Pharmaceutical And Health Care Association Of The Philippines VS.

Health
Secretary Francisco T. Duque III
G.R. No. 173034, October 9, 2007
Austria-Martinez, J

FACTS:
The Pharmaceutical And Health Care Association Of The Philippines filed a
petition for certiorari to nullify the Administrative Order (A.O.) No. 2006-0012
entitled, Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations of Executive Order No. 51,
Otherwise Known as The "Milk Code," Relevant International Agreements,
Penalizing Violations Thereof, and for Other Purposes (RIRR). The petitioner
argued that the RIRR is not valid as it contains provisions that are not
constitutional and go beyond the law it is supposed to implement.

The Milk Code was issued in 1986 to effect Article 112 of the International Code
of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes (ICMBS), adopted by the World Health
Assembly (WHA) in 1981.

In 1990, the Philippines ratified the International Convention on the Rights of the
Child, which provides that State Parties should take appropriate measures to
diminish infant and child mortality and ensure that all segments of society,
especially parents and children, are informed of the advantages of breastfeeding.

On May 15, 2006, the DOH issued herein assailed RIRR, which was to take effect
on July 7, 2006. However, on August 15, 2006, the Court issued a Resolution
granting the TRO enjoining respondents from implementing the questioned RIRR,
which is filed by the members that are manufacturers of breastmilk substitutes.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the provisions of the RIRR are not constitutional.
2. Whether or not the DOH may implement the provisions of the WHA
Resolutions by virtue of its powers and functions under the Revised
Administrative Code, even in the absence of a domestic law.

RULING:
1. The Court held that the provisions of the RIRR that go beyond the
provisions of the Milk Code are not constitutional. The Court found that
there are a number of provisions of the RIRR that are unconstitutional.
Expressly, Sections 4(f), 11, and 46 of the RIRR As a result, the petition is
partially granted. Other than that, the ICMBS and WHA Resolutions are not
treaties as they have not been concurred in by at least two-thirds of all
members of the Senate as required under Section 21, Article VII of the
1987 Constitution. Consequently, the Court reasoned that the Milk Code is
a domestic law that was enacted by the legislature, while the WHA
Resolutions are not domestic laws.

2. No, the DOH does not have the authority to implement the provisions of the
WHA Resolutions without a domestic law. Although Section 3, Chapter 1,
Title IX of the Revised Administrative Code of 1987 authorizes the DOH to
define the national health policy and implement a national health plan, the
DOH cannot implement the provisions of the WHA Resolutions because
they are not domestic laws. Additionally, there are provisions in the WHA
Resolutions that differ from the provisions in the Milk Code, and these
provisions can only be implemented according to a law amending the Milk
Code passed by the legislature.