South Luzon Drug Corporation v.

DSWD (including Dissent of Carpio and Separate Opinion of Leonen)

FACTS

This 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 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.

ISSUE

Whether or not the Section 4(a) of R.A. No. 9257 and Section 32 of R.A. No.9442 are constitutional and
valid exercise of eminent domain?

SUPREME COURT

a) There is no question that the grant of mandatory discount is germane to the purpose of R.A. Nos.
9257 and 9442, that is, to adopt an integrated and comprehensive approach to health development and
make essential goods and other social services available to all the people at affordable cost, with special
priority given to the elderlies and the disabled, among others.

b) The privileges granted by the laws ease their concerns and allow them to live more comfortably.

c) The subject laws also address a continuing concern of the government for the welfare of the senior
citizens and PWDs.

- It is not some random predicament but an actual, continuing and pressing concern that requires
preferential attention.

d) Also, the laws apply to all senior citizens and PWDs, respectively, without further distinction or
reservation.

- Without a doubt, all the elements for a valid classification were met.