Del Rosario vs.
Bengzon, 180 SCRA 521 (1989)
Nature:
Class suit to declare RA 6675 unconstitutional
Keyword:
Police Power, Philippine Medical Association, Generic Medicine, Generics Act of
1988, RA 6675
Summary: RA
6675 requiring the use of generic names in all transactions related to
purchasing, prescribing, dispensing and administering of drugs and medicines.
Petitioners, officers of Philippine Medical Association assailed the
constitutionality of the said statute and petitioned for declaratory relief.
Court treated it as petition for prohibition. Petitioner’s argument of the RA
favouring private sector and giving the act of prescribing the correct medicine
a duty of the salesgirl were all stricken down as misinterpretation of the RA.
Facts:
Philippine Medical Association is the national organization of medical doctors
in the Philippines. They assail the constitutionality of some of the provisions
of Generics Act of 1988 (Rep. Act 6675) and the implementation of
Administrative Order No. 62.
The law specifically provides
that “All government health agencies shall use generic terminology or generic
names in all transactions related to purchasing, prescribing, dispensing, and
administering of drugs and medicines. It also includes medical, dental and
veterinary, private practitioners shall write prescriptions using the generic
name.
The petitioner’s main
argument is the alleged unequal treatment of government practitioners and those
on the private practice. It is because the former are required to use only
generic terminology in the prescription while the latter may write the brand
name of the drug below the generic name. It is allegedly a specie of invalid
class legislation.
In addition, the petitioners
gave a distorted interpretation on RA 6675 and Admin Order No. 62 saying that
the salesgirl and or druggist have the discretion to substitute the doctor’s
prescription. The court says that the salesgirl at the drugstore counter merely
informs the customer, but does not determine all the other drug products or
brands that have the same generic name and their prices.
Issue:
Whether or not the Generics Act is constitutional as to the exercise of police
power by the government.
Held:
Petition Dismissed.
The court has been unable
to find any constitutional infirmity in the Generics Act. It
implements the constitutional mandate for the State “to protect and promote the
right to health of the people” and “to make essential goods, health and other
social services available to all the people at affordable cost”.
The alleged unequal treatment
of government physicians, dentists and veterinarians on one hand and those in
the private practice in the other, is a misinterpretation of the law.
The salesgirl at the
drugstore counter merely informs the customer of all available products, but
does not determine all the other drug products or brands that have the same
generic name and their corresponding process.
The penal sanction in
violation of the law is indispensable because they are the teeth of the law.
Without them, the law would be toothless.
The Generics Act and the implementing administrative
orders of the Secretary of Health are constitutional.
The purpose of the Generics
Act is to “promote and require the use of generic drug products that are
therapeutically equivalent to their brand name counterparts”. The effect of the
drug does not depend on its brand but on the active ingredients which it
contains.
--
Generics Act of 1988 constitutional. RA 6675 secures
the patient the right to choose between the brand name and its generic
equivalent since his doctor is allowed to write both the generic and the brand
name in his prescription form. The respondent is implementing the
constitutional mandate of the State “to protect and promote the right to health
of the people” and “to make essential goods, health and other social services
available to all the people at affordable cost.”
No comments:
Post a Comment