E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
20 of 48
http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/63027
B. Part II (Evaluation of Whether the Contraceptive Product is Abortifacient)
1. Evaluation of the scientific evidence submitted by the applicant and the public.
2. Review and evaluation of extraneous evidence, e.g., scientific journals, metaanalyses, etc.
Step 8. Assess and review the documentary requirements submitted by the
applicant. Technical reviewers considered scientific evidence such as meta-analyses,
systemic reviews, national and clinical practice guidelines and recommendations of
international medical organizations submitted by the companies, organizations and
individuals to be part of the review. [Emphases and Underling supplied]
[11] Omnibus Motion, p. 37.
[12] Rollo, pp. 442-447.
[13] 69 Phil. 635 (1940).
[14] Rollo, pp. 430-431.
[15] Id. at 431-432, 442.
[16] Id. at 432-433.
[17] Id. at 433-434.
[18] Cruz, Philippine Administrative Law, p. 29 (2007 Edition).
[19] Commissioner of Customs v. Hypermix Feeds Corporation, 680 Phil. 681, 689
(2012), citing Misamis Oriental Association of Coco Traders, Inc. v. Department of
Finance Secretary, G.R. No. 108524, November 10, 1994, 238 SCRA 63, 69-70.
[20] Cruz, Philippine Administrative Law, supra note 18 at 67.
[21] Id. at 88, citing Gudmindson v. Cardollo, 126 F2d. 521.
[22] Id. at 91.
[23] Cruz, Philippine Administrative Law, supra note 18 at 41.
[24] Mirasol et al. v. DPWH and TRB, 523 Phil. 713, (2006).
[25] Id.
4/21/2020, 9:19 AM