reli2io)s freedom,it bein2 acaref)llybalanced compromise between the interests of the reli2io)s ob>ector, on onehand, who is allowed to 9eep silent b)t is reC)ired to refer #and that of theciti5en who needs access to information and who has the ri2ht to e0pect thatthehealthcareprofessional infront of her will act professionally. 4or therespondents, the concession 2i/en by the 6tate )nder 6ection . and 23(a&(3& iss)(cient accommodation to the ri2ht to freely e0ercise one7s reli2ion witho)t)nnecessarily infrin2in2 on the ri2hts of others.2'28hate/er b)rden is placed on the petitioner7s reli2io)s freedom is minimal asthe d)ty to refer is limited in d)ration, location and impact.2'3e2ardin2 mandatory family plannin2 seminars )nder 6ection 15 , therespondents claim that it is a reasonable re2)lation pro/idin2 an opport)nity forwo)ld#be co)ples to ha/e access to information re2ardin2 parenthood, familyplannin2, breastfeedin2 and infant n)trition. +t is ar2)ed that those who ob>ecttoanyinformationrecei/edonacco)nt of their attendanceinthereC)iredseminarsarenot compelledtoaccept information2i/entothem. Theyarecompletely free to re>ect any information they do not a2ree with and retain thefreedomto decide on matters of family life witho)t inter/ention of the6tate.2'$4or their part, respondents Be Kenecia et al., disp)te the notion that nat)ralfamilyplannin2 is theonly methodacceptableto*atholicsandthe *atholichierarchy. *itin2 /ario)s st)dies and s)r/eys on the matter, they hi2hli2ht thechan2in2 stand of the *atholic *h)rch on contraception thro)2ho)t the yearsandnotethe2eneral acceptanceof thebene:ts of contracepti/es byitsfollowers in plannin2 their families.The *h)rch and The 6tate3t the o)tset, it cannot be denied that we all li/e in a hetero2eneo)s society. +tis made)pof peopleof di/erseethnic, c)lt)ral andreli2io)s beliefs andbac92ro)nds. Eistory has shown )s that o)r 2o/ernment, in law and in practice,has allowed these /ario)s reli2io)s, c)lt)ral, social and racial 2ro)ps to thri/ein a sin2le society to2ether. +t has embraced minority 2ro)ps and is toleranttowards all # the reli2io)s people of di;erent sects and the non#belie/ers. The)ndisp)ted fact is that o)r people 2enerally belie/e in a deity, whate/er theyconcei/ed Eim to be, and to whom they call for 2)idance and enli2htenment incraftin2 o)r f)ndamentallaw. Th)s, the preamble of the present *onstit)tionreads=8e, the so/erei2n 4ilipino people, implorin2 the aid of 3lmi2hty God, in order tob)ild a >)st and h)mane society, and establish a Go/ernment that shall embodyo)r ideals and aspirations, promote the common 2ood, conser/e and de/elopo)r patrimony, andsec)retoo)rsel/esando)r posterity, theblessin2sofindependenceanddemocracy)nderther)leof lawandare2imeof tr)th,>)stice, freedom, lo/e, eC)ality, andpeace, doordainandprom)l2atethis*onstit)tion.The4ilipinopeopleinDimplorin2theaidof 3lmi2htyGodDmanifestedtheirspirit)alityinnateino)r nat)reandconscio)snessasapeople, shapedbytraditionandhistorical e0perience. 3sthisisembodiedinthepreamble, itmeans that the 6tate reco2ni5es with respect the inH)ence of reli2ion in so farasitinstillsintothemindthep)restprinciplesof morality.2'5Moreo/er, inreco2nition of the contrib)tions of reli2ion to society, the 1935, 19.3 and 19%.constit)tions contain bene/olent and accommodatin2 pro/isions towardsreli2ions s)ch as ta0 e0emption of ch)rch property, salary of reli2io)s o(cers in2o/ernment instit)tions, and optional reli2io)s instr)ctions in p)blic schools.The 4ramers, howe/er, felt the need to p)t )p a stron2 barrier so that the 6tatewo)ld not encroach into the a;airs of the ch)rch, and /ice#/ersa. The principleof separation of *h)rch and 6tate was, th)s, enshrined in 3rticle ++, 6ection 6 ofthe 19%. *onstit)tion, /i5=6ection 6. The separation of *h)rch and 6tate shall be in/iolable.Kerily, theprincipleof separationof *h)rchand6tateisbasedonm)t)alrespect.1Xwphi1 Generally, the 6tate cannot meddle in the internala;airs ofthech)rch, m)chlessC)estionitsfaithanddo2masor dictate)ponit. +tcannot fa/or one reli2ion and discriminate a2ainst another. 1n the other hand,the ch)rch cannot impose its beliefs and con/ictions on the 6tate and the restof the citi5enry. +t cannot demand that the nation follow its beliefs, e/en if itsincerely belie/es that they are 2ood for the co)ntry.*onsistent with the principle that not any one reli2ion sho)ld e/er be preferredo/er another, the*onstit)tionintheabo/e#citedpro/ision)tili5esthetermDch)rchD in its 2eneric sense, which refers to a temple, a mosC)e, an i2lesia, orany other ho)se of God which metaphorically symboli5es a reli2io)sor2ani5ation. Th)s, the D*h)rchD means the reli2io)s con2re2ations collecti/ely.?alancin2 the bene:ts that reli2ion a;ords and the need to pro/ide an amplebarrier toprotect the6tatefromthep)rs)it of its sec)lar ob>ecti/es, the*onstit)tion lays down the followin2 mandate in 3rticle +++, 6ection 5 and 3rticleK+, 6ection 29 (2&, of the 19%. *onstit)tion=6ection.5. !o lawshall be made respectin2an establishment ofreli2ion, orprohibitin2the free e0ercise thereof. The free e0ercise and en>oyment ofreli2io)sprofessionandworship, witho)t discriminationor preference, shallfore/er be allowed. !o reli2io)s test shall be reC)ired for the e0ercise of ci/il orpolitical ri2hts.6ection 29.000.!o p)blic money or property shall be appropriated, applied, paid, or employed,directlyor indirectly, for the)se, bene:t, or s)pport of anysect, ch)rch,denomination, sectarianinstit)tion, or systemof reli2ion, or of anypriest,preacher, minister, other reli2io)s teacher, or di2nitary as s)ch, e0cept whens)ch priest, preacher, minister, or di2nitary is assi2ned to the armed forces, orto any penal instit)tion, or 2o/ernment orphana2e or leprosari)m.2.+n short, the constit)tional ass)rance of reli2io)s freedompro/ides two2)arantees= the Fstablishment *la)se and the 4ree F0ercise *la)se.The establishment cla)se Dprincipally prohibits the 6tate from sponsorin2 anyreli2ion or fa/orin2 any reli2ion as a2ainst other reli2ions. +t mandates a strictne)tralityina;airsamon2reli2io)s2ro)ps.D2'6Fssentially, it prohibitstheestablishment of a state reli2ion and the )se of p)blic reso)rces for the s)pportor prohibition of a reli2ion.1n the other hand, the basis of the free e0ercise cla)se is the respect for thein/iolability of the h)man conscience.2'. ,nder this part of reli2io)s freedom2)arantee, the6tateisprohibitedfrom)nd)lyinterferin2withtheo)tsidemanifestations of one7s belief and faith.2'% F0plainin2 the concept of reli2io)sfreedom, the *o)rt, in Kictoriano /. Fli5alde ope 8or9ers ,nion2'9 wrote=The constit)tional pro/isions not only prohibits le2islation for the s)pport of anyreli2io)s tenets or the modes of worship of any sect, th)s forestallin2comp)lsion by law of the acceptance of any creed or the practice of any form ofworship (,.6. ?allard, 322 ,.6. .%, %% ". ed. 11$%, 1153&, b)t also ass)res thefree e0ercise of one7s chosen form of reli2ion within limits of )tmost amplit)de.+t has been said that the reli2ion cla)ses of the *onstit)tion are all desi2ned toprotect thebroadest possiblelibertyof conscience, toalloweachmantobelie/eashisconsciencedirects, toprofesshisbeliefs, andtoli/eashebelie/esheo)2httoli/e, consistentwiththelibertyof othersandwiththecommon2ood. 3ny le2islationwhose e;ect or p)rposeis to impedetheobser/ance of one or allreli2ions, or to discriminate in/idio)sly between thereli2ions, isin/alid, e/entho)2htheb)rdenmaybecharacteri5edasbein2only indirect. (6herbert /. Kerner, 3.$ ,.6. 39%, 1' ".ed.2d 965, %3 6. *t. 19.'&?)t if the state re2)lates cond)ct by enactin2, within its power, a 2eneral lawwhich has for its p)rpose and e;ect to ad/ance the state7s sec)lar 2oals, thestat)te is /alid despite its indirect b)rden on reli2io)s obser/ance, )nless thestate can accomplish its p)rpose witho)t imposin2 s)ch b)rden. (?ra)nfeld /.?rown, 366 ,.6. 599, 6 "ed. 2d. 563, %1 6. *t. 1$$@ McGowan /. Maryland, 366,.6. $2', $$$#5 and $$9&.3s e0po)nded in Fscritor,The establishment andfree e0ercise cla)ses were not desi2ned to ser/econtradictory p)rposes. They ha/e a sin2le 2oal#to promote freedomofindi/id)alreli2io)s beliefs and practices. +n simplest terms, the free e0ercisecla)se prohibits 2o/ernment from inhibitin2 reli2io)s beliefs with penalties forreli2io)s beliefs and practice, while the establishment cla)se prohibits2o/ernment from inhibitin2 reli2io)s belief with rewards for reli2io)s beliefs andpractices. +nother words, thetworeli2ioncla)ses wereintendedtodeny2o/ernment the power to )se either the carrot or the stic9 to inH)enceindi/id)al reli2io)s beliefs and practices.21'*orollary to the 2)arantee of free e0ercise of one7s reli2ion is the principle thatthe 2)arantee of reli2io)s freedom is comprised of two parts= the freedom tobelie/e, and the freedom to act on one7s belief. The :rst part is absol)te. 3se0plained in Gerona /. 6ecretary of Fd)cation=211The realm of belief and creed is in:nite and limitless bo)nded only by one7sima2ination and tho)2ht. 6o is the freedom of belief, incl)din2 reli2io)s belief,limitlessandwitho)t bo)nds. 1nemaybelie/einmost anythin2, howe/erstran2e, bi5arre and)nreasonable thesame may appear to others, e/enheretical when wei2hed in the scales of orthodo0y or doctrinal standards. ?)tbetween the freedom of belief and the e0ercise of said belief, there is C)ite astretch of road to tra/el.212The second part howe/er, is limited and s)b>ect to the awesome power of the6tate and can be en>oyed only with proper re2ard to the ri2hts of others. +t isDs)b>ect tore2)lationwherethebelief istranslatedintoe0ternal actsthata;ect the p)blic welfare.D213"e2islati/e 3cts and the4ree F0ercise *la)seTh)s, in case of conHict between the free e0ercise cla)se and the 6tate, the*o)rt adheres to the doctrine of bene/olent ne)trality. This has been clearlydecided by the *o)rt in Fstrada /. Fscritor, (Fscritor&21$ where it was statedDthat bene/olent ne)trality#accommodation, whether mandatory or permissi/e,is the spirit, intent and framewor9 )nderlyin2 the -hilippine *onstit)tion.D215 +nthe same case, it was f)rther e0plained thatDThe bene/olent ne)trality theory belie/es that with respect to these2o/ernmental actions, accommodationof reli2ionmay be allowed, not topromote the 2o/ernment7s fa/ored form of reli2ion, b)t to allow indi/id)als and2ro)ps to e0ercise their reli2ion witho)t hindrance. DThe p)rpose ofaccommodationis toremo/eab)rdenon, or facilitatethee0erciseof, aperson7s or instit)tion7s reli2ion.D216D8hat is so)2ht )nder thetheoryofaccommodation is not a declaration of )nconstit)tionality of a facially ne)trallaw, b)t an e0emption from its application or its 7b)rdensome e;ect,7 whetherby the le2islat)re or the co)rts.D21.+n ascertainin2 the limits of the e0ercise of reli2io)s freedom, the compellin2state interest test is proper.21% ,nderlyin2 the compellin2 state interest test isthe notion that free e0ercise is a f)ndamental ri2ht and that laws b)rdenin2 itsho)ld be s)b>ect to strict scr)tiny.219 +n Fscritor, it was written=-hilippine>)rispr)denceartic)lates se/eral tests todeterminetheselimits.?e2innin2withthe:rst caseonthe4reeF0ercise*la)se, 3merican?ible6ociety, the *o)rt mentioned the Dclear and present dan2erD test b)t did notemploy it. !e/ertheless, this test contin)ed to be cited in s)bseC)ent cases onreli2io)s liberty. The Gerona case then prono)nced that the test ofpermissibility of reli2io)s freedomis whether it /iolates the establishedinstit)tions of society and law. The Kictoriano case mentioned the Dimmediateand 2ra/e dan2erD test as well as the doctrine that a lawof 2eneralapplicability may b)rden reli2io)s e0ercise pro/ided the lawis the leastrestricti/e means to accomplish the 2oal of the law. The case also )sed, albeitinappropriately, the Dcompellin2 state interestD test. 3fter Kictoriano , Germanwent bac9 to the Gerona r)le. Fbralina2 then employed the D2ra/e andimmediate dan2erD test and o/err)led the Gerona test. The fairly recent case of+2lesia ni *risto went bac9 to the D clear and present dan2erD test in the maidencase of 3 merican ?ible 6ociety. !ot s)rprisin2ly, all the cases which employedthe Dclear and present dan2erD or D2ra/e and immediate dan2erD test in/ol/ed,in one form or another, reli2io)s speech as this test is often )sed in cases on2%freedom of e0pression. 1n the other hand, the Gerona and German cases setthe r)le that reli2io)s freedom will not pre/ail o/er established instit)tions ofsociety and law. Gerona, howe/er, which was the a)thority cited by Germanhasbeeno/err)led byFbralina2whichemployedtheD2ra/eand immediatedan2erD test . Kictoriano was the only case that employed the Dcompellin2 stateinterestD test, b)t as e0plained pre/io)sly, the )se of the test was inappropriateto the facts of the case.Thecaseat bar does not in/ol/espeechas in3merican?ible6ociety,Fbralina2 and +2lesia ni *risto where the Dclear and present dan2erD and D2ra/eand immediate dan2erD tests were appropriate as speech has easily discernibleor immediatee;ects. TheGeronaandGermandoctrine, asidefromha/in2been o/err)led, is not con2r)ent with the bene/olent ne)trality approach, th)snot appropriateinthis >)risdiction. 6imilar toKictoriano, thepresent casein/ol/es p)relycond)ct arisin2fromreli2io)sbelief. TheDcompellin2stateinterestD test is proper where cond)ct is in/ol/ed for the whole 2am)t of h)mancond)ct hasdi;erent e;ectsonthestate7sinterests= somee;ectsmaybeimmediate and short#term while others delayed and far#reachin2. 3 test thatwo)ldprotect theinterests of thestateinpre/entin2a s)bstanti/ee/il,whether immediate or delayed, is therefore necessary. Eowe/er, not anyinterest of the state wo)ld s)(ce to pre/ail o/er the ri2ht to reli2io)s freedomas this is a f)ndamental ri2ht that en>oys a preferred position in the hierarchyof ri2hts # Dthe most inalienable and sacred of all h)man ri2htsD, in the words of)st andh)manesocietyandestablisha2o/ernment.D3sheldin6herbert, onlythe2ra/estab)ses, endan2erin2paramo)ntinterestscanlimitthisf)ndamentalri2ht. 3 mere balancin2 of interests which balances a ri2ht with >)st a colorablestate interest is therefore not appropriate. +nstead, only a compellin2 interest ofthe state can pre/ailo/er the f)ndamentalri2ht to reli2io)s liberty. The testreC)ires thestateto carry ahea/y b)rden, a compellin2one, for to dootherwise wo)ld allow the state to batter reli2ion, especially the less powerf)lones )ntil they are destroyed. +n determinin2 which shall pre/ail between thestate7sinterestandreli2io)sliberty, reasonablenessshall bethe2)ide. TheDcompellin2 state interestD ser/es the p)rpose of re/erin2 reli2io)s liberty whileat the same time a;ordin2 protection to the paramo)nt interests of the state.This was the test )sed in 6herbert which in/ol/ed cond)ct, i.e. ref)sal to wor9on 6at)rdays. +n the end, the Dcompellin2 state interestD test, by )pholdin2 theparamo)nt interests of thestate, see9s toprotect the/erystate, witho)twhich, reli2io)s liberty will not be preser/ed. NFmphases in the ori2inal.,nderlinin2 s)pplied.OThe *o)rt7s -osition+n the case at bench, it is not within the pro/ince of the *o)rt to determinewhether the)seof contracepti/es or one7s participationinthes)pport ofmodem reprod)cti/e health meas)res is moralfrom a reli2io)s standpoint orwhether the same is ri2ht or wron2 accordin2 to one7s do2ma or belief. 4or the*o)rt has declared that matters dealin2 with Dfaith, practice, doctrine, form ofworship, ecclesiastical law, c)stom and r)le of a ch)rch ... are )nC)estionablyecclesiasticalmatterswhichareo)tside the pro/inceoftheci/ilco)rts.D22'The>)risdictionof the*o)rt e0tends onlyto p)blic andsec)lar morality.8hate/er prono)ncement the*o)rt ma9esinthecaseat benchsho)ldbe)nderstood only in this realm where it has a)thority. 6tated otherwise, while the*o)rt stands witho)t a)thority to r)le on ecclesiastical matters, as /an2)ard ofthe*onstit)tion, it doesha/ea)thoritytodeterminewhether theE"awcontra/enes the 2)arantee of reli2io)s freedom.3t :rst bl)sh, it appears that the E "aw reco2ni5es and respects reli2ion andreli2io)s beliefs and con/ictions. +t is replete with ass)rances the no one can becompelled to /iolate the tenets of his reli2ion or defy his reli2io)s con/ictionsa2ainst his free will. -ro/isions in the E "aw respectin2 reli2io)s freedom arethe followin2=1. The 6tate reco2ni5es and2)arantees the h)manri2hts of all personsincl)din2 their ri2ht to eC)ality and nondiscrimination of these ri2hts, the ri2htto s)stainable h)man de/elopment, the ri2ht to health which incl)desreprod)cti/e health,theri2httoed)cationand information,and the ri2ht tochoose and ma9e decisions for themsel/es in accordance with their reli2io)scon/ictions, ethics, c)lt)ral beliefs, and the demands of responsibleparenthood. N6ection 2, Beclaration of -olicyO2 .The 6tate reco2ni5es marria2e asan in/iolable social instit)tion andthefo)ndation of the family which in t)rn is the fo)ndation of the nation. -)rs)antthereto, the 6tate shall defend=(a& Theri2htof spo)sesto fo)nd a familyinaccordance withtheir reli2io)scon/ictions and the demands of responsible parenthood.D N6ection 2,Beclaration of -olicyO3. The 6tate shall promote and pro/ide information and access, witho)t bias, toall methods of family plannin2, incl)din2 e;ecti/e nat)ral and modern methodswhich ha/e been pro/en medically safe, le2al, non#abortifacient, and e;ecti/ein accordance with scienti:c and e/idence#based medicalresearch standardss)ch as those re2istered and appro/ed by the 4B3 for the poor andmar2inali5ed as identi:ed thro)2h the !ET6#- and other 2o/ernmentmeas)resof identifyin2mar2inali5ation= -ro/ided, That the6tateshall alsopro/ide f)ndin2 s)pport to promote modern nat)ral methods of familyplannin2, especially the ?illin2s 1/)lation Method, consistent with the needs ofacceptors and their reli2io)s con/ictions. N6ection 3(e&, Beclaration of -olicyO$. The 6tate shall promote pro2rams that= (1& enable indi/id)als and co)ples toha/e the n)mber of children they desire with d)e consideration to the health,partic)larly of women, and the reso)rces a/ailable and a;ordable to them andin accordance with e0istin2 laws, p)blic morals and their reli2io)s con/ictions.N6ection 3*Bections based on reli2io)s or ethical beliefs.+nasit)ationwherethefreee0erciseof reli2ionisalle2edlyb)rdenedby2o/ernmentle2islationorpractice, thecompellin2stateinteresttestinlinewith the *o)rt7s espo)sal of the Boctrine of ?ene/olent !e)trality in Fscritor,:ndsapplication. +nthiscase, theconscientio)sob>ector7sclaimtoreli2io)sfreedomwo)ldwarrant ane0emptionfromobli2ations )nder theE"aw,)nlessthe2o/ernment s)cceedsindemonstratin2amorecompellin2stateinterest in the accomplishment of an important sec)lar ob>ecti/e. !ecessarilyso, the plea of conscientio)s ob>ectors for e0emption from the E "aw deser/esno less than strict scr)tiny.+n applyin2 the test, the :rst inC)iry is whether a conscientio)s ob>ector7s ri2htto reli2io)s freedom has been b)rdened. 3s in Fscritor, there is no do)bt thatan intense t)2#of#war pla2)es a conscientio)s ob>ector. 1ne side coa0es himinto obedience to the law and the abandonment of his reli2io)s beliefs, whilethe other entices him to a clean conscience yet )nder the pain of penalty. Thescenarioisanill)strationofthepredicamentof medical practitionerswhosereli2io)s beliefs are incon2r)ent with what the E "aw promotes.The *o)rt is of the /iew that the obli2ation to refer imposed by the E "aw/iolates the reli2io)s belief and con/iction of a conscientio)s ob>ector. 1nce themedical practitioner,a2ainsthiswill, refersa patient see9in2 information onmodemreprod)cti/ehealthprod)cts, ser/ices, proced)resandmethods, hisconscience is immediately b)rdened as he has been compelled to perform anact a2ainst his beliefs. 3s *ommissioner ector to refer. ..6enior 6tate 6olicitor Eilbay=Les, )st the freedom to belie/e. +t also meansthefreedomtoact or not toact accordin2towhat onebelie/es. 3ndthisfreedomis/iolatedwhenoneiscompelledtoacta2ainst one7sbelief orispre/ented from actin2 accordin2 to one7s belief.2333pparently, in these cases, there is no immediate dan2er to the life or health ofanindi/id)al inthepercei/edscenarioofthes)b>ectpro/isions. 3fterall,aco)ple who plans the timin2, n)mber and spacin2 of the birth of their childrenrefers to a f)t)re e/ent that is contin2ent on whether or not the mother decidestoadoptor)setheinformation, prod)ct, methodors)pply2i/entoherorwhether she e/en decides to become pre2nant at all. 1n the other hand, theb)rden placed )pon those who ob>ect to contracepti/e )se is immediate andocc)rs the moment a patient see9s cons)ltation on reprod)cti/e healthmatters.Moreo/er, 2rantin2 that a compellin2 interest e0ists to >)stify the infrin2ementof the conscientio)s ob>ector7s reli2io)s freedom, the respondents ha/e failedto demonstrate Dthe 2ra/est ab)ses, endan2erin2 paramo)nt interestsD whichco)ld limit or o/erride a person7s f)ndamental ri2ht to reli2io)s freedom. 3lso,therespondentsha/e notpresentedany 2o/ernment e;ort e0ertedto showthatthe meansitta9esto achie/e itsle2itimate stateob>ecti/eisthe leastintr)si/e means.23$ 1ther than the assertion that the act of referrin2 wo)ldonlybemomentary, considerin2that theact of referral byaconscientio)sob>ector is the /ery action bein2 contested as /iolati/e of reli2io)s freedom, itbehoo/es the respondents to demonstrate that no other means can be)nderta9en by the 6tate to achie/e its ob>ecti/e witho)t /iolatin2 the ri2hts ofthe conscientio)s ob>ector. The health concerns of women may still beaddressed by other practitioners who may perform reprod)cti/e health#relatedproced)reswithopenwillin2nessandmoti/ation. 6)(ceittosay, apersonwho is forced to perform an act in )tter rel)ctance deser/es the protection ofthe *o)rt as the last /an2)ard of constit)tional freedoms.3t any rate, there are other sec)lar steps already ta9en by the "e2islat)re toens)re that the ri2ht to health is protected. *onsiderin2 other le2islations asthey stand now, .3 . !o. $ .29 or the *ontracepti/e 3ct, .3. !o. 6365 or DThe-op)lation 3ct of the -hilippinesD and .3. !o. 9.1', otherwise 9nown as DTheMa2na*artaof 8omen,Damplycatertotheneedsof womeninrelationtohealthser/ices andpro2rams. Thepertinent pro/isionof Ma2na*artaoncomprehensi/e health ser/ices and pro2rams for women, in fact, reads=6ection 1.. 8omen7s i2ht to Eealth. # (a& *omprehensi/e Eealth 6er/ices. #The 6tate shall, at all times, pro/ide for a comprehensi/e, c)lt)re#sensiti/e, and2ender#responsi/e health ser/ices and pro2rams co/erin2 all sta2es of awoman7s life cycle and which addresses the ma>or ca)ses of women7s mortalityand morbidity= -ro/ided, That in the pro/ision for comprehensi/e healthser/ices, d)e respect shallbe accorded to women7s reli2io)s con/ictions, theri2hts of thespo)ses tofo)ndafamilyinaccordancewiththeir reli2io)s32con/ictions, andthedemands of responsibleparenthood, andtheri2ht ofwomen to protection fromha5ardo)s dr)2s, de/ices, inter/entions, ands)bstances.3ccess to the followin2 ser/ices shall be ens)red=(1& Maternal care to incl)de pre# and post#natal ser/ices to address pre2nancyand infant health and n)trition@(2& -romotion of breastfeedin2@(3& esponsible, ethical, le2al, safe, and e;ecti/e methods of family plannin2@($& 4amilyand6tatecollaborationinyo)thse0)alityed)cationandhealthser/ices witho)t pre>)dice to the primary ri2ht and d)ty of parents to ed)catetheir children@(5& -re/entionandmana2ement of reprod)cti/etract infections, incl)din2se0)ally transmitted diseases, E+K, and 3+B6@(6& -re/ention and mana2ement of reprod)cti/e tract cancers li9e breast andcer/ical cancers, and other 2ynecolo2ical conditions and disorders@(.& -re/ention of abortion and mana2ement of pre2nancy#relatedcomplications@(%& +ncasesof /iolencea2ainst womenandchildren, womenandchildren/ictimsands)r/i/orsshall bepro/idedwithcomprehensi/ehealthser/icesthat incl)depsychosocial, therape)tic, medical, andle2al inter/entionsandassistance towards healin2, reco/ery, and empowerment@(9& -re/ention and mana2ement of infertility and se0)al dysf)nction p)rs)antto ethical norms and medical standards@(1'& *are of the elderly women beyond their child#bearin2 years@ and(11&Mana2ement, treatment, andinter/entionofmental healthproblemsofwomenand2irls. +naddition, healthylifestyleacti/itiesareenco)ra2edandpromotedthro)2hpro2ramsandpro>ectsasstrate2iesinthepre/entionofdiseases.(b& *omprehensi/e Eealth +nformation and Fd)cation. # The 6tate shall pro/idewomen in all sectors with appropriate, timely, complete, and acc)rateinformation and ed)cation on all the abo/e#stated aspects of women7s health in2o/ernment ed)cation and trainin2 pro2rams, with d)e re2ard to the followin2=(1&Thenat)ral andprimaryri2htandd)tyof parentsintherearin2of theyo)th and the de/elopment of moral character and the ri2ht of children to bebro)2ht )p in an atmosphere of morality and rectit)de for the enrichment andstren2thenin2 of character@(2& The formation of a person7s se0)ality that a(rms h)man di2nity@ and(3& Fthical, le2al, safe, and e;ecti/e family plannin2 methods incl)din2 fertilityawareness.3sanaftertho)2ht, 3sst. 6olicitorGeneral Eilbaye/ent)allyrepliedthatthecompellin2stateinterestwasD4ifteen maternal deathsperday,h)ndreds oftho)sands of )nintended pre2nancies, li/es chan2ed, 0 0 0.D235 Ee, howe/er,failed to s)bstantiate this point by concrete facts and :2)res from rep)tableso)rces.The )ndisp)ted fact, howe/er, is that the 8orld Eealth 1r2ani5ation reportedthat the 4ilipino maternalmortality rate dropped to $% percent from 199' to2''%, 236altho)2htherewasstill noE"awat that time. Bespites)chre/elation, theproponentsstill insist that s)chn)mber of maternal deathsconstit)te a compellin2 state interest.Grantin2that therearestill de:cienciesandHawsinthedeli/eryof socialhealthcare pro2rams for 4ilipino women, they co)ld not be sol/ed by a meas)rethatp)tsan)nwarrantablestran2leholdonreli2io)sbeliefsine0chan2eforblind conformity.F0ception= "ife Threatenin2 *ases3ll thisnotwithstandin2, the*o)rtproperlyreco2ni5esa/alide0ceptionsetforth in the law. 8hile 2enerally healthcare ser/ice pro/iders cannot be forcedto render reprod)cti/e health care proced)res if doin2 it wo)ld contra/ene theirreli2io)sbeliefs, ane0ceptionm)st bemadeinlife#threatenin2casesthatreC)ire the performance of emer2ency proced)res. +n these sit)ations, the ri2htto life of the mother sho)ld be 2i/en preference, considerin2 that a referral by amedical practitioner wo)ld amo)nt to a denial of ser/ice, res)ltin2 to)nnecessarily placin2 the life of a mother in 2ra/e dan2er. Th)s, d)rin2 the oralar2)ments, 3tty. "iban, representin2 *4*, manifested= Dthe forced referralcla)se that we are ob>ectin2 on 2ro)nds of /iolation of freedom of reli2ion doesnot contemplate an emer2ency.D23.+n a conHict sit)ation between the life of the mother and the life of a child, thedoctorismorallyobli2edalwaystotrytosa/ebothli/es. +f, howe/er, itisimpossible, theres)ltin2deathtoonesho)ldnotbedeliberate. 3tty. !ochee0plained=-rinciple of Bo)ble#F;ect. # May we please remind the principal a)thor of theE ?ill in the Eo)se of epresentati/es of the principle of do)ble#e;ect whereinintentional harm on the life of either the mother of the child is ne/er >)sti:ed tobrin2 abo)t a D2oodD e;ect. +n a conHict sit)ation between the life of the childand the life of the mother, the doctor is morally obli2ed always to try to sa/eboth li/es. Eowe/er, he can act in fa/or of one (not necessarily the mother&when it is medically impossible to sa/e both, pro/ided that no direct harm isintendedtotheother. +f theabo/eprinciplesareobser/ed, thelossof thechild7s life or the mother7s life is not intentionaland, therefore, )na/oidable.Eence, thedoctorwo)ldnotbe2)iltyof abortionorm)rder. Themotherisne/er pitted a2ainst the child beca)se both their li/es are eC)ally /al)able.23%3ccordin2ly, if it is necessary to sa/e the life of a mother, proced)resendan2erin2thelifeof thechildmayberesortedtoe/enif isa2ainst thereli2io)ssentimentsof themedical practitioner. 3sC)otedabo/e, whate/er33b)rden imposed )pon a medical practitioner in this case wo)ld ha/e been morethan >)sti:ed considerin2 the life he wo)ld be able to sa/e.4amily -lannin2 6eminars3nentthereC)irementimposed)nder6ection15239asaconditionfortheiss)ance of a marria2e license, the *o)rt :nds the same to be a reasonablee0ercise of police power by the 2o/ernment. 3 c)rsory readin2 of the assailedpro/isionbares that thereli2io)s freedomof thepetitioners is not at all/iolated. 3llthe law reC)ires is for wo)ld#be spo)ses to attend a seminar onparenthood, family plannin2 breastfeedin2 and infant n)trition. +t does not e/enmandate the type of family plannin2 methods to be incl)ded in the seminar,whether they be nat)ral or arti:cial. 3s correctly noted by the 16G, those whorecei/e any information d)rin2 their attendance in the reC)ired seminars arenot compelled to accept the information 2i/en to them, are completely free tore>ect the information they :nd )nacceptable, and retain the freedom to decideon matters of family life witho)t the inter/ention of the 6tate.$#The 4amily and the i2ht to -ri/acy-etitioner *4* assails the E "aw beca)se 6ection 23(a& (2& (i& thereof /iolatesthe pro/isions of the *onstit)tion by intr)din2 into marital pri/acy anda)tonomy. +t ar2)esthat it c)lti/atesdis)nityandfostersanimosityinthefamily rather than promote its solidarity and total de/elopment.2$'The *o)rt cannot b)t a2ree.The 19%. *onstit)tion is replete with pro/isions stren2thenin2 the family as it isthe basic social instit)tion. +n fact, one article, 3rticle JK, is de/oted entirely tothe family.3T+*"F JKTEF 43M+"L6ection1. The6tatereco2ni5esthe4ilipinofamilyasthefo)ndationof thenation. 3ccordin2ly,it shall stren2then its solidarity andacti/ely promote itstotal de/elopment.6ection 2. Marria2e, as an in/iolable social instit)tion, is the fo)ndation of thefamily and shall be protected by the 6tate.6ection 3. The 6tate shall defend=Theri2ht of spo)ses tofo)ndafamilyinaccordancewiththeir reli2io)scon/ictions and the demands of responsible parenthood@Theri2htof childrentoassistance, incl)din2proper careandn)trition, andspecial protectionfromall formsof ne2lect, ab)se, cr)elty, e0ploitationandother conditions pre>)dicial to their de/elopment@The ri2ht of the family to a family li/in2 wa2e and income@ andThe ri2ht of families or family assoc1at1ons to participate in the plannin2 andimplementation of policies and pro2rams that a;ect them.+nthis case, theE"aw, initsnot#so#hiddendesiretocontrol pop)lation2rowth, containspro/isionswhichtendtowrec9thefamilyasasolidsocialinstit)tion. +t barstheh)sbandandAor thefather fromparticipatin2inthedecisionma9in2processre2ardin2theircommonf)t)repro2eny. +t li9ewisedepri/es the parents of their a)thority o/er their minor da)2hter simplybeca)se she is already a parent or had s);ered a miscarria2e.The 4amily and 6po)sal *onsent6ection 23(a& (2& (i& of the E "aw states=The followin2 acts are prohibited=(a& 3ny health care ser/ice pro/ider, whether p)blic or pri/ate, who shall= ...(2& ref)se to perform le2al and medically#safe reprod)cti/e health proced)reson any person of le2al a2e on the 2ro)nd of lac9 of consent or a)thori5ation ofthe followin2