CASE DIGEST: Drugstores v. NCDA (G.R. No. 194561)
G.R. No. 194561, September 14, 2016 | DRUGSTORES ASSOCIATION OF THE
PHILIPPINES, INC. AND NORTHERN LUZON DRUG CORPORATION, Petitioners, v.
NATIONAL COUNCIL ON DISABILITY AFFAIRS; DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH; DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCE; BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE; DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND LOCAL
GOVERNMENT; AND DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE AND DEVELOPMENT, Respondent.
FACTS: RA 7277 mandates a 20% on purchase of medicines in favor of persons
with disabilities.
ISSUE: Is this an instance of eminent domain?
HELD: No, this is not an exercise of eminent domain. This is an exercise of police power to promote the welfare of the people, especially those who have less in life. Consequently, there is no need for just compensation. The law leaves reasonable and viable economic usefulness; hence, there is no “taking.”
ISSUE: Does the law violate the reasonable means test (due process), considering it only requires an ID?
HELD: No, it does not violate due process. The implementation is reasonable because, before a person is issued a PWD ID, he must first show a medical certificate of his disability if it is not apparent by the naked eye.
ISSUE: Does the law violate equal protection because it only targets retailers and not all players in the drug industry?
HELD: No, it does not violate equal protection because the distinction between retailers and manufacturers, etc. is real and substantial. Equal protection is not an iron-clad rule.
FACTS: RA 7277 mandates a 20% on purchase of medicines in favor of persons
with disabilities. ISSUE: Is this an instance of eminent domain?
HELD: No, this is not an exercise of eminent domain. This is an exercise of police power to promote the welfare of the people, especially those who have less in life. Consequently, there is no need for just compensation. The law leaves reasonable and viable economic usefulness; hence, there is no “taking.”
ISSUE: Does the law violate the reasonable means test (due process), considering it only requires an ID?
HELD: No, it does not violate due process. The implementation is reasonable because, before a person is issued a PWD ID, he must first show a medical certificate of his disability if it is not apparent by the naked eye.
ISSUE: Does the law violate equal protection because it only targets retailers and not all players in the drug industry?
HELD: No, it does not violate equal protection because the distinction between retailers and manufacturers, etc. is real and substantial. Equal protection is not an iron-clad rule.