Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
168056) - Digest
Facts:
On May 24, 2005, the President signed into law Republic Act 9337 or the VAT
Reform Act. Before the law took effect on July 1, 2005, the Court issued a
TRO enjoining government from implementing the law in response to a slew
of petitions for certiorari and prohibition questioning the constitutionality of
the new law.
The challenged section of R.A. No. 9337 is the common proviso in Sections 4,
5 and 6: That the President, upon the recommendation of the Secretary of
Finance, shall, effective January 1, 2006, raise the rate of value-added tax to
12%, after any of the following conditions has been satisfied:
Issue:
Whether or not the RA 9337's stand-by authority to the Executive to increase
the VAT rate, especially on account of the recommendatory power granted to
the Secretary of Finance, constitutes undue delegation of legislative power?
Ruling:
The powers which Congress is prohibited from delegating are those which are
strictly, or inherently and exclusively, legislative. Purely legislative power
which can never be delegated is the authority to make a complete law-
complete as to the time when it shall take effect and as to whom it shall be
applicable, and to determine the expediency of its enactment. It is the nature
of the power and not the liability of its use or the manner of its exercise
which determines the validity of its delegation.
Congress just granted the Secretary of Finance the authority to ascertain the
existence of a fact--- whether by December 31, 2005, the VAT collection as a
percentage of GDP of the previous year exceeds 2 4/5 % or the national
government deficit as a percentage of GDP of the previous year exceeds one
and 1%. If either of these two instances has occurred, the Secretary of
Finance, by legislative mandate, must submit such information to the
President.
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.
Whether or not it is necessary for the recruiter to expressly represent themselves that they
have an ability to send workers abroad for the purpose of collecting various amounts in guise of
placement fees to consider them illegal recruiters.
RULING:
Yes, Article 13(b) defines recruitment and placement as "any act of canvassing, enlisting,
contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring workers; and includes referrals, contract
services, promising or advertising for employment, locally or abroad, whether for profit or not.
In the simplest terms, illegal recruitment is committed by persons who, without authority from
the government, give the impression that they have the power to send workers abroad for
employment purposes.
Since appellant, along with the other accused, made misrepresentations concerning their
purported power and authority to recruit for overseas employment, and in the process collected
from private complainants various amounts in the guise of placement fees, the former clearly
committed acts constitutive of illegal recruitment. In fact, this Court held that illegal recruiters
need not even expressly represent themselves to the victims as persons who have the ability to
send workers abroad. It is enough that these recruiters give the impression that they have the
ability to enlist workers for job placement abroad in order to induce the latter to tender payment
of fees.