[GR. No.

168056; September 1, 2005]

Austria-Martinez, J.

ABAKADA GURO PARTY LIST (Formerly AASJAS) OFFICERS SAMSON S.

ALCANTARA and ED VINCENT S. ALBANO, Petitioners, vs.
THE HONORABLE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY EDUARDO ERMITA; HONORABLE
SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE CESAR PURISIMA; and
HONORABLE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE GUILLERMO
PARAYNO, JR., Respondent.

Facts:
Petitioners ABAKADA Guro Party List challenged the constitutionality of R.A. No. 9337
particularly Sections 4, 5, 6 amending sections 106, 107, and 108, respectively, of the Naional
Internal Revenue Code (NIRC). These questioned provisions contain a uniform proviso
authorizing the President, upon recommendation of the Secretary of Finance, to raise the VAT
rate to 12% effective January 1, 2006, after any of the following conditions have been satisfied.

Petitioners argue that the law is unconstitutional, as it constitutes abandonment by

congress of its exclusive authority to file the rate of taxes under Article VI, Section 28 (2) of the
1987 Philippine Constitution. They also said that the President has powers to cause, influence, or
create the conditions provided by law to bring about the conditions precedent. Moreover, they
allege that no guiding standards are made by law as to how the Secretary of Finance will make
the recommendation.

Issue:
Does R.A. No. 9337 violate the provisions in Article VI, Section 24, and Article VI,
Section 26 (2) of the Constitution?

Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled basing from the Tolentino case, it is not the law, but the
revenue bill which is required by the Constitution to “originate exclusively” in the House of
Representatives, but Senate has the power not only to propose amendments, but also to propose
its own version even with respect to bills which are required by the Constitution to originate in
the House.

The Constitution simply means is that the initiative for filing revenue, tariff or tax bills,
bills authorizing an increase of the public debt, private bills and bills of local application must
come from the House of Representatives on the theory that, elected as they are from the districts,
the members of the House can be expected to be more sensitive to the local needs and problems.
On the other hand, the senators, who are elected at large, are expected to approach the
same problems from the national perspective. Both views are thereby made to bear on the
enactment of such laws. 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 arbitrariness.

It has been said that taxes are the lifeblood of the government. In this case, it is just an
enema, a first-aid measure to resuscitate an economy in distress. The Court is neither blind nor is
it turning a deaf ear on the plight of the masses. But it does not have the panacea for the malady
that the law seeks to remedy. As in other cases, the Court cannot strike down a law as
unconstitutional simply because of its yokes. Therefore, R.A. 9337 is constitutional.