VALENTIN TIO v.

VIDEOGRAMREGULATORY BOARD 151 SCRA 208

The Supreme Court held the levy of 30% tax under P.D. 1987 as for a public purpose, and therefore a valid
imposition. The law, according to the Court, was imposed primarily for answering the need for regulating the video
industry, particularly because of the rampant film piracy, the flagrant violation of intellectual property rights, and
the proliferation of pornographic video tapes. Hence, while the direct beneficiaries of the said decree is the movie
industry, the citizens are held to be its indirect beneficiaries.

HON. RAMON BAGATSING, et al. v.HON. PEDRO RAMIREZ, et al. 74 SCRA 306

The delegation of the collection of market stall fees to a private corporation affect the public purpose of the
imposition. In upholding the validity of the tax ordinance, the Supreme Court held that, "The fees collected do not
go direct to the private coffers of the corporation. Ordinance No. 7522 was not made for the corporation but for the
purpose of raising revenues for the city. That is the object that it serves. The entrusting of the collection of the fees
does not destroy the public purpose of the ordinance. So long as the purpose is public, it does not matter whether
he agency through which the money is dispensed is public or private. The right to tax depends upon the ultimate
use, purpose and object for which the fund is raised. It is not dependent on the nature or character of the person
or corporation whose intermediate agency is to be used in applying it. The people may be taxed for a public
purpose, although it be under the direction of an individual or private corporation."

Nor does the delegation of the collection of market stall fees to a private corporation affect the public purpose of
the imposition. The entrusting of the collection of the fees does not destroy the public purpose of the ordinance.
So long as the purpose is public, it does not matter whether the agency through which the money is dispensed is
public or private. The right to tax depends upon the ultimate use, purpose and object for which the fund is raised.
It is not dependent on the nature or character of the person of corporation whose intermediate agency is to be
used in applying it. The people may be taxed for a public purpose, although it be under the direction of an
individual or private corporation.

PASCUAL v. SECRETARY OF PUBLIC WORKS 110 Phil. 331

Nevertheless, in the case of Pascual v. Secretary of Public Works which challenges the law appropriating a
certain amount for the construction of a feeder road on a land owned by a private individual, the Court held the law
to be an invalid imposition since it results in the promotion of a private enterprise, it benefits the property of a
particular individual. The provision that the land shall thereafter be donated to the government does not cure this
defect. The rule is that, if the public advantage or benefit is merely incidental in the promotion of a particular
enterprise, such defect shall render the law invalid. On the other hand, if what is incidental is the promotion of a
private enterprise, the tax law shall be deemed "for a public purpose."
BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALSOF LAGUNA v. CTA 8 SCRA 224

In the absence of constitutional provision, the power to tax may be delegated to local government units in
accordance with the well-settled doctrine that the power to create local government units by implication confers
upon it the power to tax. So even if no constitutional provision exists, local government units still possess the
power to tax.

The question involved in this case is whether the water pipes, reservoir, intake and buildings used in the operation
of its waterworks system in the province of Laguna are subject to real estate tax. It is submitted that the law Sec.
3 of Republic Act 470 exempting from taxation "property owned by the Republic of the Philippines, any
province, city, municipality or municipal district . . ." makes no distinction between property held in a sovereign,
government or political capacity and those possessed in a private, proprietary and patrimonial character. And
where the law does not distinguish, neither may we. x x x

Moreover, taxes are financial burdens imposed for the purpose of raising revenues with which to defray the cost of
the operation of the Government, and a tax on the property of the government, whether national or local, would
merely have the effect of taking money from one pocket to put it in another pocket. (Cooley on Taxation, Sec.
621,4th Ed.) Hence, it would not serve, in the final analysis, the main purpose of taxation.

In Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority v. Marcos, the Supreme Court held that Section 193 of the LGC
prescribes the general rule, viz., the tax exemptions or incentives granted to or presently enjoyed by natural or
juridical persons are withdrawn upon the effectivity of the LGC except with respect to those entities expressly
enumerated. In the same vein, the Court must hold that the express withdrawal upon effectivity of the LGC of all
exemptions except only as provided therein, can no longer be invoked by MERALCO to disclaim liability for the
local tax.

PEPSI-COLA BOTTLING CO. OF THEPHILS., INC. v. MUNICIPALITY OF TANAUAN, LEYTE 69 SCRA 460

Pepsi-Cola challenges the power of taxation delegated to municipalities under the Local Autonomy Act.

HELD: The power of taxation granted to municipalities under the Local Autonomy Act is constitutional e power of
taxation is an essential and inherent attribute of sovereignty, belonging as a matter of right to every independent
government, without being expressly conferred by the people. (Cooley, The Law of Taxation, Vol. I, 4th Ed.) It is a
power that is purely legislative and which the central legislative body cannot delegate either to the executive or
judicial power of the government without infringing upon the theory of separation of powers. The exception,
however, lies in the case of municipal corporations, to which said theory does not apply. Legislative powers may
be delegated to local governments in respect of matters of local concern. (Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. of the Phils.,Inc.
v. City of Butuan, 24 SCRA 793) This is sanctioned by immemorial practice. By necessary implication, the
legislative power to create political corporations for purposes of self-government carries with it the power to confer
on such local government agencies the power to tax. (Cooley, 190) x x x The plenary nature of the taxing power
thus delegated, contrary to plaintiff-appellants pretense, would not suffice to invalidate the said law as
confiscatory and oppressive. 'In delegating the authority, the State is not limited to the exact measure of that
which is exercised by itself. When it is said that the taxing power maybe delegated to municipalities and the like, it
is meant that there may be delegated such measure of power to impose an collect taxes as the legislature may
deem expedient.' Thus, municipalities may be permitted to tax subjects which for reasons of public policy the
State has not deemed wise to tax for more general purposes.