E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly 17 of 48 http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/63027 decision claiming that it has wreaked havoc on the organizational structure of the FDA. Had the FDA immediately conducted a summary hearing, by this time it would have finished it and resolved the opposition of the petitioners. Note that there was already a finding by the FDA, which was its basis in registering, certifying and recertifying the questioned drugs and devices. The pharmaceutical companies or the MAHs need not present the same evidence it earlier adduced to convince the FDA unless they want to present additional evidence to fortify their positions. The only entities that would present evidence would be the petitioners to make their point by proving with relevant scientific evidence that the contraceptives have abortifacient effects. Thereafter, the FDA can resolve the controversy. Indeed, in addition to guaranteeing that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty and property without due process of law,[48] the Constitution commands that "all persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative bodies."[49] WHEREFORE, the August 24, 2016 Decision is MODIFIED. Accordingly, the Food and Drug Administration is ordered to consider the oppositions filed by the petitioners with respect to the listed drugs, including Implanon and Implanon NXT, based on the standards of the Reproductive Health Law, as construed in Imbong v. Ochoa, and to decide the case within sixty (60) days from the date it will be deemed submitted for resolution. After compliance with due process and upon promulgation of the decision of the Food and Drug Administration, the Temporary Restraining Order would be deemed lifted if the questioned drugs and devices are found not abortifacients. After the final resolution by the Food and Drug Administration, any appeal should be to the Office of the President pursuant to Section 9 of E.O. No. 247. As ordered in the August 24, 2016 Decision, the Food and Drug Administration is directed to amend the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 10354 so that it would be strictly compliant with the mandates of the Court in Imbong v. Ochoa. SO ORDERED. Carpio, (Chairperson), Del Castillo, and Martires, JJ., concur. Leonen, J., I concur. See separate opinion. [1] Rollo, pp. 406-744. [2] Id. at 382-405. 4/21/2020, 9:19 AM