28. Alliance for the Family v.

Garin
G.R. No. 217872, August 24, 2016

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. SANDEJAS,
ROSIE B. LUISTRO, ELENITA S.A. SANDEJAS, EMILY R. LAWS, EILEEN Z. ARANETA, SALV
ACION C. MONTEIRO, MARIETTA C. GORREZ, ROLANDO M. BAUTISTA, RUBEN T. UMALI,
and MILDRED C. CASTOR , Petitioners
vs.
HON. JANETTE L. GARIN, Secretary-Designate of the Department of Health; NICOLAS
B.LUTERO III, Assistant Secretary of Health, Officer-in-Charge, Food and Drug
Administration; and MARIA LOURDES C. SANTIAGO, Officer in-Charge, Center for Drug
Regulation and Research, Respondents

x-----------------------x

G.R. No. 221866

MARIA CONCEPCION S. NOCHE, in her own behalf and as counsel of Petitioners, JOSE S.
SANDEJAS, ROSIE B. LUISTRO, ELENITA S.A. SANDEJAS, EMILY R. LAWS EILEEN Z.
ARANETA, SALVACION C. MONTEIRO MARIETTA C. GORREZ, ROLANDO M. BAUTISTA,
RUBEN T. UMALI, and MILDRED C. CASTOR, Petitioners
vs.
HON. JANETTE L. GARIN, Secretary-Designate of the Department of Health; NICOLAS B.
LUTERO III, Assistant Secretary of Health; NICOLAS B. LUTERO III, Assistant Secretary of
Health, Officer-in-Charge, Food and Drug Administration; and MARIA LOURDES C.
SANTIAGO, Officer-in-Charge, Center for Drug Regulation and Research, Respondents.

Topic: Judicial Review: Proper Party

Doctrine: The Court dismisses the notion that the recertification of contraceptive drugs and devices by
the FDA in exercise of its regulatory function is beyond judicial review. After all, the Constitution
mandates that judicial power include the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies
involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has
been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
instrumentality of the Government.

Facts:
The petitioners, as citizens and taxpayers, opposed the unilateral act of the Food and Drugs
Administration (FDA) on re-certifying certain contraceptive drugs named Implanon and Implanon NXT
on the basis that these drugs are abortifacients. According to the petitioners, they should have been given
notice of the certification proceedings, and a chance to present evidence that these drugs are indeed
abortifacients.

The case was then remanded to the FDA and it was directed to observe the basic requirements of due
process by conducting a hearing, and allowing the petitioners to be heard, on the re-certified, procured
and administered contraceptive drugs and devices, including Implanon and lmplanon NXT, and to
determine whether they are abortifacients or non-abortifacients.

The respondents, on the other hand, argued that their actions should be sustained, even if the petitioners
were not afforded notice and hearing, because the contested acts of registering, re-certifying, procuring,
and administering contraceptive drugs and devices were all done in the exercise of its regulatory power.
They contended that considering that the issuance of the certificate of product registration (CPR) by the
FDA under Section 7.04, Rule of the IRR of R.A. No. 10354 (RH-IRR) did not involve the adjudication
of the parties' opposing rights and liabilities through an adversarial proceeding, the due process
requirements of notice and hearing need not be complied with.

They are in turn contending that as long as the act of the FDA is exercised pursuant to its regulatory
power, it need not comply with the due process requirements of notice and hearing. The respondents
wanted the Court to consider that the FDA had delineated its functions among different persons and
bodies in its organization. Thus, they asked the Court to make a distinction between the "quasi-judicial
powers" exercised by the Director-General of the FDA under Section 2(b) of Article 3, Book I of the
IRR of R.A. No. 9711, and the "regulatory/administrative powers "exercised by the FDA under Section
2(c )(1) of the same. For the respondents, the distinction given in the above-cited provisions was all but
proof that the issuance of CPR did not require notice and hearing.

Issue: WON petitioners have standing. YES.

Ruling:

In Imbong, it was already stated that (from) the declared policy of the RH Law, it is clear that Congress
intended that the public be given only those medicines that are proven medically safe, legal, non-
abortifacient, and effective in accordance with scientific and evidence-based medical research standard.

 Considering that the Court in Imbong already declared that

o the issues of contraception and reproductive health
 in relation to the right to life of the unborn child
 were indeed of transcendental importance,45 
o and considering also that the petitioners averred that the respondents
unjustly caused the allocation of public funds
 for the purchase of alleged abortifacients which would deprive
the unborn of its the right to life,
 the Court finds that the petitioners have locus standi to
file these petitions.
27_Alliance for the Family vs. Garin, G.R. No. 217872 (2016)

 The Constitution mandates that judicial power include the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual
controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable and to determine whether or not
there has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch
or instrumentality of the Government.—
o Consequently, the Court dismisses the notion that
 the recertification of contraceptive drugs and devices by the FDA
 in exercise of its regulatory function
o is beyond judicial review.
o After all, the Constitution mandates that
 judicial power includes
 the duty of the courts of justice
 o to settle actual controversies
 involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable,
 and to determine whether or not there has been grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction
o on the part of any branch or instrumentality of
the Government.
 As stated above, the OSG questioned the legal standing of the petitioners to file the subject petition as citizens
and taxpayers, not only because of their failure to establish any direct injury, but also because of their failure
to show that the issues raised were of transcendental importance.
 In Imbong, it was already stated that “(from) the declared policy of the RH Law,
o it is clear that Congress intended that
 the public be given only those medicines
 that are proven medically safe, legal, non-abortifacient, and effective
o in accordance with scientific and evidence-based medical research
standards.”
o Thus, the public, including the petitioners in these cases,
 have the right to question
 any approval or disapproval by the FDA of any drugs or devices which they suspect
to be abortifacient
o on the ground that they were not properly tested or were done in haste or
secrecy.
 As early as David v. Macapagal-Arroyo,44 the Court has already ruled that
o “[t]axpayers, voters, concerned citizens, x x x
 may be accorded standing to sue, provided that x x x
 for taxpayers, there must be
o a claim of illegal disbursement of public funds
o or that the tax measure is unconstitutional x x x
 for concerned citizens, there must be a showing that
 the issues raised are of transcendental importance
o which must be settled early. x x x”
 Considering that the Court in Imbong already declared that
o the issues of contraception and reproductive health
 in relation to the right to life of the unborn child
 were indeed of transcendental importance,45 
o and considering also that the petitioners averred that the respondents
unjustly caused the allocation of public funds
 for the purchase of alleged abortifacients which would deprive
the unborn of its the right to life,
 the Court finds that the petitioners have locus standi to
file these petitions.