x x x. The instant Petition does not question contraception and contraceptives per se. As provided under Republic Act No. 5921 and Republic Act No. 4729, the sale and distribution of contraceptives are prohibited unless dispensed by a prescription duly licensed by a physician. What the Petitioners find deplorable and repugnant under the RH Law is the role that the State and its agencies - the entire bureaucracy, from the cabinet secretaries down to the barangay officials in the remotest areas of the country - is made to play in the implementation of the contraception program to the fullest extent possible using taxpayers' money. The State then will be the funder and provider of all forms of family planning methods and the implementer of the program by ensuring the widespread dissemination of, and universal access to, a full range of family planning methods, devices and supplies.74 ISSUES After a scrutiny of the various arguments and contentions of the parties, the Court has synthesized and refined them to the following principal issues: I. PROCEDURAL: Whether the Court may exercise its power of judicial review over the controversy. 1] Power of Judicial Review 2] Actual Case or Controversy 3] Facial Challenge 4] Locus Standi 5] Declaratory Relief 6] One Subject/One Title Rule II. SUBSTANTIVE: Whether the RH law is unconstitutional: 1] Right to Life 2] Right to Health 3] Freedom of Religion and the Right to Free Speech 4] The Family 5] Freedom of Expression and Academic Freedom 6] Due Process 7] Equal Protection 8] Involuntary Servitude