GR 217872; (April, 2017) (Digest)
G.R. No. 217872 & G.R. No. 221866, April 26, 2017
ALLIANCE FOR THE FAMILY FOUNDATION, PHILIPPINES, INC. (ALFI), ET AL. vs. HON. JANETTE L. GARIN, ET AL.
FACTS
Petitioners, led by the Alliance for the Family Foundation, challenged the actions of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Department of Health (DOH) in registering, procuring, and administering certain contraceptive drugs and devices under the Reproductive Health Law (R.A. No. 10354). They argued these products were abortifacients, thus violating the constitutional protection of the unborn from conception. The Supreme Court, in a prior Decision dated August 24, 2016, remanded the case to the FDA, directing it to conduct hearings with due process to determine whether the contested contraceptives are abortifacients. The Court also issued directives for the FDA and DOH to formulate new procedural rules.
Respondents, through the Office of the Solicitor General, filed an Omnibus Motion for Partial Reconsideration. They argued that the FDA’s acts of product registration and certification were exercises of its regulatory, not quasi-judicial, powers. Consequently, they contended that the strict due process requirements of notice and hearing, as mandated by the Court’s prior Decision, were inapplicable. They asserted that the FDA’s internal evaluation process, based on scientific evidence, was sufficient.
ISSUE
Whether the FDA’s actions in certifying contraceptive drugs and devices under R.A. No. 10354 require compliance with the due process requirements of notice and hearing.
RULING
The Supreme Court DENIED the motion for reconsideration. It upheld its directive that the FDA must observe due process, including notice and hearing, in determining whether contraceptive products are abortifacients. The Court clarified that the distinction between regulatory and quasi-judicial functions is not determinative of the applicability of due process. Due process is a flexible concept; its requirements vary with the context and the significance of the interests involved.
Here, the certification process directly impacts a fundamental constitutional right—the right to life of the unborn. The Court emphasized that when an administrative agency’s determination affects constitutionally protected rights, the proceedings must be fair and adversarial. The FDA’s unilateral evaluation, based solely on submitted documents, was insufficient. The petitioners, whose core advocacy is the protection of unborn life, have a direct and substantial interest that warrants their participation in the proceedings. Allowing them to be heard ensures a more robust and transparent evaluation, where scientific claims can be tested and conflicting evidence can be properly weighed. This procedural safeguard is essential to faithfully implement the constitutional and statutory standard that only non-abortifacient contraceptives may be allowed.