YOOHOOO!

please read cases again (I might have been SABAW making this) hehehe XD Sec 28 of Article 6 (1) rule on taxation: uniform, equitable and system must be progressive (2) congress, may authorize Pres (w/ specified and subject to limits) to fix tariff, IM-EX quota, tonnage and wharfage dues (w/in framework of Natl Devt Program of Govt) (3) charitable institutions, churches, parsonages/convents, mosques, nonprofit cemeteries AND all lands (direct/indirect) USED for EDUC, REL OR CHAR purposes, SHALL BE EXEMPT from tax (4) NO law granting taxation can occur if MAJORITY of congress DIDNT concur (naaax rhyming) Remember: Power to tax legislative in nature Specific, obvious and primary reason: revenue Its also recognized as an instrument of national eco and soc policy Also a tool for regulation: state can use taxation/ police power Also from US SC, power to keep alive: which is for the protection domestic goods to competition against IM Uniformity (Phil jurisprudence): valid classification under equal protection clause progressive: when T rate as Tbase (more equitable allocation of wealth) CASES 1. GEROCHI V DOE (2K7) Petitioners pray that sec 34 of RA 9136 be declared UNCONSTI plus rule 18 too (w/c implements universal charge) Petitioners contend that EPIRA (electric power industry reform act) is a tax for self-generating entities and its imposition is oppressive and

confiscatory; also the fees of the universal charge just funds the NPC operations Issue: W/N the universal charge of the EPIRA is a tax HELD the universal charge is not a tax cause based on its regulatory dimension, it invokes police power if charges purpose = generate revenue then its tax but if charges purpose = regulation then police power police power vs taxation power PP: power of state to promote public welfare by regulating or restraining use of liberty and property TP: theory emanates from necessity (no tax, govt= immobile) , no limits in inature and security against abuse is to be found in the responsibility of the legislature w/c imposes it on the constituent the purposes of found in RA 9136 sec 2 basically is regulatory ( quality/affordability of elec supply, transparent/reasonable prices, promote utilization of renewable energy etc) the creation of STF by psalm is for the welfare of the people (countrys electric power industry) 2. GARCIA V EXECUTIVE SECRETARY (92) Facts: a. Nov 1990- Pres issued EO 438 (imposed 5% ad valorem tax on imported article plus crude oil and other petroleum products) b. Jan 1990 again issued E0 443 ( 9% ad valorem) c. july 1991, Tariff comm. Set out public hearing to listen to complaints etc d. August 1991 issue EO 478 (which added from EO 443 a duty of P.95/L or P151.05/barrel) petitioners pray for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus declaring EO 475 AND 478 UNCONSTI invoking sec 24 of art 6 ISSUE: W/N the EO 475 and 478 didnt violate sec 24 of art 6, being revenuegenerating orders HELD: YES. Cause even if revenue bills and the like

must originate from Hrep, it doesnt follow that EOs which are different from bills, should be prohibited (legal basis: sec 28(2), art 6) congress may authorize president have taxation powers president when enacted EO 475 and 478 invoked tariff and customs code sec 104 (w/c syas that all EOs and PDs that fall under this code are adopted and what president says is still subject to investigation by tariff committee) under sec 401, of same code, president has authority to ,, remove existing import duty and the cant be <10% or >100%, can establish or ban IM quota, impose additional duty not >10% (yet these are still subject to investigation and a public hearing is needed to listen to concerns of public) though taxes protect the domestic goods and industries, its not the sole limitation of pres authority, neither is it stated in either sec 104 and 401 (the authority of president to impose taxes is also in the interest of the economy as custom duties = taxes in relation to IM and EX) 3. SYSTEMS PLUS v CALOOCAN CITY (2K3) Facts: Systems plus is a non-stock and nonprofit educational institution - it enjoys tax exemption on buildings but NOT on parcels of land which petitioner rents at 5k/month from (consolidated assembly and pair mgmt devt corp) - round 1: petitioner appealed to exempt land from tax cause it directly/ indirectly is for educational purpose result: denied cause the sister firms gets income from rental - round 2: petitioner appealed again since the they (sister firms+petitioner) got into an agreement and therefore land is only ehem A DONATION to petitioner result: denied again cause it was only a means of evading tax - round 3: petitioner filed petition for mandamus in RTC but got dismissed for being premature

round 4: petitioner filed for certirari cause RTC commiited a GAD (graveabuse-discretion) HELD: petition dismissed cause according to sec 226 of RA 7160, the remedy of appeal is available from an adverse ruling or action of provincial, city, municipal assessor the authority to classify for taxation is vested on respondent city assessor so courts can only provide relief if ALL remedies were exhausted 4. CENTRAL MINDANAO V DAR Facts: petition for certiorari cause CA affirmed the decision of DARAB to segregate 400 hectares of suitable portions of CMU land and their inclusion in CARP as their land will be allocated to qualified beneficiaries : orig case was a complaint filed by farmers under BUFFALO against CMU for CMU being under CARP :CMU is an agri-educ institution in Bukidnon Ground for petition: lack of juris by CA ISSUE: W/N the 400 hectares of land is validly part of CARP since that land is not directly/indirectly for educational purposes HELD: 400 hectares is NOT part of CARP cause its lands are actually directly and exclusively used for school site and campus although under sec 4 of RA 6657 (comprehensive agrarian reform program), which indicates the scope of CARP, that does include CMU, as a suitable land for agri, but in sec 10 [exemptions/exclusions] which highlights: school sites and campuses including experimental farm stations operated by public or private schools for educ purposes etc be exempt from the coverage of this act SC said that construction of sec 10 by DARAB limits the land area to its present needs and did not take into consideration the growth of CMU established to promote industry and agri and also long ago, Pres Garcia in Proc No 476 withdrew from sale/settlement and reserving 3080 hectares of land for Mindanao Agri College (now CMU)