Case Summary (G.R. No. 88265)
Parties
Petitioners: Santiago A. Del Rosario et al., medical professionals seeking declaratory relief.
Respondent: Hon. Alfredo R. Bengzon, as Secretary of Health, enforcing generic‐prescribing requirements and sanctions.
Key Dates
– Republic Act No. 6675 published: March 15, 1989.
– Act took effect: March 30, 1989.
– Phase 3 sanctions postponed to January 1, 1990 by AO No. 76 (August 28, 1989).
– Decision rendered: December 21, 1989.
Applicable Constitutional Basis
1987 Philippine Constitution
• Article II, Section 15: State duty “to protect and promote the right to health.”
• Article XIII, Section 11: State duty “to make essential goods, health and other social services available … at affordable cost.”
Applicable Statutes and Regulations
Republic Act No. 6675 (Generics Act of 1988)
• Sec. 6(a)–(b): Mandatory use of generic names in government transactions; all practitioners to prescribe generically, with optional brand name.
• Sec. 12(b)–(d): Graduated penalties for repeat violations, including fines and suspension of professional license.
Administrative Order No. 62, Phase 3 (March 9, 1989)
• Sec. 4: Rules on “violative,” “erroneous,” and “impossible” prescriptions and their treatment by pharmacists.
• Sec. 7: Implementation timetable for sanctions beginning September 1, 1989 (postponed to January 1, 1990).
Issues Presented
- Whether Sec. 6(a)–(b) of RA 6675 creates unconstitutional class legislation by treating government and private practitioners differently.
- Whether Sec. 6(d) and AO 62’s prohibition of “no substitution” impairs physicians’ professional discretion and transfers prescribing power to pharmacists.
- Whether Sec. 12(b)–(d) penal sanctions violate prohibitions against excessive fines and cruel or degrading punishment.
Petitioners’ Arguments
– Sec. 6 distinguishes unduly between government agencies/personnel and private practitioners, amounting to invalid class legislation.
– The prohibition on “no substitution” undermines the physician–patient contract and improperly vests substitution power in drugstore personnel.
– Graduated fines and license suspensions are excessive and punitive beyond constitutional limits.
Respondent’s Defense
– Paragraphs (a) and (b), Sec. 6 apply equally to all practitioners in prescribing; government‐procurement rules differ from professional prescribing rules.
– Neither RA 6675 nor AO 62 authorizes pharmacists or salesgirls to substitute a valid generic‐plus‐brand prescription; pharmacists must refuse violative or impossible prescriptions and merely inform buyers of equivalent products and prices.
– Penal sanctions are a necessary enforcement mechanism, comparable to professional discipline in other fields, and do not constitute cruel or excessive punishment.
Legal Analysis
The Court found no improper classification: Sec. 6(a) governs generic terminology in government procurement, while Sec. 6(b) uniformly applies to all practitioners. The Generics Act and AO 62 maintain physicians’ discretion to prescribe both generic and brand names. Prohibitions on “no substitution” serve the public interest by safeguarding patients’ freedom to select
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 88265)
Factual and Procedural Background
- Petitioners are officers of the Philippine Medical Association, suing on behalf of similarly situated practitioners.
- They challenge:
- Section 6(a)–(b) of Republic Act No. 6675 (Generics Act of 1988), requiring use of generic terminology by government agencies and practitioners, allowing brand names in parentheses.
- Section 12(b)–(d) of the Act, prescribing graduated fines and suspensions for repeat violators.
- Sections 4 and 7 (Phase 3) of Administrative Order No. 62 (1989), implementing the Act, defining “violative,” “erroneous,” and “impossible” prescriptions, and setting an implementation timetable.
- R.A. 6675 took effect on March 30, 1989; sanctions delayed pending Administrative Order No. 76 to January 1, 1990.
- Petition captioned for declaratory relief; Court treated it as a petition for prohibition due to public interest.
Issues Presented
- Whether Section 6(a)–(b) of R.A. 6675 constitutes invalid class legislation by treating government and private practitioners differently.
- Whether Section 6(d) and AO 62 § 4 improperly delegate substitution discretion to drugstore personnel, usurping the physician’s prescribing power.
- Whether the penal provisions in Section 12(b)–(d) of R.A. 6675 offend the constitutional ban on excessive fines or cruel punishment.
- Whether the Act impairs the contractual relationship between physician and patient.
- Whether AO 62’s classification of violative, erroneous, and impossible prescriptions and sanctions scheme is valid.
Petitioners’ Contentions
- Government doctors are compelled to use only generic names, while private practitioners may add brand names—a discrimina