Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 211 views

    Abakada Guro Party List vs. Ermita, 469 SCRA 115 (2005) - Digest

    Uploaded by

    Nyla
    The Supreme Court ruled that increasing the VAT rate did not violate the Constitution. Sections 4-6 of the law, which imposed a 10% VAT on goods, services, and imports, and authorized the President to raise the rate to 12% under certain conditions, did not violate rules around revenue bills originating in the House of Representatives. The Court also found that increasing the VAT rate did not constitute an undue delegation of legislative power, as Congress provided guidance on who could increase the rate and under what circumstances. Finally, the Court said increasing the VAT rate did not violate equal protection or due process, as the State has broad power to set reasonable tax rates and classifications.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Abakada Guro Party List vs. Ermita, 469 SCRA 115 (2005) - Digest

    Uploaded by

    Nyla
    211 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that increasing the VAT rate did not violate the Constitution. Sections 4-6 of the law, which imposed a 10% VAT on goods, services, and imports, and authorized the President to raise the rate to 12% under certain conditions, did not violate rules around revenue bills originating in the House of Representatives. The Court also found that increasing the VAT rate did not constitute an undue delegation of legislative power, as Congress provided guidance on who could increase the rate and under what circumstances. Finally, the Court said increasing the VAT rate did not violate equal protection or due process, as the State has broad power to set reasonable tax rates and classifications.

    Original Description:

    Abakada Guro Party List vs. Ermita,

    Original Title

    8. Abakada Guro Party List vs. Ermita, 469 SCRA 115 (2005) - Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that increasing the VAT rate did not violate the Constitution. Sections 4-6 of the law, which imposed a 10% VAT on goods, services, and imports, and authorized the President to raise the rate to 12% under certain conditions, did not violate rules around revenue bills originating in the House of Representatives. The Court also found that increasing the VAT rate did not constitute an undue delegation of legislative power, as Congress provided guidance on who could increase the rate and under what circumstances. Finally, the Court said increasing the VAT rate did not violate equal protection or due process, as the State has broad power to set reasonable tax rates and classifications.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    211 views2 pages

    Abakada Guro Party List vs. Ermita, 469 SCRA 115 (2005) - Digest

    Uploaded by

    Nyla
    The Supreme Court ruled that increasing the VAT rate did not violate the Constitution. Sections 4-6 of the law, which imposed a 10% VAT on goods, services, and imports, and authorized the President to raise the rate to 12% under certain conditions, did not violate rules around revenue bills originating in the House of Representatives. The Court also found that increasing the VAT rate did not constitute an undue delegation of legislative power, as Congress provided guidance on who could increase the rate and under what circumstances. Finally, the Court said increasing the VAT rate did not violate equal protection or due process, as the State has broad power to set reasonable tax rates and classifications.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Tax Case Digest: ABAKADA Guro Party List vs.

    Ermita GR No
    168056
    By PactaSuntServanda - July 08, 2014
    ABAKADA Guro Party List vs. Ermita
    G.R. No. 168056 September 1, 2005

    Facts:
    ABAKADA GURO Party List, et al., filed a petition for prohibition o questioning the constitutionality of
    Sections 4, 5 and 6 of R.A. No. 9337, amending Sections 106, 107 and 108, respectively, of the
    National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC).
    Section 4 imposes a 10% VAT on sale of goods and properties;
    Section 5 imposes a 10% VAT on importation of goods; and
    Section 6 imposes a 10% VAT on sale of services and use or lease of properties;

    These provisions contain a provision which authorizing the President, upon recommendation of the
    Secretary of Finance, to raise the VAT rate to 12%, effective January 1, 2006, after specified
    conditions have been satisfied.

    Issues:
    Whether or not there is a violation of Article VI, Section 24 of the Constitution.

    Whether or not there is undue delegation of legislative power in violation of Article VI Sec 28(2) of
    the Constitution.

    Whether or not there is a violation of the due process and equal protection of the Constitution.

    Ruling:
    No, the revenue bill exclusively originated in the House of Representatives, the Senate was acting
    within its constitutional power to introduce amendments to the House bill when it included provisions
    in Senate Bill No. 1950 amending corporate income taxes, percentage, and excise and franchise
    taxes.
    No, there is no undue delegation of legislative power but only of the discretion as to the execution of
    a law. This is constitutionally permissible. Congress does not abdicate its functions or unduly
    delegate power when it describes what job must be done, who must do it, and what is the scope of
    his authority; in our complex economy that is frequently the only way in which the legislative process
    can go forward. In this case, it is not a delegation of legislative power but a delegation of
    ascertainment of facts upon which enforcement and administration of the increased rate under the
    law is contingent.

    No, the power of the State to make reasonable and natural classifications for the purposes of
    taxation has long been established. Whether it relates to the subject of taxation, the kind of property,
    the rates to be levied, or the amounts to be raised, the methods of assessment, valuation and
    collection, the State’s power is entitled to presumption of validity. As a rule, the judiciary will not
    interfere with such power absent a clear showing of unreasonableness, discrimination, or
    arbitrariness.

    You might also like