8/11/2019 Separate Opinions (Imbong vs Ochoa) - Leonen

1/2

Dissenting Opinion

Leonen, J.

I. Preliminary Considerations

None of the petitions properly present an actual case or controversy which deserves theexercise of judicial review. The consolidated petitions do not provide the proper venue to

decide on fundamental issues. The law in question is needed social legislation.

An actual case or controversy is one which involves a conflict of legal rights, an

assertion of opposite legal claims susceptile of judicial resolution! the case must not e

moot or academic or ased on extra"legal or other similar considerations not cogni#ale

y a court of justice.

No locus standi.$etitioners, y no stretch of the imagination, cannot e representative of

the interests of the entire %ilipino nation. Not all %ilipinos are &oman 'atholics. Not all

%ilipinos are from the (isayas. 'ertainly not all %ilipinos have a common interest that

will lead to a common point of view on the constitutionality of the various provisions of

the &) law.

II. Substantive Discussions

The court cannot ma*e a declaration on the eginning of life. Any declaration on this

issue will e fraught with contradictions. +ven the 'onstitutional 'ommissioners were

not in full agreement! hence, the use of the word conception rather than fertili#ed

ovum in Article , -ection / of the 'onstitution. There were glaring factual

inaccuracies peddled during their discussion.

The 'onstitutional 'ommission delierations show that it is not true that the issue ofwhen life egins is already a settled matter. There are several other opinions on this issue.

The Constitutional Commissioners adopted the term conception rather than fertilized

ovum.

nsisting that we can impose, modify or alter rules of the %ood and 0rug Administration

is usurpation of the executive power of control over administrative agencies. t is a

violation of the principle of separation of powers, which recogni#es that 1e2ach

department of the government has exclusive cogni#ance of matters within its jurisdiction,

and is supreme within its own sphere. The system of chec*s and alances only allows us

to declare, in the exercise of our judicial powers, the %ood and 0rugs Administration3s

acts as violative of the law or as committed with grave ause of discretion. -uch power

is further limited y the requirement of actual case or controversy.

The petitions have failed to present clear cases when the provisions for conscientious

ojection would truly amount to a violation of religion. They have not distinguished the

relationship of conscience and specific religious dogma. They have not estalished

religious canon that conflict with the general provision of -ections 4, 4 and /5 of the

8/11/2019 Separate Opinions (Imbong vs Ochoa) - Leonen

2/2

law. The comments in intervention in fact raise serious questions regarding what could e

acceptale 'atholic doctrine on some issues of contraception and sex as only for

procreation.