Case Digest

Law Student's Case Digests

Home » Constitutional Law 1 » Legislative Branch » Bills

must originate exclusively from Congress » ABAKADA Guro
Party List vs Executive Secretary

! ABAKADA Guro Party List vs

Executive Secretary
This entry was posted in Bills must originate exclusively from Congress

Constitutional Law 1 Equal Protection Clause Legislative Branch

undue delegation of legislative power doctrine and tagged

Political Law 1 on November 3, 2014 by Morrie26

ABAKADA Guro Party List vs Executive

Secretary
Bills Must Originate EXCLUSIVELY from the House of
Representatives; Undue Delegation of Legislative
Power; Equal Protection Clause

ABAKADA GURO PARTY LIST VS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

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.

Facts:

Petitioners ABAKADA GURO Party List challenged the

constitutionality of R.A. No. 9337 particularly Sections 4, 5
and 6, amending Sections 106, 107 and 108, respectively,
of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC). These
questioned provisions contain a uniform proviso authorizing
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 ½%).

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. They further
argue that VAT is a tax levied on the sale or exchange of
goods and services and cannot be included within the
purview of tariffs under the exemption delegation since this
refers to customs duties, tolls or tribute payable upon
merchandise to the government and usually imposed on
imported/exported goods. They also said that the President
has powers to cause, influence or create the conditions
provided by law to bring about the conditions precedent.
Moreover, they allege that no guiding standards are made by
law as to how the Secretary of Finance will make the
recommendation. They claim, nonetheless, that any
recommendation of the Secretary of Finance can easily be
brushed aside by the President since the 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.

Issues:

1. Whether or not R.A. No. 9337 has violated the

provisions in Article VI, Section 24, and Article VI,
Section 26 (2) of the Constitution.
2. Whether or not there was an undue delegation of
legislative power in violation of Article VI Sec 28 Par 1
and 2 of the Constitution.
3. Whether or not there was a violation of the due
process and equal protection under Article III Sec. 1 of
the Constitution.

Discussions:

1. Basing from the ruling of Tolentino case, it is not the

law, but the revenue bill which is required by the
Constitution to “originate exclusively” in the House of
Representatives, but Senate has the power not only to
propose amendments, but also to propose its own
version even with respect to bills which are required by
the Constitution to originate in the House. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.”

Rulings:

1. R.A. No. 9337 has not violated the provisions. The

revenue bill exclusively originated in the House of
Representatives, the Senate was acting within its
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.
2. There is no undue delegation of legislative power but
only of the discretion as to the execution of a law. This
is constitutionally permissible. Congress does not
abdicate its functions or unduly delegate power when it
describes 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.
3. Supreme Court held no decision on this matter. 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 State’s 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.

Post navigation
Secretary of Justice vs Lantion

ABAKADA Guro Party List vs Purisima

Going on a Trip?

Book Cheapest Room

" Categories
› Actual Case or Controversy
› Archipelagic Doctrine
› Bills must originate exclusively from Congress
› COMELEC
› Constittutional Commission
› Constitutional Law 1
› de facto government
› de jure government
› Declaration of Principles and State Policies
› Declaratory Relief
› Doctrine of Immunity from Suit
› Doctrine of Incorporation
› Doctrine of Non-suability
› Doctrine of Parens Patria
› Due Process Clause
› Equal Protection Clause
› Equal Protection of the Law
› Facial Challenge
› Impeachment
› implied consent
› Judicial Branch
› Justiciable Question
› Legal Standing
› Legislative Branch
› One Subject One Title Rule
› Police Power
› Political Question
› Principle of Proportional Representation
› Self Executing
› Separation of Power
› Theory of Auto-Limitation
› Transcendental Importanct
› undue delegation of legislative power doctrine

Search

Find Hotels

Planning a Vacation?

· © 2019 Case Digest · Powered by ! ·

Designed with the Customizr theme ·