Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 36 views

    Nitafan vs. CIR, G.R. No. 78780, July 23, 1987 Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    lavenderstrawberry
    This case discusses whether members of the judiciary are exempt from paying income tax. The Court had previously ruled that judicial salaries were exempt from income tax, but discarded those rulings. The petitioner judges argued that deducting income tax from their salaries constituted a decrease in salary, which is prohibited by the Constitution. However, the Court reiterated that judicial salaries are subject to general income tax laws that apply to all income earners, and paying income tax does not decrease salaries unconstitutionally. The Court examined the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission and found the framers intended to make judicial salaries taxable in order to promote equality among the branches of government. Therefore, the Court ruled members of the judiciary are not exempt

    Copyright:

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

    Nitafan vs. CIR, G.R. No. 78780, July 23, 1987 Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    lavenderstrawberry
    36 views2 pages
    This case discusses whether members of the judiciary are exempt from paying income tax. The Court had previously ruled that judicial salaries were exempt from income tax, but discarded those rulings. The petitioner judges argued that deducting income tax from their salaries constituted a decrease in salary, which is prohibited by the Constitution. However, the Court reiterated that judicial salaries are subject to general income tax laws that apply to all income earners, and paying income tax does not decrease salaries unconstitutionally. The Court examined the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission and found the framers intended to make judicial salaries taxable in order to promote equality among the branches of government. Therefore, the Court ruled members of the judiciary are not exempt

    Original Title

    Nitafan vs. CIR, G.R. No. 78780, July 23, 1987 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?

    This case discusses whether members of the judiciary are exempt from paying income tax. The Court had previously ruled that judicial salaries were exempt from income tax, but discarded those rulings. The petitioner judges argued that deducting income tax from their salaries constituted a decrease in salary, which is prohibited by the Constitution. However, the Court reiterated that judicial salaries are subject to general income tax laws that apply to all income earners, and paying income tax does not decrease salaries unconstitutionally. The Court examined the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission and found the framers intended to make judicial salaries taxable in order to promote equality among the branches of government. Therefore, the Court ruled members of the judiciary are not exempt

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    36 views2 pages

    Nitafan vs. CIR, G.R. No. 78780, July 23, 1987 Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    lavenderstrawberry
    This case discusses whether members of the judiciary are exempt from paying income tax. The Court had previously ruled that judicial salaries were exempt from income tax, but discarded those rulings. The petitioner judges argued that deducting income tax from their salaries constituted a decrease in salary, which is prohibited by the Constitution. However, the Court reiterated that judicial salaries are subject to general income tax laws that apply to all income earners, and paying income tax does not decrease salaries unconstitutionally. The Court examined the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission and found the framers intended to make judicial salaries taxable in order to promote equality among the branches of government. Therefore, the Court ruled members of the judiciary are not exempt

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Consti law midterm

    Nitafan vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

    Doctrine:

    The Court hereby makes of record that it had then discarded the ruling in Perfecto vs.Meer and
    Endencia vs. David, infra, that declared the salaries of members of the Judiciary exempt from payment
    of the income tax and considered such payment as a diminution of their salaries during their
    continuance in office. The Court hereby reiterates that the salaries of Justices and Judges are properly
    subject to a general income tax law applicable to all income earners and that the payment of such
    income tax by Justices and Judges does not fall within the constitutional protection against decrease of
    their salaries during their continuance in office.

    Facts:

    Petitioners are the duly appointed and qualified Judges presiding over Branches ofnchesof the RTC of
    NCR, who seek to prohibit and/or perpetually enjoin respondents, the CIR and the financial Officer of
    the Supreme Court, from making any deduction of withholding taxes from their salaries. They submit
    that "any tax withheld from their emoluments or compensation as judicial officers constitutes a
    decrease or diminution of their salaries, contrary to the provision of Section 10, Article VIII of the 1987
    Constitution mandating that "during their continuance in office, their salary shall not be decreased,"
    even as it is anathema to the Ideal of an independent judiciary envisioned in and by said Constitution. "It
    may be pointed out that, early on, the Court had dealt with the matter administratively in response to
    representations that the Court direct its Finance Officer to discontinue the with holding of taxes from
    salaries of members of the Bench. Thus, on June 4, 1987, the Court en banc had reaffirmed the Chief
    Justice's directive as follows:

    RE: Question of exemption from income taxation.

    The Court REAFFIRMED the Chief Justice'sprevious and standing directive to the Fiscal Management and
    Budget Office of this Court tocontinue with the deduction of the withholding taxes from the salaries of
    the Justices of the SupremeCourt as well as from the salaries of all other members of the judiciary.

    That should have resolved the question. However, with the filing of this petition, the Court has deemed
    it best to settle the legal issue raised through this judicial pronouncement. As will be shown hereinafter,
    the clear intent of the Constitutional Commission was to delete the proposed express grant of
    exemption from payment of income tax to members of the Judiciary, so as to"give substance to equality
    among the three branches of Government".

    Issue:

    Whether the members of the judiciary are exempt from income taxation.

    Ruling:

    NO. The debates, interpellations and opin


    Consti law midterm

    ions expressed during the ConstitutionalCommission Deliberations regarding the provision in question
    until it was finally approved by theCommission disclosed that the true intent of the framers of the 1987
    Constitution, in adopting it,was to make the salaries of members of the Judiciary taxable. Besides,
    construing Section 10, Articles VIII, of the 1987 Constitution, which, for clarity, is again reproduced
    hereunder: The salary of the Chief Justice and of the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, andof
    judges of lower courts shall be fixed by law. During their continuance in office, their salary shall not be

    decreased

    . (Emphasis supplied)

    You might also like