Wednesday, February 8, 2023

Luzon Drug Corp. v DSWD [GR 199669 April 25, 2017]

 CASE DIGEST


Luzon Drug Corp. v DSWD

[GR 199669 April 25, 2017]


Subject: Taxation Law


Facts:

Southern Luzon Drug Corp’s petition sought to prohibit the implementation of Section 4(a) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9257, otherwise known as the "Expanded Senior Citizens Act of 2003" and Section 32 of R.A. No. 9442, which amends the "Magna Carta for Disabled Persons," particularly the granting of 20% discount on the purchase of medicines by senior citizens and persons with disability (PWD), respectively, and treating them as tax deduction, instead of tax credit under the previous law. The claim the is unconstitutional and it impairs their right to earn profit

 

The petitioner is a domestic corporation engaged in the business of drugstore operation in the Philippines while the respondents are government agencies, office and bureau tasked to monitor compliance with R.A. Nos. 9257 and 9442.

 

Issue: Whether or not the questioned law by the petitioner is unconstitutional. (No)

 

Ruling:

Petitioner’s argument the law is confiscatory in the sense that the State takes away a portion of its supposed profits does not hold ground because the subject provisions only affect the petitioner's right to profit, and not earned profits.

 

Unfortunately for the petitioner, the right to profit is not a vested right or an entitlement that has accrued on the person or entity such that its invasion or deprivation warrants compensation. Vested rights are "fixed, unalterable, or irrevocable."

 

In the exercise of police power, "property rights of private individuals are subjected to restraints and burdens in order to secure the general comfort, health, and prosperity of the State." Even then, the State's claim of police power cannot be arbitrary or unreasonable. The proper exercise of the police power requires the concurrence of a lawful subject and a lawful method.

 

More importantly, it is in the exercise of its police power that the Congress enacted R.A. Nos. 9257 and 9442, the laws mandating a 20% discount on purchases of medicines made by senior citizens and PWDs. It is also in further exercise of this power that the legislature opted that the said discount be claimed as tax deduction, rather than tax credit, by covered establishments.

 

The subjects of R.A. Nos. 9257 and 9442, i.e., senior citizens and PWDs, are individuals whose well-being is a recognized public duty. As a public duty, the responsibility for their care devolves upon the concerted efforts of the State, the family and the community.

 

The 20% Sales Discount for Senior Citizens and PWDs is a valid exercise of police power.

After all, the overriding purpose of the exercise of the power is to promote general welfare, public health and safety, among others. It is a measure, which by sheer necessity, the State exercises, even to the point of interfering with personal liberties or property rights in order to advance common good.

 

Click to view Full Text of the Case

 

 

No comments:

Post a Comment

Easycall Communications Phils., Inc. vs. Edward King, G.R. No. 145901, December 15, 2005

 CASE DIGEST Easycall Communications Phils., Inc. vs. Edward King G.R. No. 145901, December 15, 2005 THIRD DIVISION, CORONA J.     C...