Abakada Guro Party List vs. Purisima

Facts:

Abakada Guro Party List (formerly AASJS) et al., G.R. No. 166715, August 14, 2008, the Supreme Court En Banc, Corona, J., writing for the Court. Petitioners (officers/members of the Abakada Guro Party List) filed a petition for prohibition under Rule 65 seeking to enjoin respondents Cesar V. Purisima (Secretary of Finance), Guillermo L. Parayno, Jr. (Commissioner, BIR) and Alberto D. Lina (Commissioner, BOC) from implementing and enforcing Republic Act No. 9335 (the Attrition Act of 2005).

RA 9335 created a Rewards and Incentives Fund (the Fund) and a Revenue Performance Evaluation Board to encourage BIR and BOC personnel to exceed revenue targets; it covers all BIR/BOC officials and employees with at least six months’ service (Sec. 3), sets the Fund’s source and allocation (Sec. 4), prescribes Board composition and powers (Secs. 6–7), requires the DOF/DBM/NEDA/BIR/BOC/CSC to promulgate implementing rules and regulations (IRR) (Sec. 11), and creates a Joint Congressional Oversight Committee to approve those IRR (Sec. 12). Section 7 permits removal of personnel whose collections fall short of targets by at least 7.5% subject to civil service rules; Section 8 provides liability for malfeasance/neglect. Section 13 contains a separability clause.

Petitioners, suing as taxpayers, alleged (a) the reward system turns BIR/BOC officers into “mercenaries” and invites corruption (public-accountability claim); (b) the law violates equal protection by singling out only BIR/BOC personnel; (c) it unduly delegates the power to fix revenue targets (allegedly to the President) without sufficient standards; and (d) Section 12 creates an unconstitutional congressional oversight committee (a legislative veto) that violates separation of powers. Respondents (through the OSG) argued the petition was premature but defended the law as constitutionally sound, asserting adequate standards, a rational classification, and that congressional oversight enhances checks and balances.

The Court first considered justiciability and ripeness, finding petitioners failed to show a concrete, redressable injury and that the petition was therefore procedurally infirm, but it nonetheless resolved the constitutional questions because of public interest and the grave nature of the allegations. On the merits the Court largely uph...(Pro-only)

Issues:

• Is the petition justiciable and ripe for adjudication?
• Does RA 9335 offend the constitutional duty of public officers and employees as a public trust by creating incentives that convert BIR/BOC personnel into “mercenaries”?
• Does RA 9335 violate the Equal Protection Clause by singling out BIR and BOC personnel for incentives and sanctions?
• Does RA 9335 constitute an undue delegation of legislative power in the President’s or administrative agencies’ fixing of revenue targets and in the Boards’ authority to remove personnel?
• Does Section 12’s creation of a Joint Congressional Oversight Committee to approve the IRR viol...(Pro-only)

Ruling:

• (Pro-only)

Ratio:

• (Pro-only)

Doctrine:

• (Pro-only)