Cases in International Law

8/10/2019 Cases in International Law

1/732


2/732

under the Freedom Constitution. (ne of the preambular clauses of the Milk Codestates that the la# seeks to give effect to rticle //of the 0nternational Code ofMarketing of "reastmilk 2ubstitutes )0CM"2*, a code adopted by the :orld1ealth ssembly ):1* in /98/. From /98 to --%, the :1 adopted severalResolutions to the effect that breastfeeding should be supported, promoted and

protected, hence, it should be ensured that nutrition and health claims are notpermitted for breastmilk substitutes.

0n /99-, the Philippines ratified the 0nternational Convention on the Rights of theChild. rticle ; of said instrument provides that 2tate Parties should takeappropriate measures to diminish infant and child mortality, and ensure that allsegments of society, specially parents and children, are informed of theadvantages of breastfeeding.

(n May /&, --%, the 4(1 issued herein assailed R0RR #hich #as to take effect

on


3/732

./ :hether the R0RR is in accord #ith the provisions of 65ecutive (rder+o. &/ )Milk Code*A

. :hether pertinent international agreements/entered into by thePhilippines are part of the la# of the land and may be implemented by the

4(1 through the R0RRA 0f in the affirmative, #hether the R0RR is in accord#ith the international agreementsA

.> :hether 2ections ;, &)#*, , >, ;=, and & of the R0RR violate thedue process clause and are in restraint of tradeA and

.; :hether 2ection /> of the R0RR on Total 6ffect provides sufficientstandards.

BBBBBBBBBBBBB

/ )/* 3nited +ations Convention on the Rights of the ChildA )* the :1(and 3nicef -- ?lobal 2trategy on 0nfant and Doung Child FeedingA and)>* various :orld 1ealth ssembly ):1* Resolutions.

The parties filed their respective memoranda.

The petition is partly imbued #ith merit.

On the issue of petitioner's standing

:ith regard to the issue of #hether petitioner may prosecute this case as the realpartyininterest, the Court adopts the vie# enunciated in 65ecutive 2ecretary v.Court of ppeals,;to #it@

The modern vie# is that an association has standing to complain of inuriesto its members. This vie# fuses the legal identity of an association #ith thatof its members. A* )oc)to* ) t)*+* to 56e t 5or t 8orer+e:te t 6)c o5 +rect *teret 5 t ;e;ber )re )55ecte+ b< te)cto*. A* or)*=)to* ) t)*+* to )ert te co*cer* o5 tco*tte*t.

5 5 5 5

5 5 5 :e note that, under its rticles of 0ncorporation, the respondent #asorgani7ed 5 5 5 to act as the representative of any individual, company,entity or association on matters related to the manpo#er recruitmentindustry, and to perform other acts and activities necessary to accomplishthe purposes embodied therein. The re:o*+e*t , t, te
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_173034_2007.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_173034_2007.html#fnt4


4/732

)::ro:r)te :)rt< to )ert te rt o5 t ;e;ber, bec)e t )*+t ;e;ber )re * e>er< :r)ctc)6 e*e +e*tc)6. 5 5 5 Tere:o*+e*t ?)oc)to*@ bt te ;e+; tro 8c t*+>+)6 ;e;ber ee to ;)e ;ore e55ect>e te e:reo* o5ter >oce )*+ te re+re o5 ter re>)*ce. &)6mphasis supplied*

#hich #as reasserted in Purok Bagong Silang Association, Inc. v. Yuipco,%#herethe Court ruled that an association has the legal personality to represent itsmembers because the results of the case #ill affect their vital interests.=

1erein petitioner's mended rticles of 0ncorporation contains a similar provisionust like in 65ecutive 2ecretary, that the association is formed to representdirectly or through approved representatives the pharmaceutical and health careindustry before the Philippine ?overnment and any of its agencies, the medicalprofessions and the general public.8Thus, as an organi7ation, petitioner

definitely has an interest in fulfilling its avo#ed purpose of representing members#ho are part of the pharmaceutical and health care industry. Petitioner is dulyauthori7ed9to take the appropriate course of action to bring to the attention ofgovernment agencies and the courts any grievance suffered by its members#hich are directly affected by the R0RR. Petitioner, #hich is mandated by its

mended rticles of 0ncorporation to represent the entire industry, #ould beremiss in its duties if it fails to act on governmental action that #ould affect any ofits industry members, no matter ho# fe# or numerous they are. 1ence,petitioner, #hose legal identity is deemed fused #ith its members, should beconsidered as a real partyininterest #hich stands to be benefited or inured by

any udgment in the present action.

On the constitutionality of the provisions of the I

"rt, the Court #ill determine if pertinent international instruments adverted to byrespondents are part of the la# of the land.

Petitioner assails the R0RR for allegedly going beyond the provisions of the MilkCode, thereby amending and e5panding the coverage of said la#. The defenseof the 4(1 is that the R0RR implements not only the Milk Code but also variousinternational instruments/-regarding infant and young child nutrition. 0t is

respondents' position that said international instruments are deemed part of thela# of the land and therefore the 4(1 may implement them through the R0RR.

The Court notes that the follo#ing international instruments invoked byrespondents, namely@ )/* The 3nited +ations Convention on the Rights of theChildA )* The 0nternational Covenant on 6conomic, 2ocial and Cultural RightsAand )>* the Convention on the 6limination of ll Forms of 4iscrimination gainst
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_173034_2007.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_173034_2007.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_173034_2007.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_173034_2007.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_173034_2007.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_173034_2007.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_173034_2007.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_173034_2007.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_173034_2007.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_173034_2007.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_173034_2007.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_173034_2007.html#fnt10


5/732

:omen, only provide in general terms that steps must be taken by 2tate Partiesto diminish infant and child mortality and inform society of the advantages ofbreastfeeding, ensure the health and #ellbeing of families, and ensure that#omen are provided #ith services and nutrition in connection #ith pregnancy andlactation. 2aid instruments do not contain specific provisions regarding the use or

marketing of breastmilk substitutes.

The international instruments that do have specific provisions regardingbreastmilk substitutes are the 0CM"2 and various :1 Resolutions.

3nder the /98= Constitution, international la# can become part of the sphere ofdomestic la# either bytr)*5or;)to*or *cor:or)to*.//The transformationmethod re!uires that an international la# be transformed into a domestic la#through a constitutional mechanism such as local legislation. The incorporationmethod applies #hen, by mere constitutional declaration, international la# is

deemed to have the force of domestic la#./

Treaties become part of the la# of the land through tr)*5or;)to*pursuant torticle E00, 2ection / of the Constitution #hich provides that nGo treaty orinternational agreement shall be valid and effective unless concurred in by atleast t#othirds of all the members of the 2enate. Thus, treaties or conventionalinternational la# must go through a process prescribed by the Constitution for itto be transformed into municipal la# that can be applied to domestic conflicts./>

The 0CM"2 and :1 Resolutions are not treaties as they have not beenconcurred in by at least t#othirds of all members of the 2enate as re!uiredunder 2ection /, rticle E00 of the /98= Constitution.

1o#ever, the 0CM"2 #hich #as adopted by the :1 in /98/ had beentransformed into domestic la# through local legislation, the Milk Code.Conse!uently, it is the Milk Code that has the force and effect of la# in this

urisdiction and not the 0CM"2per se.

The Milk Code is almost a verbatim reproduction of the 0CM"2, but it is #ell toemphasi7e at this point that the Code did not adopt the provision in the ICMBS)bo6te6< :robt* )+>ert*or other forms of promotion to the general

public of products #ithin the scope of the 0CM"2. 0nstead, te M6 Co+ee:re6< :ro>+e t)t )+>ert*, :ro;oto*, or oter ;)ret*;)ter)6 ;)< be )66o8e+ 5 c ;)ter)6 )re +6< )tor=e+ )*+)::ro>e+ b< te I*ter/Ae*c< Co;;ttee IAC.

(n the other hand, 2ection , rticle 00 of the /98= Constitution, to #it@
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_173034_2007.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_173034_2007.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_173034_2007.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_173034_2007.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_173034_2007.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_173034_2007.html#fnt13


6/732

26CT0(+ . The Philippines renounces #ar as an instrument of nationalpolicy, adopts the generall* accepted principles of international lawas part of the law of the landand adheres to the policy of peace,e!uality, ustice, freedom, cooperation and amity #ith all nations.)6mphasis supplied*

embodies the *cor:or)to*method./;

0n !i"ares v. anada,/&the Court held thus@

?Generally accepted principles of international la#, by virtue of theincorporation clause of the Constitution, form part of the la#s of the landeven if they do not derive from treaty obligations. The classical formulationin international la# sees those customary rules accepted as binding resultfrom the combination ofG t#o elements@ the established, #idespread, and

consistent practice on the part of 2tatesA and a psychological elementkno#n as the opinion uris >e *ecet)te )opinion as to la# ornecessity*. 0mplicit in the latter element is a belief that the practice in!uestion is rendered obligatory by the e5istence of a rule of la# re!uiringit./%)6mphasis supplied*

?enerally accepted principles of international la# refers to norms of general orcustomary international la# #hich are binding on all states,/=i.e., renunciation of#ar as an instrument of national policy, the principle of sovereign immunity,/8aperson's right to life, liberty and due process,/9andpacta sunt servanda,-amongothers. The concept of generally accepted principles of la# has also beendepicted in this #ise@

2ome legal scholars and udges look upon certain general principles of la# as aprimary source of international la# because te< )>e te Dc)r)cter o5 r)to*)6eD )*+ )re D>)6+ tro )66 *+ o5 ;)* ocete.D)


7/732

Custom or customary international la# means a general andconsistent practice of states follo#ed by them from a sense of legalobligation opinio "urisG. )Restatement* T t)te;e*t co*t)* te t8ob)c e6e;e*t o5 cto; te material factor, that, o8 t)tebe)>e, )*+ te :e te 8)< te< +o.

5 5 5 5

The initial factor for determining the e5istence of custom is the actualbehavior of states. This includes several elements@ duration, consistency,and generality of the practice of states.

The re!uired duration can be either short or long. 5 5 5

5 5 5 5

4uration therefore is not the most important element. More important is theconsistency and the generality of the practice. 5 5 5

5 5 5 5

(nce the e5istence of state practice has been established, it becomesnecessary to determine #hy states behave the #ay they do. 4o statesbehave the #ay they do because te< co*+er t ob6)tor&of the 3+ Charter. 3nder the /9;% :1( Constitution, it is the :1#hich determines the policies of the :1(,%and has the po#er to adoptregulations concerning advertising and labeling of biological, pharmaceuticaland similar products moving in international commerce,=and to make
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_173034_2007.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_173034_2007.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_173034_2007.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_173034_2007.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_173034_2007.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_173034_2007.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_173034_2007.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_173034_2007.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_173034_2007.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_173034_2007.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_173034_2007.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_173034_2007.html#fnt27


8/732

recommendations to members #ith respect to any matter #ithin the competenceof the (rgani7ation.8The legal effect of its regulations, as opposed torecommendations, is !uite different.

Regulations, along #ith conventions and agreements, duly adopted by the

:1 b*+ ;e;ber t)te thus@

rticle /9. The 1ealth ssembly shall have authority to adopt conventionsor agreements #ith respect to any matter #ithin the competence of the(rgani7ation. t#othirds vote of the 1ealth ssembly shall be re!uired forthe adoption of such co*>e*to* or )ree;e*t, #hich )66 co;e *to5orce 5or e)c Me;ber 8e* )cce:te+ b< t * )ccor+)*ce 8t tco*ttto*)6 :rocee.

rticle -. E)c Me;ber *+ert)e t)t t 866, #ithin eighteen months

after the adoption by the 1ealth ssembly of a convention oragreement, t)e )cto* re6)t>e to te )cce:t)*ce o5 c co*>e*to*or )ree;e*t. 6ach Member shall notify the 4irector?eneral of the actiontaken, and if it does not accept such convention or agreement #ithin thetime limit, it #ill furnish a statement of the reasons for nonacceptance. 0ncase of acceptance, each Member agrees to make an annual report to the4irector?eneral in accordance #ith Chapter H0E.

rticle /. The 1ealth ssembly shall have authority to adopt regulationsconcerning@ )a* sanitary and !uarantine re!uirements and otherprocedures designed to prevent the international spread of diseaseA )b*nomenclatures #ith respect to diseases, causes of death and public healthpracticesA )c* standards #ith respect to diagnostic procedures forinternational useA )d* standards #ith respect to the safety, purity andpotency of biological, pharmaceutical and similar products moving ininternational commerceA )e* advertising and labeling of biological,pharmaceutical and similar products moving in international commerce.

rticle . egulations adopted pursuant to Article #$ shall co%e into forcefor all !e%&ers after due notice has &een given of their adoption &y theealth Asse%&ly e(cept for such !e%&ers as %ay notify the )irector*

+eneral of re"ection or reservations ithin the period stated in thenotice. )6mphasis supplied*

(n the other hand, *+er Artc6e 23, reco;;e*+)to* o5 te FHA +o *otco;e *to 5orce 5or ;e;ber,in the same #ay that conventions or agreementsunder rticle /9 and re6)to* *+er Artc6e 21come into force. rticle > ofthe :1( Constitution reads@
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_173034_2007.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_173034_2007.html#fnt28


9/732

rticle >. The 1ealth ssembly shall have authorit* to ma$erecommendationsto Members #ith respect to any matter #ithin thecompetence of the (rgani7ation. )6mphasis supplied*

The absence of a provision in rticle > of any mechanism by #hich the

recommendation #ould come into force for member states is conspicuous.

The former 2enior Iegal (fficer of :1(, 2ami 2hubber, stated that :1recommendations are generally not binding, but they carry moral and political#eight, as they constitute the udgment on a health issue of the collectivemembership of the highest international body in the field of health.96ven the0CM"2 itself #as adopted as a mere recommendation, as :1 Resolution +o.>;. states@

The ThirtyFourth :orld 1ealth ssembly 5 5 5 adopts, * te e*e o5

Artc6e 23 o5 te Co*ttto*, the 0nternational Code of Marketing of"reastmilk 2ubstitutes anne5ed to the present resolution. )6mphasissupplied*

The 0ntroduction to the 0CM"2 also reads as follo#s@

0n


10/732


11/732


12/732

2ection >, Chapter /, Title 0H of the Revised dministrative Code of /98=provides that the 4(1 shall +e5*e te *)to*)6 e)6t :o6c


13/732

/. The Milk Code limits its coverage to children -/ months old, but theR0RR e5tended its coverage to young children or those from ages t#oyears old and beyond@

MI CO!E RIRR

FHEREAS, in order to ensure thatsafe and ade!uate nutrition forinfants is provided, there is a need toprotect and promote breastfeedingand to inform the public about theproper use of breastmilk substitutesand supplements and relatedproducts through ade!uate,consistent and obective informationand appropriate regulation of the

marketing and distribution of the saidsubstitutes, supplements and relatedproductsA

SECTION 4e. 0nfant means aperson falling #ithin the age bracketof -/ months.

Secto* 2. Pr:oe J These ReviseRules and Regulations are herebypromulgated to ensure the provisionof safe and ade!uate nutrition forinfants and young children by thepromotion, protection and support ofbreastfeeding and by ensuring theproper use of breastmilk substitutes,breastmilk supplements and relatedproducts #hen these are medically

indicated and only #hen necessary,on the basis of ade!uate informationand through appropriate marketingand distribution.

Secto* 55. Doung Child means person from the age of more thant#elve )/* months up to the age ofthree )>* years )>% months*.

. The Milk Code recogni7es that infant formula may be a proper andpossible substitute for breastmilk in certain instancesA but the R0RRprovides e5clusive breastfeeding for infants from -% months anddeclares that there is no substitute nor replacement for breastmilk@

MI CO!E RIRRFHEREAS, in order to ensure thatsafe and ade!uate nutritionfor infants is provided, there is a needto protect and promote breastfeedingand to inform the public about

the proper use of breastmilksubstitutes and supplements andrelated products through ade!uate,consistent and obective informationand appropriate regulation of themarketing and distribution of the saidsubstitutes, supplements and related

Secto* 4. !ec6)r)to* o5 Pr*c:6eJ The follo#ing are the underlyingprinciples from #hich the revised ruleand regulations are premised upon@

a. 65clusive breastfeeding is forinfants from - to si5 )%* months.

b. There is no substitute orreplacement for breastmilk.


14/732

productsA

>. The Milk Code only regulates and does not impose unreasonablere!uirements for advertising and promotionA R0RR imposes an absoluteban on such activities for breastmilk substitutes intended for infants from -

; months old or beyond, and forbids the use of health and nutritionalclaims. 2ection /> of the R0RR, #hich provides for a total effect in thepromotion of products #ithin the scope of the Code, is vague@

MI CO!E RIRRSECTION . Te Ge*er)6 Pb6c )*+Moter. J

)a* +o advertising, promotion or othermarketing materials, #hether #ritten,

audio or visual, for products #ithin thescope of this Code shall be printed,published, distributed, e5hibited andbroadcast unless such materials areduly authori7ed and approved by aninteragency committee createdherein pursuant to the applicablestandards provided for in this Code.

Secto* 4. !ec6)r)to* o5 Pr*c:6eJ The follo#ing are the underlyingprinciples from #hich the revised ruleand regulations are premised upon@

5 5 5 5

f. dvertising, promotions, or sponsoshipsof infant formula, breastmilksubstitutes and other relatedproducts are prohibited.

Secto* 11. Probto* J +oadvertising, promotions,sponsorships, or marketing materials

and activities for breastmilksubstitutes intended for infants andyoung children up to t#entyfour );months, shall be allo#ed, becausethey tend to convey or give subliminmessages or impressions thatundermine breastmilk andbreastfeeding or other#isee5aggerate breastmilk substitutesandJor replacements, as #ell asrelated products covered #ithin thescope of this Code.

Secto* 13. DTot)6 E55ectDPromotion of products #ithin thescope of this Code must be obectiveand should not e!uate or make theproduct appear to be as good or e!u


15/732

to breastmilk or breastfeeding in theadvertising concept. 0t must not in ancase undermine breastmilk orbreastfeeding. The total effect

should not directly or indirectlysuggest that buying their product#ould produce better individuals, orresulting in greater love, intelligenceability, harmony or in any mannerbring better health to the baby orother such e5aggerated andunsubstantiated claim.

Secto* 1. Co*te*t o5 M)ter)6.

The follo#ing shall not be included inadvertising, promotional andmarketing materials@

a. Te5ts, pictures, illustrations orinformation #hich discourage or tendto undermine the benefits orsuperiority of breastfeeding or #hichideali7e the use of breastmilksubstitutes and milk supplements. 0n

this connection, no pictures of babieand children together #ith theirmothers, fathers, siblings,grandparents, other relatives orcaregivers )or yayas* shall be used iany advertisements for infant formuland breastmilk supplementsA

b. The term humani7ed,maternali7ed, close to mother'smilk or similar #ords in describing

breastmilk substitutes or milksupplementsA

c. Pictures or te5ts that ideali7e theuse of infant and milk formula.

Secto* 1. ll health and nutrition


16/732


17/732

information that po#dered infantformula may contain pathogenicmicroorganisms and must beprepared and used appropriately.

&. The Milk Code allo#s dissemination of information on infant formula tohealth professionalsA the R0RR totally prohibits such activity@

MI CO!E RIRRSECTION 7. He)6t C)re S


18/732

Code may assist in the research,scholarships and continuingeducation, of health professionals,inaccordance #ith the rules andregulations promulgated by the

Ministry of 1ealth.

principles from #hich the revised ruleand regulations are premised upon@

i. Milk companies, and their

representatives,should not form partof any policymaking body or entity inrelation to the advancement ofbreasfeeding.

SECTION 22. +o manufacturer,distributor, or representatives ofproducts covered by the Code shallbe allo#ed to conduct or be involvedin any activity on breastfeeding

promotion, education and productionof 0nformation, 6ducation andCommunication )06C* materials onbreastfeeding, holding of orparticipating as speakers in classes seminars for #omen and childrenactivitiesand to avoid the use of thesvenues to market their brands orcompany names.

SECTION 32. Pr;)rrdviolation K dministrative Fine oa minimum of 2i5ty Thousand


20/732

)P%-,---.--* to (ne 1undred FiftyThousand )P/&-,---.--* Pesos,depending on the gravity and e5tentof the violation, and in addition

thereto, the recall of the offendingproduct, and suspension of theCertificate of Product Registration)CPR*A

d* ;thviolation Kdministrative Fine oa minimum of T#o 1undred Thousan)P--,---.--* to Five 1undred)P&--,---.--* Thousand Pesos,depending on the gravity and e5tent

of the violationA and in additionthereto, the recall of the product,revocation of the CPR, suspension othe Iicense to (perate )IT(* for oneyearA

e* &thand succeeding repeatedviolations K dministrative Fine of(ne Million )P/,---,---.--* Pesos,the recall of the offending product,

cancellation of the CPR, revocation othe Iicense to (perate )IT(* of thecompany concerned, including theblacklisting of the company to befurnished the 4epartment of "udgetand Management )4"M* and the4epartment of Trade and 0ndustry)4T0*A

f* n additional penalty of T#o Thousand Five 1undred )P,&--.--*

Pesos per day shall be made forevery day the violation continues aftehaving received the order from the0C or other such appropriate body,notifying and penali7ing the companfor the infraction.


21/732

For purposes of determining #hetheor not there is repeated violation,each product violation belonging oro#ned by a company, including thosof their subsidiaries, are deemed to

be violations of the concerned milkcompany and shall not be based onthe specific violating product alone.

9. The R0RR provides for repeal of e5isting la#s to the contrary.

The Court shall resolve the merits of the allegations of petitioner seriati%.

/. Petitioner is mistaken in its claim that the Milk Code's coverage is limited onlyto children -/ months old. 2ection > of the Milk Code states@

26CT0(+ >. Scope of the CodeK The Code applies to the marketing, andpractices related thereto, of the follo#ing products@ breastmilk substitutes,including infant formulaA other milk products, foods and beverages,including bottlefed complementary foods, #hen marketed or other#iserepresented to be suitable, #ith or #ithout modification, for use as a partialor total replacement of breastmilkA feeding bottles and teats. 0t also appliesto their !uality and availability, and to information concerning their use.

Clearly, the coverage of the Milk Code is not dependent on the age of the childbut on the *+ o5 :ro+ctbeing marketed to the public. The la# treats infantformula, bottlefed complementary food, and breastmilk substitute as separateand distinct product categories.

2ection ;)h* of the Milk Code defines infant formula as a breastmilk substitute 55 5 to satisfy the normal nutritional re!uirements of infants up to bet#een four tosi5 months of age, and adapted to their physiological characteristicsA #hile under2ection ;)b*, bottlefed complementary food refers to any food, #hethermanufactured or locally prepared, suitable as a complement to breastmilk orinfant formula, #hen either becomes insufficient to satisfy the nutritionalre!uirements of the infant. n infant under 2ection ;)e* is a person falling #ithin

the age bracket -/ months. 0t is the nourishment of this group of infants orchildren aged -/ months that is sought to be promoted and protected by theMilk Code.

"ut there is another target group. "reastmilk substitute is defined under 2ection;)a* as any food being marketed or other#ise presented as a partial or totalreplacement for breastmilk, #hether or not suitable for that purpose.T


22/732

ecto* co*:co6< 6)c re5ere*ce to )*< :)rtc6)r )e/ro: o5c6+re*. He*ce, te :ro>o* o5 te M6 Co+e c)**ot be co*+ere+ec6>e 5or c6+re* )e+ 0/12 ;o*t. 0n other #ords, breastmilksubstitutes may also be intended for young children more than / months of age.Therefore, by regulating breastmilk substitutes, the Milk Code also intends to

protect and promote the nourishment of children more than / months old.

6vidently, as long as #hat is being marketed falls #ithin the scope of the MilkCode as provided in 2ection >, then it can be subect to regulation pursuant tosaid la#, even if the product is to be used by children aged over / months.

There is, therefore, nothing obectionable #ith 2ections ;and &)ff*;>of theR0RR.

. 0t is also incorrect for petitioner to say that the R0RR, unlike the Milk Code,

does not recogni7e that breastmilk substitutes may be a proper and possiblesubstitute for breastmilk.

The entirety of the R0RR, not merely truncated portions thereof, must beconsidered and construed together. s held in )e una v. Pascual,;;tGheparticular #ords, clauses and phrases in the Rule should not be studied asdetached and isolated e5pressions, but the #hole and every part thereof must beconsidered in fi5ing the meaning of any of its parts and in order to produce aharmonious #hole.

2ection = of the R0RR provides that #hen medically indicated and only #hennecessary, te e o5 bre)t;6 bttte :ro:erif based on completeand updated information. 2ection 8 of the R0RR also states that information andeducational materials should include information on the proper use of infantformula #hen the use thereof is needed.

1ence, te RIRR, t 6e te M6 Co+e, )6o reco*=e t)t * cert)*c)e, te e o5 bre)t;6 bttte ;)< be :ro:er.

>. The Court shall ascertain the merits of allegations >;&and ;;%together as theyare interlinked #ith each other.

To resolve the !uestion of #hether the labeling re!uirements and advertisingregulations under the R0RR are valid, it is important to deal first #ith the nature,purpose, and depth of the regulatory po#ers of the 4(1, as defined in generalunder the /98= dministrative Code,;=and as delegated in particular under theMilk Code.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_173034_2007.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_173034_2007.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_173034_2007.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_173034_2007.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_173034_2007.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_173034_2007.html#fnt47http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_173034_2007.html#fnt47http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_173034_2007.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_173034_2007.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_173034_2007.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_173034_2007.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_173034_2007.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_173034_2007.html#fnt47


23/732

1ealth is a legitimate subect matter for regulation by the 4(1 )and certain otheradministrative agencies* in e5ercise of police po#ers delegated to it. The sheerspan of urisprudence on that matter precludes the need to further discussit..;81o#ever, health information, particularly advertising materials on apparentlynonto5ic products like breastmilk substitutes and supplements, is a relatively

ne# area for regulation by the 4(1.;9

s early as the /9/= Revised dministrative Code of the Philippine0slands,&-health information #as already #ithin the ambit of the regulatory po#ersof the predecessor of 4(1.&/2ection 9>8 thereof charged it #ith the duty toprotect the health of the people, and vested it #ith such po#ers as )g* thedissemination of hygienic information among the people and especiall* theinculcation of $nowledge as to the proper care of infantsand the methods ofpreventing and combating dangerous communicable diseases.

2eventy years later, the /98= dministrative Code tasked respondent 4(1 tocarry out the state policy pronounced under 2ection /&, rticle 00 of the /98=Constitution, #hich is to protect and promote the right to health of the peopleand instill health consciousnessamong them.&To that end, it #as grantedunder 2ection > of the dministrative Code the po#er to )%* propagate healthinformation and educate the populationon important health, medical andenvironmental matters #hich have health implications.&>

:hen it comes to information regarding nutrition of infants and young children,ho#ever, the Milk Code specifically delegated to the Ministry of 1ealth)hereinafter referred to as 4(1* the po#er to ensure that there is ade!uate,consistent and obective information on breastfeeding and use of breastmilksubstitutes, supplements and related productsA and the po#er to co*tro6suchinformation. These are e5pressly provided for in 2ections / and &)a*, to #it@

26CT0(+ /. I%ple%entation and !onitoringK

5 5 5 5

)b* The Ministry of 1ealth shall be principally responsible for theimplementation and enforcement of the provisions of this Code. For this

purpose, the Ministry of 1ealth shall have the follo#ing po#ers andfunctions@

)/* To promulgate such rules and regulations as are necessary orproper for the implementation of this Code and the accomplishmentof its purposes and obectives.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_173034_2007.html#fnt48http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_173034_2007.html#fnt48http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_173034_2007.html#fnt48http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_173034_2007.html#fnt49http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_173034_2007.html#fnt50http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_173034_2007.html#fnt50http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_173034_2007.html#fnt51http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_173034_2007.html#fnt52http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_173034_2007.html#fnt52http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_173034_2007.html#fnt53http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_173034_2007.html#fnt48http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_173034_2007.html#fnt49http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_173034_2007.html#fnt50http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_173034_2007.html#fnt51http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_173034_2007.html#fnt52http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_173034_2007.html#fnt53


24/732

5 5 5 5

);* To e5ercise such other po#ers and functions as may benecessary for or incidental to the attainment of the purposes andobectives of this Code.

26CT0(+ &. Infor%ation and /ducationK

)a* The government shall ensure that obect>e )*+co*te*t information is provided on infant feeding, for use by familiesand those involved in the field of infant nutrition. This responsibility shallcover the planning, provision, design and dissemination of information, andthe control thereof, on infant nutrition. )6mphasis supplied*

Further, 4(1 is authori7ed by the Milk Code to co*tro6 the content of any

information on breastmilk vis*0*visbreastmilk substitutes, supplement and relatedproducts, in the follo#ing manner@

26CT0(+ &. 5 5 5

)b* 0nformational and educational materials, #hether #ritten, audio, orvisual, dealing #ith the feeding of infants and intended to reach pregnant#omen and mothers of infants, shall include clear information on all thefollo#ing points@ )/* the benefits and superiority of breastfeedingA )*maternal nutrition, and the preparation for and maintenance ofbreastfeedingA )>* the negative effect on breastfeeding of introducing

partial bottlefeedingA );* the difficulty of reversing the decision not tobreastfeedA and )&* #here needed, the proper use of infant formula,#hether manufactured industrially or homeprepared. hen suchmaterials contain information a+out the use of infant formula, the*shall include the social and financial implications of its use thehealth ha(ards of inappropriate foods or feeding methods and, in

particular, the health ha(ards of unnecessar* or improper use ofinfant formula and other +reastmil$ su+stitutes. 0uch materials shallnot use an* picture or text which ma* ideali(e the use of +reastmil$su+stitutes.

S/C1IO2 3. ealth 4orkers 5

5 5 5 5

)b* 0nformation provided by manufacturers and distributors to healthprofessionals regarding products #ithin the scope of this Code )66 be


25/732

retrcte+ to ce*t5c )*+ 5)ct)6 ;)tter, )*+ c *5or;)to* )66*ot ;:6< or cre)te ) be6e5 t)t bott6e5ee+* e>)6e*t or:eror to bre)t5ee+*. It )66 )6o *c6+e te *5or;)to*:ec5e+ * Secto* b.

S/C1IO2 $6. Containers7a&el 5

)a* Containers andJor labels shall be designed to provide the necessaryinformation about the appropriate use of the products, and * c ) 8)>. The circular provided for fines forthe commission of prohibited acts. The Court found that nothing in the circularcontravened the la# because the 4(6 #as e5pressly authori7ed by ".P. Blg.>>and R.. +o. =%>8 to impose fines or penalties.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_173034_2007.html#fnt75http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_173034_2007.html#fnt76http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_173034_2007.html#fnt77http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_173034_2007.html#fnt75http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_173034_2007.html#fnt76http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_173034_2007.html#fnt77


38/732

0n the present case, neither the Milk Code nor the Revised dministrative Codegrants the 4(1 the authority to fi5 or impose administrative fines. Thus, #ithoutany e5press grant of po#er to fi5 or impose such fines, the 4(1 cannot providefor those fines in the R0RR. 0n this regard, the 4(1 again e5ceeded its authorityby providing for such fines or sanctions in 2ection ;% of the R0RR. 2aid provision

is, therefore, null and void.

The 4(1 is not left #ithout any means to enforce its rules and regulations.2ection /)b* )>* of the Milk Code authori7es the 4(1 to cause the prosecutionof the violators of this Code and other pertinent la#s on products covered by thisCode. 2ection /> of the Milk Code provides for the penalties to be imposed onviolators of the provision of the Milk Code or the rules and regulations issuedpursuant to it, to #it@

26CT0(+ />. Sanctions 5

)a* ny person #ho violates the provisions of this Code or te r6e )*+re6)to* e+ :r)*t to t Co+eshall, upon conviction, bepunished by a penalty of t#o )* months to one )/* year imprisonment or afine of not less than (ne Thousand Pesos )P/,---.--* nor more thanThirty Thousand Pesos )P>-,---.--* or both. 2hould the offense becommitted by a uridical person, the chairman of the "oard of 4irectors, thepresident, general manager, or the partners andJor the persons directlyresponsible therefor, shall be penali7ed.

)b* ny license, permit or authority issued by any government agency toany health #orker, distributor, manufacturer, or marketing firm or personnelfor the practice of their profession or occupation, or for the pursuit of theirbusiness, may, upon recommendation of the Ministry of 1ealth, besuspended or revoked in the event of repeated violations of this Code, orof the rules and regulations issued pursuant to this Code. )6mphasissupplied*

8. PetitionerLs claim that 2ection &= of the R0RR repeals e5isting la#s that arecontrary to the R0RR is frivolous.

2ection &= reads@

26CT0(+ &=. epealing Clause ll orders, issuances, and rules andregulations or parts thereof inconsistent #ith these revised rules andimplementing regulations are hereby repealed or modified accordingly.


39/732

2ection &= of the R0RR does not provide for the repeal of la#s but only orders,issuances and rules and regulations. Thus, said provision is valid as it is #ithinthe 4(1's rulemaking po#er.

n administrative agency like respondent possesses !uasilegislative or rule

making po#er or the po#er to make rules and regulations #hich results indelegated legislation that is #ithin the confines of the granting statute and theConstitution, and subect to the doctrine of nondelegability and separability ofpo#ers.=82uch e5press grant of rulemaking po#er necessarily includes thepo#er to amend, revise, alter, or repeal the same.=9This is to allo# administrativeagencies fle5ibility in formulating and adusting the details and manner by #hichthey are to implement the provisions of a la#,8-in order to make it moreresponsive to the times. 1ence, it is a standard provision in administrative rulesthat prior issuances of administrative agencies that are inconsistent there#ith aredeclared repealed or modified.

0n fine, only 2ections ;)f*, // and ;% are ultra vires, beyond the authority of the4(1 to promulgate and in contravention of the Milk Code and, therefore, null andvoid. The rest of the provisions of the R0RR are in consonance #ith the MilkCode.

Iastly, petitioner makes a catchall allegation that@

5 5 5 TGhe !uestioned R0RR sought to be implemented by theRespondents is **ece)r< )*+ o::re>e, )*+ o55e*>e to te+e :roce c6)e o5 te Co*ttto*, *o5)r ) te );e *retr)*t o5 tr)+eand because a provision therein is inade!uate toprovide the public #ith a comprehensible basis to determine #hether or notthey have committed a violation.8/)6mphasis supplied*

Petitioner refers to 2ections ;)f*,8;)i*,8>&)#*,8;//,8&,8%>,8=;%,88and &89asthe provisions that suppress the trade of milk and, thus, violate the due processclause of the Constitution.

The framers of the constitution #ere #ell a#are that trade must be subected tosome form of regulation for the public good. Public interest must be upheld over

business interests.9-0n Pest !anage%ent Association of the Philippines v.:ertili8er and Pesticide Authority,9/it #as held thus@

5 5 5 Furthermore, as held in ssociation of Philippine Coconut4esiccators v. Philippine Coconut uthority,+e:te te 5)ct t)t Dor:ree*t Co*ttto* e*r*e 5ree e*ter:re ) ) :o6ce to te o>er*;e*t te :o8er to *ter>e*e
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_173034_2007.html#fnt78http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_173034_2007.html#fnt79http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_173034_2007.html#fnt79http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_173034_2007.html#fnt80http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_173034_2007.html#fnt80http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_173034_2007.html#fnt81http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_173034_2007.html#fnt82http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_173034_2007.html#fnt83http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_173034_2007.html#fnt84http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_173034_2007.html#fnt85http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_173034_2007.html#fnt86http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_173034_2007.html#fnt87http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_173034_2007.html#fnt88http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_173034_2007.html#fnt89http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_173034_2007.html#fnt90http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_173034_2007.html#fnt91http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_173034_2007.html#fnt78http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_173034_2007.html#fnt79http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_173034_2007.html#fnt80http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_173034_2007.html#fnt81http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_173034_2007.html#fnt82http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_173034_2007.html#fnt83http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_173034_2007.html#fnt84http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_173034_2007.html#fnt85http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_173034_2007.html#fnt86http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_173034_2007.html#fnt87http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_173034_2007.html#fnt88http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_173034_2007.html#fnt89http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_173034_2007.html#fnt90http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_173034_2007.html#fnt91


40/732

8e*e>er *ece)r< to :ro;ote te e*er)6 8e65)re. There can be no!uestion that the unregulated use or proliferation of pesticides #ould beha7ardous to our environment. Thus, in the aforecited case, the Courtdeclared that 5ree e*ter:re +oe *ot c)66 5or re;o>)6 o5 :rotect>ere6)to*. 5 5 5 It ;t be c6e)r6< e:6)*e+ )*+ :ro>e* b+e*ce t e)ct6< o8 c :rotect>e re6)to*8o6+ re6t * te retr)*t o5 tr)+e. 6mphasis and underscoringsuppliedG

0n this case, petitioner failed to sho# that the proscription of milk manufacturersLparticipation in any policymaking body )2ection ;)i**, classes and seminars for#omen and children )2ection *A the giving of assistance, support and logisticsor training )2ection >*A and the giving of donations )2ection &* #ouldunreasonably hamper the trade of breastmilk substitutes. Petitioner has notestablished that the proscribed activities are indispensable to the trade of

breastmilk substitutes. Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the aforementionedprovisions of the R0RR are unreasonable and oppressive for being in restraint oftrade.

Petitioner also failed to convince the Court that 2ection &)#* of the R0RR isunreasonable and oppressive. 2aid section provides for the definition of the termmilk company, to #it@

26CT0(+ & 5 5 5. )#* Milk Company shall refer to the o#ner,manufacturer, distributor of infant formula, follo#up milk, milk formula, milksupplement, breastmilk substitute or replacement, or by any otherdescription of such nature, including their representatives #ho promote orother#ise advance their commercial interests in marketing those productsA

(n the other hand, 2ection ; of the Milk Code provides@

)d* 4istributor means a person, corporation or any other entity in thepublic or private sector engaged in the business )#hether directly orindirectly* of marketing at the #holesale or retail level a product #ithin thescope of this Code. primary distributor is a manufacturer's sales agent,representative, national distributor or broker.

5 5 5 5

)* Manufacturer means a corporation or other entity in the public orprivate sector engaged in the business or function )#hether directly orindirectly or through an agent or and entity controlled by or under contract#ith it* of manufacturing a products #ithin the scope of this Code.


41/732

+otably, the definition in the R0RR merely merged together under the term milkcompany the entities defined separately under the Milk Code as distributor andmanufacturer. The R0RR also enumerated in 2ection &)#* the productsmanufactured or distributed by an entity that #ould !ualify it as a milk company,#hereas in the Milk Code, #hat is used is the phrase products #ithin the scope

of this Code. Those are the only differences bet#een the definitions given in theMilk Code and the definition as restated in the R0RR.

2ince all the regulatory provisions under the Milk Code apply e!ually to bothmanufacturers and distributors, the Court sees no harm in the R0RR providing for

ust one term to encompass both entities. The definition of milk company in theR0RR and the definitions of distributor and manufacturer provided for underthe Milk Code are practically the same.

The Court is not convinced that the definition of milk company provided in the

R0RR #ould bring about any change in the treatment or regulation ofdistributors and manufacturers of breastmilk substitutes, as defined under theMilk Code.

65cept 2ections ;)f*, // and ;%, the rest of the provisions of the R0RR are inconsonance #ith the obective, purpose and intent of the Milk Code, constitutingreasonable regulation of an industry #hich affects public health and #elfare and,as such, the rest of the R0RR do not constitute illegal restraint of trade nor arethey violative of the due process clause of the Constitution.

FHERE"ORE,the petition is PARTIA#GRANTE!. 2ections ;)f*, // and ;%of dministrative (rder +o. --%--/ dated May /, --% aredeclared NUand OI!for being ultra vires. The 4epartment of 1ealth andrespondents are PROHIBITE!from implementing said provisions.

The Temporary Restraining (rder issued on ugust /&, --% is I"TE!insofaras the rest of the provisions of dministrative (rder +o. --%--/ is concerned.

SO OR!ERE!.

Puno, ;Chief uisu%&ing, Ynares*Santiago, Sandoval*+utierre8,

Carpio, Corona, Carpio*!orales, A8cuna, 1inga, Chico*2a8ario, +arcia, ?elasco,


42/732

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

T10R4 40E020(+

G.R. No. 110120 M)rc 1, 1994

AGUNA AE !EEOPMENT AUTHORIT#, petitioner,vs.COURT O" APPEAS, HON. MANUE (N. SERAPIO, Pre+* (+e RTC,Br)*c 127, C)6ooc)* Ct


43/732

(n March 8, /99/, the Task Force Camarin 4umpsite of (ur Iady of IourdesParish, "arangay Camarin, Caloocan City, filed a lettercomplaint 2#ith the IagunaIake 4evelopment uthority seeking to stop the operation of the 8.%hectare open garbage dumpsite inTala 6state, "arangay Camarin, Caloocan City due to its harmful effects on the health of the residentsand the possibility of pollution of the #ater content of the surrounding area.

(n +ovember /&, /99/, the II4 conducted an onsite investigation, monitoringand test sampling of the leachate3that seeps from said dumpsite to the nearby creek #hich is atributary of the Marilao River. The II4 Iegal and Technical personnel found that the City ?overnment ofCaloocan #as maintaining an open dumpsite at the Camarin area #ithout first securing an 6nvironmentalCompliance Certificate )6CC* from the 6nvironmental Management "ureau )6M"* of the 4epartment of6nvironment and +atural Resources, as re!uired under Presidential 4ecree +o. /&8%, 4and clearancefrom II4 as re!uired under Republic ct +o. ;8&-,as amended by Presidential 4ecree +o. 8/> and65ecutive (rder +o. 9=, series of /98>.

fter a public hearing conducted on 4ecember ;, /99/, the II4, acting on thecomplaint of Task Force Camarin 4umpsite, found that the #ater collected from

the leachate and the receiving streams could considerably affect the !uality, inturn, of the receiving #aters since it indicates the presence of bacteria, other thancoliform, #hich may have contaminated the sample during collection orhandling. 7(n 4ecember &, /99/, the II4 issued a Cease and 4esist (rderLordering the City?overnment of Caloocan, Metropolitan Manila uthority, their contractors, and other entities, tocompletely halt, stop and desist from dumping any form or kind of garbage and other #aste matter at theCamarin dumpsite.

The dumping operation #as forth#ith stopped by the City ?overnment ofCaloocan. 1o#ever, sometime in ugust /99 the dumping operation #asresumed after a meeting held in


44/732

Civil Case +o. C/&&98. 0n its complaint, the City ?overnment of Caloocansought to be declared as the sole authority empo#ered to promote the healthand safety and enhance the right of the people in Caloocan City to a balancedecology #ithin its territorial urisdiction.9

(n 2eptember &, /99, the 65ecutive 9>/, as amended byPresidential 4ecree +o. 98;, other#ise kno#n as the Pollution Control Ia#, the

cease and desist order issued by it #hich is the subect matter of the complaint isrevie#able both upon the la# and the facts of the case by the Court of ppealsand not by the Regional Trial Court. 10

(n (ctober /, /99


45/732

City ?overnment of Caloocan to cease and desist from dumping its garbage at the Tala 6state, "arangayCamarin, Caloocan City.

Respondents City ?overnment of Caloocan and Mayor Macario . sistio, &- tons of garbage daily for lack of dumpsite )i*t istherefore, imperative that the issue be resolved #ith dispatch or #ith sufficientlee#ay to allo# the respondents to find alternative solutions to this garbageproblem.

(n +ovember /=, /99, the Court issued a Resolution13directing the Court of ppeals toimmediately set the case for hearing for the purpose of determining #hether or not the temporaryrestraining order issued by the Court should be lifted and #hat conditions, if any, may be re!uired if it is tobe so lifted or #hether the restraining order should be maintained or converted into a preliminaryinunction.

The Court of ppeals set the case for hearing on +ovember =, /99, at /-@-- inthe morning at the 1earing Room, >rd Floor, +e# "uilding, Court of

ppeals.14fter the oral argument, a conference #as set on 4ecember 8, /99 at /-@-- o'clock in themorning #here the Mayor of Caloocan City, the ?eneral Manager of II4, the 2ecretary of 46+R or hisduly authori7ed representative and the 2ecretary of 40I? or his duly authori7ed representative #erere!uired to appear.

0t #as agreed at the conference that the II4 had until 4ecember /&, /99 tofinish its study and revie# of respondent's technical plan #ith respect to thedumping of its garbage and in the event of a reection of respondent's technicalplan or a failure of settlement, the parties #ill submit #ithin /- days from noticetheir respective memoranda on the merits of the case, after #hich the petitionshall be deemed submitted for resolution.1+ot#ithstanding such efforts, the parties failed tosettle the dispute.

(n pril >-, /99>, the Court of ppeals promulgated its decision holding that@ )/*the Regional Trial Court has no urisdiction on appeal to try, hear and decide theaction for annulment of II4's cease and desist order, including the issuance ofa temporary restraining order and preliminary inunction in relation thereto, sinceappeal therefrom is #ithin the e5clusive and appellate urisdiction of the Court of

ppeals under 2ection 9, par. )>*, of "atas Pambansa "lg. /9A and )* theIaguna Iake 4evelopment uthority has no po#er and authority to issue a ceaseand desist order under its enabling la#, Republic ct +o. ;8&-, as amended byP.4. +o. 8/> and 65ecutive (rder+o. 9=, series of /98>.

The Court of ppeals thus dismissed Civil Case +o. /&&98 and the preliminaryinunction issued in the said case #as set asideA the cease and desist order of


46/732

II4 #as like#ise set aside and the temporary restraining order enoining theCity Mayor of Caloocan andJor the City ?overnment of Caloocan to cease anddesist from dumping its garbage at the Tala 6state, "arangay Camarin, CaloocanCity #as lifted, subect, ho#ever, to the condition that any future dumping ofgarbage in said area, shall be in conformity #ith the procedure and protective

#orks contained in the proposal attached to the records of this case and foundon pages /&/%- of the ollo, #hich #as thereby adopted by reference andmade an integral part of the decision, until the corresponding restraining andJorinunctive relief is granted by the proper Court upon II4's institution of thenecessary legal proceedings.

1ence, the Iaguna Iake 4evelopment uthority filed the instant petition forrevie# on certiorari, no# docketed as ?.R. +o. //-/-, #ith prayer that thetemporary restraining order lifted by the Court of ppeals be reissued until afterfinal determination by this Court of the issue on the proper interpretation of the

po#ers and authority of the II4 under its enabling la#.

(n , the Court issued a temporary restraining order1enoining the CityMayor of Caloocan andJor the City ?overnment of Caloocan to cease and desist from dumping itsgarbage at the Tala 6state, "arangay Camarin, Caloocan City, effective as of this date and containinguntil other#ise ordered by the Court.

0t is significant to note that #hile both parties in this case agree on the need toprotect the environment and to maintain the ecological balance of thesurrounding areas of the Camarin open dumpsite, the !uestion as to #hichagency can la#fully e5ercise urisdiction over the matter remains highly open to

!uestion.

The City ?overnment of Caloocan claims that it is #ithin its po#er, as a localgovernment unit, pursuant to the general #elfare provision of the Iocal?overnment Code, 17to determine the effects of the operation of the dumpsite on the ecologicalbalance and to see that such balance is maintained. (n the basis of said contention, it !uestioned, fromthe inception of the dispute before the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City, the po#er and authority ofthe II4 to issue a cease and desist order enoining the dumping of garbage in the "arangay Camarinover #hich the City ?overnment of Caloocan has territorial urisdiction.

The Court of ppeals sustained the position of the City of Caloocan on the theory

that 2ection = of Presidential 4ecree +o. 98;, other#ise kno#n as the PollutionControl la#, authori7ing the defunct +ational Pollution Control Commission toissue an e(*partecease and desist order #as not incorporated in Presidential4ecree +o. 8/> nor in 65ecutive (rder +o. 9=, series of/98>. The Court of ppeals ruled that under 2ection ;, par. )d*, of Republic ct+o. ;8&-, as amended, the II4 is instead re!uired to institute the necessarylegal proceeding against any person #ho shall commence to implement or


47/732

continue implementation of any proect, plan or program #ithin the Iaguna de"ay region #ithout previous clearance from the uthority.

The II4 no# assails, in this partition for revie#, the abovementioned ruling ofthe Court of ppeals, contending that, as an administrative agency #hich #as

granted regulatory and adudicatory po#ers and functions by Republic ct +o.;8&- and its amendatory la#s, Presidential 4ecree +o. 8/> and 65ecutive (rder+o. 9=, series of /98>, it is invested #ith the po#er and authority to issue acease and desist order pursuant to 2ection ; par. )c*, )d*, )e*, )f* and )g* of65ecutive (rder +o. 9= series of /98> #hich provides, thus@

2ec. ;.Additional Poers and :unctions. The authority shall havethe follo#ing po#ers and functions@

555 555 555

)c* 0ssue orders or decisions to compel compliance #ith theprovisions of this 65ecutive (rder and its implementing rules andregulations only after proper notice and hearing.

)d* Make, alter or modify orders re!uiring the discontinuance ofpollution specifying the conditions and the time #ithin #hich suchdiscontinuance must be accomplished.

)e* 0ssue, rene#, or deny permits, under such conditions as it maydetermine to be reasonable, for the prevention and abatement of

pollution, for the discharge of se#age, industrial #aste, or for theinstallation or operation of se#age #orks and industrial disposalsystem or parts thereof.

)f* fter due notice and hearing, the uthority may also revoke,suspend or modify any permit issued under this (rder #henever thesame is necessary to prevent or abate pollution.

)g* 4eputi7e in #riting or re!uest assistance of appropriategovernment agencies or instrumentalities for the purpose of

enforcing this 65ecutive (rder and its implementing rules andregulations and the orders and decisions of the uthority.

The II4 claims that the appellate court deliberately suppressed and totallydisregarded the above provisions of 65ecutive (rder +o. 9=, series of /98>,#hich granted administrative !uasiudicial functions to II4 on pollutionabatement cases.


48/732

0n light of the relevant environmental protection la#s cited #hich are applicable inthis case, and the corresponding overlapping urisdiction of government agenciesimplementing these la#s, the resolution of the issue of #hether or not the II4has the authority and po#er to issue an order #hich, in its nature and effect #asinunctive, necessarily re!uires a determination of the threshold !uestion@ 4oes

the Iaguna Iake 4evelopment uthority, under its Charter and its amendatoryla#s, have the authority to entertain the complaint against the dumping ofgarbage in the open dumpsite in "arangay Camarin authori7ed by the City?overnment of Caloocan #hich is allegedly endangering the health, safety, and#elfare of the residents therein and the sanitation and !uality of the #ater in thearea brought about by e5posure to pollution caused by such open garbagedumpsite$

The matter of determining #hether there is such pollution of the environment thatre!uires control, if not prohibition, of the operation of a business establishment is

essentially addressed to the 6nvironmental Management "ureau )6M"* of the46+R #hich, by virtue of 2ection /% of 65ecutive (rder +o. /9, series of/98=,1Lhas assumed the po#ers and functions of the defunct +ational Pollution Control Commissioncreated under Republic ct +o. >9>/. 3nder said 65ecutive (rder, a Pollution dudication "oard )P"*under the (ffice of the 46+R 2ecretary no# assumes the po#ers and functions of the +ational PollutionControl Commission #ith respect to adudication of pollution cases. 19

s a general rule, the adudication of pollution cases generally pertains to thePollution dudication "oard )P"*, e5cept in cases #here the special la#provides for another forum. 0t must be recogni7ed in this regard that the II4, asa speciali7ed administrative agency, is specifically mandated under Republic ct

+o. ;8&- and its amendatory la#s to carry out and make effective the declarednational policy20of promoting and accelerating the development and balanced gro#th of the IagunaIake area and the surrounding provinces of Ri7al and Iaguna and the cities of 2an Pablo, Manila, Pasay,Nue7on and Caloocan21ith due regard and ade9uate provisions for environ%ental %anage%ent andcontrol, preservation of the 9uality of hu%an life and ecological syste%s, and the prevention of undueecological distur&ances, deterioration and pollution. 3nder such a broad grant and po#er and authority,the II4, by virtue of its special charter, obviously has the responsibility to protect the inhabitants of theIaguna Iake region from the deleterious effects of pollutants emanating from the discharge of #astesfrom the surrounding areas. 0n carrying out the aforementioned declared policy, the II4 is mandated,among others, to pass upon and approve or disapprove all plans, programs, and proects proposed bylocal government officesJagencies #ithin the region, public corporations, and private persons orenterprises #here such plans, programs andJor proects are related to those of the II4 for thedevelopment of the region. 22

0n the instant case, #hen the complainant Task Force Camarin 4umpsite of (urIady of Iourdes Parish, "arangay Camarin, Caloocan City, filed its lettercomplaint before the II4, the latter's urisdiction under its charter #as validlyinvoked by complainant on the basis of its allegation that the open dumpsiteproect of the City ?overnment of Caloocan in "arangay Camarin #asundertaken #ithout a clearance from the II4, as re!uired under 2ection ;, par.


49/732

)d*, of Republic ct. +o. ;8&-, as amended by P.4. +o. 8/> and 65ecutive (rder+o. 9=. :hile there is also an allegation that the said proect #as #ithout an6nvironmental Compliance Certificate from the 6nvironmental Management"ureau )6M"* of the 46+R, the primary urisdiction of the II4 over this case#as recogni7ed by the 6nvironmental Management "ureau of the 46+R #hen

the latter acted as intermediary at the meeting among the representatives of theCity ?overnment of Caloocan, Task Force Camarin 4umpsite and II4sometime in and65ecutive (rder +o. 9=, series of /98>, authori7es the II4 to %ake, alter or modify order re!uiringthe discontinuance or pollution.24)6mphasis supplied* 2ection ;, par. )d* e5plicitly authori7es the II4to %ake#hatever order may be necessary in the e5ercise of its urisdiction.

To be sure, the II4 #as not e5pressly conferred the po#er to issue and e(*partecease and desist order in a language, as suggested by the City?overnment of Caloocan, similar to the e5press grant to the defunct +ationalPollution Control Commission under 2ection = of P.4. +o. 98; #hich, admittedly#as not reproduced in P.4. +o. 8/> and 6.(. +o. 9=, series of /98>. 1o#ever,it #ould be a mistake to dra# therefrom the conclusion that there is a denial ofthe po#er to issue the order in !uestion #hen the po#er to %ake, alter or modifyorders re!uiring the discontinuance of pollution is e5pressly and clearlybesto#ed upon the II4 by 65ecutive (rder +o. 9=, series of /98>.

ssuming arguendothat the authority to issue a cease and desist order #erenot e5pressly conferred by la#, there is urisprudence enough to the effect thatthe rule granting such authority need not necessarily be e5press.2:hile it is afundamental rule that an administrative agency has only such po#ers as are e5pressly granted to it byla#, it is like#ise a settled rule that an administrative agency has also such po#ers as are necessarilyimplied in the e5ercise of its e5press po#ers.20n the e5ercise, therefore, of its e5press po#ers under itscharter as a regulatory and !uasiudicial body #ith respect to pollution cases in the Iaguna Iake region,


50/732

the authority of the II4 to issue a cease and desist order is, perforce, implied. (ther#ise, it may #ellbe reduced to a toothless paper agency.

0n this connection, it must be noted that in Pollution Ad"udication Board v.Courtof Appeals, et al.,27the Court ruled that the Pollution dudication "oard )P"* has the po#er toissue an e(*partecease and desist order #hen there ispri%a facie evidence of an establishmente5ceeding the allo#able standards set by the antipollution la#s of the country. Theponente, ssociate


51/732

1ad the cease and desist order issued by the II4 been complied #ith by theCity ?overnment of Caloocan as it did in the first instance, no further legal steps#ould have been necessary.

The charter of II4, Republic ct +o. ;8&-, as amended, instead of conferring

upon the II4 the means of directly enforcing such orders, has provided underits 2ection ; )d* the po#er to institute necessary legal proceeding against anyperson #ho shall commence to implement or continue implementation of anyproect, plan or program #ithin the Iaguna de "ay region #ithout previousclearance from the II4.

Clearly, said provision #as designed to invest the II4 #ith sufficiently broadpo#ers in the regulation of all proects initiated in the Iaguna Iake region,#hether by the government or the private sector, insofar as the implementation ofthese proects is concerned. 0t #as meant to deal #ith cases #hich might

possibly arise #here decisions or orders issued pursuant to the e5ercise of suchbroad po#ers may not be obeyed, resulting in the th#arting of its laudabeobective. To meet such contingencies, then the #rits of %anda%usandinunction #hich are beyond the po#er of the II4 to issue, may be sought fromthe proper courts.

0nsofar as the implementation of relevant antipollution la#s in the Iaguna Iakeregion and its surrounding provinces, cities and to#ns are concerned, the Court#ill not d#ell further on the related issues raised #hich are more appropriatelyaddressed to an administrative agency #ith the special kno#ledge and e5pertiseof the II4.

:16R6F(R6, the petition is ?R+T64. The temporary restraining order issuedby the Court on enoining the City Mayor of Caloocan andJor theCity ?overnment of Caloocan from dumping their garbage at the Tala 6state,"arangay Camarin, Caloocan City is hereby made permanent.

2( (R46R64.

:eliciano, Bidin, !elo and ?itug,


52/732

GUERREROS TRANSPORT SERICES, INC., petitioner,vs.BA#OC TRANSPORTATION SERICES EMPO#EES ASSOCIATION/IUSAN BTEA/IUSAN, ABOR ARBITER "RANCISCO M. !E OSRE#ES )*+ (OSE CRU-, respondents.

/ladio B. Sa%son petitioner.

:rancisco Angeles for private respondents.

ANTONIO, J.4

Certiorari and prohibition #ith preliminary inunction to annul the (rders of the

+ational Iabor Relations Commission, of March %, to the 2ecretary

of the 4epartment of Iabor, #ho, instead of deciding the appeal, remanded thecase for revie# to the +IRC #hich, subse!uently, summoned both parties to aseries of conferences. Thereafter, or on (ctober .//, /9=>, the +IRC issue aResolution ordering petitioner, among others, to absorb all the complainants #ho filed theirapplications on or before the deadline set by petitioner on /& +ovember /9= e5cept those #ho mayhave derogatory records #ith the 3.2. +aval uthorities in 2ubic, ambales and directing the (fficerincharge of the provincial office of the 4epartment of Iabor in (longapo City to oversee the preparation ofthe list of those !ualified for absorption in accordance #ith this resolution.


53/732

Petitioner appealed to 2ecretary of Iabor "las F. (ple #ho, in turn, rendered a4ecision on 4ecember =, /9=>, affirming said Resolution. (n


54/732

(n 2eptember &, /9=&, respondent Iabor rbiter, acting on the motion fore5ecution filed by respondent union "T6O0I32+, and finding that both the(rders, dated March % and of the Iabor Code, declared said (rders final and e5ecutory anddirected petitioner ?uerrero's Transport 2ervices, 0nc. to reinstate the /9

complainants and to pay them the amount of P;,9-.-- each, or a total ofP&9,//-.-- as back #ages covering the period from ugust , /9=; to2eptember -, /9=&.22

(n 2eptember %, /9=&, respondent Iabor rbiter issued a #rit directing therespondent 4eputy 2heriff of Manila levy on the moneys andJor properties ofpetitioner, 23and on the same date respondent 2heriff immediately serve said #rit on petitioner #ho#as given a period of five )&* days #ithin #hich to comply there#ith.

0t #as on this factual environment that petitioner instituted the present petition for

certiorari and prohibition #ith preliminary inunction on (ctober %, /9=&.Petitioner asserts that the aforementioned (rders #ere issued by respondentIabor rbiter #ithout urisdiction.

s prayed for, this Court, on (ctober %, /9=&, issued a temporary restrainingorder and re!uired the respondents to file an ans#er #ithin ten )/-* days fromnotice.

(n (ctober //, /9=&, respondent Iabor rbiter 4e los Reyes and 2heriff /, /9=>, as affirmed by the 2ecretary of Iabor on 4ecember =, /9=>.


55/732

Pursuant to this agreement #hich #as embodied in the Resolution of this Courtof (ctober ;, /9=&, 2ecretary of Iabor "las F. (ple issued an (rder dated+ovember />, /9=&, the pertinent portion of #hich reads as follo#s@

The issue submitted for resolution hinges on the credibility of the

alleged applications. Considering that the employees areeconomically dependent on their obs, they have all the reasons and7ealousness to pursue their obs #ithin the legitimate frame#ork ofour la#s. The applicant are no strangers to the pains and difficultiesof unemployment. "ecause of these factors #e cannot ignore theaffidavits of proof presented by the employees concerned as againstthe declaration of the herein respondent. Firmly entrenched is therule in this urisdiction that doubts arising from labor disputes mustbe construed and interpreted in favor of the #orkers.

R62P(+20E6 T( T16 F(R6?(0+?, the +ational Iabor RelationsCommission through rbiter Francisco delos Reyes is herebydirected to implement the absorption of the /=& members of the"laylock Transport 6mployees ssociation )"T6O0I32+* intothe ?uerrero Transport 2ervices, subect to the follo#ing terms andconditions@

/* that they #ere &ona fide e%ployeesof the "laybockTransportation 2ervice at the time its concession e5pired@

* that the appellants shall pass final screening and approvalby theappropriate authorities of the 3.2. "ase concerned.

The applicants to &e processedfor absorption shall be those in thelist of ;% submitted by (0C Iiberator )Carino on ugust /9=;, andthe list of /9 determined by rbiter de los Reyes as embodied inthe :rit of 65ecution issued on & 2eptember /9=&.

The Regional 4irector of Regional (ffice +o. 00, 2an Fernando,Pampanga, shall make available to the parties the facilities of that(ffice in the implementation of the aforesaid absorption process. 24

(n +ovember ;, /9=&, in compliance #ith the aforesaid directive of the2ecretary of Iabor, Iabor rbiter Francisco M. delos Reyes conducted a hearingto receive evidence as to #ho #ere the &ona fideemployees of the formerconcessionaire at the time of its concession e5pire. Thereafter, Iabor rbiter 4elos Reyes issued an (rder, dated +ovember &, /9=&, listing in nne5 thereof, /=; employees #ho #ere bona fide employees of the private


56/732

respondent, and transmitting a copy of said (rder to the "ase Commander, 3.2.+aval "ase, (longapo City, #ith the re!uest for the immediate screening andapproval of their applications in accordance #ith applicable rules of saidcommand. The pertinent portion of said (rder reads as follo#s@

s far as this Iabor rbiter is concerned, his only participation in thiscase refers to that portion of the 2ecretary of Iabor's (rder directinghim to implement the absorption of the /=& members of the"laylock Transport 6mployees ssociation )"T6O0I32+* intothe ?uerrero Transport 2ervices, subect to certain terms andconditions. 1ence, any !uestion of prematurity as espoused byrespondent's counsel may not he entertained by this Iabor rbiter.

?oing no# to the applicants #ho should be entitled to absorption,the 1onorable 2ecretary of Iabor specified that the same should be

composed of the ;% submitted by (0C Iiberator Carino on ugust/9=; and the /9 applicants determined by this Iabor rbiter. (f thelatter, only /8 #ill be named. perusal of said list sho# that thename Renato Carriaga has been doubly listed. For convenience,these t#o listings have no# been consolidated and alphabeticallyarranged and as an integral part of this (rder has been made as

nne5 )pp / to %*.

For purposes of implementation, the initial step to be undertaken isfor the submission of the name of the applicants to the 3.2. +avyauthorities concerned, #hich means the 3. 2. +aval "ase at(longapo City for the screening and approval by the appropriateauthorities.

Regarding the determination of #hether the applicants are &onafideemployees of the "laylock Transportation 2ervice at the time itsconcession e5pired, the parties appear to be in agreement that therecords of this case #ill eventually sho# #hether the applicants aresuch employees. Further, #e feel that such employment #ill like#iseappear in the records of the 3. 2. +aval "ase at (longapo Citysince persons connected #ith the "ase like the applicants, have to

undergo processing by naval authority.

:16R6F(R6, in vie# of the foregoing considerations, copies ofthis (rder together #ith nne5 hereof are hereby transmitted tothe "ase Commander, 3. 2. +aval "ase , (longapo City #ith there!uest for the immediate screening and approval of said applicants,in accordance #ith applicable rules of that command. 2


57/732

Pursuant to 2ection % of rticle 0 of the Philippine3 2. Iabor greement of May=, /9%8, the 3nited 2tates rmed Forces undertook, consistent #ith militaryre!uirements, to provide securityfor employment, and, in the event certainservices are contracted out, the 3nited 2tates rmed Forces shall re9uirethecontractor or concessioner to give priority consideration to affected

e%ployeesfor employment. )6mphasis supplied.*

treaty has t#o )* aspects Q as an international agreement bet#een states,and as municipal la# for the people of each state to observe. s part of themunicipal la#, the aforesaid provision of the treaty enters into and forms part ofthe contract bet#een petitioner and the 3.2. +aval "ase authorities. 0n vie# ofsaid stipulation, the ne# contractor is, therefore, bound to give priority to theemployment of the !ualified employees of the previous contractor. 0t is obviouslyin recognition of such obligation that petitioner entered into the aforementionedCompromise greement.

s above indicated, under the Compromise greement as embodied in theResolution of this Court dated (ctober ;, /9=&, the parties agreed to submit tothe 2ecretary of Iabor the determination as to #ho of the members of therespondent union "T6O0I32+ shall be absorbed or employed by the hereinpetitioner ?uerrero's Transport 2ervices, 0nc., and that such determination shallbe considered as final. 0n connection there#ith, the 2ecretary of Iabor issued an(rder dated +ovember />, /9=&, directing the +ational Iabor RelationsCommission, through Iabor rbiter Francisco de los Reyes, to implement theabsorption of the /=& members 2into the ?uerrero's Transport 2ervices, subect to the follo#ingconditions, vi7.@ )a* that they #ere &ona fideemployees of the "laylock Transport 2ervice at the time its

concession e5piredA and )b* that they should pass final screening and approval by the appropriateauthorities of the 3.2. +aval "ase concerned. ccording to private respondent, ho#ever, CommanderEertplaetse of the 3.2. +avy 65change declined to implement the order of the Iabor rbiter, as it is thepetitioner #ho should re!uest for the screening and approval of the applicants.

Considering that the aforementioned Compromisegreement of the parties, asapproved by this Court, is more than a mere contract and has the force andeffect of any other udgment, it is, therefore, conclusive upon the parties andtheir privies. 27For it is settled that a compromise has, upon the parties, the effect and authority of res

"udicataand is enforceable by e5ecution upon approval by the court. 2L2ince the resolution of the +IRCof (ctober >/, /9=> re!uired the absorption of the applicants subect to the conditions therein contained,and there being no sho#ing that such conditions #ere complied #ith, the Iabor rbiter e5ceeded hisauthority in a#arding back #ages to the /9 complainants.

CC(R40+?ID, udgment is hereby rendered ordering petitioner to employmembers of respondent labor union "T6O0I32+ referred to in the (rder ofthe 2ecretary of Iabor dated +ovember />, /9=& #ho satisfy the criteriaenunciated vi7.@ )a* those #ho #ere &ona fideemployees of the "laylockTransport 2ervices at the time its concession e5piredA and )b* those #ho pass


58/732

the final screening and approval by the appropriate authorities of the 3.2. +aval"ase. For this purpose, petitioner is hereby ordered to submit to and secure fromthe appropriate authorities of the 3.2. naval "ase at 2ubic, ambales there!uisite screening and approval, the names of the aforementioned members ofrespondent union.

The (rder dated 2eptember &, /9=& of respondent Iabor rbiter Francisco M.de los Reyes, a#arding back #ages to the /9 complainants in the total amountof P&9,//-.--, is hereby set aside. +o pronouncement as to costs.

Barredo, A9uino and !artin,


59/732

record, the course of conduct pursued by petitioner left much to be desired, andnot only from their standpoint. 0t yields the impression, to me at least, that there#as no fidelity to the basic policy on labor as prescribed by the presentConstitution. Petitioner commenced its operation on . 0t refusedto employ the members of respondent 3nion, prompting the latter to file a

complaint #ith the +ational Iabor Relations Court against it and one 2antiago?uerrero to compel them to employ its members pursuant to rticle /, 2ection of the RP32 "ases greement dated May =, /9%8. Five days thereafter, or on, the present Constitution came into effect. Time and timeagain, this Court has correctly stressed ho# far the present Constitution hasgone in seeing to it that the #elfare of the economically underprivileged receivefull attention. ll that has to be done is to refer to the e5panded scope of social

ustice 1and the specific guarantees intended to vitali7e the rights of labor. 22ecurity of tenure is one ofthe basic features. 1ad that provision been lived up to, the members of respondent Iabor 3nion #ouldnot be in the sad plight they are in at present.

0t is to be admitted that #hat complicated matters is that the service to berendered is inside the 3.2. +aval "ase of (longapo City. ccordingly, theintervention of the authorities therein cannot be avoided. That is !uiteunderstandable. t the same time, in line #ith #hat #as held in eagan v.Co%%issioner of Internal evenue3and People v. +o8o, 4the urisdiction vested in thisgovernment over every inch of soil of its territory compels the conclusion that its la#s are operative eveninside a military base or naval reservation e5cept as limited by the Military "ases greement. Moreover,the interpretation of such a provision should be most restrictive to assure that there be the leastderogation of the rights of the territorial sovereign. The thought cannot be entertained that the navalauthorities concerned #ould be insensible to the fundamental public policy of according the utmostconsideration to the claims of labor. This observation is made #ith the hope that if paid attention to,

respondent Iabor 3nion, through the efforts of the administrative officials, could still reasonably hope thatthe financial burden long sustained by its members could be eased Q all in accordance #ith la#.

Se:)r)te O:*o*

"ERNAN!O, J., concurring@

The opinion of the Court penned by , /9=&. 2o it has been decided by us. :ehave no choice on the matter. 3nfortunately for respondent Iabor 3nion, noprovision #as made for backpay. That #as an omission that ought to have been


60/732

remedied before the compromise #as entered into. This Court, ho#eversympathetic it may be to the claims of labor, cannot go further than #hat #asassented to by the parties themselves. 2o the la# prescribes.

+ontheless, the #riter is impelled to #rite this brief concurrence because of his

belief that #hile this Court is precluded from granting additional relief to themembers of respondent Iabor 3nion #ho, in the mean#hile, had been laid off,still their situation is not necessarily devoid of any hope for improvement. Thepresent Iabor Code stresses administrative rather than udicial redress. 0t hasthe advantage of greater fle5ibility, of more discretion on the part of the 2ecretaryof Iabor. That could be utili7ed on their behalf. Certainly, from #hat appears ofrecord, the course of conduct pursued by petitioner left much to be desired, andnot only from their standpoint. 0t yields the impression, to me at least, that there#as no fidelity to the basic policy on labor as prescribed by the presentConstitution. Petitioner commenced its operation on . 0t refused

to employ the members of respondent 3nion, prompting the latter to file acomplaint #ith the +ational Iabor Relations Court against it and one 2antiago?uerrero to compel them to employ its members pursuant to rticle /, 2ection of the RP32 "ases greement dated May =, /9%8. Five days thereafter, or on, the present Constitution came into effect. Time and timeagain, this Court has correctly stressed ho# far the present Constitution hasgone in seeing to it that the #elfare of the economically underprivileged receivefull attention. ll that has to be done is to refer to the e5panded scope of social

ustice 1and the specific guarantees intended to vitali7e the rights of labor. 22ecurity of tenure is one ofthe basic features. 1ad that provision been lived up to, the members of respondent Iabor 3nion #ouldnot be in the sad plight they are in at present.

0t is to be admitted that #hat complicated matters is that the service to berendered is inside the 3.2. +aval "ase of (longapo City. ccordingly, theintervention of the authorities therein cannot be avoided. That is !uiteunderstandable. t the same time, in line #ith #hat #as held in eagan v.Co%%issioner of nternal evenue3and People v. +o8o, 4the urisdiction vested in thisgovernment over every inch of soil of its territory compels the conclusion that its la#s are operative eveninside a military base or naval reservation e5cept as limited by the Military "ases greement. Moreover,the interpretation of such a provision should be most restrictive to assure that there be the leastderogation of the rights of the territorial sovereign. The thought cannot be entertained that the navalauthorities concerned #ould be insensible to the fundamental public policy of according the utmost

consideration to the claims of labor. This observation is made #ith the hope that if paid attention to,respondent Iabor 3nion, through the efforts of the administrative officials, could still reasonably hope thatthe financial burden long sustained by its members could be eased Q all in accordance #ith la#.

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila


61/732


62/732

Second. Q That the participation in the prosecution of the case against petitionerbefore the Commission in behalf of the 3nited 2tate of merica of attorneysMelville 1ussey and Robert Port #ho are not attorneys authori7ed by the2upreme Court to practice la# in the Philippines is a diminution of our personalityas an independent state and their appointment as prosecutor are a violation of

our Constitution for the reason that they are not !ualified to practice la# in thePhilippines.

1hird. Q That ttorneys 1ussey and Port have no personality as prosecution the3nited 2tate not being a party in interest in the case.

65ecutive (rder +o. %8, establishing a +ational :ar Crimes (ffice prescribingrule and regulation governing the trial of accused #ar criminals, #as issued bythe President of the Philippines on the 9th days of , that Q

The Philippines renounces #ar as an instrument of national policy andadopts the generally accepted principles of international la# as part of theof the nation.

0n accordance #ith the generally accepted principle of international la# of thepresent day including the 1ague Convention the ?eneva Convention andsignificant precedents of international urisprudence established by the 3nited+ation all those person military or civilian #ho have been guilty of planningpreparing or #aging a #ar of aggression and of the commission of crimes andoffenses conse!uential and incidental thereto in violation of the la#s andcustoms of #ar, of humanity and civili7ation are held accountable therefor.Conse!uently in the promulgation and enforcement of 65ecution (rder +o. %8the President of the Philippines has acted in conformity #ith the generallyaccepted and policies of international la# #hich are part of the our Constitution.

The promulgation of said e5ecutive order is an e5ercise by the President of hispo#er as Commander in chief of all our armed forces as upheld by this Court inthe case of Damashita vs.2tyer )I/9, ; (ff. ?a7., %%;* 1#hen #e said Q

:ar is not ended simply because hostilities have ceased. fter

Documents

Cases in International Law