CASE: MANILA MEMORIAL PARK, INC. AND LA FUNERARIA PAZ-SUCAT, INC. VS.

SECRETARY OF DSWD AND SECRETARY OF FINANCE

G.R. No. 175356
December 3, 2013

FACTS:
Petitioners assail the constitutionality of Section 4 of Republic Act (RA) No. 7432 as
amended by RA No. 9257, and the implementing rules and regulations issued by the DSWD and
DOF insofar as these allow business establishments to claim the 20% discount given to senior
citizens as a tax deduction; that the DSWD and the DOF be prohibited from enforcing the same;
and that the tax credit treatment of the 20% discount under the former Section 4 (a) of RA 7432
be reinstated.

Petitioners posit that the tax deduction scheme contravenes Article III, Section 9 of the
Constitution, which provides that: "private property shall not be taken for public use without just
compensation." Petitioners cite Central Luzon Drug Corporation, where it was ruled that the 20%
discount privilege constitutes taking of private property for public use which requires the payment
of just compensation, and Carlos Superdrug Corporation vs. Department of Social Welfare and
Development, where it was acknowledged that the tax deduction scheme does not meet the
definition of just compensation. Petitioners likewise seek a reversal of the ruling in Carlos
Superdrug Corporation that the tax deduction scheme adopted by the government is justified by
police power. They assert that "although both police power and the power of eminent domain
have the general welfare for their object, there are still traditional distinctions between the two"
and that "eminent domain cannot be made less supreme than police power."

Respondents, on the other hand, assert that there is no justiciable controversy as

petitioners failed to prove that the tax deduction treatment is not a "fair and full equivalent of the
loss sustained" by them. As to the constitutionality of RA No. 9257 and its implementing rules and
regulations, respondents contend that petitioners failed to overturn its presumption of
constitutionality. More important, respondents maintain that the tax deduction scheme is a
legitimate exercise of the State's police power.

ISSUE:
A. WHETHER THE PETITION PRESENTS AN ACTUAL CASE OR CONTROVERSY.

B. WHETHER SECTION 4 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9257 AND . . . ITS IMPLEMENTING

RULES AND REGULATIONS, INSOFAR AS THEY PROVIDE THAT THE TWENTY PERCENT
(20%) DISCOUNT TO SENIOR CITIZENS MAY BE CLAIMED AS A TAX DEDUCTION BY THE
PRIVATE ESTABLISHMENTS, ARE INVALID AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

RULING:

A. YES. An actual case or controversy exists when there is "a conflict of legal rights" or "an
assertion of opposite legal claims susceptible of judicial resolution." In this case, the tax
deduction scheme challenged by petitioners has a direct adverse effect on them. Thus, it cannot
be denied that there exists an actual case or controversy.

B. SC held that the 20% discount as well as the tax deduction scheme is a valid exercise of the
police power of the State. A C. The 20% senior citizen discount has not been shown to be
unreasonable, oppressive or confiscatory. In conclusion, SC maintain that the correct rule in
determining whether the subject regulatory measure has amounted to a "taking" under the power
of eminent domain is the one laid down in Alalayan vs. National Power Corporation and followed
in Carlos Superdrug Corporation consistent with long standing principles in police power and
eminent domain analysis. Thus, the deprivation or reduction of profits or income/gross sales must
be clearly shown to be unreasonable, oppressive or confiscatory. Under the specific
circumstances of this case, such determination can only be made upon the presentation of
competent proof, which petitioners failed to do. A law, which has been in operation for many years
and promotes the welfare of a group accorded special concern by the Constitution, cannot and
should not be summarily invalidated on a mere allegation that it reduces the profits or
income/gross sales of business establishments. WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby
DISMISSED for lack of merit.