Case Digest (G.R. No. 133640)
Facts:
In Rodolfo S. Beltran, et al. v. Secretary of Health (G.R. Nos. 133640, 133661 & 139147; November 25, 2005), petitioners Rodolfo S. Beltran (Our Lady of Fatima Blood Bank), Fely G. Mosale (Mother Seaton Blood Bank), People’s Blood Bank, Inc., Dr. Maria Victoria T. Vito (Avenue Blood Bank), Dr. Jesus M. Garcia (Holy Redeemer Blood Bank), Albert L. Lapitan (Blue Cross Blood Transfusion Services), Dr. Edgardo R. Rodas (Record Blood Bank) and Doctors’ Blood Center challenged the constitutionality of Section 7 of Republic Act No. 7719 (“National Blood Services Act of 1994”) and its Implementing Rules and Regulations (Administrative Order No. 9, s. 1995). RA 7719, approved May 15, 1994 and effective August 23, 1994, mandated a two-year phase-out of commercial blood banks, extendible by two years at the Health Secretary’s discretion. Petitioners, licensed under the prior Blood Banking Law (RA 1517, 1956) and supervised by the Bureau of Research and Laboratories since 1958, feared closuCase Digest (G.R. No. 133640)
Facts:
- Legislative and regulatory framework
- Republic Act No. 7719 (National Blood Services Act of 1994) enacted April 2, 1994, took effect August 23, 1994; Section 7 mandates phase-out of commercial blood banks over two years, extendible by Secretary of Health for another two years.
- Administrative Order No. 9, series of 1995 promulgated April 28, 1995 as Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 7719; Section 23 sets procedure for phase-out and criteria for extension.
- Blood banking background and study findings
- Philippine blood services comprised PNRC, government hospital banks, private hospital banks, and commercial/free-standing blood banks (FSBBs); commercial banks supplied ~64% of blood in 1992.
- USAID-assisted study by New Tropical Medicine Foundation (1994) found high reliance on paid donors (99.6% in commercial banks), elevated risk of transfusion-transmissible infections, and inadequate voluntary donation.
- Judicial proceedings
- Petitioners (owners of FSBBs and Philippine Association of Blood Banks) filed:
- G.R. No. 133640 (certiorari) and G.R. No. 133661 (mandamus) challenging constitutionality of Section 7 RA 7719 and AO 9; sought injunctions and renewal of FSBB licenses.
- G.R. No. 139147 (contempt) accusing DOH Secretary of violating TRO through public advisories.
- Supreme Court consolidated cases, issued TRO June 2, 1998 enjoining enforcement of the phase-out provisions pending resolution.
Issues:
- Does Section 7 of RA 7719 and Section 23 of AO 9 constitute undue delegation of legislative power?
- Do they violate the Equal Protection Clause by irrationally discriminating against commercial blood banks?
- Do they impair obligation of contracts or property rights in violation of the Non-Impairment Clause?
- Do they deprive petitioners of personal liberty or property without due process?
- Are the challenged provisions a valid exercise of the State’s police power?
- Do they genuinely serve public welfare given possible blood shortages?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)