FLORENCIO, Mayoree Rozene F.

JD103

G.R. No. 166715, August 14, 2008

Abakada Guro Party List v. Purisima
CORONA, J.

FACTS:
RA 9335 was enacted to enhance the revenue-generation capability of the Bureau of Internal
Revenue (BIR) and the Bureau of Customs (BOC). On the other hand, Joint Congressional Oversight in
RA 9335 was created for approving the implementing rules and regulations (IRR) formulated by the DOF,
DBM, NEDA, BIR, BOC and CSC.
Petitioners are invoking their right as taxpayers filed this petition questioning the constitutionality
of RA 9335. They aver that by establishing a system of rewards and incentives, the law will transform the
officials and employees of the BIR and the BOC into “mercenaries and bounty hunters" as they will do
their best only in consideration of such rewards. They added that why such a system should not apply to
officials and employees of all other government agencies. Office of the Solicitor General questions the
petition[ers] for being premature as there is no actual case or controversy yet.
Evidently, the declared objective of RA 9335 validly classifies the BIR and the BOC because of
their primary function which is generating revenues for the national government through the collection of
taxes, customs duties, fees and charges.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the implementation and the constitutionality of the RA 9335 is legal and valid?
2. Whether or not the purpose of Joint Congressional Oversight committee is constitutional?
3. Whether or not the Section 12 of RA 9335 (JCOC) render the entire law unconstitutional?
RULING:
1. Yes. The law intends to encourage BIR and BOC officials and employees to go beyond their revenue
targets by providing a system of rewards and sanctions through the creation of a Rewards and Incentives
Fund (Fund) and a Revenue Performance Evaluation Board. Thus, the declared policy of enhancing of the
revenue-generation capability and collection of the BIR and the BOC is imparted with public interest and
in good faith.
2. No. The JCOC is unconstitutional because it changes the fundamental design or structure of the
Constitution’s branch of power as it entrusts to Congress a direct role in enforcing, applying or
implementing its own laws, which is beyond their constitutional authority.
3. No. The valid portions of RA 9335 can stand independently of the invalid section. Without Section 12,
the remaining provisions still constitute a complete, intelligible and valid law which carries out the
legislative intent.
A.M. No. 11-7-10-SC, July 31, 2012
COA Opinion on the Computation of the Appraised
Value of the Properties Purchased by the Retired
Chief/Associate Justices of the Supreme Court

FACTS:
Two memoranda ask the kind office of the Court to determine the proper formula to be used in
computing the appraisal value that a retired Chief Justice and several Associate Justices of the Supreme
Court have to pay to acquire the government properties they used during their tenure.
The COA noticed the underpayment of the Chief Justice and several Associate Justices of the
Supreme Court, the valuation was prepared by the Property Division of the Supreme Court and the COA
indicated that the Property Division used the wrong formula in computing the appraisal value of the
purchased vehicles. The Property Division was said to be mistaken in appraising the subject motor vehicles
by applying Constitutional Fiscal Autonomy Group (CFAG) Joint Resolution and its guidelines, in
compliance with the Resolution of the Court, when it should have applied the formula found in COA.

ISSUES:
Whether or not the formula used by the Constitutional Fiscal Autonomy Group (CFAG) on computing the
appraisal value of the retired Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the SC is valid?

RULING:
Yes, the Constitution itself grants the Judiciary fiscal autonomy in the handling of its budget and resources.
Under this administrative authority, the Court has the power to administer the Judiciary’s internal affairs,
and this includes the authority to handle and manage the retirement applications and entitlements of its
personnel as provided by law and by its own grants.
G.R. No. L-63915 April 24, 1985
Tañada v. Tuvera
ESCOLIN, J.

FACTS:
Petitioners seek a writ of mandamus to compel respondent the principle that laws (such as
presidential decrees, letters of instructions, general orders, proclamations, executive orders, letter of
implementation and administrative orders) to be valid and enforceable must be published in the Official
Gazette. The respondents, through the Solicitor General, explained that it is no essential to publish all law
on account of the presidential issuances which apply only to particular persons or class such as
administrative and executive orders need not be published on the assumption that they have been publicized
to all concerned.
On the other hand, respondents further contend that publication in the Official Gazette is not a
requirement for the effectivity of laws where the laws themselves provide for their own effectivity dates.
However, the Court declares that presidential issuances of general application, which have not been
published, shall have no force and effect. The logic of this holding is recognized by respondent officials
considering that the government, as a matter of policy, refrains from prosecuting violations of criminal laws
until the same shall have been published in the Official Gazette or in some other publication, even though
some criminal laws provide that they shall take effect immediately. This Court has ruled that publication in
the Official Gazette is necessary in those cases where the legislation itself does not provide for its effectivity
date-for then the date of publication is material for determining its date of effectivity which is the fifteenth
day following its publication-but not when the law itself provides for the date when it goes into effect.

ISSUE
Whether or not it is necessary for the laws (such as presidential decrees, letters of instructions, general
orders, proclamations, executive orders, letter of implementation and administrative orders) to be published
in the Official Gazette for its effectivity?

RULING
Yes, the majority decision of the court is to the extent that it requires notice before laws become effective.
It is a rule of fair play and justice that the publication be mandatory for people to be informed before they
can be punished for its violation. 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.