E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly 12 of 48 http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/63027 1) The right to a hearing, which includes the right to present one's case and submit evidence in support thereof; 2) The tribunal must consider the evidence presented; 3) The decision must have something to support itself; 4) The evidence must be substantial; 5) The decision must be rendered on the evidence presented at the hearing, or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the parties affected; 6) The tribunal or body or any of its judges must act on its or his own independent consideration of the law and facts of the controversy and not simply accept the views of a subordinate in arriving at a decision; and 7) The board or body should, in all controversial questions, render its decision in such a manner that the parties to the proceeding can know the various issues involved, and the reason for the decision rendered.[40] In the Decision, the Court found that the FDA certified, procured and administered contraceptive drugs and devices, without the observance of the basic tenets of due process, that is, without notice and without public hearing. It appeared that, other than the notice inviting stakeholders to apply for certification/recertification of their reproductive health products, there was no showing that the respondents considered the opposition of the petitioners. Thus, the Court wrote: Rather than provide concrete evidence to meet the petitioners' opposition, the respondents simply relied on their challenge questioning the propriety of the subject petition on technical and procedural grounds. The Court notes that even the letters submitted by the petitioners to the FDA and the DOH seeking information on the actions taken by the agencies regarding their opposition were left unanswered as if they did not exist at all. The mere fact that the RH Law was declared as not unconstitutional does not permit the respondents to run roughshod over the constitutional rights, substantive and procedural, of the petitioners. Indeed, although the law tasks the FDA as the primary agency to determine whether a contraceptive drug or certain device has no abortifacient effects, its findings and conclusion should be allowed to be questioned and those who oppose the same must be given a genuine opportunity to be heard in their stance. After all, under Section 4(k) of R.A. No. 3720, as amended by R.A. No. 9711, the FDA is mandated to order the ban, recall andjor withdrawal of any health product found to have caused death, serious illness or serious injury to a consumer or patient, or found to be imminently injurious, unsafe, dangerous, or grossly deceptive, after due process. 4/21/2020, 9:19 AM