COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, petitioner,

vs.
ALGUE, INC., and THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS, respondents.

CRUZ, J.:

Taxes are the lifeblood of the government and so should be collected without unnecessary hindrance On the other hand,
such collection should be made in accordance with law as any arbitrariness will negate the very reason for government
itself. It is therefore necessary to reconcile the apparently conflicting interests of the authorities and the taxpayers so
that the real purpose of taxation, which is the promotion of the common good, may be achieved.

The main issue in this case is whether or not the Collector of Internal Revenue correctly disallowed the P75,000.00
deduction claimed by private respondent Algue as legitimate business expenses in its income tax returns. The corollary
issue is whether or not the appeal of the private respondent from the decision of the Collector of Internal Revenue was
made on time and in accordance with law.

We deal first with the procedural question.

The record shows that on January 14, 1965, the private respondent, a domestic corporation engaged in engineering,
construction and other allied activities, received a letter from the petitioner assessing it in the total amount of
P83,183.85 as delinquency income taxes for the years 1958 and 1959. 1 On January 18, 1965, Algue flied a letter of protest
or request for reconsideration, which letter was stamp received on the same day in the office of the petitioner. 2 On
March 12, 1965, a warrant of distraint and levy was presented to the private respondent, through its counsel, Atty.
Alberto Guevara, Jr., who refused to receive it on the ground of the pending protest. 3 A search of the protest in the
dockets of the case proved fruitless. Atty. Guevara produced his file copy and gave a photostat to BIR agent Ramon
Reyes, who deferred service of the warrant. 4 On April 7, 1965, Atty. Guevara was finally informed that the BIR was not
taking any action on the protest and it was only then that he accepted the warrant of distraint and levy earlier sought
to be served.5 Sixteen days later, on April 23, 1965, Algue filed a petition for review of the decision of the Commissioner
of Internal Revenue with the Court of Tax Appeals.6

The above chronology shows that the petition was filed seasonably. According to Rep. Act No. 1125, the appeal may be
made within thirty days after receipt of the decision or ruling challenged.7 It is true that as a rule the warrant of distraint
and levy is "proof of the finality of the assessment" 8 and renders hopeless a request for reconsideration," 9 being
"tantamount to an outright denial thereof and makes the said request deemed rejected." 10 But there is a special
circumstance in the case at bar that prevents application of this accepted doctrine.

The proven fact is that four days after the private respondent received the petitioner's notice of assessment, it filed its
letter of protest. This was apparently not taken into account before the warrant of distraint and levy was issued; indeed,
such protest could not be located in the office of the petitioner. It was only after Atty. Guevara gave the BIR a copy of
the protest that it was, if at all, considered by the tax authorities. During the intervening period, the warrant was
premature and could therefore not be served.

As the Court of Tax Appeals correctly noted," 11 the protest filed by private respondent was not pro forma and was based
on strong legal considerations. It thus had the effect of suspending on January 18, 1965, when it was filed, the
reglementary period which started on the date the assessment was received, viz., January 14, 1965. The period started
running again only on April 7, 1965, when the private respondent was definitely informed of the implied rejection of
the said protest and the warrant was finally served on it. Hence, when the appeal was filed on April 23, 1965, only 20
days of the reglementary period had been consumed.

Now for the substantive question.

The petitioner contends that the claimed deduction of P75,000.00 was properly disallowed because it was not an
ordinary reasonable or necessary business expense. The Court of Tax Appeals had seen it differently. Agreeing with
Algue, it held that the said amount had been legitimately paid by the private respondent for actual services rendered.
The payment was in the form of promotional fees. These were collected by the Payees for their work in the creation of
the Vegetable Oil Investment Corporation of the Philippines and its subsequent purchase of the properties of the
Philippine Sugar Estate Development Company.
Parenthetically, it may be observed that the petitioner had Originally claimed these promotional fees to be personal
holding company income 12 but later conformed to the decision of the respondent court rejecting this assertion. 13 In
fact, as the said court found, the amount was earned through the joint efforts of the persons among whom it was
distributed It has been established that the Philippine Sugar Estate Development Company had earlier appointed Algue
as its agent, authorizing it to sell its land, factories and oil manufacturing process. Pursuant to such authority, Alberto
Guevara, Jr., Eduardo Guevara, Isabel Guevara, Edith, O'Farell, and Pablo Sanchez, worked for the formation of the
Vegetable Oil Investment Corporation, inducing other persons to invest in it.14 Ultimately, after its incorporation largely
through the promotion of the said persons, this new corporation purchased the PSEDC properties.15 For this sale, Algue
received as agent a commission of P126,000.00, and it was from this commission that the P75,000.00 promotional fees
were paid to the aforenamed individuals.16

There is no dispute that the payees duly reported their respective shares of the fees in their income tax returns and paid
the corresponding taxes thereon.17 The Court of Tax Appeals also found, after examining the evidence, that no
distribution of dividends was involved.18

The petitioner claims that these payments are fictitious because most of the payees are members of the same family in
control of Algue. It is argued that no indication was made as to how such payments were made, whether by check or in
cash, and there is not enough substantiation of such payments. In short, the petitioner suggests a tax dodge, an attempt
to evade a legitimate assessment by involving an imaginary deduction.

We find that these suspicions were adequately met by the private respondent when its President, Alberto Guevara, and
the accountant, Cecilia V. de Jesus, testified that the payments were not made in one lump sum but periodically and in
different amounts as each payee's need arose. 19 It should be remembered that this was a family corporation where strict
business procedures were not applied and immediate issuance of receipts was not required. Even so, at the end of the
year, when the books were to be closed, each payee made an accounting of all of the fees received by him or her, to make
up the total of P75,000.00. 20 Admittedly, everything seemed to be informal. This arrangement was understandable,
however, in view of the close relationship among the persons in the family corporation.

We agree with the respondent court that the amount of the promotional fees was not excessive. The total commission
paid by the Philippine Sugar Estate Development Co. to the private respondent was P125,000.00. 21After deducting the
said fees, Algue still had a balance of P50,000.00 as clear profit from the transaction. The amount of P75,000.00 was
60% of the total commission. This was a reasonable proportion, considering that it was the payees who did practically
everything, from the formation of the Vegetable Oil Investment Corporation to the actual purchase by it of the Sugar
Estate properties. This finding of the respondent court is in accord with the following provision of the Tax Code:

SEC. 30. Deductions from gross income.--In computing net income there shall be allowed as
deductions —

(a) Expenses:

(1) In general.--All the ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred during the taxable year in
carrying on any trade or business, including a reasonable allowance for salaries or other
compensation for personal services actually rendered; ... 22

and Revenue Regulations No. 2, Section 70 (1), reading as follows:

SEC. 70. Compensation for personal services.--Among the ordinary and necessary expenses paid or
incurred in carrying on any trade or business may be included a reasonable allowance for salaries or
other compensation for personal services actually rendered. The test of deductibility in the case of
compensation payments is whether they are reasonable and are, in fact, payments purely for service.
This test and deductibility in the case of compensation payments is whether they are reasonable and
are, in fact, payments purely for service. This test and its practical application may be further stated
and illustrated as follows:

Any amount paid in the form of compensation, but not in fact as the purchase price of services, is not
deductible. (a) An ostensible salary paid by a corporation may be a distribution of a dividend on stock.
This is likely to occur in the case of a corporation having few stockholders, Practically all of whom
draw salaries. If in such a case the salaries are in excess of those ordinarily paid for similar services,
and the excessive payment correspond or bear a close relationship to the stockholdings of the officers
 of employees, it would seem likely that the salaries are not paid wholly for services rendered, but the
excessive payments are a distribution of earnings upon the stock. . . . (Promulgated Feb. 11, 1931, 30
O.G. No. 18, 325.)

It is worth noting at this point that most of the payees were not in the regular employ of Algue nor were they its
controlling stockholders. 23

The Solicitor General is correct when he says that the burden is on the taxpayer to prove the validity of the claimed
deduction. In the present case, however, we find that the onus has been discharged satisfactorily. The private
respondent has proved that the payment of the fees was necessary and reasonable in the light of the efforts exerted by
the payees in inducing investors and prominent businessmen to venture in an experimental enterprise and involve
themselves in a new business requiring millions of pesos. This was no mean feat and should be, as it was, sufficiently
recompensed.

It is said that taxes are what we pay for civilization society. Without taxes, the government would be paralyzed for lack
of the motive power to activate and operate it. Hence, despite the natural reluctance to surrender part of one's hard
earned income to the taxing authorities, every person who is able to must contribute his share in the running of the
government. The government for its part, is expected to respond in the form of tangible and intangible benefits intended
to improve the lives of the people and enhance their moral and material values. This symbiotic relationship is the
rationale of taxation and should dispel the erroneous notion that it is an arbitrary method of exaction by those in the
seat of power.

But even as we concede the inevitability and indispensability of taxation, it is a requirement in all democratic regimes
that it be exercised reasonably and in accordance with the prescribed procedure. If it is not, then the taxpayer has a
right to complain and the courts will then come to his succor. For all the awesome power of the tax collector, he may
still be stopped in his tracks if the taxpayer can demonstrate, as it has here, that the law has not been observed.

We hold that the appeal of the private respondent from the decision of the petitioner was filed on time with the
respondent court in accordance with Rep. Act No. 1125. And we also find that the claimed deduction by the private
respondent was permitted under the Internal Revenue Code and should therefore not have been disallowed by the
petitioner.

ACCORDINGLY, the appealed decision of the Court of Tax Appeals is AFFIRMED in toto, without costs.

SO ORDERED.

WENCESLAO PASCUAL, in his official capacity as Provincial Governor of Rizal, petitioner-

appellant,
vs.
THE SECRETARY OF PUBLIC WORKS AND COMMUNICATIONS, ET AL., respondents-
appellees.

Asst. Fiscal Noli M. Cortes and Jose P. Santos for appellant.

Office of the Asst. Solicitor General Jose G. Bautista and Solicitor A. A. Torres for appellee.

CONCEPCION, J.:

Appeal, by petitioner Wenceslao Pascual, from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Rizal,
dismissing the above entitled case and dissolving the writ of preliminary injunction therein issued,
without costs.
On August 31, 1954, petitioner Wenceslao Pascual, as Provincial Governor of Rizal, instituted this
action for declaratory relief, with injunction, upon the ground that Republic Act No. 920, entitled "An
Act Appropriating Funds for Public Works", approved on June 20, 1953, contained, in section 1-C (a)
thereof, an item (43[h]) of P85,000.00 "for the construction, reconstruction, repair, extension and
improvement" of Pasig feeder road terminals (Gen. Roxas — Gen. Araneta — Gen. Lucban — Gen.
Capinpin — Gen. Segundo — Gen. Delgado — Gen. Malvar — Gen. Lim)"; that, at the time of the
passage and approval of said Act, the aforementioned feeder roads were "nothing but projected and
planned subdivision roads, not yet constructed, . . . within the Antonio Subdivision . . . situated at . . .
Pasig, Rizal" (according to the tracings attached to the petition as Annexes A and B, near Shaw
Boulevard, not far away from the intersection between the latter and Highway 54), which projected
feeder roads "do not connect any government property or any important premises to the main
highway"; that the aforementioned Antonio Subdivision (as well as the lands on which said feeder
roads were to be construed) were private properties of respondent Jose C. Zulueta, who, at the time
of the passage and approval of said Act, was a member of the Senate of the Philippines; that on
May, 1953, respondent Zulueta, addressed a letter to the Municipal Council of Pasig, Rizal, offering
to donate said projected feeder roads to the municipality of Pasig, Rizal; that, on June 13, 1953, the
offer was accepted by the council, subject to the condition "that the donor would submit a plan of the
said roads and agree to change the names of two of them"; that no deed of donation in favor of the
municipality of Pasig was, however, executed; that on July 10, 1953, respondent Zulueta wrote
another letter to said council, calling attention to the approval of Republic Act. No. 920, and the sum
of P85,000.00 appropriated therein for the construction of the projected feeder roads in question;
that the municipal council of Pasig endorsed said letter of respondent Zulueta to the District
Engineer of Rizal, who, up to the present "has not made any endorsement thereon" that inasmuch
as the projected feeder roads in question were private property at the time of the passage and
approval of Republic Act No. 920, the appropriation of P85,000.00 therein made, for the
construction, reconstruction, repair, extension and improvement of said projected feeder roads, was
illegal and, therefore, void ab initio"; that said appropriation of P85,000.00 was made by Congress
because its members were made to believe that the projected feeder roads in question were "public
roads and not private streets of a private subdivision"'; that, "in order to give a semblance of legality,
when there is absolutely none, to the aforementioned appropriation", respondents Zulueta executed
on December 12, 1953, while he was a member of the Senate of the Philippines, an alleged deed of
donation — copy of which is annexed to the petition — of the four (4) parcels of land constituting
said projected feeder roads, in favor of the Government of the Republic of the Philippines; that said
alleged deed of donation was, on the same date, accepted by the then Executive Secretary; that
being subject to an onerous condition, said donation partook of the nature of a contract; that, such,
said donation violated the provision of our fundamental law prohibiting members of Congress from
being directly or indirectly financially interested in any contract with the Government, and, hence, is
unconstitutional, as well as null and void ab initio, for the construction of the projected feeder roads
in question with public funds would greatly enhance or increase the value of the aforementioned
subdivision of respondent Zulueta, "aside from relieving him from the burden of constructing his
subdivision streets or roads at his own expense"; that the construction of said projected feeder roads
was then being undertaken by the Bureau of Public Highways; and that, unless restrained by the
court, the respondents would continue to execute, comply with, follow and implement the
aforementioned illegal provision of law, "to the irreparable damage, detriment and prejudice not only
to the petitioner but to the Filipino nation."

Petitioner prayed, therefore, that the contested item of Republic Act No. 920 be declared null and
void; that the alleged deed of donation of the feeder roads in question be "declared unconstitutional
and, therefor, illegal"; that a writ of injunction be issued enjoining the Secretary of Public Works and
Communications, the Director of the Bureau of Public Works and Highways and Jose C. Zulueta
from ordering or allowing the continuance of the above-mentioned feeder roads project, and from
making and securing any new and further releases on the aforementioned item of Republic Act No.
920, and the disbursing officers of the Department of Public Works and Highways from making any
further payments out of said funds provided for in Republic Act No. 920; and that pending final
hearing on the merits, a writ of preliminary injunction be issued enjoining the aforementioned parties
respondent from making and securing any new and further releases on the aforesaid item of
Republic Act No. 920 and from making any further payments out of said illegally appropriated funds.

Respondents moved to dismiss the petition upon the ground that petitioner had "no legal capacity to
sue", and that the petition did "not state a cause of action". In support to this motion, respondent
Zulueta alleged that the Provincial Fiscal of Rizal, not its provincial governor, should represent the
Province of Rizal, pursuant to section 1683 of the Revised Administrative Code; that said respondent
is " not aware of any law which makes illegal the appropriation of public funds for the improvements
of . . . private property"; and that, the constitutional provision invoked by petitioner is inapplicable to
the donation in question, the same being a pure act of liberality, not a contract. The other
respondents, in turn, maintained that petitioner could not assail the appropriation in question
because "there is no actual bona fide case . . . in which the validity of Republic Act No. 920 is
necessarily involved" and petitioner "has not shown that he has a personal and substantial interest"
in said Act "and that its enforcement has caused or will cause him a direct injury."

Acting upon said motions to dismiss, the lower court rendered the aforementioned decision, dated
October 29, 1953, holding that, since public interest is involved in this case, the Provincial Governor
of Rizal and the provincial fiscal thereof who represents him therein, "have the requisite
personalities" to question the constitutionality of the disputed item of Republic Act No. 920; that "the
legislature is without power appropriate public revenues for anything but a public purpose", that the
instructions and improvement of the feeder roads in question, if such roads where private property,
would not be a public purpose; that, being subject to the following condition:

The within donation is hereby made upon the condition that the Government of the Republic
of the Philippines will use the parcels of land hereby donated for street purposes only and for
no other purposes whatsoever; it being expressly understood that should the Government of
the Republic of the Philippines violate the condition hereby imposed upon it, the title to the
land hereby donated shall, upon such violation, ipso facto revert to the DONOR, JOSE C.
ZULUETA. (Emphasis supplied.)

which is onerous, the donation in question is a contract; that said donation or contract is "absolutely
forbidden by the Constitution" and consequently "illegal", for Article 1409 of the Civil Code of the
Philippines, declares in existence and void from the very beginning contracts "whose cause, objector
purpose is contrary to law, morals . . . or public policy"; that the legality of said donation may not be
contested, however, by petitioner herein, because his "interest are not directly affected" thereby; and
that, accordingly, the appropriation in question "should be upheld" and the case dismissed.

At the outset, it should be noted that we are concerned with a decision granting the aforementioned
motions to dismiss, which as much, are deemed to have admitted hypothetically the allegations of
fact made in the petition of appellant herein. According to said petition, respondent Zulueta is the
owner of several parcels of residential land situated in Pasig, Rizal, and known as the Antonio
Subdivision, certain portions of which had been reserved for the projected feeder roads
aforementioned, which, admittedly, were private property of said respondent when Republic Act No.
920, appropriating P85,000.00 for the "construction, reconstruction, repair, extension and
improvement" of said roads, was passed by Congress, as well as when it was approved by the
President on June 20, 1953. The petition further alleges that the construction of said roads, to be
undertaken with the aforementioned appropriation of P85,000.00, would have the effect of relieving
respondent Zulueta of the burden of constructing his subdivision streets or roads at his own
expenses, 1and would "greatly enhance or increase the value of the subdivision" of said respondent.
The lower court held that under these circumstances, the appropriation in question was "clearly for a
private, not a public purpose."

Respondents do not deny the accuracy of this conclusion, which is self-evident. 2However,
respondent Zulueta contended, in his motion to dismiss that:

A law passed by Congress and approved by the President can never be illegal because
Congress is the source of all laws . . . Aside from the fact that movant is not aware of any law
which makes illegal the appropriation of public funds for the improvement of what we, in the
meantime, may assume as private property . . . (Record on Appeal, p. 33.)

The first proposition must be rejected most emphatically, it being inconsistent with the nature of the
Government established under the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines and the system of
checks and balances underlying our political structure. Moreover, it is refuted by the decisions of this
Court invalidating legislative enactments deemed violative of the Constitution or organic laws. 3

As regards the legal feasibility of appropriating public funds for a public purpose, the principle
according to Ruling Case Law, is this:

It is a general rule that the legislature is without power to appropriate public revenue for
anything but a public purpose. . . . It is the essential character of the direct object of the
expenditure which must determine its validity as justifying a tax, and not the magnitude of the
interest to be affected nor the degree to which the general advantage of the community, and
thus the public welfare, may be ultimately benefited by their promotion. Incidental to the
public or to the state, which results from the promotion of private interest and the prosperity
of private enterprises or business, does not justify their aid by the use public money. (25
R.L.C. pp. 398-400; Emphasis supplied.)

The rule is set forth in Corpus Juris Secundum in the following language:

In accordance with the rule that the taxing power must be exercised for public purposes only,
discussed suprasec. 14, money raised by taxation can be expended only for public purposes
and not for the advantage of private individuals. (85 C.J.S. pp. 645-646; emphasis supplied.)

Explaining the reason underlying said rule, Corpus Juris Secundum states:

Generally, under the express or implied provisions of the constitution, public funds may be
used only for public purpose. The right of the legislature to appropriate funds is correlative
with its right to tax, and, under constitutional provisions against taxation except for public
purposes and prohibiting the collection of a tax for one purpose and the devotion thereof to
another purpose, no appropriation of state funds can be made for other than for a public
purpose.

xxx xxx xxx

The test of the constitutionality of a statute requiring the use of public funds is whether the
statute is designed to promote the public interest, as opposed to the furtherance of the
advantage of individuals, although each advantage to individuals might incidentally serve the
public. (81 C.J.S. pp. 1147; emphasis supplied.)
Needless to say, this Court is fully in accord with the foregoing views which, apart from being
patently sound, are a necessary corollary to our democratic system of government, which, as such,
exists primarily for the promotion of the general welfare. Besides, reflecting as they do, the
established jurisprudence in the United States, after whose constitutional system ours has been
patterned, said views and jurisprudence are, likewise, part and parcel of our own constitutional law. lawphil.net

This notwithstanding, the lower court felt constrained to uphold the appropriation in question, upon
the ground that petitioner may not contest the legality of the donation above referred to because the
same does not affect him directly. This conclusion is, presumably, based upon the following
premises, namely: (1) that, if valid, said donation cured the constitutional infirmity of the
aforementioned appropriation; (2) that the latter may not be annulled without a previous declaration
of unconstitutionality of the said donation; and (3) that the rule set forth in Article 1421 of the Civil
Code is absolute, and admits of no exception. We do not agree with these premises.

The validity of a statute depends upon the powers of Congress at the time of its passage or
approval, not upon events occurring, or acts performed, subsequently thereto, unless the latter
consists of an amendment of the organic law, removing, with retrospective operation, the
constitutional limitation infringed by said statute. Referring to the P85,000.00 appropriation for the
projected feeder roads in question, the legality thereof depended upon whether said roads were
public or private property when the bill, which, latter on, became Republic Act 920, was passed by
Congress, or, when said bill was approved by the President and the disbursement of said sum
became effective, or on June 20, 1953 (see section 13 of said Act). Inasmuch as the land on which
the projected feeder roads were to be constructed belonged then to respondent Zulueta, the result is
that said appropriation sought a private purpose, and hence, was null and void. 4 The donation to
the Government, over five (5) months after the approval and effectivity of said Act, made, according
to the petition, for the purpose of giving a "semblance of legality", or legalizing, the appropriation in
question, did not cure its aforementioned basic defect. Consequently, a judicial nullification of said
donation need not precede the declaration of unconstitutionality of said appropriation.

Again, Article 1421 of our Civil Code, like many other statutory enactments, is subject to exceptions.
For instance, the creditors of a party to an illegal contract may, under the conditions set forth in
Article 1177 of said Code, exercise the rights and actions of the latter, except only those which are
inherent in his person, including therefore, his right to the annulment of said contract, even though
such creditors are not affected by the same, except indirectly, in the manner indicated in said legal
provision.

Again, it is well-stated that the validity of a statute may be contested only by one who will sustain a
direct injury in consequence of its enforcement. Yet, there are many decisions nullifying, at the
instance of taxpayers, laws providing for the disbursement of public funds, 5upon the theory that "the
expenditure of public funds by an officer of the State for the purpose of administering
an unconstitutional act constitutes a misapplication of such funds," which may be enjoined at the
request of a taxpayer. 6Although there are some decisions to the contrary, 7the prevailing view in the
United States is stated in the American Jurisprudence as follows:

In the determination of the degree of interest essential to give the requisite standing to attack
the constitutionality of a statute, the general rule is that not only persons individually affected,
but also taxpayers, have sufficient interest in preventing the illegal expenditure of moneys
raised by taxation and may therefore question the constitutionality of statutes requiring
expenditure of public moneys. (11 Am. Jur. 761; emphasis supplied.)

However, this view was not favored by the Supreme Court of the U.S. in Frothingham vs. Mellon
(262 U.S. 447), insofar as federal laws are concerned, upon the ground that the relationship of a
taxpayer of the U.S. to its Federal Government is different from that of a taxpayer of a municipal
corporation to its government. Indeed, under the composite system of government existing in the
U.S., the states of the Union are integral part of the Federation from an international viewpoint, but,
each state enjoys internally a substantial measure of sovereignty, subject to the limitations imposed
by the Federal Constitution. In fact, the same was made by representatives of each state of the
Union, not of the people of the U.S., except insofar as the former represented the people of the
respective States, and the people of each State has, independently of that of the others, ratified said
Constitution. In other words, the Federal Constitution and the Federal statutes have become binding
upon the people of the U.S. in consequence of an act of, and, in this sense, through the respective
states of the Union of which they are citizens. The peculiar nature of the relation between said
people and the Federal Government of the U.S. is reflected in the election of its President, who is
chosen directly, not by the people of the U.S., but by electors chosen by each State, in such manner
as the legislature thereof may direct (Article II, section 2, of the Federal Constitution).
lawphi1.net

The relation between the people of the Philippines and its taxpayers, on the other hand, and the
Republic of the Philippines, on the other, is not identical to that obtaining between the people and
taxpayers of the U.S. and its Federal Government. It is closer, from a domestic viewpoint, to that
existing between the people and taxpayers of each state and the government thereof, except that
the authority of the Republic of the Philippines over the people of the Philippines is more fully
direct than that of the states of the Union, insofar as the simple and unitary type of our national
government is not subject to limitations analogous to those imposed by the Federal Constitution
upon the states of the Union, and those imposed upon the Federal Government in the interest of the
Union. For this reason, the rule recognizing the right of taxpayers to assail the constitutionality of a
legislation appropriating local or state public funds — which has been upheld by the Federal
Supreme Court (Crampton vs. Zabriskie, 101 U.S. 601) — has greater application in the Philippines
than that adopted with respect to acts of Congress of the United States appropriating federal funds.

Indeed, in the Province of Tayabas vs. Perez (56 Phil., 257), involving the expropriation of a land by
the Province of Tayabas, two (2) taxpayers thereof were allowed to intervene for the purpose of
contesting the price being paid to the owner thereof, as unduly exorbitant. It is true that in
Custodio vs. President of the Senate (42 Off. Gaz., 1243), a taxpayer and employee of the
Government was not permitted to question the constitutionality of an appropriation for backpay of
members of Congress. However, in Rodriguez vs. Treasurer of the Philippines and
Barredo vs.Commission on Elections (84 Phil., 368; 45 Off. Gaz., 4411), we entertained the action of
taxpayers impugning the validity of certain appropriations of public funds, and invalidated the same.
Moreover, the reason that impelled this Court to take such position in said two (2) cases — the
importance of the issues therein raised — is present in the case at bar. Again, like the petitioners in
the Rodriguez and Barredo cases, petitioner herein is not merely a taxpayer. The Province of Rizal,
which he represents officially as its Provincial Governor, is our most populated political
subdivision, 8and, the taxpayers therein bear a substantial portion of the burden of taxation, in the
Philippines.

Hence, it is our considered opinion that the circumstances surrounding this case sufficiently justify
petitioners action in contesting the appropriation and donation in question; that this action should not
have been dismissed by the lower court; and that the writ of preliminary injunction should have been
maintained.

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is hereby reversed, and the records are remanded to the
lower court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this decision, with the costs of this instance
against respondent Jose C. Zulueta. It is so ordered.
Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Gutierrez David,
Paredes, and Dizon, JJ., concur.

WALTER LUTZ, as Judicial Administrator of the Intestate Estate of the deceased Antonio
Jayme Ledesma,plaintiff-appellant,
vs.
J. ANTONIO ARANETA, as the Collector of Internal Revenue, defendant-appellee.

Ernesto J. Gonzaga for appellant.

Office of the Solicitor General Ambrosio Padilla, First Assistant Solicitor General Guillermo E. Torres
and Solicitor Felicisimo R. Rosete for appellee.

REYES, J.B L., J.:

This case was initiated in the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental to test the legality of the
taxes imposed by Commonwealth Act No. 567, otherwise known as the Sugar Adjustment Act.

Promulgated in 1940, the law in question opens (section 1) with a declaration of emergency, due to
the threat to our industry by the imminent imposition of export taxes upon sugar as provided in the
Tydings-McDuffe Act, and the "eventual loss of its preferential position in the United States market";
wherefore, the national policy was expressed "to obtain a readjustment of the benefits derived from
the sugar industry by the component elements thereof" and "to stabilize the sugar industry so as to
prepare it for the eventuality of the loss of its preferential position in the United States market and
the imposition of the export taxes."

In section 2, Commonwealth Act 567 provides for an increase of the existing tax on the manufacture
of sugar, on a graduated basis, on each picul of sugar manufactured; while section 3 levies on
owners or persons in control of lands devoted to the cultivation of sugar cane and ceded to others
for a consideration, on lease or otherwise —

a tax equivalent to the difference between the money value of the rental or consideration
collected and the amount representing 12 per centum of the assessed value of such land.

According to section 6 of the law —

SEC. 6. All collections made under this Act shall accrue to a special fund in the Philippine
Treasury, to be known as the 'Sugar Adjustment and Stabilization Fund,' and shall be paid
out only for any or all of the following purposes or to attain any or all of the following
objectives, as may be provided by law.

First, to place the sugar industry in a position to maintain itself, despite the gradual loss of
the preferntial position of the Philippine sugar in the United States market, and ultimately to
insure its continued existence notwithstanding the loss of that market and the consequent
necessity of meeting competition in the free markets of the world;

Second, to readjust the benefits derived from the sugar industry by all of the component
elements thereof — the mill, the landowner, the planter of the sugar cane, and the laborers in
 the factory and in the field — so that all might continue profitably to engage
therein;lawphi1.net

Third, to limit the production of sugar to areas more economically suited to the production
thereof; and

Fourth, to afford labor employed in the industry a living wage and to improve their living and
working conditions: Provided, That the President of the Philippines may, until the adjourment
of the next regular session of the National Assembly, make the necessary disbursements
from the fund herein created (1) for the establishment and operation of sugar experiment
station or stations and the undertaking of researchers (a) to increase the recoveries of the
centrifugal sugar factories with the view of reducing manufacturing costs, (b) to produce and
propagate higher yielding varieties of sugar cane more adaptable to different district
conditions in the Philippines, (c) to lower the costs of raising sugar cane, (d) to improve the
buying quality of denatured alcohol from molasses for motor fuel, (e) to determine the
possibility of utilizing the other by-products of the industry, (f) to determine what crop or
crops are suitable for rotation and for the utilization of excess cane lands, and (g) on other
problems the solution of which would help rehabilitate and stabilize the industry, and (2) for
the improvement of living and working conditions in sugar mills and sugar plantations,
authorizing him to organize the necessary agency or agencies to take charge of the
expenditure and allocation of said funds to carry out the purpose hereinbefore enumerated,
and, likewise, authorizing the disbursement from the fund herein created of the necessary
amount or amounts needed for salaries, wages, travelling expenses, equipment, and other
sundry expenses of said agency or agencies.

Plaintiff, Walter Lutz, in his capacity as Judicial Administrator of the Intestate Estate of Antonio
Jayme Ledesma, seeks to recover from the Collector of Internal Revenue the sum of P14,666.40
paid by the estate as taxes, under section 3 of the Act, for the crop years 1948-1949 and 1949-1950;
alleging that such tax is unconstitutional and void, being levied for the aid and support of the sugar
industry exclusively, which in plaintiff's opinion is not a public purpose for which a tax may be
constitutioally levied. The action having been dismissed by the Court of First Instance, the plaintifs
appealed the case directly to this Court (Judiciary Act, section 17).

The basic defect in the plaintiff's position is his assumption that the tax provided for in
Commonwealth Act No. 567 is a pure exercise of the taxing power. Analysis of the Act, and
particularly of section 6 (heretofore quoted in full), will show that the tax is levied with a regulatory
purpose, to provide means for the rehabilitation and stabilization of the threatened sugar industry. In
other words, the act is primarily an exercise of the police power.

This Court can take judicial notice of the fact that sugar production is one of the great industries of
our nation, sugar occupying a leading position among its export products; that it gives employment
to thousands of laborers in fields and factories; that it is a great source of the state's wealth, is one of
the important sources of foreign exchange needed by our government, and is thus pivotal in the
plans of a regime committed to a policy of currency stability. Its promotion, protection and
advancement, therefore redounds greatly to the general welfare. Hence it was competent for the
legislature to find that the general welfare demanded that the sugar industry should be stabilized in
turn; and in the wide field of its police power, the lawmaking body could provide that the distribution
of benefits therefrom be readjusted among its components to enable it to resist the added strain of
the increase in taxes that it had to sustain (Sligh vs. Kirkwood, 237 U. S. 52, 59 L. Ed. 835; Johnson
vs. State ex rel. Marey, 99 Fla. 1311, 128 So. 853; Maxcy Inc. vs. Mayo, 103 Fla. 552, 139 So. 121).

As stated in Johnson vs. State ex rel. Marey, with reference to the citrus industry in Florida —
 The protection of a large industry constituting one of the great sources of the state's wealth
and therefore directly or indirectly affecting the welfare of so great a portion of the population
of the State is affected to such an extent by public interests as to be within the police power
of the sovereign. (128 Sp. 857).

Once it is conceded, as it must, that the protection and promotion of the sugar industry is a matter of
public concern, it follows that the Legislature may determine within reasonable bounds what is
necessary for its protection and expedient for its promotion. Here, the legislative discretion must be
allowed fully play, subject only to the test of reasonableness; and it is not contended that the means
provided in section 6 of the law (above quoted) bear no relation to the objective pursued or are
oppressive in character. If objective and methods are alike constitutionally valid, no reason is seen
why the state may not levy taxes to raise funds for their prosecution and attainment. Taxation may
be made the implement of the state's police power (Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co. vs. Grosjean, 301 U.
S. 412, 81 L. Ed. 1193; U. S. vs. Butler, 297 U. S. 1, 80 L. Ed. 477; M'Culloch vs. Maryland, 4
Wheat. 316, 4 L. Ed. 579).

That the tax to be levied should burden the sugar producers themselves can hardly be a ground of
complaint; indeed, it appears rational that the tax be obtained precisely from those who are to be
benefited from the expenditure of the funds derived from it. At any rate, it is inherent in the power to
tax that a state be free to select the subjects of taxation, and it has been repeatedly held that
"inequalities which result from a singling out of one particular class for taxation, or exemption infringe
no constitutional limitation" (Carmichael vs. Southern Coal & Coke Co., 301 U. S. 495, 81 L. Ed.
1245, citing numerous authorities, at p. 1251).

From the point of view we have taken it appears of no moment that the funds raised under the Sugar
Stabilization Act, now in question, should be exclusively spent in aid of the sugar industry, since it is
that very enterprise that is being protected. It may be that other industries are also in need of similar
protection; that the legislature is not required by the Constitution to adhere to a policy of "all or
none." As ruled in Minnesota ex rel. Pearson vs. Probate Court, 309 U. S. 270, 84 L. Ed. 744, "if the
law presumably hits the evil where it is most felt, it is not to be overthrown because there are other
instances to which it might have been applied;" and that "the legislative authority, exerted within its
proper field, need not embrace all the evils within its reach" (N. L. R. B. vs. Jones & Laughlin Steel
Corp. 301 U. S. 1, 81 L. Ed. 893).

Even from the standpoint that the Act is a pure tax measure, it cannot be said that the devotion of
tax money to experimental stations to seek increase of efficiency in sugar production, utilization of
by-products and solution of allied problems, as well as to the improvements of living and working
conditions in sugar mills or plantations, without any part of such money being channeled directly to
private persons, constitutes expenditure of tax money for private purposes, (compare Everson vs.
Board of Education, 91 L. Ed. 472, 168 ALR 1392, 1400).

The decision appealed from is affirmed, with costs against appellant. So ordered.

CALTEX PHILIPPINES, INC., petitioner,

vs.
THE HONORABLE COMMISSION ON AUDIT, HONORABLE COMMISSIONER BARTOLOME C.
FERNANDEZ and HONORABLE COMMISSIONER ALBERTO P. CRUZ, respondents.

DAVIDE, JR., J.:

This is a petition erroneously brought under Rule 44 of the Rules of Court 1 questioning the authority
of the Commission on Audit (COA) in disallowing petitioner's claims for reimbursement from the Oil
Price Stabilization Fund (OPSF) and seeking the reversal of said Commission's decision denying its
claims for recovery of financing charges from the Fund and reimbursement of underrecovery arising
from sales to the National Power Corporation, Atlas Consolidated Mining and Development
Corporation (ATLAS) and Marcopper Mining Corporation (MAR-COPPER), preventing it from
exercising the right to offset its remittances against its reimbursement vis-a-vis the OPSF and
disallowing its claims which are still pending resolution before the Office of Energy Affairs (OEA) and
the Department of Finance (DOF).

Pursuant to the 1987 Constitution, 2 any decision, order or ruling of the Constitutional
Commissions 3 may be brought to this Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party within thirty (30)
days from receipt of a copy thereof. The certiorari referred to is the special civil action
for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. 4

Considering, however, that the allegations that the COA acted with:
(a) total lack of jurisdiction in completely ignoring and showing absolutely no respect for the findings
and rulings of the administrator of the fund itself and in disallowing a claim which is still pending
resolution at the OEA level, and (b) "grave abuse of discretion and completely without
jurisdiction" 5 in declaring that petitioner cannot avail of the right to offset any amount that it may be
required under the law to remit to the OPSF against any amount that it may receive by way of
reimbursement therefrom are sufficient to bring this petition within Rule 65 of the Rules of Court,
and, considering further the importance of the issues raised, the error in the designation of the
remedy pursued will, in this instance, be excused.

The issues raised revolve around the OPSF created under Section 8 of Presidential Decree (P.D.)
No. 1956, as amended by Executive Order (E.O.) No. 137. As amended, said Section 8 reads as
follows:

Sec. 8 . There is hereby created a Trust Account in the books of accounts of the
Ministry of Energy to be designated as Oil Price Stabilization Fund (OPSF) for the
purpose of minimizing frequent price changes brought about by exchange rate
adjustments and/or changes in world market prices of crude oil and imported
petroleum products. The Oil Price Stabilization Fund may be sourced from any of the
following:

a) Any increase in the tax collection from ad valorem tax or customs

duty imposed on petroleum products subject to tax under this Decree
arising from exchange rate adjustment, as may be determined by the
Minister of Finance in consultation with the Board of Energy;

b) Any increase in the tax collection as a result of the lifting of tax

exemptions of government corporations, as may be determined by
the Minister of Finance in consultation with the Board of Energy;

c) Any additional amount to be imposed on petroleum products to

augment the resources of the Fund through an appropriate Order that
may be issued by the Board of Energy requiring payment by persons
or companies engaged in the business of importing, manufacturing
and/or marketing petroleum products;
 d) Any resulting peso cost differentials in case the actual peso costs
paid by oil companies in the importation of crude oil and petroleum
products is less than the peso costs computed using the reference
foreign exchange rate as fixed by the Board of Energy.

The Fund herein created shall be used for the following:

1) To reimburse the oil companies for cost increases in crude oil and
imported petroleum products resulting from exchange rate adjustment
and/or increase in world market prices of crude oil;

2) To reimburse the oil companies for possible cost under-recovery

incurred as a result of the reduction of domestic prices of petroleum
products. The magnitude of the underrecovery, if any, shall be
determined by the Ministry of Finance. "Cost underrecovery" shall
include the following:

i. Reduction in oil company take as directed by the

Board of Energy without the corresponding reduction
in the landed cost of oil inventories in the possession
of the oil companies at the time of the price change;

ii. Reduction in internal ad valorem taxes as a result

of foregoing government mandated price reductions;

iii. Other factors as may be determined by the Ministry

of Finance to result in cost underrecovery.

The Oil Price Stabilization Fund (OPSF) shall be administered by the Ministry of
Energy.

The material operative facts of this case, as gathered from the pleadings of the parties, are not
disputed.

On 2 February 1989, the COA sent a letter to Caltex Philippines, Inc. (CPI), hereinafter referred to as
Petitioner, directing the latter to remit to the OPSF its collection, excluding that unremitted for the
years 1986 and 1988, of the additional tax on petroleum products authorized under the aforesaid
Section 8 of P.D. No. 1956 which, as of 31 December 1987, amounted to P335,037,649.00 and
informing it that, pending such remittance, all of its claims for reimbursement from the OPSF shall be
held in abeyance. 6

On 9 March 1989, the COA sent another letter to petitioner informing it that partial verification with
the OEA showed that the grand total of its unremitted collections of the above tax is
P1,287,668,820.00, broken down as follows:

1986 — P233,190,916.00
1987 — 335,065,650.00
1988 — 719,412,254.00;

directing it to remit the same, with interest and surcharges thereon, within sixty (60) days from
receipt of the letter; advising it that the COA will hold in abeyance the audit of all its claims for
reimbursement from the OPSF; and directing it to desist from further offsetting the taxes collected
against outstanding claims in 1989 and subsequent periods. 7

In its letter of 3 May 1989, petitioner requested the COA for an early release of its reimbursement
certificates from the OPSF covering claims with the Office of Energy Affairs since June 1987 up to
March 1989, invoking in support thereof COA Circular No. 89-299 on the lifting of pre-audit of
government transactions of national government agencies and government-owned or controlled
corporations. 8

In its Answer dated 8 May 1989, the COA denied petitioner's request for the early release of the reimbursement certificates from the OPSF
and repeated its earlier directive to petitioner to forward payment of the latter's unremitted collections to the OPSF to facilitate COA's audit
action on the reimbursement claims. 9

By way of a reply, petitioner, in a letter dated 31 May 1989, submitted to the COA a proposal for the
payment of the collections and the recovery of claims, since the outright payment of the sum of
P1.287 billion to the OEA as a prerequisite for the processing of said claims against the OPSF will
cause a very serious impairment of its cash position. 10 The proposal reads:

We, therefore, very respectfully propose the following:

(1) Any procedural arrangement acceptable to COA to facilitate

monitoring of payments and reimbursements will be administered by
the ERB/Finance Dept./OEA, as agencies designated by law to
administer/regulate OPSF.

(2) For the retroactive period, Caltex will deliver to OEA, P1.287
billion as payment to OPSF, similarly OEA will deliver to Caltex the
same amount in cash reimbursement from OPSF.

(3) The COA audit will commence immediately and will be conducted
expeditiously.

(4) The review of current claims (1989) will be conducted

expeditiously to preclude further accumulation of reimbursement from
OPSF.

On 7 June 1989, the COA, with the Chairman taking no part, handed down Decision No. 921
accepting the above-stated proposal but prohibiting petitioner from further offsetting remittances and
reimbursements for the current and ensuing years. 11 Decision No. 921 reads:

This pertains to the within separate requests of Mr. Manuel A. Estrella, President,
Petron Corporation, and Mr. Francis Ablan, President and Managing Director, Caltex
(Philippines) Inc., for reconsideration of this Commission's adverse action embodied
in its letters dated February 2, 1989 and March 9, 1989, the former directing
immediate remittance to the Oil Price Stabilization Fund of collections made by the
firms pursuant to P.D. 1956, as amended by E.O. No. 137, S. 1987, and the latter
reiterating the same directive but further advising the firms to desist from offsetting
collections against their claims with the notice that "this Commission will hold in
abeyance the audit of all . . . claims for reimbursement from the OPSF."

It appears that under letters of authority issued by the Chairman, Energy Regulatory
Board, the aforenamed oil companies were allowed to offset the amounts due to the
 Oil Price Stabilization Fund against their outstanding claims from the said Fund for
the calendar years 1987 and 1988, pending with the then Ministry of Energy, the
government entity charged with administering the OPSF. This Commission, however,
expressing serious doubts as to the propriety of the offsetting of all types of
reimbursements from the OPSF against all categories of remittances, advised these
oil companies that such offsetting was bereft of legal basis. Aggrieved thereby, these
companies now seek reconsideration and in support thereof clearly manifest their
intent to make arrangements for the remittance to the Office of Energy Affairs of the
amount of collections equivalent to what has been previously offset, provided that
this Commission authorizes the Office of Energy Affairs to prepare the corresponding
checks representing reimbursement from the OPSF. It is alleged that the
implementation of such an arrangement, whereby the remittance of collections due to
the OPSF and the reimbursement of claims from the Fund shall be made within a
period of not more than one week from each other, will benefit the Fund and not
unduly jeopardize the continuing daily cash requirements of these firms.

Upon a circumspect evaluation of the circumstances herein obtaining, this

Commission perceives no further objectionable feature in the proposed arrangement,
provided that 15% of whatever amount is due from the Fund is retained by the Office
of Energy Affairs, the same to be answerable for suspensions or disallowances,
errors or discrepancies which may be noted in the course of audit and surcharges for
late remittances without prejudice to similar future retentions to answer for any
deficiency in such surcharges, and provided further that no offsetting of remittances
and reimbursements for the current and ensuing years shall be allowed.

Pursuant to this decision, the COA, on 18 August 1989, sent the following letter to Executive Director
Wenceslao R. De la Paz of the Office of Energy Affairs: 12

Dear Atty. dela Paz:

Pursuant to the Commission on Audit Decision No. 921 dated June 7, 1989, and
based on our initial verification of documents submitted to us by your Office in
support of Caltex (Philippines), Inc. offsets (sic) for the year 1986 to May 31, 1989,
as well as its outstanding claims against the Oil Price Stabilization Fund (OPSF) as
of May 31, 1989, we are pleased to inform your Office that Caltex (Philippines), Inc.
shall be required to remit to OPSF an amount of P1,505,668,906, representing
remittances to the OPSF which were offset against its claims reimbursements (net of
unsubmitted claims). In addition, the Commission hereby authorize (sic) the Office of
Energy Affairs (OEA) to cause payment of P1,959,182,612 to Caltex, representing
claims initially allowed in audit, the details of which are presented hereunder: . . .

As presented in the foregoing computation the disallowances totalled P387,683,535,

which included P130,420,235 representing those claims disallowed by OEA, details
of which is (sic) shown in Schedule 1 as summarized as follows:

Disallowance of COA
Particulars Amount

Recovery of financing charges P162,728,475 /a

Product sales 48,402,398 /b
Inventory losses
Borrow loan arrangement 14,034,786 /c
 Sales to Atlas/Marcopper 32,097,083 /d
Sales to NPC 558
——————
P257,263,300

Disallowances of OEA 130,420,235

————————— ——————
Total P387,683,535

The reasons for the disallowances are discussed hereunder:

a. Recovery of Financing Charges

Review of the provisions of P.D. 1596 as amended by E.O. 137 seems to indicate
that recovery of financing charges by oil companies is not among the items for which
the OPSF may be utilized. Therefore, it is our view that recovery of financing charges
has no legal basis. The mechanism for such claims is provided in DOF Circular 1-87.

b. Product Sales –– Sales to International Vessels/Airlines

BOE Resolution No. 87-01 dated February 7, 1987 as implemented by OEA Order
No. 87-03-095 indicating that (sic) February 7, 1987 as the effectivity date that (sic)
oil companies should pay OPSF impost on export sales of petroleum products.
Effective February 7, 1987 sales to international vessels/airlines should not be
included as part of its domestic sales. Changing the effectivity date of the resolution
from February 7, 1987 to October 20, 1987 as covered by subsequent ERB
Resolution No. 88-12 dated November 18, 1988 has allowed Caltex to include in
their domestic sales volumes to international vessels/airlines and claim the
corresponding reimbursements from OPSF during the period. It is our opinion that
the effectivity of the said resolution should be February 7, 1987.

c. Inventory losses –– Settlement of Ad Valorem

We reviewed the system of handling Borrow and Loan (BLA) transactions including
the related BLA agreement, as they affect the claims for reimbursements of ad
valorem taxes. We observed that oil companies immediately settle ad valorem taxes
for BLA transaction (sic). Loan balances therefore are not tax paid inventories of
Caltex subject to reimbursements but those of the borrower. Hence, we recommend
reduction of the claim for July, August, and November, 1987 amounting to
P14,034,786.

d. Sales to Atlas/Marcopper

LOI No. 1416 dated July 17, 1984 provides that "I hereby order and direct the
suspension of payment of all taxes, duties, fees, imposts and other charges whether
direct or indirect due and payable by the copper mining companies in distress to the
national and local governments." It is our opinion that LOI 1416 which implements
the exemption from payment of OPSF imposts as effected by OEA has no legal
basis.
 Furthermore, we wish to emphasize that payment to Caltex (Phil.) Inc., of the amount
as herein authorized shall be subject to availability of funds of OPSF as of May 31,
1989 and applicable auditing rules and regulations. With regard to the disallowances,
it is further informed that the aggrieved party has 30 days within which to appeal the
decision of the Commission in accordance with law.

On 8 September 1989, petitioner filed an Omnibus Request for the Reconsideration of the decision
based on the following grounds: 13

A) COA-DISALLOWED CLAIMS ARE AUTHORIZED UNDER EXISTING RULES,

ORDERS, RESOLUTIONS, CIRCULARS ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCE AND THE ENERGY REGULATORY BOARD PURSUANT TO
EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 137.

xxx xxx xxx

B) ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATIONS IN THE COURSE OF EXERCISE OF

EXECUTIVE POWER BY DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ENERGY
REGULATORY BOARD ARE LEGAL AND SHOULD BE RESPECTED AND
APPLIED UNLESS DECLARED NULL AND VOID BY COURTS OR REPEALED BY
LEGISLATION.

xxx xxx xxx

C) LEGAL BASIS FOR RETENTION OF OFFSET ARRANGEMENT, AS

AUTHORIZED BY THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT, REMAINS
VALID.

xxx xxx xxx

On 6 November 1989, petitioner filed with the COA a Supplemental Omnibus Request for
Reconsideration. 14

On 16 February 1990, the COA, with Chairman Domingo taking no part and with Commissioner
Fernandez dissenting in part, handed down Decision No. 1171 affirming the disallowance for
recovery of financing charges, inventory losses, and sales to MARCOPPER and ATLAS, while
allowing the recovery of product sales or those arising from export sales. 15 Decision No. 1171 reads
as follows:

Anent the recovery of financing charges you contend that Caltex Phil. Inc. has the
.authority to recover financing charges from the OPSF on the basis of Department of
Finance (DOF) Circular 1-87, dated February 18, 1987, which allowed oil companies
to "recover cost of financing working capital associated with crude oil shipments,"
and provided a schedule of reimbursement in terms of peso per barrel. It appears
that on November 6, 1989, the DOF issued a memorandum to the President of the
Philippines explaining the nature of these financing charges and justifying their
reimbursement as follows:

As part of your program to promote economic recovery, . . . oil

companies (were authorized) to refinance their imports of crude oil
and petroleum products from the normal trade credit of 30 days up to
 360 days from date of loading . . . Conformably . . ., the oil companies
deferred their foreign exchange remittances for purchases by
refinancing their import bills from the normal 30-day payment term up
to the desired 360 days. This refinancing of importations carried
additional costs (financing charges) which then became, due to
government mandate, an inherent part of the cost of the purchases of
our country's oil requirement.

We beg to disagree with such contention. The justification that financing charges
increased oil costs and the schedule of reimbursement rate in peso per barrel
(Exhibit 1) used to support alleged increase (sic) were not validated in our
independent inquiry. As manifested in Exhibit 2, using the same formula which the
DOF used in arriving at the reimbursement rate but using comparable percentages
instead of pesos, the ineluctable conclusion is that the oil companies are actually
gaining rather than losing from the extension of credit because such extension
enables them to invest the collections in marketable securities which have much
higher rates than those they incur due to the extension. The Data we used were
obtained from CPI (CALTEX) Management and can easily be verified from our
records.

With respect to product sales or those arising from sales to international vessels or
airlines, . . ., it is believed that export sales (product sales) are entitled to claim
refund from the OPSF.

As regard your claim for underrecovery arising from inventory losses, . . . It is the
considered view of this Commission that the OPSF is not liable to refund such surtax
on inventory losses because these are paid to BIR and not OPSF, in view of which
CPI (CALTEX) should seek refund from BIR. . . .

Finally, as regards the sales to Atlas and Marcopper, it is represented that you are
entitled to claim recovery from the OPSF pursuant to LOI 1416 issued on July 17,
1984, since these copper mining companies did not pay CPI (CALTEX) and OPSF
imposts which were added to the selling price.

Upon a circumspect evaluation, this Commission believes and so holds that the CPI
(CALTEX) has no authority to claim reimbursement for this uncollected OPSF impost
because LOI 1416 dated July 17, 1984, which exempts distressed mining companies
from "all taxes, duties, import fees and other charges" was issued when OPSF was
not yet in existence and could not have contemplated OPSF imposts at the time of its
formulation. Moreover, it is evident that OPSF was not created to aid distressed
mining companies but rather to help the domestic oil industry by stabilizing oil prices.

Unsatisfied with the decision, petitioner filed on 28 March 1990 the present petition wherein it
imputes to the COA the commission of the following errors: 16

RESPONDENT COMMISSION ERRED IN DISALLOWING RECOVERY OF

FINANCING CHARGES FROM THE OPSF.

II
 RESPONDENT COMMISSION ERRED IN DISALLOWING
CPI's 17 CLAIM FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF UNDERRECOVERY ARISING FROM
SALES TO NPC.

III

RESPONDENT COMMISSION ERRED IN DENYING CPI's CLAIMS FOR

REIMBURSEMENT ON SALES TO ATLAS AND MARCOPPER.

IV

RESPONDENT COMMISSION ERRED IN PREVENTING CPI FROM EXERCISING

ITS LEGAL RIGHT TO OFFSET ITS REMITTANCES AGAINST ITS
REIMBURSEMENT VIS-A-VIS THE OPSF.

RESPONDENT COMMISSION ERRED IN DISALLOWING CPI's CLAIMS WHICH

ARE STILL PENDING RESOLUTION BY (SIC) THE OEA AND THE DOF.

In the Resolution of 5 April 1990, this Court required the respondents to comment on the petition
within ten (10) days from notice. 18

On 6 September 1990, respondents COA and Commissioners Fernandez and Cruz, assisted by the
Office of the Solicitor General, filed their Comment. 19

This Court resolved to give due course to this petition on 30 May 1991 and required the parties to file
their respective Memoranda within twenty (20) days from notice. 20

In a Manifestation dated 18 July 1991, the Office of the Solicitor General prays that the Comment
filed on 6 September 1990 be considered as the Memorandum for respondents. 21

Upon the other hand, petitioner filed its Memorandum on 14 August 1991.

I. Petitioner dwells lengthily on its first assigned error contending, in support thereof, that:

(1) In view of the expanded role of the OPSF pursuant to Executive Order No. 137, which added a
second purpose, to wit:

2) To reimburse the oil companies for possible cost underrecovery incurred as a

result of the reduction of domestic prices of petroleum products. The magnitude of
the underrecovery, if any, shall be determined by the Ministry of Finance. "Cost
underrecovery" shall include the following:

i. Reduction in oil company take as directed by the Board of Energy

without the corresponding reduction in the landed cost of oil
inventories in the possession of the oil companies at the time of the
price change;

ii. Reduction in internal ad valorem taxes as a result of foregoing

government mandated price reductions;
 iii. Other factors as may be determined by the Ministry of Finance to
result in cost underrecovery.

the "other factors" mentioned therein that may be determined by the Ministry (now Department) of
Finance may include financing charges for "in essence, financing charges constitute unrecovered
cost of acquisition of crude oil incurred by the oil companies," as explained in the 6 November 1989
Memorandum to the President of the Department of Finance; they "directly translate to cost
underrecovery in cases where the money market placement rates decline and at the same time the
tax on interest income increases. The relationship is such that the presence of underrecovery or
overrecovery is directly dependent on the amount and extent of financing charges."

(2) The claim for recovery of financing charges has clear legal and factual basis; it was filed on the
basis of Department of Finance Circular No.
1-87, dated 18 February 1987, which provides:

To allow oil companies to recover the costs of financing working capital associated
with crude oil shipments, the following guidelines on the utilization of the Oil Price
Stabilization Fund pertaining to the payment of the foregoing (sic) exchange risk
premium and recovery of financing charges will be implemented:

1. The OPSF foreign exchange premium shall be reduced to a flat

rate of one (1) percent for the first (6) months and 1/32 of one percent
per month thereafter up to a maximum period of one year, to be
applied on crude oil' shipments from January 1, 1987. Shipments with
outstanding financing as of January 1, 1987 shall be charged on the
basis of the fee applicable to the remaining period of financing.

2. In addition, for shipments loaded after January 1987, oil companies

shall be allowed to recover financing charges directly from the OPSF
per barrel of crude oil based on the following schedule:

F
i
n
a
n
c
i
n
g
P
e
r
i
o
d
R
e
i
m
b
u
 r
s
e
m
e
n
t
R
a
t
e
P
e
s
o
s
p
e
r
B
a
r
r
e
l

Less than 180 days None

180 days to 239 days 1.90
241 (sic) days to 299 4.02
300 days to 369 (sic) days 6.16
360 days or more 8.28

The above rates shall be subject to review every sixty

days. 22

Pursuant to this circular, the Department of Finance, in its letter of 18 February 1987, advised the
Office of Energy Affairs as follows:

HON. VICENTE T. PATERNO

Deputy Executive Secretary
For Energy Affairs
Office of the President
Makati, Metro Manila

Dear Sir:

This refers to the letters of the Oil Industry dated December 4, 1986 and February 5,
1987 and subsequent discussions held by the Price Review committee on February
6, 1987.

On the basis of the representations made, the Department of Finance recognizes the
necessity to reduce the foreign exchange risk premium accruing to the Oil Price
 Stabilization Fund (OPSF). Such a reduction would allow the industry to recover
partly associated financing charges on crude oil imports. Accordingly, the OPSF
foreign exchange risk fee shall be reduced to a flat charge of 1% for the first six (6)
months plus 1/32% of 1% per month thereafter up to a maximum period of one year,
effective January 1, 1987. In addition, since the prevailing company take would still
leave unrecovered financing charges, reimbursement may be secured from the
OPSF in accordance with the provisions of the attached Department of Finance
circular. 23

Acting on this letter, the OEA issued on 4 May 1987 Order No. 87-05-096 which contains the
guidelines for the computation of the foreign exchange risk fee and the recovery of financing charges
from the OPSF, to wit:

B. FINANCE CHARGES

1. Oil companies shall be allowed to recover financing charges

directly from the OPSF for both crude and product shipments loaded
after January 1, 1987 based on the following rates:

F
i
n
a
n
c
i
n
g
P
e
r
i
o
d
R
e
i
m
b
u
r
s
e
m
e
n
t
R
a
t
e
(
P
 B
b
l
.
)

Less than 180 days None

180 days to 239 days 1.90
240 days to 229 (sic) days 4.02
300 days to 359 days 6.16
360 days to more 8.28

2. The above rates shall be subject to review every sixty days. 24

Then on 22 November 1988, the Department of Finance issued Circular No. 4-88 imposing further
guidelines on the recoverability of financing charges, to wit:

Following are the supplemental rules to Department of Finance Circular No. 1-87
dated February 18, 1987 which allowed the recovery of financing charges directly
from the Oil Price Stabilization Fund. (OPSF):

1. The Claim for reimbursement shall be on a per shipment basis.

2. The claim shall be filed with the Office of Energy Affairs together
with the claim on peso cost differential for a particular shipment and
duly certified supporting documents providedfor under Ministry of
Finance No. 11-85.

3. The reimbursement shall be on the form of reimbursement

certificate (Annex A) to be issued by the Office of Energy Affairs. The
said certificate may be used to offset against amounts payable to the
OPSF. The oil companies may also redeem said certificates in cash if
not utilized, subject to availability of funds. 25

The OEA disseminated this Circular to all oil companies in its Memorandum Circular No. 88-12-
017. 26

The COA can neither ignore these issuances nor formulate its own interpretation of the laws in the
light of the determination of executive agencies. The determination by the Department of Finance
and the OEA that financing charges are recoverable from the OPSF is entitled to great weight and
consideration. 27 The function of the COA, particularly in the matter of allowing or disallowing certain
expenditures, is limited to the promulgation of accounting and auditing rules for, among others, the
disallowance of irregular, unnecessary, excessive, extravagant, or unconscionable expenditures, or
uses of government funds and properties. 28

(3) Denial of petitioner's claim for reimbursement would be inequitable. Additionally, COA's claim that
petitioner is gaining, instead of losing, from the extension of credit, is belatedly raised and not
supported by expert analysis.

In impeaching the validity of petitioner's assertions, the respondents argue that:

 1. The Constitution gives the COA discretionary power to disapprove irregular or
unnecessary government expenditures and as the monetary claims of petitioner are
not allowed by law, the COA acted within its jurisdiction in denying them;

2. P.D. No. 1956 and E.O. No. 137 do not allow reimbursement of financing charges
from the OPSF;

3. Under the principle of ejusdem generis, the "other factors" mentioned in the
second purpose of the OPSF pursuant to E.O. No. 137 can only include "factors
which are of the same nature or analogous to those enumerated;"

4. In allowing reimbursement of financing charges from OPSF, Circular No. 1-87 of

the Department of Finance violates P.D. No. 1956 and E.O. No. 137; and

5. Department of Finance rules and regulations implementing P.D. No. 1956 do not
likewise allow reimbursement of financing
charges. 29

We find no merit in the first assigned error.

As to the power of the COA, which must first be resolved in view of its primacy, We find the theory of
petitioner –– that such does not extend to the disallowance of irregular, unnecessary, excessive,
extravagant, or unconscionable expenditures, or use of government funds and properties, but only to
the promulgation of accounting and auditing rules for, among others, such disallowance –– to be
untenable in the light of the provisions of the 1987 Constitution and related laws.

Section 2, Subdivision D, Article IX of the 1987 Constitution expressly provides:

Sec. 2(l). The Commission on Audit shall have the power, authority, and duty to
examine, audit, and settle all accounts pertaining to the revenue and receipts of, and
expenditures or uses of funds and property, owned or held in trust by, or pertaining
to, the Government, or any of its subdivisions, agencies, or instrumentalities,
including government-owned and controlled corporations with original charters, and
on a post-audit basis: (a) constitutional bodies, commissions and offices that have
been granted fiscal autonomy under this Constitution; (b) autonomous state colleges
and universities; (c) other government-owned or controlled corporations and their
subsidiaries; and (d) such non-governmental entities receiving subsidy or equity,
directly or indirectly, from or through the government, which are required by law or
the granting institution to submit to such audit as a condition of subsidy or equity.
However, where the internal control system of the audited agencies is inadequate,
the Commission may adopt such measures, including temporary or special pre-audit,
as are necessary and appropriate to correct the deficiencies. It shall keep the general
accounts, of the Government and, for such period as may be provided by law,
preserve the vouchers and other supporting papers pertaining thereto.

(2) The Commission shall have exclusive authority, subject to the limitations in this
Article, to define the scope of its audit and examination, establish the techniques and
methods required therefor, and promulgate accounting and auditing rules and
regulations, including those for the prevention and disallowance of irregular,
unnecessary, excessive, extravagant, or, unconscionable expenditures, or uses of
government funds and properties.
These present powers, consistent with the declared independence of the Commission, 30 are broader
and more extensive than that conferred by the 1973 Constitution. Under the latter, the Commission
was empowered to:

Examine, audit, and settle, in accordance with law and regulations, all accounts
pertaining to the revenues, and receipts of, and expenditures or uses of funds and
property, owned or held in trust by, or pertaining to, the Government, or any of its
subdivisions, agencies, or instrumentalities including government-owned or
controlled corporations, keep the general accounts of the Government and, for such
period as may be provided by law, preserve the vouchers pertaining thereto; and
promulgate accounting and auditing rules and regulations including those for the
prevention of irregular, unnecessary, excessive, or extravagant expenditures or uses
of funds and property. 31

Upon the other hand, under the 1935 Constitution, the power and authority of the COA's precursor,
the General Auditing Office, were, unfortunately, limited; its very role was markedly passive. Section
2 of Article XI thereofprovided:

Sec. 2. The Auditor General shall examine, audit, and settle all accounts pertaining
to the revenues and receipts from whatever source, including trust funds derived
from bond issues; and audit, in accordance with law and administrative regulations,
all expenditures of funds or property pertaining to or held in trust by the Government
or the provinces or municipalities thereof. He shall keep the general accounts of the
Government and the preserve the vouchers pertaining thereto. It shall be the duty of
the Auditor General to bring to the attention of the proper administrative officer
expenditures of funds or property which, in his opinion, are irregular, unnecessary,
excessive, or extravagant. He shall also perform such other functions as may be
prescribed by law.

As clearly shown above, in respect to irregular, unnecessary, excessive or extravagant expenditures

or uses of funds, the 1935 Constitution did not grant the Auditor General the power to issue rules
and regulations to prevent the same. His was merely to bring that matter to the attention of the
proper administrative officer.

The ruling on this particular point, quoted by petitioner from the cases of Guevarra
vs. Gimenez 32 and Ramos vs.Aquino, 33 are no longer controlling as the two (2) were decided in the
light of the 1935 Constitution.

There can be no doubt, however, that the audit power of the Auditor General under the 1935
Constitution and the Commission on Audit under the 1973 Constitution authorized them to
disallow illegal expenditures of funds or uses of funds and property. Our present Constitution retains
that same power and authority, further strengthened by the definition of the COA's general
jurisdiction in Section 26 of the Government Auditing Code of the Philippines 34 and Administrative
Code of 1987. 35 Pursuant to its power to promulgate accounting and auditing rules and regulations
for the prevention of irregular, unnecessary, excessive or extravagant expenditures or uses of
funds, 36 the COA promulgated on 29 March 1977 COA Circular No. 77-55. Since the COA is
responsible for the enforcement of the rules and regulations, it goes without saying that failure to
comply with them is a ground for disapproving the payment of the proposed expenditure. As
observed by one of the Commissioners of the 1986 Constitutional Commission, Fr. Joaquin G.
Bernas: 37
 It should be noted, however, that whereas under Article XI, Section 2, of the 1935
Constitution the Auditor General could not correct "irregular, unnecessary, excessive
or extravagant" expenditures of public funds but could only "bring [the matter] to the
attention of the proper administrative officer," under the 1987 Constitution, as also
under the 1973 Constitution, the Commission on Audit can "promulgate accounting
and auditing rules and regulations including those for the prevention and
disallowance of irregular, unnecessary, excessive, extravagant, or unconscionable
expenditures or uses of government funds and properties." Hence, since the
Commission on Audit must ultimately be responsible for the enforcement of these
rules and regulations, the failure to comply with these regulations can be a ground for
disapproving the payment of a proposed expenditure.

Indeed, when the framers of the last two (2) Constitutions conferred upon the COA a more active
role and invested it with broader and more extensive powers, they did not intend merely to make the
COA a toothless tiger, but rather envisioned a dynamic, effective, efficient and independent
watchdog of the Government.

The issue of the financing charges boils down to the validity of Department of Finance Circular No.
1-87, Department of Finance Circular No. 4-88 and the implementing circulars of the OEA, issued
pursuant to Section 8, P.D. No. 1956, as amended by E.O. No. 137, authorizing it to determine
"other factors" which may result in cost underrecovery and a consequent reimbursement from the
OPSF.

The Solicitor General maintains that, following the doctrine of ejusdem generis, financing charges
are not included in "cost underrecovery" and, therefore, cannot be considered as one of the "other
factors." Section 8 of P.D. No. 1956, as amended by E.O. No. 137, does not explicitly define what
"cost underrecovery" is. It merely states what it includes. Thus:

. . . "Cost underrecovery" shall include the following:

i. Reduction in oil company takes as directed by the Board of Energy without the
corresponding reduction in the landed cost of oil inventories in the possession of the
oil companies at the time of the price change;

ii. Reduction in internal ad valorem taxes as a result of foregoing government

mandated price reductions;

iii. Other factors as may be determined by the Ministry of Finance to result in cost
underrecovery.

These "other factors" can include only those which are of the same class or nature as the two
specifically enumerated in subparagraphs (i) and (ii). A common characteristic of both is that they
are in the nature of government mandated price reductions. Hence, any other factor which seeks to
be a part of the enumeration, or which could qualify as a cost underrecovery, must be of the same
class or nature as those specifically enumerated.

Petitioner, however, suggests that E.O. No. 137 intended to grant the Department of Finance broad
and unrestricted authority to determine or define "other factors."

Both views are unacceptable to this Court.

The rule of ejusdem generis states that "[w]here general words follow an enumeration of persons or
things, by words of a particular and specific meaning, such general words are not to be construed in
their widest extent, but are held to be as applying only to persons or things of the same kind or class
as those specifically mentioned. 38 A reading of subparagraphs (i) and (ii) easily discloses that they
do not have a common characteristic. The first relates to price reduction as directed by the Board of
Energy while the second refers to reduction in internal ad valoremtaxes. Therefore, subparagraph
(iii) cannot be limited by the enumeration in these subparagraphs. What should be considered for
purposes of determining the "other factors" in subparagraph (iii) is the first sentence of paragraph (2)
of the Section which explicitly allows cost underrecovery only if such were incurred as a result of the
reduction of domestic prices of petroleum products.

Although petitioner's financing losses, if indeed incurred, may constitute cost underrecovery in the
sense that such were incurred as a result of the inability to fully offset financing expenses from yields
in money market placements, they do not, however, fall under the foregoing provision of P.D. No.
1956, as amended, because the same did not result from the reduction of the domestic price of
petroleum products. Until paragraph (2), Section 8 of the decree, as amended, is further amended
by Congress, this Court can do nothing. The duty of this Court is not to legislate, but to apply or
interpret the law. Be that as it may, this Court wishes to emphasize that as the facts in this case
have shown, it was at the behest of the Government that petitioner refinanced its oil import
payments from the normal 30-day trade credit to a maximum of 360 days. Petitioner could be correct
in its assertion that owing to the extended period for payment, the financial institution which
refinanced said payments charged a higher interest, thereby resulting in higher financing expenses
for the petitioner. It would appear then that equity considerations dictate that petitioner should
somehow be allowed to recover its financing losses, if any, which may have been sustained because
it accommodated the request of the Government. Although under Section 29 of the National Internal
Revenue Code such losses may be deducted from gross income, the effect of that loss would be
merely to reduce its taxable income, but not to actually wipe out such losses. The Government then
may consider some positive measures to help petitioner and others similarly situated to obtain
substantial relief. An amendment, as aforestated, may then be in order.

Upon the other hand, to accept petitioner's theory of "unrestricted authority" on the part of the
Department of Finance to determine or define "other factors" is to uphold an undue delegation of
legislative power, it clearly appearing that the subject provision does not provide any standard for the
exercise of the authority. It is a fundamental rule that delegation of legislative power may be
sustained only upon the ground that some standard for its exercise is provided and that the
legislature, in making the delegation, has prescribed the manner of the exercise of the delegated
authority. 39

Finally, whether petitioner gained or lost by reason of the extensive credit is rendered irrelevant by
reason of the foregoing disquisitions. It may nevertheless be stated that petitioner failed to disprove
COA's claim that it had in fact gained in the process. Otherwise stated, petitioner failed to sufficiently
show that it incurred a loss. Such being the case, how can petitioner claim for reimbursement? It
cannot have its cake and eat it too.

II. Anent the claims arising from sales to the National Power Corporation, We find for the petitioner.
The respondents themselves admit in their Comment that underrecovery arising from sales to NPC
are reimbursable because NPC was granted full exemption from the payment of taxes; to prove this,
respondents trace the laws providing for such exemption. 40 The last law cited is the Fiscal Incentives
Regulatory Board's Resolution No. 17-87 of 24 June 1987 which provides, in part, "that the tax and
duty exemption privileges of the National Power Corporation, including those pertaining to its
domestic purchases of petroleum and petroleum products . . . are restored effective March 10,
1987." In a Memorandum issued on 5 October 1987 by the Office of the President, NPC's tax
exemption was confirmed and approved.
Furthermore, as pointed out by respondents, the intention to exempt sales of petroleum products to
the NPC is evident in the recently passed Republic Act No. 6952 establishing the Petroleum Price
Standby Fund to support the OPSF. 41 The pertinent part of Section 2, Republic Act No. 6952
provides:

Sec. 2. Application of the Fund shall be subject to the following conditions:

(1) That the Fund shall be used to reimburse the oil companies for (a)
cost increases of imported crude oil and finished petroleum products
resulting from foreign exchange rate adjustments and/or increases in
world market prices of crude oil; (b) cost underrecovery incurred as a
result of fuel oil sales to the National Power Corporation (NPC); and
(c) other cost underrecoveries incurred as may be finally decided by
the Supreme
Court; . . .

Hence, petitioner can recover its claim arising from sales of petroleum products to the National
Power Corporation.

III. With respect to its claim for reimbursement on sales to ATLAS and MARCOPPER, petitioner
relies on Letter of Instruction (LOI) 1416, dated 17 July 1984, which ordered the suspension of
payments of all taxes, duties, fees and other charges, whether direct or indirect, due and payable by
the copper mining companies in distress to the national government. Pursuant to this LOI, then
Minister of Energy, Hon. Geronimo Velasco, issued Memorandum Circular No. 84-11-22 advising
the oil companies that Atlas Consolidated Mining Corporation and Marcopper Mining Corporation are
among those declared to be in distress.

In denying the claims arising from sales to ATLAS and MARCOPPER, the COA, in its 18 August
1989 letter to Executive Director Wenceslao R. de la Paz, states that "it is our opinion that LOI 1416
which implements the exemption from payment of OPSF imposts as effected by OEA has no legal
basis;" 42 in its Decision No. 1171, it ruled that "the CPI (CALTEX) (Caltex) has no authority to claim
reimbursement for this uncollected impost because LOI 1416 dated July 17, 1984, . . . was issued
when OPSF was not yet in existence and could not have contemplated OPSF imposts at the time of
its formulation." 43 It is further stated that: "Moreover, it is evident that OPSF was not created to aid
distressed mining companies but rather to help the domestic oil industry by stabilizing oil prices."

In sustaining COA's stand, respondents vigorously maintain that LOI 1416 could not have intended
to exempt said distressed mining companies from the payment of OPSF dues for the following
reasons:

a. LOI 1416 granting the alleged exemption was issued on July 17, 1984. P.D. 1956
creating the OPSF was promulgated on October 10, 1984, while E.O. 137, amending
P.D. 1956, was issued on February 25, 1987.

b. LOI 1416 was issued in 1984 to assist distressed copper mining companies in line
with the government's effort to prevent the collapse of the copper industry. P.D No.
1956, as amended, was issued for the purpose of minimizing frequent price changes
brought about by exchange rate adjustments and/or changes in world market prices
of crude oil and imported petroleum product's; and

c. LOI 1416 caused the "suspension of all taxes, duties, fees, imposts and other
charges, whether direct or indirect, due and payable by the copper mining companies
 in distress to the Notional and Local Governments . . ." On the other hand, OPSF
dues are not payable by (sic) distressed copper companies but by oil companies. It is
to be noted that the copper mining companies do not pay OPSF dues. Rather, such
imposts are built in or already incorporated in the prices of oil products. 44

Lastly, respondents allege that while LOI 1416 suspends the payment of taxes by distressed mining
companies, it does not accord petitioner the same privilege with respect to its obligation to pay
OPSF dues.

We concur with the disquisitions of the respondents. Aside from such reasons, however, it is
apparent that LOI 1416 was never published in the Official Gazette 45 as required by Article 2 of the
Civil Code, which reads:

Laws shall take effect after fifteen days following the completion of their publication in
the Official Gazette, unless it is otherwise provided. . . .

In applying said provision, this Court ruled in the case of Tañada vs. Tuvera: 46

WHEREFORE, the Court hereby orders respondents to publish in the Official

Gazette all unpublished presidential issuances which are of general application, and
unless so published they shall have no binding force and effect.

Resolving the motion for reconsideration of said decision, this Court, in its Resolution promulgated
on 29 December 1986, 47 ruled:

We hold therefore that all statutes, including those of local application and private
laws, shall be published as a condition for their effectivity, which shall begin fifteen
days after publication unless a different effectivity date is fixed by the legislature.

Covered by this rule are presidential decrees and executive orders promulgated by
the President in the exercise of legislative powers whenever the same are validly
delegated by the legislature or, at present, directly conferred by the Constitution.
Administrative rules and regulations must also be published if their purpose is to
enforce or implement existing laws pursuant also to a valid delegation.

xxx xxx xxx

WHEREFORE, it is hereby declared that all laws as above defined shall immediately
upon their approval, or as soon thereafter as possible, be published in full in the
Official Gazette, to become effective only after fifteen days from their publication, or
on another date specified by the legislature, in accordance with Article 2 of the Civil
Code.

LOI 1416 has, therefore, no binding force or effect as it was never published in the Official Gazette
after its issuance or at any time after the decision in the abovementioned cases.

Article 2 of the Civil Code was, however, later amended by Executive Order No. 200, issued on 18
June 1987. As amended, the said provision now reads:
 Laws shall take effect after fifteen days following the completion of their publication
either in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation in the
Philippines, unless it is otherwise provided.

We are not aware of the publication of LOI 1416 in any newspaper of general circulation pursuant to
Executive Order No. 200.

Furthermore, even granting arguendo that LOI 1416 has force and effect, petitioner's claim must still
fail. Tax exemptions as a general rule are construed strictly against the grantee and liberally in favor
of the taxing authority. 48The burden of proof rests upon the party claiming exemption to prove that it
is in fact covered by the exemption so claimed. The party claiming exemption must therefore be
expressly mentioned in the exempting law or at least be within its purview by clear legislative intent.

In the case at bar, petitioner failed to prove that it is entitled, as a consequence of its sales to ATLAS
and MARCOPPER, to claim reimbursement from the OPSF under LOI 1416. Though LOI 1416 may
suspend the payment of taxes by copper mining companies, it does not give petitioner the same
privilege with respect to the payment of OPSF dues.

IV. As to COA's disallowance of the amount of P130,420,235.00, petitioner maintains that the
Department of Finance has still to issue a final and definitive ruling thereon; accordingly, it was
premature for COA to disallow it. By doing so, the latter acted beyond its jurisdiction. 49 Respondents,
on the other hand, contend that said amount was already disallowed by the OEA for failure to
substantiate it. 50 In fact, when OEA submitted the claims of petitioner for pre-audit, the
abovementioned amount was already excluded.

An examination of the records of this case shows that petitioner failed to prove or substantiate its
contention that the amount of P130,420,235.00 is still pending before the OEA and the DOF.
Additionally, We find no reason to doubt the submission of respondents that said amount has
already been passed upon by the OEA. Hence, the ruling of respondent COA disapproving said
claim must be upheld.

V. The last issue to be resolved in this case is whether or not the amounts due to the OPSF from
petitioner may be offset against petitioner's outstanding claims from said fund. Petitioner contends
that it should be allowed to offset its claims from the OPSF against its contributions to the fund as
this has been allowed in the past, particularly in the years 1987 and 1988. 51

Furthermore, petitioner cites, as bases for offsetting, the provisions of the New Civil Code on
compensation and Section 21, Book V, Title I-B of the Revised Administrative Code which provides
for "Retention of Money for Satisfaction of Indebtedness to Government." 52 Petitioner also mentions
communications from the Board of Energy and the Department of Finance that supposedly authorize
compensation.

Respondents, on the other hand, citing Francia vs. IAC and Fernandez, 53 contend that there can be
no offsetting of taxes against the claims that a taxpayer may have against the government, as taxes
do not arise from contracts or depend upon the will of the taxpayer, but are imposed by law.
Respondents also allege that petitioner's reliance on Section 21, Book V, Title I-B of the Revised
Administrative Code, is misplaced because "while this provision empowers the COA to withhold
payment of a government indebtedness to a person who is also indebted to the government and
apply the government indebtedness to the satisfaction of the obligation of the person to the
government, like authority or right to make compensation is not given to the private person." 54 The
reason for this, as stated in Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Algue, Inc., 55 is that money due
the government, either in the form of taxes or other dues, is its lifeblood and should be collected
without hindrance. Thus, instead of giving petitioner a reason for compensation or set-off, the
Revised Administrative Code makes it the respondents' duty to collect petitioner's indebtedness to
the OPSF.

Refuting respondents' contention, petitioner claims that the amounts due from it do not arise as a
result of taxation because "P.D. 1956, amended, did not create a source of taxation; it instead
established a special fund . . .," 56 and that the OPSF contributions do not go to the general fund of
the state and are not used for public purpose, i.e., not for the support of the government, the
administration of law, or the payment of public expenses. This alleged lack of a public purpose
behind OPSF exactions distinguishes such from a tax. Hence, the ruling in the Francia case is
inapplicable.

Lastly, petitioner cites R.A. No. 6952 creating the Petroleum Price Standby Fund to support the
OPSF; the said law provides in part that:

Sec. 2. Application of the fund shall be subject to the following conditions:

xxx xxx xxx

(3) That no amount of the Petroleum Price Standby Fund shall be

used to pay any oil company which has an outstanding obligation to
the Government without said obligation being offset first, subject to
the requirements of compensation or offset under the Civil Code.

We find no merit in petitioner's contention that the OPSF contributions are not for a public purpose
because they go to a special fund of the government. Taxation is no longer envisioned as a measure
merely to raise revenue to support the existence of the government; taxes may be levied with a
regulatory purpose to provide means for the rehabilitation and stabilization of a threatened industry
which is affected with public interest as to be within the police power of the state. 57 There can be no
doubt that the oil industry is greatly imbued with public interest as it vitally affects the general
welfare. Any unregulated increase in oil prices could hurt the lives of a majority of the people and
cause economic crisis of untold proportions. It would have a chain reaction in terms of, among
others, demands for wage increases and upward spiralling of the cost of basic commodities. The
stabilization then of oil prices is of prime concern which the state, via its police power, may properly
address.

Also, P.D. No. 1956, as amended by E.O. No. 137, explicitly provides that the source of OPSF is
taxation. No amount of semantical juggleries could dim this fact.

It is settled that a taxpayer may not offset taxes due from the claims that he may have against the
government. 58Taxes cannot be the subject of compensation because the government and taxpayer
are not mutually creditors and debtors of each other and a claim for taxes is not such a debt,
demand, contract or judgment as is allowed to be set-off. 59

We may even further state that technically, in respect to the taxes for the OPSF, the oil companies
merely act as agents for the Government in the latter's collection since the taxes are, in reality,
passed unto the end-users –– the consuming public. In that capacity, the petitioner, as one of such
companies, has the primary obligation to account for and remit the taxes collected to the
administrator of the OPSF. This duty stems from the fiduciary relationship between the two;
petitioner certainly cannot be considered merely as a debtor. In respect, therefore, to its collection
for the OPSF vis-a-vis its claims for reimbursement, no compensation is likewise legally feasible.
Firstly, the Government and the petitioner cannot be said to be mutually debtors and creditors of
each other. Secondly, there is no proof that petitioner's claim is already due and liquidated. Under
Article 1279 of the Civil Code, in order that compensation may be proper, it is necessary that:

(1) each one of the obligors be bound principally, and that he be at the same time a
principal creditor of the other;

(2) both debts consist in a sum of :money, or if the things due are consumable, they
be of the same kind, and also of the same quality if the latter has been stated;

(3) the two (2) debts be due;

(4) they be liquidated and demandable;

(5) over neither of them there be any retention or controversy, commenced by third
persons and communicated in due time to the debtor.

That compensation had been the practice in the past can set no valid precedent. Such a practice
has no legal basis. Lastly, R.A. No. 6952 does not authorize oil companies to offset their claims
against their OPSF contributions. Instead, it prohibits the government from paying any amount from
the Petroleum Price Standby Fund to oil companies which have outstanding obligations with the
government, without said obligation being offset first subject to the rules on compensation in the Civil
Code.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered AFFIRMING the challenged
decision of the Commission on Audit, except that portion thereof disallowing petitioner's claim for
reimbursement of underrecovery arising from sales to the National Power Corporation, which is
hereby allowed.

With costs against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

BENJAMIN P. GOMEZ, petitioner-appellee,

vs.
ENRICO PALOMAR, in his capacity as Postmaster General, HON. BRIGIDO R. VALENCIA, in
his capacity as Secretary of Public Works and Communications, and DOMINGO GOPEZ, in
his capacity as Acting Postmaster of San Fernando, Pampanga, respondent-appellants.

Lorenzo P. Navarro and Narvaro Belar S. Navarro for petitioner-appellee.

Office of the Solicitor General Arturo A. Alafriz, Assistant Solicitor General Frine C. Zaballero and
Solicitor Dominador L. Quiroz for respondents-appellants.

CASTRO, J.:

This appeal puts in issue the constitutionality of Republic Act 1635,1 as amended by Republic Act
2631,2 which provides as follows:

To help raise funds for the Philippine Tuberculosis Society, the Director of Posts shall order
for the period from August nineteen to September thirty every year the printing and issue of
semi-postal stamps of different denominations with face value showing the regular postage
charge plus the additional amount of five centavos for the said purpose, and during the said
 period, no mail matter shall be accepted in the mails unless it bears such semi-postal
stamps: Provided, That no such additional charge of five centavos shall be imposed on
newspapers. The additional proceeds realized from the sale of the semi-postal stamps shall
constitute a special fund and be deposited with the National Treasury to be expended by the
Philippine Tuberculosis Society in carrying out its noble work to prevent and eradicate
tuberculosis.

The respondent Postmaster General, in implementation of the law, thereafter issued four (4)
administrative orders numbered 3 (June 20, 1958), 7 (August 9, 1958), 9 (August 28, 1958), and 10
(July 15, 1960). All these administrative orders were issued with the approval of the respondent
Secretary of Public Works and Communications.

The pertinent portions of Adm. Order 3 read as follows:

Such semi-postal stamps could not be made available during the period from August 19 to
September 30, 1957, for lack of time. However, two denominations of such stamps, one at "5
+ 5" centavos and another at "10 + 5" centavos, will soon be released for use by the public
on their mails to be posted during the same period starting with the year 1958.

xxx xxx xxx

During the period from August 19 to September 30 each year starting in 1958, no mail matter
of whatever class, and whether domestic or foreign, posted at any Philippine Post Office and
addressed for delivery in this country or abroad, shall be accepted for mailing unless it bears
at least one such semi-postal stamp showing the additional value of five centavos intended
for the Philippine Tuberculosis Society.

In the case of second-class mails and mails prepaid by means of mail permits or impressions
of postage meters, each piece of such mail shall bear at least one such semi-postal stamp if
posted during the period above stated starting with the year 1958, in addition to being
charged the usual postage prescribed by existing regulations. In the case of business reply
envelopes and cards mailed during said period, such stamp should be collected from the
addressees at the time of delivery. Mails entitled to franking privilege like those from the
office of the President, members of Congress, and other offices to which such privilege has
been granted, shall each also bear one such semi-postal stamp if posted during the said
period.

Mails posted during the said period starting in 1958, which are found in street or post-office
mail boxes without the required semi-postal stamp, shall be returned to the sender, if known,
with a notation calling for the affixing of such stamp. If the sender is unknown, the mail
matter shall be treated as nonmailable and forwarded to the Dead Letter Office for proper
disposition.

Adm. Order 7, amending the fifth paragraph of Adm. Order 3, reads as follows:

In the case of the following categories of mail matter and mails entitled to franking privilege
which are not exempted from the payment of the five centavos intended for the Philippine
Tuberculosis Society, such extra charge may be collected in cash, for which official receipt
(General Form No. 13, A) shall be issued, instead of affixing the semi-postal stamp in the
manner hereinafter indicated:
 1. Second-class mail. — Aside from the postage at the second-class rate, the extra charge of
five centavos for the Philippine Tuberculosis Society shall be collected on each separately-
addressed piece of second-class mail matter, and the total sum thus collected shall be
entered in the same official receipt to be issued for the postage at the second-class rate. In
making such entry, the total number of pieces of second-class mail posted shall be stated,
thus: "Total charge for TB Fund on 100 pieces . .. P5.00." The extra charge shall be entered
separate from the postage in both of the official receipt and the Record of Collections.

2. First-class and third-class mail permits. — Mails to be posted without postage affixed
under permits issued by this Bureau shall each be charged the usual postage, in addition to
the five-centavo extra charge intended for said society. The total extra charge thus received
shall be entered in the same official receipt to be issued for the postage collected, as in
subparagraph 1.

3. Metered mail. — For each piece of mail matter impressed by postage meter under
metered mail permit issued by this Bureau, the extra charge of five centavos for said society
shall be collected in cash and an official receipt issued for the total sum thus received, in the
manner indicated in subparagraph 1.

4. Business reply cards and envelopes. — Upon delivery of business reply cards and
envelopes to holders of business reply permits, the five-centavo charge intended for said
society shall be collected in cash on each reply card or envelope delivered, in addition to the
required postage which may also be paid in cash. An official receipt shall be issued for the
total postage and total extra charge received, in the manner shown in subparagraph 1.

5. Mails entitled to franking privilege. — Government agencies, officials, and other persons
entitled to the franking privilege under existing laws may pay in cash such extra charge
intended for said society, instead of affixing the semi-postal stamps to their mails, provided
that such mails are presented at the post-office window, where the five-centavo extra charge
for said society shall be collected on each piece of such mail matter. In such case, an official
receipt shall be issued for the total sum thus collected, in the manner stated in subparagraph
1.

Mail under permits, metered mails and franked mails not presented at the post-office window
shall be affixed with the necessary semi-postal stamps. If found in mail boxes without such
stamps, they shall be treated in the same way as herein provided for other mails.

Adm. Order 9, amending Adm. Order 3, as amended, exempts "Government and its Agencies and
Instrumentalities Performing Governmental Functions." Adm. Order 10, amending Adm. Order 3, as
amended, exempts "copies of periodical publications received for mailing under any class of mail
matter, including newspapers and magazines admitted as second-class mail."

The FACTS. On September l5, 1963 the petitioner Benjamin P. Gomez mailed a letter at the post
office in San Fernando, Pampanga. Because this letter, addressed to a certain Agustin Aquino of
1014 Dagohoy Street, Singalong, Manila did not bear the special anti-TB stamp required by the
statute, it was returned to the petitioner.

In view of this development, the petitioner brough suit for declaratory relief in the Court of First
Instance of Pampanga, to test the constitutionality of the statute, as well as the implementing
administrative orders issued, contending that it violates the equal protection clause of the
Constitution as well as the rule of uniformity and equality of taxation. The lower court declared the
statute and the orders unconstitutional; hence this appeal by the respondent postal authorities.
For the reasons set out in this opinion, the judgment appealed from must be reversed.

I.

Before reaching the merits, we deem it necessary to dispose of the respondents' contention that
declaratory relief is unavailing because this suit was filed after the petitioner had committed a breach
of the statute. While conceding that the mailing by the petitioner of a letter without the additional anti-
TB stamp was a violation of Republic Act 1635, as amended, the trial court nevertheless refused to
dismiss the action on the ground that under section 6 of Rule 64 of the Rules of Court, "If before the
final termination of the case a breach or violation of ... a statute ... should take place, the action may
thereupon be converted into an ordinary action."

The prime specification of an action for declaratory relief is that it must be brought "before breach or
violation" of the statute has been committed. Rule 64, section 1 so provides. Section 6 of the same
rule, which allows the court to treat an action for declaratory relief as an ordinary action, applies only
if the breach or violation occurs after the filing of the action but before the termination thereof.3

Hence, if, as the trial court itself admitted, there had been a breach of the statute before the firing of
this action, then indeed the remedy of declaratory relief cannot be availed of, much less can the suit
be converted into an ordinary action.

Nor is there merit in the petitioner's argument that the mailing of the letter in question did not
constitute a breach of the statute because the statute appears to be addressed only to postal
authorities. The statute, it is true, in terms provides that "no mail matter shall be accepted in the
mails unless it bears such semi-postal stamps." It does not follow, however, that only postal
authorities can be guilty of violating it by accepting mails without the payment of the anti-TB stamp. It
is obvious that they can be guilty of violating the statute only if there are people who use the mails
without paying for the additional anti-TB stamp. Just as in bribery the mere offer constitutes a breach
of the law, so in the matter of the anti-TB stamp the mere attempt to use the mails without the stamp
constitutes a violation of the statute. It is not required that the mail be accepted by postal authorities.
That requirement is relevant only for the purpose of fixing the liability of postal officials.

Nevertheless, we are of the view that the petitioner's choice of remedy is correct because this suit
was filed not only with respect to the letter which he mailed on September 15, 1963, but also with
regard to any other mail that he might send in the future. Thus, in his complaint, the petitioner prayed
that due course be given to "other mails without the semi-postal stamps which he may deliver for
mailing ... if any, during the period covered by Republic Act 1635, as amended, as well as other
mails hereafter to be sent by or to other mailers which bear the required postage, without collection
of additional charge of five centavos prescribed by the same Republic Act." As one whose mail was
returned, the petitioner is certainly interested in a ruling on the validity of the statute requiring the use
of additional stamps.

II.

We now consider the constitutional objections raised against the statute and the implementing
orders.

1. It is said that the statute is violative of the equal protection clause of the Constitution. More
specifically the claim is made that it constitutes mail users into a class for the purpose of the tax
while leaving untaxed the rest of the population and that even among postal patrons the statute
discriminatorily grants exemption to newspapers while Administrative Order 9 of the respondent
Postmaster General grants a similar exemption to offices performing governmental functions. .
The five centavo charge levied by Republic Act 1635, as amended, is in the nature of an excise tax,
laid upon the exercise of a privilege, namely, the privilege of using the mails. As such the objections
levelled against it must be viewed in the light of applicable principles of taxation.

To begin with, it is settled that the legislature has the inherent power to select the subjects of
taxation and to grant exemptions.4 This power has aptly been described as "of wide range and
flexibility."5 Indeed, it is said that in the field of taxation, more than in other areas, the legislature
possesses the greatest freedom in classification.6 The reason for this is that traditionally,
classification has been a device for fitting tax programs to local needs and usages in order to
achieve an equitable distribution of the tax burden.7

That legislative classifications must be reasonable is of course undenied. But what the petitioner
asserts is that statutory classification of mail users must bear some reasonable relationship to the
end sought to be attained, and that absent such relationship the selection of mail users is
constitutionally impermissible. This is altogether a different proposition. As explained
in Commonwealth v. Life Assurance Co.:8

While the principle that there must be a reasonable relationship between classification made
by the legislation and its purpose is undoubtedly true in some contexts, it has no application
to a measure whose sole purpose is to raise revenue ... So long as the classification
imposed is based upon some standard capable of reasonable comprehension, be that
standard based upon ability to produce revenue or some other legitimate distinction, equal
protection of the law has been afforded. See Allied Stores of Ohio, Inc. v. Bowers, supra, 358
U.S. at 527, 79 S. Ct. at 441; Brown Forman Co. v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, 2d U.S. 56,
573, 80 S. Ct. 578, 580 (1910).

We are not wont to invalidate legislation on equal protection grounds except by the clearest
demonstration that it sanctions invidious discrimination, which is all that the Constitution forbids. The
remedy for unwise legislation must be sought in the legislature. Now, the classification of mail users
is not without any reason. It is based on ability to pay, let alone the enjoyment of a privilege, and on
administrative convinience. In the allocation of the tax burden, Congress must have concluded that
the contribution to the anti-TB fund can be assured by those whose who can afford the use of the
mails.

The classification is likewise based on considerations of administrative convenience. For it is now a

settled principle of law that "consideration of practical administrative convenience and cost in the
administration of tax laws afford adequate ground for imposing a tax on a well recognized and
defined class."9 In the case of the anti-TB stamps, undoubtedly, the single most important and
influential consideration that led the legislature to select mail users as subjects of the tax is the
relative ease and convenienceof collecting the tax through the post offices. The small amount of five
centavos does not justify the great expense and inconvenience of collecting through the regular
means of collection. On the other hand, by placing the duty of collection on postal authorities the tax
was made almost self-enforcing, with as little cost and as little inconvenience as possible.

And then of course it is not accurate to say that the statute constituted mail users into a class. Mail
users were already a class by themselves even before the enactment of the statue and all that the
legislature did was merely to select their class. Legislation is essentially empiric and Republic Act
1635, as amended, no more than reflects a distinction that exists in fact. As Mr. Justice Frankfurter
said, "to recognize differences that exist in fact is living law; to disregard [them] and concentrate on
some abstract identities is lifeless logic."10
Granted the power to select the subject of taxation, the State's power to grant exemption must
likewise be conceded as a necessary corollary. Tax exemptions are too common in the law; they
have never been thought of as raising issues under the equal protection clause.

It is thus erroneous for the trial court to hold that because certain mail users are exempted from the
levy the law and administrative officials have sanctioned an invidious discrimination offensive to the
Constitution. The application of the lower courts theory would require all mail users to be taxed, a
conclusion that is hardly tenable in the light of differences in status of mail users. The Constitution
does not require this kind of equality.

As the United States Supreme Court has said, the legislature may withhold the burden of the tax in
order to foster what it conceives to be a beneficent enterprise.11 This is the case of newspapers
which, under the amendment introduced by Republic Act 2631, are exempt from the payment of the
additional stamp.

As for the Government and its instrumentalities, their exemption rests on the State's sovereign
immunity from taxation. The State cannot be taxed without its consent and such consent, being in
derogation of its sovereignty, is to be strictly construed.12 Administrative Order 9 of the respondent
Postmaster General, which lists the various offices and instrumentalities of the Government exempt
from the payment of the anti-TB stamp, is but a restatement of this well-known principle of
constitutional law.

The trial court likewise held the law invalid on the ground that it singles out tuberculosis to the
exclusion of other diseases which, it is said, are equally a menace to public health. But it is never a
requirement of equal protection that all evils of the same genus be eradicated or none at all.13 As this
Court has had occasion to say, "if the law presumably hits the evil where it is most felt, it is not to be
overthrown because there are other instances to which it might have been applied."14

2. The petitioner further argues that the tax in question is invalid, first, because it is not levied for a
public purpose as no special benefits accrue to mail users as taxpayers, and second, because it
violates the rule of uniformity in taxation.

The eradication of a dreaded disease is a public purpose, but if by public purpose the petitioner
means benefit to a taxpayer as a return for what he pays, then it is sufficient answer to say that the
only benefit to which the taxpayer is constitutionally entitled is that derived from his enjoyment of the
privileges of living in an organized society, established and safeguarded by the devotion of taxes to
public purposes. Any other view would preclude the levying of taxes except as they are used to
compensate for the burden on those who pay them and would involve the abandonment of the most
fundamental principle of government — that it exists primarily to provide for the common good.15

Nor is the rule of uniformity and equality of taxation infringed by the imposition of a flat rate rather
than a graduated tax. A tax need not be measured by the weight of the mail or the extent of the
service rendered. We have said that considerations of administrative convenience and cost afford an
adequate ground for classification. The same considerations may induce the legislature to impose a
flat tax which in effect is a charge for the transaction, operating equally on all persons within the
class regardless of the amount involved.16 As Mr. Justice Holmes said in sustaining the validity of a
stamp act which imposed a flat rate of two cents on every $100 face value of stock transferred:

One of the stocks was worth $30.75 a share of the face value of $100, the other $172. The
inequality of the tax, so far as actual values are concerned, is manifest. But, here again
equality in this sense has to yield to practical considerations and usage. There must be a
fixed and indisputable mode of ascertaining a stamp tax. In another sense, moreover, there
 is equality. When the taxes on two sales are equal, the same number of shares is sold in
each case; that is to say, the same privilege is used to the same extent. Valuation is not the
only thing to be considered. As was pointed out by the court of appeals, the familiar stamp
tax of 2 cents on checks, irrespective of income or earning capacity, and many others,
illustrate the necessity and practice of sometimes substituting count for weight ...17

According to the trial court, the money raised from the sales of the anti-TB stamps is spent for the
benefit of the Philippine Tuberculosis Society, a private organization, without appropriation by law.
But as the Solicitor General points out, the Society is not really the beneficiary but only the agency
through which the State acts in carrying out what is essentially a public function. The money is
treated as a special fund and as such need not be appropriated by law.18

3. Finally, the claim is made that the statute is so broadly drawn that to execute it the respondents
had to issue administrative orders far beyond their powers. Indeed, this is one of the grounds on
which the lower court invalidated Republic Act 1631, as amended, namely, that it constitutes an
undue delegation of legislative power.

Administrative Order 3, as amended by Administrative Orders 7 and 10, provides that for certain
classes of mail matters (such as mail permits, metered mails, business reply cards, etc.), the five-
centavo charge may be paid in cash instead of the purchase of the anti-TB stamp. It further states
that mails deposited during the period August 19 to September 30 of each year in mail boxes without
the stamp should be returned to the sender, if known, otherwise they should be treated as
nonmailable.

It is true that the law does not expressly authorize the collection of five centavos except through the
sale of anti-TB stamps, but such authority may be implied in so far as it may be necessary to prevent
a failure of the undertaking. The authority given to the Postmaster General to raise funds through the
mails must be liberally construed, consistent with the principle that where the end is required the
appropriate means are given.19

The anti-TB stamp is a distinctive stamp which shows on its face not only the amount of the
additional charge but also that of the regular postage. In the case of business reply cards, for
instance, it is obvious that to require mailers to affix the anti-TB stamp on their cards would be to
make them pay much more because the cards likewise bear the amount of the regular postage.

It is likewise true that the statute does not provide for the disposition of mails which do not bear the
anti-TB stamp, but a declaration therein that "no mail matter shall be accepted in the mails unless it
bears such semi-postal stamp" is a declaration that such mail matter is nonmailable within the
meaning of section 1952 of the Administrative Code. Administrative Order 7 of the Postmaster
General is but a restatement of the law for the guidance of postal officials and employees. As for
Administrative Order 9, we have already said that in listing the offices and entities of the Government
exempt from the payment of the stamp, the respondent Postmaster General merely observed an
established principle, namely, that the Government is exempt from taxation.

ACCORDINGLY, the judgment a quo is reversed, and the complaint is dismissed, without
pronouncement as to costs.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Sanchez, Angeles and Capistrano, JJ., concur.
Zaldivar, J., is on leave.
Separate Opinions

FERNANDO, J., concurring:

I join fully the rest of my colleagues in the decision upholding Republic Act No. 1635 as amended by
Republic Act No. 2631 and the majority opinion expounded with Justice Castro's usual vigor and
lucidity subject to one qualification. With all due recognition of its inherently persuasive character, it
would seem to me that the same result could be achieved if reliance be had on police power rather
than the attribute of taxation, as the constitutional basis for the challenged legislation.

1. For me, the state in question is an exercise of the regulatory power connected with the
performance of the public service. I refer of course to the government postal function, one of
respectable and ancient lineage. The United States Constitution of 1787 vests in the federal
government acting through Congress the power to establish post offices.1 The first act providing for
the organization of government departments in the Philippines, approved Sept. 6, 1901, provided for
the Bureau of Post Offices in the Department of Commerce and Police.2 Its creation is thus a
manifestation of one of the many services in which the government may engage for public
convenience and public interest. Such being the case, it seems that any legislation that in effect
would require increase cost of postage is well within the discretionary authority of the government.

It may not be acting in a proprietary capacity but in fixing the fees that it collects for the use of the
mails, the broad discretion that it enjoys is undeniable. In that sense, the principle announced
in Esteban v. Cabanatuan City,3 in an opinion by our Chief Justice, while not precisely controlling
furnishes for me more than ample support for the validity of the challenged legislation. Thus: "Certain
exactions, imposable under an authority other than police power, are not subject, however, to
qualification as to the amount chargeable, unless the Constitution or the pertinent laws provide
otherwise. For instance, the rates of taxes, whether national or municipal, need not be reasonable, in
the absence of such constitutional or statutory limitation. Similarly, when a municipal corporation
fixes the fees for the use of its properties, such as public markets, it does not wield the police power,
or even the power of taxation. Neither does it assert governmental authority. It exercises merely a
proprietary function. And, like any private owner, it is — in the absence of the aforementioned
limitation, which does not exist in the Charter of Cabanatuan City (Republic Act No. 526) — free to
charge such sums as it may deem best, regardless of the reasonableness of the amount fixed, for
the prospective lessees are free to enter into the corresponding contract of lease, if they are
agreeable to the terms thereof or, otherwise, not enter into such contract."

2. It would appear likewise that an expression of one's personal view both as to

the attitude and awareness that must be displayed by inferior tribunals when the "delicate and
awesome" power of passing on the validity of a statute would not be inappropriate. "The Constitution
is the supreme law, and statutes are written and enforced in submission to its commands."4 It is
likewise common place in constitutional law that a party adversely affected could, again to quote
from Cardozo, "invoke, when constitutional immunities are threatened, the judgment of the courts."5

Since the power of judicial review flows logically from the judicial function of ascertaining the facts
and applying the law and since obviously the Constitution is the highest law before which statutes
must bend, then inferior tribunals can, in the discharge of their judicial functions, nullify legislative
acts. As a matter of fact, in clear cases, such is not only their power but their duty. In the language of
the present Chief Justice: "In fact, whenever the conflicting claims of the parties to a litigation cannot
properly be settled without inquiring into the validity of an act of Congress or of either House thereof,
the courts have, not only jurisdiction to pass upon said issue but, also, the duty to do so, which
cannot be evaded without violating the fundamental law and paving the way to its eventual
destruction."6
Nonetheless, the admonition of Cooley, specially addressed to inferior tribunals, must ever be kept
in mind. Thus: "It must be evident to any one that the power to declare a legislative enactment void
is one which the judge, conscious of the fallibility of the human judgment, will shrink from exercising
in any case where he can conscientiously and with due regard to duty and official oath decline the
responsibility."7

There must be a caveat however to the above Cooley pronouncement. Such should not be the case,
to paraphrase Freund, when the challenged legislation imperils freedom of the mind and of the
person, for given such an undesirable situation, "it is freedom that commands a momentum of
respect." Here then, fidelity to the great ideal of liberty enshrined in the Constitution may require the
judiciary to take an uncompromising and militant stand. As phrased by us in a recent decision, "if the
liberty involved were freedom of the mind or the person, the standard of its validity of governmental
acts is much more rigorous and exacting."8

So much for the appropriate judicial attitude. Now on the question of awareness of the controlling
constitutional doctrines.

There is nothing I can add to the enlightening discussion of the equal protection aspect as found in
the majority opinion. It may not be amiss to recall to mind, however, the language of Justice Laurel in
the leading case of People v. Vera,9 to the effect that the basic individual right of equal protection "is
a restraint on all the three grand departments of our government and on the subordinate
instrumentalities and subdivisions thereof, and on many constitutional powers, like the police power,
taxation and eminent domain."10 Nonetheless, no jurist was more careful in avoiding the dire
consequences to what the legislative body might have deemed necessary to promote the ends of
public welfare if the equal protection guaranty were made to constitute an insurmountable obstacle.

A similar sense of realism was invariably displayed by Justice Frankfurter, as is quite evident from
the various citations from his pen found in the majority opinion. For him, it would be a misreading of
the equal protection clause to ignore actual conditions and settled practices. Not for him the at times
academic and sterile approach to constitutional problems of this sort. Thus: "It would be a narrow
conception of jurisprudence to confine the notion of 'laws' to what is found written on the statute
books, and to disregard the gloss which life has written upon it. Settled state practice cannot
supplant constitutional guaranties, but it can establish what is state law. The Equal Protection
Clause did not write an empty formalism into the Constitution. Deeply embedded traditional ways of
carrying out state policy, such as those of which petitioner complains, are often tougher and truer
law than the dead words of the written text."11 This too, from the same distinguished jurist: "The
Constitution does not require things which are different in fact or opinion to be treated in law as
though they were the same."12

Now, as to non-delegation. It is to be admitted that the problem of non-delegation of legislative

power at times occasions difficulties. Its strict view has been announced by Justice Laurel in the
aforecited case of People v. Verain this language. Thus: "In testing whether a statute constitutes an
undue delegation of legislative power or not, it is usual to inquire whether the statute was complete
in all its terms and provisions when it left the hands of the legislature so that nothing was left to the
judgment of any other appointee or delegate of the legislature. .... In United States v. Ang Tang
Ho ..., this court adhered to the foregoing rule; it held an act of the legislature void in so far as it
undertook to authorize the Governor-General, in his discretion, to issue a proclamation fixing the
price of rice and to make the sale of it in violation of the proclamation a crime."13

Only recently, the present Chief Justice reaffirmed the above view in Pelaez v. Auditor
General,14 specially where the delegation deals not with an administrative function but one
essentially and eminently legislative in character. What could properly be stigmatized though to
quote Justice Cardozo, is delegation of authority that is "unconfined and vagrant, one not canalized
within banks which keep it from overflowing."15

This is not the situation as it presents itself to us. What was delegated was power not legislative in
character. Justice Laurel himself, in a later case, People v. Rosenthal,16 admitted that within certain
limits, there being a need for coping with the more intricate problems of society, the principle of
"subordinate legislation" has been accepted, not only in the United States and England, but in
practically all modern governments. This view was reiterated by him in a 1940 decision, Pangasinan
Transportation Co., Inc. v. Public Service Commission.17 Thus: "Accordingly, with the growing
complexity of modern life, the multiplication of the subjects of governmental regulation, and the
increased difficulty of administering the laws, there is a constantly growing tendency toward the
delegation of greater powers by the legislature, and toward the approval of the practice by the
courts."

In the light of the above views of eminent jurists, authoritative in character, of both the equal
protection clause and the non-delegation principle, it is apparent how far the lower court departed
from the path of constitutional orthodoxy in nullifying Republic Act No. 1635 as amended.
Fortunately, the matter has been set right with the reversal of its decision, the opinion of the Court,
manifesting its fealty to constitutional law precepts, which have been reiterated time and time again
and for the soundest of reasons.

Footnotes

ALEJANDRO MANOSCA, ASUNCION MANOSCA and LEONICA MANOSCA, petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF
APPEALS, HON. BENJAMIN V. PELAYO, Presiding Judge, RTC-Pasig, Metro Manila, Branch 168, HON.
GRADUACION A. REYES CLARAVAL, Presiding Judge, RTC-Pasig, Metro Manila, Branch 71, and REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES, respondents.

DECISION

VITUG, J.:

In this appeal, via a petition for review on certiorari, from the decision[1] of the Court of Appeals, dated 15 January
1992, in CA-G.R. SP No. 24969 (entitled Alejandro Manosca, et al. v. Hon. Benjamin V. Pelayo, et al.), this Court is
asked to resolve whether or not the public use requirement of Eminent Domain is extant in the attempted expropriation
by the Republic of a 492-square-meter parcel of land so declared by the National Historical Institute (NHI) as a national
historical landmark.
The facts of the case are not in dispute.
Petitioners inherited a piece of land located at P. Burgos Street, Calzada, Taguig, Metro Manila, with an area of about
four hundred ninety-two (492) square meters. When the parcel was ascertained by the NHI to have been the birthsite
of Felix Y. Manalo, the founder of Iglesia Ni Cristo, it passed Resolution No. 1, Series of 1986, pursuant to Section 4[2]
of Presidential Decree No. 260, declaring the land to be a national historical landmark. The resolution was, on 06
January 1986, approved by the Minister of Education, Culture and Sports. Later, the opinion of the Secretary of Justice
was asked on the legality of the measure. In his Opinion No. 133, Series of 1987, the Secretary of Justice replied in the
affirmative; he explained:

According to your guidelines, national landmarks are places or objects that are associated with an event, achievement,
characteristic, or modification that makes a turning point or stage in Philippine history. Thus, the birthsite of the
founder of the Iglesia ni Cristo, the late Felix Y. Manalo, who, admittedly, had made contributions to Philippine history
and culture has been declared as a national landmark. It has been held that places invested with unusual historical
interest is a public use for which the power of eminent domain may be authorized x x x.

In view thereof, it is believed that the National Historical Institute as an agency of the Government charged with the
maintenance and care of national shrines, monuments and landmarks and the development of historical sites that may
be declared as national shrines, monuments and/or landmarks, may initiate the institution of condemnation
proceedings for the purpose of acquiring the lot in question in accordance with the procedure provided for in Rule 67
of the Revised Rules of Court. The proceedings should be instituted by the Office of the Solicitor General in behalf of
the Republic.

Accordingly, on 29 May 1989, the Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor-General, instituted a complaint for
expropriation[3] before the Regional Trial Court of Pasig for and in behalf of the NHI alleging, inter alia, that:

Pursuant to Section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 260, the National Historical Institute issued Resolution No. 1, Series
of 1986, which was approved on January, 1986 by the then Minister of Education, Culture and Sports, declaring the
above described parcel of land which is the birthsite of Felix Y. Manalo, founder of the Iglesia ni Cristo, as a National
Historical Landmark. The plaintiff perforce needs the land as such national historical landmark which is a public
purpose.

At the same time, respondent Republic filed an urgent motion for the issuance of an order to permit it to take immediate
possession of the property. The motion was opposed by petitioners. After a hearing, the trial court issued, on 03 August
1989,[4] an order fixing the provisional market (P54,120.00) and assessed (P16,236.00) values of the property and
authorizing the Republic to take over the property once the required sum would have been deposited with the Municipal
Treasurer of Taguig, Metro Manila.

Petitioners moved to dismiss the complaint on the main thesis that the intended expropriation was not for a public
purpose and, incidentally, that the act would constitute an application of public funds, directly or indirectly, for the use,
benefit, or support of Iglesia ni Cristo, a religious entity, contrary to the provision of Section 29(2), Article VI, of the
1987 Constitution.[5] Petitioners sought, in the meanwhile, a suspension in the implementation of the 03rd August
1989 order of the trial court.

On 15 February 1990, following the filing by respondent Republic of its reply to petitioners motion seeking the dismissal
of the case, the trial court issued its denial of said motion to dismiss.[6] Five (5) days later, or on 20 February 1990,[7]
another order was issued by the trial court, declaring moot and academic the motion for reconsideration and/or
suspension of the order of 03 August 1989 with the rejection of petitioners motion to dismiss. Petitioners motion for
the reconsideration of the 20th February 1990 order was likewise denied by the trial court in its 16th April 1991 order.[8]

Petitioners then lodged a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Court of Appeals. In its now disputed 15th
January 1992 decision, the appellate court dismissed the petition on the ground that the remedy of appeal in the
ordinary course of law was an adequate remedy and that the petition itself, in any case, had failed to show any grave
abuse of discretion or lack of jurisdictional competence on the part of the trial court. A motion for the reconsideration
of the decision was denied in the 23rd July 1992 resolution of the appellate court.

We begin, in this present recourse of petitioners, with a few known postulates.

Eminent domain, also often referred to as expropriation and, with less frequency, as condemnation, is, like police power
and taxation, an inherent power of sovereignty. It need not be clothed with any constitutional gear to exist; instead,
provisions in our Constitution on the subject are meant more to regulate, rather than to grant, the exercise of the power.
Eminent domain is generally so described as the highest and most exact idea of property remaining in the government
that may be acquired for some public purpose through a method in the nature of a forced purchase by the State.[9] It
is a right to take or reassert dominion over property within the state for public use or to meet a public exigency. It is
said to be an essential part of governance even in its most primitive form and thus inseparable from sovereignty.[10]
The only direct constitutional qualification is that private property shall not be taken for public use without just
compensation.[11] This proscription is intended to provide a safeguard against possible abuse and so to protect as well
the individual against whose property the power is sought to be enforced.

Petitioners assert that the expropriation has failed to meet the guidelines set by this Court in the case of Guido v. Rural
Progress Administration,[12] to wit: (a) the size of the land expropriated; (b) the large number of people benefited; and,
(c) the extent of social and economic reform.[13] Petitioners suggest that we confine the concept of expropriation only
to the following public uses,[14] i.e., the -

x x x taking of property for military posts, roads, streets, sidewalks, bridges, ferries, levees, wharves, piers, public
buildings including schoolhouses, parks, playgrounds, plazas, market places, artesian wells, water supply and sewerage
systems, cemeteries, crematories, and railroads.

This view of petitioners is much too limitative and restrictive.

The court, in Guido, merely passed upon the issue of the extent of the Presidents power under Commonwealth Act No.
539 to, specifically, acquire private lands for subdivision into smaller home lots or farms for resale to bona fide tenants
or occupants. It was in this particular context of the statute that the Court had made the pronouncement. The guidelines
in Guido were not meant to be preclusive in nature and, most certainly, the power of eminent domain should not now
be understood as being confined only to the expropriation of vast tracts of land and landed estates.[15]

The term public use, not having been otherwise defined by the constitution, must be considered in its general concept
of meeting a public need or a public exigency.[16] Black summarizes the characterization given by various courts to the
term; thus:

Public Use. Eminent domain. The constitutional and statutory basis for taking property by eminent domain. For
condemnation purposes, public use is one which confers same benefit or advantage to the public; it is not confined to
actual use by public. It is measured in terms of right of public to use proposed facilities for which condemnation is
sought and, as long as public has right of use, whether exercised by one or many members of public, a public advantage
or public benefit accrues sufficient to constitute a public use. Montana Power Co. vs. Bokma, Mont. 457 P. 2d 769, 772,
773.

Public use, in constitutional provisions restricting the exercise of the right to take private property in virtue of eminent
domain, means a use concerning the whole community as distinguished from particular individuals. But each and every
member of society need not be equally interested in such use, or be personally and directly affected by it; if the object
is to satisfy a great public want or exigency, that is sufficient. Rindge Co. vs. Los Angeles County, 262 U.S. 700, 43 S.Ct.
689, 692, 67 L.Ed. 1186. The term may be said to mean public usefulness, utility, or advantage, or what is productive of
general benefit. It may be limited to the inhabitants of a small or restricted locality, but must be in common, and not
for a particular individual. The use must be a needful one for the public, which cannot be surrendered without obvious
general loss and inconvenience. A public use for which land may be taken defies absolute definition for it changes with
varying conditions of society, new appliances in the sciences, changing conceptions of scope and functions of
government, and other differing circumstances brought about by an increase in population and new modes of
communication and transportation. Katz v. Brandon, 156 Conn., 521, 245 A.2d 579,586.[17]

The validity of the exercise of the power of eminent domain for traditional purposes is beyond question; it is not at all
to be said, however, that public use should thereby be restricted to such traditional uses. The idea that public use is
strictly limited to clear cases of use by the public has long been discarded. This Court in Heirs of Juancho Ardona v.
Reyes,[18] quoting from Berman v. Parker (348 U.S. 25; 99 L. ed. 27), held:

We do not sit to determine whether a particular housing project is or is not desirable. The concept of the public welfare
is broad and inclusive. See DayBrite Lighting, Inc. v. Missouri, 342 US 421, 424, 96 L. Ed. 469, 472, 72 S Ct 405. The
values it represents are spiritual as well as physical, aesthetic as well as monetary. It is within the power of the legislature
to determine that the community should be beautiful as well as healthy, spacious as well as clean, well-balanced as well
as carefully patrolled. In the present case, the Congress and its authorized agencies have made determinations that take
into account a wide variety of values. It is not for us to reappraise them. If those who govern the District of Columbia
decide that the Nations Capital should be beautiful as well as sanitary, there is nothing in the Fifth Amendment that
stands in the way.

Once the object is within the authority of Congress, the right to realize it through the exercise of eminent domain is
clear. For the power of eminent domain is merely the means to the end. See Luxton v. North River Bridge Co. 153 US
525, 529, 530, 38 L. ed. 808, 810, 14 S Ct 891; United States v. Gettysburg Electric R. Co. 160 US 668, 679, 40 L. ed.
576, 580, 16 S Ct 427.

It has been explained as early as Sea v. Manila Railroad Co.,[19] that:

x x x A historical research discloses the meaning of the term public use to be one of constant growth. As society advances,
its demands upon the individual increase and each demand is a new use to which the resources of the individual may
be devoted. x x x for whatever is beneficially employed for the community is a public use.

Chief Justice Enrique M. Fernando states:

The taking to be valid must be for public use. There was a time when it was felt that a literal meaning should be attached
to such a requirement. Whatever project is undertaken must be for the public to enjoy, as in the case of streets or parks.
Otherwise, expropriation is not allowable. It is not so any more. As long as the purpose of the taking is public, then the
power of eminent domain comes into play. As just noted, the constitution in at least two cases, to remove any doubt,
determines what is public use. One is the expropriation of lands to be subdivided into small lots for resale at cost to
individuals. The other is the transfer, through the exercise of this power, of utilities and other private enterprise to the
government. It is accurate to state then that at present whatever may be beneficially employed for the general welfare
satisfies the requirement of public use.[20]

Chief Justice Fernando, writing the ponencia in J.M. Tuason & Co. vs. Land Tenure Administration,[21] has viewed the
Constitution a dynamic instrument and one that is not to be construed narrowly or pedantically so as to enable it to
meet adequately whatever problems the future has in store. Fr. Joaquin Bernas, a noted constitutionalist himself, has
aptly observed that what, in fact, has ultimately emerged is a concept of public use which is just as broad as public
welfare.[22]

Petitioners ask: But (w)hat is the so-called unusual interest that the expropriation of (Felix Manalos) birthplace become
so vital as to be a public use appropriate for the exercise of the power of eminent domain when only members of the
Iglesia ni Cristo would benefit? This attempt to give some religious perspective to the case deserves little consideration,
for what should be significant is the principal objective of, not the casual consequences that might follow from, the
exercise of the power. The purpose in setting up the marker is essentially to recognize the distinctive contribution of
the late Felix Manalo to the culture of the Philippines, rather than to commemorate his founding and leadership of the
Iglesia ni Cristo. The practical reality that greater benefit may be derived by members of the Iglesia ni Cristo than by
most others could well be true but such a peculiar advantage still remains to be merely incidental and secondary in
nature. Indeed, that only a few would actually benefit from the expropriation of property does not necessarily diminish
the essence and character of public use.[23]

Petitioners contend that they have been denied due process in the fixing of the provisional value of their property.
Petitioners need merely to be reminded that what the law prohibits is the lack of opportunity to be heard;[24] contrary
to petitioners argument, the records of this case are replete with pleadings[25] that could have dealt, directly or
indirectly, with the provisional value of the property.

Petitioners, finally, would fault respondent appellate court in sustaining the trial courts order which considered
inapplicable the case of Noble v. City of Manila.[26] Both courts held correctly. The Republic was not a party to the
alleged contract of exchange between the Iglesia ni Cristo and petitioners which (the contracting parties) alone, not the
Republic, could properly be bound.

All considered, the Court finds the assailed decision to be in accord with law and jurisprudence.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. No costs.

SO ORDERED.
PLANTERS PRODUCTS, INC., G.R. No. 166006 vs
FERTIPHIL CORPORATION,

Respondent. March 14, 2008

THE Regional Trial Courts (RTC) have the authority and jurisdiction to consider the constitutionality of statutes,
executive orders, presidential decrees and other issuances. The Constitution vests that power not only in the Supreme
Court but in all Regional Trial Courts.

The principle is relevant in this petition for review on certiorari of the Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) affirming
with modification that of
the RTC in Makati City,[2] finding petitioner Planters Products, Inc. (PPI) liable to private respondent Fertiphil
Corporation (Fertiphil) for the levies it paid under Letter of Instruction (LOI) No. 1465.

The Facts

Petitioner PPI and private respondent Fertiphil are private corporations incorporated under Philippine laws.[3] They
are both engaged in the importation and distribution of fertilizers, pesticides and agricultural chemicals.

On June 3, 1985, then President Ferdinand Marcos, exercising his legislative powers, issued LOI No. 1465 which
provided, among others, for the imposition of a capital recovery component (CRC) on the domestic sale of all grades of
fertilizers in the Philippines.[4] The LOI provides:

3. The Administrator of the Fertilizer Pesticide Authority to include in its fertilizer pricing formula a capital contribution
component of not less than P10 per bag. This capital contribution shall be collected until adequate capital is raised to
make PPI viable. Such capital contribution shall be applied by FPA to all domestic sales of fertilizers in the
Philippines.[5] (Underscoring supplied)
Pursuant to the LOI, Fertiphil paid P10 for every bag of fertilizer it sold in the domestic market to the Fertilizer and
Pesticide Authority (FPA). FPA then remitted the amount collected to the Far East Bank and Trust Company, the
depositary bank of PPI. Fertiphil paid P6,689,144 to FPA from July 8, 1985 to January 24, 1986.[6]

After the 1986 Edsa Revolution, FPA voluntarily stopped the imposition of the P10 levy. With the return of democracy,
Fertiphil demanded from PPI a refund of the amounts it paid under LOI No. 1465, but PPI refused to accede to the
demand.[7]

Fertiphil filed a complaint for collection and damages[8] against FPA and PPI with the RTC in Makati. It questioned
the constitutionality of LOI No. 1465 for being unjust, unreasonable, oppressive, invalid and an unlawful imposition
that amounted to a denial of due process of law.[9] Fertiphil alleged that the LOI solely favored PPI, a privately owned
corporation, which used the proceeds to maintain its monopoly of the fertilizer industry.

In its Answer,[10] FPA, through the Solicitor General, countered that the issuance of LOI No. 1465 was a valid exercise
of the police power of the State in ensuring the stability of the fertilizer industry in the country. It also averred that
Fertiphil did not sustain any damage from the LOI because the burden imposed by the levy fell on the ultimate
consumer, not the seller.

RTC Disposition

On November 20, 1991, the RTC rendered judgment in favor of Fertiphil, disposing as follows:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court hereby renders judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against the
defendant Planters Product, Inc., ordering the latter to pay the former:

1) the sum of P6,698,144.00 with interest at 12% from the time of judicial demand;

2) the sum of P100,000 as attorneys fees;

3) the cost of suit.

SO ORDERED.[11]

Ruling that the imposition of the P10 CRC was an exercise of the States inherent power of taxation, the RTC invalidated
the levy for violating the basic principle that taxes can only be levied for public purpose, viz.:

It is apparent that the imposition of P10 per fertilizer bag sold in the country by LOI 1465 is purportedly in the exercise
of the power of taxation. It is a settled principle that the power of taxation by the state is plenary. Comprehensive and
supreme, the principal check upon its abuse resting in the responsibility of the members of the legislature to their
constituents. However, there are two kinds of limitations on the power of taxation: the inherent limitations and the
constitutional limitations.

One of the inherent limitations is that a tax may be levied only for public purposes:

The power to tax can be resorted to only for a constitutionally valid public purpose. By the same token, taxes may not
be levied for purely private purposes, for building up of private fortunes, or for the redress of private wrongs. They
cannot be levied for the improvement of private property, or for the benefit, and promotion of private enterprises,
except where the aid is incident to the public benefit. It is well-settled principle of constitutional law that no general tax
can be levied except for the purpose of raising money which is to be expended for public use. Funds cannot be exacted
under the guise of taxation to promote a purpose that is not of public interest. Without such limitation, the power to
tax could be exercised or employed as an authority to destroy the economy of the people. A tax, however, is not held
void on the ground of want of public interest unless the want of such interest is clear. (71 Am. Jur. pp. 371-372)

In the case at bar, the plaintiff paid the amount of P6,698,144.00 to the Fertilizer and Pesticide Authority pursuant to
the P10 per bag of fertilizer sold imposition under LOI 1465 which, in turn, remitted the amount to the defendant
Planters Products, Inc. thru the latters depository bank, Far East Bank and Trust Co. Thus, by virtue of LOI 1465 the
plaintiff, Fertiphil Corporation, which is a private domestic corporation, became poorer by the amount of
P6,698,144.00 and the defendant, Planters Product, Inc., another private domestic corporation, became richer by the
amount of P6,698,144.00.
Tested by the standards of constitutionality as set forth in the afore-quoted jurisprudence, it is quite evident that LOI
1465 insofar as it imposes the amount of P10 per fertilizer bag sold in the country and orders that the said amount
should go to the defendant Planters Product, Inc. is unlawful because it violates the mandate that a tax can be levied
only for a public purpose and not to benefit, aid and promote a private enterprise such as Planters Product, Inc.[12]

PPI moved for reconsideration but its motion was denied.[13] PPI then filed a notice of appeal with the RTC but it failed
to pay the requisite appeal docket fee. In a separate but related proceeding, this Court[14] allowed the appeal of PPI
and remanded the case to the CA for proper disposition.

CA Decision

On November 28, 2003, the CA handed down its decision affirming with modification that of the RTC, with the
following fallo:

IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the decision appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED, subject to the MODIFICATION
that the award of attorneys fees is hereby DELETED.[15]

In affirming the RTC decision, the CA ruled that the lis mota of the complaint for collection was the constitutionality of
LOI No. 1465, thus:

The question then is whether it was proper for the trial court to exercise its power to judicially determine the
constitutionality of the subject statute in the instant case.

As a rule, where the controversy can be settled on other grounds, the courts will not resolve the constitutionality of a
law (Lim v. Pacquing, 240 SCRA 649 [1995]). The policy of the courts is to avoid ruling on constitutional questions and
to presume that the acts of political departments are valid, absent a clear and unmistakable showing to the contrary.

However, the courts are not precluded from exercising such power when the following requisites are obtaining in a
controversy before it: First, there must be before the court an actual case calling for the exercise of judicial review.
Second, the question must be ripe for adjudication. Third, the person challenging the validity of the act must have
standing to challenge. Fourth, the question of constitutionality must have been raised at the earliest opportunity; and
lastly, the issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota of the case (Integrated Bar of the Philippines v. Zamora,
338 SCRA 81 [2000]).

Indisputably, the present case was primarily instituted for collection and damages. However, a perusal of the complaint
also reveals
that the instant action is founded on the claim that the levy imposed was an unlawful and unconstitutional special
assessment. Consequently, the requisite that the constitutionality of the law in question be the very lis mota of the case
is present, making it proper for the trial court to rule on the constitutionality of LOI 1465.[16]

The CA held that even on the assumption that LOI No. 1465 was issued under the police power of the state, it is still
unconstitutional because it did not promote public welfare. The CA explained:

In declaring LOI 1465 unconstitutional, the trial court held that the levy imposed under the said law was an invalid
exercise of the States power of taxation inasmuch as it violated the inherent and constitutional prescription that taxes
be levied only for public purposes. It reasoned out that the amount collected under the levy was remitted to the
depository bank of PPI, which the latter used to advance its private interest.

On the other hand, appellant submits that the subject statutes passage was a valid exercise of police power. In addition,
it disputes the court a quos findings arguing that the collections under LOI 1465 was for the benefit of Planters
Foundation, Incorporated (PFI), a foundation created by law to hold in trust for millions of farmers, the stock ownership
of PPI.

Of the three fundamental powers of the State, the exercise of police power has been characterized as the most essential,
insistent and the least limitable of powers, extending as it does to all the great public needs. It may be exercised as long
as the activity or the property sought to be regulated has some relevance to public welfare (Constitutional Law, by
Isagani A. Cruz, p. 38, 1995 Edition).

Vast as the power is, however, it must be exercised within the limits set by the Constitution, which requires the
concurrence of a lawful subject and a lawful method. Thus, our courts have laid down the test to determine the validity
of a police measure as follows: (1) the interests of the public generally, as distinguished from those of a particular class,
requires its exercise; and (2) the means employed are reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose and
not unduly oppressive upon individuals (National Development Company v. Philippine Veterans Bank, 192 SCRA 257
[1990]).

It is upon applying this established tests that We sustain the trial courts holding LOI 1465 unconstitutional. To be sure,
ensuring the continued supply and distribution of fertilizer in the country is an undertaking imbued with public interest.
However, the method by which LOI 1465 sought to achieve this is by no means a measure that will promote the public
welfare. The governments commitment to support the successful rehabilitation and continued viability of PPI, a private
corporation, is an unmistakable attempt to mask the subject statutes impartiality. There is no way to treat the self-
interest of a favored entity,
like PPI, as identical with the general interest of the countrys farmers or even the Filipino people in general. Well to
stress, substantive due process exacts fairness and equal protection disallows distinction where none is needed. When
a statutes public purpose is spoiled by private interest, the use of police power becomes a travesty which must be struck
down for being an arbitrary exercise of government power. To rule in favor of appellant would contravene the general
principle that revenues derived from taxes cannot be used for purely private purposes or for the exclusive benefit of
private individuals.[17]

The CA did not accept PPIs claim that the levy imposed under LOI No. 1465 was for the benefit of Planters Foundation,
Inc., a foundation created to hold in trust the stock ownership of PPI. The CA stated:

Appellant next claims that the collections under LOI 1465 was for the benefit of Planters Foundation, Incorporated
(PFI), a foundation created by law to hold in trust for millions of farmers, the stock ownership of PFI on the strength of
Letter of Undertaking (LOU) issued by then Prime Minister Cesar Virata on April 18, 1985 and affirmed by the Secretary
of Justice in an Opinion dated October 12, 1987, to wit:

2. Upon the effective date of this Letter of Undertaking, the Republic shall cause FPA to include in its fertilizer pricing
formula a capital recovery component, the proceeds of which will be used initially for the purpose of funding the unpaid
portion of the outstanding capital stock of Planters presently held in trust by Planters Foundation, Inc. (Planters
Foundation), which unpaid capital is estimated at approximately P206 million (subject to validation by Planters and
Planters Foundation) (such unpaid portion of the outstanding capital stock of Planters being hereafter referred to as
the Unpaid Capital), and subsequently for such capital increases as may be required for the continuing viability of
Planters.

The capital recovery component shall be in the minimum amount of P10 per bag, which will be added to the price of all
domestic sales of fertilizer in the Philippines by any importer and/or fertilizer mother company. In this connection, the
Republic hereby acknowledges that the advances by Planters to Planters Foundation which were applied to the payment
of the Planters shares now held in trust by Planters Foundation, have been assigned to, among others, the Creditors.
Accordingly, the Republic, through FPA, hereby agrees to deposit the proceeds of the capital recovery component in the
special trust account designated in the notice dated April 2, 1985, addressed by counsel for the Creditors to Planters
Foundation. Such proceeds shall be deposited by FPA on or before the 15th day of each month.

The capital recovery component shall continue to be charged and collected until payment in full of (a) the Unpaid
Capital and/or (b) any shortfall in the payment of the Subsidy Receivables, (c) any carrying cost accruing from the date
hereof on the amounts which may be outstanding from time to time of the Unpaid Capital and/or the Subsidy
Receivables and (d) the capital increases contemplated in paragraph 2 hereof. For the purpose of the foregoing clause
(c), the carrying cost shall be at such rate as will represent the full and reasonable cost to Planters of servicing its debts,
taking into account both its peso and foreign currency-denominated obligations. (Records, pp. 42-43)

Appellants proposition is open to question, to say the least. The LOU issued by then Prime Minister Virata taken
together with the Justice Secretarys Opinion does not preponderantly demonstrate that the collections made were held
in trust in favor of millions of farmers. Unfortunately for appellant, in the absence of sufficient evidence to establish its
claims, this Court is constrained to rely on what is explicitly provided in LOI 1465 that one of the primary aims in
imposing the levy is to support the successful rehabilitation and continued viability of PPI.[18]

PPI moved for reconsideration but its motion was denied.[19] It then filed the present petition with this Court.

Issues

Petitioner PPI raises four issues for Our consideration, viz.:

I

THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF LOI 1465 CANNOT BE COLLATERALLY ATTACKED AND BE DECREED VIA A
DEFAULT JUDGMENT IN A CASE FILED FOR COLLECTION AND DAMAGES WHERE THE ISSUE OF
CONSTITUTIONALITY IS NOT THE VERY LIS MOTA OF THE CASE. NEITHER CAN LOI 1465 BE CHALLENGED
BY ANY PERSON OR ENTITY WHICH HAS NO STANDING TO DO SO.

II

LOI 1465, BEING A LAW IMPLEMENTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSURING THE FERTILIZER SUPPLY AND
DISTRIBUTION IN THE COUNTRY, AND FOR BENEFITING A FOUNDATION CREATED BY LAW TO HOLD IN
TRUST FOR MILLIONS OF FARMERS THEIR STOCK OWNERSHIP IN PPI CONSTITUTES A VALID LEGISLATION
PURSUANT TO THE EXERCISE OF TAXATION AND POLICE POWER FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES.

III

THE AMOUNT COLLECTED UNDER THE CAPITAL RECOVERY COMPONENT WAS REMITTED TO THE
GOVERNMENT, AND BECAME GOVERNMENT FUNDS PURSUANT TO AN EFFECTIVE AND VALIDLY ENACTED
LAW WHICH IMPOSED DUTIES AND CONFERRED RIGHTS BY VIRTUE OF THE PRINCIPLE OF OPERATIVE
FACT PRIOR TO ANY DECLARATION OF UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF LOI 1465.

IV

THE PRINCIPLE OF UNJUST VEXATION (SHOULD BE ENRICHMENT) FINDS NO APPLICATION IN THE

INSTANT CASE.[20] (Underscoring supplied)

Our Ruling

We shall first tackle the procedural issues of locus standi and the jurisdiction of the RTC to resolve constitutional issues.
Fertiphil has locus standi because it suffered direct injury; doctrine of standing is a mere procedural technicality which
may be waived.

PPI argues that Fertiphil has no locus standi to question the constitutionality of LOI No. 1465 because it does not have
a personal and substantial interest in the case or will sustain direct injury as a result of its enforcement.[21] It asserts
that Fertiphil did not suffer any damage from the CRC imposition because incidence of the levy fell on the ultimate
consumer or the farmers themselves, not on the seller fertilizer company.[22]

We cannot agree. The doctrine of locus standi or the right of appearance in a court of justice has been adequately
discussed by this Court in a catena of cases. Succinctly put, the doctrine requires a litigant to have a material interest in
the outcome of a case. In private suits, locus standi requires a litigant to be a real party in interest, which is defined as
the
party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit or the party entitled to the avails of the suit.[23]

In public suits, this Court recognizes the difficulty of applying the doctrine especially when plaintiff asserts a public
right on behalf of the general public because of conflicting public policy issues. [24] On one end, there is the right of the
ordinary citizen to petition the courts to be freed from unlawful government intrusion and illegal official action. At the
other end, there is the public policy precluding excessive judicial interference in official acts, which may unnecessarily
hinder the delivery of basic public services.

In this jurisdiction, We have adopted the direct injury test to determine locus standi in public suits. In People v.
Vera,[25] it was held that a person who impugns the validity of a statute must have a personal and substantial interest
in the case such that he has sustained, or will sustain direct injury as a result. The direct injury test in public suits is
similar to the real party in interest rule for private suits under Section 2, Rule 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.[26]

Recognizing that a strict application of the direct injury test may hamper public interest, this Court relaxed the
requirement in cases of transcendental importance or with far reaching implications. Being a mere procedural
technicality, it has also been held that locus standi may be waived in the public interest.[27]
Whether or not the complaint for collection is characterized as a private or public suit, Fertiphil has locus standi to file
it. Fertiphil suffered a direct injury from the enforcement of LOI No. 1465. It was required, and it did pay, the P10 levy
imposed for every bag of fertilizer sold on the domestic market. It may be true that Fertiphil has passed some or all of
the levy to the ultimate consumer, but that does not disqualify it from attacking the constitutionality of the LOI or from
seeking a refund. As seller, it bore the ultimate burden of paying the levy. It faced the possibility of severe sanctions for
failure to pay the levy. The fact of payment is sufficient injury to Fertiphil.

Moreover, Fertiphil suffered harm from the enforcement of the LOI because it was compelled to factor in its product
the levy. The levy certainly rendered the fertilizer products of Fertiphil and other domestic sellers much more expensive.
The harm to their business consists not only in fewer clients because of the increased price, but also in adopting
alternative corporate strategies to meet the demands of LOI No. 1465. Fertiphil and other fertilizer sellers may have
shouldered all or part of the levy just to be competitive in the market. The harm occasioned on the business of Fertiphil
is sufficient injury for purposes of locus standi.

Even assuming arguendo that there is no direct injury, We find that the liberal policy consistently adopted by this Court
on locus standi must apply. The issues raised by Fertiphil are of paramount public importance. It involves not only the
constitutionality of a tax law but, more importantly, the use of taxes for public purpose. Former President Marcos issued
LOI No. 1465 with the intention of rehabilitating an ailing private company. This is clear from the text of the LOI. PPI
is expressly named in the LOI as the direct beneficiary of the levy. Worse, the levy was made dependent and conditional
upon PPI becoming financially viable. The LOI provided that the capital contribution shall be collected until adequate
capital is raised to make PPI viable.

The constitutionality of the levy is already in doubt on a plain reading of the statute. It is Our constitutional duty to
squarely resolve the issue as the final arbiter of all justiciable controversies. The doctrine of standing, being a mere
procedural technicality, should be waived, if at all, to adequately thresh out an important constitutional issue.

RTC may resolve constitutional issues; the constitutional issue was adequately raised in the complaint; it is the lis mota
of the case.

PPI insists that the RTC and the CA erred in ruling on the constitutionality of the LOI. It asserts that the constitutionality
of the LOI cannot be collaterally attacked in a complaint for collection.[28] Alternatively, the resolution of the
constitutional issue is not necessary for a determination of the complaint for collection.[29]

Fertiphil counters that the constitutionality of the LOI was adequately pleaded in its complaint. It claims that the
constitutionality of LOI No. 1465 is the very lis mota of the case because the trial court cannot determine its claim
without resolving the issue.[30]

It is settled that the RTC has jurisdiction to resolve the constitutionality of a statute, presidential decree or an executive
order. This is clear from Section 5, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution, which provides:

SECTION 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:

xxxx

(2) Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari, as the law or the Rules of Court may provide, final
judgments and orders of lower courts in:

(a) All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or executive agreement, law,
presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in question. (Underscoring supplied)

In Mirasol v. Court of Appeals,[31] this Court recognized the power of the RTC to resolve constitutional issues, thus:

On the first issue. It is settled that Regional Trial Courts have the authority and jurisdiction to consider the
constitutionality of a statute, presidential decree, or executive order. The Constitution vests the power of judicial review
or the power to declare a law, treaty, international or executive agreement, presidential decree, order, instruction,
ordinance, or regulation not only in this Court, but in all Regional Trial Courts.[32]

In the recent case of Equi-Asia Placement, Inc. v. Department of Foreign Affairs,[33] this Court reiterated:

There is no denying that regular courts have jurisdiction over cases involving the validity or constitutionality of a rule
or regulation issued by administrative agencies. Such jurisdiction, however, is not limited to the Court of Appeals or to
this Court alone for even the regional trial courts can take cognizance of actions assailing a specific rule or set of rules
promulgated by administrative bodies. Indeed, the Constitution vests the power of judicial review or the power to
declare a law, treaty, international or executive agreement, presidential decree, order, instruction, ordinance, or
regulation in the courts, including the regional trial courts.[34]

Judicial review of official acts on the ground of unconstitutionality may be sought or availed of through any of the
actions cognizable by courts of justice, not necessarily in a suit for declaratory relief. Such review may be had in criminal
actions, as in People v. Ferrer[35] involving the constitutionality of the now defunct Anti-Subversion law, or in ordinary
actions, as in Krivenko v. Register of Deeds[36] involving the constitutionality of laws prohibiting aliens from acquiring
public lands. The constitutional issue, however, (a) must be properly raised and presented in the case, and (b) its
resolution is necessary to a determination of the case, i.e., the issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota
presented.[37]

Contrary to PPIs claim, the constitutionality of LOI No. 1465 was properly and adequately raised in the complaint for
collection filed with the RTC. The pertinent portions of the complaint allege:

6. The CRC of P10 per bag levied under LOI 1465 on domestic sales of all grades of fertilizer in the Philippines, is
unlawful, unjust, uncalled for, unreasonable, inequitable and oppressive because:
xxxx

(c) It favors only one private domestic corporation, i.e., defendant PPPI, and imposed at the expense and disadvantage
of the other fertilizer importers/distributors who were themselves in tight business situation and were then exerting all
efforts and maximizing management and marketing skills to remain viable;

xxxx

(e) It was a glaring example of crony capitalism, a forced program through which the PPI, having been presumptuously
masqueraded as the fertilizer industry itself, was the sole and anointed beneficiary;

7. The CRC was an unlawful; and unconstitutional special assessment and its imposition is tantamount to illegal
exaction amounting to a denial of due process since the persons of entities which had to bear the burden of paying the
CRC derived no benefit therefrom; that on the contrary it was used by PPI in trying to regain its former despicable
monopoly of the fertilizer industry to the detriment of other distributors and importers.[38] (Underscoring supplied)

The constitutionality of LOI No. 1465 is also the very lis mota of the complaint for collection. Fertiphil filed the
complaint to compel PPI to refund the levies paid under the statute on the ground that the law imposing the levy is
unconstitutional. The thesis is that an unconstitutional law is void. It has no legal effect. Being void, Fertiphil had no
legal obligation to pay the levy. Necessarily, all levies duly paid pursuant to an unconstitutional law should be refunded
under the civil code principle against unjust enrichment. The refund is a mere consequence of the law being declared
unconstitutional. The RTC surely cannot order PPI to refund Fertiphil if it does not declare the LOI unconstitutional.
It is the unconstitutionality of the LOI which triggers the refund. The issue of constitutionality is the very lis mota of
the complaint with the RTC.

The P10 levy under LOI No. 1465 is an exercise of the power of taxation.

At any rate, the Court holds that the RTC and the CA did not err in ruling against the constitutionality of the LOI.

PPI insists that LOI No. 1465 is a valid exercise either of the police power or the power of taxation. It claims that the
LOI was implemented for the purpose of assuring the fertilizer supply and distribution in the country and for benefiting
a foundation created by law to hold in trust for millions of farmers their stock ownership in PPI.

Fertiphil counters that the LOI is unconstitutional because it was enacted to give benefit to a private company. The levy
was imposed to pay the corporate debt of PPI. Fertiphil also argues that, even if the LOI is enacted under the police
power, it is still unconstitutional because it did not promote the general welfare of the people or public interest.

Police power and the power of taxation are inherent powers of the State. These powers are distinct and have different
tests for validity. Police power is the power of the State to enact legislation that may interfere with personal liberty or
property in order to promote the general welfare,[39] while the power of taxation is the power to levy taxes to be used
for public purpose. The main purpose of police power is the regulation of a behavior or conduct, while taxation is
revenue generation. The lawful subjects and lawful means tests are used to determine the validity of a law enacted under
the police power.[40] The power of taxation, on the other hand, is circumscribed by inherent and constitutional
limitations.
We agree with the RTC that the imposition of the levy was an exercise by the State of its taxation power. While it is true
that the power of taxation can be used as an implement of police power,[41] the primary purpose of the levy is revenue
generation. If the purpose is primarily revenue, or if revenue is, at least, one of the real and substantial purposes, then
the exaction is properly called a tax.[42]

In Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. Edu,[43] it was held that the imposition of a vehicle registration fee is not an exercise by
the State of its police power, but of its taxation power, thus:

It is clear from the provisions of Section 73 of Commonwealth Act 123 and Section 61 of the Land Transportation and
Traffic Code that the legislative intent and purpose behind the law requiring owners of vehicles to pay for their
registration is mainly to raise funds for the construction and maintenance of highways and to a much lesser degree, pay
for the operating expenses of the administering agency. x x x Fees may be properly regarded as taxes even though they
also serve as an instrument of regulation.

Taxation may be made the implement of the state's police power (Lutz v. Araneta, 98 Phil. 148). If the purpose is
primarily revenue, or if revenue is, at least, one of the real and substantial purposes, then the exaction is properly called
a tax. Such is the case of motor vehicle registration fees. The same provision appears as Section 59(b) in the Land
Transportation Code. It is patent therefrom that the legislators had in mind a regulatory tax as the law refers to the
imposition on the registration, operation or ownership of a motor vehicle as a tax or fee. x x x Simply put, if the exaction
under Rep. Act 4136 were merely a regulatory fee, the imposition in Rep. Act 5448 need not be an additional tax. Rep.
Act 4136 also speaks of other fees such as the special permit fees for certain types of motor vehicles (Sec. 10) and
additional fees for change of registration (Sec. 11). These are not to be understood as taxes because such fees are very
minimal to be revenue-raising. Thus, they are not mentioned by Sec. 59(b) of the Code as taxes like the motor vehicle
registration fee and chauffeurs license fee. Such fees are to go into the expenditures of the Land Transportation
Commission as provided for in the last proviso of Sec. 61.[44] (Underscoring supplied)

The P10 levy under LOI No. 1465 is too excessive to serve a mere regulatory purpose. The levy, no doubt, was a big
burden on the seller or the ultimate consumer. It increased the price of a bag of fertilizer by as much as five percent.[45]
A plain reading of the LOI also supports the conclusion that the levy was for revenue generation. The LOI expressly
provided that the levy was imposed until adequate capital is raised to make PPI viable.

Taxes are exacted only for a public purpose. The P10 levy is unconstitutional because it was not for a public purpose.
The levy was imposed to give undue benefit to PPI.

An inherent limitation on the power of taxation is public purpose. Taxes are exacted only for a public purpose. They
cannot be used for purely private purposes or for the exclusive benefit of private persons.[46] The reason for this is
simple. The power to tax exists for the general welfare; hence, implicit in its power is the limitation that it should be
used only for a public purpose. It would be a robbery for the State to tax its citizens and use the funds generated for a
private purpose. As an old United States case bluntly put it: To lay with one hand, the power of the government on the
property of the citizen, and with the other to bestow it upon favored individuals to aid private enterprises and build up
private fortunes, is nonetheless a robbery because it is done under the forms of law and is called taxation.[47]

The term public purpose is not defined. It is an elastic concept that can be hammered to fit modern standards.
Jurisprudence states that public purpose should be given a broad interpretation. It does not only pertain to those
purposes which are traditionally viewed as essentially government functions, such as building roads and delivery of
basic services, but also includes those purposes designed to promote social justice. Thus, public money may now be
used for the relocation of illegal settlers, low-cost housing and urban or agrarian reform.

While the categories of what may constitute a public purpose are continually expanding in light of the expansion of
government functions, the inherent requirement that taxes can only be exacted for a public purpose still stands. Public
purpose is the heart of a tax law. When a tax law is only a mask to exact funds from the public when its true intent is to
give undue benefit and advantage to a private enterprise, that law will not satisfy the requirement of public purpose.

The purpose of a law is evident from its text or inferable from other secondary sources. Here, We agree with the RTC
and that CA that the levy imposed under LOI No. 1465 was not for a public purpose.

First, the LOI expressly provided that the levy be imposed to benefit PPI, a private company. The purpose is explicit
from Clause 3 of the law, thus:

3. The Administrator of the Fertilizer Pesticide Authority to include in its fertilizer pricing formula a capital contribution
component of not less than P10 per bag. This capital contribution shall be collected until adequate capital is raised to
make PPI viable. Such capital contribution shall be applied by FPA to all domestic sales of fertilizers in the
Philippines.[48] (Underscoring supplied) It is a basic rule of statutory construction that the text of a statute should be
given a literal meaning. In this case, the text of the LOI is plain that the levy was imposed in order to raise capital for
PPI. The framers of the LOI did not even hide the insidious purpose of the law. They were cavalier enough to name PPI
as the ultimate beneficiary of the taxes levied under the LOI. We find it utterly repulsive that a tax law would expressly
name a private company as the ultimate beneficiary of the taxes to be levied from the public. This is a clear case of crony
capitalism.

Second, the LOI provides that the imposition of the P10 levy was conditional and dependent upon PPI becoming
financially viable. This suggests that the levy was actually imposed to benefit PPI. The LOI notably does not fix a
maximum amount when PPI is deemed financially viable. Worse, the liability of Fertiphil and other domestic sellers of
fertilizer to pay the levy is made indefinite. They are required to continuously pay the levy until adequate capital is
raised for PPI.

Third, the RTC and the CA held that the levies paid under the LOI were directly remitted and deposited by FPA to Far
East Bank and Trust Company, the depositary bank of PPI.[49] This proves that PPI benefited from the LOI. It is also
proves that the main purpose of the law was to give undue benefit and advantage to PPI.

Fourth, the levy was used to pay the corporate debts of PPI. A reading of the Letter of Understanding[50] dated May
18, 1985 signed by then Prime Minister Cesar Virata reveals that PPI was in deep financial problem because of its huge
corporate debts. There were pending petitions for rehabilitation against PPI before the Securities and Exchange
Commission. The government guaranteed payment of PPIs debts to its foreign creditors. To fund the payment,
President Marcos issued LOI No. 1465. The pertinent portions of the letter of understanding read:

Republic of the Philippines

Office of the Prime Minister
Manila

LETTER OF UNDERTAKING

May 18, 1985

TO: THE BANKING AND FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS

LISTED IN ANNEX A HERETO WHICH ARE
CREDITORS (COLLECTIVELY, THE CREDITORS)
OF PLANTERS PRODUCTS, INC. (PLANTERS)

Gentlemen:

This has reference to Planters which is the principal importer and distributor of fertilizer, pesticides and agricultural
chemicals in the Philippines. As regards Planters, the Philippine Government confirms its awareness of the following:
(1) that Planters has outstanding obligations in foreign currency and/or pesos, to the Creditors, (2) that Planters is
currently experiencing financial difficulties, and (3) that there are presently pending with the Securities and Exchange
Commission of the Philippines a petition filed at Planters own behest for the suspension of payment of all its obligations,
and a separate petition filed by Manufacturers Hanover Trust Company, Manila Offshore Branch for the appointment
of a rehabilitation receiver for Planters.

In connection with the foregoing, the Republic of the Philippines (the Republic) confirms that it considers and continues
to consider Planters as a major fertilizer distributor. Accordingly, for and in consideration of your expressed willingness
to consider and participate in the effort to rehabilitate Planters, the Republic hereby manifests its full and unqualified
support of the successful rehabilitation and continuing viability of Planters, and to that end, hereby binds and obligates
itself to the creditors and Planters, as follows:

xxxx

2. Upon the effective date of this Letter of Undertaking, the Republic shall cause FPA to include in its fertilizer pricing
formula a capital recovery component, the proceeds of which will be used initially for the purpose of funding the unpaid
portion of the outstanding capital stock of Planters presently held in trust by Planters Foundation, Inc. (Planters
Foundation), which unpaid capital is estimated at approximately P206 million (subject to validation by Planters and
Planters Foundation) such unpaid portion of the outstanding capital stock of Planters being hereafter referred to as the
Unpaid Capital), and subsequently for such capital increases as may be required for the continuing viability of Planters.

xxxx
The capital recovery component shall continue to be charged and collected until payment in full of (a) the Unpaid
Capital and/or (b) any shortfall in the payment of the Subsidy Receivables, (c) any carrying cost accruing from the date
hereof on the amounts which may be outstanding from time to time of the Unpaid Capital and/or the Subsidy
Receivables, and (d) the capital increases contemplated in paragraph 2 hereof. For the purpose of the foregoing clause
(c), the carrying cost shall be at such rate as will represent the full and reasonable cost to Planters of servicing its debts,
taking into account both its peso and foreign currency-denominated obligations.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

By:
(signed)
CESAR E. A. VIRATA
Prime Minister and Minister of Finance[51]

It is clear from the Letter of Understanding that the levy was imposed precisely to pay the corporate debts of PPI. We
cannot agree with PPI that the levy was imposed to ensure the stability of the fertilizer industry in the country. The
letter of understanding and the plain text of the LOI clearly indicate that the levy was exacted for the benefit of a private
corporation.

All told, the RTC and the CA did not err in holding that the levy imposed under LOI No. 1465 was not for a public
purpose. LOI No. 1465 failed to comply with the public purpose requirement for tax laws.

The LOI is still unconstitutional even if enacted under the police power; it did not promote public interest.

Even if We consider LOI No. 1695 enacted under the police power of the State, it would still be invalid for failing to
comply with the test of lawful subjects and lawful means. Jurisprudence states the test as follows: (1) the interest of the
public generally, as distinguished from those of particular class, requires its exercise; and (2) the means employed are
reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly oppressive upon individuals.[52]

For the same reasons as discussed, LOI No. 1695 is invalid because it did not promote public interest. The law was
enacted to give undue advantage to a private corporation. We quote with approval the CA ratiocination on this point,
thus:

It is upon applying this established tests that We sustain the trial courts holding LOI 1465 unconstitutional. To be sure,
ensuring the continued supply and distribution of fertilizer in the country is an undertaking imbued with public interest.
However, the method by which LOI 1465 sought to achieve this is by no means a measure that will promote the public
welfare. The governments commitment to support the successful rehabilitation and continued viability of PPI, a private
corporation, is an unmistakable attempt to mask the subject statutes impartiality. There is no way to treat the self-
interest of a favored entity, like PPI, as identical with the general interest of the countrys farmers or even the Filipino
people in general. Well to stress, substantive due process exacts fairness and equal protection disallows distinction
where none is needed. When a statutes public purpose is spoiled by private interest, the use of police power becomes a
travesty which must be struck down for being an arbitrary exercise of government power. To rule in favor of appellant
would contravene the general principle that revenues derived from taxes cannot be used for purely private purposes or
for the exclusive benefit of private individuals. (Underscoring supplied)

The general rule is that an unconstitutional law is void; the doctrine of operative fact is inapplicable.

PPI also argues that Fertiphil cannot seek a refund even if LOI No. 1465 is declared unconstitutional. It banks on the
doctrine of operative fact, which provides that an unconstitutional law has an effect before being declared
unconstitutional. PPI wants to retain the levies paid under LOI No. 1465 even if it is subsequently declared to be
unconstitutional.

We cannot agree. It is settled that no question, issue or argument will be entertained on appeal, unless it has been raised
in the court a quo.[53] PPI did not raise the applicability of the doctrine of operative fact with the RTC and the CA. It
cannot belatedly raise the issue with Us in order to extricate itself from the dire effects of an unconstitutional law.

At any rate, We find the doctrine inapplicable. The general rule is that an unconstitutional law is void. It produces no
rights, imposes no duties and affords no protection. It has no legal effect. It is, in legal contemplation, inoperative as if
it has not been passed.[54] Being void, Fertiphil is not required to pay the levy. All levies paid should be refunded in
accordance with the general civil code principle against unjust enrichment. The general rule is supported by Article 7
of the Civil Code, which provides:

ART. 7. Laws are repealed only by subsequent ones, and their violation or non-observance shall not be excused by disuse
or custom or practice to the contrary.
When the courts declare a law to be inconsistent with the Constitution, the former shall be void and the latter shall
govern.
The doctrine of operative fact, as an exception to the general rule, only applies as a matter of equity and fair play.[55]
It nullifies the effects of an unconstitutional law by recognizing that the existence of a statute prior to a determination
of unconstitutionality is an operative fact and may have consequences which cannot always be ignored. The past cannot
always be erased by a new judicial declaration.[56]
The doctrine is applicable when a declaration of unconstitutionality will impose an undue burden on those who have
relied on the invalid law. Thus, it was applied to a criminal case when a declaration of unconstitutionality would put the
accused in double jeopardy[57] or would put in limbo the acts done by a municipality in reliance upon a law creating
it.[58]
Here, We do not find anything iniquitous in ordering PPI to refund the amounts paid by Fertiphil under LOI No. 1465.
It unduly benefited from the levy. It was proven during the trial that the levies paid were remitted and deposited to its
bank account. Quite the reverse, it would be inequitable and unjust not to order a refund. To do so would unjustly enrich
PPI at the expense of Fertiphil. Article 22 of the Civil Code explicitly provides that every person who, through an act of
performance by another comes into possession of something at the expense of the latter without just or legal ground
shall return the same to him. We cannot allow PPI to profit from an unconstitutional law. Justice and equity dictate
that PPI must refund the amounts paid by Fertiphil.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Court of Appeals Decision dated November 28, 2003 is AFFIRMED.