G.R. No. 234448, November 6, 2018,
♦ Decision,
Tijam, [J]
♦ Concurring Opinion,
Perlas-Bernabe, [J]
♦ Concurring Opinion,
Leonen, [J]
♦ Separate Concurring Opinion,
Caguioa, [J]
[ G.R. No. 234448, November 06, 2018 ]
PRIVATE HOSPITALS ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC. (PHAPI) REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, DR. RUSTICO JIMENEZ, PETITIONER, VS. HON. SALVADOR MEDIALDEA, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, AND THE ACTING SECRETARY OF DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, RESPONDENTS.
CONCURRING OPINION
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
I concur.
The present Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition filed by petitioner Private Hospitals Association of the Philippines, Inc. (PHAPi) should be dismissed due to its lack of legal standing, and the absence of an actual case or controversy.
The power of judicial review is the power of the courts to test the validity of the executive and legislative acts if they conform to the Constitution. Through such power, the judiciary enforces and upholds the supremacy of the Constitution. However, for a court to exercise this power, certain requirements must first be met, namely:
(1) an actual case or controversy calling for the exercise of judicial power;
(2) the person challenging the act must have "standing" to challenge; he must have a personal and substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will sustain, direct injury as a result of its enforcement;
(3) the question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity; and
(4) the issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota of the case.1
In this case, PHAPi is not a hospital or medical clinic, but only an association of - as its name denotes - private hospitals. As such, PHAPi is not directly subject to the provisions of Republic Act No. (RA) 10932,2 and consequently, does not stand to suffer a real and apparent threat or injury so as to demonstrate its locus standi to file this petition. To be sure, while it claims that it represents the interests of its member hospitals, records are bereft of any showing that it was specifically authorized to file this case on their behalf. Hence, PHAPi's conveyed interests, through the distinct manner of argumentation in the petition, can only be attributed as its own.
Furthermore, there appears to be no actual justiciable controversy that would sanction a review of the assailed provisions of RA 10932. Among others, PHAPi does not allege that any of its represented hospitals employs the deposit policy prohibited under RA 10932. Neither does PHAPi claim that a patient was refused admission by virtue of such policy nor was it shown that a claim has been filed based on the said law. As jurisprudence states, the need to prove an actual justiciable controversy is not merely an idle procedural requirement, but a clear safeguard to ensure that the courts do not unduly intrude into the areas specifically reserved to the other branches of government.3 The Court's exercise of judicial review on a hypothetical and theoretical situation runs the danger of it prematurely supplanting the wisdom of Congress with its own.
ACCORDINGLY, I vote to DISMISS the petition.
Footnotes
1 Garcia v. Executive Secretary, 602 Phil. 64,73 (2009).
2 Entitled "AN ACT STRENGTHENING THE ANTI-HOSPITAL DEPOSIT LAW BY INCREASING THE PENALTIES FOR THE REFUSAL OF HOSPITALS AND MEDICAL CLINICS TO ADMINISTER APPROPRIATE INITIAL MEDICAL TREATMENT AND SUPPORT IN EMERGENCY OR SERIOUS CASES, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE BATAS PAMBANSA BILANG 702, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS 'AN ACT PROHIBITING THE DEMAND OF DEPOSITS OR ADVANCE PAYMENTS FOR THE CONFINEMENT OR TREATMENT OF PATIENTS IN HOSPITALS AND MEDICAL CLINICS IN CERTAIN CASES,' AS AMENDED BY REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8344, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES," approved on August 3, 2017.
3 See Philippine Constitution Association v. Philippine Government, G.R. Nos. 218406, 218761, 204355, 318407, and 204354, November 29, 2016, 811 SCRA 284, 296-297.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
