StatCon Case Digest - Imbong vs Ochoa Substantial Right to...

This preview shows page 1 - 2 out of 7 pages.

Imbong vs Ochoa Substantial: Right to Life; Health; Religion; Free Speech; Privacy; Due Process Clause; Equal Protection Clause Procedural: Actual Case; Facial Challenge; Locus Standi; Declaratory Relief; One Subject One Title Rule G.R. No. 204819 April 8, 2014 Facts: Republic Act (R.A.) No. 10354, otherwise known as the Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012 (RH Law), was enacted by Congress on December 21, 2012. Challengers from various sectors of society are questioning the constitutionality of the said Act. The petitioners are assailing the constitutionality of RH Law on the following grounds: SUBSTANTIAL ISSUES: The RH Law violates the right to life of the unborn. The RH Law violates the right to health and the right to protection against hazardous products. The RH Law violates the right to religious freedom. The RH Law violates the constitutional provision on involuntary servitude. The RH Law violates the right to equal protection of the law. The RH Law violates the right to free speech. The RH Law is “void-for-vagueness” in violation of the due process clause of the Constitution. The RH Law intrudes into the zone of privacy of one’s family protected by the Constitution PROCEDURAL: Whether the Court may exercise its power of judicial review over the controversy. Power of Judicial Review Actual Case or Controversy Facial Challenge Locus Standi Declaratory Relief One Subject/One Title Rule Issue/s: SUBSTANTIAL ISSUES: Whether or not (WON) RA 10354/Reproductive Health (RH) Law is unconstitutional for violating the: Right to life Right to health Freedom of religion and right to free speech Right to privacy (marital privacy and autonomy) Freedom of expression and academic freedom Due process clause Equal protection clause Prohibition against involuntary servitude PROCEDURAL: Whether the Court can exercise its power of judicial review over the controversy. Actual Case or Controversy Facial Challenge Locus Standi Declaratory Relief One Subject/One Title Rule Discussions: PROCEDURAL Judicial Review Jurisprudence is replete with the rule that the power of judicial review is limited by four exacting requisites: (a) there must be an actual case or controversy; (b) the petitioners must possess locus standi; (c) the question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest opportunity; and (d) the issue of constitutionality must be the lis mota of the case. Actual Controversy: An actual case or controversy means an existing case or controversy that is appropriate or ripe for determination, not conjectural or anticipatory, lest the decision of the court would amount to an advisory opinion. It must concern a real, tangible and not merely a theoretical question or issue. There ought to be an actual and substantial controversy admitting of specific relief through a decree conclusive in nature, as distinguished from an opinion advising what the law would be upon a hypothetical state of facts. Corollary to the requirement of an actual case or controversy is the requirement of ripeness. A question is ripe for adjudication when the act being challenged has had a direct adverse effect on the

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture