After the ruling of the Court of first Instance of Manila declaring R.A.

590unconstitutional and
thereby ordering Saturnino David to refund Justices Endencia and Jugo of the income taxes
decreased from their salary, petitioners questioned the constitutionality of theR.A. 590. The
lower court held that the said collection made to Justice Endencia and Jugo was adiminution of
their compensation and a violation of the constitution citing the case of Perfectovs. Meer.
Thereafter, according to the solicitor general on behalf of David said that the congressdid not
favorably received the ruling of the Perfecto case, because immediately after its promulgation
the congress enacted R.A. 590, if not to counteract the ruling in the Perfecto case,at least now to
authorize and legalize the collection of income tax on the salaries of judicialofficers. The court
questioned the legal basis of section 13 of R.A. 590 which states that:Sec. 13. No salary
wherever received by any public officer of the Republic of thePhilippines shall be considered as
exempt from the income tax, payment of which is herebydeclared not to be diminution of his
compensation fixed by the Constitution or by law.The Supreme Court in a decision interpreting
the Constitution particularly section 9,Article VIII, has held that judicial officers were exempt
from payment of income tax on their salaries, because the collection thereof was a diminution of
such salaries, specifically prohibited by the Constitution.
Issue:
Whether or not Section 13 of R.A. 590 can justify and legalize the collection of incometaxes on
the salary of Judicial Officers?
Ruling:
No. The Supreme Court declared Section 13 of R.A. 590 unconstitutional as it violatedthe clear
and express provision of Section 9, Article VIII of the Constitution. The Supreme Courtfurther
explained that the interpretation and application of said laws belong exclusively to theJudicial
Department, whenever a statute is in violation of the fundamental law the courts must soadjudge
and thereby give effect to the constitution. The legislative cannot pass any declaratory

 Highlight
 Add Note
 Share Quote

act, or act declaratory of what the law was before it passage, so as to give it any binding
weightwith the courts. A legislative definition of a word as used in a statute is not conclusive of
itsmeaning as used elsewhere; otherwise, the legislature would be usurping a judicial function
indefining a term. It also cannot, upon passing a law which violates a constitutional
provision,validate it so as to prevent attack thereon in the courts, by a declaration that it shall be
soconstrued as not to violate the constitutional inhibition.
a