PIL IVB 1,2, &3 Cases

G.R. No.
173034 October 9, 2007
PHARMACEUTICAL AND HEALTH CARE ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,

vs.
HEALTH SECRETARY FRANCISCO T. DUQUE III; HEALTH UNDER SECRETARIES DR.
ETHELYN P. NIETO, DR. MARGARITA M. GALON, ATTY. ALEXANDER A. PADILLA, & DR.
JADE F. DEL MUNDO; and ASSISTANT SECRETARIES DR. MARIO C. VILLAVERDE, DR.
DAVID J. LOZADA, AND DR. NEMESIO T. GAKO, respondents.
DECISION
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:
The Court and all parties involved are in agreement that the best nourishment for an infant is
mother's milk. There is nothing greater than for a mother to nurture her beloved child straight from
her bosom. The ideal is, of course, for each and every Filipino child to enjoy the unequaled benefits
of breastmilk. But how should this end be attained?
Before the Court is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, seeking to nullify
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).
Petitioner posits that the RIRR is not valid as it contains provisions that are not constitutional and go
beyond the law it is supposed to implement.
Named as respondents are the Health Secretary, Undersecretaries, and Assistant Secretaries of the
Department of Health (DOH). For purposes of herein petition, the DOH is deemed impleaded as a
co-respondent since respondents issued the questioned RIRR in their capacity as officials of said
executive agency.1
Executive Order No. 51 (Milk Code) was issued by President Corazon Aquino on October 28, 1986
by virtue of the legislative powers granted to the president under the Freedom Constitution. One of
the preambular clauses of the Milk Code states that the law seeks to give effect to Article 112 of the
International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes (ICMBS), a code adopted by the World
Health Assembly (WHA) in 1981. From 1982 to 2006, the WHA adopted several Resolutions to the
effect that breastfeeding should be supported, promoted and protected, hence, it should be ensured
that nutrition and health claims are not permitted for breastmilk substitutes.
In 1990, the Philippines ratified the International Convention on the Rights of the Child. Article 24 of
said instrument provides that State Parties should take appropriate measures to diminish infant and
child mortality, and ensure that all segments of society, specially 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 June 28, 2006, petitioner, representing its members that are manufacturers of
breastmilk substitutes, filed the present Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with Prayer for the
Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) or Writ of Preliminary Injunction.
The main issue raised in the petition is whether respondents officers of the DOH acted without or in
excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction,
and in violation of the provisions of the Constitution in promulgating the RIRR.3
On August 15, 2006, the Court issued a Resolution granting a TRO enjoining respondents from
implementing the questioned RIRR.
After the Comment and Reply had been filed, the Court set the case for oral arguments on June 19,
2007. The Court issued an Advisory (Guidance for Oral Arguments) dated June 5, 2007, to wit:
The Court hereby sets the following issues:
1. Whether or not petitioner is a real party-in-interest;
2. Whether Administrative Order No. 2006-0012 or the Revised Implementing Rules and
Regulations (RIRR) issued by the Department of Health (DOH) is not constitutional;
2.1 Whether the RIRR is in accord with the provisions of Executive Order No. 51 (Milk Code);
2.2 Whether pertinent international agreements1 entered into by the Philippines are part of
the law of the land and may be implemented by the DOH through the RIRR; If in the
affirmative, whether the RIRR is in accord with the international agreements;
2.3 Whether Sections 4, 5(w), 22, 32, 47, and 52 of the RIRR violate the due process clause
and are in restraint of trade; and
2.4 Whether Section 13 of the RIRR on Total Effect provides sufficient standards.
_____________
1 (1) United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child; (2) the WHO and Unicef "2002
Global Strategy on Infant and Young Child Feeding;" and (3) various World Health Assembly
(WHA) Resolutions.
The parties filed their respective memoranda.
The petition is partly imbued with merit.
On the issue of petitioner's standing
With regard to the issue of whether petitioner may prosecute this case as the real party-in-interest,
the Court adopts the view enunciated in Executive Secretary v. Court of Appeals,4 to wit:
The modern view is that an association has standing to complain of injuries to its members.
This view fuses the legal identity of an association with that of its members. An association
has standing to file suit for its workers despite its lack of direct interest if its members
are affected by the action. An organization has standing to assert the concerns of its
constituents.
xxxx
x x x We note that, under its Articles of Incorporation, the respondent was organized x x x to
act as the representative of any individual, company, entity or association on matters related
to the manpower recruitment industry, and to perform other acts and activities necessary to
accomplish the purposes embodied therein. The respondent is, thus, the appropriate
party to assert the rights of its members, because it and its members are in every
practical sense identical. x x x The respondent [association] is but the medium
through which its individual members seek to make more effective the expression of
their voices and the redress of their grievances. 5 (Emphasis supplied)
which was reasserted in Purok Bagong Silang Association, Inc. v. Yuipco,6 where the Court ruled
that an association has the legal personality to represent its members because the results of the
case will affect their vital interests.7
Herein petitioner's Amended Articles of Incorporation contains a similar provision just like in
Executive Secretary, that the association is formed "to represent directly or through approved
representatives the pharmaceutical and health care industry before the Philippine Government and
any of its agencies, the medical professions and the general public."8 Thus, as an organization,
petitioner definitely has an interest in fulfilling its avowed purpose of representing members who are
part of the pharmaceutical and health care industry. Petitioner is duly authorized9 to take the
appropriate course of action to bring to the attention of government agencies and the courts any
grievance suffered by its members which are directly affected by the RIRR. Petitioner, which is
mandated by its Amended Articles of Incorporation to represent the entire industry, would be remiss
in its duties if it fails to act on governmental action that would affect any of its industry members, no
matter how few or numerous they are. Hence, petitioner, whose legal identity is deemed fused with
its members, should be considered as a real party-in-interest which stands to be benefited or injured
by any judgment in the present action.
On the constitutionality of the provisions of the RIRR
First, the Court will determine if pertinent international instruments adverted to by respondents are
part of the law of the land.
Petitioner assails the RIRR for allegedly going beyond the provisions of the Milk Code, thereby
amending and expanding the coverage of said law. The defense of the DOH is that the RIRR
implements not only the Milk Code but also various international instruments10 regarding infant and
young child nutrition. It is respondents' position that said international instruments are deemed part
of the law of the land and therefore the DOH may implement them through the RIRR.
The Court notes that the following international instruments invoked by respondents, namely: (1) The
United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child; (2) The International Covenant on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights; and (3) the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination
Against Women, only provide in general terms that steps must be taken by State Parties to diminish
infant and child mortality and inform society of the advantages of breastfeeding, ensure the health
and well-being of families, and ensure that women are provided with services and nutrition in
connection with pregnancy and lactation. Said instruments do not contain specific provisions
regarding the use or marketing of breastmilk substitutes.
The international instruments that do have specific provisions regarding breastmilk substitutes are
the ICMBS and various WHA Resolutions.
Under the 1987 Constitution, international law can become part of the sphere of domestic law either
by transformation or incorporation.11 The transformation method requires that an international law
be transformed into a domestic law through a constitutional mechanism such as local legislation.
The incorporation method applies when, by mere constitutional declaration, international law is
deemed to have the force of domestic law.12
Treaties become part of the law of the land through transformation pursuant to Article VII, Section
21 of the Constitution which provides that "[n]o treaty or international agreement shall be valid and
effective unless concurred in by at least two-thirds of all the members of the Senate." Thus, treaties
or conventional international law must go through a process prescribed by the Constitution for it to
be transformed into municipal law that can be applied to domestic conflicts.13
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.
However, the ICMBS which was adopted by the WHA in 1981 had been transformed into domestic
law through local legislation, the Milk Code. Consequently, it is the Milk Code that has the force and
effect of law in this jurisdiction and not the ICMBS per se.
The Milk Code is almost a verbatim reproduction of the ICMBS, but it is well to emphasize at this
point that the Code did not adopt the provision in the ICMBS absolutely prohibiting advertising or
other forms of promotion to the general public of products within the scope of the ICMBS.
Instead, the Milk Code expressly provides that advertising, promotion, or other marketing
materials may be allowed if such materials are duly authorized and approved by the Inter-
Agency Committee (IAC).
On the other hand, Section 2, Article II of the 1987 Constitution, to wit:
SECTION 2. The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy, adopts the
generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land and
adheres to the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation and amity with all
nations. (Emphasis supplied)
embodies the incorporation method.14
In Mijares v. Ranada,15 the Court held thus:
[G]enerally accepted principles of international law, by virtue of the incorporation clause of

the Constitution, form part of the laws of the land even if they do not derive from treaty
obligations. The classical formulation in international law sees those customary rules
accepted as binding result from the combination [of] two elements: the established,
widespread, and consistent practice on the part of States; and a psychological element
known as the opinion juris sive necessitates (opinion as to law or necessity). Implicit in the
latter element is a belief that the practice in question is rendered obligatory by the existence
of a rule of law requiring it.16 (Emphasis supplied)
"Generally accepted principles of international law" refers to norms of general or customary

international law which are binding on all states,17 i.e., renunciation of war as an instrument of
national policy, the principle of sovereign immunity,18 a person's right to life, liberty and due
process,19 and pacta sunt servanda,20 among others. The concept of "generally accepted principles
of law" has also been depicted in this wise:
Some legal scholars and judges look upon certain "general principles of law" as a primary source of
international law because they have the "character of jus rationale" and are "valid through all
kinds of human societies." (Judge Tanaka in his dissenting opinion in the 1966 South West Africa
Case, 1966 I.C.J. 296). O'Connell holds that certain priniciples are part of international law
because they are "basic to legal systems generally" and hence part of the jus gentium. These
principles, he believes, are established by a process of reasoning based on the common identity of
all legal systems. If there should be doubt or disagreement, one must look to state practice and
determine whether the municipal law principle provides a just and acceptable solution. x x
x 21 (Emphasis supplied)
Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas defines customary international law as follows:
Custom or customary international law means "a general and consistent practice of states
followed by them from a sense of legal obligation [opinio juris]." (Restatement) This
statement contains the two basic elements of custom: the material factor, that is, how
states behave, and the psychological or subjective factor, that is, why they behave the
way they do.
xxxx
The initial factor for determining the existence of custom is the actual behavior of states. This
includes several elements: duration, consistency, and generality of the practice of states.
The required duration can be either short or long. x x x
xxxx
Duration therefore is not the most important element. More important is the consistency and
the generality of the practice. x x x
xxxx
Once the existence of state practice has been established, it becomes necessary to
determine why states behave the way they do. Do states behave the way they do
because they consider it obligatory to behave thus or do they do it only as a matter of
courtesy? Opinio juris, or the belief that a certain form of behavior is obligatory, is
what makes practice an international rule. Without it, practice is not law.22 (Underscoring
and Emphasis supplied)
Clearly, customary international law is deemed incorporated into our domestic system.23
WHA Resolutions have not been embodied in any local legislation. Have they attained the status of
customary law and should they then be deemed incorporated as part of the law of the land?
The World Health Organization (WHO) is one of the international specialized agencies allied with the
United Nations (UN) by virtue of Article 57,24 in relation to Article 6325 of the UN Charter. Under the
1946 WHO Constitution, it is the WHA which determines the policies of the WHO,26 and has the
power to adopt regulations concerning "advertising and labeling of biological, pharmaceutical and
similar products moving in international commerce,"27 and to "make recommendations to members
with respect to any matter within the competence of the Organization."28 The legal effect of its
regulations, as opposed to recommendations, is quite different.
Regulations, along with conventions and agreements, duly adopted by the WHA bind member
states thus:
Article 19. The Health Assembly shall have authority to adopt conventions or agreements
with respect to any matter within the competence of the Organization. A two-thirds vote of
the Health Assembly shall be required for the adoption of such conventions or
agreements, which shall come into force for each Member when accepted by it in
accordance with its constitutional processes.
Article 20. Each Member undertakes that it will, within eighteen months after the adoption
by the Health Assembly of a convention or agreement, take action relative to the
acceptance of such convention or agreement. Each Member shall notify the Director-
General of the action taken, and if it does not accept such convention or agreement within
the time limit, it will furnish a statement of the reasons for non-acceptance. In case of
acceptance, each Member agrees to make an annual report to the Director-General in
accordance with Chapter XIV.
Article 21. The Health Assembly shall have authority to adopt regulations concerning: (a)
sanitary and quarantine requirements and other procedures designed to prevent the
international spread of disease; (b) nomenclatures with respect to diseases, causes of death
and public health practices; (c) standards with respect to diagnostic procedures for
international use; (d) standards with respect to the safety, purity and potency of biological,
pharmaceutical and similar products moving in international commerce; (e) advertising and
labeling of biological, pharmaceutical and similar products moving in international commerce.
Article 22. Regulations adopted pursuant to Article 21 shall come into force for all
Members after due notice has been given of their adoption by the Health Assembly except
for such Members as may notify the Director-General of rejection or reservations within the
period stated in the notice. (Emphasis supplied)
On the other hand, under Article 23, recommendations of the WHA do not come into force for
members, in the same way that conventions or agreements under Article 19 and regulations under
Article 21 come into force. Article 23 of the WHO Constitution reads:
Article 23. The Health Assembly shall have authority to make recommendations to
Members with respect to any matter within the competence of the Organization. (Emphasis
supplied)
The absence of a provision in Article 23 of any mechanism by which the recommendation would
come into force for member states is conspicuous.
The former Senior Legal Officer of WHO, Sami Shubber, stated that WHA recommendations are
generally not binding, but they "carry moral and political weight, as they constitute the judgment on a
health issue of the collective membership of the highest international body in the field of
health."29 Even the ICMBS itself was adopted as a mere recommendation, as WHA Resolution No.
34.22 states:
"The Thirty-Fourth World Health Assembly x x x adopts, in the sense of Article 23 of the
Constitution, the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes annexed to the
present resolution." (Emphasis supplied)
The Introduction to the ICMBS also reads as follows:

In January 1981, the Executive Board of the World Health Organization at its sixty-seventh
session, considered the fourth draft of the code, endorsed it, and unanimously recommended
to the Thirty-fourth World Health Assembly the text of a resolution by which it would adopt
the code in the form of a recommendation rather than a regulation. x x x (Emphasis
supplied)
The legal value of WHA Resolutions as recommendations is summarized in Article 62 of the WHO
Constitution, to wit:
Art. 62. Each member shall report annually on the action taken with respect to
recommendations made to it by the Organization, and with respect to conventions,
agreements and regulations.
Apparently, the WHA Resolution adopting the ICMBS and subsequent WHA Resolutions urging
member states to implement the ICMBS are merely recommendatory and legally non-binding. Thus,
unlike what has been done with the ICMBS whereby the legislature enacted most of the
provisions into law which is the Milk Code, the subsequent WHA Resolutions,30 specifically
providing for exclusive breastfeeding from 0-6 months, continued breastfeeding up to 24
months, and absolutely prohibiting advertisements and promotions of breastmilk substitutes,
have not been adopted as a domestic law.
It is propounded that WHA Resolutions may constitute "soft law" or non-binding norms, principles
and practices that influence state behavior.31
"Soft law" does not fall into any of the categories of international law set forth in Article 38, Chapter
III of the 1946 Statute of the International Court of Justice.32 It is, however, an expression of non-
binding norms, principles, and practices that influence state behavior.33 Certain declarations and
resolutions of the UN General Assembly fall under this category.34 The most notable is the UN
Declaration of Human Rights, which this Court has enforced in various cases,
specifically, Government of Hongkong Special Administrative Region v. Olalia,35 Mejoff v. Director of
Prisons,36 Mijares v. Rañada37 and Shangri-la International Hotel Management, Ltd. v. Developers
Group of Companies, Inc..38
The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), a specialized agency attached to the UN with
the mandate to promote and protect intellectual property worldwide, has resorted to soft law as a
rapid means of norm creation, in order "to reflect and respond to the changing needs and demands
of its constituents."39 Other international organizations which have resorted to soft law include the
International Labor Organization and the Food and Agriculture Organization (in the form of
the Codex Alimentarius).40
WHO has resorted to soft law. This was most evident at the time of the Severe Acute Respiratory
Syndrome (SARS) and Avian flu outbreaks.
Although the IHR Resolution does not create new international law binding on WHO
member states, it provides an excellent example of the power of "soft law" in
international relations. International lawyers typically distinguish binding rules of
international law-"hard law"-from non-binding norms, principles, and practices that
influence state behavior-"soft law." WHO has during its existence generated many
soft law norms, creating a "soft law regime" in international governance for public
health.
The "soft law" SARS and IHR Resolutions represent significant steps in laying the political
groundwork for improved international cooperation on infectious diseases. These resolutions
clearly define WHO member states' normative duty to cooperate fully with other countries
and with WHO in connection with infectious disease surveillance and response to outbreaks.
This duty is neither binding nor enforceable, but, in the wake of the SARS epidemic,
the duty is powerful politically for two reasons. First, the SARS outbreak has taught the
lesson that participating in, and enhancing, international cooperation on infectious disease
controls is in a country's self-interest x x x if this warning is heeded, the "soft law" in the
SARS and IHR Resolution could inform the development of general and consistent state
practice on infectious disease surveillance and outbreak response, perhaps crystallizing
eventually into customary international law on infectious disease prevention and control.41
In the Philippines, the executive department implemented certain measures recommended by WHO
to address the outbreaks of SARS and Avian flu by issuing Executive Order (E.O.) No. 201 on April
26, 2003 and E.O. No. 280 on February 2, 2004, delegating to various departments broad powers to
close down schools/establishments, conduct health surveillance and monitoring, and ban importation
of poultry and agricultural products.
It must be emphasized that even under such an international emergency, the duty of a state to
implement the IHR Resolution was still considered not binding or enforceable, although said
resolutions had great political influence.
As previously discussed, for an international rule to be considered as customary law, it must be

established that such rule is being followed by states because they consider it obligatory to comply
with such rules (opinio juris). Respondents have not presented any evidence to prove that the WHA
Resolutions, although signed by most of the member states, were in fact enforced or practiced by at
least a majority of the member states; neither have respondents proven that any compliance by
member states with said WHA Resolutions was obligatory in nature.
Respondents failed to establish that the provisions of pertinent WHA Resolutions are customary
international law that may be deemed part of the law of the land.
Consequently, legislation is necessary to transform the provisions of the WHA Resolutions into
domestic law. The provisions of the WHA Resolutions cannot be considered as part of the law
of the land that can be implemented by executive agencies without the need of a law enacted
by the legislature.
Second, the Court will determine whether 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.
Section 3, Chapter 1, Title IX of the Revised Administrative Code of 1987 provides that the DOH
shall define the national health policy and implement a national health plan within the framework
of the government's general policies and plans, and issue orders and regulations concerning the
implementation of established health policies.
It is crucial to ascertain whether the absolute prohibition on advertising and other forms of promotion
of breastmilk substitutes provided in some WHA Resolutions has been adopted as part of the
national health policy.
Respondents submit that the national policy on infant and young child feeding is embodied in A.O.
No. 2005-0014, dated May 23, 2005. Basically, the Administrative Order declared the following
policy guidelines: (1) ideal breastfeeding practices, such as early initiation of breastfeeding,
exclusive breastfeeding for the first six months, extended breastfeeding up to two years and beyond;
(2) appropriate complementary feeding, which is to start at age six months; (3) micronutrient
supplementation; (4) universal salt iodization; (5) the exercise of other feeding options; and (6)
feeding in exceptionally difficult circumstances. Indeed, the primacy of breastfeeding for children is
emphasized as a national health policy. However, nowhere in A.O. No. 2005-0014 is it declared
that as part of such health policy, the advertisement or promotion of breastmilk substitutes
should be absolutely prohibited.
The national policy of protection, promotion and support of breastfeeding cannot automatically be
equated with a total ban on advertising for breastmilk substitutes.
In view of the enactment of the Milk Code which does not contain a total ban on the advertising and
promotion of breastmilk substitutes, but instead, specifically creates an IAC which will regulate said
advertising and promotion, it follows that a total ban policy could be implemented only pursuant to a
law amending the Milk Code passed by the constitutionally authorized branch of government, the
legislature.
Thus, only the provisions of the Milk Code, but not those of subsequent WHA Resolutions, can
be validly implemented by the DOH through the subject RIRR.
Third, the Court will now determine whether the provisions of the RIRR are in accordance with those
of the Milk Code.
In support of its claim that the RIRR is inconsistent with the Milk Code, petitioner alleges the
following:
1. The Milk Code limits its coverage to children 0-12 months old, but the RIRR extended its
coverage to "young children" or those from ages two years old and beyond:
MILK CODE RIRR

WHEREAS, in order to ensure that safe and Section 2. Purpose – These Revised Rules
adequate nutrition for infants is provided, there
and Regulations are hereby promulgated to
is a need to protect and promote breastfeedingensure the provision of safe and adequate
and to inform the public about the proper use nutrition for infants and young children by the
of breastmilk substitutes and supplements and promotion, protection and support of
related products through adequate, consistent breastfeeding and by ensuring the proper use
and objective information and appropriate of breastmilk substitutes, breastmilk
regulation of the marketing and distribution of
supplements and related products when these
the said substitutes, supplements and related are medically indicated and only when
products; necessary, on the basis of adequate
information and through appropriate marketing
SECTION 4(e). "Infant" means a person falling and distribution.
within the age bracket of 0-12 months.
Section 5(ff). "Young Child" means a person
from the age of more than twelve (12) months
up to the age of three (3) years (36 months).
2. The Milk Code recognizes that infant formula may be a proper and possible substitute for
breastmilk in certain instances; but the RIRR provides "exclusive breastfeeding for infants
from 0-6 months" and declares that "there is no substitute nor replacement for breastmilk":
MILK CODE RIRR

WHEREAS, in order to ensure that safe and Section 4. Declaration of Principles – The
adequate nutrition for infants is provided, there following are the underlying principles from
is a need to protect and promote breastfeeding which the revised rules and regulations are
and to inform the public about the proper use premised upon:
of breastmilk substitutes and supplements and
related products through adequate, consistent a. Exclusive breastfeeding is for infants from 0
and objective information and appropriate to six (6) months.
regulation of the marketing and distribution of
the said substitutes, supplements and related b. There is no substitute or replacement for
products; breastmilk.
3. The Milk Code only regulates and does not impose unreasonable requirements for
advertising and promotion; RIRR imposes an absolute ban on such activities for breastmilk
substitutes intended for infants from 0-24 months old or beyond, and forbids the use of
health and nutritional claims. Section 13 of the RIRR, which provides for a "total effect" in the
promotion of products within the scope of the Code, is vague:
MILK CODE RIRR

SECTION 6. The General Public and Section 4. Declaration of Principles – The
Mothers. – following are the underlying principles from
which the revised rules and regulations are
(a) No advertising, promotion or other premised upon:
marketing materials, whether written, audio or
visual, for products within the scope of this xxxx
Code shall be printed, published, distributed,
exhibited and broadcast unless such materials f. Advertising, promotions, or sponsor-ships of
are duly authorized and approved by an inter- infant formula, breastmilk substitutes and other
agency committee created herein pursuant to related products are prohibited.
the applicable standards provided for in this
Code. Section 11. Prohibition – No advertising,
promotions, sponsorships, or marketing
materials and activities for breastmilk
substitutes intended for infants and young
children up to twenty-four (24) months, shall be
allowed, because they tend to convey or give
subliminal messages or impressions that
undermine breastmilk and breastfeeding or
otherwise exaggerate breastmilk substitutes
and/or replacements, as well as related
products covered within the scope of this
Code.
Section 13. "Total Effect" - Promotion of

products within the scope of this Code must be
objective and should not equate or make the
product appear to be as good or equal to
breastmilk or breastfeeding in the advertising
concept. It must not in any case undermine
breastmilk or breastfeeding. The "total effect"
should not directly or indirectly suggest that
buying their product would produce better
individuals, or resulting in greater love,
intelligence, ability, harmony or in any manner
bring better health to the baby or other such
exaggerated and unsubstantiated claim.
Section 15. Content of Materials. - The

following shall not be included in advertising,
promotional and marketing materials:
a. Texts, pictures, illustrations or information

which discourage or tend to undermine the
benefits or superiority of breastfeeding or
which idealize the use of breastmilk substitutes
and milk supplements. In this connection, no
pictures of babies and children together with
their mothers, fathers, siblings, grandparents,
other relatives or caregivers (or yayas) shall be
used in any advertisements for infant formula
and breastmilk supplements;
b. The term "humanized," "maternalized,"

"close to mother's milk" or similar words in
describing breastmilk substitutes or milk
supplements;
c. Pictures or texts that idealize the use of

infant and milk formula.
Section 16. All health and nutrition claims for

products within the scope of the Code are
absolutely prohibited. For this purpose, any
phrase or words that connotes to increase
emotional, intellectual abilities of the infant and
young child and other like phrases shall not be
allowed.
4. The RIRR imposes additional labeling requirements not found in the Milk Code:
MILK CODE RIRR

SECTION 10. Containers/Label. – Section 26. Content – Each container/label
shall contain such message, in both Filipino
(a) Containers and/or labels shall be designed and English languages, and which message
to provide the necessary information about the cannot be readily separated therefrom, relative
appropriate use of the products, and in such a the following points:
way as not to discourage breastfeeding.
(b) Each container shall have a clear, (a) The words or phrase "Important Notice" or
conspicuous and easily readable and "Government Warning" or their equivalent;
understandable message in Pilipino or English
printed on it, or on a label, which message can (b) A statement of the superiority of
not readily become separated from it, and breastfeeding;
which shall include the following points:
(c) A statement that there is no substitute for
(i) the words "Important Notice" or their breastmilk;
equivalent;
(d) A statement that the product shall be used
(ii) a statement of the superiority of only on the advice of a health worker as to the
breastfeeding; need for its use and the proper methods of
use;
(iii) a statement that the product shall be used
only on the advice of a health worker as to the (e) Instructions for appropriate prepara-tion,
need for its use and the proper methods of and a warning against the health hazards of
use; and inappropriate preparation; and
(iv) instructions for appropriate preparation, (f) The health hazards of unnecessary or
and a warning against the health hazards of improper use of infant formula and other
inappropriate preparation. related products including information that
powdered infant formula may contain
pathogenic microorganisms and must be
prepared and used appropriately.
5. The Milk Code allows dissemination of information on infant formula to health

professionals; the RIRR totally prohibits such activity:
MILK CODE RIRR

SECTION 7. Health Care System. – Section 22. No manufacturer, distributor, or
representatives of products covered by the
(b) No facility of the health care system shall Code shall be allowed to conduct or be
be used for the purpose of promoting infant involved in any activity on breastfeeding
formula or other products within the scope of promotion, education and production of
this Code. This Code does not, however, Information, Education and Communication
preclude the dissemination of information to (IEC) materials on breastfeeding, holding of or
health professionals as provided in Section participating as speakers in classes or
8(b). seminars for women and children activities and
to avoid the use of these venues to market
SECTION 8. Health Workers. - their brands or company names.
(b) Information provided by manufacturers and SECTION 16. All health and nutrition claims for
distributors to health professionals regarding products within the scope of the Code are
products within the scope of this Code shall be absolutely prohibited. For this purpose, any
restricted to scientific and factual matters and phrase or words that connotes to increase
such information shall not imply or create a emotional, intellectual abilities of the infant and
belief that bottle-feeding is equivalent or young child and other like phrases shall not be
superior to breastfeeding. It shall also include allowed.
the information specified in Section 5(b).
6. The Milk Code permits milk manufacturers and distributors to extend assistance in
research and continuing education of health professionals; RIRR absolutely forbids the
same.
MILK CODE RIRR

SECTION 8. Health Workers – Section 4. Declaration of Principles –
(e) Manufacturers and distributors of products The following are the underlying principles
within the scope of this Code may assist in the from which the revised rules and regulations
research, scholarships and continuing are premised upon:
education, of health professionals, in
accordance with the rules and regulations i. Milk companies, and their
promulgated by the Ministry of Health. representatives, should not form part of any
policymaking body or entity in relation to the
advancement of breasfeeding.
SECTION 22. No manufacturer, distributor, or

representatives of products covered by the
Code shall be allowed to conduct or be
involved in any activity on breastfeeding
promotion, education and production of
Information, Education and Communication
(IEC) materials on breastfeeding, holding of or
participating as speakers in classes or
seminars for women and children activities and
to avoid the use of these venues to market
their brands or company names.
SECTION 32. Primary Responsibility of

Health Workers - It is the primary
responsibility of the health workers to promote,
protect and support breastfeeding and
appropriate infant and young child feeding.
Part of this responsibility is to continuously
update their knowledge and skills on
breastfeeding. No assistance, support, logistics
or training from milk companies shall be
permitted.
7. The Milk Code regulates the giving of donations; RIRR absolutely prohibits it.
MILK CODE RIRR

SECTION 6. The General Public and Section 51. Donations Within the Scope of
Mothers. – This Code - Donations of products, materials,
defined and covered under the Milk Code and
(f) Nothing herein contained shall prevent these implementing rules and regulations, shall
donations from manufacturers and distributors be strictly prohibited.
of products within the scope of this Code upon
request by or with the approval of the Ministry Section 52. Other Donations By Milk
of Health. Companies Not Covered by this Code. -
Donations of products, equipments, and the
like, not otherwise falling within the scope of
this Code or these Rules, given by milk
companies and their agents, representatives,
whether in kind or in cash, may only be
coursed through the Inter Agency Committee
(IAC), which shall determine whether such
donation be accepted or otherwise.
8. The RIRR provides for administrative sanctions not imposed by the Milk Code.
MILK CODE RIRR

Section 46. Administrative Sanctions. – The
following administrative sanctions shall be
imposed upon any person, juridical or natural,
found to have violated the provisions of the
Code and its implementing Rules and
Regulations:
a) 1st violation – Warning;
b) 2nd violation – Administrative fine of a

minimum of Ten Thousand (P10,000.00) to
Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00) Pesos,
depending on the gravity and extent of the
violation, including the recall of the offending
product;
c) 3rd violation – Administrative Fine of a

minimum of Sixty Thousand (P60,000.00) to
One Hundred Fifty Thousand (P150,000.00)
Pesos, depending on the gravity and extent of
the violation, and in addition thereto, the recall
of the offending product, and suspension of the
Certificate of Product Registration (CPR);
d) 4th violation –Administrative Fine of a

minimum of Two Hundred Thousand
(P200,000.00) to Five Hundred (P500,000.00)
Thousand Pesos, depending on the gravity
and extent of the violation; and in addition
thereto, the recall of the product, revocation of
the CPR, suspension of the License to
Operate (LTO) for one year;
e) 5th and succeeding repeated violations –

Administrative Fine of One Million
(P1,000,000.00) Pesos, the recall of the
offending product, cancellation of the CPR,
revocation of the License to Operate (LTO) of
the company concerned, including the
blacklisting of the company to be furnished the
Department of Budget and Management
(DBM) and the Department of Trade and
Industry (DTI);
f) An additional penalty of Two Thou-sand Five

Hundred (P2,500.00) Pesos per day shall be
made for every day the violation continues
after having received the order from the IAC or
other such appropriate body, notifying and
penalizing the company for the infraction.
For purposes of determining whether or not

there is "repeated" violation, each product
violation belonging or owned by a company,
including those of their subsidiaries, are
deemed to be violations of the concerned milk
company and shall not be based on the
specific violating product alone.
9. The RIRR provides for repeal of existing laws to the contrary.
The Court shall resolve the merits of the allegations of petitioner seriatim.
1. Petitioner is mistaken in its claim that the Milk Code's coverage is limited only to children 0-12
months old. Section 3 of the Milk Code states:
SECTION 3. Scope of the Code – The Code applies to the marketing, and practices related
thereto, of the following products: breastmilk substitutes, including infant formula; other milk
products, foods and beverages, including bottle-fed complementary foods, when marketed or
otherwise represented to be suitable, with or without modification, for use as a partial or total
replacement of breastmilk; feeding bottles and teats. It also applies to their quality and
availability, and to information concerning their use.
Clearly, the coverage of the Milk Code is not dependent on the age of the child but on the kind of
product being marketed to the public. The law treats infant formula, bottle-fed complementary food,
and breastmilk substitute as separate and distinct product categories.
Section 4(h) of the Milk Code defines infant formula as "a breastmilk substitute x x x to satisfy the
normal nutritional requirements of infants up to between four to six months of age, and adapted to
their physiological characteristics"; while under Section 4(b), bottle-fed complementary food refers to
"any food, whether manufactured or locally prepared, suitable as a complement to breastmilk or
infant formula, when either becomes insufficient to satisfy the nutritional requirements of the infant."
An infant under Section 4(e) is a person falling within the age bracket 0-12 months. It is the
nourishment of this group of infants or children aged 0-12 months that is sought to be promoted and
protected by the Milk Code.
But there is another target group. Breastmilk substitute is defined under Section 4(a) as "any food
being marketed or otherwise presented as a partial or total replacement for breastmilk, whether or
not suitable for that purpose." This section conspicuously lacks reference to any particular age-
group of children. Hence, the provision of the Milk Code cannot be considered exclusive for
children aged 0-12 months. In other words, breastmilk substitutes may also be intended for young
children more than 12 months of age. Therefore, by regulating breastmilk substitutes, the Milk Code
also intends to protect and promote the nourishment of children more than 12 months old.
Evidently, as long as what is being marketed falls within the scope of the Milk Code as provided in
Section 3, then it can be subject to regulation pursuant to said law, even if the product is to be used
by children aged over 12 months.
There is, therefore, nothing objectionable with Sections 242 and 5(ff)43 of the RIRR.
2. It is also incorrect for petitioner to say that the RIRR, unlike the Milk Code, does not recognize that
breastmilk substitutes may be a proper and possible substitute for breastmilk.
The entirety of the RIRR, not merely truncated portions thereof, must be considered and construed
together. As held in De Luna v. Pascual,44 "[t]he particular words, clauses and phrases in the Rule
should not be studied as detached and isolated expressions, but the whole and every part thereof
must be considered in fixing the meaning of any of its parts and in order to produce a harmonious
whole."
Section 7 of the RIRR provides that "when medically indicated and only when necessary, the use of
breastmilk substitutes is proper if based on complete and updated information." Section 8 of the
RIRR also states that information and educational materials should include information on the proper
use of infant formula when the use thereof is needed.
Hence, the RIRR, just like the Milk Code, also recognizes that in certain cases, the use of
breastmilk substitutes may be proper.
3. The Court shall ascertain the merits of allegations 345 and 446 together as they are interlinked with
each other.
To resolve the question of whether the labeling requirements and advertising regulations under the
RIRR are valid, it is important to deal first with the nature, purpose, and depth of the regulatory
powers of the DOH, as defined in general under the 1987 Administrative Code,47 and as delegated in
particular under the Milk Code.
Health is a legitimate subject matter for regulation by the DOH (and certain other administrative
agencies) in exercise of police powers delegated to it. The sheer span of jurisprudence on that
matter precludes the need to further discuss it..48 However, health information, particularly advertising
materials on apparently non-toxic products like breastmilk substitutes and supplements, is a
relatively new area for regulation by the DOH.49
As early as the 1917 Revised Administrative Code of the Philippine Islands,50 health information was
already within the ambit of the regulatory powers of the predecessor of DOH.51 Section 938 thereof
charged it with the duty to protect the health of the people, and vested it with such powers as "(g) the
dissemination of hygienic information among the people and especially the inculcation of
knowledge as to the proper care of infants and the methods of preventing and combating
dangerous communicable diseases."
Seventy years later, the 1987 Administrative Code tasked respondent DOH to carry out the state
policy pronounced under Section 15, Article II of the 1987 Constitution, which is "to protect and
promote the right to health of the people and instill health consciousness among them."52 To that
end, it was granted under Section 3 of the Administrative Code the power to "(6) propagate health
information and educate the population on important health, medical and environmental matters
which have health implications."53
When it comes to information regarding nutrition of infants and young children, however, the Milk
Code specifically delegated to the Ministry of Health (hereinafter referred to as DOH) the power to
ensure that there is adequate, consistent and objective information on breastfeeding and use of
breastmilk substitutes, supplements and related products; and the power to control such
information. These are expressly provided for in Sections 12 and 5(a), to wit:
SECTION 12. Implementation and Monitoring –
xxxx
(b) The Ministry of Health shall be principally responsible for the implementation and
enforcement of the provisions of this Code. For this purpose, the Ministry of Health shall
have the following powers and functions:
(1) To promulgate such rules and regulations as are necessary or proper for the
implementation of this Code and the accomplishment of its purposes and objectives.
xxxx
(4) To exercise such other powers and functions as may be necessary for or
incidental to the attainment of the purposes and objectives of this Code.
SECTION 5. Information and Education –
(a) The government shall ensure that objective and consistent information is provided on
infant feeding, for use by families and those involved in the field of infant nutrition. This
responsibility shall cover the planning, provision, design and dissemination of information,
and the control thereof, on infant nutrition. (Emphasis supplied)
Further, DOH is authorized by the Milk Code to control the content of any information on
breastmilk vis-à-vis breastmilk substitutes, supplement and related products, in the following
manner:
SECTION 5. x x x
(b) Informational and educational materials, whether written, audio, or visual, dealing with the
feeding of infants and intended to reach pregnant women and mothers of infants, shall
include clear information on all the following points: (1) the benefits and superiority of
breastfeeding; (2) maternal nutrition, and the preparation for and maintenance of
breastfeeding; (3) the negative effect on breastfeeding of introducing partial bottlefeeding; (4)
the difficulty of reversing the decision not to breastfeed; and (5) where needed, the proper
use of infant formula, whether manufactured industrially or home-prepared. When such
materials contain information about the use of infant formula, they shall include the
social and financial implications of its use; the health hazards of inappropriate foods
or feeding methods; and, in particular, the health hazards of unnecessary or improper
use of infant formula and other breastmilk substitutes. Such materials shall not use
any picture or text which may idealize the use of breastmilk substitutes.
SECTION 8. Health Workers –
xxxx
(b) Information provided by manufacturers and distributors to health professionals regarding

products within the scope of this Code shall be restricted to scientific and factual
matters, and such information shall not imply or create a belief that bottlefeeding is
equivalent or superior to breastfeeding. It shall also include the information specified
in Section 5(b).
SECTION 10. Containers/Label –
(a) Containers and/or labels shall be designed to provide the necessary information about
the appropriate use of the products, and in such a way as not to discourage
breastfeeding.
xxxx
(d) The term "humanized," "maternalized" or similar terms shall not be used. (Emphasis
supplied)
The DOH is also authorized to control the purpose of the information and to whom such information
may be disseminated under Sections 6 through 9 of the Milk Code54 to ensure that the information
that would reach pregnant women, mothers of infants, and health professionals and workers in the
health care system is restricted to scientific and factual matters and shall not imply or create a belief
that bottlefeeding is equivalent or superior to breastfeeding.
It bears emphasis, however, that the DOH's power under the Milk Code to control information
regarding breastmilk vis-a-vis breastmilk substitutes is not absolute as the power to control does
not encompass the power to absolutely prohibit the advertising, marketing, and promotion of
breastmilk substitutes.
The following are the provisions of the Milk Code that unequivocally indicate that the control over
information given to the DOH is not absolute and that absolute prohibition is not contemplated by the
Code:
a) Section 2 which requires adequate information and appropriate marketing and distribution
of breastmilk substitutes, to wit:
SECTION 2. Aim of the Code – The aim of the Code is to contribute to the provision
of safe and adequate nutrition for infants by the protection and promotion of
breastfeeding and by ensuring the proper use of breastmilk substitutes and
breastmilk supplements when these are necessary, on the basis of adequate
information and through appropriate marketing and distribution.
b) Section 3 which specifically states that the Code applies to the marketing of and practices
related to breastmilk substitutes, including infant formula, and to information concerning their
use;
c) Section 5(a) which provides that the government shall ensure that objective and consistent
information is provided on infant feeding;
d) Section 5(b) which provides that written, audio or visual informational and educational
materials shall not use any picture or text which may idealize the use of breastmilk
substitutes and should include information on the health hazards of unnecessary or improper
use of said product;
e) Section 6(a) in relation to Section 12(a) which creates and empowers the IAC to review
and examine advertising, promotion, and other marketing materials;
f) Section 8(b) which states that milk companies may provide information to health
professionals but such information should be restricted to factual and scientific matters and
shall not imply or create a belief that bottlefeeding is equivalent or superior to breastfeeding;
and
g) Section 10 which provides that containers or labels should not contain information that
would discourage breastfeeding and idealize the use of infant formula.
It is in this context that the Court now examines the assailed provisions of the RIRR regarding
labeling and advertising.
Sections 1355 on "total effect" and 2656 of Rule VII of the RIRR contain some labeling requirements,
specifically: a) that there be a statement that there is no substitute to breastmilk; and b) that there be
a statement that powdered infant formula may contain pathogenic microorganisms and must be
prepared and used appropriately. Section 1657 of the RIRR prohibits all health and nutrition claims for
products within the scope of the Milk Code, such as claims of increased emotional and intellectual
abilities of the infant and young child.
These requirements and limitations are consistent with the provisions of Section 8 of the Milk Code,
to wit:
SECTION 8. Health workers -
xxxx

products within the scope of this Code shall be restricted to scientific and factual matters,
and such information shall not imply or create a belief that bottlefeeding
is equivalent or superior to breastfeeding. It shall also include the information specified in
Section 5.58 (Emphasis supplied)
and Section 10(d)59 which bars the use on containers and labels of the terms "humanized,"
"maternalized," or similar terms.
These provisions of the Milk Code expressly forbid information that would imply or create a belief
that there is any milk product equivalent to breastmilk or which is humanized or maternalized, as
such information would be inconsistent with the superiority of breastfeeding.
It may be argued that Section 8 of the Milk Code refers only to information given to health workers
regarding breastmilk substitutes, not to containers and labels thereof. However, such restrictive
application of Section 8(b) will result in the absurd situation in which milk companies and distributors
are forbidden to claim to health workers that their products are substitutes or equivalents of
breastmilk, and yet be allowed to display on the containers and labels of their products the exact
opposite message. That askewed interpretation of the Milk Code is precisely what Section 5(a)
thereof seeks to avoid by mandating that all information regarding breastmilk vis-a-vis breastmilk
substitutes be consistent, at the same time giving the government control over planning, provision,
design, and dissemination of information on infant feeding.
Thus, Section 26(c) of the RIRR which requires containers and labels to state that the product
offered is not a substitute for breastmilk, is a reasonable means of enforcing Section 8(b) of the Milk
Code and deterring circumvention of the protection and promotion of breastfeeding as embodied in
Section 260 of the Milk Code.
Section 26(f)61 of the RIRR is an equally reasonable labeling requirement. It implements Section 5(b)
of the Milk Code which reads:
SECTION 5. x x x
xxxx
include clear information on all the following points: x x x (5) where needed, the proper use of
infant formula, whether manufactured industrially or home-prepared. When such materials
contain information about the use of infant formula, they shall include the social and financial
implications of its use; the health hazards of inappropriate foods or feeding methods;
and, in particular, the health hazards of unnecessary or improper use of infant formula
and other breastmilk substitutes. Such materials shall not use any picture or text which
may idealize the use of breastmilk substitutes. (Emphasis supplied)
The label of a product contains information about said product intended for the buyers thereof. The
buyers of breastmilk substitutes are mothers of infants, and Section 26 of the RIRR merely adds a
fair warning about the likelihood of pathogenic microorganisms being present in infant formula and
other related products when these are prepared and used inappropriately.
Petitioner’s counsel has admitted during the hearing on June 19, 2007 that formula milk is prone to
contaminations and there is as yet no technology that allows production of powdered infant formula
that eliminates all forms of contamination.62
Ineluctably, the requirement under Section 26(f) of the RIRR for the label to contain the message
regarding health hazards including the possibility of contamination with pathogenic microorganisms
is in accordance with Section 5(b) of the Milk Code.
The authority of DOH to control information regarding breastmilk vis-a-vis breastmilk substitutes and
supplements and related products cannot be questioned. It is its intervention into the area of
advertising, promotion, and marketing that is being assailed by petitioner.
In furtherance of Section 6(a) of the Milk Code, to wit:
SECTION 6. The General Public and Mothers. –
(a) No advertising, promotion or other marketing materials, whether written, audio or visual,
for products within the scope of this Code shall be printed, published, distributed, exhibited
and broadcast unless such materials are duly authorized and approved by an inter-agency
committee created herein pursuant to the applicable standards provided for in this Code.
the Milk Code invested regulatory authority over advertising, promotional and marketing materials to
an IAC, thus:
SECTION 12. Implementation and Monitoring -
(a) For purposes of Section 6(a) of this Code, an inter-agency committee composed of the
following members is hereby created:
Minister of Health ------------------- Chairman
Minister of Trade and Industry ------------------- Member
Minister of Justice ------------------- Member
Minister of Social Services and Development ------------------- Member
The members may designate their duly authorized representative to every meeting of the
Committee.
The Committee shall have the following powers and functions:
(1) To review and examine all advertising. promotion or other marketing materials,
whether written, audio or visual, on products within the scope of this Code;
(2) To approve or disapprove, delete objectionable portions from and prohibit the
printing, publication, distribution, exhibition and broadcast of, all advertising
promotion or other marketing materials, whether written, audio or visual, on products
within the scope of this Code;
(3) To prescribe the internal and operational procedure for the exercise of its powers
and functions as well as the performance of its duties and responsibilities; and
(4) To promulgate such rules and regulations as are necessary or proper for
the implementation of Section 6(a) of this Code. x x x (Emphasis supplied)
However, Section 11 of the RIRR, to wit:
SECTION 11. Prohibition – No advertising, promotions, sponsorships, or marketing materials

and activities for breastmilk substitutes intended for infants and young children up to twenty-
four (24) months, shall be allowed, because they tend to convey or give subliminal messages
or impressions that undermine breastmilk and breastfeeding or otherwise exaggerate
breastmilk substitutes and/or replacements, as well as related products covered within the
scope of this Code.
prohibits advertising, promotions, sponsorships or marketing materials and activities for breastmilk
substitutes in line with the RIRR’s declaration of principle under Section 4(f), to wit:
SECTION 4. Declaration of Principles –
xxxx
(f) Advertising, promotions, or sponsorships of infant formula, breastmilk substitutes and

other related products are prohibited.
The DOH, through its co-respondents, evidently arrogated to itself not only the regulatory authority
given to the IAC but also imposed absolute prohibition on advertising, promotion, and marketing.
Yet, oddly enough, Section 12 of the RIRR reiterated the requirement of the Milk Code in Section 6
thereof for prior approval by IAC of all advertising, marketing and promotional materials prior to
dissemination.
Even respondents, through the OSG, acknowledged the authority of IAC, and repeatedly insisted,
during the oral arguments on June 19, 2007, that the prohibition under Section 11 is not actually
operational, viz:
SOLICITOR GENERAL DEVANADERA:
xxxx
x x x Now, the crux of the matter that is being questioned by Petitioner is whether or not
there is an absolute prohibition on advertising making AO 2006-12 unconstitutional. We
maintained that what AO 2006-12 provides is not an absolute prohibition because Section 11
while it states and it is entitled prohibition it states that no advertising, promotion,
sponsorship or marketing materials and activities for breast milk substitutes intended for
infants and young children up to 24 months shall be allowed because this is the standard
they tend to convey or give subliminal messages or impression undermine that breastmilk or
breastfeeding x x x.
We have to read Section 11 together with the other Sections because the other Section,
Section 12, provides for the inter agency committee that is empowered to process and
evaluate all the advertising and promotion materials.
xxxx
What AO 2006-12, what it does, it does not prohibit the sale and manufacture, it simply
regulates the advertisement and the promotions of breastfeeding milk substitutes.
xxxx
Now, the prohibition on advertising, Your Honor, must be taken together with the provision
on the Inter-Agency Committee that processes and evaluates because there may be some
information dissemination that are straight forward information dissemination. What the AO
2006 is trying to prevent is any material that will undermine the practice of breastfeeding,
Your Honor.
xxxx
ASSOCIATE JUSTICE SANTIAGO:

Madam Solicitor General, under the Milk Code, which body has authority or power to
promulgate Rules and Regulations regarding the Advertising, Promotion and Marketing of
Breastmilk Substitutes?
Your Honor, please, it is provided that the Inter-Agency Committee, Your Honor.
xxxx
ASSOCIATE JUSTICE SANTIAGO:
x x x Don't you think that the Department of Health overstepped its rule making authority
when it totally banned advertising and promotion under Section 11 prescribed the total effect
rule as well as the content of materials under Section 13 and 15 of the rules and regulations?
Your Honor, please, first we would like to stress that there is no total absolute ban. Second,
the Inter-Agency Committee is under the Department of Health, Your Honor.
xxxx
ASSOCIATE JUSTICE NAZARIO:
x x x Did I hear you correctly, Madam Solicitor, that there is no absolute ban on advertising of
breastmilk substitutes in the Revised Rules?
Yes, your Honor.
But, would you nevertheless agree that there is an absolute ban on advertising of breastmilk
substitutes intended for children two (2) years old and younger?
It's not an absolute ban, Your Honor, because we have the Inter-Agency Committee that can
evaluate some advertising and promotional materials, subject to the standards that we have
stated earlier, which are- they should not undermine breastfeeding, Your Honor.
xxxx
x x x Section 11, while it is titled Prohibition, it must be taken in relation with the other
Sections, particularly 12 and 13 and 15, Your Honor, because it is recognized that the Inter-
Agency Committee has that power to evaluate promotional materials, Your Honor.

So in short, will you please clarify there's no absolute ban on advertisement regarding milk
substitute regarding infants two (2) years below?
We can proudly say that the general rule is that there is a prohibition, however, we take
exceptions and standards have been set. One of which is that, the Inter-Agency Committee
can allow if the advertising and promotions will not undermine breastmilk and breastfeeding,
Your Honor.63
Sections 11 and 4(f) of the RIRR are clearly violative of the Milk Code.
However, although it is the IAC which is authorized to promulgate rules and regulations for the
approval or rejection of advertising, promotional, or other marketing materials under Section 12(a) of
the Milk Code, said provision must be related to Section 6 thereof which in turn provides that the
rules and regulations must be "pursuant to the applicable standards provided for in this Code." Said
standards are set forth in Sections 5(b), 8(b), and 10 of the Code, which, at the risk of being
repetitious, and for easy reference, are quoted hereunder:
xxxx
include clear information on all the following points: (1) the benefits and superiority of
breastfeeding; (2) maternal nutrition, and the preparation for and maintenance of
breastfeeding; (3) the negative effect on breastfeeding of introducing partial bottlefeeding; (4)
the difficulty of reversing the decision not to breastfeed; and (5) where needed, the proper
use of infant formula, whether manufactured industrially or home-prepared. When such
materials contain information about the use of infant formula, they shall include the social
and financial implications of its use; the health hazards of inappropriate foods of feeding
methods; and, in particular, the health hazards of unnecessary or improper use of infant
formula and other breastmilk substitutes. Such materials shall not use any picture or text
which may idealize the use of breastmilk substitutes.
xxxx
SECTION 8. Health Workers. –
xxxx

products within the scope of this Code shall be restricted to scientific and factual matters and
such information shall not imply or create a belief that bottle feeding is equivalent or superior
to breastfeeding. It shall also include the information specified in Section 5(b).
xxxx
SECTION 10. Containers/Label –

(a) Containers and/or labels shall be designed to provide the necessary information about
the appropriate use of the products, and in such a way as not to discourage breastfeeding.
(b) Each container shall have a clear, conspicuous and easily readable and understandable
message in Pilipino or English printed on it, or on a label, which message can not readily
become separated from it, and which shall include the following points:
(i) the words "Important Notice" or their equivalent;
(ii) a statement of the superiority of breastfeeding;
(iii) a statement that the product shall be used only on the advice of a health worker
as to the need for its use and the proper methods of use; and
(iv) instructions for appropriate preparation, and a warning against the health hazards
of inappropriate preparation.
Section 12(b) of the Milk Code designates the DOH as the principal implementing agency for the
enforcement of the provisions of the Code. In relation to such responsibility of the DOH, Section 5(a)
of the Milk Code states that:
(a) The government shall ensure that objective and consistent information is provided on
infant feeding, for use by families and those involved in the field of infant nutrition. This
responsibility shall cover the planning, provision, design and dissemination of information,
and the control thereof, on infant nutrition. (Emphasis supplied)
Thus, the DOH has the significant responsibility to translate into operational terms the
standards set forth in Sections 5, 8, and 10 of the Milk Code, by which the IAC shall screen
advertising, promotional, or other marketing materials.
It is pursuant to such responsibility that the DOH correctly provided for Section 13 in the RIRR which
reads as follows:
SECTION 13. "Total Effect" - Promotion of products within the scope of this Code must be
objective and should not equate or make the product appear to be as good or equal to
breastmilk or breastfeeding in the advertising concept. It must not in any case undermine
breastmilk or breastfeeding. The "total effect" should not directly or indirectly suggest that
buying their product would produce better individuals, or resulting in greater love,
intelligence, ability, harmony or in any manner bring better health to the baby or other such
exaggerated and unsubstantiated claim.
Such standards bind the IAC in formulating its rules and regulations on advertising, promotion, and
marketing. Through that single provision, the DOH exercises control over the information content of
advertising, promotional and marketing materials on breastmilk vis-a-vis breastmilk substitutes,
supplements and other related products. It also sets a viable standard against which the IAC may
screen such materials before they are made public.
In Equi-Asia Placement, Inc. vs. Department of Foreign Affairs,64 the Court held:
x x x [T]his Court had, in the past, accepted as sufficient standards the following: "public
interest," "justice and equity," "public convenience and welfare," and "simplicity, economy
and welfare."65
In this case, correct information as to infant feeding and nutrition is infused with public interest and
welfare.
4. With regard to activities for dissemination of information to health professionals, the Court also
finds that there is no inconsistency between the provisions of the Milk Code and the RIRR. Section
7(b)66 of the Milk Code, in relation to Section 8(b)67 of the same Code, allows dissemination of
information to health professionals but such information is restricted to scientific and factual
matters.
Contrary to petitioner's claim, Section 22 of the RIRR does not prohibit the giving of information to
health professionals on scientific and factual matters. What it prohibits is the involvement of the
manufacturer and distributor of the products covered by the Code in activities for the promotion,
education and production of Information, Education and Communication (IEC) materials regarding
breastfeeding that are intended for women and children. Said provision cannot be construed to
encompass even the dissemination of information to health professionals, as restricted by the
Milk Code.
5. Next, petitioner alleges that Section 8(e)68 of the Milk Code permits milk manufacturers and
distributors to extend assistance in research and in the continuing education of health professionals,
while Sections 22 and 32 of the RIRR absolutely forbid the same. Petitioner also assails Section
4(i)69 of the RIRR prohibiting milk manufacturers' and distributors' participation in any policymaking
body in relation to the advancement of breastfeeding.
Section 4(i) of the RIRR provides that milk companies and their representatives should not form part
of any policymaking body or entity in relation to the advancement of breastfeeding. The Court finds
nothing in said provisions which contravenes the Milk Code. Note that under Section 12(b) of the
Milk Code, it is the DOH which shall be principally responsible for the implementation and
enforcement of the provisions of said Code. It is entirely up to the DOH to decide which entities to
call upon or allow to be part of policymaking bodies on breastfeeding. Therefore, the RIRR's
prohibition on milk companies’ participation in any policymaking body in relation to the advancement
of breastfeeding is in accord with the Milk Code.
Petitioner is also mistaken in arguing that Section 22 of the RIRR prohibits milk companies from
giving reasearch assistance and continuing education to health professionals. Section 2270 of the
RIRR does not pertain to research assistance to or the continuing education of health
professionals; rather, it deals with breastfeeding promotion and education for women and
children. Nothing in Section 22 of the RIRR prohibits milk companies from giving assistance for
research or continuing education to health professionals; hence, petitioner's argument against this
particular provision must be struck down.
It is Sections 971 and 1072 of the RIRR which govern research assistance. Said sections of the RIRR
provide that research assistance for health workers and researchers may be allowed upon
approval of an ethics committee, and with certain disclosure requirements imposed on the
milk company and on the recipient of the research award.
The Milk Code endows the DOH with the power to determine how such research or educational
assistance may be given by milk companies or under what conditions health workers may accept the
assistance. Thus, Sections 9 and 10 of the RIRR imposing limitations on the kind of research done
or extent of assistance given by milk companies are completely in accord with the Milk Code.
Petitioner complains that Section 3273 of the RIRR prohibits milk companies from giving assistance,
support, logistics or training to health workers. This provision is within the prerogative given to the
DOH under Section 8(e)74 of the Milk Code, which provides that manufacturers and distributors of
breastmilk substitutes may assist in researches, scholarships and the continuing education, of health
professionals in accordance with the rules and regulations promulgated by the Ministry of Health,
now DOH.
6. As to the RIRR's prohibition on donations, said provisions are also consistent with the Milk Code.
Section 6(f) of the Milk Code provides that donations may be made by manufacturers and
distributors of breastmilk substitutes upon the request or with the approval of the DOH. The law
does not proscribe the refusal of donations. The Milk Code leaves it purely to the discretion of the
DOH whether to request or accept such donations. The DOH then appropriately exercised its
discretion through Section 5175 of the RIRR which sets forth its policy not to request or approve
donations from manufacturers and distributors of breastmilk substitutes.
It was within the discretion of the DOH when it provided in Section 52 of the RIRR that any donation
from milk companies not covered by the Code should be coursed through the IAC which shall
determine whether such donation should be accepted or refused. As reasoned out by respondents,
the DOH is not mandated by the Milk Code to accept donations. For that matter, no person or entity
can be forced to accept a donation. There is, therefore, no real inconsistency between the RIRR and
the law because the Milk Code does not prohibit the DOH from refusing donations.
7. With regard to Section 46 of the RIRR providing for administrative sanctions that are not found in
the Milk Code, the Court upholds petitioner's objection thereto.
Respondent's reliance on Civil Aeronautics Board v. Philippine Air Lines, Inc.76 is misplaced. The
glaring difference in said case and the present case before the Court is that, in the Civil Aeronautics
Board, the Civil Aeronautics Administration (CAA) was expressly granted by the law (R.A. No.
776) the power to impose fines and civil penalties, while the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) was
granted by the same law the power to review on appeal the order or decision of the CAA and to
determine whether to impose, remit, mitigate, increase or compromise such fine and civil penalties.
Thus, the Court upheld the CAB's Resolution imposing administrative fines.
In a more recent case, Perez v. LPG Refillers Association of the Philippines, Inc.,77 the Court upheld
the Department of Energy (DOE) Circular No. 2000-06-10
implementing Batas Pambansa (B.P.) Blg. 33. The circular provided for fines for the commission of
prohibited acts. The Court found that nothing in the circular contravened the law because the DOE
was expressly authorized by B.P. Blg. 33 and R.A. No. 7638 to impose fines or penalties.
In the present case, neither the Milk Code nor the Revised Administrative Code grants the DOH the
authority to fix or impose administrative fines. Thus, without any express grant of power to fix or
impose such fines, the DOH cannot provide for those fines in the RIRR. In this regard, the DOH
again exceeded its authority by providing for such fines or sanctions in Section 46 of the RIRR. Said
provision is, therefore, null and void.
The DOH is not left without any means to enforce its rules and regulations. Section 12(b) (3) of the
Milk Code authorizes the DOH to "cause the prosecution of the violators of this Code and other
pertinent laws on products covered by this Code." Section 13 of the Milk Code provides for the
penalties to be imposed on violators of the provision of the Milk Code or the rules and regulations
issued pursuant to it, to wit:
SECTION 13. Sanctions –
(a) Any person who violates the provisions of this Code or the rules and regulations
issued pursuant to this Code shall, upon conviction, be punished by a penalty of two (2)
months to one (1) year imprisonment or a fine of not less than One Thousand Pesos
(P1,000.00) nor more than Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) or both. Should the offense
be committed by a juridical person, the chairman of the Board of Directors, the president,
general manager, or the partners and/or the persons directly responsible therefor, shall be
penalized.
(b) Any license, permit or authority issued by any government agency to any health worker,
distributor, manufacturer, or marketing firm or personnel for the practice of their profession or
occupation, or for the pursuit of their business, may, upon recommendation of the Ministry of
Health, be suspended or revoked in the event of repeated violations of this Code, or of the
rules and regulations issued pursuant to this Code. (Emphasis supplied)
8. Petitioner’s claim that Section 57 of the RIRR repeals existing laws that are contrary to the RIRR
is frivolous.
Section 57 reads:
SECTION 57. Repealing Clause - All orders, issuances, and rules and regulations or parts
thereof inconsistent with these revised rules and implementing regulations are hereby
repealed or modified accordingly.
Section 57 of the RIRR does not provide for the repeal of laws but only orders, issuances and rules
and regulations. Thus, said provision is valid as it is within the DOH's rule-making power.
An administrative agency like respondent possesses quasi-legislative or rule-making power or the

power to make rules and regulations which results in delegated legislation that is within the confines
of the granting statute and the Constitution, and subject to the doctrine of non-delegability and
separability of powers.78 Such express grant of rule-making power necessarily includes the power to
amend, revise, alter, or repeal the same.79 This is to allow administrative agencies flexibility in
formulating and adjusting the details and manner by which they are to implement the provisions of a
law,80 in order to make it more responsive to the times. Hence, it is a standard provision in
administrative rules that prior issuances of administrative agencies that are inconsistent therewith
are declared repealed or modified.
In fine, only Sections 4(f), 11 and 46 are ultra vires, beyond the authority of the DOH to promulgate
and in contravention of the Milk Code and, therefore, null and void. The rest of the provisions of the
RIRR are in consonance with the Milk Code.
Lastly, petitioner makes a "catch-all" allegation that:
x x x [T]he questioned RIRR sought to be implemented by the Respondents is unnecessary

and oppressive, and is offensive to the due process clause of the Constitution, insofar
as the same is in restraint of trade and because a provision therein is inadequate to
provide the public with a comprehensible basis to determine whether or not they have
committed a violation.81 (Emphasis supplied)
Petitioner refers to Sections 4(f),82 4(i),83 5(w),84 11,85 22,86 32,87 46,88 and 5289 as the provisions that
suppress the trade of milk and, thus, violate the due process clause of the Constitution.
The framers of the constitution were well aware that trade must be subjected to some form of
regulation for the public good. Public interest must be upheld over business interests.90 In Pest
Management Association of the Philippines v. Fertilizer and Pesticide Authority,91 it was held thus:
x x x Furthermore, as held in Association of Philippine Coconut Desiccators v. Philippine

Coconut Authority, despite the fact that "our present Constitution enshrines free
enterprise as a policy, it nonetheless reserves to the government the power to
intervene whenever necessary to promote the general welfare." There can be no
question that the unregulated use or proliferation of pesticides would be hazardous to our
environment. Thus, in the aforecited case, the Court declared that "free enterprise does not
call for removal of ‘protective regulations’." x x x It must be clearly explained and
proven by competent evidence just exactly how such protective regulation would
result in the restraint of trade. [Emphasis and underscoring supplied]
In this case, petitioner failed to show that the proscription of milk manufacturers’ participation in any
policymaking body (Section 4(i)), classes and seminars for women and children (Section 22); the
giving of assistance, support and logistics or training (Section 32); and the giving of donations
(Section 52) would unreasonably hamper the trade of breastmilk substitutes. Petitioner has not
established that the proscribed activities are indispensable to the trade of breastmilk substitutes.
Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the aforementioned provisions of the RIRR are unreasonable
and oppressive for being in restraint of trade.
Petitioner also failed to convince the Court that Section 5(w) of the RIRR is unreasonable and
oppressive. Said section provides for the definition of the term "milk company," to wit:
SECTION 5 x x x. (w) "Milk Company" shall refer to the owner, manufacturer, distributor of
infant formula, follow-up milk, milk formula, milk supplement, breastmilk substitute or
replacement, or by any other description of such nature, including their representatives who
promote or otherwise advance their commercial interests in marketing those products;
On the other hand, Section 4 of the Milk Code provides:
(d) "Distributor" means a person, corporation or any other entity in the public or private sector
engaged in the business (whether directly or indirectly) of marketing at the wholesale or retail
level a product within the scope of this Code. A "primary distributor" is a manufacturer's sales
agent, representative, national distributor or broker.
xxxx
(j) "Manufacturer" means a corporation or other entity in the public or private sector engaged
in the business or function (whether directly or indirectly or through an agent or and entity
controlled by or under contract with it) of manufacturing a products within the scope of this
Code.
Notably, the definition in the RIRR merely merged together under the term "milk company" the
entities defined separately under the Milk Code as "distributor" and "manufacturer." The RIRR also
enumerated in Section 5(w) the products manufactured or distributed by an entity that would qualify
it as a "milk company," whereas in the Milk Code, what is used is the phrase "products within the
scope of this Code." Those are the only differences between the definitions given in the Milk Code
and the definition as re-stated in the RIRR.
Since all the regulatory provisions under the Milk Code apply equally to both manufacturers and
distributors, the Court sees no harm in the RIRR providing for just one term to encompass both
entities. The definition of "milk company" in the RIRR and the definitions of "distributor" and
"manufacturer" provided for under the Milk Code are practically the same.
The Court is not convinced that the definition of "milk company" provided in the RIRR would bring
about any change in the treatment or regulation of "distributors" and "manufacturers" of breastmilk
substitutes, as defined under the Milk Code.
Except Sections 4(f), 11 and 46, the rest of the provisions of the RIRR are in consonance with the
objective, purpose and intent of the Milk Code, constituting reasonable regulation of an industry
which affects public health and welfare and, as such, the rest of the RIRR do not constitute illegal
restraint of trade nor are they violative of the due process clause of the Constitution.
WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. Sections 4(f), 11 and 46 of Administrative

Order No. 2006-0012 dated May 12, 2006 are declared NULL and VOID for being ultra vires. The
Department of Health and respondents are PROHIBITED from implementing said provisions.
The Temporary Restraining Order issued on August 15, 2006 is LIFTED insofar as the rest of the
provisions of Administrative Order No. 2006-0012 is concerned.
SO ORDERED.
Puno, (Chief Justice), Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Corona, Carpio-M

G.R. No. L-4254 September 26, 1951
BORIS MEJOFF, petitioner,

vs.
THE DIRECTOR OF PRISONS, respondent.
Ambrosio T. Dollete for petitioner.

First Assistant Solicitor General Roberto A. Gianson and Solicitor Florencio Villamor for
respondents.
TUASON, J.:
This is a second petition for habeas corpus by Boris Mejoff, the first having been denied in a
decision of this Court of July 30, 1949. The history of the petitioner's detention was thus briefly set
forth in that decision, written by Mr. Justice Bengzon:
The petitioner Boris Mejoff is an alien of Russian descent who was brought to this country
from Shanghai as a secret operative by the Japanese forces during the latter's regime in
these Islands. Upon liberation he was arrested as a Japanese spy, by U.S. Army Counter
Intelligence Corps. Later he was handed to theCommonwealth Government for disposition in
accordance with Commonwealth Act No. 682. Thereafter, the People's Court ordered his
release. But the deportation Board taking his case up, found that having no travel documents
Mejoff was illegally in this country, and consequently referred the matter to the immigration
authorities. After the corresponding investigation, the Board of commissioners of Immigration
on April 5, 1948, declared that Mejoff had entered the Philippines illegally in 1944, without
inspection and admission by the immigration officials at a designation port of entry and,
therefore, it ordered that he be deported on the first available transportation to Russia. The
petitioner was then under custody, he having been arrested on March 18, 1948. In May 1948
he was transferred to the Cebu Provincial Jail together with three other Russians to await the
arrival of some Russian vessels. In July and August of that year two boats of Russian
nationality called at the Cebu Port. But their masters refused to take petitioner and his
companions alleging lack of authority to do so. In October 1948 after repeated failures to
ship this deportee abroad, the authorities removed him to Bilibid Prison at Muntinglupa
where he has been confined up to the present time, inasmuch as the Commissioner of
Immigration believes it is for the best interests of the country to keep him under detention
while arrangements for his departure are being made.
The Court held the petitioner's detention temporary and said that "temporary detention is a
necessary step in the process of exclusion or expulsion of undesirable aliens and that pending
arrangements for his deportation, the Government has the right to hold the undesirable alien under
confinement for a reasonable lenght of time." It took note of the fact, manifested by the Solicitor
General's representative in the course of the of the oral argumment, that "this Government desires to
expel the alien, and does not relish keeping him at the people's expense . . . making efforts to carry
out the decree of exclusion by the highest officer of the land." No period was fixed within which the
immigration authorities should carry out the contemplated deportation beyond the statement that
"The meaning of 'reasonable time' depends upon the circumstances, specially the difficulties of
obtaining a passport, the availability of transportation, the diplomatic arrangements with the
governments concerned and the efforts displayed to send the deportee away;" but the Court warned
that "under established precedents, too long a detention may justify the issuance of a writ of habeas
corpus."
Mr. Justice Paras, now Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Feria, Mr. Justice Perfecto, and the writer of this
decision dissented. Mr. Justice Feria and Mr. Justice Perfecto voted for outright discharge of the
prisoner from custody. Mr. Justice Paras qualified his dissent by stating that he might agree "to
further detention of the herein petitioner, provided that he be released if after six months, the
Government is still unable to deport him." This writer joined in the latter dissent but thought that two
months constituted reasonable time.
Over two years having elapsed since the decision aforesaid was promulgated, the Government has
not found way and means of removing the petitioner out of the country, and none are in sight,
although it should be said in justice to the deportation authorities, it was through no fault of theirs
that no ship or country would take the petitioner.
Aliens illegally staying in the Philippines have no right of asylum therein (Sowapadji vs. Wixon, Sept.
18, 1946, 157 F. ed., 289, 290), even if they are "stateless," which the petitioner claims to be. It is no
less true however, as impliedly stated in this Court's decision, supra, that foreign nationals, not
enemy against whom no charge has been made other than that their permission to stay has expired,
may not indefinitely be kept in detention. The protection against deprivation of liberty without due
process of law and except for crimes committed against the laws of the land is not limited to
Philippine citizens but extends to all residents, except enemy aliens, regardless of nationality.
Whether an alien who entered the country in violation of its immigration laws may be detained for as
long as the Government is unable to deport him, is a point we need not decide. The petitioner's entry
into the Philippines was not unlawful; he was brought by the armed and belligerent forces of a de
facto government whose decrees were law furing the occupation.
Moreover, by its Constitution (Art. II, Sec. 3) the Philippines "adopts the generally accepted
principles of international law as part of the law of Nation." And in a resolution entitled "Universal
Declaration of Human Rights" and approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations of which
the Philippines is a member, at its plenary meeting on December 10, 1948, the right to life and liberty
and all other fundamental rights as applied to all human beings were proclaimed. It was there
resolved that "All human beings are born free and equal in degree and rights" (Art. 1); that
"Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedom set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of
any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, nationality or social
origin, property, birth, or other status" (Art. 2): that "Every one has the right to an effective remedy by
the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the
Constitution or by law" (Art. 8); that "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile"
(Art. 9); etc.
In U. S. vs. Nichols, 47 Fed. Supp., 201, it was said that the court "has the power to release from
custody an alien who has been detained an unreasonably long period of time by the Department of
Justice after it has become apparent that although a warrant for his deportation has been issued, the
warrant can not be effectuated;" that "the theory on which the court is given the power to act is that
the warrant of deportation, not having been able to be executed, is functus officio and the alien is
being held without any authority of law." The decision cited several cases which, it said, settled the
matter definitely in that jurisdiction, adding that the same result had reached in innumerable cases
elsewhere. The cases referred to were United States ex rel. Ross vs. Wallis, 2 Cir. 279 F. 401, 404;
Caranica vs. Nagle, 9 Cir., 28 F. 2d 955; Saksagansky vs. Weedin, 9 Cir., 53 F. 2d 13, 16 last
paragraph; Ex parte Matthews, D.C.W.D. Wash., 277 F. 857; Moraitis vs. Delany, D.C. Md. Aug. 28,
1942, 46 F. Supp. 425.
The most recent case, as far as we have been able to find, was that of Staniszewski vs. Watkins
(1948), 90 Fed. Supp., 132, which is nearly foursquare with the case at hand. In that case a
stateless person, formerly a Polish national, resident in the United States since 1911 and many
times serving as a seaman on American vessels both in peace and in war, was ordered excluded
from the United States and detained at Ellis Island at the expense of the steamship company, when
he returned from a voyage on which he had shipped from New York for one or more European ports
and return to the United States. The grounds for his exclusion were that he had no passport or
immigration visa, and that in 1937 had been convicted of perjury because in certain documents he
presented himself to be an American citizen. Upon his application for release on habeas corpus, the
Court released him upon his own recognizance. Judge Leibell, of the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York, said in part:
When the return to the writ of habeas corpus came before this court, I suggested that all
interested parties . . . make an effort to arrange to have the petitioner ship out of some
country that he would receive him as a resident. He is, a native-born Pole but the Polish
Consul has advised him in writing that he is no longer a Polish subject. This Government
does not claim that he is a Polish citizen. His attorney says he is a stateless. The
Government is willing that he go back to the ship, but if he were sent back aboard a ship and
sailed to the Port (Cherbourg, France) from which he last sailed to the United States, he
would probably be denied permission to land. There is no other country that would take him,
without proper documents.
It seems to me that this is a genuine hardship case and that the petitioner should be
released from custody on proper terms. . . .
What is to be done with the petitioner? The government has had him in custody almost
seven months and practically admits it has no place to send him out of this country. The
steamship company, which employed him as one of a group sent to the ship by the Union,
with proper seaman's papers issued by the United States Coast Guard, is paying $3 a day
for petitioner's board at Ellis Island. It is no fault of the steamship company that petitioner is
an inadmissible alien as the immigration officials describe him. . . .
I intend to sustain the writ of habeas corpus and order the release of the petitioner on his
own recognizance. He will be required to inform the immigration officials at Ellis Island by
mail on the 15th of each month, stating where he is employed and where he can be reached
by mail. If the government does succeed in arranging for petitioner's deportation to a country
that will be ready to receive him as a resident, it may then advise the petitioner to that effect
and arrange for his deportation in the manner provided by law.
Although not binding upon this Court as a precedent, the case aforecited affords a happy solution to
the quandry in which the parties here finds themselves, solution which we think is sensible, sound
and compatible with law and the Constitution. For this reason, and since the Philippine law on
immigration was patterned after or copied from the American law and practice, we choose to follow
and adopt the reasoning and conclusions in the Staniszewski decision with some modifications
which, it is believed, are in consonance with the prevailing conditions of peace and order in the
Philippines.
It was said or insinuated at the hearing ofthe petition at bar, but not alleged in the return, that the
petitioner was engaged in subversive activities, and fear was expressed that he might join or aid the
disloyal elements if allowed to be at large. Bearing in mind the Government's allegation in its answer
that "the herein petitioner was brought to the Philippines by the Japanese forces," and the fact that
Japan is no longer at war with the United States or the Philippines nor identified with the countries
allied against these nations, the possibility of the petitioner's entertaining or committing hostile acts
prejudicial to the interest and security of this country seems remote.
If we grant, for the sake of argument, that such a possibility exists, still the petitioner's unduly
prolonged detention would be unwarranted by law and the Constitution, if the only purpose of the
detention be to eliminate a danger that is by no means actual, present, or uncontrolable. After all, the
Government is not impotent to deal with or prevent any threat by such measure as that just outlined.
The thought eloquently expressed by Mr. Justice Jackson of the United States Supreme Court in
connection with the appliccation for bail of ten Communists convicted by a lower court of advocacy
of violent overthrow of the United States Government is, in principle, pertinent and may be availed of
at this juncture. Said the learned Jurist:
The Governmet's alternative contention is that defendants, by misbehavior after conviction,

have forfeited their claim to bail. Grave public danger is said to result from what they may be
expected to do, in addition to what they have done since their conviction. If I assume that
defendants are disposed to commit every opportune disloyal to act helpful to Communist
countries, it is still difficult to reconcile with traditional American law the jailing of persons by
the courts because of anticipated but as yet uncommitted crimes. lmprisonment to protect
society from predicted but unconsummated offenses is so unprecedented in this country and
so fraught with danger of excesses and injustice that I am loath to resort it, even as a
discretionary judicial technique to supplement conviction of such offenses as those of which
defendants stand convicted.
But the right of every American to equal treatment before the law is wrapped up in the same
constitutional bundle with those of these Communists. If an anger or disgust with these
defendants we throw out the bundle, we alsocast aside protection for the liberties of more
worthy critics who may be in opposition to the government of some future day.
xxx xxx xxx 1âw phïl.nêt
If, however, I were to be wrong on all of these abstract or theoretical matters of principle,
there is a very practical aspect of this application which must not be overlooked or
underestimated — that is the disastrous effect on the reputation of American justice if I
should now send these men to jail and the full Court later decide that their conviction is
invalid. All experience with litigation teaches that existence of a substantial question about a
conviction implies a more than negligible risk of reversal. Indeed this experience lies back of
our rule permitting and practice of allowing bail where such questions exist, to avoid the
hazard of unjustifiably imprisoning persons with consequent reproach to our system of
justice. If that is prudent judicial practice in the ordinary case, how much more important to
avoid every chance of handing to the Communist world such an ideological weapon as it
would have if this country should imprison this handful of Communist leaders on a conviction
that our highest Court would confess to be illegal. Risks, of course, are involved in either
granting or refusing bail. I am naive enough to underestimate the troublemaking propensities
of the defendants. But, with the Department of Justice alert to the the dangers, the worst they
can accomplish in the short time it will take to end the litigation is preferable to the possibility
of national embarrassment from a celebrated case of unjustified imprisonment of Communist
leaders. Under no circumstances must we permit their symbolization of an evil force in the
world to be hallowed and glorified by any semblance of martyrdom. The way to avoid that
risk is not to jail these men until it is finally decided that they should stay jailed.
If that case is not comparable with ours on the issues presented, its underlying principle is of
universal application. In fact, its ratio decidendi applies with greater force to the present petition,
since the right of accused to bail pending apppeal of his case, as in the case of the ten Communists,
depends upon the discretion of the court, whereas the right to be enlarged before formal charges are
instituted is absolute. As already noted, not only are there no charges pending against the petitioner,
but the prospects of bringing any against him are slim and remote.
Premises considered, the writ will issue commanding the respondents to release the petitioner from
custody upon these terms: The petitioner shall be placed under the surveillance of the immigration
authorities or their agents in such form and manner as may be deemed adequate to insure that he
keep peace and be available when the Government is ready to deport him. The surveillance shall be
reasonable and the question of reasonableness shall be submitted to this Court or to the Court of
First Instance of Manila for decision in case of abuse. He shall also put up a bond for the above
purpose in the amount of P5,000 with sufficient surety or sureties, which bond the Commissioner of
Immigration is authorized to exact by section 40 of Commonwealth Act No. 613.
No costs will be charged.
G.R. No. L-2662 March 26, 1949

SHIGENORI KURODA, petitioner,
vs.
Major General RAFAEL JALANDONI, Brigadier General CALIXTO DUQUE, Colonel
MARGARITO TORALBA, Colonel IRENEO BUENCONSEJO, Colonel PEDRO TABUENA, Major
FEDERICO ARANAS, MELVILLE S. HUSSEY and ROBERT PORT, respondents.
Pedro Serran, Jose G. Lukban, and Liberato B. Cinco for petitioner.
Fred Ruiz Castro Federico Arenas Mariano Yengco, Jr., Ricardo A. Arcilla and S. Melville Hussey for
respondents.
MORAN, C.J.:
Shigenori Kuroda, formerly a Lieutenant-General of the Japanese Imperial Army and Commanding
General of the Japanese Imperial Forces in The Philippines during a period covering 19433 and
19444 who is now charged before a military Commission convened by the Chief of Staff of the
Armed forces of the Philippines with having unlawfully disregarded and failed "to discharge his duties
as such command, permitting them to commit brutal atrocities and other high crimes against
noncombatant civilians and prisoners of the Imperial Japanese Forces in violation of the laws and
customs of war" — comes before this Court seeking to establish the illegality of Executive Order No.
68 of the President of the Philippines: to enjoin and prohibit respondents Melville S. Hussey and
Robert Port from participating in the prosecution of petitioner's case before the Military Commission
and to permanently prohibit respondents from proceeding with the case of petitioners.
In support of his case petitioner tenders the following principal arguments.

First. — "That Executive Order No. 68 is illegal on the ground that it violates not only the provision of
our constitutional law but also our local laws to say nothing of the fact (that) the Philippines is not a
signatory nor an adherent to the Hague Convention on Rules and Regulations covering Land
Warfare and therefore petitioners is charged of 'crimes' not based on law, national and international."
Hence petitioner argues — "That in view off the fact that this commission has been empanelled by
virtue of an unconstitutional law an illegal order this commission is without jurisdiction to try herein
petitioner."
Second. — That the participation in the prosecution of the case against petitioner before the
Commission in behalf of the United State of America of attorneys Melville Hussey and Robert Port
who are not attorneys authorized by the Supreme Court to practice law in the Philippines is a
diminution of our personality as an independent state and their appointment as prosecutor are a
violation of our Constitution for the reason that they are not qualified to practice law in the
Philippines.
Third. — That Attorneys Hussey and Port have no personality as prosecution the United State not
being a party in interest in the case.
Executive Order No. 68, establishing a National War Crimes Office prescribing rule and regulation
governing the trial of accused war criminals, was issued by the President of the Philippines on the
29th days of July, 1947 This Court holds that this order is valid and constitutional. Article 2 of our
Constitution provides in its section 3, that —
The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy and adopts the generally
accepted principles of international law as part of the of the nation.
In accordance with the generally accepted principle of international law of the present day including
the Hague Convention the Geneva Convention and significant precedents of international
jurisprudence established by the United Nation all those person military or civilian who have been
guilty of planning preparing or waging a war of aggression and of the commission of crimes and
offenses consequential and incidental thereto in violation of the laws and customs of war, of
humanity and civilization are held accountable therefor. Consequently in the promulgation and
enforcement of Execution Order No. 68 the President of the Philippines has acted in conformity with
the generally accepted and policies of international law which are part of the our Constitution.
The promulgation of said executive order is an exercise by the President of his power as
Commander in chief of all our armed forces as upheld by this Court in the case of
Yamashita vs. Styer (L-129, 42 Off. Gaz., 664) 1 when we said —
War is not ended simply because hostilities have ceased. After cessation of armed hostilities
incident of war may remain pending which should be disposed of as in time of war. An
importance incident to a conduct of war is the adoption of measure by the military command
not only to repel and defeat the enemies but to seize and subject to disciplinary measure
those enemies who in their attempt to thwart or impede our military effort have violated the
law of war. (Ex parte Quirin 317 U.S., 1; 63 Sup. Ct., 2.) Indeed the power to create a military
commission for the trial and punishment of war criminals is an aspect of waging war. And in
the language of a writer a military commission has jurisdiction so long as a technical state of
war continues. This includes the period of an armistice or military occupation up to the
effective of a treaty of peace and may extend beyond by treaty agreement. (Cowles Trial of
War Criminals by Military Tribunals, America Bar Association Journal June, 1944.)
Consequently, the President as Commander in Chief is fully empowered to consummate this
unfinished aspect of war namely the trial and punishment of war criminal through the issuance and
enforcement of Executive Order No. 68.
Petitioner argues that respondent Military Commission has no Jurisdiction to try petitioner for acts
committed in violation of the Hague Convention and the Geneva Convention because the Philippines
is not a signatory to the first and signed the second only in 1947. It cannot be denied that the rules
and regulation of the Hague and Geneva conventions form, part of and are wholly based on the
generally accepted principals of international law. In facts these rules and principles were accepted
by the two belligerent nation the United State and Japan who were signatories to the two
Convention, Such rule and principles therefore form part of the law of our nation even if the
Philippines was not a signatory to the conventions embodying them for our Constitution has been
deliberately general and extensive in its scope and is not confined to the recognition of rule and
principle of international law as continued inn treaties to which our government may have been or
shall be a signatory.
Furthermore when the crimes charged against petitioner were allegedly committed the Philippines
was under the sovereignty of United States and thus we were equally bound together with the United
States and with Japan to the right and obligation contained in the treaties between the belligerent
countries. These rights and obligation were not erased by our assumption of full sovereignty. If at all
our emergency as a free state entitles us to enforce the right on our own of trying and punishing
those who committed crimes against crimes against our people. In this connection it is well to
remember what we have said in the case of Laurel vs. Misa (76 Phil., 372):
. . . The change of our form government from Commonwealth to Republic does not affect the
prosecution of those charged with the crime of treason committed during then
Commonwealth because it is an offense against the same sovereign people. . . .
By the same token war crimes committed against our people and our government while we were a
Commonwealth are triable and punishable by our present Republic.
Petitioner challenges the participation of two American attorneys namely Melville S. Hussey and
Robert Port in the prosecution of his case on the ground that said attorney's are not qualified to
practice law in Philippines in accordance with our Rules of court and the appointment of said
attorneys as prosecutors is violative of our national sovereignty.
In the first place respondent Military Commission is a special military tribunal governed by a special
law and not by the Rules of court which govern ordinary civil court. It has already been shown that
Executive Order No. 68 which provides for the organization of such military commission is a valid
and constitutional law. There is nothing in said executive order which requires that counsel
appearing before said commission must be attorneys qualified to practice law in the Philippines in
accordance with the Rules of Court. In facts it is common in military tribunals that counsel for the
parties are usually military personnel who are neither attorneys nor even possessed of legal training.
Secondly the appointment of the two American attorneys is not violative of our nation sovereignty. It
is only fair and proper that United States, which has submitted the vindication of crimes against her
government and her people to a tribunal of our nation should be allowed representation in the trial of
those very crimes. If there has been any relinquishment of sovereignty it has not been by our
government but by the United State Government which has yielded to us the trial and punishment of
her enemies. The least that we could do in the spirit of comity is to allow them representation in said
trials.
Alleging that the United State is not a party in interest in the case petitioner challenges the
personality of attorneys Hussey and Port as prosecutors. It is of common knowledge that the United
State and its people have been equally if not more greatly aggrieved by the crimes with which
petitioner stands charged before the Military Commission. It can be considered a privilege for our
Republic that a leader nation should submit the vindication of the honor of its citizens and its
government to a military tribunal of our country.
The Military Commission having been convened by virtue of a valid law with jurisdiction over the
crimes charged which fall under the provisions of Executive Order No. 68, and having said petitioner
in its custody, this Court will not interfere with the due process of such Military commission.
For all the foregoing the petition is denied with costs de oficio.
Paras, Feria, Pablo, Bengzon, Tuason, Montemayor and Reyes, JJ., concur.
Separate Opinions
PERFECTO, J., dissenting:
A military commission was empanelled on December 1, 1948 to try Lt. Gen. Shigenori Kuroda for
Violation of the laws and customs of land warfare.
Melville S. Hussey and Robert Port, American citizens and not authorized by the Supreme Court to
practice law were appointed prosecutor representing the American CIC in the trial of the case.
The commission was empanelled under the authority of Executive Order No. 68 of the President of
the Philippines the validity of which is challenged by petitioner on constitutional grounds. Petitioner
has also challenged the personality of Attorneys Hussey and Port to appear as prosecutors before
the commission.
The charges against petitioner has been filed since June 26, 1948 in the name of the people of the
Philippines as accusers.
We will consideration briefly the challenge against the appearance of Attorneys Hussey and Port. It
appearing that they are aliens and have not been authorized by the Supreme Court to practice law
there could not be any question that said person cannot appear as prosecutors in petitioner case as
with such appearance they would be practicing law against the law.
Said violation vanishes however into insignificance at the side of the momentous question involved
in the challenge against the validity of Executive Order No. 68. Said order is challenged on several
constitutional ground. To get a clear idea of the question raised it is necessary to read the whole
context of said order which is reproduced as follows:
EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 68.
ESTABLISHING A NATIONAL WAR CRIMES OFFICE AND PRESCRIBING RULES

AND REGULATION GOVERNING THE TRIAL OF ACCUSED WAR CRIMINAL.
I, Manuel Roxas president of the Philippines by virtue of the power vested in me by the
Constitution and laws of the Philippines do hereby establish a National War Crimes Office
charged with the responsibility of accomplishing the speedy trial of all Japanese accused of
war crimes committed in the Philippines and prescribe the rules and regulation such trial.
The National War crimes office is established within the office of the Judge Advocate
General of the Army of the Philippines and shall function under the direction supervision and
control of the Judge Advocate General. It shall proceed to collect from all available sources
evidence of war crimes committed in the Philippines from the commencement of hostilities by
Japan in December 1941, maintain a record thereof and bring about the prompt trial maintain
a record thereof and bring about the prompt trial of the accused.
The National War Crimes Office shall maintain direct liaison with the Legal Section General
Headquarters, Supreme Commander for the Allied power and shall exchange with the said
Office information and evidence of war crimes.
The following rules and regulation shall govern the trial off person accused as war criminals:
ESTABLISHMENT OF MILITARY COMMISSIONS
(a) General. — person accused as war criminal shall be tried by military commission to be
convened by or under the authority of the Philippines.
II. JURISDICTION
(a) Over Person. — Thee military commission appointed hereunder shall have jurisdiction
over all persons charged with war crimes who are in the custody of the convening authority
at the time of the trial.
(b) Over Offenses. — The military commission established hereunder shall have jurisdiction
over all offenses including but not limited to the following:
(1) The planning preparation initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation
of international treaties agreement or assurance or participation in a common plan or
conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing.
(2) Violation of the laws or customs of war. Such violation shall include but not be limited to
murder ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for other purpose of civilian population of
or in occupied territory; murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or internees or person on
the seas or elsewhere; improper treatment of hostage; plunder of public or private property
wanton destruction of cities towns or village; or devastation not justified by military necessity.
(3) Murder extermination enslavement deportation and other inhuman acts committed
against civilian population before or during the war or persecution on political racial or
religion ground in executive of or in connection with any crime defined herein whether or not
in violation of the local laws.
III. MEMBERSHIP OF COMMISSIONS
(a) Appointment. — The members of each military commission shall be appointed by the
President of the Philippines or under authority delegated by him. Alternates may be
appointed by the convening authority. Such shall attend all session of the commission, and in
case of illness or other incapacity of any principal member, an alternate shall take the place
of that member. Any vacancy among the members or alternates, occurring after a trial has
begun, may be filled by the convening authority but the substance of all proceeding had
evidence taken in that case shall be made known to the said new member or alternate. This
facts shall be announced by the president of the commission in open court.
(b) Number of Members. — Each commission shall consist of not less than three (3)
members.
(c) Qualifications. — The convening authority shall appoint to the commission persons whom
he determines to be competent to perform the duties involved and not disqualified by
personal interest or prejudice, provided that no person shall be appointed to hear a case in
which he personally investigated or wherein his presence as a witness is required. One
specially qualified member whose ruling is final in so far as concerns the commission on an
objection to the admissibility of evidence offered during the trial.
(d) Voting. — Except as to the admissibility of evidence all rulings and finding of the
Commission shall be by majority vote except that conviction and sentence shall be by the
affirmative vote of not less than conviction and sentence shall be by the affirmative vote of
not less than two-thirds (2\3) of the member present.
(e) Presiding Member. — In the event that the convening authority does not name one of the
member as the presiding member, the senior officer among the member of the Commission
present shall preside.
IV. PROSECUTORS
(a) Appointment. — The convening authority shall designate one or more person to conduct
the prosecution before each commission.
(b) Duties. — The duties of the prosecutor are:
(1) To prepare and present charges and specifications for reference to a commission.
(2) To prepare cases for trial and to conduct the prosecution before the commission of all
cases referred for trial.
V. POWER AND PROCEDURE OF COMMISSION
(a) Conduct of the Trial. — A Commission shall:
(1) Confine each trial strictly to fair and expeditious hearing on the issues raised by the
charges, excluding irrelevant issues or evidence and preventing any unnecessary delay or
interference.
(2) Deal summarily with any contumacy or contempt, imposing any appropriate punishment
therefor.
(3) Hold public session when otherwise decided by the commission.

(4) Hold each session at such time and place as it shall determine, or as may be directed by
the convening authority.
(b) Rights of the Accused. — The accused shall be entitled:
(1) To have in advance of the trial a copy of the charges and specifications clearly worded so
as to apprise the accused of each offense charged.
(2) To be represented, prior to and during trial, by counsel appointed by the convening
authority or counsel of his own choice, or to conduct his own defense.
(3) To testify in his own behalf and have his counsel present relevant evidence at the trial in
support of his defense, and cross-examine each adverse witness who personally appears
before the commission.
(4) To have the substance of the charges and specifications, the proceedings and any
documentary evidence translated, when he is unable otherwise to understand them.
(c) Witnesses. — The Commission shall have power:
(1) To summon witnesses and require their attendance and testimony; to administer oaths or
affirmations to witnesses and other persons and to question witnesses.
(2) To require the production of documents and other evidentiary material.
(3) To delegate the Prosecutors appointed by the convening authority the powers and duties
set forth in (1) and (2) above.
(4) To have evidence taken by a special commissioner appointed by the commission.
(d) Evidence.
(1) The commission shall admit such evidence as in its opinion shall be of assistance in
proving or disproving the charge, or such as in the commission's opinion would have
probative value in the mind of a reasonable man. The commission shall apply the rules of
evidence and pleading set forth herein with the greatest liberality to achieve expeditious
procedure. In particular, and without limiting in any way the scope of the foregoing general
rules, the following evidence may be admitted:
(a) Any document, irrespective of its classification, which appears to the commission to have
been signed or issued by any officer, department, agency or member of the armed forces of
any Government without proof of the signature or of the issuance of the document.
(b) Any report which appears to the commission to have been signed or issued by the
International Red Cross or a member of any medical service personnel, or by any
investigator or intelligence officer, or by any other person whom commission considers as
possessing knowledge of the matters contained in the report.
(c) Affidavits, depositions or other signed statements.

(d) Any diary, letter to other document, including sworn statements, appearing to the
commission to contain information relating to the charge.
(e) A copy of any document or other secondary evidence of the contents, if the original is not
immediately available.
(2) The commission shall take judicial notice of facts of common knowledge, official
government documents of any nation, and the proceedings, records and findings of military
or other agencies of any of the United Nation.
(3) A commission may require the prosecution and the defense to make a preliminary offer of
proof whereupon the commission may rule in advance on the admissibility of such evidence.
(4) The official position of the accused shall not absolve him from responsibility nor be
considered in mitigation of punishment. Further action pursuant to an order of the accused's
superior, or of his Government, shall not constitute a defense, but may be considered in
mitigation of punishment if the commission determines that justice so requires.
(5) All purposed confessions or statements of the accused shall bee admissible in evidence
without any showing that they were voluntarily made. If it is shown that such confession or
statement was procured by mean which the commission believe to have been of such a
character that may have caused the accused to make a false statement the commission may
strike out or disregard any such portion thereof as was so procured.
(e) Trial Procedure. — The proceedings of each trial shall be conducted substantially as
follows unless modified by the commission to suit the particular circumstances:
(1) Each charge and specification shall be read or its substance stated in open court.
(2) The presiding member shall ask each accused whether he pleads "Guilty" or "Not guilty."
(3) The prosecution shall make its opening statement."(4) The presiding member may at this
or any other time require the prosecutor to state what evidence he proposes to submit to the
commission and the commission thereupon may rule upon the admissibility of such
evidence.
(4) The witnesses and other evidence for the prosecution shall be heard or presented. At the
close of the case for the prosecution, the commission may, on motion of the defense for a
finding of not guilty, consider and rule whether he evidence before the commission may defer
action on any such motion and permit or require the prosecution to reopen its case and
produce any further available evidence.
(5) The defense may make an opening statement prior to presenting its case. The presiding
member may, at this any other time require the defense to state what evidence it proposes to
submit to the commission where upon the commission may rule upon the admissibility of
such evidence.
(6) The witnesses and other evidence for the defense shall be heard or presented.
Thereafter, the prosecution and defense may introduce such evidence in rebuttal as the
commission may rule as being admissible.
(7) The defense and thereafter the prosecution shall address the commission.
(8) The commission thereafter shall consider the case in closed session and unless
otherwise directed by the convening authority, announce in open court its judgment and
sentence if any. The commission may state the reason on which judgment is based.
( f ) Record of Proceedings. — Each commission shall make a separate record of its

proceeding in the trial of each case brought before it. The record shall be prepared by the
prosecutor under the direction of the commission and submitted to the defense counsel. The
commission shall be responsible for its accuracy. Such record, certified by the presiding
member of the commission or his successor, shall be delivered to the convening authority as
soon as possible after the trial.
(g) Sentence. — The commission may sentence an accused, upon conviction to death by
hanging or shooting, imprisonment for life or for any less term, fine or such other punishment
as the commission shall determine to be proper.
(h) Approval of Sentence. — No. sentence of a military commission shall be carried into
effect until approved by the chief off Staff: Provided, That no sentence of death or life
imprisonment shall be carried into execution until confirmed by the President of the
Philippines. For the purpose of his review the Chief of Staff shall create a Board of Review to
be composed of not more than three officers none of whom shall be on duty with or assigned
to the Judge Advocate General's Office. The Chief of Staff shall have authority to approve,
mitigate remit in whole or in part, commute, suspend, reduce or otherwise alter the sentence
imposed, or (without prejudice to the accused) remand the case for rehearing before a new
military commission; but he shall not have authority to increase the severity of the sentence.
Except as herein otherwise provided the judgment and sentence of a commission shall final
and not subject to review by any other tribunal.
VI. RULE-MAKING POWER
Supplementary Rule and Forms. — Each commission shall adopt rules and forms to govern
its procedure, not inconsistent with the provision of this Order, or such rules and forms as
may be prescribed by the convening authority]or by the President of the Philippines.
VII. The amount of amount of seven hundred thousand pesos is hereby set aside out of the
appropriations for the Army of the Philippines for use by the National War Crimes Office in
the accomplishment of its mission as hereinabove set forth, and shall be expended in
accordance with the recommendation of the Judge Advocate General as approved by the
President. The buildings, fixtures, installations, messing, and billeting equipment and other
property herefore used by then Legal Section, Manila Branch, of the General Headquarters,
Supreme Commander for the Allied Power, which will be turned over by the United States
Army to the Philippines Government through the Foreign Liquidation Commission and the
Surplus Property Commission are hereby specification reserved for use off the National War
Crimes Office.
Executive Order No. 64, dated August 16, 1945, is hereby repealed.
Done in the City of Manila, this 29th day of July in the year of Our Lord, nineteen hundred
and forty-seven, and of the Independence of the Philippines, the second.
MANUEL ROXAS
President of the Philippines
By the President:
EMILIO ABELLO
Chief of the Executive Office
EXECUTIVE LEGISLATION
Executive Order No. 68 is a veritable piece of Legislative measure, without the benefit of
congressional enactment.
The first question that is trust at our face spearheading a group of other no less important question,
is whether or not the President of the Philippines may exercise the legislative power expressly
vested in Congress by the Constitution. .
The Constitution provides:
The Legislative powers shall be vested in a Congress of the Philippines which shall consist
of a Senate and House of Representatives. (Section 1, Article VI.)
While there is no express provision in the fundamental law prohibiting the exercise of legislative
power by agencies other than Congress, a reading of the whole context of the Constitution would
dispel any doubt as to the constitutional intent that the legislative power is to be exercised
exclusively by Congress, subject only to the veto power of the President of the President of the
Philippines, to the specific provision which allow the president of the Philippines to suspend the
privileges of the writ of habeas corpus and to place any part of the Philippines under martial law, and
to the rule-making power expressly vested by the Constitution in the Supreme Court.
There cannot be any question that the member of the Constitutional Convention were believers in
the tripartite system of government as originally enunciated by Aristotle, further elaborated by
Montequieu and accepted and practiced by modern democracies, especially the United State of
America, whose Constitution, after which ours has been patterned, has allocated the three power of
government — legislative, executive, judicial — to distinct and separate department of government.
Because the power vested by our Constitution to the several department of the government are in
the nature of grants, not recognition of pre-existing power, no department of government may
exercise any power or authority not expressly granted by the Constitution or by law by virtue express
authority of the Constitution.
Executive Order No. 68 establishes a National War Crimes Office and the power to establish
government office is essentially legislative.
The order provides that person accused as war criminals shall be tried by military commissions.
Whether such a provision is substantive or adjective, it is clearly legislative in nature. It confers upon
military commissions jurisdiction to try all persons charge with war crimes. The power to define and
allocate jurisdiction for the prosecution of person accused of any crime is exclusively vested by the
Constitution in Congress. .
It provides rules of procedure for the conduct of trial of trial. This provision on procedural subject
constitutes a usurpation of the rule-making power vested by Constitution in the Supreme Court.
It authorized military commission to adopt additional rule of procedure. If the President of the
Philippines cannot exercise the rule -making power vested by the Constitution in the Supreme Court,
he cannot, with more reason, delegate that power to military commission.
It appropriates the sum of P7000,000 for the expenses of the National War Crimes office established
by the said Executive Order No. 68. This constitutes another usurpation of legislative power as the
power to vote appropriations belongs to Congress.
Executive Order No. 68., is, therefore, null and void, because, though it the President of the
Philippines usurped power expressly vested by the Constitution in Congress and in the Supreme
Court.
Challenged to show the constitutional or legal authority under which the President issued Executive
Order No. 68, respondent could not give any definite answer. They attempted, however, to suggest
that the President of the Philippines issued Executive Order No. 68 under the emergency power
granted to him by Commonwealth Act No. 600, as amended by Commonwealth Act No. 620, and
Commonwealth Act No. 671, both of which are transcribed below:
COMMONWEALTH ACT NO. 600.
AN ACT DECLARING A STATE OF EMERGENCY AND AUTHORIZING THE

PRESIDENT TO PROMULGATE RULES AND REGULATION TO SAFEGUARD
THE INTEGRITY OF THE PHILIPPINES AND TO INSURE THE TRANQUILITY OF
ITS INHABITANTS.
Be it enacted by the National Assembly of the Philippines:
SECTION 1. The existence of war in many parts of the world has created a national
emergency which makes it necessary to invest the President of the Philippines with
extraordinary power in order to safeguard the integrity of the Philippines and to insure the
tranquility of its inhabitants, by suppressing espionage, lawlessness, and all subversive to
the people adequate shelter and clothing and sufficient food supply, and by providing means
for the speedy evacuation of the civilian population the establishment of an air protective
service and the organization of volunteer guard units, and to adopt such other measures as
he may deem necessary for the interest of the public. To carry out this policy the President is
authorized to promulgate rules and regulations which shall have the force and effect off law
until the date of adjournment of the next regulation which shall have the force and effect of
law until the date of adjournment of the next regular session of the First Congress of the
Philippines, unless sooner amended or repealed by the Congress of Philippines. Such rules
and regulation may embrace the following objects: (1) to suppress espionage and other
subversive activities; (2) to require all able-bodied citizens (a) when not engaged in any
lawful occupation, to engage in farming or other productive activities or (b) to perform such
services as may bee necessary in the public interest; (3) to take over farm lands in order to
prevent or shortage of crops and hunger and destitution; (4) to take over industrial
establishment in order to insure adequate production, controlling wages and profits therein;
(5) to prohibit lockouts and strikes whenever necessary to prevent the unwarranted
suspension of work in productive enterprises or in the interest of national security; (6) to
regulate the normal hours of work for wage-earning and salaried employees in industrial or
business undertakings of all kinds; (7) to insure an even distribution of labor among the
productive enterprises; (8) to commandership and other means of transportation in order to
maintain, as much as possible, adequate and continued transportation facilities; (9) to
requisition and take over any public service or enterprise for use or operation by the
Government;(10) to regulate rents and the prices of articles or commodities of prime
necessity, both imported and locally produced or manufactured; and (11) to prevent, locally
or generally, scarcity, monopolization, hoarding injurious speculations, and private control
affecting the supply, distribution and movement of foods, clothing, fuel, fertilizer, chemical,
building, material, implements, machinery, and equipment required in agriculture and
industry, with power to requisition these commodities subject to the payment of just
compensation. (As amended by Com. Act No. 620.)
SEC. 2. For the purpose of administering this Act and carrying out its objective, the President
may designate any officer, without additional compensation, or any department, bureau,
office, or instrumentality of the National Government.
SEC. 3. Any person, firm, or corporation found guilty of the violation of any provision of this
Act or of this Act or any of the rules or regulations promulgated by the President under the
authority of section one of this Act shall be punished by imprisonment of not more than ten
years or by a fine of not more than ten thousand pesos, or by both. If such violation is
committed by a firm or corporation, the manager, managing director, or person charge with
the management of the business of such firm, or corporation shall be criminally responsible
therefor.
SEC. 4. The President shall report to the national Assembly within the first ten days from the
date of the opening of its next regular session whatever action has been taken by him under
the authority herein granted.
SEC. 5. To carry out the purposed of this Act, the President is authorized to spend such
amounts as may be necessary from the sum appropriated under section five Commonwealth
Act Numbered four hundred and ninety-eight.
SEC. 6. If any province of this Act shall be declared by any court of competent jurisdiction to
be unconstitutional and void, such declaration shall not invalidate the remainder of this Act.
SEC. 7. This Act shall take upon its approval.
Approved, August 19, 1940.
COMMONWEALTH ACT NO. 671
AN ACT DECLARING A STATE OF TOTAL EMERGENCY AS A RESULT OF WAR

INVOLVING THE PHILIPPINES AND AUTHORIZING THE PRESIDENT TO
PROMULGATE RULE AND REGULATIONS TO MEET SUCH EMERGENCY.
Be it enacted the National Assembly of the Philippines;

SECTION 1. The existed of war between the United State and other countries of Europe and
Asia, which involves the Philippines, makes it necessary to invest the President with
extraordinary powers in order to meet the resulting emergency.
SEC. 2. Pursuant to the provision of Article VI, section 16, of the Constitution, the President
is hereby authorized, during the existence of the emergency, to promulgate such rules and
regulation as he may deem necessary to carry out the national policy declared in section 1
hereof. Accordingly, he is, among other things, empowered (a) to transfer the seat of the
Government or any of its subdivisions, branches, department, offices, agencies or
instrumentalities; (b) to reorganize the Government of the Commonwealth including the
determination of the order of precedence of the heads of the Executive Department; (c) to
create new subdivision, branches, departments, offices, agency or instrumentalities of
government and to abolish any of those already existing; (d) to continue in force laws and
appropriation which would lapse or otherwise became inoperative, and to modify or suspend
the operation or application of those of an administrative character; (e) to imposed new taxes
or to increase, reduce, suspend, or abolish those in existence; (f) to raise funds through the
issuance of bonds or otherwise, and to authorize the expensive of the proceeds thereof; (g)
to authorize the National, provincial, city or municipal governments to incur in overdrafts for
purposes that he may approve; (h) to declare the suspension of the collection of credits or
the payment of debts; and (i) to exercise such other power as he may deem necessary to
enable the Government to fulfill its responsibilities and to maintain and enforce its authority.
SEC. 3. The President of the Philippines report thereto all the rules and regulation
promulgated by him under the power herein granted.
SEC. 4. This Act shall take effect upon its approval and the rules and regulations.
promulgated hereunder shall be in force and effect until the Congress of the Philippines shall
otherwise provide.
Approved December 16, 1941.
The above Acts cannot validly be invoked, Executive Order No. 68 was issued on July 29, 1947.
Said Acts had elapsed upon the liberation of the Philippines form the Japanese forces or, at the
latest, when the surrender of Japan was signed in Tokyo on September 2, 1945.
When both Acts were enacted by the Second National Assembly, we happened to have taken direct
part in their consideration and passage, not only as one of the members of said legislative body as
chairman of the Committee on Third Reading population Known as the "Little Senate." We are,
therefore in a position to state that said measures were enacted by the second national Assembly for
the purpose of facing the emergency of impending war and of the Pacific War that finally broke out
with the attack of Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. We approved said extraordinary measures, by
which under the exceptional circumstances then prevailing legislative power were delegated to the
President of the Philippines, by virtue of the following provisions of the Constitution:
In time of war or other national emergency, the Congress may by law authorize the
President, for a limited period and subject to such restrictions as it may prescribe to
promulgate rules and regulations to carry out declared national policy. (Article VI, section
26.)
It has never been the purpose of the National Assembly to extend the delegation beyond the
emergency created by the war as to extend it farther would be violative of the express provision of
the Constitution. We are of the opinion that there is no doubt on this question.; but if there could still
be any the same should be resolved in favor of the presumption that the National Assembly did not
intend to violate the fundamental law.
The absurdity of the contention that the emergency Acts continued in effect even after the surrender
of Japan can not be gainsaid. Only a few months after liberation and even before the surrender of
Japan, or since the middle of 1945, the Congress started to function normally. In the hypothesis that
the contention can prevail, then, since 1945, that is, four years ago, even after the Commonwealth
was already replaced by the Republic of the Philippines with the proclamation of our Independence,
two district, separate and independence legislative organs, — Congress and the President of the
Philippines — would have been and would continue enacting laws, the former to enact laws of every
nature including those of emergency character, and the latter to enact laws, in the form of executive
orders, under the so-called emergency powers. The situation would be pregnant with dangers to
peace and order to the rights and liberties of the people and to Philippines democracy.
Should there be any disagreement between Congress and the President of the Philippines, a
possibility that no one can dispute the President of the Philippines may take advantage of he long
recess of Congress (two-thirds of every year ) to repeal and overrule legislative enactments of
Congress, and may set up a veritable system of dictatorship, absolutely repugnant to the letter and
spirit of the Constitution.
Executive Order No. 68 is equally offensive to the Constitution because it violates the fundamental
guarantees of the due process and equal protection of the law. It is especially so, because it permit
the admission of many kinds evidence by which no innocent person can afford to get acquittal and
by which it is impossible to determine whether an accused is guilty or not beyond all reasonable
doubt.
The rules of evidence adopted in Executive Order No. 68 are a reproduction of the regulation
governing the trial of twelve criminal, issued by General Douglas Mac Arthur, Commander in Chief of
the United State Armed Forces in Western Pacific, for the purpose of trying among other, General
Yamashita and Homma. What we said in our concurring and dissenting opinion to the decision
promulgated on December 19, 1945, in the Yamashita case, L-129, and in our concurring and
dissenting opinion to the resolution of January 23, 1946 in disposing the Homma case, L-244, are
perfectly applicable to the offensive rules of evidence in Executive Order No. 68. Said rules of
evidence are repugnant to conscience as under them no justice can expected.
For all the foregoing, conformably with our position in the Yamashita and Homma cases, we vote to
declare Executive Order No. 68 null and void and to grant petition.

PIL IVB 1,2, &amp;3 Cases

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

PIL IVB 1,2, &amp;3 Cases

Caricato da

Copyright:

G.R. No.

173034 October 9, 2007

PHARMACEUTICAL AND HEALTH CARE ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,

The Court hereby sets the following issues:

1. Whether or not petitioner is a real party-in-interest;

The parties filed their respective memoranda.

The petition is partly imbued with merit.

On the issue of petitioner's standing

On the constitutionality of the provisions of the RIRR

On the other hand, Section 2, Article II of the 1987 Constitution, to wit:

embodies the incorporation method.14

In Mijares v. Ranada,15 the Court held thus:

[G]enerally accepted principles of international law, by virtue of the incorporation clause of

"Generally accepted principles of international law" refers to norms of general or customary

Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas defines customary international law as follows:

The required duration can be either short or long. x x x

The Introduction to the ICMBS also reads as follows:

As previously discussed, for an international rule to be considered as customary law, it must be

MILK CODE RIRR

MILK CODE RIRR

MILK CODE RIRR

Section 13. "Total Effect" - Promotion of

Section 15. Content of Materials. - The

a. Texts, pictures, illustrations or information

b. The term "humanized," "maternalized,"

c. Pictures or texts that idealize the use of

Section 16. All health and nutrition claims for

MILK CODE RIRR

5. The Milk Code allows dissemination of information on infant formula to health

MILK CODE RIRR

MILK CODE RIRR

SECTION 22. No manufacturer, distributor, or

SECTION 32. Primary Responsibility of

MILK CODE RIRR

MILK CODE RIRR

a) 1st violation – Warning;

b) 2nd violation – Administrative fine of a

c) 3rd violation – Administrative Fine of a

d) 4th violation –Administrative Fine of a

e) 5th and succeeding repeated violations –

f) An additional penalty of Two Thou-sand Five

For purposes of determining whether or not

9. The RIRR provides for repeal of existing laws to the contrary.

SECTION 12. Implementation and Monitoring –

SECTION 5. Information and Education –

(b) Information provided by manufacturers and distributors to health professionals regarding

SECTION 10. Containers/Label –

SECTION 8. Health workers -

(b) Information provided by manufacturers and distributors to health professionals regarding

In furtherance of Section 6(a) of the Milk Code, to wit:

SECTION 6. The General Public and Mothers. –

SECTION 12. Implementation and Monitoring -

Minister of Health ------------------- Chairman

Minister of Trade and Industry ------------------- Member

Minister of Justice ------------------- Member

Minister of Social Services and Development ------------------- Member

The Committee shall have the following powers and functions:

However, Section 11 of the RIRR, to wit:

SECTION 11. Prohibition – No advertising, promotions, sponsorships, or marketing materials

(f) Advertising, promotions, or sponsorships of infant formula, breastmilk substitutes and

SOLICITOR GENERAL DEVANADERA:

ASSOCIATE JUSTICE SANTIAGO:

SOLICITOR GENERAL DEVANADERA:

ASSOCIATE JUSTICE SANTIAGO:

SOLICITOR GENERAL DEVANADERA:

ASSOCIATE JUSTICE NAZARIO:

SOLICITOR GENERAL DEVANADERA:

PIL IVB 1,2, &3 Cases

PIL IVB 1,2, &3 Cases