Case Digest (G.R. No. 217872)
Facts:
On April 26, 2017, the Supreme Court Special Second Division resolved consolidated cases G.R. Nos. 217872 and 221866 filed by Alliance for the Family Foundation, Philippines, Inc. (ALFI), Atty. Maria Concepcion S. Noche (in her own behalf and as ALFI’s president), Jose S. Sandezjas, Rosie B. Luiistro, and other individuals (collectively, petitioners) against Hon. Janette L. Garin (DOH Secretary-designate), Nicolas B. Lutero III (FDA Officer-in-Charge), and Maria Lourdes C. Santiago (CDRR Officer-in-Charge) (respondents). Petitioners challenged the Food and Drug Administration’s registration, re-certification, procurement, distribution, and administration of contraceptive drugs and devices—particularly Implanon and Implanon NXT—alleging they are abortifacients and asserting that the FDA never acted on their formal oppositions or afforded them notice and hearing. In August 2016, the Court issued a decision remanding the matter to the FDA for due-process hearings, enjoining furtherCase Digest (G.R. No. 217872)
Facts:
- Parties and Actions
- Petitioners: Alliance for the Family Foundation, Philippines, Inc. (ALFI) and individuals led by Atty. Maria Concepcion S. Noche.
- Respondents: Hon. Janette L. Garin (DOH Secretary-designate), Nicolas B. Lutero III (FDA OIC), Maria Lourdes C. Santiago (CDRR OIC).
- Relief sought: Certiorari, prohibition, mandamus with TRO and injunction (G.R. No. 217872); contempt proceedings (G.R. No. 221866).
- August 24, 2016 Decision
- The Supreme Court remanded G.R. No. 217872 to the FDA, ordering it to observe due process (notice, hearing, intervention) in certifying contraceptives (e.g., Implanon, Implanon NXT) as non-abortifacients.
- Directives issued to FDA, DOH, and other agencies to amend rules, ensure publication, intervention rights, application of constitutional standard on life from conception, and resolve pending TROs.
- Contempt petition (G.R. No. 221866) denied for lack of basis; TRO continued.
- Omnibus Motion for Partial Reconsideration
- Respondents (via OSG) challenged the requirement of notice and hearing, asserting their registration and certification acts were regulatory, not quasi-judicial, and thus not subject to due process formalities.
- They argued Ang Tibay due process standards inapplicable, scientific determinations beyond court competence, and TRO should be lifted to avoid delay in RH Law implementation.
Issues:
- Whether FDA’s certification and recertification of contraceptives exercise “regulatory powers” immune from due process requirements.
- Whether due process standards (notice, hearing, intervention, reasoned decision) from Ang Tibay v. CIR apply to FDA’s certification of non-abortifacient contraceptives.
- Scope of judicial review over FDA’s regulatory, quasi-legislative, and quasi-judicial acts.
- Proper appellate route for FDA decisions on contraceptive certification (Secretary of Health vs. Office of the President).
- Whether to lift the TRO pending FDA compliance.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)