You are on page 1of 1


ABAKADA Guro Party List vs. Ermita

G.R. No. 168056 September 1, 2005

Before R.A. No. 9337 took effect, petitioners ABAKADA GURO Party List, et al., filed a petition
for prohibition on May 27, 2005 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 questioned provisions contain a uniformp ro v is o 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. Petitioners argue that the law is

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 under Article III
Sec. 1 of the Constitution.

1. Since there is no question that 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. 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.

3. 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