As it opposes the initiation of life, which is a fundamental human good, the petitioners assert that the State sanction of contraceptive use contravenes natural law and is an affront to the dignity of man.132 Finally, it is contended that since Section 9 of the RH Law requires the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to certify that the product or supply is not to be used as an abortifacient, the assailed legislation effectively confirms that abortifacients are not prohibited. Also considering that the FDA is not the agency that will actually supervise or administer the use of these products and supplies to prospective patients, there is no way it can truthfully make a certification that it shall not be used for abortifacient purposes.133 Position of the Respondents For their part, the defenders of the RH Law point out that the intent of the Framers of the Constitution was simply the prohibition of abortion. They contend that the RH Law does not violate the Constitution since the said law emphasizes that only "non-abortifacient" reproductive health care services, methods, devices products and supplies shall be made accessible to the public.134 According to the OSG, Congress has made a legislative determination that contraceptives are not abortifacients by enacting the RH Law. As the RH Law was enacted with due consideration to various studies and consultations with the World Health Organization (WHO) and other experts in the medical field, it is asserted that the Court afford deference and respect to such a determination and pass judgment only when a particular drug or device is later on determined as an abortive.135 For his part, respondent Lagman argues that the constitutional protection of one's right to life is not violated considering that various studies of the WHO show that life begins from the implantation of the fertilized ovum. Consequently, he argues that the RH Law is constitutional since the law specifically provides that only contraceptives that do not prevent the implantation of the fertilized ovum are allowed.136 The Court's Position It is a universally accepted principle that every human being enjoys the right to life.137 Even if not formally established, the right to life, being grounded on natural law, is inherent and, therefore, not a creation of, or dependent upon a particular law, custom, or belief. It precedes and transcends any authority or the laws of men. In this jurisdiction, the right to life is given more than ample protection. Section 1, Article III of the Constitution provides: Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws. As expounded earlier, the use of contraceptives and family planning methods in the Philippines is not of recent vintage. From the enactment of R.A. No. 4729, entitled "An Act To