Lawyerly

GR No. 213181

2014-08-19

FRANCIS H. JARDELEZA v. CHIEF JUSTICE MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO

MENDOZA, J.

This court clarified the concept of a vested right in ABAKADA Guro Party List v. Executive Secretary Ermita:[73]

GR No. 187485

2013-02-12

CIR v. SAN ROQUE POWER CORPORATION

CARPIO, J.

G.R. No. 196113 is a petition for review[6] assailing the Decision[7] promulgated on 8 December 2010 as well as the Resolution[8] promulgated on 14 March 2011 by the CTA EB in CTA EB No. 624. In its Decision, the CTA EB reversed the 8 January 2010 Decision[9] as well as the 7 April 2010 Resolution[10] of the CTA Second Division and granted the CIR's petition for review in CTA Case No. 7574. The CTA EB dismissed, for having been prematurely filed, Taganito Mining Corporation's (Taganito) judicial claim for P8,365,664.38 tax refund or credit.

GR No. 181704

2011-12-06

BUREAU OF CUSTOMS EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION MR. ROMULO A. PAGULAYAN v. MARGARITO B. TEVES

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

The principle of separation of powers ordains that each of the three great branches of government has exclusive cognizance of and is supreme in matters falling within its own constitutionally allocated sphere.[28] Necessarily imbedded in this doctrine is the principle of non-delegation of powers, as expressed in the Latin maxim potestas delegata non delegari potest, which means "what has been delegated, cannot be delegated." This doctrine is based on the ethical principle that such delegated power constitutes not only a right but a duty to be performed by the delegate through the instrumentality of his own judgment and not through the intervening mind of another.[29] However, this principle of non-delegation of powers admits of numerous exceptions,[30] one of which is the delegation of legislative power to various specialized administrative agencies like the Board in this case.

GR No. 172087

2011-03-15

PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT v. BIR

PERALTA, J.

Different groups came to this Court via petitions for certiorari and prohibition[11] assailing the validity and constitutionality of R.A. No. 9337, in particular: 1) Section 4, which imposes a 10% Value Added Tax (VAT) on sale of goods and properties; Section 5, which imposes a 10% VAT on importation of goods; and Section 6, which imposes a 10% VAT on sale of services and use or lease of properties, all contain a uniform proviso authorizing the President, upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Finance, to raise the VAT rate to 12%. The said provisions were alleged to be violative of Section 28 (2), Article VI of the Constitution, which section vests in Congress the exclusive authority to fix the rate of taxes, and of Section 1, Article III of the Constitution on due process, as well as of Section 26 (2), Article VI of the Constitution, which section provides for the "no amendment rule" upon the last reading of a bill;

GR No. 190582

2010-04-08

ANG LADLAD LGBT PARTY REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS CHAIR v. COMELEC

DEL CASTILLO, J.

Despite the absolutism of Article III, Section 1 of our Constitution, which provides "nor shall any person be denied equal protection of the laws," courts have never interpreted the provision as an absolute prohibition on classification. "Equality," said Aristotle, "consists in the same treatment of similar persons."[33] The equal protection clause guarantees 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.[34]

GR No. 176006

2010-03-26

NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. PINATUBO COMMERCIAL

CORONA, J.

The equal protection clause 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."[25] The guaranty of the equal protection of the laws is not violated by a legislation based on a reasonable classification.[26] The equal protection clause, therefore, does not preclude classification of individuals who may be accorded different treatment under the law as long as the classification is reasonable and not arbitrary.[27]

GR No. 160756

2010-03-09

CHAMBER OF REAL ESTATE v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY ALBERTO ROMULO

CORONA, J.

In sum, petitioner failed to support, by any factual or legal basis, its allegation that the MCIT is arbitrary and confiscatory. The Court cannot strike down a law as unconstitutional simply because of its yokes.[58] Taxation is necessarily burdensome because, by its nature, it adversely affects property rights.[59] The party alleging the law's unconstitutionality has the burden to demonstrate the supposed violations in understandable terms.[60]

GR No. 175220

2009-02-12

WILLIAM C. DAGAN v. PHILIPPINE RACING COMMISSION

TINGA, J.

The rule is that what has been delegated cannot be delegated, or as expressed in the Latin maxim: potestas delegate non delegare potest. This rule is based upon the ethical principle that such delegated power constitutes not only a right but a duty to be performed by the delegate by the instrumentality of his own judgment acting immediately upon the matter of legislation and not through the intervening mind of another.[29] This rule however admits of recognized exceptions[30] such as the grant of rule-making power to administrative agencies. They have been granted by Congress with the authority to issue rules to regulate the implementation of a law entrusted to them. Delegated rule-making has become a practical necessity in modern governance due to the increasing complexity and variety of public functions.[31]

GR No. 170656

2007-08-15

METROPOLITAN MANILA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. VIRON TRANSPORTATION CO.

CARPIO MORALES, J.

While police power rests primarily with the legislature, such power may be delegated, as it is in fact increasingly being delegated.[36] By virtue of a valid delegation, the power may be exercised by the President and administrative boards[37] as well as by the lawmaking bodies of municipal corporations or local governments under an express delegation by the Local Government Code of 1991.[38]

GR NO. 159796

2007-07-17

ROMEO P. GERICHI v. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (DOE)

NACHURA, J.

The principle of separation of powers ordains that each of the three branches of government has exclusive cognizance of and is supreme in matters falling within its own constitutionally allocated sphere. A logical corollary to the doctrine of separation of powers is the principle of non-delegation of powers, as expressed in the Latin maxim potestas delegata non delegari potest (what has been delegated cannot be delegated). This is based on the ethical principle that such delegated power constitutes not only a right but a duty to be performed by the delegate through the instrumentality of his own judgment and not through the intervening mind of another. [47]

	GR No. 213181 2014-08-19	FRANCIS H. JARDELEZA v. CHIEF JUSTICE MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO MENDOZA, J.
This court clarified the concept of a vested right in ABAKADA Guro Party List v. Executive Secretary Ermita:[73]
	GR No. 187485 2013-02-12	CIR v. SAN ROQUE POWER CORPORATION CARPIO, J.
G.R. No. 196113 is a petition for review[6] assailing the Decision[7] promulgated on 8 December 2010 as well as the Resolution[8] promulgated on 14 March 2011 by the CTA EB in CTA EB No. 624. In its Decision, the CTA EB reversed the 8 January 2010 Decision[9] as well as the 7 April 2010 Resolution[10] of the CTA Second Division and granted the CIR's petition for review in CTA Case No. 7574. The CTA EB dismissed, for having been prematurely filed, Taganito Mining Corporation's (Taganito) judicial claim for P8,365,664.38 tax refund or credit.
	GR No. 181704 2011-12-06	BUREAU OF CUSTOMS EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION MR. ROMULO A. PAGULAYAN v. MARGARITO B. TEVES VILLARAMA, JR., J.
The principle of separation of powers ordains that each of the three great branches of government has exclusive cognizance of and is supreme in matters falling within its own constitutionally allocated sphere.[28] Necessarily imbedded in this doctrine is the principle of non-delegation of powers, as expressed in the Latin maxim potestas delegata non delegari potest, which means "what has been delegated, cannot be delegated." This doctrine is based on the ethical principle that such delegated power constitutes not only a right but a duty to be performed by the delegate through the instrumentality of his own judgment and not through the intervening mind of another.[29] However, this principle of non-delegation of powers admits of numerous exceptions,[30] one of which is the delegation of legislative power to various specialized administrative agencies like the Board in this case.
	GR No. 172087 2011-03-15	PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT v. BIR PERALTA, J.
Different groups came to this Court via petitions for certiorari and prohibition[11] assailing the validity and constitutionality of R.A. No. 9337, in particular: 1) Section 4, which imposes a 10% Value Added Tax (VAT) on sale of goods and properties; Section 5, which imposes a 10% VAT on importation of goods; and Section 6, which imposes a 10% VAT on sale of services and use or lease of properties, all contain a uniform proviso authorizing the President, upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Finance, to raise the VAT rate to 12%. The said provisions were alleged to be violative of Section 28 (2), Article VI of the Constitution, which section vests in Congress the exclusive authority to fix the rate of taxes, and of Section 1, Article III of the Constitution on due process, as well as of Section 26 (2), Article VI of the Constitution, which section provides for the "no amendment rule" upon the last reading of a bill;
	GR No. 190582 2010-04-08	ANG LADLAD LGBT PARTY REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS CHAIR v. COMELEC DEL CASTILLO, J.
Despite the absolutism of Article III, Section 1 of our Constitution, which provides "nor shall any person be denied equal protection of the laws," courts have never interpreted the provision as an absolute prohibition on classification. "Equality," said Aristotle, "consists in the same treatment of similar persons."[33] The equal protection clause guarantees 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.[34]
	GR No. 176006 2010-03-26	NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. PINATUBO COMMERCIAL CORONA, J.
The equal protection clause 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."[25] The guaranty of the equal protection of the laws is not violated by a legislation based on a reasonable classification.[26] The equal protection clause, therefore, does not preclude classification of individuals who may be accorded different treatment under the law as long as the classification is reasonable and not arbitrary.[27]
	GR No. 160756 2010-03-09	CHAMBER OF REAL ESTATE v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY ALBERTO ROMULO CORONA, J.
In sum, petitioner failed to support, by any factual or legal basis, its allegation that the MCIT is arbitrary and confiscatory. The Court cannot strike down a law as unconstitutional simply because of its yokes.[58] Taxation is necessarily burdensome because, by its nature, it adversely affects property rights.[59] The party alleging the law's unconstitutionality has the burden to demonstrate the supposed violations in understandable terms.[60]
	GR No. 175220 2009-02-12	WILLIAM C. DAGAN v. PHILIPPINE RACING COMMISSION TINGA, J.
The rule is that what has been delegated cannot be delegated, or as expressed in the Latin maxim: potestas delegate non delegare potest. This rule is based upon the ethical principle that such delegated power constitutes not only a right but a duty to be performed by the delegate by the instrumentality of his own judgment acting immediately upon the matter of legislation and not through the intervening mind of another.[29] This rule however admits of recognized exceptions[30] such as the grant of rule-making power to administrative agencies. They have been granted by Congress with the authority to issue rules to regulate the implementation of a law entrusted to them. Delegated rule-making has become a practical necessity in modern governance due to the increasing complexity and variety of public functions.[31]
	GR No. 170656 2007-08-15	METROPOLITAN MANILA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. VIRON TRANSPORTATION CO. CARPIO MORALES, J.
While police power rests primarily with the legislature, such power may be delegated, as it is in fact increasingly being delegated.[36] By virtue of a valid delegation, the power may be exercised by the President and administrative boards[37] as well as by the lawmaking bodies of municipal corporations or local governments under an express delegation by the Local Government Code of 1991.[38]
	GR NO. 159796 2007-07-17	ROMEO P. GERICHI v. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (DOE) NACHURA, J.
The principle of separation of powers ordains that each of the three branches of government has exclusive cognizance of and is supreme in matters falling within its own constitutionally allocated sphere. A logical corollary to the doctrine of separation of powers is the principle of non-delegation of powers, as expressed in the Latin maxim potestas delegata non delegari potest (what has been delegated cannot be delegated). This is based on the ethical principle that such delegated power constitutes not only a right but a duty to be performed by the delegate through the instrumentality of his own judgment and not through the intervening mind of another. [47]

CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE VALUE ADDED TAX LAW