SLDC v. DSWD

SOUTHERN LUZON DRUG CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE AND DEVELOPMENT, et al.  Respondents

G.R. No. 199669

April 25, 2017

FACTS:

The case at bar is a Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the Decision of the Court of Appeals which dismissed the petition for prohibition filed by Southern Luzon Drug Corporation (petitioner) against the Department of  Social Welfare and Development , the National Council for the Welfare of Disabled Persons  (now National Council on Disability Affairs or NCDA), the Department of Finance  and the Bureau of Internal Revenue (collectively, the respondents), which sought to prohibit the implementation of Section 4(a) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9257, otherwise known as the "Expanded Senior Citizens Act of 2003" and Section 32 of R.A. No. 9442, which amends the "Magna Carta for Disabled Persons," particularly the granting of 20% discount on the purchase of medicines by senior citizens and persons with disability (PWD), respectively, and treating them as tax deduction. which dismissed the petition for prohibition filed by Southern Luzon Drug Corporation (petitioner) against the Department of  Social Welfare and Development , the National Council for the Welfare of Disabled Persons (now National Council on Disability Affairs or NCDA), the Department of Finance  and the Bureau of: Internal Revenue (collectively, the respondents), which sought to prohibit the implementation of Section 4(a) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9257, otherwise known as the "Expanded Senior Citizens Act of 2003" and Section 32 of R.A. No. 9442, which amends the "Magna Carta for Disabled Persons," particularly the granting of 20% discount on the purchase of medicines by senior citizens and persons with disability (PWD),: respectively, and treating them as tax deduction due to the reason that claiming it affects the profitability of their business.

The petitioner is a domestic corporation engaged in the business of drugstore operation in the Philippines while the respondents are government' agencies, office and  bureau tasked  to monitor compliance with R.A. Nos. 9257 and 9442, promulgate implementing rules and regulations for their effective implementation, as well as prosecute and revoke licenses of erring establishments.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the Petition for Prohibition may be filed to question the constitutionality of a law;

2. Whether or not the case constitute stare decisis

3. Whether or not the 20% Sales Discount for Senior Citizens PWDs does not violate the petitioner’s right to equal 

protection of the law

4. Whether or not the definitions of Disabilities and PWDs are vague and violates the petitioners right to due process of law

RULING:

1. Yes. Prohibition may be filed to question the constitutionality of a law. Generally, the office of prohibition is to prevent the unlawful and oppressive exercise of authority and is directed against proceedings that are done without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion, there being no appeal or other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. It is the remedy to prevent inferior courts, corporations, boards, or persons from usurping or exercising a jurisdiction or power with which they have not been vested by the law. This is, however, not the lone office of an action for prohibition. In Diaz, et al. v. The Secretary of Finance, et al., prohibition was also recognized as a proper remedy to prohibit or nullify acts of executive officials that amount to usurpation of legislative authority.  And, in a number of jurisprudence, prohibition was allowed as a proper action to assail the constitutionality of a law or prohibit its implementation.

2. No. The Court agrees that the ruling in Carlos Superdrug does not constitute stare decisis to the instant case, not because of the petitioner's submission of financial statements which were wanting in the first case, but because it had the good sense of including questions that had not been raised or deliberated in the former case of Carlos Superdrug, i.e., validity of the 20% discount granted to PWDs, the supposed vagueness of the provisions of R.A. No. 9442 and violation of the equal protection clause.

3.  Yes.  The subject laws do not violate the equal protection clause. The equal protection clause is not infringed by legislation which applies only to those persons falling within a specified class. If the groupings are characterized by substantial distinctions that make real differences, one class may be treated and regulated differently from another." For a classification to be valid, (1) it must be based upon substantial distinctions, (2) it must be germane to the purposes of the law, (3) it must not be limited to existing conditions only, and (4) it must apply equally to all members of the same class.

4. No. The definitions of "disabilities" and "PWDs" are clear and unequivocal. Section 4(a) of R.A. No. 7277, the precursor of R.A. No. 94421 defines "disabled persons" as follows:

(a) Disabled persons are those suffering from restriction or different abilities, as a result of a mental, physical or sensory impairment, to perform an activity in the manner or within the range considered normal for a human being[.]

On the other hand, the term "PWDs" is defined in Section 5.1 of the IRR of R.A. No. 9442 as follows:

5.1. Persons with Disability are those individuals defined under Section 4 of [R.A. No.] 7277 [or] An Act Providing for the Rehabilitation, Self-Development and Self-Reliance of Persons with Disability as amended and their integration into the Mainstream of Society and for Other Purposes. This is defined as a person suffering from restriction or different abilities, as a result of a mental, physical or sensory impairment, to perform an activity in a manner or within the range considered normal for human being. Disability shall mean (1) a physical 1or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more psychological, physiological or anatomical function of an individual or activities of such individual; (2) a record of such an impairment; or (3) being regarded as having such an impairment.

In view of the foregoing disquisition, Section 4(a) of Republic Act No. 9257 and Section 32 of Republic Act No. 9442 are hereby declared CONSTITUTIONAL.