ABAKADA GURO PARTY LIST VS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

G.R. No. 168056 September 1, 2005

ABAKADA GURO PARTY LIST (Formerly AASJAS) OFFICERS SAMSON S. ALCANTARA

and ED VINCENT S. ALBANO, Petitioners,

vs.

THE HONORABLE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY EDUARDO ERMITA; HONORABLE

SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE CESAR PURISIMA; and HONORABLE
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE GUILLERMO PARAYNO, JR., Respondent.

Facts:

Petitioners ABAKADA GURO Party List challenged the constitutionality of R.A. No.
9337 particularly Sections 4, 5 and 6, amending Sections 106, 107 and 108,
respectively, of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC). These questioned
provisions contain a uniform proviso authorizing the President, upon
recommendation of the Secretary of Finance, to raise the VAT rate to 12%,
effective January 1, 2006, after any of the following conditions have been
satisfied, to wit:

. . . That the President, upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Finance,

shall, effective January 1, 2006, raise the rate of value-added tax to twelve
percent (12%), after any of the following conditions has been satisfied:

(i) Value-added tax collection as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product

(GDP) of the previous year exceeds two and four-fifth percent (2 4/5%); or

(ii) National government deficit as a percentage of GDP of the previous year

exceeds one and one-half percent (1 ½%).

Petitioners argue that the law is unconstitutional, as it constitutes abandonment

by Congress of its exclusive authority to fix the rate of taxes under Article VI,
Section 28(2) of the 1987 Philippine Constitution. They further argue that VAT is a
tax levied on the sale or exchange of goods and services and cannot be
included within the purview of tariffs under the exemption delegation since this
refers to customs duties, tolls or tribute payable upon merchandise to the
government and usually imposed on imported/exported goods. They also said
that the President has powers to cause, influence or create the conditions
provided by law to bring about the conditions precedent. Moreover, they allege
that no guiding standards are made by law as to how the Secretary of Finance
will make the recommendation. They claim, nonetheless, that any
recommendation of the Secretary of Finance can easily be brushed aside by the
President since the former is a mere alter ego of the latter, such that, ultimately, it
is the President who decides whether to impose the increased tax rate or not.

Issues:

Whether or not R.A. No. 9337 has violated the provisions in Article VI, Section 24,
and Article VI, Section 26 (2) of the Constitution.

Whether or not there was an undue delegation of legislative power in violation of

Article VI Sec 28 Par 1 and 2 of the Constitution.

Whether or not there was a violation of the due process and equal protection
under Article III Sec. 1 of the Constitution.

Discussions:

Basing from the ruling of Tolentino case, it is not the law, but the revenue bill
which is required by the Constitution to “originate exclusively” in the House of
Representatives, but Senate has the power not only to propose amendments,
but also to propose its own version even with respect to bills which are required
by the Constitution to originate in the House. the Constitution simply means is that
the initiative for filing revenue, tariff or tax bills, bills authorizing an increase of the
public debt, private bills and bills of local application must come from the House
of Representatives on the theory that, elected as they are from the districts, the
members of the House can be expected to be more sensitive to the local needs
and problems. On the other hand, the senators, who are elected at large, are
expected to approach the same problems from the national perspective. Both
views are thereby made to bear on the enactment of such laws.

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.

The equal protection clause under the Constitution means that “no person or
class of persons shall be deprived of the same protection of laws which is
enjoyed by other persons or other classes in the same place and in like
circumstances.”
Rulings:

R.A. No. 9337 has not violated the provisions. The revenue bill exclusively
originated in the House of Representatives, the Senate was acting within its
constitutional power to introduce amendments to the House bill when it included
provisions in Senate Bill No. 1950 amending corporate income taxes,
percentage, excise and franchise taxes. Verily, Article VI, Section 24 of the
Constitution does not contain any prohibition or limitation on the extent of the
amendments that may be introduced by the Senate to the House revenue bill.

There is no undue delegation of legislative power but only of the discretion as to

the execution of a law. This is constitutionally permissible. Congress does not
abdicate its functions or unduly delegate power when it describes what job must
be done, who must do it, and what is the scope of his authority; in our complex
economy that is frequently the only way in which the legislative process can go
forward.

Supreme Court held no decision on this matter. The power of the State to make
reasonable and natural classifications for the purposes of taxation has long been
established. Whether it relates to the subject of taxation, the kind of property, the
rates to be levied, or the amounts to be raised, the methods of assessment,
valuation and collection, the State’s power is entitled to presumption of validity.
As a rule, the judiciary will not interfere with such power absent a clear showing
of unreasonableness, discrimination, or arbitrariness.