Case Digest (G.R. No. 163583) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
On April 15, 2009, the Supreme Court en banc resolved G.R. No. 163583 filed by British American Tobacco (BAT) against Jose Isidro N. Camacho, Secretary of Finance, and Guillermo L. Parayno, Jr., Commissioner of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR), challenging the constitutionality of certain excise tax provisions on cigarettes. BAT sought to invalidate Section 145 of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) as amended by Republic Act No. 9334 and related provisions of Revenue Regulations No. 1-97 (as amended by RR 9-2003) and Revenue Memorandum Order No. 6-2003, which impose a classification freeze on cigarette brands. The Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 61 (Civil Case No. 03-1032), ruled against BAT. On August 20, 2008, the Supreme Court partially granted the petition, declaring Section 145 constitutional but invalidating the challenged regulations to the extent they empowered the BIR to reclassify new brands periodically. BAT filed a Motion for Reconsideration, assert Case Digest (G.R. No. 163583) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Parties and Subject Matter
- Petitioner: British American Tobacco (BAT) Philippines, Inc.
- Respondents: Jose Isidro N. Camacho (Secretary of Finance) and Guillermo L. Parayno, Jr. (Commissioner of Internal Revenue)
- Intervenors: Philip Morris Philippines Manufacturing, Inc.; Fortune Tobacco Corp.; Mighty Corporation; JT International, S.A.
- Core issue: constitutionality of the “classification freeze” mechanism for cigarette excise tax brackets under Section 145 of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) as amended by Republic Act No. 9334, and related Revenue Regulations and Memorandum Orders empowering the BIR to reclassify brands.
- Procedural History
- RTC of Makati, Branch 61 (Civil Case No. 03-1032): denied petitioner’s challenge to the excise tax provisions.
- Supreme Court (August 20, 2008 Decision, En Banc, G.R. No. 163583): partially granted BAT’s petition—
- Declared Section 145 of the NIRC, as amended, constitutional.
- Declared invalid certain provisions of Revenue Regulations No. 1–97 (as amended) and Revenue Memorandum Order No. 6–2003 insofar as they allowed biennial or earlier reclassification by the BIR of machine-packed cigarette brands.
- Motion for Reconsideration (filed by BAT): challenged the Decision on grounds of equal protection, uniformity, unfair competition, regressive taxation, due process, and sought downward reclassification of Lucky Strike cigarettes.
- Resolution on Motion for Reconsideration (April 15, 2009)
- Supreme Court En Banc denied the motion for reconsideration in toto.
- Reaffirmed August 20, 2008 Decision as modified.
Issues:
- Does the classification freeze provision violate the Equal Protection and Uniformity of Taxation Clauses of the Constitution?
- Does the classification freeze provision contravene Section 19, Article XII of the Constitution on unfair competition?
- Does the classification freeze provision infringe constitutional proscriptions against regressive and inequitable taxation?
- Is petitioner entitled to a downward reclassification of its Lucky Strike brand due to alleged delay in the BIR’s market survey, and does such delay constitute deprivation of property without due process?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)