G.R. No.

L-2348 February 27, 1950

Tax Immunity of Judges of lower courts.

PERFECTO V. MEER
February 27, 1950 G.R. No. L-2348 BENGZON, J.:
Recit Ready Synopsis
In April 1947, Mr. Bibiano Meer, Collector of Internal Revenue required Mr. Justice Gregorio
Perfecto to pay income tax upon his salary as a member of this Court during the year 1946 in
which the latter paid the amount of 802 pesos. Mr. Perfecto contended the assessment was
unconstitutional in violation of Article VIII, section 9 of the Constitution, and filed the case in the Manila
Court of First Instance in which his contention was sustained. The Court upheld the lower court’s
decision in applying Evans v. Gore doctrine that it may not tax the salaries of those judges already in
office at the time of such declaration because such taxation would diminish their salaries, violating the
Constitution.
Legal Provisions/Concepts/Doctrines and How Applied to the Case
Article VIII, Section 9 of Constitution provides that the members of the Supreme Court and all judges
of inferior courts “shall receive such compensation as may be fixed by, which shall not be diminished
during their continuance in office.”It also provides that “until Congress shall provide otherwise, the Chief
Justice of the Supreme Court shall receive an annual compensation of sixteen thousand pesos and each
Associate Justice, fifteen thousand pesos.”

FACTS
1. In April 1947, MR. Bibiano Meer, Collector of Internal Revenue required Mr. Justice Gregorio
Perfecto to pay income tax upon his salary as a member of this Court during the year 1946 in
which the latter paid the amount of 802 pesos.
2. Mr. Perfecto instituted this action in the Manila Court of First Instance contending that the
assessment was unconstitutional, his salary not being taxable for the reason that imposition of
taxes under Article VIII, section 9 of the Constitution which prohibits diminution of salary of all
judges of inferior courts during their continuance in office.
3. The Manila judge upheld the petitioner’s contention and required a refund of the amount
collected. The defendant appealed.

ISSUE/S (relevant to the syllabus)

1. WHETHER OR NOT the imposition of an income tax upon this salary in 1946 amount to a
diminution thereof?

RULING
1. YES, the Court voting 7-2 adopted Evans v. Gore; Miles v. Graham doctrine, that “the fathers
of the Constitution intended to prohibit diminution by taxation and that they regarded the
independence of the judges as of far greater importance than any revenue that could come
from taxing their salaries.” The court held that it may not tax the salaries of those
judges already in office at the time of such declaration because such taxation would diminish
their salaries which violates the Constitution.
DISPOSITIVE
The judgment will be affirmed. So ordered

OTHER NOTES
The Court disregarded the doctrine conferred in O'Malley vs. Woodrough - To subject them to a
general tax is merely to recognize that judges also are citizens, and that their particular function in
government does not generate an immunity from sharing with their fellow citizens the material burden of
the government whose Constitution and laws they are charged with administering. Thus, Congress may
validly declare by law that salaries of judges appointed thereafter shall be taxed as income.

OZAETA., J., dissenting opinion –

The question of whether the salaries of the judges, the members of the Commission on
Elections, the Auditor General, and the President of the Philippines are immune from taxation.
Justice Ozaeta opined that the prohibition against diminution cannot be interpreted to include or refer to
general taxation but to a law by which said salaries may be fixed. As provided under Section 9, Article
VIII of the Constitution, Congress may approve a law increasing the salaries of the justices at any time,
but it cannot approve a law decreasing their salaries unless such law is made effective only as to
justices appointed after its approval. He also pointed out that the Constitution expressly provided those
which are exempted from tax under Sec. 22 [3], Article VI.) as follows: Cemeteries, churches, and
parsonages or convents appurtenant thereto, and all lands, buildings, and improvements used
exclusively for religious, charitable, or educational purposes" in which members of the judiciary are not
included.