E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly 3 of 48 http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/63027 information standard and, hence, the duty to inform under Section 23(a)(l) of Republic Act No. 10354. The Department of Health is DIRECTED to distribute copies of this template to all health care service providers covered by Republic Act No. 10354. The respondents are hereby also ordered to amend the Implementing Rules and Regulations to conform to the rulings and guidelines in G.R. No. 204819 and related cases. The above foregoing directives notwithstanding, within 30 days from receipt of this disposition, the Food and Drugs Administration should commence to conduct the necessary hearing guided by the cardinal rights of the parties laid down in CIR v. Ang Tibay. Pending the resolution of the controversy, the motion to lift the Temporary Restraining Order is DENIED. With respect to the contempt petition, docketed as G.R. No. 221866, it is hereby DENIED for lack of concrete basis. SO ORDERED.[3] Arguments of the Respondents Part 1: Due Process need not be complied with as the questioned acts of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) were in the exercise of its Regulatory Powers In the subject Omnibus Motion, the respondents argued that their actions should be sustained, even if the petitioners were not afforded notice and hearing, because the contested acts of registering, re-certifying, procuring, and administering contraceptive drugs and devices were all done in the exercise of its regulatory power.[4] They contended that considering that the issuance of the certificate of product registration (CPR) by the FDA under Section 7.04, Rule 7[5] of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 10354 (RH-IRR) did not involve the adjudication of the parties' opposing rights and liabilities through an adversarial proceeding, the due process requirements of notice and hearing need not be complied with.[6] Stated differently, the respondents assert that as long as the act of the FDA is exercised pursuant to its regulatory power, it need not comply with the due process requirements of notice and hearing. Corollary to this, the respondents wanted the Court to consider that the FDA had delineated its functions among different persons and bodies in its organization. Thus, they asked the Court to make a distinction between the "quasi-judicial powers" exercised by the Director-General of the FDA under Section 2(b)[7] of Article 3, 4/21/2020, 9:19 AM