I.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The Legislature enacted Republic Act 20202

2. The law increases the VAT rate from 12% to 15% in 2023
3. The law empowers the President to increase the VAT rate to 15% if any of the
following conditions are met:
a. VAT collection over GDP in 2022 exceeds 3% ; or
b. National government deficit over GDP in 2022 exceeds 2%.

II. ISSUE

Whether or not the delegation by the legislature to the President is valid.

III. DISCUSSIONS

In determining the constitutionality of the Republic Act 20202, it is necessary

to ascertain whether or not there is an undue delegation of power.

This is following the method utilized by the Supreme Court in the ruling on the
petition of ABAKADA GURO PARTYLIST vs. ERMITA, G.R. No.168056,
September 1, 2005 in which the facts and issue of the said case are substantially
the same as enumerated in length:

Statement of Facts
1. The Legislature enacted Republic Act 9337.
(1)
2. The law introduced a VAT rate of 10% to take effect on July 1, 2005 for sale
of goods or properties, importation of goods, and (3)sale of service and use of
(2)

lease of properties as stated in Sections 4, 5, and 6, respectively.

3. The law empowers the president, upon the recommendation of the Secretary
of Finance, to raise the rate of value-added tax to twelve percent (12%), after
any of the following conditions has been satisfied.
 a. Value-added tax collection as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product
(GDP) of the previous year exceeds two and four-fifth percent (2 4/5%); or
b. National government deficit as a percentage of GDP of the previous year
exceeds one and one-half percent (1 ½%).

Issue
Whether or not the so-called stand-by authority of the president to increase
VAT rate amounts to an undue delegation of legislative power.

It can be noted that the constitutionality of the latter was challenged by the
petitioners on the following grounds:
1. The grant of stand-by authority to the President to increase the VAT
rate is a virtual abdication by the Congress of its exclusive power to
tax.
2. The delegation to the president the legislative power is contrary to
republicanism which prohibits Congress to pass to the former the
decision to impose tax.
3. The President has ample powers to cause, influence or create the
conditions provided by law to bring about either or both the conditions
precedents.

The court, however, ruled on the contrary, saying that there is no undue
delegation of legislative power, explaining that the powers which the Congress is
prohibited from delegating are those which are strictly, or inherently and
exclusively legislative. Purely legislative power, which can never be delegated,
has been described as the authority to make a complete law -complete as to the
time when it shall take effect and as to whom it shall be applicable- and to
determine the expediency of its enactment.

Stressing this point, the constitution allows permissible delegation when it

is shown that the law (a) is complete in itself, setting forth therein the policy to be
executed, carried out, or implemented by the delegate; and (b) fixes a standard
or limit to which the delegate must conform in the performance of his functions.

Thus, the said authorization given to the president is valid if the law, when
it left the hands of the legislature, was already complete in all its terms and
provisions so that nothing was left to the judgment of any other appointee or
delegate of the legislature. In the ruled case, there is no undue delegation of
legislative power but only of the discretion as to the execution of the law.

VI. CONCLUSION

As the nature of the case at hand is substantially the same with that of the
previously ruled case by the highest court of the land, the principles of law as laid
down in the said decision must be doctrinally applied to present and future cases
unless the said court has reversed such decision. Considering that the facts and
issues present are noticeably identical, it follows that the delegation of the
legislature to the president is valid.