This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Ermita Facts: They argue that the VAT is a tax levied on the sale, barter or exchange of goods and properties as well as on the sale or exchange of services, which cannot be included within the purview of tariffs under the exempted delegation as the latter refers to customs duties, tolls or tribute payable upon merchandise to the government and usually imposed on goods or merchandise imported or exported. Petitioners ABAKADA GURO Party List, et al., further contend that delegating to the President the legislative power to tax is contrary to republicanism. They insist that accountability, responsibility and transparency should dictate the actions of Congress and they should not pass to the President the decision to impose taxes. They also argue that the law also effectively nullified the President¶s power of control, which includes the authority to set aside and nullify the acts of her subordinates like the Secretary of Finance, by mandating the fixing of the tax rate by the President upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Finance. Facts: 1. RA 9337: VAT Reform Act enacted on May 24, 2005. 2. Sec. 4 (sales of goods and properties), Sec. 5 (importation of goods) and Sec. 6 (services and lease of property) of RA 9337, in collective, granted the Secretary of Finance the authority to ascertain: a. whether by 12/31/05, the VAT collection as a percentage of the 2004 GDP exceeds 2.8% or b. the nat¶l gov¶t deficit as a percentage of the 2004 GDP exceeds 1.5% 3. If either condition is met, the Sec of Finance must inform the President who, in turn, must impose the 12% VAT rate (from 10%) effective January 1, 2006. 4. ABAKADA maintained that Congress abandoned its exclusive authority to fix taxes and that RA 9337 contained a uniform proviso authorizing the President upon recommendation by the DOF Secretary to raise VAT to 12%. 5. Sen Pimentel maintained that RA 9337 constituted undue delegation of legislative powers and a violation of due process since the law was ambiguous and arbitrary. Same with Rep. Escudero. 6. Pilipinas Shell dealers argued that the VAT reform was arbitrary, oppressive and confiscatory. 7. Respondents countered that the law was complete, that it left no discretion to the President, and that it merely charged the President with carrying out the rate increase once any of the 2 conditions arise. Issue: WON there was undue delegation ± No. Ratio: 1. Constitution allows as under exempted delegation the delegation of tariffs, customs duties, and other tolls, levies on goods imported and exported. VAT is tax levied on sales of goods and services which could not fall under this exemption. Hence, its delegation if unqualified is unconstitutional. 2. Legislative power is authority to make a complete law. Thus, to be valid, a law must be complete in itself, setting forth therein the policy and it must fix a standard, limits of which are sufficiently determinate and determinable. 3. No undue delegation when congress describes what job must be done who must do it and the scope of the authority given. (Edu v Ericta) 4. Sec of Finance was merely tasked to ascertain the existence of facts. All else was laid out. 5. Mainly ministerial for the sec to ascertain the facts and for the president to carry out the implementation for the vat. They were agents of the legislative dept. 6. No delegation but mere implementation of the law.