ABAKADA GURO PARTYLIST VS.

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
G.R. No. 168056
July 5, 2005
Facts:
Motions for Reconsideration filed by petitioners, ABAKADA Guro party List Officer
and et al., insist that the bicameral conference committee should not even have
acted on the no pass-on provisions since there is no disagreement between House
Bill Nos. 3705 and 3555 on the one hand, and Senate Bill No. 1950 on the other,
with regard to the no pass-on provision for the sale of service for power generation
because both the Senate and the House were in agreement that the VAT burden for
the sale of such service shall not be passed on to the end-consumer. As to the no
pass-on provision for sale of petroleum products, petitioners argue that the fact that
the presence of such a no pass-on provision in the House version and the absence
thereof in the Senate Bill means there is no conflict because a House provision
cannot be in conflict with something that does not exist.
Escudero, et. al., also contend that Republic Act No. 9337 grossly violates the
constitutional imperative on exclusive origination of revenue bills under Section 24
of Article VI of the Constitution when the Senate introduced amendments not
connected with VAT.
Petitioners Escudero, et al., also reiterate that R.A. No. 9337s stand- by authority to
the Executive to increase the VAT rate, especially on account of the
recommendatory power granted to the Secretary of Finance, constitutes undue
delegation of legislative power. They submit that the recommendatory power given
to the Secretary of Finance in regard to the occurrence of either of two events using
the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) as a benchmark necessarily and inherently
required extended analysis and evaluation, as well as policy making.
Petitioners also reiterate their argument that the input tax is a property or a
property right. Petitioners also contend that even if the right to credit the input VAT
is merely a statutory privilege, it has already evolved into a vested right that the
State cannot remove.
Issue:
Whether or not the R.A. No. 9337 or the Vat Reform Act is constitutional?
Held:
The Court is not persuaded. Article VI, Section 24 of the Constitution provides that
All appropriation, revenue or tariff bills, bills authorizing increase of the public debt,
bills of local application, and private bills shall originate exclusively in the House of
Representatives, but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments.
The Court reiterates that in making his recommendation to the President on the
existence of either of the two conditions, the Secretary of Finance is not acting as

the alter ego of the President or even her subordinate. He is acting as the agent of
the legislative department, to determine and declare the event upon which its
expressed will is to take effect. The Secretary of Finance becomes the means or tool
by which legislative policy is determined and implemented, considering that he
possesses all the facilities to gather data and information and has a much broader
perspective to properly evaluate them. His function is to gather and collate
statistical data and other pertinent information and verify if any of the two
conditions laid out by Congress is present.
In the same breath, the Court reiterates its finding that it is not a property or a
property right, and a VAT-registered persons entitlement to the creditable input tax
is a mere statutory privilege. As the Court stated in its Decision, the right to credit
the input tax is a mere creation of law. More importantly, the assailed provisions of
R.A. No. 9337 already involve legislative policy and wisdom. So long as there is a
public end for which R.A. No. 9337 was passed, the means through which such end
shall be accomplished is for the legislature to choose so long as it is within
constitutional bounds.
The Motions for Reconsideration are hereby DENIED WITH FINALITY. The temporary
restraining order issued by the Court is LIFTED.