The Supreme Court assured a Merry Christmas for our senior citizens when it affirmed the constitutionality and

mandatory character of the 20-percent discount on their purchases from or use of hotels and similar lodging
establishments, restaurants and recreation centers, medicine funeral and burial services theaters, cinema
houses and concert halls, circuses, carnivals and other similar places of culture, leisure and amusement medical
and dental services. It also validated the implementing rules and regulations of the discounts.
Who bears discount? Ably penned by Justice Mariano C. del Castillo, the 15 justices, in Manila Memorial Park vs
DSWD (Dec. 3, 2013), were unanimous in being magnanimous to the seniors, but were divided on who shall shoulder
the cost of the discount: Should it be the government only or both the sellers and the government?
Under the original law (Republic Act No. 7492) passed on April 23, 1992, the burden was shouldered solely by the
government because the entire 20-percent discount was deemed a tax credit which the sellers (restaurants,
drugstores, funeral parlors, etc.) were allowed to deduct from their taxes.
However, at the initiative of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, a new law (RA 9257) was enacted on Feb. 26, 2004, that
treated the 20-percent discount merely as a tax deduction. Which means that the sellers could only deduct the
amount of the discount from their gross income from the same taxable year that the discount is granted.
Thus, the sellers were allowed to deduct the discounted sum from their taxable income, for which they no longer paid
the 32-percent corporate income tax. Stripped of legalese, the sellers bore 68 percent of the discount, and the
government, 32 percent.
Legal justifications. The decision justified the sharing of cost by invoking the police power of the state to regulate or
restrain the use of liberty or property for public welfare provided the regulation or restriction is not unreasonable,
oppressive or confiscatory. After all, the Court said, nothing prevents the sellers from recouping their subsidies to
seniors by increasing their prices for the nonseniors.
To justify the preferential treatment, the Court reasoned that the discount is intended to improve the welfare of senior
citizens who, at their age, are less likely to be gainfully employed, more prone to illnesses and other disabilities, and
thus, in need of subsidy in purchasing basic commodities.
Del Castillos 38-page ponencia merited lively concurring opinions from Justices Presbitero J. Velasco Jr. and Lucas
P. Bersamin, a novel concurring and dissenting opinion from Justice Mario Victor F. Leonen, and a vigorous dissent
from Senior Justice Antonio T. Carpio.
While agreeing that the senior-citizen discount is constitutional, Justice Carpio argued that the government should
shoulder its full cost and that the sellers should be spared from bearing any part thereof. It is not a voluntary sales
discount. Thus, he said, the state is actually forcibly taking a part of the purchase price from the private sellers
without payment of just compensation.
He opined that, under the power of eminent domain, private property cannot be taken without the payment of just
compensation. He concluded that the latter law (RA 9257) that merely granted a tax deduction to the private sellers
should be declared unconstitutional and that the old law (RA 7492) which compensated the sellers with a tax credit
should be deemed revived.
This case is important not only because it upheld the 20-percent senior-citizen discount but also because it disclosed
the justices philosophical and sociological mindset on the role of law in economics, finance and business. The case
deserves another column to discuss the magistrates views vis--vis my own legal philosophy of liberty and prosperity
under the rule of law.
***
Spirit of Christmas. On legal and humanitarian grounds, I agree with the Sandiganbayans order allowing former
President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyos family to visit and stay with her in her detention facility at the Veterans Memorial
Medical Center on Christmas Day and New Years Day.
First, she has not been convicted of any crime. Hence, she still enjoys the constitutional presumption of innocence.
She is indefinitely detained at the hospital because she is charged with a capital offense. She has been confined
there due to her frail health and three life-threatening surgeries. Medically, she is not over the hump, as the metal
brace surgically installed on her spine could slip at any time and may result in severe nerve injury, if not death.
Second, under the Constitution, [a]ll persons, except those charged with offenses punishable with reclusion perpetua
when the evidence of guilt is strong, shall be bailable Her petition for bail has not been ruled on. It is still pending
in the court. Hence, the evidence against her has not been ruled to be strong.
Third, she is suffering from mental stress and depression. The comfort and sympathy of her immediate family during
these days of spiritual renewal will improve her physical and mental wellbeing without any prejudice to the
government or to the people. There is minimal risk of escape as the facility is well guarded and the visits are for short
duration only.
In the spirit of peace and reconciliation commemorating the birth of the Lord of Peace, I believe President Arroyo
deserves to enjoy the love and comfort of her family.

Read more: http://opinion.inquirer.net/67809/sc-seniors-discounts-constitutional#ixzz2r3a8QzvT

Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook

CASE 2013-0028: MANILA MEMORIAL PARK, INC. AND LA FUNERARIA PAZ-SUCAT,

INC., PETITIONERS, -VERSUS- SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL
WELFARE AND DEVELOPMENT AND THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCE (G.R. NO. 175356, 03 DECEMBER 2013, DEL CASTILLO J.)SUBJECT/S:
LEGALITY OF DISCOUNTS FOR SENIOR CITIZENS (BRIEF TITLE: MANILA MEMORIAL
VS. DSWD SECRETARY)

DISPOSITIVE:

WHEREFORE, THE PETITION IS HEREBY DISMISSED FOR LACK OF MERIT.

SO ORDERED.

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

PETITIONERS ARGUE THAT THE DISCOUNT GIVEN TO SENIOR CITIZENS (UNDER R.A.
7432 AS AMENDED BY R.A. 9257) WILL FORCE ESTABLISHMENTS TO RAISE THEIR
PRICES IN ORDER TO COMPENSATE FOR ITS IMPACT ON OVERALL PROFITS OR
INCOME/GROSS SALES. THE GENERAL PUBLIC, OR THOSE NOT BELONGING TO THE
SENIOR CITIZEN CLASS, ARE, THUS, MADE TO EFFECTIVELY SHOULDER THE
SUBSIDY FOR SENIOR CITIZENS. THIS, IN PETITIONERS VIEW, IS UNFAIR. IS
PETITIONERS CONTENTION CORRECT?

NO.

CONGRESS MAY BE REASONABLY ASSUMED TO HAVE FORESEEN THIS

EVENTUALITY. BUT, MORE IMPORTANTLY, THIS GOES INTO THE WISDOM,
EFFICACY AND EXPEDIENCY OF THE SUBJECT LAW WHICH IS NOT PROPER FOR
JUDICIAL REVIEW.

IN A WAY, THIS LAW PURSUES ITS SOCIAL EQUITY OBJECTIVE IN A NONTRADITIONAL MANNER UNLIKE PAST AND EXISTING DIRECT SUBSIDY PROGRAMS
OF THE GOVERNMENT FOR THE POOR AND MARGINALIZED SECTORS OF OUR
SOCIETY. VERILY, CONGRESS MUST BE GIVEN SUFFICIENT LEEWAY IN
FORMULATING WELFARE LEGISLATIONS GIVEN THE ENORMOUS CHALLENGES THAT
THE GOVERNMENT FACES RELATIVE TO, AMONG OTHERS, RESOURCE ADEQUACY
AND ADMINISTRATIVE CAPABILITY IN IMPLEMENTING SOCIAL REFORM
MEASURES WHICH AIM TO PROTECT AND UPHOLD THE INTERESTS OF THOSE
MOST VULNERABLE IN OUR SOCIETY. IN THE PROCESS, THE INDIVIDUAL, WHO
ENJOYS THE RIGHTS, BENEFITS AND PRIVILEGES OF LIVING IN A DEMOCRATIC
POLITY, MUST BEAR HIS SHARE IN SUPPORTING MEASURES INTENDED FOR THE
COMMON GOOD.

WITHOUT THE REQUISITE SHOWING OF A CLEAR AND UNEQUIVOCAL BREACH OF

THE CONSTITUTION, THE VALIDITY OF THE ASSAILED LAW MUST BE SUSTAINED.

This research guide summarizes the sources of Philippine tax law.

Tax law in the Philippines covers national and local taxes. National taxes refer to national internal revenue
taxes imposed and collected by the national government through the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) and
local taxes refer to those imposed and collected by the local government. The Tax Code of 1997, Revenue
Issuances and BIR Rulings pertaining to national taxes are posted at the BIR website,http://www.bir.gov.ph.
National Tax Law
I.

1987 Constitution - (http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/constitution/1987)

The 1987 Philippine Constitution sets limitations on the exercise of the power to tax.
The rule of taxation shall be uniform and equitable. The Congress shall evolve a progressive system of
taxation. (Article VI, Section 28, paragraph 1)
All money collected on any tax levied for a special purpose shall be treated as a special fund and paid out for
such purpose only. If the purpose for which a special fund was created has been fulfilled or abandoned, the
balance, if any, shall be transferred to the general funds of the Government. (Article VI, Section 29,
paragraph 3)
The Congress may, by law, authorize the President to fix within specified limits, and subject to such
limitations and restriction as it may impose, tariff rates, import and export quotas, tonnage and wharfage
dues, and other duties or imposts within the framework of the national development program of the
Government (Article VI, Section 28, paragraph 2) The President shall have the power to veto any particular
item or items in an appropriation, revenue or tariff bill, but the veto shall not affect the item or items to
which he does not object. (Article VI, Section 27, second paragraph)

The Supreme Court shall have the power to review, revise, reverse, modify or affirm on appeal or certiorari,
as the law or the Rules of Court may provide, final judgments and orders of lower courts in x x x all cases
involving the legality of any tax, impost, assessment, or toll or any penalty imposed in relation thereto.
(Article VIII, Section 5, paragraph)
Tax exemptions are limited to those granted by law. However, no law granting any tax exemption shall be
passed without the concurrence of a majority of all the members of the Congress. (Article VI, Section 28,
par. 4). The Constitution expressly grants tax exemption on certain entities/institutions such as (1)
charitable institutions, churches, parsonages or convents appurtenant thereto, mosques, and nonprofit
cemeteries and all lands, buildings and improvements actually, directly and exclusively used for religious,
charitable or educational purposes (Article VI, Section 28, paragraph 3); (2) non-stock non-profit
educational institutions used actually, directly and exclusively for educational purposes. (Article XVI, Section
4(3))
In addition to national taxes, the Constitution provides for local government taxation. (Article X, Section 5)
(Article X, Section 6) Parenthetically, the Local Government Code provides that all local government units
are granted general tax powers, as well as other revenue-raising powers like the imposition of service fees
and charges, in addition to those specifically granted to each of the local government units. But no such
taxes, fees and charges shall be imposed without a public hearing having been held prior to the enactment
of the ordinance. The levy must not be unjust excessive, oppressive, confiscatory or contrary to a declared
national economic policy (Section 186 and 187) Further, there are common limitations to the grant of the
power to tax to the local government, such that taxes like income tax, documentary stamp tax, etc. cannot
be imposed by the local government.
II.

Laws

The basic source of Philippine tax law is the National Internal Revenue Law, which codifies all tax provisions,
the latest of which is embodied in Republic Act No. 8424 (The Tax Reform Act of 1997). It amended
previous national internal revenue codes, which was approved on December 11, 1997. A copy of the Tax
Reform Act of 1997, which took effect on January 1, 1998, can be found
inhttp://www.bir.gov.ph/issu_nir.html.
Local taxation is treated separately in this Guide. There are, however, special laws that separately provide
special tax treatment in certain situations. (See attached matrix on special laws)
III.

Treaties

The Philippines has entered into several tax treaties for the avoidance of double taxation and prevention of
fiscal evasion with respect to income taxes. At present, there are 31 Philippine Tax Treaties in force.
Copies are available at the BIR Library and the International Tax Affairs Division of the BIR, which is under
the Deputy Commissioner for Legal and Inspection Group.
The Philippine Treaty Series, edited and annotated by Haydee Yorac and published by Law Publishing House,
University of the Philippines, is available in seven (7) volumes, covering the years 1944 to 1978 . The
Philippine Treaty Index, by Benjamin Domingo, covers the years 1978 to 1982. A copy of the Philippine
Treaty Index is available in the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) Library. These publications contain
treaties entered into by the Philippines. Tax privileges and exemptions granted under treaties to which the
Philippines is a signatory are recognized under Philippine tax law. Copies of treaties entered into by the
Philippines with other countries and/or international organizations, from 1983 up to the present, are
available at the DFA Library.
IV.

Administrative Material

The Secretary of Finance, upon the recommendation of the Commissioner, promulgates needful rules and
regulations for the effective enforcement of the provisions of the Tax Code (Section 244, Tax Code of 1997).
The Commissioner of Internal Revenue, however, has the exclusive and original power to interpret the
provisions of the Tax Code, but subject to review by the Secretary of Finance.

Administrative issuances which may be relied upon in interpreting the provisions of the Tax Code, which are
signed by the Secretary of Finance, or the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, or his duly authorized
representative, come in the form of Revenue Regulations, Revenue Memorandum Orders, Revenue
Memorandum Rulings, Revenue Memorandum Circulars, Revenue Memorandum Rulings, and BIR Rulings.
Revenue Regulations (RRs) are issuances signed by the Secretary of Finance, upon recommendation of the
Commissioner of Internal Revenue, that specify, prescribe or define rules and regulations for the effective
enforcement of the provisions of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) and related statutes.
Revenue Memorandum Orders (RMOs) are issuances that provide directives or instructions; prescribe
guidelines; and outline processes, operations, activities, workflows, methods and procedures necessary in
the implementation of stated policies, goals, objectives, plans and programs of the Bureau in all areas of
operations, except auditing.
Revenue Memorandum Rulings (RMRs) are rulings, opinions and interpretations of the Commissioner of
Internal Revenue with respect to the provisions of the Tax Code and other tax laws, as applied to a specific
set of facts, with or without established precedents, and which the Commissioner may issue from time to
time for the purpose of providing taxpayers guidance on the tax consequences in specific situations. BIR
Rulings, therefore, cannot contravene duly issued RMRs; otherwise, the Rulings are null and void ab initio.
Revenue Memorandum Circular (RMCs) are issuances that publish pertinent and applicable portions, as well
as amplifications, of laws, rules, regulations and precedents issued by the BIR and other agencies/offices.
BIR Rulings are the official position of the Bureau to queries raised by taxpayers and other stakeholders
relative to clarification and interpretation of tax laws.
Revenue Regulations, Revenue Memorandum Orders, Revenue Memorandum Rulings, Revenue Memorandum
Circulars, Revenue Memorandum Rulings, and BIR Rulings are found
inhttp://www.bir.gov.ph/hom_issrul.html
V.

Case Law

In the Philippines, Supreme Court decisions form part of the law of the land. As such, decisions by the
Supreme Court (http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph) in the exercise of its power to review, revise, reverse,
modify or affirm on appeal or certiorari, as the law or the Rules of Court may provide, final judgments and
orders of lower courts cases involving the legality of any tax, impost, assessment, or toll or any penalty
imposed in relation thereto are adhered to and recognized as binding interpretations of Philippine tax law.
Court of Appeals and Court of Tax Appeals decisions which have become final and executory are also
recognized interpretations of Philippine tax law.
VI.

Treatises and other books

There are no Philippine treatises exclusively devoted to Philippine Tax law but various Philippine authors
have come up with annotated versions of the Tax Code. These books can be purchased from Rex Bookstore
and Central Law Publishing, Inc.
VII.

Periodicals

Periodicals on Philippine tax law are the (1) Philippine Revenue Service (copies available in the BIR Library),
published by the BIR from 1969-1980; (2) Philippine Revenue Journal (copies available in the BIR Library)
which was both published by the Bureau of Internal Revenue from 1969 to 2000; and (3) the Tax Monthly,
published by the National Tax Research Center (NTRC) (copies available in the BIR Library and the NTRC).
VIII.

Local Government Tax Law

Local government taxation in the Philippines is based on the constitutional grant of the power to tax to the
local governments.

Local taxes may be imposed, as the Constitution grants, to each local government unit, the power to create
its own sources of revenues and to levy taxes, fees, and charges which shall accrue to the local
governments (Article X, Section 5). With respect to national taxes, local Government units shall have a just
share, as determined by law, in the national taxes which shall be automatically released to them (Article X,
Section 6).
However, certain taxes, such as the following, may not be imposed by local government units: (Section 133,
Local Government Code and Tax Law and Jurisprudence by Vitug & Acosta, copyright 2000)
(1)

Income tax, except when levied on banks and other financial institutions;

(2)

Documentary stamp tax;

(3)
Taxes on estates, inheritance, gifts, legacies and other acquisitions mortis causa, except as
otherwise provided in the Local Government Code (Code) (except taxes levied on the transfer of real
property ownership under Section 135, and Section 151 of the Code);
(4)
Customs duties, registration fees of vessels (except license fees imposed under Section 149, and
Section 151 of the Code), wharfage on wharves, tonnage dues and all other kinds of customs fees, charges
and dues except wharfage on wharves constructed and maintained by the local government unit concerned;
(5)
Taxes, fees, charges and other impositions upon goods carried into or out of, or passing through, the
territorial jurisdictions of local governments in the guise of charges for wharfage, tolls for bridges or
otherwise, or other taxes in any form whatever upon such goods or merchandise;
(6)
Taxes, fees or charges on agricultural and aquatic products when sold by marginal farmers or
fishermen;
(7)
Taxes on business enterprises certified by the Board of Investments as pioneer or non-pioneer for a
period of six and four years, respectively, from the date of registration;
(8)
Excise taxes on articles enumerated under the National Internal Revenue Code and taxes, fees, or
charges on petroleum products, but not a tax on the business of importing, manufacturing or producing said
products (Patron vs. Pililla, 198 SCRA 82);
(9)
Percentage tax or value-added tax on sales, barters or exchanges of goods or services or similar
transactions thereon (but not fixed graduated taxes on gross sales or on volume of production);
(10) Taxes on the gross receipts of transportation contractors and persons engaged in the transportation of
passengers or freight by hire and common carriers by air, land or water except as provided by the Code;
(11) Taxes on premiums paid for reinsurance or retrocession;
(12) Taxes, fees or charges for the registration of motor vehicles and for the issuance of all kinds of licenses
or permits for the driving thereof, except tricycles;
(13) Taxes, fees, or other charges on Philippine products actually exported except as provided by the Code
(the prohibition applies to any local export tax, fee, or levy on Philippine export products but not to any local
tax, fee, or levy that may be imposed on the business of exporting said products);
(14) Taxes, fees or charges on duly organized and registered Countryside and Barangay Business
Enterprises (R.A. No. 6810) and on cooperatives (R.A. No. 6938); and
(15) Taxes, fees or charges of any kind on the National Government, its agencies and instrumentalities, and
local government units (Section 133, LGC)

The Local Government Code (http://www.comelec.gov.ph/laws/lgc.html) or (http://www.dilg.gov.ph/)

contains provisions on the scope and limitation on the exercise of local government taxing power.
IX.

National Tax Research Center (NTRC)

Constituted under Presidential Decree 74, the NTRC is mandated to conduct continuing research in taxation
to restructure the tax system and raise the level of tax consciousness among the Filipinos, to achieve a
faster rate of economic growth and to bring about a more equitable distribution of wealth and income.
Specifically, the NTRC performs the following functions:
1.
Undertake comprehensive studies on the need for additional revenue for accelerated national
development and the sources from which this might most equitably be derived;
2.

Re-examine the existing tax system and tax policy structure;

3.

Conduct researches on taxation for the purpose of improving the tax system and tax policy;

4.

Pass upon all tax measures and revenue proposal;

5.
Recommend of such reforms and revisions as may be necessary to improve revenue collection and to
formulate sound tax policy and a more efficient tax structure.

Alcoholic beverages, tobacco products, jewelry, petroleum products, mining and petroleum taxes,
residence taxes, a head tax on immigrants above a certain age and staying beyond a certain period,
document stamp taxes, donor (gift) taxes, estate taxes, and capital gains taxes. A document stamp tax is
charged on stock certificates, proofs of indebtedness, proofs of ownership, etc., and normally amount to .
75% to 1% of the par or face value of the certificate are imposed with excise taxes

MANILA Valenzuela City Rep. Magtanggol Gunigundo wants to give his colleague, Sarangani Rep. and boxing
champion Manny Pacman Pacquiao a lifetime tax exemption.
This, after Congressman Elpidio Barzaga filed a resolution asking to probe the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) for
Pacquiaos tax problems, and after Congressman Lito Atienza filed a bill seeking to grant tax perks to athletes who
win prizes overseas.
Gunigundos Bill 3521 wants to be known as the Pacquiao Act of 2013.
Section 3 reads, The state shall confer lifetime individual income tax exemption to boxing icon Emmanuel Dapidran
Pacquiao, also known as Manny Pacquiao, who has given outstanding honor and pride to the Filipino people.
It also states that all payments for income tax already paid shall not be reimbursed, and that all other incurred
income tax liabilities for the previous years shall now be obliterated by the operation of this act.

In justifying the bill, Gunigundo cited Pacquiaos boxing achievements as well as his over-all impact to the Filipino
people.
Earlier today, ABAKADA party-list Rep. Jonathan dela Cruz on Thursday made a pitch for tax exemptions for athletes
who win prizes overseas, such as Pacquiao.
Dela Cruz said the honor given by these athletes to the country makes them deserving of the tax perks.
They are already giving honor to the country, Dela Cruz said. They deserve it.
Kung nabibigyan ng tax exemption ang corporations, kung nabibigyan natin ng exemption yung iba pa, bakit di
mabigyan ng tax exemption yung gaya ni Congressman Pacquiao, na nagbibigay ng karangalan sa taongbayan? he
reasoned.
On Wednesday, Dela Cruzs colleagues in the House Independent block filed a bill for the tax exemptions.
Pacquiaos friend, Buhay Party List Rep. Lito Atienza, authored the bill, which adds the following tax exemption:
(D) Prizes and awards in sports competitions All prizes and awards to amateur and professional athletes in local
and international sports competitions and tournaments, whether held in the Philippines or abroad, sanctioned by their
national sports association or any recognized world or international sports associations.
If approved, the bill would give exemption to prizes and awards in all the aforementioned competitions earned ten
years prior to the approval and effectivity of this act.
The tax incentives provided for in this act may be availed or enjoyed by the winner-taxpayer who may have, or in
connection with any pending assessments, tax cases or pending assessment charges or warrants and levy in the
process of or yet to be implemented.

Bureau of Internal Revenue Commissioner (BIR) Kim Henares is not in favor of granting Manny
Pacquiao an exemption from paying taxes.
This after lawmakers proposed that athletes who have given honor to the country should be
exempted from paying taxes. Boxing Champ and Sarangani Rep. Pacquiao is currently facing tax
woes.
In an interview on ANC, Henares said such move would be unconstitutional.
"There's something wrong with our values system. Because para sa akin, kung bibigyan niyo ng
exemption si Manny Pacquiao, kunyari ako sundalo, tinataya ko buhay ko, nagbibigay din ako ng ano
sa bayan, eh bakit hindi natin siya ineexempt? Sabihin natin mga lineman dyan sa electric post.
Tinataya rin niya buhay niya. eh bakit hindi siya ho ineexempt natin?" Henares told ANC.
She said, there are other aspects that the government can spend its money, other than giving tax
exemptions to individuals.
"Ang kailangan ng tao, yung magiging athlete pa lang siya, kailangan suportahan ng training,

nutrition, education, yun. I think that's where government should spend its money, not in tax
exemption, she said.
Pacquiaos friend, Buhay Partylist Representative Lito Atienza has authored a bill seeking tax
exemptions for awards won by athletes in tournaments here or abroad.
Other allies of the boxing hero in Congress have voiced their support for the measure.
"They are already giving honor to country...they deserve it. Kung nabibigyan natin tax exemption
yung mga nagreregister na corporations, bakit di mabigyan ng tax exemption yung gaya ni
Congressman Pacquiao na nagbibigay talaga ng karangalan sa bayan, ABAKADA Partylist Rep.
Jonathan dela Cruz said.
For others, meanwhile, the Pacman should not pay income tax at all, for life.
There's nothing in the constitution that prevents congress from compelling individuals an income
tax exemptions, said Valenzuela Representative Magtanggol Gunigundo.
He added, Habang buhay si Manny Pacquiao siya ay makikinabang dito sa individual tax exemption
na ito. Tayo as a bansa nag-ooffer ng tax holidays sa mga dambuhalang corporations para
mangalakal dito. Binibigyan natin nga 5 years, 7 years holiday bakit hindi natin magawa yan sa isang
tao na nagbigay napakagandang karangalan sa bansa?

I appreciated Reni Valenzuelas paean to Manny Pacquiao (Smarter, stronger, Pacman showed heart,
Letters, 12/18/13). But we might want a more global or balanced presentation.
On the tax exemption proposed for him (and other winning athletes), had he been a model citizen, the
exemption bill might have had an underdogs chance. But the congressman is competing as top House
absentee and has started his own dynasty in Mindanao (elected wife and election loser brother). Good,
Speaker Sonny Belmonte disfavors this invidious exemption discrimination in favor of an arguable tax
cheat.
And what will he do with his savings anyway? Unless truly reformed, finance his vices, womanizing,
casino and cockpit swings, the lavish parties of his mother (imported dance instructors from Manila and
costume changes) at a time of great want, etc.?
Manny turned 35 this week, a rather perilous age for one who indicated that he would take out Brandon
Rios in two rounds or so, but the latter carried the fight to the last bell.
Remember, Manny, first your legs go, then your reflexes, then your friendsfrom featherweight champ
Willie Pep.
Mannys tax woes are far from over with Bob Arum, a Harvard Law cum laude, saying the IRS papers are
on their way from the United States. By snail mail? Commissioner Kim Henares says the Bureau of
Internal Revenue started raising questions about Mannys taxes more than two years ago.

Pacquiaos Canadian adviser Mike Koncz now says a compromise with the taxman is being worked out
on exemptions to reduce Mannys liability. So whats the real deal? Settlement may be the way to go.
Tax exemption for Manny may spur more of the young to go into the Manly Art of Modified Murder (Bill
McGeehan) and risk joining Joshua Garcia, the high school student in an athletic meet declared first as
brain dead and then very, very dead. Maybe Manny can visit the financially-strapped Garcias with a
generous cash gift.
How much damage has Mannys brain suffered? No one knows, but any hard blow to the head must
shake it. We dont want anyone shuffling and stuttering like Muhammad Ali, he of the outstanding
physique when he started. Manny may or may not have a longer unscheduled siesta in his next fight.
RENE SAGUISAG,
ravslaw@gmail.com

GENERAL SANTOS CITY, December 10, 2013 At no other time since the Commonwealth transition to Republic
(1935-1946) but today 78 years after that members of the House of Representatives, at least nine of them, have
exhibited so ridiculously such a callous mentality unmindful of the least degree of decency. Their acts speak of
judgment at its worst.
The nine, to bail out beleaguered Manny Pacquiao, the multi-titled world boxing champion a.k.a. Sarangani Rep.
Emmanuel D. Pacquiao, from his tax woes P2.2 billion deficiency in two years filed two bills proposing to exempt
him from paying taxes. What misdirected legislation that can make the Philippines a laughing stock among
respectable nations.
One bill, authored by Valenzuela City Rep. Magtanggol Gunigundo, would give Pacquiao a lifetime exemption from
taxes of all incomes retroactive to ten years. The other bill, authored by Party List Rep. Lito Atienza co-authored by
Leyte Rep. Ferdinand Martin Romualdez, Quezon Rep. Aleta Suarez, Cavite Rep. Lani Mercado-Revilla, Party List
Rep. Jonathan de la Cruz, La Union Rep. Victor Ortega, Surigao del Sur Rep. Philip Pichay and Camarines Sur Rep.
Diosdado Macapagal Arroyo would grant tax exemption to all athletes.
Gunigundo noted that conferring the rare privilege of a lifetime income-tax exemption [to] an individual in the country
had been done in Colombia, which granted a similar privilege to its citizen who won the Miss Universe crown in
1958 Luz Marina Zuluaga. Besides this, the Colombian government built her a mansion, declared a national
holiday in her name and printed postal stamps in her honor. (Philippine Daily Inquirer, December5, 2013)
Section 3 of Gunigundos Bill reads,The state shall confer lifetime individual income tax exemption to boxing icon
Emmanuel Dapidran Pacquiao, also known as Manny Pacquiao, who has given outstanding honor and pride to the
Filipino people. (ANC, World Tonight, December 5, 2013).
In various press statements, the authors and co-authors have couched in different fallacious, hollow rhetoric the
accolade has given outstanding honor and pride to the Filipino people as the reasons for granting Pacquiao
the extraordinary privilege. That has yet to be seen and appreciated in concrete.

If these bills become a law, Pacquiao will be more privileged than the royal families in England. According
to Wikipedia, members of the Royal Family other than The Queen and The Prince of Wales are subject to tax in the
ordinary way. The Prince of Wales [now Prince Charles] is the Crowned Prince, successor to the throne. However,
the Queen and the Prince of Wales are subject to a Memorandum of Understanding on Royal Taxation, dated 5
February 1993, which records the arrangements for the payment of tax by The Queen and The Prince of Wales.
As noted in Wikipedia, The Prince of Wales is not legally obliged to pay tax on his income from the Duchy of
Cornwall but has chosen to pay income tax at the normal rates pursuant to the Memorandum of Understanding on
Royal Taxation. The income of the Prince of Wales from sources other than the Duchy of Cornwall is subject to tax
in the normal way.(bold supplied)
Mail On Line (December 9, 2013) said the Buckingham Palace senior courtiers are said to be nervous about
reaction to revelations that the Queen will not pay a penny on her mothers 50million fortune. The Queen Mother
died last March. While the Queen is exempted under the 1993 Memorandum from paying the almost 20million
(pound sterling) in inheritance tax, this is being contested by former Labour Party MP Dennis Canavan, who
declared: I find it incredible that the Royal Family should think that they should indulge in tax avoidance or evasion.
The proposed Pacquaio tax-for-life exemption law is class legislation. The constitutionality can be questioned in
Court. Even if the House will ignore ethics and pass the law, will the Senate approve it? Even if passed by the
Congress, the President will surely veto it.
If Pacquaio is really a living national hero and the inspiration of the present and future Filipino youth, he,
as congressman, should oppose the legislation. That will be upholding propriety and national welfare to put sense in
the senseless Congress even at the cost of billions of pesos he is loath to part from. Can Manny Pacquiao, the
world multi-titled boxing champion, a.k.a. Congressman Emmanuel D. Pacquiao emulate Prince Charles as model
taxpayer?
Heres from Mail On Line: From 1969 Prince Charles made voluntary tax payments of 50% of profits from the Duchy
of Cornwall, but this reduced to 25% in 1981 when he married Lady Diana Spencer. Ordinary income tax which
Prince Charles chose to follow is 40 percent above 2,500. The Prince of Wales did not have to pay taxes for profits
from the Duchy of Cornwall.
Why is the Philippines poor? From the sari-sari stores to the mega corporations, small service providers to the big
professionals in the country do not declare correctly if they declare at all their incomes to evade taxes. Can
Manny Pacquiao, the multi-titled world boxing champion a.k.a. Congressman Emmanuel D. Pacquiao defy partisan
politics, rise above and truly be a model of an honest taxpayer?
If he does, who knows he will awaken the country from tax unconsciousness and make the Philippines as
progressive as the United Kingdom, not remain poor like Colombia.

I love @MannyPacquiao but lifetime tax exemption is a little over the top. E di sana nagboxing
na lang tayong lahat. A lifetime tax exemption for Pacquiao for bringing glory to the nation?
Now THAT's where I don't agree. What about the others who also did?

The move to exempt Filipino boxing icon Manny Pacquiao from paying taxes did not sit well with some
ranking members of the administration coalition on the ground that it would not be fair for the government
and the others who had similarly brought honor to the country.
Cavite Rep. Elpidio Barzaga Jr. and Marikina Rep. Romero Quimbo said the move would compromise the
governments efforts in collecting more taxes.
Valenzuela Rep. Magtanggol Gunigundo, in House Bill 3521 or the Pacquiao Act of 2013, had proposed a
lifetime tax exemption to Pacquiao for his exemplary performance in boxing.
That would be difficult, Barzaga said. Barzaga is the chairman of the House committee on games and
amusement.
He said the move would affect the tax collection of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) as well as other
proposals of tax exemptions for minimum wage earners and other professionals who brought honor to the
country like actors and actresses.
We have to consider how other sectors would get affected by this, considering that the lifeblood of the
government is taxation, Barzaga added.
Quimbo, chairman of the House committee on ways and means, said the law does not allow an
exemption for only one person.
The law does not allow an exemption meant only for one person, Quimbo said.
Gunigundo, in filing the bill, said Pacquiao deserves a lifetime of tax break because of Pacquiaos revered
place in boxing and world history.
He is a gifted athlete with knockout punch, lightning fast speed, outstanding footwork, dexterity and solid
chin. He is electrifying, exciting and a phenomenon. This is a fitting expression of a nations gratitude for
his achievements and in appreciation of the honor and inspiration he has brought to Filipino people,
Gunigundo said in his explanatory note.
Likewise, Gunigundo invoked that Columbia granted the same privilege to Luz Marina Zuluaga who won a
Ms. Universe crown in 1958.
Columbia built a mansion, printed postal stamps, declared a national holiday in her (Zuluagas) name
and proclaimed her tax exempt for life. Ms. Zuluaga of Columbia won the said pageant and yet she
received honors and privileges from her country. What Pacquiao did has never been achieved before,
Gunigundo said.
Another Pacquiao supporter, Buhay Partylist Rep. Jose Lito Atienza had also filed a bill that would exempt
the Sarangani lawmaker from paying taxes on a retroactive basis starting with his earnings 10 years ago.
Pacquiaos dispute with the BIR stemmed shortly after his arrival from a boxing bout with American
Brandon Rios in Macau. He was slapped with over P2 billion by the BIR for failing to pay his taxes for
2008 and 2009.
Pacquiao maintained he already paid his taxes at the Internal Revenue Service of the United States.
Meanwhile, Sen. Grace Poe is not keen on the idea of giving Peoples Champ, Sarangani Rep. Manny

Pacquiao, lifetime exemption from paying his income tax, in recognition of the countless honor and pride
he has brought to the country as an athlete.
Yet Poe rallied behind the congressman in his ongoing legal battle with the BIR over his tax woes, saying
the government should at least be more lenient to Pacquiao on the submission of needed tax records.
Were not trying to belittle the honor and pride he has brought to our country but all of us, whether its the
President, a national hero or not, are obligated to pay taxes due our government. But I wish Pacquiao
should be given consideration by giving him some leeway to enable him in settling his tax obligations, the
neophyte senator said.
Deputy Minority Leader Vicente Sotto III, on the other hand, expressed support to the bill filed in the
House of Representatives by Valenzuela Rep. Magtanggol Gunigundo on proposed lifetime tax
exemption for Pacquiao.
I concur because he brings honor to the country. Athletes should be exempt from taxes if winnings are
from abroad, Sotto said in a text message to reporters.
Angie M. Rosales