E.

JURIDICAL CONSTRUCTION
ENDENCIA VS DAVID
FACTS:

Congress enacted Republic Act No. 590, which contained a provision that removed
all income tax exemptions of public officers, including that of judges.

Justices Endencia and Jugo of the Court of Appeals filed a case to declare it
unconstitutional before the CFI of Manila. The CFI of Manila ruled in their favor and
declared the said provision unconstitutional. It also ordered the Collector of Internal
Revenue, Saturno David, to refund the income tax collected from the magistrates.

Citing Perfecto v. Meer, the trial court declared that the collection of income taxes
was a diminution of magistrates’ compensation. This allegedly violated Sec. 9, Article VIII
of the 1935 Constitution, which states that “members of the Supreme Court and all judges
of inferior courts shall receive compensation will not be diminished during their
continuance in the office.”

The Solicitor General argued that the Republic Act was promulgated precisely
because of the unfavorable reception of the ruling in Perfecto v. Meer.

ISSUE:
W/N Section 13 of RA 590 is constitutional
HELD:
NO.
The Legislature cannot lawfully declare the collection of income tax on the salary
of a public official, specially a judicial officer, not a decrease of his salary, after the
Supreme Court has found and decided otherwise. “Defining and interpreting the law is a
judicial function and the legislative branch may not limit or restrict the power granted to
the courts by the Constitution.
Congress’ enactment of the RA 590 clearly manifests that it has a different
interpretation of of the constitutional provision. This act, however, violates the doctrine of
the separation of powers among the branches of the governmentis and invades the well-
defined and established province and jurisdiction of the judiciary, which is that of
interpreting and applying the laws and the Constitution.