Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ARGUMENTS
ARGUMENTS
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.
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.
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 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.
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?