Republic of the Philippines

COURT OF APPEALS
Manila
SPECIAL FITEENTH (15TH ) DIVISION


C.A. G.R.-S.P. No. 109903
DRUGSTORES ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPINES, INC., SAVE MORE DRUG,
INC., PHILIPPINES, INC., SAVE MORE DRUG, INC., MANSON DRUG
CORPORATION, SOUTH STAR DRUG, INC., AND NORTHERN LUZON DRUG
CORPORATION
Petitioners
Versus
NATIONAL COUNCIL ON DISABILITY AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE, DEPARTMENT
OF INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT, and DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL
WELFARE AND DEVELOPMENT,
Respondents
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

URGENT MANIFESTATION AND MOTION


Petitioners, by undersigned counsel and unto this Honorable Court, respectfully
state:

1. Last 2 February 2010, the municipal government of Taytay called petitioners to a
conference to discuss the 20% medicines discount for persons with disability
(PWD ) provided under Section 32 of RA 7277 as amended by RA 9442.

2. At said conference, the municipal government of Taytay demanded that
petitioners grant the 20% discount on purchase of medicines to all persons who present
proof of their disability. It threatened to revoke the mayors and/or business permit
of petitioners if the fail to comply with its demand.

3. Last 11 February 2010, petitioners were also called to a meeting with the city
government of Makati, who likewise demanded that petitioners grant the 20% medicines
discount, with the accompanying threat that their mayors and/or business permit
will be revoked or not renewed for non-compliance with the demand.

4. Petitioners have also received information that another drug store, who is
similarly situated as petitioners, has received the same demand and threat from the city
legal officer of Pasig City.

5. The evident intention of local governments is to disregard and/or render moot the
pending action and pre-empt this Honorable Court By even imposing a sanction that is
not found in RA 7277, RA 9442 and their implementing regulations.

6. RA 7277 as amended by RA 9442 provides that medicines discount must be
granted if the person claiming the discounts presents any of the following proofs of
entitlement:
The abovementioned privileges are available only to persons with disability who are
Filipino citizens upon submission of any of the following as proof of his/her entitlement
thereto:
(I) An identification card issued by the city or municipal mayor or the barangay
captain of the place where the persons with disability resides.

(II) The passport of the persons with disability concerned; or


(III) Transportation discount fare Identification Card (ID) issued by the National
Council for the Welfare of Disabled Persons (NCWDP).

7. In the instant Petition, petitioners precisely contend that RA 7277, RA 9442 and
their implementing regulations fail to provide adequate safeguards to ensure that
medicines discount shall only be granted to persons with actual disabilities.

7.1 The definitions of the types of disability are vague, ambiguous and clearly
require specialized medical knowledge in order to determine the existence of disability.
And yet, the implementing regulations allow even non-medically trained personnel to
confirm the disability. As a result, persons who do not have any expertise or experience
in determining disability have the authority to issue identification cards, whether or not
the applicant is truly a person with disability.

7.2 Also a mere passport, while capable of indicating citizenship, will not reveal
whether or not the bearer has a disability. But because RA 7277 and its implementing
regulations impose no further requirement, any person who presents a passport and
claims to be disabled can demand for the medicines discount.

7.3 The assailed laws and regulations further fail to provide any mechanism by
which the petitioners can question a determination that a person is disabled. Thus, once
the identification card is issued, petitioners have no means of legal process to dispute
the same.

8. With the illegal threats of the local governments, petitioners are being compelled
to grant the medicines discount even if the assailed laws and regulations are patently
unreasonable and arbitrary, under the pain of losing their business permits and the
prospect of closing their businesses. That the threats against petitioners were done just
a few months away from the national and local elections puts serious doubt on the
motive of the local governments.
9. It is respectfully submitted that petitioners stand to suffer serious and irreparable
injury because their rights will be violated and their property diminished, unless the
respondents are enjoined from implementing the said discount.

10. Since the grant of discount on a daily basis for every single purchase by those
who claim to be PWD may eventually force their closure to their irreparable damage and
prejudice. There is an extreme urgency to immediately issue temporary restraining
order and/or writ of preliminary injuction.

11. Petitioners will also suffer grave injustice, because should the Petition be
eventually granted by this Honorable Court, petitioners will have no means to recover
any medicine discounts that have already given.

12. Thus, petitioners application for a temporary restraining order and/or writ of
preliminary injunction should be granted immediately in order to restrain the
enforcement of the assailed laws and regulations.

13. Petitioners reiterate that they are ready, willing and able to post a bond in the
amount specified by this Honorable Court, to answer for any damages suffered by the
respondents as a result of the temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary
injunction, if it should be finally adjudged that petitioners were not entitled thereto.

14. Moreover, under the circumstances, the immediate resolution of the Petition is
urgently necessary in order to prevent the nationwide implementation of the assailed
laws and regulations that are clearly unconstitutional.


PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that this Honorable
Court resolve petitioners application for a temporary restraining order and/or writ of
preliminary injuction as well as the petition for Prohibition.

Petitioners pray for such other just and equitable relief under the premises.
Makati City for Manila, 4 March 2010


ROMULO MABANTA BUENAVENTURA SAYOC & DE LOS ANGELES
Counsel for Petitioners3
30th Floor, Citibank Tower
8741 Paseo de Roxas, Makati City
Telephone No. (02) 848-0114
Fax No. (02) 810-3110
romulo@romulo.com
By
ORIGINAL SIGNED

EXPLANATION
Due to the distance between the respective offices of the parties, time constraints, and
the lack of messengers to effect personal service on account of equally urgent filings,
copies of this pleading were served upon Respondents and their counsel by registered
mail.

JOSE C. SALVOSA