(c) Any employer who shall suggest, require, unduly influence or cause any applicant for employment  or an employee to submit himself/herself to sterilization, use any modern methods of family  planning, or not use such methods as a condition for employment, continued employment,  promotion or the provision of employment benefits. Further, pregnancy or the number of  children shall not be a ground for non-hiring or termination from employment;  (d) Any person who shall falsify a Certificate of Compliance as required in Section 15 of this Act; and  (e) Any pharmaceutical company, whether domestic or multinational, or its agents or distributors,  which directly or indirectly colludes with government officials, whether appointed or elected, in  the distribution, procurement and/or sale by the national government and LGUs of modern  family planning supplies, products and devices.    In 2013, a legal challenge was in the Supreme Court against the RH Law on the grounds of its  constitutionality, particularly because it was deemed to violate State principles concerning religious  freedom, equal protection for the mother and ​unborn child​, and anti-discrimination against the poor,  53 among others. The issue of the law technically legalizing the use of abortifacients was the most  controversial argument, with the conservative sectors of the Catholic Church the strongest voice  against the law’s full implementation. In June 2015, a temporary restraining order (TRO) was also  issued against the distribution of Implanon and Implanon NXT, injectable contraceptives, on the  grounds that these induce abortion.     The Supreme Court issued its decision on the legal challenge in April 2014 (​Imbong vs. Ochoa​). While  it affirmed the constitutionality of the law in general, it upheld parental consent for minors to access  RH services; and the right of health service providers and public officials to object to information  dissemination or supporting RH programs and activities that are contrary to their religious beliefs, in  54 effect overturning the certain provisions under Section 23 on prohibited acts under the RH Law.    53 Cabral, E. (ibid).  Specific provisions in the RH Law overturned in full or partially by the Supreme Court decision in ​Imbong vs. Ochoa​ are  the following (Retrieved from ​http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_204819_2014.html​):   ● Section 7, only insofar as it: (a) requires private health facilities, non-maternity specialty hospitals,  and hospitals owned by religious groups to refer patients not in an emergency or life-threatening  situation to another health facility which is conveniently accessible (b) provides access to family  planning and RH services to minors who have been pregnant or had a miscarriage without a  parental consent  ● The rest of Section 7, however, which provides access to family planning, was upheld by the court,  notably this line: "All accredited public health facilities shall provide a full range of modern family  planning methods, which shall also include medical consultations, supplies and necessary and  reasonable procedures for poor and marginalized couples having infertility issues who desire to  have children."   ● Section 23-A-1, which punishes RH providers, regardless of their religious belief, who fail or  refuse to dissiminate information regarding RH services and programs  ● Section 23-A-2-i, which allows a married individual not in a life-threatening case to access RH  procedures without the consent of the spouse  ● Section 23-A-3, insofar as it punishes an RH provider who fails to refer any non-life-threatening  case to another RH provider  ● Section 23-B, insofar as it punishes any public officer who refuses to support RH programs   ● Section 17, which mandates a 40-hour pro bono service by private and nongovernment RH  service providers, including gynecologists and obstetricians, as a prerequisite for PhilHealth  accreditation  ● Section 3.01-A and J of the RH law Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR), which defines  abortifacients as "primarily" inducing abortion instead of simply inducing abortion  54 18 RH Situationer: Phlippines (November 2017)