CARLOS SUPERDRUG CORP., vs DSWD G.R. No. 166494 Facts:
Petitioners are Petitioners are domestic corporations and proprietors operating drugstores in the Philippines.
Public respondents, respondents , on the other hand, include the (DSWD), the (DOH), the (DOF), (DOJ), and the (DILG) which have been specifically tasked to monitor the drugstores’ compliance with the law; promulgate the implementing rules and regulations for the effe ctive implementation of the law; and prosecute and revoke the licenses of erring er ring drugstore establishments.
Petitioners assail the constitutionality co nstitutionality of Section 4(a) of RA 9257, 9257 , otherwise known as the “Expanded Senior Citizens Act of 2003.” 2003 .” Section 4(a) of RA 9257 grants twenty percent (20%) discount as privileges for the Senior Citizens.
Petitioners assail the constitutionality of Section 4(a) of the Expanded Senior Citizens Act based on the following grounds:
The law is confiscatory because it infringes Art. III, Sec. 9 of the Constitution which Constitution which provides that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation;
It violates the equal protection clause (Art. III, Sec. 1) enshrined 1) enshrined in our Constitution which states that “no “no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied d enied of the equal protection of the laws;” and laws;” and
The 20% discount on medicines violates the constitutional guarantee in Article XIII, Section 11 that makes “essential “essential goods, health and other social services available to all people at affordable cost.”
Petitioner contends that said law is unconstitutional because it constitutes deprivation of private property. The law failed to provide a scheme whereby drugstores will be justly compensated for the discount.
Issue: Whether Issue: Whether or not RA not RA 9257 is 9257 is unconstitutional
Held: Petition is dismissed. The law is a legitimate exercise o f police power which, similar to the power of eminent domain, has general welfare for its object.
The Senior Citizens Act was enacted primarily to maximize the contribution of senior citizens to nation-building, and to grant benefits and privileges to them for their improvement and wellbeing as the State considers them an integral part of our society. As a form of reimbursement, the law provides that business establishments extending the twenty perce nt discount to senior citizens may claim the discount as a tax de duction.
Accordingly, it has been described as “the most essential, insistent and the least limitable of powers, extending as it does to all the great public needs.” It is the power vested in the legislature by the constitution to make, ordain, and e stablish all manner of wholesome and reasonable laws, statutes, and ordinances, either with penalties or w ithout, not repugnant to the constitution, as they shall judge to be for the good and welfare of the commonwealth, and of the subjects of the same.”
For this reason, when the conditions so demand as determined by the legislature, property rights must bow to the primacy of police power because property rights, though sheltered by due process, must yield to general welfare.
