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. Third, although the petroleum dealers presented figures and computations to support their contention that the cap shall lead to the demise of their businesses, I remain unconvinced. Rep. Act No. 9337, while imposing the 70% cap on input VAT credits, allows the taxpayer to carryover to the succeeding quarters any excess input VAT. The petroleum dealers presented a situation wherein their input VAT would always exceed 70% of their output VAT, and thus, their excess input VAT will be perennially carried-over and would remain unutilized. Even though they consistently questioned the 70% cap on their input VAT credits, the petroleum dealers failed to establish what is the average ratio of their input VAT vis--vis their output VAT per quarter. Without such fact, I consider their objection to the 70% cap arbitrary because there is no basis therefor. On the other, 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 VATtaxpayer, 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. 9337.17 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.18 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 VATtaxpayer; 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 establishing their source therefor, the figures and computations presented by the petroleum dealers are merely self-serving and unsubstantiated, deserving scant consideration by this Court. Even assuming that these figures truly represent the financial standing of petroleum dealers, the introduction and application thereto of the VAT factor, which forebode the collapse of said petroleum dealers businesses, would be nothing more than an anticipated damage an injury that may or may not happen. To resolve their petition on this basis would be premature and contrary to the established tenet of ripeness of a cause of action before this Court could validly exercise its power of judicial review.

Fifth, in response to the contention of the petroleum dealers during oral arguments before this Court that they cannot pass on to the consumers the VAT burden and increase the prices of their goods, it is worthy to quote below this Courts ruling in Churchill v. Concepcion,19 to wit 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. As a final observation, I perceive that what truly underlies the opposition to Rep. Act No. 9337 is not the question of its constitutionality, but rather the wisdom of its enactment. Would it truly raise national revenue and benefit the entire country, or would it only increase the burden of the Filipino people? Would it contribute to a revival of our economy or only contribute to the difficulties and eventual closure of businesses? These are issues that we cannot resolve as the Supreme Court. As this Court explained in Agustin v. Edu,20 to wit It does appear clearly that petitioners objection to this Letter of Instruction is not premised on lack of power, the justification for a finding of unconstitutionality, but on the pessimistic, not to say negative, view he entertains as to its wisdom. That approach, it put it at its mildest, is distinguished, if that is the appropriate word, by its unorthodoxy. It bears repeating "that this Court, in the language of Justice Laurel, does not pass upon questions of wisdom, justice or expediency of legislation. As expressed by Justice Tuason: It is not the province of the courts to supervise legislation and keep it within the bounds of propriety and common sense. That is primarily and exclusively a legislative concern. There can be no possible objection then to the observation of Justice Montemayor: As long as laws do not violate any Constitutional provision, the Courts merely interpret and apply them regardless of whether or not they are wise or salutary. For they, according to Justice Labrador, are not supposed to override legitimate policy and * * * never inquire into the wisdom of the law. It is thus settled, to paraphrase Chief Justice Concepcion in Gonzales v. Commission on Elections, that only congressional power or competence, not the wisdom of the action taken, may be the basis for declaring a statute invalid. This is as it ought to be. The principle of separation of powers has in the main wisely allocated the respective authority of each department and confined its jurisdiction to such sphere. There would then be intrusion not allowable under the Constitution if on a matter left to the discretion of a coordinate branch, the judiciary would substitute its own"21 To reiterate, we cannot substitute our discretion for Congress, and even though there are provisions in Rep. Act No. 9337 which we may believe as unwise or iniquitous, but not unconstitutional, we cannot strike them off by invoking our power of judicial review. In such a situation, the recourse of the people is not judicial, but rather political. If they severely doubt the wisdom of the present Congress for passing a statute such as Rep. Act No. 9337, then they have the power to hold the members of said Congress accountable by using their voting power in the next elections. In view of the foregoing, I vote for the denial of the present petitions and the upholding of the constitutionality of Rep. Act No. 9337 in its entirety. MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice