Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
that the taxation must be resisted as aninfringement of the fundamental charter.Judges would indeed be
hapless guardians of the Constitution if they did not perceive and block encroachmentsupon their
prerogatives in whatever form. The undiminishable character of judicial salaries is not a mere privilegeof
judges
but a basic limitation upon legislative or executive action imposedin the public interest (Evans vs. Gore).
Nitafan v CIR 152 SCRA 284
Nitafan v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue [GR L-78780, 23 July 1987]FACTS:1. Petitioners David
Nitafan, Wenceslao Polo and Maximo Savellano Jr., were duly appointed and qualified Judgesof the RTC
National Capital Judicial Region.2. Petitioners seeks to prohibit and/or perpetually enjoin respondents,
(CIR and the Financial Officer of theSupreme Court) from making any deduction of withholding taxes
from their salaries.
3. Petitioners submit that any tax withheld from their emoluments or compensation as judicial officers
constitutes
a decreased or diminution of their salaries, contrary to Section 1
0, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution.
ISSUE:Is a deduction of withholding tax a diminuition of the salaries of Judges/Justices?HELD:The SC
hereby makes of record that it had then discarded the ruling in PERFECTO VS. MEER (88 Phil 552)
andENDENCIA VS. DAVID (93 Phil 696), that declared the salaries of members of the Judiciary exempt
from payment of the income tax and considered such payment as a diminution of their salaries during
their continuance in office.The Court hereby reiterates that the salaries of Justices and Judges are property
subject to general income taxapplicable to all income earners and that the payment of such income tax by
Justices and Judges does not fallwithin the constitution protection against decrease of their salaries
during their continuance in office.The debates, interpellations and opinions expressed regarding the
constitutional provision in question until it wasfinally approved by the Commission disclosed that the true
intent of the framers of the 1987 Constitution, inadopting it, was to make the salaries of members of the
Judiciary taxable. The ascertainment of that intent is but inkeeping with the fundamental principle of
constitutional construction that the intent of the framers of the organiclaw and of the people adopting it
should be given effect.
The ruling that the imposition of income tax upon the salary of judges is a diminution thereof, and so
violates the
Constitution in Perfecto vs. Meer, as affirmed in Endencia vs. David must be deemed discarded.
People vs PerfectoG.R. No. L-18463FACTS:In the case of People vs. Perfecto ([1922], 43 Phil., 887) the
accused was charged with having published anarticle reflecting on the Philippine Senate and its members
in violation of Article 256 of the Penal Code. Inthis Court, Mr. Perfecto was acquitted by unanimous vote,
with three members of the court holding thatArticle 256 was abrogated completely by the change
from Spanish to American sovereignty over thePhilippines and with six members holding that the
Libel Law had the effect of repealing so much of Article256 as relates to written defamation, abuse,
or insult, and that under the information and the facts, the defendant was neither guilty of a violation
of Article 256 of the Penal Code nor of the Libel Law. In thecourse of the main opinion in the Perfecto
case is found this significant sentence: Act No. 292 of thePhilippine Commission, the Treason and
Sedition Law, may also have affected Article 256, but as to this point, it is not necessary to make a
pronouncement.ISSUES:Whether or not Mr. Perfecto violated Article 256 of the Penal Code.On the
subject of whether or not Article 256 of the Penal Code, under which the information was presented,is in
force.HELD:
The view of the Chief Justice is that the accused should be acquitted for the reason that the facts
alleged in theinformation do not constitute a violation of article 256 of the Penal Code. Three
members of the court believe thatarticle 256 was abrogated completely by the change from Spanish to
American sovereignty over the Philippines and isinconsistent with democratic principles of government.