Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 2

DAVID G. NITAFAN, WENCESLAO M. POLO, and MAXIMO A.

SAVELLANO,
JR., petitioners,
vs.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE and THE FINANCIAL OFFICER,
SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

The statute and the constitution

FACTS:
The petitioners seek to enjoin CIR from making deduction of withholding taxes
from their salaries.

Petitioners contend that "any tax withheld from their emoluments or


compensation as judicial officers constitutes a decrease or diminution of their
salaries, contrary to the provision of Section 10, Article VIII of the 1987
Constitution mandating that during their continuance in office, their salary shall
not be decreased,'

ISSUE:
WON appointed and qualified judges (the petitioners) may be exempt from
payment of income tax

HELD:
No. This petition of the judges is then dismissed.

RATIO:
To resolve the legal issue raised in this petition the court looked into the
intent of the framers of the Constitution who drafted the provision in
question. The primary task in constitutional construction is to ascertain
and thereafter assure the realization of the purpose of the framers and of
the people in the adoption of the Constitution.

The intent of the 1987 Constitutional Commission was to delete the proposed
express grant of exemption from payment of income tax to members of the
Judiciary, so as to "give substance to equality among the three branches of
Government" (in the words of Commissioner Rigos). Commissioner Joaquin Bernas
also said that the salaries of members of the Judiciary would be subject to the
general income tax applied to all taxpayers.

This intent became unclear in the final text of the 1987 Constitution. Having seen
the failure of not including a prohibition on the exemption of any public officer or
employee from payment of income tax, the court has authorized the continuation
of the deduction of the withholding tax from the salaries of the members of the
Supreme Court, as well as from the salaries of all other members of the Judiciary.

ADDITIONAL INFO (Might be asked):


*In relation to the legal issue raised in this case, it was stated here that they have
discarded the ruling in Perfecto vs. Meer and Endencia vs. David that declared the
salaries of members of the Judiciary exempt from payment of the income tax and
considered such payment as a diminution of their salaries during their continuance
in office.

*Here is a comparison of the constitutional provision involved


1935 1973 1987
". . . (The members of the "The salary of the Chief "The salary of the Chief
Supreme Court and all Justice and of the Justice and of the
judges of inferior courts) Associate Justices of the Associate Justices of the
shall receive such Supreme Court, and of Supreme Court, and of
compensation as may be judges of inferior courts judges of lower courts
fixed by law, which shall shall be fixed by law, shall be fixed by law.
not which shall During their continuance
be diminished during their not be decreased during in office, their salary shall
continuance in office . . ." their continuance in office not be decreased."
. . ."

"No salary or any form of


emolument of any public
officer or employee,
including constitutional
officers, shall be exempt
from payment of income
tax."

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi