Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Abakada vs. Ermita GR No. 168056
Abakada vs. Ermita GR No. 168056
Abakada vs. Ermita GR No. 168056
*
G.R. No. 168056. September 1, 2005.
_______________
* EN BANC.
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 1/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
15
16
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 2/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
17
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 3/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
18
19
20
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 6/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
21
22
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 8/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
23
tality of his own judgment and not through the intervening mind
of another.
Same; Same; Exception to the Non-Delegation of Legislative
Powers; Words and Phrases; The powers which Congress is
prohibited from delegating are those which are strictly, or
inherently and exclusively, legislative—appertaining exclusively to
the legislative department; Purely legislative power has been
described as the authority to make a complete law—complete as to
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 9/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
24
25
26
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 12/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
27
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 13/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
28
plementation of the law. The intent and will to increase the VAT
rate to 12% came from Congress and the task of the President is
to simply execute the legislative policy. That Congress chose to do
so in such a manner is not within the province of the Court to
inquire into, its task being to interpret the law.
Judicial Review; The Court does not rule on allegations which
are manifestly conjectural, as these may not exist at all—the Court
deals with facts, not fancies, on realities, not appearances.—The
insinuation by petitioners Pimentel, et al. that the President has
ample powers to cause, influence or create the conditions to bring
about either or both the conditions precedent does not deserve any
merit as this argument is highly speculative. The Court does not
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 14/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
29
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 15/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
rules but rather broad standards, there is a need for proof of such
persuasive character as would lead to such a conclusion. Absent
such a showing, the presumption of validity must prevail.
Same; Same; Words and Phrases; Input Tax is defined under
Section 110(A) of the NIRC, as amended, as the value-added tax
due from or paid by a VAT-registered person on the importation of
goods or local purchase of good and services, including lease or use
of property, in the course of trade or business, from a VAT-
registered person, and Output Tax is the value-added tax due on
the sale or lease of taxable goods or properties or services by any
person registered or required to register under the law.—Section 8
of R.A. No. 9337, amending Section 110(B) of the NIRC imposes a
limitation on the amount of input tax that may be credited
against the output tax. It states, in part: “[P]rovided, that the
input tax inclusive of the input VAT carried over from the
previous quarter that may be credited in every quarter shall not
exceed seventy percent (70%) of the output VAT: …”” Input Tax is
defined under Section 110(A) of the NIRC, as amended, as the
value-added tax due from or paid by a VAT-registered person on
the importation of goods or local purchase of good and services,
including lease or use of property, in the course of trade or
business, from a VAT-registered person, and Output Tax is the
value-added tax due on the sale or lease of taxable goods or
properties or services by any person registered or required to
register under the law.
30
Same; Same; Due Process; Vested Rights; The input tax is not
a property or a property right within the constitutional purview of
the due process clause—a VAT-registered person’s entitlement to
the creditable input tax is a mere statutory privilege; The right to
credit input tax as against the output tax is clearly a privilege
created by law, a privilege that also the law can remove or limit;
The distinction between statutory privileges and vested rights must
be borne in mind for persons have no vested rights in statutory
privileges.—The input tax is not a property or a property right
within the constitutional purview of the due process clause. A
VAT-registered person’s entitlement to the creditable input tax is
a mere statutory privilege. The distinction between statutory
privileges and vested rights must be borne in mind for persons
have no vested rights in statutory privileges. The state may
change or take away rights, which were created by the law of the
state, although it may not take away property, which was vested
by virtue of such rights. Under the previous system of single-stage
taxation, taxes paid at every level of distribution are not
recoverable from the taxes payable, although it becomes part of
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 16/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
the cost, which is deductible from the gross revenue. When Pres.
Aquino issued E.O. No. 273 imposing a 10% multi-stage tax on all
sales, it was then that the crediting of the input tax paid on
purchase or importation of goods and services by VAT-registered
persons against the output tax was introduced. This was adopted
by the Expanded VAT Law (R.A. No. 7716), and The Tax Reform
Act of 1997 (R.A. No. 8424). The right to credit input tax as
against the output tax is clearly a privilege created by law, a
privilege that also the law can remove, or in this case, limit.
Same; Same; Congress admitted that the spread-out of the
creditable input tax in this case amounts to a 4-year interest-free
loan to the government; For whatever is the purpose of the 60-
month amortization, this involves executive economic policy and
legislative wisdom in which the Court cannot intervene.—It is
worth mentioning that Congress admitted that the spread-out of
the creditable input tax in this case amounts to a 4-year interest-
free loan to the government. In the same breath, Congress also
justified its move by saying that the provision was designed to
raise an annual revenue of 22.6 billion. The legislature also
dispelled the fear that the provision will fend off foreign
investments, saying that foreign investors have other tax
incentives provided by law, and citing the case of China, where
despite a 17.5% non-creditable VAT, foreign investments were not
31
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 17/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
32
of the income tax due from the payee on the said income. The
liability for payment of the tax rests primarily on the payor as a
withholding agent. Thus, in case of his failure to withhold the tax
or in case of underwithholding, the deficiency tax shall be
collected from the payor/withholding agent. . . . (B) Creditable
Withholding Tax.—Under the creditable withholding tax system,
taxes withheld on certain income payments are intended to equal
or at least approximate the tax due of the payee on said income. . .
. Taxes withheld on income payments covered by the expanded
withholding tax (referred to in Sec. 2.57.2 of these regulations)
and compensation income (referred to in Sec. 2.78 also of these
regulations) are creditable in nature. As applied to value-added
tax, this means that taxable transactions with the government
are subject to a 5% rate, which constitutes as full payment of the
tax payable on the transaction. This represents the net VAT
payable of the seller. The other 5% effectively accounts for the
standard input VAT (deemed input VAT), in lieu of the actual
input VAT directly or attributable to the taxable transaction.
Same; Same; It is clear that Congress intended to treat
differently transactions with the government; Since it has not been
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 18/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
shown that the class subject to the final 5% final withholding tax
has been unreasonably narrowed, there is no reason to invalidate
the provision.—The Court need not explore the rationale behind
the provision. It is clear that Congress intended to treat
differently taxable transactions with the government. This is
supported by the fact that under the old provision, the 5% tax
withheld by the government remains creditable against the tax
liability of the seller or contractor, to wit: SEC. 114. Return and
Payment of Value-added Tax.—(C) Withholding of Creditable
Value-added Tax.—The Government or any of its political
subdivisions, instrumentalities or agencies, including
government-owned or controlled corporations (GOCCs) shall,
before making payment on account of each purchase of goods from
sellers and services rendered by contractors which are subject to
the value-added tax imposed in Sections 106 and 108 of this Code,
deduct and withhold the value-added tax due at the rate of three
percent (3%) of the gross payment for the purchase of goods and
six percent (6%) on gross receipts for services rendered by
contractors on every sale or installment payment which shall be
creditable against the value-added tax liability of the seller
or contractor: Provided, however, That in the case of government
public works
33
34
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 20/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
35
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 21/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
threshold margin. The VAT rate of 0% or 10% (or 12%) does not
apply to sales of goods or services with gross annual sales or
receipts not exceeding P1,500,000.00. Also, basic marine and
agricultural food products in their original state are still not
subject to the tax, thus ensuring that prices at the grassroots level
will remain accessible. As was stated in Kapatiran ng mga
Naglilingkod sa Pamahalaan ng Pilipinas, Inc. vs. Tan: The
disputed sales tax is also equitable. It is imposed only on sales of
goods or services by persons engaged in business with an
aggregate gross annual sales exceeding P200,000.00. Small corner
sari-sari stores are consequently exempt from its application.
Likewise exempt from the tax are sales of farm and marine
products, so that the costs of basic food and other necessities,
spared as they are from the incidence of the VAT, are expected to
be relatively lower and within the reach of the general public.
Same; Same; Progressive Taxation; Progressive taxation is
built on the principle of the taxpayer’s ability to pay—taxation is
progressive when its rate goes up depending on the resources of the
person affected.—Petitioners contend that the limitation on the
creditable input tax is anything but regressive. It is the smaller
business with higher input tax-output tax ratio that will suffer
the consequences. Progressive taxation is built on the principle of
the taxpayer’s ability
36
to pay. This principle was also lifted from Adam Smith’s Canons
of Taxation, and it states: I. The subjects of every state ought to
contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as
possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in
proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the
protection of the state. Taxation is progressive when its rate goes
up depending on the resources of the person affected.
Same; Same; Same; The VAT is an antithesis of progressive
taxation—by its very nature, it is regressive; The principle of
progressive taxation has no relation with the VAT system
inasmuch as the VAT paid by the consumer or business for every
goods bought or services enjoyed is the same regardless of income.
—The VAT is an antithesis of progressive taxation. By its very
nature, it is regressive. The principle of progressive taxation has
no relation with the VAT system inasmuch as the VAT paid by
the consumer or business for every goods bought or services
enjoyed is the same regardless of income. In other words, the VAT
paid eats the same portion of an income, whether big or small.
The disparity lies in the income earned by a person or profit
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 22/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
37
mation of Art. VIII, §17 (1) of the 1973 Constitution from which
the present Art. VI, §28 (1) was taken. Sales taxes are also
regressive. Resort to indirect taxes should be minimized but not
avoided entirely because it is difficult, if not impossible, to avoid
them by imposing such taxes according to the taxpayers' ability to
pay. In the case of the VAT, the law minimizes the regressive
effects of this imposition by providing for zero rating of certain
transactions (R.A. No. 7716, §3, amending §102 (b) of the NIRC),
while granting exemptions to other transactions. (R.A. No. 7716,
§4 amending §103 of the NIRC)
Same; Same; Judicial Review; The Court cannot strike down
a law as unconstitutional simply because of its yokes.—It has been
said that taxes are the lifeblood of the government. In this case, it
is just an enema, a first-aid measure to resuscitate an economy in
distress. The Court is neither blind nor is it turning a deaf ear on
the plight of the masses. But it does not have the panacea for the
malady that the law seeks to remedy. As in other cases, the Court
cannot strike down a law as unconstitutional simply because of its
yokes. Let us not be overly influenced by the plea that for every
wrong there is a remedy, and that the judiciary should stand
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 23/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
38
39
are “not immediately involved are not thereby thrown open for a judicial
determination of constitutionality.”
Same; Same; Same; Taxation; The power to adjust the tax rate given
to the President is futuristic and may or may not be exercised—the Court
is therefore beseeched to render a conjectural judgment based on
hypothetical facts.—It is manifest that the constitutional challenge to
sections 4 to 6 of R.A. No. 9337 cannot hurdle the requirement of
ripeness. These sections give the President the power to raise the VAT rate
to 12% on January 1, 2006 upon satisfaction of certain fact-based
conditions. We are not endowed with the infallible gift of prophesy to
know whether these conditions are certain to happen. The power to
adjust the tax rate given to the President is futuristic and may or may
not be exercised. The Court is therefore beseeched to render a conjectural
judgment based on hypothetical facts. Such a supplication has to be
rejected.
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 25/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
40
“third” chamber of Congress. Under the clear rules of both the Senate
and House, its power can go no further than settling differences in their
bills or joint resolutions. Sections 88 and 89, Rule XIV of the Rules of the
House of Representatives provide as follows: * * * Under both rules, it is
obvious that a Bicameral Conference Committee is a mere agent of the
House or the Senate with limited powers. The House contingent in the
Committee cannot, on its own, settle differences which are substantial in
character. If it is confronted with substantial differences, it has to go back
to the chamber that created it “for the latter’s appropriate action.” In
other words, it must take the proper instructions from the chambers that
created it. It cannot exercise its unbridled discretion. Where there is no
difference between the bills, it cannot make any change. Where the
difference is substantial, it has to return to the chamber of its origin and
ask for appropriate instructions. It ought to be indubitable that it cannot
create a new law, i.e., that which has never been discussed in either
chamber of Congress. Its parameters of power are not porous, for they are
hedged by the clear limitation that its only power is to settle differences
in bills and joint resolutions of the two chambers of Congress.
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 26/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
did not inject any idea or intent that is wholly foreign to the subject
embraced by the original provisions.” Same; Same; Germaneness Rule; It
is high time to re-examine the test of germaneness proffered in Tolentino v.
Secretary of Finance, 235 SCRA 630 (1994)—the test of germaneness is
overly broad and is the fountainhead of mischief for it allows the
Bicameral Conference Committee to change provisions in the bills of the
House and the
41
Senate when they are not even in disagreement; The Constitution did not
establish a Bicameral Conference Committee that can act as a “third
house” of Congress with super veto power over bills passed by the Senate
and the House.—The majority further defends the constitutionality of the
above provisions by holding that “all the changes or modifications were
germane to subjects of the provisions referred to it for reconciliation.”
With due respect, it is high time to re-examine the test of germaneness
proffered in Tolentino. The test of germaneness is overly broad and is the
fountainhead of mischief for it allows the Bicameral Conference
Committee to change provisions in the bills of the House and the Senate
when they are not even in disagreement. Worse still, it enables the
Committee to introduce amendments which are entirely new and have
not previously passed through the coils of scrutiny of the members of
both houses. The Constitution did not establish a Bicameral Conference
Committee that can act as a “third house” of Congress with super veto
power over bills passed by the Senate and the House. We cannot concede
that super veto power without wrecking the delicate architecture of
legislative power so carefully laid down in our Constitution. The clear
intent of our fundamental law is to install a lawmaking structure
composed only of two houses whose members would thoroughly debate
proposed legislations in representation of the will of their respective
constituents. The institution of this lawmaking structure is unmistakable
from the following provisions: (1) requiring that legislative power shall be
vested in a bicameral legislature; (2) providing for quorum requirements;
(3) requiring that appropriation, revenue or tariff bills, bills authorizing
increase of public debt, bills of local application, and private bills
originate exclusively in the House of Representatives; (4) requiring that
bills embrace one subject expressed in the title thereof; and (5)
mandating that bills undergo three readings on separate days in each
House prior to passage into law and prohibiting amendments on the last
reading thereof. A Bicameral Conference Committee with untrammeled
powers will destroy this lawmaking structure. At the very least, it will
diminish the free and open debate of proposed legislations and facilitate
the smuggling of what purports to be laws.
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 27/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
42
43
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 28/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
44
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 29/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
alter ego of Congress, but of the President.—I concur with the ponencia in
that there was no undue delegation of legislative power in the increase
from 10 percent to 12 percent of the VAT rate. I respectfully disagree,
however, with the statements therein that, first, the secretary of finance
is “acting as the agent of the legislative department” or an “agent of
Congress” in determining and declaring the event upon which its
expressed will is to take effect; and, second, that the secretary’s
personality “is in reality but a projection of that of Con-gress.” The
secretary of finance is not an alter ego of Congress, but of the President.
The mandate given by RA 9337 to the secretary is not equipollent to an
authority to make laws. In passing this law, Congress did not restrict or
curtail the constitutional power of the President to retain control and
supervision over the entire Executive Department. The law should be
construed to be merely asking the President, with a recommendation
from the President’s alter ego in finance matters, to determine the
factual bases for making the increase in VAT rate operative. Indeed, as I
have mentioned earlier, the fact-finding condition is a mere
administrative, not legislative, function.
45
Same; Same; Same; Same; In the exercise of its inherent power to tax,
the State validly interferes with the right to property of persons, natural or
artificial; The reduction of tax credits is a question of economic policy, not
of legal perlustration.—Petitioners have not been denied due process or,
as I have illustrated earlier, equal protection. In the exercise of its
inherent power to tax, the State validly interferes with the right to
property of persons, natural or artificial. Those similarly situated are
affected in the same way and treated alike, “both as to privileges
conferred and liabilities enforced.” RA 9337 was enacted precisely to
achieve the objective of raising revenues to defray the necessary expenses
of government. The means that this law employs are reasonably related
to the accomplishment of such objective, and not unduly oppressive. The
reduction of tax credits is a question of economic policy, not of legal
perlustration. Its determination is vested in Congress, not in this Court.
Since the purpose of the law is to raise revenues, it cannot be denied that
the means employed is reasonably related to the achievement of that
purpose. Moreover, the proper congressional procedure for its enactment
was followed; neither public notice nor public hearings were denied.
46
Same; Same; Unlike the laws of physical science, the VAT system can
always be modified to suit modern fiscal demands.—It is contended that
the VAT should be proportional in nature. I submit that this
proportionality pertains to the rate imposable, not the credit allowable.
Private enterprises are subjected to a proportional VAT rate, but VAT
credits need not be. The VAT is, after all, a human concept that is neither
immutable nor invariable. In fact, it has changed after it was adopted as
a system of indirect taxation by other countries. Again unlike the laws of
physical science, the VAT system can always be modified to suit modern
fiscal demands. The State, through the Legislative Department, may
even choose to do away with it and revert to our previous system of
turnover taxes, sales taxes and compensating taxes, in which credits may
be disallowed altogether.
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 31/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
47
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 32/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
48
a bill becomes a law, it must pass three readings. Hence, the ponencia’s
submission that despite its limited authority, the Bicameral Conference
Committee could “compromise the disagreeing provisions” by substituting
it with its own version—clearly violate the three-reading requirement, as
the committee’s version would no longer undergo the same since it would
be immediately put into vote by the respective houses. In effect, it is not a
bill that was passed by the entire Congress but by the members of the ad
hoc committee only, which of course is constitutionally infirm. I disagree
that the no-amendment rule referred only to “the procedure to be
followed by each house of Congress with regard to bills initiated in each
of said respective houses” because it would relegate the no-amendment
rule to a mere rule of procedure. To my mind, the no-amendment rule
should be construed as prohibiting the Bicameral Conference Committee
from introducing amendments and modifications to non-disagreeing
provisions of the House and Senate bills. In sum, the committee could
only either adopt the version of the House bill or the Senate bill, or adopt
neither. As Justice Reynato S. Puno said in his Dissenting Opinion in
Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance, there is absolutely no legal warrant for
the bold submission that a Bicameral Conference Committee possesses
the power to add/delete provisions in bills already approved on third
reading by both Houses or an ex post veto power.
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 33/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
49
bearing and the benefits they need.” Also, this set-up provides security
against the abuse of power. As Chief Justice Marshall said: “In imposing
a tax, the legislature acts upon its constituents. The power may be
abused; but the interest, wisdom, and justice of the representative body,
and its relations with its constituents, furnish a sufficient security.”
Consequently, Section 24, Article VI of our Constitution enshrined the
principle of “no taxation without representation” by providing that “all . . .
revenue bills . . . shall originate exclusively in the House of
Representatives, but the Senate may propose or concur with
amendments.” This provision generally confines the power of taxation to
the Legislature.
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 34/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
remain; and by the constitutional agency alone the laws must be made
until the Constitution itself is changed. The power to whose judgment,
wisdom, and patriotism this high prerogative has been entrusted cannot
relieve itself of the responsibility by choosing other agencies upon which
the power shall be devolved, nor can it substitute the judgment, wisdom,
and patriotism of any other body for those to which alone the people have
seen fit to confide this sovereign trust.”
50
ers of the Constitution is to permit the delegation of the power to fix tax
rates or VAT rates to the President, such could have been easily achieved
by the mere inclusion of the term “tax rates” or “VAT rates” in the
enumeration. It is a dictum in statutory construction that what is
expressed puts an end to what is implied. Expressium facit cessare
tacitum. This is a derivative of the more familiar maxim express mention
is implied exclusion or expressio unius est exclusio alterius.
Considering that Section 28 (2), Article VI expressly speaks only of “tariff
rates, import and export quotas, tonnage and wharfage dues and other
duties and imposts,” by no stretch of imagination can this enumeration
be extended to include the VAT.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Control Power; The two conditions
set forth by law would have been sufficient had it not been for the fact that
the President, being at the helm of the entire officialdom, has more than
enough power of control to bring about the existence of such conditions—
that the President’s exercise of an authority is practically within her
control is tantamount to giving no conditions at all.—At first glance, the
two conditions may appear to be definite standards sufficient to guide the
President. However, to my mind, they are ineffectual and malleable as
they give the President ample opportunity to exercise her authority in
arbitrary and discretionary fashion. The two conditions set forth by law
would have been sufficient had it not been for the fact that the President,
being at the helm of the entire officialdom, has more than enough power
of control to bring about the existence of such conditions. Obviously, R.A.
No. 9337 allows the President to determine for herself whether the VAT
rate shall be increased or not at all. The fulfillment of the conditions is
entirely placed in her hands. If she wishes to increase the VAT rate, all
she has to do is to strictly enforce the VAT collection so as to exceed the 2
4/5% ceiling. The same holds true with the national government deficit.
She will just limit government expenses so as not to exceed the 1 1/2%
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 35/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
ceiling. On the other hand, if she does not wish to increase the VAT rate,
she may discourage the Secretary of Finance from making the
recommendation. That the President’s exercise of an authority is
practically within her control is tantamount to giving no conditions at all.
I believe this amounts to a virtual surrender of legislative power to her.
It must be stressed that the validity of a law is not tested by what has
been done but by what may be done under its provisions.
51
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 36/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
52
begin or start solely and only in the House. Not the Senate. Not both
Chambers of Congress. But there is more to it than that. It also means
that “an act for taxation must pass the House first.” It is no consequence
what amendments the Senate adds. A perusal of the legislative history of
R.A. No. 9337 shows that it did not “exclusively originate” from the House
of Representatives.
Same; Same; The Senate in passing Senate Bill No. 1950, a tax
measure, merely took into account House Bills No. 3555 and 3705, but did
not concur with or amend either or both bills.—Senate Bill No. 1950 is not
based on any bill passed by the House of Representatives. It has a
legislative identity and existence separate and apart from House Bills
No. 3555 and 3705. Instead of concurring or proposing amendments,
Senate Bill No. 1950 merely “takes into consideration” the two House
Bills. To take into consideration means “to take into account.”
Consideration, in this sense, means “deliberation, attention, observation
or contemplation. Simply put, the Senate in passing Senate Bill No. 1950,
a tax measure, merely took into account House Bills No. 3555 and 3705,
but did not concur with or amend either or both bills. As a matter of fact,
it did not even take these two House Bills as a frame of reference. In
Tolentino, the majority subscribed to the view that Senate may amend
the House revenue bill by substitution or by presenting its own version of
the bill. In either case, the result is “two bills on the same subject.” This is
the source of the “germaneness” rule which states that the Senate bill
must be germane to the bill originally passed by the House of
Representatives. In Tolentino, this was not really an issue as both the
House and Senate Bills in question had one subject—the VAT.
53
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 37/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
that the Senate could not, without violating the germaneness rule and
the principle of “exclusive origination,” propose tax matters not included
in the House Bills.
54
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 38/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
ture to guard against the consequences of its own future passions, myopia,
or herd behavior.—It is well to recall the rationale for the “no-
amendment rule” and the “three-reading rule” in Article VI, Section 26(2)
of the Constitution. The proscription on amendments upon the last
reading is intended to subject all bills and their amendments to intensive
deliberation by the legislators and the ample ventilation of issues to
afford the public an opportunity to express their opinions or objections
thereon. Analogously, it is said that the “three-reading rule” operates “as
a self-binding mechanism that allows the legislature to guard against the
consequences of its own future passions, myopia, or herd behavior. By
requiring that bills be read and debated on successive days, legislature
may anticipate and forestall future occasions on which it will be seized by
deliberative pathologies.” As Jeremy Bentham, a noted political analyst,
put it: “[t]he more susceptible a people are of excitement and being led
astray, so much the more ought they to place themselves under the
protection of forms which impose the necessity of reflection, and prevent
surprises.”
55
and certain to occur, effective January 1, 2006. All that the President will
do is state which of the two conditions occurred and thereupon
implement the rate increase.
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 39/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
56
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 40/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
Court sits,” and we should very well live up to this expectation not only of
the revered Holmes, but of the Filipino people who rely on this Court as
the guardian of their rights. At stake is the right to exist and subsist
despite taxes, which is encompassed in the due process clause.
57
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 41/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
the members of the Court who prepared to strike down provisions of the
law applying germaneness nonetheless accept the basic premise that
such test is controlling. I agree that any amendment made by the
Bicameral Conference Committee that is not germane to the subject
matter of the House or Senate Bills is not valid. It is the only valid
ground by which an amendment introduced by the Bicameral Conference
Committee may be judicially stricken.
58
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 42/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
such amendments are germane to the purpose of the House and Senate
Bills. Moreover, it would be myopic to consider that the subject matter of
the House Bill is solely the VAT system, rather than the generation of
revenue. The majority has sufficiently demonstrated that the legislative
intent behind the bills that led to the E-VAT Law was the generation of
revenue to counter the country’s dire fiscal situation. The mere fact that
the law is popularly known as the E-VAT Law, or that most of its
provisions pertain to the VAT, or indirect taxes, does not mean that any
and all amendments which are introduced by the Bicameral Conference
Committee must pertain to the VAT system.
59
Same; Same; Same; The deletion of the two disparate “no pass on”
provisions which were approved by the House in one instance, and only by
the Senate in the other, remains in the sphere of compromise that
ultimately guides the approval of the final version.—I also offer this brief
comment regarding the deletion of the so-called “no pass on” provisions,
which several of my colleagues deem unconstitutional. Both the House
and Senate Bills contained these provisions that would prohibit the
seller/producer from passing on the cost of the VAT payments to the
consumers. However, an examination of the said bills reveal that the “no
pass on” provisions in the House Bill affects a different subject of
taxation from that of the Senate Bill. In the House Bill No. 3705, the
taxpayers who are prohibited from passing on the VAT payments are the
sellers of petroleum products and electricity/power generation companies.
In Senate Bill No. 1950, no prohibition was adopted as to sellers of
petroleum products, but enjoined therein are electricity/power generation
companies but also transmission and distribution companies. I consider
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 43/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
such deletions as valid, for the same reason that I deem the amendments
valid. The deletion of the two disparate “no pass on” provisions which
were approved by the House in one instance, and only by the Senate in
the other, remains in the sphere of compromise that ultimately guides
the approval of the final version. Again, I point out that even while the
two provisions may have been originally approved by the House and
Senate respectively, their subsequent deletion by the Bicameral
Conference Committee is still subject to approval by both chambers of
Congress when the final version is submitted for deliberation and voting.
60
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 44/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
61
62
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 45/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
Same; Same; Same; Clear and Present Danger Doctrine; One of the
most significant legal principles of the last century, the “clear and present
danger” doctrine in free speech cases, in fact emanates from the
prospectivity, and not the actuality of danger.—The Court has long
responded to strike down prospective actions, even if the injury has not
yet even occurred. One of the most significant legal principles of the last
century, the “clear and present danger” doctrine in free speech cases, in
fact emanates from the prospectivity, and not the actuality of danger. The
Court has not been hesitant to nullify acts which might cause injury,
owing to the presence of a clear and present danger of a substantive evil
which the State has the right to prevent. It has even extended the “clear
and present danger rule” beyond the confines of freedom of expression to
the realm of freedom
63
Same; Same; Same; Same; If our society can take cold comfort in the
ability of the legislature to amend its enactments as the defense against
unconstitutional laws, what remains then as the function of judicial
review? The long-standing tradition has been reliance on the judicial
branch, and not the legislative branch, for salvation from unconstitutional
laws.—It is also asserted that if the implementation of the 70% cap
imposes an unequal effect on different types of businesses with varying
profit margins and capital requirements, then the remedy would be an
amendment of the law. Of course, the remedy of legislative amendment
applies to even the most unconstitutional of laws. But if our society can
take cold comfort in the ability of the legislature to amend its enactments
as the defense against unconstitutional laws, what remains then as the
function of judicial review? This legislative capacity to amend
unconstitutional laws runs concurrently with the judicial capacity to
strike down unconstitutional laws. In fact, the long-standing tradition
has been reliance on the judicial branch, and not the legislative branch,
for salvation from unconstitutional laws.
64
the final transaction involving the end user, but on previous stages as
well so long as there was a sale involved. Thus, VAT does not simply
pertain to the extra percentage paid by the buyer of a fast-food meal, but
also that paid by restaurant itself to its suppliers of raw food products.
This multi-stage system is more acclimated to the vagaries of the modern
industrial climate, which has long surpassed the stage when there was
only one level of transfer between the farmer who harvests the crop and
the person who eats the crop. Indeed, from the extraction or production of
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 47/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
65
automatic badge of poor business skills, but a reality dictated by the laws
of the marketplace. The probability of profit is lower than that of capital
expenditures, and ultimately, many business establishments end up with
a higher input tax than output tax in a given quarter. This would be
especially true for small to medium enterprises who do not reap sufficient
profits from its business in the first place, and for those firms that opt to
also invest in capital expenses in addition to the overhead. Whatever
miniscule profit margins that can be obtained usually spell the difference
between life and death of the business. The possibility of profit is further
diminished by the fact that businesses have to shoulder the input VAT in
the purchase of their capital expenses. Yet the erstwhile VAT system was
not tainted by the label of oppressiveness and neither did it bear the
confiscatory mode. This was because of the immediate relief afforded from
the input taxes paid by the crediting system. In theory, VAT is not
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 48/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
Same; Same; The majority fails to consider one of the most important
concepts in finance, time value for money—the longer the amount remains
unutilized, the higher the degree of its depreciation in value, in
accordance with the concept of time value of money.—The majority fails to
consider one of the most important concepts in finance, time value for
money. Simply put, the value of one peso is worth more today than in
2006. Money that you hold today is worth more because you can invest it
and earn interest. By reason of the 70% cap, the amount of input VAT
credit that remains unutilized would continue accumulate for months
and years. The longer the amount remains unutilized, the higher the
degree of its depreciation in value, in accordance with the concept of time
value of money. Even assuming that the business eventually recovers the
input VAT credit, the sum recovered would have decreased in practical
value.
Same; Same; The raison d’etre of this 70% cap is to make it appear on
paper that the government is more solvent than it actually is; If the 70%
cap was designed in order to enhance revenue collection, then I submit
that the means employed stand beyond reason.—It would be sad, but fair,
if a business ceases because of its inability to
66
Same; Same; The effect of the 70% cap is to effectively impose a tax
amounting to 3% of gross revenue.—Only stable businesses with
substantial cash flows, or extraordinarily successful enterprises will be
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 49/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
able to remain in operation should the 70% cap be retained. The effect of
the 70% cap is to effectively impose a tax amounting to 3% of gross
revenue. The amount may seem insignificant to those without working
knowledge of the ways of business, but anybody who is actually familiar
with business would be well aware the profit margins of the retailing and
distribution sectors typically amount to less than 1% of the gross
revenues. A taxpayer has to earn a margin of at least 3% on gross
revenue in order to recoup the losses sustained due to the 70% cap. But
as stated earlier, profits are chancy, and the entrepreneur does not have
full control of the conditions that lead to profit.
67
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 50/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
68
government’s debts. I do see that the 70% cap temporarily allows the
government to brag to the world of an increased cash flow. But this
situation would be akin to the provincial man who borrows from
everybody in the barrio
69
Same; Same; What the majority fails to mention is that under Section
10 of the E-VAT Law, which amends Section 112 of the NIRC, the tax
credit or refund may not be done while the enterprise remains operational.
—Nonetheless, the majority notes that the excess creditable input tax
may be the subject of a tax credit certificate, which then could be used in
payment of internal revenue taxes, or a refund to the extent that such
input taxes have not been applied against output taxes. What the
majority fails to mention is that under Section 10 of the E-VAT Law,
which amends Section 112 of the NIRC, such credit or refund may not be
done while the enterprise remains operational.
70
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 52/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
Same; Same; Due Process; Assets would fall under the purview of
property under the due process clause, and if the taxing arm of the State
recognizes that such property belongs to the taxpayer and not to the State,
then due respect should be given to such expert opinion.— The BIR itself
has recognized that unutilized input VAT is one of those assets, corporate
attributes or property rights that, in the event of a merger, are
transferred to the surviving corporation by operation of law. Assets would
fall under the purview of property under the due process clause, and if
the taxing arm of the State recognizes that such property belongs to the
taxpayer and not to the State, then due respect should be given to such
expert opinion. Even under the International Accounting Standards I
adverted to above, the unutilized input VAT credit may be recognized as
an asset “to the extent that it is probable that future taxable profit will
be available against which the unused tax losses and unused tax credits
can be utilised” If not probable, it would be recognized as a loss. Since
these international standards, duly recognized by the Securities and
Exchange Commission as controlling in this jurisdiction, attribute
tangible gain or loss to the VAT credit, it necessarily follows that there is
proprietary value attached to such gain or loss.
Same; Same; Same; To assert that the input VAT is merely a privilege
is to correspondingly claim that the business profit is similarly a mere
privilege.—The prepaid input tax represents unutilized profit, which can
only be utilized if it is refunded or credited to output taxes. To assert that
the input VAT is merely a privilege is to correspondingly claim that the
business profit is similarly a mere privilege. The Constitution itself
recognizes the right to profit by private enterprises. As I stated earlier,
one of the enunciated State policies under the Constitution is the
recognition of the indispensable role of the private sector, the
encouragement of private enterprise, and the provision of incentives to
needed investments. Moreover, the Constitution also requires the State to
recognize the right of
71
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 53/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
Same; Same; For some lucky enterprises who may be able to survive
the injury brought about by the 70% cap, this 60 month amortization
period might instead provide the mortal head wound.—Even existing
small to medium enterprises are imperiled by this 60 month amortization
restriction, especially considering the application of the 70% cap. The
additional purchase of capital goods bears as a means of adding value to
the consumer good, as a means to justify the increased selling price.
However, the purchase of capital goods in excess of P1,000,000.00 would
impose another burden on the small to medium enterprise by further
restricting their ability to immediately recover the entire prepaid input
VAT (which would exceed at least
72
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 54/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
73
bound to adopt with strict conformity the VAT system, and that it has to
power to impose new taxes on business income, this amendment to
Section 114(C) of the NIRC still remains unconstitutional. It unfairly
discriminates against entities which contract with the government by
imposing an additional tax on the income derived from such transactions.
The end result of such discrimination is double taxation on income that is
both oppressive and confiscatory. It is a legitimate purpose of a tax law to
devise a manner by which the government could save money on its own
transactions, but it is another matter if a private enterprise is punished
for doing business with the government. The erstwhile NIRC worked
towards such advantage, by allowing the government to reduce its cash
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 55/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
74
same thing or activity twice, when it should be taxed but once, for the
same purpose and with the same kind of character of tax. Double
taxation is not expressly forbidden in our constitution, but the Court has
recognized it as obnoxious “where the taxpayer is taxed twice for the
benefit of the same governmental entity or by the same jurisdiction for
the same purpose.” Certainly, both the 5% final tax withheld and the
general corporate income tax are both paid for the benefit of the national
government, and for the same incidence of taxation, the sale/lease of
goods and services to the government.
Same; Same; Intelligent tax policy should extend beyond the singular-
minded goal of raising State funds—the old-time philosophy behind the
taxing schemes of war-mongering monarchs and totalitarian states—and
should sincerely explore the concept of taxation as a means of providing
genuine incentives to private enterprise to spur economic growth, of
promoting egalitarian social justice that would allow everyone to their fair
share of the nation’s wealth.—The VAT system, in itself, is intelligently
designed, and stands as a fair means to raise revenue. It has been
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 56/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
75
Same; Same; Under the device employed in the E-VAT law, the price
to be paid for a more sustainable liquidity of the government’s finances
will be the death of local business, and correspondingly, the demise of our
society.—I am not insensitive to the concerns raised by the respondents
as to the dire consequences to the economy should the E-VAT law be
struck down. I am aware that the granting of the petition in G.R. No.
168461 will negatively affect the cash flow of the government. If that
were the only relevant concern at stake, I would have no problems
denying the petition. Unfortunately, under the device employed in the E-
VAT law, the price to be paid for a more sustainable liquidity of the
government’s finances will be the death of local business, and
correspondingly, the demise of our society. It is a measure just as
draconian as the standard issue taxes of medieval tyrants.
Same; Same; Taxes may be the lifeblood of the state, but never at the
expense of the life of its subjects.—I am not normally inclined towards the
language of the overwrought, yet if the sky were indeed truly falling, how
else could that fact be communicated. The E-VAT Law is of multiple fatal
consequences. How are we to survive as a nation without the bulwark of
private industries? Perhaps the larger scale, established businesses may
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 57/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
ultimately remain standing, but they will be unable to sustain the void
left by the demise of small to medium enterprises. Or worse, domestic
industry would be left in the absolute control of monopolies, combines or
cartels, whether dominated by foreigners or local oligarchs. The
destruction of subsisting industries would be bad enough, the destruction
of opportunity and the entrepreneurial spirit would be even more
grievous and tragic, as it would mark as well the end of hope. Taxes may
be the lifeblood of the state, but never at the expense of the life of its
subjects.
76
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 58/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
77
Taxation; Germaneness Rule; If we have one Code for all our national
internal revenue taxes, then there is no reason why we cannot have a
single statute amending provisions thereof even if they involve different
taxes under separate titles.—Although House Bills No. 3555 and 3705
were limited to the amendments of the provisions on VAT of the National
Internal Revenue Code of 1997, Senate Bill No. 1950 had a much wider
scope and included amendments of other provisions of the said Code,
such as those on income, percentage, and excise taxes. It should be borne
in mind that the very purpose of these three Bills and, subsequently, of
Rep. Act No. 9337, was to raise additional revenues for the government to
address the dire economic situation of the country. The National Internal
Revenue Code of 1997, as its title suggests, is the single Code that
governs all our national internal revenue taxes. While it does cover
different taxes, all of them are imposed and collected by the national
government to raise revenues. If we have one Code for all our national
internal revenue taxes, then there is no reason why we cannot have a
single statute amending provisions thereof even if they involve different
taxes under separate titles. I hereby submit that the amendments
introduced by the Bicameral Conference Committee to non-VAT
provisions of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997 are not
unconstitutional for they are germane to the purpose of House Bills No.
3555 and 3705 and Senate Bill No. 1950, which is to raise national
revenues.
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 59/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
78
constitute an additional cost for him. While it is true that input VAT
credits are reported as assets in a VAT-registered person’s financial
statements and books of account, this accounting treatment is still based
on the statutory provision recognizing the input VAT as a credit. Without
Section 110 of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997, then the
accounting treatment of any input VAT will also change and may no
longer be booked outright as an asset. Since the privilege of an input VAT
credit is granted by law, then an amendment of such law may limit the
exercise of or may totally withdraw the privilege.
Same; Same; To say that Congress may not trifle with Section 110 of
the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997 would be to violate a basic
precept of constitutional law—that no law is irrepealable; There can be no
vested right to the continued existence of a statute, which precludes its
change or repeal.—The amendment of Section 110 of the National
Internal Revenue Code of 1997 by Rep. Act No. 9337, which imposed the
70% cap on input VAT credits, is a legitimate exercise by Congress of its
law-making power. To say that Congress may not trifle with Section 110
of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997 would be to violate a basic
precept of constitutional law—that no law is irrepealable. There can be
no vested right to the continued existence of a statute, which precludes
its change or repeal.
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 60/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
79
accorded to it by Rep. Act No. 9337, the petroleum dealers reject the
limitation imposed by the very same law on such use. It should be
remembered that prior to Rep. Act No. 9337, the petroleum dealers’ input
VAT credits were inexistent—they were unrecognized and disallowed by
law. The petroleum dealers had no such property called input VAT
credits. It is only rational, therefore, that they cannot acquire vested
rights to the use of such input VAT credits when they were never entitled
to such credits in the first place, at least, not until Rep. Act No. 9337. My
view, at this point, when Rep. Act No. 9337 has not yet even been
implemented, is that petroleum dealers’ right to use their input VAT as
credit against their output VAT unlimitedly has not vested, being a mere
expectancy of a future benefit and being contingent on the continuance of
Section 110 of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997, prior to its
amendment by Rep. Act No. 9337.
Same; Same; The 70% cap on input VAT credits was not imposed by
Congress arbitrarily—members of the Bicameral Conference Committee
settled on the said percentage so as to ensure that the government can
collect a minimum of 30% output VAT per taxpayer, to put a VAT-
taxpayer, at least, on equal footing with a VAT-exempt taxpayer under
Section 109(V) of the National Internal Revenue Code, as amended by
Rep. Act No. 9337.—I find that the 70% cap on input VAT credits was not
imposed by Congress arbitrarily. Members of the Bicameral Conference
Committee settled on the said percentage so as to ensure that the
government can collect a minimum of 30% output VAT per taxpayer. This
is to put a VAT-taxpayer, at least, on equal footing with a VAT-exempt
taxpayer under Section 109(V) of the National Internal Revenue Code, as
amended by Rep. Act No. 9337. The latter taxpayer is exempt from VAT
on the basis that his sale or lease of goods or properties or services do not
exceed P1,500,000; instead, he is subject to pay a three percent (3%) tax
on his gross receipts in lieu of the VAT. If a taxpayer with presumably a
smaller business is required to pay three percent (3%) gross receipts tax,
a type of tax which does not even allow for any crediting, a VAT-taxpayer
with a bigger business should be obligated, likewise, to pay a minimum of
30% output VAT (which should be equivalent to 3% of the gross selling
price per good or property or service sold). The cap assures the
government a collection of at least 30% output VAT, contributing to an
improved cash flow for the government.
80
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 61/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:
_______________
1 Entitled “An Act Amending Sections 27, 28, 34, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111,
112, 113, 114, 116, 117, 119, 121, 148, 151, 236, 237, and 288 of the National
Internal Revenue Code of 1997, As Amended and For Other Purposes.”
81
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
_______________
82
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 63/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
_______________
4 Entitled, “An Act Amending Sections 27, 28, 34, 106, 108, 109, 110,
112, 113, 114, 116, 117, 119, 121, 125, 148, 151, 236, 237 and 288 of the
National Internal Revenue Code of 1997, As Amended, and For Other
Purposes.”
5 Section 26, R.A. No. 9337.
83
84
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 65/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
85
_______________
86
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 67/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
the creditable input tax if: (1) the entity has a high ratio of
input tax; or (2) invests in capital equipment; or (3) has
several transactions with the government, is not based on
real and substantial differences to meet a valid
classification.
Lastly, petitioners contend that the 70% limit is
anything but progressive, violative of Article VI, Section
28(1) of the Constitution, and that it is the smaller
businesses with higher input tax to output tax ratio that
will suffer the consequences thereof for it wipes out
whatever meager margins the petitioners make.
_______________
89
RESPONDENTS’ COMMENT
ISSUES
PROCEDURAL ISSUE
SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 71/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
8
and services. Being an indirect tax on expenditure, the
seller of goods or services
9
may pass on the amount of tax
paid to the
10
buyer, with the seller acting merely as a tax
collector. The burden of VAT is intended to fall on the
immediate buyers and ultimately, the end-consumers.
In contrast, a direct tax is a tax for which a taxpayer is
directly liable on the transaction or business it engages in,
11
without transferring the burden to someone else.
Examples are individual and corporate12
income taxes,
transfer taxes, and residence taxes.
In the Philippines, the value-added system of sales
taxation has long been in existence, albeit in a different
mode. Prior to 1978, the system was a single-stage tax
computed under the “cost deduction method” and was
payable only by the original sellers. The single-stage
system was subsequently modified, and a mixture of the
“cost deduction method” and “tax credit method”
13
was used
to determine the value-added tax payable. Under the “tax
credit method,” an entity can credit against or subtract
from the VAT charged on its sales or14outputs the VAT paid
on its purchases, inputs and imports.
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 72/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
_______________
92
PROCEDURAL ISSUE
I.
_______________
93
Sec. 88. Conference Committee.—In the event that the House does
not agree with the Senate on the amendment to any bill or joint
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 74/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
_______________
94
Sec. 35. In the event that the Senate does not agree with the
House of Representatives on the provision of any bill or joint
resolution, the differences shall be settled by a conference
committee of both Houses which shall meet within ten (10) days
after their composition. The President shall designate the
members of the Senate Panel in the conference committee with
the approval of the Senate.
Each Conference Committee Report shall contain a detailed
and sufficiently explicit statement of the changes in, or
amendments to the subject measure, and shall be signed by a
majority of the members of each House panel, voting separately.
A comparative presentation of the conflicting House and
Senate provisions and a reconciled version thereof with the
explanatory statement of the conference committee shall be
attached to the report.
...
_______________
96
_______________
97
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 77/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
_______________
98
99
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 80/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
101
102
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 82/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
. . . the thinking was just to keep the VAT law or the VAT bill
simple. And we were thinking that no sector should be a
beneficiary of legislative grace, neither should any sector be
discriminated on. The VAT is an indirect tax. It is a pass on-tax.
And let’s keep it
_______________
103
plain and simple. Let’s not confuse the bill and put a no pass-on
provision. Two-thirds of the world have a VAT system and in this
two-thirds of the globe, I have yet to see a VAT with a no pass-
though provision. So, the thinking26
of the Senate is basically
simple, let’s keep the VAT simple. (Emphasis supplied)
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 83/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
_______________
104
“No-Amendment Rule”
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 84/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
_______________
105
Nor is there any reason for requiring that the Committee’s Report
in these cases must have undergone three readings in each of the
two houses. If that be the case, there would be no end to
negotiation since each house may seek modification of the
compromise bill . . . .
Art. VI. § 26 (2) must, therefore, be construed as
referring only to bills introduced for the first time in
either house
32
of Congress, not to the conference committee
report. (Emphasis supplied)
_______________
32 Id., p. 671.
106
Section
27 Rates of Income Tax on Domestic Corporation
28(A) Tax on Resident Foreign Corporation
(1)
28(B) Inter-corporate Dividends
(1)
34(B) Inter-corporate Dividends
(1)
116 Tax on Persons Exempt from VAT
117 Percentage Tax on domestic carriers and keepers
ofGarage
119 Tax on franchises
121 Tax on banks and Non-Bank Financial
Intermediaries
148 Excise Tax on manufactured oils and other fuels
151 Excise Tax on mineral products
236 Registration requirements
237 Issuance of receipts or sales or commercial invoices
288 Disposition of Incremental Revenue
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 87/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
108
_______________
109
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 88/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
_______________
110
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 89/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
_______________
35 Journal of the Senate, Session No. 67, March 7, 2005, pp. 727-728.
111
However, for power plants that run on oil, we will reduce to zero
the present excise tax on bunker fuel, to lessen the effect of a VAT
on this product.
For electric utilities like Meralco, we will wipe out the
franchise tax in exchange for a VAT.
And in the case of petroleum, while we will levy the VAT on oil
products, so as not to destroy the VAT chain, we will however
bring down the excise tax on socially sensitive products such as
diesel, bunker, fuel and kerosene.
...
What do all these exercises point to? These are not contortions
of giving to the left hand what was taken from the right. Rather,
these sprang from our concern of softening the impact of VAT, so
that the people can cushion the36
blow of higher prices they will
have to pay as a result of VAT.
_______________
36 Id., p. 726.
112
SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES
I.
(A) Rate and Base of Tax.—There shall be levied, assessed and collected
on every sale, barter or exchange of goods or properties, a value-added
tax equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the gross selling price or gross
value in money of the goods or properties sold, bartered or exchanged,
such tax to be paid by the seller or transferor: provided, 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.
113
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 92/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
the value-added tax shall be based on the landed cost plus excise taxes, if
any: provided, further, 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.
114
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 93/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
They argue that the VAT is a tax levied on the sale, barter
or exchange of goods and properties as well as on the sale
or exchange of services, which cannot be included within
the purview of tariffs under the exempted delegation as the
latter refers to customs duties, tolls or tribute payable upon
merchandise to the government and usually imposed on
goods or merchandise imported or exported.
Petitioners ABAKADA GURO Party List, et al., further
contend that delegating to the President the legislative
power to tax is contrary to republicanism. They insist that
accountability, responsibility and transparency should
dictate the actions of Congress and they should not pass to
the President the decision to impose taxes. They also argue
that the law
115
_______________
37 See Angara vs. Electoral Commission, No. 45081, July 15, 1936, 63
Phil. 139, 156.
116
38
delegated, cannot be delegated.” This doctrine is based on
the ethical principle that such as delegated power
constitutes not only a right but a duty to be performed by
the delegate through the instrumentality of his own
judgment 39
and not through the intervening mind of
another.
With respect to the Legislature, Section 1 of Article VI of
the Constitution provides that “the Legislative power shall
be vested in the Congress of the Philippines which shall
consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives.” The
powers which Congress is prohibited from delegating are
those which are strictly, or inherently and exclusively,
legislative. Purely legislative power, which can never be
delegated, has been described as the authority to make a
complete law—complete as to the time when it shall take
effect and as to whom it shall be applicable—and
40
to
determine the expediency of its enactment. Thus, the rule
is that in order that a court may be justified in holding a
statute unconstitutional as a delegation
_______________
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 95/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
alone the people have seen fit to confide this sovereign trust.” (Cooley on
Constitutional Limitations, 8th ed., Vol. I, p. 224)
39 United States vs. Barrias, No. 4349, September 24, 1908, 11 Phil.
327, 330.
40 16 Am Jur 2d, Constitutional Law, § 337.
117
_______________
41 Pelaez vs. Auditor General, No. L-23825, December 24, 1965, 122
Phil. 965, 974; 15 SCRA 569, 577, citing Calalang vs. Williams, No. 47800,
December 2, 1940, 70 Phil. 726; Pangasinan Transp. Co. vs. Public Service
Commission, No. 47065, June 26, 1940, 70 Phil. 221; Cruz vs. Youngberg,
No. 34674, October 26, 1931, 56 Phil. 234; Alegre vs. Collector of Customs,
No. 30783, August 27, 1929, 53 Phil. 394 et seq.
42 Pelaez vs. Auditor General, supra, citing People vs. Lim Ho, No. L-
12091-2, January 28, 1960, 106 Phil. 887; People vs. Jolliffee, No. L-9553,
May 13, 1959, 105 Phil 677; People vs. Vera, No. 45685, November 16,
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 96/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
1937, 65 Phil. 56; U.S. vs. Nag Tang Ho, No. L-17122, February 27, 1922,
43 Phil. 1; Compañia General de Tabacos vs.
118
_______________
Board of Public Utility, No. 11216, March 6, 1916, 34 Phil. 136 et seq.
43 Edu vs. Ericta, No. L-32096, October 24, 1970, 35 SCRA 481, 497.
44 Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. vs. Philippine Overseas Employment
Administration, No. L-76633, October 18, 1988, 166 SCRA 533, 543-544.
45 No. 45685, November 16, 1937, 65 Phil. 56.
119
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 97/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
_______________
120
47
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 98/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
47
In Edu vs. Ericta, the Court reiterated:
_______________
121
_______________
122
_______________
53 Province of Batangas vs. Romulo, G.R. No. 152774, May 27, 2004,
429 SCRA 736; Enriquez vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 140473, January
28, 2003, 396 SCRA 377; Codoy vs. Calugay, G.R. No. 123486, August 12,
1999, 312 SCRA 333.
54 Province of Batangas vs. Romulo, supra; Quisumbing vs. Meralco,
G.R. No. 142943, April 3, 2002, 380 SCRA 195; Agpalo, Statutory
Construction, 1990 ed., p. 45.
123
_______________
55 Villena vs. Secretary of Interior, No. 46570, April 21, 1939, 67 Phil
451, 463-464.
56 Alunan vs. Mirasol, G.R. No. 108399, July 31, 1997, 276 SCRA 501,
513-514, citing Panama Refining Co. vs. Ryan, 293 U.S. 388, 79 L.Ed. 469
(1935).
124
_______________
125
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 103/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
_______________
126
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 104/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
_______________
127
The condition set for increasing VAT rate to 12% have economic
or fiscal meaning. If VAT/GDP is less than 2.8%, it means that
government has weak or no capability of implementing the VAT
or that VAT is not effective in the function of the tax collection.
Therefore, there is no value to increase it to 12% because such
action will also be ineffectual.
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 105/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
_______________
128
First, let me explain the position that the Philippines finds itself
in right now. We are in a position where 90 percent of our revenue
is used for debt service. So, for every peso of revenue that we
currently raise, 90 goes to debt service. That’s interest plus
amortization of our debt. So clearly, this is not a sustainable
situation. That’s the first fact.
The second fact is that our debt to GDP level is way out of line
compared to other peer countries that borrow money from that
international financial markets. Our debt to GDP is
approximately equal to our GDP. Again, that shows you that this
is not a sustainable situation.
The third thing that I’d like to point out is the environment
that we are presently operating in is not as benign as what it used
to be the past five years.
What do I mean by that?
In the past five years, we’ve been lucky because we were
operating in a period of basically global growth and low interest
rates. The past few months, we have seen an inching up, in fact, a
rapid increase in the interest rates in the leading economies of the
world. And, therefore, our ability to borrow at reasonable prices is
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 106/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
_______________
129
When the President made her speech in July last year, the
environment was not as bad as it is now, at least based on the
forecast of most financial institutions. So, we were assuming that
raising 80 billion would put us in a position where we can then
convince them to improve our ability to borrow at lower rates. But
conditions have changed on us because the interest rates have
gone up. In fact, just within this room, we tried to access the
market for a billion dollars because for this year alone, the
Philippines will have to borrow 4 billion dollars. Of that amount,
we have borrowed 1.5 billion. We issued last January a 25-year
bond at 9.7 percent cost. We were trying to access last week and
the market was not as favorable and up to now we have not
accessed and we might pull back because the conditions are not
very good.
So given this situation, we at the Department of Finance
believe that we really need to front-end our deficit reduction.
Because it is deficit that is causing the increase of the debt and
we are in what we call a debt spiral. The more debt you have, the
more deficit you have because interest and debt service eats and
eats more of your revenue. We need to get out of this debt spiral.
And the only way, I think, we can get out of this debt 65
spiral is
really have a front-end adjustment in our revenue base.
_______________
130
In the same vein, the Court in this case will not dawdle on
the purpose of Congress or the executive policy, given that
it is not for the judiciary to “pass upon
67
questions of wisdom,
justice or expediency of legislation.”
II.
_______________
66 G.R. No. 147387, December 10, 2003, 417 SCRA 503, 524.
67 National Housing Authority vs. Reyes, G.R. No. L-49439, June 29,
1983, 123 SCRA 245, 249.
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 108/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
131
_______________
68 Sison vs. Ancheta, G.R. No. L-59431, July 25, 1984, 130 SCRA 654,
661.
132
133
Second, when the output taxes exceed the input taxes, the
person shall be liable for the excess, which
69
has to be paid to
the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR); and
Third, if the input taxes exceed the output taxes, the
excess shall be carried over to the succeeding quarter or
quarters. Should the input taxes result from zero-rated or
effectively zero-rated transactions, any excess over the
output taxes shall instead be refunded to the taxpayer or
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 110/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
_______________
134
_______________
72 United Paracale Mining Co. vs. Dela Rosa, G.R. Nos. 63786-87, April 7, 1993,
221 SCRA 108, 115.
73 E.O. No. 273, Section 1.
74 Section 5.
75 Section 110(B).
135
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 112/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
_______________
76 Journal of the Senate, Session No. 71, March 15, 2005, p. 803.
77 Id., Session No. 67, March 7, 2005, p. 726.
78 Id., Session No. 71, March 15, 2005, p. 803.
136
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 113/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
137
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 114/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
_______________
138
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 115/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
139
_______________
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 116/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
140
clear showing 84
of unreasonableness, discrimination, or
arbitrariness.
Petitioners point out that the limitation on the
creditable input tax if the entity has a high ratio of input
tax, or invests in capital equipment, or has several
transactions with the government, is not based on real and
substantial differences to meet a valid classification.
The argument is pedantic, if not outright baseless. The
law does not make any classification in 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. Petitioners’ alleged distinctions are based on
variables that bear different consequences. While the
implementation of the law may yield varying end results
depending on one’s profit margin and value-added, the
Court cannot go beyond what the legislature has laid down
and interfere with the affairs of business.
The equal protection clause does not require the
universal application of the laws on all persons or things
without distinction. This might in fact sometimes result in
unequal protection. What the clause requires is equality
among equals as determined according to a valid
classification. By classification is meant the grouping of
persons or things similar to each other in certain
particulars 85and different from all others in these same
particulars.
Petitioners brought to the Court’s attention the
introduction of Senate Bill No. 2038 by Sens. S.R. Osmeña
III and Ma. Ana Consuelo A.S. Madrigal on June 6, 2005,
and House Bill No. 4493 by Rep. Eric D. Singson. The
proposed legislation seeks to amend the 70% limitation by
increasing the same to 90%. This, according to petitioners,
supports their stance that the 70% limitation is arbitrary
and confiscatory. On this
_______________
141
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 117/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
_______________
142
_______________
143
92
gas were reduced.
93
Percentage tax on domestic carriers
was removed. Power 94
producers are now exempt from
paying franchise tax.
Aside from these, Congress also increased the income
tax rates of corporations, in order to distribute the burden
of taxation. Domestic, foreign, and non-resident
corporations are now subject
95
to a 35% income tax rate,
from a previous 32%. Intercorporate dividends of non-
resident foreign corporations are still subject to 15% final
withholding tax but the tax credit allowed on 96
the
corporation’s domicile was increased to 20%. The
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 119/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
C. Progressivity of Taxation
_______________
144
_______________
98 Reyes vs. Almanzor, G.R. Nos. 49839-46, April 26, 1991, 196 SCRA 322, 327.
145
the oldest form of indirect taxes, would have been prohibited with
the proclamation of Art. VIII, §17 (1) of the 1973 Constitution
from which the present Art. VI, §28 (1) was taken. Sales taxes are
also regressive.
Resort to indirect taxes should be minimized but not avoided
entirely because it is difficult, if not impossible, to avoid them by
imposing such taxes according to the taxpayers’ ability to pay. In
the case of the VAT, the law minimizes the regressive effects of
this imposition by providing for zero rating of certain transactions
(R.A. No. 7716, §3, amending §102 (b) of the NIRC), while
granting exemptions to other 99
transactions. (R.A. No. 7716, §4
amending §103 of the NIRC)”
CONCLUSION
Let us not be overly influenced by the plea that for every wrong
there is a remedy, and that the judiciary should stand ready to
afford relief. There are undoubtedly many wrongs the judicature
may not correct, for instance, those involving political questions. .
..
Let us likewise disabuse our minds from the notion that the
judiciary is the repository of remedies for all political or social ills;
We should not forget that the Constitution has judiciously
allocated the powers of government to three distinct and separate
compartments; and that judicial interpretation has tended to the
preservation of the independence of the three, and a zealous
regard of the prerogatives of each, knowing full well that one is
not the guardian
_______________
99 Tolentino vs. Secretary of Finance, G.R. No. 115455, October 30, 1995, 249
SCRA 628, 659.
146
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 122/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
_______________
100 Vera vs. Avelino, G.R. No. L-543, August 31, 1946, 77 Phil. 365.
101 Ibid.
147
SEPARATE CONCURRING
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 123/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
_______________
148
_______________
149
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 124/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
150
3
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 125/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
3
In Philippine Judges Association v. Prado, the Court
described the function of a conference committee in this
wise: “A conference committee may deal generally with the
subject matter or it may be limited to resolving the precise
differences between the two houses. Even where the
conference committee is not by rule limited in its
jurisdiction, legislative custom severely limits the freedom
with which new subject matter can be inserted into the
conference bill.”
The limitation on the power of a conference committee to
insert new provisions 4
was laid down in Tolentino v.
Secretary of Finance. There, the Court, while recognizing
the power of a conference committee to include in its report
an entirely new provision that is not found either in the
House bill or in the Senate bill, held that the exercise of
that power is subject to the condition that the said
provision is “germane to the subject of the House and Senate
bills.”
As pointed out by the petitioners, Tolentino differs from
the present cases in the sense that in that case the
amendments introduced in the Senate bill were on the
same subject matter treated in the House bill, which was
VAT, and the new provision inserted by the conference
committee had relation to that subject matter. Specifically,
HB No. 11197 called for the (1) amendment of Sections 99,
100, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 110, 112, 115, 116,
236, 237, and 238 of the NIRC, as amended; and (2) repeal
of Sections 113 and 114 of the NIRC, as amended. SB No.
1630, on the other hand, proposed the (1) amendment of
Sections 99, 100, 102, 103, 104, 105, 107, 108, 110, 112,
236, 237, and 238 of the NIRC, as amended; and (2) repeal
of Sections 113, 114, and 116 of the NIRC, as amended. In
short, all the provisions sought to be changed in the Senate
bill were covered in the House bill. Although the new
provisions inserted by the conference committee were not
found in
_______________
3 G.R. No. 105371, 11 November 1993, 27 SCRA 703, 708, citing Davies,
Legislative Law and Process: In a Nutshell 81 (1986 ed.)
4 Supra note 1.
151
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 126/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
152
PUNO, J.:
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 127/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
_______________
153
_______________
3 Id., at p. 87.
4 Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136 (1967); I Tribe,
American Constitutional Law, p. 334 (3rd ed.).
5 Texas v. United States, 523 U.S. 296 (1998); Thomas v. Union Carbide
Agricultural Products Co., 473 U.S. 568 (1985); I Tribe, American
Constitutional Law, pp. 335-336 (3rd ed.).
6 Communist Party of the United States v. Subversive Activities Control
Bd., 367 U.S. 1, 71 (1961); I Tribe, American Constitutional Law, p. 336
(3rd ed.); See also concurring opinion of Justice Brandeis in Ashwander v.
Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U.S. 288 (1936).
154
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 129/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
In the event that the Senate does not agree with the House of
Representatives on the provision of any bill or joint resolution, the
differences shall be settled by a conference committee of both Houses which
shall meet within ten days after their composition.
Each Conference Committee Report shall contain a detailed and
sufficiently explicit statement of the changes in or amendments to the
subject measure, and shall be signed by the conferees. (Emphasis
supplied)
In the event that the House does not agree with the Senate on the
amendments to any bill or joint resolution, the differences may be settled
by a conference committee of both chambers.
_______________
155
156
157
the people that they can legitimately pass laws. Laws that are not
enacted by the people’s rightful representatives subvert the
people’s sovereignty. Bicameral Conference Committees, with
their ad hoc character and limited membership, cannot pass laws
for they do not represent the people. The Constitution does not
allow the tyranny of the majority. Yet, the respondents will
impose the worst kind of tyranny—the tyranny of the minority
over the majority. Secondly, the Constitution delineated in deft
strokes the steps to be followed in making laws. The overriding
purpose of these procedural rules is to assure that only bills that
successfully survive the searching scrutiny of the proper
committees of Congress and the full and unfettered deliberations
of both Houses can become laws. For this reason, a bill has to
undergo three (3) mandatory separate readings in each House. In
the case at bench, the additions and deletions made by the
Bicameral Conference Committee did not enjoy the enlightened
studies of appropriate committees. It is meet to note that the
complexities of modern day legislations have made our committee
system a significant part of the legislative process. Thomas Reed
called the committee system as “the eye, the ear, the hand, and
very often the brain of the house.” President Woodrow Wilson of
the United States once referred to the government of the United
States as “a government by the Chairmen of the Standing
Committees of Congress …”” Neither did these additions and
deletions of the Bicameral Conference Committee pass through
the coils of collective deliberation of the members of the two
Houses acting separately. Due to this short-circuiting of the
constitutional procedure of making laws, confusion shrouds the
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 132/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
158
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 133/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
Their power lies chiefly in the fact that reports of conference committees
must be accepted without amendment or else rejected in toto. The
impulse is to get done with the matter and so the motion to accept has
undue advantage, for some members are sure to prefer swallowing
unpalatable provisions rather than prolong controversy. This is the more
likely if the report comes in the rush of business toward the end of a
session, when to seek further conference might result in the loss of the
measure altogether. At any time in the session there is some risk of such
a result following the rejection of a conference report, for it may not be
possible to secure a second con-
159
xxx
a. Constitutional rules.
b. Statutory rules or charter provisions.
c. Adopted rules.
d. Judicial decisions.
e. Adopted parliamentary authority.
f. Parliamentary law.
g. Customs and usages.
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 134/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
160
prevails over the rule from the source listed later. Thus, where the
Constitution requires three readings of bills, this provision controls over
any provision of statute, adopted rules, adopted manual, or of
parliamentary law, and a rule of parliamentary law controls over a local
usage but must give way to any rule from a higher source of authority.
(Emphasis ours)
xxx
Where the failure of constitutional compliance in the enactment of
statutes is not discoverable from the face of the act itself but may be
demonstrated by recourse to the legislative journals, debates, committee
reports or papers of the governor, courts have used several conflicting
theories with which to dispose of the issue. They have held: (1) that the
enrolled bill is conclusive and like the sheriff’s return cannot be attacked;
(2) that the enrolled bill is prima facie correct and only in case the
legislative journal shows affirmative contradiction of the constitutional
requirement will the bill be held invalid; (3) that although the enrolled
bill is prima facie correct, evidence from the journals, or other extrinsic
sources is admissible to strike the bill down; (4) that the legislative
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 135/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
journal is conclusive and the enrolled bills is valid only if it accords with
the recital in the journal and the constitutional procedure.
161
162
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 136/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
Sec. 88. Conference Committee.—In the event that the House does
not agree with the Senate on the amendment to any bill or joint
resolution, the differences may be settled by the conference
committees of both chambers.
In resolving the differences with the Senate, the House panel
shall, as much as possible, adhere to and support the House Bill.
If the differences with the Senate are so substantial that they
materially impair the House Bill, the panel shall report such fact
to the House for the latter’s appropriate action.
163
Sec. 35. In the event that the Senate does not agree with the
House of Representatives on the provision of any bill or joint
resolution, the differences shall be settled by a conference
committee of both Houses which shall meet within ten (10) days
after their composition. The President shall designate the
members of the Senate Panel in the conference committee with
the approval of the Senate.
Each Conference Committee Report shall contain a detailed
and sufficiently explicit statement of the changes in, or
amendments to the subject measure, and shall be signed by a
majority of the members of each House panel, voting separately.
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 138/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
_______________
9 H.B. No. 3555 has no “no pass on provision.” House Bill No. 3705 expresses
the latest intent of the House on the matter.
165
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 139/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
166
Even the faintest eye contact with the above provisions will
reveal that: (a) both the House bill and the Senate bill
prohibited the passing on to consumers of the VAT on sales
of electricity and (b) the House bill prohibited the passing
on to consumers of the VAT on sales of petroleum products
while the Senate bill is silent on the prohibition.
In the guise of reconciling disagreeing provisions of the
House and the Senate bills on the matter, the Bicameral
Conference Committee deleted the “no pass on provision” on
both the sales of electricity and petroleum products. This
action by the Committee is not warranted by the rules of
either the Senate or the House. As aforediscussed, the only
power of a Bicameral Conference Committee is to reconcile
disagreeing provisions in the bills or joint resolutions of the
two houses of Congress. The House and the Senate bills
both prohibited the passing on to consumers of the VAT on
sales of electricity. The Bicameral Conference Committee
cannot override this unequivocal decision of the Senate and
the House. Nor is it clear that there is a conflict between
the House and Senate versions on the “no pass on
provisions” of the VAT on sales of petroleum products. The
House version contained a “no pass on provision” but the
Senate had none. Elementary logic will tell us that while
there may be a difference in the two versions, it does not
necessarily mean that there is a disagreement or conflict
between the Senate and the House. The silence of the
Senate on the issue cannot be interpreted as an outright
opposition to the House decision prohibiting the passing on
of the VAT to the consumers on sales of petroleum
products. Silence can even be conformity, albeit implicit in
nature. But granting for the nonce that there is conflict
between the two versions, the conflict cannot escape the
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 140/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
167
Fifty percent of the local government unit’s share from VAT shall
be allocated and used exclusively for the following purposes:
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 141/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
_______________
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 142/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
169
11
ments; (3) requiring that appropriation, revenue or tariff
bills, bills authorizing increase of public debt, bills of local
application, and private bills
12
originate exclusively in the
House of Representatives; (4) requiring that bills 13
embrace
one subject expressed in the title thereof; and (5)
mandating
_______________
rate deliberations and actions in the respective bodies that check and
balance each other.”
11 Const., Article VI, Section 16(2) (1987): “(2) A majority of each House
shall constitute a quorum to do business, but a smaller number may
adjourn from day to day and may compel the attendance of absent
Members in such manner, and under such penalties, as such House may
provide.”
12 Const., Article VI, Section 24 (1987); 1 Sutherland Statutory
Construction § 9:6 (6th ed.): The provision helps guarantee that the
exercise of the taxing power is well studied as the lower house is
“presumably more representative in character.”
13 Const., Article VI, Section 26(1) (1987); I Cooley, A Treatise on
Constitutional Limitations, p. 143; Central Capiz v. Ramirez, 40 Phil. 883
(1920): “In the construction and application of this constitutional
restriction the courts have kept steadily in view the correction of the
mischief against which it was aimed. The object is to prevent the practice,
which was common in all legislative bodies where no such restrictions
existed of embracing in the same bill incongruous matters having no
relation to each other or to the subject specified in the title, by which
measures were often adopted without attracting attention. Such distinct
subjects represented diverse interests, and were combined in order to
unite the members of the legislature who favor either in support of all.
These combinations were corruptive of the legislature and dangerous to
the State. Such omnibus bills sometimes included more than a hundred
sections on as many different subjects, with a title appropriate to the first
section, and for other purposes.”
“The failure to indicate in the title of the bill the object intended to be
accomplished by the legislation often resulted in members voting
ignorantly for measures which they would not knowingly have approved;
and not only were legislators thus misled, but the public also; so that
legislative provisions were steadily pushed through in the closing hours of
a session, which, having no merit to commend them, would have been
made odious by popular discussion
170
_______________
171
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 144/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
_______________
15 235 SCRA 630, 783-784 citing Luce, Legislative Procedure, pp. 404-
405, 407 (1922); See also Davies, Legislative Law and Process, p. 81 (2nd
ed.): “conference reports are returned to assembly and Senate on a take-it
or leave-it-basis, and the bodies are generally placed in the position that
to leave-it is a practical impossibility.” Thus, he concludes that “conference
committee action is the most undemocratic procedure in the legislative
process.”
172
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 145/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
_______________
173
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 146/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
SEPARATE OPINION
PANGANIBAN, J.:
Precedence of Mandatory
Constitutional Provisions
Over the Enrolled Bill Doctrine
3
I believe, however, that the enrolled bill doctrine is not
absolute. It may be all-encompassing in some countries like
_______________
1 235 SCRA 630, August 25, 1994; and 249 SCRA 628, October 30,
1995. The second case is an en banc Resolution on the Motions for
Reconsideration of the first case.
2 417 SCRA 503, December 10, 2003.
3 “[I]t is well-settled that the enrolled bill doctrine is conclusive upon
the courts as regards the tenor of the measure passed by Con-
174
4
Great Britain, but as applied to our jurisdiction, it must
yield to mandatory provisions of our 1987 Constitution. The
5
Court can take 6judicial notice of the form of government in
Great Britain. It is unlike that in our country and,
therefore,
_______________
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 147/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
175
7
the doctrine from which it originated could be modified
accordingly by our Constitution.
In fine, the enrolled bill doctrine applies mainly to the
internal rules and processes followed by Congress in its
principal duty of lawmaking. However, when the
Constitution imposes certain conditions, restrictions or
limitations on the exercise of congressional prerogatives,
the judiciary has both the power and the duty to strike
down congressional actions that are done in plain
contravention
8
of such conditions, restrictions or
limitations. Insofar as the present case is concerned, the
three most important restrictions or limitations to the
enrolled bill doctrine are the “origination,” “no-amendment”
and “three-reading” rules which I will discuss later.
Verily, these restrictions or limitations to the enrolled9
bill doctrine are safeguarded by the expanded
constitutional mandate of the judiciary “to determine
whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 148/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
_______________
176
First, the BCC had the option of adopting the House bills
either in part or in toto, endorsing them without changes.
_______________
12 Arroyo v. De Venecia, 343 Phil. 42, 61-62; 277 SCRA 268, 286, August
14, 1997, per Mendoza, J.
13 These refer to House Bill Nos. 3555 & 3705; and Senate Bill No.
1950.
177
Since these 14
bills had passed 15the three-reading
requirement under the Constitution, it readily becomes
apparent that no procedural impediment would arise. 16
There would also be no question as to their origination,
because the bills originated exclusively from the House of
Representatives itself.
In the present case, the BCC did not ignore the Senate
and adopt any of the House bills in part or in toto.
Therefore, this option was not taken by the BCC.
_______________
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 150/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
178
_______________
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 151/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
179
24
amendment by substitution. The Court went further by
saying that “the Constitution does not prohibit the filing in
the Senate of a substitute bill in anticipation of its receipt
of the bill from the House, so long as action by the Senate 25
as a body is withheld pending receipt of the House bill.”
After all, the initiative
26
for filing a revenue bill must come
from the House on the theory that, elected as its members
are from their respective districts, the House is more
sensitive to local needs and problems. By contrast, the
Senate whose members are elected at27 large approaches the
matter from a national perspective,
28
with a broader and
more circumspect outlook.
Even if I have some reservations on the foregoing
sweeping pronouncements in Tolentino, I shall not
comment any further, because the BCC, in reconciling
conflicting provisions, also did not take the second option of
ignoring the House bills completely and of adopting only
the Senate version in part or in toto. Instead, the BCC used
or applied the third option as will be discussed below.
Compromising
by Consolidating
_______________
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 152/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
180
_______________
181
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 153/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
_______________
182
35
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 154/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
35
been fixed. Only the fact-finding mathematical
computation for its implementation on January 1, 2006, is
necessary.
Once either of the factual and mathematical events
provided in the law takes place, the President has no choice
but to 36implement the increase of the VAT rate to 12
percent.
_______________
35 See Pelaez v. Auditor General, 122 Phil. 965, 974; 15 SCRA 569, 576-
577, December 24, 1965.
36 The acts of retroactively implementing the 12 percent VAT rate,
should the finance secretary be able to make recommendation only weeks
or months after the end of fiscal year 2005, or reverting to 10 percent if
both conditions are not met, are best addressed to the political branches of
government.
The following excerpts from the Transcript of the Oral Arguments in
G.R. Nos. 168461, 168463, 168056, and 168207, held on July 14, 2005 at
the Supreme Court Session Hall, are instructive on the position of
petitioners:
“Atty. Gorospe:
[It’s] supposed to be 2005, Your Honor, but apparently, it [will] be
impossible to determine GDP the first day of 2006, Your Honor.”
(p. 57);
xxx
“Justice Panganiban:
Now [let’s see] when it is possible then to determine this formula. It
cannot be on the first day of January 2006, because the year [2005]
ended just the midnight before, isn’t it?
“Atty. Gorospe:
Yes, Your Honor.
“Justice Panganiban:
x x x if it’s only determined on March 1[,] then how can the law
become effective January 1[.] In other words, how will the [people be]
able to pay the tax if ever that formula is exceeded x x x?” (pp. 59-60);
xxx
“Atty. Gana:
Well, x x x it would take a grace period of 6 to 8 months[,]
because obviously, determination could not be made on
January 1, 2006. Yes, they were under the impression that at the
earliest it would take 30 days.
“Justice Panganiban:
Historically, when [will] these figures [be] available[:] the GDP, [VAT]
collection?” (p. 192);
xxx
“Justice Panganiban:
But certainly not on January 1. Therefore, by January 1, people
would not know whether the rate would be increased or not,
even if there is no discretion?
“Atty. Gana:
That’s true, Your Honor, even if there is no discretion.
“Justice Panganiban:
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 155/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
183
37
This eventuality has been predetermined by Congress.
_______________
“Atty. Gana:
Well, they anticipated it, would take at most by March.” (p. 193);
and
xxx
“Justice Panganiban:
March, I will ask the government later on when they argue.
“Atty. Gana:
As early as January but not later than 60 to 90 days.” (boldface
supplied; p. 194). Culled from the same record, the following excerpts
show the position of public respondents:
“Justice Panganiban:
It will be based on actual figures?
“Usec. Bonoan:
It will be based on actual figures.
“Justice Panganiban:
That creates a problem[,] because where do you get the actual
figures[?]
“Usec. Bonoan:
I understand that[,] traditionally[,] we can come in March, but
there is no impediment to speeding up the gathering.
“Justice Panganiban:
Speed it up. February 15?
“Usec. Bonoan:
Even within January, Your Honor, I think this can be….
“Justice Panganiban:
Alright at the end of January, it’s just estimate to get the figures
in January.
“Usec. Bonoan:
Yes, Your Honor (pp. 661-662); and
xxx
“Justice Panganiban:
My only point is, I raised this earlier and I promised counsel for the
petitioner whom I was questionin[g] that I will raise it with you,
whether the date January 1, 2006 would present an
impossibility of a condition happening.
“Usec. Bonoan:
It will not, Your Honor.
“Justice Panganiban:
So, your position [is] it will not present an impossibility. Elaborate on
it in your memorandum.
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 156/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
“Usec. Bonoan:
Yes, Your Honor.
“Justice Panganiban:
Because it is important. The administrative regulations are
important[,] because they clarify the law and it will guide
taxpayers. So[,] by January 1[,] [taxpayers] would not be wondering.
Do we charge the end consumers 10 [percent] or 12 [percent]? The
regulations should be able to spell that out [i]n the same manner that
even now the various consumers of various products and services
must be able to get from your regulations how much they [would] be
charged, how much should gasoline stations charge in addition to
their correct prices, how much carriers should charge[,] so there
[would] be no confusion.
“Usec. Bonoan:
Yes, Your Honor.” (boldface supplied; pp. 665-666).
184
39
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 157/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
39
the increase in VAT rate operative. Indeed, as I have
mentioned earlier, the fact-
_______________
185
_______________
Manufacturers Corp., G.R. No. 158540, August 3, 2005, 465 SCRA 532,
660.
40 Escudero Memorandum, pp. 38-39.
GDP data are far from perfect measures of either economic output or
welfare. There are three major problems: (1) some outputs are poorly
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 158/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
measured because they are not traded in the market, and government
services are not directly priced by such market; (2) some activities
measured as additions to GDP in fact only represent the use of resources
in order to avoid crime or risks to national security; and (3) it is difficult to
account correctly for improvements in the quality of goods. Dornbusch,
Fischer, and Startz, Macroeconomics (9th ed., 2005), pp. 35-36.
41 Fariñas v. Executive Secretary, 417 SCRA, 503, 530, December 10,
2003.
42 “Any meaningful change in the method and procedures of Congress
or its committees must x x x be sought in that body itself.”
186
43
branches of44 government, outside the range of judicial
cognizance. “[T]he right to select the measure and objects
of taxation devolves upon the Congress, and not upon the
courts, and such selections are 45
valid unless constitutional
limitations are overstepped.” Moreover, each house of
Congress has the power46 and authority to determine the
rules of its proceedings. The contention that this case is
not ripe for determination because there is no violation yet
of the Constitution regarding the exercise of the President’s
standby authority has no basis. The question raised is
whether the BCC, in passing the law, committed grave
abuse of discretion, not whether the provision in question
had been violated. Hence, this case is not premature and is,
in fact, subject to judicial determination.
Amendments on Income Taxes. I respectfully submit
that the amendments made by the BCC (that were culled
_______________
legislative body.” Arroyo v. De Venecia, supra, p. 61, August 14, 1997, per
Mendoza, J.; (citing Osmeña, Jr. v. Pendatun, 109 Phil. 863, 870-871,
October 28, 1960, per Bengzon, J.).
187
47
from the Senate version) regarding income taxes are not
legally germane to the subject matter of the House bills.
Revising the income tax rates on domestic, resident foreign
and nonresident foreign corporations; increasing the tax
credit against taxes due from nonresident foreign
corporations on intercorporate dividends; and reducing the
allowable deduction for interest expense are legally
unrelated and not germane to the subject matter contained 48
in the House bills; they violate the origination principle.
The reasons are as follows:
One, an income tax is a direct tax imposed on actual or
presumed income—gross or49 net—realized by a taxpayer
during a given taxable year, while a VAT is an indirect tax
not in the context of who is directly and legally liable for its
payment, but50 in terms of its nature as “a tax on
consumption.” The former 51cannot be passed on to the
consumer, but the latter can. It is too wide a stretch of the
imagination to even relate one concept with the other. In
like manner, it is inconceivable
_______________
47 HBs 3555 & 3705 do not contain any provision that seeks to revise
non-VAT provisions of the Tax Code, but SB 1950 has §§1-3 that seek to
amend the rates of income tax on domestic, resident foreign and
nonresident foreign corporations at 35% (30% in 2009), with a tax credit
on intercorporate dividends at 20% (15% in 2009); and to reduce the
allowable deductions for interest expense by 42% (33% in 2009) of the
interest income subject to final tax.
48 The amendments to income taxes also partake of the nature of
taxation without representation. As I will discuss in the succeeding
paragraphs of this Opinion, they did not emanate from the House of
Representatives that, under §24 of Article VI of the 1987 Constitution, is
the only body from which revenue bills should exclusively originate.
49 Mamalateo, Philippine Income Tax (2004), p. 1.
50 Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. American Express International,
Inc. (Philippine Branch), G.R. No. 152609, 462 SCRA 197, 215, June 29,
2005, per Panganiban, J. See Deoferio, Jr. & Mamalateo, The Value Added
Tax in the Philippines (2000), p. 36.
51 De Leon, The Fundamentals of Taxation (12th ed., 1998), pp. 92 &
132.
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 160/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
188
_______________
189
_______________
190
_______________
61 §§1-3 of HB 3705.
62 §5 of SB 1950. There seems to be a discrepancy between the
Conference Committee Report and the various pleadings before this
Court. While such report, attaching a copy of the bill as reconciled and
approved by its conferees, as well as the report submitted by the Senate’s
Committee on Ways & Means to the Senate President on March 7, 2005,
show that SB 1950 does not contain a no-pass on provision, the petitioners
and respondents show that it does (Pimentel Memorandum, Annex “A”
showing a “Matrix on the Disagreeing Provisions of the [VAT] Bills,” pp. 9-
11; Escudero Memorandum, p. 42; and Respondents’ Memorandum, pp.
109-110). Notably, the qualified dissent of Senator Joker Arroyo to the
Bicameral Conference Report states that the Senate version prohibits the
power companies from passing on the VAT that they will pay.
191
63
cluded limits of 5 percent and 11 percent on input tax,
64
SB
1950 proposed an even spread over 60 months. The
decision to put a cap and fix its rate, so as to harmonize or
to find a compromise
65
in settling the apparent differences in
these versions, was within the sound discretion of the
BCC.
In like manner, HB 3555 contained provisions on the
withholding of creditable VAT at the rates of 5 percent, 8
66
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 163/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
66
percent, 10.5 percent, and 12 percent. HB 3705 had no
such equiva-
_______________
192
_______________
tors; and 12% of the payments for the lease or use of properties orproperty
rights to nonresident owners.
67 §11 of SB 1950 seeks to amend §114 of the Tax Code by requiring
that the VAT be deducted and withheld by the government or by any of its
political subdivisions, instrumentalities or agencies—including
government-owned or controlled corporations (GOCCs)—before making
any payment on account of each purchase of goods from sellers and
services rendered by contractors. The VAT deducted and withheld shall be
at the rates of 5% of the gross payment for the purchase of goods and on
the gross receipts for services rendered by contractors, including public
works contractors. The VAT that is deducted and withheld shall be
creditable against the VAT liability of the seller; and 10% of the gross
payment for the lease or use of properties or property rights to
nonresident owners.
68 Deoferio, Jr. & Mamalateo, The Value Added Tax in the Philippines
(2000), pp. 34-35 & 44.
69 http://explanation-guide.info/meaning/Maurice-Lauré.html (Last
visited August 23, 2005, 3:25pm PST).
193
70
rect tax on consumption, called taxe sur la valeur ajoutée,
which was quickly adopted by the Direction Générale des
Impost, the new French tax authority of which he became
joint director. Consequently, taxpayers at all levels in the
production process, rather than retailers or tax authorities,
were forced
71
to administer and account for the tax them-
selves.
Since the unutilized input VAT can be carried over to
succeeding quarters, there is no undue deprivation of
property. Alternatively,
72
it can be passed on to the
consumers; there is no law prohibiting that. Merely
speculative and unproven, therefore, is73 the contention that
the law is arbitrary and oppressive. Laws that impose
taxes are necessarily burdensome, compulsory, and
involuntary.
The deferred input tax account—which accumulates the
unutilized input VAT—remains an asset in the accounting
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 165/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
_______________
“Justice Panganiban:
So, the final consumer pays the tax?
“Atty. Baniqued:
Yes, Your Honor.
“Justice Panganiban:
The trade people in between the middlemen just take it as an input and
then [collect] it as output, isn’t it?
Atty. Baniqued:
Yes, Your Honor.
“Justice Panganiban:
It’s just a cash flow problem for them, essentially?
“Atty. Baniqued:
Yes x x x.” (p. 375).
194
_______________
195
79
ally accepted accounting principles. These refer to
accounting concepts, measurement techniques, and
standards of presentation in a company’s financial
statements, and are not rooted in laws of nature, as are the
laws of physical science, for these are merely developed and
continually modified by
_______________
196
80
local and international regulatory accounting bodies. To
state otherwise and recognize such asset account as a
vested right is to limit the taxing power of the State.
Unlimited, plenary, comprehensive and supreme, this
power cannot be unduly restricted by mere creations of the
State.
That the unutilized input VAT would also have an
unequal effect on businesses—some with low, others with
high, input-output ratio—is not a legal ground for
invalidating the law. Profit margins are a variable of sound
business judgment, not of legal doctrine. The law applies
equally to all businesses; it is up to each of them to
determine the best formula for selling their goods or
services in the face of stiffer competition. There is, thus, no
violation of the equal protection clause. If the
implementation of the 70 percent cap would cause an ad
infinitum deferment of input taxes or an unequal effect
upon different types of businesses with varying profit
margins and capital requirements, then the remedy would
be an amendment of the law—not an unwarranted and
outright declaration of unconstitutionality.
The matter of business establishments shouldering 30
percent of output tax and remitting the amount, as
computed, to the government is in effect imposing a tax
that is equivalent
81
to a maximum of 3 percent of gross sales
or revenues. This
_______________
80 Meigs & Meigs, Accounting: The Basis for Business Decisions (1981),
pp. 28 & 515.
Under §9(b) & (g) of RA 9298, the PRBOA shall supervise the practice
of accountancy in the Philippines and adopt measures—such as the
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 168/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
197
_______________
stages in the distribution process, and culminating with the sale to the
final consumer. This is the essence of a VAT; it is a tax on the value
added, that is, on the excess of sales over purchases. See Deoferio Jr. &
Mamalateo, The Value Added Tax in the Philippines (2000), pp. 33-34.
With the 70 percent cap on output tax that is allowable as an input tax
credit, the remaining 30 percent becomes an outright expense that is,
however, immediately payable and remitted by the business
establishment to the government. This amount can never be recovered or
passed on to the consumer, but it can be an allowable deduction from
gross income under §34(A)(1) of the Tax Code. In effect, it is a tax
computed by multiplying 30 percent to the 10 percent VAT that is imposed
on gross sales, receipts or revenues. It is not a tax on tax and,
mathematically, it is derived as follows:
82 “Double taxation means taxing the same property [or subject matter]
twice when it should be taxed only once; that is, ‘taxing the same person
twice by the same jurisdiction for the same thing.’” Commissioner of
Internal Revenue v. Solidbank Corp., 416 SCRA 436, November 25, 2003,
per Panganiban, J.; (citing Afisco Insurance Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 361
Phil. 671, 687; 302 SCRA 1, 16, January 25, 1999, per Panganiban, J.).
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 169/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
198
_______________
of Appeals, 403 SCRA 634, 664, June 10, 2003, per Carpio, J. Cruz,
Constitutional Law (1998), p. 89.
84 §116 of the Tax Code as amended.
85 “[C]ourts accord the presumption of constitutionality to legislative
enactments, not only because the legislature is presumed to abide by the
Constitution[,] but also because the judiciary[,] in the determination of
actual cases and controversies[,] must reflect the wisdom and justice of
the people as expressed through their representatives in the executive and
legislative departments of the government.” Angara v. Electoral
Commission, 63 Phil. 139, 158-159, July 15, 1936, per Laurel, J.; (cited in
Francisco, Jr. v. House of Representatives, supra, pp. 121-122.)
86 Cawaling, Jr. v. Commission on Elections, 420 Phil. 524, 530; 368
SCRA 453, 456, October 26, 2001, per Sandoval-Gutierrez, J.
87 Ichong v. Hernandez, 101 Phil. 1155, 1164, May 31, 1957, per
Labrador, J.
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 170/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
199
_______________
200
“Atty. Baniqued:
But if your profit margin is low as i[n] the case of the
petroleum dealers, x x x then we would have a serious
problem, Your Honor.
201
“Justice Panganiban:
Isn’t the solution to increase the price then?
“Atty. Baniqued:
If you increase the price which you can very well do,
Your Honor, then that [will] be deflationary and it
[will] have a cascading effect on all other basic
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 172/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
202
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 173/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 174/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
“Justice Panganiban:
Yes, but the issue here in this Court, is whether that
act of Congress is unconstitutional.
203
“Atty. Baniqued:
Yes, we believe it is unconstitutional, Your Honor.
“Justice Panganiban:
You have a right to complain that it is oppressive, it is
excessive, it burdens the people too much, but is it
unconstitutional?
“Atty. Baniqued:
Besides, passing it on, Your Honor, may not be as
simple as it may seem. As a matter of fact, at the
strike of midnight on June 30, when petroleum prices
were being changed upward, the [s]ecretary of [the]
Department of Energy was going around[.] [H]e was
seen on TV going around just to check that prices don’t
go up. And as a matter of fact, he had pronouncements
that, the increase in petroleum price should only be
limited to the effect of 10 [percent] E-VAT.
“Justice Panganiban:
It’s becaus[e] the implementing rules were not clear
and were not extensive enough to cover how much
really should be the increase for various oil products,
refined oil products. It’s up for the dealers to guess,
and the dealers were guessing to their advantage by
saying plus 10 [percent] anyway, right?
“Atty. Baniqued:
In fact, the petroleum dealers, Your Honors, are not
only faced with constitutional issues before this Court.
They are also faced with a possibility of the
Department of Energy not allowing them to pass it
on[,] because this would be an unreasonable price
increase. And so, they are being hit from both sides…
interrupted
“Justice Panganiban:
That’s why I say, that there is need to refine the
implementing rules so that everyone will know, the
customers will know how much to pay for gasoline, not
only gasoline, gasoline, and so on, diesel and all kinds
of products, so there’ll be no confusion and there’ll be
no undue taking advantage. There will be a smooth
implementation[,] if the law were to be upheld by the
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 175/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
204
“Justice Panganiban:
Why, you will not pass it on?
“Atty. Baniqued:
I cannot speak for the dealers…. interrupted.
“Justice Panganiban:
As a consumer, I will thank you if you don’t pass it
on[;] but you or your clients as businessm[e]n, I know,
will pass it on.
“Atty. Baniqued:
As I have said, Your Honor, there are many
constraints on their ability to do that[,] and that is
why the first step that we are seeking is to seek
redress from this Honorable Court[,] because we feel
that the imposit on is excessive and oppressive…..
interrupted
“Justice Panganiban:
You can find redress here, only if you can show that
the law is unconstitutional.
“Atty. Baniqued:
We realized that, Your Honor.
“Justice Panganiban:
Alright. Let’s talk about the 5 [percent]
[d]epreciation rate, but that applies only to the
capital equipment worth over a million?
“Atty. Baniqued:
Yes, Your Honor.
“Justice Panganiban:
And that doesn’t apply at all times, isn’t it?
“Atty. Baniqued:
Well……
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 176/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
“Justice Panganiban:
That doesn’t at all times?
“Atty. Baniqued:
For capital goods costing less than 1 million,
Your Honor, then….
“Justice Panganiban:
That will not apply?
“Atty. Baniqued:
That will not apply, but you will have the 70
[percent] cap on input [VAT], Your Honor.
“Justice Panganiban:
Yes, but we talked already about the 70 [percent].
“Atty. Baniqued:
Yes, Your Honor.
“Justice Panganiban:
When you made your presentation on the balance
sheet, it is as if every capital expenditure you made is
subject to the 5 [percent,] rather the [five year]
depreciation schedule[.] [T]hat’s not so. So, the
presentation you made is a little inaccurate and
misleading.
“Atty. Baniqued:
At the start of our presentation, Your Honor[,] we
stated clearly that this applies only to capital goods
costing more than one [million].
205
“Justice Panganiban:
Yes, but you combined it later on with the 70 [percent]
cap to show that the dealers are so disadvantaged. But
you didn’t tell us that that will apply only when
capital equipment or goods is one million or more. And
in your case, what kind of capital goods will be worth
one million or more in your existing gas stations?
“Atty. Baniqued:
Well, you would have petroleum dealers, Your Honor,
who would have[,] aside from sale of petroleum[,] they
would have their service centers[,] like[…] to service
cars and they would have those equipments, they are,
Your Honor.
“Justice Panganiban:
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 177/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
206
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 179/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
“Atty. Baniqued:
Yes, we can…. interrupted
“Justice Panganiban:
There is no prohibition to passing it on[.] [P]robably
the gas station will simply pass it on to the Supreme
Court and say[,] well[,] there is this 5 [percent]
207
final VAT on you so[,] therefore, for every tank full you
buy[,] we’ll just have to [charge] you 5 [percent] more.
Well, the Supreme Court will probably say, well,
anyway, that 5 [percent] that we will pay the gas
dealer, will be paid back to the government, isn’t it[?]
So, how [will] you be affected?
“Atty. Baniqued:
I hope the passing on of the burden, Your Honor,
doesn’t come back to party litigants by way of increase
in docket fees, Your Honor.
“Justice Panganiban:
But that’s quite another m[a]tter, though…(laughs)
[W]hat I am saying, Mr. [C]ounsel is, you still have to
show to us that your remedy is to declare the law
unconstitutional[,] and it’s not business in character.
“Atty. Baniqued:
Yes, Your Honor, it is our submission that this
limitation in the input [VAT] credit as well as the
amortization…….
“Justice Panganiban:
All you talk about is equal protection clause, about due
process, depreciation of property without observance of
due process[,] could really be a remedy than a business
way.
“Atty. Baniqued:
Business in the level of the petroleum dealers, Your
Honor, or in the level of Congress, Your Honor.
“Justice Panganiban:
Yes, you can pass them on to customers[,] in other
words. It’s the customers who should [complain].
“Atty. Baniqued:
Yes, Your Honor… interrupted
“Justice Panganiban:
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 180/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
208
“Justice Panganiban:
Yes, it’s inflationary[,] brings up the prices of
everything…
“Atty. Baniqued:
And it is our submission that[,] if the petroleum
dealers cannot absorb it and they pass it on to the
customers, a lot of consumers would neither be in a
position to absorb it too and that[’s] why we patronize,
Your Honor.
“Justice Panganiban:
There might be wisdom in what you’re saying, but is
that unconstitutional?
“Atty. Baniqued:
Yes, because as I said, Your Honor, there are even
constraints in the petroleum dealers to pass it on, and
we[‘]re not even sure whether….interrupted
“Justice Panganiban:
Are these constraints [--] legal constraints?
“Atty. Baniqued:
Well, it would be a different story, Your Honor[.]
[T]hat’s something we probably have to take up
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 181/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
90
taxes are both germane in a legal sense and reasonably
necessary in an economic sense. This fact is evident,
considering that the proposed changes in the VAT law will
have inevitable implications and repercussions on such
taxes, as well as on the procedural requirements and the
disposition of incremental 91revenues, in the Tax Code.
Either mitigating meas-ures have to be put in place or
increased rates imposed, in
_______________
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 182/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
“Justice Panganiban:
As a matter of fact[,] a part of the mitigating measures would be the
elimination of the [e]xcise [t]ax and the import duties. That is [why] it
is not correct to say that the [VAT] as to petroleum dealers increase
to 10 [percent].
“Atty. Baniqued:
Yes, Your Honor.
“Justice Panganiban:
And[,] therefore, there is no justification for increasing the retail price
by 10 [percent] to cover the E-[VAT.] [I]f you consider the excise tax
and the import duties, the [n]et [t]ax would probably be in the
neighborhood of 7 [percent]? We are not going into exact figures[.] I
am just trying to deliver a point that different industries, different
210
Rejecting Non-Conflicting
Provisions
_______________
products, different services are hit differently. So it’s not correct to
say that all prices must go up by 10 [percent].
“Atty. Baniqued:
You’re right, Your Honor.
“Justice Panganiban:
Now. For instance, [d]omestic [a]irlinecompanies, Mr. Counsel, are at
present imposed a [s]ales [t]ax of 3 [percent]. When this E-[VAT] law
took effect[,] the [s]ales [t]ax was also removed as a mitigating
measure. So, therefore, there is no justif ication to increase the fares
by 10 [percent;] at best 7 [percent], correct?
“Atty. Baniqued:
I guess so, Your Honor, yes.” (pp. 367-368).
211
Summary
_______________
212
_______________
213
_______________
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 186/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
214
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
_______________
98 338 Phil. 546, 604-605; 272 SCRA 18, 80, May 2, 1997, per
Panganiban, J.
99 420 Phil. 525, 531; 368 SCRA 453, 457, October 26, 2001, per
Sandoval-Gutierrez, J.; (citing The Philippine Judges Association v.
Prado, 227 SCRA 703, 706, November 11, 1993, per Cruz, J.).
100 Veterans Federation Party v. Commission on Elections, 396 Phil.
419, 452-453; 342 SCRA 244, 283, October 6, 2000, per Panganiban, J.;
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 187/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
215
_______________
216
_______________
217
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.:
_______________
4 Supra, p. 811.
219
1
the protection of the state.” At no other time this dictum
becomes more urgent and obligatory as in the present time,
when the Philippines is in its most precarious fiscal
position.
At this juncture, may I state that I join Mr. Senior
Justice Reynato S. Puno in his Opinion, specifically on the
following points:
_______________
220
5
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 192/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
5
Taxation is an inherent attribute of sovereignty. It is a
power that is purely legislative and which the central
legislative body cannot delegate either to the executive or
judicial
_______________
221
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 193/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
_______________
222
8
potestas delegata non delegare potest. As Judge Cooley
enunciated:
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 194/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
_______________
223
_______________
11 Espiritu vs. Cipriano, G.R. No. 32743, February 15, 1974, 55 SCRA
533, 538, citing Sutherlands Statutory Construction, Vol. 2, Section 4945,
p. 412.
12 A tariff is a list or schedule of articles on which a duty is imposed
upon their importation, with the rates at which they are severally taxed,
it is also the custom or duty payable on such articles. (Black’s Law
Dictionary [6th Edition], 1990, at p. 1456).
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 195/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
224
16 17
dues and other duties and imposts, “by no stretch of
imagination can this enumeration be extended to include
the VAT.
And third, it does not relate merely to the
administrative implementation of R.A. No. 9337.
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
18
of any other appointee or
delegate of the legislature.
In the present case, the President is the delegate of the
Legislature, endowed with the power to raise the VAT rate
from 10% to 12% if any of the following conditions, to
reiterate, has been satisfied: (i) value-added tax collection
as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) of the
previous year exceeds two and four-fifths 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
1/2%).
At first glance, the two conditions may appear to be
definite standards sufficient to guide the President.
However, to my mind, they are ineffectual and malleable as
they give the President ample opportunity to exercise her
authority in arbitrary and discretionary fashion.
_______________
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 196/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
are duties or impositions levied for various reasons. (Crew Levick Co. vs.
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 245 US 292, 62 L. Ed. 295, 38 S. Ct. 126).
18 People vs. Vera, supra.
225
_______________
19 Walter E. Olsen & Co. vs. Aldanese and Trinidad (1922), 43 Phil.,
259; 12 C.J., p. 786.
20 Cruz, Constitutional Law, 1987 Edition, at p. 101.
226
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 197/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
Senator Lacson.
Thank you, Mr. President. Now, I will go back to my
original question, my first question. Who are we
threatening to punish on the imposed condition No. 1
—the public or the President?
Senator Recto.
That is not a punishment, that is supposed to be
a reward system.
Senator Lacson.
Yes, an incentive. So we are offering an
incentive to the Chief Executive.
Senator Recto.
That is right.
Senator Lacson.
—In order for her to be able to raise the VAT to
12 %.
Senator Recto.
That is right. That is the intention, yes.
x x x x x x
227
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 198/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
Senator Osmeña.
All right. Therefore, with the lifting of
exemptions it stands to reason that Value-added
tax collections as a percentage of GDP will be
much higher than . . . Now, if it is higher than
2.5%, in other words, because they collected
more, we will allow them to even tax more. Is
that the meaning of this particular phrase?
Senator Recto.
Yes, Mr. President, that is why it is as low as
2.8%. It is like if a person has a son and his son
asks him for an allowance, I do not think that he
would immediately give his son an increase in
allowance unless he tells his son, You better imp
rove your grades and I will give you an
allowance. That is the analogy of this.
xxxxxx
Senator Osmeña.
So the gentleman is telling the President, If you
collect more than 138 billion, I will give you
additional powers to tax the people.
Senator Recto.
x x x We are saying, kung mataas ang grade mo,
dadagdagan ko ang allowance mo. Katulad ng
sinabi natin dito. What we are saying here is you
prove to me that you can collect it, then we will
increase your rate, you can raise your rate. It is
an incentive.21
_______________
21 TSN, May 10, 2005, Annex ‘E” of the Petition in G.R. No. 168056.
228
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 199/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
_______________
229
that a revenue statute—and not only the bill which initiated the
legislative process culminating in the enactment of the law—must
substantially be the same as the House Bill would be to deny the
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 200/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
_______________
231
_______________
232
_______________
233
_______________
234
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 205/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
235
[1] All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of
Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with
Amendments as on other Bills.
[2] Every Bill which shall have passed the House of
Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be
presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he
shall
_______________
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 206/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
236
it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to the House in
which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at
large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such
Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the
Bill, it shall be sent together with the Objections, to the other
House, by which it shall, likewise, be reconsidered, and if
approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But
in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by
yeas and nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and
against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House
respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President
within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been
presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if
he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment
prevent its return in which Case it shall not be a Law.
[3] Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to Which the Concurrence
of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary
(except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the
President of the United States; and before the Same shall take
Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him,
shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of
Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations
prescribed in the Case of a Bill.
Sec. 26. (1) Every bill passed by Congress shall embrace only one
subject which shall be expressed in the title thereof.
(2) No bill passed by either House shall become a law unless it
has passed three readings on separate days, and printed copies
thereof in its final form have been distributed to its Members three
days before its passage, except when the President certifies to the
necessity of its immediate enactment to meet a public calamity or
emergency. Upon the last reading of a bill, no amendment thereto
shall be allowed, and the vote thereon shall be taken immediately
thereafter, and the yeas and nays entered in the Journal.
Sec. 27. (1) Every bill passed by Congress shall, before it
becomes a law, be presented to the President. If he approves the
same, he shall sign it; otherwise, he shall veto it and return the
same with his objections to the House where it originated, which
237
_______________
238
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 208/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
Conference Committees
239
240
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 210/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
_______________
241
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 211/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
242
The task at hand for the Court, but which the ponencia
eschews, is to circumscribe the powers of the Bicameral
Conference Committee in light of the “three-reading” and
“noamendment” rules in Article VI, Section 26(2) of the
Constitution.
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 212/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
Sec. 88. Conference Committee.—In the event that the House does
not agree with the Senate on the amendments to any bill or joint
resolution, the differences may be settled by the conference
committees of both chambers.
In resolving the differences with the Senate, the House panel
shall, as much as possible, adhere to and support the House Bill.
If the differences with the Senate are so substantial that they
materially impair the House Bill, the panel shall report such fact
to the House for the latter’s appropriate action.
_______________
5 Bernas SJ, J., The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, A
Commentary, pp. 702-703 (1996 Ed.).
243
Sec. 35. In the event that the Senate does not agree with the
House of Representatives on the provision of any bill or joint
resolution, the differences shall be settled by a conference
committee of both Houses which shall meet within ten (10) days
after their composition. The President shall designate the
members of the Senate Panel in the conference committee with
the approval of the Senate.
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 213/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
_______________
245
_______________
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 215/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
246
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 216/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
_______________
247
The Court finds no reason to deviate from the salutary in this case
where the irregularities alleged by the petitioners mostly involved
the internal rules of Congress, whether House or Senate.
Parliamentary rules are merely procedural and with their
observance the courts have no concern. Whatever doubts there
may be as to the formal validity of Rep. Act No. 9006 must be
resolved in its favor. The Court reiterates its ruling in Arroyo v.
De Venecia, viz.:
But the cases, both here and abroad, in varying forms of expression, all
deny to the courts the power to inquire into the allegations that, in
enacting a law, a House of Congress failed to comply with its own rules, in
the absence of showing that there was a violation of a constitutional
provision or the rights of private individuals. In Osmeña v. Pendatun, it
was held: “At any rate, courts have declared that ‘the rules adopted by
deliberative bodies are subject to revocation, modification or waiver at
the pleasure of the body adopting them.’ And it has been said that
‘Parliamentary rules are merely procedural, and with their observance,
the courts have no concern. They may be waived or disregarded by the
legislative body.’ Consequently, ‘mere failure to conform to parliamentary
usage will not invalidate the action (taken by a deliberative body) when
the
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 217/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
_______________
248
requisite
16
number of members have agreed to a particular
measure.
_______________
249
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 218/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
AZCUNA, J.:
_______________
SEC. 4. Section 106 of the same Code, as amended, is hereby further amended to
read as follows:
“SEC. 106. Value-added Tax on Sale of Goods or Properties.—
“(A) Rate and Base of Tax.—There shall be levied, assessed and collected on
every sale, barter or exchange of goods or properties, a value-added tax equivalent
to ten percent
250
_______________
(10%) of the gross selling price or gross value in money of the goods or
properties sold, bartered or exchanged, such tax to be paid by the seller or
transferor: Provided, 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:
251
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 220/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
_______________
252
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 222/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
tions; (b) amend the tax credit against taxes due from
nonresident foreign corporations on the intercorporate
dividends; and (c) reduce the allowable deduction from
interest expense.”
Respondents should, in any case, now be able to
implement the E-VAT 4
law without confusion and thereby
achieve its purpose.
I vote to GRANT the petitions to the extent of declaring
unconstitutional the provisions in Republic Act. No. 9337
that are not germane to the subject matter and DENY said
petitions as to the rest of the law, which are constitutional.
TINGA, J.:
1
The E-VAT Law, as it stands, will exterminate our
country’s small to medium enterprises. This will be the net
effect of affirming Section 8 of the law, which amends
Sections 110 of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC)
by imposing a seventy percent (70%) cap on the creditable
input tax a VAT-registered person may apply every quarter
and a mandatory sixty (60)-month amortization period on
the input tax on goods purchased or imported in a calendar
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 223/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
_______________
255
destroy while this Court sits,” and we should very well live
up to this expectation not only of the revered Holmes, but
of the Filipino people who rely on this Court as the
guardian of their rights. At stake is the right to exist and
subsist despite taxes, which is encompassed in the due
process clause.
I respectfully submit these views while maintaining the
deepest respect for the prerogative of the legislature to
impose taxes, and of the national government to chart
economic policy. Such respect impels me to vote to deny2
the
petitions in G.R. Nos. 168056, 168207, 168463, and
168730, even as I acknowledge certain merit in the
challenges against the E-VAT law that are asserted in
those petitions. In the final analysis, petitioners therein
are unable to convincingly demonstrate the constitutional
infirmity of the provisions they seek to assail. The only
exception is Section 21 of the law, which I consider
unconstitutional, for reasons I shall later elaborate.
However, I see the petition in G.R. No. 168461 as
meritorious and would vote to grant it. Accordingly, I
dissent and hold as unconstitutional Section 8 of Republic
Act No. 9337, insofar as it amends Section 110(A) and (B)
of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) as well as
Section 12 of the same law, with respect to its amendment
of Section 114(C) of the NIRC.
The first part of my discussion pertains to the petitions
in G.R. Nos. 168056, 168207, 168463, and 168730, while
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 224/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
_______________
256
_______________
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 225/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
3 J. Vitug and E. Acosta, Tax Law and Jurisprudence (2nd ed., 2000),
at pp. 7-8.
4 See National Power Corporation v. Province of Albay, G.R. No. 87479,
4 June 1990, 186 SCRA 198, 203.
5 See Section 24, Article VI, Constitution.
6 The recognized exceptions, both expressly provided by the
Constitution, being the tariff clause under Section 28(2), Article VI, and
the powers of taxation of local government units under Section 5, Article
X.
7 G.R. No. 158540, 8 July 2005, 434 SCRA 65.
257
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 226/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
_______________
258
259
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 227/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
_______________
10 Carpio v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 96409 February 14, 1992, 206
SCRA 290, 298; citing In re Guarina, 24 Phil. 37.
260
11
resolved in favor, of the constitutionality of a statute, it
should necessarily follow that the construction upheld
should be one that is not itself noxious to the Constitution.
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 228/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
_______________
261
_______________
13 There are two eminent tests for valid delegation, the “completeness
test” and the “sufficient standard test.” The law must be complete in its
essential terms and conditions when it leaves the legislature so that there
will be nothing left for the delegate to do when it reaches him except
enforce it. U.S. v. Ang Tang Ho, 43 Phil. 1, 6-7 (1922). On the other hand,
a sufficient standard is intended to map out the boundaries of the
delegate’s authority by defining legislative policy and indicating the
circumstances under which it is to be pursued and effected; intended to
prevent a total transference of legislative power from the legislature to the
delegate.
14 Decision, infra, citing Alunan v. Mirasol, G.R. No. 108399, 31 July
1997, 276 SCRA 501, 513-514.
262
_______________
263
One of the more crucial issues now before us, one that has
seriously divided the Court, pertains to the ability of the
Bicameral Conference Committee to introduce
amendments to the final bill which were not contained in
the House bill from which the E-VAT Law originated. Most
of the points addressed by the petitioners have been16settled
in our ruling in Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance, yet a
revisit of that precedent is urged upon this Court. On this
score, I offer my qualified concurrence with the ponencia.
Two key provisions of the Constitution come into play:
Sections 24 and 26(2), Article VI of the Constitution. They
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 231/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
read:
_______________
264
This power over the purse, may in fact be regarded as the most
complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can
arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a
redress of every grievance,
18
and for carrying into effect every just
and salutary measure.
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 232/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
_______________
265
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 233/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
_______________
266
before said bills are transmitted to the other house for its
concurrence or amendment.” I agree with this statement.
Clearly, the procedure under Section 26(2), Article VI only
relates to the passage of a bill before the House and Senate,
and not the process undertaken afterwards in the
Bicameral Conference Committee.
Indeed, Sections 26 and 27 of Article VI, which detail the
procedure how a bill becomes a law, are silent as to what
occurs between the passage by both houses of their
respective bills, and the presentation20
to the President of
“every bill passed by the Congress.” Evidently, “Congress”
means both Houses, such that a bill approved by the
Senate but not by the House is not presented to the
President for approval. There is obviously a need for joint
concurrence by the House and Senate of a bill before it is
transmitted to the President, but the Constitution does not
provide how such concurrence is acquired. This lacuna has
to be filled, otherwise no bill may be transmitted to the
President.
Even if the Bicameral Conference Committee is not a
constitutionally organized body, it has existed as the
necessary conclave for both chambers of Congress to
reconcile their respective versions of a prospective law. The
members of the Bicameral Conference Committee may
possess in them the capacity to represent their particular
chamber, yet the collective is neither the House nor the
Senate. Hence, the procedure contained in Section 26(2),
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 234/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
_______________
267
_______________
268
_______________
269
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 236/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
_______________
270
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 237/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
II.
272
_______________
273
persons equal26
and impartial justice and the benefit of the
general law. 27
In Magnano Co. v. Hamilton, the U.S. Supreme Court
recognized that the due process clause may be utilized to
strike down a taxation statute, “if the act be so arbitrary as
to compel the conclusion that it does not involve an
exertion of the taxing power, but constitutes, in substance
and effect, the direct exertion of a different and forbidden 28
power, as, for example,29 the confiscation of property.”
Locally, Sison v. Ancheta has long provided sanctuary for
persons assailing the constitutionality of taxing statutes.
The oft-quoted pronouncement of Justice Fernando follows:
_______________
274
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 241/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
275
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 242/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
_______________
276
cause pain and injury to the taxpayer, albeit for the greater
good of society. Perhaps whatever collective notion there
may be of what constitutes an arbitrary, confiscatory, and
unreasonable tax might draw more from the fairy
tale/legend traditions of absolute monarchs and the
oppressed peasants they tax. Indeed, it is easier to jump to
the conclusion that a tax is oppressive and unfair if it is
imposed by a tyrant or an authoritarian state.
But could an arbitrary, confiscatory or unreasonable tax
actually be enacted by a democratic state such as ours? Of
course it could, but these would exist in more palatable
guises. In a democratic society wherein statutes are
enacted by a representative legislature only after debate
and deliberation, tax statutes will most likely, on their
face, seem fair and even-handed. After all, if Congress
passes a tax law that on facial examination is obviously
harsh and unfair, it faces the wrath of the voting public, to
say nothing of the media.
In testing the validity of a tax statute as against the due
process clause, I think that the Court should go beyond a
facial examination of the statute, and seek to understand
how exactly it would operate. The express terms of a
statute, especially tax laws, are usually inadequate in
spelling out the practical effects of its implementation. The
devil is usually in the details.
Admittedly, the degree of difficulty involved of judicial
review of tax laws has increased with the growing
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 243/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
_______________
277
and Wisdom
_______________
This was the Court’s maiden unequivocal affirmation of the “clear and
present danger” rule in the religious freedom area, and in Philippine
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 245/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
279
_______________
281
_______________
283
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 249/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 250/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 251/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
287
288
289
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 254/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
_______________
290
_______________
291
_______________
39 There is also the option for the business to go underground and avoid
VAT registration, and consequently avoid remitting VAT payments to the
government. It would be facetious though for a Justice of the Supreme
Court to characterize this illegal option as “viable.”
292
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 257/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
40
is your basic Catch-22 situation—no matter which means
the enterprise employs to recover from the E-VAT Law, it
will still go down in flames.
Section 8 of the E-VAT law, while ostensibly even-
handed in application, fails to appreciate valid substantial
distinctions between large scale enterprises and small and
medium enterprises. The latter group, owing to the limited
capability for capital investment, subsists on modest profit
margins, whereas the former expects, by reason of its
substantial capital investments, a high margin. In
essentially prohibiting the recovery of small profit margins,
the E-VAT law effectively sends the message that only high
margin businesses are welcome to do business in the
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 258/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
DEALER “A”
_______________
294
would have been shelled out if the 70% cap were not in
place. Considering that the net profit of the dealer is only
P59,984.00, the consequences could very well be fatal,
especially if these state of events persist in succeeding
quarters.
The burden of proof was on the Pilipinas Shell Dealers’
to prove their allegations, and accordingly, these figures
have been duly presented to the Court for appreciation and
evaluation. Instead, the majority has shunted aside these
presentations as being merely theoretical, despite the fact
that they present a clear and present danger to the very
life of our nation’s enterprises. The majority’s position
would have been more credible had it faced the issue
squarely, and endeavored to demonstrate in like numerical
fashion why the 70% cap is not oppressive, confiscatory, or
otherwise violative of the due process clause.
Sadly, the majority refuses to confront the figures or
engage in a meaningful demonstration of how these
assailed provisions truly operate. Instead, it counters with
platitudes and bromides that do not intellectually satisfy.
Considering
295
Slide 1
Item Cost VAT
Sales 1,000,000.00 100,000.00
Purchases 800,000.00 80,000.00
Due BIR Due BIR with 70% cap
without cap
Output VAT 100,000.00 Output VAT 100,000.00
Actual Input 80,000.00 Allowable Input 70,000.00
VAT VAT
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 260/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
Slide 1
Item Cost VAT
Net VAT 20,000.00 Net VAT 30,000.00
Payable Payable
Excess Input 10,000.00
VAT
Carry-over to
next quarter
Slide 2
Item Cost VAT
Sales 1,000,000.00 100,000.00
Purchases 600,000.00 60,000.00
Due BIR without cap Due BIR with 70% cap
Output VAT 100,000.00 Output VAT 100,000.00
Actual Input VAT (60% of output Allowable 60,000.00
Input VAT
_______________
296
VAT) 60,000.00
Net VAT 40,000.00 Net VAT Payable 40,000.00
Payable
Excess Input VAT ___0_____
Carry-over to next
quarter
Slide 1
Quarter 1
Item No. Cost VAT
Sales 1,000,000.00 100,000.00
Purchases 800,000.00 80,000.00
Due BIR with 70% cap
Output VAT 100,000.00
Allowable Input VAT 70,000.00
Net VAT Payable 30,000.00
Excess Input Vat 10,000.00
Carry-over to next quarter
_______________
297
Quarter 2
Cost VAT
Sales 1,000,000.00 100,000.00
Purchases 800,000.00 80,000.00
Due BIR with 7-% cap
Output VAT 100,000.00
Less: Input VAT
Excess Input VAT fr. 1st Qtr. 10,000.00
Input VAT-Current Qtr. 80,000.00
Total Available Input VAT 90,000.00
Allowable Input VAT (100,000 x 70,000.00 70,000.00
70%)
Net VAT Payable 30,000.00
Total Available Input VAT 90,000.00
Allowable Input VAT 70,000.00
Excess Input VAT to be carried over to 20,000.00
next Quarter
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 262/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
Quarter 3
Cost VAT
Sales 1,000,000.00 100,000.00
Purchases 800,000.00 80,000.00
Due BIR with 70% cap
Output VAT 100,000.00
Less: Input VAT
Excess Input VAT fr. 2nd Qtr. 20,000.00
Input VAT-Current Qtr. 80,000.00
Total Available Input VAT 100,000.00
Allowable Input VAT (100,000 x 70,000.00 70,000.00
70%)
Net VAT Payable 30,000.00
298
Quarter 4
Cost VAT
Sales 1,000,000.00 100,000.00
Purchases 800,000.00 80,000.00
Due BIR with 70% cap
Output VAT 100,000.00
Less: Input VAT
Excess Input VAT fr. 3rd Qtr. 30,000.00
Input VAT-Current Qtr. 80,000.00
Total Available Input VAT 110,000.00
Allowable Input VAT (100,000 x 70,000.00 70,000.00
70%)
Net VAT Payable 30,000.00
Allowable Input VAT 110,000.00
Total Available Input VAT 70,000.00
Excess Input VAT to be 40,000.00
carried over to next quarter
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 263/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
300
_______________
43 Decision, infra.
301
xxx
“(B) Capital Goods.—A VAT-registered person may apply for
the issuance of a tax credit certificate or refund of input taxes
paid on capital goods imported or locally purchased, to the extent
that such input taxes have not been applied against output taxes.
The application may be made only within two (2) years after the
close of the taxable quarter when the importation or purchase was
made.
_______________
“[Q]: Is there a way by which such unapplied excess input tax credits can be
claimed for refund or issuance of TCC?
[A]: The only time application for refund/issuance of TCC is allowed for
input taxes incurred on the purchase of domestic goods/services is when
the same are directly attributable to zero-rated or effectively zero-rated
sales (of goods/services). x x x
For those engaged purely in domestic transactions, the only time that
unapplied input taxes may be applied for the issuance of TCC is when the
VAT registration of the taxpayer is cancelled due to retirement or
cessation of business or change in the status of the taxpayer as a VAT
registered taxpayer. As provided for in Section 112(B0, in case of cancellation of
VAT registration due to cessation of business or change in status of taxpayer, the
only recourse given to such taxpayer is to apply for the issuance of TCC on his
excess input tax credits which may be used in payment of
302
_______________
his other internal revenue taxes, application for refund thereof is not
an option.”
See Annexes “18-N” and “18-O,” Compliance dated 12 July 2005.
45 See SRC Rule 68(1)(b)(c), IMPLEMENTING RULES AND
REGULATIONS TO THE SECURITIES AND REGULATIONS CODE.
46 Section 34, INTERNATIONAL ACCOUNTING STANDARDS 12.
47 Section 36, Id.
303
_______________
304
50
the surviving corporation by operation of law. Assets
would fall under the purview of property under the due
process clause, and if the taxing arm of the State
recognizes that such property belongs to the taxpayer and
not to the State, then due respect should be given to such
expert opinion.
Even under the International Accounting Standards I
adverted to above, the unutilized input VAT credit may be
recognized as an asset “to the extent that it is probable that
future taxable profit will be available against which the 51
unused tax losses and unused tax credits can be utilised”
52
If not probable, it would be recognized as a loss. Since
these international standards, duly recognized by the
Securities and Exchange Commission as controlling in this
jurisdiction, attribute tangible gain or loss to the VAT
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 268/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
_______________
305
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 269/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
306
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 270/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
55
tax administration.” With the amortization requirement,
the taxpayer would be forced to segregate assets into
several classes and strictly monitor the useful life of assets
so that proper classification can be made. The
administrative requirements of the taxpayer in order to
monitor the input VAT from the purchase of capital assets
thus has exponentially increased.
_______________
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 271/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
308
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 272/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
310
_______________
311
taxed during the year that they were earned. To tax them
again when the retiring employee receives their money
value as a form of government concern and appreciation
plainly constitutes an attempt to tax the employee 59
a
second time. This is tantamount to double taxation.
Conclusions
_______________
59 Id., at p. 856.
312
313
CONCURRING OPINION
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 276/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
_______________
314
2
without taxes, the government would be paralyzed.
Without the tax reforms introduced by Rep. Act No. 9337,
the then Secretary of the Department of Finance, Cesar V.
Purisima, assessed that “all economic scenarios point to the
National Government’s inability to sustain its precarious
fiscal position, resulting in severe3 erosion of investor
confidence and economic stagnation.”
Finding Rep. Act No. 9337 as not unconstitutional, both
in its procedural enactment and in its substance, I hereby
concur in full in the foregoing majority opinion, penned by
my esteemed colleague, Justice Ma. Alicia Austria-
Martinez.
According to petitioners, the enactment of Rep. Act No.
9337 by Congress was riddled with irregularities and
violations of the Constitution. In particular, they alleged
that: (1) The Bicameral Conference Committee exceeded its
authority to merely settle or reconcile the differences
among House Bills No. 3555 and 3705 and Senate Bill No.
1950, by including in Rep. Act No. 9337 provisions not
found in any of the said bills, or deleting from Rep. Act No.
9337 or amending provisions therein even though they
were not in conflict with the provisions of the other bills; (2)
The amendments introduced by the Bicameral Conference
Committee violated Article VI, Section 26(2), of the
Constitution which forbids the amendment of a bill after it
had passed third reading; and (3) Rep. Act No. 9337
contravened Article VI, Section 24, of the Constitution
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 277/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
_______________
315
this Court to look into the enactment of Rep. Act No. 9337
by Congress and, consequently, to review the applicability
of the enrolled bill doctrine in this jurisdiction. Under the
said doctrine, the enrolled bill, as signed by the Speaker of
the House of Representatives and the Senate President,
and certified by the Secretaries of both Houses4 of Congress,
shall be conclusive proof of its due enactment.
Petitioners’ arguments failed to convince me of the
wisdom of abandoning the enrolled bill doctrine. I believe
that it is more prudent for this Court to remain
conservative and to continue its adherence to the enrolled
bill doctrine, for to abandon the said doctrine would be to
open a Pandora’s Box, giving rise to a situation more
fraught with evil and mischief. Statutes enacted by
Congress may not attain finality or conclusiveness unless
declared so by this Court. This would undermine the
authority of our statutes because despite having been
signed and certified by the designated officers of Congress,
their validity would still be in doubt and their
implementation would be greatly hampered by allegations
of irregularities in their passage by the Legislature. Such
an uncertainty in the statutes would indubitably result in
confusion and disorder. In all probability, it is the
contemplation of such a scenario that led an American
judge to proclaim, thus –
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 278/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
_______________
316
6
their own creation. In a number of cases, this Court
already made a determination of the extent of the powers of
the Bicameral Conference Committee after taking into
account the existing Rules of both Houses of Congress. In
gist, the power of the Bicameral Conference Committee to
reconcile or settle the differences in the two Houses’
respective bills is not limited to the conflicting provisions of
the bills; but may include matters not found in the original
bills but germane to the purpose thereof. If both Houses
viewed the pronouncement made by this Court in such
cases as extreme or beyond what they intended, they had
the power to amend their respective Rules to clarify or
limit even further the scope of the authority which they
grant to the Bicameral Conference Committee. Petitioners’
grievance that, unfortunately, they cannot bring about
such an amendment of the Rules on the Bicameral
Conference Committee because they are members of the
minority, deserves scant consideration. That the majority
of the members of both Houses refuses to amend the Rules
on the Bicameral Conference Committee is an indication
that it is still satisfied therewith. At any rate, this is how
democracy works—the will of the majority shall be
controlling.
Worth reiterating 7herein is the concluding paragraph in
Arroyo v. De Venecia, which reads—
_______________
6 Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance, G.R. No. 115544, 25 August 1994, 235 SCRA
630; Philippine Judges Association v. Prado, G.R. No. 105371, 11 November 1993,
227 SCRA 703.
7 G.R. No. 127255, 14 August 1997, 277 SCRA 268, 299.
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 280/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
318
_______________
8 Supra, note 6.
319
_______________
9 Supra, note 3.
10 Petition for Prohibition (Under Rule 65 with Prayer for the Issuance
of a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction)
in G.R. No. 168461 entitled, Association of Pilipinas Shell Dealers, Inc., et
al. v. Purisima, et al., p. 17, paragraph 52.
320
input VAT one may credit against his output VAT per
quarter to an amount equivalent to 70% of the output VAT.
What is more, any input VAT in excess13of the 70% cap may
be carried-over to the next quarter. It is certainly a
departure from the VAT crediting system under Section
110 of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997, but it is
an innovation that Congress may very well introduce,
because—
_______________
322
_______________
323
17
Code, as amended by Rep. Act No. 9337. The latter
taxpayer is exempt from VAT on the basis that his sale or
lease of goods or properties or services do not exceed
P1,500,000; instead, he is subject to pay a three percent
18
(3%) tax on his gross receipts in lieu of the VAT. If a
taxpayer with presumably a smaller business is required to
pay three percent (3%) gross receipts tax, a type of tax
which does not even allow for any crediting, a VAT-
taxpayer with a bigger business should be obligated,
likewise, to pay a minimum of 30% output VAT (which
should be equivalent to 3% of the gross selling price per
good or property or service sold). The cap assures the
government a collection of at least 30% output VAT,
contributing to an improved cash flow for the government.
Attention is further called to the fact that the output
VAT is the VAT imposed on the sales by a VAT-taxpayer; it
is paid by the purchasers of the goods, properties, and
services, and merely collected through the VAT-registered
seller. The latter, therefore, serves as a collecting agent for
the government. The VAT-registered seller is merely being
required to remit to the government a minimum of 30% of
his output VAT collection.
Fourth, I give no weight to the figures and computations
presented before this Court by the petroleum dealers,
particularly the supposed quarterly profit and loss
statement of a “typical dealer.” How these data represent
the financial status of a typical dealer, I would not know
when there was no effort to explain the manner by which
they were surveyed, collated, and averaged out. Without
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 286/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
_______________
325
“It will thus be seen that the contention that the rates charged for
advertising cannot be raised is purely hypothetical, based entirely
upon the opinion of the plaintiffs, unsupported by actual test, and
that the plaintiffs themselves admit that a number of other
persons have voluntarily and without protest paid the tax herein
complained of. Under these circumstances, can it be held as a
matter of fact that the tax is confiscatory or that, as a matter of
law, the tax is unconstitutional? Is the exercise of the taxing
power of the Legislature dependent upon and restricted by the
opinion of two interested witnesses? There can be but one answer
to these questions, especially in view of the fact that others are
paying the tax and presumably making reasonable profit from
their business.”
_______________
326
Supreme
20
Court. As this Court explained in Agustin v.
Edu, to wit—
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 288/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
_______________
327
——o0o——
328
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 289/290
10/16/21, 8:26 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c8916f921142701ab000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 290/290