PHARMACEUTICAL and HEALTH CARE ASSOCIATION of the PHILIPPINES vs.

HEALTH SECRETARY FRANCISCO T. DUQUE III

Petitioner assails the Revised Implementing Rules and Regulation (RIRR) of A.O 20060012 for allegedly going beyond the provisions of the Milk Code (E.O. 51), thereby
amending and expanding the coverage of said law. Among others, petitioners avers that
there is only a relative prohibition for advertisement, whether written, audio or visual for
milk products provided that the materials are duly authorized and approved by the interagency committee created by the Code as provided for in Section 6 of the said Code.
Section 4 (f) of the RIRR on the hand absolutely prohibited advertising of infant formula,
breast milk substitute and other related products. Section 11 of the same Code also
prohibited advertisement, promotions, or marketing materials and activities for
breastmilk substitutes intended for infants and young children up to twenty-four (24)
months. Also in the Milk Code, there was no administrative sanctions provided but in the
RIRR, there was an administrative sanctions provided in Section 46, thereof.
The defense of the DOH is that the RIRR implements not only the Milk Code but also
various international instruments regarding infant and young child nutrition. It is
respondents' position that said international instruments such as the World Health
Assembly Resolutions, the International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes
(ICMBS), etc are deemed part of the law of the land and therefore the DOH may
implement them through the RIRR.
ISSUE:
Whether the labeling requirement and advertising regulations under the RIRR are valid?
HELD:
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. Free enterprise does not call for removal of protective
regulations. It must be clearly explained and proven by competent evidence just
exactly how such protective regulation would result in the restraint of trade.
In fine, the Court held that 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.