Facts:
Drugstores Association of the Philippines, Inc. and
Northern Luzon Drug Corporation filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court seeking to annul the Court of Appeals' Decision dated July 26, 2010 and its Resolution dated November 19, 2010 in CA-G.R. SP No. 109903, which upheld the constitutionality of the mandatory twenty percent (20%) discount on the purchase of medicine by persons with disability (PWD). The petitioners challenged the validity and implementation of provisions of
Republic Act No. 7277 (enacted March 24, 1992) as amended by
R.A. No. 9442 (enacted April 30, 2007), the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 9442,
National Council on Disability Affairs Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 2008 (NCDA A.O. No. 1) issued April 23, 2008,
Department of Finance Revenue Regulations No. 001-09 issued December 9, 2008, and
Department of Health Administrative Order No. 2009-0011 issued May 20, 2009. Petitioners sought prohibition and injunctive relief before the Court of Appeals on July 28, 2009; the CA dismissed the petition but temporarily suspended the effectivity of NCDA A.O. No. 1 pending proof of its filing with the Office of the National Administrative Register and publication, and later lifted the suspension after respondents filed proof; petitioners then elevated the matter to the Supreme Court, raising contentions that the mandatory discount is an exercise of eminent domain without just compensation, that it violates
due process, is vague as to the definition of disability, and denies
equal protection by singling out drugstores.
Issues:
Whether the mandated PWD twenty percent (20%) discount on medicines is a valid exercise of
police power or an invalid exercise of
eminent domain for which just compensation is required? Whether Section 32 of R.A. No. 7277 as amended by R.A. No. 9442, NCDA A.O. No. 1, and the implementing regulations violate the
due process clause? Whether the statutory and regulatory definitions of “disability” and related implementing rules are unconstitutionally vague and ambiguous? Whether the mandated discount violates the
equal protection clause by unfairly burdening drugstores while exempting other actors in the pharmaceutical chain?
Ruling:
Ratio:
Doctrine: