My Take on DAP (Disbursement Acceleration Program)

As most of us probably known by now that the highest court of the land has already declared that the DAP or the Disbursement Acceleration Program initiated by the current government administration has been declared unconstitutional which has caused other issues and concerns that our country would probably face in the near future. But before going deeper in understanding the issues involved we probably need to ask the question why was there so much attention given on this. We probably need to go back several months or years ago pertaining to several events that has changed the political landscape of this country. I am pertaining to the Impeachment of the chief justice of the Supreme Court and the declaration of unconstitutionality of the PDAP or Pork Barrel Fund. These events had its own pros and cons in this country, for through such events people became aware on political issues we do face and has made the people to be more involve to strive for better governance. Unfortunately some people do take advantage of the situation to further their political agenda, careers and ambitions. Public sentiments back then was pretty intense which I think was carried over through this current case for reason that some people do try to link the issue to PDAP for most of the critics of the current administration are trying to find loop holes and mistakes either for reason to strive for a better government or trying to bring this administration to the ground. Understanding on how this DAP issue came up was in connection with the impeachment case of the former chief justice of the supreme court, It’s really quite amusing on how this issues are relatively connected with each other but this has already been the political scene in this country where in cases and issues stems out from another case or issue. It’s a never ending circle of agony and despair that this country would probably and currently facing, that hopefully we would be able to solve in the future.

Going back to the current topic at hand, on analyzing a decision especially on something as controversial as the DAP case, we should always try to look on both side of the border and try to make reason and justification specially to the losing end. This DAP was something that our incumbent president has approved and the current administration has implemented. Let us give them the benefit of the doubt that they have done so with all good intentions and plans. That they have implemented such disbursement of funds to work as a stimulus package to fast track spending and to push economic growth, resulting to a higher GDP and growth for the country. This has also resulted to better public infrastructure and projects implemented by the government that the citizen in general has benefitted. It is undeniable that the DAP has given a lot of benefits and growth to the country and that the continued implementation of such program would bring improvement and growth in this country, from which everyone would benefit from. We should also look into it not only on its positive side but also into the negative. If ever we do continue such program there is a big possibility that this could be use by future politicians to do their corruptive ways, thus deviating from its original intention. A good example of this the PDAP or the Pork Barrel, when it was introduced the intention was for a noble cause and the implementation was for the betterment of the constituents of the members of congress within their municipalities and district. Eventually it was used to funnel corruptive acts of non trust worthy public officials. I think the same could be said for DAP, the intention on its current implementation was for good and noble intentions but it could also be used to destroy this country unless precautionary measures are taken and implemented to avoid such circumstance.

Looking into the other side, there’s a saying the end does not always justify the means. No matter how beneficial the result was, we should always look into procedure and actions taken to achieve such result. In the case of DAP, the program was implemented by funneling funds which are in the form of savings by one department of the government to another (either within the same or different department) to augment any insufficiency of budget. The act of funneling or transferring such funds was deemed to be unconstitutional by law, for the augmentation of items in the general appropriation by the president or any entity allowed by law could only be done if there was a law enacted that would allow it. In the case of DAP the said implementation was only an administrative program approved by the president and was not authorized by any law enacted by congress. The legal principle of dura lex sed lex is applicable in this case for reason even if the DAP was implemented with all good intentions and benefit but such program contravenes what was specified in our constitution then is should not be allowed. The law maybe hard but it is the law. Speaking as a law student and I was taught that all laws (including administrative law, rules and regulation) should not be inconsistent with the constitution, this is the golden rule that we should follow and abide for the supremacy of the constitution should be recognized and respected. Independence of the co-equal branches of the government should always be respected. Congress as a branch of the government who exercise its function on the approval and modification of the General appropriation should not be encroached by the Executive branch by implementing DAP which serves as an appropriation program to provide additional funding to an existing and non existing item on the General appropriations Act.

As a law student I would have to agree with the ruling of the Supreme Court to hold the supremacy of the constitution but If I was not a law student and was not aware of the technicalities of the law I would probably disagree with the ruling for I would only be concerned with the benefits and improvements that the program has provided. I’ll probably even argue that it’s the money of the government anyway so why not let them use it and have everyone benefit from it.

Can a Corporation Directly Hire Doctors? Can Corporation Practice Medicine?

Practice of Medicine

Doctors or Physicians are qualified individuals and has the necessary specialization to practice the applied science of medicine to diagnose, treat, heal and prevent diseases of a person. The role physician’s play within the society is vital for they restore and maintain the health and well being of the public against illness and diseases that would affect their daily routines and life. The importance of such individual within the community is crucial for they serve as an agent that bridges the gap between science and society and they do help us understand things that are unknown and might baffle and ordinary man. They can bestow upon fate of a man for their success or failure would have a changing impact in the society.

It would only be just and understandable that having such power entails a great amount of responsibility that would greatly affect the general welfare of the public. From which the state through its inherent police power has enacted Republic Act No. 2382 or the Medical Act of 1959[1] to regulate the practice of medicine by setting qualifications, standards, terms and agencies that would administer the practice of medicine within the country. For a person to practice medicine there are several prerequisite that was set through Section 8 Article III of R.A. No. 2382 (Medical Act):

“Prerequisite to the practice of medicine. No person shall engage in the practice of medicine in the Philippines unless he is at least twenty-one years of age, has satisfactorily passed the corresponding Board Examination, and is a holder of a valid Certificate of Registration duly issued to him by the Board of Medical Examiners.”[2]

As per the Medical Act a person could only practice medicine after meeting the three requirements mentioned. If an individual does not possess all the requirements and qualifications then he should not be considered as qualified to practice medicine in the Philippines. A qualified person to practice medicine has met all the necessary educational, experience, certification, moral, mental and civil requirements as prescribed by law. In the case of Reyes vs Sisters Of Mercy Hospital, it has elaborated the right to practice medicine

“The practice of medicine is a profession engaged in only by qualified individuals. It is a right earned through years of education, training, and by first obtaining a license from the state through professional board examinations.”[3]

Once qualified a person may then be involve on acts constituting the practice of medicine. As governed by The Medical Act of 1959 under Section 10 Article III, the following acts constitute the practice of medicine:

“A person shall be considered as engaged in the practice of medicine (a) who shall, for compensation, fee, salary or reward in any form, paid to him directly or through another, or even without the same, physical examine any person, and diagnose, treat, operate or prescribe any remedy for any human disease, injury, deformity, physical, mental or physical condition or any ailment, real or imaginary, regardless of the nature of the remedy or treatment administered, prescribed or recommended; or (b) who shall, by means of signs, cards, advertisements, written or printed matter, or through the radio, television or any other means of communication, either offer or undertake by any means or method to diagnose, treat, operate or prescribe any remedy for any human disease, injury, deformity, physical, mental or physical condition; or (c) who shall use the title M.D. after his name.”[4]

Only qualified individuals are entitled to perform acts that would constitute the practice of medicine, violation from which would constitute illegal practice of medicine with the exception to those defined by law.

Hospitals

Generally speaking hospitals are places where people seek and resort for medical attention. Hospitals may either be public or private depending on who owned and operate them. They are juridical \persons[5] generally incorporated bodies created by a special law or charter or incorporation under a general law. For private hospitals as a traditional view, physicians are not considered as an employee or agent of a hospital. For whenever a physician act upon his professional capacity, the hospital cannot be held liable for their fault or negligence under the Schloendorff doctrine[6]. However, the traditional view has given way to the modern practice wherein hospitals has become more than just a place that would furnish room, food, facilities and treatment, instead has become centers for treatment with sufficient and modern facilities aiming to the full care of their patients. Given this modern practice, hospitals could be held liable for negligence of its employee under quasi-delict for “Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees”[7]. As provided by the Supreme Court on the Ramos vs CA case that hospitals exercise real control over their attending and visiting consultants. While consultants are not technically employees, the control exercised, the hiring and the right to terminate all fulfill the important hallmarks of an employee-employer relationship[8].

The doctrine of corporate negligence was introduced on the landmark case of Professional Services Inc vs. Natividad[9], wherein the petitioner was held solidarily liable with the physician for the hospital and doctor are bound by the employer-employee relation. Under the said doctrine the hospital owes a direct duty to its patients to ensure their safety and well-being.

Employment of Physician to a Hospital

In a scenario wherein a hospital would hire the doctors directly as employees making them in-house doctors for institutional clients and walk-in patients, is permissible for there is no express prohibition under the law that prohibits a hospital maintained by a corporation for the purpose of furnishing medical treatment[10]. What is prohibited under the law is the illegal and negligent practice of medicine. Illegal practice of medicine are those in violation of Section 8 and 10 under Article III of the Medical Act of 1959[11] wherein penalties are defined under Section 28 under Article IV[12] of the same act which includes fines and imprisonment. What would be considered to be an illegal practice of law under such circumstance would be when the physician on the practice of medicine would not act upon his personal capacity but instead act as an agent or employee of the said hospital or corporation would constitute the illegal practice of medicine. Such acts would be when payment is received by the hospital for the medical practice done by the physician, when the physician not acting on his personal capacity but as an agent of the hospital would administer, prescribe and recommend treatment and when the hospital would advertise such medical practice in any form or medium. Performance of such acts would constitute a practice of medicine by the Hospital as a corporation, which would result to an illegal practice of medicine. For the Hospital as a juridical person is not qualified to practice medicine. For the practice of such profession is protected by our constitution, only to be performed by a natural person. 

“The practice of all professions in the Philippines shall be limited to Filipino citizens”[13]

The hospital as a juridical person would not also be qualified to practice medicine for its has not met the requirements defined on Section 8 Article III of the Medical Act of 1959 that would require a person to be at least 21 years of age, passed the board examination and has a valid certification issued by the board of medical examiner[14]. Nor has it fall within the exceptions and limited practice as provided by law.

A hospital may hire physicians as employees as long as such individuals practice their profession in their personal capacity, but this would not exempt the hospital from liabilities against the negligence of its employees for the liability of the employers on the negligence of its employee is provided under Article 2180 of the Civil Code base on the relationship of patria potestas. For the practice of medicine is already conditioned upon on the highest degree of diligence as elaborated on the case of Reyes vs Sisters of Mercy Hospital[15]. Such due care should be complied with and exercised for the health and life of a person is on the hands and successful accomplishment of that person’s task and duties to society.

---

[1] Republic Act No. 2382, The Medical Act of 1959

[2] Republic Act No. 2382 The Medical Act of 1959 , Section 8

[3] Reyes vs, Sisters Of Mercy Hospital G.R. No. 130547, October 3, 2000

[4] Republic Act No. 2382, The Medical Act of 1959, Section 10  

[5] Civil Code, Article 44

[6] Professional Services Inc. vs. Natividad 513 SCRA 478, G.R. No. 126297, January 31, 2007

[7] Civil Code, Article 2180

[8] Ramos vs Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 124354, December 29, 1999, 321 SCRA 584

[9] Professional Services Inc. vs. Natividad 513 SCRA 478, G.R. No. 126297, January 31, 2007

[10] ACEBEDO Optical Company vs. CA, G.R. No. 100152, 314 SCRA 315,March 31, 2000

[11] Republic Act No. 2382, Medical Act of 1959, Section 8 and Section 10

[12] Republic Act No. 2382, Medical Act of 1959, Section 28

[13] Constitution, Article XII, Section 14

[14] Republic Act No. 2382, The Medical Act of 1959, Section 8

[15] Reyes vs, Sisters Of Mercy Hospital G.R. No. 130547, October 3, 2000

Which One Of The 22 Sections Of The Bill Of Rights Will You Change And Why?

The main purpose of the Bill Of Rights was to guarantee the individual rights of the citizen under the constitution. These are rights expressly and explicitly provided in our constitution that serves as safe guards of the basic rights of the people as provided by the state within its territory, regardless of citizenship, sex, race, color or creed. These are rights that have adopted and have evolved through time providing balance and harmony between the powers of the three branches of government and the right of its people. As one of the Founding Fathers of one of the great nations in the world stated that “A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular; and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inferences”. These are rights of the people that the state should respect and protect for these are basic principles that government should adhere and follow.

Upon learning and understanding the twenty two sections of the Bill Of Rights of the Philippines under Article III of the 1987 Constitution wherein mostly serves as protection of a person against the technicalities and intricacies of our system of government rather than safeguarding the most basic and natural right of a person which is his right to life and liberty. These are rights that the great heroes of this country has fought and died for and it is only just and reasonable that such rights should be enshrined and guaranteed to any individuals that set foot in this wonderful nation. The right to life and liberty should not only be guaranteed under in our so called due process but should be assured to every person regardless of his status and belief. That the state under its government would protect and assure its people that it shall legislate and implement policies and laws that would safe guard their life and liberty against external forces within and outside of the country, for the state would not be able to function without its people and in return patriotism and nationalism would make this nation great again.

The first section of the Bill Of Rights is the most important part for it represents and would give totality on what principles it tries to protect. A part of Section 1 of the Bill Of Rights states that:

“No Person Shall be Deprive of Life, Liberty and Property without Due Process of Law”

Life, Liberty and Property of a person should not only be protected through due process as established by our laws but is should be guaranteed and assured to anyone within the territorial limits of this nation. For the right to life, liberty and property is a natural right that should be assured and protected by the state regardless of an individual’s status or belief. Given this I am proposing an amendment to the Constitution under the Section 1 of the Bill Of Rights as below:

“No Person shall be Deprive of Life, Liberty and Property without Due Process of Law or for Reason of his Status or Belief.”

The change would serve as a safeguard of a person’s right to life, liberty and property against oppressing forces that are social, commercial and political in nature, the concept is basic but is essential and inherent to each and every one. As one wise professor mine said before that “The best solution is the simplest solution”. Sometimes we try to look for answers on problems in our society, policy and government making use of technicalities and complexities thinking that this would give us the resolution or would make us at par with the international community but in return it would just create additional issues or problems. Maybe it’s time for us to go back to the basics and try to rebuild this nation from simplest and most common principles that we should be assured and provided, and that would be the right to a person’s life, liberty and property regardless of any circumstance or situation.

For people are the most essential component that builds up a nation, as one honest president once said that he wanted to build a government “of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth”. If we are to create a government and nation for the people then it would be fitting and just that they should be protected, and the right to life is one of the most essential right a person should posses. It shall not be deprive of him for reason of his financial capacity, social standing, political or religious belief. These are inherent rights of a person but if we are to enshrine it in our constitution we are establishing it as a major priority that our government and other entity and people should respect and follow. How many scenarios, stories and Filipino movies have you seen and heard wherein someone was not given proper medical attention due to his financial incapacity and personal ignorance resulting to deprivation of his health and worse his life.  These kinds of stories are not really new but what is conveyed through them is that in our present situation that people live longer if they have the financial means. Would we just wait and have commercialism devour this nation? Or should the government act and make use all of the inherent power vested unto it by the constitution to give the proper attention and facilities to make sure that his people are well taken care of. To establish policies and procedures that commercialism shall not out weight the ultimate right of the person which is his life.

Liberty is the greatest gift that the courageous heroes of this country has given us, Some great and some not so great men has fought, injured, killed and have been killed in order for this generation to have it fully realized and experienced. But sadly to say are we really free? A wise man once said that “When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny”.  Is there currently tyranny? How may news have you heard People in authority abusing their vested power, way worse is when agents of those people in authority tries to portray that they are above everyone else. You may not notice it but the actions of such individuals limit your right of liberty for they are tyrants who see themselves as privilege and could transgress norm. Public office is for public service the government as an essential component of the state should serve the people and not inflict fear and oppression especially to those who are considered to be unprivileged. Including such amendment on the Bill Of Rights would serve as a reminder to our government that the Liberty is a right bestowed upon and individual by the constitution that it should be preserved and respected by everyone especially by the government.

As specified under the State Policy of the Constitution that the “State shall promote social justice in all phases of national development”. The proposed amendment on the bill of rights would not only promote social justice but realize it for it is favorable to people who are less in life for the state through its government shall provide them with such privilege and protection that their essential and basic rights shall be respected and secured. The amendment would also adhere to most of the section of the Bill of Rights for it tries to preserve and protect the most important right an individual could posses.

In a country with great history of violence, corruption and violation of human rights, incorporation of such rights in the Bill of Rights would not only serve as a legal basis to counter oppressive forces in the society and government but it would greatly help to bring back trust and confidence to our government and would instill patriotism to the people of this nation for they know that the state would look after their well being.

Let's Discuss

-G-