Abakada Group Party vs. Ermita Case
ABAKADA GROUP PARTY LIST vs. ERMITA
(From San Beda Law Journal Case Update)
FACTS:
G.R. No. 168056
Before RA 9337 took effect, petitioners ABAKADA GURO Party List et al filed a petition for prohibition questioning the constitutionality of Section 4, 5, and 6 of RA 9337 amending Sections 106, 107, and 108 respectively of the NIRC. These questioned provisions contain a uniform proviso authorizing the President upon recommendation of the Secretary of Finance, to raise the VAT rate to 12% effective January 1, 2006 after certain conditions provided for in the law have been satisfied to wit:
i) VAT collection as a percentage of GDP of the previous year exceeds 2 4/5 % or ii) National government deficit as a percentage of GDP of the previous year exceeds 1 ½%
Petitioners argue that the law is unconstitutional as it constitutes abandonment by Congress of its exclusive authority to fix the rate of taxes under Article VI Section 28(2) of the 1987 Constitution.
They content that delegating to the President the legislative power to tax is contrary to republicanism. They insist that accountability, responsibility, and transparency should dictate the actions of Congress and they should not pass so the President the decision to impose taxes. They also argue that the law also effectively nullified the President’s power of control, which includes the authority to set aside and nullify the acts of her subordinates like the Secretary of Finance by mandating the fixing of the tax rate by the President upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Finance.
G.R. No. 168207
Senator Aquino Pimentel Jr. et al filed a petition for certiorari contending that the increase in the VAT rate to 12% contingent on any of the two conditions provided for in the law being satisfied violates the due process clause embodied in Article III, Section I of the Constitution, as it imposes an unfair and additional tax burden on the people in that (1) the 12%
(From San Beda Law Journal Case Update)
FACTS:
G.R. No. 168056
Before RA 9337 took effect, petitioners ABAKADA GURO Party List et al filed a petition for prohibition questioning the constitutionality of Section 4, 5, and 6 of RA 9337 amending Sections 106, 107, and 108 respectively of the NIRC. These questioned provisions contain a uniform proviso authorizing the President upon recommendation of the Secretary of Finance, to raise the VAT rate to 12% effective January 1, 2006 after certain conditions provided for in the law have been satisfied to wit:
i) VAT collection as a percentage of GDP of the previous year exceeds 2 4/5 % or ii) National government deficit as a percentage of GDP of the previous year exceeds 1 ½%
Petitioners argue that the law is unconstitutional as it constitutes abandonment by Congress of its exclusive authority to fix the rate of taxes under Article VI Section 28(2) of the 1987 Constitution.
They content that delegating to the President the legislative power to tax is contrary to republicanism. They insist that accountability, responsibility, and transparency should dictate the actions of Congress and they should not pass so the President the decision to impose taxes. They also argue that the law also effectively nullified the President’s power of control, which includes the authority to set aside and nullify the acts of her subordinates like the Secretary of Finance by mandating the fixing of the tax rate by the President upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Finance.
G.R. No. 168207
Senator Aquino Pimentel Jr. et al filed a petition for certiorari contending that the increase in the VAT rate to 12% contingent on any of the two conditions provided for in the law being satisfied violates the due process clause embodied in Article III, Section I of the Constitution, as it imposes an unfair and additional tax burden on the people in that (1) the 12%