Ichong v.

Hernandez
G.R. No. L-7995, May 31, 1957
FACTS:
Lao Ichong is a Chinese businessman who entered the country to take
advantage of business opportunities herein abound (then) particularly in the
retail business. For some time he and his fellow Chinese businessmen enjoyed
a monopoly in the local market in Pasay. Until in June 1954 when Congress
passed the RA 1180 or the Retail Trade Nationalization Act the purpose of
which is to reserve to Filipinos the right to engage in the retail business. Ichong
then petitioned for the nullification of the said Act on the ground that it
contravened several treaties concluded by the RP which, according to him,
violates the equal protection clause (pacta sund servanda). He said that as a
Chinese businessman engaged in the business here in the country who helps
in the income generation of the country he should be given equal opportunity.
ISSUE:
Whether or not a law may invalidate or supersede treaties or generally accepted
principles.
HELD:
Yes, a law may supersede a treaty or a generally accepted principle. In this
case, there is no conflict at all between the raised generally accepted principle
and with RA 1180. The equal protection of the law clause does not demand
absolute equality amongst residents; it merely requires that all persons shall be
treated alike, under like circumstances and conditions both as to privileges
conferred and liabilities enforced; and, that the equal protection clause is not
infringed by legislation which applies only to those persons falling within a
specified class, if it applies alike to all persons within such class, and
reasonable grounds exist for making a distinction between those who fall within
such class and those who do not.
For the sake of argument, even if it would be assumed that a treaty would be in
conflict with a statute then the statute must be upheld because it represented
an exercise of the police power which, being inherent could not be bargained
away or surrendered through the medium of a treaty. Hence, Ichong can no
longer assert his right to operate his market stalls in the Pasay city market.

Deutsche Bank AG Manila Branch v. CIR

G.R. No. 188550, August 8, 2013
FACTS:
Petitioner withheld a 15% tax on its remittances to its head office in Germany
using as basis the Tax Code provision on Branch Profit Remittance Tax (BPRT).
Believing that it overpaid the BPRT since the RP-Germany Treaty provides for a
lower rate of 10% on branch remittances, the petitioner filed a refund with the
Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) and subsequently with the Court of
Tax Appeals (CTA). Both the BIR and the CTA denied stating that
the branch office should have filed a tax treaty relief application prior to
availing of the preferential treaty rate in view of the existing doctrine n
the Mirant case.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Deutsche Bank is entitled to the claim for refund even if it did
not file a tax treaty relief application with the BIR
HELD:
Yes. The Court initially stated that the minute resolution upholding
the doctrine in Mirant is not a binding precedent specially since there are
differences in the parties, taxable period, etc. On the substantive issue, the
Court said that the principle of pacta sunt servanda requires the performance
in good faith of treaty obligations. Thus, to require that taxpayers must first
comply with an administrative requirement (under RMO 1-2000) is not in
consonance with the performance in good faith. The obligation to comply with a
tax treaty must take precedence over the objectives of the said RMO. In
addition, it was pointed out that the prior application becomes illogical if the
premise of the claim was an erroneous payment since the taxpayer could not
have known it would be entitled to the refund since precisely it was using a
different basis when it paid the taxes due.