AMBUGUITY
Abello vs. BIR
Facts:
During the 1987 national elections, petitioners,
who are partners in the Angara, Abello,
Concepcion, Regala and Cruz (ACCRA) law
firm, contributed P882,661.31 each to the
campaign funds of Senator Edgardo Angara, then
running for the Senate.
In letters dated April 21, 1988, the Bureau of
Internal Revenue (BIR) assessed each of the
petitioners P263,032.66 for their contributions.
On August 2, 1988, petitioners questioned the
assessment through a letter to the BIR.
They claimed that political or electoral
contributions are not considered gifts under the
National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC), and
that, therefore, they are not liable for donor's tax.
The claim for exemption was denied by the
Commissioner.
Issue:
W/N electoral contribution subject to donor’s tax
Ruling:
Yes, although the NIRC does not define transfer
of property by gift. However, the Civil Code, by
reference, considers such as donations. A gift is
generally defined as a voluntary transfer of
property by one to another without any
consideration or compensation therefore (28 C.J.
620; Santos vs. Robledo, 28 Phil. 250).
According to, Section 91 of the National Internal
Revenue Code (NIRC) reads:
(A) There shall be levied, assessed, collected and
paid upon the transfer by any person, resident or
nonresident, of the property by gift, a tax,
computed as provided in Section 92
(B) The tax shall apply whether the transfer is in
trust or otherwise, whether the gift is direct or
indirect, and whether the property is real or
personal, tangible or intangible.
In the instant case, the contributions are voluntary
transfers of property in the form of money from
private respondents to Sen. Angara, without
considerations therefor. Hence, they squarely fall
under the definition of donation or gift.
reference may be made to the definition of a
donation in the Civil Code. Article 725 of said
Code defines donation as:
. . . an act of liberality whereby a person disposes
gratuitously of a thing or right in favor of another,
who accepts it.
Donation has the following elements: (a) the
reduction of the patrimony of the donor; (b) the
increase in the patrimony of the donee; and, (c)
the intent to do an act of liberality or animus
donandi.
As follows:
a) The patrimony of the four petitioners
were reduced by P882,661.31 each
b) Senator Edgardo Angara's patrimony
correspondingly increased by
P3,530,645.24
c) here was intent to do an act of liberality
or animus donandi was present since
each of the petitioners gave their
contributions without any consideration.
And that meaning of Civil Code thus provide in
the NIRC, making it clear and unambiguous.
In addition, with regards to the petitioner’s
contention that it is not a donation nor gift, thus
exempting them to the said donor’s tax, although
the NIRC didn’t mention transfer of property by
gift, it is clearly stated that Civil Code 725,
otherwise provides its definition.
Void for Vagueness Doctrine
FACTS:
Effective May 23, 2017, and for a period not
exceeding 60 days, President Rodrigo Roa
Duterte issued Proclamation No. 216 declaring a
state of martial law and suspending the privilege
of the writ of habeas corpus in the whole of
Mindanao.
In accordance with Section 18, Article VII of the
Constitution, the President, on May 25, 2017,
submitted to Congress a written Report on the
factual basis of Proclamation No. 216.
The Report pointed out that for decades,
Mindanao has been plagued with rebellion and
lawless violence which only escalated and
worsened with the passing of time.
On May 23, 2017, as the President stated in his
Report, the Maute terrorist group took over a
hospital in Marawi City; established several
checkpoints within the city; burned down certain
government and private facilities and inflicted
casualties on the part of Government forces; and
started flying the flag of the Islamic State of Iraq
and Syria (ISIS) in several areas, thereby
indicating a removal of allegiance from the
Philippine Government and their capability to
deprive the duly constituted authorities – the
President, foremost – of their powers and
prerogatives.
The Report also highlighted the strategic location
of Marawi City; the role it plays in Mindanao, and
the Philippines as a whole; and the possible tragic
repercussions once it falls under the control of the
lawless groups.
After the submission of the Report and the
briefings, the Senate declared that it found “no
compelling reason to revoke Proclamation 216.
The Lagman Group, the Cullamat Group and the
Mohamad Group petitioned the Supreme Court,
questioning the factual basis of President
Duterte’s Proclamation of martial law.
Issue:
Whether or not Proclamation No. 216 of23 May
2017 may be considered, vague and thus null and
void: a. with its inclusion of "other rebel groups;"
or b. since it has no guidelines specifying its
actual operational parameters within the entire
Mindanao region;

Ruling
Inclusion of “other rebel groups ” does not make
Proclamation No. 216 vague. The term “other
rebel groups” in Proclamation No. 216 is not at
all vague when viewed in the context of the words
that accompany it.

Verily, the text of Proclamation No. 216 refers to

“other rebel groups” found in Proclamation No.
55, which it cited by way of reference in its
Whereas clauses.

b.) Lack of guidelines/operational parameters

does not make Proclamation No. 216 vague.
Operational guidelines will serve only as mere
tools for the implementation of the proclamation.
There is no need for the Court to determine the
constitutionality of the implementing and/or
operational guidelines, general orders, arrest
orders and other orders issued after the
proclamation for being irrelevant to its review.

Any act committed under the said orders in

violation of the Constitution and the laws should
be resolved in a separate proceeding. Finally,
there is a risk that if the Court wades into these
areas, it would be deemed as trespassing into the
sphere that is reserved exclusively for Congress
in the exercise of its power to revoke.

JUDICIAL LEGISLATION
Art. 9. No judge or court shall decline to render
judgment by reason of
the silence, obscurity or insufficiency of the laws.

Judicial legislation means new legal rules made

by judges. It means the power of the judicature
to make rules for the regulation of their own
procedure by adopting their
delegated legislative powers. Judicial
legislation varies from precedent whereby judges
create new laws.