tffl vs. ochoa, et al

7/30/2019 TFFL VS. OCHOA, ET AL

1/34

1

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

SUPREME COURT

MANILA

TASK FORCE FOR FAMILY AND LIFE

VISAYAS, INC. and VALERIANO S.

AVILA,

Petitioners.

-versus- G.R. No. _________

For: Petition for Certiorari

HON. PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR.,Executive Secretary; HON.FLORENCIO B. ABAD, Secretary,

Department of Budget and

Management; HON. ENRIQUE T.

ONA, Secretary, Department of

Education; and HON. MANUEL A.

ROXAS II, Secretary,

Department of Interior and LocalGovernment.

Respondents.X ---------------------------------/

PETI TI ON FOR CERTI ORARI W I TH PRAYER FOR

I NJUNCTI ON

COME NOW, petitioners, thru undersigned counsel, tothis Honorable Court, most respectfully state:

PRELI MI NARY STATEMENT

This petition seeks for the declaration as

unconstitutional Republic Act No. 10354 known as The

Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of

2012 (hereinafter referred to as Act) for the followinggrounds/reasons:

1. THE ACT VI OLATES SECTI ON 2 6 ( l) , ART. VI OF

THE CONSTI TUTI ON, AS I T CARRI ES TW O SUBJECTS,

NAM ELY: RESPONSI BLE PARENTH OOD AN D


2/34

2

REPRODUCTI VE HEALTH W HERE BOTH ARE

PERCEI VED TO HAVE CONCEALED FROM AND

MI SLEAD THE PUBLI C AS TO THE PERCEI VED EVI L I T

PACKAGED DEATH TO THE FI LI PI NO NATI ON

THROUGH CONTRACEPTI ON, LARGELY W I TH THE USEOF MODERN M ETHOD S, AS A TOOL FOR A MASSI VE,

PERMANENT AND UN BRI DLED POPULATI ON CONTROL

FOR THE FI LI PI NO NATI ON, I N VI OLATI ON OF

ANOTHER CONSTI TUTI ONAL PROVI SI ON ON THE

RI GHT TO I NFORMATI ON ( SECTI ONS 24 AND 2 8,

ARTI CLE I I OF THE CONSTI TUTI ON) .

2 . THE ACT I S A DEPARTURE FROM THE

MANI FESTLY PRO-GOD 19 87 PHI LI PPI NECONSTI TUTI ON AS ETCHED I N I TS PREAMBLE.

2 .a . THE 198 7 PHI LI PPI NE

CONSTI TUTI ON I S A PRO-

GOD.

2 .b . THE PHI LI PPI NE

CONSTI TUTI ON EMBODI ES GODSDECREE ON THE SANCTI TY OF

FAMI LY, LI FE AND MARRI AGE.

2 .c. THE ACT I S ANTI - GOD.

3 . THE ACT BETRAYS I TS OW N DECLARATI ON OFPOLI CI ES AND GUI DI NG PRI NCI PLES.

3.a. I t underm ines the survival of theFilipino nation through the decimation,

weakening, and eventual disintegration of

Filipino families, its very foundation

( Section 1, Art . XV) .

3.b. I t undermines the inviolabil ity and

sanctity of marriage, as the recognized

foundation of every Filipino fam ily ( Sec. 2,

Art . XV) .

4 . THE ACT VI OLATES THE DUTY OF THE STATE

TO PROMOTE AND RESPECT TH E SANCTI TY OF FAMI LY

LI FE AND I N THE PROTECTI ON AND STRENGTHENI NG

OF THE FAMI LY AS A BASI C AUTONOMOUS SOCI AL


3/34

3

I NSTI TUTI ON; I NSTEAD OF PROTECTI NG, I T

ENDAN GERS OR EXPOSES TH E LI FE OF THE UNBORN

TO ABORTI ON ( Sec. 12 , Art . I I of the Constitution) ;

5 . THE ACT I NTERFERES I N THE NATURAL ANDPRI MARY RI GHT AND DUTY OF PARENTS I N THE

DEVELOPMENT OF THE MORAL CHARACTER OF THEI R

CHI LDREN ( Sec. 12 , Art . I I of the Constitution) ;

6 . THE ACT VI OLATES THE CONSTI TUTI ONAL

RI GHTS OF FAMI LI ES OR FAMI LY ASSOCI ATI ONS TO

PARTI CI PATE I N THE PLANNI NG AND

I MPLEMENTATI ON OF POLI CI ES AND PROGRAMS THAT

AFFECT THEI R CHI LDREN ( Sec. 3 , Art. XV of theConstitut ion) .

7 . THE ACT EXPOSES THE LI FE OF THE UNBORN

TO ABORTI ON.

8 . TH E ACT VI OLATES THE FREEDOM OF THE FREE

EXERCI SE OF RELI GI ON ( Sec. 5, Art . I I I of the

Constitut ion) .

9 . THE ACT VI OLATES ON TH E AREAS OF

PRI ORI TI ES ENUM ERATED UN DER SECTI ON 1 7,

ARTI CLE I I I OF THE CONSTI TUTI ON.

1 0 . THE ACT ROBS THE FI LI PI NO PEOPLE OF

THEI R ULTI MATE AND M OST TREASURED W EALTH,

THEI R FAI TH AND RELI GI OSI TY.

11 . I T PROMOTES THE W ORST KI ND OF

CORRUPTI ON, THE CORRUPTI ON AGAI NST LI FE,FAMI LY AND M ARRI AGE.

12 . I T VI OLATED THE CONSTI TUTI ONAL

PROVI SI ON ON HEALTH AS PROVI DED FOR UNDER

SECTI ON 11 , ARTI CLE XI I I OF THE CONSTI TUTI ON.

13 . THE ACT I S DI SCRI MI NATORY AND I S A

CLASS LEGI SLATI ON.

14 . THE ACT, I NSTEAD OF BRI NGI NG UNI TY AND

PEACE W I LL CAUSE DI VI SI ON AS I T AGI TATES HATE

AGAI NST THE VERY I NSTI TUTI ON THAT I NTRODUCES


4/34

4

AND BRI NGS GOD I N THE MI DST OF THE FI LI PI NO

PEOPLE.

This is an original petition for certiorari and prohibitionunder Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure with

prayer for permanent injunction against the respondents.

This is filed as an original special civil action since there is no

remedy of appeal from the complained acts of the

respondents and the principals they represent, and neither is

there any plain, speedy and adequate remedy available to

petitioners in the ordinary course of law.

PARTI ES

1. That petitioner association is a juridical entity duly

organized and existing under the laws of the Philippines

with office of business at 3rd Floor, Cebu Caritas Bldg., Cebu

City; it is an association of men and women who have

committed themselves to the protection of family and life,

sanctity of marriage, preservation of the dignity of every

human being and the primary and natural right and duty of

parents in the rearing of their children and the developmentof their moral character as mandated under the Constitution

and specific legislations; petitioner associations members,

mostly parents are ordinary taxpayers; they are also Roman

Catholics by faith; they are spread throughout the Visayan

region; as such ordinary citizens, lay people and taxpayers,

through herein petitioner association, they collectively seek

relief before this Honorable (Court) from the impendingthreat against their children, their respective families and

the entire Filipino nation, their religious freedom and other

constitutional rights as they foresee and make known in thispetition; individual petitioner, is of legal age, married,

Filipino and resident of Cebu City; he is joining in this

petition as a parent, as ordinary taxpayer and citizen, and a

devoted Roman Catholic;

2. The respondents, namely:

HON. PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., Executive Secretary,

Office of the President of the Philippines, Malacanang Palace,Manila; HON. FLORENCIO B. ABAD, Secretary, Department

of Budget and Management (DBM), Malacanang Palace,

Manila; HON. ENRIQUE T. ONA, Secretary, Department of


5/34

5

Health (DOH), San Lazaro Compound, Cityy of Manila; HON.

ARMIN A. LUISTRO, FSC, Secretary, Department of

Education (DepEd), DepEd Complex, Meralco Avenue, Pasig

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

of Interior and Local Government (DILG) EDSA, cor.Mapagmahal St., Diliman, Quezon City; they are all public

officials in-charge of the enforcement and administration of

the Act and all laws relative to the conduct of their

respective duties and functions; for these reasons,

respondents are being sued herein in their official capacities

and may be served summons and other processes at their

respective offices as above indicated and through their

statutory counsel, the Solicitor General, at 139 Amorsolo

Street, Legaspi Village, Makati City.

ARGUMENTS AND DI SCUSSI ONS1

FI RST GROUND/ REASON:

1 . THE ACT VI OLATES SECTI ON

26 ( l ) , ART. VI OF THE

CONSTI TUTI ON, AS I T CARRI ES

TWO SUBJECTS, NAMELY:

RESPONSI BLE PARENTHOOD AND

REPRODUCTI VE HEALTH W HERE

BOTH MAY HAVE CONCEALED FROM

AND M I SLEAD THE PUBLI C AS TO

THE PERCEI VED EVI L I T PACKAGED DEATH TO THE FI LI PI NO NATI ON

THROUGH CONTRACEPTI ON,

LARGELY W I TH TH E USE OFMODERN METHODS, AS A TOOL FOR

A MASSI VE, PERMANENT AND

UNLI MI TED POPULATI ON CONTROL

FOR THE FI LI PI NO NATI ON, I N

VI OLATI ON OF ANOTHER

CONSTI TUTI ONAL PROVI SI ON ONTHE RI GHT TO I NFORMATI ON

( SECTI ONS 2 4 AND 2 8, ARTI CLE I I

OF THE CONSTI TUTI ON) .

1Grounds/Reasons enumerated under the Preliminary Statement


6/34

6

Before the subject Act was passed, it had so many

names as a proposed bill before Congress, to wit:

-During the 11th Congress, as House Bill 8110, I n tegrated

Population and Developm ent Act of 1 9 99 .

-During the 12th as House Bill 4110, The Reproductive

Health Care Agenda Act of 2 00 1;

-During the 13th Congress, 13th as Senate Bill 1280, The

Reproductive Health Act of 20 04

-During the 14th Congress, as House Bill 5043,

Reproductive H ealth a nd Population Deve lopment Actof 200 8 ; and

- During the present 15h Congress, when this Act was

passed, as House Bill 4244 The Responsible Parenthood,

Reproductive Health and Population and Development Act of

2011.

Petitioners proposed that this Honorable Court will take

judicial notice of the fact that the Act while still a proposed

bill has been the cause of heated public debates. All the time(as petitioners further proposed for judicial notice), the

Roman Catholic Church, in its efforts to inform (the public

about) the evils of modern methods of contraception as

population control, has been vigorously and ceaselessly

preaching to its flock and/or to the Filipino people in general

about Responsible Parenthood to curb rampant abortions,

mostly perpetrated by minors, drug addictions and othervices. The words or phrase Responsible Parenthood, was

and still the catchword used by the Church people in their

preachings and homilies, in their defense of the sanctity ofthe Family, Life and Marriage. Petitioner Association is in the

position to assert this fact because, its members (who are

mostly deeply devoted Roman Catholics and even active

members of different religious communities, with some even

Papal Awardees) were and are still in the forefronts in the

preaching and campaign for Responsible Parenthood. Then,all of the sudden, there was a change of the name of the bill

filed in the present 15th Congress where the Responsible

Parenthood catchword is being incorporated in the title ofthe proposed bill, which is House Bill 4244, The Responsible

Parenthood, Reproductive Health and Population and

Development Act of 2011.


7/34

7

As it can be noticed from the title of the HB 4244 (now

the Act), Responsible Parenthood as one of its subjects,

comes first, and Reproductive Health as merely second in

the order.

Petitioners so believe as they hereby assert that the

passing of the bill into law (now the subject Act), after so

many instances of having been rejected by the Filipino

people, and the sudden insertion of the phrase Responsible

Parenthood in it, was not accidental. Petitioners further

strongly assert that the sudden insertion of the phrase

Responsible Parenthood in the bill may have been designed

to mislead the public into believing that indeed the proposedbill was about Responsible Parenthood in its true and literalmeaning as conveyed by the Church to the people.

Section 26, of Article VI of the Constitution provides

that:

Every bill passed by the Congress

shall embrace only one subject

w hich shall be expressed in t he t it le

thereof.

(Bold Ours)

But the subject Act as it is, carries the subjects of (a)

Responsible Parenthood, and (b) Reproductive Health.

Who would not welcome Responsible Parenthood.After all, this is what the Church people has been preaching

all the time to the (public).

The inclusion of Responsible Parenthood as one of the

two (2) topics in the law, but without any provision in the

law itself which could be considered as germane to

Responsible Parenthood, is clearly misleading. The

mislabeling of the essence of the Act, which is

contraception , to that of Responsible Parenthood musthave paved the way to the passage of the bill into law.

Considering the many instances that the bill changed itsname or title, it is not farfetched that the general public may

have been deprived of their constitutional right to know the

right information about the Act as provided for under


8/34

8

Sections 24 and 28, Art. II of the Constitution which

provides:

Sec. 24. The State recognizes the vital

role of communication and informationin nation-building.

Section 28. Subject to reasonable

conditions prescribed by law, the State

adopts and implements a policy of full

public disclosure of all its transactions

involving public interest.

This Honorable Court in the case of the Phil. JudgesAssociation represented by its President Bernardo P.Abesamis vs. Hon. Pete Pardo, G.R. No. 105371, November

11, 1993, has explained the purpose of the single-subject

rule in legislation. Thus:

We consider first the objection

based on Article VI, Sec. 26(l), of the

Constitution providing that Every bill

passed by the Congress shall embrace

only one subject which shall beexpressed in the title thereof.

The purposes of this rule are: (1)

to prevent hodge-podge rolling

legislation; (2) to prevent surprise or

fraud upon the legislature by means of

provisions in bills of which the titlegives no intention, and which might

therefore be overlooked and carelessly

and unintentionally adopted; and (3 )to fairly apprise the people,

through such publication of

legislative proceedings as is usually

made, of the subject of legislation

that is being considered, in order

that they may have the opportunityof being heard ther eon, by petition or

otherwise, if they shall so desire.

This Honorable Court is humbly invited to the fact that

except for the perceived vague definition under Section 4

(definition of terms), the phrase Responsible Parenthood


9/34

9

has not been mentioned in the subsequent sections of the

Act except in the heading under Section 11 and under

Section 15. But even the body of Section 11 surprisingly fails

to mention or even to make a slightest reference to

Responsible Parenthood. Applying the doctrine on res ipsaloquitor, the entire Act itself proves the violation of single-

subject rule in legislation as provided for under Section 26(l)

of Article VI of the Constitution in relation to Sections 24 and

28, Article II of the Constitution on the right to information.

SECOND GROUND/ REASON.

- THE ACT I S A DEPARTURE FROMTHE MANI FESTLY PRO-GOD 1 98 7PHI LI PPI NE CONSTI TUTI ON AS

ETCHED I N I TS PREAMBLE.

2 .a . THE 198 7 PHI LI PPI NE

CONSTI TUTI ON I S A PRO-GOD.

Let us identify first where God is in the 1987 Philippine

Constitution.

Central in the Preamble of the 1987 Philippine

Constitution is God. It reads:

We, the sovereign Filipino people,

imploring the aid of Almighty God, in order

to build a just and humane society andestablish a Government that shall embodyour ideals and aspirations, promote the

common good, conserve and develop our

patrimony, and secure to ourselves and our

posterity the blessings of independence and

democracy under the rule of law, and a

regime of truth, justice, freedom, love,equality, and peace, do ordain and

promulgate this Constitution.

The Filipino people declare themselves as sovereign and

have the right and privilege to do so because God is in their

midst, as they invoke His aid. Minus God, the Filipino people

recognize their helplessness in the building of a just andhumane society and in establishing a government that shall

embody our ideals and aspirations, promote the common


10/34

10

good, conserve and develop our patrimony, and secure to

ourselves and our posterity the blessings of independence

and democracy.

To recall, what was in the old Constitutions, but thephrase I m ploring the aid of Divine Providence. But it

has been changed to I m ploring the aid of Almighty

God under our present Constitution, apparently to make

the reference to God as direct and personal. The intense

and the unfaltering reliance upon God by the Filipino people

is so manifest in the present Constitution.

In the same preamble, the Filipino people desire and

aspire for a government under the rule of law, and a regimeof truth, justice, freedom, love, equality, and peace. Butwho is the Law Giver but God; who is the absolute truth,

the ultimate source of justice, freedom, love, equality and

peace, but only God. Truth, justice, freedom, love, equality

and peace are terms which St. Thomas Aquinas equate with

God. The whole preamble is not only about Almighty God

but also the complete surrender and dependence of the

Filipino people upon Him. True enough, we have an entire

constitution which is reflective of God. The means and the

ult imate end simply refer to God. That is our presentConstitution, unique from all other Constitut ions in the

world.

The Philippine Constitution focuses on the care and

protection of the Filipino Family, as it is being recognized as

the very foundation of the Filipino nation (Section 1, Art.

XV). Why this is so? God has revealed Himself as a divinefamily, a union of three, God the Father, God the Son and

God the Holy Spirit, bonded together out of love, incessant

communion, perpetual union and adoration. To petitionersunderstanding, this is marriage instituted by God himself in

his nature of being Trinitarian.

As such Blessed Trinity, God reveals Himself as a

divine family, the ultimate source and cradle of life. He

created man and woman, in His own image and likeness, butin their midst, He made himself as the third pillar, so that

not only two but three constituting the first human yet also

divine family that it may now become the procreator andcradle of human life.


11/34

11

Three fundamental matters were entrusted by God to

humanity for their stewardship: (a ) Fami ly , (b ) marr iage

and (b) l i fe . Question. Humanity, as Gods creation (but

later on claimed by God Himself as His Children) are they

bound to live within the paradigm given by God aboutfamily, marriage and life? Can humanity through their

established governm ent , am end Gods decree about

life, family and marriage thru introduction of cultures

and legislations?

The Holy Bible upon which most if not all government

officials take their oath, teaches us that the first human

family lost the divine image of God because it rejected God

resulting in the forfeiture of its privilege to live in the abidingand continual presence of God. So it is said that death camein as the wage of humanitys sin or rejection of God. But God

who is ever faithful to His promise, inherent in His love,

was quick to save humanity thru another family , the family

of Mary and Joseph, in preparation for the care of His only

begotten son, Jesus who shall come as Marys Offspring by

the power of the Holy Spirit, so that the covenant of

salvation becomes a joint undertaking between the family of

God on the one hand and the family of Mary on the other.

God who is unimaginably huge and powerful and

creator of the universe, in His Trinitarian nature, by His

permissive will must have mysteriously entrusted Himself to

the care and protection of the family of Mary and Joseph.

Where the Son is, and so the Father and the Holy Spirit are.

By this will of God, we may not have realized that the

human family is being elevated to a divine status. Otherwise,no way God would have entrusted His only Son to the

stewardship of the human family. This new divine family

created in Mary, Joseph and the new Adam who is Jesus, isthe full restoration of the broken image of God which was

implanted in the first human family. Then, to aff irm the

inflexibility and im m utability of Gods decree on life,

family and marriage, Jesus sealed it by his death at

the cross.

Family is about God and so with marriage and life.

While everyone in the family has complete freedom, restraint

in the exercise of it is its very essence, in order to givespace for others.


12/34

12

2.b. THE PHI LI PPI NE CONSTI TUTI ON

EMBODI ES GODS DECREE ON TH E

SANCTI TY OF FAMI LY, LI FE AND

MARRI AGE.

The Philippine Constitution has embodied Gods decree

on family, marriage and the sanctity of life when it provides

under Section 12, Article II:

The state recognizes the sanctity of

family life and shall protect and strengthenthe family as a basic autonomous social

institution. It shall equally protect the lifeof the unborn from conception. The natural

and primary right and duty of parents in

the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency

and the development of moral charactershall receive the support of the

Government.

Indeed, the Constitution recognizes the family as the

ultimate bastion and bulwark in the protection of life.

Understandably, for the purpose of the care and protection

of the Filipino family, the Constitution came out with a

government composed of three co-equal branches, the

Executive, the Legislative and the Judiciary . We may

not have realized that this unity of three branches is

again reflective of God in its nature as the BlessedTrinity after we invoked Him in the ordain of our

Constitution.

2.c. THE ACT I S ANTI - GOD.

No matter how Congress has sugarcoated the Act by

incorporating every pro-life and pro family provisions in the

Constitution the Act remains in its entirety, to be about the

permanent and unbridled population control throughCONTRACEPTI ON principally with the use of the modern

methods.

Permanent, because it has no cap or time limit.

Section 3(l) of the Act provides that There shall be no

demographic or population targets and the mitigation,

promotion and/ or stabil ization of the population


13/34

13

growth rate is incidental to the advancement of

reproductive healt h;.

Unlimited, because it is designed to apply to everyone

including minors. Worse, The coverage of the Act asprovided for under second paragraph of Section 7, says:

No person shall be denied information

and access to family planning services,

whether natural or artificial: Provided,

That minors will not be allowed access

to modern methods of family planning

without written consent from their

parents or guardian/s except when theminor is already a parent or has had amiscarriage.

Let us go back to Section 3(l) of the Act. Please

consider that contraception is a tool for the stagnation of

population and rejection of a new born. With this in mind,

the absence of demographic or population targets is

not actually a positive thing but a tr ap for the de at h ofthe Filipino generation. Contraception as packaged in

the Act is about dea th of the nation.

To insure the effectiveness of this law on

contraception, Sections 5 and 6 thereof mandated to involve

all local government units in its massive and nationwide

implementation.

Then under Section 3, the following are also provided:

(a) xxx xxx xxx

(b) xxx xxx xxx

(c) xxx xxx xxx

(d) The provision of ethical and medicallysafe, legal, accessible, affordable, non-

abortifacient, effective and quality

reproductive health care services and

supplies is essential in the promotion of

peoples right to health, especially those of

women, the poor, and the marginalized,and shall be incorporated as a component

of basic health;


14/34

14

(e) The State shall promote and provide

information and access, without bias, to allmethods of family planning, including

effective natural and modern methodswhich have been proven medically safe,

legal, non-abortifacient, and effective xxx:

Provide, That the State shall also provide

funding support to promote modern naturalmethods of family planning, xxx consistent

with the needs of acceptors and their

religious convictions;

(f) xxx xxx xxx

(g) The provision of reproductive health

care, information and supplies giving

priority to poor beneficiaries xxx must be

the primary responsibility of the national

government xxx.

(h) xxx xxx xxx

(i) Active participation by non-governmentorganizations (NGOs) womens and

peoples organizations, civil society, faith-

based organizations, the religious sectorand communities xxx;

(j) The resources of the country must be

made to serve the entire population,

especially the poor, and the allocations

thereof must be adequate and effective.

(k) xxx xxx xxx

(l) xxx xxx xxx

(m) xxx xxx xxx

(n) The resources of the country must be

made to serve the entire population,

especially the poor, and allocations thereofmust be adequate and effective:

Then Section 9 provides the range of the contraceptives

to be employed in the program. Thus,


15/34

15

The National Drug Formulary shall include

hormonal contraceptives, intrauterine

devices, injectables and other safe, legal,non-abortifacient and effective family

planning products and supplies. xxxx

These Products and supplies shall also

be included in the regular purchase ofessential medicines and supplies of allnational hospitals:

Then Section 10 provides:

The DOH shall procure, distribute to LGUs and

monitor the usage of family planning suppliesthe whole country. The DOH shall coordinatewith all appropriate local government bodies to

plan and implement this procurement and

distribution program.

Under Section 11, the reproductive health care,

services, products and programs are made components of

the government in fighting poverty.

Under Section 14, The State shall provide age-and

development-appropriate reproductive health education to

adolescent xxx. The Department of Education (DepED) shall

formulate a curriculum which shall be used by public schools

and may be adopted by private schools.

Under Section 20, The DOH and the LGUs shall initiate

and sustain a heightened nationwide multi-media-campaignto raise the level of public awareness on the protection and

promotion of reproductive health and rights xxx.

With the expected Billions of Pesos the government is

mandated to disburse annually for contraception, the

involvement of different government agencies, all local

government units, the NGOs even the private sectors in its

implementation, the absence of a time limit as to its

implementation, the absence of demographic target when ithas to stop, its wide coverage which include even minorsand the range of the contraceptives to be employed, as

shown above, God forbids, in no distant future w e w i ll be a

nat ion of Senior Citizen s, t hen ghosts.


16/34

16

Petitioners posit that the surest way to topple this

governm ent is through t his Act.

But before the eventual collapse of the government

because of the deterioration of its People, in age and

numbers, the first casualties are the very natures of God our

Constitution has imposed upon itself to protect, the family,

marriage and life .

THI RD GROUND/ REASON.

- THE ACT BETRAYS I TS OW N

DECLARATI ON OF POLI CI ES AND

GUI DI NG PRI NCI PLES.

The Act integrates in it the State Policies in the

Constitution. But this adoption of the State Policies is an

oxymoron in the light of its imminent evil effects as follows:

3.a. I t undermines the survival

of the Filipino nation through the

decimation, weakening, and

eventual disintegration of Filipino

families, its very foundation( Section 1, Art . XV) .

Section 1, of Article XV recognizes the family as thefoundation of the Filipino nation. This must be so because it

is the very source of the first of the basic elements of every

nation which is people . What are the government and

territory for without people? The Philippine Constitution

underscoring the importance of the family expressly

promotes a life of every Filipino, not somewhere else butnestled within the family as it provides that The state

recognizes the sanctity offam ily l ife. As such it undertakes

to protect and strengthen the family as a basicaut onom ous social instit ut ion.

Rightly so, because, all ills in the Philippine society can

be traced to the insidious and common agendum of the

enemies of the state to bring disorder to every Filipino

family, the fruits of which are: rampant abortion, sexual


17/34

17

revolution, alcohol, drug addictions, the growing disparity

between the rich and the poor and the greed of all sorts

penetrating every community. Add to all this, is

contraception , which by its nature a clear tool for the

governments self-destruction, viewed from its very natureas tool for stagnation and death.

3.b. I t undermines the

inviolability and sanctity of

marriage, as the recognized

foundation of every Filipino family

( Sec. 2, Art . XV) .

The new Civil Code, echoing the provision of Section 2,Article XV of the Constitution recognizes marriage in the

Philippines as the foundation of the family and as an

inviolable social institution.

As earlier shown, marriage is Gods design for the

founding of a family with the end in view of being Gods

procreator and cradle of human life. But with pre-marital sex

and sex outside marriage being clearly condoned if not

promoted and encouraged under the Act, where is now thesanctity of marriage? We weaken the marr iage , we

weaken the family . We weaken the family , we k i l l the

nation.

FOURTH GROUND/ REASONS.

- THE ACT VI OLATES THE DUTY OF

THE STATE TO PROMOTE ANDRESPECT THE SANCTI TY OF FAMI LY

LI FE AND I N THE PROTECTI ON AND

STRENGTHENI NG OF THE FAMI LY

AS A BASI C AUTONOMOUS SOCI AL

I NSTI TUTI ON; I NSTEAD OF

PROTECTI NG, I T END ANGERS OREXPOSES THE LI FE OF THE UN BORN

TO ABORTI ON ( Sec. 12, Art . I I of

the Constitut ion) ;


18/34

18

Since the Filipino family is perceived to be the number

one casualty of the Act, what happens now to the duty of the

State to promote the sanctity of family life? Consider that

the Act makes contraception available to everyone

regardless of age. The culture or mentality ofcontraception being promoted by the Act is fear even

of the possibility of life. That is why the Act involves all

government agencies and even the private sectors as if it

declares war against the potential of a new born. It

clearly encourages all people within the country to close

every window, every door or every opening for fear of the

unwelcomed visitor, human life. And yet, Section 3(c) of the

Act recognizes human resource as principal assets of the

country. A clear contr adiction.

The decision of this Honorable Court in the case of

Leonilo Antonio vs. Marie Ivonne F. Reyes, G.R. No. G.R.

No. 155800, March 10, 2006 is very instructive:

Now is also opportune time to

comment on another common legal guide

utilized in the adjudication of petitions fordeclaration of nullity under Article 36. All

too frequently, this Court and lower courts,

in denying petitions of the kind, have

favorably cited Sections 1 and 2, Article XV

of the Constitution, which respectively

state that [ t] he Stat e recognizes theFilipino fam ily as the foundation of t he

nation. Accordingly, it shall stren gthen

its solidarity and actively promote its

total developmen[t ] , and that[m]arriage, as an inviolable social

institution, is the foundation of thefamily and shall be protected by the

State. These provisions highlight the

importance of the family and the

constitutional protection accorded to

the institut ion of m arriage.

(Bold and underscoring Ours)

Then this Honorable Court in the above-quoted decision

proceeded:

But the Constitution itself does

not establish the parameters of stateprotection to marriage as a social


19/34

19

institution and the foundation of the

family. It remains the province of the

legislature to define all legal aspects of

marriage and prescribe the strategy

and the modalities to protect it, basedon whatever socio-political influences it

deems proper, and subject of course to

the qualification that such legislative

enactment itself adheres to the

Constitution and the Bill of Rights. This

being the case, it also falls on the

legislature to put into operation the

constitutional provisions that protect

marriage and the family.(Underscoring Ours)

In the famous case of REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

vs. COURT OF APPEALS and RORIDEL OLAVIANO MOLINA,

this Honorable Court quoted and adopted the memorandum

submitted by the two amici curiae, one of whom was

Justice Ricardo C. Puno, which says in part:

(1) The burden of proof to show thenullity of the marriage belongs to the

plaintiff. Any doubt should be

resolved in favor of the existence

and continuation of the marriage

and against its dissolution and

nullity. This is rooted in the factthat both our Constitution and our

laws cherish the validity of

marriage and unity of the family.

Thus, our Constitution devotes an

entire Art icle on the Family,[11]

recognizing it as the foundation of

the nation. I t decrees m arriage as

legally inviolable, thereby

protecting it from dissolution at thewhim of the parties. Both the fam ily

and marriage are to be protected

by the state.

The Family Code [12] echoes this

constitutional edict on marriage and the


20/34

20

family and emphasizes their

permanence, inviolability and

solidarity.

(Bold ours.)

Petitioners humbly submit that the present Act does

not conform to the guidelines established by this Honorable

Court in the protection of family, marriage and above all lifein the aforementioned cases.

FI FTH GROUND/ REASON:

- THE ACT I NTERFERES I N TH E

NATURAL AND PRI MARY RI GHT

AND DUTY OF PARENTS I N TH E

DEVELOPMENT OF THE MORAL

CHARACTER OF THEI R CHI LDREN.

( Sec. 12 , Ar t . I I ) ;

Section 14 of the act provides that The State shall

provide age-and development-appropriate reproductive

health education to adolescent, which is between ages of

ten (10) to nineteen (19) after mere consultations, not

consent, of the parents-teachers-community associations,

school officials and other interests groups.

What happens now to the natural and primary right andduty of parents in the development of the moral character of

their children? These are supposed to be personal andinalienable rights of the parents as clearly intended by the

Constitution.

This Honorable Court in the case of Herald Black

Dacasin versus Sharon Del Mundo Dacasin, G.R. No.

168785 , February 5, 2010, is emphatic in upholding the

above discussed natural right and duty of parents, to wit:

Parents have a natural and

fundamental r ight to autonomy in thecare, custody, and upbringing of their

children. The Family Code recognizes this

in Article 209:


21/34

21

Art. 20 9. Pursuant to the

natural r ight and duty of parents over

the person and property of theirunemancipated children, parental

authority and responsibility shallinclude the caring for and rearing

them for civic consciousness and

efficiency and the development of

their moral, mental and physicalcharacter and w ellbeing. ( n)

The State ought not to interfere

with the right of parents to bring up their

child unless its exercise causes potential

harm to him. The State steps in, throughthe law, only if there are compelling

reasons to do so. State intrusion is

uncalled for where the welfare of a child is

not jeopardized.

(Underscoring Ours)

Even Presidential Decree No. 603 is also clear on this

constitutional rights of parents. Thus,

Article 1. Declaration of Policy. - The

Child is one of the most important assets

of the nation. Every effort should beexerted to promote his welfare and

enhance his opportunities for a useful and

happy life.

The child is not a mere creature of the

State. Hence, his individual traits and

aptitudes should be cultivated to theutmost insofar as they do not conflict with

the general welfare.

The molding of the character of the child

starts at the home. Consequently, everymember of the family should strive to

make the home a wholesome and

harmonious place as its atmosphere and

conditions will greatly influence the child'sdevelopment.

Attachment to the home and strong family

ties should be encouraged but not to the

extent of making the home isolated andexclusive and unconcerned with the

interests of the community and the


22/34

22

country.

The natural r ight and duty of parents

in the rearing of the child for civic

efficiency should receive the aid andsupport of the governme nt.

Other institutions, like the school, the

church, the guild, and the community ingeneral, should assist the home and the

State in the endeavor to prepare the child

for the responsibilities of adulthood.

Certainly reproductive health education clashes with thedifferent religious beliefs and convictions of the parents. Somuch so that it also violates the freedom of religion insofar

as the parents are concerned.

SI XTH GROUND/ REASON:

- THE ACT VI OLATES THE

CONSTI TUTI ONAL RI GHTS OF

FAMI LI ES OR FAMI LY

ASSOCI ATI ONS TO PARTI CI PATE I N

THE PLANNI NG AND

I MPLEMENTATI ON OF POLI CI ES

AND PROGRAMS THAT AFFECT

THEI R CHI LDREN ( Sec. 3, Art . XV) .

Under Section 3, Article XV of the Constitution, it is

provided that the state shall defend:

1. xxx xxx xxx

2. The right of children to assistance,including proper care and nutrition, and

special protection from all forms of neglect,

abuse, cruelty, exploitation, and other

conditions prejudicial to their development;

and

3. xxx xxx xxx

4. The right of families or familyassociations to participate in the planning


23/34

23

and implementation of policies and programsthat affect them.

Sexual education is one critical program which

petitioner believed is reserved only for the parents as their

primary and natural duty. But this Act allows the invasion on

this constitutional right of the parents after a mere

consultation, not consent, of the parents-teachers-

community associations, school officials and other interests

groups. This mere consultation is in sharp contrast to theclear intent of the Constitution empowering the families or

family associations to participate in the planning and

implementation of policies and programs that affecttheir children.

SEVENTH GROUND/ REASON:

- THE ACT EXPOSES THE LI FE OFTHE UNBORN TO ABORTI ON.

Medical science will prove that every contraceptive,including hormonal contraceptives, intrauterine devices,

injectables as provided for under Section 9 of the Act, has

the element or capacity of causing abortion. With this in

mind, how many unborns will be casualties of

abortions, intentional or unintentional? Every potential

or possibility of life should have been resolved in favor of the

unborn instead of exposing to the risk of death, sinceunqualified openness to life is the avowed policy of the

State as underscored under Section 12, Article II of theConstitution. What happens now to government policy to

protect even the life of the unborn from conception (Section

12, Art. II) and to its right to equal protection as a person

(Section 1, Art. III)?

To repeat PD 603, The Child and Youth Welfare Code of

the Philippines, under its Article 1 has recognized that The

Child is one of the most important assets of the

nation. Every effort should be exerted to promote his

w elfare a nd enhance his opportu nities for a useful and

happy life. It is not a mere creature of the State, the law

further declares. It is definitely not right to expose it, while

still unborn to the danger of abortion.


24/34

24

- THE ACT VI OLATES THE FREEDOM

OF THE FREE EXERCI SE OF

RELI GI ON (Sec. 5 , Ar t . I I I ) .

Certainly, this newly introduced reproductive health law

clashes with the religious beliefs and conviction of the

millions of taxpayers, specifically the Roman Catholics. For

instance, under Section 7 of the Act, which provides in part:

Provided, That family planning services

shall likewise be extended by private

health facilities to paying patients with the

option to grant free care and services toindigents, except in the case of non-

maternity specialty hospitals and hospitals

owned and operated by a religious group,

but they have the option to provide such

full range of modern family planningmethods: Provided, further, That these

hospitals shall immediately refer the

person seeking such care and services to

another health facility which isconveniently accessible:;

And also under Section 23(3), the reproductive health

care service provider who has a conscientious objection to

provide the reproductive health services asked of him is

required to immediately refer the person seeking such care

and services to another health care service provider. Is itnot that by these mandatory requirement of referral, these

hospitals especially those operated by religious groups, andthe reproductive health provider concerned become and

accomplice to the perceived wrong in the provision of the

sought health services based on their religious beliefs and

convictions? What happened now to their guaranteed

freedom of religion under Section 5, Article III of the

Constitution?

Even reproductive health education as it is now

provided under the Act also clashes with the differentreligious beliefs and convictions of the parents in the matter

of moral and spiritual formation of their children. So much so

that it also violates the freedom of religion of many

parents.

And foremost, the disbursement of Billions of Pesos of


25/34

25

taxpayers money to be disbursed in order to buy

contraceptives for free distributions to those who can not

control their sexual behaviors from foreign and/or multi-

national companies, is a wholesale violation of the religious

freedom of many. Why? Contraception through the usemodern methods to be used as a permanent tool for

population control, and worse without time limit, is against

the religious beliefs of millions of tax payers. Contraception

as earlier said is about a mentality of stagnation and death.

Here is a relevant dissertation about life by an international

human rights center, the ICELANDIC HUMAN RIGHTS

CENTER, posted in the internet:

A. The right t o life

The right to life is considered a

fundamental human right because, withoutit, enjoyment of all of the other rights and

freedoms established in international

human rights Conventions would be

rendered nugatory; there can be no rights

if there is no life.

Given the fundamental importance ofthe right to life to the protection of human

rights, under most human rights

instruments the right to life is a supreme

right from which no derogation is

permitted, even in time of a public

emergency threatening the life of thenation (see Article 4(2) ICCPR, Article

15(2) ECHR and Article 27(2) ACHR).

If the government will only use the Billions of Pesos

appropriated for modern contraception for the building of

houses for the poor, to bring food to the table of the millionswho are hungry, to pay for the rising cost of truly essential

medicines and hospital and medical bills for the indigent

patients, in hiring medical doctors, nurses and midwives to

address maternal and child deaths, to create jobs in our own

land, to build sufficient schools, to hire more teachers and

other basic needs of the Filipino people or to follow the areas

of priorities as provided for under Section 17, Article III of

the Constitution, who will object to that?


26/34

26

NI NTH GROUND/ REASON:

- THE ACT VI OLATES ON THE AREAS OF

PRI ORI TI ES ENUMERATED UN DERSECTI ON 17 , ARTI CLE I I I OF THE

CONSTI TUTI ON.

Section 17, Article III provides:

The State shall give priority to education,

science and technology, arts, culture, and

sports to foster patriotism and nationalism,

accelerate social progress, and promotetotal human liberation and development.

This Honorable Court can take judicial notice of the

dearth of government funds on the aforementioned areas of

priorities mentioned in afore-cited provision of the

Constitution. Why of all, contraception is being prioritized

with the expected Billions of Pesos of taxpayers money to bedisbursed for it? There are critical and other serious areas of

concerns where the Billions of Pesos appropriated and still tobe appropriated are most needed. Along this line, petitioner

ventures to say there is a wholesale violation of the religious

freedom of Millions of Filipino taxpayers who are mostly

devoted Roman Catholics and who believe that their taxes

should not be spent for contraceptives, especially the

modern methods, because according to their faith, they are

morally wrong and intrinsically evil and therefore againsttheir faith.

TENTH GROUND/ REASON.

- THE ACT ROBS THE FI LI PI NO

PEOPLE OF THEI R ULTI MATE AND

MOST TREASURED W EALTH, TH EI R

FAI TH AND RELI GI OSI TY.

Majority of the Filipino families are submerged in the

quagmire of poverty. The Act pretends that contraception is

the solution. This is clear under Section 11 of the Act which

provides that the so called reproductive health care services

be made components in the governments Anti-Poverty


27/34

27

Programs. As shown above, contraception, being inherently

a partner or equivalent of death, can never be a tool for

alleviation. But in their poverty, the Filipino families still

possess hidden wealth, their faith and religiosity. They have

God that sustains their dignity as human beings as etched inthe Preamble of the Constitution. But sad to say, the Act will

rob the Filipino families of this ultimate possessions without

them knowing it because the evil contained in it

(contraception) is well hidden and disguised as Responsible

Parenthood and allegedly good health. Indeed, as seen by

petitioner, the Act is well packaged, yet its contents, if only a

collective and deep discernment is made by the Filipino

People through the Honorable Justices of this Honorable

Court, are abominations and garbage heaped before God. I tstinks.

Going back to the question, is Gods decree on Family,

life and marriage subject to tinker by man through

legislation? The answer is in the negative. Gods nature of

being a family and source of life, to repeat, was sealed by

the death of His Son at the cross, to proclaim its inflexibility

and immutability. So that every assault either singly or

collectively, directly or indirectly on life, family and marriage

(the three fundamental natures of God as illustrated above)must be seen as direct rebellion with God, who from the

Constitution is recognized as Filipino Peoples source of (their

proclaimed) sovereignty. The Act is perceived to bring only

curse and punishment to the entire Filipino nation.

The Filipino people ought to learn from the message

and shudder in fear of the cycle of calamities in our troubledtimes (climate change accompanied by typhoons, floods,

tornadoes, volcanic eruption, earthquakes and tsunamis,

etc.) as God speaks to the Filipino people through thelanguage of nature.

The above perceptions of petitioners which are based

on their religious beliefs and convictions of its members, are

themselves offered as concrete proofs of the

unconstitutionality of this Act. Their religious freedom isbeing trampled upon and violated by this Act.

ELEVENTH GROUND/ REASON.


28/34

28

- I T PROMOTES THE W ORST KI ND OF

CORRUPTI ON, THE CORRUPTI ON

AGAI NST LI FE, FAMI LY AND M ARRI AGE.

As explained above, family, life and marriage are thevery essence of the pro-God Constitution. As such, they are

acknowledged to be crucial to the survival of the Filipino

nations. They are the im print s of God within the

Constitution. The Act viewed as contraception in its

entirety, not only will corrupt but little by little eventually put

extinction the Filipino families. It will make marriage

irrelevant and above all makes life a rebellion against God.

TW ELFTH GROUND / REASON.

- I T VI OLATES THE

CONSTI TUTI ONAL PROVI SI ON ON

HEALTH AS PROVI DED FOR UN DER

SECTI ON 11 , ARTI CLE XI I I OF THE

CONSTI TUTI ON.

Section 11, Article XIII of the Constitution provides:

The state shall adopt an integrated

and comprehensive approach to health

development which shall endeavor to make

essential goods, health and other social

services available to all the people at

affordable cost. There shall be a priorityfor the needs of the underprivileged sick,

elderly, disabled, women, and children.The State shall endeavor to provide free

medical care to paupers.

Petitioner(s) pose this query. Is contraception the right

answer to the health development referred to in the

above-quoted provision? Certainly not. Health development

and contraception contradicts each other.

THI RTEENTH GROUND / REASON.

- THE ACT I S DI SCRI MI NATORY,

AND I S A CLASS LEGI SLATI ON.


29/34

29

This Honorable Court in its en banc decision in People

of the Philippines vs. Remigio B. Chan, G.R. No. L-45435,

June 17, 1938, viewed and defined class legislation as

follows:

Class legislation discriminating against

some and favoring others is prohibited.

But classification on a reasonable basis,

and to make arbitrarily or capriciously is

permitted. The trues governing

classification are briefly as follows: theclassification must be based on substantial

distinctions which make real differences; itmust be germane to the purposes of

the law; it must not be l imited to

existing conditions only, and must

apply equally to each member of the

class. ( Ma lcom , Philippine

Constit utional law , 2d ed., page 343).

(bold ours).

The segment of the Philippine population which is being

primarily targeted by the Act the essence of which asperceived by herein petitioners is contraception, is the

marginalized and poor families. As earlier mentioned it is

being made integral of the poverty alleviation program of the

government. Why so much concentration in the

implementation of the Act on the poor?. Are the poor

Filipinos not entitled to the sanctity of the family, life and

marriage which are the ones threatened by contraception?

Now on the part of the taxpayers. Bearing in mind thatso much taxes will be disbursed for the purchase on regular

basis on contraceptives, how can this act be fair and

beneficial to other taxpayers who by reason of their religious

beliefs and conviction are opposed to the use of

contraceptives? The Act will certainly work an injustice not

only to petitioners but to all Filipino Families and Filipino

Taxpayers, Roman Catholics or not, who are of the same

religious beliefs and convictions of herein petitioners.


30/34

30

FOURTEENTH GROUND/ REASON:

- THE ACT, I NSTEAD OF BRI NGI NG

UNI TY AND PEACE W I LL CAUSE

DI VI SI ON AS I T AGI TATES HATEAGAI NST THE VERY I NSTI TUTI ON

THAT I NTRODUCES AND BRI NGS

GOD I N THE MI DST OF THE

FI LI PI NO PEOPLE.

It is a public knowledge that the Roman Catholic Church

takes the lead in opposing the Act while this was still a bill

before Congress. In a public statement made by the MediaOfficer Director of Catholic Bishops Conference of thePhilippines (CBCP), Msgr. Pedro Quitorio after the Act was

signed into law, he says The Catholic Church and its allies

will not backdown and will continue to monitor the progress

of its implementation.

So much hate have been heaped against the Roman

Catholic Church and other Christian religions and

personalities who lead in the ever constant advocacy for the

protection of the sanctity of family, life and marriage. Theiropposition to this Act even before its passage is viewed as

an encroachment on political issues and/or violation of the

doctrine on the separation of the Church and State. But this

is not the issue here. The Church, on matters of Family, Life

and Marriage deserves to be listened to instead of being

despised and hated. Why? The Filipino People will not know

God without the Church. The Church brings God in theirmidst. No one can ever win a war declared against God. We

will be only repeating the errors of the past. But, even if this

is the inclination of many, so be it. The foundation of Godslove is complete freedom of choice. But before we embrace

death, let us first revisit the Constitution, which as adverted

to, one which is PRO-GOD, PRO-FAMILY, PRO-LIFE and PRO-

MARRIAGE.

W here w ill this Act lead the Filipino nation?

PRAYER FOR PRELI MI NARY I NJUNCTI ON

As soon as the mandated publication of the law is

complied with, the implementation thereof is all systems


31/34

31

go. If not immediately stopped, this will signal the

introduction of a hedonistic way of life to the entire Filipino

people, especially the youth, contrary to the envisioned

balanced promotion and protection of their physical, moral,

spiritual, intellectual, and social well being; contraception ascontained in the law is a very negative culture whose

impact upon the society is not properly weighed and studied,

with all due respect, by its initiators; the pernicious and far

reaching effect upon the children, the families, and the

entire Filipino nation should not be taken lightly since once a

culture is being legislated then embedded in the society it

becomes irreversible and beyond repair; the impending

damage upon the Filipino nation is perceived to be

incalculable; what is at stake is the survival of the entireFilipino nation viewed from the important role of the family,marriage and the element of people in nation building; very

soon, as the nation whose youth are believed to be

corrupted by the dubious and disguised ill effects of

contraception, forfeits future potential leaders; a ticking

moral time bomb has been set off by the subject Act; there

is therefore an urgent need for the issuance of a temporary

restraining order directing the respondents to immediately

cease and desist from implementing the law until such time

that the matter is heard;

PRI NCI PAL PRAYER

After parties are heard, to declare the entire R.A. No.

10354 as unconstitutional.

Petitioners further pray for such other reliefs andremedies consistent with law, justice and equity.

Cebu City (for Manila), January 9, 2013.

M.B. MAHINAY & ASSOCIATES

Counsel for the Petitioners

Diamond St., Cor. Jade St. Francisca Village

6th Street, Happy Valley, Cebu City

Tel. Nos. 2548295; 09228674381Email address:[email protected]

By:

MAKILITO B. MAHINAYPTR No. 2194387 1-10-12, Cebu City

IBP Lifetime No. 01216; Roll No. 32016MCLE Compliance No. III 0013818 4-22-2010

MCLE NO. IV-0003647- 12-2-2011


32/34

32

CERTIFICATION

It is certified that copies of the foregoing petition were

furnished to the following:

-HON. PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., Executive Secretary, Office

of the President of the Philippines, Malacanang Palace,

Manila;

-HON. FLORENCIO B. ABAD, Secretary, Department of

Budget and Management (DBM), Malacanang Palace, Manila;

-HON. ENRIQUE T. ONA, Secretary, Department of Health

(DOH), San Lazaro Compound, City of Manila;

-HON. ARMIN A. LUISTRO, FSC, Secretary, Department of

Education (DepEd), DepEd Complex, Meralco Avenue, Pasig

City; and

- HON. MANUEL A. ROXAS II, Secretary, Department of

Interior and Local Government (DILG) EDSA, cor.

Mapagmahal St., Diliman, Quezon City

- THE SOLICITOR GENERAL139 Amorsolo Street, Legaspi Village, Makati City

By registered mail due distance making personal service

difficult and impracticable.

M. B. MAHINAY


33/34

33

VERI FI CATI ON

That WE, DOUGLAS GACASAN and VALERIANO S.

AVILA, all of legal age, all married, Filipinos and residents of

Cebu City, after being duly sworn depose and say:

1.That I, Douglas Gacasan, is the President and Chairman

of petitioner association, in the above entitled case;

2. That I, VALERIANO S. AVILA, is also a member of

petitioner association and a co-petitioner in the above

entitled case;

3.That in our capacities as members/officers of petitionerassociation, and in our personal capacities we havecaused the preparation and filing of the instant petition;

I, Douglas, Gacasan is also duly authorized by the Board

to file for and in behalf of petitioner association, per

Secretarys Certificate hereto attached as Annex A.

4.That we have read and fully understand all its contents

and the same are true and correct to the best of our

personal knowledge and the authentic documents and

records in our possession.

5. That whether on the past or at present there is no suit

between petitioners and the respondents involving the

same subject matter and issues before any court

(Municipal Trial Court, Regional Trial Court, Court of

Appeals or Supreme Court), or other government

agencies, and if one should arise and come to ourknowledge, we hereby undertake to inform this Honorable

Court, within five (5) days from knowledge thereof.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto set our

hands this ___day of January, 2013 at at Cebu City.

DOUGLAS GACASAN VALERIANO S. AVILA

Affiant AffiantSUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME this __day of January,

2013 at Cebu City. Affiants exhibited to me their Govt. IDs asfollows: Douglas Gacasan ___________________ Valeriano S. Avila______________ It is certified that no further identification documentswere required upon affiant being personally known to the undersigned.Doc. No. ___;Page No. ___;Book No.___;Series of 2013;


34/34

tffl vs. ochoa, et al

Documents