Is E.O. 97-A which authorizes the importation and trade of foreign goods unconstitutional for being violative of the State policy of promoting the preferential use of Filipino labor, domestic materials and locally produced goods?

This Court notes that petitioners failed to substantiate their sweeping conclusion that the issuance has violated the State policy of giving preference to Filipino goods and labor. The mere fact that said issuance authorizes the importation and trade of foreign goods does not suffice to declare it unconstitutional on this ground.

While the Constitution indeed mandates a bias in favor of Filipino goods, services, labor and enterprises, at the same time, it recognizes the need for business exchange with the rest of the world on the bases of equality and reciprocity and limits protection of Filipino enterprises only against foreign competition and trade practices that are unfair. In other words, the Constitution did not intend to pursue an isolationist policy. It did not shut out foreign investments, goods and services in the development of the Philippine economy. While the Constitution does not encourage the unlimited entry of foreign goods, services and investments into the country, it does not prohibit them either. In fact, it allows an exchange on the basis of equality and reciprocity, frowning only on foreign competition that is unfair.

This Court notes that the Executive Department, with its subsequent issuance of Executive Order Nos. 444 and 303, has provided certain measures to prevent unfair competition. In particular, Executive Order Nos. 444 and 303 have restricted the special shopping privileges to certain individuals. Executive Order No. 303 has limited the range of items that may be sold in the duty-free outlets, and imposed sanctions to curb abuses of duty-free privileges. With these measures, this Court finds no reason to strike down Executive Order No. 97-A for allegedly being prejudicial to Filipino labor, domestic materials and locally produced goods. (Coconut Oil Refiners Association, Inc. vs. Torres, G.R. No. 132527, July 29, 2005)

May a foreigner be granted license to practice medicine in the Philippines?

Article XII, Section 14 of the 1987 Constitution provides that: 

The practice of all professions in the Philippines shall be limited to Filipino citizens, save in cases prescribed by law.

R.A. No. 2382 otherwise known as the Medical Act of 1959 states in Section 9 thereof that:

Section 9. Candidates for Board Examinations. - Candidates for Board examinations shall have the following qualifications:

1. He shall be a citizen of the Philippines or a citizen of any foreign country who has submitted competent and conclusive documentary evidence, confirmed by the Department of Foreign Affairs, showing that his countrys existing laws permit citizens of the Philippines to practice medicine under the same rules and regulations governing citizens thereof; 

x x x x

Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 223 also provides in Section (j) thereof that:

j) The Professional Regulation Commission may, upon the recommendation of the Board concerned, approve the registration of and authorize the issuance of a certificate of registration with or without examination to a foreigner who is registered under the laws of his country: Provided, That the requirement for the registration or licensing in said foreign state or country are substantially the same as those required and contemplated by the laws of the Philippines and that the laws of such foreign state or country allow the citizens of the Philippines to practice the profession on the same basis and grant the same privileges as the subject or citizens of such foreign state or country: Provided, finally, That the applicant shall submit competent and conclusive documentary evidence, confirmed by the Department of Foreign Affairs, showing that his country's existing laws permit citizens of the Philippines to practice the profession under the rules and regulations governing citizens thereof. The Commission is also hereby authorized to prescribe additional requirements or grant certain privileges to foreigners seeking registration in the Philippines if the same privileges are granted to or some additional requirements are required of citizens of the Philippines in acquiring the same certificates in his country;

A foreigner may be granted license to practice medicine in the Philippines so long as it can be shown that he possesses all of the qualifications and none of the disqualifications required by law for the practice of the medicine. In addition, he must prove that he is a citizen of a country which allows citizens of the Philippines to practice medicine under the same rules and regulations governing citizens thereof. (Board of Medicine v. Yasuyuki Ota, G.R. No. 166097, July 14, 2008)

May the Professional Regulation Commission require a foreigner to first show that the conditions for the practice of medicine in his country are practical and attainable by Filipinos before he may be given license to practice medicine in the Philippines?

There is no question that a license to practice medicine is a privilege or franchise granted by the government. However, the power to regulate the exercise of a profession or pursuit of an occupation cannot be exercised by the State or its agents in an arbitrary, despotic, or oppressive manner. A political body which regulates the exercise of a particular privilege has the authority to both forbid and grant such privilege in accordance with certain conditions. As the legislature cannot validly bestow an arbitrary power to grant or refuse a license on a public agency or officer, courts will generally strike down license legislation that vests in public officials discretion to grant or refuse a license to carry on some ordinarily lawful business, profession, or activity without prescribing definite rules and conditions for the guidance of said officials in the exercise of their power. 

R.A. No. 2382, which provides who may be candidates for the medical board examinations, merely requires a foreign citizen to submit competent and conclusive documentary evidence, confirmed by the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA), showing that his countrys existing laws permit citizens of the Philippines to practice medicine under the same rules and regulations governing citizens thereof.

Section (j) of P.D. No. 223 also defines the extent of PRC's power to grant licenses, i.e., it may, upon recommendation of the board, approve the registration and authorize the issuance of a certificate of registration with or without examination to a foreigner who is registered under the laws of his country, provided the following conditions are met: (1) that the requirement for the registration or licensing in said foreign state or country are substantially the same as those required and contemplated by the laws of the Philippines; (2) that the laws of such foreign state or country allow the citizens of the Philippines to practice the profession on the same basis and grant the same privileges as the subject or citizens of such foreign state or country; and (3) that the applicant shall submit competent and conclusive documentary evidence, confirmed by the DFA, showing that his country's existing laws permit citizens of the Philippines to practice the profession under the rules and regulations governing citizens thereof.

The said provision further states that the PRC is authorized to prescribe additional requirements or grant certain privileges to foreigners seeking registration in the Philippines if the same privileges are granted to or some additional requirements are required of citizens of the Philippines in acquiring the same certificates in his country.

Nowhere in said statutes is it stated that the foreign applicant must show that the conditions for the practice of medicine in said country are practical and attainable by Filipinos. Neither is it stated that it must first be proven that a Filipino has been granted license and allowed to practice his profession in said country before a foreign applicant may be given license to practice in the Philippines. 

It is enough that the laws in the foreign country permit a Filipino to get license and practice therein. Requiring respondent to prove first that a Filipino has already been granted license and is actually practicing therein unduly expands the requirements provided for under R.A. No. 2382 and P.D. No. 223.

In this case, there is no doubt as to the competence and qualifications of respondent. He finished his medical degree from Bicol Christian College of Medicine. He completed a one-year post graduate internship training at the Jose Reyes Memorial Medical Center, a government hospital. Then he passed the Medical Board Examinations which was given on August 8, 1992 with a general average of 81.83, with scores higher than 80 in 9 of the 12 subjects.

In fine, the only matter being questioned by petitioners is the alleged failure of respondent to prove that there is reciprocity between the laws of Japan and the Philippines in admitting foreigners into the practice of medicine. Respondent has satisfactorily complied with the said requirement and the CA has not committed any reversible error in rendering its Decision dated November 16, 2004 and Resolution dated October 19, 2003. (Board of Medicine v. Yasuyuki Ota, G.R. No. 166097, July 14, 2008)

Is the Cooperative Development Authority vested with quasi-judicial authority to adjudicate intra-cooperative disputes?

The CDA is devoid of any quasi-judicial authority to adjudicate intra-cooperative disputes and more particularly disputes as regards the election of the members of the Board of Directors and officers of cooperatives. The authority to conduct hearings or inquiries and the power to hold any person in contempt may be exercised by the CDA only in the performance of its administrative functions under R.A. No. 6939.

It is a fundamental rule in statutory construction that when the law speaks in clear and categorical language, there is no room for interpretation, vacillation or equivocation – there is only room for application. It can be gleaned from the provision of R.A. No. 6939 that the authority of the CDA is to discharge purely administrative functions which consist of policy-making, registration, fiscal and technical assistance to cooperatives and implementation of cooperative laws. Nowhere in the said law can it be found any express grant to the CDA of authority to adjudicate cooperative disputes. At most, Section 8 of the same law provides that "upon request of either or both parties, the Authority shall mediate and conciliate disputes with a cooperative or between cooperatives" however, with a restriction "that if no mediation or conciliation succeeds within three (3) months from request thereof, a certificate of non-resolution shall be issued by the commission prior to the filing of appropriate action before the proper courts". Being an administrative agency, the CDA has only such powers as are expressly granted to it by law and those which are necessarily implied in the exercise thereof.

A review of the records of the deliberations by both chambers of Congress prior to the enactment of R.A. No. 6939 provides a definitive answer that the CDA is not vested with quasi-judicial authority to adjudicate cooperative disputes.

The decision to withhold quasi-judicial powers from the CDA is in accordance with the policy of the government granting autonomy to cooperatives. It was noted that in the past 75 years cooperativism failed to flourish in the Philippines. Of the 23,000 cooperatives organized under P.D. No. 175, only 10 to 15 percent remained operational while the rest became dormant. The dismal failure of cooperativism in the Philippines was attributed mainly to the stifling attitude of the government toward cooperatives. While the government wished to help, it invariably wanted to control. Also, in its anxious efforts to push cooperativism, it smothered cooperatives with so much help that they failed to develop self-reliance. As one cooperative expert put it, "The strong embrace of government ends with a kiss of death for cooperatives. (Cooperative Development Authority v. Dolefil Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries Cooperative, G.R. No. 137489, May 29, 2002)

Does the grant of special tax exemptions and privileges to enterprises within the Special Economic Zones give undue advantage over local enterprises which do not operate inside the said zone, thereby creating unfair competition?

The mere fact that incentives and privileges are granted to certain enterprises to the exclusion of others does not render the issuance unconstitutional for espousing unfair competition. It must be clearly explained and proven by competent evidence just exactly how such protective regulation would result in the restraint of trade. Said constitutional prohibition cannot hinder the Legislature from using tax incentives as a tool to pursue its policies.

The Congress had justifiable reasons in granting incentives to the private respondents, in accordance with Republic Act No. 7227's policy of developing the SSEZ into a self-sustaining entity that will generate employment and attract foreign and local investment. If petitioners had wanted to avoid any alleged unfavorable consequences on their profits, they should upgrade their standards of quality so as to effectively compete in the market. In the alternative, if petitioners really wanted the preferential treatment accorded to the private respondents, they could have opted to register with SSEZ in order to operate within the special economic zone. (Coconut Oil Refiners Association, Inc. vs. Torres, G.R. No. 132527, July 29, 2005; Pest Management Association of the Philippines v. Fertilizer and Pesticide Authority, G.R. No. 156041, February 21, 2007)