Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Constitutionality of The Milk Code of The Philippines
Constitutionality of The Milk Code of The Philippines
Constitutionality of The Milk Code of The Philippines
As a defense, the DOH states that the RIRR and other international instruments are
implemented through the Milk Code concerning infant and child nutrition are deemed part
of the law of the land by doctrine of Incorporation.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the RIRR is in accordance with the Milk Code
2. Whether the mentioned international agreements can be considered as part of the
law of the land
RULING
The petition is only PARTIALLY GRANTED. Sections 4f, 11, and 46 are declared NULL
and VOID and are prohibited by being implemented by the DOH while the rest are
deemed reasonable and in consonance with the Milk Code
The Court did not consider the WHA resolutions as customary which is automatically
incorporated into domestic law. The court finds that it has never been concurred in by
the Senate as per the 1987 Constitution and are thus not part of the law of the land.
PRINCIPLES
According to Article VII of the Constitution (Section 21), treaties would become part of the
law of the land through the doctrine of transformation which will only take effect if
concurred in by the senate
• The ICMBS has been adopted into Philippine Law through the Milk Code while
subsequent WHA resolutions have not been transformed into domestic law
The respondents also failed to establish that WHA Resolutions are automatically part of
the domestic law through incorporation and that such resolutions can be considered as
soft laws which are customary and may be considered as part of the law of the land.
Subsequent WHA Resolutions cannot also be considered as part of the law of land
without undergoing the process of transformation, thus cannot be implemented by the
DOH under the Milk Code without undergoing the process of legislation.
1
ADDITIONAL
2
ABBAS V COMELEC
Constitutionality of RA 6734
FACTS:
The case is a consolidated petition where petitioners claim that the Organic Act, or certain
provisions within the RA, is in unconstitutional or in conflict with the Tripoli Agreement.
The petitioners seek to enjoin the COMELEC from conducting a plebiscite, citing that the
Article II (Section 1) in the Organic Act, unconditionally creates an autonomous region
despite the condition imposed by the Constitution (creation of an autonomous region
should be based upon the concurrence of a plebiscite)
The petitioners also question the constitutionality of the RA claiming that it provides the
president power beyond the Constitution to merge existing regions by means of
administrative determination, which is Against Article X, (Section 10) of the Constitution
(no province, city, municipality, or brgy, may be created, divided, merged, or altered
without the approval by a majority of votes in a plebiscite.)
RULING
The two petitions were DISMISSED by the Court citing that the petitioners have failed to
overcome the presumption that every law has in its favor the presumption of
constitutionality. Therefore, the court finds the law constitutional.
Principles:
• In the Constitution, the creation of an autonomous region is determinative by the
concurrence of a plebiscite (by the majority of votes cast by the constituent units).
Only those provinces and cities who gained a majority in favor of the Organic Act
will be included in the autonomous region.
o Dependent not on the total majority vote in the plebiscite but of the majority
in each of the constituent unites
• The Court finds that while the power to merge administrative regions is not
expressly provided for in the Constitution, it is a power traditionally comes with
the position. There is no conflict between the requirement of government units
because it only expressly applies to provinces, cities, municipalities, or barangays,
not to administrative regions.
o The court also reiterates that the power granted to the president was to
merely regroup the existing regions and not to create.
3
ADDITIONAL