PHARMACEUTICAL AND HEALTH CARE ASSOCIATION VS.

HEALTH
SECRETARY (SECTION 2 OF ARTICLE 2: FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES AND STATE
POLICIES)
Facts: EO order no. 51 (milk code) was issued by President Corazon Aquino on
October 28, 1986 by virtue of the legislative powers granted to the president under
the Freedom Constitution. One of the preamble clauses of the milk code states that
the law seeks to give effect o Article 11 of the International Code of Marketing of
Breastmilk Substitutes, a code adopted by the World Health Assembly in 1981. The
WHA adopted several resolutions to the effect that breastfeeding should be
supported, promoted, and protected; hence it should be ensured that nutrition and
health claims are not permitted for breastmilk substitutes.
The Philippines ratified the International Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Article 24 of said instrument provides that State parties should take appropriate
measures to diminish infant and child mortality, and ensure that all segments of
society, especially parents and children are informed of the advantages of
breastfeeding. Petitioner assailed the constitutionality of RIRR for allegedly going
beyond the provisions of the milk code, thereby amending or expanding the
coverage of the law.
Issue: whether or not the Revised Implementing rules and Regulations of Executive
Order No. 51, Otherwise Known as the Milk Code, Relevant International
Agreements, Penalizing Violations thereof, and for other purposes is unconstitutional
Ruling: NULL AND VOID.
The respondents note that international instruments (UN Convention on the Rights
of the Child, The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights,
and the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of discrimination against women)
only provide for the general terms that steps must be taken by state parties to
diminish infant and child mortality and inform society of the advantages of
breastfeeding, ensure the health and ensure well being of families and ensure that
women are provided with services and nutrition in connection with pregnancy and
lactation. Said instruments do not contain specific provisions regarding the use or
marketing of breastmilk substitutes.
Under the 1987 Constitution, international law becomes part of the sphere of
domestic through TRANSFORMATION or INCORPORATION. Treaties become part of
the law through transformation.
ICMBS and WHA are not treaties as they have not been concurred by at least 2/3 of
all members of the Senate (requirement of Sec 21 Article VII). However, ICMBS,
which was adopted by WHA had been transformed into domestic law through local
legislation, the Milk Code. It is the milk code that has the force and effect of law in
this jurisdiction and not the ICBMS per se.

The provisions of the WHA Resolutions cannot be considered as part of the law of
the land that can be implemented by executive agencies without the need of a law
enacted by the legislature. Only the provisions of the Milk Code, but not those of
subsequent WHA Resolutions, can be validly implemented by the DOH through the
subject RIRR (some parts of the WHA resolutions were not transformed nto domestic
law).
DOH has the significant responsibility to translate into operational terms the
standards set forth in Sections 5, 8 and 10 of the milk code by which the IAC shall
screen advertising, promotional or other marketing materials.

Note: parts of RIRR declared null and void:

Sec 11 -> prohibitions for advertising breastmilk substitutes intended for infants and young children uo to
24 months
And Sec 46 -> sanctions for advertising.