20 Measures Await House Final OK

August 2, 2014 (Saturday), PhilStar Global

(http://www.philstar.com/congress/articles/2014/08/02/1353095/20measures-await-house-final-ok)
MANILA, Philippines - Even as lawmakers will have their hands full
by next week following receipt of the proposed P2.606-trillion 2015
national budget, the House of Representatives is expected to soon
pass on third and final reading five national bills, one House Joint
Resolution and some 14 local bills which were approved on second
reading during the later days of the first regular session.
One resolution which also awaits final passage in the House is House
Joint Resolution No. 13 entitled "Joint Resolution deferring the
implementation of the mandatory fortification of refined sugar with
Vitamin A as required by Republic Act No. 8976, otherwise known as
the Philippine Food Fortification Act of 2000' until the National
Nutrition Council has determined whether it is still necessary or
not."
On hindsight, the source of House Joint Resolution No. 13 is House
Resolution 966, i.e., deferring the implementation of the mandatory
food fortification of refined sugar with Vitamin A as required by RA
8976, or the Philippine Food Fortification Act of 2000, until the
National Nutrition Council (NNC) has determined whether it is still
necessary or not.
In addition, another legislative creation, House Bill 2889, aims to
remove or exclude refined sugar from the list of products covered by
mandatory food fortification with Vitamin A, amending for the
purpose RA 8976.

The Filipinos Right to Food: An Assessment of the Philippine

Legal Framework Governing the Right to Food (An Excerpt)
By Virgilio de los Reyes and Maria Socorro I. Diokno
The 1987 Constitution is the cornerstone of the legal framework; it
sets the entire policy framework for the countrys legal system. Yet,
the Constitution does not explicitly recognize the right to food.
There is only one provision in the entire Constitution that mentions
the word food, not as a human right per se, but as an obligation of
government to establish and maintain an effective food and drug
regulatory system. (p.11)
Despite non-express recognition, the right to food may be inferred
from various human rights provisions and from the constitutional
intent to address mass poverty. The right to food may be inferred

from: Section 9, Article II in relation to Section 1, Article XII, which

mandates policies focused on improving the quality of life for all;
Section 10, Article II in relation to Sections 1 and 3, Article XII, which
fosters social justice; Section 21, Article II in relation to Sections 4, 5
and 6, Article XIII, which promotes agrarian reform; and Section 7,
Article XIII, which explicitly recognizes the rights of subsistence
fishermen to the preferential use of communal inland and offshore
marine and fishing resources.
If the right to food is inferred from various constitutional provisions,
a Supreme Court decision weakens the right by ruling that some
human rights are not judicially enforceable rights. In Tondo
Medical Center Employees Association, et. al. v. The Court of
Appeals, et. al., the Supreme Court ruled that several provisions of
the 1987 Constitution are not judicially enforceable rights. These
provisions, which merely lay down a general principle, are
distinguished from other constitutional provisions as non- selfexecuting and, therefore, cannot give rise to a cause of action in the
courts; they do not embody judicially enforceable constitutional
rights.
Food safety laws include those that relate to nutritive quality of
food, safety standards and regulation and sanitation. The notion of
safe food that meets dietary needs is fully recognized in the 9 food
safety laws. While these laws may not directly contribute to
alleviating hunger, these laws nonetheless ensure that food
available for consumption contains enough nutritive values and is
free from contaminants and other microorganisms. (p.16)
Republic Act 8976 or the Philippine Food Fortification Act of 2000
requires the fortification of food to compensate for inadequacies in
the Filipino diet; it has two aspects: voluntary and mandatory. As a
strategy, food fortification should be used only for clear public
health purposes to address existing dietary deficiencies and
promote healthy eating. Unfortunately, the law does not contain
clear standards or criteria governing the selection of vehicles for
voluntary food fortification, such as, for instance, requiring
fortification only for food that already has some nutritional value or
clearly identifying specific food that should not be eligible for
fortification (for example, food containing high levels of fat, salt or
sugar). Such standards would prevent indiscriminate marketing and
promotion of fortified food products of questionable nutritional
quality. (p.17)