G.R. No. 173034. October 9, 2007.
PHARMACEUTICAL AND HEALTH CARE ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. HEALTH SECRETARY FRANCISCO T. DUQUE III, et al., respondents.

FACTS

The Department of Health (DOH) issued Administrative Order No. 2006-0012, the Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations (RIRR) of Executive Order No. 51 (the Milk Code). The Milk Code was promulgated under the Freedom Constitution to regulate the marketing of breastmilk substitutes. The RIRR incorporated provisions based on subsequent World Health Assembly (WHA) Resolutions, which aimed to more strictly promote and protect breastfeeding by, inter alia, prohibiting all advertising and promotions for breastmilk substitutes for children up to two years of age.
The Pharmaceutical and Health Care Association of the Philippines (PHAP), representing manufacturers of breastmilk substitutes, filed a petition for certiorari to nullify the RIRR. PHAP argued that the DOH acted with grave abuse of discretion, contending that the RIRR contained provisions that were unconstitutional, exceeded the authority granted by the Milk Code, and constituted an unreasonable restraint of trade.

ISSUE

Whether the DOH, in promulgating the RIRR, acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.

RULING

The Supreme Court partially granted the petition. The Court upheld PHAP’s legal standing as an association representing its members’ interests. On the substantive issues, the Court ruled that while the Milk Code authorizes the regulation of advertising for breastmilk substitutes, it does not authorize an absolute ban. The Milk Code itself permits advertising to the general public and informational and educational materials, subject to specific restrictions. Therefore, the RIRR’s Sections 4(f), 11, and 46, which effectively imposed a total advertising ban, were declared invalid for going beyond the scope of the law they sought to implement.
However, the Court upheld other challenged provisions. It ruled that the RIRR’s prohibition on donations of breastmilk substitutes during emergencies (Section 12) was a valid implementation of the Milk Code’s general aim to prevent exploitation of infants. The provision requiring donations of other products to be coursed through an Inter-Agency Committee (Section 52) was also upheld as a reasonable measure to prevent circumvention. The Court further held that while various international instruments (like WHA Resolutions) espouse the protection of breastfeeding, they do not automatically become part of Philippine law unless ratified as a treaty or enacted into statute. Thus, the DOH could not rely solely on unincorporated WHA Resolutions to justify provisions not found in or authorized by the Milk Code. The RIRR was sustained only insofar as its provisions were in harmony with the Milk Code.