G.R. No.

93239 March 18, 1991

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. EDISON SUCRO, accused-appellant.
WARRANTLESS ARREST a. ac!"a##$ co%%&!!&'( )&* co+,ra(,
FACTS:
Edison Sucro was charged with and convicted of violation of Section 4, Article II of the angerous
rugs Act.
!n "arch #$, $%&%, 'at. (o) Fulgencio, a *e*+er of the I,', -ali+o, A.lan, was instructed +)
'/0t. 1icente Seraspi, 2r. 3Station Co**ander of the I,' -ali+o, A.lan4 to *onitor the activities of
appellant Edison Sucro, +ecause of infor*ation gathered +) Seraspi that Sucro was selling
*ari5uana. As planned, at a+out 6:77 '.". on said date, 'at. Fulgencio 'ositioned hi*self under
the house of a certain Arlie (egalado at C. 8ui*po Street. Ad5acent to the house of (egalado,
a+out # *eters awa), was a chapel. Thereafter, 'at. Fulgencio saw appellant enter the chapel,
ta.ing so*ething which turned out later to +e *ari5uana fro* the co*part*ent of a cart found
inside the chapel, and then return to the street where he handed the sa*e to a +u)er, Aldie
9orro*eo. After a while appellant went +ac. to the chapel and again ca*e out with *ari5uana
which he gave to a group of persons .It was at this instance that 'at. Fulgencio radioed '/0t.
Seraspi and reported the activit) going on. '/0t. Seraspi instructed 'at. Fulgencio to continue
*onitoring develop*ents. At a+out ::;7 '."., 'at. Fulgencio again called up Seraspi to report
that a third +u)er later Identified as (onnie "aca+ante, was transacting with appellant.
At that point, the tea* of '/0t. Seraspi proceeded to the area and while the police officers were at
the <outh =ostel at "aag*a St., 'at. Fulgencio told '/0t. Seraspi to intercept "aca+ante and
appellant. '/0t. Seraspi and his tea* caught up with "aca+ante at the crossing of "a+ini and
"aag*a Sts. in front of the A.lan "edical Center. >pon seeing the police, "aca+ante threw
so*ething to the ground which turned out to +e a tea +ag of *ari5uana. ?hen confronted,
"aca+ante readil) ad*itted that he +ought the sa*e fro* appellant 3Edison Sucro4 in front of the
chapel. The police tea* was a+le to overta.e and arrest appellant at the corner of C. 8ui*po and
1eterans Sts. The police recovered $% stic.s and 4 tea+ags of *ari5uana fro* the cart inside the
chapel and another tea+ag fro* "aca+ante,
ISS>E:
$. ?=ET=E( !( ,!T T=E 0!?E( C!>(T E((E I, A"ITTI,@ AS E1IE,CE F!( T=E
'(!SEC>TI!, EA=I9ITS BEB-BE-4B, TEA 9A@S !F A00E@E "A(I2>A,A, T! 9E
T=E CORPUS DELICTI; F>(T=E("!(E, T=AT T=E SA"E ?E(E TA-E, ?IT=!>T T=E
(E8>I(E ?A((A,T !F SEA(C= A, A((EST SI,CE T=E ACC>SE ?AS ,!T I, T=E
ACT !F C!""ITTI,@ A,< !FFE,SE AT T=E TI"E !F =IS A((EST.
#. ?hether or not the arrest without warrant of the accused is lawful and conseCuentl), whether
or not the evidence resulting fro* such arrest is ad*issi+le.
(>0I,@:
?e rule in the affir*ative.
The accused-appellant contends that his arrest was illegal, +eing a violation of his rights granted
under Section #, Article III of the $%&D Constitution. =e stresses that there was sufficient ti*e for
the police officers to appl) for a search and arrest warrants considering that Fulgencio infor*ed
his Station Co**ander of the activities of the accused two da)s +efore "arch #$, $%&%, the date
of his arrest.
This contention is without *erit.
Section 6, (ule $$; of the (ules on Cri*inal 'rocedure provides for the instances where arrest
without warrant is considered lawful. The rule states:
Arrest without warrant, when lawful. E A peace officer or private person *a),
without warrant, arrest a person:
3a4 When in his presence, the person to e arreste! has co""itte!, is actuall)
co**itting, or is atte*pting to co**it an offenseF
3+4 When an offense has in fact #ust een co""itte!, an! he has personal
$nowle!%e of facts indicating that the person to +e arrested has co**itted itF
3E*phasis supplied4
An offense is co**itted in the presence or within the view of an officer, within the *eaning of the
rule authoriGing an arrest without a warrant, when the officer sees the offense, although at a
distance, or hears the distur+ances created there+) and proceeds at once to the scene thereof.
3>.S. v. FortaleGa, $# 'hil. 4D# H$%7%IF and >.S. v. Sa*onte, $: 'hil. 6$: H$%$7I4
The records show that Fulgencio went to Arlie (egaladoJs house at C. 8ui*po Street to *onitor
the activities of the accused who was earlier reported to +e selling *ari5uana at a chapel two 3#4
*eters awa) fro* (egaladoJs house.
Fulgencio, within a distance of two *eters saw Sucro conduct his nefarious activit). =e saw
Sucro tal. to so*e persons, go inside the chapel, and return to the* and eKchange so*e things.
These, Sucro did three ti*es during the ti*e that he was +eing *onitored. Fulgencio would then
rela) the on-going transaction to '/0t. Seraspi.
Anent the second reCuire*ent, the fact that "aca+ante, when intercepted +) the police, was
caught throwing the *ari5uana stic. and when confronted, readil) ad*itted that he +ought the
sa*e fro* accused-appellant clearl) indicates that Sucro had 5ust sold the *ari5uana stic. to
"aca+ante, and therefore, had 5ust co**itted an illegal act of which the police officers had
personal .nowledge, +eing *e*+ers of the tea* which *onitored SucroJs nefarious activit).
G.R. No. L-2219. /"', 30, 19.1
ESTE2AN MORANO, CHAN SAU WAH a'3 FU 4AN FUN, petitioners-appellants,
vs.HON. MARTINIANO 5I5O &' h&6 ca7ac&!$ a6 Ac!&'( Co%%&66&o',r o8
I%%&(ra!&o', respondent-appellant.
ADMINISTRATI5E ARRESTS
Chan Sau ?ah, a Chinese citiGen +orn in Fu.ien, China on 2anuar) :, $%;#, arrived in the
'hilippines on ,ove*+er #;, $%:$ to visit her cousin, Sa*uel 0ee "alaps. She left in *ainland
China two of her children +) a first *arriage: Fu Tse =aw and Fu <an -ai ?ith her was Fu <an
Fun, her *inor son also +) the first *arriage, +orn in =ong.ong on Septe*+er $$, $%6D. Chan
Sau ?ah and her *inor son Fu <an Fun were per*itted onl) into the 'hilippines under a
te*porar) visitorJs visa for two 3#4 *onths and after the) posted a cash +ond of '4,777.77. !n
2anuar) #4, $%:#, Chan Sau ?ah *arried Este+an "orano, a native-+orn Filipino citiGen. 9orn to
this union on Septe*+er $:, $%:# was Este+an "orano, 2r. To prolong their sta) in the
'hilippines, Chan Sau ?ah and Fu <an Fun o+tained several eKtensions. The last eKtension
eKpired on Septe*+er $7, $%:#.&'wph(&)*+t
In a letter dated August ;$, $%:#, the Co**issioner of I**igration ordered Chan Sau ?ah and
her son, Fu <an Fun, to leave the countr) on or +efore Septe*+er $7, $%:# with a warning that
upon failure so to do, he will issue a warrant for their arrest and will cause the confiscation of their
+ond.
Instead of leaving the countr), on Septe*+er $7, $%:#, Chan Sau ?ah 3with her hus+and
Este+an "orano4 and Fu <an Fun petitioned the Court of First Instance of "anila
for "an!a"us to co*pel the Co**issioner of I**igration to cancel petitionersJ Alien Certificates
of (egistrationF prohi+ition to stop the Co**issioner fro* issuing a warrant for their arrest, and
preli*inar) in5unction to restrain the Co**issioner fro* confiscating their cash +ond and fro*
issuing warrants of arrest pending resolution of this case.
$
The trial court, on ,ove*+er ;, $%:#,
issued the writ of preli*inar) in5unction pra)ed for, upon a '#,777-+ond.
'etitioners and respondent Co**issioner +oth appealed.
In the additional stipulation of facts of 2ul) ;, $%:;, petitioners ad*it that Chan Sau ?ah is not
possessed of all the Cualifications reCuired +) the ,aturaliGation 0aw.
9ecause of all these we are left under no dou+t that petitioner Chan Sau ?ah did not +eco*e a
Filipino citiGen.
'etitioners argue that the legal precept 5ust Cuoted trenches upon the constitutional *andate in
Section $ 3;4, Article III H9ill of (ightsI of the Constitution, to wit:
3;4 The right of the people to +e secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects
against unreasona+le searches and seiGures shall not +e violated, and no warrants shall
issue +ut upon pro+a+le cause, to +e deter*ined +) the 5udge after eKa*ination under
oath or affir*ation of the co*plainant and the witnesses he *a) produce, and particularl)
descri+ing the place to +e searched, and the persons or things to +e seiGed.
The) sa) that the Constitution li*its to 5udges the authorit) to issue warrants of arrest and that
the legislative delegation of such power to the Co**issioner of I**igration is thus violative of
the 9ill of (ights.
ISS>E: ?=ET=E( !( ,!T C!""ISSI!,E( !F I""I@(ATI!, =AS A>T=!(IT< T! ISS>E
?A((A,TS !F A((ESTL
(>0I,@:
Section $ 3;4, Article III of the Constitution, we perceive, does not reCuire 5udicial intervention in
the eKecution of a final order of deportation issued in accordance with law. The constitutional
li*itation conte*plates an order of arrest in the eKercise of 5udicial power
4
as a step preli*inar)
or incidental to prosecution or proceedings for a given offense or ad*inistrative action, not as a
*easure indispensa+le to carr) out a valid decision +) a co*petent official, such as a legal order
of deportation, issued +) the Co**issioner of I**igration, in pursuance of a valid legislation.
In conseCuence, the constitutional guarantee set forth in Section $ 3;4, Article III of the
Constitution aforesaid, reCuiring that the issue of pro+a+le cause +e deter*ined +) a 5udge, does
not eKtend to deportation proceedings.
:
Indeed, the power to deport or eKpel aliens is an attri+ute of sovereignt). Such power is planted
on the Baccepted *aKi* of international law, that ever) sovereign nation has the power, as
inherent in sovereignt), and essential to self-preservation, to for+id the entrance of foreigners
within its do*inions.B
&
So it is, that this Court once aptl) re*ar.ed that there can +e no
controvers) on the fact that where aliens are ad*itted as te*porar) visitors, Bthe law is to the
effect that te*porar) visitors who do not depart upon the eKpiration of the period of sta) granted
the* are su+5ect to deportation +) the Co**issioner of I**igration, for having violated the
li*itation or condition under which the) were ad*itted as non-i**igrants 3I**igration 0aw, Sec.
;D 3a4, su+section 3D4F C.A. :$;, as a*ended4.B
%
(ecentl) we confir*ed the rule that an alien wife of a Filipino *a) not sta) per*anentl) without
first departing fro* the 'hilippines. (eason: iscourage entr) under false pretenses.
$#
G.R. No. 90818 /a'"ar$ 29, 1990
PA2LITO 5. SANIDAD, petitioner, vs.THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, respondent.
F(EE!" !F EA'(ESSI!, M '(I!( (EST(AI,T 3CE,S!(S=I'4
This is a petition for certiorari assailing the constitutionalit) of Section $% of Co*elec (esolution
,o. #$:D on the ground that it violates the constitutional guarantees of the freedo* of eKpression
and of the press.
!n !cto+er #;, $%&%, (epu+lic Act ,o. :D::, entitled BA, ACT '(!1II,@ F!( A, !(@A,IC
ACT F!( T=E C!(I00E(A A>T!,!"!>S (E@I!,B was enacted into law. 'ursuant to said
law, the Cit) of 9aguio and the Cordilleras which consist of the provinces of 9enguet, "ountain
'rovince, Ifugao, A+ra and -alinga-Apa)ao, all co*prising the Cordillera Autono*ous (egion,
shall ta.e part in a ple+iscite for the ratification of said !rganic Act originall) scheduled last
ece*+er #D, $%&% which was, however, reset to 2anuar) ;7, $%%7 +) virtue of Co*elec
(esolution ,o. ###: dated ece*+er #D, $%&%.
The Co**ission on Elections, +) virtue of the power vested +) the $%&D Constitution, the
!*ni+us Election Code 39' &&$4, said (.A. :D:: and other pertinent election laws, pro*ulgated
(esolution ,o. #$:D, to govern the conduct of the ple+iscite on the said !rganic Act for the
Cordillera Autono*ous (egion.
In a petition dated ,ove*+er #7, $%&%, herein petitioner 'a+lito 1. Sanidad, who clai*s to +e a
newspaper colu*nist of the B!1E(1IE?B for the 9A@>I! "I0A, C!>(IE(, a wee.l)
newspaper circulated in the Cit) of 9aguio and the Cordilleras, assailed the constitutionalit) of
Section $% of Co*elec (esolution ,o. #$:D, which provides:
Section $%. Prohiition on colu"nists, co""entators or announcers. E
uring the ple+iscite ca*paign period, on the da) +efore and on the
ple+iscite da), no *ass *edia colu*nist, co**entator, announcer or
personalit) shall use his colu*n or radio or television ti*e to ca*paign
for or against the ple+iscite issues.
It is alleged +) petitioner that said provision is void and unconstitutional +ecause it violates the
constitutional guarantees of the freedo* of eKpression and of the press enshrined in the
Constitution.
>nli.e a regular news reporter or news correspondent who *erel) reports the news, petitioner
*aintains that as a colu*nist, his colu*n o+viousl) and necessaril) contains and reflects his
opinions, views and +eliefs on an) issue or su+5ect a+out which he writes. 'etitioner +elieves that
said provision of C!"E0EC (esolution ,o. #$:D constitutes a prior restraint on his
constitutionall)-guaranteed freedo* of the press and further i*poses su+seCuent punish*ent for
those who *a) violate it +ecause it contains a penal provision, as follows:
Article AIII, Section $##, Election !ffenses and 9anned Acts or Activities.
E EKcept to the eKtent that the sa*e *a) not +e applica+le ple+iscite.
the +anned acts/activities and offenses defined in and penaliGed +) the
!*ni+us Election Code 3JSections #:$, #:#, #:; and ArticleJ AAII, 9.'.
9lg. &&$4 and the pertinent provisions of (.A. ,o. ::4: shall +e aplica+le
to the ple+iscite governed +) this (esolution.
'etitioner li.ewise *aintains that if *edia practitioners were to eKpress their views, +eliefs and
opinions on the issue su+*itted to a ple+iscite, it would in fact help in the govern*ent drive and
desire to disse*inate infor*ation, and hear, as well as ventilate, all sides of the issue.
(espondent Co*elec *aintains that the Cuestioned provision of
Co*elec (esolution ,o. #$:D is not violative of the constitutional
guarantees of the freedo* of eKpression and of the press. (ather it is a
valid i*ple*entation of the power of the Co*elec to supervise and
regulate *edia during election or ple+iscite periods as enunciated in
Article IA-C, Section 4 of the $%&D Constitution of the (epu+lic of the
'hilippines. It is stated further +) respondent that (esolution #$:D does
not a+solutel) +ar petitioner fro* eKpressing his views and/or fro*
ca*paigning for or against the !rganic Act. =e *a) still eKpress his
views or ca*paign for or against the act through the Co*elec space and
airti*e.
=owever, it is clear fro* Art. IA-C of the $%&D Constitution that what was granted to the Co*elec
was the power to supervise and regulate the use and en5o)*ent of franchises, per"its or other
%rants issued for the operation of transportation or other pu+lic utilities, *edia of co**unication
or infor*ation to the end that eCual opportunit), ti*e and space, and the right to repl), including
reasona+le, eCual rates therefor, for pu+lic infor*ation ca*paigns and foru"s a"on%
can!i!ates are ensured. The evil sought to +e prevented +) this provision is the possi+ilit) that a
franchise holder *a) favor or give an) undue advantage to a can!i!ate in ter*s of advertising
space or radio or television ti*e. This is also the reason wh) a Bcolu*nist, co**entator,
announcer or personalit), who is acan!i!ate for an, electi-e office is reCuired to ta.e a leave of
a+sence fro* his wor. during the ca*paign period 3#nd par. Section $$3+4 (.A. ::4:4. It cannot
+e gainsaid that a colu*nist or co**entator who is also a candidate would +e *ore eKposed to
the voters to the pre5udice of other candidates unless reCuired to ta.e a leave of a+sence.
=owever, neither Article IA-C of the Constitution nor Section $$ 3+4, #nd par. of (.A. ::4: can +e
construed to *ean that the Co*elec has also +een granted the right to supervise and regulate
the eKercise +) "e!ia practitioners the"sel-es of their right to eKpression during ple+iscite
periods. "edia practitioners eKercising their freedo* of eKpression during ple+iscite periods are
neither the franchise holders nor the candidates. In fact, there are no candidates involved in a
ple+iscite. Therefore, Section $% of Co*elec (esolution ,o. #$:D has no statutor) +asis.
In the case of 9ado), 2r. v. Co*elec, 0-;#64:, !ct. $:, $%D7, where the constitutionalit) of the
prohi+ition of certain for*s of election propaganda was assailed, ?e ruled therein that the
prohi+ition is a valid eKercise of the police power of the state Bto prevent the perversion and
prostitution of the electoral apparatus and of the denial of eCual protection of the laws.B The evil
sought to +e prevented in an election which led to !ur ruling in that case does not o+tain in a
ple+iscite. In a ple+iscite, votes are ta.en in an area on so*e special political *atter unli.e in an
election where votes are cast in favor of specific persons for so*e office. In other words, the
electorate is as.ed to vote for or against issues, not candidates in a ple+iscite.
ISS>E: ?=ET=E( !( ,!T T=E SAI provision violates the constitutional guarantees of the
freedo* of eKpression and of the press enshrined in the ConstitutionL
(>0I,@:
The instant petition is @(A,TE. Section $% of Co*elec (esolution ,o. #$:D is declared null
and void and unconstitutional. The restraining order herein issued is here+) *ade per*anent.
'le+iscite issues are *atters of pu+lic concern and i*portance. The peopleJs right to +e infor*ed
and to +e a+le to freel) and intelligentl) *a.e a decision would +e +etter served +) access to an
una+ridged discussion of the issues, including the foru*. The people affected +) the issues
presented in a ple+iscite should not +e undul) +urdened +) restrictions on the foru* where the
right to eKpression *a) +e eKercised. Co*elec spaces and Co*elec radio ti*e *a) provide a
foru* for eKpression +ut the) do not guarantee full disse*ination of infor*ation to the pu+lic
concerned +ecause the) are li*ited to either specific portions in newspapers or to specific radio
or television ti*es.
G.R. No. 113039 Oc!o:,r 9, 2001
PHARMACEUTICAL AND HEALTH CARE ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,
vs.HEALTH SECRETAR4 FRANCISCO T. DU;UE III< HEALTH UNDER SECRETARIES
DR.ETHEL4N P. NIETO, DR. MARGARITA M. GALON, ATT4. ALE=ANDER A. PADILLA, >
DR. /ADE F. DEL MUNDO< a'3 ASSISTANT SECRETARIES DR. MARIO C. 5ILLA5ERDE,
DR. DA5ID /. LO?ADA, AND DR. NEMESIO T. GA@O,respondents.
F!( C!""E(CIA0 S'EEC=:
Phar%ac,"!&ca# a'3 H,a#!h Car, A66oc&a!&o' o8 !h, Ph&#&77&',6 +. D"A", III, B3B SCRA 2.B
)2001*
FACTS:
!n !cto+er #&, $%&:, EKecutive !rder ,o. 6$ 3"il. Code4 was issued +) 'resident CoraGon
ACuino +) virtue of the legislative powers granted to the president under the Freedo*
Constitution. The "il. Code states that the law see.s to give effect to Article $$# of the
International Code of "ar.eting of 9reast*il. Su+stitutes 3IC"9S4, a code adopted +) the ?orld
=ealth Asse*+l) 3?=A4 in $%&$. Fro* $%&# to #77:, the ?=A adopted several (esolutions to
the effect that +reastfeeding should +e supported, pro*oted and protected, hence, it should +e
ensured that nutrition and health clai*s are not per*itted for +reast*il. su+stitutes. The
'hilippines ratified the International Convention on the (ights of the Child. Article #4 of said
instru*ent provides that State 'arties should ta.e appropriate *easures to di*inish infant and
child *ortalit), and ensure that all seg*ents of societ), speciall) parents and children, are
infor*ed of the advantages of +reastfeeding. The != issued (I(( which was to ta.e effect on
2ul) D, #77:. A petition for certiorari under (ule :6 of the (ules of Court, see.ing to nullif)
(evised I*ple*enting (ules and (egulations of The N"il. Code,O assailing that the (I(( was
going +e)ond the provisions of the "il. Code, there+) a*ending and eKpanding the coverage of
said law.
ISS>E:
whether the a+solute prohi+ition on advertising and other for*s of pro*otion of +reast*il.
su+stitutes violative of freedo* of speechL

(>0I,@:
The Supre*e Court 'A(TIA00< @(A,TE the petition +) declaring ,>00 A, 1!I Sections
43f4, $$ and 4: of Ad*inistrative !rder ,o. #77:-77$#, dated "a) $#, #77:, for +eing ultra vires
and prohi+ited the epart*ent of =ealth fro* i*ple*enting the said provisions.
It does not violate freedo* of speech +ecause there is no a+solute +an.
The Inter-Agenc) Co**ittee 3IAC4 will evaluate so*e advertising and pro*otional *aterials
su+5ect to the standards provided for +) the "il. Code. The IAC can allow if the advertising and
pro*otions will not under*ine +reast *il. and +reastfeeding. It is recogniGed that the IAC has
that power to evaluate pro*otional *aterials.
!f +reastfeeding, +reast*il. su+stitutes and advertise*ents. To what eKtent *a) the epart*ent
of
=ealth, in pro*oting the health and nutritious needs of children, regulate the +usinesses which
pro*ote
+reast*il. su+stitutes as accepta+le alternative to *otherPs *il.L
N=ealth is a legiti*ate su+5ect *atter for regulation +) the != 3and certain other ad*inistrative
agencies4 in eKercise of police powers delegated to it. The sheer span of 5urisprudence on that
*atter
precludes the need to further discuss it. =owever, health infor*ation, particularl) advertising
*aterials
on apparentl) non-toKic products li.e +reast*il. su+stitutes and supple*ents, is a relativel) new
area
for regulation +) the !=.O Accordingl), Nthe !=Js power under the "il. Code to control
infor*ation regarding +reast*il. vis-a-vis +reast*il. su+stitutes is not a+solute as the powerto
control
does not enco*pass the power to a+solutel) prohi+it the advertising, *ar.eting, and pro*otion of
+reast*il. su+stitutes.O I*ple*enting rules and regulations i*posing la+eling reCuire*ents and
li*itations such as that there +e a state*ent that there is no su+stitute to +reast*il., and that
there +e
a state*ent that powdered infant for*ula *a) contain pathogenic *icroorganis*s and *ust +e
preparedand used appropriatel), as well as a prohi+ition against health and nutrition clai*s of
increased
e*otional and intellectual a+ilities of the infant and )oung child are consistent with the "il. Code.
NThese provisions of the "il. Code eKpressl) for+id infor*ation that would i*pl) or create a +elief
that
there is an) *il. product eCuivalent to +reast*il. or which is hu*aniGed or *aternaliGed, as such
infor*ation would +e inconsistent with the superiorit)of +reastfeeding.O Correct infor*ation as to
infantfeeding and nutrition is infused with pu+lic interest and welfare.
,onetheless, in this case while the Court held the authorit) of != to control infor*ation
regarding
+reast*il. vis-a-vis +reast*il. su+stitutes and supple*ents and related products cannot +e
Cuestioned,
it declared that the !=, in i*posing an a+solute prohi+ition on advertising, pro*otion, and
*ar.eting,
the sa*e went +e)ond its authorit) since the sa*e was not within the provisions of the "il. Code
itself.
(espondents su+*it that the national polic) on infant and )oung child feeding is e*+odied in
A.!. ,o. #776-77$4, dated "a) #;, #776. 9asicall), the Ad*inistrative !rder declared the
following polic) guidelines: 3$4 ideal +reastfeeding practices, such as earl) initiation of
+reastfeeding, eKclusive +reastfeeding for the first siK *onths, eKtended +reastfeeding up to two
)ears and +e)ondF 3#4 appropriate co*ple*entar) feeding, which is to start at age siK *onthsF 3;4
*icronutrient supple*entationF 344 universal salt iodiGationF 364 the eKercise of other feeding
optionsF and 3:4 feeding in eKceptionall) difficult circu*stances. Indeed, the pri*ac) of
+reastfeeding for children is e*phasiGed as a national health polic). =owever, nowhere in A.!.
,o. #776-77$4 is it declared that as part of such health polic), the advertise*ent or pro*otion of
+reast*il. su+stitutes should +e a+solutel) prohi+ited. =ence, the Court held that the national
polic) of protection, pro*otion and support of +reastfeeding cannot auto*aticall) +e eCuated with
a total +an on advertising for +reast*il. su+stitutes. The "il. Code does not contain a total +an
on the advertising and pro*otion of +reast*il. su+stitutes +ut instead specificall) creates an IAC
which will regulate said advertising and pro*otion. A total +an polic) could +e i*ple*ented onl)
pursuant to a law a*ending the "il. Code passed +) the constitutionall) authoriGed +ranch of
govern*ent, the legislature. The Court e*phasiGed that onl) the provisions of the "il. Code, +ut
not those of su+seCuent ?=A (esolutions, can +e validl) i*ple*ented +) the != through the
su+5ect (I((.
The Court held that the Sec. ; of the "il. CodeJs coverage is not li*ited onl) to children 7-$#
*onths old. Section ; of the "il. Code. The coverage of the "il. Code is not dependent on the
age of the child +ut on the .ind of product +eing *ar.eted to the pu+lic. The law treats infant
for*ula, +ottle-fed co*ple*entar) food, and +reast*il. su+stitute as separate and distinct
product categories.
Section 43h4 of the "il. Code defines infant for*ula as Na +reast*il. su+stitute K K K to satisf) the
nor*al nutritional reCuire*ents of infants up to +etween four to siK *onths of age, and adapted to
their ph)siological characteristicsOF while under Section 43+4, +ottle-fed co*ple*entar) food refers
to Nan) food, whether *anufactured or locall) prepared, suita+le as a co*ple*ent to +reast*il.
or infant for*ula, when either +eco*es insufficient to satisf) the nutritional reCuire*ents of the
infant.O An infant under Section 43e4 is a person falling within the age +rac.et 7-$# *onths. It is
the nourish*ent of this group of infants or children aged 7-$# *onths that is sought to +e
pro*oted and protected +) the "il. Code.
9ut there is another target group. 9reast*il. su+stitute is defined under Section 43a4 as Nan) food
+eing *ar.eted or otherwise presented as a partial or total replace*ent for +reast*il., whether or
not suita+le for that purpose.O This section conspicuousl) lac.s reference to an) particular age-
group of children. =ence, the provision of the "il. Code cannot +e considered eKclusive for
children aged 7-$# *onths. In other words, +reast*il. su+stitutes *a) also +e intended for )oung
children *ore than $# *onths of age. Therefore, +) regulating +reast*il. su+stitutes, the "il.
Code also intends to protect and pro*ote the nourish*ent of children *ore than $# *onths old.
Evidentl), as long as what is +eing *ar.eted falls within the scope of the "il. Code as provided in
Section ;, then it can +e su+5ect to regulation pursuant to said law, even if the product is to +e
used +) children aged over $# *onths.
To resolve the Cuestion of whether the la+eling reCuire*ents and advertising regulations under
the (I(( are valid, the Court had to discuss the nature, purpose, and depth of the regulator)
powers of the !=, as defined in general under the $%&D Ad*inistrative Code, and as delegated
in particular under the "il. Code. =ealth is a legiti*ate su+5ect *atter for regulation +) the !=
3and certain other ad*inistrative agencies4 in eKercise of police powers delegated to it. The sheer
span of 5urisprudence on that *atter precludes the need to further discuss it.. =owever, health
infor*ation, particularl) advertising *aterials on apparentl) non-toKic products li.e +reast*il.
su+stitutes and supple*ents, is a relativel) new area for regulation +) the !=. The $%&D
Ad*inistrative Code tas.ed respondent != to carr) out the state polic) pronounced under
Section $6, Article II of the $%&D Constitution, which is Nto protect and pro*ote the right to health
of the people and instill health consciousness a*ong the*.O To that end, it was granted under
Section ; of the Ad*inistrative Code the power to N3:4 propagate health infor*ation and educate
the population on i*portant health, *edical and environ*ental *atters which have health
i*plications.O ?hen it co*es to infor*ation regarding nutrition of infants and )oung children,
however, the "il. Code specificall) delegated to the "inistr) of =ealth 3hereinafter referred to as
!=4 the power to ensure that there is adeCuate, consistent and o+5ective infor*ation on
+reastfeeding and use of +reast*il. su+stitutes, supple*ents and related productsF and the
power to control such infor*ation. Further, != is authoriGed +) the "il. Code to control the
content of an) infor*ation on +reast*il. vis-Q-vis +reast*il. su+stitutes, supple*ent and related
products. The != is also authoriGed to control the purpose of the infor*ation and to who* such
infor*ation *a) +e disse*inated under Sections : through % of the "il. Code to ensure that the
infor*ation that would reach pregnant wo*en, *others of infants, and health professionals and
wor.ers in the health care s)ste* is restricted to scientific and factual *atters and shall not i*pl)
or create a +elief that +ottlefeeding is eCuivalent or superior to +reastfeeding. It +ears e*phasis,
however, that the !=Js power under the "il. Code to control infor*ation regarding +reast*il.
vis-a-vis +reast*il. su+stitutes is not a+solute as the power to control does not enco*pass the
power to a+solutel) prohi+it the advertising, *ar.eting, and pro*otion of +reast*il. su+stitutes.
,onetheless, the Court held that the fra*ers of the constitution were well aware that trade *ust
+e su+5ected to so*e for* of regulation for the pu+lic good. espite the fact that Nour present
Constitution enshrines free enterprise as a polic), it nonetheless reserves to the govern*ent the
power to intervene whenever necessar) to pro*ote the general welfare. Free enterprise does not
call for re*oval of Rprotective regulationsP. It *ust +e clearl) eKplained and proven +) co*petent
evidence 5ust eKactl) how such protective regulation would result in the restraint of trade. In this
case, petitioner failed to show that the proscription of *il. *anufacturersP participation in an)
polic)*a.ing +od) 3Section 43i44, classes and se*inars for wo*en and children 3Section ##4F the
giving of assistance, support and logistics or training 3Section ;#4F and the giving of donations
3Section 6#4 would unreasona+l) ha*per the trade of +reast*il. su+stitutes. 'etitioner has not
esta+lished that the proscri+ed activities are indispensa+le to the trade of +reast*il. su+stitutes.
'etitioner failed to de*onstrate that the afore*entioned provisions of the (I(( are unreasona+le
and oppressive for +eing in restraint of trade.
In fine, the Court held that eKcept Sections 43f4, $$ and 4:, the rest of the provisions of the (I((
are in consonance with the o+5ective, purpose and intent of the "il. Code, constituting
reasona+le regulation of an industr) which affects pu+lic health and welfare and, as such, the rest
of the (I(( do not constitute illegal restraint of trade nor are the) violative of the due process
clause of the Constitution.