Case Digest (G.R. No. 173034) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Pharmaceutical and Health Care Association of the Philippines v. Duque, G.R. No. 173034, decided October 9, 2007, the Petitioner (an industry association representing manufacturers and distributors of breast-milk substitutes) challenged the validity of Department of Health Administrative Order No. 2006-0012 (“RIRR”), which revised the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Executive Order No. 51 (the “Milk Code”). Promulgated on May 15, 2006 and set to take effect July 7, 2006, the RIRR imposed an absolute ban on the advertising, promotion and sponsorship of breast-milk substitutes and prescribed new labeling, donation, research-assistance and sanctioning rules. On June 28, 2006, Petitioner filed a Rule 65 petition for certiorari and prohibition in the Supreme Court, praying also for a temporary restraining order (TRO). On August 15, 2006, the Court issued a TRO enjoining implementation of the RIRR. After memoranda and oral arguments on June 19, 2007, the Court resolved the pe Case Digest (G.R. No. 173034) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Parties and Background
- Petitioner Pharmaceutical and Health Care Association of the Philippines (PHAP) challenged Department of Health (DOH) A.O. No. 2006-0012 (Revised Implementing Rules & Regulations of EO No. 51 “Milk Code”), alleging excess of authority and constitutional infirmities.
- Respondents were Health Secretary Duque III, undersecretaries, assistant secretaries, and the DOH as co-respondent.
- Procedural History
- May 15, 2006: DOH issued the Revised IRR, effective July 7, 2006.
- June 28, 2006: PHAP filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with prayer for TRO/preliminary injunction; TRO granted August 15, 2006 enjoining RIRR implementation.
- June 19, 2007: Oral arguments held; issues framed over standing, conformity with EO 51, implementation of international agreements, due process/restraint of trade, and sufficiency of standards.
Issues:
- Standing
- Whether PHAP, as an association, is the real party in interest with standing to sue.
- Validity of RIRR
- Whether RIRR is constitutional and within DOH’s jurisdiction under EO 51 (Milk Code).
- Whether pertinent international agreements (CRC, ICESCR, CEDAW, ICMBS, WHA resolutions) are self-executing or require transformation, and whether RIRR duly implements them.
- Whether specific provisions (Sections 4(f), 5(w), 11, 13, 22, 32, 46, 52) violate due process or constitute undue restraint of trade.
- Whether Section 13’s “Total Effect” standard is sufficiently definite.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)