Del Rosario v. Bengzon (G.R. 88265.

December 21, 1989)

Facts: On March 15, 1989, the full text of RA 6675 or Generics Act of 1988 was published in two
newspapers of general circulation in the Philippines. Officers of Philippine Medical Association filed a
class suit requesting the court to declare some provisions of RA 6675 as unconstitutional for the alleged
unequal treatment of government physicians, dentists and veterinarians, on one hand, and those in
private practice on the other hand, in the manner of prescribing generic drugs.

Issue: Whether or not the prohibition against the use of doctors of “no substitution” and/or words of
similar import in their prescription in the Generics Act is a lawful regulation

Held: Yes

Ratio: There is no constitutional infirmity in the Generics Act; rather, 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 prohibition against the use of doctors of “no substitution” and/or words of similar import in their
prescription, is a valid regulation to prevent circumvention of the law. It secures to the patient the right
to choose between the brand name and its generic equivalent since his doctor is allowed to write both
the generic and brand name in his prescription form. If a doctor is allowed to prescribe a brand-name
drug with “no substitution,” the patient’s option to buy a lower-priced, but equally effective, generic
equivalent would thereby be curtailed. The law aims to benefit the impoverished majority of the
population in a still developing country like ours, not the affluent and generally healthy minority.