Abakada Guro Partylist

Vs
Executive Secretary
G.R. No. 168056

FACTS:

Before R.A. No. 9337 took effect, petitioners ABAKADA GURO Party List, et al.,
filed a petition for prohibition on May 27, 2005 questioning the constitutionality
of Sections 4, 5 and 6 of R.A. No. 9337, amending Sections 106, 107 and 108,
respectively, of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC). Section 4 imposes a
10% VAT on sale of goods and properties, Section 5 imposes a 10% VAT on
importation of goods, and Section 6 imposes a 10% VAT on sale of services and
use or lease of properties. These questioned provisions contain a uniform pro v is
o authorizing the President, upon recommendation of the Secretary of Finance,
to raise the VAT rate to 12%, effective January 1, 2006, after specified
conditions have been satisfied. Petitioners argue that the law is unconstitutional.

ISSUES:
Whether or not there is a violation of Article VI, Section 24 of the
Constitution.
Whether or not there is undue delegation of legislative power in violation of
Article VI Section 28 (2) of the Constitution.
Whether or not there is a violation of the due process and equal protection
under Article III Section 1 of the Constitution.

RULING AND DISCUSSION:

Since there is no question that the revenue bill exclusively originated in the
House of Representatives, the Senate was acting within its constitutional power
to introduce amendments to the House bill when it included provisions in Senate
Bill No. 1950 amending corporate income taxes, percentage, and excise and
franchise taxes. There is no undue delegation of legislative power but only of the
discretion as to the execution of a law. This is constitutionally permissible.
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. The power of the State to make reasonable
and natural classifications for the purposes of taxation has long been established.
Whether it relates to the subject of taxation, the kind of property, the rates to be
levied, or the amounts to be raised, the methods of assessment, valuation and
collection, the States power is entitled to presumption of validity. As a rule, the
judiciary will not interfere with such power absent a clear showing of
unreasonableness, discrimination, or arbitrariness.
Republic Act No. 9337 not being unconstitutional, the petitions in G.R. Nos.
168056, 168207, 168461, 168463, and 168730, are DISMISSED. There being no
constitutional impediment to the full enforcement and implementation of R.A.
No. 9337, the temporary restraining order issued by the Court on July 1, 2005 is
LIFTED upon finality of decision.