SLDC v.

DSWD The petitioner is a domestic corporation engaged in the business of

drugstore operation in the Philippines while the respondents are
SOUTHERN LUZON DRUG CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. THE government' agencies, office and bureau tasked to monitor
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE AND DEVELOPMENT, et compliance with R.A. Nos. 9257 and 9442, promulgate
al. Respondents implementing rules and regulations for their effective
implementation, as well as prosecute and revoke licenses of erring
G.R. No. 199669
establishments.
April 25, 2017
ISSUES:
FACTS:
1. Whether or not the Petition for Prohibition may be filed to
The case at bar is a Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the question the constitutionality of a law;
Decision of the Court of Appeals which dismissed the petition for
2. Whether or not the case constitute stare decisis
prohibition filed by Southern Luzon Drug Corporation (petitioner)
against the Department of Social Welfare and Development , the 3. Whether or not the 20% Sales Discount for Senior Citizens
National Council for the Welfare of Disabled Persons (now National PWDs does not violate the petitioner’s right to equal protection of
Council on Disability Affairs or NCDA), the Department of Finance the law
and the Bureau of Internal Revenue (collectively, the respondents),
which sought to prohibit the implementation of Section 4(a) of 4. Whether or not the definitions of Disabilities and PWDs are
Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9257, otherwise known as the "Expanded vague and violates the petitioners right to due process of law
Senior Citizens Act of 2003" and Section 32 of R.A. No. 9442,
which amends the "Magna Carta for Disabled Persons," particularly RULING:
the granting of 20% discount on the purchase of medicines by
1. Yes. Prohibition may be filed to question the constitutionality of
senior citizens and persons with disability (PWD), respectively, and
a law. Generally, the office of prohibition is to prevent the unlawful
treating them as tax deduction. which dismissed the petition for
and oppressive exercise of authority and is directed against
prohibition filed by Southern Luzon Drug Corporation (petitioner)
proceedings that are done without or in excess of jurisdiction, or
against the Department of Social Welfare and Development , the
with grave abuse of discretion, there being no appeal or other
National Council for the Welfare of Disabled Persons (now National
plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
Council on Disability Affairs or NCDA), the Department of Finance
It is the remedy to prevent inferior courts, corporations, boards, or
and the Bureau of: Internal Revenue (collectively, the
persons from usurping or exercising a jurisdiction or power with
respondents), which sought to prohibit the implementation of
which they have not been vested by the law. This is, however, not
Section 4(a) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9257, otherwise known as
the lone office of an action for prohibition. In Diaz, et al. v. The
the "Expanded Senior Citizens Act of 2003" and Section 32 of R.A.
Secretary of Finance, et al., prohibition was also recognized as a
No. 9442, which amends the "Magna Carta for Disabled Persons,"
proper remedy to prohibit or nullify acts of executive officials that
particularly the granting of 20% discount on the purchase of
amount to usurpation of legislative authority. And, in a number of
medicines by senior citizens and persons with disability (PWD),:
jurisprudence, prohibition was allowed as a proper action to assail
respectively, and treating them as tax deduction due to the reason
the constitutionality of a law or prohibit its implementation.
that claiming it affects the profitability of their business.
 2. No. The Court agrees that the ruling in Carlos Superdrug does
not constitute stare decisis to the instant case, not because of the
petitioner's submission of financial statements which were wanting
in the first case, but because it had the good sense of including
questions that had not been raised or deliberated in the former
case of Carlos Superdrug, i.e., validity of the 20% discount granted
to PWDs, the supposed vagueness of the provisions of R.A. No.
9442 and violation of the equal protection clause.
3. Yes. The subject laws do not violate the equal protection
clause. The equal protection clause is not infringed by legislation
which applies only to those persons falling within a specified class.
If the groupings are characterized by substantial distinctions that
make real differences, one class may be treated and regulated
differently from another." For a classification to be valid, (1) it
must be based upon substantial distinctions, (2) it must be
germane to the purposes of the law, (3) it must not be limited to
existing conditions only, and (4) it must apply equally to all
members of the same class.
5.1. Persons with Disability are those individuals defined under
Section 4 of [R.A. No.] 7277 [or] An Act Providing for the
Rehabilitation, Self-Development and Self-Reliance of Persons with
Disability as amended and their integration into the Mainstream of
Society and for Other Purposes. This is defined as a person
suffering from restriction or different abilities, as a result of a
mental, physical or sensory impairment, to perform an activity in a
manner or within the range considered normal for human being.
Disability shall mean (1) a physical 1or mental impairment that
substantially limits one or more psychological, physiological or
anatomical function of an individual or activities of such individual;
(2) a record of such an impairment; or (3) being regarded as
having such an impairment.
In view of the foregoing disquisition, Section 4(a) of Republic Act
No. 9257 and Section 32 of Republic Act No. 9442 are hereby
declared CONSTITUTIONAL.

4. No. The definitions of "disabilities" and "PWDs" are clear and

unequivocal. Section 4(a) of R.A. No. 7277, the precursor of R.A.
No. 94421 defines "disabled persons" as follows:

(a) Disabled persons are those suffering from restriction or

different abilities, as a result of a mental, physical or sensory
impairment, to perform an activity in the manner or within the
range considered normal for a human being[.]

On the other hand, the term "PWDs" is defined in Section 5.1 of

the IRR of R.A. No. 9442 as follows: