Tuesday, October 4, 2011

3 PHARMA SUED FIRMS SUED

Tuesday, September 27, 2011image

SAHAR Pharma, a local-based licensed pharmaceutical drug distributor and importer, recently filed a P-15 million civil suit for “malicious prosecution” against three multinational companies.

The complaint has been described as a “landmark case” because the defendants are three of the largest pharmaceutical and consumer healthcare companies in the world and is a test to Aquino government’s agenda to encourage government’s agenda to encourage competition and promote cheaper medicines. The law office of former Supreme Court Asociate Justice Santiago Kapunan and lawyer-educator Adel Tamano serves as Sahar’s legal counsel in this suit.

The multinational earlier filed a suit against Sahar Pharma to question the legality of parallel importation of drugs. The complaint was dismissed by the Justice Department, the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court.

The SC ruled that the three pharmaceutical companies failed to prove that the law prohibited the parallel importation of medicines. The SC added the government was actually encouraging parallel importation to make medicine more affordable.

Court junks infringement raps vs local drug firm

Monday, March 28,2011clip_image002

The Makati Regional Trial Court (MRTC) has dismissed the patent infringement charges filed by a multinational drug company against a local drug distributor, opening the gate for lower prices of imported drugs and stronger implementation of Cheap Medicine Law in the country.

The case, filed by Pfizer against Sahar International Trading Inc., stemmed from the selling and distribution of a drug that reduces the risks of heart attack and stroke, lowers bad cholesterol level and prevents other diseases.

The drug, being sold at a cheaper price by Sahar, has pharmaceutical ingredient called atorvastatin claimed to be patented by Pfizer.

In a 14-page decision dated March 11, 2011 penned by Judge Cesar Untalan, the court explained that “the unqualified right of private parties such as petitioner to import or possess ‘unregistered imported drugs’ in the Philippines is confirmed by the Implementing Rules of Republic Act 9502 or Cheaper Medicine Act promulgated on Nov. 4, 2008.

“Rule 9 (of RA 9502) states that the owner of a patent has no right to prevent third parties from performing (selling and distributing of drugs), without his authorization, the acts referred to in section 71 of the International Patent Code,” the court said.

“Using patented product which has been put in the market in the Philippines by the owner of the product,” the limitation on patent rights shall apply after the medicine has been introduced in the Philippines or anywhere else in the world by the patent owner.

The court said: “It is laudable that with the passage of Republic Act 9502, the State has allowed sensible and compassionate approach with respect to the importation of pharmaceutical drugs urgently necessary for people’s constitutionally-recognized right to health.”

Sahar president and co-owner Muhammad Ateeque hailed the court decision, saying this would benefit millions of Filipinos as cheaper drugs would be accessible to them.

Sahar spokesman Mack Macalanggan said Sahar’s victory is also the triumph of local drug importers in the Philippines.

http://www.tribuneonline.org/metro/20110328met5.html

‘Landmark Case’ Filed vs Multinational Drug Firms

clip_image002

Wednesday, September 21, 2011

Sahar Pharma (SIT), a local-based licensed pharmaceutical drug distributor and importer, recently filed a P15-million civil suit for malicious prosecution against “three multinational pharmaceutical companies.

The complaint has been described as a “landmark case”, not only because the defendants are three of the largest pharmaceutical and consumer healthcare companies in the world, but also due to the Aquino government’s agenda to encourage completion and promote cheaper medicines. The law office of former Supreme Court Associate Justice Santiago M. Kapunan and lawyer-educator Atty. Adel A. Tamano serves as Sahar’s legal counsel in this suit.

The multinationals had filed a suit against SITI touching on the legality of parallel importation of drugs, but there complaints were dismissed by the Department of Justice, the Court of Appeals, and finally the Supreme Court.

Furthermore, the SC ruled against the three pharmaceutical companies and pointed out that they failed to prove that the law prohibits the parallel importation of medicines. In fact, the SC cited that the government is currently encouraging parallel importation to make medicine more affordable.

SITI spokesman Mack Macalanggan expressed hope that the ruling would be in their favor, as its benefits not only SITI, but the Philippine market. “Filipinos have a constitutionally recognized right to health, and the essence of the law and fair completion will defend that right.”

The passing of Republic Act 9502 or the Cheaper Medicines Law also supports SITI’s positive advocacy. “Our advocacy to introduce cheaper medicines for Filipinos will hopefully open the gate for fair completion in pharmaceutical products, particularly essential medicines,” Macalanggan further emphasized.

Local Importer files P-15 M Suit vs Multinational Pharmas.

Wednesday, September 21, 2011

clip_image002

Sahar Pharma (SIT), a local-based licensed pharmaceutical drug distributor and importer, has recently filed a P15-million civil suit for malicious prosecution against “three multinational pharmaceutical companies. Pfizer Philippines, Glaxo SmithKline Philippines, and Roche Philippines have all been named as defendant in this landmark case to further the government’s agenda in encouraging completion and promote cheaper medicines. The law office of former Supreme Court Associate Justice Santiago M. Kapunan and lawyer-educator Atty. Adel A. Tamano serves as Sahar’s legal counsel in this suit.

The multinationals had previously filed a suit against SITI touching on the legality of parallel importation of drugs, but these complaints were dismissed by the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Court of Appeals (CA), and finally the Supreme Court (SC).

Furthermore, the SC ruled against the three pharmaceutical companies and pointed out that they failed to prove that the law prohibits the parallel importation of medicines. In fact, the SC cited that the government is currently encouraging parallel importation to make medicine more affordable.

SITI spokesman Mack Macalanggan expressed hope that the ruling would be in their favor, as its benefits not only SITI, but the Philippine market. “Filipinos have a constitutionally recognized right to health, and the essence of the law and fair completion will defend that right.”

The passing of Republic Act 9502 or the Cheaper Medicines Law also supports SITI’s positive advocacy. “Our advocacy to introduce cheaper medicines for Filipinos will hopefully open the gate for fair completion in pharmaceutical products, particularly essential medicines,” Macalanggan further emphasized.

Thursday, April 28, 2011

Helping The Poor is An Investment - By Mack P. Macalanggan

Borrowing the words of the richest man in the world Mr. Bill Gates that “Helping the Poor is actually an investment” may be a good punch line in reminding our citizens to participate in pursuing the policy of the government to  eradicate the cartel on pharmaceutical products monopolized by the multinational companies.  

The Philippine International Trading Corporation (PITC) was created in 2005 to spearhead the programs and activities of the government to bring down the prices of the medicines in the market and to tear down the anticompetitive attitude of these multinational companies.   

The flagship project of  PITC embarked on Three (3) strategic points. First the Expansion of Product Range which includes parallel importation,  locally sourced branded generic and  locally sourced true generic products.  Second, the Expansion of Distribution Network establishing a nationwide network of privately-operated drug stores as well as local government operated retail drug outlets to ensure accessibility and availability of quality low-priced medicines. Third, the Advocacy and Information campaign to increase awareness about generic medicines and educate the general public that safe and efficacious medicines are not necessarily expensive or branded.   

 In fourteenth congress has finally approved RA 9502, the Cheaper Medicine Law. This new act RA 9502 has shown the government its strong advocacy to solve the issue on expensive medicines with heavy measures. The implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of this act was published in 2 broadsheets. Only the Maximum Retail Price (MRP) is perhaps not yet submitted to the President for his approval.     

This advocacy to bring down the prices of medicines in the market is participated by our  patriotic leaders like former senator Mar Roxas and other concerned government officials whose interest is to ease down the burden of the public on expensive medicines. There must be other partners who have introduced cheaper medicines in the country through parallel importation but they were not given credit. Instead, they were sued by these multinational companies. Even the government was sued by these multinational companies for trying to encourage parallel importation to bring down drug prices.     

It will be recalled in the significant decision of the Supreme court, GlaxosmithKline, Pfizer and Roche Phil. versus Khaled Mehmood and Muhammad Ateeque, both directors of Sahar International Trading Inc. (SITI) alleging that these directors were engaged in illegal and unauthorized sale and distribution of unregistered imported medicines (Through parallel importation).

Both the DOJ and the Court of Appeals (CA) dismissed the complaint of these multinational companies  for failure to sustain any indictment. In sustaining  the dismissal of the DOJ and the CA, the Supreme Court in its broad wisdom of justice ruled against the complaining multinational companies and pointed out that they failed to prove that the respondents’ act of parallel importation of medicines is prohibited by law.

In the literary explanation of the Supreme court in its decision challenging the provisions of the Special Law on Counterfeit Drugs (SLCD),   Roma Drug et al vs. the RTC of Guagua, Pampanga, et al., G.R. No. 149907, April 16, 2009.  “Even worse is the fact that the law is not content with simply banning, at civil costs, the importation of unregistered drugs. It equates the importers of such drugs, many of whom motivated to do so out of altruism or basic human love, with the malevolents who would alter or counterfeit pharmaceutical drugs for reasons of profit at the expense of public safety.  Note that the SLCD is a special law, and the traditional treatment of penal provisions of special law is that of malum prohibitum or punishable regardless of motive or criminal intent. For a law that is intended to help save lives. The SLCD has revealed itself as a heartless, soulless legislative piece.

The challenged provisions of the SLCD apparently proscribe a range of constitutionally permissible behavior. It is laudable that with the passage or Rep. Act No. 9502, the State has reversed course and allowed for a sensible and compassionate approach with respect to the importation of pharmaceutical drugs urgently necessary for the people’s constitutionally-recognized right to health”.

It is impossible that the whisper of these multinational companies to prevent the government from pursuing its program on public health prevail against the constitutionally-recognized right of the common people on health. The interests of the Nation must always come before any personal considerations. The interest of the few (cartels) must not take precedence against the interest of the majority. Whatever whispered in a closed door meeting must be revealed in public forum as long as it is public interest.