7/17/2019 ABAKADA vs Purisima Digest

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/abakada-vs-purisima-digest 1/1

ABAKADA GURO PARTYLIST vs. PURISIMA- Attrition Act of 2005, R.A. No. 9335

FACTS:

Petitioners question the Attrition Act of 2005 and contend that by establishing a system of rewards and incentiveswhen they exceed their revenue targets, the law (1) transforms the officials and employees of the BIR and BOC in

mercenaries and bounty hunters; (2) violates the constitutional guarantee of equal protection as it limits the scope

the law to the BIR and BOC; (3) unduly delegates to the President the power to fix revenue targets without sufficie

standards; and (4) violates the doctrine of separation of powers by creating a Congressional Oversight Committee

approve the law’s implementing rules.

ISSUE:

Is R.A. No. 9335 constitutional?

HELD:

YES. R.A. No. 9335 is constitutional, except for Section 12 of the law which creates a Joint Congressional Oversig

Committee to review the law’s IRR.

That RA No. 9335 will turn BIR and BOC employees and officials into “bounty hunters and mercenaries” is purely

speculative as the law establishes safeguards by imposing liabilities on officers and employees who are guilty of

negligence, abuses, malfeasance, etc. Neither is the equal protection clause violated since the law recognizes a v

classification as only the BIR and BOC have the common distinct primary function of revenue generation. There ar

sufficient policy and standards to guide the President in fixing revenue targets as the revenue targets are based on

the original estimated revenue collection expected of the BIR and the BOC.

However, the creation of a Joint Congressional Oversight Committee for the purpose of reviewing the IRR formulat

by agencies of the executive branch (DOF, DBM, NEDA, etc.) is unconstitutional since it violates the doctrine of

separation of powers since Congress arrogated judicial power upon itself.

1