PIL cases 1,2

Pharmaceutical Pharmaceutical and Health Care Association Association of the Philippines vs. Duque Named as respondents are the Health Secretary, Undersecretaries, and Assistant Secretaries of the Department Department of Health (DOH). For purposes of herein petition, the DOH is deemed impleaded impleaded as a corespondent since respondents respondents issued the questioned RIRR in their capacity as officials of said executive agency.1Executive agency.1Executive Order No. 51 (Milk Code) was issued by President Corazon Aquino on October 28, 1986 by virtue of the legislative powers granted to the president under the Freedom Constitution. One of the preambular clauses of the Milk Code states that the law seeks to give effect to Article 112 of the International International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes (ICMBS), (ICMBS), a code adopted by the World Health  Assembly (WHA) (WHA) in 1981. From 1982 to 2006, 2006, the WHA adopted adopted several Resolutions Resolutions to the effect that breastfeeding breastfeeding should be supported, promoted and protected, hence, it should be ensured that nutrition and health claims are not permitted for breastmilk substitutes.In 1990, the Philippines ratified the International International Convention on the Rights of the Child. Article 24 of said instrument provides that State Parties should take appropriate measures to diminish infant and child mortality, and ensure that all segments of society, specially parents and children, are informed of the advantages of breastfeeding. On May 15, 2006, the DOH issued herein assailed RIRR which was to take effect on July 7, 2006. Issue: . Whether Administrative Order or the Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations (RIRR) issued by the Department of Health (DOH) is not constitutional; Held: YES. under Article 23, recommendations of the WHA do not come into force for members,in the same way that conventions or agreements under Article 19 and regulations under Article 21 come i nto force. Article 23 of the WHO Constitution reads:  Article 23. The Health Assembly Assembly shall have authority authority to make recommendations recommendations to to Members with with respect to any matter within the competence of the Organization for an international rule to be considered as customary law, it must be established that such rule is being followed by states because they consider it obligatory to comply with such rules Under the 1987 Constitution, international international law can become part of the sphere of domestic law either By transformation or incorporation. The transformation method requires that an international law be transformed into a domestic law through a constitutional mechanism such as local legislation. The incorporation method applies when, by mere constitutional declaration, international law is deemed to have the force of domestic law. Consequently, Consequently, legislation is necessary to transform the provisions of the WHA Resolutions into domestic law. The provisions of the WHA Resolutions cannot be considered as part of the l aw of the land that can be implemented by executive agencies without the need of a law enacted by the l egislature Pharmaceutical Pharmaceutical and Health Care Association of the Philippines v Duque III Facts: Petition for certiorari seeking to nullify the Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations (RIRR) of E.O. 51 (Milk Code). Petitioner claims that the RIRR is not valid as it contains provisions that are not constitutional and go beyond what it is supposed to implement. Milk Code was issued by President Cory  Aquino under under the Freedom Freedom Constitution on Oct.1986. One of the preambular preambular clauses of of the Milk Code

states that the law seeks to give effect to Art 11 of the Int’l Code of Marketing and Breastmilk Substitutes(ICBMS), Substitutes(ICBMS), a code adopted by the World Health Assembly(WHA). From 1982-2006, The WHA also adopted severe resolutions to the effect that breastfeeding should be supported, hence, it should be ensured that nutrition and health claims are not permitted for breastmilk substitutes. In 2006, the DOH issued the assailed RIRR. Issue: Sub-Issue: Sub- Issue: W/N the pertinent int’l agreements entered into by the Phil are part of the law of the l and and may be implemented by DOH through the RIRR. If yes, W/N the RIRR is i n accord with int’l agreements MAIN: W/N the DOH acted w/o or in excess of their jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of excess of jurisdiction and in violation of the Constitution by promulgating the RIRR. Held: Sub-issue: Yes for ICBMS. ICB MS. Under 1987 Consti, int’l law can become domestic law by transformation (thru constitutional mechanism such as local legislation) or incorporation (mere constitutional declaration i.e treaties) The ICBMS and WHA resolutions were not treaties as they have not been concurred by 2/3 of all members of the Senate as required under Sec, 21, Art 8. However, the ICBMS had been transformed into domestic law through a local legislation such as the Milk Code. The Milk Code is almost a verbatim reproduction of ICBMS. No for WHA Resolutions. The Court ruled that DOH failed to establish that the provisions pertinent WHA resolutions are customary int’l law that may be deemed part of the law of the land. For an int’l rule to be considered as customary law, it must be established that such rule is being followed by states because they consider it as obligatory to comply with such rules (opinion juris). The WHO resolutions, although signed by most of the member states, were enforced or practiced by at l east a majority of member states. Unlike the ICBMS whereby legislature enacted most of the provisions into the law via the Milk Code, the WHA Resolutions (specifically providing for exclusive breastfeeding from 0-6 months, breastfeeding up to 24 Months and absolutely prohibiting ads for breastmilk s ubstitutes) have not been adopted as domestic law nor are they followed in our country as well. The Filipinos have the option of how to take care of their babies as they see fit. WHA Resolutions may be classified as SOFT LAW  – non-binding non-bi nding norms, principles and practices that influence state behavior. Soft law is not part of int’l law. Main issue: Yes. Some parts of the RIRR were not in consonance with the Milk Code such as Sec. 4(f) >advertising, promotions of formula are prohibited, Sec 11 -> prohibitions for advertising breastmilk substitutes intended for infants and young children uo to 24 months  And Sec 46 -> sanctions for advertising advertising . These provisions are declared null and void. The DOH and respondents are prohibited from implementing said provisions. PHARMACEUTICAL AND HEALTH CARE ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINESvs. HEALTH SECRETARY FRANCISCO T. DUQUE III FACTS: FACTS: On October 28, 1986, Executive Order No. 51 (Milk Code) was issued by President Corazon  Aquino by virtue of the legislative powers powers granted to the president president under the Freedom Freedom Constitution. Constitution. The

Milk Code states that the law seeks to give effect to Article 112 of the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes (ICMBS), a code adopted by the World Health Assembly (WHA) in 1981. From 1982 to 2006, the WHA adopted several Resolutions to the effect that breastfeeding should be supported, promoted and protected, hence, it should be ensured that nutrition and health claims are not permitted for breastmilk substitutes. the Philippines ratified the International Convention on the Rights of the Child. Article 24 of said instrument provides that State Parties should take appropriate measures to diminish infant and child mortality, and ensure that all segments of society, specially parents and children, are informed of the advantages of breastfeeding. the DOH issued RIRR which was to take effect on July 7, 2006. a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, seeking to nullify Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations of The “Milk Code,” assailing that the RIRR was going beyond the provisions of the Milk Code, thereby amending and expanding the coverage of said law. ISSUE: Whether or not respondents officers of the DOH acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and in violation of the provisions of the Constitution in promulgating the RIRR RULING: The Supreme Court PARTIALLY GRANTED the petition. Sections 4(f), 11 and 46 of Administrative Order No. 2006-0012 dated May 12, 2006 are declared NULL and VOID for being ultra vires. The Department of Health and respondents are PROHIBITED from implementing said provisions. The international instruments pointed out by the respondents, UNRC, ICESR, CEDAW, are deemed part of the law of the land and therefore the DOH may implement them through the RIRR. Customary international law is deemed incorporated into our domestic system. Custom or customary international law means “a general and consistent practice of states followed by them from a sense of legal obligation (opinio juris). Under the 1987 Constitution, international law can become part of the sphere of domestic law either by transformation or incorporation. The transformation method requires that an international law be transformed into a domestic law through a constitutional mechanism such as local legislation. “Generally accepted principles of international law” refers to norms of general or customary international law which are binding on all states. The Milk Code is a verbatim reproduction of the (ICMBS), but it did not prohibit advertising or other forms of promotion to the general public of products. Instead, the Milk Code expressly provides that advertising, promotion, or other marketing materials may be allowed if such materials are duly authorized and approved by the Inter-Agency Committee (IAC). In this regard, the WHA Resolutions adopting the ICMBS are merely recommendatory and legally non-binding. This may constitute “soft law” or non-binding norms, principles and practices that influence state behavior. Respondents have not presented any evidence to prove that the WHA Resolutions, although signed by most of the member states, were in fact enforced or practiced by at least a majority of the member states and obligatory in nature. The provisions of the WHA Resolutions cannot be considered as part of the law of the land that can be implemented by executive agencies without the need of a law enacted by the legislature. On the other hand, the petitioners also failed to explain and prove by competent evidence  just exactly how such protective regulation would result in the restraint of trade. Since all the regulatory provisions under the Milk Code apply equally to both manufacturers and distributors, the Court sees no harm in the RIRR. Except Sections 4(f), 11 and 46, the rest of the provisions of the RIRR are in consonance with the objective, purpose and intent of the Milk Code.

Background: This case concerns a petition challenging the validity of a Department of Health (DOH) Administrative Order (RIRR), claiming that it contained provisions, including a ban on the advertising of breastmilk substitutes, that were not constitutional and went beyond the scope of the law it was supposed to implement (Milk Code). The Milk Code gave effect to the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes (ICMBS), a code adopted by the World Health Assembly (WHA). The WHA had since adopted several Resolutions to the effect that breastfeeding should be supported, promoted and protected. Issue and resolution: Constitutionality of the provisions of the RIRR. The Court partially granted the petition, declaring certain provisions of the RIRR that prohibited the advertising and promotion of breastmilk substitutes and provided for administrative sanctions not found in the Milk Code in contravention of the Milk Code, and therefore null and void. Court reasoning: The Court considered whether certain international instruments are part of the law of the Philippines. The Court noted that the CRC does not contain specific provisions regarding the use or marketing of breastmilk substitutes. Instead, the relevant provisions are contained in the ICMBS and various WHA Resolutions. The ICMBS had been transformed into domestic law through local legislation, the Milk Code, and consequently it is the Milk Code that has the force and effect of law in the Philippines, and not the ICMBS per se. However, the Milk Code did not adopt the provision in the ICMBS absolutely prohibiting advertising of breastmilk substitutes, but instead created the Inter-Agency Committee to regulate such advertising. By contrast, the subsequent WHA Resolutions specifically prohibiting advertisements and promotions of breastmilk substitutes have not been adopted as domestic law. Moreover, such Resolutions do not form part of customary international law. Instead, they may constitute “soft law” or non-binding norms, principles and practices that influence state behavior (such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights). On the issue of whether the the RIRR is i n accordance with the Milk Code, the Court found that sections 4(f) and 11 (prohibition on the advertising and promotion of breastmilk substitutes) and 46 (providing for administrative sanctions that are not found in the Milk Code) went beyond the DOH’s authority and contravened the Milk Code, and were therefore null and avoid. The Court found that the rest of t he provisions of the RIRR are consistent with the Milk Code. Finally, the Court dismissed the petitioner’s argument that the RIRR is unnecessary and oppressive, and offensive to t he due process clause of the Constitution insofar as it amounts to a restraint of trade, because trade must be subjected to some form of regulation for the public good and public interests must trump business interests. Excerpts citing CRC and other relevant human rights instruments: In 1990, the Philippines ratified the International Convention on the Rights of the Child. Article 24 of said instrument provides that State Parties should take appropriate measures to diminish infant and child mortality, and ensure that all segments of society, specially parents and children, are informed of the advantages of breastfeeding. [...] First, the Court will determine if pertinent international instruments adverted to by respondents are part of the law of the land.

Petitioner assails the RIRR for allegedly going beyond the provisions of the Milk Code, thereby amending and expanding the coverage of said law. The defense of the DOH is that the RIRR implements not only the Milk Code but also various international instruments regarding infant and young child nutrition. It is respondents' position that said international instruments are deemed part of the law of the land and therefore the DOH may implement them through the RIRR. The Court notes that the following international instruments invoked by respondents, namely: (1) The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child; (2) The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; and (3) the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination  Against Women, only provide in general terms that steps must be taken by State Parties to diminish infant and child mortality and inform society of the advantages of breastfeeding, ensure the health and well-being of families, and ensure that women are provided with services and nutrition in connection with pregnancy and lactation. Said instruments do not contain specific provisions regarding the use or marketing of breastmilk substitutes. [...] “Soft law” does not fall into any of the categories of international law set forth in Article 38, Chapter III of the 1946 Statute of the International Court of Justice. It is, however, an expression of non-binding norms, principles, and practices that influence state behavior. Certain declarations and resolutions of the UN General Assembly fall under this category. The most notable is the UN Declaration of Human Rights, which this Court has enforced in various cases, specifically, Government of Hongkong Special  Administrative Region v. Olalia, Mejoff v. Director of Prisons, Mijares v.

Rañadaand Shangri-la International Hotel Management, Ltd. v. Developers Group of Companies, Inc. [...] CRIN Comments: CRIN believes that this decision is consistent with the CRC. Although the CRC was found to be not directly relevant to this case as the Convention does not specifically address the use or marketing of breastmilk substitutes, CRIN emphasises children’s right to health under Article 24, which includes the obligation of the state to ensure that all segments of society, in particular parents and children, are informed of the advantages of breastfeeding.

-

Executive Order No. 51 (The Milk Code - TMC) was issued by Pres. Aquino on Oct. 28, 1986 by virtue of the legislative powers granted to her under the Freedom Constitution.

(1) One of the preambular clauses of TMC – the law seeks to give effect to Article 11 of the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substituttes (ICMBS), a code adopted by the WHA (World Health Assembly) in 1981. -

In 1990, the Philippine ratified the International Convention on the Rights of the Child. Art. 24 of the instrument mandates that States should take measure to diminish infant mortality and should ensure that all segments of society are informed of the advantages of breastfeeding.

-

From 1982 – 2006, the WHA adopted several resolutions to the effect that breastfeeding should be supported, promoted and protected, hence, it should be ensured that nutrition and health claims are not permitted for breastmilk substitutes.

-

May 15, 2006 – DOH issues the assailed RIRR (Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations of E.O. 51 or A.O. No. 2006-0012) which was to take effect on July 7, 2006.  – The RIRR imposes a ban on all advertisements of breastmilk substitutes

-

June 28, 2006 – Petitioner filed the present Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with Prayer for the Issuance of a TRO or Writ of Preliminary injunction.

-

 August 15, 2006 – the Court i ssued a Resolution granting the TRO, enjoining the respondents from implementing the assailed RIRR.

-

Petitioner assails the RIRR for going beyond the provisions of TMC thereby amending and expanding the coverage of the said law.

-

DOH meanwhile contends that the RIRR implements not only TMC but also various international instruments regarding infant and young child nutrition. They posit that the said international instruments are deemed part of the law of the land and therefore may be implemented by the DOH in the RIRR.

Issue: W/n the RIRR is unconstitutional? Pharmaceutical and Health Care Association of the Philippines vs. Duque III (Austria-Martinez, October 9, 2007)

Sub-issue(s): W/n the RIRR is in accord with TMC? W/n pertinent international agreements entered into by the Philippines are part of the law of the land and may thus be implemented through an RIRR, if so, is the RIRR in accord with such international agreements?

Nature: Special Civil Action in the Supreme Court. Certiorari Petitioner: Pharmaceutical and Healthcare Association of the Philippines

Note: I focused on the parts on international law. The other matters (in case ma’am asks) are at the bottom of the digest.

Respondents: DOH Sec. Francisco Duque III, DOH Undersecretaries Dr. Ethelyn Nieto, Dr. Margarita Galon, Atty. Alexander Padilla and Dr. Jade Del Mundo; and Asst. Secretaries Dr. Mario Villaverde, Dr. David Lozada and Dr. Nemesio Gako

Held: No. However what may be implemented is the RIRR based on the Milk Code which in turn is based on the ICMBS as this i s deemed part of the l aw of the land. The other WHA Resolutions however cannot be imposed as they are not deemed part of the law of the land.

Facts:

Ratio:

1.

-

-

-

-

 Are the international instruments referred to by the respondents part of the law of the land?



This is found under Art 2, Sec 2 – The Philippines… adopts generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land



The various international instruments invoked by respondents are: (1)

The UN Conventions on the Rights of the Child

In Mihares v. Ranada: International law becomes customary rules accepted as binding as a result of two elements:

(2)

The International Convenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights

1.)

Established, widespread, and consistent practice on part of the state

(3)

Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women

2.)

Opinion juris sive necessitates (opinion as to law or necessity.

These instruments only provide general terms of the steps that States must take to prevent child mortality. Hence, they do not have anything about the use and marketing of breastmilk substitutes



Generally accepted principles of international law refer to norms of general or customary international law which are binding on all states, valid through all ki nds of human societies, and basic to legal s ystems generally



Fr. Bernas has a definition similar to the one above. Customary international law has two factors:

The ICMBS and other WHA Resolutions however, are the international instruments which have specific provisions on breastmilk substitutes

1.)

Under the 1987 Constitution, international law can become part of domestic law in 2 ways:

Material factor – how states behave 

2.)

(1) Transformation – an international law is transformed into a domestic law through a constitutional mechanism such as local legislation

Psychological or subjective factor – why they behave the way they do 



Treaties become part of law of the land through this method, pursuant to Art 7, Sec 21  – wherein “no treaty or international agreement shall be valid.. unless concurred by at least 2/3 of Senate” 



The ICMBS and WHA Resolutions are NOT treaties as they haven’t been concurred in by the required 2/3 vote.



HOWEVER, the ICMBS has been transformed into domestic law through local legislation that is TMC.

2.

The consistency and the generality of the practice

Once state practice has been established, now determine why they behave they do. Is it ouor of courtesy or opinio juris (the belief that a certain type of behavior is obligatory)

When a law satisfies the two factors it becomes part of customary international law which is then incorporated into our domestic system

Since the WHA Resolutions have not been embodied in any local legislation, have they attained the status of customary law and hence part of our law of the land?

Therefore, it is not the ICMBS per se that has the force of law but it’s TMC.



-

The World Health Organization (WHO) is one of the international specialized agencies of the UN.

-

 According to the WHO Constitution, it’s the WHA which determines the policies of the WHO, the former also has the power to “adopt regulations concerning advertising and labeling of pharmaceutical and similar products” and “to make recommendations to members on any matter within the Organization’s competence”

-

Note that the legal effect of a regulation as opposed to recommendation is quite different



o

While TMC is almost a verbatim reproduction of the ICMBS, it did not adopt the latter’s provision on the absolute prohibition on advertising of products within the scope of the ICMBS. Instead the MC provides that advertising promotion or other marketing materials may be allowed if such materials are approved by a committee.

(2) Incorporation – by mere constitutional declaration, international law is deemed to have the force of domestic law

(1) Regulations which are duly adopted by the WHA are binding on member states

(2) On the other hand, recommendations of the WHA do not come into force for its members unlike regulations. Rather, they carry moral and political weight as they constitute the  judgment on a health issue of the collective membership of the highest body in the field of health.

-

Therefore, the petitioner, as an organization, has an interest in fulfilling its avowed purpose of representing members who are part of the pharmaceutical and health care industry. Petitioner is duly authorized to bring to the attention of the government agencies and courts any grievance suffered by its members which are directly affected by the assailed RIRR.

-

The WHA resolution adopting the ICMBS and the subsequent WHA resolutions urging states to implement the ICMBS are merely recommendatory and legally non-binding.

-

The petitioner, whose legal identity is deemed fused with its members, should be considered as a legal party-in-interest which stands to be benefited or injured by any judgment in the case.

-

Hence, unlike the ICMBS which has become TMC through legislative enactment, the subsequent WHA Resolutions, which provide for exclusive breastfeeding and prohibition on advertisements and promotions of breastmilk have not been adopted as domestic law.

-

-

-

-

WHA Resolutions have been viewed to constitute “soft law” or non-binding norms, which influence state behavior. Soft law has been noted to be a rapid means of norm creation, in order to reflect and respond to the changing needs and demands of constituents (of the UN.)

W/n the DOH has the power to implement the WHA Resolutions under the Revised Administrative Code even in the absence of a domestic law? Only the provisions of the Milk Code. (as per the discussion above)

-

Section 3, Chapter 1, Title IX of the RAC of 1987 provides that the DOH shall define the national health policy and can issue orders and regulations concerning the implementation of established health policies.

-

 A.O. No 2005 -0014 which provides the national policy on infant and young child feeding, does not declare that as part of its policy, the advertisement or promotion of breastmilk substitutes should be absolutely prohibited.

-

Only the provisions of the Milk Code, but not those of the subsequent WHA Resolutions, can be validly implemented by the DOH through the subject RIRR.

 As previously discussed, for an international rule to be considered customary law, it must be established that such rule is followed by states because it is considered obligatory (opinio juris). In the case at bar, respondents have not presented any evidence to prove that the W HA Resolutions are in fact enforced or practice by member states. Further, they failed to establish that provisions of pertinent WHA Resolutions are customary international law that may be deemed part of law of the l and. Hence, legislation is necessary to transform the WHA resolutions into domestic law. They cannot thus be implemented by executive agencies without the need of a law to be enacted by legislature.

On other issues:

W/n the provisions of the RIRR being in accordance with the Milk Code? Not all of them

-

 Assailed provisions: [1] extending the coverage to young children; [2] imposing exclusive breastfeeding for infants from 0-6 months; [3] imposes an absolute ban on advertising and promotion for breastmilk substitutes; [4] requiring additional labeling requirements; [5] prohibits the dissemination of information on infant formula; [6] forbids milk manufacturers and distributors to extend assistance in research and continuing education Although the DOH has the power under the Milk Code to control information regarding breastmilk vis -à-vis breastmilk substitutes, this power is not absolute because it has no power to impose an absolute prohibition in the marketing, promotion and advertising of breastmilk substitutes. Several provisions of the Milk Code attest to the fact that such power to control information is not absolute.

-

Sections 11 and 4(f) of the RIRR are clearly violative of the Milk Code because such provisions impose an absolute prohibition on advertising, promotion and marketing of breastmilk substitutes, which is not provided for in the Milk Code. Section 46 is violative of the Milk Code because the DOH has exceeded its authority in imposing such fines or sanctions when the Milk Code does not do so. Other assailed provisions are in accordance with the Milk Code.

W/n the petitioner is the real party in interest? Yes.

-

 An association has standing to file suit for its workers despite its lack of direct interest of its members are affected by the action. An organization has standing to assert the concerns of its constituents. (Exec Sec vs CA)

-

The Court has rules that an association has the legal personality to represent its members because the results of the case will affect their vital interests. (Purok Bagong Silang Association Inc. vs. Yuipco)

-

In the petitioner’s Amended Articles of Incorporation, it states that the association is formed “to represent directly or through approved representatives the pharmaceutical and health care industry before the Philippine Government and any of its agencies, the medical professions and the general public.”

W/n Section 13 of the RIRR providing a sufficient standard? Yes.

-

Questioned provision, in addition to Section 26 of Rule VII provide labeling requirements for breastmilk substitutes  found to be in consonance with the Milk Code

-

The provisions in question provide reasonable means of enforcing related provisions in the Milk Code.

W/n Section 57 of the RIRR repeals existi ng laws?

-

Section in question only repeals orders, issuances and rules and regulations, not laws. The provision is valid as it is within the DOH’s rule-making power.

-

 An administrative agency has quasi-legislative or rule-making power. However, such power is limited to making rules and regulation subjected to the boundaries set by the granting statute and the Constitution. The power is also subject to the doctrine of non-delegability and separability of powers. The power, which includes amending, revising, altering or repealing, is granted to allow for flexibility in the implementation of the laws.

W/n On Section 4, 5(w), 11, 22, 32, 47 and 52 violates the due process clause of the Constitution (Article III Section 1)?

-

Despite the fact that the present Constitution enshrines free enterprise as a policy, it nonetheless reserves to the government the power to intervene whenever necessary to promote the general welfare… free enterprise does not call for the removal of protective regulations. It must be clearly explained and proven by competent evidence just exactly how such protective regulation would result in the restraint of trade.

-

Section 4 – proscription of milk manufacturers’ participation in any policymaking body; Section 22  – classes and seminars for women and children; Section 32 – giving of assistance, support and logistics or training; Section 52 – giving of donations

-

In the instant case, petitioner failed to show how the aforementioned sections hamper the trade of breastmilk substitutes. They also failed to establish that these activities are essential and indispensable to their trade.

Disposition: The Petition is Partially Granted. Only sections 4(f), 11 and 46 of A.O. 2006-0014 are declared null and void for being ultra vires. The TRO is lifted insofar as the rest of the provisions of A.O. 2006-0012 is concerned.