EN BANC

G.R. No. 166715, August 14, 2008

ABAKADA GURO PARTY LIST (FORMERLY AASJS) *

OFFICERS/MEMBERS SAMSON S. ALCANTARA, ED VINCENT S.
ALBANO, ROMEO R. ROBISO, RENE B. GOROSPE AND EDWIN R.
SANDOVAL, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. CESAR V. PURISIMA, IN HIS
CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF FINANCE, HON. GUILLERMO L.
PARAYNO, JR., IN HIS CAPACITY AS COMMISSIONER OF THE BUREAU
OF INTERNAL REVENUE, AND HON. ALBERTO D. LINA, IN HIS
CAPACITY AS COMMISSIONER OF BUREAU OF CUSTOMS,
RESPONDENTS.

FACTS
RA 9335 or Attrition Act of 2005 was enacted to optimize the revenue-generation
capability and collection of the BIR and the BOC. The law intends to encourage their
officials and employees to exceed their revenue targets by providing a system of
rewards and sanctions through the creation of Rewards and Incentives Fund (Fund)
and Revenue Performance Evaluation Board (Board).
It covers all officials and employees of the BIR and the BOC with at least six (6)
months of service, regardless of employment status. The Fund is sourced from the
collection of the BIR and the BOC in excess of their revenue targets for the year, as
determined by the Development Budget and Coordinating Committee (DBCC). Any
incentive or reward is taken from the Fund and allocated to the BIR and the BOC in
proportion to their contribution in the excess collection of the targeted amount of tax
revenue.
Petitioners invoking their right as taxpayers filed this petition challenging the
constitutionality of R.A. 9335, a tax reform legislation.
They contend that:
1. They contend that, by establishing a system of rewards and incentives, the law
"transform[s] the officials and employees of the BIR and the BOC into
mercenaries and bounty hunters" as they will do their best only in consideration
of such rewards;
 2. Limiting the scope of the system of rewards and incentives only to officials and
employees of the BIR and the BOC violates the constitutional guarantee of
equal protection. There is no valid basis for classification or distinction as to
why such a system should not apply to officials and employees of all other
government agencies;
3. The law unduly delegates the power to fix revenue targets to the President as it
lacks a sufficient standard on that matter; and
4. The creation of a congressional oversight committee on the ground that it
violates the doctrine of separation of powers.
ISSUE STATEMENT
Whether the creation of the Congressional Oversight Committee to approve the
implementing rules and regulations of the law violates the doctrine of separation of
powers under the Constitution.

RATIO/RULINGS
Yes. From the moment the law becomes effective, any provision of law that
empowers Congress or any of its members to play any role in the implementation or
enforcement of the law violates the principle of separation of powers and is thus
unconstitutional. Under this principle, a provision that requires Congress or its
members to approve the implementing rules of a law after it has already taken effect
shall be unconstitutional, as is a provision that allows Congress or its members to
overturn any directive or ruling made by the members of the executive branch charged
with the implementation of the law.

ANALYSIS
Where Congress delegates the formulation of rules to implement the law it has
enacted pursuant to sufficient standards established in the said law, the law must be
complete in all its essential terms and conditions when it leaves the hands of the
legislature. And it may be deemed to have left the hands of the legislature when it
becomes effective because it is only upon effectivity of the statute that legal rights and
obligations become available to those entitled by the language of the statute. As such,
it is only upon its effectivity that a law may be executed and the executive branch
acquires the duties and powers to execute the said law. Before that point, the role of the
executive branch, particularly of the Presiden+t, is limited to approving or vetoing the
law.
CONCLUSION
Provision of law that empowers Congress or any of its members to play any role in the
implementation or enforcement of the law violates the principle of separation of
powers and is thus unconstitutional. Under this principle, a provision that requires
Congress or its members to approve the implementing rules of a law after it has
already taken effect shall be unconstitutional.