The contention that the cigarette manufacturers are doubly taxed
because they are paying the specific tax on the raw material and on the finished product in which the raw material was a part is also devoid of merit.
For double taxation in the objectionable or prohibited sense to
exist, “the same property must be taxed twice, when it should be taxed but once.”[204] “[B]oth taxes must be imposed on the same property or subject- matter, for the same purpose, by the same . . . taxing authority, within the same jurisdiction or taxing district, during the same taxing period, and they must be the same kind or character of tax.”[205]
At all events, there is no constitutional prohibition against double
taxation in the Philippines.[206] This court has explained in Pepsi-Cola Bottling Company of the Philippines, Inc. v. Municipality of Tanauan, Leyte:[207] There is no validity to the assertion that the delegated authority can be declared unconstitutional on the theory of double taxation. It must be observed that the delegating authority specifies the limitations and enumerates the taxes over which local taxation may not be exercised. The reason is that the State has exclusively reserved the same for its own prerogative. Moreover, double taxation, in general, is not forbidden by our fundamental law, since We have not adopted as part thereof the injunction against double taxation found in the Constitution of the United States and some states of the Union. Double taxation becomes obnoxious only where the taxpayer is taxed twice for the benefit of the same governmental entity or by the same jurisdiction for the same purpose, but not in a case where one tax is imposed by the State and the other by the city or municipality.[208] ( mphasis supplied, citations omitted)
“It is something not favored, but is permissible, provided some
other constitutional requirement is not thereby violated, such as the requirement that taxes must be uniform.”[209]
Excise taxes are essentially taxes on property[210] because they
are levied on certain specified goods or articles manufactured or produced in the Philippines for domestic sale or consumption or for any other disposition, and on goods imported. In this case, there is no double taxation in the prohibited sense because the specific tax is imposed by explicit provisions of the Tax Code on two different articles or products: (1) on the stemmed leaf tobacco; and (2) on cigar or cigarette.[211]
([2014V1059E] [3/3] LA SUERTE CIGAR & CIGARETTE FACTORY,
PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENTS. / [2014V1060E] COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, PETITIONER, VS. FORTUNE TOBACCO CORPORATION, RESPONDENT. / [2014V1061E] COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, PETITIONER, VS. LA SUERTE CIGAR & CIGARETTE FACTORY, RESPONDENT. / [2014V1062E] STERLING TOBACCO CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT. / [2014V1063E] LA SUERTE CIGAR & CIGARETTE FACTORY, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT. / [2014V1064E] LA SUERTE CIGAR & CIGARETTE FACTORY, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT., G.R. No. 125346/G.R. No. 136328-29/G.R. No. 144942/G.R. No. 148605/G.R. No. 158197/G.R. No. 165499, 2014 Nov 11, En Banc) ([2014V1059E] [3/3] LA SUERTE CIGAR & CIGARETTE FACTORY, PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENTS. / [2014V1060E] COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, PETITIONER, VS. FORTUNE TOBACCO CORPORATION, RESPONDENT. / [2014V1061E] COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, PETITIONER, VS. LA SUERTE CIGAR & CIGARETTE FACTORY, RESPONDENT. / [2014V1062E] STERLING TOBACCO CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT. / [2014V1063E] LA SUERTE CIGAR & CIGARETTE FACTORY, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT. / [2014V1064E] LA SUERTE CIGAR & CIGARETTE FACTORY, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT., G.R. No. 125346/G.R. No. 136328-29/G.R. No. 144942/G.R. No. 148605/G.R. No. 158197/G.R. No. 165499, 2014 Nov 11, En Banc)