Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Lim
G.R. No. 112497, August 4, 1994
Presumption of Constitutionality
SC finds that Drilon set aside the MRC, but he did not replace it with his own
version of what it should be. He did not say that it is a bad law. He only found
that it was illegal. This is an act of mere supervision, not of control.
Drilon declared that there were no written notices of public hearings on the
draft MRC, as required by law; no copies of the proposed MRC was
published; no minutes were submitted; and it was not translated into Tagalog.
On the other hand, RTC ruled that procedure requirements were satisfied. SC
agrees with RTC. But because substantive provisions were not raised in the
petition, SC makes no ruling on that.
Facts: Four oil companies and a taxpayer appealed to Drilon who then
declared the Manila Revenue Code null and void for non-compliance with
prescribed procedure in enacting tax ordinances pursuant to Sec. 187 of LGC.
RTC Ruling: It revoked Drilons decision and sustained the ordinance,
holding that procedural requirements were observed. It also declared Sec. 187
of LGC as unconstitutional because it vested within the SOJ the power and
control over local governments, violating local autonomy.
Drilon petitioned to SC avering that Sec. 187 was constitutional and that
procedural requirements were not observed. Petition was originally dismissed
because SolGen had not submitted certified true copy of the Decision but was
reinstated after Drilon MR-ed.
Issue: W/N Sec. 187 is constitutional, and procedural requirements specified
therein were not observed in the enactment of the MRC?
Held: YES. RTC ruling is reversed in that it declares Sec. 187
unconstitutional, but SC affirms RTC ruling that procedural requirements
were satisfied.
Ratio: RTC was rather hasty in invalidating Sec. 187 because it allegedly
empowers the SOJ to review tax ordinances and to annul them. It gave power
to control rather than to supervise. Sec. 187 authorizes the SOJ to review only
the constitutionality or legality of tax ordinances and if necessary, revoke
them. When he modifies or sets aside a tax ordinance, he is not authorized to
substitute his own judgement for the judgement of the local government.