Title
Roma Drug vs. Regional Trial Court of Guagua, Pampanga
Case
G.R. No. 149907
Decision Date
Apr 16, 2009
NBI raided Roma Drug for selling unregistered imported medicines under SLCD. Rodriguez challenged SLCD's constitutionality. RA 9502's passage rendered prosecution moot, halting charges.
writ of prohibition
importation of unregistered drugs
equal protection clause
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. 149907)

Factual Background

On 14 August 2000, agents of the National Bureau of Investigation and inspectors of the BFAD executed Search Warrant No. 00-43 at petitioner Roma Drug, a registered sole proprietorship owned by Romeo Rodriguez, located in San Matias, Guagua, Pampanga. The raiding team seized several imported pharmaceutical products, including Augmentin (375mg) tablets, Orbenin (500mg) capsules, Amoxil (250mg) capsules and Ampiclox (500mg). The seized medicines were manufactured by the foreign parent of the local distributor then known as SmithKline Beecham Research Limited, and were imported directly from abroad rather than purchased from the local SmithKline distributor. Roma Drug was one of six drug stores raided at roughly the same time following a request made by SmithKline.

Investigative and Charging Events

Following the seizure, the NBI filed a complaint against Rodriguez with the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor in San Fernando, Pampanga, charging him with violation of Section 4 of Republic Act No. 8203 in relation to Sections 3 and 5. The classification of the seized medicines as “counterfeit drugs” rested solely on their status as imported products not acquired through the Philippine-registered patent or trademark owner. There was no allegation that the drugs were adulterated or mislabeled, and the seized items were identical in content to their Philippine-registered counterparts.

Preliminary Challenge and Prosecutorial Action

During the preliminary investigation, Rodriguez mounted a constitutional challenge to the SLCD. Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Celerina C. Pineda, however, did not resolve the constitutional question and issued a Resolution dated 17 August 2001 recommending that Rodriguez be charged under Section 4(a) of the SLCD. Provincial Prosecutor Jesus Y. Manarang approved the recommendation.

Petition for Prohibition and Temporary Restraining Order

Petitioners sought a writ of prohibition to restrain the Regional Trial Court of Guagua, Pampanga, the Provincial Prosecutor and the BFAD from further prosecuting Rodriguez, and prayed that Sections 3(b)(3), 4 and 5 of Republic Act No. 8203 be declared unconstitutional. The petition asserted violations of the equal protection clause and of Section 11, Article XIII and Section 15, Article II of the 1987 Constitution. By Resolution dated 15 October 2001, the Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order enjoining the RTC from proceeding against Rodriguez, and barring the BFAD, the NBI and Glaxo Smithkline from prosecuting the petitioners.

Opposing Arguments

Glaxo Smithkline and the Office of the Solicitor General opposed the petition. Glaxo Smithkline urged the presumption of constitutionality of the SLCD, argued that Section 15, Article II and Section 11, Article XIII are non-self-executing and thus do not furnish a private cause of action, and contended that Section 11 could not be applied to oppress property rights of legitimate manufacturers and distributors. The Office of the Solicitor General framed the controversy as one of legislative policy wisdom outside the proper scope of judicial review and likewise relied on the presumption that the statute did not present a clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution.

Mootness by Subsequent Legislation

The Court observed that the constitutional questions were mooted by the passage of Republic Act No. 9502 in 2008. Section 7 of Republic Act No. 9502 amended Section 72 of the Intellectual Property Code to provide that the owner of a patent “has no right to prevent third parties” from certain acts, and expressly provided that, with regard to drugs and medicines, the limitation on patent rights applies after a drug or medicine has been introduced in the Philippines or anywhere else in the world by the patent owner or any party authorized to use the invention. The amendment further provided that “the right to import the drugs and medicines contemplated in this section shall be available to any government agency or any private third party.” The Court noted that the Implementing Rules to Republic Act No. 9502, promulgated 4 November 2008, confirmed this unqualified right for private third parties.

Statutory Conflict and Principles of Construction

The Court applied established principles of statutory construction. It concluded that the SLCD’s classification of “unregistered imported drugs” as “counterfeit drugs,” together with attendant criminal penalties, were irreconcilably inconsistent with the later, unqualified grant in Republic Act No. 9502 permitting third parties to import such drugs. The Court reiterated that where a subsequent enactment covering the same subject reveals an intention to abrogate a prior act, the later law prevails. The Court cited authorities that a later statute cannot be reconciled with an earlier one where the effect of the later law nullifies the reason or purpose of the earlier act and that legis posteriors priores contrarias abrogant.

Alternative Constitutional Observations

The Court observed that, had it reached the constitutional issue, it would have found substantial doubt as to the validity of the challenged SLCD provisions. The Court reasoned that the statute criminalized importation of unregistered drugs regardless of purpose, including situations where the medicine is necessary to preserve life, where the drug is unavailable in the Philippines, or where relatives import medicine for i

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms