GR No.

88265
Del Rosario vs. Bengzon

Ponente: Grino-Aquino

Art. XIII, Secs. 11, 12, 13 --
Section 11. The State shall adopt an integrated and comprehensive approach to health development which
shall endeavor to make essential goods, health and other social services available to all the people at
affordable cost. There shall be priority for the needs of the underprivileged, sick, elderly, disabled, women,
and children. The State shall endeavor to provide free medical care to paupers.
Section 12. The State shall establish and maintain an effective food and drug regulatory system and
undertake appropriate health, manpower development, and research, responsive to the countrys health
needs and problems.
Section 13. The State shall establish a special agency for disabled persons for their rehabilitation, self-
development, and self-reliance, and their integration into the mainstream of society.
FACTS: Petitioners, officers of the Philippine Medical Association, filed a class suit to
declare as unconstitutional, hence, null and void, certain provisions of RA 6675
(Generics Drugs Act) and its implementing Administrative Order No. 62.

The Court views this motion as a petition for declaratory relief, which it should have no
discretion over, but shall pass judgment on it given the public interest involved.

DOCTRINE: Promotion of health

ISSUE: WON RA 6675 is unconstitutional

HELD/RATIO: No.

1. Petitioners argue that Sec. 6, paragraphs (a) and (b) give unequal treatment to
physicians because those employed in government are required to use only generic terms
in prescriptions while private practitioners may opt otherwise.
- Court ruled that this is a misreading as the section merely enumerates
government transactions which should use generic terms, but all physicians,
regardless of private or public, are required to use generic terms

2. Petitioners argue that, under paragraph (d) of the same Section, the salesgirl at the
drugstore counter is given discretion to substitute the prescription belonging to the same
generic group
-Court ruled that this is a misreading again. Contrary to this, Administrative Order
actually directs the pharmacist not to fill violative prescriptions The same AO
provides that, in the interest of informed choice, the drug outlet is merely
authorized to inform the patient/buyer of the available drugs under the same
generic group.

3. They also assail Sec. 12, pars. (b), (c), and (d) in that they impose excessive fines and
cruel and degrading punishment.
-Court held that they are not as such and that without penalties, the law would
become ineffective.

Court also discussed that the role of the Generics Drugs Act is to promote and protect
the right to health of people and do so at affordable cost. If doctors have the
prerogative to prescribe brand names, it would preclude patients from buying cheaper
alternatives.

Also, there is no breach of obligation of contract between physician and patient as
private contracts cannot override the States prerogative to enact laws that are necessary
to secure health, safety, good order, etc. (Anglo-Fil Trading Corporation vs. Lazaro)