Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Facts:
These are motions seeking reconsideration De Guzman vs Commission on Elections Case
of our decision dismissing the petitions filed Digest De Guzman vs Commission on Elections
in these cases for the declaration of GR 129118
unconstitutionality of R.A. No. 7716, 19 July 2000
otherwise known as the Expanded Value-
Added Tax Law. Now it is contended by the
Philippine Press Institute (PPI) that by Facts:
removing the exemption of the press from
Comelec reassigned petitioners to other
the VAT while maintaining those granted to
stations pursuant to Section 44 of the Voter’s
others, the law discriminates against the
registration act. The act prohibits election
press. At any rate, it is averred, “even
officers from holding office in a particular city or
nondiscriminatory taxation of
constitutionally guaranteed freedom is municipality for more than 4 years. Petitioners
unconstitutional.” claim that the act violated the equal protection
clause because not all election officials were
RA 7716, otherwise known as the “Expanded covered by the prohibition. Petitioners contend
Value Added Tax”, is an act that seeks to widen that RA 8189 Section 44 is unconstitutional as it
the tax base of the existing VAT system and violates the equal protection clause enshrined
enhance its administration by amending the in the constitution; that it violates constitutional
National Internal Revenue Code. Petitioners
guarantee on security of civil servants; that it
contend that in enacting Republic Act No. 7716.
Congress violated the Constitution because it did undermines the constitutional independence of
comelec and comelec’s constitutional authority; the necessity for publication of some of the
that it contravenes the basic constitutional decrees. The court ordered the respondents to
precept; that it is void for its failure to be read publish in the official gazette all unpublished
on 3 separate readings Presidential Issuances which are of general
force and effect. The petitioners suggest that
there should be no distinction between laws of
Issue: general applicability and those which are not.
The publication means complete publication,
Whether or Not section 44 of RA 8189 is
and that publication must be made in the
unconstitutional
official gazette.
Ruling:
ISSUE:
No, RA 8189 Sec 44 is not unconstitutional. It Whether or not all laws shall be published in the
has not violated the equal protection clause. It official gazette.
is intended to ensure the impartiality of election
officials by preventing them from developing
familiarity with the people of their place of RULING:
assignment. Large-scale anomalies in the
registration of voters cannot be carried out The Court hereby orders respondents to publish
without the complicity of election officers, who in the Official Gazette all unpublished
are the highest representatives of Comelec in a presidential issuances which are of general
city or municipality. application, and unless so published, they shall
The petition is DISMISSED; and the have no binding force and effect.
constitutionality and validity of Section 44 of RA The court held that all statute including those of
8189 UPHELD. No pronouncement as to costs. local application shall be published as condition
for their effectivity, which shall begin 15 days
G.R. No. L-63915 after publication unless a different effectivity
date is fixed by the legislature.
December 29, 1986
The publication must be full or no publication at
Tanada v. Tuvera
all since its purpose is to inform the public of
the content of the laws. The clause “unless
FACTS:
otherwise provided” in Article 2 of the new Civil
Petitioners Lorenzo M. Tanada, et. al. invoked
Code meant that the publication required
due process in demanding the disclosure of a
therein was not always imperative, that the
number of Presidential Decrees which they
publication when necessary, did not have to be
claimed had not been published as required by
made in the official gazette.
Law. The government argued that while
publication was necessary as a rule, it was not FACTS:
so when it was otherwise provided, as when the On 11 March 1991, CIR Jose U. Ong issued
decrees themselves declared that they were to Revenue Memorandum Order (RMO) No.
become effective immediately upon approval. 15-91 classifying pawnshops as lending
The court decided on April 24, 1985 in affirming investors and therefore imposing a 5%
lending investor’s tax on pawnshops. This Whether pawnshops are considered lending
RMO was clarified by Revenue investors for the purpose of imposing
Memorandum Circular (RMC) No. 43-91 on percentage tax.
27 May 1991. Pursuant to these issuances,
the BIR issued an Assessment Notice RULING:
against Lhuillier demanding payment of We rule in the negative.
deficiency percentage tax in the sum of While it is true that pawnshops are engaged
P3,360,335.11 for 1994 inclusive of interest in the business of lending money, they are
and surcharges. not considered “lending investors” for the
purpose of imposing the 5% percentage
On 3 October 1997, Lhuillier filed an taxes.
administrative protest with the Office of Pawnshops and lending investors were, in
the Revenue Regional Director fact, subjected to different tax treatments
contending, inter alia, that pawnshops are under the Tax
different from lending investors, which are The petition is hereby DISMISSED for lack
subject to the 5% percentage tax under the of merit. The decision of the court of appeals
specific provision of the Tax Code, and that of 20, November 2001 in CA-G.R SP
RMO No. 15-91 impliedly amends the Tax No.62463 is AFFIRMED.
Code and is therefore taxation by
implication, which is proscribed by law. Code.
Moreover, Congress never intended
Deputy BIR Commissioner Panganiban pawnshops to be treated in the same way as
issued a Warrant of Distraint and/or Levy lending investors. Both the NIRC of 1986
against Lhuillier’s property for the and the NIRC of 1977 dealt with pawnshops
enforcement and payment of the assessed and lending investors differently. Verily
percentage tax. then, it was the intent of Congress to deal
with both subjects differently. Hence, we
Its protest having been unacted upon, must likewise interpret the statute to
Lhuillier elevated the matter to the CIR. conform with such legislative intent.
Still, the protest was not acted upon by the
CIR. Thus, Lhuillier filed an appeal with the Furthermore, RMC No. 43-91 and RMO No.
CTA. 15-91 lacked publication. RMO No. 15-91
and RMC No. 43-91 were issued in
The CTA rendered a decision declaring accordance with the power of the CIR to
RMO No. 15-91 and RMC No. 43-91 null make rulings and opinions in connection
and void insofar as they classify with the implementation of internal revenue
pawnshops as lending investors subject to laws, which was bestowed by then Section
5% percentage tax. 245 of the NIRC of 1977, as amended by
Dissatisfied, the CIR filed a petition for E.O. No. 273. Such power of the CIR cannot
review with the CA, which affirmed the be controverted.
CTA decision. However, the CIR cannot, in the exercise of
Hence, this petition. such power, issue administrative rulings or
circulars not consistent with the law sought
ISSUE: to be applied. Indeed, administrative
issuances must not override, supplant or
modify the law, but must remain consistent
with the law they intend to carry out. Only observe the requirements under the Revised
Congress can repeal or amend the law. Administrative Code.
Issue/Ruling:
• On November 7, 2003, petitioner COC
Whether or not CMO No. 27-2003 is valid. issued CMO 27-2003, which for tariff purposes,
classifies wheat according to the (1) importer or
consignee; (2) country of origin; and (3) port of
Customs Memorandum Order 27-2003 is discharge. Depending on these factors, wheat
declared INVALID and OF NO FORCE AND would then be classified either as food grade or
EFFECT. It was issued without following the feed grade with a corresponding tariff of 3% and
mandate of the Revised Administrative Code on 7% respectively.
public participation, prior notice, and
• On December 19, 2003, the respondent,
publication or registration with the University of
a wheat importer, filed a Petition for
the Philippines Law Center. Petitioners violated
Declaratory Relief with the RTC of Las Pinas
respondent’s right to due process in the
contending that CMO 27-2003 was issued
issuance of CMO 27-2003 when they failed to
without following the mandate of the Revised
Administrative Code on public participation, Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 8072
prior notice, and publication or registration with
Republic Act No. 3019, ANTI-
the University of the Philippines Law Center. GRAFT AND CORRUPT
• On 19 January 2004, the RTC issued a PRACTICES ACT
Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) effective for
twenty (20) days from notice.
Doctrine: Where the law is clear, plain and free
• Petitioners thereafter filed a Motion to from ambiguity, it must be given its
Dismiss alleging that, among others, was an literal meaning and applied without
internal administrative rule and not legislative any interpretation or even
in nature. construction.