Carlos Superdrug Corp Vs DSWD

CARLOS SUPERDRUG CORP vs DSWD
Facts: Petitioners are domestic corporations and proprietors operating

drugstores in the Philippines. Public respondents, on the other hand, include the
DSWD, DOH, DOF, DOJ, and DILG which have been specifically tasked to monitor the
drugstores compliance with the law; promulgate the implementing rules and
regulations for the effective implementation of the law; and prosecute and revoke
the licenses of erring drugstore establishments.
On February 26, 2004, R.A. No. 9257, amending R.A. No. 7432,[3] was signed
into law by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo which: provided for the following:
SEC. 4. Privileges for the Senior Citizens. The senior citizens shall be entitled
to the following: (a) the grant of twenty percent (20%) discount from all
establishments relative to the utilization of services in hotels and similar
lodging establishments, restaurants and recreation centers, and purchase of
medicines in all establishments for the exclusive use or enjoyment of senior
citizens, including funeral and burial services for the death of senior citizens.
The establishment may claim the discounts granted under (a), (f), (g) and (h)
as tax deduction based on the net cost of the goods sold or services
rendered: Provided, That the cost of the discount shall be allowed as
deduction from gross income for the same taxable year that the discount is
granted.
Administrative Order (A.O.) No. 171 or the Policies and Guidelines to
Implement the Relevant Provisions of Republic Act 9257, was issued by the DOH,
providing the grant of twenty percent (20%) discount in the purchase of unbranded
generic medicines from all establishments dispensing medicines for the exclusive
use of the senior citizens.
Another Admin Order was issued amending the abovementioned AO 171: that
the twenty percent discount shall not be limited to the purchase of unbranded
generic medicines only, but shall extend to both prescription and non-prescription
medicines whether branded or generic. Thus, it stated that [t]he grant of twenty
percent (20%) discount shall be provided in the purchase of medicines from all
establishments dispensing medicines for the exclusive use of the senior citizens.
Petitioners assail the constitutionality of Section 4 of the Expanded Senior
Citizens Act based on the following grounds:
1) The law is confiscatory because it infringes Art. III, Sec. 9 of the
Constitution which provides that private property shall not be taken for public
use without just compensation;
2) It violates the equal protection clause (Art. III, Sec. 1) enshrined in our
Constitution
3) The 20% discount on medicines violates the constitutional guarantee in

Article XIII, Section 11 that makes essential goods, health and other social
services available to all people at affordable cost
Argument: Compelling drugstore owners and establishments to grant the
discount will result in a loss of profit and capital because 1) drugstores impose a
mark-up of only 5% to 10% on branded medicines; and 2) the law failed to provide a
scheme whereby drugstores will be justly compensated for the discount.
Based on the afore-stated DOF Opinion, the tax deduction scheme does not
fully reimburse petitioners for the discount privilege accorded to senior citizens. This
is because the discount is treated as a deduction, a tax-deductible expense that is
subtracted from the gross income and results in a lower taxable income.
Stated otherwise, it is an amount that is allowed by law to reduce the income
prior to the application of the tax rate to compute the amount of tax which is due.
Being a tax deduction, the discount does not reduce taxes owed on a peso for peso
basis but merely offers a fractional reduction in taxes owed.
Issue: Whether or not the 20% discount extended to senior citizens by virtue of the
Expanded Senior Citizens Act is unconstitutional because it constitutes deprivation
of private property.
Held: 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 well-being as the State. The priority
given to senior citizens finds its basis in the Constitution as set. Based on this the
State, in promoting the health and welfare of a special group of citizens, can impose
upon private establishments the burden of partly subsidizing a government
program. As a form of reimbursement, the law provides that business
establishments extending the twenty percent discount to senior citizens may claim
the discount as a tax deduction.
The law is a legitimate exercise of police power which, similar to the power of
eminent domain, has general welfare for its object. Accordingly, Police Power 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 [t]he power vested in the
legislature by the constitution to make, ordain, and establish all manner of
wholesome and reasonable laws, statutes, and ordinances, either with penalties or
without, 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.
For purposes of reimbursement, the law states that the cost of the discount
shall be deducted from gross income, the amount of income derived from all
sources before deducting allowable expenses, which will result in net income. Here,
petitioners tried to show a loss on a per transaction basis, which should not be the
case. In addition, the computation was erroneously based on the assumption that
their customers consisted wholly of senior citizens. Lastly, the 32% tax rate is to be
imposed on income, not on the amount of the discount.
The Court is not oblivious of the retail side of the pharmaceutical industry and
the competitive pricing component of the business While the Constitution protects
property rights, petitioners must accept the realities of business and the State, in
the exercise of police power, can intervene in the operations of a business which
may result in an impairment of property rights in the process.
Undeniably, the success of the senior citizens program rests largely on the support
imparted by petitioners and the other private establishments concerned. This being
the case, the means employed in invoking the active participation of the private
sector, in order to achieve the purpose or objective of the law, is reasonably and
directly related. Without sufficient proof that Section 4(a) of R.A. No. 9257 is
arbitrary, and that the continued implementation of the same would be
unconscionably detrimental to petitioners, the Court will refrain from quashing a
legislative act. Petition is dismissed.

Carlos Superdrug Corp Vs DSWD

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Carlos Superdrug Corp Vs DSWD

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Carlos Superdrug Corp Vs DSWD

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CARLOS SUPERDRUG CORP vs DSWD

Facts: Petitioners are domestic corporations and proprietors operating

3) The 20% discount on medicines violates the constitutional guarantee in

You might also like