Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 394 views

    Digest - Manila Memorial vs. DSWD

    Uploaded by

    April Boreres
    This case discusses whether a 20% senior citizen discount mandated by law is an exercise of police power or eminent domain. The Supreme Court ruled the discount was a police power measure intended to improve welfare of senior citizens. While it affects business profits, the discount does not prevent price adjustments or apply to all customers. Unlike eminent domain which requires compensation, the discount regulates pricing similar to other police power measures. Therefore, the Court found the discount constitutional as a valid exercise of the state's police power.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Digest - Manila Memorial vs. DSWD

    Uploaded by

    April Boreres
    394 views1 page
    This case discusses whether a 20% senior citizen discount mandated by law is an exercise of police power or eminent domain. The Supreme Court ruled the discount was a police power measure intended to improve welfare of senior citizens. While it affects business profits, the discount does not prevent price adjustments or apply to all customers. Unlike eminent domain which requires compensation, the discount regulates pricing similar to other police power measures. Therefore, the Court found the discount constitutional as a valid exercise of the state's police power.

    Original Description:

    DIGEST

    Original Title

    7. Digest_manila Memorial vs. Dswd

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case discusses whether a 20% senior citizen discount mandated by law is an exercise of police power or eminent domain. The Supreme Court ruled the discount was a police power measure intended to improve welfare of senior citizens. While it affects business profits, the discount does not prevent price adjustments or apply to all customers. Unlike eminent domain which requires compensation, the discount regulates pricing similar to other police power measures. Therefore, the Court found the discount constitutional as a valid exercise of the state's police power.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    394 views1 page

    Digest - Manila Memorial vs. DSWD

    Uploaded by

    April Boreres
    This case discusses whether a 20% senior citizen discount mandated by law is an exercise of police power or eminent domain. The Supreme Court ruled the discount was a police power measure intended to improve welfare of senior citizens. While it affects business profits, the discount does not prevent price adjustments or apply to all customers. Unlike eminent domain which requires compensation, the discount regulates pricing similar to other police power measures. Therefore, the Court found the discount constitutional as a valid exercise of the state's police power.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    G.R. No. 175356 MANILA MEMORIAL PARK, INC v.

    SECRETARY OF DSWD 711 SCRA 302

    MANILA MEMORIAL PARK, INC v. SECRETARY OF DSWD


    711 SCRA 302
    G.R. No. 175356
    December 3, 2013

    TOPIC: Bill of Rights; Eminent Domain v. Police Power

    FACTS: RA 7432 was passed into law (amended by RA 9257), granting senior citizens 20% discount
    on certain establishments.

    To implement the tax provisions of RA 9257, the Secretary of Finance and the DSWD issued its own
    Rules and Regulations.

    Hence, this petition.

    Petitioners are not questioning the 20% discount granted to senior citizens but are only assailing the
    constitutionality of the tax deduction scheme prescribed under RA 9257 and the implementing rules
    and regulations issued by the DSWD and the DOF.

    Petitioners posit that the tax deduction scheme contravenes Article III, Section 9 of the Constitution,
    which provides that: "private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation."

    Respondents maintain that the tax deduction scheme is a legitimate exercise of the States police
    power.

    ISSUE: Whether the legally mandated 20% senior citizen discount is an exercise of police power or
    eminent domain.

    RULING: The 20% senior citizen discount is an exercise of police power.

    It may not always be easy to determine whether a challenged governmental act is an exercise of police
    power or eminent domain. The judicious approach, therefore, is to look at the nature and effects of the
    challenged governmental act and decide on the basis thereof.

    The 20% discount is intended to improve the welfare of senior citizens who, at their age, are less likely
    to be gainfully employed, more prone to illnesses and other disabilities, and, thus, in need of subsidy
    in purchasing basic commodities. It serves to honor senior citizens who presumably spent their lives
    on contributing to the development and progress of the nation.

    In turn, the subject regulation affects the pricing, and, hence, the profitability of a private
    establishment.

    The subject regulation may be said to be similar to, but with substantial distinctions from, price control
    or rate of return on investment control laws which are traditionally regarded as police power measures.

    The subject regulation differs there from in that (1) the discount does not prevent the establishments
    from adjusting the level of prices of their goods and services, and (2) the discount does not apply to all
    customers of a given establishment but only to the class of senior citizens. Nonetheless, to the degree
    material to the resolution of this case, the 20% discount may be properly viewed as belonging to the
    category of price regulatory measures which affect the profitability of establishments subjected
    thereto. On its face, therefore, the subject regulation is a police power measure.

    You might also like