Republic SUPREME Manila G.R. No. 159796

of

the

Philippines COURT

EN BANC July 17, 2007 ROMEO P. GEROCHI, KATULONG NG BAYAN (KB) and ENVIRONMENTALIST CONSUMERS NETWORK, INC. (ECN), Petitioners, vs. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (DOE), ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION (ERC), NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION (NPC), POWER SECTOR ASSETS AND LIABILITIES MANAGEMENT GROUP (PSALM Corp.), STRATEGIC POWER UTILITIES GROUP (SPUG), and PANAY ELECTRIC COMPANY INC. (PECO), Respondents. DECISION NACHURA, J.: Petitioners Romeo P. Gerochi, Katulong Ng Bayan (KB), and Environmentalist Consumers Network, Inc. (ECN) (petitioners), come before this Court in this original action praying that Section 34 of Republic Act (RA) 9136, otherwise known as the "Electric Power Industry Reform Act of 2001" (EPIRA), imposing the Universal Charge,1 and Rule 18 of the Rules and Regulations (IRR) 2 which seeks to implement the said imposition, be declared unconstitutional. Petitioners also pray that the Universal Charge imposed upon the consumers be refunded and that a preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order (TRO) be issued directing the respondents to refrain from implementing, charging, and collecting the said charge.3 The assailed provision of law reads: SECTION 34. Universal Charge. Within one (1) year from the effectivity of this Act, a universal charge to be determined, fixed and approved by the ERC, shall be imposed on all electricity end-users for the following purposes:

(a) Payment for the stranded debts4 in excess of the amount assumed by the National Government and stranded contract costs of NPC5 and as well as qualified stranded contract costs of distribution utilities resulting from the restructuring of the industry; (b) Missionary electrification;6 (c) The equalization of the taxes and royalties applied to indigenous or renewable sources of energy vis--vis imported energy fuels; (d) An environmental charge equivalent to one-fourth of one centavo per kilowatt-hour (P0.0025/kWh), which shall accrue to an environmental fund to be used solely for watershed rehabilitation and management. Said fund shall be managed by NPC under existing arrangements; and (e) A charge to account for all forms of cross-subsidies for a period not exceeding three (3) years.The universal charge shall be a non-bypassable charge which shall be passed on and collected from all end-users on a monthly basis by the distribution utilities. Collections by the distribution utilities and the TRANSCO in any given month shall be remitted to the PSALM Corp. on or before the fifteenth (15th) of the succeeding month, net of any amount due to the distribution utility. Any end-user or self-generating entity not connected to a distribution utility shall remit its corresponding universal charge directly to the TRANSCO. The PSALM Corp., as administrator of the fund, shall create a Special Trust Fund which shall be disbursed only for the purposes specified herein in an open and transparent manner. All amount collected for the universal charge shall be distributed to the respective beneficiaries within a reasonable period to be provided by the ERC. The Facts Congress enacted the EPIRA on June 8, 2001; on June 26, 2001, it took effect.7 On April 5, 2002, respondent National Power Corporation-Strategic Power Utilities Group8 (NPC-SPUG) filed with respondent Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) a petition for the availment from the Universal Charge of its share for Missionary Electrification, docketed as ERC Case No. 2002-165.9

On May 7, 2002, NPC filed another petition with ERC, docketed as ERC Case No. 2002-194, praying that the proposed share from the Universal Charge for the Environmental charge of P0.0025 per kilowatt-hour (/kWh), or a total ofP119,488,847.59, be approved for withdrawal from the Special Trust Fund (STF) managed by respondent Power Sector Assets and Liabilities Management Group (PSALM)10 for the rehabilitation and management of watershed areas.11 On December 20, 2002, the ERC issued an Order12 in ERC Case No. 2002-165 provisionally approving the computed amount of P0.0168/kWh as the share of the NPC-SPUG from the Universal Charge for Missionary Electrification and authorizing the National Transmission Corporation (TRANSCO) and Distribution Utilities to collect the same from its end-users on a monthly basis. On June 26, 2003, the ERC rendered its Decision13 (for ERC Case No. 2002-165) modifying its Order of December 20, 2002, thus: WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, the provisional authority granted to petitioner National Power Corporation-Strategic Power Utilities Group (NPC-SPUG) in the Order dated December 20, 2002 is hereby modified to the effect that an additional amount of P0.0205 per kilowatt-hour should be added to the P0.0168 per kilowatt-hour provisionally authorized by the Commission in the said Order. Accordingly, a total amount of P0.0373 per kilowatt-hour is hereby APPROVED for withdrawal from the Special Trust Fund managed by PSALM as its share from the Universal Charge for Missionary Electrification (UC-ME) effective on the following billing cycles:

(a) June 26-July 25, 2003 for National Transmission Corporation (TRANSCO); and (b) July 2003 for Distribution Utilities (Dus).Relative thereto, TRANSCO and Dus are directed to collect the UC-ME in the amount of P0.0373 per kilowatt-hour and remit the same to PSALM on or before the 15th day of the succeeding month. In the meantime, NPC-SPUG is directed to submit, not later than April 30, 2004, a detailed report to include Audited Financial Statements and physical status (percentage of completion) of the projects using the prescribed format.1avvphi1

Let copies of this Order be furnished petitioner NPC-SPUG and all distribution utilities (Dus). SO ORDERED. On August 13, 2003, NPC-SPUG filed a Motion for Reconsideration asking the ERC, among others, 14 to set aside the above-mentioned Decision, which the ERC granted in its Order dated October 7, 2003, disposing: WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, the "Motion for Reconsideration" filed by petitioner National Power Corporation-Small Power Utilities Group (NPC-SPUG) is hereby GRANTED. Accordingly, the Decision dated June 26, 2003 is hereby modified accordingly. Relative thereto, NPC-SPUG is directed to submit a quarterly report on the following:

1. Projects for CY 2002 undertaken; 2. Location 3. Actual amount utilized to complete the project; 4. Period of completion; 5. Start of Operation; and 6. Explanation of the reallocation of UC-ME funds, if any.SO ORDERED.15 Meanwhile, on April 2, 2003, ERC decided ERC Case No. 2002-194, authorizing the NPC to draw up to P70,000,000.00 from PSALM for its 2003 Watershed Rehabilitation Budget subject to the availability of funds for the Environmental Fund component of the Universal Charge.16 On the basis of the said ERC decisions, respondent Panay Electric Company, Inc. (PECO) charged petitioner Romeo P. Gerochi and all other end-users with the Universal Charge as reflected in their respective electric bills starting from the month of July 2003.17 Hence, this original action. Petitioners submit that the assailed provision of law and its IRR which sought to implement the same are unconstitutional on the following grounds:

1) The universal charge provided for under Sec. 34 of the EPIRA and sought to be implemented under Sec. 2, Rule 18 of the IRR of the said law is a tax which is to be collected from all electric end-users and self-generating entities. The power to tax is strictly a legislative function and as such, the delegation of said power to any executive or administrative agency like the ERC is unconstitutional, giving the same unlimited authority. The assailed provision clearly provides that the Universal Charge is to be determined, fixed and approved by the ERC, hence leaving to the latter complete discretionary legislative authority. 2) The ERC is also empowered to approve and determine where the funds collected should be used. 3) The imposition of the Universal Charge on all end-users is oppressive and confiscatory and amounts to taxation without representation as the consumers were not given a chance to be heard and represented.18Petitioners contend that the Universal Charge has the characteristics of a tax and is collected to fund the operations of the NPC. They argue that the cases19 invoked by the respondents clearly show the regulatory purpose of the charges imposed therein, which is not so in the case at bench. In said cases, the respective funds20 were created in order to balance and stabilize the prices of oil and sugar, and to act as buffer to counteract the changes and adjustments in prices, peso devaluation, and other variables which cannot be adequately and timely monitored by the legislature. Thus, there was a need to delegate powers to administrative bodies.21 Petitioners posit that the Universal Charge is imposed not for a similar purpose. On the other hand, respondent PSALM through the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC) contends that unlike a tax which is imposed to provide income for public purposes, such as support of the government, administration of the law, or payment of public expenses, the assailed Universal Charge is levied for a specific regulatory purpose, which is to ensure the viability of the country's electric power industry. Thus, it is exacted by the State in the exercise of its inherent police power. On this premise, PSALM submits that there is no undue delegation of legislative power to the ERC since the latter merely exercises a limited authority or discretion as to the execution and implementation of the provisions of the EPIRA.22 Respondents Department of Energy (DOE), ERC, and NPC, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), share the same view that the Universal Charge is not a tax because it is levied for a specific regulatory purpose, which is to ensure the viability of the country's electric power industry, and is, therefore, an exaction in the exercise of the State's police power. Respondents further contend that said Universal Charge does not possess the essential characteristics of a tax, that its imposition would redound to the benefit of the electric power industry and not to the public, and that its rate is uniformly levied on electricity end-users, unlike a tax which is imposed based on the individual taxpayer's ability to pay. Moreover, respondents deny that there is undue delegation of legislative power to the ERC since the EPIRA sets forth sufficient determinable standards which would guide the ERC in the exercise of the powers granted to it. Lastly, respondents argue that the imposition of the Universal Charge is not oppressive and confiscatory since it is an exercise of the police power of the State and it complies with the requirements of due process.23 On its part, respondent PECO argues that it is duty-bound to collect and remit the amount pertaining to the Missionary Electrification and Environmental Fund components of the Universal Charge, pursuant to Sec. 34 of the EPIRA and the Decisions in ERC Case Nos. 2002-194 and 2002-165. Otherwise, PECO could be held liable under Sec. 4624 of the EPIRA, which imposes fines and penalties for any violation of its provisions or its IRR.25 The Issues The ultimate issues in the case at bar are:

1) Whether or not, the Universal Charge imposed under Sec. 34 of the EPIRA is a tax; and 2) Whether or not there is undue delegation of legislative power to tax on the part of the ERC.26Before we discuss the issues, the Court shall first deal with an obvious procedural lapse. Petitioners filed before us an original action particularly denominated as a Complaint assailing the constitutionality of Sec. 34 of the EPIRA imposing the Universal Charge and Rule 18 of the EPIRA's IRR. No doubt, petitioners have locus standi.They impugn the constitutionality of Sec. 34 of the EPIRA because they sustained a direct injury as a result of the imposition of the Universal Charge as reflected in their electric bills.

However, petitioners violated the doctrine of hierarchy of courts when they filed this "Complaint" directly with us. Furthermore, the Complaint is bereft of any allegation of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the ERC or any of the public respondents, in order for the Court to consider it as a petition for certiorari or prohibition. Article VIII, Section 5(1) and (2) of the 1987 Constitution27 categorically provides that: SECTION 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:

1. Exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and overpetitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus. 2. Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari, as the law or the rules of court may provide, final judgments and orders of lower courts in:(a) All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or executive agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in question. But this Court's jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus, while concurrent with that of the regional trial courts and the Court of Appeals, does not give litigants unrestrained freedom of choice of forum from which to seek such relief.28 It has long been established that this Court will not entertain direct resort to it unless the redress desired cannot be obtained in the appropriate courts, or where exceptional and compelling circumstances justify availment of a remedy within and call for the exercise of our primary jurisdiction.29 This circumstance alone warrants the outright dismissal of the present action. This procedural infirmity notwithstanding, we opt to resolve the constitutional issue raised herein. We are aware that if the constitutionality of Sec. 34 of the EPIRA is not resolved now, the issue will certainly resurface in the near future, resulting in a repeat of this litigation, and probably involving the same parties. In the public interest and to avoid unnecessary delay, this Court renders its ruling now. The instant complaint is bereft of merit. The First Issue To resolve the first issue, it is necessary to distinguish the States power of taxation from the police power. The power to tax is an incident of sovereignty and is unlimited in its range, acknowledging in its very nature no limits, so that security against its abuse is to be found only in the responsibility of the legislature which imposes the tax on the constituency that is to pay it.30 It is based on the principle that taxes are the lifeblood of the government, and their prompt and certain availability is an imperious need. 31 Thus, the theory behind the exercise of the power to tax emanates from necessity; without taxes, government cannot fulfill its mandate of promoting the general welfare and well-being of the people.32 On the other hand, police power is the power of the state to promote public welfare by restraining and regulating the use of liberty and property.33 It is the most pervasive, the least limitable, and the most demanding of the three fundamental powers of the State. The justification is found in the Latin maxims salus populi est suprema lex (the welfare of the people is the supreme law) and sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas (so use your property as not to injure the property of others). As an inherent attribute of sovereignty which virtually extends to all public needs, police power grants a wide panoply of instruments through which the State, as parens patriae, gives effect to a host of its regulatory powers.34 We have held that the power to "regulate" means the power to protect, foster, promote, preserve, and control, with due regard for the interests, first and foremost, of the public, then of the utility and of its patrons.35 The conservative and pivotal distinction between these two powers rests in the purpose for which the charge is made. If generation of revenue is the primary purpose and regulation is merely incidental, the imposition is a tax; but if regulation is the primary purpose, the fact that revenue is incidentally raised does not make the imposition a tax.36 In exacting the assailed Universal Charge through Sec. 34 of the EPIRA, the State's police power, particularly its regulatory dimension, is invoked. Such can be deduced from Sec. 34 which enumerates the purposes for which the Universal Charge is imposed37 and which can be amply discerned as regulatory in character. The EPIRA resonates such regulatory purposes, thus: SECTION 2. Declaration of Policy. It is hereby declared the policy of the State:

(a) To ensure and accelerate the total electrification of the country; (b) To ensure the quality, reliability, security and affordability of the supply of electric power;

(c) To ensure transparent and reasonable prices of electricity in a regime of free and fair competition and full public accountability to achieve greater operational and economic efficiency and enhance the competitiveness of Philippine products in the global market; (d) To enhance the inflow of private capital and broaden the ownership base of the power generation, transmission and distribution sectors; (e) To ensure fair and non-discriminatory treatment of public and private sector entities in the process of restructuring the electric power industry; (f) To protect the public interest as it is affected by the rates and services of electric utilities and other providers of electric power; (g) To assure socially and environmentally compatible energy sources and infrastructure; (h) To promote the utilization of indigenous and new and renewable energy resources in power generation in order to reduce dependence on imported energy; (i) To provide for an orderly and transparent privatization of the assets and liabilities of the National Power Corporation (NPC); (j) To establish a strong and purely independent regulatory body and system to ensure consumer protection and enhance the competitive operation of the electricity market; and (k) To encourage the efficient use of energy and other modalities of demand side management.From the aforementioned purposes, it can be gleaned that the assailed Universal Charge is not a tax, but an exaction in the exercise of the State's police power. Public welfare is surely promoted. Moreover, it is a well-established doctrine that the taxing power may be used as an implement of police power.38 InValmonte v. Energy Regulatory Board, et al.39 and in Gaston v. Republic Planters Bank,40 this Court held that the Oil Price Stabilization Fund (OPSF) and the Sugar Stabilization Fund (SSF) were exactions made in the exercise of the police power. The doctrine was reiterated in Osmea v. Orbos41 with respect to the OPSF. Thus, we disagree with petitioners that the instant case is different from the aforementioned cases. With the Universal Charge, a Special Trust Fund (STF) is also created under the administration of PSALM. 42 The STF has some notable characteristics similar to the OPSF and the SSF, viz.:

1) In the implementation of stranded cost recovery, the ERC shall conduct a review to determine whether there is under-recovery or over recovery and adjust (true-up) the level of the stranded cost recovery charge. In case of an over-recovery, the ERC shall ensure that any excess amount shall be remitted to the STF. A separate account shall be created for these amounts which shall be held in trust for any future claims of distribution utilities for stranded cost recovery. At the end of the stranded cost recovery period, any remaining amount in this account shall be used to reduce the electricity rates to the end-users.43 2) With respect to the assailed Universal Charge, if the total amount collected for the same is greater than the actual availments against it, the PSALM shall retain the balance within the STF to pay for periods where a shortfall occurs.44 3) Upon expiration of the term of PSALM, the administration of the STF shall be transferred to the DOF or any of the DOF attached agencies as designated by the DOF Secretary.45The OSG is in point when it asseverates: Evidently, the establishment and maintenance of the Special Trust Fund, under the last paragraph of Section 34, R.A. No. 9136, is well within the pervasive and non-waivable power and responsibility of the government to secure the physical and economic survival and well-being of the community, that comprehensive sovereign authority we designate as the police power of the State.46 This feature of the Universal Charge further boosts the position that the same is an exaction imposed primarily in pursuit of the State's police objectives. The STF reasonably serves and assures the attainment and perpetuity of the purposes for which the Universal Charge is imposed, i.e., to ensure the viability of the country's electric power industry. The Second Issue

The principle of separation of powers ordains that each of the three branches of government has exclusive cognizance of and is supreme in matters falling within its own constitutionally allocated sphere. A logical corollary to the doctrine of separation of powers is the principle of non-delegation of powers, as expressed in the Latin maxim potestas delegata non delegari potest (what has been delegated cannot be delegated). This is based on the ethical principle that such delegated power constitutes not only a right but a duty to be performed by the delegate through the instrumentality of his own judgment and not through the intervening mind of another. 47 In the face of the increasing complexity of modern life, delegation of legislative power to various specialized administrative agencies is allowed as an exception to this principle. 48 Given the volume and variety of interactions in today's society, it is doubtful if the legislature can promulgate laws that will deal adequately with and respond promptly to the minutiae of everyday life. Hence, the need to delegate to administrative bodies - the principal agencies tasked to execute laws in their specialized fields - the authority to promulgate rules and regulations to implement a given statute and effectuate its policies. All that is required for the valid exercise of this power of subordinate legislation is that the regulation be germane to the objects and purposes of the law and that the regulation be not in contradiction to, but in conformity with, the standards prescribed by the law. These requirements are denominated as the completeness test and the sufficient standard test. Under the first test, the law must be complete in all its terms and conditions when it leaves the legislature such that when it reaches the delegate, the only thing he will have to do is to enforce it. The second test mandates adequate guidelines or limitations in the law to determine the boundaries of the delegate's authority and prevent the delegation from running riot.49 The Court finds that the EPIRA, read and appreciated in its entirety, in relation to Sec. 34 thereof, is complete in all its essential terms and conditions, and that it contains sufficient standards. Although Sec. 34 of the EPIRA merely provides that "within one (1) year from the effectivity thereof, a Universal Charge to be determined, fixed and approved by the ERC, shall be imposed on all electricity end-users," and therefore, does not state the specific amount to be paid as Universal Charge, the amount nevertheless is made certain by the legislative parameters provided in the law itself. For one, Sec. 43(b)(ii) of the EPIRA provides: SECTION 43. Functions of the ERC. The ERC shall promote competition, encourage market development, ensure customer choice and penalize abuse of market power in the restructured electricity industry. In appropriate cases, the ERC is authorized to issue cease and desist order after due notice and hearing. Towards this end, it shall be responsible for the following key functions in the restructured industry: xxxx (b) Within six (6) months from the effectivity of this Act, promulgate and enforce, in accordance with law, a National Grid Code and a Distribution Code which shall include, but not limited to the following: xxxx (ii) Financial capability standards for the generating companies, the TRANSCO, distribution utilities and suppliers: Provided, That in the formulation of the financial capability standards, the nature and function of the entity shall be considered: Provided, further, That such standards are set to ensure that the electric power industry participants meet the minimum financial standards to protect the public interest. Determine, fix, and approve, after due notice and public hearings the universal charge, to be imposed on all electricity end-users pursuant to Section 34 hereof; Moreover, contrary to the petitioners contention, the ERC does not enjoy a wide latitude of discretion in the determination of the Universal Charge. Sec. 51(d) and (e) of the EPIRA50 clearly provides: SECTION 51. Powers. The PSALM Corp. shall, in the performance of its functions and for the attainment of its objective, have the following powers:

xxxx (d) To calculate the amount of the stranded debts and stranded contract costs of NPC which shall form the basis for ERC in the determination of the universal charge; (e) To liquidate the NPC stranded contract costs, utilizing the proceeds from sales and other property contributed to it, including the proceeds from the universal charge.Thus, the law is complete and passes the first test for valid delegation of legislative power. As to the second test, this Court had, in the past, accepted as sufficient standards the following: "interest of law and order;"51 "adequate and efficient instruction;"52 "public interest;"53 "justice and equity;"54 "public convenience and welfare;"55 "simplicity, economy and efficiency;"56 "standardization and regulation of medical education;"57 and

"fair and equitable employment practices."58 Provisions of the EPIRA such as, among others, "to ensure the total electrification of the country and the quality, reliability, security and affordability of the supply of electric power"59 and "watershed rehabilitation and management"60 meet the requirements for valid delegation, as they provide the limitations on the ERCs power to formulate the IRR. These are sufficient standards. It may be noted that this is not the first time that the ERC's conferred powers were challenged. In Freedom from Debt Coalition v. Energy Regulatory Commission,61 the Court had occasion to say: In determining the extent of powers possessed by the ERC, the provisions of the EPIRA must not be read in separate parts. Rather, the law must be read in its entirety, because a statute is passed as a whole, and is animated by one general purpose and intent. Its meaning cannot to be extracted from any single part thereof but from a general consideration of the statute as a whole. Considering the intent of Congress in enacting the EPIRA and reading the statute in its entirety, it is plain to see that the law has expanded the jurisdiction of the regulatory body, the ERC in this case, to enable the latter to implement the reforms sought to be accomplished by the EPIRA. When the legislators decided to broaden the jurisdiction of the ERC, they did not intend to abolish or reduce the powers already conferred upon ERC's predecessors. To sustain the view that the ERC possesses only the powers and functions listed under Section 43 of the EPIRA is to frustrate the objectives of the law. In his Concurring and Dissenting Opinion62 in the same case, then Associate Justice, now Chief Justice, Reynato S. Puno described the immensity of police power in relation to the delegation of powers to the ERC and its regulatory functions over electric power as a vital public utility, to wit: Over the years, however, the range of police power was no longer limited to the preservation of public health, safety and morals, which used to be the primary social interests in earlier times. Police power now requires the State to "assume an affirmative duty to eliminate the excesses and injustices that are the concomitants of an unrestrained industrial economy." Police power is now exerted "to further the public welfare a concept as vast as the good of society itself." Hence, "police power is but another name for the governmental authority to further the welfare of society that is the basic end of all government." When police power is delegated to administrative bodies with regulatory functions, its exercise should be given a wide latitude. Police power takes on an even broader dimension in developing countries such as ours, where the State must take a more active role in balancing the many conflicting interests in society. The Questioned Order was issued by the ERC, acting as an agent of the State in the exercise of police power. We should have exceptionally good grounds to curtail its exercise. This approach is more compelling in the field of rate-regulation of electric power rates.Electric power generation and distribution is a traditional instrument of economic growth that affects not only a few but the entire nation. It is an important factor in encouraging investment and promoting business. The engines of progress may come to a screeching halt if the delivery of electric power is impaired. Billions of pesos would be lost as a result of power outages or unreliable electric power services. The State thru the ERC should be able to exercise its police power with great flexibility, when the need arises. This was reiterated in National Association of Electricity Consumers for Reforms v. Energy Regulatory Commission63where the Court held that the ERC, as regulator, should have sufficient power to respond in real time to changes wrought by multifarious factors affecting public utilities. From the foregoing disquisitions, we therefore hold that there is no undue delegation of legislative power to the ERC. Petitioners failed to pursue in their Memorandum the contention in the Complaint that the imposition of the Universal Charge on all end-users is oppressive and confiscatory, and amounts to taxation without representation. Hence, such contention is deemed waived or abandoned per Resolution 64 of August 3, 2004.65 Moreover, the determination of whether or not a tax is excessive, oppressive or confiscatory is an issue which essentially involves questions of fact, and thus, this Court is precluded from reviewing the same.66 As a penultimate statement, it may be well to recall what this Court said of EPIRA: One of the landmark pieces of legislation enacted by Congress in recent years is the EPIRA. It established a new policy, legal structure and regulatory framework for the electric power industry. The new thrust is to tap private capital for the expansion and improvement of the industry as the large government debt and the highly capitalintensive character of the industry itself have long been acknowledged as the critical constraints to the program. To attract private investment, largely foreign, the jaded structure of the industry had to be addressed. While the generation and transmission sectors were centralized and monopolistic, the distribution side was fragmented with over 130 utilities, mostly small and uneconomic. The pervasive flaws have caused a low utilization of existing generation capacity; extremely high and uncompetitive power rates; poor quality of service to consumers; dismal to forgettable performance of the government power sector; high system losses; and an inability to develop a clear strategy for overcoming these shortcomings.

Thus, the EPIRA provides a framework for the restructuring of the industry, including the privatization of the assets of the National Power Corporation (NPC), the transition to a competitive structure, and the delineation of the roles of various government agencies and the private entities. The law ordains the division of the industry into four (4) distinct sectors, namely: generation, transmission, distribution and supply. Corollarily, the NPC generating plants have to privatized and its transmission business spun off and privatized thereafter.67 Finally, every law has in its favor the presumption of constitutionality, and to justify its nullification, there must be a clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution and not one that is doubtful, speculative, or argumentative.68 Indubitably, petitioners failed to overcome this presumption in favor of the EPIRA. We find no clear violation of the Constitution which would warrant a pronouncement that Sec. 34 of the EPIRA and Rule 18 of its IRR are unconstitutional and void. WHEREFORE, the instant case is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. L-10405 December 29, 1960 WENCESLAO PASCUAL, in his official capacity as Provincial Governor of Rizal, petitioner-appellant, vs. THE SECRETARY OF PUBLIC WORKS AND COMMUNICATIONS, ET AL., respondents-appellees. Asst. Fiscal Noli M. Cortes and Jose P. Santos for appellant. Office of the Asst. Solicitor General Jose G. Bautista and Solicitor A. A. Torres for appellee.

CONCEPCION, J.: Appeal, by petitioner Wenceslao Pascual, from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, dismissing the above entitled case and dissolving the writ of preliminary injunction therein issued, without costs. On August 31, 1954, petitioner Wenceslao Pascual, as Provincial Governor of Rizal, instituted this action for declaratory relief, with injunction, upon the ground that Republic Act No. 920, entitled "An Act Appropriating Funds for Public Works", approved on June 20, 1953, contained, in section 1-C (a) thereof, an item (43[h]) of P85,000.00 "for the construction, reconstruction, repair, extension and improvement" of Pasig feeder road terminals (Gen. Roxas Gen. Araneta Gen. Lucban Gen. Capinpin Gen. Segundo Gen. Delgado Gen. Malvar Gen. Lim)"; that, at the time of the passage and approval of said Act, the aforementioned feeder roads were "nothing but projected and planned subdivision roads, not yet constructed, . . . within the Antonio Subdivision . . . situated at . . . Pasig, Rizal" (according to the tracings attached to the petition as Annexes A and B, near Shaw Boulevard, not far away from the intersection between the latter and Highway 54), which projected feeder roads "do not connect any government property or any important premises to the main highway"; that the aforementioned Antonio Subdivision (as well as the lands on which said feeder roads were to be construed) were private properties of respondent Jose C. Zulueta, who, at the time of the passage and approval of said Act, was a member of the Senate of the Philippines; that on May, 1953, respondent Zulueta, addressed a letter to the Municipal Council of Pasig, Rizal, offering to donate said projected feeder roads to the municipality of Pasig, Rizal; that, on June 13, 1953, the offer was accepted by the council, subject to the condition "that the donor would submit a plan of the said roads and agree to change the names of two of them"; that no deed of donation in favor of the municipality of Pasig was, however, executed; that on July 10, 1953, respondent Zulueta wrote another letter to said council, calling attention to the approval of Republic Act. No. 920, and the sum of P85,000.00 appropriated therein for the construction of the projected feeder roads in question; that the municipal council of Pasig endorsed said letter of respondent Zulueta to the District Engineer of Rizal, who, up to the present "has not made any endorsement thereon" that inasmuch as the projected feeder roads in question were private property at the time of the passage and approval of Republic Act No. 920, the appropriation of P85,000.00 therein made, for the construction, reconstruction, repair, extension and improvement of said projected feeder roads, was illegal and, therefore,

void ab initio"; that said appropriation of P85,000.00 was made by Congress because its members were made to believe that the projected feeder roads in question were "public roads and not private streets of a private subdivision"'; that, "in order to give a semblance of legality, when there is absolutely none, to the aforementioned appropriation", respondents Zulueta executed on December 12, 1953, while he was a member of the Senate of the Philippines, an alleged deed of donation copy of which is annexed to the petition of the four (4) parcels of land constituting said projected feeder roads, in favor of the Government of the Republic of the Philippines; that said alleged deed of donation was, on the same date, accepted by the then Executive Secretary; that being subject to an onerous condition, said donation partook of the nature of a contract; that, such, said donation violated the provision of our fundamental law prohibiting members of Congress from being directly or indirectly financially interested in any contract with the Government, and, hence, is unconstitutional, as well as null and void ab initio, for the construction of the projected feeder roads in question with public funds would greatly enhance or increase the value of the aforementioned subdivision of respondent Zulueta, "aside from relieving him from the burden of constructing his subdivision streets or roads at his own expense"; that the construction of said projected feeder roads was then being undertaken by the Bureau of Public Highways; and that, unless restrained by the court, the respondents would continue to execute, comply with, follow and implement the aforementioned illegal provision of law, "to the irreparable damage, detriment and prejudice not only to the petitioner but to the Filipino nation." Petitioner prayed, therefore, that the contested item of Republic Act No. 920 be declared null and void; that the alleged deed of donation of the feeder roads in question be "declared unconstitutional and, therefor, illegal"; that a writ of injunction be issued enjoining the Secretary of Public Works and Communications, the Director of the Bureau of Public Works and Highways and Jose C. Zulueta from ordering or allowing the continuance of the abovementioned feeder roads project, and from making and securing any new and further releases on the aforementioned item of Republic Act No. 920, and the disbursing officers of the Department of Public Works and Highways from making any further payments out of said funds provided for in Republic Act No. 920; and that pending final hearing on the merits, a writ of preliminary injunction be issued enjoining the aforementioned parties respondent from making and securing any new and further releases on the aforesaid item of Republic Act No. 920 and from making any further payments out of said illegally appropriated funds. Respondents moved to dismiss the petition upon the ground that petitioner had "no legal capacity to sue", and that the petition did "not state a cause of action". In support to this motion, respondent Zulueta alleged that the Provincial Fiscal of Rizal, not its provincial governor, should represent the Province of Rizal, pursuant to section 1683 of the Revised Administrative Code; that said respondent is " not aware of any law which makes illegal the appropriation of public funds for the improvements of . . . private property"; and that, the constitutional provision invoked by petitioner is inapplicable to the donation in question, the same being a pure act of liberality, not a contract. The other respondents, in turn, maintained that petitioner could not assail the appropriation in question because "there is no actual bona fide case . . . in which the validity of Republic Act No. 920 is necessarily involved" and petitioner "has not shown that he has a personal and substantial interest" in said Act "and that its enforcement has caused or will cause him a direct injury." Acting upon said motions to dismiss, the lower court rendered the aforementioned decision, dated October 29, 1953, holding that, since public interest is involved in this case, the Provincial Governor of Rizal and the provincial fiscal thereof who represents him therein, "have the requisite personalities" to question the constitutionality of the disputed item of Republic Act No. 920; that "the legislature is without power appropriate public revenues for anything but a public purpose", that the instructions and improvement of the feeder roads in question, if such roads where private property, would not be a public purpose; that, being subject to the following condition:

The within donation is hereby made upon the condition that the Government of the Republic of the Philippines will use the parcels of land hereby donated for street purposes only and for no other purposes whatsoever; it being expressly understood that should the Government of the Republic of the Philippines violate the condition hereby imposed upon it, the title to the land hereby donated shall, upon such violation, ipso facto revert to the DONOR, JOSE C. ZULUETA. (Emphasis supplied.)which is onerous, the donation in question is a contract; that said donation or contract is "absolutely forbidden by the Constitution" and consequently "illegal", for Article 1409 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, declares in existence and void from the very beginning contracts "whose cause, objector purpose is contrary to law, morals . . . or public policy"; that the legality of said donation may not be contested, however, by petitioner herein, because his "interest are not directly affected" thereby; and that, accordingly, the appropriation in question "should be upheld" and the case dismissed. At the outset, it should be noted that we are concerned with a decision granting the aforementioned motions to dismiss, which as much, are deemed to have admitted hypothetically the allegations of fact made in the petition of

appellant herein. According to said petition, respondent Zulueta is the owner of several parcels of residential land situated in Pasig, Rizal, and known as the Antonio Subdivision, certain portions of which had been reserved for the projected feeder roads aforementioned, which, admittedly, were private property of said respondent when Republic Act No. 920, appropriating P85,000.00 for the "construction, reconstruction, repair, extension and improvement" of said roads, was passed by Congress, as well as when it was approved by the President on June 20, 1953. The petition further alleges that the construction of said roads, to be undertaken with the aforementioned appropriation of P85,000.00, would have the effect of relieving respondent Zulueta of the burden of constructing his subdivision streets or roads at his own expenses, 1and would "greatly enhance or increase the value of the subdivision" of said respondent. The lower court held that under these circumstances, the appropriation in question was "clearly for a private, not a public purpose." Respondents do not deny the accuracy of this conclusion, which is self-evident. 2However, respondent Zulueta contended, in his motion to dismiss that:

A law passed by Congress and approved by the President can never be illegal because Congress is the source of all laws . . . Aside from the fact that movant is not aware of any law which makes illegal the appropriation of public funds for the improvement of what we, in the meantime, may assume as private property . . . (Record on Appeal, p. 33.)The first proposition must be rejected most emphatically, it being inconsistent with the nature of the Government established under the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines and the system of checks and balances underlying our political structure. Moreover, it is refuted by the decisions of this Court invalidating legislative enactments deemed violative of the Constitution or organic laws. 3 As regards the legal feasibility of appropriating public funds for a public purpose, the principle according to Ruling Case Law, is this:

It is a general rule that the legislature is without power to appropriate public revenue for anything but a public purpose. . . . It is the essential character of the direct object of the expenditure which must determine its validity as justifying a tax, and not the magnitude of the interest to be affected nor the degree to which the general advantage of the community, and thus the public welfare, may be ultimately benefited by their promotion. Incidental to the public or to the state, which results from the promotion of private interest and the prosperity of private enterprises or business, does not justify their aid by the use public money. (25 R.L.C. pp. 398-400; Emphasis supplied.)The rule is set forth in Corpus Juris Secundum in the following language:

In accordance with the rule that the taxing power must be exercised for public purposes only, discussed suprasec. 14, money raised by taxation can be expended only for public purposes and not for the advantage of private individuals. (85 C.J.S. pp. 645-646; emphasis supplied.)Explaining the reason underlying said rule, Corpus Juris Secundum states:

Generally, under the express or implied provisions of the constitution, public funds may be used only for public purpose. The right of the legislature to appropriate funds is correlative with its right to tax, and, under constitutional provisions against taxation except for public purposes and prohibiting the collection of a tax for one purpose and the devotion thereof to another purpose, no appropriation of state funds can be made for other than for a public purpose. The test of the constitutionality of a statute requiring the use of public funds is whether the statute is designed to promote the public interest, as opposed to the furtherance of the advantage of individuals, although each advantage to individuals might incidentally serve the public. (81 C.J.S. pp. 1147; emphasis supplied.)Needless to say, this Court is fully in accord with the foregoing views which, apart from being patently sound, are a necessary corollary to our democratic system of government, which, as such, exists primarily for the promotion of the general welfare. Besides, reflecting as they do, the established jurisprudence in the United States, after whose constitutional system ours has been patterned, said views and jurisprudence are, likewise, part and parcel of our own constitutional law.lawphil.net

This notwithstanding, the lower court felt constrained to uphold the appropriation in question, upon the ground that petitioner may not contest the legality of the donation above referred to because the same does not affect him directly. This conclusion is, presumably, based upon the following premises, namely: (1) that, if valid, said donation

cured the constitutional infirmity of the aforementioned appropriation; (2) that the latter may not be annulled without a previous declaration of unconstitutionality of the said donation; and (3) that the rule set forth in Article 1421 of the Civil Code is absolute, and admits of no exception. We do not agree with these premises. The validity of a statute depends upon the powers of Congress at the time of its passage or approval, not upon events occurring, or acts performed, subsequently thereto, unless the latter consists of an amendment of the organic law, removing, with retrospective operation, the constitutional limitation infringed by said statute. Referring to the P85,000.00 appropriation for the projected feeder roads in question, the legality thereof depended upon whether said roads were public or private property when the bill, which, latter on, became Republic Act 920, was passed by Congress, or, when said bill was approved by the President and the disbursement of said sum became effective, or on June 20, 1953 (see section 13 of said Act). Inasmuch as the land on which the projected feeder roads were to be constructed belonged then to respondent Zulueta, the result is that said appropriation sought a private purpose, and hence, was null and void. 4 The donation to the Government, over five (5) months after the approval and effectivity of said Act, made, according to the petition, for the purpose of giving a "semblance of legality", or legalizing, the appropriation in question, did not cure its aforementioned basic defect. Consequently, a judicial nullification of said donation need not precede the declaration of unconstitutionality of said appropriation. Again, Article 1421 of our Civil Code, like many other statutory enactments, is subject to exceptions. For instance, the creditors of a party to an illegal contract may, under the conditions set forth in Article 1177 of said Code, exercise the rights and actions of the latter, except only those which are inherent in his person, including therefore, his right to the annulment of said contract, even though such creditors are not affected by the same, except indirectly, in the manner indicated in said legal provision. Again, it is well-stated that the validity of a statute may be contested only by one who will sustain a direct injury in consequence of its enforcement. Yet, there are many decisions nullifying, at the instance of taxpayers, laws providing for the disbursement of public funds, 5upon the theory that "the expenditure of public funds by an officer of the State for the purpose of administering an unconstitutional act constitutes a misapplication of such funds," which may be enjoined at the request of a taxpayer. 6Although there are some decisions to the contrary, 7the prevailing view in the United States is stated in the American Jurisprudence as follows:

In the determination of the degree of interest essential to give the requisite standing to attack the constitutionality of a statute, the general rule is that not only persons individually affected, but also taxpayers, have sufficient interest in preventing the illegal expenditure of moneys raised by taxation and may therefore question the constitutionality of statutes requiring expenditure of public moneys. (11 Am. Jur. 761; emphasis supplied.)However, this view was not favored by the Supreme Court of the U.S. in Frothingham vs. Mellon (262 U.S. 447), insofar asfederal laws are concerned, upon the ground that the relationship of a taxpayer of the U.S. to its Federal Government is different from that of a taxpayer of a municipal corporation to its government. Indeed, under the composite system of government existing in the U.S., the states of the Union are integral part of the Federation from an international viewpoint, but, each state enjoys internally a substantial measure of sovereignty, subject to the limitations imposed by the Federal Constitution. In fact, the same was made by representatives of each state of the Union, not of the people of the U.S., except insofar as the former represented the people of the respective States, and the people of each State has, independently of that of the others, ratified said Constitution. In other words, the Federal Constitution and the Federal statutes have become binding upon the people of the U.S. in consequence of an act of, and, in this sense, through the respective states of the Union of which they are citizens. The peculiar nature of the relation between said people and the Federal Government of the U.S. is reflected in the election of its President, who is chosen directly, not by the people of the U.S., but by electors chosen by each State, in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct (Article II, section 2, of the Federal Constitution).lawphi1.net

The relation between the people of the Philippines and its taxpayers, on the other hand, and the Republic of the Philippines, on the other, is not identical to that obtaining between the people and taxpayers of the U.S. and its Federal Government. It is closer, from a domestic viewpoint, to that existing between the people and taxpayers of each state and the government thereof, except that the authority of the Republic of the Philippines over the people of the Philippines is more fully directthan that of the states of the Union, insofar as the simple and unitary type of our national government is not subject to limitations analogous to those imposed by the Federal Constitution upon the states of the Union, and those imposed upon the Federal Government in the interest of the Union. For this reason, the rule recognizing the right of taxpayers to assail the constitutionality of a legislation appropriating local or state public funds which has been upheld by the Federal Supreme Court (Crampton vs. Zabriskie, 101 U.S. 601) has greater application in the Philippines than that adopted with respect to acts of Congress of the United States appropriating federal funds.

Indeed, in the Province of Tayabas vs. Perez (56 Phil., 257), involving the expropriation of a land by the Province of Tayabas, two (2) taxpayers thereof were allowed to intervene for the purpose of contesting the price being paid to the owner thereof, as unduly exorbitant. It is true that in Custodio vs. President of the Senate (42 Off. Gaz., 1243), a taxpayer and employee of the Government was not permitted to question the constitutionality of an appropriation for backpay of members of Congress. However, in Rodriguez vs. Treasurer of the Philippines and Barredo vs. Commission on Elections (84 Phil., 368; 45 Off. Gaz., 4411), we entertained the action of taxpayers impugning the validity of certain appropriations of public funds, and invalidated the same. Moreover, the reason that impelled this Court to take such position in said two (2) cases the importance of the issues therein raised is present in the case at bar. Again, like the petitioners in the Rodriguez and Barredo cases, petitioner herein is not merely a taxpayer. The Province of Rizal, which he represents officially as its Provincial Governor, is our most populated political subdivision, 8and, the taxpayers therein bear a substantial portion of the burden of taxation, in the Philippines. Hence, it is our considered opinion that the circumstances surrounding this case sufficiently justify petitioners action in contesting the appropriation and donation in question; that this action should not have been dismissed by the lower court; and that the writ of preliminary injunction should have been maintained. Wherefore, the decision appealed from is hereby reversed, and the records are remanded to the lower court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this decision, with the costs of this instance against respondent Jose C. Zulueta. It is so ordered. Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. L-18080 April 22, 1963 TAN KIM KEE, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL., respondents. Rafael A. Lim, Oscar V. Breva and Benjamin V. Guiang for petitioner. Office of the Solicitor General for respondents. REYES, J.B.L., J.: Appeal from the majority decision of the Court of Tax Appeals affirming the denial of a claim for refund of the fixed and sales taxes. The case was submitted before the tax court under a stipulation of facts, as follows:

1. The petitioner is a producer of copra exporters in Davao City. 2. Petitioner produces copra in two ways, namely, the sun-dried method and the kiln-dried method. 3. Under the sun-dried method employed by petitioner, the nuts are first split into halves and are dried under the sun to partly loosen the meat from the shell. After one or two days of drying in that state, the meat is removed from the shell with an instrument designed for the purpose. To facilitate drying and handling, the meat so removed is chopped into small pieces and the same is dried under the sun for at least three days or until its moisture content is reduced to a minimum acceptable in the market. 4. The processes involved in copra-making under the kiln-dried method employed by the petitioner are the same as the sun-dried method described above except that in the latter method, the nuts are first unhusked before being split into halves and the meat is dried in a kiln or oven heated with fuel. Further, the drying process (18-23 hours) under the kiln-dried method is shorter than the sundried method. 5. For the period from August 24, 1956 to December 31, 1956, petitioner's gross sales of copra produced by him amounted to P17,917.53 on which he paid to the treasurer of Davao City, on January 10, 1957, the sum of P1,254.24 as the 7% sales tax imposed by section 186 of the National Internal Revenue Code as amended by Republic Act No. 1612.

6. Petitioner paid also to the same official on the same date, fixed taxes(c-14) of P40.00 for the years 1956 and 1957, pursuant to section 182 of the said code. 7. For the payment of the above-mentioned sales and fixed taxes, BIR official receipts Nos. C146545, respectively, were issued to the petitioner. 8. On September 6, 1957, petitioner filed with respondent a claim for the aforesaid taxes which claim was denied by the latter on November 22, 1957. 9. On February 7, 1958, petitioner filed with respondent a request for reconsideration of the denial of his claim for refund but said request was denied on February 13, 1958. Wherefore, the parties respectfully pray that the foregoing stipulation of facts be admitted and approved by this Honorable Court, without prejudice to the parties adducing other evidence to prove their case not covered by this stipulation of facts.1wph1.t

10. Petitioner filed on April 30, 1958 his second request for reconsideration which was denied on July 1, 1958. 11. On August 12, 1958 petitioner filed with his Honorable Court the present petition for review which was answered by respondent on September 26, 1958.Not stipulated but nevertheless admitted in the pleadings is the additional fact that the petitioner is a producer of copra out of his coconut plantation in Sta. Cruz, Davao. The petitioner ascribes the following errors against the lower court:

I. The Tax Appeals Court erred in holding that the mere drying out process by which the coconuts produced from petitioner's plantation are converted into copra (dried coconut), constitutes manufacturing as defined in section 194(x) of the Tax Code. II. The Tax Appeals Court erred in failing to consider the absurd, illogical and mischievous results that would necessarily follow from its interpretation of section 194(x) of said code, contrary to the consistent legislative policy of encouraging farmers by exempting their products from taxation.This case involves an interpretation of Section 188(b) of the Tax Code, as amended by the shortlived revenue statute, Republic Act No. 1612, when applied to copra making. Said Act took effect on 24 August 1956 until it was superseded by Republic Act 1856 on 22 June 1957. This section, as it stood before and during the effectivity of Republic Act No. 1612, and after subsequent amendment by Republic Act 1856, provides (all emphasis supplied):

Before effectivity of RA No. 1612 (b) Agricultural products and the ordinary salt when sold, bartered, or exchanged in this country by the producers or owner of the land where produced, as well as fish and its by-products when sold, bartered, or exchanged by the fisherman or fishing operator, whether in their original state or not. During the eleven-month effectivity of RA No. 1612 (b) Agricultural products and the ordinary salt in their original form when sold, bartered, or exchanged by the producer or owner of the land where produced. The term "agricultural products" as used herein shall not include cultured fish and other products raised or produced in fishponds, and those which have undergone the process of manufacturing as defined in section one hundred ninety-four (x) of this Code. After repeal of RA No. 1612 by RA No. 1856 (b) Agricultural products and the ordinary salt whether in their original form or not when sold, bartered, or exchanged in this country by the producer or owner of the land where produced, as well as all kinds of fish and its by-products when sold, bartered or exchanged by the fisherman or fishing operator whether in their original state or not.The majority of the Tax Court was of the view that before the passage of Republic Act No. 1612, copra making was not taxable because the law then exempted agricultural products "whether in their original state or not" but that it became taxable during the effectivity of the Republic Act No. 1612 because the agricultural products that were exempted under it were those "in their original form", and said law excluded from the exemption "those which have

undergone the process of manufacturing as defined in section one hundred ninety-four (x) of this Code", that provides:

(x) "Manufacturer" includes every person (1) who by physical or chemical process alters the exterior texture or form of inner substance of any raw material or manufactured or partially manufactured product in such a manner as to prepare it for a special use or uses to which it could not have been put in its original condition, or (2) who by any such process alters the quality of any such raw material or manufactured or partially manufactured product so as to reduce it to marketable shape or prepare it for any of the uses of industry, or (3) who by any such process combines any such raw material or manufactured or partially manufactured products with other materials or products of the same or of different kinds and in such manner that the finished products of such process of manufacture can be put to a special use or uses to which such raw material or manufactured or partially manufactured products in their original condition could not have been put and who in addition alters such raw material or manufactured or partially manufactured products, or combines the same to produce such finished products for the purpose of their sale or distribution to others and for his own use or consumption.The majority of the Tax Court further held that because of the unhusking and halving of the coconut fruit, removal and cutting into several pieces of its meat, and dehydrating by sun or kiln, the fruit in its original form underwent a process of manufacturing, and, therefore, became taxable; but after the repeal of Republic Act 1612 by Republic Act 1856, the exempt agricultural products included once more those products "whether in their original state or not". It decided, therefore, that the taxability of copra making under Republic Act No. 1612 is in accordance with the legislative intent to increase revenue by imposing taxes on "greater coverage of subjects of taxation", as expressed in the explanatory note of the House Bill 5809, the source of Republic Act 1612; and that the said section being an exempting provision, the same should be construedstrictissimi juris against the party claiming exemption. Contrary to the above views of the respondents, the petitioner would consider copra as the agricultural product in its original form and the coconut fruit merely the crop of the producer and because copra is the only product that may be produced from coconut lands while the process of manufacture involved in the conversion of the coconut fruit to copra is a part of the genuine agricultural labor of the farmer. The petitioner adopted the dissenting opinion that the enactment of Republic Act 1612 did not change anything; because the processes that constitute manufacturing under Section 194 (x)have not been enlarged or extended, and that the ruling of the respondents would be a radical departure from the time-honored policy of Congress to give preferential treatment to farmers; furthermore, the respondents' interpretation would lead to absurd, illogical, and mischievous results, like the following: coconut planters, abaca planters and rice farmers would be liable for 7% tax while operators of coconut oil mills and dessicated coconut factories, rope factories, and rice mill operators are taxable only at 2% under Section 189 of the Code; likewise, the coconut planter is not taxable for producing coconuts, but the moment he unhusks them he is obliged to pay 7% on sales tax. The petitioner insists that the legislative intent in enacting Republic Act 1612 was to exclude copra making, as shown in the explanatory note of House Bill 6094, a bill intended to amend Republic Act 1612, and that this intention to exclude copra making is also reflected in the speeches and debates delivered in the floor of Congress in its session on 30 January 1957 (Congressional Records, Vol. IV, No. 3). The flaw in petitioner-appellant's argument is that it ignores the legislative change in the phraseology of the exemption of agricultural products. The original statute excepted from the tax "Agricultural products xxx whether in their original state ornot", but under the shortlived R.A. No. 1612 it was altered and reduced to "agricultural products in their original form" exclusively. The change in scope was further emphasized by the qualification in the same Act that "agricultural products xxxshall not include cultured fish . . . and those which have undergone the process of manufacturing . . . ." Plainly, R.A. No. 1612 was intended to restrict the exemption and broaden the subject of taxation, in order to increase the state revenues; and this purpose becomes indubitable when we consider that ordinary salt and fish were also originally exempt, but the exemption was not restated in R.A. No. 1612. If, as contended by the petitioner, there was no intention to limit the exemption of agricultural products, then it may well be wondered why the Legislature found it necessary to change at all the terms of the exemption; and even further, it may be asked why, barely a year later, it was found proper to restore (by R.A. No. 1856) the primitive terms of the exemption of agricultural products "whether in their original form or not". It is not to be presumed that the Legislature, in making such changes, was indulging in mere semantic exercise. There must have been some purpose in making them, and the rational explantion is that the coverage of the exemption was being broadened by R.A. No. 1612, as expressly stated in the original House Bill No. 5819 that later became said Act; and that the

policy change was later found inadvisable, so that the statute was reworded by R.A. 1856 to corresponded to the original terminology so as to restore the original exemption.. Stress is laid on the explanatory note to House Bill No. 6094 that it was "never the intention of Congress to impose such heavy burden upon our agricultural producers"; but these statements did not go beyond a personal opinion of the proponents of House Bill No. 6094, since the true source of Republic Act 1856 (repealing R.A. No. 1612)was not Bill No. 6094, but House Bill No. 5819. We find no weight in the argument that under the interpretation given to Republic Act 1612 the planters and farmers would pay a higher tax than rice mills and coconut factories. The rule of uniform taxation does not deprive Congress of the power to classify subjects of taxation, and only demands uniformity within the particular class. The legislative intent to increase revenue by widening the coverage of taxable subjects is evident under Republic Act 1612, and by it the exempt agricultural products were only those that remain in their original form, and have not undergone the process of manufacture. This Court has had occasion to observe that

By the very nature of the changes made in the original statute, it is clear that the amendment is intended, not to clarify the doubtful meaning of the former law, xxx, but to withdraw from the scope of the former exemption the agricultural products that are no longer in their original form because they have undergone the process of manufacture." (Philippine Packing Corporation vs. Collector of Internal Revenue, L-9040, Res. of Jan. 22, 1957).WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is affirmed, with costs against petitioner-appellant. Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC

G.R. No. L-26521

December 28, 1968

EUSEBIO VILLANUEVA, ET AL., plaintiff-appellee, vs. CITY OF ILOILO, defendants-appellants. Pelaez, Jalandoni and Jamir for plaintiff-appellees. Assistant City Fiscal Vicente P. Gengos for defendant-appellant. CASTRO, J.: Appeal by the defendant City of Iloilo from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo declaring illegal Ordinance 11, series of 1960, entitled, "An Ordinance Imposing Municipal License Tax On Persons Engaged In The Business Of Operating Tenement Houses," and ordering the City to refund to the plaintiffs-appellees the sums of collected from them under the said ordinance. On September 30, 1946 the municipal board of Iloilo City enacted Ordinance 86, imposing license tax fees as follows: (1) tenement house (casa de vecindad), P25.00 annually; (2) tenement house, partly or wholly engaged in or dedicated to business in the streets of J.M. Basa, Iznart and Aldeguer, P24.00 per apartment; (3) tenement house, partly or wholly engaged in business in any other streets, P12.00 per apartment. The validity and constitutionality of this ordinance were challenged by the spouses Eusebio Villanueva and Remedies Sian Villanueva, owners of four tenement houses containing 34 apartments. This Court, in City of Iloilo vs. Remedios Sian Villanueva and Eusebio Villanueva, L-12695, March 23, 1959, declared the ordinance ultra vires, "it not appearing that the power to tax owners of tenement houses is one among those clearly and expressly granted to the City of Iloilo by its Charter." On January 15, 1960 the municipal board of Iloilo City, believing, obviously, that with the passage of Republic Act 2264, otherwise known as the Local Autonomy Act, it had acquired the authority or power to enact an ordinance similar to that previously declared by this Court as ultra vires, enacted Ordinance 11, series of 1960, hereunder quoted in full:

AN ORDINANCE IMPOSING MUNICIPAL LICENSE TAX ON PERSONS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF OPERATING TENEMENT HOUSES

Be it ordained by the Municipal Board of the City of Iloilo, pursuant to the provisions of Republic Act No. 2264, otherwise known as the Autonomy Law of Local Government, that: Section 1. A municipal license tax is hereby imposed on tenement houses in accordance with the schedule of payment herein provided. Section 2. Tenement house as contemplated in this ordinance shall mean any building or dwelling for renting space divided into separate apartments or accessorias. Section 3. The municipal license tax provided in Section 1 hereof shall be as follows: I. Tenement houses: (a) Apartment house made of strong materials (b) Apartment house made of mixed materials II Rooming house of strong materials Rooming house of mixed materials III. Tenement house partly or wholly engaged in or dedicated to business in the following streets: J.M. Basa, Iznart, Aldeguer, Guanco and Ledesma from Plazoleto Gay to Valeria. St. IV. Tenement house partly or wholly engaged in or dedicated to business in any other street V. Tenement houses at the streets surrounding the super market as soon as said place is declared commercial P20.00 per door p.a.P10.00 per door p.a.

P10.00 per door p.a. P5.00 per door p.a.

P30.00 per door p.a.

P12.00 per door p.a.

P24.00 per door p.a.

Section 4. All ordinances or parts thereof inconsistent herewith are hereby amended. Section 5. Any person found violating this ordinance shall be punished with a fine note exceeding Two Hundred Pesos (P200.00) or an imprisonment of not more than six (6) months or both at the discretion of the Court. Section 6 This ENACTED, January 15, 1960. ordinance shall take effect upon approval.

In Iloilo City, the appellees Eusebio Villanueva and Remedios S. Villanueva are owners of five tenement houses, aggregately containing 43 apartments, while the other appellees and the same Remedios S. Villanueva are owners of ten apartments. Each of the appellees' apartments has a door leading to a street and is rented by either a Filipino or Chinese merchant. The first floor is utilized as a store, while the second floor is used as a dwelling of the owner of the store. Eusebio Villanueva owns, likewise, apartment buildings for rent in Bacolod, Dumaguete City, Baguio City and Quezon City, which cities, according to him, do not impose tenement or apartment taxes. By virtue of the ordinance in question, the appellant City collected from spouses Eusebio Villanueva and Remedios S. Villanueva, for the years 1960-1964, the sum of P5,824.30, and from the appellees Pio Sian Melliza, Teresita S. Topacio, and Remedios S. Villanueva, for the years 1960-1964, the sum of P1,317.00. Eusebio Villanueva has likewise been paying real estate taxes on his property.

On July 11, 1962 and April 24, 1964, the plaintiffs-appellees filed a complaint, and an amended complaint, respectively, against the City of Iloilo, in the aforementioned court, praying that Ordinance 11, series of 1960, be declared "invalid for being beyond the powers of the Municipal Council of the City of Iloilo to enact, and unconstitutional for being violative of the rule as to uniformity of taxation and for depriving said plaintiffs of the equal protection clause of the Constitution," and that the City be ordered to refund the amounts collected from them under the said ordinance. On March 30, 1966,1 the lower court rendered judgment declaring the ordinance illegal on the grounds that (a) "Republic Act 2264 does not empower cities to impose apartment taxes," (b) the same is "oppressive and unreasonable," for the reason that it penalizes owners of tenement houses who fail to pay the tax, (c) it constitutes not only double taxation, but treble at that and (d) it violates the rule of uniformity of taxation. The issues posed in this appeal are:

1. Is Ordinance 11, series of 1960, of the City of Iloilo, illegal because it imposes double taxation? 2. Is the City of Iloilo empowered by the Local Autonomy Act to impose tenement taxes? 3. Is Ordinance 11, series of 1960, oppressive and unreasonable because it carries a penal clause? 4. Does Ordinance 11, series of 1960, violate the rule of uniformity of taxation? 1. The pertinent provisions of the Local Autonomy Act are hereunder quoted: SEC. 2. Any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding, all chartered cities, municipalities and municipal districts shall have authority to impose municipal license taxes or fees upon persons engaged in any occupation or business, or exercising privileges in chartered cities, municipalities or municipal districts by requiring them to secure licences at rates fixed by the municipal board or city council of the city, the municipal council of the municipality, or the municipal district council of the municipal district; to collect fees and charges for services rendered by the city, municipality or municipal district; to regulate and impose reasonable fees for services rendered in connection with any business, profession or occupation being conducted within the city, municipality or municipal district and otherwise to levy for public purposes, just and uniform taxes, licenses or fees; Provided, That municipalities and municipal districts shall, in no case, impose any percentage tax on sales or other taxes in any form based thereon nor impose taxes on articles subject to specific tax, except gasoline, under the provisions of the National Internal Revenue Code; Provided, however, That no city, municipality or municipal district may levy or impose any of the following: (a) Residence tax; (b) Documentary stamp tax; (c) Taxes on the business of persons engaged in the printing and publication of any newspaper, magazine, review or bulletin appearing at regular intervals and having fixed prices for for subscription and sale, and which is not published primarily for the purpose of publishing advertisements; (d) Taxes on persons operating waterworks, irrigation and other public utilities except electric light, heat and power; (e) Taxes on forest products and forest concessions; (f) Taxes on estates, inheritance, gifts, legacies, and other acquisitions mortis causa; (g) Taxes on income of any kind whatsoever; (h) Taxes or fees for the registration of motor vehicles and for the issuance of all kinds of licenses or permits for the driving thereof; (i) Customs duties registration, wharfage dues on wharves owned by the national government, tonnage, and all other kinds of customs fees, charges and duties; (j) Taxes of any kind on banks, insurance companies, and persons paying franchise tax; and (k) Taxes on premiums paid by owners of property who obtain insurance directly with foreign insurance companies.

A tax ordinance shall go into effect on the fifteenth day after its passage, unless the ordinance shall provide otherwise:Provided, however, That the Secretary of Finance shall have authority to suspend the effectivity of any ordinance within one hundred and twenty days after its passage, if, in his opinion, the tax or fee therein levied or imposed is unjust, excessive, oppressive, or confiscatory, and when the said Secretary exercises this authority the effectivity of such ordinance shall be suspended. In such event, the municipal board or city council in the case of cities and the municipal council or municipal district council in the case of municipalities or municipal districts may appeal the decision of the Secretary of Finance to the court during the pendency of which case the tax levied shall be considered as paid under protest.It is now settled that the aforequoted provisions of Republic Act 2264 confer on local governments broad taxing authority which extends to almost "everything, excepting those which are mentioned therein," provided that the tax so levied is "for public purposes, just and uniform," and does not transgress any constitutional provision or is not repugnant to a controlling statute.2 Thus, when a tax, levied under the authority of a city or municipal ordinance, is not within the exceptions and limitations aforementioned, the same comes within the ambit of the general rule, pursuant to the rules of expressio unius est exclusio alterius, and exceptio firmat regulum in casibus non excepti. Does the tax imposed by the ordinance in question fall within any of the exceptions provided for in section 2 of the Local Autonomy Act? For this purpose, it is necessary to determine the true nature of the tax. The appellees strongly maintain that it is a "property tax" or "real estate tax," 3 and not a "tax on persons engaged in any occupation or business or exercising privileges," or a license tax, or a privilege tax, or an excise tax.4 Indeed, the title of the ordinance designates it as a "municipal license tax on persons engaged in the business of operating tenement houses," while section 1 thereof states that a "municipal license tax is hereby imposed on tenement houses." It is the phraseology of section 1 on which the appellees base their contention that the tax involved is a real estate tax which, according to them, makes the ordinanceultra vires as it imposes a levy "in excess of the one per centum real estate tax allowable under Sec. 38 of the Iloilo City Charter, Com. Act 158."5. It is our view, contrary to the appellees' contention, that the tax in question is not a real estate tax. Obviously, the appellees confuse the tax with the real estate tax within the meaning of the Assessment Law,6 which, although not applicable to the City of Iloilo, has counterpart provisions in the Iloilo City Charter. 7 A real estate tax is a direct tax on the ownership of lands and buildings or other improvements thereon, not specially exempted, 8 and is payable regardless of whether the property is used or not, although the value may vary in accordance with such factor.9 The tax is usually single or indivisible, although the land and building or improvements erected thereon are assessed separately, except when the land and building or improvements belong to separate owners.10 It is a fixed proportion11 of the assessed value of the property taxed, and requires, therefore, the intervention of assessors.12 It is collected or payable at appointed times,13 and it constitutes a superior lien on and is enforceable against the property14 subject to such taxation, and not by imprisonment of the owner. The tax imposed by the ordinance in question does not possess the aforestated attributes. It is not a tax on the land on which the tenement houses are erected, although both land and tenement houses may belong to the same owner. The tax is not a fixed proportion of the assessed value of the tenement houses, and does not require the intervention of assessors or appraisers. It is not payable at a designated time or date, and is not enforceable against the tenement houses either by sale or distraint. Clearly, therefore, the tax in question is not a real estate tax. "The spirit, rather than the letter, or an ordinance determines the construction thereof, and the court looks less to its words and more to the context, subject-matter, consequence and effect. Accordingly, what is within the spirit is within the ordinance although it is not within the letter thereof, while that which is in the letter, although not within the spirit, is not within the ordinance."15 It is within neither the letter nor the spirit of the ordinance that an additional real estate tax is being imposed, otherwise the subject-matter would have been not merely tenement houses. On the contrary, it is plain from the context of the ordinance that the intention is to impose a license tax on the operation of tenement houses, which is a form of business or calling. The ordinance, in both its title and body, particularly sections 1 and 3 thereof, designates the tax imposed as a "municipal license tax" which, by itself, means an "imposition or exaction on the right to use or dispose of property, to pursue a business, occupation, or calling, or to exercise a privilege."16.

"The character of a tax is not to be fixed by any isolated words that may beemployed in the statute creating it, but such words must be taken in the connection in which they are used and the true character is to be deduced from the nature and essence of the subject." 17 The subject-matter of the ordinance is tenement houses whose nature and essence are expressly set forth in section 2 which

defines a tenement house as "any building or dwelling for renting space divided into separate apartments or accessorias." The Supreme Court, in City of Iloilo vs. Remedios Sian Villanueva, et al., L-12695, March 23, 1959, adopted the definition of a tenement house 18 as "any house or building, or portion thereof, which is rented, leased, or hired out to be occupied, or is occupied, as the home or residence of three families or more living independently of each other and doing their cooking in the premises or by more than two families upon any floor, so living and cooking, but having a common right in the halls, stairways, yards, water-closets, or privies, or some of them." Tenement houses, being necessarily offered for rent or lease by their very nature and essence, therefore constitute a distinct form of business or calling, similar to the hotel or motel business, or the operation of lodging houses or boarding houses. This is precisely one of the reasons why this Court, in the said case of City of Iloilo vs. Remedios Sian Villanueva, et al., supra, declared Ordinance 86 ultra vires, because, although the municipal board of Iloilo City is empowered, under sec. 21, par. j of its Charter, "to tax, fix the license fee for, and regulate hotels, restaurants, refreshment parlors, cafes, lodging houses, boarding houses, livery garages, public warehouses, pawnshops, theaters, cinematographs," tenement houses, which constitute a different business enterprise,19 are not mentioned in the aforestated section of the City Charter of Iloilo. Thus, in the aforesaid case, this Court explicitly said:. "And it not appearing that the power to tax owners of tenement houses is one among those clearly and expressly granted to the City of Iloilo by its Charter, the exercise of such power cannot be assumed and hence the ordinance in question is ultra vires insofar as it taxes a tenement house such as those belonging to defendants." .The lower court has interchangeably denominated the tax in question as a tenement tax or an apartment tax. Called by either name, it is not among the exceptions listed in section 2 of the Local Autonomy Act. On the other hand, the imposition by the ordinance of a license tax on persons engaged in the business of operating tenement houses finds authority in section 2 of the Local Autonomy Act which provides that chartered cities have the authority to impose municipal license taxes or fees upon persons engaged in any occupation or business, or exercising privileges within their respective territories, and "otherwise to levy for public purposes, just and uniform taxes, licenses, or fees." . 2. The trial court condemned the ordinance as constituting "not only double taxation but treble at that," because "buildings pay real estate taxes and also income taxes as provided for in Sec. 182 (A) (3) (s) of the National Internal Revenue Code, besides the tenement tax under the said ordinance." Obviously, what the trial court refers to as "income taxes" are the fixed taxes on business and occupation provided for in section 182, Title V, of the National Internal Revenue Code, by virtue of which persons engaged in "leasing or renting property, whether on their account as principals or as owners of rental property or properties," are considered "real estate dealers" and are taxed according to the amount of their annual income.20. While it is true that the plaintiffs-appellees are taxable under the aforesaid provisions of the National Internal Revenue Code as real estate dealers, and still taxable under the ordinance in question, the argument against double taxation may not be invoked. The same tax may be imposed by the national government as well as by the local government. There is nothing inherently obnoxious in the exaction of license fees or taxes with respect to the same occupation, calling or activity by both the State and a political subdivision thereof.21. The contention that the plaintiffs-appellees are doubly taxed because they are paying the real estate taxes and the tenement tax imposed by the ordinance in question, is also devoid of merit. It is a well-settled rule that a license tax may be levied upon a business or occupation although the land or property used in connection therewith is subject to property tax. The State may collect an ad valorem tax on property used in a calling, and at the same time impose a license tax on that calling, the imposition of the latter kind of tax being in no sensea double tax.22.

"In order to constitute double taxation in the objectionable or prohibited sense the same property must be taxed twice when it should be taxed but once; both taxes must be imposed on the same property or subject-matter, for the same purpose, by the same State, Government, or taxing authority, within the same jurisdiction or taxing district, during the same taxing period, and they must be the same kind or character of tax."23 It has been shown that a real estate tax and the tenement tax imposed by the ordinance, although imposed by the sametaxing authority, are not of the same kind or character.

At all events, there is no constitutional prohibition against double taxation in the Philippines. 24 It is something not favored, but is permissible, provided some other constitutional requirement is not thereby violated, such as the requirement that taxes must be uniform."25. 3. The appellant City takes exception to the conclusion of the lower court that the ordinance is not only oppressive because it "carries a penal clause of a fine of P200.00 or imprisonment of 6 months or both, if the owner or owners of the tenement buildings divided into apartments do not pay the tenement or apartment tax fixed in said ordinance," but also unconstitutional as it subjects the owners of tenement houses to criminal prosecution for nonpayment of an obligation which is purely sum of money." The lower court apparently had in mind, when it made the above ruling, the provision of the Constitution that "no person shall be imprisoned for a debt or non-payment of a poll tax."26 It is elementary, however, that "a tax is not a debt in the sense of an obligation incurred by contract, express or implied, and therefore is not within the meaning of constitutional or statutory provisions abolishing or prohibiting imprisonment for debt, and a statute or ordinance which punishes the non-payment thereof by fine or imprisonment is not, in conflict with that prohibition." 27 Nor is the tax in question a poll tax, for the latter is a tax of a fixed amount upon all persons, or upon all persons of a certain class, resident within a specified territory, without regard to their property or the occupations in which they may be engaged. 28 Therefore, the tax in question is not oppressive in the manner the lower court puts it. On the other hand, the charter of Iloilo City29 empowers its municipal board to "fix penalties for violations of ordinances, which shall not exceed a fine of two hundred pesos or six months' impr