Title
Carlos Superdrug Corp. vs. Department of Social Welfare and Development
Case
G.R. No. 166494
Decision Date
Jun 29, 2007
Petitioners challenged Section 4(a) of R.A. No. 9257, claiming the 20% senior citizen discount was confiscatory and violated due process. The Supreme Court upheld the law, ruling it a valid exercise of police power for public welfare, with tax deductions as reasonable reimbursement.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 166494)

Key Dates and Implementing Instruments

Republic Act No. 9257, amending R.A. 7432, was signed on February 26, 2004 and took effect on March 21, 2004. The DSWD issued the Implementing Rules and Regulations on May 28, 2004. The DOF clarified the tax deduction mechanism on July 10, 2004. The DOH issued Administrative Order No. 171 on October 1, 2004, later amended by A.O. No. 177 on November 12, 2004.

Applicable Law and Constitutional Framework

Under Section 4(a) of R.A. 9257, senior citizens are entitled to a 20% discount on medicines. Establishments may claim the cost of discounts as a tax deduction from gross income, subject to the National Internal Revenue Code. Because the decision was rendered in 2007, the Court applied the 1987 Philippine Constitution, including provisions on due process (Art. III, Sec. 1), just compensation (Art. III, Sec. 9), state policies on social justice and health (Art. II, Sec. 10; Art. XIII, Sec. 11), and the duty of the State to care for the elderly (Art. XV, Sec. 4).

Petitioners’ Constitutional Objections

Petitioners argue that Section 4(a):

  1. Constitutes a confiscatory taking of private property without just compensation (Art. III, Sec. 9).
  2. Violates equal protection by imposing an unequal burden on small‐scale drugstores (Art. III, Sec. 1).
  3. Undermines the constitutional guarantee to make essential goods and health services affordable (Art. XIII, Sec. 11).

Nature of the Tax Deduction Mechanism

Under the old law (R.A. 7432), establishments recovered discounts through a tax credit—effectively a peso‐for‐peso refund of discounts granted. The Expanded Act replaced this with a tax deduction, allowing establishments to subtract discount costs from gross income before computing taxable income. This mechanism yields only a fractional reimbursement equal to the marginal tax rate (approximately 32%), leaving establishments to shoulder the remainder of discount costs.

Court’s Analysis on Taking and Public Purpose

While recognizing that the discount‐as‐deduction scheme results in a permanent reduction of private revenues—a form of forced subsidy—the Court held that statutory police power may impose such burden in pursuit of public welfare. The Senior Citizens Act pursues a valid public purpose: promoting the health, welfare, and social participation of elderly citizens. Property rights, though protected under due process, yield when reasonably subordinated to general welfare by legitimate police power measures.

Evaluation of Petitioners’ Financial Claims

The Court found petitioners’ loss calculations deficient. They relied on per‐transaction examples without comprehensive financial statements reflecting total sales, expenses, and net income. Petitioners also assumed an unrealistically high proportion of senior citizen patrons and conflated discount am

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.