GARCIA VS MATA Petitioner was a reserve officer on active duty of the Armed Forces of the Philippines until his

reversion to the inactive status on 15 November 1960. This was in pursuant of RA 2332. At the time of his reversion Garcia was captain with a monthly emolument of P478 which includes base and longevity pay, quarters and subsistence allowance. He was reverted to inactive status on November 15 1960. However, on June 1955, the date RA 1382 took effect, petitioner had a total of 9 years, 4 months and 12 days of accumulated service. Petitioner alleged that he has not been receiving his emolument, nor was he ever employed in any other capacity of the Government. On Jul 11 1956, RA 1600 which states that reserve officers with at least 10 years of accumulated commissioned service who are still in active duty at the time of the approval of this act shall not be reverted to inactive duty except for causes determinable by the court martial, was approved and took effect On September 1969 the petition brought an action for mandamus and recovery of a sum of money to compel the AFP to reinstate him, adjust his ranks and pay all the emoluments and allowance due. He cited RA 1382 and RA 1600 as grounds for his petition. Respondents on the other hand contends that the provisions has no relevance to the budget in question or to any appropriation item contained, as it is proscribed by ART VI Sec 19. Issue: whether or not petitioner should be reinstated? Is RA 1600 constitutional? Held: No, the petitioner cannot compel the respondents to reinstate him or pay him emoluments as he has no legal position to do so. The laws in which he built his case on is unconstitutional and confers no right, Ratio: RA 1600, entitled Appropriating Funds for the Operation of the Government, is not constitutional as it violates Art VI sec 21 of the Constitution. While the rest of the act contains provisions about appropriated money for the operation of the Government, Par 11 talks about fundamental governmental policy matters of the calling of Active Duty. Sec 21 of Art VI states, No bill which may be enacted into law shall embrace more than one subject which shall be expressed in the title of the bill. It is clear that paragraph 11 is not fairly included in the subject expressed in the title or was not germane to or properly connected with the subject. The courts held that when an act contains provisions which are clearly not embraced in the subject of the act, such provisions are inoperative and without effect. CIR vs CA

Facts: Manila Golf and Country Club Inc maintais a golf course and operates a clubhouse with a lounge, bar and dining room but these facilities are for the exclusive use of its members only and it charges on a cost plus expense basis. As such, it claims it should have been exempt from paying privilege taxes were it not for the last paragraph of Sec 191-A of RA No. 6110 of the Omnibus Tax Law, that charges them to pay a certain percentage of whatever they garner from Gross Receipts. The club protested claiming that the assessment be with out basis as Sec 42 of the RA in question was vetoed by then President Marcos. The petitioner who maintains that Sec 42 was not entirely vetoed but merely the words hotels, motels and Resthouses, denied the protestation of the club. Issue: whether the Republic Act 6110 has an effect due to the alleged vetoing done by then President Marcos? Held: RA 6110 is valid and enforceable. Manila Golf and Country club is liable to pay the assessed amount? Ratio: the ineffectual veto by the president rendered Sec 191 A as not having been vetoed at all, therefore it became law, as an unconstitutional veto has no effect, whatsoever. A president can veto a bill, but he can only veto everything or nothing at all. He also has the right to veto merely an item in revenue bills. An item in a revenue bills does not refer to an entire section imposing a particular kind of tax, but rather to the subject of the tax and tax rate.

Insular Lumber Co Vs. Court of Tax Appeals

Facts: Insular Lumber Company , organized under the laws of new york, USA, is a licensed forest concessionaire. The company purchased manufactured oils and motor fuel which it used in the operation of its forest concession, sawmill etc. pursuant of Sec 5 of RA 1435, the company filed for a claim for refund on taxes on December 1964. The commissioner denied such claim as the 5 year period starting from 1956 has already prescribed. The company the filed an appeal with the CTA which granted the said appeal. Commissioner thus filed the case at hand. It alleges that the CTA committed an error in not holding that the first proviso in Section 5 of Republic Act 1435 invoked by the company as legal basis for its claim as null and void for being unconstitutional as it vilates Art VI sec 21 (1) no bill which may be enacted into a law shall embrace more than one subject which shall be expressed in the title of the bill. Issue: whether or nor RA 1435 is unconstitutional? Held: The courts found no merit in the argument. Ratio: the title of RA 1435 is An Act to Provide Means for Increasing the Highway Special Fund. The act in questioned only deals with one subject and proclaims just one policy namely the necessity for increasing the Highway special Fund through the imposition of an increased specific tax on manufactured oils. The purpose of the legislators did not seem to have been ignored as the title reflects its complete subjects. Thus, despite of the supposed insufficiency of either the title or the act itself, it should always be sustained.

Tan Vs. Del Rosario

Facts: Petitioner contends that the title of RA 7496 is a misnomer and deficient for being mrely entitled Simplified Net Income Taxation Scheme for the Self Employed and Proffessionals Engaged in the Practice of their Profession. They also claim that the act is of violation of Art VI sec 21 (1) : One Subject embraced per bill, Expressed in the title and 26 (1): Equitable and uniform rule of taxation, of the Constitution. According to petitioners the act desecrates the constitutional requirement that taxation shall be uniform and equitable. Issues: whether or not RA 7496 is constitutional? Held: Yes, RA 7496 is constitutional. Ratio: Art VI Sec 26 (1) of the constitution has been envisioned to: 1. prevent log rolling legislation indeed to unite the members of the legislature who favor any one of unrelated subjects in support of the whole act 2. to avoid surprises or even frau upon the legislature 3. to fairly apprise the people through such publications of its proceedings as usually made. These objectives, are said to have been met by the Act in question Uniformity of taxation like equal protection merely requires that all subjects or objects of taxation, similarly situated are to be treated alike both in privileges and liabilities. Uniformity does not forefend classification as long as: 1. the standards that are used therefore are substantial and not arbitrary 2. the categorization is germane to achieve the legislative purpose 3. the law applies, all things being equal to both present and future conditions 4. applies equally well to all those belonging to the same class.

Demetria vs Alba

Facts: petitioners who filed the instant petition as concerned citizens of the country and as members of the National Assembly/ Batasan Pambansa and as taxpayers whose interests may be affected by the outcome of the relief prayed for. The complaint filed are grounded on the following: 1. Sec 44 of the BUDGET REFORM DECREE OF 1977 Infringes upon the the fundamental law by authorizing the illegal transfer of public money. 2. Sec 44 of Presidential decree No 1177 is repugnant to the constitution as it fails to specify the objectives and purposes for which the proposed transfer of funds are to be made. 3. Sec 44 of the decree (1177) allows the president to override the safeguards, form and procedute prescribed by the constitution 4. Sec 44 of the same decree amounts to an undue delegation 5. The continuance of transfer by the president is in excess of their authority and jurisdiction. Sec 44 provides: The president shall have the authority to transfer any fund, appropriated for the different departments, bureau, offices and agencies of the executive Department which are included in the General appropriation act, to any program included after its enactment Respondents on the other hand contends that the petitioner has no standing to file the case and that what it merely asks is the opinion of the courts, there being no justiciable controversy. Issue: whether or not the act in question is violative of the constitution? Held: Yes, it is invalid. The court ruled that Section 44 of PD 1177 is null and void because it puts all safeguards prescribed under the constitution regarding Appropriations. Ratio: the prohibition to transfer an appropriation for one item to another was explicit in the constitution. However to afford the heads of the different branches of government an those of the constitutional commissions considerable flexibility in the use of public funds and resources, the constitution allowed the enactment of a law authorizing the transfer of funds for purpose of augmenting an item from savings in another item. Paragraph 1 od Sec 44 of PD 1177 unduly extends the privilege granted under sec 16(5). It empowers the president to indiscriminately transfer funds from one dept to another with out regard as to whether or not the funds to be transferred is for the purpose of augmenting the item to which said transfer is to be made. It does not only completely disregard the standards set by the law thereby amounting to undue delegation but furthermore, it goes beyond the tenor thereof.