Case Digest (G.R. No. 199802)
Facts:
Congressman Hermilando I. Mandanas et al.; G.R. No. 199802 and Honorable Enrique T. Garcia, Jr.; G.R. No. 208488, July 03, 2018, the Supreme Court En Banc, Bersamin, J., writing for the Court. Petitioners (elected local officials and a congressman) challenged the manner in which the national government computed and released the local government units' (LGUs’) share of national taxes (commonly called the Internal Revenue Allotment or IRA), alleging that collections of certain national taxes — in particular Value‑Added Taxes (VAT), excise taxes and documentary stamp taxes (DSTs) collected by the Bureau of Customs (BOC) — were excluded from the base used to compute the IRA and that Congress impermissibly limited the base to “national internal revenue taxes.” Mandanas et al. sought certiorari, prohibition and mandamus to compel inclusion of the BOC collections and the release of amounts they computed as owing; Garcia sought mandamus (and the Court treated aspects of his petition as certiorari) to compel computation on the basis of all national taxes and to void the insertion of “internal revenue” in Section 284 of the Local Government Code (LGC).Petitioners asked for injunctive relief (TRO/P.I.) and for declaration that the General Appropriations Act (GAA) for FY 2012 and implementing practices excluded LGUs’ rightful shares; Mandanas quantified the alleged unpaid IRA at roughly P498.85 billion (1989–2012) and sought immediate release of P60.75 billion claimed to be misallocated in the 2012 GAA. Garcia likewise sought writs to compel respondents to compute and distribute the IRA on the basis of all national tax collections.
The cases named as respondents the Executive Secretary, the Secretaries of Finance and Budget and Management, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, the Commissioner of Customs (in G.R. No. 208488), and the National Treasurer (in G.R. No. 199802). The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) defended respondents, arguing procedural defects (mandamus is improper to compel Congress or to force appropriations) and, substantively, that Section 284 of the LGC lawfully limited the base to national internal revenue taxes and that various statutory earmarks/special funds and ARMM arrangements justified exclusions.
The petitions were consolidated on October 22, 2013; after the passing of Congressman Garcia, Jose Enrique Garcia III was substituted as petitioner...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is mandamus the proper remedy to compel respondents to include certain taxes or to compel Congress/DBM to appropriate and release the LGUs’ alleged share?
- Does Section 284 of the Local Government Code (the phrase “internal revenue” in the provision) violate Section 6, Article X of the 1987 Constitution by narrowing the constitutional phrase “national taxes”?
- Are the existing practices and exclusions (as implemented in the GAA and by executive agencies) consistent with the constitutional mandate that LGUs have a “just share” in national taxes?
- Are petitioners entitled to the reliefs prayed for (in particular, recovery of all...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)