SC orders Palace, DOH to comment on petition vs. strengthened Anti-Hospital Deposit Law

The Supreme Court (SC) on Tuesday directed Executive Secretary Salvador Medialdea and the Department of Health (DOH) to give their side on the petition challenging the constitutionality of the law increasing the penalties on hospitals demanding deposits in emergency cases.

Medialdea and the DOH have 10 days to comment on the petition filed by the Private Hospitals Association of the Philippines, Inc (PHAPi) last month.

In its petition, PHAPi called on the high court to immediately stop the implementation of Republic Act 10932 (An Act Strengthening the Anti-Hospital Deposit Law), which was signed by President Rodrigo Duterte on August 3.

The law, which amended provisions of Batas Pambansa 702, provides for stricter penalties to hospitals that demand any deposit or other forms of advance payment as a prerequisite for admission or medical treatment of an emergency patient.

This includes four to six years' imprisonment and fines ranging from P100,000 to P1 million.

The law also gives authority to the DOH to revoke the license of a health facility after three repeated violations committed pursuant to an established policy of the hospital or clinic or upon the instruction of its management.

According to PHAPi, the imposable fines under Section 4 of RA 10932 are "unjust, excessive and oppressive, and thus amount to denial of due process."

"Going by the astronomical amounts of the fines imposed, RA 10932 has thus branded an erring physician, nurse, and other hospital officials and employees as more evil than a public officer refusing their sworn duty to our sacred institutions by up to five times," the petition read.

The group said the presumption of liability clause under Section 5 is against the constitutional presumption of innocence.

The clause allows for a presumption of generalized liability—administrative, civil and criminal—upon the occurrence of death, permanent disability and serious impairment of the health condition of the patient or her unborn child if pregnant after the denial of the patient’s admission due to a hospital/clinic policy of demanding advance payments.

PHAPi also said Section 1 of the law, which imposes duty to administer treatment and support upon the hospital or medical clinic, its management and staff, was "unreasonable, being predicated on the achievement of an end that is impossible to guarantee."

Lastly, the PHAPi said Sections 7 and 8 go against the equal protection clause of the Constitution since these provisions exclude patients of basic emergency care not classified as poor, indigent or marginalized from Philippine Health Insurance Corp. (PhilHealth) reimbursement, Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) assistance and tax deductibility. —KBK, GMA News