E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly 4 of 48 http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/63027 Book I of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 9711,[8] and the "regulatory/administrative powers" exercised by the FDA under Section 2(c)(l)[9] of the same. For the respondents, the distinction given in the above-cited provisions was all but proof that the issuance of CPR did not require notice and hearing. After detailing the process by which the FDA's Center for Drug Regulation and Research (CDRR) examined and tested the contraceptives for non-abortifacience,[10] the respondents stressed that the Decision wreaked havoc on the organizational structure of the FDA, whose myriad of functions had been carefully delineated in the IRR of R.A. No. 9711.[11] The respondents, thus, prayed for the lifting of the Temporary Restraining Order (TRO).[12] Part 2: The requirements of due process need not be complied with as the elements of procedural due process laid down in Ang Tibay v. CIR are not applicable The respondents further claimed in their omnibus motion that the requirements of due process need not be complied with because the standards of procedural due process laid down in Ang Tibay v. CIR[13] were inapplicable considering that: a) substantial evidence could not be used as a measure in determining whether a contraceptive drug or device was abortifacient;[14] b) the courts had neither jurisdiction nor competence to review the findings of the FDA on the nonabortifacient character of contraceptive drugs or devices;[15] c) the FDA was not bound by the rules of admissibility and presentation of evidence under the Rules of Court;[16] and d) the findings of the FDA could not be subject of the rule on res judicata and stare-decisis.[17] The respondents then insisted that Implanon and Implanon NXT were not abortifacients and lamented that the continued injunction of the Court had hampered the efforts of the FDA to provide for the reproductive health needs of Filipino women. For the respondents, to require them to afford the parties like the petitioners an opportunity to question their findings would cause inordinate delay in the distribution of the subject contraceptive drugs and devices which would have a dire impact on the effective implementation of the RH Law. The Court's Ruling After an assiduous assessment of the arguments of the parties, the Court denies the Omnibus Motion, but deems that a clarification on some points is in order. Judicial Review The powers of an administrative body are classified into two fundamental powers: quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial. Quasi-legislative power, otherwise known as the power of subordinate legislation, has been defined as the authority delegated by the lawmaking body to the administrative body to adopt rules and regulations 4/21/2020, 9:19 AM