PHARMACEUTICAL AND HEALTH CARE ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.

HEALTH
SECRETARY FRANCISCO T. DUQUE III, et. al.
G.R. No. 173034
October 9, 2007

FACTS:
Executive Order No. 51 (Milk Code) was issued by President Corazon Aquino on October 28, 1986

One of the clauses of the Milk Code provides that the law seeks to give effect to Article 112 of the
International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes, a code adopted by the World Health Assembly
(WHA) in 1981. From 1982 to 2006, 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.
In 1990, the Philippines ratified the International Convention on the Rights of the Child. On May 15,
2006, the DOH issued herein assailed RIRR, but petitioner, representing its members that are
manufacturers of breastmilk substitutes, filed the present petition.

ISSUE:
Whether pertinent international agreements entered into by the Philippines are part of the law of the land
and may be implemented by the DOH through the RIRR?

RULING:
Yes, the ICMBS is deemed part fo the law of the land.

The ICMBS and WHA Resolutions are not treaties as they have not been concurred in by at least two-
thirds of all members of the Senate as required under Section 21, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution.

However, the ICMBS which was adopted by the WHA in 1981 had been transformed into domestic law
through local legislation, the Milk Code. Consequently, it is the Milk Code that has the force and effect of
law in this jurisdiction and not the ICMBS per se. The Milk Code is almost a verbatim reproduction of
the ICMBS, but it is well to emphasize at this point that the Code did not adopt the provision in
the ICMBS absolutely prohibiting advertising or other forms of promotion to the general public of
products within the scope of the ICMBS. Instead, the Milk Code expressly provides that advertising,
promotion, or other marketing materials may be allowed if such materials are duly authorized and
approved by the Inter-Agency Committee (IAC).

No, the subsequent WHA Resolutions do not form part of the law. The WHA Resolutions have not
been embodied in any local legislation. As a general rule, regulations, along with conventions and
agreements, duly adopted by the WHA bind member states.

However, under Article 23, recommendations of the WHA do not come into force for members, in the
same way that conventions or agreements under Article 19 and regulations under Article 21 come into
force.

Apparently, the WHA Resolution adopting the ICMBS and subsequent WHA Resolutions urging member
states to implement the ICMBS are merely recommendatory and legally non-binding. Thus, unlike what
has been done with the ICMBS whereby the legislature enacted most of the provisions into law which is
the Milk Code, the subsequent WHA Resolutions, specifically providing for exclusive breastfeeding from
0-6 months, continued breastfeeding up to 24 months, and absolutely prohibiting advertisements and
promotions of breastmilk substitutes, have not been adopted as a domestic law.