17 June 2014
VIA COURIER AND EMAIL
Director General email@example.com
Philippine Food and Drug Adminstration Civic Drive, Filinvest Corporate City Alabang, Muntinlupa City Director General Go: Greetings! As we all know, the recent decision of the Philippine Supreme Court in G.R. No. 204819
has given us a shared responsibility and duty to ensure that nothing in the RH Law is implemented to imperil human health and life
, particularly that of the mother and the conceived unborn child.
With respect to your charter’s mandate to “
prescribe standards, guidelines, and regulations with respect to information, advertisements [and] other marketing activities about health products,
” we now write to request your guidance on the following matters:
Are there “
MODERN NATURAL FAMILY PLANNING METHODS
” that have any primary, secondary or tertiary effect as an abortifacient? Kindly provide us with references and administration issuances upon which your response is based.
Are there specific kinds and brands of “
” that do
have any primary, secondary or tertiary effect as an abortifacient? Kindly
(April 8, 2014) and the consolidated cases, also known as the “RH Law Cases”.
[I]t bears pointing out that not a single contraceptive has yet been submitted to the FDA pursuant to the RH Law. It behooves the Court to await its determination which drugs or devices are declared by the FDA as safe, it being the agency tasked to ensure that food and medicines available to the public are safe for public consumption
it is apparent that the Framers of the Constitution emphasized that the State shall provide equal protection to both the mother and the unborn child from the earliest opportunity of life, that is, upon fertilization or upon the union of the male sperm and the female ovum.
, et al., G.R. No. 204819 at 44)
Secs. 2 and 4(h) of R.A. 3720,
by Secs. 3 and 5 of R.A. 9711.