TITLE: Nitafan v CIR, GR no.

78780, July 23, 1987

David G. Nitafan, Wenceslao M. Polo, and Maximo A. Savellano, Jr. (petitioner) v Commissioner of
Internal Revenue and The Financial Officer, Supreme Court of the Philippines (respondent)
Ponente: Justice Melencio-Herrera
Petition: Petitioners seek to prohibit and/or perpetually enjoin respondents from making any deduction of
withholding taxes from their salaries.
Topics: Interpretation of the Constitution- Generally
Doctrines and Provisions:
Section 10 Article VIII of the1987 Constitution of the Philippines
Doctrine: The constitutions shall be interpreted as to what the framers would have.
Facts:
Perfecto v Meer and Endencia v David, both favoring the exemption of Justices and Judges from
the income tax.
!987 Constitution of the Philippines, made and ratified.
Manila RTC direct its Finance Officer to discontinue the withholding of taxes from salaries of
members of the Bench.
The Court has deemed it best to settle the legal issue raised through this judicial pronouncement;
thus this petition:
Issues and Holdings:
1. Whether or not the members of the judiciary are exempt from the payment of income tax.

The members of the judiciary are not exempted from the payment of income
tax. The clear intent of the framers of the Constitution, based on their deliberations, was
not to exempt justices and judges from general taxation. Members of the judiciary, just
like members of the other branches of the government, are subject to income
taxation. What is provided for by the constitution is that salaries of judges may not be
decreased during their continuance in office.

2. Whether or not the salary can be decreased.

The salary cannot be decreased. They have a fix salary which may not be
subject to the whims and caprices of congress. But the salaries of the judges shall be
subject to the general income tax as well as other members of the judiciary. If a decrease
is passed, it shall be effective only after the term of the incumbent members of the
judiciary.

Although, the Congress may pass a law increasing the salary of the members of
the judiciary and such increase will immediately take effect thus the incumbent members
of the judiciary shall benefit immediately.

Ruling: The instant petition for Prohibition is hereby dismissed.

Note:

This case abandoned the ruling in Perfecto vs Meer and in Endencia vs David, following the
intent of the framers of the 1987 Constitution.