Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT THIRD DIVISION G.R. No.

159647 April 15, 2005 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioners, vs. CENTRAL LUZON DRUG CORPORATION, Respondent. DECISION 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 Review1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to set aside the August 29, 2002 Decision2 and the August 11, 2003 Resolution3 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 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 Decision5 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 inst ant 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 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 743210 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 3420 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 tax22 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 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 VATregistered 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 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 zerorated 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 finding32 that the carry-over of tax creditsunder the said special law to succeeding taxable periods, 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 valueadded 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 statement39 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, 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 statement50 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.52This 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 accounts54 and reflected in the financial statements. A separate line item cannot be shown,55 because the transactions themselves involving both accounts 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

sold56 -is deducted from gross sales to come up with the gross income, profit or margin57 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. 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 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 statute71 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 sales74 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 revalidated75accordingly. 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 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.80Tax 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 even85 -- 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: "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? 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 Code94 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.

EN BANC RENATO V. DIAZ and AURORA MA. F. TIMBOL, Petitioners, G.R. No. 193007 Present: CORONA, C.J., CARPIO, VELASCO, JR., LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, BRION, PERALTA, BERSAMIN,* DEL CASTILLO, ABAD, VILLARAMA, JR., PEREZ, MENDOZA, and SERENO,** JJ. Promulgated: July 19, 2011

public service; and that, since VAT was never factored into the formula for computing toll fees, its imposition would violate the non-impairment clause of the constitution. On August 13, 2010 the Court issued a temporary restraining order (TRO), enjoining the implementation of the VAT. The Court required the government, represented by respondents Cesar V. Purisima, Secretary of the Department of Finance, and Kim S. Jacinto-Henares, Commissioner of Internal Revenue, to comment on the petition within 10 days from notice.[2] Later, the Court issued another resolution treating the petition as one for prohibition.[3] On August 23, 2010 the Office of the Solicitor General filed the governments comment.[4] The government avers that the NIRC imposes VAT on all kinds of services of franchise grantees, including tollway operations, except where the law provides otherwise; that the Court should seek the meaning and intent of the law from the words used in the statute; and that the imposition of VAT on tollway operations has been the subject as early as 2003 of several BIR rulings and circulars.[5] The government also argues that petitioners have no right to invoke the nonimpairment of contracts clause since they clearly have no personal interest in existing toll operating agreements (TOAs) between the government and tollway operators. At any rate, the non-impairment clause cannot limit the States sovereign taxing power which is generally read into contracts. Finally, the government contends that the non-inclusion of VAT in the parametric formula for computing toll rates cannot exempt tollway operators from VAT. In any event, it cannot be claimed that the rights of tollway operators to a reasonable rate of return will be impaired by the VAT since this is imposed on top of the toll rate. Further, the imposition of VAT on toll fees would have very minimal effect on motorists using the tollways. In their reply[6] to the governments comment, petitioners point out that tollway operators cannot be regarded as franchise grantees under the NIRC since they do not hold legislative franchises. Further, the BIR intends to collect the VAT by rounding off the toll rate and putting any excess collection in an escrow account. But this would be illegal since only the Congress can modify VAT rates and authorize its disbursement. Finally, BIR Revenue Memorandum Circular 63-2010 (BIR RMC 63-2010), which directs toll companies to record an accumulated input VAT of zero balance in their books as of August 16, 2010, contravenes Section 111 of the NIRC which grants entities that first become liable to VAT a transitional input tax credit of 2% on beginning inventory. For this reason, the VAT on toll fees cannot be implemented. The Issues Presented The case presents two procedural issues: 1. Whether or not the Court may treat the petition for declaratory relief as one for prohibition; and 2. action. The case also presents two substantive issues: 1. Whether or not the government is unlawfully expanding VAT coverage by including tollway operators and tollway operations in the terms franchise grantees and sale of services under Section 108 of the Code; and 2. Whether or not the imposition of VAT on tollway operators a) amounts to a tax on tax and not a tax on services; b) will impair the tollway operators right to a reasonable return Whether or not petitioners Diaz and Timbol have legal standing to file the

- versus -

THE SECRETARY OF FINANCE and THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondents.

x ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x

DECISION ABAD, J.:

May toll fees collected by tollway operators be subjected to value- added tax? The Facts and the Case Petitioners Renato V. Diaz and Aurora Ma. F. Timbol (petitioners) filed this petition for declaratory relief[1] assailing the validity of the impending imposition of value-added tax (VAT) by the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) on the collections of tollway operators. Petitioners claim that, since the VAT would result in increased toll fees, they have an interest as regular users of tollways in stopping the BIR action. Additionally, Diaz claims that he sponsored the approval of Republic Act 7716 (the 1994 Expanded VAT Law or EVAT Law) and Republic Act 8424 (the 1997 National Internal Revenue Code or the NIRC) at the House of Representatives. Timbol, on the other hand, claims that she served as Assistant Secretary of the Department of Trade and Industry and consultant of the Toll Regulatory Board (TRB) in the past administration. Petitioners allege that the BIR attempted during the administration of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to impose VAT on toll fees. The imposition was deferred, however, in view of the consistent opposition of Diaz and other sectors to such move. But, upon President Benigno C. Aquino IIIs assumption of office in 2010, the BIR revived the idea and would impose the challenged tax on toll fees beginning August 16, 2010 unless judicially enjoined. Petitioners hold the view that Congress did not, when it enacted the NIRC, intend to include toll fees within the meaning of sale of services that are subject to VAT; that a toll fee is a users tax, not a sale of services; that to impose VAT on toll fees would amount to a tax on

of investment under their TOAs; and c) is not administratively feasible and cannot be implemented. The Courts Rulings A. On the Procedural Issues: On August 24, 2010 the Court issued a resolution, treating the petition as one for prohibition rather than one for declaratory relief, the characterization that petitioners Diaz and Timbol gave their action. The government has sought reconsideration of the Courts resolution,[7] however, arguing that petitioners allegations clearly made out a case for declaratory relief, an action over which the Court has no original jurisdiction. The government adds, moreover, that the petition does not meet the requirements of Rule 65 for actions for prohibition since the BIR did not exercise judicial, quasi-judicial, or ministerial functions when it sought to impose VAT on toll fees. Besides, petitioners Diaz and Timbol has a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law against the BIR action in the form of an appeal to the Secretary of Finance. But there are precedents for treating a petition for declaratory relief as one for prohibition if the case has far-reaching implications and raises questions that need to be resolved for the public good.[8] The Court has also held that a petition for prohibition is a proper remedy to prohibit or nullify acts of executive officials that amount to usurpation of legislative authority.[9] Here, the imposition of VAT on toll fees has far-reaching implications. Its imposition would impact, not only on the more than half a million motorists who use the tollways everyday, but more so on the governments effort to raise revenue for funding various projects and for reducing budgetary deficits. To dismiss the petition and resolve the issues later, after the challenged VAT has been imposed, could cause more mischief both to the tax-paying public and the government. A belated declaration of nullity of the BIR action would make any attempt to refund to the motorists what they paid an administrative nightmare with no solution. Consequently, it is not only the right, but the duty of the Court to take cognizance of and resolve the issues that the petition raises. Although the petition does not strictly comply with the requirements of Rule 65, the Court has ample power to waive such technical requirements when the legal questions to be resolved are of great importance to the public. The same may be said of the requirement of locus standi which is a mere procedural requisite.[10] B. On the Substantive Issues: One. The relevant law in this case is Section 108 of the NIRC, as amended. VAT is levied, assessed, and collected, according to Section 108, on the gross receipts derived from the sale or exchange of services as well as from the use or lease of properties. The third paragraph of Section 108 defines sale or exchange of services as follows: The phrase sale or exchange of services means the performance of all kinds of services in the Philippines for others for a fee, remuneration or consideration, including those performed or rendered by construction and service contractors; stock, real estate, commercial, customs and immigration brokers; lessors of property, whether personal or real; warehousing services; lessors or distributors of cinematographic films; persons engaged in milling, processing, manufacturing or repacking goods for others; proprietors, operators or keepers of hotels, motels, resthouses, pension houses, inns, resorts; proprietors or operators of restaurants, refreshment parlors, cafes and other eating places, including clubs and caterers;

dealers in securities; lending investors; transportation contractors on their transport of goods or cargoes, including persons who transport goods or cargoes for hire and other domestic common carriers by land relative to their transport of goods or cargoes; common carriers by air and sea relative to their transport of passengers, goods or cargoes from one place in the Philippines to another place in the Philippines; sales of electricity by generation companies, transmission, and distribution companies; services of franchise grantees of electric utilities, telephone and telegraph, radio and television broadcasting and all other franchise grantees except those under Section 119 of this Code and non-life insurance companies (except their crop insurances), including surety, fidelity, indemnity and bonding companies; and similar services regardless of whether or not the performance thereof calls for the exercise or use of the physical or mental faculties. (Underscoring supplied) It is plain from the above that the law imposes VAT on all kinds of services rendered in the Philippines for a fee, including those specified in the list. The enumeration of affected services is not exclusive.[11] By qualifying services with the words all kinds, Congress has given the term services an all-encompassing meaning. The listing of specific services are intended to illustrate how pervasive and broad is the VATs reach rather than establish concrete limits to its application. Thus, every activity that can be imagined as a form of service rendered for a fee should be deemed included unless some provision of law especially excludes it. Now, do tollway operators render services for a fee? Presidential Decree (P.D.) 1112 or the Toll Operation Decree establishes the legal basis for the services that tollway operators render. Essentially, tollway operators construct, maintain, and operate expressways, also called tollways, at the operators expense. Tollways serve as alternatives to regular public highways that meander through populated areas and branch out to local roads. Traffic in the regular public highways is for this reason slow-moving. In consideration for constructing tollways at their expense, the operators are allowed to collect government-approved fees from motorists using the tollways until such operators could fully recover their expenses and earn reasonable returns from their investments. When a tollway operator takes a toll fee from a motorist, the fee is in effect for the latters use of the tollway facilities over which the operator enjoys private proprietary rights [12] that its contract and the law recognize. In this sense, the tollway operator is no different from the following service providers under Section 108 who allow others to use their properties or facilities for a fee: 1. Lessors of property, whether personal or real; 2. Warehousing service operators; 3. Lessors or distributors of cinematographic films; 4. Proprietors, operators or keepers of hotels, motels, resthouses, pension houses, inns, resorts; 5. Lending investors (for use of money); 6. Transportation contractors on their transport of goods or cargoes, including persons who transport goods or cargoes for hire and other domestic common carriers by land relative to their transport of goods or cargoes; and 7. Common carriers by air and sea relative to their transport of passengers, goods or cargoes from one place in the Philippines to another place in thePhilippines. It does not help petitioners cause that Section 108 subjects to VAT all kinds of services rendered for a fee regardless of whether or not the performance thereof calls for the exercise or use of the physical or mental faculties. This means that services to be subject to

VAT need not fall under the traditional concept of services, the personal or professional kinds that require the use of human knowledge and skills. And not only do tollway operators come under the broad term all kinds of services, they also come under the specific class described in Section 108 as all other franchise grantees who are subject to VAT, except those under Section 119 of this Code. Tollway operators are franchise grantees and they do not belong to exceptions (the low-income radio and/or television broadcasting companies with gross annual incomes of less than P10 million and gas and water utilities) that Section 119[13] spares from the payment of VAT. The word franchise broadly covers government grants of a special right to do an act or series of acts of public concern.[14] Petitioners of course contend that tollway operators cannot be considered franchise grantees under Section 108 since they do not hold legislative franchises. But nothing in Section 108 indicates that the franchise grantees it speaks of are those who hold legislative franchises. Petitioners give no reason, and the Court cannot surmise any, for making a distinction between franchises granted by Congress and franchises granted by some other government agency. The latter, properly constituted, may grant franchises. Indeed, franchises conferred or granted by local authorities, as agents of the state, constitute as much a legislative franchise as though the grant had been made by Congress itself.[15] The term franchise has been broadly construed as referring, not only to authorizations that Congress directly issues in the form of a special law, but also to those granted by administrative agencies to which the power to grant franchises has been delegated by Congress.[16] Tollway operators are, owing to the nature and object of their business, franchise grantees. The construction, operation, and maintenance of toll facilities on public improvements are activities of public consequence that necessarily require a special grant of authority from the state. Indeed, Congress granted special franchise for the operation of tollways to the Philippine National Construction Company, the former tollway concessionaire for the North and South Luzon Expressways. Apart from Congress, tollway franchises may also be granted by the TRB, pursuant to the exercise of its delegated powers under P.D. 1112. [17] The franchise in this case is evidenced by a Toll Operation Certificate.[18] Petitioners contend that the public nature of the services rendered by tollway operators excludes such services from the term sale of services under Section 108 of the Code. But, again, nothing in Section 108 supports this contention. The reverse is true. In specifically including by way of example electric utilities, telephone, telegraph, and broadcasting companies in its list of VAT-covered businesses, Section 108 opens other companies rendering public service for a fee to the imposition of VAT. Businesses of a public nature such as public utilities and the collection of tolls or charges for its use or service is a franchise.[19] Nor can petitioners cite as binding on the Court statements made by certain lawmakers in the course of congressional deliberations of the would-be law. As the Court said in South African Airways v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,[20] statements made by individual members of Congress in the consideration of a bill do not necessarily reflect the sense of that body and are, consequently, not controlling in the interpretation of law. The congressional will is ultimately determined by the language of the law that the lawmakers voted on. Consequently, the meaning and intention of the law must first be sought in the words of the statute itself, read and considered in their natural, ordinary, commonly accepted and most obvious significations, according to good and approved usage and without resorting to forced or subtle construction. Two. Petitioners argue that a toll fee is a users tax and to impose VAT on toll fees is tantamount to taxing a tax.[21] Actually, petitioners base this argument on the following discussion in Manila International Airport Authority (MIAA) v. Court of Appeals :[22]

No one can dispute that properties of public dominion mentioned in Article 420 of the Civil Code, like roads, canals, rivers, torrents, ports and bridges constructed by the State, are owned by the State. The term ports includes seaports and airports. The MIAA Airport Lands and Buildings constitute a port constructed by the State. Under Article 420 of the Civil Code, the MIAA Airport Lands and Buildings are properties of public dominion and thus owned by the State or the Republic of the Philippines. x x x The operation by the government of a tollway does not change the character of the road as one for public use. Someone must pay for the maintenance of the road, either the public indirectly through the taxes they pay the government, or only those among the public who actually use the road through the toll fees they pay upon using the road. The tollway system is even a more efficient and equitable manner of taxing the public for the maintenance of public roads. The charging of fees to the public does not determine the character of the property whether it is for public dominion or not. Article 420 of the Civil Code defines property of public dominion as one intended for public use. Even if the government collects toll fees, the road is still intended for public use if anyone can use the road under the same terms and conditions as the rest of the public. The charging of fees, the limitation on the kind of vehicles that can use the road, the speed restrictions and other conditions for the use of the road do not affect the public character of the road. The terminal fees MIAA charges to passengers, as well as the landing fees MIAA charges to airlines, constitute the bulk of the income that maintains the operations of MIAA.The collection of such fees does not change the character of MIAA as an airport for public use. Such fees are often termed users tax. This means taxing those among the public who actually use a public facility instead of taxing all the public including those who never use the particular public facility. A users tax is more equitable a principle of taxation mandated in the 1987 Constitution.[23] (Underscoring supplied) Petitioners assume that what the Court said above, equating terminal fees to a users tax must also pertain to tollway fees. But the main issue in the MIAA case was whether or not Paraaque City could sell airport lands and buildings under MIAA administration at public auction to satisfy unpaid real estate taxes. Since local governments have no power to tax the national government, the Court held that the City could not proceed with the auction sale. MIAA forms part of the national government although not integrated in the department framework.[24] Thus, its airport lands and buildings are properties of public dominion beyond the commerce of man under Article 420(1)[25] of the Civil Code and could not be sold at public auction. As can be seen, the discussion in the MIAA case on toll roads and toll fees was made, not to establish a rule that tollway fees are users tax, but to make the point that airport lands and buildings are properties of public dominion and that the collection of terminal fees for their use does not make them private properties. Tollway fees are not taxes. Indeed, they are not assessed and collected by the BIR and do not go to the general coffers of the government. It would of course be another matter if Congress enacts a law imposing a users tax, collectible from motorists, for the construction and maintenance of certain roadways. The tax in such a case goes directly to the government for the replenishment of resources it spends for the

roadways. This is not the case here. What the government seeks to tax here are fees collected from tollways that are constructed, maintained, and operated by private tollway operators at their own expense under the build, operate, and transfer scheme that the government has adopted for expressways.[26] Except for a fraction given to the government, the toll fees essentially end up as earnings of the tollway operators. In sum, fees paid by the public to tollway operators for use of the tollways, are not taxes in any sense. A tax is imposed under the taxing power of the government principally for the purpose of raising revenues to fund public expenditures.[27] Toll fees, on the other hand, are collected by private tollway operators as reimbursement for the costs and expenses incurred in the construction, maintenance and operation of the tollways, as well as to assure them a reasonable margin of income. Although toll fees are charged for the use of public facilities, therefore, they are not government exactions that can be properly treated as a tax. Taxes may be imposed only by the government under its sovereign authority, toll fees may be demanded by either the government or private individuals or entities, as an attribute of ownership. [28] Parenthetically, VAT on tollway operations cannot be deemed a tax on tax due to the nature of VAT as an indirect tax. In indirect taxation, a distinction is made between the liability for the tax and burden of the tax. The seller who is liable for the VAT may shift or pass on the amount of VAT it paid on goods, properties or services to the buyer. In such a case, what is transferred is not the sellers liability but merely the burden of the VAT.[29] Thus, the seller remains directly and legally liable for payment of the VAT, but the buyer bears its burden since the amount of VAT paid by the former is added to the selling price. Once shifted, the VAT ceases to be a tax[30] and simply becomes part of the cost that the buyer must pay in order to purchase the good, property or service. Consequently, VAT on tollway operations is not really a tax on the tollway user, but on the tollway operator. Under Section 105 of the Code, [31] VAT is imposed on any person who, in the course of trade or business, sells or renders services for a fee. In other words, the seller of services, who in this case is the tollway operator, is the person liable for VAT. The latter merely shifts the burden of VAT to the tollway user as part of the toll fees. For this reason, VAT on tollway operations cannot be a tax on tax even if toll fees were deemed as a users tax. VAT is assessed against the tollway operators gross receipts and not necessarily on the toll fees. Although the tollway operator may shift the VAT burden to the tollway user, it will not make the latter directly liable for the VAT. The shifted VAT burden simply becomes part of the toll fees that one has to pay in order to use the tollways.[32] Three. Petitioner Timbol has no personality to invoke the non-impairment of contract clause on behalf of private investors in the tollway projects. She will neither be prejudiced by nor be affected by the alleged diminution in return of investments that may result from the VAT imposition. She has no interest at all in the profits to be earned under the TOAs. The interest in and right to recover investments solely belongs to the private tollway investors. Besides, her allegation that the private investors rate of recovery will be adversely affected by imposing VAT on tollway operations is purely speculative. Equally presumptuous is her assertion that a stipulation in the TOAs known as the Material Adverse Grantor Action will be activated if VAT is thus imposed. The Court cannot rule on matters that are manifestly conjectural. Neither can it prohibit the State from exercising its sovereign taxing power based on uncertain, prophetic grounds. Four. Finally, petitioners assert that the substantiation requirements for claiming input VAT make the VAT on tollway operations impractical and incapable of implementation. They cite the fact that, in order to claim input VAT, the name, address and tax identification number of the tollway user must be indicated in the VAT receipt or invoice. The manner by which the BIR intends to implement the VAT by rounding off the toll rate and putting any excess collection in an escrow account is also illegal, while the alternative of giving change to thousands of

motorists in order to meet the exact toll rate would be a logistical nightmare. Thus, according to them, the VAT on tollway operations is not administratively feasible. [33] Administrative feasibility is one of the canons of a sound tax system. It simply means that the tax system should be capable of being effectively administered and enforced with the least inconvenience to the taxpayer. Non-observance of the canon, however, will not render a tax imposition invalid except to the extent that specific constitutional or statutory limitations are impaired.[34] Thus, even if the imposition of VAT on tollway operations may seem burdensome to implement, it is not necessarily invalid unless some aspect of it is shown to violate any law or the Constitution. Here, it remains to be seen how the taxing authority will actually implement the VAT on tollway operations. Any declaration by the Court that the manner of its implementation is illegal or unconstitutional would be premature. Although the transcript of the August 12, 2010 Senate hearing provides some clue as to how the BIR intends to go about it, [35] the facts pertaining to the matter are not sufficiently established for the Court to pass judgment on. Besides, any concern about how the VAT on tollway operations will be enforced must first be addressed to the BIR on whom the task of implementing tax laws primarily and exclusively rests. The Court cannot preempt the BIRs discretion on the matter, absent any clear violation of law or the Constitution. For the same reason, the Court cannot prematurely declare as illegal, BIR RMC 632010 which directs toll companies to record an accumulated input VAT of zero balance in their books as of August 16, 2010, the date when the VAT imposition was supposed to take effect. The issuance allegedly violates Section 111(A)[36] of the Code which grants first time VAT payers a transitional input VAT of 2% on beginning inventory. In this connection, the BIR explained that BIR RMC 63-2010 is actually the product of negotiations with tollway operators who have been assessed VAT as early as 2005, but failed to charge VAT-inclusive toll fees which by now can no longer be collected. The tollway operators agreed to waive the 2% transitional input VAT, in exchange for cancellation of their past due VAT liabilities. Notably, the right to claim the 2% transitional input VAT belongs to the tollway operators who have not questioned the circulars validity. They are thus the ones who have a right to challenge the circular in a direct and proper action brought for the purpose. Conclusion In fine, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue did not usurp legislative prerogative or expand the VAT laws coverage when she sought to impose VAT on tol lway operations. Section 108(A) of the Code clearly states that services of all other franchise grantees are subject to VAT, except as may be provided under Section 119 of the Code. Tollway operators are not among the franchise grantees subject to franchise tax under the latter provision. Neither are their services among the VAT-exempt transactions under Section 109 of the Code. If the legislative intent was to exempt tollway operations from VAT, as petitioners so strongly allege, then it would have been well for the law to clearly say so. Tax exemptions must be justified by clear statutory grant and based on language in the law too plain to be mistaken.[37] But as the law is written, no such exemption obtains for tollway operators. The Court is thus duty-bound to simply apply the law as it is found. Lastly, the grant of tax exemption is a matter of legislative policy that is within the exclusive prerogative of Congress. The Courts role is to merely uphold this legislative policy, as reflected first and foremost in the language of the tax statute. Thus, any unwarranted burden that may be perceived to result from enforcing such policy must be properly referred to Congress. The Court has no discretion on the matter but simply applies the law. The VAT on franchise grantees has been in the statute books since 1994 when R.A. 7716 or the Expanded Value-Added Tax law was passed. It is only now, however, that the

executive has earnestly pursued the VAT imposition against tollway operators. The executive exercises exclusive discretion in matters pertaining to the implementation and execution of tax laws. Consequently, the executive is more properly suited to deal with the immediate and practical consequences of the VAT imposition. WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES respondents Secretary of Finance and Commissioner of Internal Revenues motion for reconsideration of its August 24, 2010 resolution, DISMISSES the petitioners Renato V. Diaz and Aurora Ma. F. Timbols petition for lack of merit, and SETS ASIDE the Courts temporary restraining order dated August 13, 2010. SO ORDERED.

Republic of the Philippines Supreme Court Manila THIRD DIVISION

contribution shall be applied by FPA to all domestic sales of fertilizers in the Philippines.[5] (Underscoring supplied) Pursuant to the LOI, Fertiphil paid P10 for every bag of fertilizer it sold in the domestic market to the Fertilizer and Pesticide Authority (FPA). FPA then remitted the amount collected to the Far East Bank and Trust Company, the depositary bank of PPI. Fertiphil paid P6,689,144 to FPA from July 8, 1985 to January 24, 1986.[6] G.R. No. 166006 Present: YNARES-SANTIAGO, J., C hairperson, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, CHICO-NAZARIO, NACHURA, and REYES, JJ. Promulgated: After the 1986 Edsa Revolution, FPA voluntarily stopped the imposition of the P10 levy. With the return of democracy, Fertiphil demanded from PPI a refund of the amounts it paid under LOI No. 1465, but PPI refused to accede to the demand. [7] Fertiphil filed a complaint for collection and damages [8] against FPA and PPI with the RTC in Makati. It questioned the constitutionality of LOI No. 1465 for being unjust, unreasonable, oppressive, invalid and an unlawful imposition that amounted to a denial of due process of law.[9] Fertiphil alleged that the LOI solely favored PPI, a privately owned corporation, which used the proceeds to maintain its monopoly of the fertilizer industry. In its Answer,[10] FPA, through the Solicitor General, countered that the issuance of LOI No. 1465 was a valid exercise of the police power of the State in ensuring the stability of the fertilizer industry in the country. It also averred that Fertiphil did not sustain any damage from the LOI because the burden imposed by the levy fell on the ultimate consumer, not the seller. RTC Disposition On November 20, 1991, the RTC rendered judgment in favor of Fertiphil, disposing as follows: WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court hereby renders judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant Planters Product, Inc., ordering the latter to pay the former: 1) the sum of P6,698,144.00 with interest at 12% from the time of judicial demand; the sum of P100,000 as attorneys fees; the cost of suit.

PLANTERS PRODUCTS, INC., Petitioner,

- versus -

FERTIPHIL CORPORATION, Respondent. March 14, 2008

x--------------------------------------------------x DECISION

REYES, R.T., J.:

THE Regional Trial Courts (RTC) have the authority and jurisdiction to consider the constitutionality of statutes, executive orders, presidential decrees and other issuances. The Constitution vests that power not only in the Supreme Court but in all Regional Trial Courts. The principle is relevant in this petition for review on certiorari of the Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) affirming with modification that of the RTC in Makati City,[2] finding petitioner Planters Products, Inc. (PPI) liable to private respondent Fertiphil Corporation (Fertiphil) for the levies it paid under Letter of Instruction (LOI) No. 1465. The Facts Petitioner PPI and private respondent Fertiphil are private corporations incorporated under Philippine laws.[3] They are both engaged in the importation and distribution of fertilizers, pesticides and agricultural chemicals. On June 3, 1985, then President Ferdinand Marcos, exercising his legislative powers, issued LOI No. 1465 which provided, among others, for the imposition of a capital recovery component (CRC) on the domestic sale of all grades of fertilizers in the Philippines.[4] The LOI provides: 3. The Administrator of the Fertilizer Pesticide Authority to include in its fertilizer pricing formula a capital contribution component of not less than P10 per bag. This capital contribution shall be collected until adequate capital is raised to make PPI viable. Such capital

2) 3)

SO ORDERED.[11]

Ruling that the imposition of the P10 CRC was an exercise of the States inherent power of taxation, the RTC invalidated the levy for violating the basic principle that taxes can only be levied for public purpose, viz.: It is apparent that the imposition of P10 per fertilizer bag sold in the country by LOI 1465 is purportedly in the exercise of the power of taxation. It is a settled principle that the power of taxation by the state is plenary. Comprehensive and supreme, the principal check upon its abuse resting in the responsibility of the members of the legislature to their constituents. However, there are two kinds of limitations on the power of taxation: the inherent limitations and the constitutional limitations. One of the inherent limitations is that a tax may be levied only for public purposes:

The power to tax can be resorted to only for a constitutionally valid public purpose. By the same token, taxes may not be levied for purely private purposes, for building up of private fortunes, or for the redress of private wrongs. They cannot be levied for the improvement of private property, or for the benefit, and promotion of private enterprises, except where the aid is incident to the public benefit. It is well-settled principle of constitutional law that no general tax can be levied except for the purpose of raising money which is to be expended for public use. Funds cannot be exacted under the guise of taxation to promote a purpose that is not of public interest. Without such limitation, the power to tax could be exercised or employed as an authority to destroy the economy of the people. A tax, however, is not held void on the ground of want of public interest unless the want of such interest is clear. (71 Am. Jur. pp. 371-372) In the case at bar, the plaintiff paid the amount of P6,698,144.00 to the Fertilizer and Pesticide Authority pursuant to the P10 per bag of fertilizer sold imposition under LOI 1465 which, in turn, remitted the amount to the defendant Planters Products, Inc. thru the latters depository bank, Far East Bank and Trust Co. Thus, by virtue of LOI 1465 the plaintiff, Fertiphil Corporation, which is a private domestic corporation, became poorer by the amount of P6,698,144.00 and the defendant, Planters Product, Inc., another private domestic corporation, became richer by the amount of P6,698,144.00. Tested by the standards of constitutionality as set forth in the aforequoted jurisprudence, it is quite evident that LOI 1465 insofar as it imposes the amount of P10 per fertilizer bag sold in the country and orders that the said amount should go to the defendant Planters Product, Inc. is unlawful because it violates the mandate that a tax can be levied only for a public purpose and not to benefit, aid and promote a private enterprise such as Planters Product, Inc.[12] PPI moved for reconsideration but its motion was denied.[13] PPI then filed a notice of appeal with the RTC but it failed to pay the requisite appeal docket fee. In a separate but related proceeding, this Court[14] allowed the appeal of PPI and remanded the case to the CA for proper disposition. CA Decision On November 28, 2003, the CA handed down its decision affirming with modification that of the RTC, with the following fallo: IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the decision appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED, subject to the MODIFICATION that the award of attorneys fees is hereby DELETED.[15] In affirming the RTC decision, the CA ruled that the lis mota of the complaint for collection was the constitutionality of LOI No. 1465, thus: The question then is whether it was proper for the trial court to exercise its power to judicially determine the constitutionality of the subject statute in the instant case.

As a rule, where the controversy can be settled on other grounds, the courts will not resolve the constitutionality of a law (Lim v. Pacquing, 240 SCRA 649 [1995]). The policy of the courts is to avoid ruling on constitutional questions and to presume that the acts of political departments are valid, absent a clear and unmistakable showing to the contrary. However, the courts are not precluded from exercising such power when the following requisites are obtaining in a controversy before it: First, there must be before the court an actual case calling for the exercise of judicial review. Second, the question must be ripe for adjudication. Third, the person challenging the validity of the act must have standing to challenge. Fourth, the question of constitutionality must have been raised at the earliest opportunity; and lastly, the issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota of the case (Integrated Bar of the Philippines v. Zamora, 338 SCRA 81 [2000]). Indisputably, the present case was primarily instituted for collection and damages. However, a perusal of the complaint also reveals that the instant action is founded on the claim that the levy imposed was an unlawful and unconstitutional special assessment. Consequently, the requisite that the constitutionality of the law in question be the very lis mota of the case is present, making it proper for the trial court to rule on the constitutionality of LOI 1465.[16] The CA held that even on the assumption that LOI No. 1465 was issued under the police power of the state, it is still unconstitutional because it did not promote public welfare. The CA explained: In declaring LOI 1465 unconstitutional, the trial court held that the levy imposed under the said law was an invalid exercise of the States power of taxation inasmuch as it violated the inherent and constitutional prescription that taxes be levied only for public purposes. It reasoned out that the amount collected under the levy was remitted to the depository bank of PPI, which the latter used to advance its private interest. On the other hand, appellant submits that the subject statutes passage was a valid exercise of police power. In addition, it disputes the court a quos findings arguing that the collections under LOI 1465 was for the benefit of Planters Foundation, Incorporated (PFI), a foundation created by law to hold in trust for millions of farmers, the stock ownership of PPI. Of the three fundamental powers of the State, the exercise of police power has been characterized as the most essential, insistent and the least limitable of powers, extending as it does to all the great public needs. It may be exercised as long as the activity or the property sought to be regulated has some relevance to public welfare (Constitutional Law, by Isagani A. Cruz, p. 38, 1995 Edition). Vast as the power is, however, it must be exercised within the limits set by the Constitution, which requires the concurrence of a lawful subject and a lawful method. Thus, our courts have laid down the test to determine the validity of a police measure as follows: (1) the interests of the public generally, as distinguished from those of a particular class, requires its exercise; and (2) the means employed are reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly oppressive upon individuals (National Development Company v. Philippine Veterans Bank, 192 SCRA 257 [1990]).

It is upon applying this established tests that We sustain the trial courts holding LOI 1465 unconstitutional. To be sure, ensuring the continued supply and distribution of fertilizer in the country is an undertaking imbued with public interest. However, the method by which LOI 1465 sought to achieve this is by no means a measure that will promote the public welfare. The governments commitment to support the successful rehabilitation and continued viability of PPI, a private corporation, is an unmistakable attempt to mask the subject statutes impartiality. There is no way to treat the self-interest of a favored entity, like PPI, as identical with the general interest of the countrys farmers or even the Filipino people in general. Well to stress, substantive due process exacts fairness and equal protection disallows distinction where none is needed. When a statutes public purpose is spoiled by private interest, the use of police power becomes a travesty which must be struck down for being an arbitrary exercise of government power. To rule in favor of appellant would contravene the general principle that revenues derived from taxes cannot be used for purely private purposes or for the exclusive benefit of private individuals.[17] The CA did not accept PPIs claim that the levy imposed under LOI No. 1465 was for the benefit of Planters Foundation, Inc., a foundation created to hold in trust the stock ownership of PPI. The CA stated: Appellant next claims that the collections under LOI 1465 was for the benefit of Planters Foundation, Incorporated (PFI), a foundation created by law to hold in trust for millions of farmers, the stock ownership of PFI on the strength of Letter of Undertaking (LOU) issued by then Prime Minister Cesar Virata on April 18, 1985 and affirmed by the Secretary of Justice in an Opinion dated October 12, 1987, to wit: 2. Upon the effective date of this Letter of Undertaking, the Republic shall cause FPA to include in its fertilizer pricing formula a capital recovery component, the proceeds of which will be used initially for the purpose of funding the unpaid portion of the outstanding capital stock of Planters presently held in trust by Planters Foundation, Inc. (Planters Foundation), which unpaid capital is estimated at approximately P206 million (subject to validation by Planters and Planters Foundation) (such unpaid portion of the outstanding capital stock of Planters being hereafter referred to as the Unpaid Capital), and subsequently for such capital increases as may be required for the continuing viability of Planters. The capital recovery component shall be in the minimum amount of P10 per bag, which will be added to the price of all domestic sales of fertilizer in the Philippines by any importer and/or fertilizer mother company. In this connection, the Republic hereby acknowledges that the advances by Planters to Planters Foundation which were applied to the payment of the Planters shares now held in trust by Planters Foundation, have been assigned to, among others, the Creditors. Accordingly, the Republic, through FPA, hereby agrees to deposit the proceeds of the capital recovery component in the special trust account

designated in the notice dated April 2, 1985, addressed by counsel for the Creditors to Planters Foundation. Such proceeds shall be deposited by FPA th on or before the 15 day of each month.

The capital recovery component shall continue to be charged and collected until payment in full of (a) the Unpaid Capital and/or (b) any shortfall in the payment of the Subsidy Receivables, (c) any carrying cost accruing from the date hereof on the amounts which may be outstanding from time to time of the Unpaid Capital and/or the Subsidy Receivables and (d) the capital increases contemplated in paragraph 2 hereof. For the purpose of the foregoing clause (c), the carrying cost shall be at such rate as will represent the full and reasonable cost to Planters of servicing its debts, taking into account both its peso and foreign currency-denominated obligations. (Records, pp. 4243) Appellants proposition is open to question, to say the least. The LOU issued by then Prime Minister Virata taken together with the Justice Secretarys Opinion does not preponderantly demonstrate that the collections made were held in trust in favor of millions of farmers. Unfortunately for appellant, in the absence of sufficient evidence to establish its claims, this Court is constrained to rely on what is explicitly provided in LOI 1465 that one of the primary aims in imposing the levy is to support the successful rehabilitation and continued viability of PPI.[18] PPI moved for reconsideration but its motion was denied. [19] It then filed the present petition with this Court. Issues Petitioner PPI raises four issues for Our consideration, viz.: I THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF LOI 1465 CANNOT BE COLLATERALLY ATTACKED AND BE DECREED VIA A DEFAULT JUDGMENT IN A CASE FILED FOR COLLECTION ANDDAMAGES WHERE THE ISSUE OF CONSTITUTIONALITY IS NOT THE VERY LIS MOTA OF THE CASE. NEITHER CAN LOI 1465 BE CHALLENGED BY ANY PERSON OR ENTITY WHICH HAS NO STANDING TO DO SO. II LOI 1465, BEING A LAW IMPLEMENTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSURING THE FERTILIZER SUPPLY AND DISTRIBUTION IN THE COUNTRY, AND FOR BENEFITING A FOUNDATION CREATED BY LAW TO HOLD IN TRUST FOR MILLIONS OF FARMERS THEIR STOCK OWNERSHIP IN PPI CONSTITUTES A VALID LEGISLATION PURSUANT TO THE EXERCISE OF TAXATION AND POLICE POWER FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES. III THE AMOUNT COLLECTED UNDER THE CAPITAL RECOVERY COMPONENT WAS REMITTED TO THE GOVERNMENT, AND BECAME

GOVERNMENT FUNDS PURSUANT TO AN EFFECTIVE AND VALIDLY ENACTED LAW WHICH IMPOSED DUTIES AND CONFERRED RIGHTS BY VIRTUE OF THE PRINCIPLE OF OPERATIVE FACT PRIOR TO ANY DECLARATION OF UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF LOI 1465. IV THE PRINCIPLE OF UNJUST VEXATION (SHOULD BE ENRICHMENT) FINDS NO APPLICATION IN THE INSTANT CASE.[20] (Underscoring supplied) Our Ruling We shall first tackle the procedural issues of locus standi and the jurisdiction of the RTC to resolve constitutional issues. Fertiphil has locus standi because it suffered direct injury; doctrine of standing is a mere procedural technicality which may be waived. PPI argues that Fertiphil has no locus standi to question the constitutionality of LOI No. 1465 because it does not have a personal and substantial interest in the case or will sustain direct injury as a result of its enforcement.[21] It asserts that Fertiphil did not suffer any damage from the CRC imposition because incidence of the levy fell on the ultimate consumer or the farmers themselves, not on the seller fertilizer company.[22] We cannot agree. The doctrine of locus standi or the right of appearance in a court of justice has been adequately discussed by this Court in a catena of cases. Succinctly put, the doctrine requires a litigant to have a material interest in the outcome of a case. In private suits, locus standi requires a litigant to be a real party in interest, which is defined as the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit or the party entitled to the avails of the suit.[23] In public suits, this Court recognizes the difficulty of applying the doctrine especially when plaintiff asserts a public right on behalf of the general public because of conflicting public policy issues. [24] On one end, there is the right of the ordinary citizen to petition the courts to be freed from unlawful government intrusion and illegal official action. At the other end, there is the public policy precluding excessive judicial interference in official acts, which may unnecessarily hinder the delivery of basic public services. In this jurisdiction, We have adopted the direct injury test to determine locus standi in public suits. In People v. Vera,[25] it was held that a person who impugns the validity of a statute must have a personal and substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will sustain direct injury as a result. The direct injury test in public suits is similar to the real party in interest rule for private suits under Section 2, Rule 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.[26] Recognizing that a strict application of the direct injury test may hamper public interest, this Court relaxed the requirement in cases of transcendental importance or with far reaching implications. Being a mere procedural technicality, it has also been held that locus standi may be waived in the public interest.[27]

the domestic market. It may be true that Fertiphil has passed some or all of the levy to the ultimate consumer, but that does not disqualify it from attacking the constitutionality of the LOI or from seeking a refund. As seller, it bore the ultimate burden of paying the levy. It faced the possibility of severe sanctions for failure to pay the levy. The fact of payment is sufficient injury to Fertiphil. Moreover, Fertiphil suffered harm from the enforcement of the LOI because it was compelled to factor in its product the levy. The levy certainly rendered the fertilizer products of Fertiphil and other domestic sellers much more expensive. The harm to their business consists not only in fewer clients because of the increased price, but also in adopting alternative corporate strategies to meet the demands of LOI No. 1465. Fertiphil and other fertilizer sellers may have shouldered all or part of the levy just to be competitive in the market. The harm occasioned on the business of Fertiphil is sufficient injury for purposes of locus standi. Even assuming arguendo that there is no direct injury, We find that the liberal policy consistently adopted by this Court on locus standi must apply. The issues raised by Fertiphil are of paramount public importance. It involves not only the constitutionality of a tax law but, more importantly, the use of taxes for public purpose. Former President Marcos issued LOI No. 1465 with the intention of rehabilitating an ailing private company. This is clear from the text of the LOI. PPI is expressly named in the LOI as the direct beneficiary of the levy. Worse, the levy was made dependent and conditional upon PPI becoming financially viable. The LOI provided that the capital contribution shall be collected until adequate capital is raised to make PPI viable. The constitutionality of the levy is already in doubt on a plain reading of the statute. It is Our constitutional duty to squarely resolve the issue as the final arbiter of all justiciable controversies. The doctrine of standing, being a mere procedural technicality, should be waived, if at all, to adequately thresh out an important constitutional issue. RTC may resolve constitutional issues; the constitutional issue was adequately raised in the complaint; it is the lis mota of the case. PPI insists that the RTC and the CA erred in ruling on the constitutionality of the LOI. It asserts that the constitutionality of the LOI cannot be collaterally attacked in a complaint for collection.[28] Alternatively, the resolution of the constitutional issue is not necessary for a determination of the complaint for collection.[29] Fertiphil counters that the constitutionality of the LOI was adequately pleaded in its complaint. It claims that the constitutionality of LOI No. 1465 is the very lis mota of the case because the trial court cannot determine its claim without resolving the issue.[30] It is settled that the RTC has jurisdiction to resolve the constitutionality of a statute, presidential decree or an executive order. This is clear from Section 5, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution, which provides:

SECTION 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers: xxxx Whether or not the complaint for collection is characterized as a private or public suit, Fertiphil has locus standi to file it. Fertiphil suffered a direct injury from the enforcement of LOI No. 1465. It was required, and it did pay, the P10 levy imposed for every bag of fertilizer sold on

(2) Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari, as the law or the Rules of Court may provide, final judgments and orders of lower courts in: (a) All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or executive agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in question. (Underscoring supplied) In Mirasol v. Court of Appeals,[31] this Court recognized the power of the RTC to resolve constitutional issues, thus: On the first issue. It is settled that Regional Trial Courts have the authority and jurisdiction to consider the constitutionality of a statute, presidential decree, or executive order. The Constitution vests the power of judicial review or the power to declare a law, treaty, international or executive agreement, presidential decree, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation not only in this Court, but in all Regional Trial Courts.[32] In the recent case of Equi-Asia Placement, Inc. v. Department of Foreign Affairs,[33] this Court reiterated: There is no denying that regular courts have jurisdiction over cases involving the validity or constitutionality of a rule or regulation issued by administrative agencies. Such jurisdiction, however, is not limited to the Court of Appeals or to this Court alone for even the regional trial courts can take cognizance of actions assailing a specific rule or set of rules promulgated by administrative bodies. Indeed, the Constitution vests the power of judicial review or the power to declare a law, treaty, international or executive agreement, presidential decree, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation in the courts, including the regional trial courts.[34] Judicial review of official acts on the ground of unconstitutionality may be sought or availed of through any of the actions cognizable by courts of justice, not necessarily in a suit for declaratory relief. Such review may be had in criminal actions, as in People v. Ferrer[35] involving the constitutionality of the now defunct Anti-Subversion law, or in ordinary actions, as in Krivenko v. Register of Deeds[36] involving the constitutionality of laws prohibiting aliens from acquiring public lands. The constitutional issue, however, (a) must be properly raised and presented in the case, and (b) its resolution is necessary to a determination of the case, i.e., the issue of constitutionality must be the very lis motapresented.[37] Contrary to PPIs claim, the constitutionality of LOI No. 1465 was properly and adequately raised in the complaint for collection filed with the RTC. The pertinent portions of the complaint allege: 6. The CRC of P10 per bag levied under LOI 1465 on domestic sales of all grades of fertilizer in the Philippines, is unlawful, unjust, uncalled for, unreasonable, inequitable and oppressive because: xxxx (c) It favors only one private domestic corporation, i.e., defendant PPPI, and imposed at the expense and disadvantage of the other fertilizer importers/distributors who were themselves in tight business situation and were then exerting all efforts and

maximizing management and marketing skills to remain viable; xxxx (e) It was a glaring example of crony capitalism, a forced program through which the PPI, having been presumptuously masqueraded as the fertilizer industry itself, was the sole and anointed beneficiary; 7. The CRC was an unlawful; and unconstitutional special assessment and its imposition is tantamount to illegal exaction amounting to a denial of due process since the persons of entities which had to bear the burden of paying the CRC derived no benefit therefrom; that on the contrary it was used by PPI in trying to regain its former despicable monopoly of the fertilizer industry to the detriment of other distributors and importers.[38] (Underscoring supplied) The constitutionality of LOI No. 1465 is also the very lis mota of the complaint for collection. Fertiphil filed the complaint to compel PPI to refund the levies paid under the statute on the ground that the law imposing the levy is unconstitutional. The thesis is that an unconstitutional law is void. It has no legal effect. Being void, Fertiphil had no legal obligation to pay the levy. Necessarily, all levies duly paid pursuant to an unconstitutional law should be refunded under the civil code principle against unjust enrichment. The refund is a mere consequence of the law being declared unconstitutional. The RTC surely cannot order PPI to refund Fertiphil if it does not declare the LOI unconstitutional. It is the unconstitutionality of the LOI which triggers the refund. The issue of constitutionality is the very lis mota of the complaint with the RTC. The P10 levy under LOI No. 1465 is an exercise of the power of taxation. At any rate, the Court holds that the RTC and the CA did not err in ruling against the constitutionality of the LOI. PPI insists that LOI No. 1465 is a valid exercise either of the police power or the power of taxation. It claims that the LOI was implemented for the purpose of assuring the fertilizer supply and distribution in the country and for benefiting a foundation created by law to hold in trust for millions of farmers their stock ownership in PPI. Fertiphil counters that the LOI is unconstitutional because it was enacted to give benefit to a private company. The levy was imposed to pay the corporate debt of PPI. Fertiphil also argues that, even if the LOI is enacted under the police power, it is still unconstitutional because it did not promote the general welfare of the people or public interest. Police power and the power of taxation are inherent powers of the State. These powers are distinct and have different tests for validity. Police power is the power of the State to enact legislation that may interfere with personal liberty or property in order to promote the general welfare,[39] while the power of taxation is the power to levy taxes to be used for public purpose. The main purpose of police power is the regulation of a behavior or conduct, while taxation is revenue generation. The lawful subjects and lawful means tests are used to determine the validity of a law enacted under the police power. [40] The power of taxation, on the other hand, is circumscribed by inherent and constitutional limitations. We agree with the RTC that the imposition of the levy was an exercise by the State of its taxation power. While it is true that the power of taxation can be used as an implement of

police power,[41] the primary purpose of the levy is revenue generation. If the purpose is primarily revenue, or if revenue is, at least, one of the real and substantial purposes, then the exaction is properly called a tax.[42] In Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. Edu,[43] it was held that the imposition of a vehicle registration fee is not an exercise by the State of its police power, but of its taxation power, thus: It is clear from the provisions of Section 73 of Commonwealth Act 123 and Section 61 of the Land Transportation and Traffic Code that the legislative intent and purpose behind the law requiring owners of vehicles to pay for their registration is mainly to raise funds for the construction and maintenance of highways and to a much lesser degree, pay for the operating expenses of the administering agency. x x x Fees may be properly regarded as taxes even though they also serve as an instrument of regulation. Taxation may be made the implement of the state's police power (Lutz v. Araneta, 98 Phil. 148). If the purpose is primarily revenue, or if revenue is, at least, one of the real and substantial purposes, then the exaction is properly called a tax. Such is the case of motor vehicle registration fees. The same provision appears as Section 59(b) in the Land Transportation Code. It is patent therefrom that the legislators had in mind a regulatory tax as the law refers to the imposition on the registration, operation or ownership of a motor vehicle as a tax or fee. x x x Simply put, if the exaction under Rep. Act 4136 were merely a regulatory fee, the imposition in Rep. Act 5448 need not be an additional tax. Rep. Act 4136 also speaks of other fees such as t he special permit fees for certain types of motor vehicles (Sec. 10) and additional fees for change of registration (Sec. 11). These are not to be understood as taxes because such fees are very minimal to be revenue-raising. Thus, they are not mentioned by Sec. 59(b) of the Code as taxes like the motor vehicle registration fee and chauffeurs license fee. Such fees are to go into the expenditures of the Land Transportation Commission as provided for in the last proviso of Sec. 61.[44] (Underscoring supplied) The P10 levy under LOI No. 1465 is too excessive to serve a mere regulatory purpose. The levy, no doubt, was a big burden on the seller or the ultimate consumer. It increased the price of a bag of fertilizer by as much as five percent. [45] A plain reading of the LOI also supports the conclusion that the levy was for revenue generation. The LOI expressly provided that the levy was imposed until adequate capital is raised to make PPI viable. Taxes are exacted only for a public purpose. The P10 levy is unconstitutional because it was not for a public purpose. The levy was imposed to give undue benefit to PPI. An inherent limitation on the power of taxation is public purpose. Taxes are exacted only for a public purpose. They cannot be used for purely private purposes or for the exclusive benefit of private persons.[46] The reason for this is simple. The power to tax exists for the general welfare; hence, implicit in its power is the limitation that it should be used only for a public purpose. It would be a robbery for the State to tax its citizens and use the funds generated for a private purpose. As an old United States case bluntly put it: To lay with one hand, the power of the government on the property of the citizen, and with the other to bestow it upon favored individuals to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes, is nonetheless a robbery because it is done under the forms of law and is called taxation.[47]

The term public purpose is not defined. It is an elastic concept that can be hammered to fit modern standards. Jurisprudence states that public purpose should be given a broad interpretation. It does not only pertain to those purposes which are traditionally viewed as essentially government functions, such as building roads and delivery of basic services, but also includes those purposes designed to promote social justice. Thus, public money may now be used for the relocation of illegal settlers, low-cost housing and urban or agrarian reform. While the categories of what may constitute a public purpose are continually expanding in light of the expansion of government functions, the inherent requirement that taxes can only be exacted for a public purpose still stands. Public purpose is the heart of a tax law. When a tax law is only a mask to exact funds from the public when its true intent is to give undue benefit and advantage to a private enterprise, that law will not satisfy the requirement of public purpose. The purpose of a law is evident from its text or inferable from other secondary sources. Here, We agree with the RTC and that CA that the levy imposed under LOI No. 1465 was not for a public purpose. First, the LOI expressly provided that the levy be imposed to benefit PPI, a private company. The purpose is explicit from Clause 3 of the law, thus: 3. The Administrator of the Fertilizer Pesticide Authority to include in its fertilizer pricing formula a capital contribution component of not less than P10 per bag. This capital contribution shall be collected until adequate capital is raised to make PPI viable. Such capital contribution shall be applied by FPA to all domestic sales of fertilizers in the Philippines.[48] (Underscoring supplied)

It is a basic rule of statutory construction that the text of a statute should be given a literal meaning. In this case, the text of the LOI is plain that the levy was imposed in order to raise capital for PPI. The framers of the LOI did not even hide the insidious purpose of the law. They were cavalier enough to name PPI as the ultimate beneficiary of the taxes levied under the LOI. We find it utterly repulsive that a tax law would expressly name a private company as the ultimate beneficiary of the taxes to be levied from the public. This is a clear case of crony capitalism. Second, the LOI provides that the imposition of the P10 levy was conditional and dependent upon PPI becoming financially viable. This suggests that the levy was actually imposed to benefit PPI. The LOI notably does not fix a maximum amount when PPI is deemed financially viable. Worse, the liability of Fertiphil and other domestic sellers of fertilizer to pay the levy is made indefinite. They are required to continuously pay the levy until adequate capital is raised for PPI. Third, the RTC and the CA held that the levies paid under the LOI were directly remitted and deposited by FPA to Far East Bank and Trust Company, the depositary bank of [49] PPI. This proves that PPI benefited from the LOI. It is also proves that the main purpose of the law was to give undue benefit and advantage to PPI. Fourth, the levy was used to pay the corporate debts of PPI. A reading of the Letter of Understanding[50] dated May 18, 1985 signed by then Prime Minister Cesar Virata reveals that PPI was in deep financial problem because of its huge corporate debts. There were pending petitions for rehabilitation against PPI before the Securities and Exchange Commission. The government guaranteed payment of PPIs debts to its foreign creditors. To fund the payment, President Marcos issued LOI No. 1465. The pertinent portions of the letter of understanding read:

Republic of the Philippines Office of the Prime Minister Manila LETTER OF UNDERTAKING May 18, 1985 TO: THE BANKING AND FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS LISTED IN ANNEX A HERETO WHICH ARE CREDITORS (COLLECTIVELY, THE CREDITORS) OF PLANTERS PRODUCTS, INC. (PLANTERS) Gentlemen: This has reference to Planters which is the principal importer and distributor of fertilizer, pesticides and agricultural chemicals in the Philippines. As regards Planters, the Philippine Government confirms its awareness of the following: (1) that Planters has outstanding obligations in foreign currency and/or pesos, to the Creditors, (2) that Planters is currently experiencing financial difficulties, and (3) that there are presently pending with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the Philippines a petition filed at Planters own behest for the suspension of payment of all its obligations, and a separate petition filed by Manufacturers Hanover Trust Company, Manila Offshore Branch for the appointment of a rehabilitation receiver for Planters. In connection with the foregoing, the Republic of the Philippines (the Republic) confirms that it considers and continues to consider Planters as a major fertilizer distributor. Accordingly, for and in consideration of your expressed willingness to consider and participate in the effort to rehabilitate Planters, the Republic hereby manifests its full and unqualified support of the successful rehabilitation and continuing viability of Planters, and to that end, hereby binds and obligates itself to the creditors and Planters, as follows: xxxx 2. Upon the effective date of this Letter of Undertaking, the Republic shall cause FPA to include in its fertilizer pricing formula a capital recovery component, the proceeds of which will be used initially for the purpose of funding the unpaid portion of the outstanding capital stock of Planters presently held in trust by Planters Foundation, Inc. (Planters Foundation), which unpaid capital is estimated at approximately P206 million (subject to validation by Planters and Planters Foundation) such unpaid portion of the outstanding capital stock of Planters being hereafter referred to as the Unpaid Capital), and subsequently for such capital increases as may be required for the continuing viability of Planters. xxxx The capital recovery component shall continue to be charged and collected until payment in full of (a) the Unpaid Capital and/or (b) any shortfall in the payment of the Subsidy Receivables, (c) any carrying cost accruing from the date hereof on the amounts which may be outstanding from time to time of the Unpaid Capital and/or the Subsidy Receivables, and (d) the capital increases contemplated in paragraph 2 hereof. For the

purpose of the foregoing clause (c), the carrying cost shall be at such rate as will represent the full and reasonable cost to Planters of servicing its debts, taking into account both its peso and foreign currency-denominated obligations. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES By: (signed) CESAR E. A. VIRATA Prime Minister and Minister of Finance[51] It is clear from the Letter of Understanding that the levy was imposed precisely to pay the corporate debts of PPI. We cannot agree with PPI that the levy was imposed to ensure the stability of the fertilizer industry in the country. The letter of understanding and the plain text of the LOI clearly indicate that the levy was exacted for the benefit of a private corporation. All told, the RTC and the CA did not err in holding that the levy imposed under LOI No. 1465 was not for a public purpose. LOI No. 1465 failed to comply with the public purpose requirement for tax laws. The LOI is still unconstitutional even if enacted under the police power; it did not promote public interest. Even if We consider LOI No. 1695 enacted under the police power of the State, it would still be invalid for failing to comply with the test of lawful subjects and lawful means. Jurisprudence states the test as follows: (1) the interest of the public generally, as distinguished from those of particular class, requires its exercise; and (2) the means employed are reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly oppressive upon individuals.[52] For the same reasons as discussed, LOI No. 1695 is invalid because it did not promote public interest. The law was enacted to give undue advantage to a private corporation. We quote with approval the CA ratiocination on this point, thus: It is upon applying this established tests that We sustain the trial courts holding LOI 1465 unconstitutional. To be sure, ensuring the continued supply and distribution of fertilizer in the country is an undertaking imbued with public interest. However, the method by which LOI 1465 sought to achieve this is by no means a measure that will promote the public welfare. The governments commitment to support the successful rehabilitation and continued viability of PPI, a private corporation, is an unmistakable attempt to mask the subject statutes impartia lity. There is no way to treat the self-interest of a favored entity, like PPI, as identical with the general interest of the countrys farmers or even the Filipino people in general. Well to stress, substantive due process exacts fairness and equal protection disallows distinction where none is needed. When a statutes public purpose is spoiled by private interest, the use of police power becomes a travesty which must be struck down for being an arbitrary exercise of government power. To rule in favor of appellant would contravene the general principle that revenues derived from taxes cannot be used for purely private purposes or for the exclusive benefit of private individuals. (Underscoring supplied) The general rule is that an unconstitutional law is void; the doctrine of operative fact is inapplicable.

PPI also argues that Fertiphil cannot seek a refund even if LOI No. 1465 is declared unconstitutional. It banks on the doctrine of operative fact, which provides that an unconstitutional law has an effect before being declared unconstitutional. PPI wants to retain the levies paid under LOI No. 1465 even if it is subsequently declared to be unconstitutional. We cannot agree. It is settled that no question, issue or argument will be entertained on appeal, unless it has been raised in the court a quo.[53] PPI did not raise the applicability of the doctrine of operative fact with the RTC and the CA. It cannot belatedly raise the issue with Us in order to extricate itself from the dire effects of an unconstitutional law. At any rate, We find the doctrine inapplicable. The general rule is that an unconstitutional law is void. It produces no rights, imposes no duties and affords no protection. It has no legal effect. It is, in legal contemplation, inoperative as if it has not been passed.[54] Being void, Fertiphil is not required to pay the levy. All levies paid should be refunded in accordance with the general civil code principle against unjust enrichment. The general rule is supported by Article 7 of the Civil Code, which provides: ART. 7. Laws are repealed only by subsequent ones, and their violation or non-observance shall not be excused by disuse or custom or practice to the contrary. When the courts declare a law to be inconsistent with the Constitution, the former shall be void and the latter shall govern. The doctrine of operative fact, as an exception to the general rule, only applies as a matter of equity and fair play.[55] It nullifies the effects of an unconstitutional law by recognizing that the existence of a statute prior to a determination of unconstitutionality is an operative fact and may have consequences which cannot always be ignored. The past cannot always be erased by a new judicial declaration.[56] The doctrine is applicable when a declaration of unconstitutionality will impose an undue burden on those who have relied on the invalid law. Thus, it was applied to a criminal case when a declaration of unconstitutionality would put the accused in double jeopardy [57] or would put in limbo the acts done by a municipality in reliance upon a law creating it. [58] Here, We do not find anything iniquitous in ordering PPI to refund the amounts paid by Fertiphil under LOI No. 1465. It unduly benefited from the levy. It was proven during the trial that the levies paid were remitted and deposited to its bank account. Quite the reverse, it would be inequitable and unjust not to order a refund. To do so would unjustly enrich PPI at the expense of Fertiphil. Article 22 of the Civil Code explicitly provides that every person who, through an act of performance by another comes into possession of something at the expense of the latter without just or legal ground shall return the same to him. We cannot allow PPI to profit from an unconstitutional law. Justice and equity dictate that PPI must refund the amounts paid by Fertiphil. WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Court of Appeals Decision dated November 28, 2003 is AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. L-10405 December 29, 1960 WENCESLAO PASCUAL, in his official capacity as Provincial Governor of Rizal, petitionerappellant, vs. THE SECRETARY OF PUBLIC WORKS AND COMMUNICATIONS, ET AL., respondentsappellees. Asst. Fiscal Noli M. Cortes and Jose P. Santos for appellant. Office of the Asst. Solicitor General Jose G. Bautista and Solicitor A. A. Torres for appellee. CONCEPCION, J.: Appeal, by petitioner Wenceslao Pascual, from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, dismissing the above entitled case and dissolving the writ of preliminary injunction therein issued, without costs. On August 31, 1954, petitioner Wenceslao Pascual, as Provincial Governor of Rizal, instituted this action for declaratory relief, with injunction, upon the ground that Republic Act No. 920, entitled "An Act Appropriating Funds for Public Works", approved on June 20, 1953, contained, in section 1-C (a) thereof, an item (43[h]) of P85,000.00 "for the construction, reconstruction, repair, extension and improvement" of Pasig feeder road terminals (Gen. Roxas Gen. Araneta Gen. Lucban Gen. Capinpin Gen. Segundo Gen. Delgado Gen. Malvar Gen. Lim)"; that, at the time of the passage and approval of said Act, the aforementioned feeder roads were "nothing but projected and planned subdivision roads, not yet constructed, . . . within the Antonio Subdivision . . . situated at . . . Pasig, Rizal" (according to the tracings attached to the petition as Annexes A and B, near Shaw Boulevard, not far away from the intersection between the latter and Highway 54), which projected feeder roads "do not connect any government property or any important premises to the main highway"; that the aforementioned Antonio Subdivision (as well as the lands on which said feeder roads were to be construed) were private properties of respondent Jose C. Zulueta, who, at the time of the passage and approval of said Act, was a member of the Senate of the Philippines; that on May, 1953, respondent Zulueta, addressed a letter to the Municipal Council of Pasig, Rizal, offering to donate said projected feeder roads to the municipality of Pasig, Rizal; that, on June 13, 1953, the offer was accepted by the council, subject to the condition "that the donor would submit a plan of the said roads and agree to change the names of two of them"; that no deed of donation in favor of the municipality of Pasig was, however, executed; that on July 10, 1953, respondent Zulueta wrote another letter to said council, calling attention to the approval of Republic Act. No. 920, and the sum of P85,000.00 appropriated therein for the construction of the projected feeder roads in question; that the municipal council of Pasig endorsed said letter of respondent Zulueta to the District Engineer of Rizal, who, up to the present "has not made any endorsement thereon" that inasmuch as the projected feeder roads in question were private property at the time of the passage and approval of Republic Act No. 920, the appropriation of P85,000.00 therein made, for the construction, reconstruction, repair, extension and improvement of said projected feeder roads, was illegal and, therefore, void ab initio"; that said appropriation of P85,000.00 was made by Congress because its members were made to believe that the projected feeder roads in question were "public roads and not private streets of a private subdivision"'; that, "in order to give a semblance of legality, when there is absolutely none, to the aforementioned appropriation", respondents Zulueta executed on December 12, 1953, while he was a member of the Senate of the Philippines, an alleged deed of donation copy of which is annexed to the petition of the four (4) parcels of land constituting said projected feeder roads, in favor of the Government of the Republic of the Philippines; that said alleged deed of donation was, on the same date, accepted by the then Executive Secretary; that being subject to an onerous condition, said donation partook of the nature of a contract; that, such, said donation violated the provision of our fundamental law prohibiting members of Congress from being directly or indirectly financially interested in any contract with the Government, and, hence, is unconstitutional, as well as null and voidab initio, for the construction of the projected feeder roads in question with public funds would greatly enhance or increase the value of the

aforementioned subdivision of respondent Zulueta, "aside from relieving him from the burden of constructing his subdivision streets or roads at his own expense"; that the construction of said projected feeder roads was then being undertaken by the Bureau of Public Highways; and that, unless restrained by the court, the respondents would continue to execute, comply with, follow and implement the aforementioned illegal provision of law, "to the irreparable damage, detriment and prejudice not only to the petitioner but to the Filipino nation." Petitioner prayed, therefore, that the contested item of Republic Act No. 920 be declared null and void; that the alleged deed of donation of the feeder roads in question be "declared unconstitutional and, therefor, illegal"; that a writ of injunction be issued enjoining the Secretary of Public Works and Communications, the Director of the Bureau of Public Works and Highways and Jose C. Zulueta from ordering or allowing the continuance of the above-mentioned feeder roads project, and from making and securing any new and further releases on the aforementioned item of Republic Act No. 920, and the disbursing officers of the Department of Public Works and Highways from making any further payments out of said funds provided for in Republic Act No. 920; and that pending final hearing on the merits, a writ of preliminary injunction be issued enjoining the aforementioned parties respondent from making and securing any new and further releases on the aforesaid item of Republic Act No. 920 and from making any further payments out of said illegally appropriated funds. Respondents moved to dismiss the petition upon the ground that petitioner had "no legal capacity to sue", and that the petition did "not state a cause of action". In support to this motion, respondent Zulueta alleged that the Provincial Fiscal of Rizal, not its provincial governor, should represent the Province of Rizal, pursuant to section 1683 of the Revised Administrative Code; that said respondent is " not aware of any law which makes illegal the appropriation of public funds for the improvements of . . . private property"; and that, the constitutional provision invoked by petitioner is inapplicable to the donation in question, the same being a pure act of liberality, not a contract. The other respondents, in turn, maintained that petitioner could not assail the appropriation in question because "there is no actual bona fide case . . . in which the validity of Republic Act No. 920 is necessarily involved" and petitioner "has not shown that he has a personal and substantial interest" in said Act "and that its enforcement has caused or will cause him a direct injury." Acting upon said motions to dismiss, the lower court rendered the aforementioned decision, dated October 29, 1953, holding that, since public interest is involved in this case, the Provincial Governor of Rizal and the provincial fiscal thereof who represents him therein, "have the requisite personalities" to question the constitutionality of the disputed item of Republic Act No. 920; that "the legislature is without power appropriate public revenues for anything but a public purpose", that the instructions and improvement of the feeder roads in question, if such roads where private property, would not be a public purpose; that, being subject to the following condition: The within donation is hereby made upon the condition that the Government of the Republic of the Philippines will use the parcels of land hereby donated for street purposes only and for no other purposes whatsoever; it being expressly understood that should the Government of the Republic of the Philippines violate the condition hereby imposed upon it, the title to the land hereby donated shall, upon such violation, ipso facto revert to the DONOR, JOSE C. ZULUETA. (Emphasis supplied.) which is onerous, the donation in question is a contract; that said donation or contract is "absolutely forbidden by the Constitution" and consequently "illegal", for Article 1409 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, declares in existence and void from the very beginning contracts "whose cause, objector purpose is contrary to law, morals . . . or public policy"; that the legality of said donation may not be contested, however, by petitioner herein, because his "interest are not directly affected" thereby; and that, accordingly, the appropriation in question "should be upheld" and the case dismissed. At the outset, it should be noted that we are concerned with a decision granting the aforementioned motions to dismiss, which as much, are deemed to have admitted hypothetically the allegations of fact made in the petition of appellant herein. According to said petition, respondent Zulueta is the owner of several parcels of residential land situated in Pasig, Rizal, and known as the Antonio Subdivision, certain portions of which had been reserved for the projected feeder roads aforementioned, which, admittedly, were private property of said respondent when Republic Act No. 920, appropriating P85,000.00 for the "construction,

reconstruction, repair, extension and improvement" of said roads, was passed by Congress, as well as when it was approved by the President on June 20, 1953. The petition further alleges that the construction of said roads, to be undertaken with the aforementioned appropriation of P85,000.00, would have the effect of relieving respondent Zulueta of the burden of constructing his subdivision streets or roads at his own expenses, 1and would "greatly enhance or increase the value of the subdivision" of said respondent. The lower court held that under these circumstances, the appropriation in question was "clearly for a private, not a public purpose." Respondents do not deny the accuracy of this conclusion, which is self-evident. 2However, respondent Zulueta contended, in his motion to dismiss that: A law passed by Congress and approved by the President can never be illegal because Congress is the source of all laws . . . Aside from the fact that movant is not aware of any law which makes illegal the appropriation of public funds for the improvement of what we, in the meantime, may assume as private property . . . (Record on Appeal, p. 33.) The first proposition must be rejected most emphatically, it being inconsistent with the nature of the Government established under the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines and the system of checks and balances underlying our political structure. Moreover, it is refuted by the decisions of this Court invalidating legislative enactments deemed violative of the Constitution or organic laws. 3 As regards the legal feasibility of appropriating public funds for a public purpose, the principle according to Ruling Case Law, is this: It is a general rule that the legislature is without power to appropriate public revenue for anything but a public purpose. . . . It is the essential character of the direct object of the expenditure which must determine its validity as justifying a tax, and not the magnitude of the interest to be affected nor the degree to which the general advantage of the community, and thus the public welfare, may be ultimately benefited by their promotion. Incidental to the public or to the state, which results from the promotion of private interest and the prosperity of private enterprises or business, does not justify their aid by the use public money. (25 R.L.C. pp. 398-400; Emphasis supplied.) The rule is set forth in Corpus Juris Secundum in the following language: In accordance with the rule that the taxing power must be exercised for public purposes only, discussedsupra sec. 14, money raised by taxation can be expended only for public purposes and not for the advantage of private individuals . (85 C.J.S. pp. 645-646; emphasis supplied.) Explaining the reason underlying said rule, Corpus Juris Secundum states: Generally, under the express or implied provisions of the constitution, public funds may be used only for public purpose. The right of the legislature to appropriate funds is correlative with its right to tax, and, under constitutional provisions against taxation except for public purposes and prohibiting the collection of a tax for one purpose and the devotion thereof to another purpose, no appropriation of state funds can be made for other than for a public purpose. The test of the constitutionality of a statute requiring the use of public funds is whether the statute is designed to promote the public interest, as opposed to the furtherance of the advantage of individuals, although each advantage to individuals might incidentally serve the public. (81 C.J.S. pp. 1147; emphasis supplied.) Needless to say, this Court is fully in accord with the foregoing views which, apart from being patently sound, are a necessary corollary to our democratic system of government, which, as such, exists primarily for the promotion of the general welfare. Besides, reflecting as they do, the established jurisprudence in the United States, after whose constitutional system ours has been patterned, said views and jurisprudence are, likewise, part and parcel of our own constitutional law.lawphil.net This notwithstanding, the lower court felt constrained to uphold the appropriation in question, upon the ground that petitioner may not contest the legality of the donation above referred to because the same does not affect him directly. This conclusion is, presumably, based upon the following premises, namely: (1) that, if valid, said donation cured the constitutional infirmity of the aforementioned appropriation; (2) that the latter may not be annulled without a previous

declaration of unconstitutionality of the said donation; and (3) that the rule set forth in Article 1421 of the Civil Code is absolute, and admits of no exception. We do not agree with these premises. The validity of a statute depends upon the powers of Congress at the time of its passage or approval, not upon events occurring, or acts performed, subsequently thereto, unless the latter consists of an amendment of the organic law, removing, with retrospective operation, the constitutional limitation infringed by said statute. Referring to the P85,000.00 appropriation for the projected feeder roads in question, the legality thereof depended upon whether said roads were public or private property when the bill, which, latter on, became Republic Act 920, was passed by Congress, or, when said bill was approved by the President and the disbursement of said sum became effective, or on June 20, 1953 (see section 13 of said Act). Inasmuch as the land on which the projected feeder roads were to be constructed belonged then to respondent Zulueta, the result is that said appropriation sought a private purpose, and hence, was null and void. 4 The donation to the Government, over five (5) months after the approval and effectivity of said Act, made, according to the petition, for the purpose of giving a "semblance of legality", or legalizing, the appropriation in question, did not cure its aforementioned basic defect. Consequently, a judicial nullification of said donation need not precede the declaration of unconstitutionality of said appropriation. Again, Article 1421 of our Civil Code, like many other statutory enactments, is subject to exceptions. For instance, the creditors of a party to an illegal contract may, under the conditions set forth in Article 1177 of said Code, exercise the rights and actions of the latter, except only those which are inherent in his person, including therefore, his right to the annulment of said contract, even though such creditors are not affected by the same, except indirectly, in the manner indicated in said legal provision. Again, it is well-stated that the validity of a statute may be contested only by one who will sustain a direct injury in consequence of its enforcement. Yet, there are many decisions nullifying, at the instance of taxpayers, laws providing for the disbursement of public funds, 5upon the theory that "the expenditure of public funds by an officer of the State for the purpose of administering an unconstitutional act constitutes a misapplication of such funds," which may be enjoined at the request of a taxpayer. 6Although there are some decisions to the contrary, 7the prevailing view in the United States is stated in the American Jurisprudence as follows: In the determination of the degree of interest essential to give the requisite standing to attack the constitutionality of a statute, the general rule is that not only persons individually affected, but alsotaxpayers, have sufficient interest in preventing the illegal expenditure of moneys raised by taxation and may therefore question the constitutionality of statutes requiring expenditure of public moneys . (11 Am. Jur. 761; emphasis supplied.) However, this view was not favored by the Supreme Court of the U.S. in Frothingham vs. Mellon (262 U.S. 447), insofar as federal laws are concerned, upon the ground that the relationship of a taxpayer of the U.S. to its Federal Government is different from that of a taxpayer of a municipal corporation to its government. Indeed, under the composite system of government existing in the U.S., the states of the Union are integral part of the Federation from an international viewpoint, but, each state enjoys internally a substantial measure of sovereignty, subject to the limitations imposed by the Federal Constitution. In fact, the same was made by representatives of each state of the Union, not of the people of the U.S., except insofar as the former represented the people of the respective States, and the people of each State has, independently of that of the others, ratified said Constitution. In other words, the Federal Constitution and the Federal statutes have become binding upon the people of the U.S. in consequence of an act of, and, in this sense, through the respective states of the Union of which they are citizens. The peculiar nature of the relation between said people and the Federal Government of the U.S. is reflected in the election of its President, who is chosen directly, not by the people of the U.S., but by electors chosen by each State, in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct (Article II, section 2, of the Federal Constitution).lawphi1.net The relation between the people of the Philippines and its taxpayers, on the other hand, and the Republic of the Philippines, on the other, is not identical to that obtaining between the people and taxpayers of the U.S. and its Federal Government. It is closer, from a domestic viewpoint, to that existing between the people and taxpayers of each state and the government thereof, except that the authority of the Republic of the Philippines over the people of the Philippines

is more fully direct than that of the states of the Union, insofar as the simple and unitary type of our national government is not subject to limitations analogous to those imposed by the Federal Constitution upon the states of the Union, and those imposed upon the Federal Government in the interest of the Union. For this reason, the rule recognizing the right of taxpayers to assail the constitutionality of a legislation appropriating local or state public funds which has been upheld by the Federal Supreme Court (Crampton vs. Zabriskie, 101 U.S. 601) has greater application in the Philippines than that adopted with respect to acts of Congress of the United States appropriating federal funds. Indeed, in the Province of Tayabas vs. Perez (56 Phil., 257), involving the expropriation of a land by the Province of Tayabas, two (2) taxpayers thereof were allowed to intervene for the purpose of contesting the price being paid to the owner thereof, as unduly exorbitant. It is true that in Custodio vs. President of the Senate (42 Off. Gaz., 1243), a taxpayer and employee of the Government was not permitted to question the constitutionality of an appropriation for backpay of members of Congress. However, in Rodriguez vs. Treasurer of the Philippines and Barredo vs. Commission on Elections (84 Phil., 368; 45 Off. Gaz., 4411), we entertained the action of taxpayers impugning the validity of certain appropriations of public funds, and invalidated the same. Moreover, the reason that impelled this Court to take such position in said two (2) cases the importance of the issues therein raised is present in the case at bar. Again, like the petitioners in the Rodriguez and Barredo cases, petitioner herein is not merely a taxpayer. The Province of Rizal, which he represents officially as its Provincial Governor, is our most populated political subdivision, 8and, the taxpayers therein bear a substantial portion of the burden of taxation, in the Philippines. Hence, it is our considered opinion that the circumstances surrounding this case sufficiently justify petitioners action in contesting the appropriation and donation in question; that this action should not have been dismissed by the lower court; and that the writ of preliminary injunction should have been maintained. Wherefore, the decision appealed from is hereby reversed, and the records are remanded to the lower court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this decision, with the costs of this instance against respondent Jose C. Zulueta. It is so ordered.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. L-23645 October 29, 1968 BENJAMIN P. GOMEZ, petitioner-appellee, vs. ENRICO PALOMAR, in his capacity as Postmaster General, HON. BRIGIDO R. VALENCIA, in his capacity as Secretary of Public Works and Communications, and DOMINGO GOPEZ, in his capacity as Acting Postmaster of San Fernando, Pampanga, respondentappellants. Lorenzo P. Navarro and Narvaro Belar S. Navarro for petitioner-appellee. Office of the Solicitor General Arturo A. Alafriz, Assistant Solicitor General Frine C. Zaballero and Solicitor Dominador L. Quiroz for respondents-appellants. CASTRO, J.: This appeal puts in issue the constitutionality of Republic Act 1635, 1 as amended by Republic Act 2631,2 which provides as follows: To help raise funds for the Philippine Tuberculosis Society, the Director of Posts shall order for the period from August nineteen to September thirty every year the printing and issue of semi-postal stamps of different denominations with face value showing the regular postage charge plus the additional amount of five centavos for the said purpose, and during the said period, no mail matter shall be accepted in the mails unless it bears such semi-postal stamps: Provided, That no such additional charge of five centavos shall be imposed on newspapers. The additional proceeds realized from the sale of the semi-postal stamps shall constitute a special fund and be deposited with the National Treasury to be expended by the Philippine Tuberculosis Society in carrying out its noble work to prevent and eradicate tuberculosis. The respondent Postmaster General, in implementation of the law, thereafter issued four (4) administrative orders numbered 3 (June 20, 1958), 7 (August 9, 1958), 9 (August 28, 1958), and 10 (July 15, 1960). All these administrative orders were issued with the approval of the respondent Secretary of Public Works and Communications. The pertinent portions of Adm. Order 3 read as follows: Such semi-postal stamps could not be made available during the period from August 19 to September 30, 1957, for lack of time. However, two denominations of such stamps, one at "5 + 5" centavos and another at "10 + 5" centavos, will soon be released for use by the public on their mails to be posted during the same period starting with the year 1958. xxx xxx xxx During the period from August 19 to September 30 each year starting in 1958, no mail matter of whatever class, and whether domestic or foreign, posted at any Philippine Post Office and addressed for delivery in this country or abroad, shall be accepted for mailing unless it bears at least one such semi-postal stamp showing the additional value of five centavos intended for the Philippine Tuberculosis Society. In the case of second-class mails and mails prepaid by means of mail permits or impressions of postage meters, each piece of such mail shall bear at least one such semi-postal stamp if posted during the period above stated starting with the year 1958, in addition to being charged the usual postage prescribed by existing regulations. In the case of business reply envelopes and cards mailed during said period, such stamp should be collected from the addressees at the time of delivery. Mails entitled to franking privilege like those from the office of the President, members of Congress, and other offices to which such privilege has been granted, shall each also bear one such semi-postal stamp if posted during the said period. Mails posted during the said period starting in 1958, which are found in street or postoffice mail boxes without the required semi-postal stamp, shall be returned to the sender, if known, with a notation calling for the affixing of such stamp. If the sender is unknown, the mail matter shall be treated as nonmailable and forwarded to the Dead Letter Office for proper disposition. Adm. Order 7, amending the fifth paragraph of Adm. Order 3, reads as follows:

In the case of the following categories of mail matter and mails entitled to franking privilege which are not exempted from the payment of the five centavos intended for the Philippine Tuberculosis Society, such extra charge may be collected in cash, for which official receipt (General Form No. 13, A) shall be issued, instead of affixing the semi-postal stamp in the manner hereinafter indicated: 1. Second-class mail. Aside from the postage at the second-class rate, the extra charge of five centavos for the Philippine Tuberculosis Society shall be collected on each separately-addressed piece of second-class mail matter, and the total sum thus collected shall be entered in the same official receipt to be issued for the postage at the second-class rate. In making such entry, the total number of pieces of secondclass mail posted shall be stated, thus: "Total charge for TB Fund on 100 pieces . .. P5.00." The extra charge shall be entered separate from the postage in both of the official receipt and the Record of Collections. 2. First-class and third-class mail permits. Mails to be posted without postage affixed under permits issued by this Bureau shall each be charged the usual postage, in addition to the five-centavo extra charge intended for said society. The total extra charge thus received shall be entered in the same official receipt to be issued for the postage collected, as in subparagraph 1. 3. Metered mail. For each piece of mail matter impressed by postage meter under metered mail permit issued by this Bureau, the extra charge of five centavos for said society shall be collected in cash and an official receipt issued for the total sum thus received, in the manner indicated in subparagraph 1. 4. Business reply cards and envelopes. Upon delivery of business reply cards and envelopes to holders of business reply permits, the five-centavo charge intended for said society shall be collected in cash on each reply card or envelope delivered, in addition to the required postage which may also be paid in cash. An official receipt shall be issued for the total postage and total extra charge received, in the manner shown in subparagraph 1. 5. Mails entitled to franking privilege. Government agencies, officials, and other persons entitled to the franking privilege under existing laws may pay in cash such extra charge intended for said society, instead of affixing the semi-postal stamps to their mails, provided that such mails are presented at the post-office window, where the five-centavo extra charge for said society shall be collected on each piece of such mail matter. In such case, an official receipt shall be issued for the total sum thus collected, in the manner stated in subparagraph 1. Mail under permits, metered mails and franked mails not presented at the post-office window shall be affixed with the necessary semi-postal stamps. If found in mail boxes without such stamps, they shall be treated in the same way as herein provided for other mails. Adm. Order 9, amending Adm. Order 3, as amended, exempts "Government and its Agencies and Instrumentalities Performing Governmental Functions." Adm. Order 10, amending Adm. Order 3, as amended, exempts "copies of periodical publications received for mailing under any class of mail matter, including newspapers and magazines admitted as second-class mail." The FACTS. On September l5, 1963 the petitioner Benjamin P. Gomez mailed a letter at the post office in San Fernando, Pampanga. Because this letter, addressed to a certain Agustin Aquino of 1014 Dagohoy Street, Singalong, Manila did not bear the special anti-TB stamp required by the statute, it was returned to the petitioner. In view of this development, the petitioner brough suit for declaratory relief in the Court of First Instance of Pampanga, to test the constitutionality of the statute, as well as the implementing administrative orders issued, contending that it violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution as well as the rule of uniformity and equality of taxation. The lower court declared the statute and the orders unconstitutional; hence this appeal by the respondent postal authorities. For the reasons set out in this opinion, the judgment appealed from must be reversed. I. Before reaching the merits, we deem it necessary to dispose of the respondents' contention that declaratory relief is unavailing because this suit was filed after the petitioner had committed a breach of the statute. While conceding that the mailing by the petitioner of a letter without the

additional anti-TB stamp was a violation of Republic Act 1635, as amended, the trial court nevertheless refused to dismiss the action on the ground that under section 6 of Rule 64 of the Rules of Court, "If before the final termination of the case a breach or violation of ... a statute ... should take place, the action may thereupon be converted into an ordinary action." The prime specification of an action for declaratory relief is that it must be brought "before breach or violation" of the statute has been committed. Rule 64, section 1 so provides. Section 6 of the same rule, which allows the court to treat an action for declaratory relief as an ordinary action, applies only if the breach or violation occurs after the filing of the action but before the termination thereof.3 Hence, if, as the trial court itself admitted, there had been a breach of the statute before the firing of this action, then indeed the remedy of declaratory relief cannot be availed of, much less can the suit be converted into an ordinary action. Nor is there merit in the petitioner's argument that the mailing of the letter in question did not constitute a breach of the statute because the statute appears to be addressed only to postal authorities. The statute, it is true, in terms provides that "no mail matter shall be accepted in the mails unless it bears such semi-postal stamps." It does not follow, however, that only postal authorities can be guilty of violating it by accepting mails without the payment of the anti-TB stamp. It is obvious that they can be guilty of violating the statute only if there are people who use the mails without paying for the additional anti-TB stamp. Just as in bribery the mere offer constitutes a breach of the law, so in the matter of the anti-TB stamp the mere attempt to use the mails without the stamp constitutes a violation of the statute. It is not required that the mail be accepted by postal authorities. That requirement is relevant only for the purpose of fixing the liability of postal officials. Nevertheless, we are of the view that the petitioner's choice of remedy is correct because this suit was filed not only with respect to the letter which he mailed on September 15, 1963, but also with regard to any other mail that he might send in the future. Thus, in his complaint, the petitioner prayed that due course be given to "other mails without the semi-postal stamps which he may deliver for mailing ... if any, during the period covered by Republic Act 1635, as amended, as well as other mails hereafter to be sent by or to other mailers which bear the required postage, without collection of additional charge of five centavos prescribed by the same Republic Act." As one whose mail was returned, the petitioner is certainly interested in a ruling on the validity of the statute requiring the use of additional stamps. II. We now consider the constitutional objections raised against the statute and the implementing orders. 1. It is said that the statute is violative of the equal protection clause of the Constitution. More specifically the claim is made that it constitutes mail users into a class for the purpose of the tax while leaving untaxed the rest of the population and that even among postal patrons the statute discriminatorily grants exemption to newspapers while Administrative Order 9 of the respondent Postmaster General grants a similar exemption to offices performing governmental functions. . The five centavo charge levied by Republic Act 1635, as amended, is in the nature of an excise tax, laid upon the exercise of a privilege, namely, the privilege of using the mails. As such the objections levelled against it must be viewed in the light of applicable principles of taxation. To begin with, it is settled that the legislature has the inherent power to select the subjects of taxation and to grant exemptions.4 This power has aptly been described as "of wide range and flexibility."5 Indeed, it is said that in the field of taxation, more than in other areas, the legislature possesses the greatest freedom in classification. 6 The reason for this is that traditionally, classification has been a device for fitting tax programs to local needs and usages in order to achieve an equitable distribution of the tax burden.7 That legislative classifications must be reasonable is of course undenied. But what the petitioner asserts is that statutory classification of mail users must bear some reasonable relationship to the end sought to be attained, and that absent such relationship the selection of mail users is constitutionally impermissible. This is altogether a different proposition. As explained in Commonwealth v. Life Assurance Co.:8 While the principle that there must be a reasonable relationship between classification made by the legislation and its purpose is undoubtedly true in some contexts, it has no application to a measure whose sole purpose is to raise revenue ... So long as the classification imposed is based upon some standard capable of reasonable

comprehension, be that standard based upon ability to produce revenue or some other legitimate distinction, equal protection of the law has been afforded. See Allied Stores of Ohio, Inc. v. Bowers, supra, 358 U.S. at 527, 79 S. Ct. at 441; Brown Forman Co. v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, 2d U.S. 56, 573, 80 S. Ct. 578, 580 (1910). We are not wont to invalidate legislation on equal protection grounds except by the clearest demonstration that it sanctions invidious discrimination, which is all that the Constitution forbids. The remedy for unwise legislation must be sought in the legislature. Now, the classification of mail users is not without any reason. It is based on ability to pay, let alone the enjoyment of a privilege, and on administrative convinience. In the allocation of the tax burden, Congress must have concluded that the contribution to the anti-TB fund can be assured by those whose who can afford the use of the mails. The classification is likewise based on considerations of administrative convenience. For it is now a settled principle of law that "consideration of practical administrative convenience and cost in the administration of tax laws afford adequate ground for imposing a tax on a well recognized and defined class."9 In the case of the anti-TB stamps, undoubtedly, the single most important and influential consideration that led the legislature to select mail users as subjects of the tax is the relative ease and convenienceof collecting the tax through the post offices. The small amount of five centavos does not justify the great expense and inconvenience of collecting through the regular means of collection. On the other hand, by placing the duty of collection on postal authorities the tax was made almost self-enforcing, with as little cost and as little inconvenience as possible. And then of course it is not accurate to say that the statute constituted mail users into a class. Mail users were already a class by themselves even before the enactment of the statue and all that the legislature did was merely to select their class. Legislation is essentially empiric and Republic Act 1635, as amended, no more than reflects a distinction that exists in fact. As Mr. Justice Frankfurter said, "to recognize differences that exist in fact is living law; to disregard [them] and concentrate on some abstract identities is lifeless logic." 10 Granted the power to select the subject of taxation, the State's power to grant exemption must likewise be conceded as a necessary corollary. Tax exemptions are too common in the law; they have never been thought of as raising issues under the equal protection clause. It is thus erroneous for the trial court to hold that because certain mail users are exempted from the levy the law and administrative officials have sanctioned an invidious discrimination offensive to the Constitution. The application of the lower courts theory would require all mail users to be taxed, a conclusion that is hardly tenable in the light of differences in status of mail users. The Constitution does not require this kind of equality. As the United States Supreme Court has said, the legislature may withhold the burden of the tax in order to foster what it conceives to be a beneficent enterprise.11 This is the case of newspapers which, under the amendment introduced by Republic Act 2631, are exempt from the payment of the additional stamp. As for the Government and its instrumentalities, their exemption rests on the State's sovereign immunity from taxation. The State cannot be taxed without its consent and such consent, being in derogation of its sovereignty, is to be strictly construed. 12 Administrative Order 9 of the respondent Postmaster General, which lists the various offices and instrumentalities of the Government exempt from the payment of the anti-TB stamp, is but a restatement of this wellknown principle of constitutional law. The trial court likewise held the law invalid on the ground that it singles out tuberculosis to the exclusion of other diseases which, it is said, are equally a menace to public health. But it is never a requirement of equal protection that all evils of the same genus be eradicated or none at all.13 As this Court has had occasion to say, "if the law presumably hits the evil where it is most felt, it is not to be overthrown because there are other instances to which it might have been applied."14 2. The petitioner further argues that the tax in question is invalid, first, because it is not levied for a public purpose as no special benefits accrue to mail users as taxpayers, and second, because it violates the rule of uniformity in taxation. The eradication of a dreaded disease is a public purpose, but if by public purpose the petitioner means benefit to a taxpayer as a return for what he pays, then it is sufficient answer to say that the only benefit to which the taxpayer is constitutionally entitled is that derived from his

enjoyment of the privileges of living in an organized society, established and safeguarded by the devotion of taxes to public purposes. Any other view would preclude the levying of taxes except as they are used to compensate for the burden on those who pay them and would involve the abandonment of the most fundamental principle of government that it exists primarily to provide for the common good.15 Nor is the rule of uniformity and equality of taxation infringed by the imposition of a flat rate rather than a graduated tax. A tax need not be measured by the weight of the mail or the extent of the service rendered. We have said that considerations of administrative convenience and cost afford an adequate ground for classification. The same considerations may induce the legislature to impose a flat tax which in effect is a charge for the transaction, operating equally on all persons within the class regardless of the amount involved. 16 As Mr. Justice Holmes said in sustaining the validity of a stamp act which imposed a flat rate of two cents on every $100 face value of stock transferred: One of the stocks was worth $30.75 a share of the face value of $100, the other $172. The inequality of the tax, so far as actual values are concerned, is manifest. But, here again equality in this sense has to yield to practical considerations and usage. There must be a fixed and indisputable mode of ascertaining a stamp tax. In another sense, moreover, there is equality. When the taxes on two sales are equal, the same number of shares is sold in each case; that is to say, the same privilege is used to the same extent. Valuation is not the only thing to be considered. As was pointed out by the court of appeals, the familiar stamp tax of 2 cents on checks, irrespective of income or earning capacity, and many others, illustrate the necessity and practice of sometimes substituting count for weight ...17 According to the trial court, the money raised from the sales of the anti-TB stamps is spent for the benefit of the Philippine Tuberculosis Society, a private organization, without appropriation by law. But as the Solicitor General points out, the Society is not really the beneficiary but only the agency through which the State acts in carrying out what is essentially a public function. The money is treated as a special fund and as such need not be appropriated by law.18 3. Finally, the claim is made that the statute is so broadly drawn that to execute it the respondents had to issue administrative orders far beyond their powers. Indeed, this is one of the grounds on which the lower court invalidated Republic Act 1631, as amended, namely, that it constitutes an undue delegation of legislative power. Administrative Order 3, as amended by Administrative Orders 7 and 10, provides that for certain classes of mail matters (such as mail permits, metered mails, business reply cards, etc.), the five-centavo charge may be paid in cash instead of the purchase of the anti-TB stamp. It further states that mails deposited during the period August 19 to September 30 of each year in mail boxes without the stamp should be returned to the sender, if known, otherwise they should be treated as nonmailable. It is true that the law does not expressly authorize the collection of five centavos except through the sale of anti-TB stamps, but such authority may be implied in so far as it may be necessary to prevent a failure of the undertaking. The authority given to the Postmaster General to raise funds through the mails must be liberally construed, consistent with the principle that where the end is required the appropriate means are given.19 The anti-TB stamp is a distinctive stamp which shows on its face not only the amount of the additional charge but also that of the regular postage. In the case of business reply cards, for instance, it is obvious that to require mailers to affix the anti-TB stamp on their cards would be to make them pay much more because the cards likewise bear the amount of the regular postage. It is likewise true that the statute does not provide for the disposition of mails which do not bear the anti-TB stamp, but a declaration therein that "no mail matter shall be accepted in the mails unless it bears such semi-postal stamp" is a declaration that such mail matter is nonmailable within the meaning of section 1952 of the Administrative Code. Administrative Order 7 of the Postmaster General is but a restatement of the law for the guidance of postal officials and employees. As for Administrative Order 9, we have already said that in listing the offices and entities of the Government exempt from the payment of the stamp, the respondent Postmaster General merely observed an established principle, namely, that the Government is exempt from taxation. ACCORDINGLY, the judgment a quo is reversed, and the complaint is dismissed, without pronouncement as to costs.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Sanchez, Angeles and Capistrano, JJ., concur. Zaldivar, J., is on leave. Separate Opinions FERNANDO, J., concurring: I join fully the rest of my colleagues in the decision upholding Republic Act No. 1635 as amended by Republic Act No. 2631 and the majority opinion expounded with Justice Castro's usual vigor and lucidity subject to one qualification. With all due recognition of its inherently persuasive character, it would seem to me that the same result could be achieved if reliance be had on police power rather than the attribute of taxation, as the constitutional basis for the challenged legislation. 1. For me, the state in question is an exercise of the regulatory power connected with the performance of the public service. I refer of course to the government postal function, one of respectable and ancient lineage. The United States Constitution of 1787 vests in the federal government acting through Congress the power to establish post offices. 1 The first act providing for the organization of government departments in the Philippines, approved Sept. 6, 1901, provided for the Bureau of Post Offices in the Department of Commerce and Police. 2 Its creation is thus a manifestation of one of the many services in which the government may engage for public convenience and public interest. Such being the case, it seems that any legislation that in effect would require increase cost of postage is well within the discretionary authority of the government. It may not be acting in a proprietary capacity but in fixing the fees that it collects for the use of the mails, the broad discretion that it enjoys is undeniable. In that sense, the principle announced in Esteban v. Cabanatuan City,3 in an opinion by our Chief Justice, while not precisely controlling furnishes for me more than ample support for the validity of the challenged legislation. Thus: "Certain exactions, imposable under an authority other than police power, are not subject, however, to qualification as to the amount chargeable, unless the Constitution or the pertinent laws provide otherwise. For instance, the rates of taxes, whether national or municipal, need not be reasonable, in the absence of such constitutional or statutory limitation. Similarly, when a municipal corporation fixes the fees for the use of its properties, such as public markets, it does not wield the police power, or even the power of taxation. Neither does it assert governmental authority. It exercises merely a proprietary function. And, like any private owner, it is in the absence of the aforementioned limitation, which does not exist in the Charter of Cabanatuan City (Republic Act No. 526) free to charge such sums as it may deem best, regardless of the reasonableness of the amount fixed, for the prospective lessees are free to enter into the corresponding contract of lease, if they are agreeable to the terms thereof or, otherwise, not enter into such contract." 2. It would appear likewise that an expression of one's personal view both as to the attitude and awareness that must be displayed by inferior tribunals when the "delicate and awesome" power of passing on the validity of a statute would not be inappropriate. "The Constitution is the supreme law, and statutes are written and enforced in submission to its commands."4 It is likewise common place in constitutional law that a party adversely affected could, again to quote from Cardozo, "invoke, when constitutional immunities are threatened, the judgment of the courts."5 Since the power of judicial review flows logically from the judicial function of ascertaining the facts and applying the law and since obviously the Constitution is the highest law before which statutes must bend, then inferior tribunals can, in the discharge of their judicial functions, nullify legislative acts. As a matter of fact, in clear cases, such is not only their power but their duty. In the language of the present Chief Justice: "In fact, whenever the conflicting claims of the parties to a litigation cannot properly be settled without inquiring into the validity of an act of Congress or of either House thereof, the courts have, not only jurisdiction to pass upon said issue but, also, theduty to do so, which cannot be evaded without violating the fundamental law and paving the way to its eventual destruction."6 Nonetheless, the admonition of Cooley, specially addressed to inferior tribunals, must ever be kept in mind. Thus: "It must be evident to any one that the power to declare a legislative enactment void is one which the judge, conscious of the fallibility of the human judgment, will

shrink from exercising in any case where he can conscientiously and with due regard to duty and official oath decline the responsibility."7 There must be a caveat however to the above Cooley pronouncement. Such should not be the case, to paraphrase Freund, when the challenged legislation imperils freedom of the mind and of the person, for given such an undesirable situation, "it is freedom that commands a momentum of respect." Here then, fidelity to the great ideal of liberty enshrined in the Constitution may require the judiciary to take an uncompromising and militant stand. As phrased by us in a recent decision, "if the liberty involved were freedom of the mind or the person, the standard of its validity of governmental acts is much more rigorous and exacting." 8 So much for the appropriate judicial attitude. Now on the question of awareness of the controlling constitutional doctrines. There is nothing I can add to the enlightening discussion of the equal protection aspect as found in the majority opinion. It may not be amiss to recall to mind, however, the language of Justice Laurel in the leading case ofPeople v. Vera,9 to the effect that the basic individual right of equal protection "is a restraint on all the three grand departments of our government and on the subordinate instrumentalities and subdivisions thereof, and on many constitutional powers, like the police power, taxation and eminent domain."10 Nonetheless, no jurist was more careful in avoiding the dire consequences to what the legislative body might have deemed necessary to promote the ends of public welfare if the equal protection guaranty were made to constitute an insurmountable obstacle. A similar sense of realism was invariably displayed by Justice Frankfurter, as is quite evident from the various citations from his pen found in the majority opinion. For him, it would be a misreading of the equal protection clause to ignore actual conditions and settled practices. Not for him the at times academic and sterile approach to constitutional problems of this sort. Thus: "It would be a narrow conception of jurisprudence to confine the notion of 'laws' to what is found written on the statute books, and to disregard the gloss which life has written upon it. Settled state practice cannot supplant constitutional guaranties, but it can establish what is state law. The Equal Protection Clause did not write an empty formalism into the Constitution. Deeply embedded traditional ways of carrying out state policy, such as those of which petitioner complains, are often tougher and truer law than the dead words of the written text." 11 This too, from the same distinguished jurist: "The Constitution does not require things which are different in fact or opinion to be treated in law as though they were the same."12 Now, as to non-delegation. It is to be admitted that the problem of non-delegation of legislative power at times occasions difficulties. Its strict view has been announced by Justice Laurel in the aforecited case of People v. Verain this language. Thus: "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. .... InUnited States v. Ang Tang Ho ..., this court adhered to the foregoing rule; it held an act of the legislature void in so far as it undertook to authorize the Governor-General, in his discretion, to issue a proclamation fixing the price of rice and to make the sale of it in violation of the proclamation a crime."13 Only recently, the present Chief Justice reaffirmed the above view in Pelaez v. Auditor General,14 specially where the delegation deals not with an administrative function but one essentially and eminently legislative in character. What could properly be stigmatized though to quote Justice Cardozo, is delegation of authority that is "unconfined and vagrant, one not canalized within banks which keep it from overflowing."15 This is not the situation as it presents itself to us. What was delegated was power not legislative in character. Justice Laurel himself, in a later case, People v. Rosenthal,16 admitted that within certain limits, there being a need for coping with the more intricate problems of society, the principle of "subordinate legislation" has been accepted, not only in the United States and England, but in practically all modern governments. This view was reiterated by him in a 1940 decision, Pangasinan Transportation Co., Inc. v. Public Service Commission.17 Thus: "Accordingly, with the growing complexity of modern life, the multiplication of the subjects of governmental regulation, and the increased difficulty of administering the laws, there is a constantly growing tendency toward the delegation of greater powers by the legislature, and toward the approval of the practice by the courts."

In the light of the above views of eminent jurists, authoritative in character, of both the equal protection clause and the non-delegation principle, it is apparent how far the lower court departed from the path of constitutional orthodoxy in nullifying Republic Act No. 1635 as amended. Fortunately, the matter has been set right with the reversal of its decision, the opinion of the Court, manifesting its fealty to constitutional law precepts, which have been reiterated time and time again and for the soundest of reasons.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. L-31156 February 27, 1976 PEPSI-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC., plaintiffappellant, vs. MUNICIPALITY OF TANAUAN, LEYTE, THE MUNICIPAL MAYOR, ET AL., defendant appellees. Sabido, Sabido & Associates for appellant. Provincial Fiscal Zoila M. Redona & Assistant Provincial Fiscal Bonifacio R Matol and Assistant Solicitor General Conrado T. Limcaoco & Solicitor Enrique M. Reyes for appellees. MARTIN, J.: This is an appeal from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Leyte in its Civil Case No. 3294, which was certified to Us by the Court of Appeals on October 6, 1969, as involving only pure questions of law, challenging the power of taxation delegated to municipalities under the Local Autonomy Act (Republic Act No. 2264, as amended, June 19, 1959). On February 14, 1963, the plaintiff-appellant, Pepsi-Cola Bottling Company of the Philippines, Inc., commenced a complaint with preliminary injunction before the Court of First Instance of Leyte for that court to declare Section 2 of Republic Act No. 1 2264. otherwise known as the Local Autonomy Act, unconstitutional as an undue delegation of taxing authority as well as to declare Ordinances Nos. 23 and 27, series of 1962, of the municipality of Tanauan, Leyte, null and void. On July 23, 1963, the parties entered into a Stipulation of Facts, the material portions of which state that, first, both Ordinances Nos. 23 and 27 embrace or cover the same subject matter and the production tax rates imposed therein are practically the same, and second, that on January 17, 1963, the acting Municipal Treasurer of Tanauan, Leyte, as per his letter addressed to the Manager of the Pepsi-Cola Bottling Plant in said municipality, sought to enforce compliance by the latter of the provisions of said Ordinance No. 27, series of 1962. Municipal Ordinance No. 23, of Tanauan, Leyte, which was approved on September 25, 1962, levies and collects "from soft drinks producers and manufacturers a tai of 2 one-sixteenth (1/16) of a centavo for every bottle of soft drink corked." For the purpose of computing the taxes due, the person, firm, company or corporation producing soft drinks shall submit to the Municipal Treasurer a monthly report, of the 3 total number of bottles produced and corked during the month. On the other hand, Municipal Ordinance No. 27, which was approved on October 28, 1962, levies and collects "on soft drinks produced or manufactured within the territorial jurisdiction of this municipality a tax of ONE CENTAVO (P0.01) on each 4 gallon (128 fluid ounces, U.S.) of volume capacity." For the purpose of computing the taxes due, the person, fun company, partnership, corporation or plant producing soft drinks shall submit to the Municipal Treasurer a monthly report of the total 5 number of gallons produced or manufactured during the month. The tax imposed in both Ordinances Nos. 23 and 27 is denominated as "municipal production tax.' On October 7, 1963, the Court of First Instance of Leyte rendered judgment "dismissing the complaint and upholding the constitutionality of [Section 2, Republic Act No. 2264] declaring Ordinance Nos. 23 and 27 legal and constitutional; ordering

the plaintiff to pay the taxes due under the oft the said Ordinances; and to pay the costs." From this judgment, the plaintiff Pepsi-Cola Bottling Company appealed to the Court of Appeals, which, in turn, elevated the case to Us pursuant to Section 31 of the Judiciary Act of 1948, as amended. There are three capital questions raised in this appeal: 1. Is Section 2, Republic Act No. 2264 an undue delegation of power, confiscatory and oppressive? 2. Do Ordinances Nos. 23 and 27 constitute double taxation and impose percentage or specific taxes? 3. Are Ordinances Nos. 23 and 27 unjust and unfair? 1. The power of taxation is an essential and inherent attribute of sovereignty, belonging as a matter of right to every independent government, without being 6 expressly conferred by the people. It is a power that is purely legislative and which the central legislative body cannot delegate either to the executive or judicial department 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 7 governments in respect of matters of local concern. This is sanctioned by 8 immemorial practice. By necessary implication, the legislative power to create political corporations for purposes of local self-government carries with it the power to 9 confer on such local governmental agencies the power to tax. Under the New Constitution, local governments are granted the autonomous authority to create their own sources of revenue and to levy taxes. Section 5, Article XI provides: "Each local government unit shall have the power to create its sources of revenue and to levy taxes, subject to such limitations as may be provided by law." Withal, it cannot be said that Section 2 of Republic Act No. 2264 emanated from beyond the sphere of the legislative power to enact and vest in local governments the power of local taxation. The plenary nature of the taxing power thus delegated, contrary to plaintiff-appellant's pretense, would not suffice to invalidate the said law as confiscatory and oppressive. In delegating the authority, the State is not limited 6 the exact measure of that which is exercised by itself. When it is said that the taxing power may be delegated to municipalities and the like, it is meant that there may be delegated such measure of power to impose and collect taxes as the legislature may deem expedient. Thus, municipalities may be permitted to tax subjects which for reasons of public policy the 10 State has not deemed wise to tax for more general purposes. This is not to say though that the constitutional injunction against deprivation of property without due process of law may be passed over under the guise of the taxing power, except when the taking of the property is in the lawful exercise of the taxing power, as when (1) the tax is for a public purpose; (2) the rule on uniformity of taxation is observed; (3) either the person or property taxed is within the jurisdiction of the government levying the tax; and (4) in the assessment and collection of certain kinds of taxes notice and 11 opportunity for hearing are provided. Due process is usually violated where the tax imposed is for a private as distinguished from a public purpose; a tax is imposed on property outside the State, i.e., extraterritorial taxation; and arbitrary or oppressive methods are used in assessing and collecting taxes. But, a tax does not violate the due process clause, as applied to a particular taxpayer, although the purpose of the tax will result in an injury rather than a benefit to such taxpayer. Due process does not require that the property subject to the tax or the amount of tax to be raised should be determined by judicial inquiry, and a notice and hearing as to the amount of the tax and the manner in which it shall be apportioned are generally not necessary to due 12 process of law.

There is no validity to the assertion that the delegated authority can be declared unconstitutional on the theory of double taxation. It must be observed that the delegating authority specifies the limitations and enumerates the taxes over which 13 local taxation may not be exercised. The reason is that the State has exclusively reserved the same for its own prerogative. Moreover, double taxation, in general, is not forbidden by our fundamental law, since We have not adopted as part thereof the injunction against double taxation found in the Constitution of the United States and 14 some states of the Union. Double taxation becomes obnoxious only where the 15 taxpayer is taxed twice for the benefit of the same governmental entity or by the 16 same jurisdiction for the same purpose, but not in a case where one tax is imposed 17 by the State and the other by the city or municipality. 2. The plaintiff-appellant submits that Ordinance No. 23 and 27 constitute double taxation, because these two ordinances cover the same subject matter and impose practically the same tax rate. The thesis proceeds from its assumption that both ordinances are valid and legally enforceable. This is not so. As earlier quoted, Ordinance No. 23, which was approved on September 25, 1962, levies or collects from soft drinks producers or manufacturers a tax of one-sixteen (1/16) of a centavo for .every bottle corked, irrespective of the volume contents of the bottle used. When it was discovered that the producer or manufacturer could increase the volume contents of the bottle and still pay the same tax rate, the Municipality of Tanauan enacted Ordinance No. 27, approved on October 28, 1962, imposing a tax of one centavo (P0.01) on each gallon (128 fluid ounces, U.S.) of volume capacity. The difference between the two ordinances clearly lies in the tax rate of the soft drinks produced: in Ordinance No. 23, it was 1/16 of a centavo for every bottle corked; in Ordinance No. 27, it is one centavo (P0.01) on each gallon (128 fluid ounces, U.S.) of volume capacity. The intention of the Municipal Council of Tanauan in enacting Ordinance No. 27 is thus clear: it was intended as a plain substitute for the prior Ordinance No. 23, and operates as a repeal of the latter, even without words to that 18 effect. Plaintiff-appellant in its brief admitted that defendants-appellees are only seeking to enforce Ordinance No. 27, series of 1962. Even the stipulation of facts confirms the fact that the Acting Municipal Treasurer of Tanauan, Leyte sought t6 compel compliance by the plaintiff-appellant of the provisions of said Ordinance No. 27, series of 1962. The aforementioned admission shows that only Ordinance No. 27, series of 1962 is being enforced by defendants-appellees. Even the Provincial Fiscal, counsel for defendants-appellees admits in his brief "that Section 7 of Ordinance No. 27, series of 1962 clearly repeals Ordinance No. 23 as the provisions of the latter are inconsistent with the provisions of the former." That brings Us to the question of whether the remaining Ordinance No. 27 imposes a percentage or a specific tax. Undoubtedly, the taxing authority conferred on local governments under Section 2, Republic Act No. 2264, is broad enough as to extend to almost "everything, accepting those which are mentioned therein." As long as the text levied under the authority of a city or municipal ordinance is not within the exceptions and limitations in the law, the same comes within the ambit of the general rule, pursuant to the rules of exclucion attehus and exceptio firmat regulum in cabisus 19 non excepti The limitation applies, particularly, to the prohibition against municipalities and municipal districts to impose "any percentage tax or other taxes in any form based thereon nor impose taxes on articles subject to specific tax except gasoline, under the provisions of the National Internal Revenue Code." For purposes of this particular limitation, a municipal ordinance which prescribes a set ratio between the amount of the tax and the volume of sale of the taxpayer imposes a sales tax and is null and void for being outside the power of the municipality to 20 enact. But, the imposition of "a tax of one centavo (P0.01) on each gallon (128 fluid

ounces, U.S.) of volume capacity" on all soft drinks produced or manufactured under Ordinance No. 27 does not partake of the nature of a percentage tax on sales, or other taxes in any form based thereon. The tax is levied on the produce (whether sold or not) and not on the sales. The volume capacity of the taxpayer's production of soft drinks is considered solely for purposes of determining the tax rate on the products, 21 but there is not set ratio between the volume of sales and the amount of the tax. Nor can the tax levied be treated as a specific tax. Specific taxes are those imposed on specified articles, such as distilled spirits, wines, fermented liquors, products of tobacco other than cigars and cigarettes, matches firecrackers, manufactured oils and other fuels, coal, bunker fuel oil, diesel fuel oil, cinematographic films, playing cards, 22 saccharine, opium and other habit-forming drugs. Soft drink is not one of those specified. 3. The tax of one (P0.01) on each gallon (128 fluid ounces, U.S.) of volume capacity on all softdrinks, produced or manufactured, or an equivalent of 1- centavos per 23 case, cannot be considered unjust and unfair. 24 an increase in the tax alone would not support the claim that the tax is oppressive, unjust and confiscatory. Municipal corporations are allowed much discretion in determining the reates of imposable taxes. 25 This is in line with the constutional policy of according the widest possible autonomy to local governments in matters of local taxation, an aspect that is given expression in the Local Tax Code (PD No. 231, July 1, 1973). 26 Unless the amount is so excessive as to be prohibitive, courts will go slow in writing off an ordinance as unreasonable. 27 Reluctance should not deter compliance with an ordinance such as Ordinance No. 27 if the purpose of the law to further strengthen local autonomy were to be realized. 28 Finally, the municipal license tax of P1,000.00 per corking machine with five but not more than ten crowners or P2,000.00 with ten but not more than twenty crowners imposed on manufacturers, producers, importers and dealers of soft drinks and/or mineral waters under Ordinance No. 54, series of 1964, as amended by Ordinance 29 No. 41, series of 1968, of defendant Municipality, appears not to affect the resolution of the validity of Ordinance No. 27. Municipalities are empowered to impose, not only municipal license taxes upon persons engaged in any business or occupation but also to levy for public purposes, just and uniform taxes. The ordinance in question (Ordinance No. 27) comes within the second power of a municipality. ACCORDINGLY, the constitutionality of Section 2 of Republic Act No. 2264, otherwise known as the Local Autonomy Act, as amended, is hereby upheld and Municipal Ordinance No. 27 of the Municipality of Tanauan, Leyte, series of 1962, repealing Municipal Ordinance No. 23, same series, is hereby declared of valid and legal effect. Costs against petitioner-appellant. SO ORDERED.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. L-22814 August 28, 1968 PEPSI-COLA BOTTLING CO. OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC., plaintiffappellant, vs. CITY OF BUTUAN, MEMBERS OF THE MUNICIPAL BOARD, THE CITY MAYOR and THE CITY TREASURER, all of the CITY OF BUTUAN, defendants-appellees. Sabido, Sabido and Associates for plaintiff-appellant. The City Attorney of Butuan City for defendants-appellees. CONCEPCION, C.J.: Direct appeal to this Court, from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Agusan, dismissing plaintiff's complaint, with costs. Plaintiff, Pepsi-Cola Bottling Company of the Philippines, is a domestic corporation with offices and principal place of business in Quezon City. The defendants are the City of Butuan, its City Mayor, the members of its municipal board and its City Treasurer. Plaintiff seeks to recover the sums paid by it to the City of Butuan hereinafter referred to as the City and collected by the latter, pursuant to its Municipal Ordinance No. 110, as amended by Municipal Ordinance No. 122, both series of 1960, which plaintiff assails as null and void, and to prevent the enforcement thereof. Both parties submitted the case for decision in the lower court upon a stipulation to the effect: 1. That plaintiff's warehouse in the City of Butuan serves as a storage for its products the "Pepsi-Cola" soft drinks for sale to customers in the City of Butuan and all the municipalities in the Province of Agusan. These "Pepsi-Cola Cola" soft drinks are bottled in Cebu City and shipped to the Butuan City warehouse of plaintiff for distribution and sale in the City of Butuan and all municipalities of Agusan. . 2. That on August 16, 1960, the City of Butuan enacted Ordinance No. 110 which was subsequently amended by Ordinance No. 122 and effective November 28, 1960. A copy of Ordinance No. 110, Series of 1960 and Ordinance No. 122 are incorporated herein as Exhibits "A" and "B", respectively. 3. That Ordinance No. 110 as amended, imposes a tax on any person, association, etc., of P0.10 per case of 24 bottles of PepsiCola and the plaintiff paid under protest the amount of P4,926.63 from August 16 to December 31, 1960 and the amount of P9,250.40 from January 1 to July 30, 1961. 4. That the plaintiff filed the foregoing complaint for the recovery of the total amount of P14,177.03 paid under protest and those that if may later on pay until the termination of this case on the ground that

Ordinance No. 110 as amended of the City of Butuan is illegal, that the tax imposed is excessive and that it is unconstitutional. 5. That pursuant to Ordinance No. 110 as amended, the City Treasurer of Butuan City, has prepared a form to be accomplished by the plaintiff for the computation of the tax. A copy of the form is enclosed herewith as Exhibit "C". 6. That the Profit and Loss Statement of the plaintiff for the period from January 1, 1961 to July 30, 1961 of its warehouse in Butuan City is incorporated herein as Exhibits "D" to "D-1" to "D-5". In this Profit and Loss Statement, the defendants claim that the plaintiff is not entitled to a depreciation of P3,052.63 but only P1,202.55 in which case the profit of plaintiff will be increased from P1,254.44 to P3,104.52. The plaintiff differs only on the claim of depreciation which the company claims to be P3,052.62. This is in accordance with the findings of the representative of the undersigned City Attorney who verified the records of the plaintiff. 7. That beginning November 21, 1960, the price of Pepsi-Cola per case of 24 bottles was increased to P1.92 which price is uniform throughout the Philippines. Said increase was made due to the increase in the production cost of its manufacture. 8. That the parties reserve the right to submit arguments on the constitutionality and illegality of Ordinance No. 110, as amended of the City of Butuan in their respective memoranda. xxx xxx x x x1wph1.t Section 1 of said Ordinance No. 110, as amended, states what products are "liquors", within the purview thereof. Section 2 provides for the payment by "any agent and/or consignee" of any dealer "engaged in selling liquors, imported or local, in the City," of taxes at specified rates. Section 3 prescribes a tax of P0.10 per case of 24 bottles of the soft drinks and carbonated beverages therein named, and "all other soft drinks or carbonated drinks." Section 3-A, defines the meaning of the term "consignee or agent" for purposes of the ordinance. Section 4 provides that said taxes "shall be paid at the end of every calendar month." Pursuant to Section 5, the taxes "shall be based and computed from the cargo manifest or bill of lading or any other record showing the number of cases of soft drinks, liquors or all other soft drinks or carbonated drinks received within the month." Sections 6, 7 and 8 specify the surcharge to be added for failure to pay the taxes within the period prescribed and the penalties imposable for "deliberate and willful refusal to pay the tax mentioned in Sections 2 and 3" or for failure "to furnish the office of the City Treasurer a copy of the bill of lading or cargo manifest or record of soft drinks, liquors or carbonated drinks for sale in the City." Section 9 makes the ordinance applicable to soft drinks, liquors or carbonated drinks "received outside" but "sold within" the City. Section 10 of the ordinance provides that the revenue derived therefrom "shall be alloted as follows: 40% for Roads and Bridges Fund; 40% for the General Fund and 20% for the School Fund."

Plaintiff maintains that the disputed ordinance is null and void because: (1) it partakes of the nature of an import tax; (2) it amounts to double taxation; (3) it is excessive, oppressive and confiscatory; (4) it is highly unjust and discriminatory; and (5) section 2 of Republic Act No. 2264, upon the authority of which it was enacted, is an unconstitutional delegation of legislative powers. The second and last objections are manifestly devoid of merit. Indeed independently of whether or not the tax in question, when considered in relation to the sales tax prescribed by Acts of Congress, amounts to double taxation, on which we need not and do not express any opinion - double taxation, in general, is not forbidden by our fundamental law. We have not adopted, as part thereof, the injunction against double taxation found in the 1 Constitution of the United States and of some States of the Union. Then, again, the general principle against delegation of legislative powers, in 2 consequence of the theory of separation of powers is subject to one wellestablished exception, namely: legislative powers may be delegated to local 3 governments to which said theory does not apply in respect of matters of local concern. The third objection is, likewise, untenable. The tax of "P0.10 per case of 24 bottles," of soft drinks or carbonated drinks in the production and sale of which plaintiff is engaged or less than P0.0042 per bottle, is manifestly too small to be excessive, oppressive, or confiscatory. The first and the fourth objections merit, however, serious consideration. In this connection, it is noteworthy that the tax prescribed in section 3 of Ordinance No. 110, as originally approved, was imposed upon dealers "engaged in selling" soft drinks or carbonated drinks. Thus, it would seem that the intent was then to levy a tax upon the sale of said merchandise. As amended by Ordinance No. 122, the tax is, however, imposed only upon "any agent and/or consignee of any person, association, partnership, company or corporation engaged in selling ... soft drinks or carbonated drinks." And, pursuant to section 3-A, which was inserted by said Ordinance No. 122: ... Definition of the Term Consignee or Agent. For purposes of this Ordinance, a consignee of agent shall mean any person, association, partnership, company or corporation who acts in the place of another by authority from him or one entrusted with the business of another or to whom is consigned or shipped no less than 1,000 cases of hard liquors or soft drinks every month for resale, either retail or wholesale. As a consequence, merchants engaged in the sale of soft drink or carbonated drinks, are not subject to the tax,unless they are agents and/or consignees of another dealer, who, in the very nature of things, must be one engaged in business outside the City. Besides, the tax would not be applicable to such agent and/or consignee, if less than 1,000 cases of soft drinks are consigned or shipped to him every month. When we consider, also, that the tax "shall be based and computed from the cargo

manifest or bill of lading ... showing the number of cases" not sold but "received" by the taxpayer, the intention to limit the application of the ordinance to soft drinks and carbonated drinks brought into the City from outside thereof becomes apparent. Viewed from this angle, the tax partakes of the nature of an import duty, which is beyond defendant's authority to 4 impose by express provision of law. Even however, if the burden in question were regarded as a tax on the sale of said beverages, it would still be invalid, as discriminatory, and hence, violative of the uniformity required by the Constitution and the law therefor, since only sales by "agents or consignees" of outside dealers would be subject to the tax. Sales by local dealers, not acting for or on behalf of other merchants, regardless of the volume of their sales, and even if the same exceeded those made by said agents or consignees of producers or merchants established outside the City of Butuan, would be exempt from the disputed tax. It is true that the uniformity essential to the valid exercise of the power of taxation does not require identity or equality under all circumstances, or 5 negate the authority to classify the objects of taxation. The classification made in the exercise of this authority, to be valid, must, however, be 6 reasonable and this requirement is not deemed satisfied unless: (1) it is based upon substantial distinctions which make real differences; (2) these are germane to the purpose of the legislation or ordinance; (3) the classification applies, not only to present conditions, but, also, to future conditions substantially identical to those of the present; and (4) the 7 classification applies equally all those who belong to the same class. 8 These conditions are not fully met by the ordinance in question. Indeed, if its purpose were merely to levy a burden upon the sale of soft drinks or carbonated beverages, there is no reason why sales thereof by sealers other than agents or consignees of producers or merchants established outside the City of Butuan should be exempt from the tax. WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby reversed, and another one shall be entered annulling Ordinance No. 110, as amended by Ordinance No. 122, and sentencing the City of Butuan to refund to plaintiff herein the amounts collected from and paid under protest by the latter, with interest thereon at the legal rate from the date of the promulgation of this decision, in addition to the costs, and defendants herein are, accordingly, restrained and prohibited permanently from enforcing said Ordinance, as amended. It is so ordered.

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 127316. October 12, 2000] LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT AUTHORITY, petitioner, vs. CENTRAL BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS OF MANILA and the CITY ASSESSOR OF MANILA, respondents. DECISION PANGANIBAN, J.: The Light Rail Transit Authority and the Metro Transit Organization function as service-oriented business entities, which provide valuable transportation facilities to the paying public. In the absence, however, of any express grant of exemption in their favor, they are subject to the payment of real property taxes.
The Case

In the Petition for Review before us, the Light Rail Transit Authority [1] (LRTA) challenges the November 15, 1996 Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-GR SP No. 38137, which disposed as follows: "WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appealed decision (dated October 15, 1994) of the Central Board of Assessment Appeals is hereby AFFIRMED, [2] with costs against the petitioner." The affirmed ruling of the Central Board of Assessment Appeals (CBAA) upheld the June 26, 1992 Resolution of the Board of Assessment Appeals of Manila, which had declared petitioner's carriageways and passenger terminals as improvements subject to real property taxes.
The Facts

propert[y] under the Real Property Tax Code, to commence with the year 1985; "5. That [petitioner] paid its real property taxes on all its real property holdings, except the carriageways and passenger terminal stations including the land where it is constructed on the ground that the same are not real properties under the Real Property Tax Code, and if the same are real propert[y], these x x x are for public use/purpose, therefore, exempt from realty taxation, which claim was denied by the Respondent-Appellee City Assessor of Manila; and "6. x x x [Petitioner], aggrieved by the action of the Respondent-Appellee City Assessor, filed an appeal with the Local Board of Assessment Appeals of Manila x x x. Appellee, herein, after due hearing, in its resolution dated June 26, 1992, denied [petitioner's] appeal, and declared that carriageways and passenger terminal stations are improvements, therefore, are real propert[y] under the Code, and not exempt from the payment of real property tax. "A motion for reconsideration filed by [petitioner] was likewise denied."
The CA Ruling

The undisputed facts are quoted by the Court of Appeals (CA) from the [3] CBAA ruling, as follows: "1. The LRTA is a government-owned and controlled corporation created and organized under Executive Order No. 603, dated July 12, 1980 'x x x primarily responsible for the construction, operation, maintenance and/or lease of light rail transit system in the Philippines, giving due regard to the [reasonable requirements] of the public transportation of the country' (LRTA vs. The Hon. Commission on Audit, GR No. No. 88365); "2. x x x [B]y reason of x x x Executive Order 603, LRTA acquired real properties x x x constructed structural improvements, such as buildings, carriageways, passenger terminal stations, and installed various kinds of machinery and equipment and facilities for the purpose of its operations; "3. x x x [F]or x x x an effective maintenance, operation and management, it entered into a Contract of Management with the Meralco Transit Organization (METRO) in which the latter undertook to manage, operate and maintain the Light Rail Transit System owned by the LRTA subject to the specific stipulations contained in said agreement, including payments of a management fee and real property taxes (Add'l Exhibit "I", Records) "4. That it commenced its operations in 1984, and that sometime that year, Respondent-Appellee City Assessor of Manila assessed the real properties of [petitioner], consisting of lands, buildings, carriageways and passenger terminal stations, machinery and equipment which he considered real

The Court of Appeals held that petitioner's carriageways and passenger terminal stations constituted real property or improvements thereon and, as such, were taxable under the Real Property Tax Code. The appellate court emphasized that such pieces of property did not fall under any of the exemptions listed in Section 40 of the aforementioned law. The reason was that they were not owned by the government or any government-owned corporation which, as such, was exempt from the payment of real property taxes. True, the government owned the real property upon which the carriageways and terminal stations were built. However, they were still taxable, because beneficial use had been transferred to petitioner, a taxable entity. The CA debunked the argument of petitioner that carriageways and terminals were intended for public use. The former agreed, instead, with the CBAA. The CBAA had concluded that since petitioner was not engaged in purely governmental or public service, the latter's endeavors were proprietary. Indeed, petitioner was deemed as a profit-oriented endeavor, serving as it did, only the paying public. [4] Hence, this Petition.
The Issues

In its Memorandum, petitioner urges the Court to resolve the following matters: "I The Honorable Court of Appeals erred in not holding that the carriageways and terminal stations of petitioner are not improvements for purposes of the Real Property Tax Code. "II The Honorable Court of Appeals erred in not holding that being attached to national roads owned by the national government, subject

[5]

carriageways and terminal stations should be considered property of the national government. "III The Honorable Court of Appeals erred in not holding that payment of charges or fares in the operation of the light rail transit system does not alter the nature of the subject carriageways and terminal stations as devoted for public use. "IV The Honorable Court of Appeals erred in failing to consider the view advanced by the Department of Finance, which takes charge of the overall collection of taxes, that subject carriageways and terminal stations are not subject to realty taxes. "V The Honorable Court of Appeals erred in failing to consider that payment of the realty taxes assessed is not warranted and should the legality of the questioned assessment be upheld, the amount of the realty taxes assessed would far exceed the annual earnings of petitioner, a government corporation." The foregoing all point to one main issue: whether petitioner's carriageways and passenger terminal stations are subject to real property taxes.
The Court's Ruling Main

The Petition has no merit.

[6]

Issue:

May Real Property Taxes be Assessed and Collected?

The Real Property Tax Code, the law in force at the time of the assailed assessment in 1984, mandated that "there shall be levied, assessed and collected in all provinces, cities and municipalities an annual ad valorem tax on real property such as lands, buildings, machinery and other improvements affixed or attached to real property not hereinafter specifically [7] exempted." Petitioner does not dispute that its subject carriageways and stations may be considered real property under Article 415 of the Civil Code. However, it resolutely argues that the same are improvements, not of its properties, but of the government-owned national roads to which they are immovably attached. They are thus not taxable as improvements under the Real Property Tax Code. In essence, it contends that to impose a tax on the carriageways and terminal stations would be to impose taxes on public roads. The argument does not persuade. We quote with approval the solicitor general's astute comment on this matter: "There is no point in clarifying the concept of industrial accession to determine the nature of the property when what is fundamentally important for purposes of tax classification is to determine the character of the property subject [to] tax. The character of tax as a property tax must be determined by its incidents, and form the natural and legal effect thereof. It is irrelevant to

associate the carriageways and/or the passenger terminals as accessory improvements when the view of taxability is focused on the character of the property. The latter situation is not a novel issue as it has already been resolved by this Honorable Court in the case of City of Manila vs. IAC (GR No. 71159, November 15, 1989) wherein it was held: 'The New Civil Code divides the properties into property for public and patrimonial property (Art. 423), and further enumerates the property for public use as provincial road, city streets, municipal streets, squares, fountains, public waters, public works for public service paid for by said [provinces], cities or municipalities; all other property is patrimonial without prejudice to provisions of special laws. (Art. 424, Province of Zamboanga v. City of Zamboanga, 22 SCRA 1334 [1968]) xxx '...while the following are corporate or proprietary property in character, viz: 'municipal water works, slaughter houses, markets, stables, bathing establishments, wharves, ferries and fisheries.' Maintenance of parks, golf courses, cemeteries and airports, among others, are also recognized as municipal or city activities of a proprietary character (Dept. of Treasury v. City of Evansville; 60 NE 2nd 952)' "The foregoing enumeration in law does not specify or include carriageway or passenger terminals as inclusive of properties strictly for public use to exempt petitioner's properties from taxes. Precisely, the properties of petitioner are not exclusively considered as public roads being improvements placed upon the public road, and this separability nature of the structure in itself physically distinguishes it from a public road. Considering further that carriageways or passenger terminals are elevated structures which are not freely accessible to the public, viz-a-viz roads which are public improvements openly utilized by the public, the former are entirely different from the latter. "The character of petitioner's property, be it an improvements as otherwise distinguished by petitioner, needs no further classification when the law already classified it as patrimonial property that can be subject to tax. This is in line with the old ruling that if the public works is not for such free public service, it is not within the purview of the first paragraph of Art. 424 if the [8] New Civil Code." Though the creation of the LRTA was impelled by public service -- to provide mass transportation to alleviate the traffic and transportation situation in Metro Manila -- its operation undeniably partakes of ordinary business. Petitioner is clothed with corporate status and corporate powers in [9] the furtherance of its proprietary objectives. Indeed, it operates much like any private corporation engaged in the mass transport industry. Given that it is engaged in a service-oriented commercial endeavor, its carriageways and terminal stations are patrimonial property subject to tax, notwithstanding its claim of being a government-owned or controlled corporation. True, petitioner's carriageways and terminal stations are anchored, at certain points, on public roads. However, it must be emphasized that these structures do not form part of such roads, since the former have been

constructed over the latter in such a way that the flow of vehicular traffic would not be impeded. These carriageways and terminal stations serve a function different from that of the public roads. The former are part and parcel of the light rail transit (LRT) system which, unlike the latter, are not open to use by the general public. The carriageways are accessible only to the LRT trains, while the terminal stations have been built for the convenience of LRTA itself and its customers who pay the required fare.
Basis of Assessment Is Actual Use of Real Property

Under the Real Property Tax Code, real property is classified for [10] assessment purposes on the basis of actual use, which is defined as "the purpose for which the property is principally or predominantly utilized by the [11] person in possession of the property." Petitioner argues that it merely operates and maintains the LRT system, and that the actual users of the carriageways and terminal stations are the commuting public. It adds that the public-use character of the LRT is not negated by the fact that revenue is obtained from the latter's operations. We do not agree. Unlike public roads which are open for use by everyone, the LRT is accessible only to those who pay the required fare. It is thus apparent that petitioner does not exist solely for public service, and that the LRT carriageways and terminal stations are not exclusively for public use. Although petitioner is a public utility, it is nonetheless profit-earning. It actually uses those carriageways and terminal stations in its public utility business and earns money therefrom.
Petitioner Not Exempt from Payment of Real Property Taxes

fees and other charges and restrictions, the provisions of existing laws to the contrary notwithstanding." Even granting that the national government indeed owns the carriageways and terminal stations, the exemption would not apply because their beneficial use has been granted to petitioner, a taxable entity. Taxation is the rule and exemption is the exception. Any claim for tax [13] exemption is strictly construed against the claimant. LRTA has not shown its eligibility for exemption; hence, it is subject to the tax. WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby DENIED and the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals AFFIRMED. Costs against the petitioner. SO ORDERED.

In any event, there is another legal justification for upholding the assailed CA Decision. Under the Real Property Tax Code, real property "owned by the Republic of the Philippines or any of its political subdivisions and any government-owned or controlled corporation so exempt by its charter, provided, however, that this exemption shall not apply to real property of the abovenamed entities the beneficial use of which has been [12] granted, for consideration or otherwise, to a taxable person." Executive Order No. 603, the charter of petitioner, does not provide for any real estate tax exemption in its favor. Its exemption is limited to direct and indirect taxes, duties or fees in connection with the importation of equipment not locally available, as the following provision shows: "ARTICLE 4 TAX AND DUTY EXEMPTIONS Sec. 8. Equipment, Machineries, Spare Parts and Other Accessories and Materials. - The importation of equipment, machineries, spare parts, accessories and other materials, including supplies and services, used directly in the operations of the Light Rails Transit System, not obtainable locally on favorable terms, out of any funds of the authority including, as stated in Section 7 above, proceeds from foreign loans credits or indebtedness, shall likewise be exempted from all direct and indirect taxes, customs duties, fees, imposts, tariff duties, compensating taxes, wharfage

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. DECISION 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 it raises issues dwelling on the scope of the taxing power of local government units and the limits of tax exemption privileges of 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, x x x and such other airports as may be established in the Province of Cebu x x x (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: 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 x x x. 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 ofP2,229,078.79. Petitioner objected to such demand for payment as baseless and unjustified, claiming in its favor the aforecited Section 14 of RA 6958 which exempts 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: Section 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 barangays shall not extend to the levy of the following: a) x x x xxx o) Taxes, fees or charges of any kind on the National Government, its agencies and instrumentalities, and local government units. (underscoring supplied) Respondent City refused to cancel and set aside petitioners 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 Government Code that took effect on January 1, 1992: Section 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. (underscoring supplied) xxx Section 234. Exemptions from Real Property Taxes. x x x (a) xxx xxx (e) xxx 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 by the very nature of its powers and functions. Respondent City, however, asserted that MCIAA 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, decrees [sic], executive orders, proclamations and administrative regulations, or part of 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. This Courts 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. Toward 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. x x x[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 governmentowned 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 C ode of 1991 (hereinafterLGC) because Section 133 thereof specifically states that the `taxing powers of local government units shall not extend to the levy of taxes or 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 charter, PD 1869. All of its shares of stock are owned by the National Government. . . . PAGCOR has a dual role, to operate and regulate gambling casinos. The latter role 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. 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 governments. Justice Holmes, speaking for the Supreme Court, made reference 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 creatures 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 tool for regulation (U.S. v.Sanchez, 340 US 42). The power to tax which was called by Justice Marshall as the power to destroy (Mc Culloch v. Maryland, supra) cannot be allowed to defeat an instrumentality or creation of the very entity which has the inherent power to wield it. (underscoring 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 government corporation performing governmental functions as against one performing merely proprietary ones such that the exemption privilege withdrawn under the said Code would apply to all government 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 powers of the local government units. In its comment, respondent City of Cebu alleges that as a local 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

petitioners 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 Court to apply by analogy its ruling that the Manila International Airport Authority is a government-owned corporation,[12] and to reject the application of Basco because it was promulgated . . . before the enactment and the signing 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 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 rights of the people and takes from them a portion of their 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 taxpayer and liberally in favor of the taxing authority.[18] A claim of exemption from tax payments 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 exemptions 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 vessel 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;

Taxes, fees and charges and other impositions upon goods carried into or out of, or passing through, the territorial jurisdictions of local government units in the guise of charges for wharfage, 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 enterprises certified to by the Board of Investments 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 contractors and persons engaged in the transportation of passengers or freight by hire and common carriers by air, land or water, except as provided in this Code; (k) Taxes on premiums paid by way of 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 thereof, except, tricycles; (m) Taxes, fees, or other charges on Philippine products actually exported, except as otherwise provided herein; (n) Taxes, fees, or charges, on Countryside and Barangay Business Enterprises 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 Cooperatives Code of the Philippines respectively; 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 to 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 light of the above enumeration. The term fees means charges fixed by law or ordinance for the regulation or inspection of business or activity,[24] while charges are pecuniary liabilities such as rents or fees against persons 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 an annual ad valorem tax on real property such as land, building, machinery, and other improvements not hereafter specifically exempted. Section 234 of the 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 consideration or otherwise, to a taxable person; (b) Charitable institutions, churches, parsonages or convents appurtenant thereto, mosques, nonprofit or religious cemeteries and all lands, buildings 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 exemption from payment of real property tax previously granted to, or presently enjoyed by, all persons, whether natural or juridical, including all governmentowned or controlled corporations are hereby withdrawn upon the effectivity of this 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. (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 directly and exclusively used for religious, charitable or educational purposes; (ii) all machineries and equipment actually, directly and exclusively used by local water districts or by governmentowned 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 institutions, 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 speak 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 or provisos in these sections, 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; (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 are explicitly indicated in the next. For instance, in item (a) which excepts income taxes when levied on banks and other financial institutions; item (d) which excepts wharfage on wharves constructed and maintained by the local government unit concerned; and item (1) which excepts taxes, fees and charges for the registration and issuance of licenses or permits for the driving of tricycles. It may also be

(e)

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 provided in this Code in item (j). These clauses would be obviously unnecessary or mere surplusages 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 Sections 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 on the National Government, its agencies and instrumentalities, and local government units; however, pursuant to Section 232, provinces, cities, and 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 use 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 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 insofar as real property taxes are concerned by limiting the retention only to those enumerated therein; all others not included in the enumeration lost the privilege upon the effectivity of the LGC. Moreover, even as to real property 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 a taxable person for consideration or otherwise. Since the last paragraph of Section 234 unequivocally withdrew, upon the effectivity of the LGC, exemptions from payment of real property taxes granted to natural or juridical persons, including 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 Sections 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. It 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 none exists. In light of the petitioners theory that it is an instrumentality of the Government, it could only be within the first item of the first paragraph of the section by expanding the scope of the term Republic of the Philippines to embrace its instrumentalities and agencies. For expediency, we quote: (a) real property owned by the Republic 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 petitioners 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 subdivisions in Section 234(a).

The terms Republic of the Philippines and National Government are not interchangeable. The former is broader and synonymous with Government of the Republic of the Philippines which the Administrative Code of 1987 defines as the corporate governmental entity through which the functions of government are exercised throughout the Philippines, including, save as the contrary appears from the context, the various arms through which political authority is made affective in the Philippines, whether pertaining to the autonomous regions, the provincial, city, municipal or barangay subdivisions or other forms of local government.[27] These autonomous regions, provincial, city, municipal or barangay subdivisions are the political subdivisions.[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, 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. 464, otherwise known as The Real Property Tax Code, which reads: SEC. 40. Exemptions 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 corporation so exempt by its charter: Provided, however, That this exemption shall not apply to real property of the abovementioned entities the beneficial use of which has been granted, for consideration or otherwise, to a taxable person. Note that as 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, especially in light of the general provision on withdrawal of tax exemption privileges in Section 193 and the special provision on withdrawal of exemption from payment of real 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 these entities to share in the requirements of 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 petitioners Charter provides:

Sec. 15. Transfer of Existing Facilities and Intangible Assets . All existing public airport facilities, runways, lands, buildings and other properties, movable or 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, aerodrome 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 petitioners 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 foregoing 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.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. 155650 July 20, 2006 MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, CITY OF PARAAQUE, CITY MAYOR OF PARAAQUE, SANGGUNIANG PANGLUNGSOD NG PARAAQUE, CITY ASSESSOR OF PARAAQUE, and CITY TREASURER OF PARAAQUE, respondents. DECISION CARPIO, J.: The Antecedents Petitioner Manila International Airport Authority (MIAA) operates the Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA) Complex in Paraaque City under Executive Order No. 903, otherwise known as the Revised Charter of the Manila International Airport Authority ("MIAA Charter"). Executive Order No. 903 was issued on 21 July 1983 by then President Ferdinand E. Marcos. Subsequently, Executive Order Nos. 9091 and 2982 amended the MIAA Charter. As operator of the international airport, MIAA administers the land, improvements and equipment within the NAIA Complex. The MIAA Charter transferred to MIAA approximately 600 hectares of land,3 including the runways and buildings ("Airport Lands and Buildings") then under the Bureau of Air Transportation.4 The MIAA Charter further provides that no portion of the land transferred to MIAA shall be disposed of through sale or any other mode unless specifically approved by the President of the Philippines.5 On 21 March 1997, the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC) issued Opinion No. 061. The OGCC opined that the Local Government Code of 1991 withdrew the exemption from real estate tax granted to MIAA under Section 21 of the MIAA Charter. Thus, MIAA negotiated with respondent City of Paraaque to pay the real estate tax imposed by the City. MIAA then paid some of the real estate tax already due. On 28 June 2001, MIAA received Final Notices of Real Estate Tax Delinquency from the City of Paraaque for the taxable years 1992 to 2001. MIAA's real estate tax delinquency is broken down as follows: TAX DECLARATION TAXABLE YEAR TAX DUE PENALTY E-016-01370 E-016-01374 E-016-01375 E-016-01376 E-016-01377 E-016-01378 E-016-01379 E-016-01380 *E-016-013-85 *E-016-01387 *E-016-01396 1992-2001 1992-2001 1992-2001 1992-2001 1992-2001 1992-2001 1992-2001 1992-2001 1998-2001 1998-2001 1998-2001 19,558,160.00 111,689,424.90 20,276,058.00 58,144,028.00 18,134,614.65 111,107,950.40 4,322,340.00 7,776,436.00 6,444,810.00 34,876,800.00 75,240.00 11,201,083.20 68,149,479.59 12,371,832.00 35,477,712.00 11,065,188.59 67,794,681.59 2,637,360.00 4,744,944.00 2,900,164.50 5,694,560.00 33,858.00

GRAND TOTAL P392,435,861.95 P232,070,863.47 1992-1997 RPT was paid on Dec. 24, 1997 as per O.R.#9476102 for P4,207,028.75 #9476101 for P28,676,480.00 #9476103 for P49,115.006 On 17 July 2001, the City of Paraaque, through its City Treasurer, issued notices of levy and warrants of levy on the Airport Lands and Buildings. The Mayor of the City of Paraaque threatened to sell at public auction the Airport Lands and Buildings should MIAA fail to pay the real estate tax delinquency. MIAA thus sought a clarification of OGCC Opinion No. 061.

On 9 August 2001, the OGCC issued Opinion No. 147 clarifying OGCC Opinion No. 061. The OGCC pointed out that Section 206 of the Local Government Code requires persons exempt from real estate tax to show proof of exemption. The OGCC opined that Section 21 of the MIAA Charter is the proof that MIAA is exempt from real estate tax. On 1 October 2001, MIAA filed with the Court of Appeals an original petition for prohibition and injunction, with prayer for preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order. The petition sought to restrain the City of Paraaque from imposing real estate tax on, levying against, and auctioning for public sale the Airport Lands and Buildings. The petition was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 66878. On 5 October 2001, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition because MIAA filed it beyond the 60-day reglementary period. The Court of Appeals also denied on 27 September 2002 MIAA's motion for reconsideration and supplemental motion for reconsideration. Hence, MIAA filed on 5 December 2002 the present petition for review.7 Meanwhile, in January 2003, the City of Paraaque posted notices of auction sale at the Barangay Halls of Barangays Vitalez, Sto. Nio, and Tambo, Paraaque City; in the public market of Barangay La Huerta; and in the main lobby of the Paraaque City Hall. The City of Paraaque published the notices in the 3 and 10 January 2003 issues of the Philippine Daily Inquirer, a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines. The notices announced the public auction sale of the Airport Lands and Buildings to the highest bidder on 7 February 2003, 10:00 a.m., at the Legislative Session Hall Building of Paraaque City. A day before the public auction, or on 6 February 2003, at 5:10 p.m., MIAA filed before this Court an Urgent Ex-Parte and Reiteratory Motion for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order. The motion sought to restrain respondents the City of Paraaque, City Mayor of Paraaque, Sangguniang Panglungsod ng Paraaque, City Treasurer of Paraaque, and the City Assessor of Paraaque ("respondents") from auctioning the Airport Lands and Buildings. On 7 February 2003, this Court issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) effective immediately. The Court ordered respondents to cease and desist from selling at public auction the Airport Lands and Buildings. Respondents received the TRO on the same day that the Court issued it. However, respondents received the TRO only at 1:25 p.m. or three hours after the conclusion of the public auction. On 10 February 2003, this Court issued a Resolution confirming nunc pro tunc the TRO. On 29 March 2005, the Court heard the parties in oral arguments. In compliance with the directive TOTAL issued during the hearing, MIAA, respondent City of Paraaque, and the Solicitor General subsequently submitted their respective Memoranda. 30,789,243.20 MIAA admits that the MIAA Charter has placed the title to the Airport Lands and Buildings in the name of MIAA. However, MIAA points out that it cannot claim ownership over these properties 179,838,904.49 since the real owner of the Airport Lands and Buildings is the Republic of the Philippines. The 32,647,890.00 MIAA Charter mandates MIAA to devote the Airport Lands and Buildings for the benefit of the 93,621,740.00 general public. Since the Airport Lands and Buildings are devoted to public use and public service, the ownership of these properties remains with the State. The Airport Lands and 29,199,803.24 Buildings are thus inalienable and are not subject to real estate tax by local governments. 178,902,631.99 MIAA also points out that Section 21 of the MIAA Charter specifically exempts MIAA from the payment of real estate tax. MIAA insists that it is also exempt from real estate tax under Section 6,959,700.00 234 of the Local Government Code because the Airport Lands and Buildings are owned by the 12,521,380.00 Republic. To justify the exemption, MIAA invokes the principle that the government cannot tax 9,344,974.50 itself. MIAA points out that the reason for tax exemption of public property is that its taxation would not inure to any public advantage, since in such a case the tax debtor is also the tax 50,571,360.00 creditor. 109,098.00 Respondents invoke Section 193 of the Local Government Code, which expressly withdrew the tax exemption privileges of "government-owned and-controlled corporations" P 624,506,725.42 upon the effectivity of the Local Government Code. Respondents also argue that a basic rule of statutory construction is that the express mention of one person, thing, or act excludes all others. An international airport is not among the exceptions mentioned in Section 193 of the Local Government Code. Thus, respondents assert that MIAA cannot claim that the Airport Lands and Buildings are exempt from real estate tax. Respondents also cite the ruling of this Court in Mactan International Airport v. Marcos8 where we held that the Local Government Code has withdrawn the exemption from real estate tax granted to international airports. Respondents further argue that since MIAA has

already paid some of the real estate tax assessments, it is now estopped from claiming that the Airport Lands and Buildings are exempt from real estate tax. The Issue This petition raises the threshold issue of whether the Airport Lands and Buildings of MIAA are exempt from real estate tax under existing laws. If so exempt, then the real estate tax assessments issued by the City of Paraaque, and all proceedings taken pursuant to such assessments, are void. In such event, the other issues raised in this petition become moot. The Court's Ruling We rule that MIAA's Airport Lands and Buildings are exempt from real estate tax imposed by local governments. First, MIAA is not a government-owned or controlled corporation but an instrumentality of the National Government and thus exempt from local taxation. Second, the real properties of MIAA are owned by the Republic of the Philippines and thus exempt from real estate tax. 1. MIAA is Not a Government-Owned or Controlled Corporation Respondents argue that MIAA, being a government-owned or controlled corporation, is not exempt from real estate tax. Respondents claim that the deletion of the phrase "any government-owned or controlled so exempt by its charter" in Section 234(e) of the Local Government Code withdrew the real estate tax exemption of government-owned or controlled corporations. The deleted phrase appeared in Section 40(a) of the 1974 Real Property Tax Code enumerating the entities exempt from real estate tax. There is no dispute that a government-owned or controlled corporation is not exempt from real estate tax. However, MIAA is not a government-owned or controlled corporation. Section 2(13) of the Introductory Provisions of the Administrative Code of 1987 defines a government-owned or controlled corporation as follows: SEC. 2. General Terms Defined. x x x x (13) Government-owned or controlled corporation refers to any agency organized as a stock or non-stock corporation, vested with functions relating to public needs whether governmental or proprietary in nature, and owned by the Government directly or through its instrumentalities either wholly, or, where applicable as in the case of stock corporations, to the extent of at least fifty-one (51) percent of its capital stock: x x x. (Emphasis supplied) A government-owned or controlled corporation must be "organized as a stock or non-stock corporation." MIAA is not organized as a stock or non-stock corporation. MIAA is not a stock corporation because it has no capital stock divided into shares. MIAA has no stockholders or voting shares. Section 10 of the MIAA Charter9provides: SECTION 10. Capital. The capital of the Authority to be contributed by the National Government shall be increased from Two and One-half Billion (P2,500,000,000.00) Pesos to Ten Billion (P10,000,000,000.00) Pesos to consist of: (a) The value of fixed assets including airport facilities, runways and equipment and such other properties, movable and immovable[,] which may be contributed by the National Government or transferred by it from any of its agencies, the valuation of which shall be determined jointly with the Department of Budget and Management and the Commission on Audit on the date of such contribution or transfer after making due allowances for depreciation and other deductions taking into account the loans and other liabilities of the Authority at the time of the takeover of the assets and other properties; (b) That the amount of P605 million as of December 31, 1986 representing about seventy percentum (70%) of the unremitted share of the National Government from 1983 to 1986 to be remitted to the National Treasury as provided for in Section 11 of E. O. No. 903 as amended, shall be converted into the equity of the National Government in the Authority. Thereafter, the Government contribution to the capital of the Authority shall be provided in the General Appropriations Act. Clearly, under its Charter, MIAA does not have capital stock that is divided into shares. Section 3 of the Corporation Code10 defines a stock corporation as one whose "capital stock is divided into shares and x x x authorized to distribute to the holders of such shares dividends x x x." MIAA has capital but it is not divided into shares of stock. MIAA has no stockholders or voting shares. Hence, MIAA is not a stock corporation.

MIAA is also not a non-stock corporation because it has no members. Section 87 of the Corporation Code defines a non-stock corporation as "one where no part of its income is distributable as dividends to its members, trustees or officers." A non-stock corporation must have members. Even if we assume that the Government is considered as the sole member of MIAA, this will not make MIAA a non-stock corporation. Non-stock corporations cannot distribute any part of their income to their members. Section 11 of the MIAA Charter mandates MIAA to remit 20% of its annual gross operating income to the National Treasury.11 This prevents MIAA from qualifying as a non-stock corporation. Section 88 of the Corporation Code provides that non-stock corporations are "organized for charitable, religious, educational, professional, cultural, recreational, fraternal, literary, scientific, social, civil service, or similar purposes, like trade, industry, agriculture and like chambers." MIAA is not organized for any of these purposes. MIAA, a public utility, is organized to operate an international and domestic airport for public use. Since MIAA is neither a stock nor a non-stock corporation, MIAA does not qualify as a government-owned or controlled corporation. What then is the legal status of MIAA within the National Government? MIAA is a government instrumentality vested with corporate powers to perform efficiently its governmental functions. MIAA is like any other government instrumentality, the only difference is that MIAA is vested with corporate powers. Section 2(10) of the Introductory Provisions of the Administrative Code defines a government "instrumentality" as follows: SEC. 2. General Terms Defined. x x x x (10) Instrumentality refers to any agency of the National Government, not integrated within the department framework, 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. x x x (Emphasis supplied) When the law vests in a government instrumentality corporate powers, the instrumentality does not become a corporation. Unless the government instrumentality is organized as a stock or non-stock corporation, it remains a government instrumentality exercising not only governmental but also corporate powers. Thus, MIAA exercises the governmental powers of eminent domain,12 police authority13 and the levying of fees and charges.14 At the same time, MIAA exercises "all the powers of a corporation under the Corporation Law, insofar as these powers are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Executive Order." 15 Likewise, when the law makes a government instrumentality operationally autonomous, the instrumentality remains part of the National Government machinery although not integrated with the department framework. The MIAA Charter expressly states that transforming MIAA into a "separate and autonomous body"16 will make its operation more "financially viable."17 Many government instrumentalities are vested with corporate powers but they do not become stock or non-stock corporations, which is a necessary condition before an agency or instrumentality is deemed a government-owned or controlled corporation. Examples are the Mactan International Airport Authority, the Philippine Ports Authority, the University of the Philippines and Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas. All these government instrumentalities exercise corporate powers but they are not organized as stock or non-stock corporations as required by Section 2(13) of the Introductory Provisions of the Administrative Code. These government instrumentalities are sometimes loosely called government corporate entities. However, they are not government-owned or controlled corporations in the strict sense as understood under the Administrative Code, which is the governing law defining the legal relationship and status of government entities. A government instrumentality like MIAA falls under Section 133(o) of the Local Government Code, which states: 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 barangays shall not extend to the levy of the following: xxxx (o) Taxes, fees or charges of any kind on the National Government, its agencies and instrumentalities and local government units.(Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

Section 133(o) recognizes the basic principle that local governments cannot tax the national government, which historically merely delegated to local governments the power to tax. While the 1987 Constitution now includes taxation as one of the powers of local governments, local governments may only exercise such power "subject to such guidelines and limitations as the Congress may provide."18 When local governments invoke the power to tax on national government instrumentalities, such power is construed strictly against local governments. The rule is that a tax is never presumed and there must be clear language in the law imposing the tax. Any doubt whether a person, article or activity is taxable is resolved against taxation. This rule applies with greater force when local governments seek to tax national government instrumentalities. Another rule is that a tax exemption is strictly construed against the taxpayer claiming the exemption. However, when Congress grants an exemption to a national government instrumentality from local taxation, such exemption is construed liberally in favor of the national government instrumentality. As this Court declared in Maceda v. Macaraig, Jr.: The reason for the rule does not apply in the case of exemptions running to the benefit of the government itself or its agencies. In such case the practical effect of an exemption is merely to reduce the amount of money that has to be handled by government in the course of its operations. For these reasons, provisions granting exemptions to government agencies may be construed liberally, in favor of non taxliability of such agencies.19 There is, moreover, no point in national and local governments taxing each other, unless a sound and compelling policy requires such transfer of public funds from one government pocket to another. There is also no reason for local governments to tax national government instrumentalities for rendering essential public services to inhabitants of local governments. The only exception is when the legislature clearly intended to tax government instrumentalities for the delivery of essential public services for sound and compelling policy considerations. There must be express language in the law empowering local governments to tax national government instrumentalities. Any doubt whether such power exists is resolved against local governments. Thus, Section 133 of the Local Government Code states that "unless otherwise provided" in the Code, local governments cannot tax national government instrumentalities. As this Court held in Basco v. Philippine Amusements and Gaming Corporation: 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. (MC Culloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat 316, 4 L Ed. 579) This doctrine emanates from the "supremacy" of the National Government over local governments. "Justice Holmes, speaking for the Supreme Court, made reference 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, emphasis supplied) Otherwise, mere creatures 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 tool for regulation" (U.S. v. Sanchez, 340 US 42). The power to tax which was called by Justice Marshall as the "power to destroy" (Mc Culloch v. Maryland, supra) cannot be allowed to defeat an instrumentality or creation of the very entity which has the inherent power to wield it. 20 2. Airport Lands and Buildings of MIAA are Owned by the Republic a. Airport Lands and Buildings are of Public Dominion The Airport Lands and Buildings of MIAA are property of public dominion and therefore owned by the State or the Republic of the Philippines. The Civil Code provides: ARTICLE 419. Property is either of public dominion or of private ownership. ARTICLE 420. The following things are property of public dominion:

(1) Those intended for public use, such as roads, canals, rivers, torrents, ports and bridges constructed by the State, banks, shores, roadsteads, and others of similar character; (2) Those which belong to the State, without being for public use, and are intended for some public service or for the development of the national wealth. (Emphasis supplied) ARTICLE 421. All other property of the State, which is not of the character stated in the preceding article, is patrimonial property. ARTICLE 422. Property of public dominion, when no longer intended for public use or for public service, shall form part of the patrimonial property of the State. No one can dispute that properties of public dominion mentioned in Article 420 of the Civil Code, like "roads, canals, rivers, torrents, ports and bridges constructed by the State," are owned by the State. The term "ports" includes seaports and airports. The MIAA Airport Lands and Buildings constitute a "port" constructed by the State. Under Article 420 of the Civil Code, the MIAA Airport Lands and Buildings are properties of public dominion and thus owned by the State or the Republic of the Philippines. The Airport Lands and Buildings are devoted to public use because they are used by the public for international and domestic travel and transportation. The fact that the MIAA collects terminal fees and other charges from the public does not remove the character of the Airport Lands and Buildings as properties for public use. The operation by the government of a tollway does not change the character of the road as one for public use. Someone must pay for the maintenance of the road, either the public indirectly through the taxes they pay the government, or only those among the public who actually use the road through the toll fees they pay upon using the road. The tollway system is even a more efficient and equitable manner of taxing the public for the maintenance of public roads. The charging of fees to the public does not determine the character of the property whether it is of public dominion or not. Article 420 of the Civil Code defines property of public dominion as one "intended for public use." Even if the government collects toll fees, the road is still "intended for public use" if anyone can use the road under the same terms and conditions as the rest of the public. The charging of fees, the limitation on the kind of vehicles that can use the road, the speed restrictions and other conditions for the use of the road do not affect the public character of the road. The terminal fees MIAA charges to passengers, as well as the landing fees MIAA charges to airlines, constitute the bulk of the income that maintains the operations of MIAA. The collection of such fees does not change the character of MIAA as an airport for public use. Such fees are often termed user's tax. This means taxing those among the public who actually use a public facility instead of taxing all the public including those who never use the particular public facility. A user's tax is more equitable a principle of taxation mandated in the 1987 Constitution.21 The Airport Lands and Buildings of MIAA, which its Charter calls the "principal airport of the Philippines for both international and domestic air traffic," 22 are properties of public dominion because they are intended for public use. As properties of public dominion, they indisputably belong to the State or the Republic of the Philippines. b. Airport Lands and Buildings are Outside the Commerce of Man The Airport Lands and Buildings of MIAA are devoted to public use and thus are properties of public dominion. As properties of public dominion, the Airport Lands and Buildings are outside the commerce of man. The Court has ruled repeatedly that properties of public dominion are outside the commerce of man. As early as 1915, this Court already ruled in Municipality of Cavite v. Rojas that properties devoted to public use are outside the commerce of man, thus: According to article 344 of the Civil Code: "Property for public use in provinces and in towns comprises the provincial and town roads, the squares, streets, fountains, and public waters, the promenades, and public works of general service supported by said towns or provinces." The said Plaza Soledad being a promenade for public use, the municipal council of Cavite could not in 1907 withdraw or exclude from public use a portion thereof in order to lease it for the sole benefit of the defendant Hilaria Rojas. In leasing a portion of said plaza or public place to the defendant for private use the plaintiff municipality

exceeded its authority in the exercise of its powers by executing a contract over a thing of which it could not dispose, nor is it empowered so to do. The Civil Code, article 1271, prescribes that everything which is not outside the commerce of man may be the object of a contract, and plazas and streets are outside of this commerce, as was decided by the supreme court of Spain in its decision of February 12, 1895, which says: "Communal things that cannot be sold because they are by their very nature outside of commerce are those for public use, such as the plazas, streets, common lands, rivers, fountains, etc. " (Emphasis supplied) 23 Again in Espiritu v. Municipal Council, the Court declared that properties of public dominion are outside the commerce of man: xxx Town plazas are properties of public dominion, to be devoted to public use and to be made available to the public in general. They are outside the commerce of man and cannot be disposed of or even leased by the municipality to private parties. While in case of war or during an emergency, town plazas may be occupied temporarily by private individuals, as was done and as was tolerated by the Municipality of Pozorrubio, when the emergency has ceased, said temporary occupation or use must also cease, and the town officials should see to it that the town plazas should ever be kept open to the public and free from encumbrances or illegal private constructions.24 (Emphasis supplied) The Court has also ruled that property of public dominion, being outside the commerce of man, cannot be the subject of an auction sale.25 Properties of public dominion, being for public use, are not subject to levy, encumbrance or disposition through public or private sale. Any encumbrance, levy on execution or auction sale of any property of public dominion is void for being contrary to public policy. Essential public services will stop if properties of public dominion are subject to encumbrances, foreclosures and auction sale. This will happen if the City of Paraaque can foreclose and compel the auction sale of the 600-hectare runway of the MIAA for non-payment of real estate tax. Before MIAA can encumber26 the Airport Lands and Buildings, the President must first withdraw from public use the Airport Lands and Buildings. Sections 83 and 88 of the Public Land Law or Commonwealth Act No. 141, which "remains to this day the existing general law governing the classification and disposition of lands of the public domain other than timber and mineral lands,"27 provide: SECTION 83. Upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, the President may designate by proclamation any tract or tracts of land of the public domain as reservations for the use of the Republic of the Philippines or of any of its branches, or of the inhabitants thereof, in accordance with regulations prescribed for this purposes, or for quasi-public uses or purposes when the public interest requires it, including reservations for highways, rights of way for railroads, hydraulic power sites, irrigation systems, communal pastures or lequas communales, public parks, public quarries, public fishponds, working men's village and other improvements for the public benefit. SECTION 88. The tract or tracts of land reserved under the provisions of Section eighty-three shall be non-alienable and shall not be subject to occupation, entry, sale, lease, or other disposition until again declared alienable under the provisions of this Act or by proclamation of the President. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) Thus, unless the President issues a proclamation withdrawing the Airport Lands and Buildings from public use, these properties remain properties of public dominion and are inalienable. Since the Airport Lands and Buildings are inalienable in their present status as properties of public dominion, they are not subject to levy on execution or foreclosure sale. As long as the Airport Lands and Buildings are reserved for public use, their ownership remains with the State or the Republic of the Philippines. The authority of the President to reserve lands of the public domain for public use, and to withdraw such public use, is reiterated in Section 14, Chapter 4, Title I, Book III of the Administrative Code of 1987, which states: SEC. 14. Power to Reserve Lands of the Public and Private Domain of the Government. (1) The President shall have the power to reserve for settlement

or public use, and for specific public purposes, any of the lands of the public domain, the use of which is not otherwise directed by law. The reserved land shall thereafter remain subject to the specific public purpose indicated until otherwise provided by law or proclamation; x x x x. (Emphasis supplied) There is no question, therefore, that unless the Airport Lands and Buildings are withdrawn by law or presidential proclamation from public use, they are properties of public dominion, owned by the Republic and outside the commerce of man. c. MIAA is a Mere Trustee of the Republic MIAA is merely holding title to the Airport Lands and Buildings in trust for the Republic. Section 48, Chapter 12, Book I of the Administrative Code allows instrumentalities like MIAA to hold title to real properties owned by the Republic, thus: SEC. 48. Official Authorized to Convey Real Property. Whenever real property of the Government is authorized by law to be conveyed, the deed of conveyance shall be executed in behalf of the government by the following: (1) For property belonging to and titled in the name of the Republic of the Philippines, by the President, unless the authority therefor is expressly vested by law in another officer. (2) For property belonging to the Republic of the Philippines but titled in the name of any political subdivision or of any corporate agency or instrumentality, by the executive head of the agency or instrumentality. (Emphasis supplied) In MIAA's case, its status as a mere trustee of the Airport Lands and Buildings is clearer because even its executive head cannot sign the deed of conveyance on behalf of the Republic. Only the President of the Republic can sign such deed of conveyance. 28 d. Transfer to MIAA was Meant to Implement a Reorganization The MIAA Charter, which is a law, transferred to MIAA the title to the Airport Lands and Buildings from the Bureau of Air Transportation of the Department of Transportation and Communications. The MIAA Charter provides: SECTION 3. Creation of the Manila International Airport Authority. x x x x The land where the Airport is presently located as well as the surrounding land area of approximately six hundred hectares, are hereby transferred, conveyed and assigned to the ownership and administration of the Authority, subject to existing rights, if any. The Bureau of Lands and other appropriate government agencies shall undertake an actual survey of the area transferred within one year from the promulgation of this Executive Order and the corresponding title to be issued in the name of the Authority. Any portion thereof shall not be disposed through sale or through any other mode unless specifically approved by the President of the Philippines. (Emphasis supplied) SECTION 22. Transfer of Existing Facilities and Intangible Assets. All existing public airport facilities, runways, lands, buildings and other property, movable or immovable, belonging to the Airport, and all assets, powers, rights, interests and privileges belonging to the Bureau of Air Transportation relating to airport works or air operations, including all equipment which are necessary for the operation of crash fire and rescue facilities, are hereby transferred to the Authority. (Emphasis supplied) SECTION 25. Abolition of the Manila International Airport as a Division in the Bureau of Air Transportation and Transitory Provisions. The Manila International Airport including the Manila Domestic Airport as a division under the Bureau of Air Transportation is hereby abolished. x x x x. The MIAA Charter transferred the Airport Lands and Buildings to MIAA without the Republic receiving cash, promissory notes or even stock since MIAA is not a stock corporation. The whereas clauses of the MIAA Charter explain the rationale for the transfer of the Airport Lands and Buildings to MIAA, thus: WHEREAS, the Manila International Airport as the principal airport of the Philippines for both international and domestic air traffic, is required to provide standards of airport accommodation and service comparable with the best airports in the world;

WHEREAS, domestic and other terminals, general aviation and other facilities, have to be upgraded to meet the current and future air traffic and other demands of aviation in Metro Manila; WHEREAS, a management and organization study has indicated that the objectives of providing high standards of accommodation and service within the context of a financially viable operation, will best be achieved by a separate and autonomous body; and WHEREAS, under Presidential Decree No. 1416, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1772, the President of the Philippines is given continuing authority to reorganize the National Government, which authority includes the creation of new entities, agencies and instrumentalities of the Government[.] (Emphasis supplied) The transfer of the Airport Lands and Buildings from the Bureau of Air Transportation to MIAA was not meant to transfer beneficial ownership of these assets from the Republic to MIAA. The purpose was merely to reorganize a division in the Bureau of Air Transportation into a separate and autonomous body. The Republic remains the beneficial owner of the Airport Lands and Buildings. MIAA itself is owned solely by the Republic. No party claims any ownership rights over MIAA's assets adverse to the Republic. The MIAA Charter expressly provides that the Airport Lands and Buildings " shall not be disposed through sale or through any other mode unless specifically approved by the President of the Philippines." This only means that the Republic retained the beneficial ownership of the Airport Lands and Buildings because under Article 428 of the Civil Code, only the "owner has the right to x x x dispose of a thing." Since MIAA cannot dispose of the Airport Lands and Buildings, MIAA does not own the Airport Lands and Buildings. At any time, the President can transfer back to the Republic title to the Airport Lands and Buildings without the Republic paying MIAA any consideration. Under Section 3 of the MIAA Charter, the President is the only one who can authorize the sale or disposition of the Airport Lands and Buildings. This only confirms that the Airport Lands and Buildings belong to the Republic. e. Real Property Owned by the Republic is Not Taxable Section 234(a) of the Local Government Code exempts from real estate tax any "[r]eal property owned by the Republic of the Philippines." Section 234(a) 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 has been granted, for consideration or otherwise, to a taxable person; x x x. (Emphasis supplied) This exemption should be read in relation with Section 133(o) of the same Code, which prohibits local governments from imposing "[t]axes, fees or charges of any kind on the National Government, its agencies andinstrumentalities x x x." The real properties owned by the Republic are titled either in the name of the Republic itself or in the name of agencies or instrumentalities of the National Government. The Administrative Code allows real property owned by the Republic to be titled in the name of agencies or instrumentalities of the national government. Such real properties remain owned by the Republic and continue to be exempt from real estate tax. The Republic may grant the beneficial use of its real property to an agency or instrumentality of the national government. This happens when title of the real property is transferred to an agency or instrumentality even as the Republic remains the owner of the real property. Such arrangement does not result in the loss of the tax exemption. Section 234(a) of the Local Government Code states that real property owned by the Republic loses its tax exemption only if the "beneficial use thereof has been granted, for consideration or otherwise, to a taxable person." MIAA, as a government instrumentality, is not a taxable person under Section 133(o) of the Local Government Code. Thus, even if we assume that the Republic has granted to MIAA the beneficial use of the Airport Lands and Buildings, such fact does not make these real properties subject to real estate tax. However, portions of the Airport Lands and Buildings that MIAA leases to private entities are not exempt from real estate tax. For example, the land area occupied by hangars that MIAA leases to private corporations is subject to real estate tax. In such a case, MIAA has granted the

beneficial use of such land area for a consideration to ataxable person and therefore such land area is subject to real estate tax. In Lung Center of the Philippines v. Quezon City, the Court ruled: Accordingly, we hold that the portions of the land leased to private entities as well as those parts of the hospital leased to private individuals are not exempt from such taxes. On the other hand, the portions of the land occupied by the hospital and portions of the hospital used for its patients, whether paying or non-paying, are exempt from real property taxes.29 3. Refutation of Arguments of Minority The minority asserts that the MIAA is not exempt from real estate tax because Section 193 of the Local Government Code of 1991 withdrew the tax exemption of " all persons, whether natural or juridical" upon the effectivity of the Code. Section 193 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. No. 6938, non-stock and non-profit hospitals and educational institutions are hereby withdrawn upon effectivity of this Code. (Emphasis supplied) The minority states that MIAA is indisputably a juridical person. The minority argues that since the Local Government Code withdrew the tax exemption of all juridical persons, then MIAA is not exempt from real estate tax. Thus, the minority declares: It is evident from the quoted provisions of the Local Government Code that the withdrawn exemptions from realty tax cover not just GOCCs, but all persons. To repeat, the provisions lay down the explicit proposition that the withdrawal of realty tax exemption applies to all persons. The reference to or the inclusion of GOCCs is only clarificatory or illustrative of the explicit provision. The term "All persons" encompasses the two classes of persons recognized under our laws, natural and juridical persons. Obviously, MIAA is not a natural person. Thus, the determinative test is not just whether MIAA is a GOCC, but whether MIAA is a juridical person at all. (Emphasis and underscoring in the original) The minority posits that the "determinative test" whether MIAA is exempt from local taxation is its status whether MIAA is a juridical person or not. The minority also insists that "Sections 193 and 234 may be examined in isolation from Section 133(o) to ascertain MIAA's claim of exemption." The argument of the minority is fatally flawed. Section 193 of the Local Government Code expressly withdrew the tax exemption of all juridical persons "[u]nless otherwise provided in this Code." Now, Section 133(o) of the Local Government Code expressly provides otherwise, specifically prohibiting local governments from imposing any kind of tax on national government instrumentalities. Section 133(o) states: 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 barangays shall not extend to the levy of the following: xxxx (o) Taxes, fees or charges of any kinds on the National Government, its agencies and instrumentalities, and local government units. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) By express mandate of the Local Government Code, local governments cannot impose any kind of tax on national government instrumentalities like the MIAA. Local governments are devoid of power to tax the national government, its agencies and instrumentalities. The taxing powers of local governments do not extend to the national government, its agencies and instrumentalities, "[u]nless otherwise provided in this Code" as stated in the saving clause of Section 133. The saving clause refers to Section 234(a) on the exception to the exemption from real estate tax of real property owned by the Republic. The minority, however, theorizes that unless exempted in Section 193 itself, all juridical persons are subject to tax by local governments. The minority insists that the juridical persons exempt from local taxation are limited to the three classes of entities specifically enumerated as exempt in Section 193. Thus, the minority states:

x x x Under Section 193, the exemption is limited to (a) local water districts; (b) cooperatives duly registered under Republic Act No. 6938; and (c) non-stock and nonprofit hospitals and educational institutions. It would be belaboring the obvious why the MIAA does not fall within any of the exempt entities under Section 193. (Emphasis supplied) The minority's theory directly contradicts and completely negates Section 133(o) of the Local Government Code. This theory will result in gross absurdities. It will make the national government, which itself is a juridical person, subject to tax by local governments since the national government is not included in the enumeration of exempt entities in Section 193. Under this theory, local governments can impose any kind of local tax, and not only real estate tax, on the national government. Under the minority's theory, many national government instrumentalities with juridical personalities will also be subject to any kind of local tax, and not only real estate tax. Some of the national government instrumentalities vested by law with juridical personalities are: Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas,30 Philippine Rice Research Institute,31Laguna Lake Development Authority,32 Fisheries Development Authority,33 Bases Conversion Development Authority,34Philippine Ports Authority,35 Cagayan de Oro Port Authority,36 San Fernando Port Authority,37 Cebu Port Authority,38 and Philippine National Railways.39 The minority's theory violates Section 133(o) of the Local Government Code which expressly prohibits local governments from imposing any kind of tax on national government instrumentalities. Section 133(o) does not distinguish between national government instrumentalities with or without juridical personalities. Where the law does not distinguish, courts should not distinguish. Thus, Section 133(o) applies to all national government instrumentalities, with or without juridical personalities. The determinative test whether MIAA is exempt from local taxation is not whether MIAA is a juridical person, but whether it is a national government instrumentality under Section 133(o) of the Local Government Code. Section 133(o) is the specific provision of law prohibiting local governments from imposing any kind of tax on the national government, its agencies and instrumentalities. Section 133 of the Local Government Code starts with the saving clause "[u]nless otherwise provided in this Code." This means that unless the Local Government Code grants an express authorization, local governments have no power to tax the national government, its agencies and instrumentalities. Clearly, the rule is local governments have no power to tax the national government, its agencies and instrumentalities. As an exception to this rule, local governments may tax the national government, its agencies and instrumentalities only if the Local Government Code expressly so provides. The saving clause in Section 133 refers to the exception to the exemption in Section 234(a) of the Code, which makes the national government subject to real estate tax when it gives the beneficial use of its real properties to a taxable entity. Section 234(a) of the Local Government Code 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 has been granted, for consideration or otherwise, to a taxable person. x x x. (Emphasis supplied) Under Section 234(a), real property owned by the Republic is exempt from real estate tax. The exception to this exemption is when the government gives the beneficial use of the real property to a taxable entity. The exception to the exemption in Section 234(a) is the only instance when the national government, its agencies and instrumentalities are subject to any kind of tax by local governments. The exception to the exemption applies only to real estate tax and not to any other tax. The justification for the exception to the exemption is that the real property, although owned by the Republic, is not devoted to public use or public service but devoted to the private gain of a taxable person. The minority also argues that since Section 133 precedes Section 193 and 234 of the Local Government Code, the later provisions prevail over Section 133. Thus, the minority asserts: x x x Moreover, sequentially Section 133 antecedes Section 193 and 234. Following an accepted rule of construction, in case of conflict the subsequent provisions should

prevail. Therefore, MIAA, as a juridical person, is subject to real property taxes, the general exemptions attaching to instrumentalities under Section 133(o) of the Local Government Code being qualified by Sections 193 and 234 of the same law. (Emphasis supplied) The minority assumes that there is an irreconcilable conflict between Section 133 on one hand, and Sections 193 and 234 on the other. No one has urged that there is such a conflict, much less has any one presenteda persuasive argument that there is such a conflict. The minority's assumption of an irreconcilable conflict in the statutory provisions is an egregious error for two reasons. First, there is no conflict whatsoever between Sections 133 and 193 because Section 193 expressly admits its subordination to other provisions of the Code when Section 193 states "[u]nless otherwise provided in this Code." By its own words, Section 193 admits the superiority of other provisions of the Local Government Code that limit the exercise of the taxing power in Section 193. When a provision of law grants a power but withholds such power on certain matters, there is no conflict between the grant of power and the withholding of power. The grantee of the power simply cannot exercise the power on matters withheld from its power. Second, Section 133 is entitled "Common Limitations on the Taxing Powers of Local Government Units." Section 133 limits the grant to local governments of the power to tax, and not merely the exercise of a delegated power to tax. Section 133 states that the taxing powers of local governments "shall not extend to the levy" of any kind of tax on the national government, its agencies and instrumentalities. There is no clearer limitation on the taxing power than this. Since Section 133 prescribes the "common limitations" on the taxing powers of local governments, Section 133 logically prevails over Section 193 which grants local governments such taxing powers. By their very meaning and purpose, the "common limitations" on the taxing power prevail over the grant or exercise of the taxing power. If the taxing power of local governments in Section 193 prevails over the limitations on such taxing power in Section 133, then local governments can impose any kind of tax on the national government, its agencies and instrumentalities a gross absurdity. Local governments have no power to tax the national government, its agencies and instrumentalities, except as otherwise provided in the Local Government Code pursuant to the saving clause in Section 133 stating "[u]nless otherwise provided in this Code." This exception which is an exception to the exemption of the Republic from real estate tax imposed by local governments refers to Section 234(a) of the Code. The exception to the exemption in Section 234(a) subjects real property owned by the Republic, whether titled in the name of the national government, its agencies or instrumentalities, to real estate tax if the beneficial use of such property is given to a taxable entity. The minority also claims that the definition in the Administrative Code of the phrase "government-owned or controlled corporation" is not controlling. The minority points out that Section 2 of the Introductory Provisions of the Administrative Code admits that its definitions are not controlling when it provides: SEC. 2. General Terms Defined. Unless the specific words of the text, or the context as a whole, or a particular statute, shall require a different meaning: xxxx The minority then concludes that reliance on the Administrative Code definition is "flawed." The minority's argument is a non sequitur. True, Section 2 of the Administrative Code recognizes that a statute may require a different meaning than that defined in the Administrative Code. However, this does not automatically mean that the definition in the Administrative Code does not apply to the Local Government Code. Section 2 of the Administrative Code clearly states that "unless the specific words x x x of a particular statute shall require a different meaning," the definition in Section 2 of the Administrative Code shall apply. Thus, unless there is specific language in the Local Government Code defining the phrase "government-owned or controlled corporation" differently from the definition in the Administrative Code, the definition in the Administrative Code prevails. The minority does not point to any provision in the Local Government Code defining the phrase "government-owned or controlled corporation" differently from the definition in the Administrative Code. Indeed, there is none. The Local Government Code is silent on the definition of the phrase "government-owned or controlled corporation." The Administrative Code, however, expressly defines the phrase "government-owned or controlled corporation." The inescapable

conclusion is that the Administrative Code definition of the phrase "government-owned or controlled corporation" applies to the Local Government Code. The third whereas clause of the Administrative Code states that the Code "incorporates in a unified document the major structural, functional and procedural principles and rules of governance." Thus, the Administrative Code is the governing law defining the status and relationship of government departments, bureaus, offices, agencies and instrumentalities. Unless a statute expressly provides for a different status and relationship for a specific government unit or entity, the provisions of the Administrative Code prevail. The minority also contends that the phrase "government-owned or controlled corporation" should apply only to corporations organized under the Corporation Code, the general incorporation law, and not to corporations created by special charters. The minority sees no reason why government corporations with special charters should have a capital stock. Thus, the minority declares: I submit that the definition of "government-owned or controlled corporations" under the Administrative Code refer to those corporations owned by the government or its instrumentalities which are created not by legislative enactment, but formed and organized under the Corporation Code through registration with the Securities and Exchange Commission. In short, these are GOCCs without original charters. xxxx It might as well be worth pointing out that there is no point in requiring a capital structure for GOCCs whose full ownership is limited by its charter to the State or Republic. Such GOCCs are not empowered to declare dividends or alienate their capital shares. The contention of the minority is seriously flawed. It is not in accord with the Constitution and existing legislations. It will also result in gross absurdities. First, the Administrative Code definition of the phrase "government-owned or controlled corporation" does not distinguish between one incorporated under the Corporation Code or under a special charter. Where the law does not distinguish, courts should not distinguish. Second, Congress has created through special charters several government-owned corporations organized as stock corporations. Prime examples are the Land Bank of the Philippines and the Development Bank of the Philippines. The special charter40 of the Land Bank of the Philippines provides: SECTION 81. Capital. The authorized capital stock of the Bank shall be nine billion pesos, divided into seven hundred and eighty million common shares with a par value of ten pesos each, which shall be fully subscribed by the Government, and one hundred and twenty million preferred shares with a par value of ten pesos each, which shall be issued in accordance with the provisions of Sections seventy-seven and eighty-three of this Code. (Emphasis supplied) Likewise, the special charter41 of the Development Bank of the Philippines provides: SECTION 7. Authorized Capital Stock Par value. The capital stock of the Bank shall be Five Billion Pesos to be divided into Fifty Million common shares with par value of P100 per share. These shares are available for subscription by the National Government. Upon the effectivity of this Charter, the National Government shall subscribe to Twenty-Five Million common shares of stock worth Two Billion Five Hundred Million which shall be deemed paid for by the Government with the net asset values of the Bank remaining after the transfer of assets and liabilities as provided in Section 30 hereof. (Emphasis supplied) Other government-owned corporations organized as stock corporations under their special charters are the Philippine Crop Insurance Corporation, 42 Philippine International Trading Corporation,43 and the Philippine National Bank44 before it was reorganized as a stock corporation under the Corporation Code. All these government-owned corporations organized under special charters as stock corporations are subject to real estate tax on real properties owned by them. To rule that they are not government-owned or controlled corporations because they are not registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission would remove them from the reach of Section 234 of the Local Government Code, thus exempting them from real estate tax. Third, the government-owned or controlled corporations created through special charters are those that meet the two conditions prescribed in Section 16, Article XII of the Constitution. The

first condition is that the government-owned or controlled corporation must be established for the common good. The second condition is that the government-owned or controlled corporation must meet the test of economic viability. Section 16, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution provides: SEC. 16. The Congress shall not, except by general law, provide for the formation, organization, or regulation of private corporations. Government-owned or controlled corporations may be created or established by special charters in the interest of the common good and subject to the test of economic viability. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) The Constitution expressly authorizes the legislature to create "government-owned or controlled corporations" through special charters only if these entities are required to meet the twin conditions of common good and economic viability. In other words, Congress has no power to create government-owned or controlled corporations with special charters unless they are made to comply with the two conditions of common good and economic viability. The test of economic viability applies only to government-owned or controlled corporations that perform economic or commercial activities and need to compete in the market place. Being essentially economic vehicles of the State for the common good meaning for economic development purposes these government-owned or controlled corporations with special charters are usually organized as stock corporations just like ordinary private corporations. In contrast, government instrumentalities vested with corporate powers and performing governmental or public functions need not meet the test of economic viability. These instrumentalities perform essential public services for the common good, services that every modern State must provide its citizens. These instrumentalities need not be economically viable since the government may even subsidize their entire operations. These instrumentalities are not the "government-owned or controlled corporations" referred to in Section 16, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution. Thus, the Constitution imposes no limitation when the legislature creates government instrumentalities vested with corporate powers but performing essential governmental or public functions. Congress has plenary authority to create government instrumentalities vested with corporate powers provided these instrumentalities perform essential government functions or public services. However, when the legislature creates through special charters corporations that perform economic or commercial activities, such entities known as "government-owned or controlled corporations" must meet the test of economic viability because they compete in the market place. This is the situation of the Land Bank of the Philippines and the Development Bank of the Philippines and similar government-owned or controlled corporations, which derive their income to meet operating expenses solely from commercial transactions in competition with the private sector. The intent of the Constitution is to prevent the creation of government-owned or controlled corporations that cannot survive on their own in the market place and thus merely drain the public coffers. Commissioner Blas F. Ople, proponent of the test of economic viability, explained to the Constitutional Commission the purpose of this test, as follows: MR. OPLE: Madam President, the reason for this concern is really that when the government creates a corporation, there is a sense in which this corporation becomes exempt from the test of economic performance. We know what happened in the past. If a government corporation loses, then it makes its claim upon the taxpayers' money through new equity infusions from the government and what is always invoked is the common good. That is the reason why this year, out of a budget of P115 billion for the entire government, about P28 billion of this will go into equity infusions to support a few government financial institutions. And this is all taxpayers' money which could have been relocated to agrarian reform, to social services like health and education, to augment the salaries of grossly underpaid public employees. And yet this is all going down the drain. Therefore, when we insert the phrase "ECONOMIC VIABILITY" together with the "common good," this becomes a restraint on future enthusiasts for state capitalism to excuse themselves from the responsibility of meeting the market test so that they become viable. And so, Madam President, I reiterate, for the committee's consideration and I am glad that I am joined in this proposal by Commissioner Foz,

the insertion of the standard of "ECONOMIC VIABILITY OR THE ECONOMIC TEST," together with the common good.45 Father Joaquin G. Bernas, a leading member of the Constitutional Commission, explains in his textbook The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines: A Commentary: The second sentence was added by the 1986 Constitutional Commission. The significant addition, however, is the phrase "in the interest of the common good and subject to the test of economic viability." The addition includes the ideas that they must show capacity to function efficiently in business and that they should not go into activities which the private sector can do better. Moreover, economic viability is more than financial viability but also includes capability to make profit and generate benefits not quantifiable in financial terms.46 (Emphasis supplied) Clearly, the test of economic viability does not apply to government entities vested with corporate powers and performing essential public services. The State is obligated to render essential public services regardless of the economic viability of providing such service. The noneconomic viability of rendering such essential public service does not excuse the State from withholding such essential services from the public. However, government-owned or controlled corporations with special charters, organized essentially for economic or commercial objectives, must meet the test of economic viability. These are the government-owned or controlled corporations that are usually organized under their special charters as stock corporations, like the Land Bank of the Philippines and the Development Bank of the Philippines. These are the government-owned or controlled corporations, along with government-owned or controlled corporations organized under the Corporation Code, that fall under the definition of "government-owned or controlled corporations" in Section 2(10) of the Administrative Code. The MIAA need not meet the test of economic viability because the legislature did not create MIAA to compete in the market place. MIAA does not compete in the market place because there is no competing international airport operated by the private sector. MIAA performs an essential public service as the primary domestic and international airport of the Philippines. The operation of an international airport requires the presence of personnel from the following government agencies: 1. The Bureau of Immigration and Deportation, to document the arrival and departure of passengers, screening out those without visas or travel documents, or those with hold departure orders; 2. The Bureau of Customs, to collect import duties or enforce the ban on prohibited importations; 3. The quarantine office of the Department of Health, to enforce health measures against the spread of infectious diseases into the country; 4. The Department of Agriculture, to enforce measures against the spread of plant and animal diseases into the country; 5. The Aviation Security Command of the Philippine National Police, to prevent the entry of terrorists and the escape of criminals, as well as to secure the airport premises from terrorist attack or seizure; 6. The Air Traffic Office of the Department of Transportation and Communications, to authorize aircraft to enter or leave Philippine airspace, as well as to land on, or take off from, the airport; and 7. The MIAA, to provide the proper premises such as runway and buildings for the government personnel, passengers, and airlines, and to manage the airport operations. All these agencies of government perform government functions essential to the operation of an international airport. MIAA performs an essential public service that every modern State must provide its citizens. MIAA derives its revenues principally from the mandatory fees and charges MIAA imposes on passengers and airlines. The terminal fees that MIAA charges every passenger are regulatory or administrative fees47 and not income from commercial transactions. MIAA falls under the definition of a government instrumentality under Section 2(10) of the Introductory Provisions of the Administrative Code, which provides: SEC. 2. General Terms Defined. x x x x

(10) Instrumentality refers to any agency of the National Government, not integrated within the department framework, 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. x x x (Emphasis supplied) The fact alone that MIAA is endowed with corporate powers does not make MIAA a governmentowned or controlled corporation. Without a change in its capital structure, MIAA remains a government instrumentality under Section 2(10) of the Introductory Provisions of the Administrative Code. More importantly, as long as MIAA renders essential public services, it need not comply with the test of economic viability. Thus, MIAA is outside the scope of the phrase "government-owned or controlled corporations" under Section 16, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution. The minority belittles the use in the Local Government Code of the phrase "government-owned or controlled corporation" as merely "clarificatory or illustrative." This is fatal. The 1987 Constitution prescribes explicit conditions for the creation of "government-owned or controlled corporations." The Administrative Code defines what constitutes a "government-owned or controlled corporation." To belittle this phrase as "clarificatory or illustrative" is grave error. To summarize, MIAA is not a government-owned or controlled corporation under Section 2(13) of the Introductory Provisions of the Administrative Code because it is not organized as a stock or non-stock corporation. Neither is MIAA a government-owned or controlled corporation under Section 16, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution because MIAA is not required to meet the test of economic viability. MIAA is a government instrumentality vested with corporate powers and performing essential public services pursuant to Section 2(10) of the Introductory Provisions of the Administrative Code. As a government instrumentality, MIAA is not subject to any kind of tax by local governments under Section 133(o) of the Local Government Code. The exception to the exemption in Section 234(a) does not apply to MIAA because MIAA is not a taxable entity under the Local Government Code. Such exception applies only if the beneficial use of real property owned by the Republic is given to a taxable entity. Finally, the Airport Lands and Buildings of MIAA are properties devoted to public use and thus are properties of public dominion. Properties of public dominion are owned by the State or the Republic. Article 420 of the Civil Code provides: Art. 420. The following things are property of public dominion: (1) Those intended for public use, such as roads, canals, rivers, torrents, ports and bridges constructed by the State, banks, shores, roadsteads, and others of similar character; (2) Those which belong to the State, without being for public use, and are intended for some public service or for the development of the national wealth. (Emphasis supplied) The term "ports x x x constructed by the State" includes airports and seaports. The Airport Lands and Buildings of MIAA are intended for public use, and at the very least intended for public service. Whether intended for public use or public service, the Airport Lands and Buildings are properties of public dominion. As properties of public dominion, the Airport Lands and Buildings are owned by the Republic and thus exempt from real estate tax under Section 234(a) of the Local Government Code. 4. Conclusion Under Section 2(10) and (13) of the Introductory Provisions of the Administrative Code, which governs the legal relation and status of government units, agencies and offices within the entire government machinery, MIAA is a government instrumentality and not a government-owned or controlled corporation. Under Section 133(o) of the Local Government Code, MIAA as a government instrumentality is not a taxable person because it is not subject to "[t]axes, fees or charges of any kind" by local governments. The only exception is when MIAA leases its real property to a "taxable person" as provided in Section 234(a) of the Local Government Code, in which case the specific real property leased becomes subject to real estate tax. Thus, only portions of the Airport Lands and Buildings leased to taxable persons like private parties are subject to real estate tax by the City of Paraaque. Under Article 420 of the Civil Code, the Airport Lands and Buildings of MIAA, being devoted to public use, are properties of public dominion and thus owned by the State or the Republic of the Philippines. Article 420 specifically mentions "ports x x x constructed by the State," which includes public airports and seaports, as properties of public dominion and owned by the

Republic. As properties of public dominion owned by the Republic, there is no doubt whatsoever that the Airport Lands and Buildings are expressly exempt from real estate tax under Section 234(a) of the Local Government Code. This Court has also repeatedly ruled that properties of public dominion are not subject to execution or foreclosure sale. WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petition. We SET ASIDE the assailed Resolutions of the Court of Appeals of 5 October 2001 and 27 September 2002 in CA-G.R. SP No. 66878. We DECLARE the Airport Lands and Buildings of the Manila International Airport Authority EXEMPT from the real estate tax imposed by the City of Paraaque. We declare VOID all the real estate tax assessments, including the final notices of real estate tax delinquencies, issued by the City of Paraaque on the Airport Lands and Buildings of the Manila International Airport Authority, except for the portions that the Manila International Airport Authority has leased to private parties. We also declareVOID the assailed auction sale, and all its effects, of the Airport Lands and Buildings of the Manila International Airport Authority. No costs. SO ORDERED.

Republic

of

the

Philippines

SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. 163072 April 2, 2009 MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY, Petitioner, vs. CITY OF PASAY, SANGGUNIANG PANGLUNGSOD NG PASAY, CITY MAYOR OF PASAY, CITY TREASURER OF PASAY, and CITY ASSESSOR OF PASAY, Respondents. DECISION CARPIO, J.: This is a petition for review on certiorari1 of the Decision2 dated 30 October 2002 and the Resolution dated 19 March 2004 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 67416. The Facts Petitioner Manila International Airport Authority (MIAA) operates and administers the Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA) Complex under Executive Order No. 903 (EO 903),3 otherwise known as the Revised Charter of the Manila International Airport Authority. EO 903 was issued on 21 July 1983 by then President Ferdinand E. Marcos. Under Sections 34 and 225 of EO 903, approximately 600 hectares of land, including the runways, the airport tower, and other airport buildings, were transferred to MIAA. The NAIA Complex is located along the border between Pasay City and Paraaque City. On 28 August 2001, MIAA received Final Notices of Real Property Tax Delinquency from the City of Pasay for the taxable years 1992 to 2001. MIAAs real property tax delinquency for its real properties located in NAIA Complex, Ninoy Aquino Avenue, Pasay City (NAIA Pasay properties) is tabulated as follows: TAX DECLA TAXABL E YEAR RATIO N A718308346 A718305224 A719100843 A719100140 19972001 19922001 19922001 19922001

A719100139 A718305409 A718305410 A718305413 A718305412 A718305411 A718305245

19922001 19922001 19922001 19922001 19922001 19922001 19922001

6,068,448.00

3,801,882.85

9,870,330.85

59,129,520.00

37,044,644.28

96,174,164.28

20,619,720.00

12,918,254.58

33,537,974.58

7,908,240.00

4,954,512.36

12,862,752.36

18,441,981.20

11,553,901.13

29,995,882.33

109,946,736.0 0

68,881,630.13

178,828,366.13

7,440,000.00 P642,747,726. 20

4,661,160.00 P373,466,110. 13

12,101,160.00 P1,016,213,836. 33

GRAND TOTAL

TAX DUE

PENALTY

TOTAL

243,522,855.0 0 113,582,466.0 0

123,351,728.1 8

366,874,583.18

71,159,414.98

184,741,880.98

54,454,800.00

34,115,932.20

88,570,732.20

1,632,960.00

1,023,049.44

2,656,009.44

On 24 August 2001, the City of Pasay, through its City Treasurer, issued notices of levy and warrants of levy for the NAIA Pasay properties. MIAA received the notices and warrants of levy on 28 August 2001. Thereafter, the City Mayor of Pasay threatened to sell at public auction the NAIA Pasay properties if the delinquent real property taxes remain unpaid. On 29 October 2001, MIAA filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for prohibition and injunction with prayer for preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order. The petition sought to enjoin the City of Pasay from imposing real property taxes on, levying against, and auctioning for public sale the NAIA Pasay properties. On 30 October 2002, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition and upheld the power of the City of Pasay to impose and collect realty taxes on the NAIA Pasay properties. MIAA filed a motion for reconsideration, which the Court of Appeals denied. Hence, this petition. The Court of Appeals Ruling The Court of Appeals held that Sections 193 and 234 of Republic Act No. 7160 or the Local Government Code, which took effect on 1 January 1992, withdrew the exemption from payment of real property taxes granted to natural or juridical persons, including government-owned or controlled corporations, except local water districts, cooperatives duly registered under Republic Act No. 6938, non-

stock and non-profit hospitals and educational institutions. Since MIAA is a government-owned corporation, it follows that its tax exemption under Section 21 of EO 903 has been withdrawn upon the effectivity of the Local Government Code. The Issue The issue raised in this petition is whether the NAIA Pasay properties of MIAA are exempt from real property tax. The Courts Ruling The petition is meritorious. In ruling that MIAA is not exempt from paying real property tax, the Court of Appeals cited Sections 193 and 234 of the Local Government Code which read: SECTION 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. No. 6938, non-stock and non-profit hospitals and educational institutions, are hereby withdrawn upon the effectivity of this Code. SECTION 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 has been granted, for consideration or otherwise to a taxable person; (b) Charitable institutions, churches, parsonages or convents appurtenant thereto, mosques, non-profit or religious cemeteries and all lands, buildings 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 environment protection. 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 all government-owned or controlled corporations are hereby withdrawn upon the effectivity of this Code. The Court of Appeals held that as a government-owned corporation, MIAAs tax exemption under Section 21 of EO 903 has already been withdrawn upon the effectivity of the Local Government Code in 1992. In Manila International Airport Authority v. Court of Appeals 6 (2006 MIAA case), this Court already resolved the issue of whether the airport lands and buildings of MIAA are exempt from tax under existing laws. The 2006 MIAA case originated from a petition for prohibition and injunction which MIAA filed with the Court of Appeals, seeking to restrain the City of Paraaque from imposing real property tax on, levying against, and auctioning for public sale the airport lands and buildings located in Paraaque City. The only difference between the 2006 MIAA case and this case is that the 2006 MIAA case involved airport lands and

buildings located in Paraaque City while this case involved airport lands and buildings located in Pasay City. The 2006 MIAA case and this case raised the same threshold issue: whether the local government can impose real property tax on the airport lands, consisting mostly of the runways, as well as the airport buildings, of MIAA. In the 2006 MIAA case, this Court held: To summarize, MIAA is not a government-owned or controlled corporation under Section 2(13) of the Introductory Provisions of the Administrative Code because it is not organized as a stock or non-stock corporation. Neither is MIAA a government-owned or controlled corporation under Section 16, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution because MIAA is not required to meet the test of economic viability. MIAA is a government instrumentality vested with corporate powers and performing essential public services pursuant to Section 2(10) of the Introductory Provisions of the Administrative Code. As a government instrumentality, MIAA is not subject to any kind of tax by local governments under Section 133(o) of the Local Government Code. The exception to the exemption in Section 234(a) does not apply to MIAA because MIAA is not a taxable entity under the Local Government Code. Such exception applies only if the beneficial use of real property owned by the Republic is given to a taxable entity. Finally, the Airport Lands and Buildings of MIAA are properties devoted to public use and thus are properties of public dominion. Properties of public dominion are owned by the State or the Republic. Article 420 of the Civil Code provides: Art. 420. The following things are property of public dominion: (1) Those intended for public use, such as roads, canals, rivers, torrents, ports and bridgesconstructed by the State, banks, shores, roadsteads, and others of similar character; (2) Those which belong to the State, without being for public use, and are intended for some public service or for the development of the national wealth. The term "ports x x x constructed by the State" includes airports and seaports. The Airport Lands and Buildings of MIAA are intended for public use, and at the very least intended for public service. Whether intended for public use or public service, the Airport Lands and Buildings are properties of public dominion. As properties of public dominion, the Airport Lands and Buildings are owned by the Republic and thus exempt from real estate tax under Section 234(a) of the Local Government Code.7 (Emphasis in the original) The definition of "instrumentality" under Section 2(10) of the Introductory Provisions of the Administrative Code of 1987 uses the phrase "includes x x x government-owned or controlled corporations" which means that a government "instrumentality" may or may not be a "government-owned or controlled corporation." Obviously, the term government "instrumentality" is broader than the term "government-owned or controlled corporation." Section 2(10) provides: SEC. 2. General Terms Defined. x x x (10) Instrumentality refers to any agency of the national Government, not integrated within the department framework, 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 or controlled corporations.

The term "government-owned or controlled corporation" has a separate definition under Section 2(13)8 of the Introductory Provisions of the Administrative Code of 1987: SEC. 2. General Terms Defined. x x x (13) Government-owned or controlled corporation refers to any agency organized as a stock or non-stock corporation, vested with functions relating to public needs whether governmental or proprietary in nature, and owned by the Government directly or through its instrumentalities either wholly, or, where applicable as in the case of stock corporations, to the extent of at least fifty-one (51) percent of its capital stock: Provided, That government-owned or controlled corporations may further be categorized by the department of Budget, the Civil Service Commission, and the Commission on Audit for the purpose of the exercise and discharge of their respective powers, functions and responsibilities with respect to such corporations. The fact that two terms have separate definitions means that while a government "instrumentality" may include a "government-owned or controlled corporation," there may be a government "instrumentality" that will not qualify as a "government-owned or controlled corporation." A close scrutiny of the definition of "government-owned or controlled corporation" in Section 2(13) will show that MIAA would not fall under such definition. MIAA is a government "instrumentality" that does not qualify as a "governmentowned or controlled corporation." As explained in the 2006 MIAA case: A government-owned or controlled corporation must be "organized as a stock or non-stock corporation." MIAA is not organized as a stock or non-stock corporation. MIAA is not a stock corporation because it has no capital stock divided into shares. MIAA has no stockholders or voting shares. x x x Section 3 of the Corporation Code defines a stock corporation as one whose "capital stock is divided into shares and x x x authorized to distribute to the holders of such shares dividends x x x." MIAA has capital but it is not divided into shares of stock. MIAA has no stockholders or voting shares. Hence, MIAA is not a stock corporation. xxx MIAA is also not a non-stock corporation because it has no members. Section 87 of the Corporation Code defines a non-stock corporation as "one where no part of its income is distributable as dividends to its members, trustees or officers." A non-stock corporation must have members. Even if we assume that the Government is considered as the sole member of MIAA, this will not make MIAA a non-stock corporation. Non-stock corporations cannot distribute any part of their income to their members. Section 11 of the MIAA Charter mandates MIAA to remit 20% of its annual gross operating income to the National Treasury. This prevents MIAA from qualifying as a non-stock corporation. Section 88 of the Corporation Code provides that non-stock corporations are "organized for charitable, religious, educational, professional, cultural, recreational, fraternal, literary, scientific, social, civil service, or similar purposes, like trade, industry, agriculture and like chambers." MIAA is not organized for any of these purposes. MIAA, a public utility, is organized to operate an international and domestic airport for public use.

Since MIAA is neither a stock nor a non-stock corporation, MIAA does not qualify as a government-owned or controlled corporation. What then is the legal status of MIAA within the National Government? MIAA is a government instrumentality vested with corporate powers to perform efficiently its governmental functions. MIAA is like any other government instrumentality, the only difference is that MIAA is vested with corporate powers. xxx When the law vests in a government instrumentality corporate powers, the instrumentality does not become a corporation. Unless the government instrumentality is organized as a stock or non-stock corporation, it remains a government instrumentality exercising not only governmental but also corporate powers. Thus, MIAA exercises the governmental powers of eminent domain, police authority and the levying of fees and charges. At the same time, MIAA exercises "all the powers of a corporation under the Corporation Law, insofar as these powers are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Executive Order."9 Thus, MIAA is not a government-owned or controlled corporation but a government instrumentality which is exempt from any kind of tax from the local governments. Indeed, the exercise of the taxing power of local government units is subject to the limitations enumerated in Section 133 of the Local Government Code.10 Under Section 133(o)11of the Local Government Code, local government units have no power to tax instrumentalities of the national government like the MIAA. Hence, MIAA is not liable to pay real property tax for the NAIA Pasay properties. Furthermore, the airport lands and buildings of MIAA are properties of public dominion intended for public use, and as such are exempt from real property tax under Section 234(a) of the Local Government Code. However, under the same provision, if MIAA leases its real property to a taxable person, the specific property leased becomes subject to real property tax.12 In this case, only those portions of the NAIA Pasay properties which are leased to taxable persons like private parties are subject to real property tax by the City of Pasay. WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petition. We SET ASIDE the Decision dated 30 October 2002 and the Resolution dated 19 March 2004 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 67416. We DECLARE the NAIA Pasay properties of the Manila International Airport Authority EXEMPT from real property tax imposed by the City of Pasay. We declare VOID all the real property tax assessments, including the final notices of real property tax delinquencies, issued by the City of Pasay on the NAIA Pasay properties of the Manila International Airport Authority, except for the portions that the Manila International Airport Authority has leased to private parties. No costs. SO ORDERED.

THIRD DIVISION xxxx THE CITY OF MANILA,LIBERTY M. TOLEDO, in her capacity as THE TREASURER OF MANILA and JOSEPHSANTIAGO, in his capacity as the CHIEF OF THE LICENSE DIVISION OF CITY OFMANILA, Petitioners, G.R. No. 181845 over P6,500,000.00 up to P25,000,000.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- P36,000.00 plus 50% of 1% in excess of P6,500,000.00 xxxx YNARES-SANTIAGO, J., Chairperson, CHICO-NAZARIO, VELASCO, JR., NACHURA, and PERALTA, JJ. Section 21. Tax on Businesses Subject to the Excise, ValueAdded or Percentage Taxes under the NIRC. On any of the following businesses and articles of commerce subject to excise, value-added or percentage taxes under the National Internal Revenue Code hereinafter referred to as NIRC, as amended, a tax of FIFTY PERCENT (50%) of ONE PERCENT (1%) per annum on the gross sales or receipts of the preceding calendar year is hereby imposed: (A) On persons who sell goods and services in the course of trade or business; and those who import goods whether for business or otherwise; as provided for in Sections 100 to 103 of the NIRC as administered and determined by the Bureau of Internal Revenue pursuant to the pertinent provisions of the said Code. xxxx CHICO-NAZARIO, J.: This case is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure seeking to review and reverse the Decision[1] dated 18 January 2008 and Resolution[2] dated 18 February 2008 of the Court of Tax Appeals en banc (CTA en banc) in C.T.A. EB No. 307. In its assailed Decision, the CTA en banc dismissed the Petition for Review of herein petitioners City of Manila, Liberty M. Toledo (Toledo), and Joseph Santiago (Santiago); and affirmed the Resolutions dated 24 May 2007,[3] 8 June 2007,[4] and 26 July 2007,[5] of the CTA First Division in C.T.A. AC No. 31, which, in turn, dismissed the Petition for Review of petitioners in said case for being filed out of time. In its questioned Resolution, the CTA en banc denied the Motion for Reconsideration of petitioners. Petitioner City of Manila is a public corporation empowered to collect and assess business taxes, revenue fees, and permit fees, through its officers, petitioners Toledo andSantiago, in their capacities as City Treasurer and Chief of the Licensing Division, respectively. On the other hand, respondent Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. is a corporation engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling beverages, and which maintains a sales office in the City of Manila. The case stemmed from the following facts: Prior to 25 February 2000, respondent had been paying the City of Manila local business tax only under Section 14 of Tax Ordinance No. 7794,[6] being expressly exempted from the business tax under Section 21 of the same tax ordinance. Pertinent provisions of Tax Ordinance No. 7794 provide: Section 14. Tax on Manufacturers, Assemblers and Other Processors. There is hereby imposed a graduated tax on manufacturers, assemblers, repackers, processors, brewers, distillers, rectifiers, and compounders of liquors, distilled spirits, and wines or manufacturers of any article of commerce of whatever kind or nature, in accordance with any of the following schedule: (D) Excisable goods subject to VAT (1) Distilled spirits (2) Wines xxxx (8) (9) ad valorem tax xxxx PROVIDED, that all registered businesses in the City of Manila that are already paying the aforementioned tax shall be exempted from payment thereof. Coal and coke Fermented liquor, brewers wholesale price, excluding the

Present:

- versus COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILIPPINES, INC., Respondent.

Promulgated: August 4, 2009 x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x DECISION

Petitioner City of Manila subsequently approved on 25 February 2000, Tax Ordinance No. 7988,[7] amending certain sections of Tax Ordinance No. 7794, particularly: (1) Section 14, by increasing the tax rates applicable to certain establishments operating within the territorial jurisdiction of the City of Manila; and (2) Section 21, by deleting theproviso found therein, which stated that all registered businesses in the City of Manila that are already paying the aforementioned tax shall be exempted from payment thereof. Petitioner City of Manila approved only after a year, on 22 February 2001, another tax ordinance, Tax Ordinance No. 8011, amending Tax Ordinance No. 7988. Tax Ordinances No. 7988 and No. 8011 were later declared by the Court null and void in Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. v. City of Manila[8] (Coca-Cola case) for the following reasons: (1) Tax Ordinance No. 7988 was enacted in contravention of the provisions of the Local Government Code (LGC) of 1991 and its implementing rules and regulations; and (2) Tax Ordinance No. 8011 could not cure the defects of Tax Ordinance No. 7988, which did not legally exist.

However, before the Court could declare Tax Ordinance No. 7988 and Tax Ordinance No. 8011 null and void, petitioner City of Manila assessed respondent on the basis of Section 21 of Tax Ordinance No. 7794, as amended by the aforementioned tax ordinances, for deficiency local business taxes, penalties, and interest, in the total amount ofP18,583,932.04, for the third and fourth quarters of the year 2000. Respondent filed a protest with petitioner Toledo on the ground that the said assessment amounted to double taxation, as respondent was taxed twice, i.e., under Sections 14 and 21 of Tax Ordinance No. 7794, as amended by Tax Ordinances No. 7988 and No. 8011. Petitioner Toledodid not respond to the protest of respondent. Consequently, respondent filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 47, an action for the cancellation of the assessment against respondent for business taxes, which was docketed as Civil Case No. 03-107088. On 14 July 2006, the RTC rendered a Decision[9] dismissing Civil Case No. 03107088. The RTC ruled that the business taxes imposed upon the respondent under Sections 14 and 21 of Tax Ordinance No. 7988, as amended, were not of the same kind or character; therefore, there was no double taxation. The RTC, though, in an Order[10]dated 16 November 2006, granted the Motion for Reconsideration of respondent, decreed the cancellation and withdrawal of the assessment against the latter, and barred petitioners from further imposing/assessing local business taxes against respondent under Section 21 of Tax Ordinance No. 7794, as amended by Tax Ordinance No. 7988 and Tax Ordinance No. 8011. The 16 November 2006 Decision of the RTC was in conformity with the ruling of this Court in the CocaCola case, in which Tax Ordinance No. 7988 and Tax Ordinance No. 8011 were declared null and void. The Motion for Reconsideration of petitioners was denied by the RTC in an Order[11] dated 4 April 2007. Petitioners received a copy of the 4 April 2007 Order of the RTC, denying their Motion for Reconsideration of the 16 November 2006 Order of the same court, on 20 April 2007. On 4 May 2007, petitioners filed with the CTA a Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review, praying for a 15-day extension or until 20 May 2007 within which to file their Petition. The Motion for Extension of petitioners was docketed as C.T.A. AC No. 31, raffled to the CTA First Division. Again, on 18 May 2007, petitioners filed, through registered mail, a Second Motion for Extension of Time to File a Petition for Review, praying for another 10-day extension, or until 30 May 2007, within which to file their Petition. On 24 May 2007, however, the CTA First Division already issued a Resolution dismissing C.T.A. AC No. 31 for failure of petitioners to timely file their Petition for Review on 20 May 2007. Unaware of the 24 May 2007 Resolution of the CTA First Division, petitioners filed their Petition for Review therewith on 30 May 2007 via registered mail. On 8 June 2007, the CTA First Division issued another Resolution, reiterating the dismissal of the Petition for Review of petitioners. Petitioners moved for the reconsideration of the foregoing Resolutions dated 24 May 2007 and 8 June 2007, but their motion was denied by the CTA First Division in a Resolution dated 26 July 2007. The CTA First Division reasoned that the Petition for Review of petitioners was not only filed out of time -- it also failed to comply with the provisions of Section 4, Rule 5; and Sections 2 and 3, Rule 6, of the Revised Rules of the CTA. Petitioners thereafter filed a Petition for Review before the CTA en banc, docketed as C.T.A. EB No. 307, arguing that the CTA First Division erred in dismissing their Petition for Review in C.T.A. AC No. 31 for being filed out of time, without considering the merits of their Petition.

The CTA en banc rendered its Decision on 18 January 2008, dismissing the Petition for Review of petitioners and affirming the Resolutions dated 24 May 2007, 8 June 2007, and 26 July 2007 of the CTA First Division. The CTA en banc similarly denied the Motion for Reconsideration of petitioners in a Resolution dated 18 February 2008. Hence, the present Petition, where petitioners raise the following issues: I. WHETHER OR NOT PETITIONERS SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLIED WITH THE REGLEMENTARY PERIOD TO TIMELY APPEAL THE CASE FOR REVIEW BEFORE THE [CTA DIVISION]. WHETHER OR NOT THE RULING OF THIS COURT IN THE EARLIER [COCA-COLA CASE] IS DOCTRINAL AND CONTROLLING IN THE INSTANT CASE. WHETHER OR NOT PETITIONER CITY OF MANILA CAN STILL ASSESS TAXES UNDER [SECTIONS] 14 AND 21 OF [TAX ORDINANCE NO. 7794, AS AMENDED]. WHETHER OR NOT THE ENFORCEMENT OF [SECTION] 21 OF THE [TAX ORDINANCE NO. 7794, AS AMENDED] CONSTITUTES DOUBLE TAXATION.

II.

III.

IV.

Petitioners assert that Section 1, Rule 7[12] of the Revised Rules of the CTA refers to certain provisions of the Rules of Court, such as Rule 42 of the latter, and makes them applicable to the tax court. Petitioners then cannot be faulted in relying on the provisions of Section 1, Rule 42[13] of the Rules of Court as regards the period for filing a Petition for Review with the CTA in division. Section 1, Rule 42 of the Rules of Court provides for a 15-day period, reckoned from receipt of the adverse decision of the trial court, within which to file a Petition for Review with the Court of Appeals. The same rule allows an additional 15-day period within which to file such a Petition; and, only for the most compelling reasons, another extension period not to exceed 15 days. Petitioners received on 20 April 2007 a copy of the 4 April 2007 Order of the RTC, denying their Motion for Reconsideration of the 16 November 2006 Order of the same court. On 4 May 2007, believing that they only had 15 days to file a Petition for Review with the CTA in division, petitioners moved for a 15-day extension, or until 20 May 2007, within which to file said Petition. Prior to the lapse of their first extension period, or on 18 May 2007, petitioners again moved for a 10-day extension, or until 30 May 2007, within which to file their Petition for Review. Thus, when petitioners filed their Petition for Review with the CTA First Division on 30 May 2007, the same was filed well within the reglementary period for doing so. Petitioners argue in the alternative that even assuming that Section 3(a), Rule 8 [14] of the Revised Rules of the CTA governs the period for filing a Petition for Review with the CTA in division, still, their Petition for Review was filed within the reglementary period. Petitioners call attention to the fact that prior to the lapse of the 30-day period for filing a Petition for Review under Section 3(a), Rule 8 of the Revised Rules of the CTA, they had already moved for a 10day extension, or until 30 May 2007, within which to file their Petition. Petitioners claim that there was sufficient justification in equity for the grant of the 10-day extension they requested, as the primordial consideration should be the substantive, and not the procedural, aspect of the case. Moreover, Section 3(a), Rule 8 of the Revised Rules of the CTA, is silent as to whether the 30-day period for filing a Petition for Review with the CTA in division may be extended or not. Petitioners also contend that the Coca-Cola case is not determinative of the issues in the present case because the issue of nullity of Tax Ordinance No. 7988 and Tax Ordinance No. 8011 is not the lis mota herein. The Coca-Cola case is not doctrinal and cannot be considered as the law of the case.

Petitioners further insist that notwithstanding the declaration of nullity of Tax Ordinance No. 7988 and Tax Ordinance No. 8011, Tax Ordinance No. 7794 remains a valid piece of local legislation. The nullity of Tax Ordinance No. 7988 and Tax Ordinance No. 8011 does not effectively bar petitioners from imposing local business taxes upon respondent under Sections 14 and 21 of Tax Ordinance No. 7794, as they were read prior to their being amended by the foregoing null and void tax ordinances. Petitioners finally maintain that imposing upon respondent local business taxes under both Sections 14 and 21 of Tax Ordinance No. 7794 does not constitute direct double taxation. Section 143 of the LGC gives municipal, as well as city governments, the power to impose business taxes, to wit: SECTION 143. Tax on Business. The municipality may impose taxes on the following businesses: (a) On manufacturers, assemblers, repackers, processors, brewers, distillers, rectifiers, and compounders of liquors, distilled spirits, and wines or manufacturers of any article of commerce of whatever kind or nature, in accordance with the following schedule: xxxx (b) On wholesalers, distributors, or dealers in any article of commerce of whatever kind or nature in accordance with the following schedule: xxxx

(h) On any business, not otherwise specified in the preceding paragraphs, which the sanggunian concerned may deem proper to tax: Provided, That on any business subject to the excise, value-added or percentage tax under the National Internal Revenue Code, as amended, the rate of tax shall not exceed two percent (2%) of gross sales or receipts of the preceding calendar year.

Section 14 of Tax Ordinance No. 7794 imposes local business tax on manufacturers, etc. of liquors, distilled spirits, wines, and any other article of commerce, pursuant to Section 143(a) of the LGC. On the other hand, the local business tax under Section 21 of Tax Ordinance No. 7794 is imposed upon persons selling goods and services in the course of trade or business, and those importing goods for business or otherwise, who, pursuant to Section 143(h) of the LGC, are subject to excise tax, value-added tax (VAT), or percentage tax under the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC). Thus, there can be no double taxation when respondent is being taxed under both Sections 14 and 21 of Tax Ordinance No. 7794, for under the first, it is being taxed as a manufacturer; while under the second, it is being taxed as a person selling goods in the course of trade or business subject to excise, VAT, or percentage tax. The Court first addresses the issue raised by petitioners concerning the period within which to file with the CTA a Petition for Review from an adverse decision or ruling of the RTC. The period to appeal the decision or ruling of the RTC to the CTA via a Petition for Review is specifically governed by Section 11 of Republic Act No. 9282, [15] and Section 3(a), Rule 8 of the Revised Rules of the CTA. Section 11 of Republic Act No. 9282 provides:

(c) On exporters, and on manufacturers, millers, producers, wholesalers, distributors, dealers or retailers of essential commodities enumerated hereunder at a rate not exceeding one-half (1/2) of the rates prescribed under subsections (a), (b) and (d) of this Section: xxxx Provided, however, That barangays shall have the exclusive power to levy taxes, as provided under Section 152 hereof, on gross sales or receipts of the preceding calendar year of Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) or less, in the case of cities, and Thirty thousand pesos (P30,000) or less, in the case of municipalities. (e) On contractors and other independent contractors, in accordance with the following schedule: xxxx (f) On banks and other financial institutions, at a rate not exceeding fifty percent (50%) of one percent (1%) on the gross receipts of the preceding calendar year derived from interest, commissions and discounts from lending activities, income from financial leasing, dividends, rentals on property and profit from exchange or sale of property, insurance premium. (g) On peddlers engaged in the sale of any merchandise or article of commerce, at a rate not exceeding Fifty pesos (P50.00) per peddler annually.

SEC. 11. Who May Appeal; Mode of Appeal; Effect of Appeal. Any party adversely affected by a decision, ruling or inaction of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, the Commissioner of Customs, the Secretary of Finance, the Secretary of Trade and Industry or the Secretary of Agriculture or the Central Board of Assessment Appeals or the Regional Trial Courts may file an Appeal with the CTA within thirty (30) days after the receipt of such decision or ruling or after the expiration of the period fixed by law for action as referred to in Section 7(a)(2) herein. Appeal shall be made by filing a petition for review under a procedure analogous to that provided for under Rule 42 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure with the CTA within thirty (30) days from the receipt of the decision or ruling or in the case of inaction as herein provided, from the expiration of the period fixed by law to act thereon. x x x. (Emphasis supplied.)

Section 3(a), Rule 8 of the Revised Rules of the CTA states: SEC 3. Who may appeal; period to file petition. (a) A party adversely affected by a decision, ruling or the inaction of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue on disputed assessments or claims for refund of internal revenue taxes, or by a decision or ruling of the Commissioner of Customs, the Secretary of Finance, the Secretary of Trade and Industry, the Secretary of Agriculture, or a Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction may appeal to the Court by petition for review filed within thirty days after receipt of a copy of such decision or ruling, or expiration of the period fixed by law for the Commissioner of Internal Revenue to act on the disputed assessments. x x x. (Emphasis supplied.)

It is crystal clear from the afore-quoted provisions that to appeal an adverse decision or ruling of the RTC to the CTA, the taxpayer must file a Petition for Review with the CTA within 30 days from receipt of said adverse decision or ruling of the RTC. It is also true that the same provisions are silent as to whether such 30-day period can be extended or not. However, Section 11 of Republic Act No. 9282 does state that the Petition for Review shall be filed with the CTA following the procedure analogous to Rule 42 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure. Section 1, Rule 42[16] of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure provides that the Petition for Review of an adverse judgment or final order of the RTC must be filed with the Court of Appeals within: (1) the original 15-day period from receipt of the judgment or final order to be appealed; (2) an extended period of 15 days from the lapse of the original period; and (3) only for the most compelling reasons, another extended period not to exceed 15 days from the lapse of the first extended period. Following by analogy Section 1, Rule 42 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, the 30-day original period for filing a Petition for Review with the CTA under Section 11 of Republic Act No. 9282, as implemented by Section 3(a), Rule 8 of the Revised Rules of the CTA, may be extended for a period of 15 days. No further extension shall be allowed thereafter, except only for the most compelling reasons, in which case the extended period shall not exceed 15 days. Even the CTA en banc, in its Decision dated 18 January 2008, recognizes that the 30day period within which to file the Petition for Review with the CTA may, indeed, be extended, thus: Being suppletory to R.A. 9282, the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure allow an additional period of fifteen (15) days for the movant to file a Petition for Review, upon Motion, and payment of the full amount of the docket fees. A further extension of fifteen (15) days may be granted on compelling reasons in accordance with the provision of Section 1, Rule 42 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure x x x.[17]

Nevertheless, there were other reasons for which the CTA First Division dismissed the Petition for Review of petitioners in C.T.A. AC No. 31; i.e., petitioners failed to conform to Section 4 of Rule 5, and Section 2 of Rule 6 of the Revised Rules of the CTA. The Court sustains the CTA First Division in this regard. Section 4, Rule 5 of the Revised Rules of the CTA requires that: SEC. 4. Number of copies. The parties shall file eleven signed copies of every paper for cases before the Court en banc and six signed copies for cases before a Division of the Court in addition to the signed original copy, except as otherwise directed by the Court. Papers to be filed in more than one case shall include one additional copy for each additional case. (Emphasis supplied.)

Section 2, Rule 6 of the Revised Rules of the CTA further necessitates that: SEC. 2. Petition for review; contents. The petition for review shall contain allegations showing the jurisdiction of the Court, a concise statement of the complete facts and a summary statement of the issues involved in the case, as well as the reasons relied upon for the review of the challenged decision. The petition shall be verified and must contain a certification against forum shopping as provided in Section 3, Rule 46 of the Rules of Court. A clearly legible duplicate original or certified true copy of the decision appealed from shall be attached to the petition. (Emphasis supplied.)

The aforesaid provisions should be read in conjunction with Section 1, Rule 7 of the Revised Rules of the CTA, which provides: SECTION 1. Applicability of the Rules of Court on procedure in the Court of Appeals, exception. The procedure in the Court en banc or in Divisions in original or in appealed cases shall be the same as those in petitions for review and appeals before the Court of Appeals pursuant to the applicable provisions of Rules 42, 43, 44, and 46 of the Rules of Court, except as otherwise provided for in these Rules. (Emphasis supplied.)

In this case, the CTA First Division did indeed err in finding that petitioners failed to file their Petition for Review in C.T.A. AC No. 31 within the reglementary period. From 20 April 2007, the date petitioners received a copy of the 4 April 2007 Order of the RTC, denying their Motion for Reconsideration of the 16 November 2006 Order, petitioners had 30 days, or until 20 May 2007, within which to file their Petition for Review with the CTA. Hence, the Motion for Extension filed by petitioners on 4 May 2007 grounded on their belief that the reglementary period for filing their Petition for Review with the CTA was to expire on 5 May 2007, thus, compelling them to seek an extension of 15 days, or until 20 May 2007, to file said Petition was unnecessary and superfluous. Even without said Motion for Extension, petitioners could file their Petition for Review until 20 May 2007, as it was still within the 30-day reglementary period provided for under Section 11 of Republic Act No. 9282; and implemented by Section 3(a), Rule 8 of the Revised Rules of the CTA. The Motion for Extension filed by the petitioners on 18 May 2007, prior to the lapse of the 30-day reglementary period on 20 May 2007, in which they prayed for another extended period of 10 days, or until 30 May 2007, to file their Petition for Review was, in reality, only the first Motion for Extension of petitioners. The CTA First Division should have granted the same, as it was sanctioned by the rules of procedure. In fact, petitioners were only praying for a 10day extension, five days less than the 15-day extended period allowed by the rules. Thus, when petitioners filed via registered mail their Petition for Review in C.T.A. AC No. 31 on 30 May 2007, they were able to comply with the reglementary period for filing such a petition.

As found by the CTA First Division and affirmed by the CTA en banc, the Petition for Review filed by petitioners via registered mail on 30 May 2007 consisted only of one copy and all the attachments thereto, including the Decision dated 14 July 2006; and that the assailed Orders dated 16 November 2006 and 4 April 2007 of the RTC in Civil Case No. 03-107088 were mere machine copies. Evidently, petitioners did not comply at all with the requirements set forth under Section 4, Rule 5; or with Section 2, Rule 6 of the Revised Rules of the CTA. Although the Revised Rules of the CTA do not provide for the consequence of such non-compliance, Section 3, Rule 42 of the Rules of Court may be applied suppletorily, as allowed by Section 1, Rule 7 of the Revised Rules of the CTA. Section 3, Rule 42 of the Rules of Court reads: SEC. 3. Effect of failure to comply with requirements. The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements regarding the payment of the docket and other lawful fees, the deposit for costs, proof of service of the petition, and the contents of and the documents which should accompany the petition shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal thereof. (Emphasis supplied.)

True, petitioners subsequently submitted certified copies of the Decision dated 14 July 2006 and assailed Orders dated 16 November 2006 and 4 April 2007 of the RTC in Civil Case No. 03-107088, but a closer examination of the stamp on said documents reveals that they were prepared and certified only on 14 August 2007, about two months and a half after the filing of the Petition for Review by petitioners. Petitioners never offered an explanation for their non-compliance with Section 4 of Rule 5, and Section 2 of Rule 6 of the Revised Rules of the CTA. Hence, although the Court had, in previous instances, relaxed the application of rules of procedure, it cannot do so in this case for lack of any justification. Even assuming arguendo that the Petition for Review of petitioners in C.T.A. AC No. 31 should have been given due course by the CTA First Division, it is still dismissible for lack of merit. Contrary to the assertions of petitioners, the Coca-Cola case is indeed applicable to the instant case. The pivotal issue raised therein was whether Tax Ordinance No. 7988 and Tax Ordinance No. 8011 were null and void, which this Court resolved in the affirmative. Tax Ordinance No. 7988 was declared by the Secretary of the Department of Justice (DOJ) as null and void and without legal effect due to the failure of herein petitioner City of Manila to satisfy the requirement under the law that said ordinance be published for three consecutive days. Petitioner City of Manila never appealed said declaration of the DOJ Secretary; thus, it attained finality after the lapse of the period for appeal of the same. The passage of Tax Ordinance No. 8011, amending Tax Ordinance No. 7988, did not cure the defects of the latter, which, in any way, did not legally exist. By virtue of the Coca-Cola case, Tax Ordinance No. 7988 and Tax Ordinance No. 8011 are null and void and without any legal effect. Therefore, respondent cannot be taxed and assessed under the amendatory laws--Tax Ordinance No. 7988 and Tax Ordinance No. 8011. Petitioners insist that even with the declaration of nullity of Tax Ordinance No. 7988 and Tax Ordinance No. 8011, respondent could still be made liable for local business taxes under both Sections 14 and 21 of Tax Ordinance No. 7944 as they were originally read, without the amendment by the null and void tax ordinances. Emphasis must be given to the fact that prior to the passage of Tax Ordinance No. 7988 and Tax Ordinance No. 8011 by petitioner City of Manila, petitioners subjected and assessed respondent only for the local business tax under Section 14 of Tax Ordinance No. 7794, but never under Section 21 of the same. This was due to the clear and unambiguous proviso in Section 21 of Tax Ordinance No. 7794, which stated that all registered business in the City of Manila that are already paying the aforementioned tax shall be exempted from payment thereof. The aforementioned tax referred to in said proviso refers to local business tax. Stated differently, Section 21 of Tax Ordinance No. 7794 exempts from the payment of the local business tax imposed by said section, businesses that are already paying such tax under other sections of the same tax ordinance. The saidproviso, however, was deleted from Section 21 of Tax Ordinance No. 7794 by Tax Ordinances No. 7988 and No. 8011. Following this deletion, petitioners began assessing respondent for the local business tax under Section 21 of Tax Ordinance No. 7794, as amended. The Court easily infers from the foregoing circumstances that petitioners themselves believed that prior to Tax Ordinance No. 7988 and Tax Ordinance No. 8011, respondent was exempt from the local business tax under Section 21 of Tax Ordinance No. 7794. Hence, petitioners had to wait for the deletion of the exempting proviso in Section 21 of Tax Ordinance No. 7794 by Tax Ordinance No. 7988 and Tax Ordinance No. 8011 before they assessed respondent for the local business tax under said section. Yet, with the pronouncement by this Court in the Coca-Cola case that Tax Ordinance No. 7988 and Tax Ordinance No. 8011 were null and void and without legal effect, then Section 21 of Tax Ordinance No. 7794, as it has been previously worded, with its exempting proviso, is back in effect. Accordingly, respondent should

not have been subjected to the local business tax under Section 21 of Tax Ordinance No. 7794 for the third and fourth quarters of 2000, given its exemption therefrom since it was already paying the local business tax under Section 14 of the same ordinance. Petitioners obstinately ignore the exempting proviso in Section 21 of Tax Ordinance No. 7794, to their own detriment. Said exempting proviso was precisely included in said section so as to avoid double taxation. Double taxation means taxing the same property twice when it should be taxed only once; that is, taxing the same person twice by the same jurisdiction for the same thing. It is obnoxious when the taxpayer is taxed twice, when it should be but once. Otherwise described as direct duplicate taxation, the two taxes must be imposed on the same subject matter, for the same purpose, by the same taxing authority, within the same jurisdiction, during the same taxing period; and the taxes must be of the same kind or character.[18] Using the aforementioned test, the Court finds that there is indeed double taxation if respondent is subjected to the taxes under both Sections 14 and 21 of Tax Ordinance No. 7794, since these are being imposed: (1) on the same subject matter the privilege of doing business in the City of Manila; (2) for the same purpose to make persons conducting business within the City of Manila contribute to city revenues; (3) by the same taxing authority petitioner City of Manila; (4) within the same taxing jurisdiction within the territorial jurisdiction of the City of Manila; (5) for the same taxing periods per calendar year; and (6) of the same kind or character a local business tax imposed on gross sales or receipts of the business. The distinction petitioners attempt to make between the taxes under Sections 14 and 21 of Tax Ordinance No. 7794 is specious. The Court revisits Section 143 of the LGC, the very source of the power of municipalities and cities to impose a local business tax, and to which any local business tax imposed by petitioner City of Manila must conform. It is apparent from a perusal thereof that when a municipality or city has already imposed a business tax on manufacturers, etc. of liquors, distilled spirits, wines, and any other article of commerce, pursuant to Section 143(a) of the LGC, said municipality or city may no longer subject the same manufacturers, etc. to a business tax under Section 143(h) of the same Code. Section 143(h) may be imposed only on businesses that are subject to excise tax, VAT, or percentage tax under the NIRC, and that are not otherwise specified in preceding paragraphs. In the same way, businesses such as respondents, already subject to a local business tax under Section 14 of Tax Ordinance No. 7794 [which is based on Section 143(a) of the LGC], can no longer be made liable for local business tax under Section 21 of the same Tax Ordinance [which is based on Section 143(h) of the LGC]. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari is hereby DENIED. No costs.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. L-29646 November 10, 1978 MAYOR ANTONIO J. VILLEGAS, petitioner, vs. HIU CHIONG TSAI PAO HO and JUDGE FRANCISCO ARCA, respondents. Angel C. Cruz, Gregorio A. Ejercito, Felix C. Chaves & Jose Laureta for petitioner. Sotero H. Laurel for respondents. FERNANDEZ, J.: This is a petition for certiorari to review tile decision dated September 17, 1968 of respondent Judge Francisco Arca of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch I, in Civil Case No. 72797, the dispositive portion of winch reads. Wherefore, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the petitioner and against the respondents, declaring Ordinance No. 6 37 of the City of Manila null and void. The preliminary injunction is made permanent. No pronouncement as to cost. SO ORDERED. Manila, Philippines, September 17, 1968.(SGD.) FRANCISCO ARCAJudge 1 The controverted Ordinance No. 6537 was passed by the Municipal Board of Manila on February 22, 1968 and signed by the herein petitioner Mayor Antonio J. Villegas of Manila on March 27, 1968. 2 City Ordinance No. 6537 is entitled: AN ORDINANCE MAKING IT UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON NOT A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES TO BE EMPLOYED IN ANY PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT OR TO BE ENGAGED IN ANY KIND OF TRADE, BUSINESS OR OCCUPATION WITHIN THE CITY OF MANILA WITHOUT FIRST SECURING AN EMPLOYMENT PERMIT FROM THE MAYOR OF MANILA; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. 3 Section 1 of said Ordinance No. 6537 4 prohibits aliens from being employed or to engage or participate in any position or occupation or business enumerated therein, whether permanent, temporary or casual, without first securing an employment permit from the Mayor of Manila and paying the permit fee of P50.00 except persons employed in the diplomatic or consular missions of foreign countries, or in the technical

assistance programs of both the Philippine Government and any foreign government, and those working in their respective households, and members of religious orders or congregations, sect or denomination, who are not paid monetarily or in kind. Violations of this ordinance is punishable by an imprisonment of not less than three (3) months to six (6) months or fine of not less than P100.00 but not more than P200.00 or both such fine and imprisonment, upon conviction. 5 On May 4, 1968, private respondent Hiu Chiong Tsai Pao Ho who was employed in Manila, filed a petition with the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch I, denominated as Civil Case No. 72797, praying for the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction and restraining order to stop the enforcement of Ordinance No. 6537 as well as for a judgment declaring said Ordinance No. 6537 null and void. 6 In this petition, Hiu Chiong Tsai Pao Ho assigned the following as his grounds for wanting the ordinance declared null and void: 1) As a revenue measure imposed on aliens employed in the City of Manila, Ordinance No. 6537 is discriminatory and violative of the rule of the uniformity in taxation; 2) As a police power measure, it makes no distinction between useful and non-useful occupations, imposing a fixed P50.00 employment permit, which is out of proportion to the cost of registration and that it fails to prescribe any standard to guide and/or limit the action of the Mayor, thus, violating the fundamental principle on illegal delegation of legislative powers: 3) It is arbitrary, oppressive and unreasonable, being applied only to aliens who are thus, deprived of their rights to life, liberty and property and therefore, violates the due process and equal protection clauses of the Constitution. 7 On May 24, 1968, respondent Judge issued the writ of preliminary injunction and on September 17, 1968 rendered judgment declaring Ordinance No. 6537 null and void and making permanent the writ of preliminary injunction. 8 Contesting the aforecited decision of respondent Judge, then Mayor Antonio J. Villegas filed the present petition on March 27, 1969. Petitioner assigned the following as errors allegedly committed by respondent Judge in the latter's decision of September 17,1968: 9 I THE RESPONDENT JUDGE COMMITTED A SERIOUS AND PATENT ERROR OF LAW IN RULING THAT ORDINANCE NO. 6537 VIOLATED THE CARDINAL RULE OF UNIFORMITY OF TAXATION.

II RESPONDENT JUDGE LIKEWISE COMMITTED A GRAVE AND PATENT ERROR OF LAW IN RULING THAT ORDINANCE NO. 6537 VIOLATED THE PRINCIPLE AGAINST UNDUE DESIGNATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWER. III RESPONDENT JUDGE FURTHER COMMITTED A SERIOUS AND PATENT ERROR OF LAW IN RULING THAT ORDINANCE NO. 6537 VIOLATED THE DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSES OF THE CONSTITUTION. Petitioner Mayor Villegas argues that Ordinance No. 6537 cannot be declared null and void on the ground that it violated the rule on uniformity of taxation because the rule on uniformity of taxation applies only to purely tax or revenue measures and that Ordinance No. 6537 is not a tax or revenue measure but is an exercise of the police power of the state, it being principally a regulatory measure in nature. The contention that Ordinance No. 6537 is not a purely tax or revenue measure because its principal purpose is regulatory in nature has no merit. While it is true that the first part which requires that the alien shall secure an employment permit from the Mayor involves the exercise of discretion and judgment in the processing and approval or disapproval of applications for employment permits and therefore is regulatory in character the second part which requires the payment of P50.00 as employee's fee is not regulatory but a revenue measure. There is no logic or justification in exacting P50.00 from aliens who have been cleared for employment. It is obvious that the purpose of the ordinance is to raise money under the guise of regulation. The P50.00 fee is unreasonable not only because it is excessive but because it fails to consider valid substantial differences in situation among individual aliens who are required to pay it. Although the equal protection clause of the Constitution does not forbid classification, it is imperative that the classification should be based on real and substantial differences having a reasonable relation to the subject of the particular legislation. The same amount of P50.00 is being collected from every employed alien whether he is casual or permanent, part time or full time or whether he is a lowly employee or a highly paid executive Ordinance No. 6537 does not lay down any criterion or standard to guide the Mayor in the exercise of his discretion. It has been held that where an ordinance of a municipality fails to state any policy or to set up any standard to guide or limit the mayor's action, expresses no purpose to be attained by requiring a permit, enumerates no conditions for its grant or refusal, and entirely lacks standard, thus conferring upon the Mayor

arbitrary and unrestricted power to grant or deny the issuance of building permits, such ordinance is invalid, being an undefined and unlimited delegation of power to allow or prevent an activity per se lawful. 10 In Chinese Flour Importers Association vs. Price Stabilization Board, 11 where a law granted a government agency power to determine the allocation of wheat flour among importers, the Supreme Court ruled against the interpretation of uncontrolled power as it vested in the administrative officer an arbitrary discretion to be exercised without a policy, rule, or standard from which it can be measured or controlled. It was also held in Primicias vs. Fugoso 12 that the authority and discretion to grant and refuse permits of all classes conferred upon the Mayor of Manila by the Revised Charter of Manila is not uncontrolled discretion but legal discretion to be exercised within the limits of the law. Ordinance No. 6537 is void because it does not contain or suggest any standard or criterion to guide the mayor in the exercise of the power which has been granted to him by the ordinance. The ordinance in question violates the due process of law and equal protection rule of the Constitution. Requiring a person before he can be employed to get a permit from the City Mayor of Manila who may withhold or refuse it at will is tantamount to denying him the basic right of the people in the Philippines to engage in a means of livelihood. While it is true that the Philippines as a State is not obliged to admit aliens within its territory, once an alien is admitted, he cannot be deprived of life without due process of law. This guarantee includes the means of livelihood. The shelter of protection under the due process and equal protection clause is given to all persons, both aliens and citizens. 13 The trial court did not commit the errors assigned. WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed, without pronouncement as to costs.

of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. L-24756 October 31, 1968 CITY OF BAGUIO, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FORTUNATO DE LEON, defendant-appellant. The City Attorney for plaintiff-appellee. Fortunato de Leon for and in his own behalf as defendant-appellant. FERNANDO, J.: 1 In this appeal, a lower court decision upholding the validity of an ordinance of the City of Baguio imposing a license fee on any person, firm, entity or corporation doing business in the City of Baguio is assailed by defendant-appellant Fortunato de Leon. He was held liable as a real estate dealer with a property therein worth more than P10,000, but not in excess of P50,000, and therefore obligated to pay under such ordinance the P50 annual fee. That is the principal question. In addition, there has been a firm and unyielding insistence by defendant-appellant of the lack of jurisdiction of the City Court of Baguio, where the suit originated, a complaint having been filed against him by the City Attorney of Baguio for his failure to pay the amount of P300 as license fee covering the period from the first quarter of 1958 to the fourth quarter of 1962, allegedly, inspite of repeated demands. Nor was defendant-appellant agreeable to such a suit being instituted by the City Treasurer without the consent of the Mayor, which for him was indispensable. The lower court was of a different mind. In its decision of December 19, 1964, it declared the above ordinance as amended, valid and subsisting, and held defendant-appellant liable for the fees therein prescribed as a real estate dealer. Hence, this appeal. Assume the validity of such ordinance, and there would be no question about the liability of defendant-appellant for the above license fee, it being shown in the partial stipulation of facts, that he was "engaged in the rental of his property in Baguio" deriving income therefrom during the period covered by the first quarter of 1958 to the fourth quarter of 1962. The source of authority for the challenged ordinance is supplied by Republic Act No. 2 329, amending the city charter of Baguio empowering it to fix the license fee and regulate "businesses, trades and occupations as may be established or practiced in the City." Unless it can be shown then that such a grant of authority is not broad enough to justify the enactment of the ordinance now assailed, the decision appealed from must be affirmed. The task confronting defendant-appellant, therefore, was far from easy. Why he failed is understandable, considering that even a cursory reading of the above amendment readily discloses that the enactment of the ordinance in question finds support in the power thus conferred. Nor is the question raised by him as to the validity thereof novel in character. 3 In Medina v. City of Baguio, the effect of the amendatory section insofar as it would expand the previous power vested by the city charter was clarified in these terms: "Appellants apparently have in mind section 2553, paragraph (c) of the Revised Administrative Code, which empowers the City of Baguio merely to impose a license fee for the purpose of rating the business that may be established in the city. The power as thus conferred is indeed limited, as it does not include the power to levy a tax. But on July 15, 1948, Republic Act No. 329 was enacted amending the charter of said city and adding to its power to license the power to tax and to regulate. And it is precisely having in view this amendment that Ordinance No. 99 was approved in order to increase the revenues of the city. In our opinion, the amendment above Republic

adverted to empowers the city council not only to impose a license fee but also to levy a tax for purposes of revenue, more so when in amending section 2553 (b), the phrase 'as provided by law' has been removed by section 2 of Republic Act No. 329. The city council of Baguio, therefore, has now the power to tax, to license and to regulate provided that the subjects affected be one of those included in the charter. In this sense, the ordinance under consideration cannot be considered ultra vires whether its purpose be to levy a tax or impose a license fee. The terminology used is of no consequence." It would be an undue and unwarranted emasculation of the above power thus granted if defendant-appellant were to be sustained in his contention that no such statutory authority for the enactment of the challenged ordinance could be discerned from the language used in the amendatory act. That is about all that needs to be said in upholding the lower court, considering that the City of Baguio was not devoid of authority in enacting this particular ordinance. As mentioned at the outset, however, defendant-appellant likewise alleged procedural missteps and asserted that the challenged ordinance suffered from certain constitutional infirmities. To such points raised by him, we shall now turn. 1. Defendant-appellant makes much of the alleged lack of jurisdiction of the City Court of Baguio in the suit for the collection of the real estate dealer's fee from him in the amount of P300. He contended before the lower court, and it is his contention now, that while the amount of P300 sought was within the jurisdiction of the City Court of Baguio where this action originated, since the principal issue was the legality and constitutionality of the challenged ordinance, it is not such City Court but the Court of First Instance that has original jurisdiction. There is here a misapprehension of the Judiciary Act. The City Court has jurisdiction. Only recently, on September 7, 1968 to be exact, we rejected a contention similar in 4 character in Nemenzo v. Sabillano. The plaintiff in that case filed a claim for the payment of his salary before the Justice of the Peace Court of Pagadian, Zamboanga del Sur. The question of jurisdiction was raised; the defendant Mayor asserted that what was in issue was the enforcement of the decision of the Commission of Civil Service; the Justice of the Peace Court was thus without jurisdiction to try the case. The above plea was curtly dismissed by Us, as what was involved was "an ordinary money claim" and therefore "within the original jurisdiction of the Justice of the Peace Court where it was filed, considering the amount involved." Such is likewise the situation here. 5 Moreover, in City of Manila v. Bugsuk Lumber Co., a suit to collect from a defendant this license fee corresponding to the years 1951 and 1952 was filed with the Municipal Court of Manila, in view of the amount involved. The thought that the municipal court lacked jurisdiction apparently was not even in the minds of the parties and did not receive any consideration by this Court. Evidently, the fear is entertained by defendant-appellant that whenever a constitutional question is raised, it is the Court of First Instance that should have original jurisdiction on the matter. It does not admit of doubt, however, that what confers jurisdiction is the amount set forth in the complaint. Here, the sum sought to be recovered was clearly within the jurisdiction of the City Court of Baguio. Nor could it be plausibly maintained that the validity of such ordinance being open to question as a defense against its enforcement from one adversely affected, the matter should be elevated to the Court of First Instance. For the City Court could rely 6 on the presumption of the validity of such ordinance, and the mere fact, however, that in the answer to such a complaint a constitutional question was raised did not suffice to oust the City Court of its jurisdiction. The suit remains one for collection, the lack of validity being only a defense to such an attempt at recovery. Since the City

Court is possessed of judicial power and it is likewise axiomatic that the judicial power embraces the ascertainment of facts and the application of the law, the Constitution as the highest law superseding any statute or ordinance in conflict therewith, it cannot be said that a City Court is bereft of competence to proceed on the matter. In the exercise of such delicate power, however, the admonition of Cooley on inferior tribunals is well worth remembering. Thus: "It must be evident to any one that the power to declare a legislative enactment void is one which the judge, conscious of the fallibility of the human judgment, will shrink from exercising in any case where he can conscientiously and with due regard to duty and official oath decline the 7 responsibility." While it remains undoubted that such a power to pass on the validity of an ordinance alleged to infringe certain constitutional rights of a litigant exists, still it should be exercised with due care and circumspection, considering not only the presumption of validity but also the relatively modest rank of a city court in the judicial hierarchy. 2. To repeat the challenged ordinance cannot be considered ultra vires as there is more than ample statutory authority for the enactment thereof. Nonetheless, its validity on constitutional grounds is challenged because of the allegation that it imposed double taxation, which is repugnant to the due process clause, and that it violated the requirement of uniformity. We do not view the matter thus. As to why double taxation is not violative of due process, Justice Holmes made clear in this language: "The objection to the taxation as double may be laid down on one side. ... The 14th Amendment [the due process clause] no more forbids double taxation than it does doubling the amount of a tax, short of confiscation or 8 proceedings unconstitutional on other grounds." With that decision rendered at a time when American sovereignty in the Philippines was recognized, it possesses more than just a persuasive effect. To some, it delivered the coup de grace to the bogey of double taxation as a constitutional bar to the exercise of the taxing power. It would seem though that in the United States, as with us, its ghost as noted by an eminent 9 critic, still stalks the juridical state. In a 1947 decision, however, we quoted with 10 approval this excerpt from a leading American decision: "Where, as here, Congress has clearly expressed its intention, the statute must be sustained even though double taxation results." At any rate, it has been expressly affirmed by us that such an "argument against double taxation may not be invoked where one tax is imposed by the state and the other is imposed by the city ..., it being widely recognized that there is nothing inherently obnoxious in the requirement that license fees or taxes be exacted with respect to the same occupation, calling or activity by both the state and the political 11 subdivisions thereof." The above would clearly indicate how lacking in merit is this argument based on double taxation. Now, as to the claim that there was a violation of the rule of uniformity established by the constitution. According to the challenged ordinance, a real estate dealer who leases property worth P50,000 or above must pay an annual fee of P100. If the property is worth P10,000 but not over P50,000, then he pays P50 and P24 if the value is less than P10,000. On its face, therefore, the above ordinance cannot be assailed as violative of the constitutional requirement of uniformity. In Philippine Trust 12 Company v. Yatco, Justice Laurel, speaking for the Court, stated: "A tax is considered uniform when it operates with the same force and effect in every place where the subject may be found." There was no occasion in that case to consider the possible effect on such a constitutional requirement where there is a classification. The opportunity came 13 in Eastern Theatrical Co. v. Alfonso. Thus: "Equality and uniformity in taxation

means that all taxable articles or kinds of property of the same class shall be taxed at the same rate. The taxing power has the authority to make reasonable and natural classifications for purposes of taxation; ..." About two years later, Justice Tuason, speaking for this Court in Manila Race Horses Trainers Assn. v. De la 14 Fuente incorporated the above excerpt in his opinion and continued: "Taking everything into account, the differentiation against which the plaintiffs complain conforms to the practical dictates of justice and equity and is not discriminatory within the meaning of the Constitution." To satisfy this requirement then, all that is needed as held in another case decided 15 two years later, is that the statute or ordinance in question "applies equally to all persons, firms and corporations placed in similar situation." This Court is on record as 16 accepting the view in a leading American case that "inequalities which result from a singling out of one particular class for taxation or exemption infringe no constitutional 17 limitation." It is thus apparent from the above that in much the same way that the plea of double taxation is unavailing, the allegation that there was a violation of the principle of uniformity is inherently lacking in persuasiveness. There is no need to pass upon the other allegations to assail the validity of the above ordinance, it being maintained that the license fees therein imposed "is excessive, unreasonable and oppressive" and that there is a failure to observe the mandate of equal protection. A reading of the ordinance will readily disclose their inherent lack of plausibility. 3. That would dispose of all the errors assigned, except the last two, which would predicate a grievance on the complaint having been started by the City Treasurer rather than the City Mayor of Baguio. These alleged errors, as was the case with the others assigned, lack merit. In much the same way that an act of a department head of the national government, performed within the limits of his authority, is presumptively the act of the President 18 unless reprobated or disapproved, similarly the act of the City Treasurer, whose position is roughly analogous, may be assumed to carry the seal of approval of the City Mayor unless repudiated or set aside. This should be the case considering that such city official is called upon to see to it that revenues due the City are collected. When administrative steps are futile and unavailing, given the stubbornness and obduracy of a taxpayer, convinced in good faith that no tax was due, judicial remedy may be resorted to by him. It would be a reflection on the state of the law if such fidelity to duty would be met by condemnation rather than commendation. So, much for the analytical approach. The conclusion thus reached has a reinforcement that comes to it from the functional and pragmatic test. If a city treasurer has to await the nod from the city mayor before a municipal ordinance is enforced, then opportunity exists for favoritism and undue discrimination to come into play. Whatever valid reason may exist as to why one taxpayer is to be accorded a treatment denied another, the suspicion is unavoidable that such a manifestation of official favor could have been induced by unnamed but not unknown consideration. It would not be going too far to assert that even defendant-appellant would find no satisfaction in such a sad state of affairs. The more desirable legal doctrine therefore, on the assumption that a choice exists, is one that would do away with such temptation on the part of both taxpayer and public official alike. WHEREFORE, the lower court decision of December 19, 1964, is hereby affirmed. Costs against defendant-appellant.

Republic SUPREME Manila FIRST DIVISION

of

the

Philippines COURT

G.R. No. 119761 August 29, 1996 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. COURT OF TAX APPEALS and FORTUNE TOBACCO CORPORATION,respondents. VITUG, J.:p The Commissioner of Internal Revenue ("CIR") disputes the decision, dated 31 March 1995, of respondent Court of Appeals 1 affirming the 10th August 1994 decision and the 11th October 1994 resolution of the Court of Tax Appeals 2 ("CTA") in C.T.A. Case No. 5015, entitled "Fortune Tobacco Corporation vs. Liwayway Vinzons-Chato in her capacity as Commissioner of Internal Revenue." The facts, by and large, are not in dispute. Fortune Tobacco Corporation ("Fortune Tobacco") is engaged in the manufacture of different brands of cigarettes. On various dates, the Philippine Patent Office issued to the corporation separate certificates of trademark registration over "Champion," "Hope," and "More" cigarettes. In a letter, dated 06 January 1987, of then Commissioner of Internal Revenue Bienvenido A. Tan, Jr., to Deputy Minister Ramon Diaz of the Presidential Commission on Good Government, "the initial position of the Commission was to classify 'Champion,' 'Hope,' and 'More' as foreign brands since they were listed in the World Tobacco Directory as belonging to foreign companies. However, Fortune Tobacco changed the names of 'Hope' to 'Hope Luxury' and 'More' to 'Premium More,' thereby removing the said brands from the foreign brand category. Proof was also submitted to the Bureau (of Internal Revenue ['BIR']) that 'Champion' was an original Fortune Tobacco Corporation register and therefore a local brand." 3 Ad Valorem taxes were imposed on these brands, 4 at the following rates: BRAND AD VALOREM TAX RATE E.O. 22 and E.O. 273 RA 6956 06-23-86 07-25-87 06-18-90 07-01-86 01-01-88 07-05-90 Hope Luxury M. 100's Sec. 142, (c), (2) 40% 45% Hope Luxury M. King Sec. 142, (c), (2) 40% 45% More Premium M. 100's Sec. 142, (c), (2) 40% 45% More Premium International Sec. 142, (c), (2) 40% 45% Champion Int'l. M. 100's Sec. 142, (c), (2) 40% 45% Champion M. 100's Sec. 142, (c), (2) 40% 45% Champion M. King Sec. 142, (c), last par. 15% 20% Champion Lights 5 Sec. 142, (c), last par. 15% 20% A bill, which later became Republic Act ("RA") No. 7654, 6 was enacted, on 10 June 1993, by the legislature and signed into law, on 14 June 1993, by the President of the Philippines. The new law became effective on 03 July 1993. It amended Section 142(c)(1) of the National Internal Revenue Code ("NIRC") to read; as follows: Sec. 142. Cigars and Cigarettes. xxx xxx xxx

(c) Cigarettes packed by machine. There shall be levied, assessed and collected on cigarettes packed by machine a tax at the rates prescribed below based on the constructive manufacturer's wholesale price or the actual manufacturer's wholesale price, whichever is higher: (1) On locally manufactured cigarettes which are currently classified and taxed at fifty-five percent (55%) or the exportation of which is not authorized by contract or otherwise, fifty-five (55%) provided that the minimum tax shall not be less than Five Pesos (P5.00) per pack. (2) On other locally manufactured cigarettes, forty-five percent (45%) provided that the minimum tax shall not be less than Three Pesos (P3.00) per pack. xxx xxx xxx When the registered manufacturer's wholesale price or the actual manufacturer's wholesale price whichever is higher of existing brands of cigarettes, including the amounts intended to cover the taxes, of cigarettes packed in twenties does not exceed Four Pesos and eighty centavos (P4.80) per pack, the rate shall be twenty percent (20%). 7 (Emphasis supplied) About a month after the enactment and two (2) days before the effectivity of RA 7654, Revenue Memorandum Circular No. 37-93 ("RMC 37-93"), was issued by the BIR the full text of which expressed: REPUBLIKA NG PILIPINAS KAGAWARAN NG PANANALAPI KAWANIHAN NG RENTAS INTERNASJuly 1, 1993 REVENUE MEMORANDUM CIRCULAR NO. 37-93 SUBJECT: Reclassification of Cigarettes Subject to Excise Tax TO: All Internal Revenue Officers and Others Concerned. In view of the issues raised on whether "HOPE," "MORE" and "CHAMPION" cigarettes which are locally manufactured are appropriately considered as locally manufactured cigarettes bearing a foreign brand, this Office is compelled to review the previous rulings on the matter. Section 142 (c)(1) National Internal Revenue Code, as amended by R.A. No. 6956, provides: On locally manufactured cigarettes bearing a foreign brand, fifty-five percent (55%) Provided, That this rate shall apply regardless of whether or not the right to use or title to the foreign brand was sold or transferred by its owner to the local manufacturer. Whenever it has to be determined whether or not a cigarette bears a foreign brand, the listing of brands manufactured in foreign countries appearing in the current World Tobacco Directory shall govern. Under the foregoing, the test for imposition of the 55% ad valorem tax on cigarettes is that the locally manufactured cigarettes bear a foreign brand regardless of whether or not the right to use or title to the foreign brand was sold or transferred by its owner to the local manufacturer. The brand must be originally owned by a foreign manufacturer or producer. If ownership of the cigarette brand is, however, not definitely determinable, ". . . the listing of brands manufactured in foreign countries appearing in the current World Tobacco Directory shall govern. . . ." "HOPE" is listed in the World Tobacco Directory as being manufactured by (a) Japan Tobacco, Japan and (b) Fortune Tobacco, Philippines. "MORE" is listed in the said directory as being manufactured by: (a) Fills de Julia Reig, Andorra; (b) Rothmans, Australia; (c) RJR-Macdonald Canada; (d) RettigStrenberg, Finland; (e) Karellas, Greece; (f) R.J. Reynolds, Malaysia; (g) Rothmans, New Zealand; (h) Fortune Tobacco, Philippines; (i) R.J. Reynolds, Puerto Rico; (j) R.J. Reynolds, Spain; (k) Tabacalera, Spain; (l) R.J. Reynolds, Switzerland; and (m) R.J. Reynolds, USA. "Champion" is

registered in the said directory as being manufactured by (a) Commonwealth Bangladesh; (b) Sudan, Brazil; (c) Japan Tobacco, Japan; (d) Fortune Tobacco, Philippines; (e) Haggar, Sudan; and (f) Tabac Reunies, Switzerland. Since there is no showing who among the above-listed manufacturers of the cigarettes bearing the said brands are the real owner/s thereof, then it follows that the same shall be considered foreign brand for purposes of determining the ad valorem tax pursuant to Section 142 of the National Internal Revenue Code. As held in BIR Ruling No. 410-88, dated August 24, 1988, "in cases where it cannot be established or there is dearth of evidence as to whether a brand is foreign or not, resort to the World Tobacco Directory should be made." In view of the foregoing, the aforesaid brands of cigarettes, viz: "HOPE," "MORE" and "CHAMPION" being manufactured by Fortune Tobacco Corporation are hereby considered locally manufactured cigarettes bearing a foreign brand subject to the 55% ad valorem tax on cigarettes. Any ruling inconsistent herewith is revoked or modified accordingly.(SGD) LIWAYWAY VINZONS-CHATO Commissioner On 02 July 1993, at about 17:50 hours, BIR Deputy Commissioner Victor A. Deoferio, Jr., sent via telefax a copy of RMC 37-93 to Fortune Tobacco but it was addressed to no one in particular. On 15 July 1993, Fortune Tobacco received, by ordinary mail, a certified xerox copy of RMC 37-93. In a letter, dated 19 July 1993, addressed to the appellate division of the BIR, Fortune Tobacco requested for a review, reconsideration and recall of RMC 37-93. The request was denied on 29 July 1993. The following day, or on 30 July 1993, the CIR assessed Fortune Tobacco for ad valorem tax deficiency amounting to P9,598,334.00. On 03 August 1993, Fortune Tobacco filed a petition for review with the CTA. 8 On 10 August 1994, the CTA upheld the position of Fortune Tobacco and adjudged: WHEREFORE, Revenue Memorandum Circular No. 37-93 reclassifying the brands of cigarettes, viz: "HOPE," "MORE" and "CHAMPION" being manufactured by Fortune Tobacco Corporation as locally manufactured cigarettes bearing a foreign brand subject to the 55% ad valorem tax on cigarettes is found to be defective, invalid and unenforceable, such that when R.A. No. 7654 took effect on July 3, 1993, the brands in question were not CURRENTLY CLASSIFIED AND TAXED at 55% pursuant to Section 1142(c)(1) of the Tax Code, as amended by R.A. No. 7654 and were therefore still classified as other locally manufactured cigarettes and taxed at 45% or 20% as the case may be. Accordingly, the deficiency ad valorem tax assessment issued on petitioner Fortune Tobacco Corporation in the amount of P9,598,334.00, exclusive of surcharge and interest, is hereby canceled for lack of legal basis. Respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue is hereby enjoined from collecting the deficiency tax assessment made and issued on petitioner in relation to the implementation of RMC No. 37-93. SO ORDERED. 9 In its resolution, dated 11 October 1994, the CTA dismissed for lack of merit the motion for reconsideration. The CIR forthwith filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals, questioning the CTA's 10th August 1994 decision and 11th October 1994 resolution. On 31 March 1993, the appellate court's Special Thirteenth Division affirmed in all respects the assailed decision and resolution. In the instant petition, the Solicitor General argues: That I. RMC 37-93 IS A RULING OR OPINION OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE INTERPRETING THE PROVISIONS OF THE TAX CODE.

II. BEING AN INTERPRETATIVE RULING OR OPINION, THE PUBLICATION OF RMC 37-93, FILING OF COPIES THEREOF WITH THE UP LAW CENTER AND PRIOR HEARING ARE NOT NECESSARY TO ITS VALIDITY, EFFECTIVITY AND ENFORCEABILITY. III. PRIVATE RESPONDENT IS DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED OR RMC 37-93 ON JULY 2, 1993. IV. RMC 37-93 IS NOT DISCRIMINATORY SINCE IT APPLIES TO ALL LOCALLY MANUFACTURED CIGARETTES SIMILARLY SITUATED AS "HOPE," "MORE" AND "CHAMPION" CIGARETTES. V. PETITIONER WAS NOT LEGALLY PROSCRIBED FROM RECLASSIFYING "HOPE," "MORE" AND "CHAMPION" CIGARETTES BEFORE THE EFFECTIVITY OF R.A. NO. 7654. VI. SINCE RMC 37-93 IS AN INTERPRETATIVE RULE, THE INQUIRY IS NOT INTO ITS VALIDITY, EFFECTIVITY OR ENFORCEABILITY BUT INTO ITS CORRECTNESS OR PROPRIETY; RMC 37-93 IS CORRECT. 10 In fine, petitioner opines that RMC 37-93 is merely an interpretative ruling of the BIR which can thus become effective without any prior need for notice and hearing, nor publication, and that its issuance is not discriminatory since it would apply under similar circumstances to all locally manufactured cigarettes. The Court must sustain both the appellate court and the tax court. Petitioner stresses on the wide and ample authority of the BIR in the issuance of rulings for the effective implementation of the provisions of the National Internal Revenue Code. Let it be made clear that such authority of the Commissioner is not here doubted. Like any other government agency, however, the CIR may not disregard legal requirements or applicable principles in the exercise of its quasilegislative powers. Let us first distinguish between two kinds of administrative issuances a legislative rule and aninterpretative rule. In Misamis Oriental Association of Coco Traders, Inc ., vs. Department of Finance Secretary, 11 the Court expressed: . . . a legislative rule is in the nature of subordinate legislation, designed to implement a primary legislation by providing the details thereof . In the same way that laws must have the benefit of public hearing, it is generally required that before a legislative rule is adopted there must be hearing. In this connection, the Administrative Code of 1987 provides: Public Participation. If not otherwise required by law, an agency shall, as far as practicable, publish or circulate notices of proposed rules and afford interested parties the opportunity to submit their views prior to the adoption of any rule. (2) In the fixing of rates, no rule or final order shall be valid unless the proposed rates shall have been published in a newspaper of general circulation at least two (2) weeks before the first hearing thereon. (3) In case of opposition, the rules on contested cases shall be observed. In addition such rule must be published. On the other hand, interpretative rules are designed to provide guidelines to the law which the administrative agency is in charge of enforcing. 12 It should be understandable that when an administrative rule is merely interpretative in nature, its applicability needs nothing further than its bare issuance for it gives no real consequence more than what the law itself has already prescribed. When, upon the other hand, the administrative rule goes beyond merely providing for the means that can facilitate or render least cumbersome the implementation of the law but substantially adds to or increases the burden of those governed, it behooves the

agency to accord at least to those directly affected a chance to be heard, and thereafter to be duly informed, before that new issuance is given the force and effect of law. A reading of RMC 37-93, particularly considering the circumstances under which it has been issued, convinces us that the circular cannot be viewed simply as a corrective measure (revoking in the process the previous holdings of past Commissioners) or merely as construing Section 142(c)(1) of the NIRC, as amended, but has, in fact and most importantly, been made in order to place "Hope Luxury," "Premium More" and "Champion" within the classification of locally manufactured cigarettes bearing foreign brands and to thereby have them covered by RA 7654. Specifically, the new law would have its amendatory provisions applied to locally manufactured cigarettes which at the time of its effectivity were not so classified as bearing foreign brands. Prior to the issuance of the questioned circular, "Hope Luxury," "Premium More," and "Champion" cigarettes were in the category of locally manufactured cigarettes not bearing foreign brand subject to 45% ad valorem tax. Hence, without RMC 37-93, the enactment of RA 7654, would have had no new tax rate consequence on private respondent's products. Evidently, in order to place "Hope Luxury," "Premium More," and "Champion" cigarettes within the scope of the amendatory law and subject them to an increased tax rate, the now disputed RMC 37-93 had to be issued. In so doing, the BIR not simply intrepreted the law; verily, it legislated under its quasi-legislative authority. The due observance of the requirements of notice, of hearing, and of publication should not have been then ignored. Indeed, the BIR itself, in its RMC 10-86, has observed and provided: RMC NO. 10-86 Effectivity of Internal Revenue Rules and Regulations It has been observed that one of the problem areas bearing on compliance with Internal Revenue Tax rules and regulations is lack or insufficiency of due notice to the tax paying public. Unless there is due notice, due compliance therewith may not be reasonably expected. And most importantly, their strict enforcement could possibly suffer from legal infirmity in the light of the constitutional provision on "due process of law" and the essence of the Civil Code provision concerning effectivity of laws, whereby due notice is a basic requirement (Sec. 1, Art. IV, Constitution; Art. 2, New Civil Code). In order that there shall be a just enforcement of rules and regulations, in conformity with the basic element of due process, the following procedures are hereby prescribed for the drafting, issuance and implementation of the said Revenue Tax Issuances: (1) This Circular shall apply only to (a) Revenue Regulations; (b) Revenue Audit Memorandum Orders; and (c) Revenue Memorandum Circulars and Revenue Memorandum Orders bearing on internal revenue tax rules and regulations. (2) Except when the law otherwise expressly provides, the aforesaid internal revenue tax issuances shall not begin to be operative until after due notice thereof may be fairly presumed. Due notice of the said issuances may be fairly presumed only after the following procedures have been taken; xxx xxx xxx (5) Strict compliance with the foregoing procedures is enjoined. 13 Nothing on record could tell us that it was either impossible or impracticable for the BIR to observe and comply with the above requirements before giving effect to its questioned circular. Not insignificantly, RMC 37-93 might have likewise infringed on uniformity of taxation.

Article VI, Section 28, paragraph 1, of the 1987 Constitution mandates taxation to be uniform and equitable. Uniformity requires that all subjects or objects of taxation, similarly situated, are to be treated alike or put on equal footing both in privileges and liabilities. 14 Thus, all taxable articles or kinds of property of the same class must be taxed at the same rate 15 and the tax must operate with the same force and effect in every place where the subject may be found. Apparently, RMC 37-93 would only apply to "Hope Luxury," "Premium More" and "Champion" cigarettes and, unless petitioner would be willing to concede to the submission of private respondent that the circular should, as in fact my esteemed colleague Mr. Justice Bellosillo so expresses in his separate opinion, be considered adjudicatory in nature and thus violative of due process following the Ang Tibay 16 doctrine, the measure suffers from lack of uniformity of taxation. In its decision, the CTA has keenly noted that other cigarettes bearing foreign brands have not been similarly included within the scope of the circular, such as 1. Locally manufactured by ALHAMBRA INDUSTRIES, INC. (a) "PALM TREE" is listed as manufactured by office of Monopoly, Korea (Exhibit "R") 2. Locally manufactured by LA SUERTE CIGAR and CIGARETTE COMPANY (a) "GOLDEN KEY" is listed being manufactured by United Tobacco, Pakistan (Exhibit "S") (b) "CANNON" is listed as being manufactured by Alpha Tobacco, Bangladesh (Exhibit "T") 3. Locally manufactured by LA PERLA INDUSTRIES, INC. (a) "WHITE HORSE" is listed as being manufactured by Rothman's, Malaysia (Exhibit "U") (b) "RIGHT" is listed as being manufactured by SVENSKA, Tobaks, Sweden (Exhibit "V-1") 4. Locally manufactured by MIGHTY CORPORATION (a) "WHITE HORSE" is listed as being manufactured by Rothman's, Malaysia (Exhibit "U-1") 5. Locally manufactured by STERLING TOBACCO CORPORATION (a) "UNION" is listed as being manufactured by Sumatra Tobacco, Indonesia and Brown and Williamson, USA (Exhibit "U-3") (b) "WINNER" is listed as being manufactured by Alpha Tobacco, Bangladesh; Nangyang, Hongkong; Joo Lan, Malaysia; Pakistan Tobacco Co., Pakistan; Premier Tobacco, Pakistan and Haggar, Sudan (Exhibit "U4"). 17 The court quoted at length from the transcript of the hearing conducted on 10 August 1993 by the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives; viz: THE CHAIRMAN. So you have specific information on Fortune Tobacco alone. You don't have specific information on other tobacco manufacturers. Now, there are other brands which are similarly situated. They are locally manufactured bearing foreign brands. And may I enumerate to you all these brands, which are also listed in the World Tobacco Directory . . . Why were these brand not reclassified at 55 if your want to give a level playing filed to foreign manufacturers? MS. CHATO. Mr. Chairman, in fact, we have already prepared a Revenue Memorandum Circular that was supposed to come after RMC No. 37-93 which have really named specifically the list of locally manufactured cigarettes bearing a foreign brand for excise tax purposes and includes all these brands that you mentioned at 55 percent except that at that time, when we had to come up with this, we were forced to study the brands of Hope, More and Champion because we were given documents that would indicate the that these brands were actually being claimed or patented in other countries because we went by Revenue Memorandum Circular 1488

and we wanted to give some rationality to how it came about but we couldn't find the rationale there. And we really found based on our own interpretation that the only test that is given by that existing law would be registration in the World Tobacco Directory. So we came out with this proposed revenue memorandum circular which we forwarded to the Secretary of Finance except that at that point in time, we went by the Republic Act 7654 in Section 1 which amended Section 142, C-1, it said, that on locally manufactured cigarettes which are currently classified and taxed at 55 percent. So we were saying that when this law took effect in July 3 and if we are going to come up with this revenue circular thereafter, then I think our action would really be subject to question but we feel that . . . Memorandum Circular Number 37-93 would really cover even similarly situated brands. And in fact, it was really because of the study, the short time that we were given to study the matter that we could not include all the rest of the other brands that would have been really classified as foreign brand if we went by the law itself. I am sure that by the reading of the law, you would without that ruling by Commissioner Tan they would really have been included in the definition or in the classification of foregoing brands. These brands that you referred to or just read to us and in fact just for your information, we really came out with a proposed revenue memorandum circular for those brands. (Emphasis supplied) (Exhibit "FF-2-C," pp. V-5 TO V-6, VI-1 to VI-3). xxx xxx xxx MS. CHATO. . . . But I do agree with you now that it cannot and in fact that is why I felt that we . . . I wanted to come up with a more extensive coverage and precisely why I asked that revenue memorandum circular that would cover all those similarly situated would be prepared but because of the lack of time and I came out with a study of RA 7654, it would not have been possible to really come up with the reclassification or the proper classification of all brands that are listed there. . .(emphasis supplied) (Exhibit "FF-2d," page IX-1) xxx xxx xxx HON. DIAZ. But did you not consider that there are similarly situated? MS. CHATO. That is precisely why, Sir, after we have come up with this Revenue Memorandum Circular No. 37-93, the other brands came about the would have also clarified RMC 37-93 by I was saying really because of the fact that I was just recently appointed and the lack of time, the period that was allotted to us to come up with the right actions on the matter, we were really caught by the July 3 deadline. But in fact, We have already prepared a revenue memorandum circular clarifying with the other . . . does not yet, would have been a list of locally manufactured cigarettes bearing a foreign brand for excise tax purposes which would include all the other brands that were mentioned by the Honorable Chairman. (Emphasis supplied) (Exhibit "FF-2-d," par. IX-4). 18 All taken, the Court is convinced that the hastily promulgated RMC 37-93 has fallen short of a valid and effective administrative issuance. WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals, sustaining that of the Court of Tax Appeals, is AFFIRMED. No costs.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila FIRST DIVISION G.R. No. 150947 July 15, 2003 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, petitioner, vs. MICHEL J. LHUILLIER PAWNSHOP, INC., respondent. DAVIDE, JR., C.J.: Are pawnshops included in the term lending investors for the purpose of imposing the 5% percentage tax under then Section 116 of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of 1977, as amended by Executive Order No. 273? Petitioner Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) filed the instant petition for review to set aside the decision1 of 20 November 2001 of the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. SP No. 62463, which affirmed the decision of 13 December 2000 of the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) in CTA Case No. 5690 cancelling the assessment issued against respondent Michel J. Lhuillier Pawnshop, Inc. (hereafter Lhuillier) in the amount of P3,360,335.11 as deficiency percentage tax for 1994, inclusive of interest and surcharges. The facts are as follows: On 11 March 1991, CIR Jose U. Ong issued Revenue Memorandum Order (RMO) No. 15-91 imposing a 5% lending investors tax on pawnshops; thus: A restudy of P.D. [No.] 114 shows that the principal activity of pawnshops is lending money at interest and incidentally accepting a "pawn" of personal property delivered by the pawner to the pawnee as security for the loan.(Sec. 3, Ibid). Clearly, this makes pawnshop business akin to lending investors business activity which is broad enough to encompass the business of lending money at interest by any person whether natural or juridical. Such being the case, pawnshops shall be subject to the 5% lending investors tax based on their gross income pursuant to Section 116 of the Tax Code, as amended. This RMO was clarified by Revenue Memorandum Circular (RMC) No. 43-91 on 27 May 1991, which reads: 1. RM[O] 15-91 dated March 11, 1991. This Circular subjects to the 5% lending investors tax the gross income of pawnshops pursuant to Section 116 of the Tax Code, and it thus revokes BIR Ruling No[]. 6-90, and VAT Ruling Nos. 22-90 and 67-90. In order to have a uniform cut-off date, avoid unfairness on the part of tax- payers if they are required to pay the tax on past transactions, and so as to give meaning to the express provisions of Section 246 of the Tax Code, pawnshop owners or operators shall become liable to the lending investors tax on their gross income beginning January 1, 1991. Since the deadline for the filing of percentage tax return (BIR Form No. 2529A-0) and the payment of the tax on lending investors covering the first calendar quarter of 1991 has already lapsed, taxpayers are given up to June 30, 1991 within which to pay the said tax without penalty. If the tax is paid after June 30, 1991, the corresponding penalties shall be assessed and computed from April 21, 1991. Since pawnshops are considered as lending investors effective January 1, 1991, they also become subject to documentary stamp taxes prescribed in Title VII of the Tax Code. BIR Ruling No. 325-88 dated July 13, 1988 is hereby revoked. On 11 September 1997, pursuant to these issuances, the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) issued Assessment Notice No. 81-PT-13-94-97-9-118 against Lhuillier demanding payment of deficiency percentage tax in the sum ofP3,360,335.11 for 1994 inclusive of interest and surcharges. On 3 October 1997, Lhuillier filed an administrative protest with the Office of the Revenue Regional Director contending that (1) neither the Tax Code nor the VAT Law expressly imposes 5% percentage tax on the gross income of pawnshops; (2) pawnshops are different from lending investors, which are subject to the 5% percentage tax under the specific provision of the Tax Code; (3) RMO No. 15-91 is not implementing any provision of the Internal Revenue laws but is a new and additional tax measure on pawnshops, which only Congress could enact; (4) RMO No. 15-91 impliedly amends the Tax Code and is therefore taxation by implication, which is

proscribed by law; and (5) RMO No. 15-91 is a "class legislation" because it singles out pawnshops among other lending and financial operations. On 12 October 1998, Deputy BIR Commissioner Romeo S. Panganiban issued Warrant of Distraint and/or Levy No. 81-043-98 against Lhuilliers property for the enforcement and payment of the assessed percentage tax. Its protest having been unacted upon, Lhuillier, in a letter dated 3 March 1998, elevated the matter to the CIR. Still, the protest was not acted upon by the CIR. Thus, on 11 November 1998, Lhuillier filed a "Notice and Memorandum on Appeal" with the Court of Tax Appeals invoking Section 228 of Republic Act No. 8424, otherwise known as the Tax Reform Act of 1997, which provides: Section 228. Protesting of Assessment. If the protest is denied in whole or in part, or is not acted upon within one hundred eighty (180) days from submission of documents, the taxpayer adversely affected by the decision or inaction may appeal to the Court of Tax Appeals within thirty (30) days from receipt of the said decision, or from the lapse of the one hundred eighty (180)day period; otherwise, the decision shall become final, executory and demandable. The case was docketed as CTA Case No. 5690. On 19 November 1998, the CIR filed with the CTA a motion to dismiss Lhuilliers petition on the ground that it did not state a cause of action, as there was no action yet on the protest. Lhuillier opposed the motion to dismiss and moved for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction praying that the BIR be enjoined from enforcing the warrant of distraint and levy. For Lhuilliers failure to appear on the scheduled date of hearing, the CTA denied the motion for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction. However, on Lhuilliers motion for reconsideration, said denial was set aside and a hearing on the motion for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction was set. On 30 June 1999, after due hearing, the CTA denied the CIRs motion to dismiss and granted Lhuilliers motion for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction. On 13 December 2000, the CTA rendered a decision declaring (1) RMO No. 15-91 and RMC No. 43-91 null and void insofar as they classify pawnshops as lending investors subject to 5% percentage tax; and (2) Assessment Notice No. 81-PT-13-9497-9-118 as cancelled, withdrawn, and with no force and effect. 2 Dissatisfied, the CIR filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals praying that the aforesaid decision be reversed and set aside and another one be rendered ordering Lhuillier to pay the 5% lending investors tax for 1994 with interests and surcharges. Upon due consideration of the issues presented by the parties in their respective memoranda, the Court of Appeals affirmed the CTA decision on 20 November 2001. The CIR is now before this Court via this petition for review on certiorari, alleging that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that pawnshops are not subject to the 5% lending investors t ax. He invokes then Section 116 of the Tax Code, which imposed a 5% percentage tax on lending investors. He argues that the legal definition of lending investors provided in Section 157 (u) of the Tax Code is broad enough to include pawnshop operators. Section 3 of Presidential Decree No. 114 states that the principal business activity of a pawnshop is lending money; thus, a pawnshop easily falls under the legal definition of lending investors. RMO No. 15-91 and RMC No. 43-91, which subject pawnshops to the 5% lending investors tax based on their gross income, are valid. Being mere interpretations of the NIRC, they need not be published. Lastly, the CIR invokes the case of Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Agencia Exquisite of Bohol, Inc.,3 where the Court of Appeals Special Fourteenth Division ruled that a pawnshop is subject to the 5% lending investors tax.4 Lhuillier, on the other hand, maintains that before and after the amendment of the Tax Code by E.O. No. 273, which took effect on 1 January 1988, pawnshops and lending investors were subjected to different tax treatments. Pawnshops were required to pay an annual fixed tax of only P1,000, while lending investors were subject to a 5% percentage tax on their gross income in addition to their fixed annual taxes. Accordingly, during the period from April 1982 up to December 1990, the CIR consistently ruled that a pawnshop is not a lending investor and should not therefore be required to pay percentage tax on its gross income.

Lhuillier likewise asserts that RMO No. 15-91 and RMC No. 43-91 are not implementing rules but are new and additional tax measures, which only Congress is empowered to enact. Besides, they are invalid because they have never been published in the Official Gazette or any newspaper of general circulation. Lhuillier further points out that pawnshops are strictly regulated by the Central Bank pursuant to P.D. No. 114, otherwise known as The Pawnshop Regulation Act. On the other hand, there is no special law governing lending investors. Due to the wide differences between the two, pawnshops had never been considered as lending investors for tax purposes. In fact, in 1994, Congress passed House Bill No. 11197,5 which attempted to amend Section 116 of the NIRC, as amended, to include owners of pawnshops as among those subject to percentage tax. However, the Senate Bill and the subsequent Bicameral Committee version, which eventually became the E-VAT Law, did not incorporate such proposed amendment. Lastly, Lhuillier argues that following the maxim in statutory construction "expressio unius est exclusio alterius," it was not the intention of the Legislature to impose percentage taxes on pawnshops because if it were so, pawnshops would have been included as among the businesses subject to the said tax. Inasmuch as revenue laws impose special burdens upon taxpayers, the enforcement of such laws should not be extended by implication beyond the clear import of the language used. We are therefore called upon to resolve the issue of whether pawnshops are subject to the 5% lending investors tax. Corollary to this issue are the following questions: (1) Are RMO No. 15 -91 and RMC No. 43-91 valid? (2) Were they issued to implement Section 116 of the NIRC of 1977, as amended? (3) Are pawnshops considered "lending investors" for the purpose of the imposition of the lending investors tax? (4) Is publication necessary for the validity of RMO No. 15-91 and RMC No. 43-91. RMO No. 15-91 and RMC No. 43-91 were issued in accordance with the power of the CIR to make rulings and opinions in connection with the implementation of internal revenue laws, which was bestowed by then Section 245 of the NIRC of 1977, as amended by E.O. No. 273. 6 Such power of the CIR cannot be controverted. However, the CIR cannot, in the exercise of such power, issue administrative rulings or circulars not consistent with the law sought to be applied. Indeed, administrative issuances must not override, supplant or modify the law, but must remain consistent with the law they intend to carry out. Only Congress can repeal or amend the law.7 The CIR argues that both issuances are mere rules and regulations implementing then Section 116 of the NIRC, as amended, which provided: SEC. 116. Percentage tax on dealers in securities; lending investors. - Dealers in securities and lending investors shall pay a tax equivalent to six (6) per centum of their gross income. Lending investors shall pay a tax equivalent to five (5%) percent of their gross income. It is clear from the aforequoted provision that pawnshops are not specifically included. Thus, the question is whether pawnshops are considered lending investors for the purpose of imposing percentage tax. We rule in the negative. Incidentally, we observe that both parties, as well as the Court of Tax Appeals and the Court of Appeals, refer to the National Internal Revenue Code as the Tax Code. They did not specify whether the provisions they cited were taken from the NIRC of 1977, as amended, or the NIRC of 1986, as amended. For clarity, it must be pointed out that the NIRC of 1977 as renumbered and rearranged by E.O. No. 273 is a later law than the NIRC of 1986, as amended by P.D. Nos. 1991, 1994, 2006 and 2031. The citation of the specific Code is important for us to determine the intent of the law. Under Section 157(u) of the NIRC of 1986, as amended, the term lending investor includes "all persons who make a practice of lending money for themselves or others at interest." A pawnshop, on the other hand, is defined under Section 3 of P.D. No. 114 as "a person or entity engaged in the business of lending money on personal property delivered as security for loans and shall be synonymous, and may be used interchangeably, with pawnbroker or pawn brokerage." While it is true that pawnshops are engaged in the business of lending money, they are not considered "lending investors" for the purpose of imposing the 5% percentage taxes for the following reasons:

First. Under Section 192, paragraph 3, sub-paragraphs (dd) and (ff), of the NIRC of 1977, prior to its amendment by E.O. No. 273, as well as Section 161, paragraph 2, sub-paragraphs (dd) and (ff), of the NIRC of 1986, pawnshops and lending investors were subjected to different tax treatments; thus: (3) Other Fixed Taxes. The following fixed taxes shall be collected as follows, the amount stated being for the whole year, when not otherwise specified: . (dd) Lending investors 1. In chartered cities and first class municipalities, one thousand pesos; 2. In second and third class municipalities, five hundred pesos; 3. In fourth and fifth class municipalities and municipal districts, two hundred fifty pesos: Provided, That lending investors who do business as such in more than one province shall pay a tax of one thousand pesos. . (ff) Pawnshops, one thousand pesos (underscoring ours) Second. Congress never intended pawnshops to be treated in the same way as lending investors. Section 116 of the NIRC of 1977, as renumbered and rearranged by E.O. No. 273, was basically lifted from Section 1758 of the NIRC of 1986, which treated both tax subjects differently. Section 175 of the latter Code read as follows: Sec. 175. Percentage tax on dealers in securities, lending investors. -- Dealers in securities shall pay a tax equivalent to six (6%) percent of their gross income. Lending investors shall pay a tax equivalent to five (5%) percent of their gross income. (As amended by P.D. No. 1739, P.D. No. 1959 and P.D. No. 1994). We note that the definition of lending investors found in Section 157 (u) of the NIRC of 1986 is not found in the NIRC of 1977, as amended by E.O. No. 273, where Section 116 invoked by the CIR is found. However, as emphasized earlier, both the NIRC of 1986 and the NIRC of 1977 dealt with pawnshops and lending investors differently. Verily then, it was the intent of Congress to deal with both subjects differently. Hence, we must likewise interpret the statute to conform with such legislative intent. Third. Section 116 of the NIRC of 1977, as amended by E.O. No. 273, subjects to percentage tax dealers in securities and lending investors only. There is no mention of pawnshops. Under the maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius, the mention of one thing implies the exclusion of another thing not mentioned. Thus, if a statute enumerates the things upon which it is to operate, everything else must necessarily and by implication be excluded from its operation and effect.9 This rule, as a guide to probable legislative intent, is based upon the rules of logic and natural workings of the human mind.10 Fourth. The BIR had ruled several times prior to the issuance of RMO No. 15-91 and RMC 43-91 that pawnshops were not subject to the 5% percentage tax imposed by Section 116 of the NIRC of 1977, as amended by E.O. No. 273. This was even admitted by the CIR in RMO No. 15-91 itself. Considering that Section 116 of the NIRC of 1977, as amended, was practically lifted from Section 175 of the NIRC of 1986, as amended, and there being no change in the law, the interpretation thereof should not have been altered. It may not be amiss to state that, as pointed out by the respondent, pawnshops was sought to be included as among those subject to 5% percentage tax by House Bill No. 11197 in 1994. Section 13 thereof reads: Section 13. Section 116 of the National Internal Revenue Code, as amended, is hereby further amended to read as follows: "SEC. 116. Percentage tax on dealers in securities; lending investors; OWNERS OF PAWNSHOPS; FOREIGN CURRENCY DEALERS AND/OR MONEY CHANGERS. Dealers in securities shall pay a tax equivalent to Six (6%) per centum of their gross income. Lending investors, OWNERS OF PAWNSHOPS AND FOREIGN CURRENCY DEALERS AND/OR MONEY CHANGERS shall pay a tax equivalent to Five (5%) percent of their gross income." If pawnshops were covered within the term lending investor, there would have been no need to introduce such amendment to include owners of pawnshops. At any rate, such proposed amendment was not adopted. Instead, the approved bill which became R.A. No. 771611 repealed

Section 116 of NIRC of 1977, as amended, which was the basis of RMO No. 15-91 and RMC No. 43-91; thus: SEC. 20. Repealing Clauses. -- The provisions of any special law relative to the rate of franchise taxes are hereby expressly repealed. Sections 113, 114 and 116 of the National Internal Revenue Code are hereby repealed. Section 21 of the same law provides that the law shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its complete publication in the Official Gazette or in at least two (2) national newspapers of general circulation whichever comes earlier. R.A. No. 7716 was published in the Official Gazette on 1 August 199412; in the Journal and Malaya newspapers, on 12 May 1994; and in the Manila Bulletin, on 5 June 1994. Thus, R.A. No. 7716 is deemed effective on 27 May 1994. Since Section 116 of the NIRC of 1977, which breathed life on the questioned administrative issuances, had already been repealed, RMO 15-91 and RMC 43-91, which depended upon it, are deemed automatically repealed. Hence, even granting that pawnshops are included within the term lending investors, the assessment from 27 May 1994 onward would have no leg to stand on. Adding to the invalidity of the RMC No. 43-91 and RMO No. 15-91 is the absence of publication. While the rule-making authority of the CIR is not doubted, like any other government agency, the CIR may not disregard legal requirements or applicable principles in the exercise of quasilegislative powers. Let us first distinguish between two kinds of administrative issuances: the legislative rule and the interpretative rule. A legislative rule is in the nature of subordinate legislation, designed to implement a primary legislation by providing the details thereof. An interpretative rule, on the other hand, is designed to provide guidelines to the law which the administrative agency is in charge of enforcing.13 In Misamis Oriental Association of Coco Traders, Inc. vs. Department of Finance Secretary,14 this Tribunal ruled: In the same way that laws must have the benefit of pu blic hearing, it is generally required that before a legislative rule is adopted there must be hearing. In this connection, the Administrative Code of 1987 provides: Public Participation. - If not otherwise required by law, an agency shall, as far as practicable, publish or circulate notices of proposed rules and afford interested parties the opportunity to submit their views prior to the adoption of any rule. (2) In the fixing of rates, no rule or final order shall be valid unless the proposed rates shall have been published in a newspaper of general circulation at least two weeks before the first hearing thereon. (3) In case of opposition, the rules on contested cases shall be observed. In addition, such rule must be published. When an administrative rule is merely interpretative in nature, its applicability needs nothing further than its bare issuance, for it gives no real consequence more than what the law itself has already prescribed. When, on the other hand, the administrative rule goes beyond merely providing for the means that can facilitate or render least cumbersome the implementation of the law but substantially increases the burden of those governed, it behooves the agency to accord at least to those directly affected a chance to be heard, and thereafter to be duly informed, before that new issuance is given the force and effect of law.15 RMO No. 15-91 and RMC No. 43-91 cannot be viewed simply as implementing rules or corrective measures revoking in the process the previous rulings of past Commissioners. Specifically, they would have been amendatory provisions applicable to pawnshops. Without these disputed CIR issuances, pawnshops would not be liable to pay the 5% percentage tax, considering that they were not specifically included in Section 116 of the NIRC of 1977, as amended. In so doing, the CIR did not simply interpret the law. The due observance of the requirements of notice, hearing, and publication should not have been ignored. There is no need for us to discuss the ruling in CA-G.R. SP No. 59282 entitled Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Agencia Exquisite of Bohol Inc., which upheld the validity of RMO No. 15-91 and RMC No. 43-91. Suffice it to say that the judgment in that case cannot be binding upon the Supreme Court because it is only a decision of the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court, by tradition and in our system of judicial administration, has the last word on what the law is; it is the

final arbiter of any justifiable controversy. There is only one Supreme Court from whose decisions all other courts should take their bearings.16 In view of the foregoing, RMO No. 15-91 and RMC No. 43-91 are hereby declared null and void. Consequently, Lhuillier is not liable to pay the 5% lending investors tax. WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. The decision of the Court of Appeals of 20 November 2001 in CA-G.R. SP No. 62463 is AFFIRMED.

Republic Supreme Manila SECOND DIVISION

of

the

Philippines Court

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS and the DISTRICT COLLECTOR OF THE PORT OF SUBIC, Petitioners,

G.R. No. 179579 Present: CARPIO, J., Chairperson, BRION, PEREZ, SERENO, and REYES, JJ.

- versus -

Promulgated: HYPERMIX FEEDS CORPORATION, Respondent. February 1, 2012 x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x DECISION SERENO, J.: Before us is a Petition for Review under Rule 45,[1] assailing the Decision[2] and the Resolution[3] of the Court of Appeals (CA), which nullified the Customs Memorandum Order (CMO) No. 27-2003[4] on the tariff classification of wheat issued by petitioner Commissioner of Customs. The antecedent facts are as follows: On 7 November 2003, petitioner Commissioner of Customs issued CMO 27-2003. Under the Memorandum, for tariff purposes, wheat was classified according to the following: (1) importer or consignee; (2) country of origin; and (3) port of discharge.[5] The regulation provided an exclusive list of corporations, ports of discharge, commodity descriptions and countries of origin. Depending on these factors, wheat would be classified either as food grade or feed grade. The corresponding tariff for food grade wheat was 3%, for feed grade, 7%. CMO 27-2003 further provided for the proper procedure for protest or Valuation and Classification Review Committee (VCRC) cases. Under this procedure, the release of the articles that were the subject of protest required the importer to post a cash bond to cover the tariff differential.[6] A month after the issuance of CMO 27-2003, on 19 December 2003, respondent filed a Petition for Declaratory Relief[7] with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Las Pias City. It anticipated the implementation of the regulation on its imported and perishable Chinese milling wheat in transit from China.[8] Respondent contended that CMO 27-2003 was issued without following the mandate of the Revised Administrative Code on public participation, prior notice, and publication or registration with the University of the Philippines Law Center. Respondent also alleged that the regulation summarily adjudged it to be a feed grade supplier without the benefit of prior assessment and examination; thus, despite having imported food grade wheat, it would be subjected to the 7% tariff upon the arrival of the shipment, forcing them to pay 133% more than was proper. Furthermore, respondent claimed that the equal protection clause of the Constitution was violated when the regulation treated non-flour millers differently from flour millers for no reason at all. Lastly, respondent asserted that the retroactive application of the regulation was confiscatory in nature. On 19 January 2004, the RTC issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) effective for twenty (20) days from notice.[9] Petitioners thereafter filed a Motion to Dismiss.[10] They alleged that: (1) the RTC did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case, because respondent was asking for a judicial determination of the classification of wheat; (2) an action for declaratory relief was improper; (3) CMO 27-2003 was an internal administrative rule and not legislative in nature; and

(4) the claims of respondent were speculative and premature, because the Bureau of Customs (BOC) had yet to examine respondents products. They likewise opposed the application for a writ of preliminary injunction on the ground that they had not inflicted any injury through the issuance of the regulation; and that the action would be contrary to the rule that administrative issuances are assumed valid until declared otherwise. On 28 February 2005, the parties agreed that the matters raised in the application for preliminary injunction and the Motion to Dismiss would just be resolved together in the main case. Thus, on 10 March 2005, the RTC rendered its Decision [11] without having to resolve the application for preliminary injunction and the Motion to Dismiss. The trial court ruled in favor of respondent, to wit: WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Petition is GRANTED and the subject Customs Memorandum Order 27-2003 is declared INVALID and OF NO FORCE AND EFFECT. Respondents Commissioner of Customs, the District Collector of Subic or anyone acting in their behalf are to immediately cease and desist from enforcing the said Customs Memorandum Order 27-2003. SO ORDERED.[12]

The RTC held that it had jurisdiction over the subject matter, given that the issue raised by respondent concerned the quasi-legislative powers of petitioners. It likewise stated that a petition for declaratory relief was the proper remedy, and that respondent was the proper party to file it. The court considered that respondent was a regular importer, and that the latter would be subjected to the application of the regulation in future transactions. With regard to the validity of the regulation, the trial court found that petitioners had not followed the basic requirements of hearing and publication in the issuance of CMO 27-2003. It likewise held that petitioners had substituted the quasi-judicial determination of the commodity by a quasi-legislative predetermination.[13] The lower court pointed out that a classification based on importers and ports of discharge were violative of the due process rights of respondent. Dissatisfied with the Decision of the lower court, petitioners appealed to the CA, raising the same allegations in defense of CMO 27-2003.[14] The appellate court, however, dismissed the appeal. It held that, since the regulation affected substantial rights of petitioners and other importers, petitioners should have observed the requirements of notice, hearing and publication. Hence, this Petition. Petitioners raise the following issues for the consideration of this Court: I. THE COURT OF APPEALS DECIDED A QUESTION OF SUBSTANCE WHICH IS NOT IN ACCORD WITH THE LAW AND PREVAILING JURISPRUDENCE. II. THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN DECLARING THAT THE TRIAL COURT HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE. The Petition has no merit. We shall first discuss the propriety of an action for declaratory relief. Rule 63, Section 1 provides: Who may file petition. Any person interested under a deed, will, contract or other written instrument, or whose rights are affected by a statute, executive order or regulation, ordinance, or any other governmental regulation may, before breach or violation thereof, bring an action in the appropriate Regional Trial Court to determine any question of construction or validity arising, and for a declaration of his rights or duties, thereunder. The requirements of an action for declaratory relief are as follows: (1) there must be a justiciable controversy; (2) the controversy must be between persons whose interests are adverse; (3) the party seeking declaratory relief must have a legal interest in the controversy; and (4) the issue involved must be ripe for judicial determination.[15] We find that the Petition filed by respondent before the lower court meets these requirements. First, the subject of the controversy is the constitutionality of CMO 27-2003 issued by petitioner Commissioner of Customs. In Smart Communications v. NTC,[16] we held:

The determination of whether a specific rule or set of rules issued by an administrative agency contravenes the law or the constitution is within the jurisdiction of the regular courts. Indeed, the Constitution vests the power of judicial review or the power to declare a law, treaty, international or executive agreement, presidential decree, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation in the courts, including the regional trial courts. This is within the scope of judicial power, which includes the authority of the courts to determine in an appropriate action the validity of the acts of the political departments. Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government. (Emphasis supplied) Meanwhile, in Misamis Oriental Association of Coco Traders, Inc. v. Department of Finance Secretary,[17] we said: xxx [A] legislative rule is in the nature of subordinate legislation, designed to implement a primary legislation by providing the details thereof. xxx In addition such rule must be published. On the other hand, interpretative rules are designed to provide guidelines to the law which the administrative agency is in charge of enforcing. Accordingly, in considering a legislative rule a court is free to make three inquiries: (i) whether the rule is within the delegated authority of the administrative agency; (ii) whether it is reasonable; and (iii) whether it was issued pursuant to proper procedure. But the court is not free to substitute its judgment as to the desirability or wisdom of the rule for the legislative body, by its delegation of administrative judgment, has committed those questions to administrative judgments and not to judicial judgments. In the case of an interpretative rule, the inquiry is not into the validity but into the correctness or propriety of the rule. As a matter of power a court, when confronted with an interpretative rule, is free to (i) give the force of law to the rule; (ii) go to the opposite extreme and substitute its judgment; or (iii) give some intermediate degree of authoritative weight to the interpretative rule. (Emphasis supplied) Second, the controversy is between two parties that have adverse interests. Petitioners are summarily imposing a tariff rate that respondent is refusing to pay. Third, it is clear that respondent has a legal and substantive interest in the implementation of CMO 27-2003. Respondent has adequately shown that, as a regular importer of wheat, on 14 August 2003, it has actually made shipments of wheat from China to Subic. The shipment was set to arrive in December 2003. Upon its arrival, it would be subjected to the conditions of CMO 27-2003. The regulation calls for the imposition of different tariff rates, depending on the factors enumerated therein. Thus, respondent alleged that it would be made to pay the 7% tariff applied to feed grade wheat, instead of the 3% tariff on food grade wheat. In addition, respondent would have to go through the procedure under CMO 27-2003, which would undoubtedly toll its time and resources. The lower court correctly pointed out as follows: xxx As noted above, the fact that petitioner is precisely into the business of importing wheat, each and every importation will be subjected to constant disputes which will result into (sic)delays in the delivery, setting aside of funds as cash bond required in the CMO as well as the resulting expenses thereof. It is easy to see that business uncertainty will be a constant occurrence for petitioner. That the sums involved are not minimal is shown by the discussions during the hearings conducted as well as in the pleadings filed. It may be that the petitioner can later on get a refund but such has been foreclosed because

the Collector of Customs and the Commissioner of Customs are bound by their own CMO. Petitioner cannot get its refund with the said agency. We believe and so find that Petitioner has presented such a stake in the outcome of this controversy as to vest it with standing to file this petition.[18] (Emphasis supplied) Finally, the issue raised by respondent is ripe for judicial determination, because litigation is inevitable[19] for the simple and uncontroverted reason that respondent is not included in the enumeration of flour millers classified as food grade wheat importers. Thus, as the trial court stated, it would have to file a protest case each time it imports food grade wheat and be subjected to the 7% tariff. It is therefore clear that a petition for declaratory relief is the right remedy given the circumstances of the case. Considering that the questioned regulation would affect the substantive rights of respondent as explained above, it therefore follows that petitioners should have applied the pertinent provisions of Book VII, Chapter 2 of the Revised Administrative Code, to wit: Section 3. Filing. (1) Every agency shall file with the University of the Philippines Law Center three (3) certified copies of every rule adopted by it. Rules in force on the date of effectivity of this Code which are not filed within three (3) months from that date shall not thereafter be the bases of any sanction against any party of persons. xxx xxx xxx Section 9. Public Participation. - (1) If not otherwise required by law, an agency shall, as far as practicable, publish or circulate notices of proposed rules and afford interested parties the opportunity to submit their views prior to the adoption of any rule. (2) In the fixing of rates, no rule or final order shall be valid unless the proposed rates shall have been published in a newspaper of general circulation at least two (2) weeks before the first hearing thereon. (3) In case of opposition, the rules on contested cases shall be observed. When an administrative rule is merely interpretative in nature, its applicability needs nothing further than its bare issuance, for it gives no real consequence more than what the law itself has already prescribed. When, on the other hand, the administrative rule goes beyond merely providing for the means that can facilitate or render least cumbersome the implementation of the law but substantially increases the burden of those governed, it behooves the agency to accord at least to those directly affected a chance to be heard, and thereafter to be duly informed, before that new issuance is given the force and effect of law. [20] Likewise, in Taada v. Tuvera,[21] we held: The clear object of the above-quoted provision is to give the general public adequate notice of the various laws which are to regulate their actions and conduct as citizens. Without such notice and publication, there would be no basis for the application of the maxim ignorantia legis non excusat. It would be the height of injustice to punish or otherwise burden a citizen for the transgression of a law of which he had no notice whatsoever, not even a constructive one. Perhaps at no time since the establishment of the Philippine Republic has the publication of laws taken so vital significance that at this time when the people have bestowed upon the President a power heretofore enjoyed solely by the legislature. While the people are kept abreast by the mass media of the debates and deliberations in the Batasan Pambansa and for the diligent ones, ready access to the legislative records no such publicity accompanies the law-making process of the President. Thus, without publication, the people have no means of knowing what presidential decrees have actually been promulgated,

much less a definite way of informing themselves of the specific contents and texts of such decrees. (Emphasis supplied) Because petitioners failed to follow the requirements enumerated by the Revised Administrative Code, the assailed regulation must be struck down. Going now to the content of CMO 27-3003, we likewise hold that it is unconstitutional for being violative of the equal protection clause of the Constitution. The equal protection clause means that no person or class of persons shall be deprived of the same protection of laws enjoyed by other persons or other classes in the same place in like circumstances. Thus, the guarantee of the equal protection of laws is not violated if there is a reasonable classification. For a classification to be reasonable, it must be shown that (1) it rests on substantial distinctions; (2) it is germane to the purpose of the law; (3) it is not limited to existing conditions only; and (4) it applies equally to all members of the same class. [22] Unfortunately, CMO 27-2003 does not meet these requirements. We do not see how the quality of wheat is affected by who imports it, where it is discharged, or which country it came from. Thus, on the one hand, even if other millers excluded from CMO 27-2003 have imported food grade wheat, the product would still be declared as feed grade wheat, a classification subjecting them to 7% tariff. On the other hand, even if the importers listed under CMO 27-2003 have imported feed grade wheat, they would only be made to pay 3% tariff, thus depriving the state of the taxes due. The regulation, therefore, does not become disadvantageous to respondent only, but even to the state. It is also not clear how the regulation intends to monitor more closely wheat importations and thus prevent their misclassification. A careful study of CMO 27 -2003 shows that it not only fails to achieve this end, but results in the opposite. The application of the regulation forecloses the possibility that other corporations that are excluded from the list import food grade wheat; at the same time, it creates an assumption that those who meet the criteria do not import feed grade wheat. In the first case, importers are unnecessarily burdened to prove the classification of their wheat imports; while in the second, the state carries that burden. Petitioner Commissioner of Customs also went beyond his powers when the regulation limited the customs officers duties mandated by Section 1403 of the Tariff and Customs Law, as amended. The law provides: Section 1403. Duties of Customs Officer Tasked to Examine, Classify, and Appraise Imported Articles. The customs officer tasked to examine, classify, and appraise imported articlesshall determine whether the packages designated for examination and their contents are in accordance with the declaration in the entry, invoice and other pertinent documents and shall make return in such a manner as to indicate whether the articles have been truly and correctly declared in the entry as regard their quantity, measurement, weight, and tariff classification and not imported contrary to law. He shall submit samples to the laboratory for analysis when feasible to do so and when such analysis is necessary for the proper classification, appraisal, and/or admission into the Philippines of imported articles. Likewise, the customs officer shall determine the unit of quantity in which they are usually bought and sold, and appraise the imported articles in accordance with Section 201 of this Code. Failure on the part of the customs officer to comply with his duties shall subject him to the penalties prescribed under Section 3604 of this Code. The provision mandates that the customs officer must first assess and determine the classification of the imported article before tariff may be imposed. Unfortunately, CMO 23-2007 has already classified the article even before the customs officer had the chance to examine it. In effect, petitioner Commissioner of Customs diminished the powers granted by the Tariff and Customs Code with regard to wheat importation when it no longer required the customs officers prior examination and assessment of the proper classification of the wheat. It is well-settled that rules and regulations, which are the product of a delegated power to create new and additional legal provisions that have the effect of law, should be within the

scope of the statutory authority granted by the legislature to the administrative agency. It is required that the regulation be germane to the objects and purposes of the law; and that it be not in contradiction to, but in conformity with, the standards prescribed by law. [23] In summary, petitioners violated respondents right to due process in the issuance of CMO 27-2003 when they failed to observe the requirements under the Revised Administrative Code. Petitioners likewise violated respondents right to equal protection of laws when they provided for an unreasonable classification in the application of the regulation. Finally, petitioner Commissioner of Customs went beyond his powers of delegated authority when the regulation limited the powers of the customs officer to examine and assess imported articles. WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Petition is DENIED.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. 166715 August 14, 2008 ABAKADA GURO PARTY LIST (formerly AASJS)1 OFFICERS/MEMBERS SAMSON S. ALCANTARA, ED VINCENT S. ALBANO, ROMEO R. ROBISO, RENE B. GOROSPE and EDWIN R. SANDOVAL, petitioners, vs. HON. CESAR V. PURISIMA, in his capacity as Secretary of Finance, HON. GUILLERMO L. PARAYNO, JR., in his capacity as Commissioner of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, and HON. ALBERTO D. LINA, in his Capacity as Commissioner of Bureau of Customs, respondents. DECISION CORONA, J.: This petition for prohibition1 seeks to prevent respondents from implementing and enforcing Republic Act (RA) 93352 (Attrition Act of 2005). RA 9335 was enacted to optimize the revenue-generation capability and collection of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) and the Bureau of Customs (BOC). The law intends to encourage BIR and BOC officials and employees to exceed their revenue targets by providing a system of rewards and sanctions through the creation of a Rewards and Incentives Fund (Fund) and a Revenue Performance Evaluation Board (Board).3 It covers all officials and employees of the BIR and the BOC with at least six months of service, regardless of employment status. 4 The Fund is sourced from the collection of the BIR and the BOC in excess of their revenue targets for the year, as determined by the Development Budget and Coordinating Committee (DBCC). Any incentive or reward is taken from the fund and allocated to the BIR and the BOC in proportion to their contribution in the excess collection of the targeted amount of tax revenue. 5 The Boards in the BIR and the BOC are composed of the Secretary of the Department of Finance (DOF) or his/her Undersecretary, the Secretary of the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) or his/her Undersecretary, the Director General of the National Economic Development Authority (NEDA) or his/her Deputy Director General, the Commissioners of the BIR and the BOC or their Deputy Commissioners, two representatives from the rank-and-file employees and a representative from the officials nominated by their recognized organization. 6 Each Board has the duty to (1) prescribe the rules and guidelines for the allocation, distribution and release of the Fund; (2) set criteria and procedures for removing from the service officials and employees whose revenue collection falls short of the target; (3) terminate personnel in accordance with the criteria adopted by the Board; (4) prescribe a system for performance evaluation; (5) perform other functions, including the issuance of rules and regulations and (6) submit an annual report to Congress.7 The DOF, DBM, NEDA, BIR, BOC and the Civil Service Commission (CSC) were tasked to promulgate and issue the implementing rules and regulations of RA 9335, 8 to be approved by a Joint Congressional Oversight Committee created for such purpose.9 Petitioners, invoking their right as taxpayers filed this petition challenging the constitutionality of RA 9335, a tax reform legislation. They contend that, by establishing a system of rewards and incentives, the law "transform[s] the officials and employees of the BIR and the BOC into mercenaries and bounty hunters" as they will do their best only in consideration of such rewards. Thus, the system of rewards and incentives invites corruption and undermines the constitutionally mandated duty of these officials and employees to serve the people with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency. Petitioners also claim that limiting the scope of the system of rewards and incentives only to officials and employees of the BIR and the BOC violates the constitutional guarantee of equal protection. There is no valid basis for classification or distinction as to why such a system should not apply to officials and employees of all other government agencies. In addition, petitioners assert that the law unduly delegates the power to fix revenue targets to the President as it lacks a sufficient standard on that matter. While Section 7(b) and (c) of RA 9335 provides that BIR and BOC officials may be dismissed from the service if their revenue collections fall short of the target by at least 7.5%, the law does not, however, fix the revenue targets to be achieved. Instead, the fixing of revenue targets has been delegated to the

President without sufficient standards. It will therefore be easy for the President to fix an unrealistic and unattainable target in order to dismiss BIR or BOC personnel. Finally, petitioners assail the creation of a congressional oversight committee on the ground that it violates the doctrine of separation of powers. While the legislative function is deemed accomplished and completed upon the enactment and approval of the law, the creation of the congressional oversight committee permits legislative participation in the implementation and enforcement of the law. In their comment, respondents, through the Office of the Solicitor General, question the petition for being premature as there is no actual case or controversy yet. Petitioners have not asserted any right or claim that will necessitate the exercise of this Courts jurisdiction. Nevertheless, respondents acknowledge that public policy requires the resolution of the constitutional issues involved in this case. They assert that the allegation that the reward system will breed mercenaries is mere speculation and does not suffice to invalidate the law. Seen in conjunction with the declared objective of RA 9335, the law validly classifies the BIR and the BOC because the functions they perform are distinct from those of the other government agencies and instrumentalities. Moreover, the law provides a sufficient standard that will guide the executive in the implementation of its provisions. Lastly, the creation of the congressional oversight committee under the law enhances, rather than violates, separation of powers. It ensures the fulfillment of the legislative policy and serves as a check to any over-accumulation of power on the part of the executive and the implementing agencies. After a careful consideration of the conflicting contentions of the parties, the Court finds that petitioners have failed to overcome the presumption of constitutionality in favor of RA 9335, except as shall hereafter be discussed. Actual Case And Ripeness An actual case or controversy involves a conflict of legal rights, an assertion of opposite legal claims susceptible of judicial adjudication.10 A closely related requirement is ripeness, that is, the question must be ripe for adjudication. And a constitutional question is ripe for adjudication when the governmental act being challenged has a direct adverse effect on the individual challenging it.11 Thus, to be ripe for judicial adjudication, the petitioner must show a personal stake in the outcome of the case or an injury to himself that can be redressed by a favorable decision of the Court.12 In this case, aside from the general claim that the dispute has ripened into a judicial controversy by the mere enactment of the law even without any further overt act, 13 petitioners fail either to assert any specific and concrete legal claim or to demonstrate any direct adverse effect of the law on them. They are unable to show a personal stake in the outcome of this case or an injury to themselves. On this account, their petition is procedurally infirm. This notwithstanding, public interest requires the resolution of the constitutional issues raised by petitioners. The grave nature of their allegations tends to cast a cloud on the presumption of constitutionality in favor of the law. And where an action of the legislative branch is alleged to have infringed the Constitution, it becomes not only the right but in fact the duty of the judiciary to settle the dispute.14 Accountability of Public Officers Section 1, Article 11 of the Constitution states: Sec. 1. Public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency, act with patriotism, and justice, and lead modest lives. Public office is a public trust. It must be discharged by its holder not for his own personal gain but for the benefit of the public for whom he holds it in trust. By demanding accountability and service with responsibility, integrity, loyalty, efficiency, patriotism and justice, all government officials and employees have the duty to be responsive to the needs of the people they are called upon to serve. Public officers enjoy the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties. This presumption necessarily obtains in favor of BIR and BOC officials and employees. RA 9335 operates on the basis thereof and reinforces it by providing a system of rewards and sanctions for the purpose of encouraging the officials and employees of the BIR and the BOC to exceed their revenue targets and optimize their revenue-generation capability and collection.15

The presumption is disputable but proof to the contrary is required to rebut it. It cannot be overturned by mere conjecture or denied in advance (as petitioners would have the Court do) specially in this case where it is an underlying principle to advance a declared public policy. Petitioners claim that the implementation of RA 9335 will turn BIR and BOC officials and employees into "bounty hunters and mercenaries" is not only without any factual and legal basis; it is also purely speculative. A law enacted by Congress enjoys the strong presumption of constitutionality. To justify its nullification, there must be a clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution, not a doubtful and equivocal one.16 To invalidate RA 9335 based on petitioners baseless supposition is an affront to the wisdom not only of the legislature that passed it but also of the executive which approved it. Public service is its own reward. Nevertheless, public officers may by law be rewarded for exemplary and exceptional performance. A system of incentives for exceeding the set expectations of a public office is not anathema to the concept of public accountability. In fact, it recognizes and reinforces dedication to duty, industry, efficiency and loyalty to public service of deserving government personnel. In United States v. Matthews,17 the U.S. Supreme Court validated a law which awards to officers of the customs as well as other parties an amount not exceeding one-half of the net proceeds of forfeitures in violation of the laws against smuggling. Citing Dorsheimer v. United States,18 the U.S. Supreme Court said: The offer of a portion of such penalties to the collectors is to stimulate and reward their zeal and industry in detecting fraudulent attempts to evade payment of duties and taxes. In the same vein, employees of the BIR and the BOC may by law be entitled to a reward when, as a consequence of their zeal in the enforcement of tax and customs laws, they exceed their revenue targets. In addition, RA 9335 establishes safeguards to ensure that the reward will not be claimed if it will be either the fruit of "bounty hunting or mercenary activity" or the product of the irregular performance of official duties. One of these precautionary measures is embodied in Section 8 of the law: SEC. 8. Liability of Officials, Examiners and Employees of the BIR and the BOC. The officials, examiners, and employees of the [BIR] and the [BOC] who violate this Act or who are guilty of negligence, abuses or acts of malfeasance or misfeasance or fail to exercise extraordinary diligence in the performance of their duties shall be held liable for any loss or injury suffered by any business establishment or taxpayer as a result of such violation, negligence, abuse, malfeasance, misfeasance or failure to exercise extraordinary diligence. Equal Protection Equality guaranteed under the equal protection clause is equality under the same conditions and among persons similarly situated; it is equality among equals, not similarity of treatment of persons who are classified based on substantial differences in relation to the object to be accomplished.19 When things or persons are different in fact or circumstance, they may be treated in law differently. In Victoriano v. Elizalde Rope Workers Union,20 this Court declared: The guaranty of equal protection of the laws is not a guaranty of equality in the application of the laws upon all citizens of the [S]tate. It is not, therefore, a requirement, in order to avoid the constitutional prohibition against inequality, that every man, woman and child should be affected alike by a statute. Equality of operation of statutes does not mean indiscriminate operation on persons merely as such, but on persons according to the circumstances surrounding them. It guarantees equality, not identity of rights. The Constitution does not require that things which are different in fact be treated in law as though they were the same. The equal protection clause does not forbid discrimination as to things that are different. It does not prohibit legislation which is limited either in the object to which it is directed or by the territory within which it is to operate. The equal protection of the laws clause of the Constitution allows classification. Classification in law, as in the other departments of knowledge or practice, is the grouping of things in speculation or practice because they agree with one another in certain particulars. A law is not invalid because of simple inequality. The very idea of classification is that of inequality, so that it goes without saying that the mere fact of

inequality in no manner determines the matter of constitutionality. All that is required of a valid classification is that it be reasonable, which means that the classification should be based on substantial distinctions which make for real differences, that it must be germane to the purpose of the law; that it must not be limited to existing conditions only; and that it must apply equally to each member of the class. This Court has held that the standard is satisfied if the classification or distinction is based on a reasonable foundation or rational basis and is not palpably arbitrary. In the exercise of its power to make classifications for the purpose of enacting laws over matters within its jurisdiction, the state is recognized as enjoying a wide range of discretion. It is not necessary that the classification be based on scientific or marked differences of things or in their relation. Neither is it necessary that the classification be made with mathematical nicety. Hence, legislative classification may in many cases properly rest on narrow distinctions, for the equal protection guaranty does not preclude the legislature from recognizing degrees of evil or harm, and legislation is addressed to evils as they may appear.21 (emphasis supplied) The equal protection clause recognizes a valid classification, that is, a classification that has a reasonable foundation or rational basis and not arbitrary.22 With respect to RA 9335, its expressed public policy is the optimization of the revenue-generation capability and collection of the BIR and the BOC.23 Since the subject of the law is the revenue- generation capability and collection of the BIR and the BOC, the incentives and/or sanctions provided in the law should logically pertain to the said agencies. Moreover, the law concerns only the BIR and the BOC because they have the common distinct primary function of generating revenues for the national government through the collection of taxes, customs duties, fees and charges. The BIR performs the following functions: Sec. 18. The Bureau of Internal Revenue. The Bureau of Internal Revenue, which shall be headed by and subject to the supervision and control of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, who shall be appointed by the President upon the recommendation of the Secretary [of the DOF], shall have the following functions: (1) Assess and collect all taxes, fees and charges and account for all revenues collected; (2) Exercise duly delegated police powers for the proper performance of its functions and duties; (3) Prevent and prosecute tax evasions and all other illegal economic activities; (4) Exercise supervision and control over its constituent and subordinate units; and (5) Perform such other functions as may be provided by law.24 xxx xxx xxx (emphasis supplied) On the other hand, the BOC has the following functions: Sec. 23. The Bureau of Customs. The Bureau of Customs which shall be headed and subject to the management and control of the Commissioner of Customs, who shall be appointed by the President upon the recommendation of the Secretary[of the DOF] and hereinafter referred to as Commissioner, shall have the following functions: (1) Collect custom duties, taxes and the corresponding fees, charges and penalties; (2) Account for all customs revenues collected; (3) Exercise police authority for the enforcement of tariff and customs laws; (4) Prevent and suppress smuggling, pilferage and all other economic frauds within all ports of entry; (5) Supervise and control exports, imports, foreign mails and the clearance of vessels and aircrafts in all ports of entry; (6) Administer all legal requirements that are appropriate; (7) Prevent and prosecute smuggling and other illegal activities in all ports under its jurisdiction; (8) Exercise supervision and control over its constituent units; (9) Perform such other functions as may be provided by law.25 xxx xxx xxx (emphasis supplied) Both the BIR and the BOC are bureaus under the DOF. They principally perform the special function of being the instrumentalities through which the State exercises one of its great inherent

functions taxation. Indubitably, such substantial distinction is germane and intimately related to 1. Where the district or area of responsibility is newly-created, not the purpose of the law. Hence, the classification and treatment accorded to the BIR and the exceeding two years in operation, as has no historical record of collection BOC under RA 9335 fully satisfy the demands of equal protection. performance that can be used as basis for evaluation; and Undue Delegation 2. Where the revenue or customs official or employee is a recent transferee Two tests determine the validity of delegation of legislative power: (1) the completeness test and in the middle of the period under consideration unless the transfer was due (2) the sufficient standard test. A law is complete when it sets forth therein the policy to be to nonperformance of revenue targets or potential nonperformance of 26 executed, carried out or implemented by the delegate. It lays down a sufficient standard when revenue targets: Provided, however, That when the district or area of it provides adequate guidelines or limitations in the law to map out the boundaries of the responsibility covered by revenue or customs officials or employees has delegates authority and prevent the delegation from running riot.27 To be sufficient, the standard suffered from economic difficulties brought about by natural calamities must specify the limits of the delegates authority, announce the legislative policy and identify the or force majeure or economic causes as may be determined by the Board, 28 conditions under which it is to be implemented. termination shall be considered only after careful and proper review by the RA 9335 adequately states the policy and standards to guide the President in fixing revenue Board. targets and the implementing agencies in carrying out the provisions of the law. Section 2 spells (c) To terminate personnel in accordance with the criteria adopted in the preceding out the policy of the law: paragraph: Provided, That such decision shall be immediately executory: Provided, further, That the application of the criteria for the separation of an official or SEC. 2. Declaration of Policy. It is the policy of the State to optimize the revenueemployee from service under this Act shall be without prejudice to the generation capability and collection of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) and the application of other relevant laws on accountability of public officers and Bureau of Customs (BOC) by providing for a system of rewards and sanctions through employees, such as the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards of Public the creation of a Rewards and Incentives Fund and a Revenue Performance Officers and Employees and the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act; Evaluation Board in the above agencies for the purpose of encouraging their officials and employees to exceed their revenue targets. xxx xxx xxx (emphasis supplied) 29 Section 4 "canalized within banks that keep it from overflowing" the delegated power to the Clearly, RA 9335 in no way violates the security of tenure of officials and employees of the BIR President to fix revenue targets: and the BOC. The guarantee of security of tenure only means that an employee cannot be SEC. 4. Rewards and Incentives Fund. A Rewards and Incentives Fund, hereinafter dismissed from the service for causes other than those provided by law and only after due referred to as the Fund, is hereby created, to be sourced from the collection of the BIR process is accorded the employee.31 In the case of RA 9335, it lays down a reasonable yardstick and the BOC in excess of their respective revenue targets of the year, as for removal (when the revenue collection falls short of the target by at least 7.5%) with due determined by the Development Budget and Coordinating Committee (DBCC), in consideration of all relevant factors affecting the level of collection. This standard is analogous to the following percentages: inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of official duties, a ground for disciplinary under civil service laws.32 The action for removal is also subject to civil service laws, rules Excess of Collection of the Excess the Percent (%) of the Excess Collection to action Accrue to the and regulations and compliance with substantive and procedural due process. Revenue Targets Fund At any rate, this Court has recognized the following as sufficient standards: "public interest," 30% or below 15% "justice and equity," "public convenience and welfare" and "simplicity, economy and More than 30% 15% of the first 30% plus 20% of the remaining excess welfare."33 In this case, the declared policy of optimization of the revenue-generation capability The Fund shall be deemed automatically appropriated the year immediately following and collection of the BIR and the BOC is infused with public interest. the year when the revenue collection target was exceeded and shall be released on Separation Of Powers the same fiscal year. Section 12 of RA 9335 provides: Revenue targets shall refer to the original estimated revenue collection SEC. 12. Joint Congressional Oversight Committee. There is hereby created a Joint expected of the BIR and the BOC for a given fiscal year as stated in the Budget Congressional Oversight Committee composed of seven Members from the Senate of Expenditures and Sources of Financing (BESF) submitted by the President to and seven Members from the House of Representatives. The Members from the Congress. The BIR and the BOC shall submit to the DBCC the distribution of the Senate shall be appointed by the Senate President, with at least two senators agencies revenue targets as allocated among its revenue districts in the case of the representing the minority. The Members from the House of Representatives shall be BIR, and the collection districts in the case of the BOC. appointed by the Speaker with at least two members representing the minority. After xxx xxx xxx (emphasis supplied) the Oversight Committee will have approved the implementing rules and regulations Revenue targets are based on the original estimated revenue collection expected respectively of (IRR) it shall thereafter become functus officio and therefore cease to exist. the BIR and the BOC for a given fiscal year as approved by the DBCC and stated in the BESF The Joint Congressional Oversight Committee in RA 9335 was created for the purpose of submitted by the President to Congress.30 Thus, the determination of revenue targets does not approving the implementing rules and regulations (IRR) formulated by the DOF, DBM, NEDA, rest solely on the President as it also undergoes the scrutiny of the DBCC. BIR, BOC and CSC. On May 22, 2006, it approved the said IRR. From then on, it On the other hand, Section 7 specifies the limits of the Boards authority and identifies the became functus officio and ceased to exist. Hence, the issue of its alleged encroachment on the conditions under which officials and employees whose revenue collection falls short of the target executive function of implementing and enforcing the law may be considered moot and by at least 7.5% may be removed from the service: academic. SEC. 7. Powers and Functions of the Board. The Board in the agency shall have the This notwithstanding, this might be as good a time as any for the Court to confront the issue of following powers and functions: the constitutionality of the Joint Congressional Oversight Committee created under RA 9335 (or xxx xxx xxx other similar laws for that matter). (b) To set the criteria and procedures for removing from service officials and The scholarly discourse of Mr. Justice (now Chief Justice) Puno on the concept of congressional employees whose revenue collection falls short of the target by at least seven oversight in Macalintal v. Commission on Elections34 is illuminating: and a half percent (7.5%), with due consideration of all relevant factors affecting Concept and bases of congressional oversight the level of collection as provided in the rules and regulations promulgated under Broadly defined, the power of oversight embraces all activities undertaken by this Act, subject to civil service laws, rules and regulations and compliance with Congress to enhance its understanding of and influence over substantive and procedural due process: Provided, That the following exemptions the implementation of legislation it has enacted. Clearly, oversight shall apply:

concerns post-enactment measures undertaken by Congress: (a) to monitor bureaucratic compliance with program objectives, (b) to determine whether agencies are properly administered, (c) to eliminate executive waste and dishonesty, (d) to prevent executive usurpation of legislative authority, and (d) to assess executive conformity with the congressional perception of public interest. The power of oversight has been held to be intrinsic in the grant of legislative power itself and integral to the checks and balances inherent in a democratic system of government. x x x x x x x x x Over the years, Congress has invoked its oversight power with increased frequency to check the perceived "exponential accumulation of power" by the executive branch. By the beginning of the 20th century, Congress has delegated an enormous amount of legislative authority to the executive branch and the administrative agencies. Congress, thus, uses its oversight power to make sure that the administrative agencies perform their functions within the authority delegated to them. x x x x x x x x x Categories of congressional oversight functions The acts done by Congress purportedly in the exercise of its oversight powers may be divided intothree categories, namely: scrutiny, investigation and supervision. a. Scrutiny Congressional scrutiny implies a lesser intensity and continuity of attention to administrative operations. Its primary purpose is to determine economy and efficiency of the operation of government activities. In the exercise of legislative scrutiny, Congress may request information and report from the other branches of government. It can give recommendations or pass resolutions for consideration of the agency involved. xxx xxx xxx b. Congressional investigation While congressional scrutiny is regarded as a passive process of looking at the facts that are readily available, congressional investigation involves a more intense digging of facts. The power of Congress to conduct investigation is recognized by the 1987 Constitution under section 21, Article VI, xxx xxx xxx c. Legislative supervision The third and most encompassing form by which Congress exercises its oversight power is thru legislative supervision. "Supervision" connotes a continuing and informed awareness on the part of a congressional committee regarding executive operations in a given administrative area. While both congressional scrutiny and investigation involve inquiry into past executive branch actions in order to influence future executive branch performance, congressional supervision allows Congress to scrutinize the exercise of delegated law-making authority, and permits Congress to retain part of that delegated authority. Congress exercises supervision over the executive agencies through its veto power. It typically utilizes veto provisions when granting the President or an executive agency the power to promulgate regulations with the force of law. These provisions require the President or an agency to present the proposed regulations to Congress, which retains a "right" to approve or disapprove any regulation before it takes effect. Such legislative veto provisions usually provide that a proposed regulation will become a law after the expiration of a certain period of time, only if Congress does not affirmatively disapprove of the regulation in the meantime. Less frequently, the statute provides that a proposed regulation will become law if Congress affirmatively approves it. Supporters of legislative veto stress that it is necessary to maintain the balance of power between the legislative and the executive branches of government as it offers lawmakers a way to delegate vast power to the executive branch or to independent agencies while retaining the option to cancel particular exercise of such power without having to pass new legislation or to repeal existing law. They contend that this

arrangement promotes democratic accountability as it provides legislative check on the activities of unelected administrative agencies. One proponent thus explains: It is too late to debate the merits of this delegation policy: the policy is too deeply embedded in our law and practice. It suffices to say that the complexities of modern government have often led Congress-whether by actual or perceived necessity- to legislate by declaring broad policy goals and general statutory standards, leaving the choice of policy options to the discretion of an executive officer. Congress articulates legislative aims, but leaves their implementation to the judgment of parties who may or may not have participated in or agreed with the development of those aims. Consequently, absent safeguards, in many instances the reverse of our constitutional scheme could be effected: Congress proposes, the Executive disposes. One safeguard, of course, is the legislative power to enact new legislation or to change existing law. But without some means of overseeing post enactment activities of the executive branch, Congress would be unable to determine whether its policies have been implemented in accordance with legislative intent and thus whether legislative intervention is appropriate. Its opponents, however, criticize the legislative veto as undue encroachment upon the executive prerogatives. They urge that any post-enactment measures undertaken by the legislative branch should be limited to scrutiny and investigation; any measure beyond that would undermine the separation of powers guaranteed by the Constitution. They contend that legislative veto constitutes an impermissible evasion of the Presidents veto authority and intrusion into the powers vested in the executive or judicial branches of government. Proponents counter that legislative veto enhances separation of powers as it prevents the executive branch and independent agencies from accumulating too much power. They submit that reporting requirements and congressional committee investigations allow Congress to scrutinize only the exercise of delegated law-making authority. They do not allow Congress to review executive proposals before they take effect and they do not afford the opportunity for ongoing and binding expressions of congressional intent. In contrast, legislative veto permits Congress to participate prospectively in the approval or disapproval of "subordinate law" or those enacted by the executive branch pursuant to a delegation of authority by Congress. They further argue that legislative veto "is a necessary response by Congress to the accretion of policy control by forces outside its chambers." In an era of delegated authority, they point out that legislative veto "is the most efficient means Congress has yet devised to retain control over the evolution and implementation of its policy as declared by statute." In Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha, the U.S. Supreme Court resolved the validity of legislative veto provisions. The case arose from the order of the immigration judge suspending the deportation of Chadha pursuant to 244(c)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The United States House of Representatives passed a resolution vetoing the suspension pursuant to 244(c)(2) authorizing either House of Congress, by resolution, to invalidate the decision of the executive branch to allow a particular deportable alien to remain in the United States. The immigration judge reopened the deportation proceedings to implement the House order and the alien was ordered deported. The Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed the aliens appeal, holding that it had no power to declare unconstitutional an act of Congress. The United States Court of Appeals for Ninth Circuit held that the House was without constitutional authority to order the aliens deportation and that 244(c)(2) violated the constitutional doctrine on separation of powers. On appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court declared 244(c)(2) unconstitutional. But the Court shied away from the issue of separation of powers and instead held that the provision violates the presentment clause and bicameralism. It held that the onehouse veto was essentially legislative in purpose and effect. As such, it is subject to the procedures set out in Article I of the Constitution requiring the passage by a majority of both Houses and presentment to the President. x x x x x x x x x

Two weeks after the Chadha decision, the Court upheld, in memorandum decision, two lower court decisions invalidating the legislative veto provisions in the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978 and the Federal Trade Commission Improvement Act of 1980. Following this precedence, lower courts invalidated statutes containing legislative veto provisions although some of these provisions required the approval of both Houses of Congress and thus met the bicameralism requirement of Article I. Indeed, some of these veto provisions were not even exercised.35 (emphasis supplied) In Macalintal, given the concept and configuration of the power of congressional oversight and considering the nature and powers of a constitutional body like the Commission on Elections, the Court struck down the provision in RA 9189 (The Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003) creating a Joint Congressional Committee. The committee was tasked not only to monitor and evaluate the implementation of the said law but also to review, revise, amend and approve the IRR promulgated by the Commission on Elections. The Court held that these functions infringed on the constitutional independence of the Commission on Elections.36 With this backdrop, it is clear that congressional oversight is not unconstitutional per se, meaning, it neither necessarily constitutes an encroachment on the executive power to implement laws nor undermines the constitutional separation of powers. Rather, it is integral to the checks and balances inherent in a democratic system of government. It may in fact even enhance the separation of powers as it prevents the over-accumulation of power in the executive branch. However, to forestall the danger of congressional encroachment "beyond the legislative sphere," the Constitution imposes two basic and related constraints on Congress. 37 It may not vest itself, any of its committees or its members with either executive or judicial power. 38 And, when it exercises its legislative power, it must follow the "single, finely wrought and exhaustively considered, procedures" specified under the Constitution, 39 including the procedure for enactment of laws and presentment. Thus, any post-enactment congressional measure such as this should be limited to scrutiny and investigation. In particular, congressional oversight must be confined to the following: (1) scrutiny based prim arily on Congress power of appropriation and the budget hearings conducted in connection with it, its power to ask heads of departments to appear before and be heard by either of its Houses on any matter pertaining to their departments and its power of confirmation40 and (2) investigation and monitoring41 of the implementation of laws pursuant to the power of Congress to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation.42 Any action or step beyond that will undermine the separation of powers guaranteed by the Constitution. Legislative vetoes fall in this class. Legislative veto is a statutory provision requiring the President or an administrative agency to present the proposed implementing rules and regulations of a law to Congress which, by itself or through a committee formed by it, retains a "right" or "power" to approve or disapprove such regulations before they take effect. As such, a legislative veto in the form of a congressional oversight committee is in the form of an inward-turning delegation designed to attach a congressional leash (other than through scrutiny and investigation) to an agency to which Congress has by law initially delegated broad powers. 43It radically changes the design or structure of the Constitutions diagram of power as it entrusts to Congress a direct role in enforcing, applying or implementing its own laws.44 Congress has two options when enacting legislation to define national policy within the broad horizons of its legislative competence.45 It can itself formulate the details or it can assign to the executive branch the responsibility for making necessary managerial decisions in conformity with those standards.46 In the latter case, the law must be complete in all its essential terms and conditions when it leaves the hands of the legislature.47 Thus, what is left for the executive branch or the concerned administrative agency when it formulates rules and regulations implementing the law is to fill up details (supplementary rule-making) or ascertain facts necessary to bring the law into actual operation (contingent rule-making).48 Administrative regulations enacted by administrative agencies to implement and interpret the law which they are entrusted to enforce have the force of law and are entitled to respect. 49 Such rules and regulations partake of the nature of a statute50 and are just as binding as if they have been written in the statute itself. As such, they have the force and effect of law and enjoy the presumption of constitutionality and legality until they are set aside with finality in an appropriate

case by a competent court.51 Congress, in the guise of assuming the role of an overseer, may not pass upon their legality by subjecting them to its stamp of approval without disturbing the calculated balance of powers established by the Constitution. In exercising discretion to approve or disapprove the IRR based on a determination of whether or not they conformed with the provisions of RA 9335, Congress arrogated judicial power unto itself, a power exclusively vested in this Court by the Constitution. Considered Opinion of Mr. Justice Dante O. Tinga Moreover, the requirement that the implementing rules of a law be subjected to approval by Congress as a condition for their effectivity violates the cardinal constitutional principles of bicameralism and the rule on presentment.52 Section 1, Article VI of the Constitution states: Section 1. The legislative power shall be vested in the Congress of the Philippines which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives, except to the extent reserved to the people by the provision on initiative and referendum. (emphasis supplied) Legislative power (or the power to propose, enact, amend and repeal laws) 53 is vested in Congress which consists of two chambers, the Senate and the House of Representatives. A valid exercise of legislative power requires the act of both chambers. Corrollarily, it can be exercised neither solely by one of the two chambers nor by a committee of either or both chambers. Thus, assuming the validity of a legislative veto, both a single-chamber legislative veto and a congressional committee legislative veto are invalid. Additionally, Section 27(1), Article VI of the Constitution provides: Section 27. (1) Every bill passed by the Congress shall, before it becomes a law, be presented to the President. If he approves the same, he shall sign it, otherwise, he shall veto it and return the same with his objections to the House where it originated, which shall enter the objections at large in its Journal and proceed to reconsider it. If, after such reconsideration, two-thirds of all the Members of such House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two-thirds of all the Members of that House, it shall become a law. In all such cases, the votes of each House shall be determined by yeas or nays, and the names of the members voting for or against shall be entered in its Journal. The President shall communicate his veto of any bill to the House where it originated within thirty days after the date of receipt thereof; otherwise, it shall become a law as if he had signed it. (emphasis supplied) Every bill passed by Congress must be presented to the President for approval or veto. In the absence of presentment to the President, no bill passed by Congress can become a law. In this sense, law-making under the Constitution is a joint act of the Legislature and of the Executive. Assuming that legislative veto is a valid legislative act with the force of law, it cannot take effect without such presentment even if approved by both chambers of Congress. In sum, two steps are required before a bill becomes a law. First, it must be approved by both Houses of Congress.54 Second, it must be presented to and approved by the President.55 As summarized by Justice Isagani Cruz56 and Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas, S.J.57, the following is the procedure for the approval of bills: A bill is introduced by any member of the House of Representatives or the Senate except for some measures that must originate only in the former chamber. The first reading involves only a reading of the number and title of the measure and its referral by the Senate President or the Speaker to the proper committee for study. The bill may be "killed" in the committee or it may be recommended for approval, with or without amendments, sometimes after public hearings are first held thereon. If there are other bills of the same nature or purpose, they may all be consolidated into one bill under common authorship or as a committee bill. Once reported out, the bill shall be calendared for second reading. It is at this stage that the bill is read in its entirety, scrutinized, debated upon and amended when desired. The second reading is the most important stage in the passage of a bill. The bill as approved on second reading is printed in its final form and copies thereof are distributed at least three days before the third reading. On the third reading, the

members merely register their votes and explain them if they are allowed by the rules. No further debate is allowed. Once the bill passes third reading, it is sent to the other chamber, where it will also undergo the three readings. If there are differences between the versions approved by the two chambers, a conference committee58 representing both Houses will draft a compromise measure that if ratified by the Senate and the House of Representatives will then be submitted to the President for his consideration. The bill is enrolled when printed as finally approved by the Congress, thereafter authenticated with the signatures of the Senate President, the Speaker, and the Secretaries of their respective chambers59 The Presidents role in law-making. The final step is submission to the President for approval. Once approved, it takes effect as law after the required publication.60 Where Congress delegates the formulation of rules to implement the law it has enacted pursuant to sufficient standards established in the said law, the law must be complete in all its essential terms and conditions when it leaves the hands of the legislature. And it may be deemed to have left the hands of the legislature when it becomes effective because it is only upon effectivity of the statute that legal rights and obligations become available to those entitled by the language of the statute. Subject to the indispensable requisite of publication under the due process clause,61 the determination as to when a law takes effect is wholly the prerogative of Congress.62 As such, it is only upon its effectivity that a law may be executed and the executive branch acquires the duties and powers to execute the said law. Before that point, the role of the executive branch, particularly of the President, is limited to approving or vetoing the law.63 From the moment the law becomes effective, any provision of law that empowers Congress or any of its members to play any role in the implementation or enforcement of the law violates the principle of separation of powers and is thus unconstitutional. Under this principle, a provision that requires Congress or its members to approve the implementing rules of a law after it has already taken effect shall be unconstitutional, as is a provision that allows Congress or its members to overturn any directive or ruling made by the members of the executive branch charged with the implementation of the law. Following this rationale, Section 12 of RA 9335 should be struck down as unconstitutional. While there may be similar provisions of other laws that may be invalidated for failure to pass this standard, the Court refrains from invalidating them wholesale but will do so at the proper time when an appropriate case assailing those provisions is brought before us. 64 The next question to be resolved is: what is the effect of the unconstitutionality of Section 12 of RA 9335 on the other provisions of the law? Will it render the entire law unconstitutional? No. Section 13 of RA 9335 provides: SEC. 13. Separability Clause. If any provision of this Act is declared invalid by a competent court, the remainder of this Act or any provision not affected by such declaration of invalidity shall remain in force and effect. In Tatad v. Secretary of the Department of Energy,65 the Court laid down the following rules: The general rule is that where part of a statute is void as repugnant to the Constitution, while another part is valid, the valid portion, if separable from the invalid, may stand and be enforced. The presence of a separability clause in a statute creates the presumption that the legislature intended separability, rather than complete nullity of the statute. To justify this result, the valid portion must be so far independent of the invalid portion that it is fair to presume that the legislature would have enacted it by itself if it had supposed that it could not constitutionally enact the other. Enough must remain to make a complete, intelligible and valid statute, which carries out the legislative intent. x x x The exception to the general rule is that when the parts of a statute are so mutually dependent and connected, as conditions, considerations, inducements, or compensations for each other, as to warrant a belief that the legislature intended them as a whole, the nullity of one part will vitiate the rest. In making the parts of the statute dependent, conditional, or connected with one another, the legislature intended the statute to be carried out as a whole and would not have enacted it if one part is void, in which case if some parts are unconstitutional, all the other provisions thus dependent, conditional, or connected must fall with them.

The separability clause of RA 9335 reveals the intention of the legislature to isolate and detach any invalid provision from the other provisions so that the latter may continue in force and effect. The valid portions can stand independently of the invalid section. Without Section 12, the remaining provisions still constitute a complete, intelligible and valid law which carries out the legislative intent to optimize the revenue-generation capability and collection of the BIR and the BOC by providing for a system of rewards and sanctions through the Rewards and Incentives Fund and a Revenue Performance Evaluation Board. To be effective, administrative rules and regulations must be published in full if their purpose is to enforce or implement existing law pursuant to a valid delegation. The IRR of RA 9335 were published on May 30, 2006 in two newspapers of general circulation 66 and became effective 15 days thereafter.67 Until and unless the contrary is shown, the IRR are presumed valid and effective even without the approval of the Joint Congressional Oversight Committee. WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby PARTIALLY GRANTED. Section 12 of RA 9335 creating a Joint Congressional Oversight Committee to approve the implementing rules and regulations of the law is declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL and therefore NULL and VOID. The constitutionality of the remaining provisions of RA 9335 is UPHELD. Pursuant to Section 13 of RA 9335, the rest of the provisions remain in force and effect.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. L-4376 May 22, 1953 ASSOCIATION OF CUSTOMS BROKERS, INC. and G. MANLAPIT, INC., petitionersappellants, vs. THE MUNICIPALITY BOARD, THE CITY TREASURER, THE CITY ASSESSOR and THE CITY MAYOR, all of the City of Manila, respondents-appellees. Teotimo A. Roja for appellants. City Fiscal Eugenio Angeles and Assistant Fiscal Eulogio S. Serrano for appellees. BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.: This is a petition for declaratory relief to test the validity of Ordinance No. 3379 passed by the Municipal Board of the City of Manila on March 24, 1950. The Association of Customs Brokers, Inc., which is composed of all brokers and public service operators of motor vehicles in the City of Manila, and G. Manlapit, Inc., a member of said association, also a public service operator of the trucks in said City, challenge the validity of said ordinance on the ground that (1) while it levies a so-called property tax it is in reality a license tax which is beyond the power of the Municipal Board of the City of Manila; (2) said ordinance offends against the rule of uniformity of taxation; and (3) it constitutes double taxation. The respondents, represented by the city fiscal, contend on their part that the challenged ordinance imposes a property tax which is within the power of the City of Manila to impose under its Revised Charter [Section 18 (p) of Republic Act No. 409], and that the tax in question does not violate the rule of uniformity of taxation, nor does it constitute double taxation. The issues having been joined, the Court of First Instance of Manila sustained the validity of the ordinance and dismissed the petition. Hence this appeal. The disputed ordinance was passed by the Municipal Board of the City of Manila under the authority conferred by section 18 (p) of Republic Act No. 409. Said section confers upon the municipal board the power "to tax motor and other vehicles operating within the City of Manila the provisions of any existing law to the contrary notwithstanding." It is contended that this power is broad enough to confer upon the City of Manila the power to enact an ordinance imposing the property tax on motor vehicles operating within the city limits. In the deciding the issue before us it is necessary to bear in mind the pertinent provisions of the Motor Vehicles Law, as amended, (Act No. 3992) which has a bearing on the power of the municipal corporation to impose tax on motor vehicles operating in any highway in the Philippines. The pertinent provisions are contained in section 70 (b) which provide in part: No further fees than those fixed in this Act shall be exacted or demanded by any public highway, bridge or ferry, or for the exercise of the profession of chauffeur, or for the operation of any motor vehicle by the owner thereof: Provided, however, That nothing in this Act shall be construed to exempt any motor vehicle from the payment of any lawful and equitable insular, local or municipal property tax imposed thereupon. . . . Note that under the above section no fees may be exacted or demanded for the operation of any motor vehicle other than those therein provided, the only exception being that which refers to the property tax which may be imposed by a municipal corporation. This provision is all-inclusive in that sense that it applies to all motor vehicles. In this sense, this provision should be construed as limiting the broad grant of power conferred upon the City of Manila by its Charter to impose taxes. When section 18 of said Charter provides that the City of Manila can impose a tax on motor vehicles operating within its limit, it can only refers to property tax as a different interpretation would make it repugnant to the Motor Vehicle Law. Coming now to the ordinance in question, we find that its title refers to it as "An Ordinance Levying a Property Tax on All Motor Vehicles Operating Within the City of Manila", and that in its section 1 it provides that the tax should be 1 per cent ad valorem per annum. It also provides that the proceeds of the tax "shall accrue to the Streets and Bridges Funds of the City and shall be expended exclusively for the repair, maintenance and improvement of its streets and bridges." Considering the wording used in the ordinance in the light in the purpose for which the

tax is created, can we consider the tax thus imposed as property tax, as claimed by respondents? While as a rule an ad valorem tax is a property tax, and this rule is supported by some authorities, the rule should not be taken in its absolute sense if the nature and purpose of the tax as gathered from the context show that it is in effect an excise or a license tax. Thus, it has been held that "If a tax is in its nature an excise, it does not become a property tax because it is proportioned in amount to the value of the property used in connection with the occupation, privilege or act which is taxed. Every excise necessarily must finally fall upon and be paid by property and so may be indirectly a tax upon property; but if it is really imposed upon the performance of an act, enjoyment of a privilege, or the engaging in an occupation, it will be considered an excise." (26 R. C. L., 35-36.) It has also been held that The character of the tax as a property tax or a license or occupation tax must be determined by its incidents, and from the natural and legal effect of the language employed in the act or ordinance, and not by the name by which it is described, or by the mode adopted in fixing its amount. If it is clearly a property tax, it will be so regarded, even though nominally and in form it is a license or occupation tax; and, on the other hand, if the tax is levied upon persons on account of their business, it will be construed as a license or occupation tax, even though it is graduated according to the property used in such business, or on the gross receipts of the business. (37 C.J., 172) The ordinance in question falls under the foregoing rules. While it refers to property tax and it is fixed ad valoremyet we cannot reject the idea that it is merely levied on motor vehicles operating within the City of Manila with the main purpose of raising funds to be expended exclusively for the repair, maintenance and improvement of the streets and bridges in said city. This is precisely what the Motor Vehicle Law (Act No. 3992) intends to prevent, for the reason that, under said Act, municipal corporation already participate in the distribution of the proceeds that are raised for the same purpose of repairing, maintaining and improving bridges and public highway (section 73 of the Motor Vehicle Law). This prohibition is intended to prevent duplication in the imposition of fees for the same purpose. It is for this reason that we believe that the ordinance in question merely imposes a license fee although under the cloak of an ad valorem tax to circumvent the prohibition above adverted to. It is also our opinion that the ordinance infringes the rule of the uniformity of taxation ordained by our Constitution. Note that the ordinance exacts the tax upon all motor vehicles operating within the City of Manila. It does not distinguish between a motor vehicle for hire and one which is purely for private use. Neither does it distinguish between a motor vehicle registered in the City of Manila and one registered in another place but occasionally comes to Manila and uses its streets and public highways. The distinction is important if we note that the ordinance intends to burden with the tax only those registered in the City of Manila as may be inferred from the word "operating" used therein. The word "operating" denotes a connotation which is akin to a registration, for under the Motor Vehicle Law no motor vehicle can be operated without previous payment of the registration fees. There is no pretense that the ordinance equally applies to motor vehicles who come to Manila for a temporary stay or for short errands, and it cannot be denied that they contribute in no small degree to the deterioration of the streets and public highway. The fact that they are benefited by their use they should also be made to share the corresponding burden. And yet such is not the case. This is an inequality which we find in the ordinance, and which renders it offensive to the Constitution. Wherefore, reversing the decision appealed from, we hereby declare the ordinance null and void.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. L-6093 February 24, 1954 THE SHELL CO. OF P.I., LTD., plaintiff-appellant, vs. E. E. VAO, as Municipal Treasurer of the Municipality of Cordova, Province of Cebu, defendant-appellee. C.J. Johnston and A.P. Deen for appellant. Provincial Fiscal Jose C. Borromeo and Assistant Provincial Fiscal Ananias V. Maribao for appellee. PADILLA, J.: The Municipal Council of Cordova, Province of Cebu, adopted the following ordinances: No. 10, series of 1946, which imposes an annual tax of P150 on occupation or the exercise of the privilege of installation manager; No. 9, series of 1947, which imposes an annual tax of P40 for local deposits in drums of combustible and inflammable materials and an annual tax of P200 for tin can factories; and No. 11, series of 1948, which imposes an annual tax of P150 on tin can factories having a maximum output capacity of 30,000 tin cans. The Shell Co. of P.I. Ltd., a foreign corporation, filed suit for the refund of the taxes paid by it, on the ground that the ordinances imposing such taxes are ultra vires. The defendant denies that they are so. The controversy was submitted for judgment upon stipulation of facts which reads as follows: Come now the parties in the above-entitled case by their undersigned attorneys and hereby agree to the following stipulation of facts: 1. That the parties admit the allegations contained in Paragraph 1 of the Amended Complaint referring to residence, personality, and capacity of the parties except the fact that E.E. Vao is now replaced by F.A. Corbo as Municipal Treasurer of Cordova, Cebu; 2. That the parties admit the allegations contained in paragraph 2 of the Amended Complaint. Official Receipts Nos. A-1280606, A37607422, A-3769852 and A-21030388 are herein marked as Exhibits A, B, C, and D, respectively for the plaintiff; 3. That the parties admit that payments made under Exhibits B, C, and D were all under protest and plaintiff admits that Exhibit A was not paid under protest; 4. That the parties admit that Official Receipt No. A-1280606 for P40 and Official Receipt No. A-3760742 for P200 were collected by the defendant by virtue of Ordinance No. 9, (Secs. E-4 and E-6, respectively) under Resolution No. 31, series of 1947, enacted December 15, 1947, approved by the Provincial Board of Cebu in its Resolution No. 644, series of 1948. Copy of said Ordinance No. 9, series of 1947, is herein marked as Exhibit "E" for the plaintiff, and as Exhibit "I" for the defendant;

5. That the parties admit that Official Receipt No. A-3760852 for P150 was paid for taxes imposed on Installation Managers, collected by the defendant by virtue of Ordinance No. 10 (section 3, E-12) under Resolution No. 38, series of 1946, approved by the Provincial Board of Cebu in its Resolution No. 1070, series of 1946. Copy of .said Ordinance No. 10, series of 1946 is marked as Exhibit "F" for the plaintiff and as Exhibit "2" for the defendant; 6. That the parties admit that Official Receipt No. A-21030388 for P5,450 was paid by plaintiff and that said amount was collected by defendant by virtue of Ordinance No. 11, series of 1948 (under Resolution No. 46) enacted August 31, 1948 and approved by the Provincial Board of Cebu in its Resolution No. 115, series of 1949, and same was approved by the Honorable Secretary of Finance THE SHELL CO. OF P.I. LTD. (Sgd.) L. DE BLECHYNDEN Plaintiff THE MUNICIPALITY OF CORDOVA (Sgd.) F.A. CORBO Defendant C.D. JOHNSTON & A.P. DEEN (Sgd.) A.P. DEEN Attys. for the plaintiff (Sgd.) JOSE C. BORROMEO Provincial Fiscal Attorney for the defendant

under the provisions of section 4 of Commonwealth Act No. 472. Copy of said Ordinance No. 11, series of 1948 is herein marked as Exhibit "G" for the plaintiff, and Exhibit "3" for the defendant. Copy of the approval of the Honorable Secretary of Finance of the same Ordinance is herein marked as Exhibit "4" for the defendant. Wherefore, aside from oral evidence which may be offered by the parties and other points not covered by this stipulation, this case is hereby submitted upon the foregoing agreed facts and record of evidence. Cebu City, Philippines, January 20, 1950. (Record on Appeal, pp. 15-18.) The parties reserved the right to introduce parole evidence but no such evidence was submitted by either party. From the judgment holding the ordinances valid and dismissing the complaint the plaintiff has appealed. It is contended that as the municipal ordinance imposing an annual tax of P40 for "minor local deposit in drums of combustible and inflammable materials," and of P200 "for tin factory" was adopted under and pursuant to section 2244 of the Revised Administrative Code, which provides that the municipal council in the exercise of the regulative authority may require any person engaged in any business or occupation, such as "storing combustible or explosive materials" or "the conducting of any other business of an unwholesome, obnoxious, offensive, or dangerous character," to obtain a permit for which a reasonable fee, in no case to exceed P10 per annum, may be charged, the annual tax of P40 and P200 are unauthorized and illegal. The permit and the fee referred to may be required and charged by the

Municipal Council of Cordova in the exercise of its regulative authority, whereas the ordinance which imposes the taxes in question was adopted under and pursuant to the provisions of Commonwealth Act No. 472, which authorizes municipal councils and municipal district councils "to impose license taxes upon persons engaged in any occupation or business, or exercising privileges in the municipality or municipal district, by requiring them to secure licenses at rates fixed by the municipal council or municipal district council," which shall be just and uniform but not "percentage taxes and taxes on specified articles." Likewise, Ordinance No. 10, series of 1946, which imposes an annual tax of P150 on "installation manager" comes under the provisions of Commonwealth Act No. 472. But it is claimed that "installation manager" is a designation made by the plaintiff and such designation cannot be deemed to be a "calling" as defined in section 178 of the National Internal Revenue Code (Com. Act No. 466), and that the installation manager employed by the plaintiff is a salaried employee which may not be taxed by the municipal council under the provisions of Commonwealth Act No. 472. This contention is without merit, because even if the installation manager is a salaried employee of the plaintiff, still it is an occupation "and one occupation or line of business does not become exempt by being conducted with some other occupation or business for which such 1 tax has been paid' and the occupation tax must be paid "by each individual 2 engaged in a calling subject thereto." And pursuant to section 179 of the National Internal Revenue Code, "The payment of . . . occupation tax shall not exempt any person from any tax, . . . provided by law or ordinance in places where such . . . occupation in . . . regulated by municipal law, nor shall the payment of any such tax be held to prohibit any municipality from placing a tax upon the same . . . occupation, for local purposes, where the imposition of such tax is authorized by law." It is true that, according to the stipulation of facts, Ordinance No. 10, series of 1946, was approved by the Provincial Board of Cebu in its Resolution No. 1070, series of 1946, and that it does not appear that it was approved by the Department of Finance, as provided for and required in section 4, paragraph 2, of Commonwealth Act No. 472, the rate of municipal tax being in excess of P50 per annum. But at this point on the approval of the Department of Finance was not raised in the court below, it cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. The issue joined by the parties in their pleadings and the point raised by the plaintiff is that the municipal council was not empowered to adopt the ordinance and not that it was not approved by the Department of Finance. The fact that it was not stated in the stipulation of facts justifies the presumption that the ordinance was approved in accordance with law. The contention that the ordinance is discriminatory and hostile because there is no other person in the locality who exercises such "designation" or occupation is also without merit, because the fact that there is no other person in the locality who exercises such a "designation" or calling does not make the ordinance discriminatory and hostile, inasmuch as it is and will be

applicable to any person or firm who exercises such calling or occupation named or designated as "installation manager." Lastly, Ordinance No. 11, series of 1948, which imposes a municipal tax of P150 on tin can factories having a maximum annual output capacity of 30,000 tin cans which, according to the stipulation of facts, was approved by the Provincial Board of Cebu and the Department of Finance, is valid and lawful, because it is neither a percentage tax nor one on specified articles which are the only exceptions provided in section 1, Commonwealth Act No. 472. Neither does it fall under any of the prohibitions provided for in section 3 of the same Act. Specific taxes enumerated in the National Internal Revenue Code are those that are imposed upon "things manufactured or produced in the Philippines for domestic sale or consumption" and upon "things imported from the United States and foreign countries," such as distilled spirits, domestic denatured alcohol, fermented liquors, products of tobacco, cigars and cigarettes, matches, mechanical lighters, firecrackers, skimmed milk, manufactured oils and other fuels, coal, bunker fuel oil, diesel fuel oil, 3 cinematographic films, playing cards, sacharine. And it is not a percentage tax because it is tax on business and the maximum annual output capacity is not a percentage, because it is not a share or a tax based on the amount of the proceeds realized out of the sale of the tin cans manufactured therein but on the business of manufacturing tin cans having a maximum annual output capacity of 30,000 tin cans. In an action for refund of municipal taxes claimed to have been paid and collected under an illegal ordinance, the real party in interest is not the municipal treasurer but the municipality concerned that is empowered to sue 4 and be sued. The judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs against the appellant.

of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. 81311 June 30, 1988 KAPATIRAN NG MGA NAGLILINGKOD SA PAMAHALAAN NG PILIPINAS, INC., HERMINIGILDO C. DUMLAO, GERONIMO Q. QUADRA, and MARIO C. VILLANUEVA, petitioners, vs. HON. BIENVENIDO TAN, as Commissioner of Internal Revenue, respondent. G.R. No. 81820 June 30, 1988 KILUSANG MAYO UNO LABOR CENTER (KMU), its officers and affiliated labor federations and alliances,petitioners, vs. THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, SECRETARY OF FINANCE, THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, and SECRETARY OF BUDGET, respondents. G.R. No. 81921 June 30, 1988 INTEGRATED CUSTOMS BROKERS ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES and JESUS B. BANAL, petitioners, vs. The HON. COMMISSIONER, BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE, respondent. G.R. No. 82152 June 30, 1988 RICARDO C. VALMONTE, petitioner, vs. THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, SECRETARY OF FINANCE, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE and SECRETARY OF BUDGET, respondent. Franklin S. Farolan for petitioner Kapatiran in G.R. No. 81311. Jaime C. Opinion for individual petitioners in G.R. No. 81311. Banzuela, Flores, Miralles, Raeses, Sy, Taquio and Associates for petitioners in G.R. No 81820. Union of Lawyers and Advocates for Peoples Right collaborating counsel for petitioners in G.R. No 81820. Jose C. Leabres and Joselito R. Enriquez for petitioners in G.R. No. 81921.
Republic

PADILLA, J.: These four (4) petitions, which have been consolidated because of the similarity of the main issues involved therein, seek to nullify Executive Order No. 273 (EO 273, for short), issued by the President of the Philippines on 25 July 1987, to take effect on 1 January 1988, and which amended certain sections of the National Internal Revenue Code and adopted the value-added tax (VAT, for short), for being unconstitutional in that its enactment is not alledgedly within the powers of the President; that the VAT is oppressive, discriminatory, regressive, and violates the due process and equal protection clauses and other provisions of the 1987 Constitution. The Solicitor General prays for the dismissal of the petitions on the ground that the petitioners have failed to show justification for the exercise of its judicial powers, viz. (1) the existence of an appropriate case; (2) an interest, personal

and substantial, of the party raising the constitutional questions; (3) the constitutional question should be raised at the earliest opportunity; and (4) the question of constitutionality is directly and necessarily involved in a justiciable controversy and its resolution is essential to the protection of the rights of the parties. According to the Solicitor General, only the third requisite that the constitutional question should be raised at the earliest opportunity has been complied with. He also questions the legal standing of the petitioners who, he contends, are merely asking for an advisory opinion from the Court, there being no justiciable controversy for resolution. Objections to taxpayers' suit for lack of sufficient personality standing, or interest are, however, in the main procedural matters. Considering the importance to the public of the cases at bar, and in keeping with the Court's duty, under the 1987 Constitution, to determine wether or not the other branches of government have kept themselves within the limits of the Constitution and the laws and that they have not abused the discretion given to them, the Court has brushed aside technicalities of procedure and has taken cognizance of these petitions. But, before resolving the issues raised, a brief look into the tax law in question is in order. The VAT is a tax levied on a wide range of goods and services. It is a tax on the value, added by every seller, with aggregate gross annual sales of articles and/or services, exceeding P200,00.00, to his purchase of goods and services, unless exempt. VAT is computed at the rate of 0% or 10% of the gross selling price of goods or gross receipts realized from the sale of services. The VAT is said to have eliminated privilege taxes, multiple rated sales tax on manufacturers and producers, advance sales tax, and compensating tax on importations. The framers of EO 273 that it is principally aimed to rationalize the system of taxing goods and services; simplify tax administration; and make the tax system more equitable, to enable the country to attain economic recovery. The VAT is not entirely new. It was already in force, in a modified form, before EO 273 was issued. As pointed out by the Solicitor General, the Philippine sales tax system, prior to the issuance of EO 273, was essentially a single stage value added tax system computed under the "cost subtraction method" or "cost deduction method" and was imposed only on original sale, barter or exchange of articles by manufacturers, producers, or importers. Subsequent sales of such articles were not subject to sales tax. However, with the issuance of PD 1991 on 31 October 1985, a 3% tax was imposed on a second sale, which was reduced to 1.5% upon the issuance of PD 2006 on 31 December 1985, to take effect 1 January 1986. Reduced sales taxes were imposed not only on the second sale, but on every subsequent sale, as well. EO 273 merely increased the VAT on every sale to 10%, unless zero-rated or exempt. Petitioners first contend that EO 273 is unconstitutional on the Ground that the President had no authority to issue EO 273 on 25 July 1987. The contention is without merit. It should be recalled that under Proclamation No. 3, which decreed a Provisional Constitution, sole legislative authority was vested upon the President. Art. II, sec. 1 of the Provisional Constitution states: Sec. 1. Until a legislature is elected and convened under a new Constitution, the President shall continue to exercise legislative powers.

On 15 October 1986, the Constitutional Commission of 1986 adopted a new Constitution for the Republic of the Philippines which was ratified in a plebiscite conducted on 2 February 1987. Article XVIII, sec. 6 of said Constitution, hereafter referred to as the 1987 Constitution, provides: Sec. 6. The incumbent President shall continue to exercise legislative powers until the first Congress is convened. It should be noted that, under both the Provisional and the 1987 Constitutions, the President is vested with legislative powers until a legislature under a new Constitution is convened. The first Congress, created and elected under the 1987 Constitution, was convened on 27 July 1987. Hence, the enactment of EO 273 on 25 July 1987, two (2) days before Congress convened on 27 July 1987, was within the President's constitutional power and authority to legislate. Petitioner Valmonte claims, additionally, that Congress was really convened on 30 June 1987 (not 27 July 1987). He contends that the word "convene" is synonymous with "the date when the elected members of Congress assumed office." The contention is without merit. The word "convene" which has been interpreted to mean "to call together, cause to assemble, or convoke," 1 is clearly different from assumption of office by the individual members of Congress or their taking the oath of office. As an example, we call to mind the interim National Assembly created under the 1973 Constitution, which had not been "convened" but some members of the body, more particularly the delegates to the 1971 Constitutional Convention who had opted to serve therein by voting affirmatively for the approval of said Constitution, had taken their oath of office. To uphold the submission of petitioner Valmonte would stretch the definition of the word "convene" a bit too far. It would also defeat the purpose of the framers of the 1987 Constitutional and render meaningless some other provisions of said Constitution. For example, the provisions of Art. VI, sec. 15, requiring Congress to convene once every year on the fourth Monday of July for its regular session would be a contrariety, since Congress would already be deemed to be in session after the individual members have taken their oath of office. A portion of the provisions of Art. VII, sec. 10, requiring Congress to convene for the purpose of enacting a law calling for a special election to elect a President and VicePresident in case a vacancy occurs in said offices, would also be a surplusage. The portion of Art. VII, sec. 11, third paragraph, requiring Congress to convene, if not in session, to decide a conflict between the President and the Cabinet as to whether or not the President and the Cabinet as to whether or not the President can re-assume the powers and duties of his office, would also be redundant. The same is true with the portion of Art. VII, sec. 18, which requires Congress to convene within twenty-four (24) hours following the declaration of martial law or the suspension of the privilage of the writ of habeas corpus. The 1987 Constitution mentions a specific date when the President loses her power to legislate. If the framers of said Constitution had intended to terminate the exercise of legislative powers by the President at the beginning of the term of office of the members of Congress, they should have so stated (but did not) in clear and unequivocal terms. The Court has not power to re-write the Constitution and give it a meaning different from that intended.

The Court also finds no merit in the petitioners' claim that EO 273 was issued by the President in grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. "Grave abuse of discretion" has been defined, as follows: Grave abuse of discretion" implies such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction (Abad Santos vs. Province of Tarlac, 38 Off. Gaz. 834), or, in other words, where the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, and it must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law. (Tavera-Luna, Inc. vs. Nable, 38 Off. Gaz. 62). 2 Petitioners have failed to show that EO 273 was issued capriciously and whimsically or in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility. It appears that a comprehensive study of the VAT had been extensively discussed by this framers and other government agencies involved in its implementation, even under the past administration. As the Solicitor General correctly sated. "The signing of E.O. 273 was merely the last stage in the exercise of her legislative powers. The legislative process started long before the signing when the data were gathered, proposals were weighed and the final wordings of the measure were drafted, revised and finalized. Certainly, it cannot be said that the President made a jump, so to speak, on the Congress, two days before it convened." 3 Next, the petitioners claim that EO 273 is oppressive, discriminatory, unjust and regressive, in violation of the provisions of Art. VI, sec. 28(1) of the 1987 Constitution, which states: Sec. 28 (1) The rule of taxation shall be uniform and equitable. The Congress shall evolve a progressive system of taxation. The petitioners" assertions in this regard are not supported by facts and circumstances to warrant their conclusions. They have failed to adequately show that the VAT is oppressive, discriminatory or unjust. Petitioners merely rely upon newspaper articles which are actually hearsay and have evidentiary value. To justify the nullification of a law. there must be a clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution, not a doubtful and argumentative implication. 4 As the Court sees it, EO 273 satisfies all the requirements of a valid tax. It is uniform. The court, in City of Baguio vs. De Leon, 5 said: ... In Philippine Trust Company v. Yatco (69 Phil. 420), Justice Laurel, speaking for the Court, stated: "A tax is considered uniform when it operates with the same force and effect in every place where the subject may be found." There was no occasion in that case to consider the possible effect on such a constitutional requirement where there is a classification. The opportunity came in Eastern Theatrical Co. v. Alfonso (83 Phil. 852, 862). Thus: "Equality and uniformity in taxation means that all taxable articles or kinds of property of the same class shall be taxed at the same rate. The taxing power has the authority to make reasonable and natural classifications for purposes of taxation; . . ." About two years later, Justice Tuason, speaking for this Court in Manila Race

Horses Trainers Assn. v. de la Fuente (88 Phil. 60, 65) incorporated the above excerpt in his opinion and continued; "Taking everything into account, the differentiation against which the plaintiffs complain conforms to the practical dictates of justice and equity and is not discriminatory within the meaning of the Constitution." To satisfy this requirement then, all that is needed as held in another case decided two years later, (Uy Matias v. City of Cebu, 93 Phil. 300) is that the statute or ordinance in question "applies equally to all persons, firms and corporations placed in similar situation." This Court is on record as accepting the view in a leading American case (Carmichael v. Southern Coal and Coke Co., 301 US 495) that "inequalities which result from a singling out of one particular class for taxation or exemption infringe no constitutional limitation." (Lutz v. Araneta, 98 Phil. 148, 153). The sales tax adopted in EO 273 is applied similarly on all goods and services sold to the public, which are not exempt, at the constant rate of 0% or 10%. The disputed sales tax is also equitable. It is imposed only on sales of goods or services by persons engage 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, spared as they are from the incidence of the VAT, are expected to be relatively lower and within the reach of the general public. 6 The Court likewise finds no merit in the contention of the petitioner Integrated Customs Brokers Association of the Philippines that EO 273, more particularly the new Sec. 103 (r) of the National Internal Revenue Code, unduly discriminates against customs brokers. The contested provision states: Sec. 103. Exempt transactions. The following shall be exempt from the value-added tax: xxx xxx xxx (r) Service performed in the exercise of profession or calling (except customs brokers) subject to the occupation tax under the Local Tax Code, and professional services performed by registered general professional partnerships; The phrase "except customs brokers" is not meant to discriminate against customs brokers. It was inserted in Sec. 103(r) to complement the provisions of Sec. 102 of the Code, which makes the services of customs brokers subject to the payment of the VAT and to distinguish customs brokers from other professionals who are subject to the payment of an occupation tax under the Local Tax Code. Pertinent provisions of Sec. 102 read: Sec. 102. Value-added tax on sale of services. There shall be levied, assessed and collected, a value-added tax equivalent to 10% percent of gross receipts derived by any person engaged in the sale of services. The phrase sale of services" means the performance of all kinds of services for others for a fee, remuneration or consideration, including those performed or rendered by construction and service contractors; stock, real estate, commercial, customs and immigration brokers; lessors

of personal property; lessors or distributors of cinematographic films; persons engaged in milling, processing, manufacturing or repacking goods for others; and similar services regardless of whether or not the performance thereof call for the exercise or use of the physical or mental faculties: ... With the insertion of the clarificatory phrase "except customs brokers" in Sec. 103(r), a potential conflict between the two sections, (Secs. 102 and 103), insofar as customs brokers are concerned, is averted. At any rate, the distinction of the customs brokers from the other professionals who are subject to occupation tax under the Local Tax Code is based upon material differences, in that the activities of customs brokers (like those of stock, real estate and immigration brokers) partake more of a business, rather than a profession and were thus subjected to the percentage tax under Sec. 174 of the National Internal Revenue Code prior to its amendment by EO 273. EO 273 abolished the percentage tax and replaced it with the VAT. If the petitioner Association did not protest the classification of customs brokers then, the Court sees no reason why it should protest now. The Court takes note that EO 273 has been in effect for more than five (5) months now, so that the fears expressed by the petitioners that the adoption of the VAT will trigger skyrocketing of prices of basic commodities and services, as well as mass actions and demonstrations against the VAT should by now be evident. The fact that nothing of the sort has happened shows that the fears and apprehensions of the petitioners appear to be more imagined than real. It would seem that the VAT is not as bad as we are made to believe. In any event, if petitioners seriously believe that the adoption and continued application of the VAT are prejudicial to the general welfare or the interests of the majority of the people, they should seek recourse and relief from the political branches of the government. The Court, following the time-honored doctrine of separation of powers, cannot substitute its judgment for that of the President as to the wisdom, justice and advisability of the adoption of the VAT. The Court can only look into and determine whether or not EO 273 was enacted and made effective as law, in the manner required by, and consistent with, the Constitution, and to make sure that it was not issued in grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; and, in this regard, the Court finds no reason to impede its application or continued implementation. WHEREFORE, the petitions are DISMISSED. Without pronouncement as to costs.

Republic

of

the

SUPREME Manila EN BANC

Philippines COURT

G.R. No. 109289 October 3, 1994 RUFINO R. TAN, petitioner, vs. RAMON R. DEL ROSARIO, JR., as SECRETARY OF FINANCE & JOSE U. ONG, as COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, respondents. G.R. No. 109446 October 3, 1994 CARAG, CABALLES, JAMORA AND SOMERA LAW OFFICES, CARLO A. CARAG, MANUELITO O. CABALLES, ELPIDIO C. JAMORA, JR. and BENJAMIN A. SOMERA, JR., petitioners, vs. RAMON R. DEL ROSARIO, in his capacity as SECRETARY OF FINANCE and JOSE U. ONG, in his capacity as COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, respondents. Rufino R. Tan for and in his own behalf. Carag, Caballes, Jamora & Zomera Law Offices for petitioners in G.R. 109446. VITUG, J.: These two consolidated special civil actions for prohibition challenge, in G.R. No. 109289, the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 7496, also commonly known as the Simplified Net Income Taxation Scheme ("SNIT"), amending certain provisions of the National Internal Revenue Code and, in G.R. No. 109446, the validity of Section 6, Revenue Regulations No. 2-93, promulgated by public respondents pursuant to said law. Petitioners claim to be taxpayers adversely affected by the continued implementation of the amendatory legislation. In G.R. No. 109289, it is asserted that the enactment of Republic Act No. 7496 violates the following provisions of the Constitution: Article VI, Section 26(1) Every bill passed by the Congress shall embrace only one subject which shall be expressed in the title thereof. Article VI, Section 28(1) The rule of taxation shall be uniform and equitable. The Congress shall evolve a progressive system of taxation. Article III, Section 1 No person shall be deprived of . . . property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws. In G.R. No. 109446, petitioners, assailing Section 6 of Revenue Regulations No. 293, argue that public respondents have exceeded their rule-making authority in applying SNIT to general professional partnerships. The Solicitor General espouses the position taken by public respondents. The Court has given due course to both petitions. The parties, in compliance with the Court's directive, have filed their respective memoranda. G.R. No. 109289 Petitioner contends that the title of House Bill No. 34314, progenitor of Republic Act No. 7496, is a misnomer or, at least, deficient for being merely entitled, "Simplified Net Income Taxation Scheme for the Self-Employed

and Professionals Engaged in the Practice of their Profession" (Petition in G.R. No. 109289). The full text of the title actually reads: An Act Adopting the Simplified Net Income Taxation Scheme For The Self-Employed and Professionals Engaged In The Practice of Their Profession, Amending Sections 21 and 29 of the National Internal Revenue Code, as Amended. The pertinent provisions of Sections 21 and 29, so referred to, of the National Internal Revenue Code, as now amended, provide: Sec. 21. Tax on citizens or residents. xxx xxx xxx (f) Simplified Net Income Tax for the Self-Employed and/or Professionals Engaged in the Practice of Profession. A tax is hereby imposed upon the taxable net income as determined in Section 27 received during each taxable year from all sources, other than income covered by paragraphs (b), (c), (d) and (e) of this section by every individual whether a citizen of the Philippines or an alien residing in the Philippines who is self-employed or practices his profession herein, determined in accordance with the following schedule: Not over P10,000 3% Over P10,000 P300 + 9% but not over P30,000 of excess over P10,000 Over P30,000 P2,100 + 15% but not over P120,00 of excess over P30,000 Over P120,000 P15,600 + 20% but not over P350,000 of excess over P120,000 Over P350,000 P61,600 + 30% of excess over P350,000 Sec. 29. Deductions from gross income. In computing taxable income subject to tax under Sections 21(a), 24(a), (b) and (c); and 25 (a)(1), there shall be allowed as deductions the items specified in paragraphs (a) to (i) of this section: Provided, however, That in computing taxable income subject to tax under Section 21 (f) in the case of individuals engaged in business or practice of profession, only the following direct costs shall be allowed as deductions: (a) Raw materials, supplies and direct labor; (b) Salaries of employees directly engaged in activities in the course of or pursuant to the business or practice of their profession; (c) Telecommunications, electricity, fuel, light and water; (d) Business rentals; (e) Depreciation; (f) Contributions made to the Government and accredited relief organizations for the rehabilitation of calamity stricken areas declared by the President; and (g) Interest paid or accrued within a taxable year on loans contracted from accredited financial institutions which must be proven to have been incurred in connection with the conduct of a taxpayer's profession, trade or business. For individuals whose cost of goods sold and direct costs are difficult to determine, a maximum of forty per cent (40%) of their

gross receipts shall be allowed as deductions to answer for business or professional expenses as the case may be. On the basis of the above language of the law, it would be difficult to accept petitioner's view that the amendatory law should be considered as having now adopted a gross income, instead of as having still retained the netincome, taxation scheme. The allowance for deductible items, it is true, may have significantly been reduced by the questioned law in comparison with that which has prevailed prior to the amendment; limiting, however, allowable deductions from gross income is neither discordant with, nor opposed to, the net income tax concept. The fact of the matter is still that various deductions, which are by no means inconsequential, continue to be well provided under the new law. Article VI, Section 26(1), of the Constitution has been envisioned so as (a) to prevent log-rolling legislation intended to unite the members of the legislature who favor any one of unrelated subjects in support of the whole act, (b) to avoid surprises or even fraud upon the legislature, and (c) to fairly apprise the people, through such publications of its proceedings as are usually made, of the subjects of 1 legislation. The above objectives of the fundamental law appear to us to have been sufficiently met. Anything else would be to require a virtual compendium of the law which could not have been the intendment of the constitutional mandate. Petitioner intimates that Republic Act No. 7496 desecrates the constitutional requirement that taxation "shall be uniform and equitable" in that the law would now attempt to tax single proprietorships and professionals differently from the manner it imposes the tax on corporations and partnerships. The contention clearly forgets, however, that such a system of income taxation has long been the prevailing rule even prior to Republic Act No. 7496. Uniformity of taxation, like the kindred concept of equal protection, merely requires that all subjects or objects of taxation, similarly situated, are to be treated alike both in privileges and liabilities (Juan Luna Subdivision vs. Sarmiento, 91 Phil. 371). Uniformity does not forfend classification as long as: (1) the standards that are used therefor are substantial and not arbitrary, (2) the categorization is germane to achieve the legislative purpose, (3) the law applies, all things being equal, to both present and future conditions, and (4) the classification applies equally well to all those belonging to the same class (Pepsi Cola vs. City of Butuan, 24 SCRA 3; Basco vs. PAGCOR, 197 SCRA 52). What may instead be perceived to be apparent from the amendatory law is the legislative intent to increasingly shift the income tax system towards the schedular 2 approach in the income taxation of individual taxpayers and to maintain, by and 3 large, the present global treatment on taxable corporations. We certainly do not view this classification to be arbitrary and inappropriate. Petitioner gives a fairly extensive discussion on the merits of the law, illustrating, in the process, what he believes to be an imbalance between the tax liabilities of those covered by the amendatory law and those who are not. With the legislature primarily lies the discretion to determine the nature (kind), object (purpose), extent (rate), coverage (subjects) and situs (place) of taxation. This court cannot freely delve into those matters which, by constitutional fiat, rightly rest on legislative judgment. Of course, where a tax measure becomes so unconscionable and unjust as to amount to confiscation of property, courts will not hesitate to strike it down, for, despite all its plenitude, the power to tax cannot override constitutional proscriptions. This stage, however, has not been demonstrated to have been reached within any appreciable distance in this controversy before us. Having arrived at this conclusion, the plea of petitioner to have the law declared unconstitutional for being violative of due process must perforce fail. The due process

clause may correctly be invoked only when there is a clear contravention of inherent or constitutional limitations in the exercise of the tax power. No such transgression is so evident to us. G.R. No. 109446 The several propositions advanced by petitioners revolve around the question of whether or not public respondents have exceeded their authority in promulgating Section 6, Revenue Regulations No. 2-93, to carry out Republic Act No. 7496. The questioned regulation reads: Sec. 6. General Professional Partnership The general professional partnership (GPP) and the partners comprising the GPP are covered by R. A. No. 7496. Thus, in determining the net profit of the partnership, only the direct costs mentioned in said law are to be deducted from partnership income. Also, the expenses paid or incurred by partners in their individual capacities in the practice of their profession which are not reimbursed or paid by the partnership but are not considered as direct cost, are not deductible from his gross income. The real objection of petitioners is focused on the administrative interpretation of public respondents that would apply SNIT to partners in general professional partnerships. Petitioners cite the pertinent deliberations in Congress during its enactment of Republic Act No. 7496, also quoted by the Honorable Hernando B. Perez, minority floor leader of the House of Representatives, in the latter's privilege speech by way of commenting on the questioned implementing regulation of public respondents following the effectivity of the law, thusly: MR. ALBANO, Now Mr. Speaker, I would like to get the correct impression of this bill. Do we speak here of individuals who are earning, I mean, who earn through business enterprises and therefore, should file an income tax return? MR. PEREZ. That is correct, Mr. Speaker. This does not apply to corporations. It applies only to individuals. (See Deliberations on H. B. No. 34314, August 6, 1991, 6:15 P.M.; Emphasis ours). Other deliberations support this position, to wit: MR. ABAYA . . . Now, Mr. Speaker, did I hear the Gentleman from Batangas say that this bill is intended to increase collections as far as individuals are concerned and to make collection of taxes equitable? MR. PEREZ. That is correct, Mr. Speaker. (Id. at 6:40 P.M.; Emphasis ours). In fact, in the sponsorship speech of Senator Mamintal Tamano on the Senate version of the SNITS, it is categorically stated, thus: This bill, Mr. President, is not applicable to business corporations or to partnerships; it is only with respect to individuals and professionals. (Emphasis ours) The Court, first of all, should like to correct the apparent misconception that general professional partnerships are subject to the payment of income tax or that there is a difference in the tax treatment between individuals engaged in business or in the practice of their respective professions and partners in general professional

partnerships. The fact of the matter is that a general professional partnership, unlike an ordinary business partnership (which is treated as a corporation for income tax purposes and so subject to the corporate income tax), is not itself an income taxpayer. The income tax is imposed not on the professional partnership, which is tax exempt, but on the partners themselves in their individual capacity computed on their distributive shares of partnership profits. Section 23 of the Tax Code, which has not been amended at all by Republic Act 7496, is explicit: Sec. 23. Tax liability of members of general professional partnerships. (a) Persons exercising a common profession in general partnership shall be liable for income tax only in their individual capacity, and the share in the net profits of the general professional partnership to which any taxable partner would be entitled whether distributed or otherwise, shall be returned for taxation and the tax paid in accordance with the provisions of this Title. (b) In determining his distributive share in the net income of the partnership, each partner (1) Shall take into account separately his distributive share of the partnership's income, gain, loss, deduction, or credit to the extent provided by the pertinent provisions of this Code, and (2) Shall be deemed to have elected the itemized deductions, unless he declares his distributive share of the gross income undiminished by his share of the deductions. There is, then and now, no distinction in income tax liability between a person who practices his profession alone or individually and one who does it through partnership (whether registered or not) with others in the exercise of a common profession. Indeed, outside of the gross compensation income tax and the final tax on passive investment income, under the present income tax system all individuals deriving income from any source whatsoever are treated in almost invariably the same manner and under a common set of rules. We can well appreciate the concern taken by petitioners if perhaps we were to consider Republic Act No. 7496 as an entirely independent, not merely as an amendatory, piece of legislation. The view can easily become myopic, however, when the law is understood, as it should be, as only forming part of, and subject to, the whole income tax concept and precepts long obtaining under the National Internal Revenue Code. To elaborate a little, the phrase "income taxpayers" is an all embracing term used in the Tax Code, and it practically covers all persons who derive taxable income. The law, in levying the tax, adopts the most comprehensive tax situs of nationality and residence of the taxpayer (that renders citizens, regardless of residence, and resident aliens subject to income tax liability on their income from all sources) and of the generally accepted and internationally recognized income taxable base (that can subject non-resident aliens and foreign corporations to income tax on their income from Philippine sources). In the process, the Code classifies taxpayers into four main groups, namely: (1) Individuals, (2) Corporations, (3) Estates under Judicial Settlement and (4) Irrevocable Trusts (irrevocable both as to corpus and as to income). Partnerships are, under the Code, either "taxable partnerships" or "exempt partnerships." Ordinarily, partnerships, no matter how created or organized, are subject to income tax (and thus alluded to as "taxable partnerships") which, for

purposes of the above categorization, are by law assimilated to be within the context of, and so legally contemplated as, corporations. Except for few variances, such as in the application of the "constructive receipt rule" in the derivation of income, the income tax approach is alike to both juridical persons. Obviously, SNIT is not intended or envisioned, as so correctly pointed out in the discussions in Congress during its deliberations on Republic Act 7496, aforequoted, to cover corporations and partnerships which are independently subject to the payment of income tax. "Exempt partnerships," upon the other hand, are not similarly identified as corporations nor even considered as independent taxable entities for income tax 4 purposes. A general professional partnership is such an example. Here, the partners themselves, not the partnership (although it is still obligated to file an income tax return [mainly for administration and data]), are liable for the payment of income tax in their individual capacity computed on their respective and distributive shares of profits. In the determination of the tax liability, a partner does so as anindividual, and there is no choice on the matter. In fine, under the Tax Code on income taxation, the general professional partnership is deemed to be no more than a mere mechanism or a flow-through entity in the generation of income by, and the ultimate distribution of such income to, respectively, each of the individual partners. Section 6 of Revenue Regulation No. 2-93 did not alter, but merely confirmed, the above standing rule as now so modified by Republic Act No. 7496 on basically the extent of allowable deductions applicable to all individual income taxpayers on their non-compensation income. There is no evident intention of the law, either before or after the amendatory legislation, to place in an unequal footing or in significant variance the income tax treatment of professionals who practice their respective professions individually and of those who do it through a general professional partnership. WHEREFORE, the petitions are DISMISSED. No special pronouncement on costs.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. L-23794 February 17, 1968 ORMOC SUGAR COMPANY, INC., plaintiff-appellant, vs. THE TREASURER OF ORMOC CITY, THE MUNICIPAL BOARD OF ORMOC CITY, HON. ESTEBAN C. CONEJOS as Mayor of Ormoc City and ORMOC CITY, defendants-appellees. Ponce Enrile, Siguion Reyna, Montecillo & Belo and Teehankee, Carreon & Taada for plaintiffappellant. Ramon O. de Veyra for defendants-appellees. BENGZON, J.P., J.: On January 29, 1964, the Municipal Board of Ormoc City passed 1 Ordinance No. 4, Series of 1964, imposing "on any and all productions of centrifugal sugar milled at the Ormoc Sugar Company, Inc., in Ormoc City a municipal tax equivalent to one per centum (1%) per export sale to the United States of America and other foreign countries." 2 Payments for said tax were made, under protest, by Ormoc Sugar Company, Inc. on March 20, 1964 for P7,087.50 and on April 20, 1964 for P5,000, or a total of P12,087.50. On June 1, 1964, Ormoc Sugar Company, Inc. filed before the Court of First Instance of Leyte, with service of a copy upon the Solicitor General, a complaint 3 against the City of Ormoc as well as its Treasurer, Municipal Board and Mayor, alleging that the afore-stated ordinance is unconstitutional for being violative of the equal protection clause (Sec. 1[1], Art. III, Constitution) and the rule of uniformity of taxation (Sec. 22[1]), Art. VI, Constitution), aside from being an export tax forbidden under Section 2287 of the Revised Administrative Code. It further alleged that the tax is neither a production nor a license tax which Ormoc City under Section 15-kk of its charter and under Section 2 of Republic Act 2264, otherwise known as the Local Autonomy Act, is authorized to impose; and that the tax amounts to a customs duty, fee or charge in violation of paragraph 1 of Section 2 of Republic Act 2264 because the tax is on both the sale and export of sugar. Answering, the defendants asserted that the tax ordinance was within defendant city's power to enact under the Local Autonomy Act and that the same did not violate the afore-cited constitutional limitations. After pre-trial and submission of the case on memoranda, the Court of First Instance, on August 6, 1964, rendered a decision that upheld the constitutionality of the ordinance and declared the taxing power of defendant chartered city broadened by the Local Autonomy Act to include all other forms of taxes, licenses or fees not excluded in its charter. Appeal therefrom was directly taken to Us by plaintiff Ormoc Sugar Company, Inc. Appellant alleges the same statutory and constitutional violations in the aforesaid taxing ordinance mentioned earlier. Section 1 of the ordinance states: "There shall be paid to the City Treasurer on any and all productions of centrifugal sugar milled at the Ormoc Sugar Company, Incorporated, in Ormoc City, a municipal tax equivalent to one per centum (1%) per export sale to the United States of America and other foreign countries." Though referred to as a tax on the export of centrifugal sugar produced at Ormoc Sugar Company, Inc. For production of sugar alone is not taxable; the only time the tax applies is when the sugar produced is exported. Appellant questions the authority of the defendant Municipal Board to levy such an export tax, in view of Section 2287 of the Revised Administrative Code which denies from municipal councils the power to impose an export tax. Section 2287 in part states: "It shall not be in the power of the municipal council to impose a tax in any form whatever, upon goods and merchandise carried into the municipality, or out of the same, and any attempt to impose an import or export tax upon such goods in the guise of an unreasonable charge for wharfage use of bridges or otherwise, shall be void." Subsequently, however, Section 2 of Republic Act 2264 effective June 19, 1959, gave chartered cities, municipalities and municipal districts authority to levy for public purposes just and uniform taxes, licenses or fees. Anent the inconsistency between Section 2287 of the Revised Administrative Code and Section 2 of Republic Act 2264, this Court, in Nin Bay Mining Co. v. Municipality of Roxas 4 held the former to have been repealed by the latter. And expressing Our awareness of the transcendental effects that municipal export or import taxes or

licenses will have on the national economy, due to Section 2 of Republic Act 2264, We stated that there was no other alternative until Congress acts to provide remedial measures to forestall any unfavorable results. The point remains to be determined, however, whether constitutional limits on the power of taxation, specifically the equal protection clause and rule of uniformity of taxation, were infringed. The Constitution in the bill of rights provides: ". . . nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws." (Sec. 1 [1], Art. III) In Felwa vs. Salas, 5 We ruled that the equal protection clause applies only to persons or things identically situated and does not bar a reasonable classification of the subject of legislation, and a classification is reasonable where (1) it is based on substantial distinctions which make real differences; (2) these are germane to the purpose of the law; (3) the classification applies not only to present conditions but also to future conditions which are substantially identical to those of the present; (4) the classification applies only to those who belong to the same class. A perusal of the requisites instantly shows that the questioned ordinance does not meet them, for it taxes only centrifugal sugar produced and exported by the Ormoc Sugar Company, Inc. and none other. At the time of the taxing ordinance's enactment, Ormoc Sugar Company, Inc., it is true, was the only sugar central in the city of Ormoc. Still, the classification, to be reasonable, should be in terms applicable to future conditions as well. The taxing ordinance should not be singular and exclusive as to exclude any subsequently established sugar central, of the same class as plaintiff, for the coverage of the tax. As it is now, even if later a similar company is set up, it cannot be subject to the tax because the ordinance expressly points only to Ormoc City Sugar Company, Inc. as the entity to be levied upon. Appellant, however, is not entitled to interest; on the refund because the taxes were not arbitrarily collected (Collector of Internal Revenue v. Binalbagan). 6 At the time of collection, the ordinance provided a sufficient basis to preclude arbitrariness, the same being then presumed constitutional until declared otherwise. WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby reversed, the challenged ordinance is declared unconstitutional and the defendants-appellees are hereby ordered to refund the P12,087.50 plaintiff-appellant paid under protest. No costs. So ordered.

EN BANC [G.R. No. 143076. June 10, 2003] PHILIPPINE RURAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVES ASSOCIATION, INC. (PHILRECA); AGUSAN DEL NORTE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. (ANECO); ILOILO I ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. (ILECO I); and ISABELA I ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. (ISELCO I), petitioners, vs. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT, and THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, respondents. DECISION PUNO, J.: This is a petition for Prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court with prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order seeking to annul as unconstitutional sections 193 and 234 of R.A. No. 7160 otherwise known as the Local Government Code. On May 23, 2000, a class suit was filed by petitioners in their own behalf and in behalf of other electric cooperatives organized and existing under P.D. No. 269 who are members of petitioner Philippine Rural Electric Cooperatives Association, Inc. (PHILRECA). Petitioner PHILRECA is an association of 119 electric cooperatives throughout the country. Petitioners Agusan del Norte Electric Cooperative, Inc. (ANECO), Iloilo I Electric Cooperative, Inc. (ILECO I) and Isabela I Electric Cooperative, Inc. (ISELCO I) are non-stock, non-profit electric cooperatives organized and existing under P.D. No. 269, as amended, and registered with the National Electrification Administration (NEA). Under P.D. No. 269, as amended, or the National Electrification Administration Decree, it is the declared policy of the State to provide the total electrification of the Philippines on an area coverage basis the same being vital to the people and the sound development of the nation.[1] Pursuant to this policy, P.D. No. 269 aims to promote, encourage and assist all public service entities engaged in supplying electric service, particula rly electric cooperatives by giving every tenable support and assistance to the electric cooperatives coming within the purview of the law.[2] Accordingly, Section 39 of P.D. No. 269 provides for the following tax incentives to electric cooperatives: SECTION 39. Assistance to Cooperatives; Exemption from Taxes, Imposts, Duties, Fees; Assistance from the National Power Corporation. Pursuant to the national policy declared in Section 2, the Congress hereby finds and declares that the following assistance to cooperative is necessary and appropriate: (a) Provided that it operates in conformity with the purposes and provisions of this Decree, cooperatives (1) shall be permanently exempt from paying income taxes, and (2) for a period ending on December 31 of the thirtieth full calendar year after the date of a cooperative's organization or conversion hereunder, or until it shall become completely free of indebtedness incurred by borrowing, whichever event first occurs, shall be exempt from the payment (a) of all National Government, local government and municipal taxes and fees, including franchise, filing, recordation, license or permit fees or taxes and any fees, charges, or costs involved in any court or administrative proceeding in which it may be a party, and (b) of all duties or imposts on foreign goods acquired for its operations, the period of such exemption for a new cooperative formed by consolidation, as provided for in Section 29, to begin from as of the date of the beginning of such period for the constituent consolidating cooperative which was most recently organized or converted under this Decree: Provided, That the Board of Administrators shall, after consultation with the Bureau of Internal Revenue, promulgate rules and regulations for the proper implementation of the tax exemptions provided for in this Decree. .[3] From 1971 to 1978, in order to finance the electrification projects envisioned by P.D. No. 269, as amended, the Philippine Government, acting through the National Economic Council (now National Economic Development Authority) and the NEA, entered into six (6) loan agreements with the government of the United States of America through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) with electric cooperatives, including petitioners ANECO, ILECO I and ISELCO I, as beneficiaries. The six (6) loan agreements involved a total amount of approximately US$86,000,000.00. These loan agreements are existing until today.

The loan agreements contain similarly worded provisions on the tax application of the loan and any property or commodity acquired through the proceeds of the loan. Thus, Section 6.5 of A.I.D. Loan No. 492-H-027 dated November 15, 1971 provides: Section 6.5. Taxes and Duties. The Borrower covenants and agrees that this Loan Agreement and the Loan provided for herein shall be free from, and the Principal and interest shall be paid to A.I.D. without deduction for and free from, any taxation or fees imposed under any laws or decrees in effect within the Republic of the Philippines or any such taxes or fees so imposed or payable shall be reimbursed by the Borrower with funds other than those provided under the Loan. To the extent that (a) any contractor, including any consulting firm, any personnel of such contractor financed hereunder, and any property or transactions relating to such contracts and (b) any commodity procurement transactions financed hereunder, are not exempt from identifiable taxes, tariffs, duties and other levies imposed under laws in effect in the country of the Borrower, the Borrower and/or Beneficiary shall pay or reimburse the same with funds other than those provided under the Loan.[4] Petitioners contend that pursuant to the provisions of P.D. No. 269, as amended, and the above-mentioned provision in the loan agreements, they are exempt from payment of local taxes, including payment of real property tax. With the passage of the Local Government Code, however, they allege that their tax exemptions have been invalidly withdrawn. In particular, petitioners assail Sections 193 and 234 of the Local Government Code on the ground that the said provisions discriminate against them, in violation of the equal protection clause. Further, they submit that the said provisions are unconstitutional because they impair the obligation of contracts between the Philippine Government and the United States Government. On July 25, 2000 we issued a Temporary Restraining Order.[5] We note that the instant action was filed directly to this Court, in disregard of the rule on hierarchy of courts. However, we opt to take primary jurisdiction over the present petition and decide the same on its merits in view of the significant constitutional issues raised by the parties dealing with the tax treatment of cooperatives under existing laws and in the interest of speedy justice and prompt disposition of the matter. I There is No Violation of the Equal Protection Clause The pertinent parts of Sections 193 and 234 of the Local Government Code provide: Section 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 and controlled corporations, except local water districts, cooperatives duly registered under R.A. No. 6938, non-stock and non-profit hospitals and educational institutions, are hereby withdrawn upon the effectivity of this Code. . Section 234. Exemptions from real property tax.The following are exempted from payment of the real property tax: . (d) All real property owned by duly registered cooperatives as provided for under R.A. No. 6938; and . 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 all governmentowned and controlled corporations are hereby withdrawn upon effectivity of this Code.[6] Petitioners argue that the above provisions of the Local Government Code are unconstitutional for violating the equal protection clause. Allegedly, said provisions unduly discriminate against petitioners who are duly registered cooperatives under P.D. No. 269, as amended, and not under R.A. No. 6938 or the Cooperative Code of the Philippines. They stress that cooperatives registered under R.A. No. 6938 are singled out for tax exemption privileges under the Local Government Code. They maintain that electric cooperatives registered with the NEA under P.D. No. 269, as amended, and electric cooperatives registered with the Cooperative Development Authority (CDA) under R.A. No. 6938 are similarly situated for the following reasons: a) petitioners are registered with the NEA which is a government agency like the CDA; b) petitioners, like CDA-registered cooperatives, operate for service to their memberconsumers; and c) prior to the enactment of the Local Government Code, petitioners, like CDAregistered cooperatives, were already tax-exempt.[7] Thus, petitioners contend that to grant tax

exemptions from local government taxes, including real property tax under Sections 193 and 234 of the Local Government Code only to registered cooperatives under R.A. No. 6938 is a violation of the equal protection clause. We are not persuaded. 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.[8] Thus, the guaranty of the equal protection of the laws is not violated by a law based on reasonable classification. Classification, to be reasonable, must (1) rest on substantial distinctions; (2) be germane to the purposes of the law; (3) not be limited to existing conditions only; and (4) apply equally to all members of the same class.[9] We hold that there is reasonable classification under the Local Government Code to justify the different tax treatment between electric cooperatives covered by P.D. No. 269, as amended, and electric cooperatives under R.A. No. 6938. First, substantial distinctions exist between cooperatives under P.D. No. 269, as amended, and cooperatives under R.A. No. 6938. These distinctions are manifest in at least two material respects which go into the nature of cooperatives envisioned by R.A. No. 6938 and which characteristics are not present in the type of cooperative associations created under P.D. No. 269, as amended. a. Capital Contributions by Members A cooperative under R.A. No. 6938 is defined as: [A] duly registered association of persons with a common bond of interest, who have voluntarily joined together to achieve a lawful common or social economic end, making equitable contributions to the capital required and accepting a fair share of the risks and benefits of the undertaking in accordance with universally accepted cooperative principles.[10] The above definition provides for the following elements of a cooperative: a) association of persons; b) common bond of interest; c) voluntary association; d) lawful common social or economic end; e) capital contributions; f) fair share of risks and benefits; g) adherence to cooperative values; and g) registration with the appropriate government authority. [11] The importance of capital contributions by members of a cooperative under R.A. No. 6938 was emphasized during the Senate deliberations as one of the key factors which distinguished electric cooperatives under P.D. No. 269, as amended, from electric cooperatives under the Cooperative Code. Thus: Senator Osmea. Will this Code, Mr. President, cover electric cooperatives as they exist in the country today and are administered by the National Electrification Administration? Senator Aquino. That cannot be answered with a simple yes or no, Mr. President. The answer will depend on what provisions we will eventually come up with. Electric cooperatives as they exist today would not fall under the term cooperative as used in this bill because the concept of a cooperative is that which adheres and practices certain cooperative principles. . . Senator Aquino. To begin with, one of the most important requirements, Mr. President, is the principle where members bind themselves to help themselves. It is because of their collectivity that they can have some economic benefits. In this particular case [cooperatives under P.D. No. 269], the government is the one that funds these so-called electric cooperatives. . Senator Aquino. That is why in Article III we have the following definition: A cooperative is an association of persons with a common bond of interest who have voluntarily joined together to achieve a common social or economic end, making equitable contributions to the capital required. In this particular case [cooperatives under P.D. No. 269], Mr. President, the members do not make substantial contribution to the capital required. It is the government that puts in the capital, in most cases. . Senator Osmea. Under line 6, Mr. President, making equitable contributions to the capital required would exclude electric cooperatives [under P.D. No. 269]. Because the membership does not make equitable contributions.

Senator Aquino. Yes, Mr. President. This is precisely what I mean, that electric cooperatives [under P.D. No. 269] do not qualify in the spirit of cooperatives. That is the reason why they should be eventually assessed whether they intend to comply with the cooperatives or not. Because, if after giving them a second time, they do not comply, then, they should not be classified as cooperatives. Senator Osmea. Mr. President, the measure of their qualifying as a cooperative would be the requirement that a member of the electric cooperative must contribute a pro rata share of the capital of the cooperative in cash to be a cooperative.[12] Nowhere in P.D. No. 269, as amended, does it require cooperatives to make equitable contributions to capital. Petitioners themselves admit that to qualify as a member of an electric cooperative under P.D. No. 269, only the payment of a P5.00 membership fee is required which is even refundable the moment the member is no longer interested in getting electric service from the cooperative or will transfer to another place outside the area covered by the cooperative.[13] However, under the Cooperative Code, the articles of cooperation of a cooperative applying for registration must be accompanied with the bonds of the accountable officers and a sworn statement of the treasurer elected by the subscribers showing that at least twenty-five per cent (25%) of the authorized share capital has been subscribed and at least twenty-five per cent (25%) of the total subscription has been paid and in no case shall the paidup share capital be less than Two thousand pesos (P2,000.00).[14] b. Extent of Government Control over Cooperatives Another principle adhered to by the Cooperative Code is the principle of subsidiarity. Pursuant to this principle, the government may only engage in development activities where cooperatives do not posses the capability nor the resources to do so and only upon the request of such cooperatives.[15] Thus, Article 2 of the Cooperative Code provides: Art. 2. Declaration of Policy. It is the declared policy of the State to foster the creation and growth of cooperatives as a practical vehicle for prompting self-reliance and harnessing people power towards the attainment of economic development and social justice. The State shall encourage the private sector to undertake the actual formation and organization to cooperatives and shall create an atmosphere that is conducive to the growth and development of these cooperatives. Towards this end, the Government and all its branches, subdivisions, instrumentalities and agencies shall ensure the provision of technical guidance, financial assistance and other services to enable said cooperatives to develop into viable and responsive economic enterprises and thereby bring about a strong cooperative movement that is free from any conditions that might infringe upon the autonomy or organizational integrity of cooperatives. Further, the State recognizes the principle of subsidiarity under which the cooperative sector will initiate and regulate within its own ranks the promotion and organization, training and research, audit and support services relating to cooperatives with government assistance where necessary.[16] Accordingly, under the charter of the CDA, or the primary government agency tasked to promote and regulate the institutional development of cooperatives, it is the declared policy of the State that: [g]overnment assistance to cooperatives shall be free from any restriction and conditionality that may in any manner infringe upon the objectives and character of cooperatives as provided in this Act. The State shall, except as provided in this Act, maintain the policy of noninterference in the management and operation of cooperatives.[17] In contrast, P.D. No. 269, as amended by P.D. No. 1645, is replete with provisions which grant the NEA, upon the happening of certain events, the power to control and take over the management and operations of cooperatives registered under it. Thus: a) the NEA Administrator has the power to designate, subject to the confirmation of the Board of Administrators, an Acting General Manager and/or Project Supervisor for a cooperative where vacancies in the said positions occur and/or when the interest of the cooperative or the program so requires, and to prescribe the functions of the said Acting General Manager and/or Project Supervisor, which powers shall not be nullified, altered or diminished by any policy or resolution of the Board of Directors of the cooperative concerned;[18] b) the NEA is given the power of supervision and control over electric cooperatives and pursuant to such powers, NEA may issue orders, rules and regulations motu

propio or upon petition of third parties to conduct referenda and other similar actions in all matters affecting electric cooperatives;[19] c) No cooperative shall borrow money from any source without the approval of the Board of Administrators of the NEA;[20] and d) The management of a cooperative shall be vested in its Board, subject to the supervision and control of NEA which shall have the right to be represented and to participate in all Board meetings and deliberations and to approve all policies and resolutions.[21] The extent of government control over electric cooperatives covered by P.D. No. 269, as amended, is largely a function of the role of the NEA as a primary source of funds of these electric cooperatives. It is crystal clear that NEA incurred loans from various sources to finance the development and operations of the electric cooperatives. Consequently, amendments to P.D. No. 269 were primarily geared to expand the powers of the NEA over the electric cooperatives to ensure that loans granted to them would be repaid to the government. In contrast, cooperatives under R.A. No. 6938 are envisioned to be self-sufficient and independent organizations with minimal government intervention or regulation. To be sure, the transitory provisions of R.A. No. 6938 are indicative of the recognition by Congress of the fundamental distinctions between electric cooperatives organized under P.D No. 269, as amended, and cooperatives under the new Cooperative Code. Article 128 of the Cooperative Code provides that all cooperatives registered under previous laws shall be deemed registered with the CDA upon submission of certain requirements within one year. However, cooperatives created under P.D. No. 269, as amended, are given three years within which to qualify and register with the CDA, after which, provisions of P.D. No. 1645 which expand the powers of the NEA over electric cooperatives, would no longer apply. [22] Second, the classification of tax-exempt entities in the Local Government Code is germane to the purpose of the law. The Constitutional mandate that every local government unit shall enjoy local autonomy, does not mean that the exercise of power by local governments is beyond regulation by Congress. Thus, while each government unit is granted the power to create its own sources of revenue, Congress, in light of its broad power to tax, has the discretion to determine the extent of the taxing powers of local government units consistent with the policy of local autonomy.[23] Section 193 of the Local Government Code is indicative of the legislative intent to vest broad taxing powers upon local government units and to limit exemptions from local taxation to entities specifically provided therein. Section 193 provides: Section 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 and controlled corporations, except local water districts, cooperatives duly registered under R.A. No. 6938, non-stock and non-profit hospitals and educational institutions, are hereby withdrawn upon the effectivity of this Code. [24] The above provision effectively withdraws exemptions from local taxation enjoyed by various entities and organizations upon effectivity of the Local Government Code except for a) local water districts; b) cooperatives duly registered under R.A. No. 6938; and c) nonstock and non-profit hospitals and educational institutions. Further, with respect to real property taxes, the Local Government Code again specifically enumerates entities which are exempt therefrom and withdraws exemptions enjoyed by all other entities upon the effectivity of the code. Thus, Section 234 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 consideration or otherwise, to a taxable person; (b) Charitable institutions, churches, parsonages or convents appurtenant thereto, mosques, nonprofit or religious cemeteries and all lands, buildings 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 exemption from payment of real property tax previously granted to, or presently enjoyed by, all persons, whether natural or juridical, including all governmentowned or controlled corporations are hereby withdrawn upon the effectivity of this Code. [25] In Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority v. Marcos,[26] this Court held that the limited and restrictive nature of the tax exemption privileges under the Local Government Code is consistent with the State policy to ensure autonomy of local governments and the objective of the Local Government Code to grant genuine and meaningful autonomy to enable local government units to attain their fullest development as self-reliant communities and make them effective partners in the attainment of national goals. The obvious intention of the law is to broaden the tax base of local government units to assure them of substantial sources of revenue. While we understand petitioners predicament brought about by the withdrawal of th eir local tax exemption privileges under the Local Government Code, it is not the province of this Court to go into the wisdom of legislative enactments. Courts can only interpret laws. The principle of separation of powers prevents them from re-inventing the laws. Finally, Sections 193 and 234 of the Local Government Code permit reasonable classification as these exemptions are not limited to existing conditions and apply equally to all members of the same class. Exemptions from local taxation, including real property tax, are granted to all cooperatives covered by R.A. No. 6938 and such exemptions exist for as long as the Local Government Code and the provisions therein on local taxation remain good law. II There is No Violation of the Non-Impairment Clause It is ingrained in jurisprudence that the constitutional prohibition on the impairment of the obligation of contracts does not prohibit every change in existing laws. To fall within the prohibition, the change must not only impair the obligation of the existing contract, but the impairment must be substantial.[27] What constitutes substantial impairment was explained by this Court in Clemons v. Nolting:[28] A law which changes the terms of a legal contract between parties, either in the time or mode of performance, or imposes new conditions, or dispenses with those expressed, or authorizes for its satisfaction something different from that provided in its terms, is law which impairs the obligation of a contract and is therefore null and void. Moreover, to constitute impairment, the law must affect a change in the rights of the parties with reference to each other and not with respect to non-parties.[29] Petitioners insist that Sections 193 and 234 of the Local Government Code impair the obligations imposed under the six (6) loan agreements executed by the NEA as borrower and USAID as lender. All six agreements contain similarly worded provisions on the tax treatment of the proceeds of the loan and properties and commodities acquired through the loan. Thus: Section 6.5. Taxes and Duties. The Borrower covenants and agrees that this Loan Agreement and the Loan provided for herein shall be free from, and the Principal and interest shall be paid to A.I.D. without deduction for and free from, any taxation or fees imposed under any laws or decrees in effect within the Republic of the Philippines or any such taxes or fees so imposed or payable shall be reimbursed by the Borrower with funds other than those provided under the Loan. To the extent that (a) any contractor, including any consulting firm, any personnel of such contractor financed hereunder, and any property or transactions relating to such contracts and (b) any commodity procurement transactions financed hereunder, are not exempt from identifiable taxes, tariffs, duties and other levies imposed under laws in effect in the country of the Borrower, the Borrower and/or Beneficiary shall pay or reimburse the same with funds other than those provided under the Loan.[30] Petitioners contend that the withdrawal by the Local Government Code of the tax exemptions of cooperatives under P.D. No. 269, as amended, is an impairment of the tax exemptions provided under the loan agreements. Petitioners argue that as beneficiaries of the loan proceeds, pursuant to the above provision, [a]ll the assets of petitioners, such as lands, buildings, distribution lines acquired through the proceeds of the Loan A greements are tax exempt.[31] We hold otherwise.

A plain reading of the provision quoted above readily shows that it does not grant any tax exemption in favor of the borrower or the beneficiary either on the proceeds of the loan itself or the properties acquired through the said loan. It simply states that the loan proceeds and the principal and interest of the loan, upon repayment by the borrower, shall be without deduction of any tax or fee that may be payable under Philippine law as such tax or fee will be absorbed by the borrower with funds other than the loan proceeds. Further, the provision states that with respect to any payment made by the borrower to (1) any contractor or any personnel of such contractor or any property transaction and (2) any commodity transaction using the proceeds of the loan, the tax to be paid, if any, on such transactions shall be absorbed by the borrower and/or beneficiary through funds other than the loan proceeds. Beyond doubt, the import of the tax provision in the loan agreements cited by petitioners is twofold: (1) the borrower is entitled to receive from and is obliged to pay the lender the principal amount of the loan and the interest thereon in full, without any deduction of the tax component thereof imposed under applicable Philippine law and any tax imposed shall be paid by the borrower with funds other than the loan proceeds and (2) with respect to payments made to any contractor, its personnel or any property or commodity transaction entered into pursuant to the loan agreement and with the use of the proceeds thereof, taxes payable under the said transactions shall be paid by the borrower and/or beneficiary with the use of funds other than the loan proceeds. The quoted provision does not purport to grant any tax exemption in favor of any party to the contract, including the beneficiaries thereof. The provisions simply shift the tax burden, if any, on the transactions under the loan agreements to the borrower and/or beneficiary of the loan. Thus, the withdrawal by the Local Government Code under Sections 193 and 234 of the tax exemptions previously enjoyed by petitioners does not impair the obligation of the borrower, the lender or the beneficiary under the loan agreements as in fact, no tax exemption is granted therein. III Conclusion Petitioners lament the difficulties they face in complying with the implementing rules and regulations issued by the CDA for the conversion of electric cooperatives under P.D. No. 269, as amended, to cooperatives under R.A. No. 6938. They allege that because of the cumbersome legal and technical requirements imposed by the Omnibus Rules and Regulations on the Registration of Electric Cooperatives under R.A. No. 6938, petitioners cannot register and convert as stock cooperatives under the Cooperative Code.[32] The Court understands the plight of the petitioners. Their remedy, however, is not judicial. Striking down Sections 193 and 234 of the Local Government Code as unconstitutional or declaring them inapplicable to petitioners is not the proper course of action for them to obtain their previous tax exemptions. The language of the law and the intention of its framers are clear and unequivocal and courts have no other duty except to uphold the law. The task to re-examine the rules and guidelines on the conversion of electric cooperatives to cooperatives under R.A. No. 6938 and provide every assistance available to them should be addressed by the proper authorities of government. This is necessary to encourage the growth and viability of cooperatives as instruments of social justice and economic development. WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED and the temporary restraining order heretofore issued is LIFTED.

THIRD DIVISION

JUDY ANNE L. SANTOS, Petitioner,

G.R. No. 173176 Present: YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. Chairperson, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, CORONA,* CHICO-NAZARIO, and REYES, JJ. Promulgated:

- versus-

BIR, declared an income of P8,033,332.70 derived from her talent fees solely from ABSCBN; initial documents gathered from the BIR offices and those given by petitioners accountant and third parties, however, confirmed that petitioner received in 2002 income in the amount of at least P14,796,234.70, not only from ABS-CBN, but also from other sources, such as movies and product endorsements; the estimated tax liability arising from petitioners underdeclaration amounted to P1,718,925.52, including incremental penalties; the non-declaration by petitioner of an amount equivalent to at least 84.18% of the income declared in her return was considered a substantialunderdeclaration of income, which constituted prima facie evidence of false or fraudulent return under Section 248(B)[6] of the NIRC, as amended; and petitioners failure to account as part of her income the professional fees she received from sources other than ABS-CBN and her underdeclaration of the income she received from ABSCBN amounted to manifest violations of Sections 254[7] and 255,[8] as well as Section 248(B) of the NIRC, as amended. After an exchange of affidavits and other pleadings by the parties, Prosecution Attorney Olivia Laroza-Torrevillas issued a Resolution[9] dated 21 October 2005 finding probable cause and recommending the filing of a criminal information against petitioner for violation of Section 255 in relation to Sections 254 and 248(B) of the NIRC, as amended. The said Resolution was approved by Chief State Prosecutor Jovencito R. Zuno. Pursuant to the 21 October 2005 DOJ Resolution, an Information[10] for violation of Section 255 in relation to Sections 254 and 248(B) of the NIRC, as amended, was filed with the CTA on 3 November 2005 and docketed as C.T.A. Crim. Case No. 0-012. However, the CTA First Division, after noting several discrepancies in the Information filed, required the State Prosecutor to clarify and explain the same, and to submit the original copies of the parties affidavits, memoranda, and all other evidence on record.[11] Consequently, Prosecution Attorney Torrevillas, on behalf of respondent People, submitted on 1 December 2005 a Compliance with Ex Parte Motion to Admit Attached Information.[12] Prosecution Attorney Torrevillas moved that the documents submitted be admitted as part of the record of the case and the first Information be substituted by the attached second Information. The second Information[13] addressed the discrepancies noted by the CTA in the first Information, by now reading thus: The undersigned Prosecution Attorney of the Department of Justice hereby accuses JUDY ANNE SANTOS y Lumagui of the offense of violation of Section 255, of Republic Act No. 8424, otherwise known as the Tax Reform Act of 1997, as amended, committed as follows: That on or about the 15th day of April, 2003, at Quezon City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused did then and there, willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously file a false and fraudulent income tax return for taxable year 2002 by indicating therein a gross income of P8,033,332.70 when in truth and in fact her correct income for taxable year 2002 is P16,396,234.70 or a gross underdeclaration/difference of P8,362,902 resulting to an income tax deficiency of P1,395,116.24 excluding interest and penalties thereon of P1,319,500.94 or a total income tax deficiency of P2,714,617.18 to the damage and prejudice of the government of the same amount.[] In a Resolution[14] dated 8 December 2005, the CTA Peoples Ex Parte Motion and admitted the second Information.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINESand BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondents.

August 26, 2008 x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x DECISION

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.: Before this Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari[1] under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court filed by petitioner Judy Anne L. Santos (Santos) seeking the reversal and setting aside of the Resolution,[2] dated 19 June 2006, of the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) en banc in C.T.A. EB. CRIM. No. 001 which denied petitioners Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review. Petitioner intended to file the Petition for Review with the CTA en banc to appeal the Resolutions dated 23 February 2006[3] and 11 May 2006[4] of the CTA First Division in C.T.A. Crim. Case No. 0-012 denying, respectively, her Motion to Quash the Information filed against her for violation of Section 255, in relation to Sections 254 and 248(B) of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC), as amended; and her Motion for Reconsideration. There is no controversy as to the facts that gave rise to the present Petition. On 19 May 2005, then Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) Commissioner Guillermo L. Parayno, Jr. wrote to the Department of Justice (DOJ) Secretary Raul M. Gonzales a [5] letter regarding the possible filing of criminal charges against petitioner. BIR Commissioner Parayno began his letter with the following statement: I have the honor to refer to you for preliminary investigation and filing of an information in court if evidence so warrants, the herein attached Joint Affidavit of RODERICK C. ABAD, STIMSON P. CUREG, VILMA V. CARONAN, RHODORA L. DELOS REYES under Group Supervisor TEODORA V. PURINO, of the National Investigation Division, BIR National Office Building, BIR Road, Diliman, Quezon City, recommending the criminal prosecution of MS. JUDY ANNE LUMAGUI SANTOS for substantial underdeclaration of income, which constitutes as prima facieevidence of false or fraudulent return under Section 248(B) of the NIRC and punishable under Sections 254 and 255 of the Tax Code.

First

Division

granted

the

In said letter, BIR Commissioner Parayno summarized the findings of the investigating BIR officers that petitioner, in her Annual Income Tax Return for taxable year 2002 filed with the

The CTA First Division then issued on 9 December 2005 a warrant for the arrest of petitioner.[15] The tax court lifted and recalled the warrant of arrest on 21 December 2005 after petitioner voluntarily appeared and submitted herself to its jurisdiction and filed the required bail bond in the amount of P20,000.00.[16] On 10 January 2006, petitioner filed with the CTA First Division a Motion to Quash[17] the Information filed in C.T.A. Crim. Case No. 0-012 on the following grounds: 1. an offense; 2. so; 3. The Honorable Court of Tax Appeals has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case; and 4. The information is void ab initio, being violative of due process, and the equal protection of the laws. In a Resolution[18] dated 23 February 2006, the CTA First Division petitioners Motion to Quash and accordingly scheduled her arraignment on 2 2006 at9:00 a.m. Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration Reinvestigation,[19] which was again denied by the CTA First Division Resolution[20] dated 11 May 2006. The facts alleged in the INFORMATION do not constitute

WHEREFORE, premises considered, petitioners Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review filed on June 1, 2006 is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.[23]

Now comes petitioner before this Court raising the sole issue of: WHETHER A RESOLUTION OF A CTA DIVISION DENYING A MOTION TO QUASH IS A PROPER SUBJECT OF AN APPEAL TO THE CTA EN BANC UNDER SECTION 11 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9282, AMENDING SECTION 18 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 1125.[24] Section 18 of Republic Act No. 1125,[25] as amended by Republic Act No. provides:

The officer who filed the information had no authority to do

[26]

9282,

denied March and/or in a

SEC. 18. Appeal to the Court of Tax Appeals En Banc. No civil proceedings involving matters arising under the National Internal Revenue Code, the Tariff and Customs Code or the Local Government Code shall be maintained, except as herein provided, until and unless an appeal has been previously filed with the CTA and disposed of in accordance with the provisions of this Act. A party adversely affected by a resolution of a Division of the CTA on a motion for reconsideration or new trial, may file a petition for review with the CTA en banc. Petitioners primary argument is that a resolution of a CTA Division denying a motion to quash is a proper subject of an appeal to the CTA en banc under Section 18 of Republic Act No. 1125, as amended, because the law does not say that only a resolution that constitutes a final disposition of a case may be appealed to the CTA en banc. If the interpretation of the law by the CTA en banc prevails, a procedural void is created leaving the parties, such as petitioner, without any remedy involving erroneous resolutions of a CTA Division. The Court finds no merit in the petitioners assertion. The petition for review under Section 18 of Republic Act No. 1125, as amended, may be new to the CTA, but it is actually a mode of appeal long available in courts of general jurisdiction. Petitioner is invoking a very narrow and literal reading of Section 18 of Republic Act No. 1125, as amended. Indeed, the filing of a petition for review with the CTA en banc from a decision, resolution, or order of a CTA Division is a remedy newly made available in proceedings before the CTA, necessarily adopted to conform to and address the changes in the CTA. There was no need for such rule under Republic Act No. 1125, prior to its amendment, since the CTA then was composed only of one Presiding Judge and two Associate Judges.[27] Any two Judges constituted a quorum and the concurrence of two Judges was necessary to promulgate any decision thereof. [28]

Petitioner received a copy of the 11 May 2006 Resolution of the CTA First Division on 17 May 2006. On 1 June 2006, petitioner filed with the CTA en banc a Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review, docketed as C.T.A. EB. CRIM. No. 001. She filed her Petition for Review with the CTA en banc on 16 June 2006. However, in its Resolution[21] dated 19 June 2006, the CTA en banc denied petitioners Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review, ratiocinating that: In the case before Us, the petitioner is asking for an extension of time to file her Petition for Review to appeal the denial of her motion to quash in C.T.A. Crim. Case No. 0-012. As stated above, a resolution denying a motion to quash is not a proper subject of an appeal to the Court En Banc under Section 11 of R.A. No. 9282 because a ruling denying a motion to quash is only an interlocutory order, as such, it cannot be made the subject of an appeal pursuant to said law and the Rules of Court. Section 1 of Rule 41 of the Rules of Court provides that no app eal may be taken from an interlocutory order and Section 1 ( i) of Rule 50 provides for the dismissal of an appeal on the ground that the order or judgment appealed from is not appealable. Time and again, the Supreme Court had ruled that the remedy of the accused in case of denial of a motion to quash is for the accused to enter a plea, go to trial and after an adverse decision is rendered, to appeal therefrom in the manner authorized by law. Since a denial of a Motion to Quash is not appealable, granting petitioners Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review will only be an exercise in futility considering that the dismissal of the Petition for Review that will be filed by way of appeal is mandated both by law and jurisprudence.[22]

Ultimately, the CTA en banc decreed:

The amendments introduced by Republic Act No. 9282 to Republic Act No. 1125 elevated the rank of the CTA to a collegiate court, with the same rank as the Court of Appeals, and increased the number of its members to one Presiding Justice and five Associate Justices.[29] The CTA is now allowed to sit en banc or in two Divisions with each Division consisting of three Justices. Four Justices shall constitute a quorum for sessions en banc, and the affirmative votes of four members of the Court en banc are necessary for the rendition of a decision or resolution; while two Justices shall constitute a quorum for sessions of a Division and the affirmative votes of two members of the Division shall be necessary for the rendition of a decision or resolution.[30] In A.M. No. 05-11-07-CTA, the Revised CTA Rules, this Court delineated the jurisdiction of the CTA en banc[31] and in Divisions.[32] Section 2, Rule 4 of the Revised CTA Rules recognizes the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the CTA en banc to review by appeal the following decisions, resolutions, or orders of the CTA Division: SEC. 2. Cases within the jurisdiction of the Court en banc. The Court en banc shall exercise exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal the following: (a) Decisions or resolutions on motions for reconsideration or new trial of the Court in Divisions in the exercise of its exclusive appellate jurisdiction over: (1) Cases arising from administrative agencies Bureau of Internal Revenue, Bureau of Customs, Department of Finance, Department of Trade and Industry, Department of Agriculture; (2) Local tax cases decided by the Regional Trial Courts in the exercise of their original jurisdiction; and (3) Tax collection cases decided by the Regional Trial Courts in the exercise of their original jurisdiction involving final and executory assessments for taxes, fees, charges and penalties, where the principal amount of taxes and penalties claimed is less than one million pesos; xxxx (f) Decisions, resolutions or orders on motions for reconsideration or new trial of the Court in Division in the exercise of its exclusive original jurisdiction over cases involving criminal offenses arising from violations of the National Internal Revenue Code or the Tariff and Customs Code and other laws administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue or Bureau of Customs. (g) Decisions, resolutions or order on motions for reconsideration or new trial of the Court in Division in the exercise of its exclusive appellate jurisdiction over criminal offenses mentioned in the preceding subparagraph; x x x.

RULE 7 PROCEDURE IN THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS SEC. 1. Applicability of the Rules of the Court of Appeals . The procedure in the Court en banc or in Divisions in original and in appealed cases shall be the same as those in petitions for review and appeals before the Court of Appeals pursuant to the applicable provisions of Rules 42, 43, 44 and 46 of the Rules of Court, except as otherwise provided for in these Rules.

RULE 8 PROCEDURE IN CIVIL CASES xxxx SEC. 4. Where to appeal; mode of appeal. xxxx (b) An appeal from a decision or resolution of the Court in Division on a motion for reconsideration or new trial shall be taken to the Court by petition for review as provided in Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. The Court en banc shall act on the appeal. xxxx RULE 9 PROCEDURE IN CRIMINAL CASES SEC. 1. Review of cases in the Court. The review of criminal cases in the Court en banc or in Division shall be governed by the applicable provisions of Rule 124 of the Rules of Court. xxxx SEC. 9. Appeal; period to appeal. xxxx (b) An appeal to the Court en banc in criminal cases decided by the Court in Division shall be taken by filing a petition for review as provided in Rule 43 of the Rules of Court within fifteen days from receipt of a copy of the decision or resolution appealed from. The Court may, for good cause, extend the time for filing of the petition for review for an additional period not exceeding fifteen days. (Emphasis ours.)

Although the filing of a petition for review with the CTA en banc from a decision, resolution, or order of the CTA Division, was newly made available to the CTA, such mode of appeal has long been available in Philippine courts of general jurisdiction. Hence, the Revised CTA Rules no longer elaborated on it but merely referred to existing rules of procedure on petitions for review and appeals, to wit:

Given the foregoing, the petition for review to be filed with the CTA en banc as the mode for appealing a decision, resolution, or order of the CTA Division, under Section 18 of Republic Act No. 1125, as amended, is not a totally new remedy, unique to the CTA, with a special application or use therein. To the contrary, the CTA merely adopts the procedure for petitions for review and appeals long established and practiced in other Philippine courts. Accordingly, doctrines, principles, rules, and precedents laid down in jurisprudence by this Court as regards petitions for review and appeals in courts of general jurisdiction should likewise bind the CTA, and it cannot depart therefrom.

General rule: The denial of a motion to quash is an interlocutory order which is not the proper subject of an appeal or a petition for certiorari. According to Section 1, Rule 41 of the Revised Rules of Court, governing appeals from the Regional Trial Courts (RTCs) to the Court of Appeals, an appeal may be taken only from a judgment or final order that completely disposes of the case or of a matter therein when declared by the Rules to be appealable. Said provision, thus, explicitly states that no appeal may be taken from an interlocutory order.[33] The Court distinguishes final judgments and orders from interlocutory orders in this wise: Section 2, Rule 41 of the Revised Rules of Court provides that "(o)nly final judgments or orders shall be subject to appeal." Interlocutory or incidental judgments or orders do not stay the progress of an action nor are they subject of appeal "until final judgment or order is rendered for one party or the other." The test to determine whether an order or judgment is interlocutory or final is this: "Does it leave something to be done in the trial court with respect to the merits of the case? If it does, it is interlocutory; if it does not, it is final. A court order is final in character if it puts an end to the particular matter resolved or settles definitely the matter therein disposed of, such that no further questions can come before the court except the execution of the order. The term "final" judgment or order signifies a judgment or an order which disposes of the cause as to all the parties, reserving no further questions or directions for future determination. The order or judgment may validly refer to the entire controversy or to some definite and separate branch thereof. "In the absence of a statutory definition, a final judgment, order or decree has been held to be x x x one that finally disposes of, adjudicates, or determines the rights, or some right or rights of the parties, either on the entire controversy or on some definite and separate branch thereof, and which concludes them until it is reversed or set aside." The central point to consider is, therefore, the effects of the order on the rights of the parties. A court order, on the other hand, is merely interlocutory in character if it is provisional and leaves substantial proceeding to be had in connection with its subject. The word "interlocutory" refers to "something intervening between the commencement and the end of a suit which decides some point or matter but is not a final decision of the whole controversy."[34]

subject to change in the discretion of the court." Moreover, one of the inherent powers of the court is "To amend and control its process and orders so as to make them conformable to law and justice. In the language of Chief Justice Moran, paraphrasing the ruling in Veluz vs. Justice of the Peace of Sariaya, since judges are human, susceptible to mistakes, and are bound to administer justice in accordance with law, they are given the inherent power of amending their orders or judgments so as to make them conformable to law and justice, and they can do so before they lose their jurisdiction of the case, that is before the time to appeal has expired and no appeal has been perfected. And in the abovecited Veluz case, this Court held that If the trial court should discover or be convinced that it had committed an error in its judgment, or had done an injustice, before the same has become final, it may, upon its own motion or upon a motion of the parties, correct such error in order to do justice between the parties. . . . It would seem to be the very height of absurdity to prohibit a trial judge from correcting an error, mistake, or injustice which is called to his attention before he has lost control of his judgment. Corollarily, it has also been held that a judge of first instance is not legally prevented from revoking the interlocutory order of another judge in the very litigation subsequently assigned to him for judicial action.

Another recognized reason of the law in permitting appeal only from a final order or judgment, and not from an interlocutory or incidental one, is to avoid multiplicity of appeals in a single action, which must necessarily suspend the hearing and decision on the merits of the case during the pendency of the appeal. If such appeal were allowed, the trial on the merits of the case would necessarily be delayed for a considerable length of time, and compel the adverse party to incur unnecessary expenses, for one of the parties may interpose as many appeals as incidental questions may be raised by him, and interlocutory orders rendered or issued by the lower court.[37] There is no dispute that a court order denying a motion to quash is interlocutory. The denial of the motion to quash means that the criminal information remains pending with the court, which must proceed with the trial to determine whether the accused is guilty of the crime charged therein. Equally settled is the rule that an order denying a motion to quash, being interlocutory, is not immediately appealable,[38] nor can it be the subject of a petition for certiorari. Such order may only be reviewed in the ordinary course of law by an appeal from the judgment after trial.[39] The Court cannot agree in petitioners contention that there would exist a procedural void following the denial of her Motion to Quash by the CTA First Division in its Resolutions dated 23 February 2006 and 11 May 2006, leaving her helpless. The remedy of an accused from the denial of his or her motion to quash has already been clearly laid down as follows: An order denying a Motion to Acquit (like an order denying a motion to quash) is interlocutory and not a final order. It is, therefore, not appealable. Neither can it be the subject of a petition forcertiorari. Such order of denial may only be reviewed, in the ordinary course of law, by an appeal from the judgment, after trial. As stated in Collins vs. Wolfe, and reiterated in Mill vs. Yatco, the accused, after the denial of his motion to quash, should have proceeded with the trial of the case in the court below, and if final judgment is rendered against him, he could then appeal, and, upon such appeal, present the questions which he sought to be decided by the appellate court in a petition for certiorari. In Acharon vs. Purisima, the procedure was well defined, thus:

In other words, after a final order or judgment, the court should have nothing more to do in respect of the relative rights of the parties to the case. Conversely, an order that does not finally dispose of the case and does not end the Court's task of adjudicating the parties' contentions in determining their rights and liabilities as regards each other, but obviously indicates that other things remain to be done by the Court, is interlocutory. [35] The rationale for barring the appeal of an interlocutory order was extensively discussed in Matute v. Court of Appeals,[36] thus: It is settled that an "interlocutory order or decree made in the progress of a case is always under the control of the court until the final decision of the suit, and may be modified or rescinded upon sufficient grounds shown at any time before final judgment . . ." Of similar import is the ruling of this Court declaring that "it is rudimentary that such (interlocutory) orders are

Moreover, when the motion to quash filed by Acharon to nullify the criminal cases filed against him was denied by the Municipal Court of General Santos his remedy was not to file a petition for certiorari but to go to trial without prejudice on his part to reiterate the special defenses he had invoked in his motion and, if, after trial on the merits, an adverse decision is rendered, to appeal therefrom in the manner authorized by law. This is the procedure that he should have followed as authorized by law and precedents. Instead, he took the usual step of filing a writ of certiorari before the Court of First Instance which in our opinion is unwarranted it being contrary to the usual course of law.[40] Hence, the CTA en banc herein did not err in denying petitioners Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review, when such Petition for Review is the wrong remedy to assail an interlocutory order denying her Motion to Quash. While the general rule proscribes the appeal of an interlocutory order, there are also recognized exceptions to the same. The general rule is not absolute. Where special circumstances clearly demonstrate the inadequacy of an appeal, then the special civil action of certiorari or prohibition may exceptionally be allowed.[ 4 1 ] This Court recognizes that under certain situations, recourse to extraordinary legal remedies, such as a petition for certiorari, is considered proper to question the denial of a motion to quash (or any other interlocutory order) in the interest of a more enlightened and substantial justice;[42] or to promote public welfare and public policy;[43] or when the cases have attracted nationwide attention, making it essential to proceed with dispatch in the consideration thereof;[44] or when the order was rendered with grave abuse of discretion. [45] Certiorariis an appropriate remedy to assail an interlocutory order (1) when the tribunal issued such order without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion; and (2) when the assailed interlocutory order is patently erroneous, and the remedy of appeal would not afford adequate and expeditious relief.[46] Recourse to a petition for certiorari to assail an interlocutory order is now expressly recognized in the ultimate paragraph of Section 1, Rule 41 of the Revised Rules of Court on the subject of appeal, which states: In all the above instances where the judgment or final order is not appealable, the aggrieved party may file an appropriate special civil action under Rule 65.

Assuming that the CTA en banc, as an exception to the general rule, allowed and treated petitioners Petition for Review in C.T.A. EB. CRIM. No. 001 as a special civil action for certiorari, [47] it would still be dismissible for lack of merit. An act of a court or tribunal may only be considered as committed in grave abuse of discretion when the same was performed in a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment, which is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law or to act at all in contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility. In this connection, it is only upon showing that the court acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion that an interlocutory order such as that involved in this case may be impugned. Be that as it may, it must be emphasized that this practice is applied only under certain exceptional circumstances to prevent unnecessary delay in the administration of justice and so as not to unduly burden the courts.[48] Certiorari is not available to correct errors of procedure or mistakes in the judges findings and conclusions of law and fact. It is only in the presence of extraordinary circumstances evincing a patent disregard of justice and fair play where resort to a petition for certiorari is proper. A party must not be allowed to delay litigation by the sheer expediency of filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court based on scant allegations of grave abuse.[49] A writ of certiorari is not intended to correct every controversial interlocutory ruling: it is resorted to only to correct a grave abuse of discretion or a whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. Its function is limited to keeping an inferior court within its jurisdiction and to relieve persons from arbitrary acts acts which courts or judges have no power or authority in law to perform. It is not designed to correct erroneous findings and conclusions made by the courts.[50] The Petition for Review which petitioner intended to file before the CTA en banc relied on two grounds: (1) the lack of authority of Prosecuting Attorney Torrevillas to file the Information; and (2) the filing of the said Information in violation of petitioners constitutional rights to due process and equal protection of the laws. Anent the first ground, petitioner argues that the Information was filed without the approval of the BIR Commissioner in violation of Section 220 of NIRC, as amended, which provides: SEC. 220. Form and Mode of Proceeding in Actions Arising under this Code. - Civil and criminal actions and proceedings instituted in behalf of the Government under the authority of this Code or other law enforced by the Bureau of Internal Revenue shall be brought in the name of the Government of the Philippines and shall be conducted by legal officers of the Bureau of Internal Revenue but no civil or criminal action for the recovery of taxes or the enforcement of any fine, penalty or forfeiture under this Code shall be filed in court without the approval of the Commissioner.

As to whether the CTA en banc, under its expanded jurisdiction in Republic Act No. 9282, has been granted jurisdiction over special civil actions for certiorari is not raised as an issue in the Petition at bar, thus, precluding the Court from making a definitive pronouncement thereon. However, even if such an issue is answered in the negative, it would not substantially affect the ruling of this Court herein, for a party whose motion to quash had been denied may still seek recourse, under exceptional and meritorious circumstances, via a special civil action for certiorari with this Court, refuting petitioners assertion of a procedural void. The CTA First Division did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioners Motion to Quash.

Petitioners argument must fail in light of BIR Commissioner Paraynos letter dated 19 May 2005 to DOJ Secretary Gonzales referring for preliminary investigation and filing of an information in court if evidence so warrants, the findings of the BIR officers recommending the criminal prosecution of petitioner. In said letter, BIR Commissioner Paraynoalready gave his prior approval to the filing of an information in court should the DOJ, based on the evidence submitted, find probable cause against petitioner during the preliminary investigation. Section 220 of the NIRC, as amended, simply requires that the BIR Commissioner approve the institution of civil or criminal action against a tax

law violator, but it does not describe in what form such approval must be given. In this case, BIR Commissioner Paraynos letter of 19 May 2005 already states his express approval of the filing of an information against petitioner and his signature need not appear on the Resolution of the State Prosecutor or the Information itself. Still on the purported lack of authority of Prosecution Attorney Torrevillas to file the Information, petitioner asserts that it is the City Prosecutor under the Quezon City Charter, who has the authority to investigate and prosecute offenses allegedly committed within the jurisdiction of Quezon City, such as petitioners case. The Court is not persuaded. Under Republic Act No. 537, the Revised Charter of Quezon City, the City Prosecutor shall have the following duties relating to the investigation and prosecution of criminal offenses: The City Attorney - His assistants - His duties.

(2) Implement the provisions of laws, executive orders and rules, and carry out the policies, plans, programs and projects of the Department relative to the investigation and prosecution of criminal cases; (3) Assist the Secretary in exercising supervision and control over the National Prosecution Service as constituted under P.D. No. 1275 and/or otherwise hereinafter provided; and (4) Perform such other functions as may be provided by law or assigned by the Secretary.[54]

As explained by CTA First Division in its Resolution dated 11 May 2006: [T]he power or authority of the Chief State Prosecutor Jovencito Zuo, Jr. and his deputies in the Department of Justice to prosecute cases is national in scope; and the Special Prosecutors authority to sign and file informations in court proceeds from the exercise of said persons authority to conduct preliminary investigations.[55] Moreover, there is nothing in the Revised Quezon City Charter which would suggest that the power of the City Prosecutor to investigate and prosecute crimes, misdemeanors, and violations of ordinances committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the city is to the exclusion of the State Prosecutors. In fact, the Office of the State Prosecutor exercises control and supervision over City Prosecutors under Executive Order No. 292, otherwise known as the Administrative Code of 1987. As regards petitioners second ground in her intended Petition for Review with the CTA en banc, she asserts that she has been denied due process and equal protection of the laws when similar charges for violation of the NIRC, as amended, against Regina Encarnacion A. Velasquez (Velasquez) were dismissed by the DOJ in its Resolution dated 10 August 2005 in I.S. No. 2005-330 for the reason that Velasquezs tax liability was not yet fully determined when the charges were filed. The Court is unconvinced. First, a motion to quash should be based on a defect in the information which is evident on its face.[56] The same cannot be said herein. The Information against petitioner appears valid on its face; and that it was filed in violation of her constitutional rights to due process and equal protection of the laws is not evident on the face thereof. As pointed out by the CTA First Division in its 11 May 2006 Resolution, the more appropriate recourse petitioner should have taken, given the dismissal of similar charges against Velasquez, was to appeal the Resolution dated 21 October 2005 of the Office of the State Prosecutor recommending the filing of an information against her with the DOJ Secretary.[57] Second, petitioner cannot claim denial of due process when she was given the opportunity to file her affidavits and other pleadings and submit evidence before the DOJ during the preliminary investigation of her case and before the Information was filed against her. Due process is merely an opportunity to be heard. In addition, preliminary investigation conducted by the DOJ is merely inquisitorial. It is not a trial of the case on the merits. Its sole purpose is to determine whether a crime has been committed and whether the respondent therein is probably guilty of the crime. It is not the occasion for the full and exhaustive display of the parties evidence. Hence, if the investigating prosecutor is already satisfied that he can reasonably determine the existence of probable cause based on the parties evidence thus presented, he may terminate the proceedings and resolve the case.[58]

SEC. 28. xxxx

(g) He shall also have charge of the prosecution of all crimes, misdemeanors, and violations of city ordinances, in the Court of First Instance and the municipal courts of the city, and shall discharge all the duties in respect to the criminal prosecutions enjoined by law upon provincial fiscals. (h) He shall cause to be investigated all charges of crimes, misdemeanors, and violations of ordinances and have the necessary information or complaints prepared or made against the persons accused. He or any of his assistants may conduct such investigations by taking oral evidence of reputable witnesses, and for this purpose may issue subpoena, summon witnesses to appear and testify under oath before him, and the attendance or evidence of an absent or recalcitrant witness may be enforced by application to the municipal court or the Court of First Instance. No witness summoned to testify under this section shall be under obligation to give any testimony which tend to incriminate himself.

Evident from the foregoing is that the City Prosecutor has the power to investigate crimes, misdemeanors, and violations of ordinances committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the city, and which can be prosecuted before the trial courts of the said city. The charge against petitioner, however, is already within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the CTA,[51] as the Information states that her gross underdeclaration resulted in an income tax deficiency of P1,395,116.24, excluding interest and penalties. The City Prosecutor does not have the authority to appear before the CTA, which is now of the same rank as the Court of Appeals. In contrast, the DOJ is the principal law agency of the Philippine government which shall be both its legal counsel and prosecution arm.[52] It has the power to investigate the commission of crimes, prosecute offenders and administer the probation and correction system.[53] Under the DOJ is the Office of the State Prosecutor whose functions are described as follows: Sec. 8. Office of the Chief State Prosecutor. - The Office of the Chief State Prosecutor shall have the following functions: (1) Assist the Secretary in the performance of powers and functions of the Department relative to its role as the prosecution arm of the government;

Third, petitioner cannot likewise aver that she has been denied equal protection of the laws. The equal protection clause exists to prevent undue favor or privilege. It is intended to eliminate discrimination and oppression based on inequality. Recognizing the existence of real differences among men, the equal protection clause does not demand absolute equality. It merely requires that all persons shall be treated alike, under like circumstances and conditions, both as to the privileges conferred and liabilities enforced. [59] Petitioner was not able to duly establish to the satisfaction of this Court that she and Velasquez were indeed similarly situated, i.e., that they committed identical acts for which they were charged with the violation of the same provisions of the NIRC; and that they presented similar arguments and evidence in their defense - yet, they were treated differently. Furthermore, that the Prosecution Attorney dismissed what were supposedly similar charges against Velasquez did not compel Prosecution Attorney Torrevillas to rule the same way on the charges against petitioner. In People v. Dela Piedra,[60] this Court explained that: The prosecution of one guilty person while others equally guilty are not prosecuted, however, is not, by itself, a denial of the equal protection of the laws. Where the official action purports to be in conformity to the statutory classification, an erroneous or mistaken performance of the statutory duty, although a violation of the statute, is not without more a denial of the equal protection of the laws. The unlawful administration by officers of a statute fair on its face, resulting in its unequal application to those who are entitled to be treated alike, is not a denial of equal protection unless there is shown to be present in it an element of intentional or purposeful discrimination. This may appear on the face of the action taken with respect to a particular class or person, or it may only be shown by extrinsic evidence showing a discriminatory design over another not to be inferred from the action itself. But a discriminatory purpose is not presumed, there must be a showing of clear and intentional discrimination. Appellant has failed to show that, in charging appellant in court, that there was a clear and intentional discrimination on the part of the prosecuting officials. The discretion of who to prosecute depends on the prosecutions sound assessment whether the evidence before it can justify a reasonable belief that a person has committed an offense. The presumption is that the prosecuting officers regularly performed their duties, and this presumption can be overcome only by proof to the contrary, not by mere speculation. Indeed, appellant has not presented any evidence to overcome this presumption. The mere allegation that appellant, a Cebuana, was charged with the commission of a crime, while a Zamboanguea, the guilty party in appellants eyes, was not, is insufficient to support a conclusion that the prosecution officers denied appellant equal protection of the laws. There is also common sense practicality in sustaining appellants prosecution. While all persons accused of crime are to be treated on a basis of equality before the law, it does not follow that they are to be protected in the commission of crime. It would be unconscionable, for instance, to excuse a defendant guilty of murder because others have murdered with impunity. The remedy for unequal enforcement of the law

in such instances does not lie in the exoneration of the guilty at the expense of society x x x. Protection of the law will be extended to all persons equally in the pursuit of their lawful occupations, but no person has the right to demand protection of the law in the commission of a crime. Likewise, [i]f the failure of prosecutors to enforce the criminal laws as to some persons should be converted into a defense for others charged with crime, the result would be that the trial of the district attorney for nonfeasance would become an issue in the trial of many persons charged with heinous crimes and the enforcement of law would suffer a complete breakdown. (Emphasis ours.)

In the case at bar, no evidence of a clear and intentional discrimination against petitioner was shown, whether by Prosecution Attorney Torrevillas in recommending the filing of Information against petitioner or by the CTA First Division in denying petitioners Motion to Quash. The only basis for petitioners claim of denial of equal protection of the laws was the dismissal of the charges against Velasquez while those against her were not. And lastly, the Resolutions of the CTA First Division dated 23 February 2006 and 11 May 2006 directly addressed the arguments raised by petitioner in her Motion to Quash and Motion for Reconsideration, respectively, and explained the reasons for the denial of both Motions. There is nothing to sustain a finding that these Resolutions were rendered capriciously, whimsically, or arbitrarily, as to constitute grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. In sum, the CTA en banc did not err in denying petitioners Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review. Petitioner cannot file a Petition for Review with the CTA en banc to appeal the Resolution of the CTA First Division denying her Motion to Quash. The Resolution is interlocutory and, thus, unappealable. Even if her Petition for Review is to be treated as a petition for certiorari, it is dismissible for lack of merit. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition for Review is hereby DENIED. Costs against petitioner.