Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 112 views

    Abakada Guro Party List v. Ermita

    Uploaded by

    Mikee Macalalad
    The Supreme Court ruled on the constitutionality of Sections 4, 5 and 6 of R.A. No. 9337 which authorized the President, upon recommendation of the Secretary of Finance, to raise the VAT rate to 12% under certain economic conditions. The Court found that: 1) The law did not violate provisions regarding revenue bills originating from the House, as the Senate acts within its power to introduce amendments. 2) There was no undue delegation of legislative power, only discretion in law execution, which is constitutionally permissible. 3) No decision was made on whether the law violated equal protection, as the State has broad power over taxation classifications.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Abakada Guro Party List v. Ermita

    Uploaded by

    Mikee Macalalad
    112 views3 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled on the constitutionality of Sections 4, 5 and 6 of R.A. No. 9337 which authorized the President, upon recommendation of the Secretary of Finance, to raise the VAT rate to 12% under certain economic conditions. The Court found that: 1) The law did not violate provisions regarding revenue bills originating from the House, as the Senate acts within its power to introduce amendments. 2) There was no undue delegation of legislative power, only discretion in law execution, which is constitutionally permissible. 3) No decision was made on whether the law violated equal protection, as the State has broad power over taxation classifications.

    Original Description:

    ABAKADA Guro Party-list vs. Ermita case digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled on the constitutionality of Sections 4, 5 and 6 of R.A. No. 9337 which authorized the President, upon recommendation of the Secretary of Finance, to raise the VAT rate to 12% under certain economic conditions. The Court found that: 1) The law did not violate provisions regarding revenue bills originating from the House, as the Senate acts within its power to introduce amendments. 2) There was no undue delegation of legislative power, only discretion in law execution, which is constitutionally permissible. 3) No decision was made on whether the law violated equal protection, as the State has broad power over taxation classifications.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    112 views3 pages

    Abakada Guro Party List v. Ermita

    Uploaded by

    Mikee Macalalad
    The Supreme Court ruled on the constitutionality of Sections 4, 5 and 6 of R.A. No. 9337 which authorized the President, upon recommendation of the Secretary of Finance, to raise the VAT rate to 12% under certain economic conditions. The Court found that: 1) The law did not violate provisions regarding revenue bills originating from the House, as the Senate acts within its power to introduce amendments. 2) There was no undue delegation of legislative power, only discretion in law execution, which is constitutionally permissible. 3) No decision was made on whether the law violated equal protection, as the State has broad power over taxation classifications.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    Abakada Guro Party-List v.

    Ermita
    G.R. No. 168056 September 1, 2005

    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.

    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.

    They also contend that 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.

    To add to the discussion petitioners believe that these provisions violate the constitutional guarantee of
    equal protection of the law under the B, it was asserted that 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.”

    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.

    RULING:
    1. NO
    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. NO
    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. NO
    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.

    You might also like