Alfi VS Garin, GR 217872
Alfi VS Garin, GR 217872
e Court resolved the: [1] Petition for Certiorari, Republic Act No. 10354 covered by the certification from the Food
Prohibition, Mandamus with Prayer for Issuance of a Temporary and Drug Administration that said product and supply is made
April 26, 2017 Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Prohibitory and available on the condition that it will not be used as an
G.R. No. 217872 Mandatory Injunction (G.R. No. 217872); and the [2] Petition for abortifacient subject to the following minimum due process
Contempt of Court (G.R. No. 221866), in the following manner: requirements: (a) publication, notice and hearing, and (b)
interested parties shall be allowed to intervene. The rules and
regulations or guidelines shall provide sufficient detail as to the
ALLIANCE FOR THE FAMILY FOUNDATION, PHILIPPINES, INC. (ALFI) and ATTY. MARIA
CONCEPCION S. NOCHE, in her own behalf and as President of ALFI, JOSE S. WHEREFORE, the case docketed as G.R No. 217872 is hereby manner by which said product and supply shall be strictly regulated
SANDEJAS, ROSIE B. LUISTRO, ELENITA S.A. SANDEJAS, EMILY R. LAWS, EILEEN Z. REMANDED to the Food and Drugs Administration which is hereby in order that they will not be used as an abortifacient and in order
ARANETA, SALV ACION C. MONTEIRO, MARIETTA C. GORREZ, ROLANDO M. to sufficiently safeguard the right to life of the unborn.
BAUTISTA, RUBEN T. UMALI, and MILDRED C. CASTOR , Petitioners ordered to observe the basic requirements of due process by
conducting a hearing, and allowing the petitioners to be heard, on
vs. the re-certified, procured and administered contraceptive drugs
HON. JANETTE L. GARIN, Secretary-Designate of the Department of Health; NICOLAS and devices, including Implanon and lmplanon NXT, and to 3. DIRECTS the Department of Health to generate the complete and
B.LUTERO III, Assistant Secretary of Health, Officer-in-Charge, Food and Drug determine whether they are abortifacients or non-abortifacients. correct list of the government's reproductive health programs and
Administration; and MARIA LOURDES C. SANTIAGO, Officer in-Charge, Center for services under Republic Act No. 10354 which will serve as the
Drug Regulation and Research, Respondents
template for the complete and correct information standard and,
Pursuant to the expanded jurisdiction of this Court and its power to hence, the duty to inform under Section 23(a)(l) of Republic Act No.
issue rules for the protection and enforcement of constitutional 10354. The Department of Health is DIRECTED to distribute copies
x-----------------------x
rights, the Court hereby: of this template to all health care service providers covered by
Republic Act No. 10354.
G.R. No. 221866
Part 1: Due Process need not be complied with as the questioned The powers of an administrative body are classified into two
acts of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) were in the Part 2: The requirements of due process need not be complied with fundamental powers: quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial. Quasi-
exercise of its Regulatory Powers as the elements of procedural due process laid down in Ang Tibay legislative power, otherwise known as the power of subordinate
v. CIR are not applicable legislation, has been defined as the authority delegated by the
In the subject Omnibus Motion, the respondents argued that their lawmaking body to the administrative body to adopt rules and
actions should be sustained, even if the petitioners were not regulations intended to carry out the provisions of law and
afforded notice and hearing, because the contested acts of implement legislative policy. 18 "[A] legislative rule is in the nature
registering, re-certifying, procuring, and administering The respondents further claimed in their omnibus motion that the of subordinate legislation, designed to implement a primary
contraceptive drugs and devices were all done in the exercise of its requirements of due process need not be complied with because legislation by providing the details thereof." 19 The exercise by the
regulatory power.4 They contended that considering that the the standards of procedural due process laid down in Ang Tibay v. administrative body of its quasi-legislative power through the
issuance of the certificate of product registration (CPR) by the FDA CIR 13 were inapplicable considering that: a) substantial evidence promulgation of regulations of general application does not, as a
under Section 7.04, Rule5 of the Implementing Rules and could not be used as a measure in determining whether a rule, require notice and hearing. The only exception being where
Regulations of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 10354 (RH-IRR) did not contraceptive drug or device was abortifacient; 14 b) the courts the Legislature itself requires it and mandates that the regulation
involve the adjudication of the parties' opposing rights and had neither jurisdiction nor competence to review the findings of shall be based on certain facts as determined at an appropriate
liabilities through an adversarial proceeding, the due process the FDA on the non-abortifacient character of contraceptive drugs investigation.20
requirements of notice and hearing need not be complied with.6 or devices; 15 c) the FDA was not bound by the rules of
admissibility and presentation of evidence under the Rules of
Court; 16 and d) the findings of the FDA could not be subject of the
rule on res judicata and stare-decisis. 17 Quasi-judicial power, on the other hand, is known as the power of
Stated differently, the respondents assert that as long as the act of the administrative agency to determine questions of fact to which
the FDA is exercised pursuant to its regulatory power, it need not the legislative policy is to apply, in accordance with the standards
comply with the due process requirements of notice and hearing. laid down by the law itself.21 As it involves the exercise of
The respondents then insisted that Implanon and Implanon NXT discretion in determining the rights and liabilities of the parties, the
were not abortifacients and lamented that the continued injunction proper exercise of quasi-judicial power requires the concurrence of
Corollary to this, the respondents wanted the Court to consider of the Court had hampered the efforts of the FDA to provide for the two elements: one, jurisdiction which must be acquired by the
that the FDA had delineated its functions among different persons reproductive health needs of Filipino women. For the respondents, administrative body and two, the observance of the requirements
and bodies in its organization. Thus, they asked the Court to make a to require them to afford the parties like the petitioners an of due process, that is, the right to notice and hearing.22
distinction between the "quasi-judicial powers" exercised by the opportunity to question their findings would cause inordinate delay
Director-General of the FDA under Section 2(b)7 of Article 3, Book I in the distribution of the subject contraceptive drugs and devices
of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 9711,8 which would have a dire impact on the effective implementation of
the RH Law. On the argument that the certification proceedings were
and the "regulatory/administrative powers" exercised by the FDA conducted by the FDA in the exercise of its "regulatory powers"
under Section 2(c )(1) 9 of the same. For the respondents, the and, therefore, beyond judicial review, the Court holds that it has
distinction given in the above-cited provisions was all but proof the power to review all acts and decisions where there is a
that the issuance of CPR did not require notice and hearing. The Court's Ruling commission of grave abuse of discretion. No less than the
Constitution decrees that the Court must exercise its duty to
ensure that no grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
After detailing the process by which the FDA's Center for Drug After an assiduous assessment of the arguments of the parties, the excess of jurisdiction is committed by any branch or instrumentality
Regulation and Research (CDRR) examined and tested the Court denies the Omnibus Motion, but deems that a clarification on of the Government. Such is committed when there is a violation of
contraceptives for non-abortifacience, 10 the respondents stressed some points is in order. the constitutional mandate that "no person is deprived of life,
liberty, and property without due process of law." The Court's the twin requirements of notice and hearing. Nowhere from the of the questioned contraceptive drugs and devices. Instead of
power cannot be curtailed by the FDA's invocation of its regulatory above-quoted texts can it be inferred that the exercise of addressing the petitioners' assertion that the questioned
power. "regulatory power" places an administrative agency beyond the contraceptive drugs and devices fell within the definition of an
reach of judicial review. When there is grave abuse of discretion, "abortifacient" under Section 4(a) of the RH Law because of their
such as denying a party of his constitutional right to due process, "secondary mechanism of action which induces abortion or
In so arguing, the respondents cited Atty. Carlo L. Cruz in his book, the Court can come in and exercise its power of judicial review. It destruction of the fetus inside the mother's womb or the
Philippine Administrative Law. can review the challenged acts, whether exercised by the FDA in its prevention of the fertilized ovum to reach and be implanted in the
ministerial, quasi-judicial or regulatory power. In the past, the mother's womb,"32 the respondents chose to ignore them and
Court exercised its power of judicial review over acts and decisions proceeded with the registration, recertification, procurement, and
of agencies exercising their regulatory powers, such as DPWH, 24 distribution of several contraceptive drugs and devices.
Lest there be any inaccuracy, the relevant portions of the book TRB, 25 NEA, 26 and the SEC,27 among others. In Diocese of
cited by the respondents are hereby quoted as follows: Bacolod v. Commission on Elections,28 the Court properly
xxx. exercised its power of judicial review over a Comelec resolution A cursory reading of the subject Omnibus Motion shows that the
issued in the exercise of its regulatory power. respondents proffer no cogent explanation as to why they did not
act on the petitioners' opposition. As stated by the Court in the
B. The Quasi-Judicial Power Decision, rather than provide concrete action to meet the
Clearly, the argument of the FDA is flawed. petitioners' opposition, the respondents simply relied on their
xxx challenge questioning the propriety of the subject petition on
Petitioners were Denied their technical and procedural grounds. 33 The Court, thus, finds the
2. Determinative Powers subject motion to be simply a rehash of the earlier arguments
Right to Due Process
presented before, with the respondents still harping on the
To better enable the administrative body to exercise its quasi
peculiarity of the FDA's functions to exempt it from compliance
judicial authority, it is also vested with what is known as
with the constitutional mandate that "no person shall be deprived
determinative powers and functions. Due process of law has two aspects: substantive and procedural. In oflife, liberty and property without due process of law."
order that a particular act may not be impugned as violative of the
due process clause, there must be compliance with both the
Professor Freund classifies them generally into the enabling powers substantive and the procedural requirements thereof. 29
Substantive due process refers to the intrinsic validity of a law that The law and the rules demand compliance with due process
and the directing powers. The latter includes the dispensing, the
interferes with the rights of a person to his property.30 Procedural requirements
examining, and the summary powers.
due process, on the other hand, means compliance with the A reading of the various provisions, cited by the respondents in
procedures or steps, even periods, prescribed by the statute, in support of their assertion that due process need not be complied
conformity with the standard of fair play and without arbitrariness with in the approval of contraceptive drugs or devices, all the more
The enabling vowers are those that permit the doing of an act
on the part of those who are called upon to administer it.31 reinforces the Court's conclusion that the FDA did fail to afford the
which the law undertakes to regulate and which would be unlawful
with government approval. The most common example is the petitioners a genuine opportunity to be heard.
issuance of licenses to engage in a particular business or
occupation, like the operation of a liquor store or restaurant. x x x. The undisputed fact is that the petitioners were deprived of their
23 [Emphases and underscoring supplied] constitutional right to due process of law. As outlined by the respondents themselves, the steps by which the
FDA approves contraceptive drugs or devices, demand compliance
with the requirements of due process viz:
From the above, two things are apparent: one, the "enabling As expounded by the Court, what it found to be primarily
powers" cover "regulatory powers" as defined by the respondents; deplorable is the failure of the respondents to act upon, much less
and two, they refer to a subcategory of a quasi-judicial power address, the various oppositions filed by the petitioners against the Step 1. Identify contraceptive products in the database. Create
which, as explained in the Decision, requires the compliance with product registration, recertification, procurement, and distribution another database containing the following details of contraceptive
products: generic name, dosage strength and form, brand name (if A. Part I (Review of Chemistry, Manufacture and Controls)
any), registration number, manufacturer, MAH, and the period of
validity of the CPR. 1. Unit Dose and Finished Product Formulation If an opposition or adverse comment is filed on the ground that the
drug or devise has abortifacient features or violative of the RH Law,
2. Technical Finished Product Specifications based on the pronouncements of the Court in Im bong or any other
3. Certificate of Analysis law or rule, the FDA is duty-bound to take into account and
Step 2. Identify contraceptive products which are classified as consider the basis of the opposition.
essential medicines in the Philippine Drug Formulary.
Step 6. Post a list of contraceptive products which were applied for More importantly, the Court notes that Step 5 requires the FDA to As earlier mentioned, the respondents argue that the Decision
re-certification for public comments in the FDA website. issue a notice to all concerned MAHs and require them to submit "wreaked havoc on the organizational structure of the FDA, whose
scientific evidence that their product is non-abortifacient; and that myriad of functions have been carefully delineated under R.A. No.
Step 6 requires the posting of the list of contraceptive products 9711 IRR."36 Citing Section 7.04, Rule 7 of the RH-IRR, the FDA
which were applied for re-certification for public comments in the insists that the function it exercises in certifying family planning
Step 7. Evaluate contraceptive products for re-certification. FDA website. supplies is in the exercise of its regulatory power, which cannot be
the subject of judicial review, and that it is the Director-General of
the FDA who exercises quasi-judicial powers, citing Section 2(b) of "(e) To issue certificates of compliance with technical requirements "(o) To prescribe standards, guidelines, and regulations with
Article 3, Book I of the RH-IRR.37 to serve as basis for the issuance of appropriate authorization and respect to information, advertisements and other marketing
spot-check for compliance with regulations regarding operation of instruments and promotion, sponsorship, and other marketing
manufacturers, importers, exporters, distributors, wholesalers, activities about the health products as covered in this Act;
The FDA wants the Court to consider that, as a body, it has a drug outlets, and other establishments and facilities of health
products, as determined by the FDA; "(p) To maintain bonded warehouses and/or establish the same,
distinct and separate personality from the Director-General, who whenever necessary or appropriate, as determined by the director-
exercises quasi-judicial power. The Court cannot accommodate the "xxx general for confiscated goods in strategic areas of the country
position of the respondents. Section 6(a) of R.A. No. 3720, as especially at major ports of entry; and
amended by Section 7 of R.A. No. 9711,38 provides that "(a) The
FDA shall be headed by a director-general with the rank of
undersecretary, xxx." How can the head be separated from the "(h) To conduct appropriate tests on all applicable health products
body? prior to the issuance of appropriate authorizations to ensure "(q) To exercise such other powers and perform such other
safety, efficacy, purity, and quality; functions as may be necessary to carry out its duties and
responsibilities under this Act. [Emphases supplied]
"(i) To require all manufacturers, traders, distributors, importers,
For the record, Section 4 of R.A. No. 3720, as amended by Section 5 exporters, wholesalers, retailers, consumers, and non-consumer
of R.A. No. 9711, also recognizes compliance with the requirements users of health products to report to the FDA any incident that
of due process, although the proceedings are not adversarial. Thus: reasonably indicates that said product has caused or contributed to The Cardinal Rights of Parties in Administrative Proceedings as laid
the death, serious illness or serious injury to a consumer, a patient, down in Ang Tibay v. CIR
or any person;
Section 5. Section 4 of Republic Act No. 3720, as amended, is "G) To issue cease and desist orders motu propio or upon verified
hereby further amended to read as follows: In Ang Tibay v. CJR,39 the Court laid down the cardinal rights of
com plaint for health products, whether or not registered with the parties in administrative proceedings, as follows:
FDA Provided, That for registered health products, the cease and
desist order is valid for thirty (30) days and may be extended for
"SEC. 4. To carry out the provisions of this Act, there is hereby sixty (60) days only after due process has been observed;
created an office to be called the Food and Drug Administration 1) The right to a hearing, which includes the right to present one's
(FDA) in the Department of Health (DOH). Said Administration shall "(k) After due process, to order the ban, recall, and/or withdrawal case and submit evidence in support thereof;
be under the Office of the Secretary and shall have the following of any health product found to have caused the death, serious
illness or serious injury to a consumer or patient, or is found to be 2) The tribunal must consider the evidence presented;
functions, powers and duties:
imminently injurious, unsafe, dangerous, or grossly deceptive, and 3) The decision must have something to support itself;
to require all concerned to implement the risk management plan
which is a requirement for the issuance of the appropriate 4) The evidence must be substantial;
"(a) To administer the effective implementation of this Act and of authorization;
the rules and regulations issued pursuant to the same; 5) The decision must be rendered on the evidence presented at the
"(l) To strengthen the post market surveillance system in hearing, or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the
"(b) To assume primary jurisdiction in the collection of samples of monitoring health products as defined in this Act and incidents of parties affected;
health products; adverse events involving such products;
6) The tribunal or body or any of its judges must act on its or his
"(c) To analyze and inspect health products in connection with the "(m) To develop and issue standards and appropriate own independent consideration of the law and facts of the
implementation of this Act; authorizations that would cover establishments, facilities and controversy and not simply accept the views of a subordinate in
"(d) To establish analytical data to serve as basis for the health products; arriving at a decision; and
preparation of health products standards, and to recommend "(n) To conduct, supervise, monitor and audit research studies on 7) The board or body should, in all controversial questions, render
standards of identity, purity, safety, efficacy, quality and fill of health and safety issues of health products undertaken by entities its decision in such a manner that the parties to the proceeding can
container; duly approved by the FDA;
know the various issues involved, and the reason for the decision questioned contraceptive drugs by the respondents should be
rendered. 40 struck down as violative of the constitutional right to due process.
In the fairly recent case of Vivo v. Pagcor,43 the Court explained:
In the Decision, the Court found that the FDA certified, procured Verily, it is a cardinal precept that where there is a violation of basic
and administered contraceptive drugs and devices, without the constitutional rights, the courts are ousted from their jurisdiction. The observance of fairness in the conduct of any investigation is at
observance of the basic tenets of due process, that is, without The violation of a party's right to due process raises a serious the very heart of procedural due process. The essence of due
notice and without public hearing. It appeared that, other than the jurisdictional issue which cannot be glossed over or disregarded at process is to be heard, and, as applied to administrative
notice inviting stakeholders to apply for certification/recertification will. Where the denial of the fundamental right to due process is proceedings, this means a fair and reasonable opportunity to
of their reproductive health products, there was no showing that apparent, a decision rendered in disregard of that right is void for explain one's side, or an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of
the respondents considered the opposition of the petitioners. Thus, lack of jurisdiction. This rule is equally true in quasi-judicial and the action or ruling complained of. Administrative due process
the Court wrote: administrative proceedings, for the constitutional guarantee that cannot be fully equated with due process in its strict judicial sense,
no man shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due for in the former a formal or trial-type hearing is not always
process is unqualified by the type of proceedings (whether judicial necessary, and technical rules of procedure are not strictly applied.
or administrative) where he stands to lose the same.41 Ledesma v. Court of Appeals elaborates on the well-established
Rather than provide concrete evidence to meet the petitioners' meaning of due process in administrative proceedings in this wise:
opposition, the respondents simply relied on their challenge
questioning the propriety of the subject petition on technical and
procedural grounds. The Court notes that even the letters The Court stands by that finding and, accordingly, reiterates its
submitted by the petitioners to the FDA and the DOH seeking order of remand of the case to the FDA. x x x Due process, as a constitutional precept, does not always and
information on the actions taken by the agencies regarding their in all situations require a trial-type proceeding. Due process is
opposition were left unanswered as if they did not exist at all. The satisfied when a person is notified of the charge against him and
mere fact that the RH Law was declared as not unconstitutional given an opportunity to explain or defend himself. In administrative
Procedure in the FDA; No Trial-Type Hearing proceedings, the filing of charges and giving reasonable
does not permit the respondents to run roughshod over the
constitutional rights, substantive and procedural, of the petitioners. opportunity for the person so charged to answer the accusations
against him constitute the minimum requirements of due process.
The Court is of the view that the FDA need not conduct a trial-type The essence of due process is simply to be heard, or as applied to
hearing. Indeed, due process does not require the conduct of a administrative proceedings, an opportunity to explain one's side, or
Indeed, although the law tasks the FDA as the primary agency to trial-type hearing to satisfy its requirements. All that the an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling
determine whether a contraceptive drug or certain device has no Constitution requires is that the FDA afford the people their right to complained of. [Emphasis supplied; citations omitted]
abortifacient effects, its findings and conclusion should be allowed due process of law and decide on the applications submitted by
to be questioned and those who oppose the same must be given a MAHs after affording the oppositors like the petitioners a genuine
genuine opportunity to be heard in their stance. After all, under opportunity to present their science-based evidence. As earlier
Section 4(k) of R.A. No. 3720, as amended by R.A. No. 9711, the Best Evidence Available
pointed out, this the FDA failed to do. It simply ignored the
FDA is mandated to order the ban, recall and/ or withdrawal of any opposition of the petitioners. In the case of Perez, et al. v.
health product found to have caused death, serious illness or Philippine Telegraph and Telephone Company, et al., 42 it was
serious injury to a consumer or patient, or found to be imminently stated that: Section 5, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court provides:
injurious, unsafe, dangerous, or grossly deceptive, after due
process.
A formal trial-type hearing is not even essential to due process. It is Section 5. In all cases filed before administrative or quasi-
enough that the parties are given a fair and reasonable opportunity judicialbodies, a fact may be deemed established if it is supported
Due to the failure of the respondents to observe and comply with to explain their respective sides of the controversy and to present by substantialevidence, or the amount of relevant evidence which a
the basic requirements of due process, the Court is of the view that supporting evidence on which a fair decision can be based. reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.
the certifications/re-certifications and the distribution of the
As applied to certification proceedings at the FDA, "substantial requires is that the FDA afford the people their right to due process
evidence" refers to the best scientific evidence available,44 of law and decide on the applications submitted by the MAHs after
"including but not limited to: meta analyses, systematic reviews, affording the oppositors, like the petitioners, a genuine opportunity On the Prayer to Lift the TRO
national clinical practice guidelines where available, and to present their sciencebased evidence.
recommendations of international medical organizations," needed
to support a conclusion whether a contraceptive drug or device is The respondents lament that the assailed decision undermines the
an abortifacient or not. The FDA need not be bound or limited by The Appellate Procedure; functions of the FDA as the specialized agency tasked to determine
the evidence adduced by the parties, but it can conduct its own whether a contraceptive drug or device is safe, effective and non-
search for related scientific data. It can also consult other technical Appeal to the Office of the President abortifacient. They also claim that the assailed decision requiring
scientific experts known in their fields. It is also not bound by the notice and hearing would unduly delay the issuance of CPR thereby
principle of stare decisis or res judicata, but may update itself and affecting public access to State-funded contraceptives. Finally, in a
cancel certifications motu proprio when new contrary scientific Incidentally, Section 32 of R.A. No. 3720 and Section 9 of Executive veritable attempt to sow panic, the respondents claim that the TRO
findings become available or there arise manifest risks which have Order (E.O.) No. 247 provide that any decision by the FDA would issued by the Court would result in "a nationwide stockout of
not been earlier predicted. then be appealable to the Secretary of Health, whose decision, in family planning supplies in accredited public health facilities and
tum, may be appealed to the Office of the President (OP). Thus: the commercial market. "45
2 Id. at 382-405.
4 Id. at 414-430. Step 5. Issue a notice to all concerned MAHs, requiring them to submit scientific
evidence that their product is non-abortifacient, as defined in the RH Law and lmbong.
xxx
The FDA must certify that a family planning drug or device is not an abortifacient in
dosages of its approved indication (for drugs) or intended use (for devices) prior to its
inclusion in the EDL. The FDA shall observe the following guidelines in the 9 c. Regulatory Powers, Duties and Functions: Step 7. Evaluate contraceptive products for re-certification.
determination of whether or not a drug or device is an abortifacient:
B. Part II (Evaluation of Whether the Contraceptive Product is Abortifacient) 20 Cruz, Philippine Administrative Law, supra note 18 at 67.
1. Evaluation of the scientific evidence submitted by the applicant and the public. 21 Id. at 88, citing Gudmindson v. Cardollo, 126 F2d. 521.
The FDA must certify that a family planning drug or device is not an abortifacient in
dosages of its approved indication (for drugs) or intended use (for devices) prior to its
2. Review and evaluation of extraneous evidence, e.g., scientific journals, meta- 22 Id. at 91. inclusion in the EDL. The FDA shall observe the following guidelines in the
analyses, etc. determination of whether or not a drug or device is an abortifacient:
25 Id. b) The following mechanisms do not constitute abortion: the prevention of ovulation;
11 Omnibus Motion, p. 37. the direct action on sperm cells prior to fertilization; the thickening of cervical mucus;
and any mechanism acting exclusively prior to the fertilization of the egg by the sperm;
26 ZAMECO II Board of Directors v. Castillejos Consumers Ass 'n. Inc. (CASCONA), et al.,
12 Rollo, pp. 442-447. 600 Phil. 365, (2009).
c) In making its determination, the FDA shall use the best evidence available, including
but not limited to: meta-analyses, systematic reviews, national clinical practice
guidelines where available, and recommendations of international medical
13 69 Phil. 635 (1940). 27 SEC v. Court of Appeals, 316 Phil. 903 (1995).
organizations;
14 Rollo, pp. 430-431. 28 G.R. No. 205728, January 21, 2015, 747 SCRA I. ("This case pertains to acts of
d) In the presence of conflicting evidence, the more recent, better-designed, and larger
COMELEC in the implementation of its regulatory powers. When it issued the notice
studies shall be preferred, and the conclusions found therein shall be used to
and letter, the COMELEC was allegedly enforcing election laws.")
determine whether or not a drug or device is an abortifacient; and
15 Id. at 431-432, 442.
40 As cited and paraphrased in Solid Homes v. Laserna, 574 Phil. 69, 83 (2008).
44 See Section 7.04 (c) Rule 7 ofthe Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No.
10354.
47 Alliance for the Family Foundation, Philippines, Inc. v. Garin, G.R. Nos. 217872 &
221866, August 24, 2016.