G.R. No. 133640 , 133661, & 139147. November 25, 2005.
Rodolfo S. Beltran, et al., and Doctors’ Blood Center, Petitioners, vs. The Secretary of Health, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioners, operators of commercial blood banks, assail the constitutionality of Section 7 of Republic Act No. 7719 (the National Blood Services Act of 1994) and its Implementing Rules and Regulations in Administrative Order No. 9, series of 1995. The challenged provision mandates the phase-out of all commercial blood banks within two years, extendable for another two years by the Secretary of Health. Prior to this law, petitioners operated under R.A. 1517, which legally permitted the establishment and operation of such blood banks. The new law was enacted to promote voluntary blood donation and regulate the blood supply for public safety, particularly in response to international concerns about diseases transmissible through blood, like AIDS. The phase-out period commenced upon the law’s effectivity in August 1994.
The petitioners filed consolidated petitions for certiorari and mandamus, arguing that the law constitutes an invalid exercise of police power for being oppressive, confiscatory, and a denial of due process and equal protection. They contended it arbitrarily destroys their legitimate business. They also sought injunctive relief to stop the law’s implementation and to compel the Secretary to renew their licenses. A separate petition for contempt was filed, alleging the Secretary continued enforcement actions despite pending litigation.

ISSUE

Whether Section 7 of R.A. 7719, which phases out commercial blood banks, is unconstitutional for violating due process, equal protection, and for being an invalid exercise of police power.

RULING

The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Section 7 of R.A. 7719. The law is a valid exercise of the State’s police power, which allows regulation of liberty and property to promote public health, safety, and welfare. The Court found a reasonable relation between the phase-out of commercial blood banks and the law’s objective of ensuring a safe and adequate blood supply. The legislative intent was to shift from a commercial, profit-driven system to a voluntary donation-based system, deemed safer as it reduces the incentive for donors to conceal their medical histories. The phase-out period provided a reasonable time for business adjustment, negating claims of arbitrariness or confiscation.
The Court also rejected the equal protection challenge. The classification between commercial blood banks and other categories (like Red Cross or hospital-based banks) is based on substantial distinctions germane to the law’s purpose—specifically, the profit motive inherent in commercial operations, which is perceived to heighten the risk to blood safety. This classification is reasonable and applies equally to all entities within the commercial class. The law, therefore, does not violate constitutional guarantees and stands as a legitimate measure to address a pressing public health concern. The petitions were dismissed.