ARGUMENTS

1) Benefits-protection theory

In the landmark case of CIR vs. Algue, 158 SCRA 9, the Court held
that taxes are what we pay for a civilized society. Without taxes, the
government would be paralyzed for lack of motive power to activate
and operate it. Hence, despite the natural reluctance to surrender part
of their hard-earned income to the government, 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 their moral and
material values. This symbiotic relationship is the rationale of taxation
and should dispel the notion that it is an arbitrary method of exaction
by those in the seat of power.

Further, in the case of Lorenzo vs. Posadas, the Court held that,
from the contribution received, the government renders no special or
commensurate benefit to any particular person or property. The only
benefit to which the taxpayer is entitled is that derived from the
enjoyment of the privileges of living in an organized society
established and safeguarded by the devotion of taxes to public
purpose. The government promises nothing to the person taxed
beyond what may be anticipated from an administration of the laws for
the general good.

Further still, one of the declarations of policy of R.A. 10963,

otherwise known as Tax Reform for Acceleration and Inclusion
(TRAIN), is that the State shall ensure that the government is able to
provide for the needs of those under its jurisdiction and care through
the provision of better infrastructure, health, education, jobs, and
social protection for the people.

In line with these rulings of the Supreme Court and the TRAIN
Law the State, in utilizing and expending the taxes levied, whether for
general or specific purpose, should take into consideration the moral
 and material values of the people in general and an organized society
for the people to live in.

To achieve these considerations is for the State to, among others,

protect its citizen from any present or imminent peril.

Needless to say, the Republic of the Philippines is facing a pandemic

– the ShunGe-AQ-20 virus, a present peril that claimed thousands of
lives.

All told, the Tabako-Pangtepok sa ShunGe-AQ-20 Act should be

upheld to champion the health and lives of the people of the
Philippines. The procurement of test kits and Personal Protective
Equipments to be used by the Department of Health is one the ways to
protect the health and lives of the people. Through these test kits and
PPE’s, the Department of Health, Hospitals, and our beloved frontliners
would be able to combat said virus expeditiously, and would also
lessen the fear that our frontliners endure while performing their
duties.

2.) the assailed law does not violate the fiscal autonomy of lgu’s nor their
just share in the national taxes will not be affected by the assailed law;

The Supreme Court in Mandanas, et. al., vs Ochoa, as cited in the

Petition for Certiorai and Prohibition filed by the League of Municipalities
(LMP) and Governors from Ilocos Region and Cagayan Valley represented by
Hon. Matthew Marcos Manotoc as the League President, held that there is no
question that Congress possesses and wields plenary power to control and
direct the destiny of the LGU’s subject only to the Constitution itself, for
Congress, just like any branch of the Government, should bow down to the
majesty of the Constitution, which is always supreme.

The Court in the same case likewise upheld the exclusion of, among
others, the share of LGU’s in the excise taxes imposed on locally
manufactured Virginia Tobacco products as provided in Section 3 of R.A. No.
7171 from the base for determining the fair share of the LGU’s in the
Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA).

Thus, inasmuch as the share of the LGU’s in the said excise taxes is
excluded in determining the fair share of the LGU’s in the IRA, their just
share in the national taxes as mandated by Section 6, Article X of the 1987
Philippine Constitution is not violated.

3. The assailed law is consistent with R.A. No. 11469, otherwise known
as the Bayanihan to Heal as One Act.

R.A. No. 11469 authorizes the President to, among others, appropriate
any unutilized or unreleased balance in a special purpose fund,
effective during the date of the declaration of State of Public Health
Emergency.

If R.A. 11469 authorizes the President to appropriate funds from

any unutilized or unreleased balance in a special purpose fund then
with more reason that the Congress, a legislative body, has the
authority to utilized funds from a special purpose fund during this
National Emergency.

4. The assailed law would not, in any way, prejudice the beneficiaries of
R.A. 7171

The assailed law was passed for the purpose of procuring test kits and
PPE’s to be used by the Department of Health to combat the ShunGe-AQ-20.
In fighting said virus, surely, not only the beneficiaries from R.A. 7171 would
be benefited but the whole country in general. While it is true that the
benefit that they will receive is not pecuniary in nature, said benefit would
improve the health and lives of the people, including them, and the state of
the country which is most important.

Even assuming arguendo that the special funds from R.A. 7171 will be
used for the stated purpose in said law in this time of national crisis said
fund would remain stagnant or unused as tobacco is not essential in our
daily lives.

If the country will not overcome this pandemic everything including the
special funds in R.A. 7171 would be useless as we will be imprisoned behind
the walls of our home just to be safe and we will endure the fear of being
affected of ShunGe-AQ-20 virus without us knowing whether we are infected
or not due to lack of testing kits.
 As things stand, during this pandemic, what is more important the
health and lives of the people or the financial assistance under R.A. 7171?