G.R. No.

199669, April 25, 2017

Southern Luzon Drug Corp., petitioner, v. DSWD, et.al., respondents
Reyes, J.

Facts:
 The case pertains to provisions regarding the 20% discount for senior citizens and Persons with Disabilities
(PWDs) on the purchase of medicines under Section 4(a) of Republic Act No. 9257 and Section 32 of Republic
Act No. 9442.

 The Southern Luzon Drug Corporation wanted to prohibit the implementation that allowed these discounts,
arguing that they constituted a taking of private property without just compensation, thus violating the
Constitution.

Court of Appeals Ruling:

The CA dismissed the petition, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Carlos Superdrug Corporation v. DSWD,
which upheld the constitutionality of the 20% discount as a legitimate exercise of police power.

The CA held that the principle of stare decisis prevented relitigation of the issue and noted jurisdictional
considerations, stating it lacked original or appellate jurisdiction to assess the constitutionality of laws.

It also mentioned that the petition for prohibition was the wrong remedy as the respondents did not exercise
judicial, quasi-judicial, or ministerial duties related to the questioned provisions.

Issue on Police Power:

Whether or not the 20% mandatory discount for senior citizens and PWDs granted under R.A. No. 9257 and R.A.
No. 9442 is a valid exercise of police power.

Supreme Court Ruling:

Yes. The Supreme Court held that the mandatory discounts provided to senior citizens and persons with
disabilities (PWDs) under these laws are a valid exercise of police power.

The laws were enacted to support the well-being and welfare of these vulnerable groups, recognizing their
significant contributions to society and addressing their needs for social justice and equity.

The Court acknowledged that while these measures may affect the profits of private establishments by requiring
them to grant discounts and treat these discounts as tax deductions rather than tax credits, such regulation does
not constitute arbitrary or unreasonable interference with property rights.

It is within the legislative power to adopt such regulations for the benefit of the common good.

Furthermore, the Court clarified that the challenge to the constitutionality of these provisions through a petition
for prohibition is appropriate, as prohibition has been recognized as a proper remedy to assail the
constitutionality of a law or prevent its implementation. The Supreme Court emphasized that the resolution of
the issues raised would benefit the public by affirming the legality of measures designed to support senior
citizens and PWDs.

Hence, the Supreme Court affirmed the constitutionality of Section 4(a) of Republic Act No. 9257 and Section 32
of Republic Act No. 9442.