E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly 41 of 48 http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/63027 After successful fertilization, embryos are incubated for several days. Preimplantation genetic testing may be conducted to screen embryos for genetic disorders before they are transferred to the uterus.[79] The rate of success of in vitro fertilization is greatly affected by age.[80] To increase the chances of pregnancy, multiple embryos are transferred to the uterus.[81] Meanwhile, remaining embryos may be cryopreserved, donated to another, or disposed. However, not all embryos survive cryopreservation; some die during the freezing and thawing process.[82] This is where the ethical dilemma arises. If life begins at fertilization, those who undergo in vitro fertilization are burdened on what to do with unused embryos. The disposal of embryos would necessarily entail disposal of human lives. Although parents may opt for donation or cryopreservation, these alternatives do not guarantee the survival of remaining embryos. IV Petitioners allege that the Food and Drug Administration, by failing to consider and act upon their opposition, had denied them of due process to which they are entitled under the Constitution. Under Section 1, Article III of the Constitution "no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." However, it is not petitioners' life, liberty, or property that would be affected by a certification and re-certification proceeding. Petitioners, not being Market Authorization Holders, possess no property right that may be infringed by the Food and Drug Administration. There is also no merit to the claim that petitioners' right to life would also be violated, much less affected, by a certification and re-certification proceeding. In the grand scheme of things, it is the unborn whose life is at stake. Though the cause of petitioners is noble, by no stretch of the imagination could they claim the exclusive right to protect the life of the unborn. The Food and Drug Administration, in the exercise of its regulatory function and as parens patriae, carries the significant task of safeguarding the life of the unborn when it determines whether a drug is medically safe for consumption. Parties do not have a monopoly oyer the protection of the life of the unborn. Petitioners alleged that they submitted their preliminary oppositions to the list of contraceptives for re-certification.[83] The Food and Drug Administration, however, failed to act on the oppositions or reply to petitioners' inquiries.[84] The approval of any drug as food product destined for public use is not a matter only between the applicant and the regulator. It affects public health. Ultimately, it is the consumers who are affected. Thus, the process of certification and re-certification is burdened with severe public interest. 4/21/2020, 9:19 AM