The Supreme Court has dismissed a petition assailing the constitutionality of the law that increases the penalties for owners of hospitals and clinics and their physicians and personnel who “request, solicit, demand or accept deposits or advance payments as a prerequisite not only for confinement or medical treatment but also for administering basic emergency care.”
In a decision released last week, the high court did not make a definitive declaration on the constitutionality of Republic Act 10932, known as the Anti-Hospital Deposit Law, which was signed into law by President Rodrigo Duterte on Aug. 3, 2017.
Nonetheless, the Court ruled that RA 10932 “enjoys the presumption of constitutionality which the Court, at the first instance, cannot disturb in the absence of a prima facie showing of grave abuse of discretion and, upon delving into the merits, in the absence of a clearest showing that there was indeed an infraction of the Constitution.
“If the Court were to invalidate the questioned law on the basis of conjectures and suppositions, then it would be unduly treading questions of policy and wisdom not only of the legislature that passed it, but also of the executive which approved it.”
The ruling came after the Court dismissed the petition filed by the Private Hospitals Association of the Philippines Inc. on technical grounds, particularly for the lack of legal standing of the association to file the petition, no actual and justiciable issues presented, and failure to follow the doctrine of hierarchy of courts.
On April 4, 2018, the Department of Health issued Administrative Order 2018-0012 that implements RA 10932.
Besides banning the request, solicitation, demand or acceptance of deposit and advance payment, RA 10932 also expanded the scope of “basic emergency care” to include “medical procedures and treatment administered to a woman in active labor.”
The law mandates the local government unit where the hospital or medical clinic is located “to allow free use of its emergency medical vehicle” in case a transfer to another hospital of a patient is deemed necessary.
The law also imposes on violators”•hospital owners, medical practitioners, employees”•“the penalty of imprisonment of not less than six months and one day but not more than two years and four months, or a fine of not less than Pl00,000 but not more than P300,000, or both, at the court’s discretion.”
The law says if the violation was made pursuant to an established hospital policy or upon instructions of its management, the penalties are increased as against the director or officer formulating and implementing such policy to four years to six years, or a fine of not less than P500,000 but not more than Pl,000,000, or both, without prejudice to an award for damages.
The law also introduced “the three-strike rule, or when, upon three repeated violations committed pursuant to an established policy or upon instruction of the management, the health facility’s license to operate shall be revoked by the Department of Health.”
It holds “the president, chairman, board of directors or trustees and other officers of the health facility solidarily liable for damages.”
Likewise, RA 10932 “presumes liability against the hospital, medical clinic and the official, medical practitioner, or employee involved, in the event of death, permanent disability, serious impairment or permanent injury to or loss of an unborn child, proceeding from the denial of admission to a health facility pursuant to a policy of requiring deposits or advance payments for confinement or treatment.”
