COMMISSIONER OF IR VS CENTRAL LUZON DRUG CORP

GR 148512 June 26, 2006

A!un", J#$
FACTS$
T%&' &' " (e)&)&*n +*, ,e-&e. un/e, Ru0e 45 *+ Ru0e' *+ C*u,) 'ee1&n2 )%e
nu00&3!")&*n *+ CA /e!&'&*n 2,"n)&n2 ,e'(*n/en)4' !0"&5 +*, )"6 e7u"0 )* )%e "5*un)
*+ )%e 208 )%") &) e6)en/e/ )* 'en&*, !&)&en' *n )%e 0"))e,4' (u,!%"'e' (u,'u"n) )*
Sen&*, C&)&en' A!)# Re'(*n/en) /e/u!)e/ )%e )*)"0 "5*un) *+ P%(219,::8 +,*5 &)'
2,*'' &n!*5e +*, )%e )"6";0e <e", 1995 .%e,e;< ,e'(*n/en) /&/ n*) ("< )"6 +*, )%")
<e", ,e(*,)&n2 " ne) 0*'' *+ P%(20,96= &n &)' !*,(*,")e &n!*5e )"6# In 1996, !0"&5&n2
)%") )%e P%(219,::8 '%*u0/ ;e "((0&e/ "' " )"6 !,e/&), ,e'(*n/en) !0"&5e/ +*,
,e+un/ &n )%e "5*un) *+ P%(150, 19=#
ISSUE$
>%e)%e, *, n*) )%e 208 /&'!*un) 2,"n)e/ ;< )%e ,e'(*n/en) )* 7u"0&3e/
'en&*, !&)&en' 5"< ;e !0"&5e/ "' )"6 !,e/&) *, "' /e/u!)&*n +,*5 2,*'' '"0e'?
RULING$
@T"6 !,e/&)A &' e6(0&!&)0< (,*-&/e/ +*, &n Se!4 *+ RA :4=2# T%e /&'!*un) 2&-en
)* Sen&*, !&)&en' &' " )"6 !,e/&), n*) " /e/u!)&*n +,*5 )%e 2,*'' '"0e' *+ )%e
e')";0&'%5en) !*n!e,ne/# T%e )"6 !,e/&) )%") &' !*n)e5(0")e/ un/e, )%&' A!) &' "
+*,5 *+ Bu') !*5(en'")&*n, n*) " ,e5e/< +*, )"6e' )%") .e,e e,,*ne*u'0< *, &00e2"00<
"''e''e/ "n/ !*00e!)e/# In )%e '"5e -e&n, (,&*, ("<5en) *+ "n< )"6 0&";&0&)< &' " (,eC
!*n/&)&*n ;e+*,e " )"6";0e en)&)< !"n ;ene3) +,*5 )"6 !,e/&)# T%e !,e/&) 5"< ;e
"-"&0e/ *+ u(*n ("<5en), &+ "n<# >%e,e )%e,e &' n* )"6 0&";&0&)< *, .%e,e " (,&-")e
e')";0&'%5en) ,e(*,)' " ne) 0*'' +*, )%e (e,&*/, )%e )"6 !,e/&) !"n ;e "-"&0e/ *+ "n/
!",,&e/ *-e, )* )%e ne6) )"6";0e <e",#
JOSE DE BORJA, petitioner-appellee,
vs.
VICENTE G. GELLA, ET AL., respondents-appellants.
Jose de Borja has been delinquent in the payment of his real estate taxes since 195 for
properties located in the !ity of "anila and #asay !ity and has offered to pay them $ith t$o
ne%otiable, certificates of indebtedness &os. '()* and '()5 in the amounts of #+9'.*( and
#+1+.)9, respectively. Borja $as, ho$ever, a mere assi%nee of the aforesaid ne%otiable
certificates, the applicants for bac,pay ri%hts covered by them bein% respectively -afael .i/caya
and #ablo Batario 0una.
1he offers to pay the estate taxes in question $ere rejected by the city treasurers of both "anila
and #asay cities on the %round of their limited ne%otiability under 2ection 3, -epublic 4ct &o.
'(*, as amended by -epublic 4ct ((, and in the case of the city treasurer of "anila on the
further %round that he $as ordered not to accept them by the city mayor, for $hich reason Borja
$as prompted to brin% the question to the 1reasurer of the #hilippines $ho opined, amon%
others, that the ne%otiable certificates cannot be accepted as payment of real estate taxes
inasmuch as the la$ provides for their acceptance from their bac,pay holder only or the ori%inal
applicant himself, but not his assi%nee. 5n his letter of 4pril 39, 19)( to the 1reasurer of the
#hilippines, ho$ever, Borja entertained hope that the certificates $ould be accepted for payment
in vie$ of the fact that they are already lon% past due and redeemable, but his hope $as
frustrated. 2o on June '(, 19)(, Borja filed an action a%ainst the treasurers of both the !ity of
"anila and #asay !ity, as $ell as the 1reasurer of the #hilippines, to impel them to execute an
act $hich the la$ alle%edly requires them to perform, to $it6 to accept the above-mentioned
certificates of indebtedness considerin% that they $ere already due and redeemable so as not to
deprive him ille%ally of his privile%e to pay his obli%ation to the %overnment thru such means.
-espondents in due time filed their ans$er settin% up the reasons for their refusal to accept the
certificates, and after the requisite trial $as held, the court a quo rendered jud%ment the
dispositive part of $hich reads6
789-9:;-9, the treasurers of the !ity of "anila and #asay !ity, their a%ents and other
persons actin% in their behalf are hereby enjoined from includin% petitioner<s properties in
the payment of real estate, taxes, and to sell them at public auction and respondent
1reasurer of the #hilippines, and the treasurers of the !ity of "anila and #asay !ity are
hereby ordered to accept petitioner<s &e%otiable !ertificates of 5ndebtedness &os. '()*
and '()5 in the sums of #+9'.*( and #+1+.'9 in payment of real estate taxes of his
properties in the !ity of "anila and #asay !ity, respectively, $ithout costs.
-espondents too, this appeal on purely questions of la$.1wph1.t
-educed to bare essentials, the 13 errors assi%ned by appellants may be boiled do$n to the
follo$in%6 =a> has appellee the ri%ht to apply to the payment of his real estate taxes to the
%overnment of "anila and #asay cities the certificates of indebtedness he holds $hile appellants
have the correlative le%al duty to accept the certificates in payment of said taxes?@ =b> can
compensation be invo,ed to extin%uish appellee<s real estate tax liability bet$een the latter<s
obli%ation and the credit represented by said certificates of indebtedness?
4nent the first issue, the pertinent le%al provision to be rec,oned $ith is 2ection 3 of -epublic
4ct &o. '(*, as amended by -epublic 4ct &o. ((, $hich in part reads6
29!. 3. 1he 1reasurer of the #hilippines shall, upon application, and $ithin one year
from the approval of this 4ct, and under such rules and re%ulations as may be
promul%ated by the 2ecretary of :inance, ac,no$led%e and file requests for the
reco%nition of the ri%ht to the salaries and $a%es as provided in section one hereof, and
notice of such ac,no$led%ment shall be issued to the applicant $hich shall state the total
amount of such salaries or $a%es due to the applicant, and certify that it shall be
redeemed by the Government of the Philippines within ten years from the date of their
issuance without interest6 Provided, that upon application . . . a certificate of indebtedness
may be issued by the 1reasurer of the #hilippines coverin% the $hole or part of the total
salaries or $a%es the ri%ht to $hich has been duly ac,no$led%ed and reco%ni/ed,
provided that the face value of such certificate of indebtedness shall not exceed the
amount that the applicant may need for the payment of =1> obligations subsisting at the
time of the approval of this ct for $hich the applicant may directly be liable to the
Aovernment or to any of its branches or instrumentalities, or the corporations o$ned or
controlled by the Aovernment, or to any citi/en of the #hilippines, $ho may be $illin% to
accept the same for such settlement@ =3> his ta!es@ . . . and Provided, also, 1hat any
person $ho is not an alien, ban, or other financial institution at least sixty per centum of
$hose capital is o$ned by :ilipinos may, not$ithstandin% any provision of its charter,
articles of incorporation, by-la$s, or rules and re%ulations to the contrary, accept or
discount at not more than three and one-half per centum per annum for ten years a
ne%otiable certificate of indebtedness $hich shall be issued by the 1reasurer of the
#hilippines upon application by a holder of a bac, pay ac,no$led%ment. . . . .
1o be%in $ith, it cannot be contended that appellants are in duty bound to accept the ne%otiable
certificates of indebtedness held by appellee in payment of his real estate taxes for the simple
reason that they $ere not obli%ations subsistin% at the time of the approval of -epublic 4ct &o.
'(* $hich too, effect on June 1, 19*. 5t should be noted that the real estate taxes in question
have reference to those due in 195 and subsequent years. 1he la$ is explicit that in order that a
certificate may be used in payment of an obli%ation the same must be subsistin% at the time of its
approval even if $e hold that a tax parta,es of this character, neither can it be contended that
appellee can compel the %overnment to accept the alle%ed certificates of indebtedness in payment
of his real estate taxes under proviso &o. 3 abovequoted also for the reason that in order that
such payment may be allo$ed the tax must be o$ed by the applicant himself . 1his is the correct
implication that may be dra$n from the use by the la$ of the $ords Bhis ta!esB. .erily, the ri%ht
to use the bac,pay certificate in settlement of taxes is %iven only to the applicant and not to any
holder of any ne%otiable certificate to $hom the la$ only %ives the ri%ht to have it discounted by
a :ilipino citi/en or corporation under certain limitations. 8ere appellee is not himself the
applicant of the certificate, in question. 8e is merely an assi%nee thereof, or a subsequent holder
$hose ri%ht is at most to have it discounted upon maturity C or to ne%otiate it in the meantime.
4 fortiori, it may be included that, not havin% the ri%ht to use said certificates to pay his taxes,
appellee cannot compel appellants to accept them as he requests in the present petition for
mandamus. 4s a consequence, $e cannot but hold that mandamus does not lie a%ainst appellants
because they have in no $ay ne%lected to perform an act enjoined upon them by la$ as a duty,
nor have they unla$fully excluded appellee from the use or enjoyment of a ri%ht to $hich be is
entitled.
1
7e are a$are of the cases
3
cited by the court a quo $herein the %overnment ban,in% institutions
$ere ordered to accept the bac,pay certificates of petitioners in payment of their indebtedness to
them, but they are not here in point because in the cases mentioned the petitioners $ere
applicants and ori%inal holders of the correspondin% bac,pay certificates. 8ere appellee is not.
7ith re%ard to the second issue, i.e., $hether compensation can be invo,ed insofar as the t$o
obli%ations are concerned, 4rticles 13+ and 13+9 of the ne$ !ivil !ode provide6
4-1. 13+. !ompensation shall ta,e place $hen t$o persons, in their o$n ri%ht, are
creditors and debtors of each other.
4-1. 13+9. 5n order that compensation may be proper, it is necessary6
=1> 1hat each one of the obli%ors be bound principally, and that he be at the same time a
principal creditor of the other@
=3> 1hat both debts consist in a sum of money, or if the thin%s due are consumable, they
be of the same ,ind, and also of the same quality if the latter has been stated@
='> 1hat the t$o debts be due@
=*> 1hat they t$o liquidated and demandable@
=5> 1hat over neither of them there be any retention or controversy, commenced by third
persons and communicated in due time to the debtor.
5t is clear from the above le%al provisions that compensation cannot be effected $ith re%ard to
the t$o obli%ations in question. 5n the first place, the debtor insofar as the certificates of
indebtedness are concerned is the -epublic of the #hilippines, $hereas the real estate taxes o$ed
by appellee are due to the !ity of "anila and #asay !ity, each one of $hich havin% a distinct and
separate personality from our -epublic. 7ith re%ard to the certificates, the creditor is the
appellee $hile the debtor is the -epublic of the #hilippines. 4nd $ith re%ard to the taxes, the
creditors are the !ity of "anila and #asay !ity $hile the debtor is the appellee. 5t appears,
therefore, that each one of the obli%ors concernin% the t$o obli%ations is not at the same time the
principal creditor of the other. 5t cannot also be said for certain that the certificates are already
due. 4lthou%h on their faces the certificates issued to appellee state that they are redeemable on
June 1, 195, yet the la$ does not say that they are redeemable from its approval on June 1,
19* but B$ithin ten years from the date of issuanceB of the certificates. 1here is no certainty,
therefore, $hen the certificates are really redeemable $ithin the meanin% of the la$. 2ince the
requisites for the accomplishment of le%al compensation cannot be fulfilled, the latter cannot
ta,e place $ith re%ard to the t$o obli%ations as found by the court a quo.
789-9:;-9, the decision appealed from is reversed. 1he petition for mandamus is dismissed.
1he injunction issued a%ainst respondents-appellants is hereby lifted. &o costs.
DDDDDDDDDDD-
PLANTERS PRODUCTS, INC., vs. FERTIPHIL CORPORATION. [G.R. No. 166006. March
1, !00".#
Facts: Pr$s%&$'( F$r&%'a'& Marcos, $)$rc%s%'* h%s +$*%s+a(%v$ ,o-$rs, %ss.$& LOI No. 16/
-h%ch ,rov%&$&, a0o'* o(h$rs, 1or (h$ %0,os%(%o' 23 (h$ F$r(%+%4$r P$s(%c%&$ A.(hor%(3 5FPA6
o1 a ca,%(a+ r$cov$r3 co0,o'$'( 5CRC6 o' (h$ &o0$s(%c sa+$ o1 a++ *ra&$s o1 1$r(%+%4$rs %'
(h$ Ph%+%,,%'$s. Th$ *oa+ %s (o 0a7$ a'& 7$$, r$s,o'&$'( PPI v%a2+$. A1($r (h$ 18"6 E&sa
R$vo+.(%o', FPA vo+.'(ar%+3 s(o,,$& (h$ %0,os%(%o' o1 (h$ P10 +$v3. 9%(h (h$ r$(.r' o1
&$0ocrac3, F$r(%,h%+ &$0a'&$& 1ro0 PPI a r$1.'& o1 (h$ a0o.'(s %( ,a%& .'&$r LOI No.
16/, 2.( PPI r$1.s$& (o acc$&$ (o (h$ &$0a'&
F$r(%,h%+ :+$& a co0,+a%'( 1or co++$c(%o' a'& &a0a*$s a*a%'s( FPA a'& PPI -%(h (h$ RTC %'
Ma7a(%. I( ;.$s(%o'$& (h$ co's(%(.(%o'a+%(3 o1 LOI No. 16/ 1or 2$%'* .'<.s(, .'r$aso'a2+$,
o,,r$ss%v$, %'va+%& a'& a' .'+a-1.+ %0,os%(%o' (ha( a0o.'($& (o a &$'%a+ o1 &.$ ,roc$ss o1
+a-. FPA, (hro.*h (h$ So+%c%(or G$'$ra+, co.'($r$& (ha( (h$ %ss.a'c$ o1 LOI No. 16/ -as a
va+%& $)$rc%s$ o1 (h$ ,o+%c$ ,o-$r o1 (h$ S(a($ %' $'s.r%'* (h$ s(a2%+%(3 o1 (h$ 1$r(%+%4$r
%'&.s(r3 %' (h$ co.'(r3
Issue/Held: 9h$(h$r (h$ +$v3 %s %' $)$rc%s$ o1 ,o+%c$ ,o-$r or (a)a(%o' ,o-$r= TA>ATION
Ratio: 9$ a*r$$ -%(h (h$ RTC (ha( (h$ %0,os%(%o' o1 (h$ +$v3 -as a' $)$rc%s$ 23 (h$ S(a($ o1
%(s (a)a(%o' ,o-$r. 9h%+$ %( %s (r.$ (ha( (h$ ,o-$r o1 (a)a(%o' ca' 2$ .s$& as a' %0,+$0$'(
o1 ,o+%c$ ,o-$r, (h$ ,r%0ar3 ,.r,os$ o1 (h$ +$v3 %s r$v$'.$ *$'$ra(%o'. I1 (h$ ,.r,os$ %s
,r%0ar%+3 r$v$'.$, or %1 r$v$'.$ %s, a( +$as(, o'$ o1 (h$ r$a+ a'& s.2s(a'(%a+ ,.r,os$s, (h$'
(h$ $)ac(%o' %s ,ro,$r+3 ca++$& a (a). A' %'h$r$'( +%0%(a(%o' o' (h$ ,o-$r o1 (a)a(%o' %s
,.2+%c ,.r,os$. Ta)$s ar$ $)ac($& o'+3 1or a ,.2+%c ,.r,os$. Th$3 ca''o( 2$ .s$& 1or ,.r$+3
,r%va($ ,.r,os$s or 1or (h$ $)c+.s%v$ 2$'$:( o1 ,r%va($ ,$rso's. Th$ ,.r,os$ o1 a +a- %s
$v%&$'( 1ro0 %(s ($)( or %'1$ra2+$ 1ro0 o(h$r s$co'&ar3 so.rc$s. H$r$, -$ a*r$$ -%(h (h$
RTC a'& (ha( CA (ha( (h$ +$v3 %0,os$& .'&$r LOI No. 16/ -as 'o( 1or a ,.2+%c ,.r,os$
2$ca.s$ %( $),r$ss+3 ,rov%&$& (ha( (h$ +$v3 2$ %0,os$& (o 2$'$:( PPI, a ,r%va($ co0,a'3.
Th$ ,.r,os$ %s $),+%c%( 1ro0 C+a.s$ ? o1 (h$ +a-
DDDDDDDDD-
DIAZ VS. SECRETARY OF FINANCE- Value Added Tax
(VAT)
Ma !"ll #ee$ %"lle%!ed & !"ll'a "(e)a!")$ &e $u&*e%! !" VAT+
YES.
=1> .41 is imposed on Eall ,inds of servicesF and toll$ay operators $ho are en%a%ed in
constructin%, maintainin%, and operatin% express$ays are no different from lessors of property,
transportation contractors, etc.
=3> &ot only do they fall under the broad term under =1> but also come under those described as
Eall other franchise %ranteesF $hich is not confined only to le%islative franchise %rantees since
the la$ does not distin%uish. 1hey are also not a franchise %rantee under 2ection 119 $hich
$ould have made them subject to percenta%e tax and not .41.
='> &either are the services part of the enumeration under 2ection 1(9 on .41-exempt
transactions.
=*> 1he toll fee is not a userGs tax and thus it is permissible to impose a .41 on the said fee. 1he
"544 case does not apply and the !ourt emphasi/ed that toll fees are not taxes since they are
not assessed by the B5- and do not %o the %eneral coffers of the %overnment. 1oll fees are
collected by private operators as reimbursement for their costs and expenses $ith a vie$ to a
profit $hile taxes are imposed by the %overnment as an attribute of its soverei%nty. 9ven if the
toll fees $ere treated as userGs tax, the .41 can not be deemed as a Htax on taxG since the .41 is
imposed on the toll$ay operator and the fact that it mi%ht pass-on the same to the toll$ay user, it
$ill not ma,e the latter directly liable for .41 since the shifted .41 simply becomes part of the
cost to use the toll$ays.
=5> 1he assertion that the .41 imposed is not administratively feasible %iven the manner by
$hich the B5- intends to implement the .41 =i.e., roundin% off the toll rates and puttin% any
excess collection in an escro$ account> is not enou%h to invalidate the la$. &on-observance of
the canon of administrative feasibility $ill not render a tax imposition invalid Eexcept to the
extent that specific constitutional or statutory limitations are impairedF.
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDD-
!hamber of -eal estate v. hon -omulo
FACTS,
!hamber of -eal 9state and Builders< 4ssociations, 5nc. =!84"B9-> is questionin% the
constitutionality of 2ec 3+ =9> of -4 *3* and the revenue re%ulations =--s> issued by the
Bureau of 5nternal -evenue =B5-> to implement said provision and those involvin% creditable
$ithholdin% taxes =!71>. I!71 issues $ill not be discussedJ
!84"B9- assails the validity of the imposition of minimum corporate income tax ="!51> on
corporations and creditable $ithholdin% tax =!71> on sales of real properties classified as
ordinary assets. !hamber ar%ues that the "!51 violates the due process clause because it levies
income tax even if there is no reali/ed %ain.
"!51 scheme6 =2ection 3+ =9>. I"!51J on Komestic !orporations.>
4 corporation, be%innin% on its fourth year of operation, is assessed an "!51
of 3L of its %ross income $hen such "!51 is %reater than the normal
corporate income tax imposed under 2ection 3+=4> =4pplyin% the '(L tax
rate to net income>.
5f the re%ular income tax is hi%her than the "!51, the corporation does not pay the "!51.
4ny excess of the "!51 over the normal tax shall be carried for$ard and credited a%ainst the
normal income tax for the three immediately succeedin% taxable years.
1he 2ecretary of :inance is hereby authori/ed to suspend the imposition of the I"!51J on any
corporation $hich suffers losses on account of prolon%ed labor dispute, or because of force
majeure, or because of le%itimate business reverses.
1he term H%ross incomeG shall mean %ross sales less sales returns, discounts and allo$ances and
cost of %oods sold. B!ost of %oods soldB shall include all business expenses directly incurred to
produce the merchandise to brin% them to their present location and use.
!84"B9- claims that the "!51 under 2ection 3+=9> of -4 *3* is unconstitutional because it
is hi%hly oppressive, arbitrary and confiscatory $hich amounts to deprivation of property
$ithout due process of la$. 5t explains that %ross income as defined under said provision only
considers the cost of %oods sold and other direct expenses@ other major expenditures, such as
administrative and interest expenses $hich are equally necessary to produce %ross income, $ere
not ta,en into account. 1hus, pe%%in% the tax base of the "!51 to a corporationGs %ross income
is tantamount to a confiscation of capital because %ross income, unli,e net income, is not
Breali/ed %ain.B
ISS-E,
1. 7;& the imposition of the "!51 on domestic corporations is unconstitutional
3. 7;& -- 9-9 is a deprivation of property $ithout due process of la$ because the "!51 is
bein% imposed and collected even $hen there is actually a loss, or a /ero or ne%ative taxable
income
.ELD,
/. NO. "!51 is not violative of due process. 1he "!51 is not a tax on capital. 1he "!51 is
imposed on %ross income $hich is arrived at by deductin% the capital spent by a corporation in
the sale of its %oods, i.e., the cost of %oods and other direct expenses from %ross sales. !learly,
the capital is not bein% taxed.
:urthermore, the "!51 is not an additional tax imposition. 5t is imposed in lieu of the normal net
income tax, and only if the normal income tax is suspiciously lo$.
1he "!51 merely approximates the amount of net income tax due from a corporation, pe%%in%
the rate at a very much reduced 3L and uses as the base the corporationGs %ross income.
!84"B9- failed to support, by any factual or le%al basis, its alle%ation that the "!51 is
arbitrary and confiscatory. 5t does not cite any actual, specific and concrete ne%ative experiences
of its members nor does it present empirical data to sho$ that the implementation of the "!51
resulted in the confiscation of their property.
1axation is necessarily burdensome because, by its nature, it adversely affects property ri%hts.
1he party alle%in% the la$Gs unconstitutionality has the burden to demonstrate the supposed
violations in understandable terms.
0. NO. -- 9-9, in declarin% that "!51 should be imposed $henever such corporation has /ero
or ne%ative taxable income, merely defines the covera%e of 2ection 3+=9>.
1his means that even if a corporation incurs a net loss in its business operations or reports /ero
income after deductin% its expenses, it is still subject to an "!51 of 3L of its %ross income. 1his
is consistent $ith the la$ $hich imposes the "!51 on %ross income not$ithstandin% the amount
of the net income.
DDDDDDDDDD-
Juan 0una subd v sarmiento
Juan Luna Subdivision vs. Sarmiento
GR L-3538, 28 May 1952
En an!, "uason #J$% & !on!ur
'a!ts%
Juan Luna Subdivision is a (o!a( !or)oration *+i!+ issued a !+e!, to t+e
-ity"reasurer o. Mani(a .oramount to be a))(ied to its (and ta/ .or t+e se!ond
semester o. 1901. "+e re!ords o. t+e -ity "reasurer do not s+o* *+at *as done
*it+ t+e !+e!, #1t a))ears t+at it *as de)osited *it+ t+e 2+i(i))ine 3ationa(
an,4235$. 6.ter (iberation #7711$, t+e -ity "reasurer re.used to re.und t+e
!or)oration8s de)osit or a))(y it to su!+ .uture ta/es as mi9+t be .ound due, *+i(e
t+e 2+i(i))ine "rust -o #to *+i!+ t+e !+e!, *as )resented$ *as un*i((in9 to
reverse its debit entry a9ainst Juan Luna Subd. Said amount is a(so sub:e!t o.
anot+er disa9reement bet*een t+e !or)oration and t+e -ity "reasure, *it+ t+e
!or)oration !(aimin9 t+at t+e *+o(eamount o. t+e !+e!, .or t+e ta/es .or t+e (ast
semester o. 1901 +ave been remitted by -ommon*ea(t+6!t &;3 #1905$.
1ssue%
7+et+er t+e )rovision a((o*in9 t+e remission !overs ta/es )aid be.ore t+e
ena!tment o. -ommon*ea(t+ 6!t &;3, or ta/es *+i!+ *ere sti(( un)aid.
<e(d%
"+e (a* is !(ear t+at it a))(ies to =ta/es and )ena(ties due and )ayab(e,> i.e.ta/es
o*ed or o*in9. "+eremission o. ta/es due and )ayab(e to t+e e/!(usion o9 ta/es
a(ready !o((e!ted does not !onstitute un.air dis!rimination. Ea!+ set o. ta/es is a
!(ass by itse(., and t+e (a* *ou(d be o)en to atta!, as !(ass (e9is(ation on(y i. a((
ta/)ayers be(on9in9 to one !(ass *ere not treated a(i,e. <erein, t+ey are not.
"+e ta/)ayers *+o )aid t+eir ta/es be.ore (iberation and t+ose *+o +ad not *ere
not on t+e same .ootin9 on t+e need o. materia( re(ie.. "a/)ayers *+o +ad been
in arrears in t+eir ob(i9ation *+ou(d +ave to satis.y t+eir (iabi(ity *it+ 9enuine
!urren!y, *+i(e t+e ta/es )aid durin9 t+e o!!u)ation +ad been satis.ied in
Ja)anese 7ar 3otes, many o. t+em at a time *+en t+ose notes *ere *e((-ni9+
*ort+(ess. "o re.und t+ose ta/es *it+ restored !urren!y *ou(d be undu(y enri!+
many o. t+e )ayers at a 9reater e/)ense to t+e )eo)(e at (ar9e.
?????????--
6s!o v 26G-@R
;n July 11, 19', #4A!;- $as created under #K 1)9 to enable the Aovernment to re%ulate
and centrali/e all %ames of chance authori/ed by existin% franchise or permitted by la$. Basco
and four others =all la$yers> assailed the validity of the la$ creatin% #4A!;- on constitutional
%rounds amon% others particularly citin% that the #4A!;-Gs charter is a%ainst the constitutional
provision on local autonomy.
Basco et al contend that #.K. 1)9 constitutes a $aiver of the ri%ht of the !ity of "anila to
impose taxes and le%al fees@ that 2ection 1' par. =3> of #.K. 1)9 $hich exempts #4A!;-, as
the franchise holder from payin% any Etax of any ,ind or form, income or other$ise, as $ell as
fees, char%es or levies of $hatever nature, $hether &ational or 0ocalF is violative of the local
autonomy principle.
ISS-E, 7hether or not #4A!;-Gs charter is violative of the principle of local autonomy.
.ELD, &;. 2ection 5, 4rticle 1( of the 19+ !onstitution provides6
9ach local %overnment unit shall have the po$er to create its o$n source of revenue and to levy
taxes, fees, and other char%es sub"ect to such guidelines and limitation as the congress may
provide, consistent $ith the basic policy on local autonomy. 2uch taxes, fees and char%es shall
accrue exclusively to the local %overnment.
4 close readin% of the above provision does not violate local autonomy =particularly on taxin%
po$ers> as it $as clearly stated that the taxin% po$er of 0AMs are subject to such %uidelines and
limitation as !on%ress may provide.
:urther, the !ity of "anila, bein% a mere "unicipal corporation has no inherent ri%ht to impose
taxes. 1he !harter of the !ity of "anila is subject to control by !on%ress. 5t should be stressed
that Emunicipal corporations are mere creatures of !on%ressF $hich has the po$er to Ecreate and
abolish municipal corporationsF due to its E%eneral le%islative po$ersF. !on%ress, therefore, has
the po$er of control over 0ocal %overnments. 4nd if !on%ress can %rant the !ity of "anila the
po$er to tax certain matters, it can also provide for exemptions or even ta,e bac, the po$er.
:urther still, local %overnments have no po$er to tax instrumentalities of the &ational
Aovernment. #4A!;- is a %overnment o$ned or controlled corporation $ith an ori%inal
charter, #K 1)9. 4ll of its shares of stoc,s are o$ned by the &ational Aovernment. ;ther$ise,
its operation mi%ht be burdened, impeded or subjected to control by a mere 0ocal %overnment.
1his doctrine emanates from the EsupremacyF of the &ational Aovernment over local
%overnments
?????????--
Republic of the Philippines vs. Cocofed
[GRs 147062-64, 14 Decebe! 2001"
#$cts% 1mmediate(y a.ter t+e 198A EBS6 Revo(ution, t+en 2resident -oraCon -. 6Duino
issued E/e!utive @rders 1, 5 2 A and 10. @n t+e e/)(i!it )remise t+at vast resour!es o.
t+e 9overnment +ave been amassed by .ormer 2resident 'erdinand E. Mar!os, +is
immediate .ami(y, re(atives, and !(ose asso!iates bot+ +ere and abroad, t+e 2residentia(
-ommission on Good Government #2-GG$ *as !reated by E/e!utive @rder 1 to assist
t+e 2resident in t+e re!overy o. t+e i((-9otten *ea(t+ t+us a!!umu(ated *+et+er (o!ated
in t+e 2+i(i))ines or abroad. E/e!utive @rder 2 stated t+at t+e i((-9otten assets and
)ro)erties are in t+e .orm o. ban, a!!ounts, de)osits, trust a!!ounts, s+ares o. sto!,s,
bui(din9s, s+o))in9 !enters, !ondominiums, mansions, residen!es, estates, and ot+er
,inds o. rea( and )ersona( )ro)erties in t+e 2+i(i))ines and in various !ountries o. t+e
*or(d. E/e!utive @rder 10, on t+e ot+er +and, em)o*ered t+e 2-GG, *it+ t+e
assistan!e o. t+e @..i!e o. t+e So(i!itor Genera( and ot+er 9overnment a9en!ies, inter
a(ia, to .i(e and )rose!ute a(( !ases investi9ated by it under E@s 1 and 2. 2ursuant to
t+ese (a*s, t+e 2-GG issued and im)(emented numerous seDuestrations, .reeCe orders
and )rovisiona( ta,eovers o. a((e9ed(y i((-9otten !om)anies, assets and )ro)erties, rea(
or )ersona(.
6mon9 t+e )ro)erties seDuestered by t+e -ommission *ere s+ares o. sto!, in t+e
Enited -o!onut 2(anters an, #E-2$ re9istered in t+e names o. t+e a((e9ed =one
mi((ion !o!onut .armers,> t+e so-!a((ed -o!onut 1ndustry 1nvestment 'und !om)anies
#-11' !om)anies$ and Eduardo -o:uan9!o Jr. 1n !onne!tion *it+ t+e seDuestration o.
t+e said E-2 s+ares, t+e 2-GG, on 31 Ju(y 198&, instituted an a!tion .or
re!onveyan!e, reversion, a!!ountin9, restitution and dama9es #-ase ;;33$ in t+e
Sandi9anbayan. @n 15 3ovember 199;, u)on Motion o. -@-@'EB, t+e
Sandi9anbayan issued a Reso(ution (i.tin9 t+e seDuestration o. t+e sub:e!t E-2
s+ares on t+e 9round t+at -@-@'EB and t+e so-!a((ed -11' !om)anies +ad not been
im)(eaded by t+e 2-GG as )arties-de.endants in its 31 Ju(y 198& -om)(aint .or
re!onveyan!e, reversion, a!!ountin9, restitution and dama9es. "+e Sandi9anbayan
ru(ed t+at t+e 7rit o. SeDuestration issued by t+e -ommission *as automati!a((y (i.ted
.or 2-GG8s .ai(ure to !ommen!e t+e !orres)ondin9 :udi!ia( a!tion *it+in t+e si/-mont+
)eriod endin9 on 2 6u9ust 198& )rovided under Se!tion 2A, 6rti!(e FG111 o. t+e 198&
-onstitution. "+e anti-9ra.t !ourt noted t+at t+ou9+ t+ese entities *ere (isted in an
anne/ a))ended to t+e -om)(aint, t+ey +ad not been named as )arties-res)ondents.
"+e Sandi9anbayan Reso(ution *as !+a((en9ed by t+e 2-GG in a 2etition .or -ertiorari
#GR 9A;&3$ in t+e Su)reme -ourt. Mean*+i(e, u)on motion o. -o:uan9!o, t+e anti-9ra.t
!ourt ordered t+e +o(din9 o. e(e!tions .or t+e oard o. Bire!tors o. E-2. <o*ever, t+e
2-GG a))(ied .or and *as 9ranted by t+is -ourt a Restrainin9 @rder en:oinin9 t+e
+o(din9 o. t+e e(e!tion. SubseDuent(y, t+e -ourt (i.ted t+e Restrainin9 @rder and ordered
t+e E-2 to )ro!eed *it+ t+e e(e!tion o. its board o. dire!tors. 'urt+ermore, it a((o*ed
t+e seDuestered s+ares to be voted by t+eir re9istered o*ners. "+e vi!tory o. t+e
re9istered s+are+o(ders *as .(eetin9 be!ause t+e -ourt, a!tin9 on t+e so(i!itor 9enera(8s
Motion .or -(ari.i!ationHMani.estation, issued a Reso(ution on 1A 'ebruary 1993,
de!(arin9 t+at =t+e ri9+t o. -@-@'EB, et. a(. to vote sto!, in t+eir names at t+e
meetin9s o. t+e E-2 !annot be !on!eded at t+is time. "+at ri9+t sti(( +as to be
estab(is+ed by t+em be.ore t+e Sandi9anbayan. Enti( t+at is done, t+ey !annot be
deemed (e9itimate o*ners o. E-2 sto!, and !annot be a!!orded t+e ri9+t to vote
t+em.> @n 23 January 1995, t+e -ourt rendered its .ina( Be!ision in GR 9A;&3, nu((i.yin9
and settin9 aside t+e 15 3ovember 199; Reso(ution o. t+e Sandi9anbayan *+i!+ (i.ted
t+e seDuestration o. t+e sub:e!t E-2 s+ares.
6 mont+ t+erea.ter, t+e 2-GG I )ursuant to an @rder o. t+e Sandi9anbayan I
subdivided -ase ;;33 into ei9+t -om)(aints #-ases ;;33-6 to ;;33-<$. Si/ years (ater,
on 13 'ebruary 2;;1, t+e oard o. Bire!tors o. E-2 re!eived .rom t+e 6--R6 La*
@..i!e a (etter *ritten on be+a(. o. t+e -@-@'EB and t+e a((e9ed name(ess one mi((ion
!o!onut .armers, demandin9 t+e +o(din9 o. a sto!,+o(ders8 meetin9 .or t+e )ur)ose o.,
amon9 ot+ers, e(e!tin9 t+e board o. dire!tors. 1n res)onse, t+e board a))roved a
Reso(ution !a((in9 .or a sto!,+o(ders8 meetin9 on A Mar!+ 2;;1 at 3 ).m. @n 23
'ebruary 2;;1, =-@-@'EB, et a(. and a((ares, et a(.> .i(ed t+e =-(ass 6!tion @mnibus
Motion> in Sandi9anbayan -ivi( -ases ;;33-6, ;;33- and ;;33-', as,in9 t+e
Sandi9anbayan to en:oin t+e 2-GG .rom votin9 t+e E-2 s+ares o. sto!, re9istered in
t+e res)e!tive names o. t+e more t+an one mi((ion !o!onut .armersJ and to en:oin t+e
2-GG .rom votin9 t+e SM- s+ares re9istered in t+e names o. t+e 10 -11' +o(din9
!om)anies in!(udin9 t+ose re9istered in t+e name o. t+e 2-GG. @n 28 'ebruary 2;;1,
t+e Sandi9anbayan, a.ter +earin9 t+e )arties on ora( ar9ument, issued t+e @rder,
aut+oriCin9 -@-@'EB, et. a(. and a((ares, et. a(. as *e(( as -o:uan9!o, as are a(( ot+er
re9istered sto!,+o(ders o. t+e Enited -o!onut 2(anters an,, unti( .urt+er orders .rom
t+e -ourt, to e/er!ise t+eir ri9+ts to vote t+eir s+ares o. sto!, and t+emse(ves to be
voted u)on in t+e Enited -o!onut 2(anters an, #E-2$ at t+e s!+edu(ed Sto!,+o(ders8
Meetin9 on A Mar!+ 2;;1 or on any subseDuent !ontinuation or resettin9 t+ereo., and to
)er.orm su!+ a!ts as *i(( norma((y .o((o* in t+e e/er!ise o. t+ese ri9+ts as re9istered
sto!,+o(ders. "+e Re)ub(i! o. t+e 2+i(i))ines re)resented by t+e 2-GG .i(ed t+e
)etition .or !ertiorari.
&ssue% 7+et+er t+e 2-GG !an vote t+e seDuestered E-2 s+ares.
'eld% "+e re9istered o*ner o. t+e s+ares o. a !or)oration e/er!ises t+e ri9+t and t+e
)rivi(e9e o. votin9. "+is )rin!i)(e a))(ies even to s+ares t+at are seDuestered by t+e
9overnment, over *+i!+ t+e 2-GG as a mere !onservator !annot, as a 9enera( ru(e,
e/er!ise a!ts o. dominion. @n t+e ot+er +and, it is aut+oriCed to vote t+ese seDuestered
s+ares re9istered in t+e names o. )rivate )ersons and a!Duired *it+ a((e9ed(y i((-9otten
*ea(t+, i. it is ab(e to satis.y t+e t*o-tiered test devised by t+e -ourt in -o:uan9!o v.
-a()o and 2-GG v. -o:uan9!o Jr. "*o !(ear =)ub(i! !+ara!ter> e/!e)tions under *+i!+
t+e 9overnment is 9ranted t+e aut+ority to vote t+e s+ares e/ist #1$ 7+ere 9overnment
s+ares are ta,en over by )rivate )ersons or entities *+oH*+i!+ re9istered t+em in t+eir
o*n names, and #2$ 7+ere t+e !a)ita(iCation or s+ares t+at *ere a!Duired *it+ )ub(i!
.unds some+o* (anded in )rivate +ands. "+e e/!e)tions are based on t+e !ommon-
sense )rin!i)(e t+at (e9a( .i!tion must yie(d to trut+J t+at )ub(i! )ro)erty re9istered in t+e
names o. non-o*ners is a..e!ted *it+ trust re(ationsJ and t+at t+e )rima .a!ie bene.i!ia(
o*ner s+ou(d be 9iven t+e )rivi(e9e o. en:oyin9 t+e ri9+ts .(o*in9 .rom t+e )rima .a!ie
.a!t o. o*ners+i). 1n s+ort, *+en seDuestered s+ares re9istered in t+e names o. )rivate
individua(s or entities are a((e9ed to +ave been a!Duired *it+ i((-9otten *ea(t+, t+en t+e
t*o-tiered test is a))(ied. <o*ever, *+en t+e seDuestered s+ares in t+e name o. )rivate
individua(s or entities are s+o*n, )rima .a!ie, to +ave been #1$ ori9ina((y 9overnment
s+ares, or #2$ )ur!+ased *it+ )ub(i! .unds or t+ose a..e!ted *it+ )ub(i! interest, t+en t+e
t*o-tiered test does not a))(y. Rat+er, t+e )ub(i! !+ara!ter e/!e)tions in ase!o v.
2-GG and -o:uan9!o Jr. v. Ro/as )revai(J t+at is, t+e 9overnment s+a(( vote t+e
s+ares. <erein, t+e money used to )ur!+ase t+e seDuestered E-2 s+ares !ame .rom
t+e -o!onut -onsumer Stabi(iCation 'und #--S'$, ot+er*ise ,no*n as t+e !o!onut
(evy .unds. "+e seDuestered E-2 s+ares are !on.irmed to +ave been a!Duired *it+
!o!o (evies, not *it+ a((e9ed i((-9otten *ea(t+. 6s t+e !o!onut (evy .unds are not on(y
a..e!ted *it+ )ub(i! interest, but are in .a!t )rima .a!ie )ub(i! .unds, t+e -ourt be(ieves
t+at t+e 9overnment s+ou(d be a((o*ed to vote t+e Duestioned s+ares, be!ause t+ey
be(on9 to it as t+e )rima .a!ie bene.i!ia( and true o*ner. "+e Sandi9anbayan !ommitted
9rave abuse o. dis!retion in 9ross(y !ontradi!tin9 and e..e!tive(y reversin9 e/istin9
:uris)ruden!e, and in de)rivin9 t+e 9overnment o. its ri9+t to vote t+e seDuestered
E-2 s+ares *+i!+ are )rima .a!ie )ub(i! in !+ara!ter.
????????????--
(. C)C)#*D vs. Republic, GR 3os. 1&&85&-58, January 20, 2;12
#+C,-%
1n 19&1, Re)ub(i! 6!t 3o. A2A; *as ena!ted !reatin9 t+e -o!onut 1nvestment
'und #-1'$. "+e sour!e o. t+e -1' *as a 2;.55 (evy on t+e sa(e o. every 1;; ,9. o.
!o)ra. "+e 2+i(i))ine -o!onut 6dministration *as tas,ed to !o((e!t and administer t+e
'und. @ut o. t+e ;.55 (evy, 2;.;2 *as )(a!ed at t+e dis)osition o. t+e -@-@'EB, t+e
re!o9niCed nationa( asso!iation o. !o!onut )rodu!ers de!(ared by t+e 2-6. -o!o.und
re!ei)ts *ere ou9+t to be issued to every !o)ra se((er.
Burin9 t+e Martia( La* re9ime, t+en 2resident 'erdinand Mar!os issued severa(
2residentia( Be!rees )ur)orted(y .or t+e im)rovement o. t+e !o!onut industry. "+e most
re(evant amon9 t+ese is 2.B. 3o. &55 *+i!+ )ermitted t+e use o. t+e 'und .or t+e
=a!Duisition o. a !ommer!ia( ban, .or t+e bene.it o. !o!onut .armers and t+e
dist!ibution of the sh$!es of the stoc. o. t+e ban, it 42-65 a!Duired .ree to t+e
!o!onut .armers> #Se!.2$.
"+us, t+e 2-6 a!Duired t+e 'irst Enited an,, (ater renamed t+e Enited -o!onut
2(anters an, #E-2$. "+e 2-6 bou9+t t+e &2.2K o. 2E8s outstandin9 !a)ita( sto!,
or 13&,8AA s+ares at 22;; )er s+are #22&, 5&3,2;;.;;$ .rom 2edro -o:uan9!o in
behalf of the coconut farmers. "+e rest o. t+e 'und *as de)osited to t+e E-2 interest
.ree.
'armers *+o +ad )aid t+e -1' and re9istered t+eir re!ei)ts *it+ 2-6 *ere 9iven
t+eir !orres)ondin9 E-2 sto!, !erti.i!ates. @n(y 1A mi((ion *ort+ o. -@-@'E3B
re!ei)ts *ere re9istered and a (ar9e number o. t+e !o!onut .armers o)ted to se(( a((H)art
o. t+eir E-2 s+ares to )rivate individua(s.
Sim)(y )ut, )arts o. t+e !o!onut (evy .unds *ent dire!t(y or indire!t(y to various
)ro:e!ts andHor *as !onverted into di..erent assets or investments t+rou9+ t+e years.
6.ter t+e EBS6 Revo(ution, 2resident -oraCon 6Duino issued E/e!utive @rder 1
*+i!+ !reated t+e 2residentia( -ommission on Good Government #2-GG$.
"+e 2-GG aimed to assist t+e 2resident in t+e re!overy o. i((-9otten *ea(t+
a!!umu(ated by t+e Mar!oses and t+eir !ronies. 2-GG *as em)o*ered to .i(e !ases
.or seDuestration in t+e Sandi9anbayan.
6mon9 t+e seDuestered )ro)erties *ere t+e s+ares o. sto!, in t+e E-2
re9istered in t+e name o. =over a mi((ion !o!onut .armers> +e(d in trust by t+e 2-6. "+e
Sandi9anbayan a((o*ed t+e seDuestration by ru(in9 in a 2artia( Summary Jud9ment t+at
t+e -o!onut Levy 'unds are prima facie )ub(i! .unds and t+at Se!tion 1 and 2 o. 2B
3o. &55 #and some ot+er 2Bs$ *ere un!onstitutiona(.
"+e -@-@'EB re)resentin9 t+e =over a mi((ion !o!onut .armers> via 2etition .or
revie* under Ru(e 05 sou9+t t+e reversa( o. t+e ru(in9 !ontendin9 amon9 ot+ers t+at t+e
seDuestration amounted to =ta,in9 o. )rivate )ro)erty *it+out :ust !om)ensation and
im)airment o. vested ri9+t o. o*ners+i).>
&--/*% 7+at is t+e 36"ERE o. t+e -o!onut Levy 'undL
R/0&1G%
"+e S- ru(ed in .avor o. t+e R*P/20&C.
"o be9in *it+, t+e -o!onut Levy *as im)osed in t+e e/er!ise o. t+e State8s
in+erent )o*er o. ta/ation. 1ndeed, t+e -o!onut Levy 'unds )arta,e t+e nature o.
"6FES. "+e 'unds *ere 9enerated by virtue o. statutory ena!tments by t+e )ro)er
(e9is(ative aut+orities and .or )ub(i! )ur)ose.
"+e 'unds *ere !o((e!ted to $dv$nce the 3ove!nent $vo4ed polic5 of
p!otectin3 the coconut indust!5. "+e S- too, :udi!ia( noti!e o. t+e .a!t t+at t+e
!o!onut industry is one o. t+e 9reat e!onomi! )i((ars o. our nation, and !o!onuts and
t+eir by)rodu!ts o!!u)y a (eadin9 )osition amon9 t+e !ountries8 e/)ort )rodu!ts.
"a/ation is done not mere(y to raise revenues to su))ort t+e 9overnment, but a(so to
)rovide means .or t+e !eh$bilit$tion $nd the st$bili6$tion of $ th!e$tened indust!5,
*+i!+ is so a..e!ted *it+ public inte!est.
?????????????????-
;2"9N4vs.;-B;2
A- &o. 99), "arch '1, 199'
B 1o avoid the taint of unla$ful dele%ation of the po$er to tax, there must be a standard $hich
implies that the le%islature determines matter of principle and lays do$n fundamental policy.B
:4!126 2enator John ;smeOa assails the constitutionality of para%raph 1c of #K 195), as
amended by 9; 1'+, empo$erin% the 9ner%y -e%ulatory Board =9-B> to approve the increase
of fuel prices or impose additional amounts on petroleum products $hich proceeds shall accrue
to the ;il #rice 2tabili/ation :und =;#2:> established for the reimbursement to ailin% oil
companies in the event of sudden price increases. 1he petitioner avers that the collection on oil
products establishments is an undue and invalid dele%ation of le%islative po$er to tax. :urther,
the petitioner points out that since a <special fund< consists of monies collected throu%h the taxin%
po$er of a 2tate, such amounts belon% to the 2tate, althou%h the use thereof is limited to the
special purposePobjective for $hich it $as created. 5t thus appears that the challen%e posed by the
petitioner is premised primarily on the vie$ that the po$ers %ranted to the 9-B under #.K. 195),
as amended, parta,e of the nature of the taxation po$er of the 2tate.
522M96 5s there an undue dele%ation of the le%islative po$er of taxation?
890K6 &one. 5t seems clear that $hile the funds collected may be referred to as taxes, they are
exacted in the exercise of the police po$er of the 2tate. "oreover, that the ;#2: as a special
fund is plain from the special treatment %iven it by 9.;. 1'+. 5t is se%re%ated from the %eneral
fund@ and $hile it is placed in $hat the la$ refers to as a Btrust liability account,B the fund
nonetheless remains subject to the scrutiny and revie$ of the !;4. 1he !ourt is satisfied that
these measures comply $ith the constitutional description of a Bspecial fund.B 7ith re%ard to
the alle%ed undue dele%ation of le%islative po$er, the !ourt finds that the provision conferrin%
the authority upon the 9-B to impose additional amounts on petroleum products provides a
sufficient standard by $hich the authority must be exercised. 5n addition to the %eneral policy of
the la$ to protect the local consumer by stabili/in% and subsidi/in% domestic pump rates, #.K.
195) expressly authori/es the 9-B to impose additional amounts to au%ment the resources of the
:und.
??????????-
;smena v ;rbos
B 1o avoid the taint of unla$ful dele%ation of the po$er to tax, there must be a standard $hich
implies that the le%islature determines matter of principle and lays do$n fundamental policy.B
:4!126 2enator John ;smeOa assails the constitutionality of para%raph 1c of #K 195), as
amended by 9; 1'+, empo$erin% the 9ner%y -e%ulatory Board =9-B> to approve the increase
of fuel prices or impose additional amounts on petroleum products $hich proceeds shall accrue
to the ;il #rice 2tabili/ation :und =;#2:> established for the reimbursement to ailin% oil
companies in the event of sudden price increases. 1he petitioner avers that the collection on oil
products establishments is an undue and invalid dele%ation of le%islative po$er to tax. :urther,
the petitioner points out that since a <special fund< consists of monies collected throu%h the taxin%
po$er of a 2tate, such amounts belon% to the 2tate, althou%h the use thereof is limited to the
special purposePobjective for $hich it $as created. 5t thus appears that the challen%e posed by the
petitioner is premised primarily on the vie$ that the po$ers %ranted to the 9-B under #.K. 195),
as amended, parta,e of the nature of the taxation po$er of the 2tate.
522M96 5s there an undue dele%ation of the le%islative po$er of taxation?
890K6 &one. 5t seems clear that $hile the funds collected may be referred to as taxes, they are
exacted in the exercise of the police po$er of the 2tate. "oreover, that the ;#2: as a special
fund is plain from the special treatment %iven it by 9.;. 1'+. 5t is se%re%ated from the %eneral
fund@ and $hile it is placed in $hat the la$ refers to as a Btrust liability account,B the fund
nonetheless remains subject to the scrutiny and revie$ of the !;4. 1he !ourt is satisfied that
these measures comply $ith the constitutional description of a Bspecial fund.B 7ith re%ard to
the alle%ed undue dele%ation of le%islative po$er, the !ourt finds that the provision conferrin%
the authority upon the 9-B to impose additional amounts on petroleum products provides a
sufficient standard by $hich the authority must be exercised. 5n addition to the %eneral policy of
the la$ to protect the local consumer by stabili/in% and subsidi/in% domestic pump rates, #.K.
195) expressly authori/es the 9-B to impose additional amounts to au%ment the resources of the
:und.
??????????-
0M1Q v. 4-4&914
A- &o. 0-+59, Kecember 33, 1955
9 #850 1*
:4!126 #laintiff 7alter 0ut/, in his capacity as judicial administrator of the intestate estate of
4ntionio 0edesma,sou%ht to recover from the !5- the sum of #1*,))).*( paid by the estate as
taxes, under section ' of the !45)+ or the 2u%ar 4djustment 4ct thereby assailin% its
constitutionality, for it provided for an increase of theexistin% tax on the manufacture of su%ar,
alle%in% that such enactment is not bein% levied for a public purpose but solely and exclusively
for the aid and support of the su%ar industry thus ma,in% it void and unconstitutional.1he su%ar
industry situation at the time of the enactment $as in an imminent threat of loss and needed to
bestabili/ed by imposition of emer%ency measures.
522M96 5s !4 5)+ constitutional, despite its bein% alle%edly violative of the equal protection
clause, the purpose of$hich is not for the benefit of the %eneral public but for the rehabilitation
only of the su%ar industry?
890K6 Res. 1he protection and promotion of the su%ar industry is a matter of public concern, it
follo$s that the0e%islature may determine $ithin reasonable bounds $hat is necessary for its
protection and expedient for itspromotion. 8ere, the le%islative discretion must be allo$ed to
fully play, subject only to the test ofreasonableness@ and it is not contended that the means
provided in the la$ bear no relation to the objectivepursued or are oppressive in character. 5f
objective and methods are ali,e constitutionally valid, no reason is seen$hy the state may not
levy taxes to raise funds for their prosecution and attainment. 1axation may be made
theimplement of the state<s police po$er.
DDDD--
S1$"2 3$ A2%4e!a
GR No. L-59431, 25 July 1984
Facts: Section 1 of BP Blg 135 amended the Tax Code and petitioner Antero
M. Sison, as taxpayer, alleges that he !o"ld #e "nd"ly discriminated
against #y the imposition of higher rates of tax "pon his income arising from
the exercise of his profession $is%a%$is those !hich are imposed "pon fixed
income or salaried indi$id"al taxpayers. &e characteri'es said pro$ision as
ar#itrary amo"nting to class legislation, oppressi$e and capricio"s in
character. (t therefore $iolates #oth the e)"al protection and d"e process
cla"ses of the Constit"tion as !ell asof the r"le re)"iring "niformity in
taxation.
Issue: *hether or not the assailed pro$ision $iolates the e)"al protection
and d"e process cla"ses of the Constit"tion !hile also $iolating the r"le that
taxes m"st #e "niform and e)"ita#le.
Held: The petition is !itho"t merit.
+n d"e process % it is "ndo"#ted that it may #e in$o,ed !here a taxing
stat"te is so ar#itrary that it finds no s"pport in the Constit"tion. An o#$io"s
example is !here it can #e sho!n to amo"nt to the confiscation of property
from a#"se of po!er. Petitioner alleges ar#itrariness #"t his mere allegation
does not s"ffice and there m"st #e a fact"al fo"ndation of s"ch
"nconsit"tional taint.
+n e)"al protection % it s"ffices that the la!s operate e)"ally and "niformly
on all persons "nder similar circ"mstances, #oth in the pri$ileges conferred
and the lia#ilities imposed.
+n the matter that the r"le of taxation shall #e "niform and e)"ita#le % this
re)"irement is met !hen the tax operates !ith the same force and effect in
e$ery place !here the s"#-ect may #e fo"nd. Also, .the r"le of "niformity
does not call for perfect "niformity or perfect e)"ality, #eca"se this is hardly
"nattaina#le. *hen the pro#lem of classification #ecame of iss"e, the Co"rt
said. /)"ality and "niformity in taxation means that all taxa#le articles or
,inds of property of the same class shall #e taxed the same rate. The taxing
po!er has the a"thority to ma,e reasona#le and nat"ral classifications for
p"rposes of taxation... As pro$ided #y this Co"rt, !here the differentation
complained of conforms to the practical dictates of -"stice and e)"ity it is
not discriminatory !ithin the meaning of this cla"se and is therefore
"niform.