Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1K views

    40 Tondo Medical Center Employees Association Vs Court of Appeals

    Uploaded by

    Roushael Cient Montealto
    The HSRA aimed to provide fiscal autonomy to government hospitals and implement socialized user fees. Petitioners claimed this made free medicine and services inaccessible. However, the Court has declared sections in Article II of the Constitution to be non-self-executing, meaning they cannot be directly enforced but rather guide judicial review and legislation. As the HSRA did not violate enforceable constitutional rights, it was deemed valid.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    40 Tondo Medical Center Employees Association Vs Court of Appeals

    Uploaded by

    Roushael Cient Montealto
    1K views1 page
    The HSRA aimed to provide fiscal autonomy to government hospitals and implement socialized user fees. Petitioners claimed this made free medicine and services inaccessible. However, the Court has declared sections in Article II of the Constitution to be non-self-executing, meaning they cannot be directly enforced but rather guide judicial review and legislation. As the HSRA did not violate enforceable constitutional rights, it was deemed valid.

    Original Description:

    cases

    Original Title

    40 Tondo Medical Center Employees Association vs Court of Appeals

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The HSRA aimed to provide fiscal autonomy to government hospitals and implement socialized user fees. Petitioners claimed this made free medicine and services inaccessible. However, the Court has declared sections in Article II of the Constitution to be non-self-executing, meaning they cannot be directly enforced but rather guide judicial review and legislation. As the HSRA did not violate enforceable constitutional rights, it was deemed valid.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    1K views1 page

    40 Tondo Medical Center Employees Association Vs Court of Appeals

    Uploaded by

    Roushael Cient Montealto
    The HSRA aimed to provide fiscal autonomy to government hospitals and implement socialized user fees. Petitioners claimed this made free medicine and services inaccessible. However, the Court has declared sections in Article II of the Constitution to be non-self-executing, meaning they cannot be directly enforced but rather guide judicial review and legislation. As the HSRA did not violate enforceable constitutional rights, it was deemed valid.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Tondo Medical Center Employees Association vs Court of Appeals

    G.R. No. 167324


    July 17, 2007

    Point of the Case:


    Constitutional provisions under Article II of the Constitution are categorically declared by the
    Supreme Court as non self-executing and are used as aids or as guides in the exercise of judiciary’s
    power of judicial review, and in legislature’s enactment of laws.

    Facts:
    The Health Sector Reform Agenda (HSRA) was launched by the Department of Health (DOH) in
    1999, which provides five areas of general reform. One in particular was the provision of fiscal autonomy
    to government hospitals that implements the collection of socialized user fees and the corporate
    restructuring of government hospitals. The petitioners alleged that the implementation of the
    aforementioned reform had resulted in making free medicine and free medical services inaccessible to
    economically disadvantage Filipinos. Thus, they alleged that the HSRA is void for violating Sections 5, 9,
    10, 11, 13, 15, 18 of Article II of the Constitution. On May 24, 1999, then President Joseph Ejercito
    Estrada issued Executive Order No. 102, entitled “Redirecting the functions and Operations of the
    Department of Health”, which provides for the changes in the roles, functions, and organizational
    processes of the DOH.

    Issue:
    Whether or not the HSRA is void for violating various provisions of Article II of the Constitution.

    Ruling:
    No, HSRA does not violate various provisions of Article II of the Constitution. As a general rule,
    the provisions of the Constitution are considered self-executing, and do not require future legislation for
    their enforcement. For if they are not treated as self-executing, the mandate of the fundamental law can
    be easily nullified by the inaction of Congress. However, some provisions have already been categorically
    declared by the Supreme Court as non self-executing. This Court specifically set apart the sections found
    under Article II are not intended to be self-executing principles ready for enforcement through the courts.
    They are used by the judiciary as aids or as guides in the exercise of its power of judicial review, and by
    the legislature in its enactment of laws. These provisions, which merely lay down a general principle are
    distinguished from other constitutional provisions as non self-executing and, therefore, cannot give rise to
    a cause of action in the courts; they do not embody judicially enforceable contitutional rights. Therefore,
    HSRA does not violate the provisions under Article II of the Constitution.

    You might also like