This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2015-06-16 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| By the same token, in Colon Heritage v. FDCP, the RTC, Branch 5, in its Decision of September 25, 2012, also ruled against the constitutionality of said Secs. 13 and 14 of RA 9167 for the following reasons: (a) while Congress, through the enactment of RA 9167, may have amended Secs. 140 (a)[8] and 151[9] of the LGC, in the exercise of its plenary power to amend laws, such power must be exercised within constitutional parameters; (b) the assailed provision violates the constitutional directive that taxes should accrue exclusively to the LGU concerned; (c) the Constitution, through its Art. X, Sec. 5,[10] directly conferred LGUs with authority to levy taxes––the power is no longer delegated by the legislature; (d) In CIR v. SM Prime Holdings,[11] the Court ruled that amusement tax on cinema/theater operators or proprietors remain with the LGU, amusement tax, being, by nature, a local tax. The fallo of the questioned judgment reads: | |||||
|
2014-10-01 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| Generally, tax statutes are construed strictly against the government and in favor of the taxpayer. [52] "[Statutes levying taxes or duties [are] not to extend their provisions beyond the clear import of the language used";[53] and "tax burdens are not to be imposed, nor presumed to be imposed beyond what the statute[s] expressly and clearly [import]. . . ."[54] Similarly, we cannot impose a penalty for non-payment of a tax greater than what the law provides.[55] To do so would amount to a deprivation of property without due process of law. | |||||