LAW OF BASIC TAXATION IN THE PHILIPPINES of the Senate for validity and effectivity (Sec. 21, Art. VII, 1987 Constitution). Despite the aforesaid constitutional requirement, our Supreme Court has ruled that less formal types of international agreements may be entered into by the Chief Executive and become binding without the concurrence of the legislative body (Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. John Gotamco & Sons., Inc., et al., L-31092, Feb. 27, 1987). That being the case, the Host Agreement of July 22, 1951 between the Philippines and the World Health Organization (WHO) under which the WHO is exempt from indirect taxes relative to the construction of its regional headquarters building in the Philippines comes within the latter category. The Court held that said agreement is a valid and binding agreement even without the concurrence of the Senate (Ibid., citing USAFFE Veterans Association Inc. v. Treasurer of the Philippines, 105 Phil. 1030). CASES: REPUBLIC v. OASAN VDA. DE FERNANDEZ, ET AL., 99 PHIL. 934 FACTS: Olimpio Fernandez and his wife, Angelina Oasan, had a net worth of 8,600 on Dec. 8, 1941. During the Japanese ‘occupation, the spouses acquired several real properties and at the time of his death of Feb. 11, 1945, he had a net worth of 31,489. The Collector of Internal Revenue assessed a war profits tax on the estate of the deceased at P7,614.60 which his administratrix refused to pay. The case was brought to the Court of Tax Appeals, which sustained the validity and legality of the assessments. The administratrix of the estate appealed the decision to the Supreme Court. ‘The issues raised dwelt on the following: (1) the question on the constitutionality of the war profits tax with particular reference to its retroactive nature; (2) the applicability of said tax to the case of Olimpio Fernandez as the same is imposed on individuals; and, (3) the separate taxation of the estate of the deceased Olimpio Fernandez apart from that of his wife’s because Olimpio Fernandez died before the law levying said tax was passed. HELD: The issue of unconstitutionality of the War Profits Tax Law raised by the appellant is based on the prohibition against the passage of ex post facto laws. This prohibition, however, applies only to criminal or penal matters, and not to laws which concern civil matters or proceedings generally, or which affect or regulate 164 ‘TAX LAWS AND REGULATIONS civil or private rights (Ex Parte Garland, 18 Law Ed. 36; 16 C.J.S. 889-891). ‘The contention that the deceased Olimpio Fernandez or his estate should not be responsible because he died in 1945 and was no longer living when the law was enacted at a later date in 1946 is absolutely without merit. Fernandez died immediately before the Liberation and the actual cessation of hostilities. He profited by the war; there is no reason why the incident of his death should relieve his estate from the tax. ‘The properties of Olimpio Fernandez in December 1941 and those ‘acquired during the war are presumed conjugal. Hence, there is no ground to tax them as belonging to two individuals (husband and wife) as so to be taxed independently of each other. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. BURROUGHS, LTD., ET AL., G.R. NO. 66653, JUNE 19, 1986 FACTS: Burroughs Ltd. is a foreign corporation authorized to ‘engage in trade or business in the Philippines. In 1979, it applied with the Central Bank for an authority to remit profits to its parent company abroad. Pursuant to Sec. 24(b)(2)(iii) (now, See. 28(AJ[5] of the 1997 Tax Code), it remitted the amount of P6,499,999.30 computed, as follows: Amount applied for remittance 7,647,058.00 Deduct: Branch profit remittance tax of 19% 1,147,058.70 Net amount actually remitted. sennnnns 26,489,989.90 Consequently, the company filed a claim for refund of 172,058.81, as overpaid branch profit remittance tax, claiming that the 15% tax should be based not on P7,647,058,00, the amount applied for remittance, but on P6,499,999.30, or the amount actually remitted, computed as follows: Branch profit remittance tax paid at 15% of P7,647, 058,00 .. P1,147,058.70 Less: Branch profit remittance tex as computed (15% of P6,499,999.30) - 974,999.89 ‘Total Amount Refundable P 172,058.81 ‘The issue raised in the case is: Should the 15% branch profit remittance tax in question be computed on the amount of profit 155