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.

FACTS

Petitioner Private Hospitals Association of the Philippines, Inc. (PHAPi) filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition under Rule 65 seeking to question the constitutionality of specific provisions of Republic Act No. 10932 (the Anti-Hospital Deposit Law). Petitioner asserted the case was ripe for adjudication due to an imminent threat of unconstitutional obligations and sanctions against its members upon the impending approval of the law’s implementing rules. It claimed locus standi as its members faced risks of administrative, civil, and criminal liabilities, and argued the petition raised transcendental issues concerning due process, equal protection, and presumption of innocence.

ISSUE

Whether the petition presents a justiciable case ripe for judicial review, specifically whether there exists an actual case or controversy and whether the petitioner possesses the requisite locus standi.

RULING

The Supreme Court, through the concurring opinion of Justice Leonen, held that the petition is not ripe for judicial review. The canonical requirements for exercising judicial review over a law’s constitutionality are: (1) an actual case or controversy involving legal rights capable of judicial determination; (2) locus standi of the parties raising the issue; (3) the constitutional question is raised at the earliest opportunity; and (4) resolving the constitutional issue is essential to the case’s disposition.
First, there is no actual case or controversy. An actual case or controversy requires a conflict of legal rights that is real, concrete, and susceptible to judicial resolution, not hypothetical or conjectural. The pleadings must show an active antagonistic assertion of a legal right and a denial thereof. The government act being challenged must have caused an actual or direct adverse effect on the party. Here, petitioner failed to allege any actual or direct injury from a grave abuse of discretion. The perceived threat based on the impending implementing rules is merely conjectural. Judicial power, as defined in Article VIII, Section 1 of the Constitution , is limited to settling actual controversies. Rendering a decision absent an actual case would be an advisory opinion, which the Court cannot issue.
Second, petitioner lacks locus standi. While an association has the capacity to sue, it must demonstrate a substantial interest and that it has sustained or will sustain direct injury. Republic Act No. 10932 covers hospitals, medical facilities, practitioners, and employees, not associations themselves. The association is not the entity that would be held liable for violations. Petitioner failed to demonstrate it was authorized by its members to file the case or that third-party standing applies.
Therefore, the requisites for judicial review are absent. The law is presumed constitutional, and the Court cannot invalidate it based on conjectures or suppositions, as doing so would delve into questions of policy and wisdom belonging to the legislative and executive departments. The petition was not taken cognizance of.