8/17/2019 Planters Products Inc vs Fertiphil Corp G

1/1

Planters Products Inc vs Fertiphil Corp G.R. No. 166006 March 14, 200

FACTS: Petitioner PPI and respondent Fertiphil are private corporations incorporated underPhilippine laws, both engaged in the importation and distribution of fertilizers, pesticides andagricultural chemicals

!arcos issued "etter of Instruction #"$I% &'(), imposing a capital recover* component ofPhp&+++ per bag of fertilizer The lev* was to continue until adeuate capital was raised toma-e PPI .nanciall* viable Fertiphil remitted to the Fertilizer and Pesticide Authorit* #FPA%,which was then remitted the depositor* ban- of PPI Fertiphil paid P(,(/0,&'' to FPA from&0/) to &0/(

After the &0/( 1dsa 2evolution, FPA voluntaril* stopped the imposition of the P&+ lev*Fertiphil demanded from PPI a refund of the amount it remitted, however PPI refusedFertiphil .led a complaint for collection and damages, uestioning the constitutionalit* of "$I&'(), claiming that it was un3ust, unreasonable, oppressive, invalid and an unlawfulimposition that amounted to a denial of due process PPI argues that Fertiphil has no locusstandi to uestion the constitutionalit* of "$I 4o &'() because it does not have a 5personaland substantial interest in the case or will sustain direct in3ur* as a result of its

enforcement5 It asserts that Fertiphil did not su6er an* damage from the impositionbecause 5incidence of the lev* fell on the ultimate consumer or the farmers themselves, noton the seller fertilizer compan*

ISS71: 8hether or not Fertiphil has locus standi to uestion the constitutionalit* of "$I 4o&'()

8hat is the power of ta9ation

27"I4;: Fertiphil has locus standi because it su6ered direct in3ur*< doctrine of standing is amere procedural technicalit* which ma* be waived

 The imposition of the lev* was an e9ercise of the ta9ation power of the state 8hile it is truethat the power to ta9 can be used as an implement of police power, the primar* purpose ofthe lev* was revenue generation If the purpose is primaril* revenue, or if revenue is, atleast, one of the real and substantial purposes, then the e9action is properl* called a ta9

Police power and the power of ta9ation are inherent powers of the State These powers aredistinct and have di6erent tests for validit* Police power is the power of the State to enactlegislation that ma* interfere with personal libert* or propert* in order to promote thegeneral welfare, while the power of ta9ation is the power to lev* ta9es to be used for publicpurpose The main purpose of police power is the regulation of a behavior or conduct, whileta9ation is revenue generation The 5lawful sub3ects5 and 5lawful means5 tests are used todetermine the validit* of a law enacted under the police power The power of ta9ation, onthe other hand, is circumscribed b* inherent and constitutional limitations