Case Summary (G.R. No. 194561)
Regulatory Framework
The joint IRR of RA 9442 (2008) defines PWD and establishes discount obligations for drugstores and related establishments. NCDA A.O. No. 1 (2008) prescribes PWD identification card (IDC) issuance procedures. DOF Revenue Regulations No. 1-2009 details how establishments claim tax deductions for PWD discounts. DOH A.O. No. 2009-0011 (2009) prescribes prescription and record‐keeping requirements for medicine discounts.
Procedural History
Petitioners sought prohibition and preliminary injunction before the CA to annul RA 9442’s medicine‐discount mandate and related administrative issuances. The CA (July 26, 2010) upheld constitutionality but suspended NCDA A.O. No. 1 pending proof of publication; it later lifted the suspension (Nov. 19, 2010). Petitioners elevated the case by Petition for Review on Certiorari to the SC.
Issues
- Whether the 20% PWD discount is an invalid exercise of eminent domain requiring just compensation, rather than a valid exercise of police power.
- Whether the discount mandate violates substantive due process because PWD entitlement documents lack medical determination.
- Whether definitions of “disability” under the statutes and issuances are unconstitutionally vague.
- Whether the discount mandate violates equal protection by burdening only drugstores.
Validity Under Police Power
The SC held that the discount is a legitimate exercise of police power, aimed at public welfare and social justice. Citing analogous 20% senior‐citizen discounts, the Court emphasized that police power may impose reasonable burdens on property and business interests if related to the general welfare. The 1987 Constitution’s social‐function clause (Art. XII, Sec. 6) and priority for disabled in health services (Art. XIII, Sec. 11) support the measure.
Substantive Due Process
The Court found no due process violation. RA 9442’s IRR, NCDA A.O. No. 1 and DOH A.O. No. 2009-0011 establish procedural safeguards for IDC issuance and discount application. Medical certificates by licensed physicians are required for non‐apparent disabilities; for visible disabilities, certificates from qualified non‐medical officials are permitted. Prescription and record‐keeping requirements prevent abuse.
Non-Vagueness of Definitions
The statutory and administrative definitions of “disability” are sufficiently specific. Supplementary lists in NCDA and DOH issuances identify disability categories (e.g., psychosocial, chronic illness, visual). The Court acc
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 194561)
Procedural Background
- Petition for Review on Certiorari filed in the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 194561) with Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction
- Challenge to the Court of Appeals Decision (July 26, 2010) and Resolution (November 19, 2010) in CA-G.R. SP No. 109903
- CA had dismissed petitioners’ Petition for Prohibition and upheld constitutionality of the mandatory 20% medicine discount for PWDs, suspending NCDA A.O. No. 1 pending proof of publication and registry filing
- Both petitioners and NCDA moved for reconsideration before the CA; suspension of A.O. No. 1 lifted upon proof of compliance
- Supreme Court resolution rendered September 14, 2016; Decision received October 10, 2016
Relevant Statutes and Issuances
- Republic Act No. 7277 (Magna Carta for Disabled Persons), March 24, 1992
- Republic Act No. 9442 (Magna Carta for Persons with Disability), April 30, 2007, amending RA 7277 to grant PWDs 20% discount on medicines and allow tax deduction for establishments
- Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9442, jointly promulgated by DSWD, DepEd, DOF, DOT, DOTC, DILG and DA
- NCDA Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 2008, prescribing guidelines for issuance of PWD Identification Card (IDC)
- DOF Revenue Regulations No. 001-09, prescribing tax rules for establishments granting PWD discounts
- DOH Administrative Order No. 2009-0011, prescribing guidelines for 20% discount on branded and generic medicines for PWDs
Statement of Facts
- RA 7277 defined “disabled persons,” “impairment” and “disability” and declared State policy in favor of rehabilitation, self-development, and integration of PWDs
- RA 9442 amended terminology to “persons with disability,” provided a 20% discount on m