Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Lim
G.R. No. 112497, August 4, 1994
Cruz, J.
Facts:
Procedure For Approval And Effectivity Of Tax Ordinances And Revenue Measures; Mandatory Public Hearings.
The procedure for approval of local tax ordinances and revenue measures shall be in accordance with the
provisions of this Code: Provided, That public hearings shall be conducted for the purpose prior to the enactment
thereof; Provided, further, That any question on the constitutionality or legality of tax ordinances or revenue
measures may be raised on appeal within thirty (30) days from the effectivity thereof to the Secretary of Justice
who shall render a decision within sixty (60) days from the date of receipt of the appeal: Provided, however, That
such appeal shall not have the effect of suspending the effectivity of the ordinance and the accrual and payment
of the tax, fee, or charge levied therein: Provided, finally, That within thirty (30) days after receipt of the decision
or the lapse of the sixty-day period without the Secretary of Justice acting upon the appeal, the aggrieved party
may file appropriate proceedings with a court of competent jurisdiction.
Held:
Yes. Section 187 authorizes the Secretary of Justice to
review only the constitutionality or legality of the tax ordinance
and, if warranted, to revoke it on either or both of these grounds.
When he alters or modifies or sets aside a tax ordinance, he is not
also permitted to substitute his own judgment for the judgment of
the local government that enacted the measure. Secretary Drilon
did set aside the Manila Revenue Code, but he did not replace it
with his own version of what the Code should be.. What he found
only was that it was illegal. All he did in reviewing the said measure
was determine if the petitioners were performing their functions in
accordance with law, that is, with the prescribed procedure for the
enactment of tax ordinances and the grant of powers to the city
government under the Local Government Code. As we see it, that
was an act not of control but of mere supervision.
An officer in control lays down the rules in the doing of an
act. If they are not followed, he may, in his discretion, order the act
undone or re-done by his subordinate or he may even decide to do
it himself. Supervision does not cover such authority. The
supervisor or superintendent merely sees to it that the rules are
followed, but he himself does not lay down such rules, nor does he
have the discretion to modify or replace them.
Significantly, a rule similar to Section 187 appeared in the
Local Autonomy Act. That section allowed the Secretary of Finance
to suspend the effectivity of a tax ordinance if, in his opinion, the
tax or fee levied was unjust, excessive, oppressive or confiscatory.
1. Yes
a. SUMMARY OF RATIO:
i. Ganzon is under the impression that the
Constitution has left the President mere
supervisory powers, which supposedly
excludes the power of investigation, and
denied her control, which allegedly
embraces disciplinary authority. It is a
mistaken impression because legally,
supervision is not incompatible with
disciplinary authority. The SC had
occasion to discuss the scope and extent
of the power of supervision by the
President over
local government officials in contrast to
the power of control given to him over
executive officials of
our government wherein it was
emphasized that the two terms, control
and supervision, are two different things
which differ one from the other in
meaning and extent.
In administration law supervision
means overseeing or the power or
authority of an officer to see that
subordinate officers perform their
duties. If the latter fail or neglect to
fulfill them the former may take such
action or step as prescribed by law to
make them perform their duties. Control,
on the other hand, means the power of
an officer to alter or modify or nullify of
set aside what a subordinate officer had
done in the performance of his duties
and to substitute the judgment of the
former for that of the latter. But from
this pronouncement it cannot be
reasonably inferred that the power of
supervision of the President over
local government officials does not
include the power of investigation
when in his opinion the good of the
public service so requires.
ii. The Secretary of Local Government, as
the alter ego of the president, in
suspending Ganzon is exercising a valid
2. Other
a.
b.
c.
Basco v. PAGCOR
Facts: PAGCOR was created under PD 1869 to enable the
Government to regulate and centralize all games of chance
authorized by existing franchise or permitted by law. To attain its
objectives (centralize and integrate the right and authority to
or the Local Government Code of 1991, than the old decree invoked
by petitioner.
On 14 February 1996, petitioner MERALCO filed with the RTC a
complaint for refund against the Province of Laguna and also Benito
R. Balazo in his capacity as the Provincial Treasurer of Laguna. RTC
dismissed the complaint holding that the power to tax exercised by
the province of Laguna was valid.
ISSUE: Whether or not the power to tax was validly exercised.
HELD: Prefatorily, it might be well to recall that local governments
do not have the inherent power to tax except to the extent that
such power might be delegated to them either by the basic law or
by statute. Presently, under Article X of the 1987 Constitution, a
general delegation of that power has been given in favor of local
government units.
Under the regime of the 1935 Constitution no similar delegation of
tax powers was provided, and local government units instead
derived their tax powers under a limited statutory authority.
Whereas, then, the delegation of tax powers granted at that time
by statute to local governments was confined and defined (outside
of which the power was deemed withheld), the present
constitutional rule (starting with the 1973 Constitution), however,
would broadly confer such tax powers subject only to specific
exceptions that the law might prescribe.
Under the now prevailing Constitution, where there is neither a
grant nor a prohibition by statute, the tax power must be deemed
to exist although Congress may provide statutory limitations and
guidelines.
The basic rationale for the current rule is to safeguard the viability
and self-sufficiency of local government units by directly granting
them general and broad tax powers. Nevertheless, the fundamental
law did not intend the delegation to be absolute and unconditional;
the constitutional objective obviously is to ensure that, while the
local government units are being strengthened and made more
autonomous, the legislature must still see to it that (a) the taxpayer
will not be over-burdened or saddled with multiple and
unreasonable impositions; (b) each local government unit will have
its fair share of available resources; (c) the resources of the
national government will not be unduly disturbed; and (d) local
taxation will be fair, uniform, and just. The 1991 Code explicitly
authorizes provincial governments, notwithstanding any
exemption granted by any law or other special law, x x x (to)
The appellate court reversed the RTC and declared that the
Corporation was not liable to pay business taxes to the City of
Makati.
Upon denial of her Motion for
Reconsideration,http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/oct20
05/gr_154993_2005.html - fnt21 the City Treasurer elevated the
present Petition for Review under Rule 45. It is argued that the
Corporation is engaged in business, for the dues collected from the
different unit owners is utilized towards the beautification and
maintenance of the Condominium, resulting in "full appreciative
living values" for the condominium units which would command
better market prices should they be sold in the future. The City
Treasurer likewise avers that the rationale for business taxes is not
on the income received or profit earned by the business, but the
privilege to engage in business.
The City Treasurer also claims that the Corporation had filed the
wrong mode of appeal before the Court of Appeals when the latter
filed its Petition for Review under Rule 42. It is reasoned that the
decision of the Makati RTC was rendered in the exercise of original
jurisdiction, it being the first court which took cognizance of the
case. Accordingly, with the Corporation having pursued an
erroneous mode of appeal, the RTC Decision is deemed to have
become final and executory.
Issues and Ruling:
Procedural:
1) Procedural: Whether the RTC, in deciding an appeal
taken from a denial of a protest by a local treasurer
under Section 195 of the Local Government Code,
exercises "original jurisdiction" or "appellate
jurisdiction? Original
There are 2 conflicting views on this issue:
a) Position of CA: RTC, in reviewing denials of
protests by local treasurers, exercises appellate
jurisdiction. This is anchored on the language of
Sec. 195 of the LGC which states that the remedy
of the taxpayer whose protest is denied by the
local treasurer is to appeal with the court of
competent jurisdiction. The LGC however does
not elaborate on how such appeal should be
undertaken.
to burden all such other class of goods with "taxes, fees and
charges," excepting excise taxes, a specific prohibition is imposed
barring the levying of any other type of taxes with respect to
petroleum products.