OPINION
Ed Javier
Putting People First With A Sensible Step Back From The FDA
Photo credit: FDA
In an era when regulatory decisions often feel detached from everyday struggles, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has taken a step back, recommending a 60 day suspension of DOH Administrative Order (AO) No. 2024-016, which raised regulatory fees for health product certifications and registrations.
This proposal, initiated under the direction of newly appointed Director General Paolo Teston, marks a noticeable shift in tone.
Without fanfare, it acknowledges that timing and context matter and that pressing pause can sometimes do more for public trust than charging ahead.
At first glance, the AO may appear to be just another routine regulatory update. But for those on the ground, particularly small and medium sized businesses in the health sector, it represented yet another layer of cost added to a system already mired in inefficiencies.
For years, companies have raised concerns over the slow pace of the FDA’s processing systems. Certificates of Product Registration (CPRs), among other approvals, often take months to be released.
In some cases, applicants report waiting more than a year, only for their documents to be lost in bureaucratic limbo. Others never receive them at all.
Against this backdrop, a fee hike doesn’t feel like reform. It feels like a penalty.
Imagine being asked to pay higher toll fees on a jammed expressway filled with potholes. You would naturally ask, what am I paying for?
If, on the other hand, those roads were widened, traffic improved, and potholes fixed, drivers would more easily accept the increase. The hike would be linked to visible improvements, speed, efficiency, and safety.
Public agencies must follow a similar principle. When performance lags, adding costs only worsens the perception that government is out of touch.
This is why the FDA’s move is important. It doesn’t reject the need for reform, nor does it permanently scrap the AO.
It simply recognizes that before additional burdens are imposed, the basic systems must function properly and be perceived as such.
Teston’s recommendation is not a grand gesture. It is not meant to grab headlines. But it reflects an understanding of the practical frustrations faced by those dealing with regulatory agencies.
Sometimes, a small adjustment, quiet, procedural, and technical, can speak volumes about where leadership intends to go.
President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. recently touched on this in a podcast.
He noted that many of the frustrations dragging down his approval ratings stem from “small things,” seemingly minor grievances that add up over time and fuel public resentment.
These aren’t usually high stakes policy failures. They’re the unacknowledged annoyances that citizens encounter daily: long waits, unclear processes, arbitrary fees, and offices that don’t respond.
Left unaddressed, these small things corrode public trust. But when recognized and acted upon, they offer opportunities to rebuild that trust, even incrementally.
That’s why the FDA’s proposed suspension is timely. It invites dialogue rather than resistance, and signals that the agency is willing to listen before it moves forward.
This kind of responsiveness is what people want from government. It shows that leadership is not only about issuing directives but also about pausing when necessary to recalibrate.
There is also a broader lesson here about communication. In regulatory work, it is not enough to simply announce changes and expect compliance.
Agencies must stay attuned to the sentiment of those they regulate and recognize that legitimacy depends not only on legal authority but also on public acceptability.
Early indications suggest that the current FDA leadership is aware of this balance.
The decision to suspend the AO, however temporary, is a sign that institutions can adapt when conditions call for it.
Of course, this isn’t the end of the conversation. The recommendation now sits with the Department of Health (DOH), which must decide whether to formally adopt the suspension.
If it does, the DOH sends a clear and necessary signal: that feedback from stakeholders matters, and that government is capable of adjusting when implementation gets ahead of readiness.
Ultimately, this is not just about a fee schedule. It is about the kind of governance that citizens experience every day.
Are government agencies rigid and removed, or responsive and reasonable?
The FDA, like many institutions, faces a tough job.
But it also has an opportunity to show that reform doesn’t have to come at the expense of empathy, and that improvement begins not with assertion but with listening.
This one decision, modest as it may seem, reminds us that good public service often lies not in bold declarations but in the quiet, considered course corrections that keep institutions aligned with the people they serve.
This proposal, initiated under the direction of newly appointed Director General Paolo Teston, marks a noticeable shift in tone.
Without fanfare, it acknowledges that timing and context matter and that pressing pause can sometimes do more for public trust than charging ahead.
At first glance, the AO may appear to be just another routine regulatory update. But for those on the ground, particularly small and medium sized businesses in the health sector, it represented yet another layer of cost added to a system already mired in inefficiencies.
For years, companies have raised concerns over the slow pace of the FDA’s processing systems. Certificates of Product Registration (CPRs), among other approvals, often take months to be released.
In some cases, applicants report waiting more than a year, only for their documents to be lost in bureaucratic limbo. Others never receive them at all.
Against this backdrop, a fee hike doesn’t feel like reform. It feels like a penalty.
Imagine being asked to pay higher toll fees on a jammed expressway filled with potholes. You would naturally ask, what am I paying for?
If, on the other hand, those roads were widened, traffic improved, and potholes fixed, drivers would more easily accept the increase. The hike would be linked to visible improvements, speed, efficiency, and safety.
Public agencies must follow a similar principle. When performance lags, adding costs only worsens the perception that government is out of touch.
This is why the FDA’s move is important. It doesn’t reject the need for reform, nor does it permanently scrap the AO.
It simply recognizes that before additional burdens are imposed, the basic systems must function properly and be perceived as such.
Teston’s recommendation is not a grand gesture. It is not meant to grab headlines. But it reflects an understanding of the practical frustrations faced by those dealing with regulatory agencies.
Sometimes, a small adjustment, quiet, procedural, and technical, can speak volumes about where leadership intends to go.
President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. recently touched on this in a podcast.
He noted that many of the frustrations dragging down his approval ratings stem from “small things,” seemingly minor grievances that add up over time and fuel public resentment.
These aren’t usually high stakes policy failures. They’re the unacknowledged annoyances that citizens encounter daily: long waits, unclear processes, arbitrary fees, and offices that don’t respond.
Left unaddressed, these small things corrode public trust. But when recognized and acted upon, they offer opportunities to rebuild that trust, even incrementally.
That’s why the FDA’s proposed suspension is timely. It invites dialogue rather than resistance, and signals that the agency is willing to listen before it moves forward.
This kind of responsiveness is what people want from government. It shows that leadership is not only about issuing directives but also about pausing when necessary to recalibrate.
There is also a broader lesson here about communication. In regulatory work, it is not enough to simply announce changes and expect compliance.
Agencies must stay attuned to the sentiment of those they regulate and recognize that legitimacy depends not only on legal authority but also on public acceptability.
Early indications suggest that the current FDA leadership is aware of this balance.
The decision to suspend the AO, however temporary, is a sign that institutions can adapt when conditions call for it.
Of course, this isn’t the end of the conversation. The recommendation now sits with the Department of Health (DOH), which must decide whether to formally adopt the suspension.
If it does, the DOH sends a clear and necessary signal: that feedback from stakeholders matters, and that government is capable of adjusting when implementation gets ahead of readiness.
Ultimately, this is not just about a fee schedule. It is about the kind of governance that citizens experience every day.
Are government agencies rigid and removed, or responsive and reasonable?
The FDA, like many institutions, faces a tough job.
But it also has an opportunity to show that reform doesn’t have to come at the expense of empathy, and that improvement begins not with assertion but with listening.
This one decision, modest as it may seem, reminds us that good public service often lies not in bold declarations but in the quiet, considered course corrections that keep institutions aligned with the people they serve.
We are dedicated storytellers with a passion for bringing your brand to life. Our services range from news and media features to brand promotion and collaborations.
Interested? Visit our
Contact Us page for more information. To learn more about what we offer, check out our latest article on services and opportunities.
