Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PHILIPPINE RURAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVES ASSOCIATION v. SECRETARY

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 166102 2015-08-05	MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. CITY ASSESSOR LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Taking into account the above-mentioned provisions, the evident intent of the Local Government Code is to withdraw/repeal all exemptions from local taxes, unless otherwise provided by the Code. The limited and restrictive nature of the tax exemption privileges under the Local Government Code is consistent with the State policy to ensure autonomy of local governments and the objective of the Local Government Code to grant genuine and meaningful autonomy to enable local government units to attain their fullest development as self-reliant communities and make them effective partners in the attainment of national goals. The obvious intention of the law is to broaden the tax base of local government units to assure them of substantial sources of revenue.[43]
	GR No. 192945 2012-09-05	CITY OF IRIGA v. CAMARINES SUR III ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
In Philippine Rural Electric Cooperatives Association, Inc. (PHILRECA) v. The Secretary, Department of Interior and Local Government,[26] the Court held that the tax privileges granted to electric cooperatives registered with NEA under PD 269 were validly withdrawn and only those registered with the CDA under RA 6938 may continue to enjoy the tax privileges under the Cooperative Code.
	GR No. 160756 2010-03-09	CHAMBER OF REAL ESTATE v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY ALBERTO ROMULO CORONA, J.
The equal protection clause under the Constitution means that "no person or class of persons shall be deprived of the same protection of laws which is enjoyed by other persons or other classes in the same place and in like circumstances."[85] Stated differently, all persons belonging to the same class shall be taxed alike. It follows that the guaranty of the equal protection of the laws is not violated by legislation based on a reasonable classification. Classification, to be valid, must (1) rest on substantial distinctions; (2) be germane to the purpose of the law; (3) not be limited to existing conditions only and (4) apply equally to all members of the same class.[86]
	GR No. 176951 2008-11-18	LEAGUE OF CITIES OF PHILIPPINES v. COMELEC CARPIO, J.
It is not the province of the Court to delve into the wisdom of legislative enactments. The only function of courts is the interpretation of laws. The principle of separation of powers prevents them from reinventing laws.[140] By the very nature of the function of the Legislature, it is that branch of government that is vested with being the judge of the necessity, adequacy, wisdom, reasonableness, and expediency of any law.[141] Courts are bereft of any power to take away the prerogatives of the legislature in the guise of construing or interpreting the law.[142] In making choices, Congress has consulted its own wisdom, which this Court has no authority to review, much less reverse. Courts do not sit to resolve the merits of conflicting theories. That is the prerogative of the political departments. It is settled that questions regarding the wisdom, morality, or practicability of statutes, are not addressed to the judiciary. They may be addressed only by the legislative and executive departments, to which the function belongs in our scheme of government. That function is exclusive, to which courts have no business of prying into. Whichever way the legislative and executive branches decide, they are answerable only to their own conscience and their constituents who will ultimately judge their acts, and not the courts of justice.[143]
	GR NO. 160174 2006-08-28	FRANCISCO SILVA AS NEA ADMINISTRATOR v. LEOVIGILDO T. MATIONG CARPIO, J.
The NEA, as a public corporation, acts through its Board of Administrators, composed of a Chairman and four members, one of whom is the Administrator as ex-officio member.[40] The NEA exercises supervision and control[41] over electric cooperatives organized and operating under the mandate of PD 269, as amended. The extent of government control over electric cooperatives covered by PD 269, as amended, is largely a function of the NEA as a primary source of funds of these electric cooperatives.[42]
	GR No. 146494 2004-07-14	GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. MILAGROS O. MONTESCLAROS CARPIO, J.
A statute based on reasonable classification does not violate the constitutional guaranty of the equal protection of the law.[28] The requirements for a valid and reasonable classification are: (1) it must rest on substantial distinctions; (2) it must be germane to the purpose of the law; (3) it must not be limited to existing conditions only; and (4) it must apply equally to all members of the same class.[29] Thus, the law may treat and regulate one class differently from another class provided there are real and substantial differences to distinguish one class from another.[30]