Sec 19

People V. Dionisio22 SCRA 1299FACTS: On or about the 19th day of August, 1962,   in  Manila   City,   Rosauro   Dionisio,   a person who  is  not  duly  authorized   in  any capacity   by   the   Games   and   Amusement Board to conduct a horse race, did then and there willfully and unlawfully offer, arrange and collect bets for the Special Daily Double Race being then conducted at the Sta. Ana Racing Club at Makati and for that purpose has in possession the cash amount of P8.50, one   Nueva   Era   Racing   Program,   dated August   19,   1962,   one   list   of   bets,   one ballpen   and   one   booklet   of   Daily   Double receipt. He was thereby charged in violation of Republic Act No. 3063.ISSUE: Whether or not the penalty applied  to   his   offense   infringes   the   Constitutional  provision that “Excessive fines shall not be  imposed nor cruel and unusual punishment  inflicted.”   (Art   III   Sec.  1   clause  19,  of   the  Constitution of the Phils)RULING: Neither   fines   nor   imprisonment  constitute in themselves cruel and unusual  punishment, for the Constitutional structure  has   been   interpreted   as   referring   to  penalties that are inhumane and barbarous,  or shocking to the conscience and fines or  imprisonment   are   definitely   not   in   this  category. Nor does mere severity constitute  cruel and unusual punishment.“The  Social  Scourge of  Gambling  must  be  stamped   out.   The   laws   against   gambling  

must   be   enforced   to   the   limit.”   (Peo   v.  Gorostiza, 77 Phil 88)

Del Rosario vs BengzonFacts: 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   theirbrand name counterparts”. The effect of the drug does not  depend on  its  brand but on the active ingredients which it contains.

Sec. 20

Serafin VS Lindayag

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   theirbrand name counterparts”. The effect of the drug does not  depend on  its  brand but on the active ingredients which it contains.