tax cases & digests1

45
SECOND DIVISION [ G.R. No. 112024. January 28, 1999] PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS, petitioner, vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, COURT OF TAX APPEALS and COURT OF APPEALS, respondents. D E C I S I O N QUISUMBING, J.: This petition for review assails the Resolution [1] of the Court of Appeals dated September 22, 1993, affirming the Decision [2] and Resolution [3] of the Court of Tax Appeals which denied the claims of the petitioner for tax refund and tax credits, and disposing as follows: IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the instant petition for review is DENIED due course. The Decision of the Court of Tax Appeals dated May 20, 1993 and its resolution dated July 20, 1993, are hereby AFFIRMED in toto . SO ORDERED. [4] The Court of Tax Appeals earlier ruled as follows: WHEREFORE, petitioners claim for refund/tax credit of overpaid income tax for 1985 in the amount of P 5,299,749.95 is hereby denied for having been filed beyond the reglementary period. The 1986 claim for refund amounting to P 234,077.69 is likewise denied since petitioner has opted and in all likelihood automatically credited the same to the succeeding year. The petition for review is dismissed for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. [5] The facts on record show the antecedent circumstances pertinent to this case. Petitioner, Philippine Bank of Communications (PBCom), a commercial banking corporation duly organized under Philippine laws, filed its quarterly income tax returns for the first and second quarters of 1985, reported profits, and paid the total income tax of P 5,016,954.00. The taxes due were settled by applying PBComs tax credit memos and accordingly, the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) issued Tax Debit Memo Nos. 0746-85 and 0747-85 for P 3,401,701.00 and P 1, 615,253.00, respectively. Subsequently, however, PBCom suffered losses so that when it filed its Annual Income Tax Returns for the year-ended December 31, 1985, it declared a net loss of P 25,317,228.00, thereby showing no income tax liability. For the succeeding year, ending December 31, 1986, the petitioner likewise reported a net loss of P 14,129,602.00, and thus declared no tax payable for the year. But during these two years, PBCom earned rental income from leased properties. The lessees withheld and remitted to the BIR withholding creditable taxes of P 282,795.50 in 1985 and P 234,077.69 in 1986. On August 7, 1987, petitioner requested the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, among others, for a tax credit of P 5,016,954.00 representing the overpayment of taxes in the first and second quarters of 1985. Thereafter, on July 25, 1988, petitioner filed a claim for refund of creditable taxes withheld by their lessees from property rentals in 1985 for P 282,795.50 and in 1986 for P 234,077.69. Pending the investigation of the respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue, petitioner instituted a Petition for Review on November 18, 1988 before the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA). The petition was docketed as CTA Case No. 4309 entitled: Philippine Bank of Communications vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The losses petitioner incurred as per the summary of petitioners claims for refund and tax credit for 1985 and 1986, filed before the Court of Tax Appeals, are as follows: 1985 1986 Net Income (Loss) (P 25,317,228.00) (P 14,129,602.00) Tax Due NIL NIL Quarterly tax Payments Made 5,016,954.00 --- Tax Withheld at Source 282,795.50 234,077.69 Excess Tax Payments P 5,299,749.50*======= ======= P 234,077.69========= ===== *CTAs decision reflects PBComs 1985 tax claim as P 5,299,749.95. A forty-five centavo difference was noted. On May 20, 1993, the CTA rendered a decision which, as stated on the outset, denied the request of petitioner for a tax refund or credit in the sum amount of P 5,299,749.95, on the ground that it was filed beyond the two-year reglementary period provided for by law. The petitioners claim for refund in 1986 amounting to P 234,077.69 was likewise denied on the assumption that it was automatically credited by PBCom against its tax payment in the succeeding year.

Upload: nina-cylen-briguera-celestial

Post on 16-Aug-2015

233 views

Category:

Documents


3 download

DESCRIPTION

tax

TRANSCRIPT

SECOND DIVISION[G.R. No. 112024. January 28, 1999]PHILIPPINE !N" O# CO$$%NIC!&IONS, petitioner,vs. CO$$ISSIONER O# IN&ERN!L REVEN%E, CO%R& O#&!' !PPE!LS an( CO%R& O# !PPE!LS, respondents.D E C I S I O NQUISUMBING, J.:This petition for review assails the Resolution[1] of the Court of Appeals dated September22, 1993, affirmin the !e"ision[2] and Resolution[3] of the Court of Ta# Appeals whi"h denied the"laims of the petitioner for ta# refund and ta# "redits, and disposin as follows$%& '%() *+ A,, T-( +*R(.*%&., the instant petition for review is !(&%(! due "ourse/ The!e"ision of the Court of Ta# Appeals dated 0a1 22, 1993 and its resolution dated 3ul1 22, 1993,are hereb1 A++%R0(! in toto/S* *R!(R(!.[4]The Court of Ta# Appeals earlier ruled as follows$)-(R(+*R(, petitioners"laimfor refund5ta#"redit of overpaidin"ometa#for 1967intheamount of 87,299,949/97ishereb1deniedfor havinbeenfiledbe1ondtherelementar1period/ The 196: "laim for refund amountin to 8234,299/:9 is li;ewise denied sin"e petitionerhasoptedandinall li;elihoodautomati"all1"reditedthesametothesu""eedin1ear/ Thepetition for review is dismissed for la"; of merit/S* *R!(R(!.[7]The fa"ts on re"ord show the ante"edent "ir"umstan"es pertinent to this "ase/8etitioner, 8hilippine The rule states that the ta#pa1er ma1 file a "laimfor refund or "redit with theCommissioner of %nternal Revenue, within two =2> 1ears after pa1ment of ta#, before an1 suit inCTA is "ommen"ed/ The twoA1earpres"riptive period provided, should be "omputed from thetime of filin the AdEustment Return and final pa1ment of the ta# for the 1ear/%n Commissionerof Internal Revenuevs.&$ilippine American 'ifeInsurance Co.,[17] thisCourt e#plained the appli"ation of Se"/ 232 of 1999 &%RC, as follows$Clearl1, the pres"riptive period of two 1ears should "ommen"e to run onl1 from the time that therefund is as"ertained, whi"h "an onl1 be determined after a final adEustment return isa""omplished/ %nthepresent "ase, thisdateis April 1:, 1964, andtwo1earsfromthisdatewould be April 1:, 196:/ # # # As we have earlier said in the T0H Sales "ase, Se"tions :6,[1:] :9,[19] and 92[16] on Buarterl1 Corporate %n"ome Ta# 8a1ment and Se"tion 321 should be "onsideredin "onEun"tion with it/[19])hentheA"tinCommissioner of %nternal RevenueissuedR0C9A67, "haninthepres"riptive period of two 1ears to ten 1ears on "laims of e#"ess @uarterl1 in"ome ta# pa1ments,su"h "ir"ular "reated a "lear in"onsisten"1 with the provision of Se"/ 232 of 1999 &%RC/%n sodoin, thewhi"hareissued from time to time b1 the Commissioner of %nternal Revenue/ %t is widel1 a""epted that theinterpretationpla"eduponastatuteb1thee#e"utiveoffi"ers, whosedut1istoenfor"eit, isentitled to reat respe"t b1 the "ourts/&evertheless, su"h interpretation is not "on"lusive and willbe inored if Eudi"iall1 found to be erroneous/[22] Thus, "ourts will not "ountenan"e administrativeissuan"es that override, instead of remainin "onsistent and in harmon1 with, the law the1 see;to appl1 and implement/[21]%n the "ase of &eople vs. 'im,[22] it was held that rules and reulations issued b1administrativeoffi"ialstoimplementa law"annotobe1ondthetermsand provisionsof thelatter/Appellant "ontends that Se"tion 2 of +A* &o/ 39A1 is void be"ause it is not onl1 in"onsistentwith but is "ontrar1 to the provisions and spirit of A"t/ &o/ 4223 as amended, be"ause whereasthe prohibition pres"ribed in said +isheries A"t was for an1 sinle period of time not e#"eedinfive 1ears duration, +A* &o/ 39A1 fi#ed no period, that is to sa1, it establishes an absolute banfor all time/ This dis"repan"1 between A"t &o/ 4223 and +A* &o/ 39A1 was probabl1 due to anoversiht on the part of Se"retar1 of Ari"ulture and &atural Resour"es/ *f "ourse, in "ase ofdis"repan"1, the basi" A"t prevails, for the reason that the reulation or rule issued to implementalaw %annotgo)e(ond thetermsandprovisions ofthelatter/ ###%nthis"onne"tion,theattention of the te"hni"al men in the offi"es of !epartment -eads who draft rules and reulationis "alled to the importan"e and ne"essit1 of "losel1 followin the terms and provisions of the lawwhi"h the1 intended to implement, this to avoid an1 possible misunderstandin or "onfusion asin the present "ase/[23]+urther, fundamental is the rule that the State "annot be put in estoppel b1 the mista;es orerrorsof its offi"ials oraents/[24] Aspointedoutb1 the respondent"ourts,the nullifi"ationofR0C&o/ 9A67issuedb1the A"tinCommissioner of %nternal Revenueisanadministrativeinterpretationwhi"h is not in harmon1 withSe"/232of1999 &%RC,forbein"ontrar1 to thee#press provision of a statute/ -en"e, his interpretation "ould not be iven weiht for to do sowould, in effe"t, amend the statute/As aptl1 stated b1 respondent Court of Appeals$%t is li;ewise arued that the Commissioner of %nternal Revenue, after promulatin R0C &o/ 9A67, is estopped b1 the prin"iple of nonAretroa"tivit1 of the "laim and in effe"t, ruled that the R0C &o/ 9A67issued b1 the Commissioner of %nternal Revenue is an administrative interpretation whi"h is outof harmon1 with or "ontrar1 to the e#press provision of a statute =spe"ifi"all1 Se"/ 232, &%RC>,hen"e, "annot be iven weiht for to do so would in effe"t amend the statute/[27]Arti"le 6 of the Civil Code[2:] re"oni?es Eudi"ial de"isions, appl1in or interpretin statutesas part of the leal s1stem of the "ountr1/ ,basedonmere spe"ulation, withoutproof,that8 provides that an1 e#"ess ofthetotal @uarterl1pa1mentsoverthea"tual in"ometa#"omputedintheadEustment orfinal"orporatein"ometa#return, shall either =a> berefundedtothe"orporation, or =b> ma1be"redited aainst the estimated @uarterl1 in"ome ta# liabilities for the @uarters of the su""eedinta#able 1ear/The"orporationmust sinif1initsannual "orporateadEustment return=b1mar;intheoption bo# provided in the its intention, whether to re@uest for a refund or "laim for anautomati" ta# "redit for the su""eedin ta#able 1ear/ To ease the administration of ta# "olle"tion,these remedies are in the alternative, and the "hoi"e of one pre"ludes the other/As stated b1 respondent Court of Appeals$+inall1, as to the "laimed refund of in"ome ta# overApaid in 196: A the Court of Ta# Appeals, aftere#aminin the adEusted final "orporate annual in"ome ta# return for ta#able 1ear 196:, found outthat petitioner opted to appl1 for automati" ta# "redit/ This was the basis used =visAavis the fa"tthat the 1969 annual "orporate ta# return was not offered b1 the petitioner as eviden"e> b1 theCTA in "on"ludin that petitioner had indeed availed of and applied the automati" ta# "redit tothe su""eedin 1ear, hen"e it "an no loner as; for refund, as to [si"] the two remedies of refundand ta# "redit are alternative/[32]Thatthepetitioneroptedfor anautomati"ta#"reditina""ordan"ewithSe"/:9ofthe1999 &%RC, as spe"ified in its 196: +inal AdEusted %n"ome Ta# Return, is a findin of fa"t whi"hwe must respe"t/0oreover, the 1969 annual "orporate ta# return of the petitioner was not offeredas eviden"e to "ontrovert said fa"t/ Thus, we are bound b1 the findins of fa"t b1 respondent"ourts, therebeinnoshowinof rosserror or abuseontheir part todisturbour relian"ethereon/[31]*+E,E-O,E, thepetitionishereb1!(&%(!. Thede"isionof theCourt of Appealsappealed from is A++%R0(!, with C*STS aainst the petitioner/SO O,DE,ED.Bellosillo" )C$airman*" &uno" endo#a" and Buena" ++." "on"ur..+I/I..INE B$N0 O- COMMUNIC$"IONS v. CI,G.,. No. 112324 5an!ar( 26, 1777Q!is!&)ing, J.Do%trine$,Anyexcessof t$etotal -uarterlypaymentsover t$eactual incometaxcomputedint$ead(ustment or final corporate income tax return" s$all eit$er )a* %e refunded to t$e corporation"or )%* may %e credited against t$e estimated -uarterly income tax lia%ilities for t$e -uarters oft$e succeeding taxa%le year.T$e corporation must signify in its annual corporate ad(ustment return )%y mar.ing t$e option%oxprovidedint$eBIRform* itsintention" w$et$er tore-uest for arefundor claimfor anautomatic tax credit for t$e succeeding taxa%le year. To ease t$e administration of tax collection"t$ese remedies are in t$e alternative" and t$e c$oice of one precludes t$e ot$er., Basic is t$e principle t$at /taxes are t$e life%lood of t$e nation.0 1ue process of law under t$eConstitutiondoesnot re-uire(udicial proceedingsintaxcases. T$ismust necessarily%eso%ecause it is upon taxation t$at t$e government c$iefly relies to o%tain t$e means to carry on itsoperations and it is of utmost importance t$at t$e modes adopted to enforce t$e collection oftaxes levied s$ould %e summary and interfered wit$ as little as possi%le., A memorandum-circular of a %ureau $eadcould notoperate to vest a taxpayer wit$ s$ieldagainst (udicial action for t$ere are no vested rig$ts to spea. of respecting a wrong constructionof t$e law.-a%ts$8etitionerreported anet lossin 196: and thusde"lared no ta# pa1able/*n1969, petitionerre@uested the respondent, amon others, for a ta# "redit representin the overpa1ment of ta#esin the first and se"ond @uarters of 1967/Thereafter, petitioner filed a "laim for refund of "reditable ta#es withheld b1 their lessees frompropert1 rentals in 1967 and in 196:/ 8endin investiation, petitioner instituted a 8etition forReview before the Court of Ta# Appeals =CTA>/CTA denied the re@uest of petitioner for a ta# refund or "redit for 1967 on the round that it wasfiledbe1ondthetwoA1earrelementar1periodprovidedforb1law/ ThepetitionerJs"laimforrefundin196:wasli;ewisedeniedontheassumptionthat it wasautomati"all1"reditedb18 1earsafter pa1ment of ta#, beforean1suit inCTAis"ommen"ed/ The twoA1ear pres"riptive period provided, should be "omputed from the time offilin the AdEustment Return and final pa1ment of the ta# for the 1ear/ be refunded to the "orporation, or=b> ma1 be "redited aainst the estimated @uarterl1 in"ome ta# liabilities for the @uarters of thesu""eedin ta#able 1ear/The "orporation must sinif1 in its annual "orporate adEustment return =b1 mar;in the optionbo#providedinthe itsintention, whether tore@uest forarefundor"laimfor anautomati" ta# "redit for the su""eedin ta#able 1ear/ To ease the administration of ta# "olle"tion,these remedies are in the alternative, and the "hoi"e of one pre"ludes the other/AmemorandumA"ir"ular of abureauhead"ouldnot operatetovest ata#pa1er withshieldaainst Eudi"ial a"tion/ +or there are no vested rihts to spea; of respe"tin a wron"onstru"tion ofthe lawb1 the administrative offi"ials and su"h wron interpretation "ould notpla"e the .overnment in estoppel to "orre"t or overrule the same [Tan 5uan vs. Court of TaxAppeals" 23 SCRA 367 )2389*]/T-%R! !%'%S%*&8G.,. No. 123362. Septe&)er 11, 1779:M$C"$N CEBU IN"E,N$"ION$/ $I,.O," $U"+O,I";, petitioner, vs. +ON. -E,DIN$ND5. M$,COS, in his %apa%it( as the .residing 5!dge of the ,egional "rial Co!rt, Bran%h 23,Ce)! Cit(, "+E CI"; O- CEBU, represented )( its Ma(or, +ON. "OM$S ,. OSME$, andEUS"$QUIO B. CES$,respondents.D E C I S I O ND$ of Cebu Cit1, / %t is also mandated to$a> en"ourae, promote and develop international and domesti" air traffi" in the Central 'isa1asand0indanaoreionsasameansof ma;inthereions"entersof international tradeandtourism, and a""eleratin the development of the means of transportation and "ommuni"ation inthe "ountr1I and,b> uprade the servi"es and fa"ilities of the airports and to formulate internationall1 a""eptablestandards of airportACC*00*!AT%*&and servi"e/Sin"e the time of its "reation, petitioner 0C%AA enEo1ed the privilee of e#emption from pa1mentof realt1 ta#es in a""ordan"e with Se"tion 14 of its Charter$Se"/ 14/ Tax:xemptions/AA The Authorit1shall bee#empt fromrealt1ta#es imposedb1the&ational .overnment or an1 of its politi"al subdivisions, aen"ies and instrumentalities # # #/*n *"tober 11, 1994, however, 0r/ (usta@uio # # #Se"tion 234/ :xemptions from Real &roperty Taxes/ # # #=a> # # ## # #=e> # # #(#"ept as provided herein, an1 e#emption from pa1ment of real propert1 ta# previousl1 rantedto, or presentl1 enEo1ed b1 all persons, whether natural or Euridi"al, in"ludin overnmentAownedor "ontrolled "orporations are hereb1 withdrawn upon the effe"tivit1 of this Code/As the Cit1 of Cebu was about to issue a warrant of lev1 aainst the properties of petitioner, thelatter was"ompelledtopa1itsta#a""ount under protest andthereafter fileda8etitionfor!e"larator1 Relief with the Reional Trial Court of Cebu, ,[6] the petitionerma1standin[si"]thesamefootinas anaen"1orinstrumentalit1 of the national overnment/ -en"e, its ta# e#emption privilee under Se"tion 14of its Charter "annot be "onsidered withdrawn with the passae of the ,o"al .overnment Codeof 1991=hereinafter '5C> be"auseSe"tion133thereof spe"ifi"all1statesthat theOta#inpowers of lo"al overnment units shall not e#tend to the lev1 of ta#es or fees or "hares of an1;ind on the national overnment, its aen"ies and instrumentalities/Astothese"ondassinederror,thepetitioner"ontendsthat beinaninstrumentalit1of the&ational .overnment, respondent Cit1of Cebuhasnopower norauthorit1toimposerealt1ta#es upon it in a""ordan"e with the aforesaid Se"tion 133 of the ,.C, as e#plained in Bascovs. &$ilippine Amusement and 5aming Corporation$[9],o"al overnments have no power to ta# instrumentalities of the &ational.overnment/ 8A.C*R is a overnment owned or "ontrolled "orporation with an oriinal "harter,8! 16:9/ All of its shares of sto"; are owned b1 the &ational .overnment/ / / /8A.C*Rhas a dual role, to operate and reulate amblin "asinos/ The latter role isovernmental, whi"h pla"es it in the "ateor1 of an aen"1 or instrumentalit1 of the.overnment/ This do"trine emanates from the suprema"1 of the &ational .overnment over lo"alovernments/3usti"e-olmes, spea;infor theSupremeCourt, madereferen"etotheentireabsen"eofpower on the part of the States to tou"h, in that wa1 =ta#ation> at least, the instrumentalities oftheGnitedStates=3ohnson v. 0ar1land, 274GS71> andit "anbeareedthat nostateorpoliti"alsubdivision "an reulate a federalinstrumentalit1 in su"h a wa1 as to prevent it from"onsummatin its federal responsibilities, or even to seriousl1 burden it in the a""omplishment ofthem/ =Antieau, 0odern Constitutional ,aw, 'ol/ 2, p/ 142>*therwise, mere "reatures of the State "an defeat &ational poli"ies thru e#termination of whatlo"al authorities ma1 per"eive to be undesirable a"tivities or enterprise usin the power to ta# asa tool for reulation =G/S/ v. San"he?, 342 GS 42>/ The power to ta# whi"h was "alled b1 3usti"e0arshall as the power to destro1 =0" Cullo"h v/ 0ar1land, supra> "annot be allowed to defeat aninstrumentalit1 or "reation of the ver1 entit1 whi"h has the inherent power to wieldit/ =unders"orin supplied>%t then "on"ludes that the respondent 3ude "annot therefore "orre"tl1 sa1 that the @uestionedprovisions of theCodedonot "ontain an1distin"tionbetweenaovernment "orporationperformin overnmental fun"tions as aainst one performin merel1 proprietar1 ones su"h thatthe e#emption privilee withdrawn under the said Code would appl1 to all overnment"orporations/ +oritis "lear from Se"tion133, in relationtoSe"tion234,of the,.Cthattheleislature meant to e#"lude instrumentalities of t$e national government from the ta#in powersof the lo"al overnment units/%n its "omment, respondent Cit1 of Cebu allees that as a lo"al overnment unit and a politi"alsubdivision, it has the power to impose, lev1, assess, and "olle"t ta#es within itsEurisdi"tion/ Su"h power is uaranteed b1 the Constitution[12] and enhan"ed further b1 the,.C/ )hile it ma1 be true that under its Charter the petitioner was e#empt from the pa1ment ofrealt1ta#es,[11] thise#emptionwaswithdrawnb1Se"tion234of the,.C/ %nresponsetothepetitioners "laim that su"h e#emption was not repealed be"ause bein an instrumentalit1 of the&ational .overnment, Se"tion 133 of the ,.C prohibits lo"al overnment units from imposinta#es, fees, or "hares of an1 ;ind on it, respondent Cit1 of Cebu points out that the petitioner isli;ewise a overnmentAowned "orporation, and Se"tion 234 thereof does not distinuishbetweenovernmentAownedor "ontrolled"orporationsperforminovernmental andpurel1proprietar1 fun"tions/ Respondent Cit1 of Cebu ures this Court to appl1 b1 analo1 its rulinthat the 0anila %nternational Airport Authorit1 is a overnmentAowned "orporation,[12]and to reEe"tthe appli"ation of Basco be"ause it was promulated / / / before the ena"tment and the sinininto law of R/A/ &o/ 91:2, and was not, therefore, de"ided in the liht of the spirit and intentionof the framers of the said law/As a eneral rule, the power to ta# is an in"ident of sovereint1 and is unlimited in its rane,a";nowledin in its ver1 nature no limits, so that se"urit1 aainst its abuse is to be found onl1 inthe responsibilit1 of the leislature whi"h imposes the ta# on the "onstituen"1 who are to pa1 it/&evertheless, effe"tive limitations thereon ma1 be imposed b1 the people throuh theirConstitutions/[13] *ur Constitution, for instan"e, provides that the rule of ta#ation shall be uniformand e@uitable and Conress shall evolve a proressive s1stem of ta#ation/[14] So potent indeed isthe power that it was on"e opined that the power to ta# involves the power to destro1/[17] 'eril1,ta#ationisadestru"tivepower whi"hinterfereswiththepersonal andpropert1rihtsof thepeople and ta;es from them a portion of their propert1 for the support of theovernment/ A""ordinl1,ta#statutesmust be"onstruedstri"tl1aainst theovernment andliberall1 in favor of the ta#pa1er/[1:] !o"umentar1 stamp ta#I="> Ta#es on estates, inheritan"e, ifts, lea"ies and other a"@uisitions mortis causa, e#"ept asotherwise provided hereinI=d> Customs duties, reistration fees of vessel and wharfae on wharves, tonnae dues, and allother ;inds of "ustoms fees, "hares and dues e#"ept wharfae on wharves "onstru"ted andmaintained b1 the lo"al overnment unit "on"ernedI=e> Ta#es, fees and "hares and other impositions upon oods "arried into or out of, or passinthrouh, the territorial Eurisdi"tions of lo"al overnment units in the uise of "hares forwharfae, tolls for brides or otherwise, or other ta#es, fees or "hares in an1 form whatsoeverupon su"h oods or mer"handiseI=f> Ta#es, fees or "hares on ari"ultural and a@uati" produ"ts when sold b1 marinal farmers orfishermenI=> Ta#es on business enterprises "ertified to b1 the and four =4> 1ears, respe"tivel1 from the date of reistrationI=h> (#"ise ta#es on arti"les enumerated under the &ational %nternal Revenue Code, asamended, and ta#es, fees or "hares on petroleum produ"tsI=i> 8er"entae or valueAadded ta# ='AT> on sales, barters or e#"hanes or similar transa"tionson oods or servi"es e#"ept as otherwise provided hereinI=E> Ta#es onthe ross re"eipts of transportation "ontra"tors andpersons enaed in thetransportation of passeners or freiht b1 hire and "ommon "arriers b1 air, land or water, e#"eptas provided in this CodeI=;> Ta#es on premiums paid b1 wa1 of reinsuran"e or retro"essionI=l> Ta#es, fees or "hares for the reistration of motor vehi"les and for the issuan"e of all ;indsof li"enses or permits for the drivin thereof, e#"ept, tri"1"lesI=m> Ta#es, fees, or other "hares on 8hilippine produ"ts a"tuall1 e#ported, e#"ept as otherwiseprovided hereinI=n> Ta#es, fees, or "hares, on Countr1side and TAH(S, +((S*RC-AR.(S*+A&NM%&!*&T-(&AT%*&A,.*'(R&0(&T,%TSA.(&C%(S A&! %&STRG0(&TA,%T%(S, A&! ,*CA, .*'(R&0(&T G&%TS/=emphasissupplied>&eedlesstosa1,thelast item=itemo>ispertinent tothis"ase/Theta#es, feesor"haresreferred to are of an1 ;indI hen"e, the1 in"lude all of these, unless otherwise provided b1 the,.C/ The term ta#es is well understood so as to need no further elaboration, espe"iall1 in lihtof theaboveenumeration/ Thetermfeesmeans"haresfi#edb1lawor ordinan"efor thereulation or inspe"tion of business or a"tivit1,[24] while "hares are pe"uniar1 liabilities su"h asrents or fees aainst persons or propert1/[27]Amontheta#esenumeratedinthe,.Cisreal propert1ta#, whi"hisovernedb1Se"tion232/ %t reads as follows$S(C/ 232/ &ower to'evyReal &ropertyTax/Aprovin"eor "it1or amuni"ipalit1withinthe0etropolitan0anila Areama1lev1anannual advalorem ta#onreal propert1su"hasland,buildin, ma"hiner1, and other improvements not hereafter spe"ifi"all1 e#empted/Se"tion 234 of the ,.C provides for the e#emptions from pa1ment of real propert1 ta#es andwithdrawspreviouse#emptionstherefromrantedtonatural andEuridi"al persons, in"ludinovernmentAowned and "ontrolled "orporations, e#"ept as provided therein/ %t provides$S(C/ 234/ :xemptions from Real &roperty Tax/ The followin are e#empted from pa1ment of thereal propert1 ta#$=a> Real propert1 owned b1 theRepubli" ofthe8hilippinesor an1 of itspoliti"al subdivisionse#"ept when the benefi"ial use thereof had been ranted, for "onsideration or otherwise, to ata#able personI=b> Charitableinstitutions, "hur"hes, parsonaesor "onventsappurtenant thereto, mos@ues,nonprofit or reliious "emeteries and all lands, buildins and improvements a"tuall1, dire"tl1, ande#"lusivel1 used for reliious, "haritable or edu"ational purposesI="> All ma"hineries and e@uipment that are a"tuall1, dire"tl1 and e#"lusivel1 used b1 lo"al waterdistri"ts and overnmentAowned or "ontrolled "orporations enaed in the suppl1 anddistribution of water and5or eneration and transmission of ele"tri" powerI=d> All real propert1 owned b1 dul1 reistered "ooperatives as provided for under R/A/ &o/ :936Iand=e> 0a"hiner1 and e@uipment used for pollution "ontrol and environmental prote"tion/(#"ept as provided herein, an1 e#emption from pa1ment of real propert1 ta# previousl1 rantedto, or presentl1 enEo1ed b1, all persons, whether natural or Euridi"al, in"ludin all overnmentAowned or "ontrolled "orporations are hereb1 withdrawn upon the effe"tivit1 of this Code/These e#emptions are based on the ownership, "hara"ter, and use of the propert1/ Thus$=a> =wners$ip :xemptions/ (#emptions from real propert1 ta#es on the basis of owners$ip arereal propertiesownedb1$ =i> theRepubli", =ii>a provin"e,=iii>a"it1, =iv>a muni"ipalit1,=v> abarana1, and =vi> reistered "ooperatives/=b> C$aracter:xemptions/ (#emptedfromreal propert1ta#esonthebasisof their"hara"terare$=i>"haritable institutions,=ii>housesandtemplesof pra1erli;e"hur"hes,parsonaes or"onvents appurtenant thereto, mos@ues, and =iii> nonAprofit or reliious "emeteries/="> ;sage exemptions/ (#empted from real propert1 ta#es on the basis of the a"tual, dire"t ande#"lusive use to whi"h the1 are devoted are$ =i> all lands, buildins and improvements whi"h area"tuall1dire"tl1ande#"lusivel1usedforreliious, "haritableoredu"ational purposesI =ii>allma"hineries and e@uipment a"tuall1, dire"tl1 and e#"lusivel1 used b1 lo"al water distri"ts or b1overnmentAownedor "ontrolled "orporationsenaed in the suppl1 anddistribution ofwaterand5or eneration and transmission of ele"tri" powerI and =iii> all ma"hiner1 and e@uipment usedfor pollution "ontrol and environmental prote"tion/Tohelpprovideahealth1environment inthemidst of themoderni?ationof the"ountr1,allma"hiner1 and e@uipment for pollution "ontrol and environmental prote"tion ma1 not be ta#ed b1lo"al overnments/2/ =t$er :xemptions the rule on ta# e#emptions andthee#"eptionsthereto/Theuseof exceptions or provisos inthesese"tions, asshownb1thefollowin "lauses$=1> unless otherwise provided herein in the openin pararaph of Se"tion 133I=2> Gnless otherwise provided in this Code in Se"tion 193I=3> not hereafter spe"ifi"all1 e#empted in Se"tion 232I and=4> (#"ept as provided herein in the last pararaph of Se"tion 234initiall1hampersaread1understandinof these"tions/ &ote, too, that theaforementioned"lause in Se"tion 133 seems to be ina""uratel1 worded/ %nstead of the "lause unless otherwiseprovided $erein, with the $erein to mean, of "ourse, the se"tion, it should have used the "lauseunless otherwise provided in this Code/ The former results in absurdit1 sin"e the se"tion itselfenumerates what are be1ond the ta#in powers of lo"al overnment units and, wheree#"eptionswereintended,thee#"eptionsaree#pli"itl1indi"atedinthene#t/ +orinstan"e, initem =a> whi"h e#"epts in"ome ta#es when levied on ban;s and other finan"ial institutionsI item=d> whi"h e#"epts wharfae on wharves"onstru"ted and maintainedb1 the lo"alovernmentunit "on"ernedI anditem=1>whi"he#"eptsta#es, feesand"haresforthereistrationandissuan"e of li"enses or permits for the drivin of tri"1"les/ %t ma1 also be observed that within thebod1itselfof the se"tion, there are e#"eptions whi"h"an be found onl1inother partsof the,.C, but these"tioninter"haneabl1usesthereinthe"lausee#"ept asotherwiseprovidedherein as in items ="> and =i>, or the "lause e#"ept as provided in this Code in item =E>/These"lauseswouldbeobviousl1unne"essar1or meresurplusaesif theopenin"lauseof these"tionwereGnlessotherwiseprovidedinthisCodeinsteadof Gnlessotherwiseprovidedherein/ %n an1 event, even if the latter is used, sin"e under Se"tion 232 lo"al overnment unitshave the power to lev1 real propert1 ta#, e#"ept those e#empted therefrom under Se"tion 234,then Se"tion 232 must be deemed to @ualif1 Se"tion 133/Thus, readin toether Se"tions 133, 232, and 234 of the ,.C, we "on"lude that as a eneralrule, as laid down in Se"tion 133, the ta#in powers of lo"al overnment units "annot e#tend tothelev1of, inter alia, ta#es, feesand"haresof an1;indonthe&ational .overnment, itsaen"ies and instrumentalities, and lo"al overnment unitsI however, pursuant to Se"tion 232,provin"es, "ities, andmuni"ipalitiesinthe0etropolitan 0anila Area ma1imposethe realpropert1 ta# e#"ept on, inter alia, real propert1 owned b1 the Republi" of the 8hilippines or an1of itspoliti"al subdivisionse#"ept when the benefi"ial usethereof has beenranted, for"onsideration or otherwise, to a ta#able person, as provided in item =a> of the first pararaph ofSe"tion 234/Astota#e#emptionsor in"entivesrantedtoor presentl1enEo1edb1natural or Euridi"alpersons, in"ludinovernmentAownedand"ontrolled"orporations, Se"tion193of the,.Cpres"ribes the eneral rule, vi#/, the1 are wit$drawn upon the effe"tivit1 of the,.C, except those ranted to lo"al water distri"ts, "ooperatives dul1 reistered under R/A/ &o/:936, nonAsto";andnonAprofit hospitalsandedu"ational institutions, andunlessotherwiseprovidedinthe,.C/ Thelatter proviso"ouldrefer toSe"tion234whi"henumeratestheproperties e#empt from real propert1 ta#/ ofthefirstpararaph of Se"tion 234, the e#emption is withdrawn if the benefi"ial use of su"h propert1 hasbeen ranted to a ta#able person for "onsideration or otherwise/Sin"e the last pararaph of Se"tion 234 une@uivo"all1 withdrew, upon the effe"tivit1 of the ,.C,e#emptions from pa1ment of real propert1 ta#es ranted to natural or Euridi"al persons, in"ludinovernmentAowned or "ontrolled "orporations, e#"ept as provided in the said se"tion, and thepetitioner is, undoubtedl1, a overnmentAowned "orporation, it ne"essaril1 follows that itse#emptionfromsu"hta#rantedit inSe"tion14of itsCharter, R/A/ &o/ :976, hasbeenwithdrawn/ An1 "laim to the "ontrar1 "an onl1 be Eustified if the petitioner "an see; refue underan1 of the e#"eptions provided in Se"tion 234, but not under Se"tion 133, as it now asserts,sin"e, as shown above, the said se"tion is @ualified b1 Se"tions 232 and 234/%nshort, thepetitioner"annolonerinvo;etheeneral ruleinSe"tion133that theta#inpowers of the lo"al overnment units "annot e#tend to the lev1 of$=o> ta#es, fees or "hares of an1 ;ind on the &ational .overnment, its aen"ies orinstrumentalities, and lo"al overnment units/%t must show that the par"els of land in @uestion, whi"h are real propert1, are an1 one of thoseenumerated in Se"tion 234, either b1 virtue of ownership, "hara"ter, or use of the propert1/0ostli;el1, it "ould onl1 be the first, but not under an1 e#pli"it provision of the said se"tion, for nonee#ists/ %n liht of the petitioners theor1 that it is an instrumentalit1 of the .overnment, it "ouldonl1 be within the first item of the first pararaph of the se"tion b1 e#pandin the s"ope of theterm Republi" of the 8hilippines to embra"e its instrumentalities and aen"ies/ +or e#pedien"1,we @uote$=a> realpropert1 owned b1theRepubli"of the8hilippines, or an1of itspoliti"al subdivisionse#"ept when the benefi"ial use thereof has been ranted, for "onsideration or otherwise, to ata#able person/This viewdoes not persuade us/ %n the first pla"e, the petitioners "laimthat it is aninstrumentalit1 ofthe.overnment isbasedonSe"tion133=o>,whi"he#pressl1mentionstheword instrumentalitiesI and, in the se"ond pla"e, it fails to "onsider the fa"t that the leislatureused the phrase &ational .overnment, its aen"ies and instrumentalities in Se"tion 133=o>, butonl1 the phrase Republi" of the 8hilippines or an1 of its politi"al subdivisions in Se"tion 234=a>/The terms Republi" of the 8hilippines and &ational .overnment are not inter"haneable/Theformer is broader and s1non1mous with .overnment of the Republi" of the 8hilippines whi"h theAdministrativeCode of1969definesasthe"orporateovernmental entit1throuhwhi"hthefun"tions of overnment are e#er"ised throuhout the 8hilippines, in"ludin, save as the"ontrar1 appears from the "onte#t, the various arms throuh whi"h politi"alauthorit1 is madeaffe"tive in the 8hilippines, whether pertainin to the autonomous reions, the provin"ial, "it1,muni"ipal orbarana1 subdivisionsorotherformsoflo"al overnment/[29] Theseautonomousreions, provin"ial, "it1, muni"ipal or barana1 subdivisions are the politi"al subdivisions/[26]*n the other hand, &ational .overnment refers to the entire ma"hiner1 of the "entralovernment, asdistinuishedfromthedifferent formsof lo"al overnments/[29] The&ational.overnment then is "omposed of the three reat departments$ the e#e"utive, the leislative andthe Eudi"ial/[32]An aen"1 of the .overnment refers to an1 of the various units of the .overnment, in"ludin adepartment, bureau, offi"e, instrumentalit1, or overnmentAowned or "ontrolled "orporation, or alo"al overnment or a distin"t unit thereinI[31] while an instrumentalit1 refers to an1 aen"1 of the&ational .overnment, not interatedwithinthedepartment framewor;, vestedwithspe"ialfun"tions or Eurisdi"tion b1 law,endowed with someif not all"orporate powers, administerinspe"ial funds, and enEo1in operational autonom1, usuall1 throuh a "harter/ This term in"ludesreulator1 aen"ies, "hartered institutions and overnmentAowned and "ontrolled "orporations/[32]%f Se"tion 234=a> intended to e#tend the e#"eption therein to the withdrawal of the e#emptionfrom pa1ment of real propert1 ta#es under the last senten"e of the said se"tion to the aen"iesandinstrumentalities of the &ational.overnment mentioned in Se"tion 133=o>,then it shouldhave restated the wordin of the latter/ Net, it did not/ 0oreover, that Conress did not wish toe#pand the s"ope of the e#emption in Se"tion 234=a> to in"lude real propert1 owned b1 otherinstrumentalitiesor aen"iesof theovernment in"ludinovernmentAownedand"ontrolled"orporations is further borne out b1 the fa"t that the sour"e of this e#emption is Se"tion 42=a> of8/!/ &o/ 4:4, otherwise ;nown as The Real 8ropert1 Ta# Code, whi"h reads$S(C/ 42/ :xemptions from Real &roperty Tax/ The e#emption shall be as follows$=a> Real propert1 owned b1 the Republi" of the 8hilippines or an1 of its politi"al subdivisions andan1 overnmentAowned or "ontrolled "orporation so e#empt b1 its "harter$ &rovided, however,That this e#emption shall not appl1 to real propert1 of the aboveAmentioned entities thebenefi"ial use of whi"h has been ranted, for "onsideration or otherwise, to a ta#able person/&ote that as reprodu"ed in Se"tion 234=a>, the phrase and an1 overnmentAowned or "ontrolled"orporation so e#empt b1 its "harter was e#"luded/ The Eustifi"ation for this restri"ted e#emptionin Se"tion 234=a> seems obvious$ to limit further ta# e#emption privilees, espe"iall1 in liht ofthe eneral provision on withdrawal of ta# e#emption privilees in Se"tion 193 and the spe"ialprovision on withdrawal of e#emption from pa1ment of real propert1 ta#es in the last pararaphof Se"tion234/ Thesepoli"1"onsiderationsare"onsistent withtheStatepoli"1toensureautonom1tolo"al overnments[33] andtheobEe"tiveof the,.Cthat the1enEo1enuineandmeaninful lo"al autonom1toenablethemtoattaintheir fullest development asselfAreliant"ommunities and ma;e them effe"tive partners in the attainment of national oals/[34] The powerto ta# is the most effe"tive instrument to raise needed revenues to finan"e and support m1riada"tivities of lo"al overnment units for the deliver1 of basi" servi"es essential to the promotion ofthe eneral welfare and the enhan"ement of pea"e, proress, and prosperit1 of the people/ %tma1alsoberelevant tore"all that theoriinal reasonsfor thewithdrawal of ta#e#emptionprivileesrantedtoovernmentAownedand"ontrolled"orporationsandall other unitsofovernment were that su"h privilee resulted in serious ta# base erosion and distortions in theta# treatment of similarl1 situated enterprises, and there was a need for these entities to share inthe re@uirements of development, fis"al or otherwise, b1 pa1in the ta#es and other "hares duefrom them/[37]The "ru"ial issues then to be addressed are$ =a> whether the par"els of land in @uestion belonto the Republi" of the 8hilippines whose benefi"ial use has been ranted to the petitioner, and=b> whether the petitioner is a ta#able person/Se"tion 17 of the petitioners Charter provides$Se"/ 17/ Transfer of :xisting >acilities and Intangi%le Assets/ All e#istin publi" airport fa"ilities,runwa1s, lands, buildins and other properties, movable or immovable, belonin to or presentl1administered b1 the airports, and all assets, powers, rihts, interests and privilees relatin onairport wor;s or air operations, in"ludin all e@uipment whi"h are ne"essar1 for the operations ofair naviation, aerodrome "ontrol towers, "rash, fire, and res"ue fa"ilities are hereb1 transferredto the Authorit1$ 8rovided, however, that the operations "ontrol of all e@uipment ne"essar1 forthe operation of radio aids to air naviation, airwa1s "ommuni"ation, the approa"h "ontrol offi"e,andthearea"ontrol"entershall beretained b1the Air Transportation*ffi"e/ &o e@uipment,however, shall be removed b1 the Air Transportation *ffi"e from 0a"tan without the "on"urren"eof the Authorit1/ The Authorit1ma1assistinthemaintenan"eof the Air Transportation*ffi"ee@uipment/The airports referred to are the ,ahu Air 8ort in Cebu Cit1 and the 0a"tan %nternational Airportin the 8rovin"e of Cebu,[3:] whi"h beloned to the Republi" of the 8hilippines, then under the AirTransportation *ffi"e =AT*>/[39]%t ma1 be reasonable to assume that the termlands refer to lands in Cebu Cit1 thenadministered b1 the ,ahu Air 8ort and in"ludes the par"els of land the respondent Cit1 of Cebusee;s tolev1 on for realpropert1 ta#es/ This se"tion involves a transfer of the lands, amonotherthins, tothepetitionerandnotEust thetransferof thebenefi"ial usethereof, withtheownership bein retained b1 the Republi" of the 8hilippines/This transfer is a"tuall1 an absolute "onve1an"e of the ownership thereof be"ause thepetitioners authori?ed "apital sto"; "onsists of, inter alia, the value of su"h real estate ownedand5or administeredb1theairports/[36] -en"e, thepetitioner isnowtheowner of thelandin@uestion and the e#"eption in Se"tion 234="> of the ,.C is inappli"able/0oreover,thepetitioner"annot "laimthatit wasnever ata#able personunderits Charter/ %twas only exempted from t$e payment of real property taxes/ The rant of the privilee onl1 inrespe"t of this ta# is "on"lusive proof of the leislative intent to ma;e it a ta#able person subEe"tto all ta#es, e#"ept real propert1 ta#/+inall1, even if the petitioner was oriinall1 not a ta#able person for purposes of real propert1 ta#,in liht of the foreoin dis@uisitions, it had alread1 be"ome, even if it be "on"eded to be anaen"1 or instrumentalit1 of the .overnment, a ta#able person for su"h purpose in view of thewithdrawal in the last pararaph of Se"tion 234 of e#emptions from the pa1ment of real propert1ta#es, whi"h, as earlier adverted to, applies to the petitioner/A""ordinl1, the position ta;en b1 the petitioner is untenable/ Relian"e on Basco vs. &$ilippineAmusement and 5aming Corporation[39] is unavailin sin"e it was de"ided before the effe"tivit1of the ,.C/ reedon >rom 1e%ts Coalition" Inc. E &$il. Bi%le Society.:stelito &. endo#a for petitioner in 5.R. No. 22?4?@.&angani%an" Benite#" &arlade" Africa E Barinaga 'aw =ffices for petitioners in 5.R. No. 22?497.R.B. Rodrigue# E Associates for petitioners in 5.R. No. 22?372.Reve A.B. Saguisag for ABINI. MENDOA$, J.:The valueAadded ta# ='AT> is levied on the sale, barter or e#"hane of oods and properties as well as on the sale or e#"hane of servi"es/ %t is e@uivalent to 12R of the ross sellin pri"e or ross value in mone1 of oods or properties sold, bartered or e#"haned or of the ross re"eiptsfrom the sale or e#"hane of servi"es/ Republi" A"t &o/ 991: see;s to widen the ta# base of thee#istin 'AT s1stem and enhan"e its administration b1 amendin the &ational %nternal Revenue Code/These are various suits for certiorari and prohibition, "hallenin the "onstitutionalit1 of Republi" A"t &o/ 991: on various rounds summari?ed in the resolution of 3ul1 :, 1994 of this Court, as follows$%/ 8ro"edural %ssues$A/ !oes Republi" A"t &o/ 991: violate Art/ '%, S 24 of the ConstitutionF

2/ Art/ '%, S 26=3>These @uestions will be dealt in the order the1 are stated above/ As will presentl1 be e#plained not all of these @uestions are Eudi"iall1 "oni?able, be"ause not all provisions of the Constitution are self e#e"utin and, therefore, Eudi"iall1 enfor"eable/ The other departments of the overnment are e@uall1 "hared with the enfor"ement of the Constitution, espe"iall1 the provisions relatin to them/%/ 8R*C(!GRA, %SSG(SThe "ontention of petitioners is that in ena"tin Republi" A"t &o/ 991:, or the (#panded 'alueAAdded Ta# ,aw, Conress violated the Constitution be"ause, althouh -/ &o/ 11199 had oriinated in the -ouse of Representatives, it was not passed b1 the Senate but was simpl1 "onsolidated with the Senate version =S/ &o/ 1:32> in the Conferen"e Committee to produ"e thebill whi"h the 8resident sined into law/ The followin provisions of the Constitution are "ited in support of the proposition that be"ause Republi" A"t &o/ 991: was passed in this manner, it did not oriinate in the -ouse of Representatives and it has not thereb1 be"ome a law$Art. BI" F @C$ All appropriation, revenue or tariff bills, bills authori?in in"rease of the publi" debt, bills of lo"al appli"ation, and private bills shall oriinate e#"lusivel1 in the -ouse of Representatives, but the Senate ma1 propose or "on"ur with amendments/Id." F @8)@*$ &o bill passed b1 either -ouse shall be"ome a law unless it has passed three readins on separate da1s, and printed "opies thereof in its final form have been distributed to its 0embers three da1s before its passae, e#"ept when the 8resident "ertifies to the ne"essit1 of its immediate ena"tment to meet a publi" "alamit1 or emeren"1/ Gpon the last readin of a bill, no amendment thereto shall be allowed, and the vote thereon shall be ta;en immediatel1 thereafter, and the yeasand nays entered in the 3ournal/%t appears that on various dates between 3ul1 22, 1992 and Auust 31, 1993, several bills 1 wereintrodu"ed in the -ouse of Representatives see;in to amend "ertain provisions of the &ational %nternal Revenue Code relative to the valueAadded ta# or 'AT/ These bills were referred to the -ouse )a1s and 0eans Committee whi"h re"ommended for approval a substitute measure, -/ &o/ 11199, entitledA& ACT R(STRGCTGR%&. T-( 'A,G(AA!!(! TAH ='AT> SNST(0 T* )%!(& %TS TAH was "onsidered on se"ond readin startin &ovember :, 1993 and, on &ovember 19, 1993, it was approved b1 the -ouse of Representatives after third and final readin/%t was sent to the Senate on &ovember 23, 1993 and later referred b1 that bod1 to its Committeeon )a1s and 0eans/*n +ebruar1 9, 1994, the Senate Committee submitted its report re"ommendin approval of S/ &o/ 1:32, entitledA& ACT R(STRGCTGR%&. T-( 'A,G(AA!!(! TAH ='AT> SNST(0 T* )%!(& %TS TAH were then referred to a "onferen"e "ommitteewhi"h, after meetin four times =April 13, 19, 21 and 27, 1994>, re"ommended that T-ouse SNST(0, )%!(&%&. %TS TAH the bill has passed three readins on separate da1s and =ii> it has been printed in its final form and distributed three da1s before it is finall1 approved/%n other words, the TunlessT "lause must be read in relation to the Te#"eptT "lause, be"ause the two are reall1 "oordinate "lauses of the same senten"e/ To "onstrue the Te#"eptT "lause as simpl1 dispensin with the se"ond re@uirement in the TunlessT "lause =i.e/, printin and distribution three da1s before final approval> would not onl1 violate the rules of rammar/ %t would also neate the ver1 premise of the Te#"eptT "lause$ the ne"essit1 of se"urin the immediate ena"tment of a bill whi"h is "ertified in order to meet a publi" "alamit1 or emeren"1/ +or if it is onl1 the printin that is dispensed with b1 presidential "ertifi"ation, the time saved would be so neliible as to be of an1 use in insurin immediate ena"tment/ %t ma1 well be doubted whether doin awa1 with the ne"essit1 of printin and distributin "opies of the bill threeda1s before the third readin would insure speed1 ena"tment of a law in the fa"e of an emeren"1 re@uirin the "allin of a spe"ial ele"tion for 8resident and 'i"eA8resident/ Gnder theConstitution su"h a law is re@uired to be made within seven da1s of the "onvenin of Conress in emeren"1 session/ 11That upon the "ertifi"ation of a bill b1 the 8resident the re@uirement of three readins on separate da1s and of printin and distribution "an be dispensed with is supported b1 the weiht of leislative pra"ti"e/ +or e#ample, the bill definin the certiorari Eurisdi"tion of this Court whi"h, in "onsolidation with the Senate version, be"ame Republi" A"t &o/ 7442, was passed on se"ondand third readins in the -ouse of Representatives on the same da1 =0a1 14, 19:6> after the billhad been "ertified b1 the 8resident as urent/ 12There is, therefore, no merit in the "ontention that presidential "ertifi"ation dispenses onl1 with the re@uirement for the printin of the bill and its distribution three da1s before its passae but not with the re@uirement of three readins on separate da1s, also/%t is nonetheless ured that the "ertifi"ation of the bill in this "ase was invalid be"ause there was no emeren"1, the "ondition stated in the "ertifi"ation of a Trowin budet defi"itT not bein an unusual "ondition in this "ountr1/%t is noteworth1 that no member of the Senate saw fit to "ontrovert the realit1 of the fa"tual basis of the "ertifi"ation/ To the "ontrar1, b1 passin S/ &o/ 1:32 on se"ond and third readins on 0ar"h 24, 1994, the Senate a""epted the 8residentUs "ertifi"ation/ Should su"h "ertifi"ation be now reviewed b1 this Court, espe"iall1 when no eviden"e has been shown that, be"ause S/ &o/ 1:32 was ta;en up on se"ond and third readins on the same da1, the members of the Senate were deprived of the time needed for the stud1 of a vital pie"e of leislationFThe suffi"ien"1 of the fa"tual basis of the suspension of the writ of $a%eas corpus or de"laration of martial law under Art/ '%%, S 16, or the e#isten"e of a national emeren"1 Eustif1in the deleation of e#traordinar1 powers to the 8resident under Art/ '%, S 23=2>, is subEe"t to Eudi"ial review be"ause basi" rihts of individuals ma1 be at ha?ard/ , Se"tion 3 of Rule %%%/:ac$ Conference Committee Report s$all contain a detailed and sufficiently explicit statement oft$e c$anges in or amendments to t$e su%(ect measure" and shall be sined b1 the "onferees/The "onsideration of su"h report shall not be in order unless the report has been filed with the Se"retar1 of the Senate and "opies thereof have been distributed to the 0embers/=(mphasis added>Rules of t$e Douse of RepresentativesRule H%'$S 67/ Conference Committee Reports/ V %n the event that the -ouse does not aree with the Senate on the amendments to an1 bill or Eoint resolution, t$e differences may %e settled %y conference committees of %ot$ C$am%ers.The "onsideration of "onferen"e "ommittee reports shall alwa1s be in order, e#"ept when the Eournal is bein read, while the roll is bein "alled or the -ouse is dividin on an1 @uestion/ (a"hof the paes of su"h reports shall be sined b1 the "onferees/ :ac$ report s$all contain a detailed" sufficiently explicit statement of t$e c$anges in or amendments to t$e su%(ect measure.The "onsideration of su"h report shall not be in order unless "opies thereof are distributed to the0embers$ 8rovided, That in the last fifteen da1s of ea"h session period it shall be deemed suffi"ient that three "opies of the report, sined as above provided, are deposited in the offi"e of the Se"retar1 .eneral/=(mphasis added>To be sure, nothin in the Rules limits a "onferen"e "ommittee to a "onsideration of "onfli"tin provisions/ of the Constitution provides that T(a"h -ouse ma1 determine the rules of its pro"eedins/ / / /TThis observation applies to the other "ontention that the Rules of the two "hambers were li;ewise disrearded in the preparation of the Conferen"e Committee Report be"ause the Report did not "ontain a Tdetailed and suffi"ientl1 e#pli"it statement of "hanes in, or amendments to, the subEe"t measure/T The Report used bra";ets and "apital letters to indi"ate the "hanes/ This is a standard pra"ti"e in billAdraftin/ )e "annot sa1 that in usin these mar;s and s1mbols the Committee violated the Rules of the Senate and the -ouse/ 0oreover, this Court is not the proper forum for the enfor"ement of these internal Rules/ To the "ontrar1, as we have alread1 ruled, Tparliamentar1 rules are merel1 pro"edural and with their observan"e the "ourts have no "on"ern/T 17 *ur "on"ern is with the pro"edural re@uirements of the Constitution for the ena"tment of laws/ As far as these re@uirements are "on"erned, we are satisfied that the1 have been faithfull1 observed in these "ases/&or is there an1 reason for re@uirin that the CommitteeUs Report in these "ases must have underone three readins in ea"h of the two houses/ %f that be the "ase, there would be no end to neotiation sin"e ea"h house ma1 see; modifi"ations of the "ompromise bill/ The nature of the bill, therefore, re@uires that it be a"ted upon b1 ea"h house on a Tta;e it or leave itT basis, with the onl1 alternative that if it is not approved b1 both houses, another "onferen"e "ommittee must be appointed/ whi"h it had prepared b1 Tta;in into "onsiderationT the -ouse billI that for its part the Conferen"e Committee "onsolidated the two bills and prepared a "ompromise versionI that the Conferen"e Committee Report was thereafter approved b1 the -ouse and the Senate, presumabl1 after appropriate stud1 b1 their members/ )e "annot sa1 that, as a matter of fa"t, the members of Conress were not full1 informed of the provisions of the bill/ The alleation that the Conferen"e Committee usurped the leislative power of Conress is, in our view, without warrant in fa"t and in law/>ourt$/ )hatever doubts there ma1 be as to the formal validit1 of Republi" A"t &o/ 991: must be resolved in its favor/ *ur "ases 23 manifest firm adheren"e to the rule that an enrolled "op1 of a bill is "on"lusive not onl1 of its provisions but also of its due ena"tment/ &ot even "laims that aproposed "onstitutional amendment was invalid be"ause the re@uisite votes for its approval had not been obtained 21 or that "ertain provisions of a statute had been TsmuledT in the printin ofthe bill 22 have moved or persuaded us to loo; behind the pro"eedins of a "oe@ual bran"h of the overnment/ There is no reason now to depart from this rule/&o "laim is here made that the Tenrolled billT rule is absolute/ %n fa"t in one "ase 2B we Twent behindT an enrolled bill and "onsulted the 3ournal to determine whether "ertain provisions of a statute had been approved b1 the Senate in view of the fa"t that the 8resident of the Senate himself, who had sined the enrolled bill, admitted a mista;e and withdrew his sinature, so that in effe"t there was no loner an enrolled bill to "onsider/ SNST(0, )%!(&%&. %TS TAH from the pa1ment of all Tother ta#es / / / now or in the near future,T in "onsideration of the pa1ment b1 it either of the "orporate in"ome ta# or a fran"hise ta# of 2R/As a result of its amendment b1 Republi" A"t &o/ 991:, S 123 of the &%RC now provides$S 123/ :xempt transactions/ V The followin shall be e#empt from the valueAadded ta#$/ / / /=@> Transa"tions whi"h are e#empt under spe"ial laws, e#"ept those ranted under 8residential !e"ree &os/ ::, 729, 992, 1491, 1792/ / / /The effe"t of the amendment is to remove the e#emption ranted to 8A,, as far as the 'AT is "on"erned/The @uestion is whether this amendment of S 123 of the &%RC is fairl1 embra"ed in the title of Republi" A"t &o/ 991:, althouh no mention is made therein of 8/!/ &o/ 1792 as amon those whi"h the statute amends/ )e thin; it is, sin"e the title states that the purpose of the statute is toe#pand the 'AT s1stem, and one wa1 of doin this is to widen its base b1 withdrawin some of the e#emptions ranted before/ To insist that 8/!/ &o/ 1792 be mentioned in the title of the law, in addition to S 123 of the &%RC, in whi"h it is spe"ifi"all1 referred to, would be to insist that the title of a bill should be a "omplete inde# of its "ontent/The "onstitutional re@uirement that ever1 bill passed b1 Conress shall embra"e onl1 one subEe"t whi"h shall be e#pressed in its title is intended to prevent surprise upon the members of Conress and to inform the people of pendin leislation so that, if the1 wish to, the1 "an be heard reardin it/ %f, in the "ase at bar, petitioner did not ;now before that its e#emption had been withdrawn, it is not be"ause of an1 defe"t in the title but perhaps for the same reason otherstatutes, althouh published, pass unnoti"ed until some event somehow "alls attention to their e#isten"e/ %ndeed, the title of Republi" A"t &o/ 991: is not an1 more eneral than the title of 8A,Us own fran"hise under 8/!/ &o/ 1792, and 1et no mention is made of its ta# e#emption/ The title of 8/!/ &o/ 1792 is$A& ACT .RA&T%&. A &() +RA&C-%S( T* 8-%,%88%&( A%R,%&(S, %&C/ T* (STAreedom of T$oug$t and Religious >reedomThe 8hilippine 8ress %nstitute =88%>, petitioner in ./R/ &o/ 117744, is a nonprofit orani?ation of newspaper publishers established for the improvement of Eournalism in the 8hilippines/ *n the other hand, petitioner in ./R/ &o/ 117961, the 8hilippine with the result that print media be"ame subEe"t to the 'AT with respe"t to all aspe"ts of their operations/ ,ater, however, based on a memorandum of the Se"retar1 of 3usti"e, respondent Se"retar1 of +inan"e issued Revenue Reulations &o/ 11A94, dated 3une 29, 1994, e#emptin the T"ir"ulation in"ome of print media pursuant to S 4 Arti"le %%% of the 1969 8hilippine Constitution uaranteein aainst abridment of freedom of the press, amon others/T The e#emption of T"ir"ulation in"omeT has left in"ome from advertisements still subEe"t to the 'AT/%t is unne"essar1 to pass upon the "ontention that the e#emption ranted is be1ond the authorit1of the Se"retar1 of +inan"e to ive, in view of 88%Us "ontention that even with the e#emption of the "ir"ulation revenue of print media there is still an un"onstitutional abridment of press freedom be"ause of the imposition of the 'AT on the ross re"eipts of newspapers from advertisements and on their a"@uisition of paper, in; and servi"es for publi"ation/ (ven on the assumption that no e#emption has effe"tivel1 been ranted to print media transa"tions, we find no violation of press freedom in these "ases/To be sure, we are not dealin here with a statute that on its face operates in the area of press freedom/ The 88%Us "laim is simpl1 that, as applied to newspapers, the law abrides press freedom/ (ven with due re"onition of its hih estate and its importan"e in a demo"rati" so"iet1, however, the press is not immune from eneral reulation b1 the State/ %t has been held$The publisher of a newspaper has no immunit1 from the appli"ation of eneral laws/ -e has no spe"ial privilee to invade the rihts and liberties of others/ -e must answer for libel/ -e ma1 be punished for "ontempt of "ourt/ / / / ,i;e others, he must pa1 e@uitable and nondis"riminator1 ta#es on his business/ / / / 2CThe 88% does not dispute this point, either/)hat it "ontends is that b1 withdrawin the e#emption previousl1 ranted to print media transa"tions involvin printin, publi"ation, importation or sale of newspapers, Republi" A"t &o/ 991: has sinled out the press for dis"riminator1 treatment and that within the "lass of mass media the law dis"riminates aainst print media b1 ivin broad"ast media favored treatment/ )e have "arefull1 e#amined this arument, but we are unable to find a differential treatment of the press b1 the law, mu"h less an1 "ensorial motivation for its ena"tment/ %f the press is now re@uired to pa1 a valueAadded ta# on its transa"tions, it is not be"ause it is bein sinled out, mu"h less tareted, for spe"ial treatment but onl1 be"ause of the removal of the e#emption previousl1 ranted to it b1 law/ The withdrawal of e#emption is all that is involved in these "ases/*ther transa"tions, li;ewise previousl1 ranted e#emption, have been delisted as part of the s"heme to e#pand the base and the s"ope of the 'AT s1stem/ The law would perhaps be open to the "hare of dis"riminator1 treatment if the onl1 privilee withdrawn had been that ranted to the press/ the law be"ame Tentirel1 in"ompatible with the +irst AmendmentUs uarantee of freedom of the press/TThese "ases "ome down to this$ that unless Eustified, the differential treatment of the press "reates ris;s of suppression of e#pression/ %n "ontrast, in the "ases at bar, the statute applies to a wide rane of oods and servi"es/ The arument that, b1 imposin the 'AT onl1 on print media whose ross sales e#"eeds 8462,222 but not more than 8972,222, the law dis"riminates BB is without merit sin"e it has not been shown that as a result the "lass subEe"t to ta# has been unreasonabl1 narrowed/ The fa"t is that this limitation does not appl1 to the press alon but to all sales/ &or is impermissible motive shown b1 the fa"t that print media and broad"ast media are treated differentl1/ The press is ta#ed on its transa"tions involvin printin and publi"ation, whi"h are different from the transa"tions of broad"ast media/ There is thus a reasonable basis for the "lassifi"ation/The "ases "anvassed, it must be stressed, es"hew an1 suestion that Towners of newspapers are immune from an1 forms of ordinar1 ta#ation/T The li"ense ta# in the 5ros(ean "ase was de"lared invalid be"ause it was Tone sinle in ;ind, with a lon histor1 of hostile misuse aainst the freedom of thepress/T B4 *n the other hand, inneapolis Star a";nowleded that TThe +irst Amendment does not prohibit all reulation of the press [and that] the States and the +ederal .overnment "an subEe"t newspapers to enerall1 appli"able e"onomi" reulations without "reatin "onstitutional problems/T B?)hat has been said above also disposes of the alleations of the 8 than pa1ments b1 hiherAin"ome households/ That is, the 'AT will be reressive/T 8etitioners "ontend that as a result of the uniform 12R 'AT, the ta# on "onsumption oods of those who are in the hiherAin"ome bra";et, whi"h before wereta#ed at a rate hiher than 12R, has been redu"ed, while basi" "ommodities, whi"h before wereta#ed at rates ranin from 3R to 7R, are now ta#ed at a hiher rate/3ust as viorousl1 as it is asserted that the law is reressive, the opposite "laim is pressed b1 respondents that in fa"t it distributes the ta# burden to as man1 oods and servi"es as possible parti"ularl1 to those whi"h are within the rea"h of hiherAin"ome roups, even as the law e#empts basi" oods and servi"es/ %t is thus e@uitable/ The oods and properties subEe"t to the 'AT are those used or "onsumed b1 hiherAin"ome roups/ These in"lude real properties held primaril1 for sale to "ustomers or held for lease in the ordinar1 "ourse of business, the riht or privilee to use industrial, "ommer"ial or s"ientifi" e@uipment, hotels, restaurants and similar pla"es, tourist buses, and the li;e/ *n the other hand, small business establishments, with annual ross sales of less than 8722,222, are e#empted/ This, a""ordin to respondents, removes from the "overae of the law some 32,222 business establishments/ *n the other hand, an o""asional paper 4B of the Center for Resear"h and Communi"ation "ities a &(!A stud1 that the 'AT has minimal impa"t on inflation and in"ome distribution and that while additional e#penditure for the lowest in"ome "lass is onl1 8321 or 1/49R a 1ear, that for a famil1earnin 8722,222 a 1ear or more is 86,342 or 2/2R/,a";in empiri"al data on whi"h to base an1 "on"lusion reardin these aruments, an1 dis"ussion whether the 'AT is reressive in the sense that it will hit the TpoorT and middleAin"ome roup in so"iet1 harder than it will the Tri"h,T as the Cooperative Gnion of the 8hilippines =CG8> "laims in ./R/ &o/ 117693, is larel1 an a"ademi" e#er"ise/ *n the other hand, the CG8Us "ontention that ConressU withdrawal of e#emption of produ"ers "ooperatives, mar;etin "ooperatives, and servi"e "ooperatives, while maintainin that ranted to ele"tri" "ooperatives, not onl1 oes aainst the "onstitutional poli"1 to promote "ooperatives as instruments of so"ial Eusti"e =Art/ H%%, S 17> but also denies su"h "ooperatives the e@ual prote"tion of the law is a"tuall1 a poli"1 arument/ The leislature is not re@uired to adhere to a poli"1 of Tall or noneT in "hoosin the subEe"t of ta#ation/44&or is the "ontention of the Chamber of Real (state and / These provisions are put in the Constitution as moral in"entives to leislation, not as Eudi"iall1 enfor"eable rihts/At all events, our 1966 de"ision in Aapatiran 4? should have laid to rest the @uestions now raised aainst the 'AT/ There similar aruments made aainst the oriinal 'AT ,aw =(#e"utive *rder &o/ 293> were held to be h1potheti"al, with no more basis than newspaper arti"les whi"h this Court found to be Thearsa1 and [without] evidentiar1 value/T As Republi" A"t &o/ 991: merel1 e#pands the base of the 'AT s1stem and its "overae as provided in the oriinal 'AT ,aw, further debate on the desirabilit1 and wisdom of the law should have shifted to Conress/*nl1 slihtl1 less abstra"t but nonetheless h1potheti"al is the "ontention of CR( "learl1 defines our Eurisdi"tion interms of T"ases,T and nothin but T"ases/T That the other departments of the overnment ma1 have "ommitted a rave abuse of dis"retion is not an independent round for e#er"isin our power/ !isreard of the essential limits imposed b1 the "ase and "ontrovers1 re@uirement "an inthe lon run onl1 result in underminin our authorit1 as a "ourt of law/ +or, as Eudes, what we are "alled upon to render is Eudment a""ordin to law, not a""ordin to what ma1 appear to be the opinion of the da1/YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY%n the pre"eedin paes we have endeavored to dis"uss, within limits, the validit1 of Republi" A"t &o/ 991: in its formal and substantive aspe"ts as this has been raised in the various "ases before us/ To sum up, we hold$=1> That the pro"edural re@uirements of the Constitution have been "omplied with b1 Conress in the ena"tment of the statuteI=2> That Eudi"ial in@uir1 whether the formal re@uirements for the ena"tment of statutes V be1ondthose pres"ribed b1 the Constitution V have been observed is pre"luded b1 the prin"iple of separation of powersI=3> That the law does not abride freedom of spee"h, e#pression or the press, nor interfere with the free e#er"ise of reliion, nor den1 to an1 of the parties the riht to an edu"ationI and=4> That, in view of the absen"e of a fa"tual foundation of re"ord, "laims that the law is reressive, oppressive and "onfis"ator1 and that it violates vested rihts prote"ted under the Contra"t Clause are prematurel1 raised and do not Eustif1 the rant of prospe"tive relief b1 writ of prohibition/)-(R(+*R(, the petitions in these "ases are !%S0%SS(!/Bidin" Iuiason" and Aapunan" ++." concur."olentino v. Se%retar( of -inan%e+a"ts$The valueAadded ta# ='AT> is levied on the sale, barter or e#"hane of oods and properties aswell as on the sale or e#"hane of servi"es/ RA 991: see;s to widen the ta# base of the e#istin'AT s1stem and enhan"e its administration b1 amendin the &ational %nternal Revenue Code/There are various suits "hallenin the "onstitutionalit1 of RA991: on various rounds/*ne "ontention is that RA 991: did not oriinate e#"lusivel1 in the -ouse of Representatives asre@uired b1 Art/ '%, Se"/ 24 of the Constitution, be"ause it is in fa"t the result of the "onsolidationof 2 distin"t bills, -/ &o/ 11199 and S/ &o/ 1:32/ There is also a "ontention that S/ &o/ 1:32 didnot pass 3 readins as re@uired b1 the Constitution/%ssue$)hether or not RA 991: violates Art/ '%, Se"s/ 24 and 2:=2> ofthe Constitution -eld$The arumentthatRA 991:didnot oriinate e#"lusivel1 inthe -ouseofRepresentatives asre@uired b1 Art/ '%, Se"/ 24 of the Constitution will not bear anal1sis/ To bein with, it is not thelawbut therevenuebill whi"hisre@uiredb1theConstitutiontooriinatee#"lusivel1inthe-ouse of Representatives/ To insist that a revenue statute and not onl1 the bill whi"h initiated theleislative pro"ess "ulminatin in the ena"tment of the law must substantiall1 be the same asthe -ouse bill would be to den1 the SenateJs power not onl1 to "on"ur with amendments butalso to propose amendments/ %ndeed, what the Constitution simpl1 means is that the initiativefor filin revenue, tariff or ta# bills, bills authori?in an in"rease of the publi" debt, private billsand bills of lo"al appli"ation must "ome from the -ouse of Representatives on the theor1 that,ele"ted as the1 are from the distri"ts, the members of the -ouse "an be e#pe"ted to be moresensitivetothelo"al needsandproblems/ &ordoestheConstitutionprohibit thefilinintheSenate of a substitute bill in anti"ipation of its re"eipt of the bill from the -ouse, so lon as a"tionb1 the Senate as a bod1 is withheld pendin re"eipt of the -ouse bill/ The ne#t arument of the petitioners was that S/ &o/ 1:32 did not pass 3 readins on separateda1s as re@uired b1 the Constitution be"ause the se"ond and third readins were done on thesameda1/ and Se"tion 17 of RA9229,theor as long as it services t$e needs of t$e Special :conomic Jone" yes.Senator Enrile/ >or aslongast$egoodsremainwit$int$e#one" w$et$er wecall it aneconomic#oneorafreeport" foraslongaswesayint$islawt$at all goodsenteringt$isparticularterritory will %e duty-free andtax-free" for as long as t$eyremaint$ere" consumedt$ere or reexported or destroyed in t$at place" t$en t$ey are not su%(ect to t$e duties and taxesin accordance wit$ t$e laws of t$e &$ilippinesFSenator G!ingona/ Kes/[19]8etitioners rel1 on Committee Report &o/ 122: submitted b1 the Ad -o" *versiht Committeeon )ithin the framewor; and subEe"t to the mandate and limitations of the Constitution and thepertinent provisions of the ,o"al .overnment Code, the Subi" Spe"ial ("onomi" Zone shall bedeveloped into a selfAsustainin, industrial, commercial, finan"ial and investment "enter toenerate emplo1ment opportunities in and around the ?one and to attra"t and promoteprodu"tive forein investments/ [19]The afore"ited poli"1 was mentioned as a basis for the issuan"e of (#e"utive *rder &o/ 99AA,thus$)-(R(AS, Republi"A"t &o/ 9229providesthat withintheframewor;andsubEe"t tothemandate and limitations of the Constitution and the pertinent provisions of the ,o"al .overnmentCode, the Subi" Spe"ial ("onomi" and +ree 8ort Zone =SS(+8Z> shall be developed into a selfAsustaininindustrial, "ommer"ial, finan"ial andinvestment "enter toenerate emplo1mentopportunities in and around the ?one and to attra"t and promote produ"tive forein investmentsIand)-(R(AS, a spe"ial ta# and dut1Afree privilee within a Se"ured Area in the SS(+8Z subEe"t,to e#istin laws has been determined ne"essar1 to attra"t lo"al and forein visitors to the ?one/(#e"utive *rder &o/ 99AA provides uidelines to overn the ta# and dut1Afree privilees withinthe Se"ured Area of the Subi" Spe"ial ("onomi" and +ree 8ort Zone/ 8araraph 1/: thereofstatesthat=t>hesaleofta# anddut1Afree "onsumer items in the Se"ured Area shall onl1beallowed in dul1 authori?ed dut1Afree shops/The Court finds that the settin up of su"h "ommer"ial establishments whi"h are the onl1 onesdul1 authori?ed to sell "onsumer items ta# and dut1Afree is still well within the poli"1 enun"iatedin Se"tion 12 of Republi" A"t &o/ 9229 that / / /the S!)i% Spe%ial E%ono&i% Aone shall )edeveloped into a self's!staining, ind!strial, %o&&er%ial, finan%ial and invest&ent %enterto generate e&plo(&ent opport!nities in and aro!nd the Ione and to attra%t and pro&oteprod!%tive foreign invest&ents/ =(mphasis supplied/>-owever, theCourt reiteratesthat the se%ondsenten%esof paragraphs1.2and1.BofE#e%!tive Order No. 7C'$, allowin ta# and dut1Afree re&oval of goods to "ertain individuals,evenin alimitedamount,fromtheSe"ured Areaof theSS(Z, aren!ll andvoidfor)eing%ontrar( to Se%tion 12 of ,ep!)li% $%t No. C22C/ Said Se"tion "learl1 provides thate#portation or removal of oods from the territor1 of the Subi" Spe"ial ("onomi" Zone to theotherpartsof the8hilippineterritor1shall besubEe"t to"ustomsdutiesandta#esundertheCustoms and Tariff Code and other relevant ta# laws of the 8hilippines/*ntheother hand, insofar astheCS(Zis"on"erned, the"asefor aninvalide#er"iseofe#e"utive leislation is tenable/%n +o$n Day &eoples Alternative Coalition" et al. v. Bictor 'im" et al .,[22] this Court resolved anissue, ver1 mu"h li;e the one herein, "on"ernin the lealit1 of the ta# e#emption benefits iventothe3ohn-a1("onomi"Zoneunder 8residential 8ro"lamation&o/ 422, Seriesof 1994,CR(AT%&. A&!!(S%.&AT%&. A 8*RT%*&*+T-( AR(A C*'(R(! in an1 iven 1earIb/ *verseas+ilipino )or;ers=*+)s> andI"/ Residents, eihteen =16> 1ears old and above, of the fen"edAin areas of the freeports underR/A/ 9229 =1992> and (/*/ 99AAs/ 1993 Gnlimited pur"hase as lon as these are for"onsumption within these freeports/ThetermTResidentsTmentionedinitem"aboveshall refertoindividualswho, b1virtueofdomi"ile or emplo1ment, reside on permanent basis within the freeport area/ The term e#"ludes=1> nonAresidents who have entered into shortA or lonAterm propert1 lease inside the freeport,=2> outsiders enaed in doin business within the freeport, and =3> members of private "lubs=e//, 1a"ht andolf "lubs> basedor lo"atedwithinthefreeport/ %nthisreard, dut1freeprivilees rantedtoan1 oftheaboveindividuals=e//,unlimitedshoppinprivilee,ta#Afreeimportation of "ars, et"/> are hereb1 revo;ed/[23]A perusal of the above provisions indi"ates that effe"tive 3anuar1 1, 1999, the rant of dut1Afreeshoppin privilees to domesti" tourists and to residents livin adEa"ent to SS(Z and the CS(Zhad been revo;ed/ Residents of the fen"edAin area of the free port are still allowed unlimitedpur"haseof "onsumer oods, aslonasthesearefor "onsumptionwithinthesefreeports/-en"e, the onl1 individuals allowed b1 law to shop in the dut1Afree outlets and remove "onsumeroods out of the free ports ta#Afree are tourists and +ilipinos travelin to or returnin from foreindestinations, and *verseas +ilipino )or;ers and thereof, "learl1 provides thate#portation or removal of oods from the territor1 of the Subi" Spe"ial ("onomi" Zone to theotherpartsof the8hilippineterritor1shall besubEe"t to"ustomsdutiesandta#esundertheCustoms and Tariff Code and other relevant ta# laws of the 8hilippines/Thus, theremoval of oodsfromtheSS(Ztoother partsof the8hilippineterritor1withoutpa1ment of said"ustomsdutiesandta#esisnot authori?edb1theA"t/ Conse@uentl1, thefollowin itali"i?ed provisions found in the se"ond senten"es of pararaphs 1/2 and 1/3, Se"tion1 of (#e"utive *rder &o/ 99AA are null and void$1/2Residentsof theSS(+8ZlivinoutsidetheSe"uredArea"anenter and"onsumean1@uantit1 of "onsumption items in-*T(,Sand restaurants within the Se"ured Area/ Dowever"t$ese residents can purc$ase and %ring out of t$e Secured Area to ot$er parts of t$e &$ilippineterritory consumer items wort$ not exceeding ;S L266 per mont$ per person/ *nl1 residentsae 17 and over are entitled to this privilee/1/3+ilipinosnot residinwithintheSS(+8Z"anenter theSe"ured Areaand"onsumean1@uantit1 of "onsumption items in-*T(,Sand restaurants within the Se"ured Area/ Dowever"t$ey can purc$ase and %ring out of t$e Secured Area to ot$er parts of t$e &$ilippine territoryconsumer items wort$ not exceeding ;S L@66 per year per person/ *nl1 +ilipinos ae 17 andover are entitled to this privilee/[2:]A similar provision found in pararaph 7, Se"tion 4=A> of be ermane to the purpose of the law, =3> not be limited to e#istin "onditions onl1, and =4> appl1e@uall1 to all members of the same "lass/[26]Appl1in the foreoin test to the present "ase, this Court finds no violation of the riht to e@ualprote"tion of the laws/ >irst" "ontrar1 to petitioners "laim, substantial distin"tions lie between theestablishments inside and outside the ?one, Eustif1in the differen"e in their treatment/ %n Tiu v.Court of Appeals"[29] the "onstitutionalit1 of (#e"utive *rder &o/ 99AA was "hallened for beinviolative of the e@ual prote"tion "lause/ %n that "ase, petitioners "laimed that (#e"utive *rder&o/ 99AAwasdis"riminator1in"onfinintheappli"ationof Republi"A"t &o/ 9229withinase"ured area of the SS(Z, to the e#"lusion of those outside but are, nevertheless, still within thee"onomi" ?one/Gpholdin the "onstitutionalit1 of (#e"utive *rder &o/ 99AA, this Court therein found substantialdifferen"es between the retailers inside and outside the se"ured area, thereb1 Eustif1in a validand reasonable "lassifi"ation$Certainl1,therearesubstantial differen"esbetweenthebiinvestorswhoarebeinluredtoestablish and operate their industries in the soA"alled se"ured area and the present businessoperatorsoutsidethe area/*ntheone hand,we aretal;inof billionApesoinvestmentsandthousands of new Eobs/ *n the other hand, definitel1 none of su"h manitude/ %n the first, thee"onomi" impa"t will be nationalI in the se"ond, onl1 lo"al/ (ven more important, at this time thebusiness a"tivities outside the se"ured area are not li;el1 to have an1 impa"t in a"hievin thepurpose of the law, whi"h is to turn the former militar1 base to productive use for the benefit ofthe8hilippinee"onom1/ Thereis, then, hardl1an1reasonablebasistoe#tendtothemthebenefits and in"entives a""orded in R/A/ 9229/ Additionall1, as the Court of Appeals pointed out,it will be easier to manae and monitor the a"tivities within the se"ured area, whi"h is alread1fen"ed off, to prevent fraudulent importation of mer"handise or smulin/%t is wellAsettled that the e@ualAprote"tion uarantee does not re@uire territorial uniformit1 of laws/As lon as there are a"tual and material differen"es between territories, there is no violation ofthe"onstitutional "lause/ Andof "ourse, an1one, in"ludinthepetitioners, possessinthere@uisiteinvestment "apital "analwa1savail of thesamebenefitsb1"hannelinhisorherresour"es or business operations into the fen"edAoff free port ?one/[32]TheCourt in Tiu foundreal andsubstantial distin"tionsbetweenresidentswithinthese"uredarea and those livin within the e"onomi" ?one but outside the fen"edAoff area/ Similarl1, realandsubstantial differen"ese#ist betweentheestablishments hereininvolved/ Asinifi"antdistin"tion between the two roups is that enterprises outside the ?ones maintain theirbusinesseswithin8hilippine"ustomsterritor1,whileprivaterespondentsandtheotherdul1Areistered ?one enterprises operate within the soA"alled separate "ustoms territor1/ To rant thesame ta# in"entives iven to enterprises within the ?ones to businesses operatin outside the?ones, as petitioners insist, would "learl1 defeat the statutes intent to "arve a territor1 out of themilitar1 reservations in Subi" andtheClar;Spe"ial ("onomi"Zone=CS(Z>/ Thepetitioner see;stode"lareRepubli" A"t &o/9229 as un"onstitutional on the round that it allowed onl1 ta#Afree =and dut1Afree> importationof raw materials, capital and e-uipment/ %t reads$T$eSu%icSpecial :conomicJones$all %eoperatedandmanagedasaseparatecustomsterritory ensuring free flow or movement of goods and capital wit$in" into and exported out of t$eSu%ic Special :conomic Jone" as well as provide incentives suc$ as tax and duty-freeimportations of raw materials" capital and e-uipment. Dowever" exportation or removal of goodsfrom t$e territory of t$e Su%ic Special :conomic Jone to t$e ot$er parts of t$e &$ilippine territorys$all %esu%(ect tocustomsdutiesandtaxesundert$eCustomsandTariff Codeandot$errelevant tax laws of t$e&$ilippines MRA 9@@9" Sec 2@ )%*N.8etitioners"ontendthat thewordinof Republi" A"t &o/ 9229"learl1limitstherant of ta#in"entivestotheimportationof rawmaterials, capital ande-uipment onl1thereb1violatinthee@ual prote"tion "lause of the Constitution/-e also assailed the "onstitutionalit1 of (#e"utive *rder &o/ 99AA for bein violative of their rihtto e@ual prote"tion/ The1 asserted that private respondents operatin inside the SS(Z are notdifferent from the retail establishments lo"ated outside/Iss!e: )hether or not Republi" A"t &o/ 9229 is valid on the round that it violates the e@ualprote"tion "lause/De%ision$ TheSCruledintheneative/ Thephrase[ta#anddut1Afreeimportationsof rawmaterials, "apital ande@uipment wasmerel1"itedasane#ampleof in"entivesthat ma1beiven to entities operatin within the ?one/ 8ubli" respondent S reston substantialdistin"tion, =2> be ermanetothe purpose of the law, =3> notbelimitedtoe#istin"onditionsonl1,and=4> appl1e@uall1toall membersof thesame"lass/Appl1in the foreoin test to the present "ase, this Court finds no violation of the riht to e@ualprote"tion of the laws/ There is a substantial distin"tions l1in between the establishments insideand outside the ?one/ There are substantial differen"es in a sense that, investors will be lured toestablish and operate their industries in the soA"alled [se"ured area and the present businessoperators outside the area/ There is, then, hardl1 an1 reasonable basis to e#tend to them thebenefits and in"entives a""orded in R/A/ 9229/