JURISDICTION REPORT: PHILIPPINES CHEAPER MEDICINE OVER QUALITY MEDICINE?
Ignacio S. Sapalo Sapalo Velez Bundang & Bulilan
Te coming into force on July 4, 2008 of Republic Act No. 9502, known as the Universally Accessible Cheaper and Quality Medicines Act of 2008, has succeeded in bringing down the cost of essential drugs and those to treat chronic diseases. On the other hand, because of the desire of the courts to help the poor gain access to cheaper medicine, it also resulted in incorrect jurisprudence. Te decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Roma Drug v GlaxoSmithKline which was promulgated on April 16, 2009 neglected to consider the more important objective of the law to ensure that the quality of medicine is not compromised.
Roma Drug imported Augmentin, Orbenin, Amoxil and Ampiclox, which it sold without obtaining prior registration from the Bureau of Food and Drugs (BFAD), now the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Te BFAD registrations of these drugs were made by GlaxoSmithKline.
A case was filed against Roma Drug for violation of the Special Law on Counterfeit Drugs (SLCD), Republic Act No. 8203, subsequent to a raid conducted on August 14, 2000 by the National Bureau of Investigation and the BFAD. Te SLCD prohibits the sale, offering for sale, importation or possession of counterfeit drugs. Under the statute, an imported product is considered to be counterfeit if it is not registered with the BFAD and the brand is not registered with the Intellectual Property Office (IPO). Roma Drug challenged the constitutionality of these provisions of the SLCD.
Te Supreme Court, disposing of the constitutional questions, declared them as having, in fact, been mooted by the passage of Republic Act No. 9502.
Tis law amended the Intellectual Property Code, Republic Act 8293. It provided for international exhaustion of patents for medicine and allowed their parallel importation by third parties.
Te court stated that Republic Act No. 9502 clearly reveals an intention of the legislature to abrogate the SLCD because of irreconcilable inconsistencies between the two. It ruled that Republic Act No. 9502 nullifies the reason or purpose of the SLCD so the latter loses all meaning and function.
Tus, the Supreme Court considered the prosecution of Roma Drug to be no longer warranted.
Tis decision created a furore in the pharmaceutical industry. It challenges a fundamental and internationally accepted notion, recognised by Republic Act 9502, that the primary objective of the state shall be to protect the health of the people, and shall provide access to not only affordable but also quality medicine. It is universally the rule that before any medicine is sold to the public, it should be tested and evaluated by the government, through the FDA, to ensure that it is safe, effective and stable. Tis is the rationale of the SLCD, the FDA Act of 2009, Republic Act No. 9711 and the Consumer Act, Republic Act No. 7394. A perusal
82
of Republic Act No. 9502 will disclose that it is neither in conflict nor inconsistent with these statutes. It does not provide, either expressly or by implication, that parallel imports of medicines are exempt from FDA registration before they can be sold to the public.
By allowing the parallel importation of medicine by third parties, Republic Act 9502 exempted the importer from any liability for infringement of patent: no more, no less. Likewise, use of the same brand for the imported drug will also excuse the importer from any liability for infringement of trademarks, provided the original brand has not been tampered with or modified.
Te health of the people will be put at risk if we adopt the rule that no FDA registration is required prior to the sale of parallel imports of medicine. To prevent this situation, the validity of the SLCD, the FDA Act of 2009 and the Consumer Act mandating such registration must be put beyond any shadow of doubt. It is imperative that the legal doctrine promulgated in Roma Drug v. GlaxoSmithKline be abandoned.
Ignacio S. Sapalo is the managing partner at Sapalo Velez Bundang & Bulilan. He can be contacted at:
info@sapalovelez.com
World Intellectual Property Review November/December 2011
www.worldipreview.com
“THE HEALTH OF THE PEOPLE WILL BE PUT AT RISK IF WE ADOPT THE RULE THAT NO FDA REGISTRATION IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO THE SALE OF PARALLEL IMPORTS OF MEDICINE.”
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100