HISTORY OF THE LEGISLATURE

REPRESENTATION IN THE SPANISH CORTES

Prior to the creation of a legislature in the Philippines, Filipinos, from time to time, were
allowed to sit in the Spanish Cortes as representatives of the Philippine Islands. In 1810,
the Spanish government allowed Filipinos to receive Spanish citizenship and appropriate
representation in the Cortes. When the Cadiz Constitution was in full force and effect,
Filipino representation became a standard in the Cortes. However, in 1837, the liberal
Cortes finally abolished representation and declared that overseas territories of Spain to
be ruled by special laws. This loss of representation was one of the main points that Jose
Rizal and other propagandists were fighting for during the Propaganda movement.

MALOLOS REPUBLIC, 1899 – 1901

The first Filipino legislature was convened on September 15, 1898 in Barasoain Church,
Malolos, Bulacan. Later known as the Malolos Republic, it drafted the first constitution of
the Philippines, which was also the first democratic constitution in Asia. The Congress
included delegates from different provinces of the Philippines, some elected and some
appointed. It was a short-lived legislature, unable to pass any laws due to the onset of
the Philippine-American War. The first Philippine Republic was ended on March 23, 1901
with the capture of President Emilio Aguinaldo in Palanan, Isabela.

PHILIPPINE COMMISSION, 1899 – 1916

In 1899, United States President William McKinley appointed a commission led by Dr.
Jacob Schurman to study and investigate the conditions in the Philippine Islands. This
would be known as the first Philippine Commission. It was followed by another
investigative commission led by William Howard Taft in 1900, which also had limited
legislative and executive powers. From 1901 onwards, the Philippine Commission would
be regularized. It exercised both executive and legislative powers, with three Filipino
delegates, namely Benito Legarda, Trinidad Pardo de Tavera, and Jose Luzuriaga. After
the organization of the Philippine Assembly (see below) in 1907, the commission stayed
on as the upper house of the legislature.

PHILIPPINE ASSEMBLY, 1907 – 1916

Electoral representation in the Philippines by Filipinos began when the American insular
government allowed partial self-governance by establishing the Philippine Assembly. The
assembly, as the lower house, shared legislative power with the Philippine Commission,
which remained under American control, as membership in the Philippine Commission
was still restricted to appointed American officials. In 1907, still under American rule, the
Philippines held its first national elections for the newly created representative body,
which had an inaugural membership of 81 Filipinos representing their respective districts.
In the succeeding years, the number of districts were increased to 85 in 1910, and 91 in
1912.

RESIDENT COMMISSIONERS, 1907 – 1946

From 1907 to 1946, the Philippine legislature sent a representative to sit in the U.S. House
of Representatives, as resident commissioner. Under Spain, the Philippines had also been
given limited representation in the Spanish Cortes, and like the resident commissioners,
they had the right to speak, but not to vote. The restoration of Philippine independence
in 1946 ended Philippine representation in the U.S. Congress. (Note: To this day, Puerto
Rico still has a resident commissioner in the U.S. House of Representatives.)

THE PHILIPPINE LEGISLATURE, 1916 – 1935

Upon the enactment of the Jones Law in 1916, the Filipinos were subsequently granted
the opportunity to hold other offices in the government. Positions in the Philippine Senate
were opened to Filipinos, with 12 senatorial districts and two senators elected from each.
The inaugural President of the Senate in 1916 was Manuel L. Quezon, representing the
fifth senatorial district. He would hold this position until the establishment of the
Commonwealth of the Philippines in 1935. For the 19 years prior to the Commonwealth,
the Senate presidency was the highest position a Filipino could hold.

From the first Philippine Commission to the establishment of the Commonwealth of the
Philippines, the Philippine legislature were passing public acts. This form of legislation is
started at Congress, with the approval of the American governor-general of the
Philippine Islands.

COMMONWEALTH OF THE PHILIPPINES, 1935 – 1946

On November 15, 1935, Quezon took his oath as the first President of the Commonwealth
of the Philippines, giving control of the executive branch of government to the Filipinos.
It was also in this era that the Supreme Court of the Philippines was completely Filipinized.
By virtue of the 1935 Constitution, the bicameral Philippine legislature was merged to form
the unicameral National Assembly.

Two elections were held under the Commonwealth. The first, in 1935, elected the
President of the Philippines as well as members of the National Assembly; the second, in
1939, elected only members of the National Assembly. The National Assembly would be
retained until 1941, when a new structure for the legislature was introduced through a
constitutional amendment.

From the Commonwealth period to the inauguration of the Third Philippine Republic, the
Philippine legislature was passing Commonwealth acts (CA). This form of legislation is
started at the National Assembly and approved by the President of the Philippines.

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS OF 1941

After six years under a unicameral legislature, the Constitution of 1935 was amended,
dividing the National Assembly into two separate houses. The Senate of the Philippines
and the House of Representatives were reestablished, with a Senate President and a
Speaker of the House leading their respective chambers.

The elections for members of these newly created chambers were held in 1941. However,
the onset of World War II prevented the elected members from assuming their posts and
the legislature of the Commonwealth of the Philippines was dissolved upon the exile of
the government of the Philippines.

THE SECOND REPUBLIC, 1943

On October 14, 1943, the Japanese-sponsored Second Republic was inaugurated, with
Jose. P. Laurel as the President. This government followed the newly crafted 1943
Constitution, and reverted the legislature back to a unicameral National Assembly. The
National Assembly of the Second Republic would remain in existence until the arrival of
the Allied forces in 1944, which liberated the Philippines from the Imperial Japanese
forces.

RESTORATION OF THE PHILIPPINE COMMONWEALTH, 1945 – 1946

Upon the reestablishment of the Commonwealth in 1945, President Sergio Osmeña called
for a special session of Congress. The first Congress convened on June 9 of that year, with
most of the senators and representatives, who were elected in 1941, assuming their
positions. Manuel Roxas and Jose C. Zulueta served as Senate President and Speaker of
the House, respectively. Not all, however, were allowed to take their post because some
were incarcerated for collaboration with the Japanese.

The inaugural session, was held in a converted school house in Lepanto St., Manila, as the
Legislative Building in Manila was reduced to ruins as an outcome of the war.

On April 23, 1946, national elections were held to choose new members of Congress, the
President, and the Vice President of the Philippines. After the elections the second
Congress of the Commonwealth convened on May 25, 1946. It would only last until July
4, 1946, with the inauguration of the Third Republic of the Philippines.

THE THIRD REPUBLIC, 1946 – 1972

The independent Republic of the Philippines was finally proclaimed on July 4, 1946 with
Manuel Roxas as President. The Second Congress of the Commonwealth was
transformed into the first Congress of the Republic of the Philippines, also made up of the
Senate and the House of Representatives. This would mark the beginning of the count of
Congresses of the Republic until the imposition of Martial Law in 1972, when Congress
would be dissolved.

This era started the legislation of republic acts which would continue until 1972. Upon the
restoration of democracy in 1986 and the ratification of the 1987 Constitution, the naming
of laws as republic acts would be reinstated.

MARTIAL LAW AND THE FOURTH REPUBLIC, 1972-1986

On September 23, 1972 President Ferdinand E. Marcos issued Presidential Proclamation

No. 1081, placing the entire country under Martial Law. This coincided with the closing of
the sessions of both chambers of Congress. Days before the scheduled reopening of the
Senate and the House of Representatives, Marcos promulgated the 1973 Constitution,
which effectively abolished the bicameral legislature and replaced it with a unicameral
legislature. Opposition legislators reported to the Legislative Building on January 22, 1973,
but found the building padlocked and under an armed guard.

Under martial rule, Marcos created the Batasang Bayan in 1976, by virtue of Presidential
Decree No. 995, to serve as a legislative advisory council—a quasi-legislative machinery
to normalize the legislative process for the eventual actualization of the 1973 Constitution.
The Batasang Bayan would hold office in the Philippine International Convention Center
(a modernist structure designed by National Artist for Architecture Leandro Locsin, within
the Cultural Center of the Philippines Complex—a pet project of First Lady Imelda R.
Marcos). The consultative body would serve until 1978.

The Batasang Bayan would be replaced in 1978 by an elected unicameral body: the
Interim Batasang Pambansa (IBP), a parliamentary legislature, as provided for in the 1973
Constitution. On April 7, 1978, elections for were held. Those elected to the IBP would be
called Mambabatas Pambansa (Assemblymen) who would be elected per region, via a
bloc-voting system. The IBP opened on Independence Day 1984 in the Batasan
Pambansa in Quezon City.

Members of the Regular Batasang Pambansa (RBP) were elected in 1984, this time at-
large and per province. The RBP held its inaugural session on July 23, 1984.

In 1986, President Marcos succumbed to international pressure and called for a snap
presidential election. Though Marcos and his running mate former Senator and
Assemblyman Arturo Tolentino were proclaimed by the Batasang Pambansa as the
winners of the election, a popular revolt installed opposition leaders Corazon C. Aquino
and Salvador H. Laurel as President and Vice President, respectively.

For both the IBP and RBP, the laws passed would be called “Batas Pambansa,” which did
not continue the previous numbering of Republic Acts.

THE FIFTH REPUBLIC, 1987 – PRESENT

On March 25, 1986, President Aquino declared a revolutionary government by virtue

of Presidential Proclamation No. 3, s. 1986, which suspended some provisions of the 1973
Constitution and promulgated in its stead a transitory constitution. This effectively
abolished the Batasang Pambansa. A constitutional commission, tasked with drafting a
new charter, was created by virtue of Proclamation No. 9 issued on April 23, 1986.

Following the overwhelming ratification of the 1987 Constitution through a national

plebiscite held on February 2, 1987, the 1987 Constitution finally came into full force and
effect on February 11, 1987. It re-established a bicameral legislature, composed of the
House of Representatives and the Senate, much like the way it was before martial law.
The former, being much larger in composition, reopened in the Batasan Pambansa while
the Senate, still with its 24 members, returned to the Legislative Building. In 1997, the
Senate of the Philippines moved to the GSIS building where it is currently housed.

Laws passed by the bicameral legislature would restore “Republic Acts”, as the laws were
named in the Third Republic (1946-1972). Moreover, it was decided to maintain the old
count, taking up where the last pre-martial law Congress left off. Thus, the last Congress
under the 1935 Constitution was the seventh Congress, and the first Congress under the
1987 Constitution became the eighth Congress.

Bills, Resolutions, Amendments, Republic Acts. These are some of the words we hear
whenever the Senate or House of Representatives releases a press statement about
something that has either been proposed or passed their scrutiny. People always have
something to say whenever they hear a proposal, but most think that a proposed bill is
already a law. Filipinos in general don’t know the legislative process, but they at least
have an idea of how it goes. Expats, on the other hand, have no idea when something
can be considered a law and when it’s merely a proposal. Here’s our guide on the
Philippine Legislative Process.

Introduction

First off, the Congress is not just composed of congressmen. The Congress is the legislative
branch of the country, and it consists of two chambers: the Senate (Upper House) and
House of Representatives (Lower House).

The Senate has 24 seats, half of which are voted on by the nation every 3 years. Each
Senator serves a 6-year term, and can be a member of any of the 40 permanent
committees. They cannot serve for more than 2 consecutive terms.
The House of Representatives (HOR), on the other hand, is composed of 292
representatives serving 238 districts and 47 party lists. Each representative can be a
member of the house’s 58 standing or 14 special committees. They serve a 3-year term
and can be re-elected but cannot go beyond 3 consecutive terms.

Bills and Resolutions

The job of a Senator or a Representative is to make laws that uphold the spirit of the
constitution. They can also amend or change the constitution itself. Senators and
Representatives work on two documents: bills and resolutions.

A resolution conveys principles and sentiments of the Senate or the HOR. They are
divided into:

 Joint resolutions – requires approval from the Senate, the HOR, and the signature
of the President. They have the force and effect of a law once approved.
 Concurrent resolutions – used for matters affecting operations of both chambers
and must be approved in the same form by both. These are not transmitted to the
President; hence, they do not have the same force and effect of a law.
 Simple resolutions – deals with matters entirely within one of the chambers. As such,
these are not referred to the President and do not have the force and effect of a
law.
A bill, on the other hand, is a law in the making. These are the “proposed laws” or
“proposed amendment” you hear about in the news, like House Bill No. 2379, which seeks
to amend the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997, the country’s 20-year-old tax
code. House Bills are those made by a Representative, while Senate Bills are those made
by a Senator.

From Bill to Republic Act: the Process

Going from a House or Senate Bill to a Republic Act is a long and arduous process. It
takes 3 readings and an approval from both chambers along with the signature of the
President before a bill can become a law, known in the Philippines as a Republic Act.

The process goes along as follows:

Proposals and suggestions are taken from the President, government agencies, private
individuals, interest groups, and legislators themselves.
The author(s) then writes the bill and sign it before being filed with the Secretary General.

The bill then goes through three readings.

 The first reading consists of reading the title and author(s) and its referral to the
appropriate committee(s). The committee then studies the bill and either submits
it to the Committee on Rules or is laid on the table.
 The second reading comes after the bill has been included in the Calendar of
Business by the Committee on Rules. This is when sponsorships, debates, and
amendments take place. A vote is taken after all the debates and amendments,
after which the bill is either archived or goes through a third reading.
 The third reading happens when the bill goes through a final check and vote via
roll call. If it’s approved, it is then sent to the other house, where it goes through
the same procedures. If not, it gets archived.
After going through three readings from both houses, the conference committee of both
houses ratifies the bill and submits it to the President for signing. If, however, there are

conflicts in the provisions proposed by both Houses, a Bicameral Conference Committee

is called upon to reconcile them.

Once received by the Office of the President, the bill can take one of three routes:

 Approved. Once it is approved by the President, it becomes a Republic Act and

takes effect 15 days after publication in the Official Gazette or at least two
national newspapers of general circulation;
 Vetoed. The bill is returned to the originating house with an explanation on why it
was vetoed. The house can either accept the veto or override it with a 2/3
(majority) vote, after which it is essentially approved, and takes effect 15 days after
being publicized.
  Lapsed into law. A bill is said to have lapsed into law if the President fails to act on
it within 30 days after receiving the bill. It takes effect 15 days after being
publicized.

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 5901

AN ACT PRESCRIBING FORTY HOURS A WEEK OF LABOR FOR GOVERNMENT AND PRIVATE
HOSPITALS OR CLINIC PERSONNEL

Section 1. Government and private resident physicians, nurses, nutritionists,

dietitians, pharmacists, social workers, laboratory technicians, para-medical technicians,
psychologists, midwives, attendants and all other hospital or clinic personnel shall hold
regular office hours for eight hours a day, for five days a week, or a total of forty hours a
week, exclusive of time for lunch: Provided, That any of such employees or laborers who
shall suffer a reduction of his weekly or daily wage or compensation because of a
reduction of the number of days or hours of labor in a week, as provided herein, subject
to the minimum daily or hourly wage or compensation already fixed by existing law, shall
be given an automatic increase in his daily or hourly wage or compensation, whose
amount in a week or a day or per piece shall be equal to the diminution which his daily
or hourly or per piece wage shall suffer on account of the reduction of days of labor to
five days a week: And provided, further, That the salaries of employees received on
monthly basis shall not suffer any diminution on account of the reduction of the number
of days of labor a week.

Sec. 2. This Act shall apply only to cities and municipalities with a population of
one million or more and to hospitals and clinics with a bed capacity of at least one
hundred.

Sec. 3. All acts or parts thereof inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby
repealed or modified accordingly.

Sec. 4. Any violation of this Apply by any official of the government, in case of
government hospitals and clinics, shall be punished by separation from the service. If the
violation is committed by any private hospital or clinic, said hospital or clinic shall pay a
fine of not less than one thousand pesos, nor more than five thousand pesos, and for
succeeding offenses each official responsible for the violation shall, in addition to the fine
herein provided, suffer imprisonment for not less than one month and not more than one
year.

Sec. 5. This Act shall take effect upon its approval.

Approved: June 21, 1969

 Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT

Manila

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 126383 November 28, 1997

SAN JUAN DE DIOS HOSPITAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION-AFW/MA. CONSUELO

MACQUILING LEONARDO MARTINEZ, DOMINGO ELA, JR., RODOLFO CALUCIN, JR., PERLA
MENDOZA, REX RAPHAEL REYES, ROGELIO BELMONTE, and 375 other EMPLOYEE-UNION
MEMBERS, petitioners,

Vs.

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, and SAN JUAN DE DIOS HOSPITAL,

respondents.

FRANCISCO, J.:

Petitioners, the rank-and-file employee-union officers and members of San Juan De Dios
Hospital Employees Association, sent on July 08, 1991, a "four (4)-page letter with
attached support signatures . . . requesting and pleading for the expeditious
implementation and payment by respondent" Juan De Dios Hospital "of the '40-HOURS/5-
DAY WORKWEEK' with compensable weekly two (2) days off provided for by Republic
Act 5901 as clarified for enforcement by the Secretary of Labor's Policy Instructions No.
54 dated April 12, 1988." 1 Respondent hospital failed to give a favorable response; thus,
petitioners filed a complaint regarding their "claims for statutory benefits under the
above-cited law and policy issuance" 2, docketed as NLRC NCR Case No. 00-08-04815-
19. On February 26, 1992, the Labor Arbiter 3 dismissed the complaint. Petitioners
appealed before public respondent National Labor Relations Commission 4 (NLRC),
docketed as NLRC NCR CA 003028-92, which affirmed the Labor Arbiter's decision.
Petitioners' subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied; hence, this petition under
Rule 65 of the Rules of Court ascribing grave abuse of discretion on the part of NLRC in
concluding that Policy Instructions No. 54 "proceeds from a wrong interpretation of RA
5901" 5 and Article 83 of the Labor Code.

As the Court sees it, the core issue is whether Policy Instructions No. 54 issued by then
Labor Secretary (now Senator) Franklin M. Drilon is valid or not.

The policy instruction in question provides in full as follows:

Policy Instruction No. 54

To: All Concerned

Subject: Working Hours and Compensation of Hospital/Clinic Personnel

This issuance clarifies the enforcement policy of this Department on the working hours
and compensation of personnel employed by hospitals/clinics with a bed capacity of
100 or more and those located in cities and municipalities with a population of one million
or more.

Republic Act 5901 took effect on 21 June 1969 prescribes a 40-hour/5 day work week for
hospital/clinic personnel. At the same time, the Act prohibits the diminution of the
compensation of these workers who would suffer a reduction in their weekly wage by
reason of the shortened workweek prescribed by the Act. In effect, RA 5901 requires that
the covered hospital workers who used to work seven (7) days a week should be paid for
such number of days for working only 5 days or 40 hours a week.

The evident intention of RA 5901 is to reduce the number of hospital personnel,

considering the nature of their work, and at the same time guarantee the payment to
them of a full weekly wage for seven (7) days. This is quite clear in the Exemplary Note of
RA 5901 which states:

As compared with the other employees and laborers, these hospital and health clinic
personnel are over-worked despite the fact that their duties are more delicate in nature.
If we offer them better working conditions, it is believed that the "brain drain", that our
country suffers nowadays as far as these personnel are concerned will be considerably
lessened. The fact that these hospitals and health clinics personnel perform duties which
are directly concerned with the health and lives of our people does not mean that they
should work for a longer period than most employees and laborers. They are also entitled
to as much rest as other workers. Making them work longer than is necessary may
endanger, rather than protect the health of their patients. Besides, they are not receiving
better pay than the other workers. Therefore, it is just and fair that they may be made to
enjoy the privileges of equal working hours with other workers except those excepted by
law. (Sixth Congress of the Republic of the Philippines, Third Session, House of
Representatives, H. No. 16630)

The Labor Code in its Article 83 adopts and incorporates the basic provisions of RA 5901
and retains its spirit and intent which is to shorten the workweek of covered hospital
personnel and at the same time assure them of a full weekly wage.

Consistent with such spirit and intent, it is the position of the Department that personnel
in subject hospital and clinics are entitled to a full weekly wage for seven (7) days if they
have completed the 40-hour/5-day workweek in any given workweek.
All enforcement and adjudicatory agencies of this Department shall be guided by this
issuance in the disposition of cases involving the personnel of covered hospitals and
clinics.

Done in the City of Manila, this 12th day of April, 1988.

(Sgd.) FRANKLIN M. DRILON

Secretary

(Emphasis Added)

We note that Policy Instruction No. 54 relies and purports to implement Republic Act No.
5901, otherwise known as "An Act Prescribing Forty Hours A Week Of Labor For
Government and Private Hospitals Or Clinic Personnel", enacted on June 21, 1969.
Reliance on Republic Act No. 5901, however, is misplaced for the said statute, as
correctly ruled by respondent NLRC, has long been repealed with the passage of the
Labor Code on May 1, 1974, Article 302 of which explicitly provides: "All labor laws not
adopted as part of this Code either directly or by reference are hereby repealed. All
provisions of existing laws, orders, decree, rules and regulations inconsistent herewith are
likewise repealed." Accordingly, only Article 83 of the Labor Code which appears to have
substantially incorporated or reproduced the basic provisions of Republic Act No. 5901
may support Policy Instructions No. 54 on which the latter's validity may be gauged.
Article 83 of the Labor Code states:

Art. 83. Normal Hours of Work. — The normal hours of work of any employee shall not
exceed eight (8) hours a day.

Health personnel in cities and municipalities with a population of at least one million
(1,000,000) or in hospitals and clinics with a bed capacity of at least one hundred (100)
shall hold regular office hours for eight (8) hours a day, for five (5) days a week, exclusive
of time for meals, except where the exigencies of the service require that such personnel
work for six (6) days or forty-eight (48) hours, in which case they shall be entitled to an
additional compensation of at least thirty per cent (30%) of their regular wage for work
on the sixth day. For purposes of this Article, "health personnel" shall include: resident
physicians, nurses, nutritionists, dietitians, pharmacists, social workers, laboratory
technicians, paramedical technicians, psychologists, midwives, attendants and all other
hospital or clinic personnel. (Emphasis supplied)

A cursory reading of Article 83 of the Labor Code betrays petitioners' position that
"hospital employees" are entitled to "a full weekly salary with paid two (2) days' off if they
have completed the 40-hour/5-day workweek". 6 What Article 83 merely provides are:
(1) the regular office hour of eight hours a day, five days per week for health personnel,
and (2) where the exigencies of service require that health personnel work for six days or
forty-eight hours then such health personnel shall be entitled to an additional
compensation of at least thirty percent of their regular wage for work on the sixth day.
There is nothing in the law that supports then Secretary of Labor's assertion that "personnel
in subject hospitals and clinics are entitled to a full weekly wage for seven (7) days if they
have completed the 40-hour/5-day workweek in any given workweek". Needless to say,
the Secretary of Labor exceeded his authority by including a two days off with pay in
contravention of the clear mandate of the statute. Such act the Court shall not
countenance. Administrative interpretation of the law, we reiterate, is at best merely
advisory, 7 and the Court will not hesitate to strike down an administrative interpretation
that deviates from the provision of the statute.

Indeed, even if we were to subscribe with petitioners' erroneous assertion that Republic
Act No. 5901 has neither been amended nor repealed by the Labor Code, we
nevertheless find Policy Instructions No. 54 invalid. A perusal of Republic Act No. 5901 8
reveals nothing therein that gives two days off with pay for health personnel who
complete a 40-hour work or 5-day workweek. In fact, the Explanatory Note of House Bill
No. 16630 (later passed into law as Republic Act No. 5901) explicitly states that the bill's
sole purpose is to shorten the working hours of health personnel and not to dole out a
two days off with pay.

Hence:

The accompanying bill seeks to grant resident physicians, staff nurses, nutritionist,
midwives, attendants and other hospital and health clinic personnel of public and private
hospitals and clinics, the privilege of enjoying the eight hours a week exclusive of time for
lunch granted by law to all government employees and workers except those employed
in schools and in courts. At present those hospitals and clinics, work six days a week, 8
hours a day or 48 hours a week.

As compared with the other employees and laborers, these hospital and health clinic
personnel are over-worked despite the fact that their duties are more delicate in nature.
If we offer them better working conditions, it is believed that the "brain drain", that our
country suffers nowadays as far as these personnel are concerned will be considerably
lessened. The fact that these hospitals and health clinic personnel perform duties which
are directly concerned with the health and lives of our people does not mean that they
should work for a longer period than most employees and laborers. They are also entitled
to as much rest as other workers. Making them work longer than is necessary may
endanger, rather than protect, the health of their patients. Besides, they are not receiving
better pay than the other workers. Therefore, it is just and fair that they be made to enjoy
the privileges of equal working hours with other workers except those excepted by law.

In the light of the foregoing, approval of this bill is strongly recommended.

(SGD.) SERGIO H. LOYOLA

"Congressman, 3rd District

Manila" (Annex "F" of petition, emphasis supplied)

Further, petitioners' position is also negated by the very rules and regulations promulgated
by the Bureau of Labor Standards which implement Republic Act No. 5901. Pertinent
portions of the implementing rules provide:

RULES AND REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTING

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 5901

By virtue of Section 79 of the Revised Administrative Code, as modified by section 18 of

Implementation Report for Reorganization Plan No. 20-A on Labor, vesting in the Bureau
of Labor Standards the authority to promulgate rules and regulations to implement wage
and hour laws, the following rules and regulations to are hereby issued for the
implementation of Republic Act No. 5901.

CHAPTER I — Coverage

Sec. 1. General Statement on Coverage. Republic Act No. 5901, hereinafter referred to
as the Act, shall apply to:

(a) All hospitals and clinics, including those with a bed capacity of less than one hundred,
which are situated in cities or municipalities with a population of one million or more; and
to

(b) All hospitals and clinics with a bed capacity of at least one hundred, irrespective of
the size of population of the city or municipality where they may be situated.

xxx xxx xxx

Sec. 7. Regular Working Day. The regular working days of covered employees shall be
not more than five days in a workweek. The workweek may begin at any hour and on
any day, including Saturday or Sunday, designated by the employer.

Employers are not precluded from changing the time at which the workday or workweek
begins, provided that the change is not intended to evade the requirements of these
regulations on the payment of additional compensation.

xxx xxx xxx

Sec. 15. Additional Pay Under the Act and C.A. No. 444. (a) Employees of covered
hospitals and clinics who are entitled to the benefits provided under the Eight-Hour Labor
Law, as amended, shall be paid an additional compensation equivalent to their regular
rate plus at least twenty-five percent thereof for work performed on Sunday and Holidays,
not exceeding eight hours, such employees shall be entitled to an additional
compensation of at least 25% of their regular rate.

(b) For work performed in excess of forty hours a week, excluding those rendered in
excess of eight hours a day during the week, employees covered by the Eight-Hour Labor
Law shall be entitled to an additional straight-time pay which must be equivalent at least
to their regular rate.
If petitioners are entitled to two days off with pay, then there appears to be no sense at
all why Section 15 of the implementing rules grants additional compensation equivalent
to the regular rate plus at least twenty-five percent thereof for work performed on Sunday
to health personnel, or an "additional straight-time pay which must be equivalent at least
to the regular rate" "[f]or work performed in excess of forty hours a week. . . . Policy
Instructions No. 54 to our mind unduly extended the statute. The Secretary of Labor
moreover erred in invoking the "spirit and intent" of Republic Act No. 5901 and Article 83
of the Labor Code for it is an elementary rule of statutory construction that when the
language of the law is clear and unequivocal, the law must be taken to mean exactly
what it says. 9 No additions or revisions may be permitted. Policy Instructions No. 54 being
inconsistent with and repugnant to the provision of Article 83 of the Labor Code, as well
as to Republic Act No. 5901, should be, as it is hereby, declared void.

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is AFFIRMED. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Romero, Melo and Panganiban, JJ, concur.

Personal Take:

As a part of healthcare field, we all know that are practice was one of a kind. It needs a
lot of time and dedication. Me, personally as Medical Technologist we are dealing with
patient’s results. One single mistake may lead to damage or misdiagnosis of a patient.
Right number of personnel or staffing is needed so that work is not compensated. Right
enough time of sleep for an individual. For me it is ethically right the company must follow
the 40 hours working for medical personnel. So that burn out issue will not happened. It is
right of the employer to give their employees the privilege and right to have a balance
life.

Republic Act No. 8344

AN ACT PENALIZING THE REFUSAL OF HOSPITALS AND MEDICAL CLINICS TO ADMINISTER

APPROPRIATE INITIAL MEDICAL TREATMENT AND SUPPORT IN EMERGENCY OR SERIOUS
CASES, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE BATAS PAMBANSA BILANG 702, OTHERWISE
KNOWN AS "AN ACT PROHIBITING THE DEMAND OF DEPOSITS OR ADVANCE PAYMENTS
FOR THE CONFINEMENT OR TREATMENT OF PATIENTS IN HOSPITALS AND MEDICAL CLINICS
IN CERTAIN CASES"

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress

assembled:

Section 1. Section 1 of Batas Pambansa Bilang 702 is hereby amended to read as follows:

"SECTION 1. In emergency or serious cases, it shall be unlawful for any proprietor,

president, director, manager or any other officer, and/or medical practitioner or
employee of a hospital or medical clinic to request, solicit, demand or accept any
deposit or any other form of advance payment as a prerequisite for confinement or
medical treatment of a patient in such hospital or medical clinic or to refuse to administer
medical treatment and support as dictated by good practice of medicine to prevent
death or permanent disability: Provided, That by reason of inadequacy of the medical
capabilities of the hospital or medical clinic, the attending physician may transfer the
patient to a facility where the appropriate care can be given, after the patient or his next
of kin consents to said transfer and after the receiving hospital or medical clinic agrees
to the transfer: Provided, however, That when the patient is unconscious, incapable of
giving consent and/or unaccompanied, the physician can transfer the patient even
without his consent: Provided, further, That such transfer shall be done only after
necessary emergency treatment and support have been administered to stabilize the
patient and after it has been established that such transfer entails less risks than the
patient's continued confinement: Provided, furthermore, That no hospital or clinic, after
being informed of the medical indications for such transfer, shall refuse to receive the
patient nor demand from the patient or his next of kin any deposit or advance payment:
Provided, finally, That strict compliance with the foregoing procedure on transfer shall not
be construed as a refusal made punishable by this Act."

Section 2. Section 2 of Batas Pambansa Bilang 702 is hereby deleted and in place thereof,
new sections 2, 3 and 4 are added, to read as follows:

"SEC. 2. For purposes of this Act, the following definitions shall govern:

"(a) 'Emergency' - a condition or state of a patient wherein based on the

objective findings of a prudent medical officer on duty for the day there is
immediate danger and where delay in initial support and treatment may cause
loss of life or cause permanent disability to the patient.

"(b) 'Serious case' - refers to a condition of a patient characterized by

gravity or danger wherein based on the objective findings of a prudent medical
officer on duty for the day when left unattended to, may cause loss of life or cause
permanent disability to the patient.

"(c) 'Confinement' - a state of being admitted in a hospital or medical clinic

for medical observation, diagnosis, testing, and treatment consistent with the
capability and available facilities of the hospital or clinic.

"(d) 'Hospital' - a facility devoted primarily to the diagnosis, treatment and

care of individuals suffering from illness, disease, injury or deformity, or in need of
obstetrical or other medical and nursing care. It shall also be construed as any
institution, building or place where there are facilities and personnel for the
continued and prolonged care of patients.

"(e) 'Emergency treatment and support' - any medical or surgical measure

within the capability of the hospital or medical clinic that is administered by
qualified health care professionals to prevent the death or permanent disability of
a patient.
 "(f) 'Medical clinic' - a place in which patients can avail of medical
consultation or treatment on an outpatient basis.

"(g) 'Permanent disability' - a condition of physical disability as defined

under Article 192-C and Article 193-B and C of Presidential Decree No 442; as
amended, otherwise known as the Labor Code of the Philippines.

"(h) 'Stabilize' - the provision of necessary care until such time that the
patient may be discharged or transferred to another hospital or clinic with a
reasonable probability that no physical deterioration would result from or occur
during such discharge or transfer.

"SEC. 3. After the hospital or medical clinic mentioned above shall have
administered medical treatment and support, it may cause the transfer of the patient to
an appropriate hospital consistent with the needs of the patient, preferably to a
government hospital, especially in the case of poor or indigent patients.

"SEC. 4. Any official, medical practitioner or employee of the hospital or medical

clinic who violates the provisions of this Act shall, upon conviction by final judgment, be
punished by imprisonment of not less than six (6) months and one (1) day but not more
than two (2) years and four (4) months, or a fine of not less than Twenty thousand pesos
(P20,000.00), but not more than One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) or both, at
the discretion of the court: Provided, however, That if such violation was committed
pursuant to an established policy of the hospital or clinic or upon instruction of its
management, the director or officer of such hospital or clinic responsible for the
formulation and implementation of such policy shall, upon conviction by final judgment,
suffer imprisonment of four (4) to six (6) years, or a fine of not less than One hundred
thousand pesos (P100,000.00), but not more than Five hundred thousand pesos
(P500,000.00) or both, at the discretion of the court."

Section 3. Section 3 of Batas Pambansa Bilang 702 is hereby repealed.

Section 4. Section 4 of Batas Pambansa Bilang 702 shall become Section 5 thereof and
shall be amended to read as follows:

"SEC. 5. The Department of Health shall promulgate the necessary rules and
regulations to carry out the provisions of this Act."

Section 5. This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its publication in two (2) national
newspapers of general circulation.

Approved: August 25, 1997

My friend’s daughter was rushed to the hospital because her allergies worsened to the
point that she had difficulty in breathing. The nurses initially refused to accept my friend’s
daughter because they could not pay a deposit of at least P5, 000.00. Her husband
argued with the nurses and threatened them with a lawsuit if anything bad happens to
their daughter. So they were admitted to the emergency and she was given treatment.
Now, she is still undergoing some tests to determine her condition. What I would like to
know, is it right for nurses or even hospitals to refuse to accept a patient under the same
circumstances? Assuming my friend’s daughter gets completely treated and they still do
not have enough money to pay for the hospital bills, can the hospital refuse to release
their daughter?

All Health facilities, whether government-owned or private, are prohibited from refusing
persons seeking medical help or from detaining them for nonpayment of hospital bills or
medical expenses. Hospitals often require payment of deposits prior to their admission so
as to ensure that patients or their families have sufficient funds to answer for their initial
medical needs. This particular practice of hospitals, however, is not without limit. In fact,
the same is regulated by existing laws.

Particularly, Republic Act (RA) 8344, which amended Batas Pambansa Bilang 702,
declares it unlawful, in emergency or serious cases, for any proprietor, president, director,
manager or any other officer and/or medical practitioner or employee of a hospital or
medical clinic to request, solicit, demand or accept any deposit or any other form of
advance payment as a prerequisite for confinement or medical treatment of a patient
in such hospital or medical clinic or to refuse to administer medical treatment and support
as dictated by good practice of medicine to prevent death or permanent disability.
(Section 1, RA 8344). An emergency case is defined as a condition or state of a patient
wherein based on the objective findings of a prudent medical officer on duty for the day,
there is immediate danger and where delay in initial support and treatment may cause
loss of life or cause permanent disability to the patient. On the other hand, serious case
refers to a condition of a patient characterized by gravity or danger wherein based on
the objective findings of a prudent medical officer on duty for the day when left
unattended to, may cause loss of life or cause permanent disability to the patient
(Section 2 (a) and (b), RA 8344).

From the facts that you mentioned, it can be said that your friend’s daughter, at the time
she was rushed to the hospital, was experiencing a serious medical predicament. Hence,
it would have been illegal if the nurses or the hospital insisted on refusing to attend to the
needs of the child taking into account the provisions of the above-stated law.

We want to emphasize, though, that your friend will still have to settle their financial
obligations with the hospital for the confinement and treatment of their daughter. We
cannot deny the fact that a contract was forged between the parties. Hence, they need
to pay whatever is due to the hospital for the services and medicines they have provided.

Nonetheless, if the child was admitted in a charity ward or in a non-private room and she
has fully or partly recovered and is prepared for discharge, the hospital cannot refuse to
release her on account of her inability to pay for the hospital bills including professional
fees and medicines, provided that her parents execute a promissory note covering their
unpaid obligation and the same is secured by either a mortgage or by a guarantee of a
co-maker, who will be jointly and severally liable with the patient for the unpaid
obligation. This is in consonance with Section 2 of RA 9439, or “An Act Prohibiting the
Detention of Patients in Hospitals and Medical Clinics on Grounds of Nonpayment of
Hospital Bills or Medical Expenses.”

Healthcare in the Philippines

With 17,500 km of coastline and over 7,000 islands, the Philippines is a popular destination
for those considering a relocation. Before you take the leap, you should consider all the
facts, including the country’s healthcare. The healthcare standards in the Philippines are
considered to be good, especially due to reforms undergone in the public health sector
over the last 25 years, and the popular private fee-for-service system.

Quick facts on the healthcare system in The Philippines

The topic of health has become increasingly more important over the past few decades
in the Philippines. The country has implemented several rounds of reform to strengthen its
health system. Philippines adopted decentralized health governance in 1991, introduced
a social health insurance program – PhilHealth – in 1995, and has actively pursued
universal health coverage since 2010. As a consequence of its focus on the health sector
and general socioeconomic development, Philippines has achieved significant
improvements in life expectancy and immunization coverage, as well as a twofold
reduction in infant and under-5 mortality.

Although much has been achieved to date, there are still many concerns in the health
sector that need to be tackled. These include a reduction in the prevalence of
tuberculosis and childhood pneumonia, as well as managing the rising tide of non-
communicable diseases and further strengthening the preparation and response
capacity to natural and human-induced disasters. There have been widespread efforts
to improve health service delivery in the country, but regional and socioeconomic
disparities in the availability and accessibility of resources are prominent. There is
maldistribution of infrastructure and human resources across and within regions, which
are concentrated in Metro Manila and other major cities. Philippines is a major exporter
of health-care professionals but finds it challenging to ensure adequate availability within
the country. Utilization of the health budget has improved over the years, but
governance and implementation challenges persist due to the fragmented nature of the
system. The country has a mixed health system with an expanding private sector. There
is no effective mechanism to regulate private for-profit health-care providers. More than
50% of the total health spending is out of pocket. Coverage by the Philippine Health
Insurance Corporation (PhilHealth) has increased over the years, but not all the eligible
members are aware of the benefits of the program. There is no effective mechanism in
place to monitor the accreditation of facilities, and regulate the cost and quality of
services.

Is it public, private or universal healthcare: I supposed a mixed public-private system.

Average cost of an emergency room visit: ₱2,500

Average cost of a doctor’s visit: ₱500

Number of pharmacies: over 20,000

Number of hospitals: 1,800

Population % covered by health insurance: 100% - as they say 100% compliance. But

Is healthcare free in the Philippines?

All citizens are entitled to free healthcare under the Philippine Health Insurance
Corporation (PhilHealth)

To give you a general idea of the Filipino medical bills you’ll run into, here are some costs
for healthcare items in the Philippines:

Healthcare Item Average Cost in the Philippines

PhilHealth insurance plan ₱2,400 - ₱3,600

One-night hospital stay ₱2,500

Emergency room visit ₱2,500

Doctor’s office visit ₱500

Filipino medical system: Public, private, universal, national, state, single payer - which is
it?

The Philippines has a public medical system with the option to either choose free,
government-provided healthcare or purchase private healthcare from your own pocket.

The Filipino state healthcare system

The public healthcare system is delivered through public health and primary healthcare
centres linked to peripheral barangay (local town) health centres. Around 40% of the
hospitals in the Philippines are public. Doctors at public hospitals in the Philippines are
well-trained, but there are still a number that say the technology and equipment used at
public hospitals isn’t as good as private ones. So you’ll have to make sure to ask around
from your local contacts to get their opinion before you choose the hospital that’s right
for you.

The Filipino private healthcare system

The private health sector caters to 30% of the population and is based on North American
medical models. If private is the route you’ll take, you’ll be glad to find out that it’s not
only widely available in major cities, but actually a majority of hospitals in the Philippines
are privately run. Medical services in private hospitals are frequently touted to be held to
a higher standard, but that also means it comes at a higher price. Expats may find private
health insurance plans are more affordable than those from their home country. The high-
quality, low-cost private healthcare system has put the Philippines on the map not only
for medical tourism, but even permanent relocation. But even if you’ll just be visiting there
for a short while, you’ll need to know that providers expect cash upfront before you can
be treated.

Hospitals in the Philippines

Once you have your insurance plan set up, you can use the Department of Health’s list
of hospitals to help you find the best one for you. Those with private insurance may prefer
a private hospital, which many consider to have a faster service and better conditions.
However, these conditions may be expensive and you won’t be allowed to leave until
you’ve paid the full bill. The average price for an overnight hospital stay is around ₱2,500.

Pearl Joy F. De Castro,RMT