AMCOW vs GAMCA

G.R. No. 207132 December 06, 2016

FACTS:
DOH issued Administrative Order No. 5, Series of 2001 which directed the decking or equal
distribution of migrant workers among the several clinics who are members of GAMCA.
Subsequently, RA No. 10022 lapsed into law without the President's signature.

Section 16 of RA No. 10022, the DOH, directed GAMCA to cease and desist from implementing
the referral decking system and to wrap up their operations within three (3) days from receipt
thereof.

GAMCA filed a petition before the RTC for grave abuse of discretion on the part of DOH and
praying to declare Section 16 of RA No. 10022 as unconstitutional. It noted that the referral
decking system is part of the application procedure in obtaining visas to enter the GCC States, a
procedure made in the exercise of the sovereign power of the GCC States to protect their
nationals from health hazards, and of their diplomatic power to regulate and screen entrants to
their territories.

ISSUE:
Is the DOH letters prohibiting GAMCA from implementing the referral decking system
embodied under Section 16 of Republic Act No. 10022 violates Section 3, Article II of the 1987
Constitution for being an undue taking of property?

LAW:
The police power of the State justifies government regulations over private medical clinics that
provide services to OFWs.

The States Police Power is vast and plenary, and the operation of a business, especially one that
is imbued with public interest (such as health care services) falls within the scope of
governmental exercise of Police Power through regulation.

By its very nature, the exercise of the State’s police power limits individual rights and liberties
and subjects them to the far more overriding demands and requirements of the greater number.
CASE HISTORY:
This is a consolidated petitions for review on certiorari filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court, by the Association of Medical Clinics for Overseas Workers, Inc. (AMCOW) and by
Secretary Enrique T. Ona (Secretary Ona) of the Department of Health (DOH) and the court
resolved the challenge to the decision and order of the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The decision
and order declared null and void ab initio the orders issued by the DOH directing respondent
GCC Approved Medical Centers Association, Inc. (GAMCA) to cease and desist from
implementing the referral decking system.

RULING:
NO. Police power includes (1) the imposition of restraint on liberty or property, (2) in order to
foster the common good. The exercise of police power involves the "state authority to enact
legislation that may interfere with personal liberty or property in order to promote the general
welfare."

By its very nature, the exercise of the State's police power limits individual rights and liberties,
and subjects them to the "far more overriding demands and requirements of the greater number."
Though vast and plenary, this State power also carries limitations, specifically, it may not be
exercised arbitrarily or unreasonably. Otherwise, it defeats the purpose for which it is exercised,
that is, the advancement of the public good.

The government's exercise of police power must satisfy the "valid object and valid means"
method of analysis: first, the interest of the public generally, as distinguished from those of a
particular class, requires interference; and second, the means employed are reasonably necessary
to attain the objective sought and not unduly oppressive upon individuals.

These two elements of reasonableness are undeniably present in Section 16 of RA No. 10022.
The prohibition against the referral decking system is consistent with the State's exercise of the
police power to prescribe regulations to promote the health, safety, and general welfare of the
people. Public interest demands State interference on health matters, since the welfare of migrant
workers is a legitimate public concern.

These rules are part of the larger legal framework to ensure the Overseas Filipino Workers'
(OFW) access to quality healthcare services, and to curb existing practices that limit their
choices to specific clinics and facilities.
OPINION:

I concur to dismiss the petition. In my humble opinion, the executive department in applying and
implementing the law does not only do so by mere advice or persuasion to those who do not
follow its provisions. The issuance of an order to cease and desist in the Petitioners' continuing
violation of the law is one of them. The type of cease and order in this case was therefore an
administrative act. Therefore, it is just proper to dismiss the said petition.