G.R. No.
168056 September 1, 2005 Representatives, the Senate was acting
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:
ABAKADA GURO Party List, et al.,
filed a petition for prohibition o questioning
the constitutionality of Sections 4, 5 and 6
of R.A. No. 9337, amending Sections 106,
107 and 108, respectively, of the National
Internal Revenue Code (NIRC).
Section 4 imposes a 10% VAT on sale of
goods and properties;
Section 5 imposes a 10% VAT on
importation of goods; and
Section 6 imposes a 10% VAT on sale of
services and use or lease of properties;
These provisions contain a provision
which authorizing the President, upon
recommendation of the Secretary of
Finance, to raise the VAT rate to 12%,
effective January 1, 2006, after specified
conditions have been satisfied.
Issues:
Whether or not there is a violation of
Article VI, Section 24 of the Constitution.
Whether or not there is undue delegation
of legislative power in violation of Article
VI Sec 28(2) of the Constitution.
Whether or not there is a violation of the
due process and equal protection of the
Constitution.
Ruling:
No, the revenue bill exclusively
originated in the House of
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, and excise and franchise
taxes.
No, 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. In this case, it is not a
delegation of legislative power but a
delegation of ascertainment of facts upon
which enforcement and administration of
the increased rate under the law is
contingent.
No, 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