G.R. No. 168056 September 1, 2005
ABAKADA Guro Party List vs. Ermita
Facts:
ABAKADA GURO Party List, et al., filed a petition for prohibition o questioning the constitutionality of Sections 4, 5 and
6 of R.A. No. 9337, amending Sections 106, 107 and 108, respectively, of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC).
Section 4 imposes a 10% VAT on sale of goods and properties;
Section 5 imposes a 10% VAT on importation of goods; and
Section 6 imposes a 10% VAT on sale of services and use or lease of properties;
These provisions contain a provision which authorizing the President, upon recommendation of the Secretary of
Finance, to raise the VAT rate to 12%, effective January 1, 2006, after specified conditions have been satisfied.
Issues:
1)
Whether or not there is a violation of Article VI, Section 24 of the Constitution.
2)
Whether or not there is undue delegation of legislative power in violation of Article VI Sec 28(2) of the
Constitution.
3)
Whether or not there is a violation of the due process and equal protection of the Constitution.
Ruling:
1)
No, the revenue bill exclusively originated in the House of Representatives, the Senate was acting within its
constitutional power to introduce amendments to the House bill when it included provisions in Senate Bill
No. 1950 amending corporate income taxes, percentage, and excise and franchise taxes.
2)
No, there is no undue delegation of legislative power but only of the discretion as to the execution of a law.
This is constitutionally permissible. Congress does not abdicate its functions or unduly delegate power when
it describes what job must be done, who must do it, and what is the scope of his authority; in our complex
economy that is frequently the only way in which the legislative process can go forward. In this case, it is not
a delegation of legislative power but a delegation of ascertainment of facts upon which enforcement and
administration of the increased rate under the law is contingent.
3)
No, the power of the State to make reasonable and natural classifications for the purposes of taxation has
long been established. Whether it relates to the subject of taxation, the kind of property, the rates to be
levied, or the amounts to be raised, the methods of assessment, valuation and collection, the State’s power
is entitled to presumption of validity. As a rule, the judiciary will not interfere with such power absent a clear
showing of unreasonableness, discrimination, or arbitrariness.