Case Digest (G.R. No. 199802)
Facts:
Congressman Hermilando I. Mandanas et al. v. Paquito N. Ochoa et al., G.R. No. 199802; Hon. Enrique T. Garcia, Jr. v. Paquito N. Ochoa et al., G.R. No. 208488, April 10, 2019, Supreme Court En Banc, Bersamin, C.J., writing for the Court.Petitioners in G.R. No. 199802 (a group of local officials headed by Congressman Hermilando I. Mandanas) and petitioner in G.R. No. 208488 (Hon. Enrique T. Garcia, Jr., in his personal and official capacity) sought judicial relief challenging the computation and statutory language governing the Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA) under the Local Government Code (Republic Act No. 7160) and related laws. Respondents were the Executive Secretary and officials of the Department of Finance, Department of Budget and Management, Bureau of Internal Revenue, Bureau of Customs and the Bureau of the Treasury (collectively represented by the Office of the Solicitor General).
On July 3, 2018, the Court issued a decision that partially granted the consolidated petitions: it declared the phrase “internal revenue” in Section 284 of the Local Government Code (LGC) unconstitutional and deleted it (thereby construing the Constitution’s reference to “national taxes” to mean all national taxes), modified several related provisions, ordered national revenue-collecting agencies to include all national tax collections (subject to specified exceptions) in computing LGU shares, validated certain special apportionments, and commanded prospective, automatic quarterly release of LGU shares. The July 3 decision also applied the doctrine of prospective application and declined to grant LGUs recovery of alleged past arrears except under the operative-fact exceptions described in precedent.
The Office of the Solicitor General filed a motion for reconsideration contesting, inter alia, (I) the Court’s reading of Article X, Section 6 of the 1987 Constitution as requiring all national taxes as the IRA base; (II) the deletion of the phrase “internal revenue” from the LGC (arguing congressional prerogative to define the base); (III) the Court’s inclusion of particular taxes and shares (customs duties, portions of ARMM collections, shares from exploitation of national wealth, tobacco and certain franchise-related taxes, VAT shares, etc.); and (IV) the timing of prospective application (urging clarification that adjusted IRA should begin in FY 2022). Petitioner Garcia filed a partial motion for reconsideration seeking award of arrears dating to 1992. The motions raised both constitutional construction and remedial/timing issues.
The matter before the Court in this resolution was the denial or grant of those motions for reconsideration from the July 3, 2018 decision. On...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Should the Court grant the respondents’ and petitioner’s motions for reconsideration of the Court’s July 3, 2018 decision?
- Whether Article X, Section 6 of the 1987 Constitution requires that the LGUs’ just share be computed from all “national taxes” rather than from a narrower class of “national internal revenue taxes” as provided in Section 284 of the LGC.
- Whether the Court erred in deleting the phrase “internal revenue” from Sections 284, 285, 287, 290 of the LGC and related Implementing Rules and Regulations (i.e., whether that deletion unlawfully encroaches on Congress’s power to determine the LGUs’ just share).
- Whether specified taxes and receipts (tariff/customs duties, portions of ARMM collections, shares from exploitation of national wealth, certain tobacco excises and franchise allocations, VAT and other NIRC-specified collections, COA auditing fees, etc.) must be included or may validly be excluded from the IRA base.
- Whether the Court’s declaration of unconstitutionality should be applied prospec...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)