8/11/2019 Endencia and Jugo v David
2/2
2/2
Digest by: Denesy Jao || I-B 2017
Ratio:
Contention Supreme Court
The law declared that tax payment is notto be
a diminution of the compensation fixed by the
constitution.
First, it is not within the sphere of the
legislature to interpret or ascertain the
meaning of the phrase which shall not be
diminished during their continuance in office
(Sec 9, Art VII of the constitution). This act of
the legislature invades the fundamental
principles of separation of powers.
In upholding Perfecto v Meer, the SC reiterated
that taxing the salary of a judicial officer in the
Philippines isa diminution of such salary as his
salary is actually decreased every year.
Hence Sec 13 of RA 590 is not unconstitutional The Legislature
may not legally provide in a
law that it be interpreted in such a way that it
may not violate a constitutional provision.
Since Sec 13 of RA 590 violates the
constitution, it is held invalid and
unconstitutional.
Opinions:
Justice Bautista Angela (concurring)
- The provision that that taxing of the salary of a judicial
officer shall be considered not to be
a diminution of his compensation fixed by the constitution or by
law is an invasion of the
province and jurisdiction of the judiciary.
Chief Justice Paras (concurring and dissenting):
- Referred to dissent of Justice Ozaeta in Perfecto v Meer where
the intent of the drafters of
the constitution was considered saying, when the framers of the
Constitution fixed those
salaries, they must have taken into consideration that the
recipients were paying income tax
thereon. There was no necessity to provide expressly that said
salaries shall be subject to
income tax because they knew that already so provided. On the
other hand, if exemption
from any tax on said salaries had been intended, it would have
been specifically [provided],
- Disagrees that no legislation may provide that it be held
valid although against a provision
of the constitution.
