Pest MGMT Vs FPA

G.R. NO.
156041 February 21, 2007
PEST MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES (PMAP
vs.
FERTILIZER AND PESTICIDE AUTHORITY
FACTS:
The case commenced upon petitioner’s filing of a Petition For Declaratory Relief With Prayer For
Issuance Of A Writ Of Preliminary Injunction And/Or Temporary Restraining Order with the RTC.
Petitioner, a non-stock corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the Philippines, is an
association of pesticide handlers duly licensed by respondent Fertilizer and Pesticide Authority (FPA). It
questioned the validity of Section 3.12 of the 1987 Pesticide Regulatory Policies and Implementing
Guidelines, which provides thus:
3.12 Protection of Proprietary Data
Data submitted to support the first full or conditional registration of a pesticide active ingredient in
the Philippines will be granted proprietary protection for a period of seven years from the date of
such registration. During this period subsequent registrants may rely on these data only with third
party authorization or otherwise must submit their own data. After this period, all data may be freely
cited in support of registration by any applicant, provided convincing proof is submitted that the product
being registered is identical or substantially similar to any current registered pesticide, or differs only in
ways that would not significantly increase the risk of unreasonable adverse effects.
Pesticides granted provisional registration under P.D. 1144 will be considered first registered in 1977,
the date of the Decree.
Pesticide products in which data is still under protection shall be referred to as proprietary pesticides,
and all others as commodity pesticides.
Petitioner argued that the specific provision on the protection of the proprietary data in FPA’s Pesticide
Regulatory Policies and Implementing Guidelines is unlawful for going counter to the objectives of
Presidential Decree No. 1144 (P.D. No. 1144); for exceeding the limits of delegated authority; and for
encroaching on the exclusive jurisdiction of the Intellectual Property Office.
ISSUE 1:
WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENT FPA HAS ACTED BEYOND THE SCOPE OF ITS DELEGATED POWER WHEN
IT GRANTED A SEVEN-YEAR PROPRIETARY PROTECTION TO DATA SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT THE FIRST
FULL OR CONDITIONAL REGISTRATION OF A PESTICIDE INGREDIENT IN THE PHILIPPINES;
RULING 1 :
Under P.D. No. 1144, the FPA is given the broad power to issue rules and regulations to implement and
carry out the purposes and provisions of said decree, i.e., to regulate, control and develop the pesticide
industry. In furtherance of such ends, the FPA sees the protection of proprietary data as one way of
fulfilling its mandate. In Republic v. Sandiganbayan,4 the Court emphasized that:
x x x [t]he interpretation of an administrative government agency, which is tasked to implement a

statute is generally accorded great respect and ordinarily controls the construction of the courts. The
reason behind this rule was explained in Nestle Philippines, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals in this wise:
The rationale for this rule relates not only to the emergence of the multifarious needs of a modern or
modernizing society and the establishment of diverse administrative agencies for addressing and
satisfying those needs; it also relates to the accumulation of experience and growth of specialized
capabilities by the administrative agency charged with implementing a particular statute. In Asturias
Sugar Central, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Customs, the Court stressed that executive officials are
presumed to have familiarized themselves with all the considerations pertinent to the meaning and
purpose of the law, and to have formed an independent, conscientious and competent expert opinion
thereon. The courts give much weight to the government agency officials charged with the
implementation of the law, their competence, expertness, experience and informed judgment, and
the fact that they frequently are the drafters of the law they interpret."
ISSUE 2:
WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENT FPA IS ENCROACHING ON THE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OFFICE (IPO) WHEN IT INCLUDED IN ITS PESTICIDE REGULATORY POLICIES AND
IMPLEMENTING GUIDELINES THE SUBJECT SEVEN-YEAR PROPRIETARY DATA PROTECTION;
RULING 2
There is no encroachment upon the powers of the IPO granted under R.A. No. 8293, otherwise known as
the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines. Section 5 thereof enumerates the functions of the IPO.
Nowhere in said provision does it state nor can it be inferred that the law intended the IPO to have the
exclusive authority to protect or promote intellectual property rights in the Philippines. On the contrary,
paragraph (g) of said Section even provides that the IPO shall "[c]oordinate with other government
agencies and the private sector efforts to formulate and implement plans and policies to strengthen the
protection of intellectual property rights in the country." Clearly, R.A. No. 8293 recognizes that efforts to
fully protect intellectual property rights cannot be undertaken by the IPO alone. Other agencies dealing
with intellectual property rights are, therefore, not precluded from issuing policies, guidelines and
regulations to give protection to such rights.
APPLICABLE LAW (for REFERENCE)
(P.D. No. 1144, entitled Creating the Fertilizer and Pesticide Authority and Abolishing the Fertilizer
Industry Authority.)
Section 6. Powers and Functions. The FPA shall have jurisdiction, over all existing handlers of pesticides,
fertilizers and other agricultural chemical inputs. The FPA shall have the following powers and functions:
I. Common to Fertilizers, Pesticides and other Agricultural Chemicals
xxx
4. To promulgate rules and regulations for the registration and licensing of handlers of these products,
collect fees pertaining thereto, as well as the renewal, suspension, revocation, or cancellation of such
registration or licenses and such other rules and regulations as may be necessary to implement this
Decree;
xxx
Section 7. Power to Issue Rules and Regulations to Implement Decree. The FPA is hereby authorized to
issue or promulgate rules and regulations to implement, and carry out the purposes and provisions of
this Decree.

Pest MGMT Vs FPA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pest MGMT Vs FPA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pest MGMT Vs FPA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. NO.

156041 February 21, 2007

PEST MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES (PMAP

3.12 Protection of Proprietary Data

x x x [t]he interpretation of an administrative government agency, which is tasked to implement a

WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENT FPA IS ENCROACHING ON THE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE

I. Common to Fertilizers, Pesticides and other Agricultural Chemicals

You might also like