Name: Jabe August 14, 2013 Wednesday TITLE: ENDENCIA VS.

DAVID %"%

Tecson

Gica

ITATI!N: "3 #$IL *ATE: A+G+,T 31, 1")3

-A T,:

G&'&

N!&

L(%3))()%

The Collector of Internal Revenue, Saturnino David, ordered the taxing of Justice Pastor Endencias and Justice ernando Jugos salar! "ursuant to Sec #$ of R% &'( )hich "rovides that* +SEC. 13. No salary wherever received by any public officer of the Republic of the Philippines shall be considered as exempt from the income tax payment of which is hereby declared not to be a diminution of his compensation fixed by the Constitution or by law.! %ccording to the ,rief of the Solicitor -eneral on ,ehalf of a""ellant Collector of Internal Revenue, the decision in the case of Perfecto vs. .eer, su"ra, )as not received favoura,l! ,! Congress, ,ecause i//ediatel! after its "ro/ulgation, Congress enacted Re"u,lic %ct 0o.&'(. To ,ring ho/e his "oint, the Solicitor -eneral re"roduces )hat he considers the "ertinent discussion in the 1o)er 2ouse of 2ouse 3ill 0o. ##45 )hich ,eca/e Re"u,lic %ct 0o. &'(. I,,+E,: 6hether or not the i/"osition of an inco/e tax u"on the salaries of Justice Endencia and Justice Jugo and other /e/,ers of the Su"re/e Court and all 7udges of inferior courts a/ount to a di/inution8 T$E 6hether or not Section #$ of Re"u,lic %ct 0o. &'( constitutional8 !+'T., '+LING:

9n the issue of i/"osition of inco/e tax u"on the salaries of the 7udges, in a rather exhaustive and )ell considered decision found and held under the doctrine laid do)n ,! the court in the case of Perfecto vs. .eer, :& Phil &&4, Judge 2iginio 3. .acadaeg held that the collection of inco/e taxes fro/ the salaries of Justice Jugo and Justice Endencia )as in violation of the Constitution of the Phili""ines, and so ordered the refund of said taxes. 9n the issue of )hether Section #$ of Re"u,lic %ct 0o. &'( is constitutional, the court ,elieves that this is a clear exa/"le of inter"retation or ascertain/ent of the

/eaning of the "hrase +)hich shall not ,e di/inished during their continuance in office,; found in section ', %rticle VIII of the Constitution, referring to the salaries of 7udicial officers. 3! legislative fiatas enunciated in section #$, Re"u,lic %ct 0o. &'(, Congress sa!s that taxing the salar! of a 7udicial officer is not a decrease of co/"ensation.

This act of inter"reting the Constitution or an! "art thereof ,! the 1egislature is an invasion of the )ell<defined and esta,lished "rovince and 7urisdiction of the Judiciar!. +The rule is recogni=ed else)here that the legislature cannot "ass an! declarator! act, or act declarator! of )hat the la) )as ,efore its "assage, so as to give it an! ,inding )eight )ith the courts. % legislative definition of a )ord as used in a statute is not conclusive of its /eaning as used else)here> other)ise, the legislature )ould ,e usur"ing a 7udicial function in defining a ter/. The court reiterates the doctrine laid do)n in the case of Perfecto vs. .eer, su"ra, to the effect that the collection of inco/e tax on the salar! of a 7udicial officer is a di/inution thereof and so violates the Constitution. urther, the court holds that the inter"retation and a""lication of the Constitution and of statutes is )ithin the exclusive "rovince and 7urisdiction of the 7udicial de"art/ent, and that in enacting a la), the 1egislature /a! not legall! "rovide therein that it ,e inter"reted in such a )a! that it /a! not violate a Constitutional "rohi,ition, there,! t!ing the hands of the courts in their tas? of later inter"reting said statute, es"eciall! )hen the inter"retation sought and "rovided in said statute runs counter to a "revious inter"retation alread! given in a case ,! the highest court of the land. Thus the court holds that 7udg/ent is affir/ed, that Section #$, Re"u,lic %ct &'( in so far as it "rovides that taxing of the salar! of a 7udicial officer shall ,e considered +not to ,e a di/inution of his co/"ensation fixed ,! the Constitution or ,! la);, constitutes and invasion of the "rovince and 7urisdiction of the 7udiciar!. In this sense, the court is of the o"inion that said section is null and void, it ,eing a transgression of the funda/ental "rinci"les underl!ing the se"aration of "o)ers. In the light of the issue on i/"osing inco/e tax on 7udges salaries, dissenting o"inion of court cited that 7udges are also citi=ens and thus their salaries are su,7ected to the Inco/e Tax 1a) "revailing. The de,ates, inter"ellations and o"inions ex"ressed regarding the constitutional "rovision in @uestion until it )as finall! a""roved ,! the Co//ission disclosed that the true intent of the fra/ers of the #':5 Constitution, in ado"ting it, )as to /a?e the salaries of /e/,ers of the Judiciar! taxa,le. The ascertain/ent of that intent is ,ut in ?ee"ing )ith the

funda/ental "rinci"le of constitutional construction that the intent of the fra/ers of the organic la) and of the "eo"le ado"ting it should ,e given effect. 2ence, court affir/s 7udg/ent as in Perfecto vs. .eer on the issue of i/"osing inco/e tax on 7udges salaries.

TITLE:

NITAFAN VS. CIR 2/4 G&'& N!& 0/0/0

ITATI!N: 1)2 , 'A *ATE: J+L1 23, 1"/0

-A T,:

Petitioners, the dul! a""ointed and @ualified Judges "residing over 3ranches &4, #' and &$, res"ectivel!, of the Regional Trial Court, 0ational Ca"ital Judicial Region, all )ith stations in .anila, see? to "rohi,it andAor "er"etuall! en7oin res"ondents, the Co//issioner of Internal Revenue and the inancial 9fficer of the Su"re/e Court, fro/ /a?ing an! deduction of )ithholding taxes fro/ their salaries. The! su,/it that Ban! tax )ithheld fro/ their e/olu/ents or co/"ensation as 7udicial officers constitutes a decrease or di/inution of their salaries, contrar! to the "rovision of Section #(, %rticle VIII of the #':5 Constitution /andating that during their continuance in office, their salar! shall not ,e decreased,B even as it is anathe/a to the Ideal of an inde"endent 7udiciar! envisioned in and ,! said Constitution.B It /a! ,e "ointed out that, earl! on, the Court had dealt )ith the /atter ad/inistrativel! in res"onse to re"resentations that the Court shall direct its inance 9fficer to discontinue the )ithholding of taxes fro/ salaries of /e/,ers of the 3ench. Thus, on June C, #':5, it )as reaffir/ed ,! the Court en ,anc. I,,+E: T$E 6hether or not /e/,ers of the Judiciar! are exe/"t fro/ inco/e taxes8 !+'T., '+LING:

The de,ates, inter"ellations and o"inions ex"ressed regarding the constitutional "rovision in @uestion until it )as finall! a""roved ,! the Co//ission disclosed that the true intent of the fra/ers of the #':5 Constitution, in ado"ting it, )as to /a?e the salaries of /e/,ers of the Judiciar! taxa,le. The ascertain/ent of that intent is ,ut in ?ee"ing )ith the funda/ental "rinci"le of constitutional construction that the intent of the fra/ers of the organic la) and of the "eo"le ado"ting it should ,e given effect. The "ri/ar! tas? in constitutional construction is to ascertain and thereafter assure the reali=ation of the "ur"ose of the fra/ers and of the "eo"le in the ado"tion of the Constitution. It /a! also ,e safel! assu/ed that the "eo"le in ratif!ing the Constitution )ere guided /ainl! ,! the ex"lanation offered ,! the fra/ers. The ruling that Bthe i/"osition of inco/e tax u"on the salar! of 7udges is a di/unition thereof, and so violates the ConstitutionB, in Perfecto vs. .eer, as affir/ed in Endencia vs. David /ust ,e declared discarded.

The fra/ers of the funda/ental la), as the alter ego of the "eo"le, have ex"ressed in clear and un/ista?a,le ter/s the /eaning and i/"ort of Section #(, %rticle VIII, of the #':5 Constitution that the! have ado"ted. Stated other)ise, )e accord due res"ect to the intent of the "eo"le, through the discussions and deli,erations of their re"resentatives, in the s"irit that all citi=ens should ,ear their ali@uot "art of the cost of /aintaining the govern/ent and should share the ,urden of general inco/e taxation e@uita,l!. Therefore, the "etition for Prohi,ition )as dis/issed.

TITLE:

De la Llana vs. Alba

ITATI!N: 112 sc2a 2"4 G&'& No& L()0//3 *ATE: 3a2c4 12, 1"/2
-A T,: De 1a 1lana, et. al. filed a Petition for Declarator! Relief andAor for Prohi,ition, see?ing ti en7oin the .inister of the 3udget, the Chair/an of the Co//ission on %udit, and the .inister of Justice fro/ ta?ing an! action i/"le/enting 3P #4' )hich /andates that Justices and 7udges of inferior courts fro/ the C% to .TCs, exce"t the occu"ants of the Sandigan,a!an and the CT%, unless a""ointed to the inferior courts esta,lished ,! such act, )ould ,e considered se"arated fro/ the 7udiciar!. It is the ter/ination of their incu/,enc! that for "etitioners 7ustif! a suit of this character, it ,eing alleged that there,! the securit! of tenure "rovision of the Constitution has ,een ignored and disregarded. I,,+E: 6A0 3P #4' is unconstitutional for i/"airing the securit! of tenure of the 7ustices and 7udges in this case8 T$E !+'T., '+LING:

It is a )ell<?no)n rule that valid a,olition of offices is neither re/oval nor se"aration of the incu/,ents. 9f course, if the a,olition is void, the incu/,ent is

dee/ed never to have ceased to hold office. The rule that the a,olition of an office does not a/ount to an illegal re/oval of its incu/,ent is the "rinci"le that, in order to ,e valid, the a,olition /ust ,e /ade in good faith. Re/oval is to ,e distinguished fro/ ter/ination ,! virtue of valid a,olition of the office. There can ,e no tenure to a non<existent office. %fter the a,olition, there is in la) no occu"ant. In case of re/oval, there is an office )ith an occu"ant )ho )ould there,! lose his "osition. It is in that sense that fro/ the stand"oint of strict la), the @uestion of an! i/"air/ent of securit! of tenure does not arise.

TITLE:

Santiago vs. bautista *ATE: 3a2c4 30, 1"00

ITATI!N: 32 sc2a 1//G&'& No& L(2)024

-A T,:

Teodoro Santiago, Jr. )as a graduating student at Sero Ele/entar! School in Cota,ato Cit!. Prior to the end of the school !ear, the said school constituted a DEFCo//ittee on the Rating of Students for 2onorDE co/"osed of teachers of the said school for the "ur"ose of selecting the DEFhonor studentsDE of its graduating class. The a,ove<na/ed co//ittee deli,erated and ad7udged Teodoro C. Santiago, Jr. as the third honor, the first and second "lace ,eing o,tained ,! his t)o other class/ates, Socoro .edina and Patricia 1iGgat. Three da!s ,efore the date of graduation, the DEFthird "lacerDE Teodoro Santiago, Jr., re"resented ,! his /other and )ith his father as counsel, sought the invalidation of the DEFran?ing of honor studentsDE ,! instituting an action for certiorari, in7unction and da/ages in the Court of irst Instance of Cota,ato against the a,ove<na/ed co//ittee /e/,ers along )ith the District Su"ervisor and the %cade/ic Su"ervisor of the "lace. The co/"laint alleges grave a,use of discretions and irregularities in the selection of honor students in the said school such as the follo)ing* HaIthe "lacing of Patricia 1iGgat in the second "lace instead of hi/ )hen in fact he had ,een a consistent honor student and the for/er had never ,een his close rival ,efore exce"t in -rade V )herein she ran?ed third> H,Ithe tutorial given ,! their teacher in English to the first honor during su//er vacation> HcIthe illegal constitution of the said co//ittee as the sa/e )as co/"osed of all the -rade VI teachers onl!, in violation of the Service .anual for Teachers of the 3ureau of Pu,lic Schools )hich "rovides that the co//ittee to select the honor students should ,e co/"osed of all teachers in -rades V and VI> HdIthe changing of the final ratings on their grading sheets> HeI that "etitioner "ersonall! a""ealed the /atter to the School Princi"al, to the District Su"ervisor, and to the %cade/ic Su"ervisor, ,ut said officials DEF"assed the ,uc? to each otherDE to dela! his grievances, and as to a""eal to higher authorities )ill ,e too late, there is no other s"eed! and ade@uate re/ed! under the circu/stances. Res"ondents /oved for the dis/issal of the case on the

grounds H#I that the action for certiorari )as i/"ro"er, and H4I that even assu/ing the "ro"riet! of the action, the @uestion ,rought ,efore the court had alread! ,eco/e acade/ic. The /otion to dis/iss )as granted. I,,+E: 6hether or not the action for certiorari filed ,! "etitioner is "ro"er. T$E !+'T., '+LING:

The action for certiorari is not "ro"er. Certiorari is a s"ecial civil action instituted against an! tri,unal, ,oard, or officer exercising 7udicial functions HSection #, Rule J5I. % 7udicial function is an act "erfor/ed ,! virtue of 7udicial "o)ers> the exercise of a 7udicial function is the doing of so/ething in the nature of the action of the court H$C C.J. ##:4I. In order that a s"ecial civil action of certiorari /a! ,e invo?ed in this 7urisdiction the follo)ing circu/stances /ust exist* H#I that there /ust ,e a s"ecific controvers! involving rights of "ersons or "ro"ert! and said controvers! is ,rought ,efore a tri,unal, ,oard or officer for hearing and deter/ination of their res"ective rights and o,ligations. It is evident that the so called co//ittee on the rating of students for honor )hose actions are @uestioned in this case exercised neither 7udicial nor @uasi 7udicial functions in the "erfor/ance of its assigned tas?. 3efore tri,unal, ,oard or officer /a! exercise 7udicial or @uasi 7udicial acts, it /ust ,e clothed )ith "o)er and authorit! to deter/ine )hat the la) is and thereu"on ad7udicate the res"ective rights of the contending "arties. In the instant case, there is nothing on record a,out an! rule of la) )hich "rovides that )hen teachers sit do)n to assess the individual /erits of their "u"ils for "ur"oses of rating the/ for honors, such function involves the deter/ination of )hat the la) is and that the! are therefore auto/aticall! vested )ith 7udicial or @uasi 7udicial functions.

TITLE:

daza vs. singson *ATE: *ecembe2 21, 1"/"

ITATI!N: 1/0 sc2a 4"% G&'& No& /%344

-A T,: I,,+E: T$E !+'T., '+LING:

TITLE:

Gar ia vs. board o! invest"ents

ITATI!N: 1"1 sc2a 2// *ATE:

-A T,:

or/er

3ataan

Petroche/ical

Cor"oration

H3PCI,

no)

1u=on

Petroche/ical

Cor"oration, for/ed ,! a grou" of Tai)anese investors, )as granted ,! the 39I its have its "lant site for the "roducts +na"hta crac?er; and +na"hta; to ,ased in 3ataan. In e,ruar! #':', one !ear after the 3PC ,egan its "roduction in 3ataan, the cor"oration a""lied to the 39I to have its "lant site transferred fro/ 3ataan to 3atangas. Des"ite vigorous o""osition fro/ "etitioner Cong. Enri@ue -arcia and others, the 39I granted "rivate res"ondent 3PCs a""lication, stating that the investors have the final choice as to )here to have their "lant site ,ecause the! are the ones )ho ris? ca"ital for the "ro7ect I,,+E: 6hether or not the 39I co//itted a grave a,use of discretion in !ielding to the a""lication of the investors )ithout considering the national interest T$E !+'T., '+LING:

The Su"re/e Court found the 39I to have co//itted grave a,use of discretion in this case, and ordered the original a""lication of the 3PC to have its "lant site in 3ataan and the "roduct na"hta as feedstoc? /aintained.

The "onente, Justice -utierre=, Jr., first stated the Courts 7udicial "o)er to settle actual controversies as "rovided for ,! Section # of %rticle VIII in our #':5 Constitution ,efore he )rote the reasons as to ho) the Court arrived to its conclusion. 2e /entioned that nothing is sho)n to 7ustif! the 39Is action in letting the investors decide on an issue )hich, if handled ,! our o)n govern/ent, could have ,een ver! ,eneficial to the State, as he re/e/,ered the )ord of a great ili"ino leader, to )it* +.. he )ould not /ind having a govern/ent run li?e hell ,! ili"inos than one su,servient to foreign dictation;.

Justice -riGo %@uino, in her dissenting o"inion, argued that the "etition )as not )ell<ta?en ,ecause the #':5 Invest/ent Code does not "rohi,it the registration of a certain "ro7ect, as )ell as an! decision of the 39I regarding the a/ended a""lication. She stated that the fact that "etitioner disagrees )ith 39I does not /a?e the 39I )rong in its decision, and that "etitioner should have a""ealed to the President of the countr! and not to the Court, as "rovided for ,! Section $J of the #':5 Invest/ent Code.

Justice .elencio<2errera, in another dissenting o"inion, stated that the Constitution does not vest in the Court the "o)er to enter the real/ of "olic! considerations, such as in this case.

TITLE:

#AC$ vs. Se retar% o! Edu ation

ITATI!N: "0 54i6 /0% *ATE:

-A T,: I,,+E: T$E !+'T., '+LING:

TITLE:

Tan vs. &a a'agal

ITATI!N: 43 sc2a %0/ *ATE:

-A T,: I,,+E: T$E !+'T., '+LING:

TITLE:

Du"lao vs. C(&ELEC

ITATI!N: ") sc2a 3"2 *ATE:

-A T,: I,,+E: T$E !+'T., '+LING:

TITLE:

('le vs. Torres

ITATI!N: 2"3 sc2a 141 *ATE:

-A T,: I,,+E: T$E !+'T., '+LING:

TITLE:

Nort) otabato vs. re'ubli

ITATI!N: g&2& no& 1/3)"1 *ATE: !ctobe2 14, 200/

-A T,: I,,+E: T$E !+'T., '+LING:

TITLE: ITATI!N: *ATE:

-A T,: I,,+E: T$E !+'T., '+LING:

TITLE: ITATI!N: *ATE:

-A T,: I,,+E: T$E !+'T., '+LING:

TITLE: ITATI!N: *ATE:

-A T,: I,,+E: T$E !+'T., '+LING:

TITLE: ITATI!N: *ATE:

-A T,: I,,+E: T$E !+'T., '+LING:

TITLE: ITATI!N: *ATE:

-A T,: I,,+E: T$E !+'T., '+LING:

TITLE: ITATI!N: *ATE:

-A T,: I,,+E: T$E !+'T., '+LING:

TITLE: ITATI!N: *ATE:

-A T,: I,,+E: T$E !+'T., '+LING:

TITLE: ITATI!N: *ATE:

-A T,: I,,+E: T$E !+'T., '+LING:

TITLE: ITATI!N: *ATE:

-A T,: I,,+E: T$E !+'T., '+LING:

TITLE: ITATI!N: *ATE:

-A T,: I,,+E: T$E !+'T., '+LING: