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
7/30/2019 TFFL VS. OCHOA, ET AL
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
7/30/2019 TFFL VS. OCHOA, ET 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
7/30/2019 TFFL VS. OCHOA, ET AL
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
7/30/2019 TFFL VS. OCHOA, ET AL
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
7/30/2019 TFFL VS. OCHOA, ET AL
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.
7/30/2019 TFFL VS. OCHOA, ET AL
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
7/30/2019 TFFL VS. OCHOA, ET AL
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
7/30/2019 TFFL VS. OCHOA, ET AL
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
7/30/2019 TFFL VS. OCHOA, ET AL
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.
7/30/2019 TFFL VS. OCHOA, ET AL
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.
7/30/2019 TFFL VS. OCHOA, ET AL
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
7/30/2019 TFFL VS. OCHOA, ET AL
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;
7/30/2019 TFFL VS. OCHOA, ET AL
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,
7/30/2019 TFFL VS. OCHOA, ET AL
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.
7/30/2019 TFFL VS. OCHOA, ET AL
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
7/30/2019 TFFL VS. OCHOA, ET AL
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) ;
7/30/2019 TFFL VS. OCHOA, ET AL
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
7/30/2019 TFFL VS. OCHOA, ET AL
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
7/30/2019 TFFL VS. OCHOA, ET AL
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:
7/30/2019 TFFL VS. OCHOA, ET AL
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
7/30/2019 TFFL VS. OCHOA, ET AL
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
7/30/2019 TFFL VS. OCHOA, ET AL
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.
7/30/2019 TFFL VS. OCHOA, ET AL
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
7/30/2019 TFFL VS. OCHOA, ET AL
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?
7/30/2019 TFFL VS. OCHOA, ET AL
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
7/30/2019 TFFL VS. OCHOA, ET AL
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.
7/30/2019 TFFL VS. OCHOA, ET AL
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.
7/30/2019 TFFL VS. OCHOA, ET AL
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.
7/30/2019 TFFL VS. OCHOA, ET AL
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
7/30/2019 TFFL VS. OCHOA, ET AL
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
7/30/2019 TFFL VS. OCHOA, ET AL
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
7/30/2019 TFFL VS. OCHOA, ET AL
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;
7/30/2019 TFFL VS. OCHOA, ET AL
34/34