E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly 16 of 48 http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/63027 result in "a nationwide stockout of family planning supplies in accredited public health facilities and the commercial market."[45] On this score, it should be clarified that the Decision simply enjoined the respondents from registering, recertifying, procuring, and administering only those contraceptive drugs and devices which were the subjects of the petitioners' opposition, specifically Implanon and Implanon NXT. It never meant to enjoin the processing of the entire gamut of family planning supplies that have been declared as unquestionably non-abortifacient. Moreover, the injunction issued by the Court was only subject to the condition that the respondents afford the petitioners a genuine opportunity to their right to due process. As the Decision explained, the Court cannot lift the TRO prior to the summary hearing to be conducted by the FDA. To do so would render the summary hearing an exercise in futility. Specifically, the respondents would want the Court to consider their argument that Implanon and Implanon NXT have no abortifacient effects. According to them, "the FDA tested these devices for safety, efficacy, purity, quality, and non-abortiveness prior to the issuance of certificates of registration and recertification, and after the promulgation of Imbong."[46] The Court, however, cannot make such determination or pronouncement at this time. To grant its prayer to lift the TRO would be premature and presumptuous. Any declaration by the Court at this time would have no basis because the FDA, which has the mandate and expertise on the matter, has to first resolve the controversy pending before its office. This Court also explained in the Decision that the issuance of the TRO did not mean that the FDA should stop fulfilling its mandate to test, analyze, scrutinize, and inspect other drugs and devices. Thus: Nothing in this resolution, however, should be construed as restraining or stopping the FDA from carrying on its mandate and duty to test, analyze, scrutinize, and inspect drugs and devices. What are being enjoined are the grant of certifications/re-certifications of contraceptive drugs without affording the petitioners due process, and the distribution and administration of the questioned contraceptive drugs and devices including Implanon and Implanon NXT until they are determined to be safe and non-abortifacient.[47] On Delay The respondents claim that this judicial review of the administrative decision of the FDA in certifying and recertifying drugs has caused much delay in the distribution of the subject drugs with a dire impact on the effective implementation of the RH Law. In this regard, the respondents have only themselves to blame. Instead of complying with the orders of the Court as stated in the Decision to conduct a summary hearing, the respondents have returned to this Court, asking the Court to reconsider the said 4/21/2020, 9:19 AM