TAX GenPrin Cases

1
CASE PAGE NUMBER

1. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE, petitioner, vs. ALGUE,
INC., and THE COURT OF TAX
APPEALS, respondents
G.R. No. L-28896 February 17, 1988
2
2. ABAKADA GURO PARTY LIST
(Formerly AASJAS) OFFICERS
SAMSON S. ALCANTARA and ED
VINCENT S. ALBANO, Petitioners, vs.
THE HONORABLE EXECUTIVE
SECRETARY EDUARDO ERMITA;
HONORABLE SECRETARY OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE CESAR
PURISIMA; and HONORABLE
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE GUILLERMO PARAYNO,
JR., Respondent.

G.R. No. 168056 September 1, 2005
6
REVENUE, Petitioners, vs. CENTRAL
LUZON DRUG
CORPORATION, Respondent.

G.R. No. 159647 April 15, 2005
49
4. MACTAN CEBU INTERNATIONAL
AIRPORT AUTHORITY, petitioner,
vs.HON. FERDINAND J. MARCOS, in
his capacity as the Presiding Judge
of the Regional Trial Court, Branch
20, Cebu City, THE CITY OF CEBU,
represented by its Mayor HON.
TOMAS R. OSMEA, and
EUSTAQUIO B. CESA, respondents
G.R. No. 120082 September 11, 1996
61
REVENUE, petitioner, vs.
BURROUGHS LIMITED AND THE
COURT OF TAX
APPEALS, respondents.
G.R. No. L-66653 June 19, 1986
74

2

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. L-28896 February 17, 1988
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, petitioner,
vs.
ALGUE, INC., and THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS, respondents.
CRUZ, J .:
Taxes are the lifeblood of the government and so should be collected without unnecessary
hindrance On the other hand, such collection should be made in accordance with law as any
arbitrariness will negate the very reason for government itself. It is therefore necessary to reconcile
the apparently conflicting interests of the authorities and the taxpayers so that the real purpose of
taxation, which is the promotion of the common good, may be achieved.
The main issue in this case is whether or not the Collector of Internal Revenue correctly disallowed
the P75,000.00 deduction claimed by private respondent Algue as legitimate business expenses in
its income tax returns. The corollary issue is whether or not the appeal of the private respondent
from the decision of the Collector of Internal Revenue was made on time and in accordance with
law.
We deal first with the procedural question.
The record shows that on January 14, 1965, the private respondent, a domestic corporation
engaged in engineering, construction and other allied activities, received a letter from the petitioner
assessing it in the total amount of P83,183.85 as delinquency income taxes for the years 1958 and
1959.
1
On January 18, 1965, Algue flied a letter of protest or request for reconsideration, which letter was
stamp received on the same day in the office of the petitioner.
2
On March 12, 1965, a warrant of distraint
and levy was presented to the private respondent, through its counsel, Atty. Alberto Guevara, Jr., who
refused to receive it on the ground of the pending protest.
3
A search of the protest in the dockets of the
case proved fruitless. Atty. Guevara produced his file copy and gave a photostat to BIR agent Ramon
Reyes, who deferred service of the warrant.
4
On April 7, 1965, Atty. Guevara was finally informed that
the BIR was not taking any action on the protest and it was only then that he accepted the warrant of
distraint and levy earlier sought to be served.
5
Sixteen days later, on April 23, 1965, Algue filed a petition
for review of the decision of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue with the Court of Tax Appeals.
6

The above chronology shows that the petition was filed seasonably. According to Rep. Act No. 1125,
the appeal may be made within thirty days after receipt of the decision or ruling challenged.
7
It is true
that as a rule the warrant of distraint and levy is "proof of the finality of the assessment"
8
and renders
hopeless a request for reconsideration,"
9
being "tantamount to an outright denial thereof and makes the
said request deemed rejected."
10
But there is a special circumstance in the case at bar that prevents
application of this accepted doctrine.
The proven fact is that four days after the private respondent received the petitioner's notice of
assessment, it filed its letter of protest. This was apparently not taken into account before the
warrant of distraint and levy was issued; indeed, such protest could not be located in the office of the
petitioner. It was only after Atty. Guevara gave the BIR a copy of the protest that it was, if at all,
3

considered by the tax authorities. During the intervening period, the warrant was premature and
could therefore not be served.
As the Court of Tax Appeals correctly noted,"
11
the protest filed by private respondent was not pro
forma and was based on strong legal considerations. It thus had the effect of suspending on January 18,
1965, when it was filed, the reglementary period which started on the date the assessment was received,
viz., January 14, 1965. The period started running again only on April 7, 1965, when the private
respondent was definitely informed of the implied rejection of the said protest and the warrant was finally
served on it. Hence, when the appeal was filed on April 23, 1965, only 20 days of the reglementary period
had been consumed.
Now for the substantive question.
The petitioner contends that the claimed deduction of P75,000.00 was properly disallowed because
it was not an ordinary reasonable or necessary business expense. The Court of Tax Appeals had
seen it differently. Agreeing with Algue, it held that the said amount had been legitimately paid by the
private respondent for actual services rendered. The payment was in the form of promotional fees.
These were collected by the Payees for their work in the creation of the Vegetable Oil Investment
Corporation of the Philippines and its subsequent purchase of the properties of the Philippine Sugar
Estate Development Company.
Parenthetically, it may be observed that the petitioner had Originally claimed these promotional fees
to be personal holding company income
12
but later conformed to the decision of the respondent court
rejecting this assertion.
13
In fact, as the said court found, the amount was earned through the joint efforts
of the persons among whom it was distributed It has been established that the Philippine Sugar Estate
Development Company had earlier appointed Algue as its agent, authorizing it to sell its land, factories
and oil manufacturing process. Pursuant to such authority, Alberto Guevara, Jr., Eduardo Guevara, Isabel
Guevara, Edith, O'Farell, and Pablo Sanchez, worked for the formation of the Vegetable Oil Investment
Corporation, inducing other persons to invest in it.
14
Ultimately, after its incorporation largely through the
promotion of the said persons, this new corporation purchased the PSEDC properties.
15
For this sale,
Algue received as agent a commission of P126,000.00, and it was from this commission that the
P75,000.00 promotional fees were paid to the aforenamed individuals.
16

There is no dispute that the payees duly reported their respective shares of the fees in their income
tax returns and paid the corresponding taxes thereon.
17
The Court of Tax Appeals also found, after
examining the evidence, that no distribution of dividends was involved.
18

The petitioner claims that these payments are fictitious because most of the payees are members of
the same family in control of Algue. It is argued that no indication was made as to how such
payments were made, whether by check or in cash, and there is not enough substantiation of such
payments. In short, the petitioner suggests a tax dodge, an attempt to evade a legitimate
assessment by involving an imaginary deduction.
We find that these suspicions were adequately met by the private respondent when its President,
Alberto Guevara, and the accountant, Cecilia V. de Jesus, testified that the payments were not made
in one lump sum but periodically and in different amounts as each payee's need arose.
19
It should be
remembered that this was a family corporation where strict business procedures were not applied and
immediate issuance of receipts was not required. Even so, at the end of the year, when the books were to
be closed, each payee made an accounting of all of the fees received by him or her, to make up the total
of P75,000.00.
20
Admittedly, everything seemed to be informal. This arrangement was understandable,
however, in view of the close relationship among the persons in the family corporation.
4

We agree with the respondent court that the amount of the promotional fees was not excessive. The
total commission paid by the Philippine Sugar Estate Development Co. to the private respondent
was P125,000.00.
21
After deducting the said fees, Algue still had a balance of P50,000.00 as clear profit
from the transaction. The amount of P75,000.00 was 60% of the total commission. This was a reasonable
proportion, considering that it was the payees who did practically everything, from the formation of the
Vegetable Oil Investment Corporation to the actual purchase by it of the Sugar Estate properties. This
finding of the respondent court is in accord with the following provision of the Tax Code:
SEC. 30. Deductions from gross income.--In computing net income there shall be
allowed as deductions
(a) Expenses:
(1) In general.--All the ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred during the
taxable year in carrying on any trade or business, including a reasonable allowance
for salaries or other compensation for personal services actually rendered; ...
22

and Revenue Regulations No. 2, Section 70 (1), reading as follows:
SEC. 70. Compensation for personal services.--Among the ordinary and necessary
expenses paid or incurred in carrying on any trade or business may be included a
reasonable allowance for salaries or other compensation for personal services
actually rendered. The test of deductibility in the case of compensation payments is
whether they are reasonable and are, in fact, payments purely for service. This test
and deductibility in the case of compensation payments is whether they are
reasonable and are, in fact, payments purely for service. This test and its practical
application may be further stated and illustrated as follows:
Any amount paid in the form of compensation, but not in fact as the purchase price of
services, is not deductible. (a) An ostensible salary paid by a corporation may be a
distribution of a dividend on stock. This is likely to occur in the case of a corporation
having few stockholders, Practically all of whom draw salaries. If in such a case the
salaries are in excess of those ordinarily paid for similar services, and the excessive
payment correspond or bear a close relationship to the stockholdings of the officers
of employees, it would seem likely that the salaries are not paid wholly for services
rendered, but the excessive payments are a distribution of earnings upon the stock. .
. . (Promulgated Feb. 11, 1931, 30 O.G. No. 18, 325.)
It is worth noting at this point that most of the payees were not in the regular employ of Algue nor
were they its controlling stockholders.
23

The Solicitor General is correct when he says that the burden is on the taxpayer to prove the validity
of the claimed deduction. In the present case, however, we find that the onus has been discharged
satisfactorily. The private respondent has proved that the payment of the fees was necessary and
reasonable in the light of the efforts exerted by the payees in inducing investors and prominent
businessmen to venture in an experimental enterprise and involve themselves in a new business
requiring millions of pesos. This was no mean feat and should be, as it was, sufficiently
recompensed.
It is said that taxes are what we pay for civilization society. Without taxes, the government would be
paralyzed for lack of the motive power to activate and operate it. Hence, despite the natural
reluctance to surrender part of one's hard earned income to the taxing authorities, every person who
5

is able to must contribute his share in the running of the government. The government for its part, is
expected to respond in the form of tangible and intangible benefits intended to improve the lives of
the people and enhance their moral and material values. This symbiotic relationship is the rationale
of taxation and should dispel the erroneous notion that it is an arbitrary method of exaction by those
in the seat of power.
But even as we concede the inevitability and indispensability of taxation, it is a requirement in all
democratic regimes that it be exercised reasonably and in accordance with the prescribed
procedure. If it is not, then the taxpayer has a right to complain and the courts will then come to his
succor. For all the awesome power of the tax collector, he may still be stopped in his tracks if the
taxpayer can demonstrate, as it has here, that the law has not been observed.
We hold that the appeal of the private respondent from the decision of the petitioner was filed on
time with the respondent court in accordance with Rep. Act No. 1125. And we also find that the
claimed deduction by the private respondent was permitted under the Internal Revenue Code and
should therefore not have been disallowed by the petitioner.
ACCORDINGLY, the appealed decision of the Court of Tax Appeals is AFFIRMED in toto, without
costs.
SO ORDERED.
Teehankee, C.J., Narvasa, Gancayco and Grio-Aquino, JJ., concur.

6

SUPREME COURT
EN BANC
G.R. No. 168056 September 1, 2005
ABAKADA GURO PARTY LIST (Formerly AASJAS) OFFICERS SAMSON S. ALCANTARA and
ED VINCENT S. ALBANO, Petitioners,
vs.
THE HONORABLE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY EDUARDO ERMITA; HONORABLE SECRETARY
OF THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE CESAR PURISIMA; and HONORABLE COMMISSIONER
OF INTERNAL REVENUE GUILLERMO PARAYNO, JR., Respondent.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
G.R. No. 168207
AQUILINO Q. PIMENTEL, JR., LUISA P. EJERCITO-ESTRADA, JINGGOY E. ESTRADA, PANFILO
M. LACSON, ALFREDO S. LIM, JAMBY A.S. MADRIGAL, AND SERGIO R. OSMEA III,
Petitioners,
vs.
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY EDUARDO R. ERMITA, CESAR V. PURISIMA, SECRETARY OF
FINANCE, GUILLERMO L. PARAYNO, JR., COMMISSIONER OF THE BUREAU OF INTERNAL
REVENUE, Respondent.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
G.R. No. 168461
ASSOCIATION OF PILIPINAS SHELL DEALERS, INC. represented by its President, ROSARIO
ANTONIO; PETRON DEALERS ASSOCIATION represented by its President, RUTH E. BARBIBI;
ASSOCIATION OF CALTEX DEALERS OF THE PHILIPPINES represented by its President,
MERCEDITAS A. GARCIA; ROSARIO ANTONIO doing business under the name and style of "ANB
NORTH SHELL SERVICE STATION"; LOURDES MARTINEZ doing business under the name and
style of "SHELL GATE N. DOMINGO"; BETHZAIDA TAN doing business under the name and style
of "ADVANCE SHELL STATION"; REYNALDO P. MONTOYA doing business under the name and
style of "NEW LAMUAN SHELL SERVICE STATION"; EFREN SOTTO doing business under the
name and style of "RED FIELD SHELL SERVICE STATION"; DONICA CORPORATION
represented by its President, DESI TOMACRUZ; RUTH E. MARBIBI doing business under the name
and style of "R&R PETRON STATION"; PETER M. UNGSON doing business under the name and
style of "CLASSIC STAR GASOLINE SERVICE STATION"; MARIAN SHEILA A. LEE doing
business under the name and style of "NTE GASOLINE & SERVICE STATION"; JULIAN CESAR P.
POSADAS doing business under the name and style of "STARCARGA ENTERPRISES";
ADORACION MAEBO doing business under the name and style of "CMA MOTORISTS CENTER";
SUSAN M. ENTRATA doing business under the name and style of "LEONAS GASOLINE STATION
and SERVICE CENTER"; CARMELITA BALDONADO doing business under the name and style of
"FIRST CHOICE SERVICE CENTER"; MERCEDITAS A. GARCIA doing business under the name
and style of "LORPED SERVICE CENTER"; RHEAMAR A. RAMOS doing business under the name
and style of "RJRAM PTT GAS STATION"; MA. ISABEL VIOLAGO doing business under the name
and style of "VIOLAGO-PTT SERVICE CENTER"; MOTORISTS HEART CORPORATION
represented by its Vice-President for Operations, JOSELITO F. FLORDELIZA; MOTORISTS
7

HARVARD CORPORATION represented by its Vice-President for Operations, JOSELITO F.
FLORDELIZA; MOTORISTS HERITAGE CORPORATION represented by its Vice-President for
Operations, JOSELITO F. FLORDELIZA; PHILIPPINE STANDARD OIL CORPORATION
represented by its Vice-President for Operations, JOSELITO F. FLORDELIZA; ROMEO MANUEL
doing business under the name and style of "ROMMAN GASOLINE STATION"; ANTHONY ALBERT
CRUZ III doing business under the name and style of "TRUE SERVICE STATION", Petitioners,
vs.
CESAR V. PURISIMA, in his capacity as Secretary of the Department of Finance and
GUILLERMO L. PARAYNO, JR., in his capacity as Commissioner of Internal
Revenue, Respondent.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
G.R. No. 168463
FRANCIS JOSEPH G. ESCUDERO, VINCENT CRISOLOGO, EMMANUEL JOEL J. VILLANUEVA,
RODOLFO G. PLAZA, DARLENE ANTONINO-CUSTODIO, OSCAR G. MALAPITAN, BENJAMIN C.
AGARAO, JR. JUAN EDGARDO M. ANGARA, JUSTIN MARC SB. CHIPECO, FLORENCIO G.
NOEL, MUJIV S. HATAMAN, RENATO B. MAGTUBO, JOSEPH A. SANTIAGO, TEOFISTO DL.
GUINGONA III, RUY ELIAS C. LOPEZ, RODOLFO Q. AGBAYANI and TEODORO A. CASIO,
Petitioners,
vs.
CESAR V. PURISIMA, in his capacity as Secretary of Finance, GUILLERMO L. PARAYNO, JR.,
in his capacity as Commissioner of Internal Revenue, and EDUARDO R. ERMITA, in his
capacity as Executive Secretary, Respondent.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
G.R. No. 168730
BATAAN GOVERNOR ENRIQUE T. GARCIA, JR. Petitioner,
vs.
HON. EDUARDO R. ERMITA, in his capacity as the Executive Secretary; HON. MARGARITO
TEVES, in his capacity as Secretary of Finance; HON. JOSE MARIO BUNAG, in his capacity as the
OIC Commissioner of the Bureau of Internal Revenue; and HON. ALEXANDER AREVALO, in his
capacity as the OIC Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J .:
The expenses of government, having for their object the interest of all, should be borne by everyone,
and the more man enjoys the advantages of society, the more he ought to hold himself honored in
contributing to those expenses.
-Anne Robert Jacques Turgot (1727-1781)
French statesman and economist
Mounting budget deficit, revenue generation, inadequate fiscal allocation for education, increased
emoluments for health workers, and wider coverage for full value-added tax benefits these are the
8

reasons why Republic Act No. 9337 (R.A. No. 9337)
1
was enacted. Reasons, the wisdom of which,
the Court even with its extensive constitutional power of review, cannot probe. The petitioners in
these cases, however, question not only the wisdom of the law, but also perceived constitutional
infirmities in its passage.
Every law enjoys in its favor the presumption of constitutionality. Their arguments notwithstanding,
petitioners failed to justify their call for the invalidity of the law. Hence, R.A. No. 9337 is not
unconstitutional.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
R.A. No. 9337 is a consolidation of three legislative bills namely, House Bill Nos. 3555 and 3705,
and Senate Bill No. 1950.
House Bill No. 3555
2
was introduced on first reading on January 7, 2005. The House Committee on
Ways and Means approved the bill, in substitution of House Bill No. 1468, which Representative
(Rep.) Eric D. Singson introduced on August 8, 2004. The President certified the bill on January 7,
2005 for immediate enactment. On January 27, 2005, the House of Representatives approved the
bill on second and third reading.
House Bill No. 3705
3
on the other hand, substituted House Bill No. 3105 introduced by Rep.
Salacnib F. Baterina, and House Bill No. 3381 introduced by Rep. Jacinto V. Paras. Its "mother bill"
is House Bill No. 3555. The House Committee on Ways and Means approved the bill on February 2,
2005. The President also certified it as urgent on February 8, 2005. The House of Representatives
approved the bill on second and third reading on February 28, 2005.
Meanwhile, the Senate Committee on Ways and Means approved Senate Bill No. 1950
4
on March
7, 2005, "in substitution of Senate Bill Nos. 1337, 1838 and 1873, taking into consideration House
Bill Nos. 3555 and 3705." Senator Ralph G. Recto sponsored Senate Bill No. 1337, while Senate Bill
Nos. 1838 and 1873 were both sponsored by Sens. Franklin M. Drilon, Juan M. Flavier and Francis
N. Pangilinan. The President certified the bill on March 11, 2005, and was approved by the Senate
on second and third reading on April 13, 2005.
On the same date, April 13, 2005, the Senate agreed to the request of the House of Representatives
for a committee conference on the disagreeing provisions of the proposed bills.
Before long, the Conference Committee on the Disagreeing Provisions of House Bill No. 3555,
House Bill No. 3705, and Senate Bill No. 1950, "after having met and discussed in full free and
conference," recommended the approval of its report, which the Senate did on May 10, 2005, and
with the House of Representatives agreeing thereto the next day, May 11, 2005.
On May 23, 2005, the enrolled copy of the consolidated House and Senate version was transmitted
to the President, who signed the same into law on May 24, 2005. Thus, came R.A. No. 9337.
July 1, 2005 is the effectivity date of R.A. No. 9337.
5
When said date came, the Court issued a
temporary restraining order, effective immediately and continuing until further orders, enjoining
respondents from enforcing and implementing the law.
Oral arguments were held on July 14, 2005. Significantly, during the hearing, the Court speaking
through Mr. Justice Artemio V. Panganiban, voiced the rationale for its issuance of the temporary
restraining order on July 1, 2005, to wit:
9

J. PANGANIBAN : . . . But before I go into the details of your presentation, let me just tell you a little
background. You know when the law took effect on July 1, 2005, the Court issued a TRO at about 5
oclock in the afternoon. But before that, there was a lot of complaints aired on television and on
radio. Some people in a gas station were complaining that the gas prices went up by 10%. Some
people were complaining that their electric bill will go up by 10%. Other times people riding in
domestic air carrier were complaining that the prices that theyll have to pay would have to go up by
10%. While all that was being aired, per your presentation and per our own understanding of the law,
thats not true. Its not true that the e-vat law necessarily increased prices by 10% uniformly isnt it?
ATTY. BANIQUED : No, Your Honor.
J. PANGANIBAN : It is not?
ATTY. BANIQUED : Its not, because, Your Honor, there is an Executive Order that granted the
Petroleum companies some subsidy . . . interrupted
J. PANGANIBAN : Thats correct . . .
ATTY. BANIQUED : . . . and therefore that was meant to temper the impact . . . interrupted
J. PANGANIBAN : . . . mitigating measures . . .
ATTY. BANIQUED : Yes, Your Honor.
J. PANGANIBAN : As a matter of fact a part of the mitigating measures would be the elimination of
the Excise Tax and the import duties. That is why, it is not correct to say that the VAT as to
petroleum dealers increased prices by 10%.
J. PANGANIBAN : And therefore, there is no justification for increasing the retail price by 10% to
cover the E-Vat tax. If you consider the excise tax and the import duties, the Net Tax would probably
be in the neighborhood of 7%? We are not going into exact figures I am just trying to deliver a point
that different industries, different products, different services are hit differently. So its not correct to
say that all prices must go up by 10%.
ATTY. BANIQUED : Youre right, Your Honor.
J. PANGANIBAN : Now. For instance, Domestic Airline companies, Mr. Counsel, are at present
imposed a Sales Tax of 3%. When this E-Vat law took effect the Sales Tax was also removed as a
mitigating measure. So, therefore, there is no justification to increase the fares by 10% at best 7%,
correct?
ATTY. BANIQUED : I guess so, Your Honor, yes.
J. PANGANIBAN : There are other products that the people were complaining on that first day, were
being increased arbitrarily by 10%. And thats one reason among many others this Court had to
issue TRO because of the confusion in the implementation. Thats why we added as an issue in this
case, even if its tangentially taken up by the pleadings of the parties, the confusion in the
implementation of the E-vat. Our people were subjected to the mercy of that confusion of an across
the board increase of 10%, which you yourself now admit and I think even the Government will admit
10

is incorrect. In some cases, it should be 3% only, in some cases it should be 6% depending on these
mitigating measures and the location and situation of each product, of each service, of each
company, isnt it?
J. PANGANIBAN : Alright. So thats one reason why we had to issue a TRO pending the clarification
of all these and we wish the government will take time to clarify all these by means of a more
detailed implementing rules, in case the law is upheld by this Court. . . .
6

The Court also directed the parties to file their respective Memoranda.
G.R. No. 168056
Before R.A. No. 9337 took effect, petitioners ABAKADA GURO Party List, et al., filed a petition for
prohibition on May 27, 2005. They question the constitutionality of Sections 4, 5 and 6 of R.A. No.
9337, amending Sections 106, 107 and 108, respectively, of the National Internal Revenue Code
(NIRC). Section 4 imposes a 10% VAT on sale of goods and properties, Section 5 imposes a 10%
VAT on importation of goods, and Section 6 imposes a 10% VAT on sale of services and use or
lease of properties. These questioned provisions contain a uniform provisoauthorizing the President,
upon recommendation of the Secretary of Finance, to raise the VAT rate to 12%, effective January
1, 2006, after any of the following conditions have been satisfied, to wit:
. . . 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:
(i) Value-added tax collection as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of the previous
year exceeds two and four-fifth 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 %).
Petitioners argue that the law is unconstitutional, as it constitutes abandonment by Congress of its
exclusive authority to fix the rate of taxes under Article VI, Section 28(2) of the 1987 Philippine
Constitution.
G.R. No. 168207
On June 9, 2005, Sen. Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr., et al., filed a petition for certiorari likewise assailing
the constitutionality of Sections 4, 5 and 6 of R.A. No. 9337.
Aside from questioning the so-called stand-by authority of the President to increase the VAT rate to
12%, on the ground that it amounts to an undue delegation of legislative power, petitioners also
contend that the increase in the VAT rate to 12% contingent on any of the two conditions being
satisfied violates the due process clause embodied in Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution, as it
imposes an unfair and additional tax burden on the people, in that: (1) the 12% increase is
ambiguous because it does not state if the rate would be returned to the original 10% if the
conditions are no longer satisfied; (2) the rate is unfair and unreasonable, as the people are unsure
of the applicable VAT rate from year to year; and (3) the increase in the VAT rate, which is supposed
11

to be an incentive to the President to raise the VAT collection to at least 2
4
/5 of the GDP of the
previous year, should only be based on fiscal adequacy.
Petitioners further claim that the inclusion of a stand-by authority granted to the President by the
Bicameral Conference Committee is a violation of the "no-amendment rule" upon last reading of a
bill laid down in Article VI, Section 26(2) of the Constitution.
G.R. No. 168461
Thereafter, a petition for prohibition was filed on June 29, 2005, by the Association of Pilipinas Shell
Dealers, Inc.,et al., assailing the following provisions of R.A. No. 9337:
1) Section 8, amending Section 110 (A)(2) of the NIRC, requiring that the input tax on depreciable
goods shall be amortized over a 60-month period, if the acquisition, excluding the VAT components,
exceeds One Million Pesos (P1, 000,000.00);
2) Section 8, amending Section 110 (B) of the NIRC, imposing a 70% limit on the amount of input tax
to be credited against the output tax; and
3) Section 12, amending Section 114 (c) of the NIRC, authorizing the Government or any of its
political subdivisions, instrumentalities or agencies, including GOCCs, to deduct a 5% final
withholding tax on gross payments of goods and services, which are subject to 10% VAT under
Sections 106 (sale of goods and properties) and 108 (sale of services and use or lease of
properties) of the NIRC.
Petitioners contend that these provisions are unconstitutional for being arbitrary, oppressive,
excessive, and confiscatory.
Petitioners argument is premised on the constitutional right of non-deprivation of life, liberty or
property without due process of law under Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution. According to
petitioners, the contested sections impose limitations on the amount of input tax that may be
claimed. Petitioners also argue that the input tax partakes the nature of a property that may not be
confiscated, appropriated, or limited without due process of law. Petitioners further contend that like
any other property or property right, the input tax credit may be transferred or disposed of, and that
by limiting the same, the government gets to tax a profit or value-added even if there is no profit or
value-added.
Petitioners also believe that these provisions violate the constitutional guarantee of equal protection
of the law under Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution, as the limitation on 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.
G.R. No. 168463
12

Several members of the House of Representatives led by Rep. Francis Joseph G. Escudero filed
this petition forcertiorari on June 30, 2005. They question the constitutionality of R.A. No. 9337 on
the following grounds:
1) Sections 4, 5, and 6 of R.A. No. 9337 constitute an undue delegation of legislative power, in
violation of Article VI, Section 28(2) of the Constitution;
2) The Bicameral Conference Committee acted without jurisdiction in deleting the no pass
on provisions present in Senate Bill No. 1950 and House Bill No. 3705; and
3) Insertion by the Bicameral Conference Committee of Sections 27, 28, 34, 116, 117, 119, 121,
125,
7
148, 151, 236, 237 and 288, which were present in Senate Bill No. 1950, violates Article VI,
Section 24(1) of the Constitution, which provides that all appropriation, revenue or tariff bills shall
originate exclusively in the House of Representatives
G.R. No. 168730
On the eleventh hour, Governor Enrique T. Garcia filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition on July
20, 2005, alleging unconstitutionality of the law on the ground that the limitation on the creditable
input tax in effect allows VAT-registered establishments to retain a portion of the taxes they collect,
thus violating the principle that tax collection and revenue should be solely allocated for public
purposes and expenditures. Petitioner Garcia further claims that allowing these establishments to
pass on the tax to the consumers is inequitable, in violation of Article VI, Section 28(1) of the
Constitution.
RESPONDENTS COMMENT
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed a Comment in behalf of respondents. Preliminarily,
respondents contend that R.A. No. 9337 enjoys the presumption of constitutionality and petitioners
failed to cast doubt on its validity.
Relying on the case of Tolentino vs. Secretary of Finance, 235 SCRA
630 (1994), respondents argue that the procedural issues raised by petitioners, i.e., legality of the
bicameral proceedings, exclusive origination of revenue measures and the power of the Senate
concomitant thereto, have already been settled. With regard to the issue of undue delegation of
legislative power to the President, respondents contend that the law is complete and leaves no
discretion to the President but to increase the rate to 12% once any of the two conditions provided
therein arise.
Respondents also refute petitioners argument that the increase to 12%, as well as the 70%
limitation on the creditable input tax, the 60-month amortization on the purchase or importation of
capital goods exceedingP1,000,000.00, and the 5% final withholding tax by government agencies, is
arbitrary, oppressive, and confiscatory, and that it violates the constitutional principle on progressive
taxation, among others.
Finally, respondents manifest that R.A. No. 9337 is the anchor of the governments fiscal reform
agenda. A reform in the value-added system of taxation is the core revenue measure that will tilt the
balance towards a sustainable macroeconomic environment necessary for economic growth.
ISSUES
13

The Court defined the issues, as follows:
PROCEDURAL ISSUE
Whether R.A. No. 9337 violates the following provisions of the Constitution:
a. Article VI, Section 24, and
b. Article VI, Section 26(2)
SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES
1. Whether Sections 4, 5 and 6 of R.A. No. 9337, amending Sections 106, 107 and 108 of the NIRC,
violate the following provisions of the Constitution:
a. Article VI, Section 28(1), and
2. Whether Section 8 of R.A. No. 9337, amending Sections 110(A)(2) and 110(B) of the NIRC; and
Section 12 of R.A. No. 9337, amending Section 114(C) of the NIRC, violate the following provisions
of the Constitution:
b. Article III, Section 1
RULING OF THE COURT
As a prelude, the Court deems it apt to restate the general principles and concepts of value-added
tax (VAT), as the confusion and inevitably, litigation, breeds from a fallacious notion of its nature.
The VAT is a tax on spending or consumption. It is levied on the sale, barter, exchange or lease of
goods or properties and services.
8
Being an indirect tax on expenditure, the seller of goods or
services may pass on the amount of tax paid to the buyer,
9
with the seller acting merely as a tax
collector.
10
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, without transferring the burden to someone else.
11
Examples are individual and
corporate income taxes, transfer taxes, and residence taxes.
12

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" was used to
determine the value-added tax payable.
13
Under the "tax credit method," an entity can credit against
or subtract from the VAT charged on its sales or outputs the VAT paid on its purchases, inputs and
imports.
14

14

It was only in 1987, when President Corazon C. Aquino issued Executive Order No. 273, that the
VAT system was rationalized by imposing a multi-stage tax rate of 0% or 10% on all sales using the
"tax credit method."
15

E.O. No. 273 was followed by R.A. No. 7716 or the Expanded VAT Law,
16
R.A. No. 8241 or the
Improved VAT Law,
17
R.A. No. 8424 or the Tax Reform Act of 1997,
18
and finally, the presently
beleaguered R.A. No. 9337, also referred to by respondents as the VAT Reform Act.
The Court will now discuss the issues in logical sequence.
PROCEDURAL ISSUE
I.
Whether R.A. No. 9337 violates the following provisions of the Constitution:
a. Article VI, Section 24, and
A. The Bicameral Conference Committee
Petitioners Escudero, et al., and Pimentel, et al., allege that the Bicameral Conference Committee
exceeded its authority by:
1) Inserting the stand-by authority in favor of the President in Sections 4, 5, and 6 of R.A. No. 9337;
2) Deleting entirely the no pass-on provisions found in both the House and Senate bills;
3) Inserting the provision imposing a 70% limit on the amount of input tax to be credited against the
output tax; and
4) Including the amendments introduced only by Senate Bill No. 1950 regarding other kinds of taxes
in addition to the value-added tax.
Petitioners now beseech the Court to define the powers of the Bicameral Conference Committee.
It should be borne in mind that the power of internal regulation and discipline are intrinsic in any
legislative body for, as unerringly elucidated by Justice Story, "[i]f the power did not exist, it would
be utterly impracticable to transact the business of the nation, either at all, or at least with
decency, deliberation, and order."
19
Thus, Article VI, Section 16 (3) of the Constitution provides that
"each House may determine the rules of its proceedings." Pursuant to this inherent constitutional
power to promulgate and implement its own rules of procedure, the respective rules of each house
of Congress provided for the creation of a Bicameral Conference Committee.
Thus, Rule XIV, Sections 88 and 89 of the Rules of House of Representatives provides as follows:
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.
15

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 latters appropriate action.
Sec. 89. Conference Committee Reports. . . . Each report shall contain a detailed, sufficiently
explicit statement of the changes in or amendments to the subject measure.
. . .
The Chairman of the House panel may be interpellated on the Conference Committee Report prior
to the voting thereon. The House shall vote on the Conference Committee Report in the same
manner and procedure as it votes on a bill on third and final reading.
Rule XII, Section 35 of the Rules of the Senate states:
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.
. . .
The creation of such conference committee was apparently in response to a problem, not addressed
by any constitutional provision, where the two houses of Congress find themselves in disagreement
over changes or amendments introduced by the other house in a legislative bill. Given that one of
the most basic powers of the legislative branch is to formulate and implement its own rules of
proceedings and to discipline its members, may the Court then delve into the details of how
Congress complies with its internal rules or how it conducts its business of passing legislation? Note
that in the present petitions, the issue is not whether provisions of the rules of both houses creating
the bicameral conference committee are unconstitutional, but whether the bicameral conference
committee has strictly complied with the rules of both houses, thereby remaining within the
jurisdiction conferred upon it by Congress.
In the recent case of Farias vs. The Executive Secretary,
20
the Court En
Banc, unanimously reiterated and emphasized its adherence to the "enrolled bill doctrine," thus,
declining therein petitioners plea for the Court to go behind the enrolled copy of the bill. Assailed in
said case was Congresss creation of two sets of bicameral conference committees, the lack of
records of said committees proceedings, the alleged violation of said committees of the rules of both
houses, and the disappearance or deletion of one of the provisions in the compromise bill submitted
by the bicameral conference committee. It was argued that such irregularities in the passage of the
law nullified R.A. No. 9006, or the Fair Election Act.
Striking down such argument, the Court held thus:
16

Under the "enrolled bill doctrine," the signing of a bill by the Speaker of the House and the Senate
President and the certification of the Secretaries of both Houses of Congress that it was passed are
conclusive of its due enactment. A review of cases reveals the Courts consistent adherence to the
rule. The Court finds no reason to deviate from the salutary rule in this case where the
irregularities alleged by the petitioners mostly involved the internal rules of Congress, e.g.,
creation of the 2nd or 3
rd
Bicameral Conference Committee by the House. This Court is not
the proper forum for the enforcement of these 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 vs. 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 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 Osmea 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 requisite number of members have agreed to a particular
measure."
21
(Emphasis supplied)
The foregoing declaration is exactly in point with the present cases, where petitioners allege
irregularities committed by the conference committee in introducing changes or deleting provisions in
the House and Senate bills. Akin to the Farias case,
22
the present petitions also raise an issue
regarding the actions taken by the conference committee on matters regarding Congress
compliance with its own internal rules. As stated earlier, one of the most basic and inherent power of
the legislature is the power to formulate rules for its proceedings and the discipline of its members.
Congress is the best judge of how it should conduct its own business expeditiously and in the most
orderly manner. It is also the sole
concern of Congress to instill discipline among the members of its conference committee if it
believes that said members violated any of its rules of proceedings. Even the expanded jurisdiction
of this Court cannot apply to questions regarding only the internal operation of Congress, thus, the
Court is wont to deny a review of the internal proceedings of a co-equal branch of government.
Moreover, as far back as 1994 or more than ten years ago, in the case of Tolentino vs. Secretary of
Finance,
23
the Court already made the pronouncement that "[i]f a change is desired in the practice
[of the Bicameral Conference Committee] it must be sought in Congress since this question
is not covered by any constitutional provision but is only an internal rule of each house."
24
To
date, Congress has not seen it fit to make such changes adverted to by the Court. It seems,
therefore, that Congress finds the practices of the bicameral conference committee to be very useful
for purposes of prompt and efficient legislative action.
Nevertheless, just to put minds at ease that no blatant irregularities tainted the proceedings of the
bicameral conference committees, the Court deems it necessary to dwell on the issue. The Court
observes that there was a necessity for a conference committee because a comparison of the
provisions of House Bill Nos. 3555 and 3705 on one hand, and Senate Bill No. 1950 on the other,
reveals that there were indeed disagreements. As pointed out in the petitions, said disagreements
were as follows:
17

House Bill No. 3555 House Bill No.3705 Senate Bill No. 1950
With regard to "Stand-By Authority" in favor of President
Provides for 12% VAT on
every sale of goods or
properties (amending Sec.
106 of NIRC); 12% VAT on
importation of goods
(amending Sec. 107 of
NIRC); and 12% VAT on
sale of services and use or
lease of properties
(amending Sec. 108 of
NIRC)
Provides for 12% VAT in general
on sales of goods or properties
and reduced rates for sale of
certain locally manufactured
goods and petroleum products
and raw materials to be used in
the manufacture thereof
(amending Sec. 106 of NIRC);
12% VAT on importation of
goods and reduced rates for
certain imported products
including petroleum products
(amending Sec. 107 of NIRC);
and 12% VAT on sale of
services and use or lease of
properties and a reduced rate for
certain services including power
generation (amending Sec. 108
of NIRC)
Provides for a single rate of
10% VAT on sale of goods or
properties (amending Sec.
106 of NIRC), 10% VAT on
sale of services including
sale of electricity by
generation companies,
transmission and distribution
companies, and use or lease
of properties (amending Sec.
108 of NIRC)
With regard to the "no pass-on" provision
No similar provision Provides that the VAT imposed
on power generation and on the
sale of petroleum products shall
be absorbed by generation
companies or sellers,
respectively, and shall not be
passed on to consumers
Provides that the VAT
imposed on sales of
electricity by generation
companies and services of
transmission companies and
distribution companies, as
well as those of franchise
grantees of electric utilities
shall not apply to residential
end-users. VAT shall be
absorbed by generation,
transmission, and distribution
companies.
With regard to 70% limit on input tax credit
Provides that the input tax
credit for capital goods on
which a VAT has been paid
shall be equally distributed
over 5 years or the
depreciable life of such
capital goods; the input tax
credit for goods and services
other than capital goods
shall not exceed 5% of the
total amount of such goods
and services; and for
persons engaged in retail
trading of goods, the
allowable input tax credit
No similar provision Provides that the input tax
credit for capital goods on
which a VAT has been paid
shall be equally distributed
over 5 years or the
depreciable life of such
capital goods; the input tax
credit for goods and services
other than capital goods shall
not exceed 90% of the output
VAT.
18

shall not exceed 11% of the
total amount of goods
purchased.
With regard to amendments to be made to NIRC provisions regarding income and excise
taxes
No similar provision No similar provision Provided for amendments to
several NIRC provisions
regarding corporate income,
percentage, franchise and
excise taxes
The disagreements between the provisions in the House bills and the Senate bill were with regard to
(1) what rate of VAT is to be imposed; (2) whether only the VAT imposed on electricity generation,
transmission and distribution companies should not be passed on to consumers, as proposed in the
Senate bill, or both the VAT imposed on electricity generation, transmission and distribution
companies and the VAT imposed on sale of petroleum products should not be passed on to
consumers, as proposed in the House bill; (3) in what manner input tax credits should be limited; (4)
and whether the NIRC provisions on corporate income taxes, percentage, franchise and excise
taxes should be amended.
There being differences and/or disagreements on the foregoing provisions of the House and Senate
bills, the Bicameral Conference Committee was mandated by the rules of both houses of Congress
to act on the same by settling said differences and/or disagreements. The Bicameral Conference
Committee acted on the disagreeing provisions by making the following changes:
1. With regard to the disagreement on the rate of VAT to be imposed, it would appear from the
Conference Committee Report that the Bicameral Conference Committee tried to bridge the gap in
the difference between the 10% VAT rate proposed by the Senate, and the various rates with 12%
as the highest VAT rate proposed by the House, by striking a compromise whereby the present 10%
VAT rate would be retained until certain conditions arise, i.e., the value-added tax collection as a
percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) of the previous year exceeds 2 4/5%, or National
Government deficit as a percentage of GDP of the previous year exceeds 1%, when the President,
upon recommendation of the Secretary of Finance shall raise the rate of VAT to 12% effective
January 1, 2006.
2. With regard to the disagreement on whether only the VAT imposed on electricity generation,
transmission and distribution companies should not be passed on to consumers or whether both the
VAT imposed on electricity generation, transmission and distribution companies and the VAT
imposed on sale of petroleum products may be passed on to consumers, the Bicameral Conference
Committee chose to settle such disagreement by altogether deleting from its Report any no pass-
on provision.
3. With regard to the disagreement on whether input tax credits should be limited or not, the
Bicameral Conference Committee decided to adopt the position of the House by putting a limitation
on the amount of input tax that may be credited against the output tax, although it crafted its own
language as to the amount of the limitation on input tax credits and the manner of computing the
same by providing thus:
(A) Creditable Input Tax. . . .
. . .
19

Provided, The input tax on goods purchased or imported in a calendar month for use in trade or
business for which deduction for depreciation is allowed under this Code, shall be spread evenly
over the month of acquisition and the fifty-nine (59) succeeding months if the aggregate acquisition
cost for such goods, excluding the VAT component thereof, exceeds one million Pesos
(P1,000,000.00): PROVIDED, however, that if the estimated useful life of the capital good is less
than five (5) years, as used for depreciation purposes, then the input VAT shall be spread over such
shorter period: . . .
(B) Excess Output or Input Tax. If at the end of any taxable quarter the output tax exceeds the
input tax, the excess shall be paid by the VAT-registered person. If the input tax exceeds the output
tax, the excess shall be carried over to the succeeding quarter or quarters: PROVIDED that the input
tax inclusive of 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: PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT
any input tax attributable to zero-rated sales by a VAT-registered person may at his option be
refunded or credited against other internal revenue taxes, . . .
4. With regard to the amendments to other provisions of the NIRC on corporate income tax,
franchise, percentage and excise taxes, the conference committee decided to include such
amendments and basically adopted the provisions found in Senate Bill No. 1950, with some changes
as to the rate of the tax to be imposed.
Under the provisions of both the Rules of the House of Representatives and Senate Rules, the
Bicameral Conference Committee is mandated to settle the differences between the disagreeing
provisions in the House bill and the Senate bill. The term "settle" is synonymous to "reconcile" and
"harmonize."
25
To reconcile or harmonize disagreeing provisions, the Bicameral Conference
Committee may then (a) adopt the specific provisions of either the House bill or Senate bill, (b)
decide that neither provisions in the House bill or the provisions in the Senate bill would
be carried into the final form of the bill, and/or (c) try to arrive at a compromise between the
disagreeing provisions.
In the present case, the changes introduced by the Bicameral Conference Committee on
disagreeing provisions were meant only to reconcile and harmonize the disagreeing provisions for it
did not inject any idea or intent that is wholly foreign to the subject embraced by the original
provisions.
The so-called stand-by authority in favor of the President, whereby the rate of 10% VAT wanted by
the Senate is retained until such time that certain conditions arise when the 12% VAT wanted by the
House shall be imposed, appears to be a compromise to try to bridge the difference in the rate of
VAT proposed by the two houses of Congress. Nevertheless, such compromise is still totally within
the subject of what rate of VAT should be imposed on taxpayers.
The no pass-on provision was deleted altogether. In the transcripts of the proceedings of the
Bicameral Conference Committee held on May 10, 2005, Sen. Ralph Recto, Chairman of the Senate
Panel, explained the reason for deleting the no pass-on provision in this wise:
. . . 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 lets keep it plain and simple. Lets 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 thinking of the
Senate is basically simple, lets keep the VAT simple.
26
(Emphasis supplied)
20

Rep. Teodoro Locsin further made the manifestation that the no pass-on provision "never really
enjoyed the support of either House."
27

With regard to the amount of input tax to be credited against output tax, the Bicameral Conference
Committee came to a compromise on the percentage rate of the limitation or cap on such input tax
credit, but again, the change introduced by the Bicameral Conference Committee was totally within
the intent of both houses to put a cap on input tax that may be
credited against the output tax. From the inception of the subject revenue bill in the House of
Representatives, one of the major objectives was to "plug a glaring loophole in the tax policy and
administration by creating vital restrictions on the claiming of input VAT tax credits . . ." and "[b]y
introducing limitations on the claiming of tax credit, we are capping a major leakage that has placed
our collection efforts at an apparent disadvantage."
28

As to the amendments to NIRC provisions on taxes other than the value-added tax proposed in
Senate Bill No. 1950, since said provisions were among those referred to it, the conference
committee had to act on the same and it basically adopted the version of the Senate.
Thus, all the changes or modifications made by the Bicameral Conference Committee were germane
to subjects of the provisions referred
to it for reconciliation. Such being the case, the Court does not see any grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction committed by the Bicameral Conference Committee. In
the earlier cases of Philippine Judges Association vs. Prado
29
and Tolentino vs. Secretary of
Finance,
30
the Court recognized the long-standing legislative practice of giving said conference
committee ample latitude for compromising differences between the Senate and the House. Thus, in
the Tolentino case, it was held that:
. . . it is within 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. If the committee can propose an
amendment consisting of one or two provisions, there is no reason why it cannot propose several
provisions, collectively considered as an "amendment in the nature of a substitute," so long as such
amendment is germane to the subject of the bills before the committee. After all, its report was not
final but needed the approval of both houses of Congress to become valid as an act of the legislative
department. The charge that in this case the Conference Committee acted as a third legislative
chamber is thus without any basis.
31
(Emphasis supplied)
B. R.A. No. 9337 Does Not Violate Article VI, Section 26(2) of the Constitution on the "No-
Amendment Rule"
Article VI, Sec. 26 (2) of the Constitution, states:
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.
Petitioners argument that the practice where a bicameral conference committee is allowed to add or
delete provisions in the House bill and the Senate bill after these had passed three readings is in
21

effect a circumvention of the "no amendment rule" (Sec. 26 (2), Art. VI of the 1987 Constitution), fails
to convince the Court to deviate from its ruling in the Tolentino case that:
Nor is there any reason for requiring that the Committees 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 of Congress, not to the conference committee report.
32
(Emphasis
supplied)
The Court reiterates here that the "no-amendment rule" refers only to the procedure to be
followed by each house of Congress with regard to bills initiated in each of said respective
houses, before said bill is transmitted to the other house for its concurrence or amendment.
Verily, to construe said provision in a way as to proscribe any further changes to a bill after one
house has voted on it would lead to absurdity as this would mean that the other house of Congress
would be deprived of its constitutional power to amend or introduce changes to said bill. Thus, Art.
VI, Sec. 26 (2) of the Constitution cannot be taken to mean that the introduction by the Bicameral
Conference Committee of amendments and modifications to disagreeing provisions in bills that have
been acted upon by both houses of Congress is prohibited.
C. R.A. No. 9337 Does Not Violate Article VI, Section 24 of the Constitution on Exclusive Origination
of Revenue Bills
Coming to the issue of the validity of the amendments made regarding the NIRC provisions on
corporate income taxes and percentage, excise taxes. Petitioners refer to the following provisions, to
wit:
Section 27 Rates of Income Tax on Domestic Corporation
28(A)(1) Tax on Resident Foreign Corporation
28(B)(1) Inter-corporate Dividends
34(B)(1) Inter-corporate Dividends
116 Tax on Persons Exempt from VAT
117 Percentage Tax on domestic carriers and keepers of Garage
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
Petitioners claim that the amendments to these provisions of the NIRC did not at all originate from
the House. They aver that House Bill No. 3555 proposed amendments only regarding Sections 106,
107, 108, 110 and 114 of the NIRC, while House Bill No. 3705 proposed amendments only to
Sections 106, 107,108, 109, 110 and 111 of the NIRC; thus, the other sections of the NIRC which
the Senate amended but which amendments were not found in the House bills are not intended to
be amended by the House of Representatives. Hence, they argue that since the proposed
amendments did not originate from the House, such amendments are a violation of Article VI,
Section 24 of the Constitution.
22

The argument does not hold water.
Article VI, Section 24 of the Constitution reads:
Sec. 24. All appropriation, revenue or tariff bills, bills authorizing increase of the public debt, bills of
local application, and private bills shall originate exclusively in the House of Representatives but the
Senate may propose or concur with amendments.
In the present cases, petitioners admit that it was indeed House Bill Nos. 3555 and 3705 that
initiated the move for amending provisions of the NIRC dealing mainly with the value-added tax.
Upon transmittal of said House bills to the Senate, the Senate came out with Senate Bill No. 1950
proposing amendments not only to NIRC provisions on the value-added tax but also amendments to
NIRC provisions on other kinds of taxes. Is the introduction by the Senate of provisions not dealing
directly with the value- added tax, which is the only kind of tax being amended in the House bills, still
within the purview of the constitutional provision authorizing the Senate to propose or concur with
amendments to a revenue bill that originated from the House?
The foregoing question had been squarely answered in the Tolentino case, wherein the Court held,
thus:
. . . To begin with, it is not the law but the revenue bill which is required by the Constitution to
"originate exclusively" in the House of Representatives. It is important to emphasize this, because a
bill originating in the House may undergo such extensive changes in the Senate that the result may
be a rewriting of the whole. . . . At this point, what is important to note is that, as a result of the
Senate action, a distinct bill may be produced. To insist 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 Senates power not only to
"concur with amendments" but also to "propose amendments." It would be to violate the
coequality of legislative power of the two houses of Congress and in fact make the House superior to
the Senate.

Given, then, the power of the Senate to propose amendments, the Senate can propose its
own version even with respect to bills which are required by the Constitution to originate in
the House.
. . .
Indeed, what the Constitution simply means is that the initiative for filing revenue, tariff or tax bills,
bills authorizing an increase of the public debt, private bills and bills of local application must come
from the House of Representatives on the theory that, elected as they are from the districts, the
members of the House can be expected to be more sensitive to the local needs and
problems. On the other hand, the senators, who are elected at large, are expected to
approach the same problems from the national perspective. Both views are thereby made to
bear on the enactment of such laws.
33
(Emphasis supplied)
Since there is no question that the revenue bill exclusively originated in the House of
Representatives, the Senate was acting within its
23

constitutional power to introduce amendments to the House bill when it included provisions in
Senate Bill No. 1950 amending corporate income taxes, percentage, excise and franchise taxes.
Verily, Article VI, Section 24 of the Constitution does not contain any prohibition or limitation on the
extent of the amendments that may be introduced by the Senate to the House revenue bill.
Furthermore, the amendments introduced by the Senate to the NIRC provisions that had not been
touched in the House bills are still in furtherance of the intent of the House in initiating the subject
revenue bills. The Explanatory Note of House Bill No. 1468, the very first House bill introduced on
the floor, which was later substituted by House Bill No. 3555, stated:
One of the challenges faced by the present administration is the urgent and daunting task of solving
the countrys serious financial problems. To do this, government expenditures must be strictly
monitored and controlled and revenues must be significantly increased. This may be easier said
than done, but our fiscal authorities are still optimistic the government will be operating on a
balanced budget by the year 2009. In fact, several measures that will result to significant expenditure
savings have been identified by the administration. It is supported with a credible package of
revenue measures that include measures to improve tax administration and control the
leakages in revenues from income taxes and the value-added tax (VAT). (Emphasis supplied)
Rep. Eric D. Singson, in his sponsorship speech for House Bill No. 3555, declared that:
In the budget message of our President in the year 2005, she reiterated that we all acknowledged
that on top of our agenda must be the restoration of the health of our fiscal system.
In order to considerably lower the consolidated public sector deficit and eventually achieve a
balanced budget by the year 2009, we need to seize windows of opportunities which might
seem poignant in the beginning, but in the long run prove effective and beneficial to the
overall status of our economy. One such opportunity is a review of existing tax rates,
evaluating the relevance given our present conditions.
34
(Emphasis supplied)
Notably therefore, the main purpose of the bills emanating from the House of Representatives is to
bring in sizeable revenues for the government
to supplement our countrys serious financial problems, and improve tax administration and control
of the leakages in revenues from income taxes and value-added taxes. As these house bills were
transmitted to the Senate, the latter, approaching the measures from the point of national
perspective, can introduce amendments within the purposes of those bills. It can provide for ways
that would soften the impact of the VAT measure on the consumer,i.e., by distributing the burden
across all sectors instead of putting it entirely on the shoulders of the consumers. The sponsorship
speech of Sen. Ralph Recto on why the provisions on income tax on corporation were included is
worth quoting:
All in all, the proposal of the Senate Committee on Ways and Means will raise P64.3 billion in
additional revenues annually even while by mitigating prices of power, services and petroleum
products.
However, not all of this will be wrung out of VAT. In fact, only P48.7 billion amount is from the VAT
on twelve goods and services. The rest of the tab P10.5 billion- will be picked by corporations.
What we therefore prescribe is a burden sharing between corporate Philippines and the consumer.
Why should the latter bear all the pain? Why should the fiscal salvation be only on the burden of the
consumer?
24

The corporate worlds equity is in form of the increase in the corporate income tax from 32 to 35
percent, but up to 2008 only. This will raise P10.5 billion a year. After that, the rate will slide back,
not to its old rate of 32 percent, but two notches lower, to 30 percent.
Clearly, we are telling those with the capacity to pay, corporations, to bear with this emergency
provision that will be in effect for 1,200 days, while we put our fiscal house in order. This fiscal
medicine will have an expiry date.
For their assistance, a reward of tax reduction awaits them. We intend to keep the length of their
sacrifice brief. We would like to assure them that not because there is a light at the end of the tunnel,
this government will keep on making the tunnel long.
The responsibility will not rest solely on the weary shoulders of the small man. Big business will be
there to share the burden.
35

As the Court has said, the Senate can propose amendments and in fact, the amendments made on
provisions in the tax on income of corporations are germane to the purpose of the house bills which
is to raise revenues for the government.
Likewise, the Court finds the sections referring to other percentage and excise taxes germane to the
reforms to the VAT system, as these sections would cushion the effects of VAT on consumers.
Considering that certain goods and services which were subject to percentage tax and excise tax
would no longer be VAT-exempt, the consumer would be burdened more as they would be paying
the VAT in addition to these taxes. Thus, there is a need to amend these sections to soften the
impact of VAT. Again, in his sponsorship speech, Sen. Recto said:
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 the blow of higher prices they will have to pay as a result of VAT.
36

The other sections amended by the Senate pertained to matters of tax administration which are
necessary for the implementation of the changes in the VAT system.
To reiterate, the sections introduced by the Senate are germane to the subject matter and purposes
of the house bills, which is to supplement our countrys fiscal deficit, among others. Thus, the Senate
acted within its power to propose those amendments.
SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES
I.
25

Whether Sections 4, 5 and 6 of R.A. No. 9337, amending Sections 106, 107 and 108 of the NIRC,
violate the following provisions of the Constitution:
A. No Undue Delegation of Legislative Power
Petitioners ABAKADA GURO Party List, et al., Pimentel, Jr., et al., and Escudero, et al. contend in
common that Sections 4, 5 and 6 of R.A. No. 9337, amending Sections 106, 107 and 108,
respectively, of the NIRC giving the President the stand-by authority to raise the VAT rate from 10%
to 12% when a certain condition is met, constitutes undue delegation of the legislative power to tax.
The assailed provisions read as follows:
SEC. 4. Sec. 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 (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.
(i) value-added tax collection as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of the
previous year exceeds two and four-fifth 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 %).
SEC. 5. Section 107 of the same Code, as amended, is hereby further amended to read as follows:
SEC. 107. Value-Added Tax on Importation of Goods.
(A) In General. There shall be levied, assessed and collected on every importation of goods a
value-added tax equivalent to ten percent (10%) based on the total value used by the Bureau of
Customs in determining tariff and customs duties, plus customs duties, excise taxes, if any, and
other charges, such tax to be paid by the importer prior to the release of such goods from customs
custody: Provided, That where the customs duties are determined on the basis of the quantity or
volume of the goods, 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.
26

one-half percent (1 %).
SEC. 6. Section 108 of the same Code, as amended, is hereby further amended to read as follows:
SEC. 108. Value-added Tax on Sale of Services and Use or Lease of Properties
(A) Rate and Base of Tax. There shall be levied, assessed and collected, a value-added tax
equivalent to ten percent (10%) of gross receipts derived from the sale or exchange of
services: 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.
one-half percent (1 %). (Emphasis supplied)
Petitioners allege that the grant of the stand-by authority to the President to increase the VAT rate is
a virtual abdication by Congress of its exclusive power to tax because such delegation is not within
the purview of Section 28 (2), Article VI of the Constitution, which provides:
The Congress may, by law, authorize the President to fix within specified limits, and may impose,
tariff rates, import and export quotas, tonnage and wharfage dues, and other duties or imposts within
the framework of the national development program of the government.
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 also effectively nullified the Presidents power
of control, which includes the authority to set aside and nullify the acts of her subordinates like the
Secretary of Finance, by mandating the fixing of the tax rate by the President upon the
recommendation of the Secretary of Finance.
Petitioners Pimentel, et al. aver that the President has ample powers to cause, influence or create
the conditions provided by the law to bring about either or both the conditions precedent.
On the other hand, petitioners Escudero, et al. find bizarre and revolting the situation that the
imposition of the 12% rate would be subject to the whim of the Secretary of Finance, an unelected
bureaucrat, contrary to the principle of no taxation without representation. They submit that the
Secretary of Finance is not mandated to give a favorable recommendation and he may not even give
his recommendation. Moreover, they allege that no guiding standards are provided in the law on
what basis and as to how he will make his recommendation. They claim, nonetheless, that any
recommendation of the Secretary of Finance can easily be brushed aside by the President since the
27

former is a mere alter ego of the latter, such that, ultimately, it is the President who decides whether
to impose the increased tax rate or not.
A brief discourse on the principle of non-delegation of powers is instructive.
The principle of separation of powers ordains that each of the three great branches of government
has exclusive cognizance of and is supreme in matters falling within its own constitutionally allocated
sphere.
37
A logical
corollary to the doctrine of separation of powers is the principle of non-delegation of powers, as
expressed in the Latin maxim: potestas delegata non delegari potest which means "what has been
delegated, cannot be delegated."
38
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 and not through the intervening mind of another.
39

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 to determine
the expediency of its enactment.
40
Thus, the rule is that in order that a court may be justified in
holding a statute unconstitutional as a delegation of legislative power, it must appear that the power
involved is purely legislative in nature that is, one appertaining exclusively to the legislative
department. It is the nature of the power, and not the liability of its use or the manner of its exercise,
which determines the validity of its delegation.
Nonetheless, the general rule barring delegation of legislative powers is subject to the following
recognized limitations or exceptions:
(1) Delegation of tariff powers to the President under Section 28 (2) of Article VI of the Constitution;
(2) Delegation of emergency powers to the President under Section 23 (2) of Article VI of the
Constitution;
(3) Delegation to the people at large;
(4) Delegation to local governments; and
(5) Delegation to administrative bodies.
In every case of permissible delegation, there must be a showing that the delegation itself is valid. It
is valid only if the law (a) is complete in itself, setting forth therein the policy to be executed, carried
out, or implemented by the delegate;
41
and (b) fixes a standard the limits of which are sufficiently
determinate and determinable to which the delegate must conform in the performance of his
functions.
42
A sufficient standard is one which defines legislative policy, marks its limits, maps out its
boundaries and specifies the public agency to apply it. It indicates the circumstances under which
the legislative command is to be effected.
43
Both tests are intended to prevent a total transference of
legislative authority to the delegate, who is not allowed to step into the shoes of the legislature and
exercise a power essentially legislative.
44

28

In People vs. Vera,
45
the Court, through eminent Justice Jose P. Laurel, expounded on the concept
and extent of delegation of power in this wise:
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 of any other appointee or delegate of the
legislature.
. . .
The true distinction, says Judge Ranney, is between the delegation of power to make the
law, which necessarily involves a discretion as to what it shall be, and conferring an authority
or discretion as to its execution, to be exercised under and in pursuance of the law. The first
cannot be done; to the latter no valid objection can be made.
. . .
It is contended, however, that a legislative act may be made to the effect as law after it leaves the
hands of the legislature. It is true that laws may be made effective on certain contingencies, as by
proclamation of the executive or the adoption by the people of a particular community. In Wayman
vs. Southard, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the legislature may delegate a
power not legislative which it may itself rightfully exercise.The power to ascertain facts is such a
power which may be delegated. There is nothing essentially legislative in ascertaining the
existence of facts or conditions as the basis of the taking into effect of a law. That is a mental
process common to all branches of the government. Notwithstanding the apparent tendency,
however, to relax the rule prohibiting delegation of legislative authority on account of the complexity
arising from social and economic forces at work in this modern industrial age, the orthodox
pronouncement of Judge Cooley in his work on Constitutional Limitations finds restatement in Prof.
Willoughby's treatise on the Constitution of the United States in the following language speaking
of declaration of legislative power to administrative agencies: The principle which permits the
legislature to provide that the administrative agent may determine when the circumstances
are such as require the application of a law is defended upon the ground that at the time this
authority is granted, the rule of public policy, which is the essence of the legislative act, is
determined by the legislature. In other words, the legislature, as it is its duty to do,
determines that, under given circumstances, certain executive or administrative action is to
be taken, and that, under other circumstances, different or no action at all is to be taken.
What is thus left to the administrative official is not the legislative determination of what
public policy demands, but simply the ascertainment of what the facts of the case require to
be done according to the terms of the law by which he is governed. The efficiency of an Act
as a declaration of legislative will must, of course, come from Congress, but the
ascertainment of the contingency upon which the Act shall take effect may be left to such
agencies as it may designate. The legislature, then, may provide that a law shall take effect
upon the happening of future specified contingencies leaving to some other person or body
the power to determine when the specified contingency has arisen.(Emphasis supplied).
46

In Edu vs. Ericta,
47
the Court reiterated:
What cannot be delegated is the authority under the Constitution to make laws and to alter and
repeal them; the test is the completeness of the statute in all its terms and provisions when it leaves
the hands of the legislature. To determine whether or not there is an undue delegation of legislative
power, the inquiry must be directed to the scope and definiteness of the measure enacted. The
legislative does not abdicate its functions when it describes what job must be done, who is to
29

do it, and what is the scope of his authority. For a complex economy, that may be the only way in
which the legislative process can go forward. A distinction has rightfully been made between
delegation of power to make the laws which necessarily involves a discretion as to what it
shall be, which constitutionally may not be done, and delegation of authority or discretion as
to its execution to be exercised under and in pursuance of the law, to which no valid
objection can be made. The Constitution is thus not to be regarded as denying the legislature the
necessary resources of flexibility and practicability. (Emphasis supplied).
48

Clearly, the legislature may delegate to executive officers or bodies the power to determine certain
facts or conditions, or the happening of contingencies, on which the operation of a statute is, by its
terms, made to depend, but the legislature must prescribe sufficient standards, policies or limitations
on their authority.
49
While the power to tax cannot be delegated to executive agencies, details as to
the enforcement and administration of an exercise of such power may be left to them, including the
power to determine the existence of facts on which its operation depends.
50

The rationale for this is that the preliminary ascertainment of facts as basis for the enactment of
legislation is not of itself a legislative function, but is simply ancillary to legislation. Thus, the duty of
correlating information and making recommendations is the kind of subsidiary activity which the
legislature may perform through its members, or which it may delegate to others to perform.
Intelligent legislation on the complicated problems of modern society is impossible in the absence of
accurate information on the part of the legislators, and any reasonable method of securing such
information is proper.
51
The Constitution as a continuously operative charter of government does not
require that Congress find for itself
every fact upon which it desires to base legislative action or that it make for itself detailed
determinations which it has declared to be prerequisite to application of legislative policy to particular
facts and circumstances impossible for Congress itself properly to investigate.
52

In the present case, the challenged section of R.A. No. 9337 is the common proviso in Sections 4, 5
and 6 which reads as follows:
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:
(i) Value-added tax collection as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of the previous
year exceeds two and four-fifth 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 %).
The case before the Court is not a delegation of legislative power. It is simply a delegation of
ascertainment of facts upon which enforcement and administration of the increase rate under the law
is contingent. The legislature has made the operation of the 12% rate effective January 1, 2006,
contingent upon a specified fact or condition. It leaves the entire operation or non-operation of the
12% rate upon factual matters outside of the control of the executive.
No discretion would be exercised by the President. Highlighting the absence of discretion is the fact
that the wordshall is used in the common proviso. The use of the word shall connotes a mandatory
order. Its use in a statute denotes an imperative obligation and is inconsistent with the idea of
discretion.
53
Where the law is clear and unambiguous, it must be taken to mean exactly what it says,
and courts have no choice but to see to it that the mandate is obeyed.
54

30

Thus, it is the ministerial duty of the President to immediately impose the 12% rate upon the
existence of any of the conditions specified by Congress. This is a duty which cannot be evaded by
the President. Inasmuch as the law specifically uses the word shall, the exercise of discretion by the
President does not come into play. It is a clear directive to impose the 12% VAT rate when the
specified conditions are present. The time of taking into effect of the 12% VAT rate is based on the
happening of a certain specified contingency, or upon the ascertainment of certain facts or
conditions by a person or body other than the legislature itself.
The Court finds no merit to the contention of petitioners ABAKADA GURO Party List, et al. that the
law effectively nullified the Presidents power of control over the Secretary of Finance by mandating
the fixing of the tax rate by the President upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Finance. The
Court cannot also subscribe to the position of petitioners
Pimentel, et al. that the word shall should be interpreted to mean may in view of the phrase "upon
the recommendation of the Secretary of Finance." Neither does the Court find persuasive the
submission of petitioners Escudero, et al. that any recommendation by the Secretary of Finance can
easily be brushed aside by the President since the former is a mere alter ego of the latter.
When one speaks of the Secretary of Finance as the alter ego of the President, it simply means that
as head of the Department of Finance he is the assistant and agent of the Chief Executive. The
multifarious executive and administrative functions of the Chief Executive are performed by and
through the executive departments, and the acts of the secretaries of such departments, such as the
Department of Finance, performed and promulgated in the regular course of business, are, unless
disapproved or reprobated by the Chief Executive, presumptively the acts of the Chief
Executive. The Secretary of Finance, as such, occupies a political position and holds office in an
advisory capacity, and, in the language of Thomas Jefferson, "should be of the President's bosom
confidence" and, in the language of Attorney-General Cushing, is "subject to the direction of the
President."
55

In the present case, in making his recommendation to the President on the existence of either of the
two conditions, the Secretary of Finance is not acting as the alter ego of the President or even her
subordinate. In such instance, he is not subject to the power of control and direction of the President.
He is acting as the agent of the legislative department, to determine and declare the event upon
which its expressed will is to take effect.
56
The Secretary of Finance becomes the means or tool by
which legislative policy is determined and implemented, considering that he possesses all the
facilities to gather data and information and has a much broader perspective to properly evaluate
them. His function is to gather and collate statistical data and other pertinent information and verify if
any of the two conditions laid out by Congress is present. His personality in such instance is in
reality but a projection of that of Congress. Thus, being the agent of Congress and not of the
President, the President cannot alter or modify or nullify, or set aside the findings of the Secretary of
Finance and to substitute the judgment of the former for that of the latter.
Congress simply granted the Secretary of Finance the authority to ascertain the existence of a fact,
namely, whether by December 31, 2005, the value-added tax collection as a percentage of Gross
Domestic Product (GDP) of the previous year exceeds two and four-fifth percent (2
4
/5%) or the
national government deficit as a percentage of GDP of the previous year exceeds one and one-half
percent (1%). If either of these two instances has occurred, the Secretary of Finance, by legislative
mandate, must submit such information to the President. Then the 12% VAT rate must be imposed
by the President effective January 1, 2006. There is no undue delegation of legislative power but
only of the discretion as to the execution of a law. This is constitutionally
permissible.
57
Congress does not abdicate its functions or unduly delegate power when it describes
31

what job must be done, who must do it, and what is the scope of his authority; in our complex
economy that is frequently the only way in which the legislative process can go forward.
58

As to the argument of petitioners ABAKADA GURO Party List, et al. that delegating to the President
the legislative power to tax is contrary to the principle of republicanism, the same deserves scant
consideration. Congress did not delegate the power to tax but the mere implementation 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.
59

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 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. When the Court acts on appearances instead of realities,
justice and law will be short-lived.
B. The 12% Increase VAT Rate Does Not Impose an Unfair and Unnecessary Additional Tax Burden
Petitioners Pimentel, et al. argue that the 12% increase in the VAT rate imposes an unfair and
additional tax burden on the people. Petitioners also argue that the 12% increase, dependent on any
of the 2 conditions set forth in the contested provisions, is ambiguous because it does not state if the
VAT rate would be returned to the original 10% if the rates are no longer satisfied. Petitioners also
argue that such rate is unfair and unreasonable, as the people are unsure of the applicable VAT rate
from year to year.
Under the common provisos of Sections 4, 5 and 6 of R.A. No. 9337, if any of the two conditions set
forth therein are satisfied, the President shall increase the VAT rate to 12%. The provisions of the
law are clear. It does not provide for a return to the 10% rate nor does it empower the President to
so revert if, after the rate is increased to 12%, the VAT collection goes below the 2
4
/5 of the GDP of
the previous year or that the national government deficit as a percentage of GDP of the previous
year does not exceed 1%.
Therefore, no statutory construction or interpretation is needed. Neither can conditions or limitations
be introduced where none is provided for. Rewriting the law is a forbidden ground that only
Congress may tread upon.
60

Thus, in the absence of any provision providing for a return to the 10% rate, which in this case the
Court finds none, petitioners argument is, at best, purely speculative. There is no basis for
petitioners fear of a fluctuating VAT rate because the law itself does not provide that the rate should
go back to 10% if the conditions provided in Sections 4, 5 and 6 are no longer present. The rule is
that where the provision of the law is clear and unambiguous, so that there is no occasion for the
court's seeking the legislative intent, the law must be taken as it is, devoid of judicial addition or
subtraction.
61

Petitioners also contend that the increase in the VAT rate, which was allegedly an incentive to the
President to raise the VAT collection to at least 2
4
/5 of the GDP of the previous year, should be
based on fiscal adequacy.
Petitioners obviously overlooked that increase in VAT collection is not the only condition. There is
another condition, i.e., the national government deficit as a percentage of GDP of the previous year
exceeds one and one-half percent (1 %).
32

Respondents explained the philosophy behind these alternative conditions:
1. VAT/GDP Ratio > 2.8%
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.
2. Natl Govt Deficit/GDP >1.5%
The condition set for increasing VAT when deficit/GDP is 1.5% or less means the fiscal condition of
government has reached a relatively sound position or is towards the direction of a balanced budget
position. Therefore, there is no need to increase the VAT rate since the fiscal house is in a relatively
healthy position. Otherwise stated, if the ratio is more than 1.5%, there is indeed a need to increase
the VAT rate.
62

That the first condition amounts to an incentive to the President to increase the VAT collection does
not render it unconstitutional so long as there is a public purpose for which the law was passed,
which in this case, is mainly to raise revenue. In fact, fiscal adequacy dictated the need for a raise in
revenue.
The principle of fiscal adequacy as a characteristic of a sound tax system was originally stated by
Adam Smith in his Canons of Taxation (1776), as:
IV. Every tax ought to be so contrived as both to take out and to keep out of the pockets of the
people as little as possible over and above what it brings into the public treasury of the state.
63

It simply means that sources of revenues must be adequate to meet government expenditures and
their variations.
64

The dire need for revenue cannot be ignored. Our country is in a quagmire of financial woe. During
the Bicameral Conference Committee hearing, then Finance Secretary Purisima bluntly depicted the
countrys gloomy state of economic affairs, thus:
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. Thats interest plus amortization of our debt. So clearly, this
is not a sustainable situation. Thats 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 Id 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, weve 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
33

increase in the interest rates in the leading economies of the world. And, therefore, our ability to
borrow at reasonable prices is going to be challenged. In fact, ultimately, the question is our ability to
access the financial markets.
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 spiral is really have a front-end adjustment in our revenue base.
65

The image portrayed is chilling. Congress passed the law hoping for rescue from an inevitable
catastrophe. Whether the law is indeed sufficient to answer the states economic dilemma is not for
the Court to judge. In theFarias case, the Court refused to consider the various arguments raised
therein that dwelt on the wisdom of Section 14 of R.A. No. 9006 (The Fair Election Act), pronouncing
that:
. . . policy matters are not the concern of the Court. Government policy is within the exclusive
dominion of the political branches of the government. It is not for this Court to look into the wisdom
or propriety of legislative determination. Indeed, whether an enactment is wise or unwise, whether it
is based on sound economic theory, whether it is the best means to achieve the desired results,
whether, in short, the legislative discretion within its prescribed limits should be exercised in a
particular manner are matters for the judgment of the legislature, and the serious conflict of opinions
does not suffice to bring them within the range of judicial cognizance.
66

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 questions of wisdom, justice or expediency
of legislation."
67

II.
Whether Section 8 of R.A. No. 9337, amending Sections 110(A)(2) and 110(B) of the NIRC; and
Section 12 of R.A. No. 9337, amending Section 114(C) of the NIRC, violate the following provisions
of the Constitution:
b. Article III, Section 1
A. Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses
34

Petitioners Association of Pilipinas Shell Dealers, Inc., et al. argue that Section 8 of R.A. No. 9337,
amending Sections 110 (A)(2), 110 (B), and Section 12 of R.A. No. 9337, amending Section 114 (C)
of the NIRC are arbitrary, oppressive, excessive and confiscatory. Their argument is premised on
the constitutional right against deprivation of life, liberty of property without due process of law, as
embodied in Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution.
Petitioners also contend that these provisions violate the constitutional guarantee of equal protection
of the law.
The doctrine is that where the due process and equal protection clauses are invoked, considering
that they are not fixed 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.
68

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.
Petitioners claim that the contested sections impose limitations on the amount of input tax that may
be claimed. In effect, a portion of the input tax that has already been paid cannot now be credited
against the output tax.
Petitioners argument is not absolute. It assumes that the input tax exceeds 70% of the output tax,
and therefore, the input tax in excess of 70% remains uncredited. However, to the extent that the
input tax is less than 70% of the output tax, then 100% of such input tax is still creditable.
More importantly, the excess input tax, if any, is retained in a businesss books of accounts and
remains creditable in the succeeding quarter/s. This is explicitly allowed by Section 110(B), which
provides that "if the input tax exceeds the output tax, the excess shall be carried over to the
succeeding quarter or quarters." In addition, Section 112(B) allows a VAT-registered person to apply
for the issuance of a tax credit certificate or refund for any unused input taxes, to the extent that
such input taxes have not been applied against the output taxes. Such unused input tax may be
used in payment of his other internal revenue taxes.
The non-application of the unutilized input tax in a given quarter is not ad infinitum, as petitioners
exaggeratedly contend. Their analysis of the effect of the 70% limitation is incomplete and one-
sided. It ends at the net effect that there will be unapplied/unutilized inputs VAT for a given quarter. It
does not proceed further to the fact that such unapplied/unutilized input tax may be credited in the
subsequent periods as allowed by the carry-over provision of Section 110(B) or that it may later on
be refunded through a tax credit certificate under Section 112(B).
Therefore, petitioners argument must be rejected.
On the other hand, it appears that petitioner Garcia failed to comprehend the operation of the 70%
limitation on the input tax. According to petitioner, the limitation on the creditable input tax in effect
35

allows VAT-registered establishments to retain a portion of the taxes they collect, which violates the
principle that tax collection and revenue should be for public purposes and expenditures
As earlier stated, the input tax is the tax paid by a person, passed on to him by the seller, when he
buys goods. Output tax meanwhile is the tax due to the person when he sells goods. In computing
the VAT payable, three possible scenarios may arise:
First, if at the end of a taxable quarter the output taxes charged by the seller are equal to the input
taxes that he paid and passed on by the suppliers, then no payment is required;
Second, when the output taxes exceed the input taxes, the person shall be liable for the excess,
which has to be paid to the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR);
69
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 credited
against other internal revenue taxes, at the taxpayers option.
70

Section 8 of R.A. No. 9337 however, imposed a 70% limitation on the input tax. Thus, a person can
credit his input tax only up to the extent of 70% of the output tax. In laymans term, the value-added
taxes that a person/taxpayer paid and passed on to him by a seller can only be credited up to 70%
of the value-added taxes that is due to him on a taxable transaction. There is no retention of any tax
collection because the person/taxpayer has already previously paid the input tax to a seller, and the
seller will subsequently remit such input tax to the BIR. The party directly liable for the payment of
the tax is the seller.
71
What only needs to be done is for the person/taxpayer to apply or credit these
input taxes, as evidenced by receipts, against his output taxes.
Petitioners Association of Pilipinas Shell Dealers, Inc., et al. also argue that the input tax partakes
the nature of a property that may not be confiscated, appropriated, or limited without due process of
law.
The input tax is not a property or a property right within the constitutional purview of the due process
clause. A VAT-registered persons 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.
72

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 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.
73
This was adopted by
the Expanded VAT Law (R.A. No. 7716),
74
and The Tax Reform Act of 1997 (R.A. No. 8424).
75
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.
Petitioners also contest as arbitrary, oppressive, excessive and confiscatory, Section 8 of R.A. No.
9337, amending Section 110(A) of the NIRC, which provides:
36

SEC. 110. Tax Credits.
(A) Creditable Input Tax.
Provided, That the input tax on goods purchased or imported in a calendar month for use in trade or
business for which deduction for depreciation is allowed under this Code, shall be spread evenly
over the month of acquisition and the fifty-nine (59) succeeding months if the aggregate acquisition
cost for such goods, excluding the VAT component thereof, exceeds One million pesos
(P1,000,000.00): Provided, however, That if the estimated useful life of the capital goods is less than
five (5) years, as used for depreciation purposes, then the input VAT shall be spread over such a
shorter period: Provided, finally, That in the case of purchase of services, lease or use of properties,
the input tax shall be creditable to the purchaser, lessee or license upon payment of the
compensation, rental, royalty or fee.
The foregoing section imposes a 60-month period within which to amortize the creditable input tax
on purchase or importation of capital goods with acquisition cost of P1 Million pesos, exclusive of the
VAT component. Such spread out only poses a delay in the crediting of the input tax. Petitioners
argument is without basis because the taxpayer is not permanently deprived of his privilege to credit
the input tax.
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.
76
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.
77
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 deterred.
78
Again, for
whatever is the purpose of the 60-month amortization, this involves executive economic policy and
legislative wisdom in which the Court cannot intervene.
With regard to the 5% creditable withholding tax imposed on payments made by the government for
taxable transactions, Section 12 of R.A. No. 9337, which amended Section 114 of the NIRC, reads:
SEC. 114. Return and Payment of Value-added Tax.
(C) Withholding of 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 and services which are subject
to the value-added tax imposed in Sections 106 and 108 of this Code, deduct and withhold a final
value-added tax at the rate of five percent (5%) of the gross payment thereof: Provided, That the
payment for lease or use of properties or property rights to nonresident owners shall be subject to
ten percent (10%) withholding tax at the time of payment. For purposes of this Section, the payor or
person in control of the payment shall be considered as the withholding agent.
The value-added tax withheld under this Section shall be remitted within ten (10) days following the
end of the month the withholding was made.
Section 114(C) merely provides a method of collection, or as stated by respondents, a more
simplified VAT withholding system. The government in this case is constituted as a withholding
agent with respect to their payments for goods and services.
Prior to its amendment, Section 114(C) provided for different rates of value-added taxes to be
withheld -- 3% on gross payments for purchases of goods; 6% on gross payments for services
37

supplied by contractors other than by public works contractors; 8.5% on gross payments for services
supplied by public work contractors; or 10% on payment for the lease or use of properties or
property rights to nonresident owners. Under the present Section 114(C), these different rates,
except for the 10% on lease or property rights payment to nonresidents, were deleted, and a uniform
rate of 5% is applied.
The Court observes, however, that the law the used the word final. In tax usage, final, as opposed to
creditable, means full. Thus, it is provided in Section 114(C): "final value-added tax at the rate of five
percent (5%)."
In Revenue Regulations No. 02-98, implementing R.A. No. 8424 (The Tax Reform Act of 1997), the
concept of final withholding tax on income was explained, to wit:
SECTION 2.57. Withholding of Tax at Source
(A) Final Withholding Tax. Under the final withholding tax system the amount of income tax
withheld by the withholding agent is constituted as full and final payment 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.
79

The Court need not explore the rationale behind the provision. It is clear that Congress intended to
treat differently taxable transactions with the government.
80
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 becreditable against the
value-added tax liability of the seller or contractor: Provided, however, That in the case of
government public works contractors, the withholding rate shall be eight and one-half percent
(8.5%): Provided, further, That the payment for lease or use of properties or property rights to
nonresident owners shall be subject to ten percent (10%) withholding tax at the time of payment. For
38

this purpose, the payor or person in control of the payment shall be considered as the withholding
agent.
The valued-added tax withheld under this Section shall be remitted within ten (10) days following the
end of the month the withholding was made. (Emphasis supplied)
As amended, the use of the word final and the deletion of the word creditable exhibits Congresss
intention to treat transactions with the government differently. Since it has not been shown that the
class subject to the 5% final withholding tax has been unreasonably narrowed, there is no reason to
invalidate the provision. Petitioners, as petroleum dealers, are not the only ones subjected to the 5%
final withholding tax. It applies to all those who deal with the government.
Moreover, the actual input tax is not totally lost or uncreditable, as petitioners believe. Revenue
Regulations No. 14-2005 or the Consolidated Value-Added Tax Regulations 2005 issued by the BIR,
provides that should the actual input tax exceed 5% of gross payments, the excess may form part of
the cost. Equally, should the actual input tax be less than 5%, the difference is treated as income.
81

Petitioners also argue that by imposing a limitation on the creditable input tax, the government gets
to tax a profit or value-added even if there is no profit or value-added.
Petitioners stance is purely hypothetical, argumentative, and again, one-sided. The Court will not
engage in a legal joust where premises are what ifs, arguments, theoretical and facts, uncertain. Any
disquisition by the Court on this point will only be, as Shakespeare describes life in Macbeth,
82
"full of
sound and fury, signifying nothing."
Whats more, petitioners contention assumes the proposition that there is no profit or value-added. It
need not take an astute businessman to know that it is a matter of exception that a business will sell
goods or services without profit or value-added. It cannot be overstressed that a business is created
precisely for profit.
The equal protection clause under the Constitution means that "no person or class of persons shall
be deprived of the same protection of laws which is enjoyed by other persons or other classes in the
same place and in like circumstances."
83

The power of the State to make reasonable and natural classifications for the purposes of taxation
has long been established. Whether it relates to 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,
the States power is entitled to presumption of validity. As a rule, the judiciary will not interfere with
such power absent a clear showing of unreasonableness, discrimination, or arbitrariness.
84

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 ones profit margin and value-added, the Court cannot go beyond what the
legislature has laid down and interfere with the affairs of business.
39

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 and different
from all others in these same particulars.
85

Petitioners brought to the Courts attention the introduction of Senate Bill No. 2038 by Sens. S.R.
Osmea 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 score, suffice it to say that these are still proposed legislations. Until
Congress amends the law, and absent any unequivocal basis for its unconstitutionality, the 70%
limitation stays.
B. Uniformity and Equitability of Taxation
Article VI, Section 28(1) of the Constitution reads:
The rule of taxation shall be uniform and equitable. The Congress shall evolve a progressive system
of taxation.
Uniformity in taxation means that all taxable articles or kinds of property of the same class shall be
taxed at the same rate. Different articles may be taxed at different amounts provided that the rate is
uniform on the same class everywhere with all people at all times.
86

In this case, the tax law is uniform as it provides a standard rate of 0% or 10% (or 12%) on all goods
and services. Sections 4, 5 and 6 of R.A. No. 9337, amending Sections 106, 107 and 108,
respectively, of the NIRC, provide for a rate of 10% (or 12%) on sale of goods and properties,
importation of goods, and sale of services and use or lease of properties. These same sections also
provide for a 0% rate on certain sales and transaction.
Neither does the law make any distinction as to the type of industry or trade that will bear the 70%
limitation on the creditable input tax, 5-year amortization of input tax paid on purchase of capital
goods or the 5% final withholding tax by the government. It must be stressed that the rule of uniform
taxation does not deprive Congress of the power to classify subjects of taxation, and only demands
uniformity within the particular class.
87

R.A. No. 9337 is also equitable. The law is equipped with a 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.
88
Also, basic marine and agricultural food products in their original state
are still not subject to the tax,
89
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:
90

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.
40

It is admitted that R.A. No. 9337 puts a premium on businesses with low profit margins, and unduly
favors those with high profit margins. Congress was not oblivious to this. Thus, to equalize the
weighty burden the law entails, the law, under Section 116, imposed a 3% percentage tax on VAT-
exempt persons under Section 109(v), i.e., transactions with gross annual sales and/or receipts not
exceeding P1.5 Million. This acts as a equalizer because in effect, bigger businesses that qualify for
VAT coverage and VAT-exempt taxpayers stand on equal-footing.
Moreover, Congress provided mitigating measures to cushion the impact of the imposition of the tax
on those previously exempt. Excise taxes on petroleum products
91
and natural gas
92
were reduced.
Percentage tax on domestic carriers was removed.
93
Power producers are now exempt from paying
franchise tax.
94

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
to a 35% income tax rate, from a previous 32%.
95
Intercorporate dividends of non-resident foreign
corporations are still subject to 15% final withholding tax but the tax credit allowed on the
corporations domicile was increased to 20%.
96
The Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation
(PAGCOR) is not exempt from income taxes anymore.
97
Even the sale by an artist of his works or
services performed for the production of such works was not spared.
All these were designed to ease, as well as spread out, the burden of taxation, which would
otherwise rest largely on the consumers. It cannot therefore be gainsaid that R.A. No. 9337 is
equitable.
C. Progressivity of Taxation
Lastly, 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 taxpayers ability to pay. This principle was also
lifted from Adam Smiths 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.
98

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 margin marked by a business, such that the higher
the income or profit margin, the smaller the portion of the income or profit that is eaten by VAT. A
converso, the lower the income or profit margin, the bigger the part that the VAT eats away. At the
end of the day, it is really the lower income group or businesses with low-profit margins that is
always hardest hit.
41

Nevertheless, the Constitution does not really prohibit the imposition of indirect taxes, like the VAT.
What it simply provides is that Congress shall "evolve a progressive system of taxation." The Court
stated in the Tolentino case, thus:
The Constitution does not really prohibit the imposition of indirect taxes which, like the VAT, are
regressive. What it simply provides is that Congress shall evolve a progressive system of taxation.
The constitutional provision has been interpreted to mean simply that direct taxes are . . . to be
preferred [and] as much as possible, indirect taxes should be minimized. (E. FERNANDO, THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE PHILIPPINES 221 (Second ed. 1977)) Indeed, the mandate to Congress
is not to prescribe, but to evolve, a progressive tax system. Otherwise, sales taxes, which perhaps
are 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 transactions. (R.A. No. 7716, 4 amending 103 of the NIRC)
99

CONCLUSION
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 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 of the others and that, for official
wrong-doing, each may be brought to account, either by impeachment, trial or by the ballot box.
100

The words of the Court in Vera vs. Avelino
101
holds true then, as it still holds true now. All things
considered, there is no raison d'tre for the unconstitutionality of R.A. No. 9337.
WHEREFORE, Republic Act No. 9337 not being unconstitutional, the petitions in G.R. Nos. 168056,
168207, 168461, 168463, and 168730, are hereby DISMISSED.
There being no constitutional impediment to the full enforcement and implementation of R.A. No.
9337, the temporary restraining order issued by the Court on July 1, 2005 is LIFTED upon finality of
herein decision.
SO ORDERED.
42

EN BANC
G.R. No. 168056 ABAKADA GURO PARTY LIST (Formerly AASJAS) OFFICERS SAMSON S.
ALCANTARA and ED VINCENT S. ALBANO v. THE HONORABLE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
EDUARDO ERMITA, ET AL.
G.R. No. 168207 AQUILINO Q. PIMENTEL, JR., ET AL. v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
EDUARDO R. ERMITA
G.R. No. 168461 ASSOCIATION OF PILIPINAS SHELL DEALERS, INC., ET AL. v. CESAR V.
PURISIMA, ET AL.
G.R. No. 168463 FRANCIS JOSEPH G. ESCUDERO, ET AL. v. CESAR V. PURISIMA, ET AL.
G.R. No. 168730 BATAAN GOVERNOR ENRIQUE T. GARCIA, JR., ET AL. v. HON. EDUARDO
R. ERMITA, ET AL.
Promulgated:
September 1, 2005
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
CONCURRING OPINION
CHICO-NAZARIO, J .:
Five petitions were filed before this Court questioning the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 9337.
Rep. Act No. 9337, which amended certain provisions of the National Internal Revenue Code of
1997,
1
by essentially increasing the tax rates and expanding the coverage of the Value-Added Tax
(VAT). Undoubtedly, during these financially difficult times, more taxes would be additionally
burdensome to the citizenry. However, like a bitter pill, all Filipino citizens must bear the burden of
these new taxes so as to raise the much-needed revenue for the ailing Philippine economy. Taxation
is the indispensable and inevitable price for a civilized society, and without taxes, the government
would be paralyzed.
2
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 Governments inability to sustain its precarious fiscal position, resulting in severe erosion of
investor confidence and economic stagnation."
3

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)
43

Rep. Act No. 9337 contravened Article VI, Section 24, of the Constitution which prescribes that
revenue bills should originate exclusively from the House of Representatives.
Invoking the expanded power of judicial review granted to it by the Constitution of 1987, petitioners
are calling upon 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 Houses of Congress, shall be conclusive proof of
its due enactment.
4

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 Pandoras 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
. . . Better, far better, that a provision should occasionally find its way into the statute through
mistake, or even fraud, than, that every Act, state and national, should at any and all times be liable
to put in issue and impeached by the journals, loose papers of the Legislature, and parol evidence.
Such a state of uncertainty in the statute laws of the land would lead to mischiefs absolutely
intolerable. . . .
5

Moreover, this Court must attribute good faith and accord utmost respect to the acts of a co-equal
branch of government. While it is true that its jurisdiction has been expanded by the Constitution, the
exercise thereof should not violate the basic principle of separation of powers. The expanded
jurisdiction does not contemplate judicial supremacy over the other branches of government. Thus,
in resolving the procedural issues raised by the petitioners, this Court should limit itself to a
determination of compliance with, or conversely, the violation of a specified procedure in the
Constitution for the passage of laws by Congress, and not of a mere internal rule of proceedings of
its Houses.
It bears emphasis that most of the irregularities in the enactment of Rep. Act No. 9337 concern the
amendments introduced by the Bicameral Conference Committee. The Constitution is silent on such
a committee, it neither prescribes the creation thereof nor does it prohibit it. The creation of the
Bicameral Conference Committee is authorized by the Rules of both Houses of Congress. That the
Rules of both Houses of Congress provide for the creation of a Bicameral Conference Committee is
within the prerogative of each House under the Constitution to determine its own rules of
proceedings.
The Bicameral Conference Committee is a creation of necessity and practicality considering that our
Congress is composed of two Houses, and it is highly improbable that their respective bills on the
same subject matter shall always be in accord and consistent with each other. Instead of all their
members, only the appointed representatives of both Houses shall meet to reconcile or settle the
differences in their bills. The resulting bill from their meetings, embodied in the Bicameral
Conference Report, shall be subject to approval and ratification by both Houses, voting separately.
44

It does perplex me that members of both Houses would again ask the Court to define and limit the
powers of the Bicameral Conference Committee when such committee is of their own creation. In a
number of cases,
6
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 herein is the concluding paragraph in Arroyo v. De Venecia,
7
which reads
It would be unwarranted invasion of the prerogative of a coequal department for this Court either to
set aside a legislative action as void because the Court thinks the house has disregarded its own
rules of procedure, or to allow those defeated in the political arena to seek a rematch in the judicial
forum when petitioners can find remedy in that department. The Court has not been invested with a
roving commission to inquire into complaints, real or imagined, of legislative skullduggery. It would
be acting in excess of its power and would itself be guilty of grave abuse of its discretion were it to
do so. . . .
Present jurisprudence allows the Bicameral Conference Committee to amend, add, and delete
provisions of the Bill under consideration, even in the absence of conflict thereon between the
Senate and House versions, but only so far as said provisions are germane to the purpose of the
Bill.
8
Now, there is a question as to whether the Bicameral Conference Committee, which produced
Rep. Act No. 9337, exceeded its authority when it included therein amendments of provisions of the
National Internal Revenue Code of 1997 not related to VAT.
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.
Furthermore, the procedural issues raised by the petitioners were already addressed and resolved
by this Court inTolentino v. Executive Secretary.
9
Since petitioners failed to proffer novel factual or
legal argument in support of their positions that were not previously considered by this Court in the
same case, then I am not compelled to depart from the conclusions made therein.
45

The majority opinion has already thoroughly discussed each of the substantial issues raised by the
petitioners. I would just wish to discuss additional matters pertaining to the petition of the petroleum
dealers in G.R. No. 168461.
They claim that the provision of Rep. Act No. 9337 limiting their input VAT credit to only 70% of their
output VAT deprives them of their property without due process of law. They argue further that such
70% cap violates the equal protection and uniformity of taxation clauses under Article III, Section 1,
and Article VI, Section 28(1), respectively, of the Constitution, because it will unduly prejudice
taxpayers who have high input VAT and who, because of the cap, cannot fully utilize their input VAT
as credit.
I cannot sustain the petroleum dealers position for the following reasons
First, I adhere to the view that the input VAT is not a property to which the taxpayer has vested
rights. Input VAT consists of the VAT a VAT-registered person had paid on his purchases or
importation of goods, properties, and services from a VAT-registered supplier; more simply, it is VAT
paid. It is not, as averred by petitioner petroleum dealers, a property that the taxpayer acquired for
valuable consideration.
10
A VAT-registered person incurs input VAT because he complied with the
National Internal Revenue Code of 1997, which imposed the VAT and made the payment thereof
mandatory; and not because he paid for it or purchased it for a price.
Generally, when one pays taxes to the government, he cannot expect any direct and concrete
benefit to himself for such payment. The benefit of payment of taxes shall redound to the society as
a whole. However, by virtue of Section 110(A) of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997, prior
to its amendment by Rep. Act No. 9337, a VAT-registered person is allowed, subject to certain
substantiation requirements, to credit his input VAT against his output VAT.
Output VAT is the VAT imposed by the VAT-registered person on his own sales of goods,
properties, and services or the VAT he passes on to his buyers. Hence, the VAT-registered person
selling the goods, properties, and services does not pay for the output VAT; said output VAT is paid
for by his consumers and he only collects and remits the same to the government.
The crediting of the input VAT against the output VAT is a statutory privilege, granted by Section 110
of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997. It gives the VAT-registered person the opportunity to
recover the input VAT he had paid, so that, in effect, the input VAT does not constitute an additional
cost for him. While it is true that input VAT credits are reported as assets in a VAT-registered
persons 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.
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.
11
There can be no vested right to the continued existence of a statute, which precludes
its change or repeal.
12

It bears to emphasize that Rep. Act No. 9337 does not totally remove the privilege of crediting the
input VAT against the output VAT. It merely limits the amount of input VAT one may credit against
46

his output VAT per quarter to an amount equivalent to 70% of the output VAT. What is more, any
input VAT in excess of the 70% cap may be carried-over to the next quarter.
13
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
VAT will continue to evolve from its pioneering original structure. Dynamically, it will be subjected to
reforms that will make it conform to many factors, among which are: the changing requirements of
government revenue; the social, economic and political vicissitudes of the times; and the conflicting
interests in our society. In the course of its evolution, it will be injected with some oddities and
inevitably transformed into a structure which its revisionists believe will be an improvement
overtime.
14

Second, assuming for the sake of argument, that the input VAT credit is indeed a property, the
petroleum dealers right thereto has not vested. A right is deemed vested and subject to
constitutional protection when
". . . [T]he right to enjoyment, present or prospective, has become the property of some particular
person or persons as a present interest. The right must be absolute, complete, and unconditional,
independent of a contingency, and a mere expectancy of future benefit, or a contingent interest in
property founded on anticipated continuance of existing laws, does not constitute a vested right. So,
inchoate rights which have not been acted on are not vested." (16 C. J. S. 214-215)
15

Under the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997, before it was amended by Rep. Act No. 9337,
the sale or importation of petroleum products were exempt from VAT, and instead, were subject to
excise tax.
16
Petroleum dealers did not impose any output VAT on their sales to consumers. Since
they had no output VAT against which they could credit their input VAT, they shouldered the costs of
the input VAT that they paid on their purchases of goods, properties, and services. Their sales not
being subject to VAT, the petroleum dealers had no input VAT credits to speak of.
It is only under Rep. Act No. 9337 that the sales by the petroleum dealers have become subject to
VAT and only in its implementation may they use their input VAT as credit against their output VAT.
While eager to use their input VAT credit 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.
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 carry-
over 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
47

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 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.
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 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
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.
48

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

49

SUPREME COURT
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 159647 April 15, 2005
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioners,
vs.
CENTRAL LUZON DRUG CORPORATION, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
PANGANIBAN, J .:
The 20 percent discount required by the law to be given to senior citizens is a tax credit, not merely
a tax deduction from the gross income or gross sale of the establishment concerned. A tax credit is
used by a private establishment only after the tax has been computed; a tax deduction, before the
tax is computed. RA 7432 unconditionally grants a tax credit to all covered entities. Thus, the
provisions of the revenue regulation that withdraw or modify such grant are void. Basic is the rule
that administrative regulations cannot amend or revoke the law.
The Case
Before us is a Petition for Review
1
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to set aside the
August 29, 2002 Decision
2
and the August 11, 2003 Resolution
3
of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-
GR SP No. 67439. The assailed Decision reads as follows:
"WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Resolution appealed from is AFFIRMED in toto. No
costs."
4

The assailed Resolution denied petitioners Motion for Reconsideration.
The Facts
The CA narrated the antecedent facts as follows:
"Respondent is a domestic corporation primarily engaged in retailing of medicines and other
pharmaceutical products. In 1996, it operated six (6) drugstores under the business name and style
Mercury Drug.
"From January to December 1996, respondent granted twenty (20%) percent sales discount to
qualified senior citizens on their purchases of medicines pursuant to Republic Act No. [R.A.] 7432
and its Implementing Rules and Regulations. For the said period, the amount allegedly representing
the 20% sales discount granted by respondent to qualified senior citizens totaled P904,769.00.
"On April 15, 1997, respondent filed its Annual Income Tax Return for taxable year 1996 declaring
therein that it incurred net losses from its operations.
"On January 16, 1998, respondent filed with petitioner a claim for tax refund/credit in the amount
of P904,769.00 allegedly arising from the 20% sales discount granted by respondent to qualified
50

senior citizens in compliance with [R.A.] 7432. Unable to obtain affirmative response from petitioner,
respondent elevated its claim to the Court of Tax Appeals [(CTA or Tax Court)] via a Petition for
Review.
"On February 12, 2001, the Tax Court rendered a Decision
5
dismissing respondents Petition for lack
of merit. In said decision, the [CTA] justified its ruling with the following ratiocination:
x x x, if no tax has been paid to the government, erroneously or illegally, or if no amount is due and
collectible from the taxpayer, tax refund or tax credit is unavailing. Moreover, whether the recovery of
the tax is made by means of a claim for refund or tax credit, before recovery is allowed[,] it must be
first established that there was an actual collection and receipt by the government of the tax sought
to be recovered. x x x.
x x x x x x x x x
Prescinding from the above, it could logically be deduced that tax credit is premised on the
existence of tax liability on the part of taxpayer. In other words, if there is no tax liability, tax credit is
not available.
"Respondent lodged a Motion for Reconsideration. The [CTA], in its assailed resolution,
6
granted
respondents motion for reconsideration and ordered herein petitioner to issue a Tax Credit
Certificate in favor of respondent citing the decision of the then Special Fourth Division of [the CA] in
CA G.R. SP No. 60057 entitled Central [Luzon] Drug Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal
Revenue promulgated on May 31, 2001, to wit:
However, Sec. 229 clearly does not apply in the instant case because the tax sought to be refunded
or credited by petitioner was not erroneously paid or illegally collected. We take exception to the
CTAs sweeping but unfounded statement that both tax refund and tax credit are modes of
recovering taxes which are either erroneously or illegally paid to the government. Tax refunds or
credits do not exclusively pertain to illegally collected or erroneously paid taxes as they may be other
circumstances where a refund is warranted. The tax refund provided under Section 229 deals
exclusively with illegally collected or erroneously paid taxes but there are other possible situations,
such as the refund of excess estimated corporate quarterly income tax paid, or that of excess input
tax paid by a VAT-registered person, or that of excise tax paid on goods locally produced or
manufactured but actually exported. The standards and mechanics for the grant of a refund or credit
under these situations are different from that under Sec. 229. Sec. 4[.a)] of R.A. 7432, is yet another
instance of a tax credit and it does not in any way refer to illegally collected or erroneously paid
taxes, x x x."
7

Ruling of the Court of Appeals
The CA affirmed in toto the Resolution of the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) ordering petitioner to issue
a tax credit certificate in favor of respondent in the reduced amount of P903,038.39. It reasoned that
Republic Act No. (RA) 7432 required neither a tax liability nor a payment of taxes by private
establishments prior to the availment of a tax credit. Moreover, such credit is not tantamount to an
unintended benefit from the law, but rather a just compensation for the taking of private property for
public use.
Hence this Petition.
8

The Issues
51

Petitioner raises the following issues for our consideration:
"Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that respondent may claim the 20% sales discount
as a tax credit instead of as a deduction from gross income or gross sales.
"Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that respondent is entitled to a refund."
9

These two issues may be summed up in only one: whether respondent, despite incurring a net loss,
may still claim the 20 percent sales discount as a tax credit.
The Courts Ruling
The Petition is not meritorious.
Sole Issue:
Claim of 20 Percent Sales Discount
as Tax Credit Despite Net Loss
Section 4a) of RA 7432
10
grants to senior citizens the privilege of obtaining a 20 percent discount on
their purchase of medicine from any private establishment in the country.
11
The latter may then claim
the cost of the discount as a tax credit.
12
But can such credit be claimed, even though an
establishment operates at a loss?
We answer in the affirmative.
Tax Credit versus
Tax Deduction
Although the term is not specifically defined in our Tax Code,
13
tax credit generally refers to an
amount that is "subtracted directly from ones total tax liability."
14
It is an "allowance against the tax
itself"
15
or "a deduction from what is owed"
16
by a taxpayer to the government. Examples of tax
credits are withheld taxes, payments of estimated tax, and investment tax credits.
17

Tax credit should be understood in relation to other tax concepts. One of these is tax deduction --
defined as a subtraction "from income for tax purposes,"
18
or an amount that is "allowed by law to
reduce income prior to [the] application of the tax rate to compute the amount of tax which is
due."
19
An example of a tax deduction is any of the allowable deductions enumerated in Section
34
20
of the Tax Code.
A tax credit differs from a tax deduction. On the one hand, a tax credit reduces the tax due, including
-- whenever applicable -- the income tax that is determined after applying the corresponding tax
rates to taxable income.
21
Atax deduction, on the other, reduces the income that is subject to tax
22
in
order to arrive at taxable income.
23
To think of the former as the latter is to avoid, if not entirely
confuse, the issue. A tax credit is used only after the tax has been computed; a tax
deduction, before.
Tax Liability Required
52

for Tax Credit
Since a tax credit is used to reduce directly the tax that is due, there ought to be a tax
liability before the tax creditcan be applied. Without that liability, any tax credit application will be
useless. There will be no reason for deducting the latter when there is, to begin with, no existing
obligation to the government. However, as will be presented shortly, the existence of a tax credit or
its grant by law is not the same as the availment or use of such credit. While the grant is mandatory,
the availment or use is not.
If a net loss is reported by, and no other taxes are currently due from, a business establishment,
there will obviously be no tax liability against which any tax credit can be applied.
24
For the
establishment to choose the immediate availment of a tax credit will be premature and impracticable.
Nevertheless, the irrefutable fact remains that, under RA 7432, Congress has granted without
conditions a tax credit benefit to all covered establishments.
Although this tax credit benefit is available, it need not be used by losing ventures, since there is no
tax liability that calls for its application. Neither can it be reduced to nil by the quick yet callow stroke
of an administrative pen, simply because no reduction of taxes can instantly be effected. By its
nature, the tax credit may still be deducted from a future, not a present, tax liability, without which it
does not have any use. In the meantime, it need not move. But it breathes.
Prior Tax Payments Not
Required for Tax Credit
While a tax liability is essential to the availment or use of any tax credit, prior tax payments are not.
On the contrary, for the existence or grant solely of such credit, neither a tax liability nor a prior tax
payment is needed. The Tax Code is in fact replete with provisions granting or allowing tax credits,
even though no taxes have been previously paid.
For example, in computing the estate tax due, Section 86(E) allows a tax credit -- subject to certain
limitations -- for estate taxes paid to a foreign country. Also found in Section 101(C) is a similar
provision for donors taxes -- again when paid to a foreign country -- in computing for the donors tax
due. The tax credits in both instances allude to the prior payment of taxes, even if not made to our
government.
Under Section 110, a VAT (Value-Added Tax)- registered person engaging in transactions --
whether or not subject to the VAT -- is also allowed a tax credit that includes a ratable portion of any
input tax not directly attributable to either activity. This input tax may either be the VAT on the
purchase or importation of goods or services that is merely due from -- not necessarily paid by --
such VAT-registered person in the course of trade or business; or the transitional input tax
determined in accordance with Section 111(A). The latter type may in fact be an amount equivalent
to only eight percent of the value of a VAT-registered persons beginning inventory of goods,
materials and supplies, when such amount -- as computed -- is higher than the actual VAT paid on
the said items.
25
Clearly from this provision, the tax credit refers to an input tax that is either due only
or given a value by mere comparison with the VAT actually paid -- then later prorated. No tax is
actually paid prior to the availment of such credit.
In Section 111(B), a one and a half percent input tax credit that is merely presumptive is allowed. For
the purchase of primary agricultural products used as inputs -- either in the processing of sardines,
mackerel and milk, or in the manufacture of refined sugar and cooking oil -- and for the contract price
53

of public work contracts entered into with the government, again, no prior tax payments are needed
for the use of the tax credit.
More important, a VAT-registered person whose sales are zero-rated or effectively zero-rated may,
under Section 112(A), apply for the issuance of a tax credit certificate for the amount of creditable
input taxes merely due -- again not necessarily paid to -- the government and attributable to such
sales, to the extent that the input taxes have not been applied against output taxes.
26
Where a
taxpayer
is engaged in zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sales and also in taxable or exempt sales, the
amount of creditable input taxes due that are not directly and entirely attributable to any one of these
transactions shall be proportionately allocated on the basis of the volume of sales. Indeed, in
availing of such tax credit for VAT purposes, this provision -- as well as the one earlier mentioned --
shows that the prior payment of taxes is not a requisite.
It may be argued that Section 28(B)(5)(b) of the Tax Code is another illustration of a tax
credit allowed, even though no prior tax payments are not required. Specifically, in this provision, the
imposition of a final withholding tax rate on cash and/or property dividends received by a nonresident
foreign corporation from a domestic corporation is subjected to the condition that a foreign tax
credit will be given by the domiciliary country in an amount equivalent to taxes that are merely
deemed paid.
27
Although true, this provision actually refers to the tax credit as a condition only for
the imposition of a lower tax rate, not as a deduction from the corresponding tax liability. Besides, it
is not our government but the domiciliary country that credits against the income tax payable to the
latter by the foreign corporation, the tax to be foregone or spared.
28

In contrast, Section 34(C)(3), in relation to Section 34(C)(7)(b), categorically allows as credits,
against the income tax imposable under Title II, the amount of income taxes merely incurred -- not
necessarily paid -- by a domestic corporation during a taxable year in any foreign country. Moreover,
Section 34(C)(5) provides that for such taxes incurred but not paid, a tax credit may be allowed,
subject to the condition precedent that the taxpayer shall simply give a bond with sureties
satisfactory to and approved by petitioner, in such sum as may be required; and further conditioned
upon payment by the taxpayer of any tax found due, upon petitioners redetermination of it.
In addition to the above-cited provisions in the Tax Code, there are also tax treaties and special laws
that grant or allow tax credits, even though no prior tax payments have been made.
Under the treaties in which the tax credit method is used as a relief to avoid double taxation, income
that is taxed in the state of source is also taxable in the state of residence, but the tax paid in the
former is merely allowed as a credit against the tax levied in the latter.
29
Apparently, payment is
made to the state of source, not the state of residence. No tax, therefore, has been previously paid
to the latter.
Under special laws that particularly affect businesses, there can also be tax credit incentives. To
illustrate, the incentives provided for in Article 48 of Presidential Decree No. (PD) 1789, as amended
by Batas Pambansa Blg. (BP) 391, include tax credits equivalent to either five percent of the net
value earned, or five or ten percent of the net local content of exports.
30
In order to avail of such
credits under the said law and still achieve its objectives, no prior tax payments are necessary.
From all the foregoing instances, it is evident that prior tax payments are not indispensable to the
availment of atax credit. Thus, the CA correctly held that the availment under RA 7432 did not
require prior tax payments by private establishments concerned.
31
However, we do not agree with its
finding
32
that the carry-over of tax creditsunder the said special law to succeeding taxable periods,
54

and even their application against internal revenue taxes, did not necessitate the existence of a tax
liability.
The examples above show that a tax liability is certainly important in the availment or use, not
the existence or grant, of a tax credit. Regarding this matter, a private establishment reporting a net
loss in its financial statements is no different from another that presents a net income. Both are
entitled to the tax credit provided for under RA 7432, since the law itself accords that unconditional
benefit. However, for the losing establishment to immediately apply such credit, where no tax is due,
will be an improvident usance.
Sections 2.i and 4 of Revenue
Regulations No. 2-94 Erroneous
RA 7432 specifically allows private establishments to claim as tax credit the amount of discounts
they grant.
33
In turn, the Implementing Rules and Regulations, issued pursuant thereto, provide the
procedures for its availment.
34
To deny such credit, despite the plain mandate of the law and the
regulations carrying out that mandate, is indefensible.
First, the definition given by petitioner is erroneous. It refers to tax credit as the amount representing
the 20 percent discount that "shall be deducted by the said establishments from their gross
income for income tax purposes and from their gross sales for value-added tax or other percentage
tax purposes."
35
In ordinary business language, the tax credit represents the amount of such
discount. However, the manner by which the discount shall be credited against taxes has not been
clarified by the revenue regulations.
By ordinary acceptation, a discount is an "abatement or reduction made from the gross amount or
value of anything."
36
To be more precise, it is in business parlance "a deduction or lowering of an
amount of money;"
37
or "a reduction from the full amount or value of something, especially a
price."
38
In business there are many kinds of discount, the most common of which is that affecting
the income statement
39
or financial report upon which theincome tax is based.
Business Discounts
Deducted from Gross Sales
A cash discount, for example, is one granted by business establishments to credit customers for
their prompt payment.
40
It is a "reduction in price offered to the purchaser if payment is made within a
shorter period of time than the maximum time specified."
41
Also referred to as a sales discount on the
part of the seller and a purchase discount on the part of the buyer, it may be expressed in such
terms as "5/10, n/30."
42

A quantity discount, however, is a "reduction in price allowed for purchases made in large quantities,
justified by savings in packaging, shipping, and handling."
43
It is also called a volume or bulk
discount.
44

A "percentage reduction from the list price x x x allowed by manufacturers to wholesalers and by
wholesalers to retailers"
45
is known as a trade discount. No entry for it need be made in the manual
or computerized books of accounts, since the purchase or sale is already valued at the net price
actually charged the buyer.
46
The purpose for the discount is to encourage trading or increase sales,
55

and the prices at which the purchased goods may be resold are also suggested.
47
Even a chain
discount -- a series of discounts from one list price -- is recorded at net.
48

Finally, akin to a trade discount is a functional discount. It is "a suppliers price discount given to a
purchaser based on the [latters] role in the [formers] distribution system."
49
This role usually
involves warehousing or advertising.
Based on this discussion, we find that the nature of a sales discount is peculiar. Applying generally
accepted accounting principles (GAAP) in the country, this type of discount is reflected in the income
statement
50
as a line item deducted -- along with returns, allowances, rebates and other similar
expenses -- from gross sales to arrive atnet sales.
51
This type of presentation is resorted to, because
the accounts receivable and sales figures that arise from sales discounts, -- as well as from quantity,
volume or bulk discounts -- are recorded in the manual and computerized books of accounts and
reflected in the financial statements at the gross amounts of the invoices.
52
This manner of recording
credit sales -- known as the gross method -- is most widely used, because it is simple, more
convenient to apply than the net method, and produces no material errors over time.
53

However, under the net method used in recording trade, chain or functional discounts, only the net
amounts of the invoices -- after the discounts have been deducted -- are recorded in the books of
accounts
54
and reflected in the financial statements. A separate line item cannot be
shown,
55
because the transactions themselves involving bothaccounts receivable and sales have
already been entered into, net of the said discounts.
The term sales discounts is not expressly defined in the Tax Code, but one provision adverts to
amounts whose sum -- along with sales returns, allowances and cost of goods sold
56
-- is deducted
from gross sales to come up with the gross income, profit or margin
57
derived from business.
58
In
another provision therein, sales discountsthat are granted and indicated in the invoices at the time of
sale -- and that do not depend upon the happening of any future event -- may be excluded from
the gross sales within the same quarter they were given.
59
While determinative only of the VAT, the
latter provision also appears as a suitable reference point for income tax purposes already
embraced in the former. After all, these two provisions affirm that sales discounts are amounts that
are always deductible from gross sales.
Reason for the Senior Citizen Discount:
The Law, Not Prompt Payment
A distinguishing feature of the implementing rules of RA 7432 is the private establishments outright
deduction of the discount from the invoice price of the medicine sold to the senior citizen.
60
It is,
therefore, expected that for each retail sale made under this law, the discount period lasts no more
than a day, because such discount is given -- and the net amount thereof collected -- immediately
upon perfection of the sale.
61
Although prompt payment is made for an arms-length transaction by
the senior citizen, the real and compelling reason for the private establishment giving the discount is
that the law itself makes it mandatory.
What RA 7432 grants the senior citizen is a mere discount privilege, not a sales discount or any of
the above discounts in particular. Prompt payment is not the reason for (although a necessary
consequence of) such grant. To be sure, the privilege enjoyed by the senior citizen must be
equivalent to the tax credit benefit enjoyed by the private establishment granting the discount. Yet,
under the revenue regulations promulgated by our tax authorities, this benefit has been erroneously
likened and confined to a sales discount.
56

To a senior citizen, the monetary effect of the privilege may be the same as that resulting from
a sales discount. However, to a private establishment, the effect is different from a simple reduction
in price that results from such discount. In other words, the tax credit benefit is not the same as
a sales discount. To repeat from our earlier discourse, this benefit cannot and should not be treated
as a tax deduction.
To stress, the effect of a sales discount on the income statement and income tax return of an
establishment covered by RA 7432 is different from that resulting from the availment or use of its tax
credit benefit. While the former is a deduction before, the latter is a deduction after, the income tax is
computed. As mentioned earlier, a discount is not necessarily a sales discount, and a tax credit for a
simple discount privilege should not be automatically treated like a sales discount. Ubi lex non
distinguit, nec nos distinguere debemus. Where the law does not distinguish, we ought not to
distinguish.
Sections 2.i and 4 of Revenue Regulations No. (RR) 2-94 define tax credit as the 20 percent
discount deductible from gross income for income tax purposes, or from gross sales for VAT or other
percentage tax purposes. In effect, the tax credit benefit under RA 7432 is related to a sales
discount. This contrived definition is improper, considering that the latter has to be deducted
from gross sales in order to compute the gross income in theincome statement and cannot be
deducted again, even for purposes of computing the income tax.
When the law says that the cost of the discount may be claimed as a tax credit, it means that the
amount -- when claimed -- shall be treated as a reduction from any tax liability, plain and simple. The
option to avail of the tax credit benefit depends upon the existence of a tax liability, but to limit the
benefit to a sales discount -- which is not even identical to the discount privilege that is granted by
law -- does not define it at all and serves no useful purpose. The definition must, therefore, be
stricken down.
Laws Not Amended
by Regulations
Second, the law cannot be amended by a mere regulation. In fact, a regulation that "operates to
create a rule out of harmony with
the statute is a mere nullity";
62
it cannot prevail.
It is a cardinal rule that courts "will and should respect the contemporaneous construction placed
upon a statute by the executive officers whose duty it is to enforce it x x x."
63
In the scheme of judicial
tax administration, the need for certainty and predictability in the implementation of tax laws is
crucial.
64
Our tax authorities fill in the details that "Congress may not have the opportunity or
competence to provide."
65
The regulations these authorities issue are relied upon by taxpayers, who
are certain that these will be followed by the courts.
66
Courts, however, will not uphold these
authorities interpretations when clearly absurd, erroneous or improper.
In the present case, the tax authorities have given the term tax credit in Sections 2.i and 4 of RR 2-
94 a meaning utterly in contrast to what RA 7432 provides. Their interpretation has muddled up the
intent of Congress in granting a mere discount privilege, not a sales discount. The administrative
agency issuing these regulations may not enlarge, alter or restrict the provisions of the law it
administers; it cannot engraft additional requirements not contemplated by the legislature.
67

57

In case of conflict, the law must prevail.
68
A "regulation adopted pursuant to law is law."
69
Conversely,
a regulation or any portion thereof not adopted pursuant to law is no law and has neither the force
nor the effect of law.
70

Availment of Tax
Credit Voluntary

Third, the word may in the text of the statute
71
implies that the
availability of the tax credit benefit is neither unrestricted nor mandatory.
72
There is no absolute right
conferred upon respondent, or any similar taxpayer, to avail itself of the tax credit remedy whenever
it chooses; "neither does it impose a duty on the part of the government to sit back and allow an
important facet of tax collection to be at the sole control and discretion of the taxpayer."
73
For the tax
authorities to compel respondent to deduct the 20 percent discount from either its gross income or
its gross sales
74
is, therefore, not only to make an imposition without basis in law, but also to
blatantly contravene the law itself.
What Section 4.a of RA 7432 means is that the tax credit benefit is merely permissive, not
imperative. Respondent is given two options -- either to claim or not to claim the cost of the
discounts as a tax credit. In fact, it may even ignore the credit and simply consider the gesture as an
act of beneficence, an expression of its social conscience.
Granting that there is a tax liability and respondent claims such cost as a tax credit, then the tax
credit can easily be applied. If there is none, the credit cannot be used and will just have to be
carried over and revalidated
75
accordingly. If, however, the business continues to operate at a loss
and no other taxes are due, thus compelling it to close shop, the credit can never be applied and will
be lost altogether.
In other words, it is the existence or the lack of a tax liability that determines whether the cost of the
discounts can be used as a tax credit. RA 7432 does not give respondent the unfettered right to avail
itself of the credit whenever it pleases. Neither does it allow our tax administrators to expand or
contract the legislative mandate. "The plain meaning rule or verba legis in statutory construction is
thus applicable x x x. Where the words of a statute are clear, plain and free from ambiguity, it must
be given its literal meaning and applied without attempted interpretation."
76

Tax Credit Benefit
Deemed Just Compensation
Fourth, Sections 2.i and 4 of RR 2-94 deny the exercise by the State of its power of eminent domain.
Be it stressed that the privilege enjoyed by senior citizens does not come directly from the State, but
rather from the private establishments concerned. Accordingly, the tax credit benefit granted to these
establishments can be deemed as their just compensation for private property taken by the State for
public use.
77

The concept of public use is no longer confined to the traditional notion of use by the public, but held
synonymous with public interest, public benefit, public welfare, and public convenience.
78
The
discount privilege to which our senior citizens are entitled is actually a benefit enjoyed by the general
public to which these citizens belong. The discounts given would have entered the coffers and
formed part of the gross sales of the private establishments concerned, were it not for RA 7432. The
58

permanent reduction in their total revenues is a forced subsidy corresponding to the taking of private
property for public use or benefit.
As a result of the 20 percent discount imposed by RA 7432, respondent becomes entitled to a just
compensation. This term refers not only to the issuance of a tax credit certificate indicating the
correct amount of the discounts given, but also to the promptness in its release. Equivalent to the
payment of property taken by the State, such issuance -- when not done within a reasonable
time from the grant of the discounts -- cannot be considered as just compensation. In effect,
respondent is made to suffer the consequences of being immediately deprived of its revenues while
awaiting actual receipt, through the certificate, of the equivalent amount it needs to cope with the
reduction in its revenues.
79

Besides, the taxation power can also be used as an implement for the exercise of the power of
eminent domain.
80
Tax measures are but "enforced contributions exacted on pain of penal
sanctions"
81
and "clearly imposed for apublic purpose."
82
In recent years, the power to tax has indeed
become a most effective tool to realize social justice, public welfare, and the equitable distribution of
wealth.
83

While it is a declared commitment under Section 1 of RA 7432, social justice "cannot be invoked to
trample on the rights of property owners who under our Constitution and laws are also entitled to
protection. The social justice consecrated in our [C]onstitution [is] not intended to take away rights
from a person and give them to another who is not entitled thereto."
84
For this reason, a just
compensation for income that is taken away from respondent becomes necessary. It is in the tax
credit that our legislators find support to realize social justice, and no administrative body can alter
that fact.
To put it differently, a private establishment that merely breaks even
85
-- without the discounts yet --
will surely start to incur losses because of such discounts. The same effect is expected if its mark-up
is less than 20 percent, and if all its sales come from retail purchases by senior citizens. Aside from
the observation we have already raised earlier, it will also be grossly unfair to an establishment if the
discounts will be treated merely as deductions from either its gross income or its gross sales.
Operating at a loss through no fault of its own, it will realize that thetax credit limitation under RR 2-
94 is inutile, if not improper. Worse, profit-generating businesses will be put in a better position if
they avail themselves of tax credits denied those that are losing, because no taxes are due from the
latter.
Grant of Tax Credit
Intended by the Legislature
Fifth, RA 7432 itself seeks to adopt measures whereby senior citizens are assisted by the
community as a whole and to establish a program beneficial to them.
86
These objectives are
consonant with the constitutional policy of making "health x x x services available to all the people at
affordable cost"
87
and of giving "priority for the needs of the x x x elderly."
88
Sections 2.i and 4 of RR
2-94, however, contradict these constitutional policies and statutory objectives.
Furthermore, Congress has allowed all private establishments a simple tax credit, not a deduction. In
fact, no cash outlay is required from the government for the availment or use of such credit. The
deliberations on February 5, 1992 of the Bicameral Conference Committee Meeting on Social
Justice, which finalized RA 7432, disclose the true intent of our legislators to treat the sales
discounts as a tax credit, rather than as a deduction from gross income. We quote from those
deliberations as follows:
59

"THE CHAIRMAN (Rep. Unico). By the way, before that ano, about deductions from taxable income.
I think we incorporated there a provision na - on the responsibility of the private hospitals and
drugstores, hindi ba?
SEN. ANGARA. Oo.
THE CHAIRMAN. (Rep. Unico), So, I think we have to put in also a provision here about the
deductions from taxable income of that private hospitals, di ba ganon 'yan?
MS. ADVENTO. Kaya lang po sir, and mga discounts po nila affecting government and public
institutions, so, puwede na po nating hindi isama yung mga less deductions ng taxable income.
THE CHAIRMAN. (Rep. Unico). Puwede na. Yung about the private hospitals. Yung isiningit natin?
MS. ADVENTO. Singit na po ba yung 15% on credit. (inaudible/did not use the microphone).
SEN. ANGARA. Hindi pa, hindi pa.
THE CHAIRMAN. (Rep. Unico) Ah, 'di pa ba naisama natin?
SEN. ANGARA. Oo. You want to insert that?
THE CHAIRMAN (Rep. Unico). Yung ang proposal ni Senator Shahani, e.
SEN. ANGARA. In the case of private hospitals they got the grant of 15% discount, provided that,
the private hospitals can claim the expense as a tax credit.
REP. AQUINO. Yah could be allowed as deductions in the perpetrations of (inaudible) income.
SEN. ANGARA. I-tax credit na lang natin para walang cash-out ano?
REP. AQUINO. Oo, tax credit. Tama, Okay. Hospitals ba o lahat ng establishments na covered.
THE CHAIRMAN. (Rep. Unico). Sa kuwan lang yon, as private hospitals lang.
REP. AQUINO. Ano ba yung establishments na covered?
SEN. ANGARA. Restaurant lodging houses, recreation centers.
REP. AQUINO. All establishments covered siguro?
SEN. ANGARA. From all establishments. Alisin na natin 'Yung kuwan kung ganon. Can we go back
to Section 4 ha?
REP. AQUINO. Oho.
SEN. ANGARA. Letter A. To capture that thought, we'll say the grant of 20% discount from all
establishments et cetera, et cetera, provided that said establishments - provided that private
establishments may claim the cost as a tax credit. Ganon ba 'yon?
60

REP. AQUINO. Yah.
SEN. ANGARA. Dahil kung government, they don't need to claim it.
THE CHAIRMAN. (Rep. Unico). Tax credit.
SEN. ANGARA. As a tax credit [rather] than a kuwan - deduction, Okay.
REP. AQUINO Okay.
SEN. ANGARA. Sige Okay. Di subject to style na lang sa Letter A".
89

Special Law
Over General Law
Sixth and last, RA 7432 is a special law that should prevail over the Tax Code -- a general law. "x x x
[T]he rule is that on a specific matter the special law shall prevail over the general law, which shall
be resorted to only to supply deficiencies in the former."
90
In addition, "[w]here there are two statutes,
the earlier special and the later general -- the terms of the general broad enough to include the
matter provided for in the special -- the fact that one is special and the other is general creates a
presumption that the special is to be considered as remaining an exception to the general,
91
one as a
general law of the land, the other as the law of a particular case."
92
"It is a canon of statutory
construction that a later statute, general in its terms and not expressly repealing a prior
special statute, will ordinarily not affect the special provisions of such earlier statute."
93

RA 7432 is an earlier law not expressly repealed by, and therefore remains an exception to, the Tax
Code -- a later law. When the former states that a tax credit may be claimed, then the requirement of
prior tax payments under certain provisions of the latter, as discussed above, cannot be made to
apply. Neither can the instances of or references to a tax deduction under the Tax Code
94
be made
to restrict RA 7432. No provision of any revenue regulation can supplant or modify the acts of
Congress.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby DENIED. The assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of
Appeals AFFIRMED. No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.

61

SUPREME COURT
Manila
THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 120082 September 11, 1996
MACTAN CEBU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY, petitioner,
vs.
HON. FERDINAND J. MARCOS, in his capacity as the Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 20, Cebu City, THE CITY OF CEBU, represented by its Mayor HON. TOMAS R.
OSMEA, and EUSTAQUIO B. CESA, respondents.

DAVIDE, JR., J .:
For review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court on a pure question of law are the decision of
22 March 1995
1
of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City, Branch 20, dismissing the
petition for declaratory relief in Civil Case No. CEB-16900 entitled "Mactan Cebu International
Airport Authority vs. City of Cebu", and its order of 4, May 1995
2
denying the motion to reconsider
the decision.
We resolved to give due course to this petition for its raises issues dwelling on the scope of
the taxing power of local government-owned and controlled corporations.
The uncontradicted factual antecedents are summarized in the instant petition as follows:
Petitioner Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority (MCIAA) was created by virtue
of Republic Act No. 6958, mandated to "principally undertake the economical,
efficient and effective control, management and supervision of the Mactan
International Airport in the Province of Cebu and the Lahug Airport in Cebu City, . . .
and such other Airports as may be established in the Province of Cebu . . . (Sec. 3,
RA 6958). It is also mandated to:
a) encourage, promote and develop international and
domestic air traffic in the Central Visayas and
Mindanao regions as a means of making the regions
centers of international trade and tourism, and
accelerating the development of the means of
transportation and communication in the country; and
b) upgrade the services and facilities of the airports
and to formulate internationally acceptable standards
of airport accommodation and service.
Since the time of its creation, petitioner MCIAA enjoyed the privilege of exemption
from payment of realty taxes in accordance with Section 14 of its Charter.
62

Sec. 14. Tax Exemptions. The authority shall be exempt from
realty taxes imposed by the National Government or any of its
political subdivisions, agencies and instrumentalities . . .
On October 11, 1994, however, Mr. Eustaquio B. Cesa, Officer-in-Charge, Office of
the Treasurer of the City of Cebu, demanded payment for realty taxes on several
parcels of land belonging to the petitioner (Lot Nos. 913-G, 743, 88 SWO, 948-A,
989-A, 474, 109(931), I-M, 918, 919, 913-F, 941, 942, 947, 77 Psd., 746 and 991-A),
located at Barrio Apas and Barrio Kasambagan, Lahug, Cebu City, in the total
amount of P2,229,078.79.
Petitioner objected to such demand for payment as baseless and unjustified,
claiming in its favor the aforecited Section 14 of RA 6958 which exempt it from
payment of realty taxes. It was also asserted that it is an instrumentality of the
government performing governmental functions, citing section 133 of the Local
Government Code of 1991 which puts limitations on the taxing powers of local
government units:
Sec. 133. Common Limitations on the Taxing Powers of Local
Government Units. Unless otherwise provided herein, the exercise
of the taxing powers of provinces, cities, municipalities, and barangay
shall not extend to the levy of the following:
a) . . .
xxx xxx xxx
o) Taxes, fees or charges of any kind on the National
Government, its agencies and instrumentalities, and
local government units. (Emphasis supplied)
Respondent City refused to cancel and set aside petitioner's realty tax account,
insisting that the MCIAA is a government-controlled corporation whose tax exemption
privilege has been withdrawn by virtue of Sections 193 and 234 of the Local
Governmental Code that took effect on January 1, 1992:
Sec. 193. Withdrawal of Tax Exemption Privilege. Unless otherwise provided in
this Code, tax exemptions or incentives granted to, or presently enjoyed by all
persons whether natural or juridical,including government-owned or controlled
corporations, except local water districts, cooperatives duly registered under RA No.
6938, non-stock, and non-profit hospitals and educational institutions, are hereby
withdrawn upon the effectivity of this Code. (Emphasis supplied)
xxx xxx xxx
Sec. 234. Exemptions from Real Property taxes. . . .
(a) . . .
xxx xxx xxx
63

(c) . . .
Except as provided herein, any exemption from payment of real
property tax previously granted to, or presently enjoyed by all
persons, whether natural or juridical, including government-owned or
controlled corporations are hereby withdrawn upon the effectivity of
this Code.
As the City of Cebu was about to issue a warrant of levy against the properties of
petitioner, the latter was compelled to pay its tax account "under protest" and
thereafter filed a Petition for Declaratory Relief with the Regional Trial Court of Cebu,
Branch 20, on December 29, 1994. MCIAA basically contended that the taxing
powers of local government units do not extend to the levy of taxes or fees of any
kind on an instrumentality of the national government. Petitioner insisted that while it
is indeed a government-owned corporation, it nonetheless stands on the same
footing as an agency or instrumentality of the national government. Petitioner insisted
that while it is indeed a government-owned corporation, it nonetheless stands on the
same footing as an agency or instrumentality of the national government by the very
nature of its powers and functions.
Respondent City, however, asserted that MACIAA is not an instrumentality of the
government but merely a government-owned corporation performing proprietary
functions As such, all exemptions previously granted to it were deemed withdrawn by
operation of law, as provided under Sections 193 and 234 of the Local Government
Code when it took effect on January 1, 1992.
3

The petition for declaratory relief was docketed as Civil Case No. CEB-16900.
In its decision of 22 March 1995,
4
the trial court dismissed the petition in light of its findings, to
wit:
A close reading of the New Local Government Code of 1991 or RA 7160 provides
the express cancellation and withdrawal of exemption of taxes by government owned
and controlled corporation per Sections after the effectivity of said Code on January
1, 1992, to wit: [proceeds to quote Sections 193 and 234]
Petitioners claimed that its real properties assessed by respondent City Government
of Cebu are exempted from paying realty taxes in view of the exemption granted
under RA 6958 to pay the same (citing Section 14 of RA 6958).
However, RA 7160 expressly provides that "All general and special laws, acts, city
charters, decress [sic], executive orders, proclamations and administrative
regulations, or part or parts thereof which are inconsistent with any of the provisions
of this Code are hereby repealed or modified accordingly." ([f], Section 534, RA
7160).
With that repealing clause in RA 7160, it is safe to infer and state that the tax
exemption provided for in RA 6958 creating petitioner had been expressly repealed
by the provisions of the New Local Government Code of 1991.
So that petitioner in this case has to pay the assessed realty tax of its properties
effective after January 1, 1992 until the present.
64

This Court's ruling finds expression to give impetus and meaning to the overall
objectives of the New Local Government Code of 1991, RA 7160. "It is hereby
declared the policy of the State that the territorial and political subdivisions of the
State shall enjoy genuine and meaningful local autonomy to enable them to attain
their fullest development as self-reliant communities and make them more effective
partners in the attainment of national goals. Towards this end, the State shall provide
for a more responsive and accountable local government structure instituted through
a system of decentralization whereby local government units shall be given more
powers, authority, responsibilities, and resources. The process of decentralization
shall proceed from the national government to the local government units. . . .
5

Its motion for reconsideration having been denied by the trial court in its 4 May 1995 order,
the petitioner filed the instant petition based on the following assignment of errors:
I RESPONDENT JUDGE ERRED IN FAILING TO RULE THAT THE
PETITIONER IS VESTED WITH GOVERNMENT POWERS AND
FUNCTIONS WHICH PLACE IT IN THE SAME CATEGORY AS AN
INSTRUMENTALITY OR AGENCY OF THE GOVERNMENT.
II RESPONDENT JUDGE ERRED IN RULING THAT PETITIONER
IS LIABLE TO PAY REAL PROPERTY TAXES TO THE CITY OF
CEBU.
Anent the first assigned error, the petitioner asserts that although it is a government-owned
or controlled corporation it is mandated to perform functions in the same category as an
instrumentality of Government. An instrumentality of Government is one created to perform
governmental functions primarily to promote certain aspects of the economic life of the
people.
6
Considering its task "not merely to efficiently operate and manage the Mactan-Cebu
International Airport, but more importantly, to carry out the Government policies of promoting and
developing the Central Visayas and Mindanao regions as centers of international trade and
tourism, and accelerating the development of the means of transportation and communication in
the country,"
7
and that it is an attached agency of the Department of Transportation and
Communication (DOTC),
8
the petitioner "may stand in [sic] the same footing as an agency or
instrumentality of the national government." Hence, its tax exemption privilege under Section 14
of its Charter "cannot be considered withdrawn with the passage of the Local Government Code
of 1991 (hereinafter LGC) because Section 133 thereof specifically states that the taxing powers
of local government units shall not extend to the levy of taxes of fees or charges of any kind on
the national government its agencies and instrumentalities."
As to the second assigned error, the petitioner contends that being an instrumentality of the
National Government, respondent City of Cebu has no power nor authority to impose realty
taxes upon it in accordance with the aforesaid Section 133 of the LGC, as explained
in Basco vs. Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation;
9

Local governments have no power to tax instrumentalities of the National Government.
PAGCOR is a government owned or controlled corporation with an original character, PD
1869. All its shares of stock are owned by the National Government. . . .
PAGCOR has a dual role, to operate and regulate gambling casinos. The latter joke
is governmental, which places it in the category of an agency or instrumentality of the
Government. Being an instrumentality of the Government, PAGCOR should be and
actually is exempt from local taxes. Otherwise, its operation might be burdened,
impeded or subjected to control by a mere Local government.
65

The states have no power by taxation or otherwise, to retard, impede, burden or in
any manner control the operation of constitutional laws enacted by Congress to carry
into execution the powers vested in the federal government. (McCulloch v. Maryland,
4 Wheat 316, 4 L Ed. 579).
This doctrine emanates from the "supremacy" of the National Government over local
government.
Justice Holmes, speaking for the Supreme Court, make references to the entire
absence of power on the part of the States to touch, in that way (taxation) at least,
the instrumentalities of the United States (Johnson v. Maryland, 254 US 51) and it
can be agreed that no state or political subdivision can regulate a federal
instrumentality in such a way as to prevent it from consummating its federal
responsibilities, or even to seriously burden it in the accomplishment of them.
(Antieau Modern Constitutional Law, Vol. 2, p. 140)
Otherwise mere creature of the State can defeat National policies thru extermination
of what local authorities may perceive to be undesirable activities or enterprise using
the power to tax as "a toll for regulation" (U.S. v. Sanchez, 340 US 42). The power to
tax which was called by Justice Marshall as the "power to destroy" (McCulloch v.
Maryland, supra) cannot be allowed to defeat an instrumentality or creation of the
very entity which has the inherent power to wield it. (Emphasis supplied)
It then concludes that the respondent Judge "cannot therefore correctly say that the
questioned provisions of the Code do not contain any distinction between a governmental
function as against one performing merely proprietary ones such that the exemption privilege
withdrawn under the said Code would apply to allgovernment corporations." For it is clear
from Section 133, in relation to Section 234, of the LGC that the legislature meant to
exclude instrumentalities of the national government from the taxing power of the local
government units.
In its comment respondent City of Cebu alleges that as local a government unit and a
political subdivision, it has the power to impose, levy, assess, and collect taxes within its
jurisdiction. Such power is guaranteed by the Constitution
10
and enhanced further by the LGC.
While it may be true that under its Charter the petitioner was exempt from the payment of realty
taxes,
11
this exemption was withdrawn by Section 234 of the LGC. In response to the petitioner's
claim that such exemption was not repealed because being an instrumentality of the National
Government, Section 133 of the LGC prohibits local government units from imposing taxes, fees,
or charges of any kind on it, respondent City of Cebu points out that the petitioner is likewise a
government-owned corporation, and Section 234 thereof does not distinguish between
government-owned or controlled corporations performing governmental and purely proprietary
functions. Respondent city of Cebu urges this the Manila International Airport Authority is a
governmental-owned corporation,
12
and to reject the application of Basco because it was
"promulgated . . . before the enactment and the singing into law of R.A. No. 7160," and was not,
therefore, decided "in the light of the spirit and intention of the framers of the said law.
As a general rule, the power to tax is an incident of sovereignty and is unlimited in its range,
acknowledging in its very nature no limits, so that security against its abuse is to be found
only in the responsibility of the legislature which imposes the tax on the constituency who are
to pay it. Nevertheless, effective limitations thereon may be imposed by the people through
their Constitutions.
13
Our Constitution, for instance, provides that the rule of taxation shall be
66

uniform and equitable and Congress shall evolve a progressive system of taxation.
14
So potent
indeed is the power that it was once opined that "the power to tax involves the power to
destroy."
15
Verily, taxation is a destructive power which interferes with the personal and property
for the support of the government. Accordingly, tax statutes must be construed strictly against the
government and liberally in favor of the taxpayer.
16
But since taxes are what we pay for civilized
society,
17
or are the lifeblood of the nation, the law frowns against exemptions from taxation and
statutes granting tax exemptions are thus construed strictissimi juris against the taxpayers and
liberally in favor of the taxing authority.
18
A claim of exemption from tax payment must be clearly
shown and based on language in the law too plain to be mistaken.
19
Elsewise stated, taxation is
the rule, exemption therefrom is the exception.
20
However, if the grantee of the exemption is a
political subdivision or instrumentality, the rigid rule of construction does not apply because the
practical effect of the exemption is merely to reduce the amount of money that has to be handled
by the government in the course of its operations.
21

The power to tax is primarily vested in the Congress; however, in our jurisdiction, it may be
exercised by local legislative bodies, no longer merely by virtue of a valid delegation as
before, but pursuant to direct authority conferred by Section 5, Article X of the
Constitution.
22
Under the latter, the exercise of the power may be subject to such guidelines and
limitations as the Congress may provide which, however, must be consistent with the basic policy
of local autonomy.
There can be no question that under Section 14 of R.A. No. 6958 the petitioner is exempt
from the payment of realty taxes imposed by the National Government or any of its political
subdivisions, agencies, and instrumentalities. Nevertheless, since taxation is the rule and
exemption therefrom the exception, the exemption may thus be withdrawn at the pleasure of
the taxing authority. The only exception to this rule is where the exemption was granted to
private parties based on material consideration of a mutual nature, which then becomes
contractual and is thus covered by the non-impairment clause of the Constitution.
23

The LGC, enacted pursuant to Section 3, Article X of the constitution provides for the
exercise by local government units of their power to tax, the scope thereof or its limitations,
and the exemption from taxation.
Section 133 of the LGC prescribes the common limitations on the taxing powers of local
government units as follows:
Sec. 133. Common Limitations on the Taxing Power of Local Government Units.
Unless otherwise provided herein, the exercise of the taxing powers of provinces,
cities, municipalities, and barangays shall not extend to the levy of the following:
(a) Income tax, except when levied on banks and other financial
institutions;
(b) Documentary stamp tax;
(c) Taxes on estates, "inheritance, gifts, legacies and other
acquisitions mortis causa, except as otherwise provided herein
(d) Customs duties, registration fees of vessels and wharfage on
wharves, tonnage dues, and all other kinds of customs fees charges
and dues except wharfage on wharves constructed and maintained
by the local government unit concerned:
67

(e) Taxes, fees and charges and other imposition upon goods carried
into or out of, or passing through, the territorial jurisdictions of local
government units in the guise or charges for wharfages, tolls for
bridges or otherwise, or other taxes, fees or charges in any form
whatsoever upon such goods or merchandise;
(f) Taxes fees or charges on agricultural and aquatic products when
sold by marginal farmers or fishermen;
(g) Taxes on business enterprise certified to be the Board of
Investment as pioneer or non-pioneer for a period of six (6) and four
(4) years, respectively from the date of registration;
(h) Excise taxes on articles enumerated under the National Internal
Revenue Code, as amended, and taxes, fees or charges on
petroleum products;
(i) Percentage or value added tax (VAT) on sales, barters or
exchanges or similar transactions on goods or services except as
otherwise provided herein;
(j) Taxes on the gross receipts of transportation contractor and
person engage in the transportation of passengers of freight by hire
and common carriers by air, land, or water, except as provided in this
code;
(k) Taxes on premiums paid by ways reinsurance or retrocession;
(l) Taxes, fees, or charges for the registration of motor vehicles and
for the issuance of all kinds of licenses or permits for the driving of
thereof, except, tricycles;
(m) Taxes, fees, or other charges on Philippine product actually
exported, except as otherwise provided herein;
(n) Taxes, fees, or charges, on Countryside and Barangay Business
Enterprise and Cooperatives duly registered under R.A. No. 6810 and
Republic Act Numbered Sixty nine hundred thirty-eight (R.A. No.
6938) otherwise known as the "Cooperative Code of the Philippines;
and
(o) TAXES, FEES, OR CHARGES OF ANY KIND ON THE
NATIONAL GOVERNMENT, ITS AGENCIES AND
INSTRUMENTALITIES, AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNITS.
(emphasis supplied)
Needless to say the last item (item o) is pertinent in this case. The "taxes, fees or charges"
referred to are "of any kind", hence they include all of these, unless otherwise provided by
the LGC. The term "taxes" is well understood so as to need no further elaboration, especially
in the light of the above enumeration. The term "fees" means charges fixed by law or
68

Ordinance for the regulation or inspection of business activity,
24
while "charges" are pecuniary
liabilities such as rents or fees against person or property.
25

Among the "taxes" enumerated in the LGC is real property tax, which is governed by Section
232. It reads as follows:
Sec. 232. Power to Levy Real Property Tax. A province or city or a municipality
within the Metropolitan Manila Area may levy on an annual ad valorem tax on real
property such as land, building, machinery and other improvements not hereafter
specifically exempted.
Section 234 of LGC provides for the exemptions from payment of real property taxes and
withdraws previous exemptions therefrom granted to natural and juridical persons, including
government owned and controlled corporations, except as provided therein. It provides:
Sec. 234. Exemptions from Real Property Tax. The following are exempted from
payment of the real property tax:
(a) Real property owned by the Republic of the Philippines or any of
its political subdivisions except when the beneficial use thereof had
been granted, for reconsideration or otherwise, to a taxable person;
(b) Charitable institutions, churches, parsonages or convents
appurtenants thereto, mosques nonprofits or religious cemeteries and
all lands, building and improvements actually, directly, and
exclusively used for religious charitable or educational purposes;
(c) All machineries and equipment that are actually, directly and
exclusively used by local water districts and government-owned or
controlled corporations engaged in the supply and distribution of
water and/or generation and transmission of electric power;
(d) All real property owned by duly registered cooperatives as
provided for under R.A. No. 6938; and;
(e) Machinery and equipment used for pollution control and
environmental protection.
Except as provided herein, any exemptions from payment of real
property tax previously granted to or presently enjoyed by, all persons
whether natural or juridical, including all government owned or
controlled corporations are hereby withdrawn upon the effectivity of
his Code.
These exemptions are based on the ownership, character, and use of the property. Thus;
(a) Ownership Exemptions. Exemptions from real property taxes on
the basis of ownership are real properties owned by: (i) the Republic,
(ii) a province, (iii) a city, (iv) a municipality, (v) a barangay, and (vi)
registered cooperatives.
69

(b) Character Exemptions. Exempted from real property taxes on the
basis of their character are: (i) charitable institutions, (ii) houses and
temples of prayer like churches, parsonages or convents appurtenant
thereto, mosques, and (iii) non profit or religious cemeteries.
(c) Usage exemptions. Exempted from real property taxes on the
basis of the actual, direct and exclusive use to which they are
devoted are: (i) all lands buildings and improvements which are
actually, directed and exclusively used for religious, charitable or
educational purpose; (ii) all machineries and equipment actually,
directly and exclusively used or by local water districts or by
government-owned or controlled corporations engaged in the supply
and distribution of water and/or generation and transmission of
electric power; and (iii) all machinery and equipment used for
pollution control and environmental protection.
To help provide a healthy environment in the midst of the modernization of the
country, all machinery and equipment for pollution control and environmental
protection may not be taxed by local governments.
2. Other Exemptions Withdrawn. All other exemptions previously
granted to natural or juridical persons including government-owned or
controlled corporations are withdrawn upon the effectivity of the
Code.
26

Section 193 of the LGC is the general provision on withdrawal of tax exemption privileges. It
provides:
Sec. 193. Withdrawal of Tax Exemption Privileges. Unless otherwise provided in
this code, tax exemptions or incentives granted to or presently enjoyed by all
persons, whether natural or juridical, including government-owned, or controlled
corporations, except local water districts, cooperatives duly registered under R.A.
6938, non stock and non profit hospitals and educational constitutions, are hereby
withdrawn upon the effectivity of this Code.
On the other hand, the LGC authorizes local government units to grant tax exemption
privileges. Thus, Section 192 thereof provides:
Sec. 192. Authority to Grant Tax Exemption Privileges. Local government units
may, through ordinances duly approved, grant tax exemptions, incentives or reliefs
under such terms and conditions as they may deem necessary.
The foregoing sections of the LGC speaks of: (a) the limitations on the taxing powers of local
government units and the exceptions to such limitations; and (b) the rule on tax exemptions
and the exceptions thereto. The use of exceptions of provisos in these section, as shown by
the following clauses:
(1) "unless otherwise provided herein" in the opening paragraph of
Section 133;
(2) "Unless otherwise provided in this Code" in section 193;
70

(3) "not hereafter specifically exempted" in Section 232; and
(4) "Except as provided herein" in the last paragraph of Section 234
initially hampers a ready understanding of the sections. Note, too, that the aforementioned
clause in section 133 seems to be inaccurately worded. Instead of the clause "unless
otherwise provided herein," with the "herein" to mean, of course, the section, it should have
used the clause "unless otherwise provided in this Code." The former results in absurdity
since the section itself enumerates what are beyond the taxing powers of local government
units and, where exceptions were intended, the exceptions were explicitly indicated in the
text. For instance, in item (a) which excepts the income taxes "when livied on banks and
other financial institutions", item (d) which excepts "wharfage on wharves constructed and
maintained by the local government until concerned"; and item (1) which excepts taxes, fees,
and charges for the registration and issuance of license or permits for the driving of
"tricycles". It may also be observed that within the body itself of the section, there are
exceptions which can be found only in other parts of the LGC, but the section
interchangeably uses therein the clause "except as otherwise provided herein" as in items (c)
and (i), or the clause "except as otherwise provided herein" as in items (c) and (i), or the
clause "excepts as provided in this Code" in item (j). These clauses would be obviously
unnecessary or mere surplus-ages if the opening clause of the section were" "Unless
otherwise provided in this Code" instead of "Unless otherwise provided herein". In any event,
even if the latter is used, since under Section 232 local government units have the power to
levy real property tax, except those exempted therefrom under Section 234, then Section
232 must be deemed to qualify Section 133.
Thus, reading together Section 133, 232 and 234 of the LGC, we conclude that as a general
rule, as laid down in Section 133 the taxing powers of local government units cannot extend
to the levy of inter alia, "taxes, fees, and charges of any kind of the National Government, its
agencies and instrumentalties, and local government units"; however, pursuant to Section
232, provinces, cities, municipalities in the Metropolitan Manila Area may impose the real
property tax except on, inter alia, "real property owned by the Republic of the Philippines or
any of its political subdivisions except when the beneficial used thereof has been granted, for
consideration or otherwise, to a taxable person", as provided in item (a) of the first paragraph
of Section 234.
As to tax exemptions or incentives granted to or presently enjoyed by natural or juridical
persons, including government-owned and controlled corporations, Section 193 of the LGC
prescribes the general rule, viz., they are withdrawn upon the effectivity of the LGC, except
upon the effectivity of the LGC, except those granted to local water districts, cooperatives
duly registered under R.A. No. 6938, non stock and non-profit hospitals and educational
institutions, and unless otherwise provided in the LGC. The latter proviso could refer to
Section 234, which enumerates the properties exempt from real property tax. But the last
paragraph of Section 234 further qualifies the retention of the exemption in so far as the real
property taxes are concerned by limiting the retention only to those enumerated there-in; all
others not included in the enumeration lost the privilege upon the effectivity of the LGC.
Moreover, even as the real property is owned by the Republic of the Philippines, or any of its
political subdivisions covered by item (a) of the first paragraph of Section 234, the exemption
is withdrawn if the beneficial use of such property has been granted to taxable person for
consideration or otherwise.
Since the last paragraph of Section 234 unequivocally withdrew, upon the effectivity of the
LGC, exemptions from real property taxes granted to natural or juridical persons, including
71

government-owned or controlled corporations, except as provided in the said section, and
the petitioner is, undoubtedly, a government-owned corporation, it necessarily follows that its
exemption from such tax granted it in Section 14 of its charter, R.A. No. 6958, has been
withdrawn. Any claim to the contrary can only be justified if the petitioner can seek refuge
under any of the exceptions provided in Section 234, but not under Section 133, as it now
asserts, since, as shown above, the said section is qualified by Section 232 and 234.
In short, the petitioner can no longer invoke the general rule in Section 133 that the taxing
powers of the local government units cannot extend to the levy of:
(o) taxes, fees, or charges of any kind on the National Government,
its agencies, or instrumentalities, and local government units.
I must show that the parcels of land in question, which are real property, are any one of
those enumerated in Section 234, either by virtue of ownership, character, or use of the
property. Most likely, it could only be the first, but not under any explicit provision of the said
section, for one exists. In light of the petitioner's theory that it is an "instrumentality of the
Government", it could only be within be first item of the first paragraph of the section by
expanding the scope of the terms Republic of the Philippines" to embrace . . . . .
. "instrumentalities" and "agencies" or expediency we quote:
(a) real property owned by the Republic of the Philippines, or any of
the Philippines, or any of its political subdivisions except when the
beneficial use thereof has been granted, for consideration or
otherwise, to a taxable person.
This view does not persuade us. In the first place, the petitioner's claim that it is an
instrumentality of the Government is based on Section 133(o), which expressly mentions the
word "instrumentalities"; and in the second place it fails to consider the fact that the
legislature used the phrase "National Government, its agencies and instrumentalities" "in
Section 133(o),but only the phrase "Republic of the Philippines or any of its political
subdivision "in Section 234(a).
The terms "Republic of the Philippines" and "National Government" are not interchangeable.
The former is boarder and synonymous with "Government of the Republic of the Philippines"
which the Administrative Code of the 1987 defines as the "corporate governmental entity
though which the functions of the government are exercised through at the Philippines,
including, saves as the contrary appears from the context, the various arms through which
political authority is made effective in the Philippines, whether pertaining to the autonomous
reason, the provincial, city, municipal or barangay subdivision or other forms of local
government."
27
These autonomous regions, provincial, city, municipal or barangay subdivisions"
are the political subdivision.
28

On the other hand, "National Government" refers "to the entire machinery of the central
government, as distinguished from the different forms of local Governments."
29
The National
Government then is composed of the three great departments the executive, the legislative and
the judicial.
30

An "agency" of the Government refers to "any of the various units of the Government,
including a department, bureau, office instrumentality, or government-owned or controlled
corporation, or a local government or a distinct unit therein;"
31
while an "instrumentality" refers
to "any agency of the National Government, not integrated within the department framework,
72

vested with special functions or jurisdiction by law, endowed with some if not all corporate
powers, administering special funds, and enjoying operational autonomy; usually through a
charter. This term includes regulatory agencies, chartered institutions and government-owned
and controlled corporations".
32

If Section 234(a) intended to extend the exception therein to the withdrawal of the exemption
from payment of real property taxes under the last sentence of the said section to the
agencies and instrumentalities of the National Government mentioned in Section 133(o),
then it should have restated the wording of the latter. Yet, it did not Moreover, that Congress
did not wish to expand the scope of the exemption in Section 234(a) to include real property
owned by other instrumentalities or agencies of the government including government-
owned and controlled corporations is further borne out by the fact that the source of this
exemption is Section 40(a) of P.D. No. 646, otherwise known as the Real Property Tax
Code, which reads:
Sec 40. Exemption from Real Property Tax. The exemption shall be as follows:
(a) Real property owned by the Republic of the
Philippines or any of its political subdivisions and any
government-owned or controlled corporations so
exempt by is charter: Provided, however, that this
exemption shall not apply to real property of the
above mentioned entities the beneficial use of which
has been granted, for consideration or otherwise, to a
taxable person.
Note that as a reproduced in Section 234(a), the phrase "and any government-owned or
controlled corporation so exempt by its charter" was excluded. The justification for this
restricted exemption in Section 234(a) seems obvious: to limit further tax exemption
privileges, specially in light of the general provision on withdrawal of exemption from
payment of real property taxes in the last paragraph of property taxes in the last paragraph of
Section 234. These policy considerations are consistent with the State policy to ensure
autonomy to local governments
33
and the objective of the LGC that they enjoy genuine and
meaningful local autonomy to enable them to attain their fullest development as self-reliant
communities and make them effective partners in the attainment of national goals.
34
The power to
tax is the most effective instrument to raise needed revenues to finance and support myriad
activities of local government units for the delivery of basic services essential to the promotion of
the general welfare and the enhancement of peace, progress, and prosperity of the people. It
may also be relevant to recall that the original reasons for the withdrawal of tax exemption
privileges granted to government-owned and controlled corporations and all other units of
government were that such privilege resulted in serious tax base erosion and distortions in the tax
treatment of similarly situated enterprises, and there was a need for this entities to share in the
requirements of the development, fiscal or otherwise, by paying the taxes and other charges due
from them.
35

The crucial issues then to be addressed are: (a) whether the parcels of land in question
belong to the Republic of the Philippines whose beneficial use has been granted to the
petitioner, and (b) whether the petitioner is a "taxable person".
Section 15 of the petitioner's Charter provides:
Sec. 15. Transfer of Existing Facilities and Intangible Assets. All existing public
airport facilities, runways, lands, buildings and other properties, movable or
73

immovable, belonging to or presently administered by the airports, and all assets,
powers, rights, interests and privileges relating on airport works, or air operations,
including all equipment which are necessary for the operations of air navigation,
acrodrome control towers, crash, fire, and rescue facilities are hereby transferred to
the Authority: Provided however, that the operations control of all equipment
necessary for the operation of radio aids to air navigation, airways communication,
the approach control office, and the area control center shall be retained by the Air
Transportation Office. No equipment, however, shall be removed by the Air
Transportation Office from Mactan without the concurrence of the authority. The
authority may assist in the maintenance of the Air Transportation Office equipment.
The "airports" referred to are the "Lahug Air Port" in Cebu City and the "Mactan International
AirPort in the Province of Cebu",
36
which belonged to the Republic of the Philippines, then
under the Air Transportation Office (ATO).
37

It may be reasonable to assume that the term "lands" refer to "lands" in Cebu City then
administered by the Lahug Air Port and includes the parcels of land the respondent City of
Cebu seeks to levy on for real property taxes. This section involves a "transfer" of the "lands"
among other things, to the petitioner and not just the transfer of the beneficial use thereof,
with the ownership being retained by the Republic of the Philippines.
This "transfer" is actually an absolute conveyance of the ownership thereof because the
petitioner's authorized capital stock consists of, inter alia "the value of such real estate
owned and/or administered by the airports."
38
Hence, the petitioner is now the owner of the
land in question and the exception in Section 234(c) of the LGC is inapplicable.
Moreover, the petitioner cannot claim that it was never a "taxable person" under its Charter.
It was only exempted from the payment of real property taxes. The grant of the privilege only
in respect of this tax is conclusive proof of the legislative intent to make it a taxable person
subject to all taxes, except real property tax.
Finally, even if the petitioner was originally not a taxable person for purposes of real property
tax, in light of the forgoing disquisitions, it had already become even if it be conceded to be
an "agency" or "instrumentality" of the Government, a taxable person for such purpose in
view of the withdrawal in the last paragraph of Section 234 of exemptions from the payment
of real property taxes, which, as earlier adverted to, applies to the petitioner.
Accordingly, the position taken by the petitioner is untenable. Reliance on Basco
vs. Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation
39
is unavailing since it was decided before
the effectivity of the LGC. Besides, nothing can prevent Congress from decreeing that even
instrumentalities or agencies of the government performing governmental functions may be
subject to tax. Where it is done precisely to fulfill a constitutional mandate and national policy, no
one can doubt its wisdom.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED. The challenged decision and order of the
Regional Trial Court of Cebu, Branch 20, in Civil Case No. CEB-16900 are AFFIRMED.
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa, C.J., Melo, Francisco and Panganiban, JJ., concur.
74

SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. L-66653 June 19, 1986
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, petitioner,
vs.
BURROUGHS LIMITED AND THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS, respondents.
Sycip, Salazar, Feliciano & Hernandez Law Office for private respondent.

PARAS, J .:
Petition for certiorari to review and set aside the Decision dated June 27, 1983 of respondent Court
of Tax Appeals in its C.T.A. Case No. 3204, entitled "Burroughs Limited vs. Commissioner of Internal
Revenue" which ordered petitioner Commissioner of Internal Revenue to grant in favor of private
respondent Burroughs Limited, tax credit in the sum of P172,058.90, representing erroneously
overpaid branch profit remittance tax.
Burroughs Limited is a foreign corporation authorized to engage in trade or business in the
Philippines through a branch office located at De la Rosa corner Esteban Streets, Legaspi Village,
Makati, Metro Manila.
Sometime in March 1979, said branch office applied with the Central Bank for authority to remit to its
parent company abroad, branch profit amounting to P7,647,058.00. Thus, on March 14, 1979, it paid
the 15% branch profit remittance tax, pursuant to Sec. 24 (b) (2) (ii) and remitted to its head office
the amount of P6,499,999.30 computed as follows:
Amount applied for remittance................................ P7,647,058.00
Deduct: 15% branch profit
remittance tax ..............................................1,147,058.70
Net amount actually remitted.................................. P6,499,999.30
Claiming that the 15% profit remittance tax should have been computed on the basis of the amount
actually remitted (P6,499,999.30) and not on the amount before profit remittance tax
(P7,647,058.00), private respondent filed on December 24, 1980, a written claim for the refund or tax
credit of the amount of P172,058.90 representing alleged overpaid branch profit remittance tax,
computed as follows:
Profits actually remitted .........................................P6,499,999.30
Remittance tax rate .......................................................15%
75

Branch profit remittance tax-
due thereon ......................................................P 974,999.89
Branch profit remittance
tax paid .............................................................Pl,147,058.70
Less: Branch profit remittance
tax as above computed................................................. 974,999.89
Total amount refundable........................................... P172,058.81
On February 24, 1981, private respondent filed with respondent court, a petition for review, docketed
as C.T.A. Case No. 3204 for the recovery of the above-mentioned amount of P172,058.81.
On June 27, 1983, respondent court rendered its Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads
ACCORDINGLY, respondent Commission of Internal Revenue is hereby ordered to grant a tax
credit in favor of petitioner Burroughs Limited the amount of P 172,058.90. Without pronouncement
as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
Unable to obtain a reconsideration from the aforesaid decision, petitioner filed the instant petition
before this Court with the prayers as herein earlier stated upon the sole issue of whether the tax
base upon which the 15% branch profit remittance tax shall be imposed under the provisions of
section 24(b) of the Tax Code, as amended, is the amount applied for remittance on the profit
actually remitted after deducting the 15% profit remittance tax. Stated differently is private
respondent Burroughs Limited legally entitled to a refund of the aforementioned amount of
P172,058.90.
We rule in the affirmative. The pertinent provision of the National Revenue Code is Sec. 24 (b) (2) (ii)
which states:
Sec. 24. Rates of tax on corporations....
(b) Tax on foreign corporations. ...
(2) (ii) Tax on branch profits remittances. Any profit remitted abroad by a branch to its
head office shall be subject to a tax of fifteen per cent (15 %) ...
In a Bureau of Internal Revenue ruling dated January 21, 1980 by then Acting Commissioner of
Internal Revenue Hon. Efren I. Plana the aforequoted provision had been interpreted to mean that
"the tax base upon which the 15% branch profit remittance tax ... shall be imposed...(is) the
profit actually remitted abroad and not on the total branch profits out of which the remittance is to be
made. " The said ruling is hereinbelow quoted as follows:
76

In reply to your letter of November 3, 1978, relative to your query as to the tax base
upon which the 15% branch profits remittance tax provided for under Section 24 (b)
(2) of the 1977 Tax Code shall be imposed, please be advised that the 15% branch
profit tax shall be imposed on the branch profits actually remitted abroad and not on
the total branch profits out of which the remittance is to be made.
Please be guided accordingly.
Applying, therefore, the aforequoted ruling, the claim of private respondent that it made an
overpayment in the amount of P172,058.90 which is the difference between the remittance tax
actually paid of Pl,147,058.70 and the remittance tax that should have been paid of P974,999,89,
computed as follows
Profits actually remitted......................................... P6,499,999.30
Remittance tax rate.............................................................. 15%
Remittance tax due................................................... P974,999.89
is well-taken. As correctly held by respondent Court in its assailed decision-
Respondent concedes at least that in his ruling dated January 21, 1980 he held that
under Section 24 (b) (2) of the Tax Code the 15% branch profit remittance tax shall
be imposed on the profit actually remitted abroad and not on the total branch profit
out of which the remittance is to be made. Based on such ruling petitioner should
have paid only the amount of P974,999.89 in remittance tax computed by taking the
15% of the profits of P6,499,999.89 in remittance tax actually remitted to its head
office in the United States, instead of Pl,147,058.70, on its net profits of
P7,647,058.00. Undoubtedly, petitioner has overpaid its branch profit remittance tax
in the amount of P172,058.90.
Petitioner contends that respondent is no longer entitled to a refund because Memorandum Circular
No. 8-82 dated March 17, 1982 had revoked and/or repealed the BIR ruling of January 21, 1980.
The said memorandum circular states
Considering that the 15% branch profit remittance tax is imposed and collected at
source, necessarily the tax base should be the amount actually applied for by the
branch with the Central Bank of the Philippines as profit to be remitted abroad.
Petitioner's aforesaid contention is without merit. What is applicable in the case at bar is still the
Revenue Ruling of January 21, 1980 because private respondent Burroughs Limited paid the branch
profit remittance tax in question on March 14, 1979. Memorandum Circular No. 8-82 dated March
17, 1982 cannot be given retroactive effect in the light of Section 327 of the National Internal
Revenue Code which provides-
Sec. 327. Non-retroactivity of rulings. Any revocation, modification, or reversal of any
of the rules and regulations promulgated in accordance with the preceding section or
any of the rulings or circulars promulgated by the Commissioner shag not be given
retroactive application if the revocation, modification, or reversal will be prejudicial to
the taxpayer except in the following cases (a) where the taxpayer deliberately
misstates or omits material facts from his return or in any document required of him
77

by the Bureau of Internal Revenue; (b) where the facts subsequently gathered by the
Bureau of Internal Revenue are materially different from the facts on which the ruling
is based, or (c) where the taxpayer acted in bad faith. (ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corp.
v. CTA, 108 SCRA 151-152)
The prejudice that would result to private respondent Burroughs Limited by a retroactive application
of Memorandum Circular No. 8-82 is beyond question for it would be deprived of the substantial
amount of P172,058.90. And, insofar as the enumerated exceptions are concerned, admittedly,
Burroughs Limited does not fall under any of them.
WHEREFORE, the assailed decision of respondent Court of Tax Appeals is hereby AFFIRMED. No
pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
Feria, Fernan, Alampay and Gutierrez, Jr., JJ., concur.

TAX GenPrin Cases

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

TAX GenPrin Cases

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

1

CASE PAGE NUMBER

Potrebbero piacerti anche