Abakada Guro v.

Ermita
G.R. No. 168056, July 5, 2005
J. Puno En Ban
!at"#
Motions for Reconsideration filed by petitioners, ABAKADA Guro party
List Officer and et al., insist that the bicameral conference committee
should not even have acted on the no passon provisions since there is
no disa!reement bet"een #ouse Bill $os. %&'( and %((( on the one
hand, and )enate Bill $o. *+(' on the other, "ith re!ard to the no
passon provision for the sale of service for po"er !eneration because
both the )enate and the #ouse "ere in a!reement that the ,A- burden
for the sale of such service shall not be passed on to the end
consumer. As to the no passon provision for sale of petroleum
products, petitioners ar!ue that the fact that the presence of such a no
passon provision in the #ouse version and the absence thereof in the
)enate Bill means there is no conflict because .a #ouse provision
cannot be in conflict "ith somethin! that does not e/ist.0
1scudero, et. al., also contend that Republic Act $o. +%%& !rossly
violates the constitutional imperative on e/clusive ori!ination of
revenue bills under )ection 23 of Article ,4 of the 5onstitution "hen the
)enate introduced amendments not connected "ith ,A-.
6etitioners 1scudero, et al., also reiterate that R.A. $o. +%%&7s stand
by authority to the 1/ecutive to increase the ,A- rate, especially on
account of the recommendatory po"er !ranted to the )ecretary of
8inance, constitutes undue dele!ation of le!islative po"er. -hey
submit that the recommendatory po"er !iven to the )ecretary of
8inance in re!ard to the occurrence of either of t"o events usin! the
Gross Domestic 6roduct 9GD6: as a benchmar; necessarily and
inherently re<uired e/tended analysis and evaluation, as "ell as policy
ma;in!.
6etitioners also reiterate their ar!ument that the input ta/ is a property
or a property ri!ht. 6etitioners also contend that even if the ri!ht to
credit the input ,A- is merely a statutory privile!e, it has already
evolved into a vested ri!ht that the )tate cannot remove.
$""u%#
=hether or not the R.A. $o. +%%& or the ,at Reform Act is
constitutional>
&%ld#
-he 5ourt is not persuaded. Article ,4, )ection 23 of the 5onstitution
provides that All appropriation, revenue or tariff bills, bills authori?in!
increase of the public debt, bills of local application, and private bills
shall ori!inate e/clusively in the #ouse of Representatives, but the
)enate may propose or concur "ith amendments.
-he 5ourt reiterates that in ma;in! his recommendation to the
6resident on the e/istence of either of the t"o conditions, the
)ecretary of 8inance is not actin! as the alter e!o of the 6resident or
even her subordinate. #e is actin! as the a!ent of the le!islative
department, to determine and declare the event upon "hich its
e/pressed "ill is to ta;e effect. -he )ecretary of 8inance becomes the
means or tool by "hich le!islative policy is determined and
implemented, considerin! that he possesses all the facilities to !ather
data and information and has a much broader perspective to properly
evaluate them. #is function is to !ather and collate statistical data and
other pertinent information and verify if any of the t"o conditions laid
out by 5on!ress is present.
4n the same breath, the 5ourt reiterates its findin! that it is not a
property or a property ri!ht, and a ,A-re!istered person7s entitlement
to the creditable input ta/ is a mere statutory privile!e. As the 5ourt
stated in its Decision, the ri!ht to credit the input ta/ is a mere creation
of la". More importantly, the assailed provisions of R.A. $o. +%%&
already involve le!islative policy and "isdom. )o lon! as there is a
public end for "hich R.A. $o. +%%& "as passed, the means throu!h
"hich such end shall be accomplished is for the le!islature to choose
so lon! as it is "ithin constitutional bounds.
-he Motions for Reconsideration are hereby D1$41D =4-# 84$AL4-@.
-he temporary restrainin! order issued by the 5ourt is L48-1D.