Case: People v.

Corpus

Doctrine:

The power to construe law is exclusively vested before the judiciary. While the congress may enact
repeal and amend laws, it should not be contrary to the constitution.

Facts:

Saturnino David, in his capacity as the Collector of Internal Revenue, imposed income tax collections on
the salaries of Justices Endencia and Jugo, who served as the Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeals
and an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, respectively. The lower court, guided by the precedent
established in Perfecto vs. Meer, ruled that these income tax deductions amounted to a reduction in the
justices' compensation, thus contravening the Philippine Constitution. As a remedy, it ordered the
reimbursement of the collected taxes.

Responding to this, the government, represented by the Solicitor General, argued that the tax collections
were executed in accordance with Section 13 of Republic Act 590. Congress had enacted this provision to
authorize and legitimize the imposition of income taxes on the salaries of judicial officers, and possibly to
address the implications of the Perfecto Case ruling.

Issue:

Whether the Legislature may lawfully declare the collection of income tax on the salary of a public
official, specially a judicial officer, not a decrease of his salary, after the Supreme Court has found and
decided otherwise.

Ruling:

No. The Legislature cannot legally declare that the collection of income tax on the salary of a public
official, particularly a judicial officer, does not constitute a decrease in their salary, especially after a prior
Supreme Court ruling. The interpretation and application of the Constitution and statutes fall under the
exclusive jurisdiction of the judicial department. The Legislature cannot enact a law specifying how it
should be interpreted to avoid constitutional violations, particularly when such interpretation contradicts
a prior decision by the highest court.

In this case, Section 13 of Republic Act 590 aimed to interpret the phrase "which shall not be diminished
during their continuance in office" found in Section 9, Article VIII of the Constitution regarding judicial
officers' salaries. This legislative interpretation of the Constitution encroached upon the judiciary's
jurisdiction, which is responsible for interpreting the Constitution and laws.

Under the Philippine constitutional system, the legislative department is responsible for creating laws,
the executive department executes them, and the interpretation and application of these laws, including
the Constitution, belong solely to the judiciary. The courts must interpret laws to determine their
constitutionality. Therefore, the doctrine established in the Perfecto vs. Meer case, which affirms that
taxing the salary of a judicial officer constitutes a diminution and violates the Constitution, is upheld.