MANILA, Philippines -- The Court of Appeals has dismissed a petition seeking to nullify a ban imposed by the Manila City government on contraceptives, and told the residents who filed the suit to first take their case to the Manila Regional Trial Court (RTC).

But the residents implored the appellate court to rule on the issue, filing a motion for reconsideration earlier June, arguing that the case did not need to go through the trial court because the case concerned only legal matters and was of "transcendental importance."

The 20 Manila residents petitioned the appellate court in January, asking that it stop the implementation of Manila's Executive Order 003, which they said deprived them of their right to practice responsible parenthood.

They said the EO, issued by former mayor Jose “Lito” Atienza, discouraged the use of artificial contraception methods and encouraged natural family planning methods, tantamount to an all-out ban on artificial family methods.

This virtual ban, they alleged, resulted in the deterioration of their reproductive health because they were deprived of access to health care and development. It also resulted in numerous pregnancies, with the poor being the most affected.

But in an April 30 resolution by Justice Rodrigo Cosico, the appellate court said the Manila residents should respect the hierarchy of courts and should bring the case first to the Manila RTC.

Although the appellate court has concurrent jurisdiction with trial courts to take cognizance of the petition, litigants do not have unrestricted freedom of choice in deciding where to file the case, the Court of Appeals said.

But the petitioners questioned the ruling, saying in their motion for reconsideration that the doctrine of judicial hierarchy was not strictly applicable in certain cases, like theirs, where only questions of law are involved.

They also asked the appellate court to take cognizance of the case because the issues involved have far-reaching consequences, adding that it has the discretion of choosing not to apply the judicial hierarchy doctrine strictly.

They said the EO contributes to the sufferings of the poor caused by the rising prices of commodities.

"With the current economic crisis and the shortage of affordable basic commodities such as rice and gasoline, it is hard to imagine how this is not a case of transcendental importance as it involves the suffering of our fellow citizens in the immediate present, and the illegal refusal of the City of Manila to allow them such access and abdicate their duties under the law," they said.

They added that the EO had a direct impact on the health and well-being of the poor and had as much public interest involved as other cases where the appellate court disregarded the rule of convenience.

The Manila residents also said they would suffer "substantial injustice" if the appellate court would dismiss their plea and force them to repeat the process before the trial court, only for the issues to be brought back to the appellate court later.

"They can ill afford costly litigation that adds one more step to the entire process and thus, more expense," they said.

• SC orders health firm to pay P350M in tax deficiencies
• California gays to swap vows Monday as marriages begin
• Zeal, envy, paranoia

• Thousands flock to Black Nazarene mass
• Vendor stabbed dead on Manila sidewalk
• 2.5M turnout seen for Black Nazarene
• 5 prisoners bolt Manila jail
• Black Nazarene traffic advisory