Atty. Enrico Joseph C. Aguinaldo

07/06/2026

Looking forward for the next installment of the Bioethics Debate, tentatively set for next year!

I hope more students, coming from different fields and universities, take part!

𝐂𝐡𝐢𝐞𝐟 𝐋𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐥’𝐬 𝐑𝐞𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭:

𝐁𝐢𝐨𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐬, 𝐈𝐧𝐧𝐨𝐯𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐍𝐞𝐱𝐭 𝐆𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐋𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬

By:

𝐀𝐭𝐭𝐲. 𝐄𝐧𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐨 𝐉𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐩𝐡 𝐂. 𝐀𝐠𝐮𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐝𝐨, 𝐑𝐏𝐡
[email protected]
𝘙𝘰𝘹𝘢𝘴 𝘉𝘭𝘷𝘥., 𝘔𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘭𝘢, 𝘗𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘱𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘴

It was an honor to serve as a Judge for a Bioethics Debate. The 1st Gene-IUS Debate: Codex de Bioethicae was held at Mapúa University Intramuros on 04 June 2026.

As advances in biotechnology, artificial intelligence, genetic engineering, pharmaceuticals, telehealth, and digital health continue to accelerate, society faces increasingly complex questions:

a. Just because something can be done, should it be done?
b. How do we balance innovation with patient safety?
c. What are the risks to the Board of Directors, Top Management, and Medical Professionals?
d. Where should law, medicine, and technology intersect?
e. In doing something you think is ethical, are you fully shielded from liabilities?

One of the most encouraging aspects of the debate was witnessing students engage these difficult questions with critical thinking, intellectual honesty, and respect for differing viewpoints.

The future of healthcare and science will not be shaped solely by researchers, engineers, physicians, pharmacists, lawyers, or policymakers acting independently. It will require collaboration among all disciplines to ensure that innovation remains guided by ethics, accountability, and the public good.

Congratulations to the Association of Biological Engineers of Mapúa (BioLOGIC), its organizers, participants, and future leaders who took part in this meaningful initiative.

The conversations we have today on bioethics may very well determine the future of healthcare tomorrow.

Manila, Philippines

### ### ###

06/06/2026

𝐂𝐡𝐢𝐞𝐟 𝐋𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐥’𝐬 𝐑𝐞𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭:

“𝐐𝐮𝐨𝐫𝐮𝐦 𝐨𝐫 𝐍𝐨 𝐐𝐮𝐨𝐫𝐮𝐦?”

By:

𝐀𝐭𝐭𝐲. 𝐄𝐧𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐨 𝐉𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐩𝐡 𝐂. 𝐀𝐠𝐮𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐝𝐨, 𝐑𝐏𝐡
[email protected]
𝘙𝘰𝘹𝘢𝘴 𝘉𝘭𝘷𝘥., 𝘔𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘭𝘢, 𝘗𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘱𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘴

The Senate of the Philippines is composed of twenty-four (24) senators. Ordinarily, the presence of thirteen (13) senators would constitute a quorum.

However, on 03 June 2026, only twelve (12) senators were physically present during a Senate session. Despite this, the senators present proceeded with the Senate proceedings, including the reorganization of leadership positions, after declaring the existence of a quorum.

𝐀𝐫𝐠𝐮𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐒𝐮𝐩𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠
𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐄𝐱𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐚 𝐐𝐮𝐨𝐫𝐮𝐦
---------------------------------

Those supporting the declaration of a quorum argue that two senators were effectively unavailable and beyond the practical reach of the Senate at the time of the session.

According to this view, one senator was reportedly under detention, while another senator was reportedly absent from the session and could not be located at the time.

Supporters further cite Avelino v. Cuenco (1949), which has been cited by commentators as recognizing that, under certain circumstances, members who are unavailable and beyond the compulsory process of the legislative body may not necessarily be counted in determining the existence of a quorum.

Under this interpretation, the supporters argue that the twelve (12) senators present constituted a valid quorum and were authorized to conduct Senate business.

This likewise advances the position that legislative institutions should not be rendered incapable of functioning just because certain members are not able to attend their sessions.

𝐀𝐫𝐠𝐮𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐎𝐩𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠
𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐄𝐱𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐚 𝐐𝐮𝐨𝐫𝐮𝐦
--------------------------------

Those opposing the declaration of a quorum maintain that the Senate continues to have twenty-four (24) members regardless of temporary absence, detention, or non-attendance.

They argue that a senator under detention remains a duly elected member of the Senate and may still be able to participate in legislative proceedings in the future. Likewise, they contend that a senator who is presently absent remains a member of the Senate and may reappear or attend subsequent sessions at any time.

From this perspective, the constitutional basis for determining a quorum remains the Senate's full membership of twenty-four (24) senators, requiring the presence of at least thirteen (13) senators to transact business.

Accordingly, they argue that actions undertaken by only twelve (12) senators were not supported by a valid quorum and hence, invalid.

They likewise counter-argue and question the applicability of Avelino v. Cuenco (1949), contending that the factual circumstances of that case differ from the present controversy and should not automatically govern the current situation.

𝐔𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐥𝐲𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐐𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧
-------------------------

Should the existence of a Senate quorum be determined based on the Senate's full constitutional membership of twenty-four (24) senators, or only on those senators who are presently available and capable of participating in the session?

𝘋𝘪𝘴𝘤𝘭𝘢𝘪𝘮𝘦𝘳:
𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘭𝘦 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘢𝘥𝘷𝘰𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘦𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯. 𝘐𝘵𝘴 𝘱𝘶𝘳𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘴𝘰𝘭𝘦𝘭𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘶𝘮𝘮𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘻𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘪𝘱𝘢𝘭 𝘭𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘭 𝘢𝘳𝘨𝘶𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘤𝘶𝘳𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘭𝘺 𝘣𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘥𝘷𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘥 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭 𝘪𝘯𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘦𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘱𝘶𝘳𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘴. 𝘐𝘵 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘵𝘦 𝘭𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘭 𝘢𝘥𝘷𝘪𝘤𝘦. 𝘙𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘤 𝘭𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘭 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘴 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘶𝘭𝘵 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘭𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘭 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘴𝘦𝘭.

Manila, Philippines

### ### ###

05/06/2026

📢 𝐏𝐂𝐂𝐈 𝐖𝐞𝐥𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐬 𝐅𝐃𝐀'𝐬 𝐄𝐱𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐒𝐮𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐀𝐎 𝐍𝐨. 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟒-𝟎𝟎𝟏𝟔

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has informed PCCI that it is extending the suspension of the implementation of AO No. 2024-0016 (New Schedule of Fees and Charges) for an additional 120 working days beyond the current suspension period ending 8 June 2026.

The FDA also confirmed that it is finalizing amendments to the Order after considering comments and recommendations from stakeholders gathered through written submissions and public consultations.

This development follows PCCI's advocacy efforts and submission of an industry position paper highlighting concerns on the potential impact of the proposed fee increases on MSMEs, consumers, and business competitiveness.

PCCI welcomes this opportunity for continued dialogue and remains committed to working with government and industry stakeholders toward a fair, transparent, and balanced regulatory framework.

03/06/2026

Thanks for the invite and see you tomorrow, Mapua!

Looking forward to being co-judge with Mapua Professors 🧪🔬

# # Bioethics Debate

29/05/2026

𝐂𝐡𝐢𝐞𝐟 𝐋𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐥’𝐬 𝐑𝐞𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭: 𝐏𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐩𝐩𝐢𝐧𝐞 𝐅𝐃𝐀 & 𝐏𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐜𝐞𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐋𝐚𝐰

“𝐓𝐞𝐥𝐞𝐡𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐭𝐡 𝐏𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐩𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬: 𝐀𝐫𝐞 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐋𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐕𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐩𝐩𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐬?”

By:

𝐀𝐭𝐭𝐲. 𝐄𝐧𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐨 𝐉𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐩𝐡 𝐂. 𝐀𝐠𝐮𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐝𝐨, 𝐑𝐏𝐡
[email protected]
𝘙𝘰𝘹𝘢𝘴 𝘉𝘭𝘷𝘥., 𝘔𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘭𝘢, 𝘗𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘱𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘴

Telehealth is growing rapidly in the Philippines. But many platforms underestimate the legal and regulatory risks behind digital prescribing.

The issue is no longer whether telemedicine exists. It clearly does.

The real legal questions are:
a. Was there a legitimate physician-patient relationship?
b. Was proper clinical assessment performed?
c. Is the prescription compliant with Philippine regulations?
d. How are records, privacy, consent, and dispensing handled?

Risk exposure increases when telehealth intersects with:

a. online medicine sales;
b. compounded products;
c. controlled substances;
d. cross-border consultations; or
e. wellness and anti-aging treatments.

Healthcare platforms should understand that regulatory scrutiny often focuses not only on the prescription itself, but on the entire operational workflow behind the consultation, dispensing, marketing, and delivery process.

In digital health, convenience does not eliminate compliance obligations.

Telehealth companies should continuously assess and strengthen their regulatory frameworks to ensure compliance, support sustainable growth, and enable scalable expansion.

𝘋𝘪𝘴𝘤𝘭𝘢𝘪𝘮𝘦𝘳: 𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭 𝘪𝘯𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘱𝘶𝘳𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘵𝘦 𝘭𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘭 𝘢𝘥𝘷𝘪𝘤𝘦. 𝘓𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘭 𝘰𝘶𝘵𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘴 𝘥𝘦𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘯 𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘤 𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘺 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯. 𝘍𝘰𝘳 𝘢𝘥𝘷𝘪𝘤𝘦 𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘭𝘰𝘳𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘴𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘧𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘶𝘭𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘪𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘥.

www.aguinaldolaw.ph

Manila, Philippines

### ### ###

28/05/2026

28/05/2026

𝐂𝐡𝐢𝐞𝐟 𝐋𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐥’𝐬 𝐑𝐞𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭: 𝐏𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐩𝐩𝐢𝐧𝐞 𝐅𝐃𝐀 & 𝐏𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐜𝐞𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐋𝐚𝐰

“𝐂𝐚𝐧 𝐏𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝 𝐔𝐧𝐫𝐞𝐠𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐃𝐫𝐮𝐠𝐬?”

By:

𝐀𝐭𝐭𝐲. 𝐄𝐧𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐨 𝐉𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐩𝐡 𝐂. 𝐀𝐠𝐮𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐝𝐨, 𝐑𝐏𝐡
[email protected]
𝘙𝘰𝘹𝘢𝘴 𝘉𝘭𝘷𝘥., 𝘔𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘭𝘢, 𝘗𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘱𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘴

Many healthcare operators assume that compounding exempts a product from FDA scrutiny.

That is not necessarily automatic.

Under Philippine FDA regulations, compounding pharmacies operate within a highly regulated framework. The legal issue is not merely whether a pharmacy possesses a License to Operate (LTO) — but whether the underlying substances, sourcing practices, prescription basis, and intended use fall within allowable regulatory boundaries.

In highly specialized sectors, businesses must carefully distinguish between legitimate compounding and activities that regulators may interpret differently.

In healthcare regulation, operational structure matters as much as intent.

As the Philippine healthcare and pharmaceutical landscape continues to evolve, particularly with the rise innovative medicine and cross-border sourcing of pharmaceutical ingredients, businesses operating in this space are encouraged to continuously reassess their compliance frameworks. Regulatory treatment may depend not only on formal licensing, but also on how end-to-end operations are structured and implemented in practice.

𝘋𝘪𝘴𝘤𝘭𝘢𝘪𝘮𝘦𝘳: 𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭 𝘪𝘯𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘱𝘶𝘳𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘵𝘦 𝘭𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘭 𝘢𝘥𝘷𝘪𝘤𝘦. 𝘓𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘭 𝘰𝘶𝘵𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘴 𝘥𝘦𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘯 𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘤 𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘭𝘢𝘸𝘴. 𝘍𝘰𝘳 𝘢𝘥𝘷𝘪𝘤𝘦 𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘭𝘰𝘳𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘴𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘧𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘨𝘶𝘪𝘥𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘥.

www.aguinaldolaw.ph

Manila, Philippines

### ### ###