E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly 6 of 48 http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/63027 Professor Freund classifies them generally into the enabling powers and the directing powers. The latter includes the dispensing, the examining, and the summary powers. The enabling powers are those that permit the doing of an act which the law undertakes to regulate and which would be unlawful with government approval. The most common example is the issuance of licenses to engage in a particular business or occupation, like the operation of a liquor store or restaurant. x x x.[23] [Emphases and underscoring supplied] From the above, two things are apparent: one, the "enabling powers" cover "regulatory powers" as defined by the respondents; and two, they refer to a subcategory of a quasi-judicial power which, as explained in the Decision, requires the compliance with the twin requirements of notice and hearing. Nowhere from the above-quoted texts can it be inferred that the exercise of "regulatory power" places an administrative agency beyond the reach of judicial review. When there is grave abuse of discretion, such as denying a party of his constitutional right to due process, the Court can come in and exercise its power of judicial review. It can review the challenged acts, whether exercised by the FDA in its ministerial, quasijudicial or regulatory power. In the past, the Court exercised its power of judicial review over acts and decisions of agencies exercising their regulatory powers, such as DPWH,[24] TRB,[25] NEA,[26] and the SEC,[27] among others. In Diocese of Bacolod v. Commission on Elections,[28] the Court properly exercised its power of judicial review over a Comelec resolution issued in the exercise of its regulatory power. Clearly, the argument of the FDA is flawed. Petitioners were Denied their Right to Due Process Due process of law has two aspects: substantive and procedural. In order that a particular act may not be impugned as violative of the due process clause, there must be compliance with both the substantive and the procedural requirements thereof.[29] Substantive due process refers to the intrinsic validity of a law that interferes with the rights of a person to his property.[30] Procedural due process, on the other hand, means compliance with the procedures or steps, even periods, prescribed by the statute, in conformity with the standard of fair play and without arbitrariness on the part of those who are called upon to administer it.[31] The undisputed fact is that the petitioners were deprived of their constitutional right to due process of law. As expounded by the Court, what it found to be primarily deplorable is the failure of the respondents to act upon, much less address, the various oppositions filed by the petitioners against the product registration, recertification, procurement, and distribution of the questioned contraceptive drugs and devices. Instead of addressing 4/21/2020, 9:19 AM