Kapatiran vs tan

Facts: EO 372 was issued by the President of the Philippines which amended the Revenue Code, adopting the value-
added tax (VAT) effective January 1, 1988. Four petitions assailed the validity of the VAT Law from being beyond the
President to enact; for being oppressive, discriminatory, regressive and violative of the due process and equal protection
clauses, among others, of the Constitution.

Issues:

1. EO 273 is unconstitutional on the Ground that the President had no authority to issue EO 273 on 25 July 1987.
2. EO 273 is oppressive, discriminatory, unjust and regressive, in violation of the provisions of Art. VI, sec. 28(1) of
the 1987 Constitution.
3. E-VAT law is void for being discriminatory against customs brokers
4.
Ruling:
1. No.It should be noted that, under both the Provisional and the 1987 Constitutions, the President is vested with
legislative powers until a legislature under a new Constitution is convened. The first Congress, created and elected under
the 1987 Constitution, was convened on 27 July 1987. Hence, the enactment of EO 273 on 25 July 1987, two (2) days
before Congress convened on 27 July 1987, was within the President's constitutional power and authority to legislate.
The 1987 Constitution mentions a specific date when the President loses her power to legislate. If the framers of said
Constitution had intended to terminate the exercise of legislative powers by the President at the beginning of the term of
office of the members of Congress, they should have so stated (but did not) in clear and unequivocal terms. The Court has
not power to re-write the Constitution and give it a meaning different from that intended.
2. No.They have failed to adequately show that the VAT is oppressive, discriminatory or unjust. Petitioners merely
rely upon newspaper articles which are actually hearsay and have evidentiary value. To justify the nullification of a law.
there must be a clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution, not a doubtful and argumentative implication. They
have failed to adequately show that the VAT is oppressive, discriminatory or unjust. Petitioners merely rely upon
newspaper articles which are actually hearsay and have evidentiary value. To justify the nullification of a law. there must
be a clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution, not a doubtful and argumentative implication.

The sales tax adopted in EO 273 is applied similarly on all goods and services sold to the public, which are not exempt, at
the constant rate of 0% or 10%.

The disputed sales tax is also equitable. It is imposed only on sales of goods or services by persons engage in business
with an aggregate gross annual sales exceeding P200,000.00. Small corner sari-sari stores are consequently exempt from
its application. Likewise exempt from the tax are sales of farm and marine products, spared as they are from the
incidence of the VAT, are expected to be relatively lower and within the reach of the general public

3. No. The phrase except custom brokers is not meant to discriminate against custom brokers but to avert a
potential conflict between Sections 102 and 103 of the Tax Code, as amended. The distinction of the customs brokers
from the other professionals who are subject to occupation tax under the Local Tax Code is based on material
differences, in that the activities of customs partake more of a business, rather than a profession and were thus
subjected to the percentage tax under Section 174 of the Tax Code prior to its amendment by EO 273. EO 273 abolished
the percentage tax and replaced it with the VAT. If the Association did not protest the classification of customs brokers
then, there is no reason why it should protest now.
Tolentino vs Sec.of Finance

Facts: RA 7716, otherwise known as the Expanded Value-Added Tax Law, is an act that seeks to widen the tax
base of the existing VAT system and enhance its administration by amending the National Internal Revenue
Code. There are various suits questioning and challenging the constitutionality of RA 7716 on various
grounds.

Tolentino contends that RA 7716 did not originate exclusively from the House of Representatives but is a
mere consolidation of HB. No. 11197 and SB. No. 1630 and it did not pass three readings on separate days on
the Senate thus violating Article VI, Sections 24 and 26(2) of the Constitution, respectively.

Art. VI, Section 24: All appropriation, revenue or tariff bills, bills authorizing increase of the public debt, bills
of local application, and private bills shall originate exclusively in the House of Representatives, but the
Senate may propose or concur with amendments.

Art. VI, Section 26(2): No bill passed by either House shall become a law unless it has passed three readings
on separate days, and printed copies thereof in its final form have been distributed to its Members three
days before its passage, except when the President certifies to the necessity of its immediate enactment to
meet a public calamity or emergency. Upon the last reading of a bill, no amendment thereto shall be
allowed, and the vote thereon shall be taken immediately thereafter, and the yeas and nays entered in the
Journal.

Issue: Whetheror not RA 7716 violated Art. VI, Section 24 and Art. VI, Section
26(2) of the Constitution

Ruling: No. The phrase originate exclusively refers to the revenue bill and
not to the revenue law. It is sufficient that the House of Representatives
initiated the passage of the bill which may undergo extensive changes in the
Senate.

SB. No. 1630, having been certified as urgent by the President need not
meet the requirement not only of printing but also of reading the bill on
separate days.
ABAKADA vs Ermita

Facts: