MAY 31, 1991

ERNESTO M. MACEDA, petitioner, vs. HON. CATALINO MACARAIG, JR., in his capacity as Executive
Secretary, Office of the President; HON. VICENTE R. JAYME, in his capacity as Secretary of the
Department of Finance; HON. SALVADOR MISON, in his capacity as Commissioner, Bureau of
Customs; HON. JOSE U. ONG, in his capacity as Commissioner of Internal Revenue; NATIONAL
POWER CORPORATION; the FISCAL INCENTIVES REVIEW BOARD; Caltex (Phils.) Inc.; Pilipinas
Shell Petroleum Corporation; Philippine National Oil Corporation; and Petrophil Corporation,
respondents.
GANCAYCO, J.:
NATURE: Petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus (Rule 65)
SUMMARY: In this petition, Maceda questioned several Resolutions and Orders of the Office of
the President and Dept. of Finance to issue refunds for tax exemptions claimed by NPC. These tax
refunds were the result of several Resolutions of the FIRB that restored NPCs tax exemptions
after several laws withdrew the same. The SC denied the petition on the grounds that the law
granted the NPC exemption from all forms of taxes, even indirect ones, and that there was a
valid delegation of power to the FIRB to restore exemptions.
DOCTRINE: The legislative authority could not or is not expected to state all the detailed
situations wherein the tax exemption privileges of persons or entities would be restored. The task
may be assigned to an administrative body like the FIRB. The latest in our jurisprudence
indicates that delegation of legislative power has become the rule and its non-delegation the
exception. The reason is the increasing complexity of modern life and many technical fields of
governmental functions as in matters pertaining to tax exemptions.
FACTS:
Commonwealth Act No. 120 created the NPC as a public corporation to undertake the
development of hydraulic power and the production of power from other sources.
o RA 358: The NPC shall be exempt from all taxes, duties, fees, imposts, charges and
restrictions of the Republic of the Philippines, its provinces, cities and
municipalities.
o RA 6395, Sec. 13: []the exemption of the NPC from all taxes, duties, fees, imposts
and other charges by the government and its instrumentalities.
o PD 380 (amending RA 6395): the exemption of NPC from such taxes, duties, fees,
imposts and other charges imposed directly or indirectly, on all petroleum products
used by NPC in its operation.
o PD 938 (amending RA 6395): [NPC is hereby] declared exempt from the payment
of all forms of taxes, duties, fees, imposts This amendment took out the words
directly or indirectly.
During the period the above laws were in effect, Caltex, Shell, et al never paid excise or
specific and ad valorem taxes for petroleum products sold and delivered to the NPC. The
BIR was not collecting these taxes on the belief that NPC was exempt from indirect taxes,
as reflected in the letter of its Deputy Commissioner.
June 11, 1984: PD 1931 took away all tax exemption privileges of NPC, but it gave the
Fiscal Incentives Review Board (FIRB) the power restore, partially or totally, the exemption
withdrawn, or otherwise revise the scope and coverage of any applicable tax and duty.
The oil companies started to pay specific and ad valorem taxes on their sales of oil
products to NPC after the promulgation of this law. Caltex started billing NPC for both
customs duties and taxes, while before PD 1931, they only included customs duty without
the tax portion.
February 7, 1985: The FIRB restored tax exemption privileges of NPC and made them
retroact from June 11, 1984 up to June 30, 1985. This was supported by a declaration from
Acting Commissioner Ancheta of the BIR. Thus, NPC applied with the BIR for a refund of
Specific Taxes paid on petroleum products (those paid by Caltex amounting to P58 million).
On October 22, 1985, however, the same Commissioner Ancheta in a BIR ruling
disapproved the refund claim of one of NPCs contractors, holding that NPCs exemption

privileges cover only taxes for which it is directly liable and does not cover taxes which are
only shifted to it or for indirect taxes. It reversed its previous position.
January 7, 1986: FIRB Resolution No. 1-86 was issued restoring NPCs tax exemptions
retroactively from July 1, 1985 to an indefinite period.
July 7, 1986: The P58 million refund claim was approved by the BIR. However, by this time,
NPCs claims for tax refunds already amounted to P468 million. Certificates for the tax
credit of P58 M were given to NPC, which assigned them to Caltex. This assignment was
approved by the BIR.
NPC then reiterated the request for refund of the balance of P468 million, but this was
denied by the BIR, which declared that NPC had already lost its tax and duty exemptions
because it only enjoys special privilege for taxes for which it is directly liable.
December 22, 1986: Another withdrawal of tax exemptions under EO 93 (this EO gave
FIRB the same power to restore). However, the FIRB again restored NPCs tax exemption
privilege and included in the exemption those pertaining to its domestic purchases of
petroleum and petroleum products, and the restorations were made to retroact effective
March 10, 1987.
August 6, 1987: The Secretary of Justice issued an Opinion stating that the power
conferred upon the FIRB by EO 93 constituted undue delegation of legislative power and
was unconstitutional.
NPC kept on filing its claims for refund, and by July 1988, the Office of the President and
the Department of Finance had ordered the BIR to refund the tax payments of the NPC
amounting to P1.58 Billion, which included the P410 Million Tax refund already rejected by
BIR.
Senator Maceda, the petitioner in this case, wrote to the DOF and the BIR for them to hold
in abeyance the impending refunds to NPC. The Senate Blue Ribbon Committee, of which
he was chair, conducted hearings on the issue, and issued a recommendation to:
o cancel the P58 M refund issued earlier (assigned to Caltex), because the NPC did
not have any indirect tax exemption since May 27, 1976 when PD 938 was issued
o stop processing the P1.58 Billion tax refund of NPC
March 30, 1989: acting on the request of the Finance Secretary Jayme, Exec. Sec. Macaraig
granted the request for clearance to direct the BIR and BOC to proceed with the
processing of claims for tax credits/refunds of the NPC.
Hence, this petition.
ISSUE #1:
W/N NPC ceased to enjoy indirect tax and duty exemption with the enactment of
P.D. No. 938 on May 27, 1976 (NO)
RATIO:
NPC still enjoyed indirect tax and duty exemption. Despite Macedas contention that PD
938 deleted the words directly or indirectly, the wording of the law is that NPC is
exempted from all forms of taxes This demonstrates the intention of the law to give
NPC all the tax exemptions it has been enjoying before.
Repeal by implication is not favored unless it is manifest that the legislature so intended.
(Minor but baka tanungin) Distinction between a direct tax and an indirect tax:
o A direct tax is a tax for which a taxpayer is directly liable on the transaction or
business it engages in. Examples: custom duties and ad valorem taxes paid by the
oil companies to the BOC for their importation of crude oil
o An indirect tax is a tax primarily paid by persons who can shift the burden upon
someone else. Examples: the excise and ad valorem taxes that oil companies pay to
the BIR can be shifted to its buyer by adding them to the selling price.
ISSUE #2 (MAIN ISSUE)
W/N the powers conferred upon the FIRB (restoration of exemption) by EO 93
constitute undue delegation of legislative power and is therefore
unconstitutional (NO)
RATIO

E.O. No. 93 is complete in itself and constitutes a valid delegation of legislative power to
the FIRB. Under Sec. 3, it states that:
o Sec. 3.
In the discharge of its authority hereunder the Fiscal Incentives Review
Board shall take into account any or all of the following considerations:
a) the effect on relative price levels;
b) relative contribution of the beneficiary to the revenue generation effort;
c) nature of the activity the beneficiary is engaged; and
d) in general, the greater national interest to be served.
The standards of the delegated power are clearly provided for.
The legislative authority could not or is not expected to state all the detailed situations
wherein the tax exemption privileges of persons or entities would be restored. The task
may be assigned to an administrative body like the FIRB.
The latest in our jurisprudence indicates that delegation of legislative power has become
the rule and its non-delegation the exception. The reason is the increasing complexity of
modern life and many technical fields of governmental functions as in matters pertaining
to tax exemptions.
The maxim of delegatus non potest delegare or delegati potestas non potest delegare, has
been made to adapt itself to the complexities of modern government, giving rise to the
adoption, within certain limits, of the principle of subordinate legislation. Accordingly, with
the growing complexities of modern life, the multiplication of the subjects of governmental
regulation, and the increased difficulty of administering the laws, there is a constantly
growing tendency toward the delegation of greater power by the legislative, and toward
the approval of the practice by the Courts. (People v. Rosenthal)
The FIRB Resolutions restoring NPC its tax exemptions (which included indirect taxes) are
therefore valid.
DISPOSITION
Petition dismissed for lack of merit.