In other words, public health officers in contrast to the private practitioners who can be conscientious objectors, skilled health professionals cannot be considered conscientious objectors. Do you agree with this? Is this not against the constitutional right to the religious belief? Congressman Lagman: Your Honor, if there is any conflict between the IRR and the law, the law must prevail. 230 Compelling State Interest The foregoing discussion then begets the question on whether the respondents, in defense of the subject provisions, were able to: 1] demonstrate a more compelling state interest to restrain conscientious objectors in their choice of services to render; and 2] discharge the burden of proof that the obligatory character of the law is the least intrusive means to achieve the objectives of the law. Unfortunately, a deep scrutiny of the respondents' submissions proved to be in vain. The OSG was curiously silent in the establishment of a more compelling state interest that would rationalize the curbing of a conscientious objector's right not to adhere to an action contrary to his religious convictions. During the oral arguments, the OSG maintained the same silence and evasion. The Transcripts of the Stenographic Notes disclose the following: Justice De Castro: Let's go back to the duty of the conscientious objector to refer. .. Senior State Solicitor Hilbay: Yes, Justice. Justice De Castro: ... which you are discussing awhile ago with Justice Abad. What is the compelling State interest in imposing this duty to refer to a conscientious objector which refuses to do so because of his religious belief? Senior State Solicitor Hilbay: Ahh, Your Honor, .. Justice De Castro: What is the compelling State interest to impose this burden? Senior State Solicitor Hilbay: