OSG Consolidated Comment On TRAIN

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
SUPREME COURT
MANILA
EN BANC
ACT TEACHERS
REPRESENTATIVE
ANTONIO TINIO, BAYAN
MUNA PARTY-LIST
REPRESENTATIVE CARLOS
ISAGANI ZARATE AND
ANAKPAWIS PARTY-LIST
REPRESENTATIVE ARIEL
‘KA-AYIK’ CASILAO,
Petitioners,
-versus- G.R. No. 236118
PRESIDENT RODRIGO ROA

DUTERTE, HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES
SPEAKER PANTALEON
ALVAREZ, DEPUTY
SPEAKER RANEO ABU,
MAJORITY LEADER
RODOLFO FARIÑAS AND
DEPUTY MAJORITY
LEADER ARTHUR
DEFENSOR, JR.,
Respondents.
x--------------------------------x
LABAN KONSYUMER INC.
AND ATTY. VICTORIO
MARIO A. DIMAGIBA,
Petitioners,
-versus- G.R. No. 236295
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
SALVADOR C. MEDIALDEA,
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
SECRETARY CARLOS G.
Consolidated Comment
ACT v. Duterte
G.R. Nos. 236118 & 236295
DOMINGUEZ III, BUREAU

OF INTERNAL REVENUE
COMMISSIONER CESAR R.
DULAY, HOUSE SPEAKER
PANTALEON D. ALVAREZ,
IN REPRESENTATION OF
THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES AND
SENATE PRESIDENT
AQUILINO D. PIMENTEL
III, IN REPRESENTATION
OF THE SENATE,
Respondents.
x-----------------------------------------------------------------x
CONSOLIDATED COMMENT
Respondents, through the Office of the Solicitor General

(OSG), unto this Honorable Court, respectfully state:
COUNTER-STATEMENT OF FACTS
AND RELEVANT PROCEEDINGS
1. On 15 May 2017, the Committee on Ways and

Means of the House of Representatives recommended the
approval of House Bill (H.B.) No. 5636,1 in substitution of
various bills seeking the amendment of the National Internal
Revenue Code of 1997 (NIRC).2 H.B. No. 5636 embodied the
then proposed Tax Reform for Acceleration and Inclusion
(TRAIN) Law, which aims to reform and correct deficiencies
in the Philippine tax system by making it simpler, fairer and
more efficient.
2. On 23 May 2017, the House of Representatives

proceeded to consider and debate on H.B. No. 5636 on its
second reading.3
1
Entitled “AN ACT AMENDING SECTIONS 5, 6, 22, 24, 25, 31, 33, 34, 79, 84, 86, 99, 106, 107, 108, 109,
116, 148, 149, 155, 171, 232, 237, 238, 264 AND 288; CREATING NEW SECTIONS 148-A, 150-A, 237-A,
264-A, 264-B AND 265-A; AND REPEALING SECTIONS 35 AND 62 ALL UNDER REPUBLIC ACT NO.
8424 OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE NATIONAL INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1997.”
2
See Committee Report No. 229 at http://congress.gov.ph/legisdocs/first_17/CR00229.pdf, last accessed on
19 April 2018.
3
See House Bill/Resolution History of H.B. No. 5636 at http://congress.gov.ph/legisdocs/, last accessed on
19 April 2018.
2
ACT v. Duterte
G.R. Nos. 236118 & 236295
3. On 29 May 2017, President Rodrigo Roa Duterte,4

through separate letters addressed to House Speaker
Pantaleon Alvarez and Senate President Aquilino Pimentel
III, certified the immediate enactment of the TRAIN bill as
urgent.5
4. After the approval of H.B. No. 5636 on its third

reading on 31 May 2017, the House of Representatives
transmitted the proposed legislation to the Senate.6
5. On 20 September 2017, the Senate Committee on

Ways and Means recommended the approval of Senate Bill
(S.B.) No. 15927 in substitution of several bills which
incorporated the proposed amendments to H.B. No. 5636.8
After consideration of S.B. No. 1592 on its second reading,
the Senate proceeded to debate on and propose individual
amendments to the bill.9
6. On 28 November 2017, the Senate approved the

amended S.B. No. 1592 on its third reading.10 Thereafter,
the Senate requested for, and the House of Representatives
agreed to, a bicameral conference to address the conflicting
provisions of H.B. No. 5636 and S.B. No. 1592.11
7. On 13 December 2017, the Bicameral Conference

Committee (BCC) transmitted its report to the House of
Representatives and the Senate, recommending the
approval of the reconciled version of H.B. No. 5636 and S.B.
4
While impleaded as a respondent in G.R. No. 236118, the OSG omitted President Duterte as named
respondent in this Comment in view of his presidential immunity (see Hon. Aguinaldo v. President Aquino,
G.R No. 224302, 29 November 2016). This matter is further explained below.
5
See https://www.dof.gov.ph/taxreform/index.php/2017/05/29/prrd-certifies-tax-reform-bill-as-urgent/, last
accessed on 19 April 2018.
6
12 March 2018.
7
Entitled “AN ACT AMENDING SECTIONS 5, 6, 24, 25, 31, 34, 35, 51, 79, 84, 86, 89, 90, 97, 99, 100,
101, 106, 107, 108, 109, 112, 114, 116, 148, 149, 150, 151, 155, 171, 196, 232, 237, 249, 264 AND 288;
CREATING NEW SECTIONS 148-A, 150-A, 237-A, 264-A, 264-B AND 265-A; ALL UNDER REPUBLIC
ACT NO. 8424, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE NATIONAL INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1997, AS
AMENDED, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.”
8
See Committee Report No. 164 at http://senate.gov.ph/lisdata/2676322985!.pdf, last accessed on 19 April
2018.
9
See Legislative History of S.B. No. 1592 at http://senate.gov.ph/lis/bill_res.aspx?congress=17&q=SBN-
1592, last accessed on 19 April 2018.
10
Id.
11
Id.; see also House Bill/Resolution History of H.B. No. 5636 at http://congress.gov.ph/legisdocs/, last
3
ACT v. Duterte
G.R. Nos. 236118 & 236295
No. 1592. On the same date, the House of Representatives12

and the Senate13 separately ratified the BCC Report and the
final version of the TRAIN bill.
8. On 18 December 2017, the Office of the President

received the enrolled copy of the consolidated version of
H.B. No. 5636 and S.B. No. 1592,14 as printed and finally
approved by Congress and authenticated with the signatures
of the Senate President, the House Speaker, and the
Secretaries of the respective chambers of Congress.
9. On 19 December 2017, President Duterte

15
approved and signed into law Republic Act (R.A.) No.
10963 (TRAIN Law).16
10. The TRAIN Law took effect on 1 January 2018,17

following its publication in a newspaper of general
circulation.18
11. On 11 January 2018, Representatives Antonio

Tinio, Carlos Isagani Zarate, and Ariel “Ka Ayik” Casilao filed
a Petition for Certiorari With Prayer for Injunction and
Temporary Restraining Order dated 10 January 201819 (the
12
See House Journal No. 48, Second Regular Session, Seventeenth Congress at
http://congress.gov.ph/legisdocs/journals_17/J48-2RS-20171213.pdf, last accessed on 19 April 2018; a
copy of House Journal No. 48 is attached as Annex “A”
13
See Legislative History of S.B. No. 1592 at http://senate.gov.ph/lis/bill_res.aspx?congress=17&q=SBN-
1592, last accessed on 19 April 2018.
14
12 March 2018; see also Legislative History of S.B. No. 1592 at
http://senate.gov.ph/lis/bill_res.aspx?congress=17&q=SBN-1592, last accessed on 19 April 2018.
15
President Duterte exercised, however, his constitutional power to veto particular items in a revenue bill;
see President Duterte’s veto message on the enactment of the TRAIN Law at
http://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/downloads/2017/12dec/20171219-Message-Veto-RRD.pdf, last accessed
on 19 April 2018.
16
Entitled “AN ACT AMENDING SECTIONS 5, 6, 24, 25, 27, 31, 32, 33, 34, 51, 52, 56, 57, 58, 74, 79, 84,
86, 90, 91, 97, 99, 100, 101, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 112, 114, 116, 127, 128, 129, 145, 148, 149, 151,
155, 171, 174, 175, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 186, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196,
197, 232, 236, 237, 249, 254, 264, 269, AND 288; CREATING NEW SECTIONS 51-A, 148-A, 150-A, 150-
B, 237-A, 264-A, 264-B, AND 265-A; AND REPEALING SECTIONS 35, 62, AND 89; ALL UNDER
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8424, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE NATIONAL INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
OF 1997, AS AMENDED, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.”
A copy of R.A. No. 10963, bearing the signatures of the Senate President, the House Speaker, the
Secretaries of the respective chambers of Congress, and the President of the Philippines, is attached as
Annex “B.”
17
R.A. No. 10963, Section 87.
18
The complete text of R.A. No. 10963 was published in the Manila Bulletin on 28 December 2017. A
scanned copy of R.A. No. 10963 was posted in the Official Gazette website on 27 December 2017; see
http://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/2017/12/27/republic-act-no-10963/, last accessed on 19 April 2018.
19
Incorrectly indicated therein as “January 10, 2017.”
4
ACT v. Duterte
G.R. Nos. 236118 & 236295
Tinio Petition), docketed as G.R. No. 236118, asking this

Honorable Court to strike down as unconstitutional the
TRAIN Law for having been enacted in violation of Sections
16 (2) and 27, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution.
12. Thereafter, Laban Konsyumer Inc. and Atty.

Victorio Mario A. Dimagiba filed a separate Petition for
Certiorari (With Urgent Application for the Issuance of a
Temporary Restraining Order, Writ of Preliminary Injunction,
and/or Status Quo Ante Order) dated 19 January 2018 (the
Laban Petition), docketed as G.R. No. 236295, praying that
this Honorable Court issue a writ of certiorari to nullify the
TRAIN Law, or in the alternative, the increase in the excise
taxes on coal, LPG, kerosene, and diesel, for allegedly
having been enacted in violation of Section 1, Article III, and
Section 28, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution.
13. In both Petitions, petitioners claim that grave

abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction attended the passage of the TRAIN Law.
Petitioners likewise seek the issuance of a temporary
restraining order (TRO) and/or a writ of preliminary
injunction to restrain the implementation of the TRAIN Law.
They also ask this Honorable Court to issue a status quo
ante order that will maintain the last, actual, peaceable and
uncontested status that preceded the present controversy.
14. In G.R. No. 236118, this Honorable Court issued a

Resolution dated 23 January 2018, directing respondents to
file their comment on the Tinio Petition and on the prayer for
TRO within ten (10) days from notice.
15. In G.R. No. 236295, this Honorable Court issued a

Resolution dated 23 January 2018, requiring respondents
therein to file their comment on the Laban Petition and on
the application for TRO also within ten (10) days from
notice.
16. This Honorable Court likewise ordered the

consolidation of the Laban Petition with the Tinio Petition in
both Resolutions.
5
ACT v. Duterte
G.R. Nos. 236118 & 236295
17. Since the OSG received both Resolutions on 31

January 2018, respondents had until 10 February 2018
within which to file the required comment.
18. On 9 February 2018, the OSG, as counsel for

respondents in both cases, filed a Motion for Extension of
Time to File Comment dated 9 February 2018, requesting
that it be granted an additional period of sixty (60) days
from 10 February 2018, or until 11 April 2018, within which
to file its Consolidated Comment.
19. In a Resolution dated 6 March 2018, this

Honorable Court granted the Motion filed by the OSG,
requesting for an extension of until 11 April 2018 within
which to file the Consolidated Comment.
20. On 11 April 2018, the OSG filed another Motion for

Additional Time, requesting for an additional fifteen (15)
days, or until 26 April 2018, within which to file the
Consolidated Comment.
21. Hence, this Consolidated Comment is being timely

filed within the extended period requested.
ARGUMENTS
I
THE PETITIONS SHOULD BE DISMISSED
OUTRIGHT AS THEY SUFFER FROM
PROCEDURAL INFIRMITIES.
A. Petitioners improperly availed of a

special civil action for certiorari.
B. Petitioners violated the principle of

hierarchy of courts.
C. Petitioners failed to show an actual

case or controversy calling for the
exercise of judicial power.
D. Petitioners raised political questions

which are not justiciable.
6
ACT v. Duterte
G.R. Nos. 236118 & 236295
E. Petitioners failed to implead

Congress as an indispensable party.
F. Petitioners violated the doctrine of

presidential immunity from suit.
II.
THE TRAIN LAW WAS VALIDLY PASSED BY
CONGRESS AND SIGNED INTO LAW BY THE
PRESIDENT.
A. The TRAIN Bicameral Conference

Committee Report was ratified in
accordance with the 1987
Constitution and the Rules of the
House of Representatives.
B. The doctrine of separation of

powers prevents this Honorable
Court from inquiring into the
existence of a quorum during the 13
December 2017 session of the
House of Representatives, on
account of the conclusive evidence
of Journal No. 48 and the enrolled
bill of the TRAIN.
C. The President correctly relied on the

enrolled TRAIN bill when he signed
it into law.
III.
THE PURPOSE OF THE TRAIN LAW IS TO
ERADICATE POVERTY AND REDUCE
INEQUALITY FOR THE GENERAL WELFARE OF
THE PEOPLE.
A. The increase in oil excise taxes is

imbued with revenue, regulatory
and remedial policy considerations.
B. The TRAIN Law is progressive.
7
ACT v. Duterte
G.R. Nos. 236118 & 236295
C. The TRAIN Law does not violate the

due process clause.
D. The TRAIN Law does not violate the

equal protection clause.
IV.
THE PROVISION ON THE INCREASE OF
EXCISE TAX ON COAL IS NOT A RIDER
BECAUSE IT IS CONSISTENT WITH SECTION
24, ARTICLE VI OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION
AND SECTION 83, RULE XXIX OF THE RULES
OF THE SENATE.
V.
OPPOSITION TO THE APPLICATION FOR
ISSUANCE OF A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING
ORDER, WRIT OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
AND/OR STATUS QUO ANTE ORDER.
A. Injunction does not lie to enjoin the

implementation of the TRAIN Law.
B. Even assuming that injunction lies

to restrain the implementation of
the TRAIN Law, petitioners failed to
show sufficient cause to overcome
the presumption of validity of the
TRAIN Law.
C. The issuance of injunctive relief in

will be a prejudgment of the main
case.
D. The issuance of injunctive relief will

reverse the status quo ante in
contravention of the sole object of a
preliminary injunction.
DISCUSSION
8
ACT v. Duterte
G.R. Nos. 236118 & 236295
THE PETITIONS SHOULD BE DISMISSED

OUTRIGHT AS THEY SUFFER FROM
PROCEDURAL INFIRMITIES.
A. Petitioners improperly
availed of a special
civil action for
certiorari.
22. Petitioners availed of a special civil action for

certiorari20 to question the TRAIN Law, a valid statute,
passed by the Congress in the exercise of its constitutionally
vested legislative powers.
23. Absent a prima facie violation of the 1987

Constitution, petitioners have availed of an improper remedy
before this Honorable Court. Certiorari, as defined by the
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, is applicable only to certain
classes of government acts, to wit:
SECTION 1. Petition for certiorari. — When any tribunal,

board[,] or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial
functions has acted without or in excess of its or his
jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there
is no appeal nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy
in the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby
may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the
facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered
annulling or modifying the proceedings of such tribunal,
board[,] or officer, and granting such incidental reliefs as
law and justice may require.21
24. In CREBA Inc. v. Energy Regulatory Commission

(CREBA),22 this Honorable Court dismissed a petition for
certiorari because it did not assail a judicial or quasi-judicial
act, thus:
20
Tinio Petition, p. 3 and Laban Petition, p. 3.
21
1997 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, Rule 65, § 1.
22
G.R. No. 174697, 8 July 2010.
9
ACT v. Duterte
G.R. Nos. 236118 & 236295
The petitioner’s choice of remedy – a petition for

certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court – is an
incorrect remedy.
...
Judicial functions are exercised by a body or officer

clothed with authority to determine what the law is and
what the legal rights of the parties are with respect to the
matter in controversy. Quasi-judicial function is a term
that applies to the action or discretion of public
administrative officers or bodies given the authority to
investigate facts or ascertain the existence of facts, hold
hearings, and draw conclusions from them as a basis for
their official action using discretion of a judicial
nature. Thus, in Philnabank Employees Association v.
Estanislao, we did not grant a petition for certiorari against
the Department Secretary who did not act in any judicial
or quasi-judicial capacity but merely promulgated the
questioned implementing rules under the mandate of
Republic Act No. 6971, the applicable law in this cited
case.23
25. If a Petition for Certiorari cannot be invoked to

assail the issuance of rules promulgated in the exercise of
quasi-legislative power by a member of the Executive, more
so can it not be invoked against the exercise of legislative
power by the Legislature itself. CREBA also highlights one
more fatal flaw of the instant Petitions. A Petition for
Certiorari is only available in the absence of an alternative
appropriate remedy. As this Honorable Court held:
This rule requires, for a petition for certiorari to be

an appropriate remedy, that there be no appeal or plain,
speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of
law. Since the petitioner assails the validity of a rule or
statute and seeks our declaration that the rule is
unconstitutional, a petition for declaratory relief under
Section 1, Rule 63 of the Rules of Court provides a remedy
more appropriate than certiorari.24
26. Moreover, in Galicto v. Aquino,25 this Honorable

Court En Banc explained that a Petition for Certiorari
challenging the constitutionality of a law must be dismissed
23
Id.
24
Id.
25
G.R. No. 193978, 28 February 2012.
10
ACT v. Duterte
G.R. Nos. 236118 & 236295
because the respondents therein did not exercise a judicial

or quasi-judicial function, thus:
Under the Rules of Court, petitions for

Certiorari and Prohibition are availed of to question
judicial, quasi-judicial and mandatory acts. Since the
issuance of an EO is not judicial, quasi-judicial or a
mandatory act, a petition for certiorari and
prohibition is an incorrect remedy; instead a petition
for declaratory relief under Rule 63 of the Rules of Court,
filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), is the proper
recourse to assail the validity of EO 7:
xxx
Likewise, in Southern Hemisphere Engagement

Network, Inc. v. Anti-Terrorism Council, we similarly
dismissed the petitions for certiorari and prohibition
challenging the constitutionality of R.A. No. 9372,
otherwise known as the Human Security Act of 2007,
since the respondents therein (members of the Anti-
Terrorism Council) did not exercise judicial or quasi-
judicial functions.26
27. Even if petitioners invoke the expanded certiorari

jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,27 certiorari will still not
lie, given the indispensable requirement of prima facie grave
jurisdiction.
28. In Association of Medical Clinics for Overseas

Workers, Inc. v. GCC Approved Medical Centers Association,
Inc.,28 this Honorable Court En Banc ruled that while
“existing Court rulings in the exercise of its expanded
jurisdiction have allowed the direct filing of petitions for
certiorari and prohibition with the Court to question, for
grave abuse of discretion, actions or the exercise of a
function that violate the Constitution… [t]he Court's
expanded jurisdiction does not do away with the actual case
or controversy requirement for presenting a constitutional
issue, but effectively simplifies this requirement by
merely requiring a prima facie showing of grave abuse
of discretion in the exercise of the governmental
act.”29
26
Emphasis and underscoring supplied.
27
See Laban Petition, p. 3.
28
G.R. Nos. 207132 & 207205, 6 December 2016.
29
11
ACT v. Duterte
G.R. Nos. 236118 & 236295
29. As will be further elaborated in the subsequent

sections of this Consolidated Comment, no grave abuse of
discretion originated from the Legislature’s exercise of its
Constitutional and plenary power to enact legislation. On all
fronts, therefore, the remedy of certiorari is improper.
B. Petitioners violated
the principle of
hierarchy of courts.
30. Assuming arguendo that certiorari is a proper

remedy to assail the TRAIN Law, the instant Petitions must
still be dismissed for violating the principle of hierarchy of
courts. As held in Paradero v. Abragan:30
Moreover, even assuming that petitioner’s recourse

to certiorari is correct, the same is still dismissible for
disregarding the hierarchy of courts. While we have
concurrent jurisdiction with the Regional Trial Courts and
the Court of Appeals to issue writs of certiorari, this
concurrence is not to be taken as an unrestrained
freedom of choice as to which court the application
for the writ will be directed. There is after all a
hierarchy of courts. That hierarchy is determinative of the
venue of appeals, and should also serve as a general
determinant of the appropriate forum for petitions for the
extraordinary writs. A direct invocation of the Supreme
Court’s original jurisdiction to issue these extraordinary
writs is allowed only when there are special and
important reasons therefor, clearly and specifically
set out in the petition. Petitioner failed to show that
such special and important reasons obtain in this case.31
31. Furthermore, in Dacudao v. Secretary of Justice,32

this Honorable Court further emphasized the following, to
wit:
[E]very litigant must remember that the Court is not

the only judicial forum from which to seek and obtain
effective redress of their grievances. As a rule, the
[Supreme] Court is a court of last resort, not a court of the
30
G.R. No. 158917, 1 March 2004.
31
Id., emphases supplied.
32
G.R. No. 188056, 8 January 2013.
12
ACT v. Duterte
G.R. Nos. 236118 & 236295
first instance. Hence, every litigant who brings the

petitions for the extraordinary writs of certiorari,
prohibition and mandamus should ever be mindful of
the policy on the hierarchy of courts, the observance
of which is explicitly defined and enjoined in Section
4 of Rule 65, Rules of Court[.]33
32. The Petitions before this Honorable Court have

blatantly disregarded the rule on hierarchy of courts and
have furthermore failed to justify their deviation from this
rule. On the one hand, the Tinio Petition does not address
the procedural defects inherent in itself at all. On the other
hand, the Laban Petition merely makes reference to the
mandate of this Honorable Court to exercise its power of
judicial review — a mandate, it must be noted, shared with
the rest of the judiciary.
33. In Cong. Garcia v. Executive Secretary,34 this

Honorable Court repeatedly referred to the courts in general
or the judiciary as a whole when describing the power of
judicial review. Thus, “[t]he power of judicial review is the
power of the courts to test the validity of executive and
legislative acts for their conformity with the
Constitution. Through such power, the judiciary enforces
and upholds the supremacy of the Constitution.”35
Furthermore, in the earlier case of Smart Communications v.
NTC,36 this Honorable Court expressly noted that even
regional trial courts have the power to review constitutional
issues: “[i]ndeed, the Constitution vests the power of
judicial review or the power to declare a law, treaty,
international or executive agreement, presidential decree,
order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation in the courts,
including the regional trial courts.”37
34. By merely invoking the mandate of this Honorable

Court to exercise judicial review and discussing the
requirements therefore, the Laban Petition failed to justify
its disregard of the rule on hierarchy of courts. No special
circumstances are present which would justify any exception
33
Id., emphasis supplied.
34
G.R. No. 157584, 2 April 2009.
35
Id., emphases supplied.
36
G.R. No. 151908, 12 August 2003.
37
Id.
13
ACT v. Duterte
G.R. Nos. 236118 & 236295
to the rule and certainly none have been clearly laid out in
the instant Petitions. Thus, they are clearly dismissible for
their failure to respect the doctrine of hierarchy of courts,
among other procedural defects.
C. Petitioners failed to
show an actual case or
controversy calling for
the exercise of judicial
power.
35. Moreover, the Petitions do not involve an actual

case or controversy calling for the exercise of judicial power
because petitioners failed to present concrete, definite and
actual instances that will show that petitioners were
adversely affected by the implementation of the TRAIN Law.
As discussed in the Cong. Garcia case:
An actual case or controversy is one that involves a

conflict of legal rights, an assertion of opposite legal claims
susceptible of judicial resolution; the case must not be
moot or academic or based on extra-legal or other similar
considerations not cognizable by a court of justice. Stated
otherwise, it is not the mere existence of a conflict or
controversy that will authorize the exercise by the
courts of its power of review; more importantly, the
issue involved must be susceptible of judicial
determination. Excluded from these are questions of
policy or wisdom, otherwise referred to as political
questions:
As Tañada v. Cuenco puts it, political questions refer

‘to those questions which, under the Constitution, are to
be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity, or in
regard to which full discretionary authority has been
delegated to the legislative or executive branch of
government.’ Thus, if an issue is clearly identified by the
text of the Constitution as matters for discretionary action
by a particular branch of government or to the people
themselves then it is held to be a political question.
D. Petitioners raised
political questions
which are not
justiciable.
14
ACT v. Duterte
G.R. Nos. 236118 & 236295
36. Rather, what petitioners ultimately raise are

problems they have with the policy decisions in the law or
political questions. Petitioners do not agree with the tax
rates that Congress has chosen to raise and lower.
Furthermore, they believe that the new tax system
established by the TRAIN Law impacts the Philippine
economy negatively. Petitioners argue that the Philippine
citizens are better off with the old tax system than with the
new one introduced by the TRAIN Law. While these may be
valid apprehensions, they are not concerns which this
Honorable Court is equipped to rule upon.
37. As stated in Lozano v. Nograles,38 “the judiciary

does not pass upon questions of wisdom, justice or
expediency of legislation.”39 Matters relating to what tax
shall be imposed, why it should be imposed, how much tax
shall be imposed, against whom it shall be imposed and
where it shall be imposed are issues which are political in
nature because they involve Congress’ exercise of discretion.
There is thus “a lack of judicially discoverable and
manageable standards for resolving”40 the issues raised by
petitioners because they concern with matters of legislative
discretion which are plenary in nature.41 This Honorable
Court explained in CREBA:
Taxation is an inherent attribute of sovereignty. It is

a power that is purely legislative. Essentially, this
means that in the legislature primarily lies the
discretion to determine the nature (kind), object
(purpose), extent (rate), coverage (subjects) and
situs (place) of taxation. It has the authority to
prescribe a certain tax at a specific rate for a
particular public purpose on persons or things within
its jurisdiction. In other words, the legislature
wields the power to define what tax shall be
imposed, why it should be imposed, how much tax
shall be imposed, against whom (or what) it shall be
imposed and where it shall be imposed.42
E. Petitioners failed to
implead Congress as
38
G.R. No. 187883, 16 June 2009.
39
Id.
40
Cong. Garcia, G.R. No. 157584, 2 April 2009.
41
Ople v. Torres,G.R. No. 127685, 23 July 1998.
42
Emphasis supplied.
15
ACT v. Duterte
G.R. Nos. 236118 & 236295
an indispensable
party.
38. “An indispensable party is defined as one who has

such an interest in the controversy or subject matter that a
final adjudication cannot be made, in his absence, without
injuring or affecting that interest.”43
39. Considering that petitioners are assailing the

constitutionality of the TRAIN Law, Congress is clearly an
indispensable party in this proceeding. In the recent case of
Lagman v. Pimentel III, et. al.,44 this Honorable Court En
Banc held that Congress as a body, and not just the House
Speaker and Senate President, should be impleaded as
parties in a proceeding which questions an act of Congress:
In these consolidated petitions, petitioners are

questioning the constitutionality of a congressional
act, specifically the approval of the President’s
request to extend martial law in Mindanao. Petitioners
in G.R. No. 235935 and 236155 have also put in issue the
manner in which the Congress deliberated upon the
President’s request for extension. Clearly, therefore, it is
the Congress as a body, and not just its leadership, which
has interest in the subject matter of these cases.
Consequently, it was procedurally incorrect for
petitioners in G.R. Nos. 235935, 236061 and 236155
to implead only the Senate President and the House
Speaker among the respondents.
Arguably, Senator Aquilino Pimentel III and House

Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez can be said to have an interest
in these cases, as representatives of the Senate and the
House of Representatives, respectively. However,
considering that one of their main contentions is
that the “supermajority” of the Congress gravely
abused their discretion when they allegedly
railroaded the adoption of Resolution of Both Houses
No. 4, it stands to reason and the requirements of
due process that petitioners in G.R. Nos. 235935 and
236061 should have impleaded the Congress as a
whole. Needless to say, the entire body of Congress,
and not merely the respective leaders of its two
Houses, will be directly affected should We strike
down the extension of martial law. Thus, We hold that
43
Go v. Distinction Properties Development and Construction, Inc., G.R. No. 194024, 25 April 2012.
44
G.R. Nos. 235935, 236061, 236145 & 236155, 6 February 2018.
16
ACT v. Duterte
G.R. Nos. 236118 & 236295
in cases impugning the extension of martial law for lack of

sufficient factual basis, the entire body of the Congress,
composed of the Senate and the House of
Representatives, must be impleaded, being an
indispensable party thereto.45
40. In this case, while the petitioners allege grave

jurisdiction on the part of Congress, the parties did not
implead Congress and merely impleaded the House Speaker,
House Majority Leader and the Senate President as parties.
This can be seen under the portion on Parties of the
petitions:
“THE PARTIES
xxx
24. RESPONDENT REP. PANTALEON ALVAREZ is the

Speaker of the House of Representatives while
RESPONDENT REP. RODOLFO FARINAS is its Majority
Leader. Their designated Presiding Officer and Acting Floor
Leader for the December 13, 2017 session, respectively,
were RESPONDENTS REP. RANEO ABU and REP. ARTHUR
DEFENSOR, JR.”46
“II.
PARTIES
xxx
16. Respondents Pantaleon D. Alvarez, as the

Speaker of the House of Representatives, and Aquilino D.
Pimentel III, as the Senate President are impleaded in
their official capacities as the representatives of the House
of Representatives and the Senate of the Philippines which
passed the bill, now known as the TRAIN Law. Xxx”47
41. The failure to implead Congress as an

indispensable party thus renders all actions of the court void
“for want of authority to act, not only as to the absent
parties but even as to those present.”48
45
46
Tinio Petition, p. 7.
47
Laban Petition, p. 8.
48
Heirs of Austino Mesina v. Heirs of Domingo Fian, Sr., G.R. No. 201816, 8 April 2013.
17
ACT v. Duterte
G.R. Nos. 236118 & 236295
F. Petitioners violated
the doctrine of
presidential immunity
from suit.
42. Finally, the Tinio Petition erred in impleading

President Duterte as one of the respondents, ignoring
completely the well accepted principle of presidential
immunity. As President of the Philippines, President Duterte
“enjoys immunity from suit during his ... tenure of office or
actual incumbency.”49 It is thus prayed that the President be
dropped as a respondent to this case.
43. Presidential immunity is one of the basic tenets of

our legal system. While an explicit guaranty of immunity for
the President is not found in the text of the 1987
Constitution, “presidential immunity during tenure remains
as part of the law.”50 The reason for this is clear. Immunity
from suit assures “the exercise of presidential duties and
functions free from any hindrance or distraction, considering
that being the Chief Executive of the Government is a job
that, aside from requiring all of the office-holder’s time, also
demands undivided attention.”51
44. This Honorable Court has affirmed time again the

existence and enforcement of Presidential immunity. In
Randolf David v. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo,52 it made no
distinction as to the nature of the action for which the
President is being sued. According to this Honorable Court,
the President “may not be sued in any civil or criminal case,
and there is no need to provide for it in the Constitution or
law.”53 It thus held that it was improper to implead former
President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo in a petition for certiorari
which sought to question her acts done in the exercise of her
ordinance power under the Administrative Code of 1987.
This Honorable Court warned that “[it would] degrade the
dignity of the high office of the President, the Head of State,
49
Lozada v. Arroyo, G.R. Nos. 184379-80, 24 April 2012.
50
JOAQUIN BERNAS, S.J., THE 1987 CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES: A COMMENTARY,
at 283 (2009).
51
Id.
52
G.R. No. 171396, 3 May 2006.
53
Id.
18
ACT v. Duterte
G.R. Nos. 236118 & 236295
if he can be dragged into court litigations while serving as

such.”54
45. In impleading President Duterte in the present

case, petitioners manifestly disregarded the doctrine of
presidential immunity from suit which renders the petitions
procedurally infirm.
II.
THE TRAIN LAW WAS VALIDLY PASSED BY
CONGRESS AND SIGNED INTO LAW BY THE
PRESIDENT.
A. The TRAIN Bicameral

Conference Committee
Report was ratified in
accordance with the
1987 Constitution and
the Rules of the House
of Representatives.
46. Petitioners allege that the House of

Representatives ratified the TRAIN BCC Report without a
quorum and without a majority vote of the Members
present, in violation of the following provisions of the 1987
Constitution and the House Rules:
Section 16(2), Article VI of the Constitution
A majority of each House shall constitute a

quorum to do business, but a smaller number
may adjourn from day to day and may compel
the attendance of absent Members in such
manner, and under such penalties, as such
House may provide.
Section 75, Rule XI of the House Rules
A majority of all the Members of the House

shall constitute a quorum. The House shall not
transact business without a quorum….
Section 63, Rule X of the House Rules
54
Id.
19
ACT v. Duterte
G.R. Nos. 236118 & 236295
A conference committee report shall be ratified

by majority vote of the Members of the House
present, there being a quorum.
47. The entries in the House of Representatives

Journal Nos. 48 and 49 dated 13 December 2017 and 15
January 2018, respectively, belie these allegations.
48. Journal No. 48 shows the clear presence of a

quorum to transact business. From a total of two hundred
ninety-five (295) House Members, two hundred thirty-two
(232) members responded to the roll call.55 This number is
more than the majority needed to constitute a quorum, a
majority being a number greater than half of the total.56
49. Journal No. 48 likewise shows that “[o]n motion of

Representative Defensor, there being no objection, the Body
considered and subsequently ratified the Conference
Committee Report on the disagreeing provisions of House
Bill No. 5356… and Senate Bill No. 1592”57 or the TRAIN BCC
Report.
50. These facts are likewise borne by Journal No. 49,

which also contains the approval of Journal No. 48 by
majority of the House Members, viz:
MOTION OF REPRESENTATIVE BONDOC
Rep. Juan Pablo “Rimpy” P. Bondoc then moved for

the approval of Journal No. 48 of December 13, 2017.
OBJECTION OF REPRESENTATIVE TINIO
Rep. Antonio L. Tinio objected to the aforesaid

motion.
REMARKS OF REPRESENTATIVE TINIO
Given five minutes by the Chair to explain his

objection upon Representative Bondoc’s motion,
Representative Tinio asked the Secretariat to amend the
portion entitled “RATIFICATION OF THE CONFERENCE
55
House of Representatives Journal No. 48, 13 December 2017, pp. 1-3, Annex “A” hereof.
56
Zamora vs. Caballero, G.R. No. 147767, 14 January 2004.
57
House of Representatives Journal No. 48, 13 December 2017, p. 12, Annex “A” hereof.
20
ACT v. Duterte
G.R. Nos. 236118 & 236295
COMMITTEE REPORT ON HOUSE BILL NO. 5636 AND

SENATE BILL NO. 1592” on page 12 of Journal No. 48 in
order to reflect (1) his and Rep. Carlos Isagani T. Zarate’s
numerous objections to said ratification and (2) his
objection to said ratification on the basis of lack of
quorum.
MOTION OF REPRESENTATIVE BONDOC
Representative Bondoc moved that the House first

vote on his motion to approve Journal No. 48.
REMARKS OF REPRESENTATIVE TINIO
Representative Tinio also contested the statement in

the aforecited portion of Journal No. 48 that the Body
ratified said Committee Report and argued that no voting
had taken place thereon. He asked the Secretariat to
correct the use of the word “ratified” as he cited the House
Rules on (1) the ratification of a Conference Committee
Report by a majority vote of the Members of the House,
there being a quorum; and (2) the conduct of a voting on
motions or questions where the Speaker shall first say, “as
many as are in favor, say aye” and thereafter say, “as
many as are opposed, say nay” after the affirmative vote
is counted.
REMARKS OF REPRESENTATIVE BONDOC
Representative Bondoc remarked that based on the

records of the Secretariat, the December 13, 2017
session had a quorum of 232 Members; and the
requirement as mentioned by Representative Tinio
was thus met in said session.
DIVISION OF THE HOUSE
With Representative Bondoc reiterating his previous

motion, the Chair called for a division of the House.
APPROVAL OF JOURNAL NO. 48
With Majority of the Members voting in favor of

Representative Bondoc’s motion, the Body approved
Journal No. 48 dated December 13, 2017.58
51. Under Section 18 (g), Rule 6 of the House Rules,

the Journal of each session shall be the clear and succinct
58
A copy of House of Representatives Journal No. 49 dated 15 January 2018 is attached hereto as Annex
“C”, p. 45; emphasis supplied.
21
ACT v. Duterte
G.R. Nos. 236118 & 236295
account of the business conducted and actions taken by

the House of Representatives. The Journal, which is required
to be certified to be correct by the Secretary General of the
House of Representatives and approved by the majority of
the House of Representatives, is conclusive evidence of
what transpired during the session. In Lagman v. De
Venecia,59 this Honorable Court ruled that the Journal is
regarded as conclusive with respect to matters that are
required by the Constitution to be recorded therein, thus:
The Journal is regarded as conclusive with respect to

matters that are required by the Constitution to be
recorded therein With respect to other matters, in the
absence of evidence to the contrary, the Journals have
also been accorded conclusive effect. Thus, in United
States v. Pons, this Court spoke of the imperatives of
public policy for regarding the Journals as "public
memorials of the most permanent character," thus: "They
should be public, because all are required to conform to
them; they should be permanent, that rights acquired
today upon the faith of what has been declared to be law
shall not be destroyed tomorrow, or at some remote period
of time, by facts resting only in the memory of
individuals." As already noted, the bill which became R.A.
No. 8240 is shown in the Journal. Hence its due enactment
has been duly proven.
52. It is a time-honored rule that courts are bound to

take judicial notice of what the law is and, to enable them to
determine whether the legal requisites to the validity of a
statute have been complied with, it is their right, as well as
their duty, to take notice of the legislative journals. These
journals shall be conclusive evidence upon the courts
as to what actually transpired in Congress, for to
disprove the entries in the journals would be to disprove the
acts of the Government or sovereign itself.60
B. The doctrine of
separation of powers
prevents this
Honorable Court from
inquiring into the
59
G.R. No. 127255, 14 August 1997.
60
United States vs. Pons, 34 Phil. 729 (1916).
22
ACT v. Duterte
G.R. Nos. 236118 & 236295
existence of a quorum
during the 13
December 2017
session of the House
of Representatives, on
account of the
conclusive evidence of
Journal No. 48 and the
enrolled bill of the
TRAIN.
53. The principle of separation of powers refers to the

constitutional demarcation of the three fundamental powers
of government.61 In Angara v. Electoral Commission,62 it
means that the “Constitution has blocked out with deft
strokes and in bold lines, allotment of power to the
executive, the legislative and the judicial departments of the
government.”
54. The primary reason for this principle is to ensure

that no branch of government shall be controlled or
subjected to the influence of another. “One branch should be
left completely independent of the others, independent not
in the sense that the three shall not cooperate in the
common end of carrying into effect the purposes of the
constitution, but in the sense that the acts of each shall
never be controlled by or subjected to the influence of either
of the branches.”63
55. Under the separation of powers, “courts may not

intervene in the internal affairs of the legislature; it is not
within the province of courts to direct Congress how to do its
work.”64 “Constitutional respect and regard for the sovereign
acts of a co-equal branch prevent this Honorable Court from
prying into the internal workings of the Congress.”65
61
Belgica v. Ochoa, G.R. Nos. 208566, 208493 & 209251, 19 November 2013.
62
G.R. No. L-45081, July 15, 1936.
63
The Province of North Cotabato v. The Government of the Republic of the Philippines Peace Panel on
Ancestral Domain, G.R. Nos. 183591, 183752, 183893, 183951 & 183962, 14 October 2008.
64
Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago and Sen. Francisco Tatad v. Sen Teofisto Guingona Jr. and Sen Marcelo
Fernan, G.R. No. 134577, 18 November 1998.
65
Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago and Sen. Francisco Tatad v. Sen Teofisto Guingona Jr. and Sen Marcelo
Fernan, G.R. No. 134577, 18 November 1998.
23
ACT v. Duterte
G.R. Nos. 236118 & 236295
56. The journal and the enrolled bill are conclusive

evidence of the due enactment of a law. The doctrine of
separation of powers dictates that this Honorable Court
should accord respect to the entry on the existence of a
quorum during the session of the House of Representatives
last 13 December 2017. As this Honorable Court held in
Lagman v. De Venecia,66 “[i]t would be an unwarranted
invasion of the prerogative of a coequal department for this
Court either to set aside a legislative action as void because
the Court thinks the House has disregarded its own rules of
procedure, or to allow those defeated in the political arena
to seek a rematch in the judicial forum when petitioners can
find their remedy in that department itself. The Court has
not been invested with a roving commission to inquire into
complaints, real or imagined, of legislative skullduggery. It
would be acting in excess of its power and would itself be
guilty of grave abuse of its discretion were it to do so.”
C. The President
correctly relied on the
enrolled TRAIN bill
when he signed it into
law.
57. Petitioners Tinio, et al. fault the President for

signing the TRAIN bill into law, notwithstanding its alleged
lack of valid ratification, in violation of Section 27(1), Article
VII of the 1987 Constitution.
58. This contention has no merit.
59. Under the enrolled bill doctrine, “the signing of a

bill by the Speaker of the House and the Senate President
and the certification of the Secretaries of both Houses of
Congress that it was passed are conclusive of its due
enactment.”67
60. When the TRAIN bill was presented to the

President, it contained the signatures of Speaker Pantaleon
66
G.R. No. 127255, 14 August 1997.
67
Abakada Guro Party List vs. Ermita, 469 SCRA 1 (2005); see also Arroyo vs. De Venecia, 277 SCRA
268 (1997) and Fariñas vs. The Executive Secretary, 417 SCRA 503 (2003); emphasis supplied.
24
ACT v. Duterte
G.R. Nos. 236118 & 236295
Alvarez and Senate President Aquilino Pimentel III. It also

contained the certification of the Secretaries of both Houses
that it was passed. The President, therefore, was correct in
signing the TRAIN bill into law.
III.
THE PURPOSE OF THE TRAIN LAW IS TO
ERADICATE POVERTY AND REDUCE
INEQUALITY FOR THE GENERAL WELFARE OF
THE PEOPLE.
61. This Honorable Court has long recognized that

taxation is plenary and purely legislative in nature.68 Giving
utmost respect to Congress’ power of taxation, this
Honorable Court pronounced in CREBA69 that “the legislature
wields the power to define what tax shall be imposed, why it
should be imposed, how much tax shall be imposed, against
whom (or what) it shall be imposed and where it shall be
imposed.” 70
62. As an attribute of sovereignty, the power of

taxation is the strongest of all the powers of government.
Although it is touted as essentially unlimited in its range,71
the security against its abuse is to be found in the
responsibility of Congress to promote the general welfare
and well-being of the people.72 For this reason, tax laws are
not only presumed to be constitutional; they also enjoy the
presumption that their enactment emanate from necessity
or for the survival of the government.
63. Congress’ enactment of the TRAIN Law is laden

with policy considerations for the general welfare of the
people. This law was meticulously studied, giving utmost
consideration to the effects of its implementation to the
poorest of the poor. In fact, the core purpose of the TRAIN
Law is to eradicate extreme poverty and reduce inequality
by formulating a tax reform that will utilize the government’s
budget to protect the most vulnerable sectors in the society
68
Chamber of Real Estate and Builders Associations, Inc. v. Romulo, G.R. No. 160756, 09 March 2010.
69
Ibid.
70
Id.
71
Gerochi v. Department of Energy, G.R. No. 159796, 17 July 2007.
72
Ibid.
25
ACT v. Duterte
G.R. Nos. 236118 & 236295
instead of merely giving tax exemptions. The law also aims

to promote cleaner environment and better public health.
64. Respondents wish to highlight the key reforms

introduced by the TRAIN Law that will improve the lives of
the people across the social strata:
(i) The TRAIN Law reformed the personal income tax

system which, since 1997, had remained
unadjusted and had pushed many taxpayers to
the top bracket of taxation, thereby subjecting
them to higher income tax rates. This law not only
lowered the tax rates but also exempted those
whose annual taxable income are Php250,000.00
and below. This means that the government is
estimated to give back Php 146.6 billion to 99% of
the taxpayers.
(ii) The TRAIN Law likewise reformed the VAT system

by making it simpler, fairer and more efficient.
Prior to the tax reform, the VAT system contained
56 lines of exemptions (of which 11 overlaps with
special laws) and 84 additional exemptions
through special laws,73 making our VAT system
susceptible to leakages and corruption. By
removing undue exemptions to VAT and only
limiting tax exemptions to raw food, agriculture,
education and health, the TRAIN Law will allow the
government to collect more revenues without
adversely affecting the poor.
(iii) The TRAIN Law also reformed the excise tax

system by making it more progressive since the
richest two million families consume more than
half of all oil products and transportation costs of
the country. The reform also seeks to reduce
carbon footprint so as to protect public health and
the environment. By correcting and adjusting the
excise tax system, the poor demographic is less
affected by the increase in oil excise taxes. The
government also endeavored to shield the poorest
of the poor from possible price shocks that may be
73
See Section 86 of the TRAIN Law.
26
ACT v. Duterte
G.R. Nos. 236118 & 236295
brought about by the TRAIN Law through social

welfare programs covered by special
appropriations under this law and through the
unconditional cash transfer program.
65. The TRAIN Law is thus a revenue, regulatory and

remedial measure to correct the outdated and inequitable
tax system and to protect public health and the
environment. This law, coupled with other government
programs catered to the poor, seeks to uplift the lives of
ordinary Filipinos.
A. The increase in oil

excise taxes is imbued
with revenue,
regulatory and
remedial policy
considerations.
66. Petitioners assail the constitutionality of the TRAIN

Law on the erroneous assumption that it is regressive. They
mainly attack the validity of the increase in oil excise taxes
on the ground that the lowest social strata will mostly bear
the burden of taxation, in violation of Section 1, Article III74
and Section 28 (1), Article VI of the Constitution.75
67. Contrary to petitioners’ contention, the increase in

oil excise taxes is imbued not just with revenue
considerations, but also with regulatory and remedial
measures for the general welfare.
68. When Congress introduced the staggered increase

in oil excise taxes, it is with the consideration that, the value
of excise tax had eroded over time due to inflation.
Significantly, while there had been a positive change in the
average prices of goods and services typically purchased by
consumers over time,76 oil excise tax rates had not been
adjusted from 1997 until 2017 because excise tax on
74
Laban Petition, pp. 21-24.
75
76
See “The BSP and Price Stability,” retrieved last 12 March 2018 at
http://www.bsp.gov.ph/downloads/Publications/FAQs/targeting.pdf .
27
ACT v. Duterte
G.R. Nos. 236118 & 236295
petroleum products were not indexed to inflation. Under

Section 148 of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC),
as amended by R.A. No. 9337 in 1997, oil excise taxes were
based on their weight or volume capacity, otherwise known
as specific tax.77
69. The non-adjustment of oil excise tax rates had

dire consequences to the government and the public.
70. First, unadjusted tax rates resulted in annual

foregone revenues of about Php 145 billion, a considerable
amount which would have been otherwise used by the
government to fund its projects. Based on the comparison of
gasoline excise tax rates conducted by the International
Energy Agency, the Philippines had one of the lowest excise
tax rates for gasoline and diesel, as compared with other
countries. This is illustrated by the DOF in the infographics
below:
77
In relation to NIRC, Sec. 129.
28
ACT v. Duterte
G.R. Nos. 236118 & 236295
71. This likewise rendered the Philippine excise tax

system less progressive by favoring the richest households
which consume at least half of the fuel in the economy. This
is further illustrated by the DOF’s infographic below:
29
ACT v. Duterte
G.R. Nos. 236118 & 236295
72. Under the TRAIN Law, although excise tax rates

remain to be pegged on weight or volume capacity, oil
excise tax rates will be adjusted gradually starting 2018 until
2020. Due to the non-adjustment of oil excise tax rates for
20 years, tax collection has been nominally increasing
because of higher consumption, and population and
economic growth. However, the value of oil excise revenues
has been eroded as a percent of GDP. This is illustrated in
the following charts prepared by the DOF:
30
ACT v. Duterte
G.R. Nos. 236118 & 236295
73. Second, the unadjusted tax rates eroded the

government’s ability to mitigate environmental and health
impact of pollution, and to internalize the costs of climate
change-induced calamities. The increase in the number of
diesel emission in the country, as a result of tax exemption
of diesel oil, contributed to the increased levels of outdoor
air pollution, which is linked to 2.7 million premature births
31
ACT v. Duterte
G.R. Nos. 236118 & 236295
each year.78 In fact, the air pollution levels in Metro Manila

alone exceeds the threshold set by the World Health
Organization, as illustrated below:
Note: PM 10 pertains to particulate matter with a diameter is 10 or less micrometers.

While PM 2.5 pertains to particulate matter with a diameter that is 2.5 or less
micrometers. These particles can be drawn deep into the lungs.
74. Notably, gasoline excise tax rates remained at Php

4.35 per liter since 199779 in contrast to diesel, the more
polluting fuel type,80 which was taxed at merely Php 1.63
per liter from 1997 until 200481 and exempted from excise
tax beginning 2005 until 2017.82 Over time, with cheaper
diesel prices, consumers shifted to diesel sports utility
vehicles (SUV). Data from the Land Transportation Office
(LTO) shows that, in 2013, some 72% of newly registered
SUVs are diesel powered compared to 28% of gasoline.83
The former tax regime thus only gave tax breaks to rich
people who could afford to buy SUVs.
78
See scientific journal published by the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) entitled “Preterm Birth
Associated with Maternal Fine Particular Matter Exposure: A Global, Regional, and National Assessment”
at https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412016305992; last accessed on 19 April 2018.
79
NIRC, Sec. 148, as amended by R.A. No. 9337.
80
See Emission Facts Report of the United States Environmental Protection Agency at
https://www.chargepoint.com/files/420f05001.pdf; last accessed on 19 April 2018.
81
NIRC, Sec. 148, prior to the amendments under R.A. No. 9337.
82
See R.A. No. 9337.
83
LTO Annual Statistics from 2005 to 2015.
32
ACT v. Duterte
G.R. Nos. 236118 & 236295
Registration of privately owned sports utility vehicles (SUVs), 2008-

2013
Newly registered Renewed registration
Grand
Year Gas Diesel Gas Diesel
total Total Total
engine engine engine engine
2008 192,207 25,835 13,415 12,420 166,372 94,557 97,650
2009 219,791 31,346 11,167 20,179 188,445 99,396 120,395
2010 258,804 40,303 14,884 25,419 218,501 117,849 140,955
2011 281,600 39,673 13,635 26,038 241,927 122,504 159,096
2012 307,752 41,964 13,260 28,704 265,788 132,785 174,967
2013 343,667 46,355 13,044 33,311 297,312 141,171 202,496
Source: LTO
75. Worse, despite the sharp increase of oil prices

from 2003 to 2016, the purchase of cars continued to
increase, which contributed to the sharp increase of carbon
footprint in the country, as illustrated below:
76. In June 2012, the World Health Organization

(WHO) classified diesel engine exhaust as carcinogenic.
According to the International Agency for Research on
Cancer, which is part of the WHO, there is a scientific
33
ACT v. Duterte
G.R. Nos. 236118 & 236295
evidence that diesel engine exhaust causes lung cancer in

humans and that there is a positive association of diesel
engine exhaust with an increased risk of bladder cancer.84
77. These policy considerations impelled Congress to

increase oil excise tax rates not just as a revenue measure
but also as regulatory and remedial measures. To encourage
the public to reduce their carbon footprint, Section 149 of
the TRAIN Law exempts purely electric vehicles from excise
tax on automobiles and subjects hybrid vehicles to only 50%
of the applicable excise tax rates on automobiles.
78. The oil excise tax provisions in the TRAIN Law is

taken in conjunction with other programs such as the
Jeepney Modernization Program, which is projected to
reduce carbon dioxide emission of jeepneys by 43%. These
reforms are projected to result in health savings worth Php
12.3 billion annually and the reduction of social cost by
some Php 836 million. This also benefits the jeepney drivers
who will enjoy higher take home pay as a result of better
fuel economy.85 To illustrate:
84
See United Nations’ article “UN health agency re-classifies diesel engine exhaust as ‘carcinogenic to
humans” at https://news.un.org/en/story/2012/06/412932-un-health-agency-re-classifies-diesel-engine-
exhaust-carcinogenic-humans; last accessed on 19 April 2018.
85
See environmental study of Clean Air Asia and Blacksmith Institute entitled “Alternative Technologies
for the Philippine Utility Jeepney” at http://cleanairasia.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Jeepney-CB-
Study.pdf; last accessed on 19 April 2018.
34
ACT v. Duterte
G.R. Nos. 236118 & 236295
35
ACT v. Duterte
G.R. Nos. 236118 & 236295
36
ACT v. Duterte
G.R. Nos. 236118 & 236295
B. The TRAIN Law is

progressive.
79. According to petitioners, the provisions of the

TRAIN Law which increase the imposition of the excise taxes
on coal, LPG, kerosene and diesel should be declared null
and void for being inequitable and regressive, contrary to
37
ACT v. Duterte
G.R. Nos. 236118 & 236295
the provisions of Section 28 (1), Article VI of the 1987

Constitution.86
80. At the onset, respondents would like to stress that

mere allegation that a tax enactment is regressive is
insufficient to declare a legislation as unconstitutional. In
Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance,87 this Honorable Court
already declared that regressivity is not a negative
constitutional standard or a judicially enforceable right for
courts to enforce because what is merely required by
Section 28 (1), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution is for
Congress to evolve a progressive system of taxation. This
Honorable Court pronounced:
[R]egressivity is not a negative standard for

courts to enforce. What Congress is required by the
Constitution to do is to “evolve a progressive system
of taxation.” This is a directive to Congress, just like the
directive to it to give priority to the enactment of laws for
the enhancement of human dignity and the reduction of
social, economic and political inequalities [Art. XIII,
Section 1] or for the promotion of the right to "quality
education" [Art. XIV, Section 1]. These provisions are
put in the Constitution as moral incentives to
legislation, not as judicially enforceable rights.88
81. In any case, petitioners’ claim that the TRAIN Law

is regressive is entirely erroneous.
82. When petitioners raised allegations of regressivity,

confiscation of property and violation of equal protection
clause, it is incumbent upon them to prove such allegations
with hard evidence. Unfortunately, petitioners, apart from
few citations from government agencies, mainly rely on
newspaper articles, which, in the words of this Honorable
Court in the case of Feria v. Court of Appeals,89 are “hearsay
evidence, twice removed.” It thus appears that what
petitioners air are grievances in the abstract, mere
hypothetical scenarios for absence of concrete proof of
alleged violations of the 1987 Constitution.
86
87
G.R. No. 115455, 25 August 1994.
88
Emphasis supplied. British American Tobacco v. Camaco, G.R. No. 163583, 15 April 2009.
89
G.R. No. 122954, 15 February 2000.
38
ACT v. Duterte
G.R. Nos. 236118 & 236295
83. Petitioners should be reminded that this Honorable

Court is a court of last resort and should not be called upon
to strike down a revenue measure on the mere allegation of
arbitrariness by the taxpayer. To be sure, this Honorable
Court is not a third legislative chamber to review policy
decisions of Congress absent palpable grave abuse of
discretion. The power of judicial review should not be used
every time a taxpayer disagrees with the policy
considerations of Congress, more so when a law enjoys the
presumption of constitutionality. Justices are called upon to
render judgment according to law, not according to what
may appear to be the opinion of the day.90 In CREBA,91 this
Honorable Court said:
But in the same case, we also explained that

we will not strike down a revenue measure as
unconstitutional (for being violative of the due
process clause) on the mere allegation of
arbitrariness by the taxpayer. There must be a
factual foundation to such an unconstitutional
taint. This merely adheres to the authoritative doctrine
that, where the due process clause is invoked,
considering that it is not a fixed rule but rather a broad
standard, there is a need for proof of such persuasive
character.92
84. Respondent cannot stress enough that the TRAIN

Law is a tax enactment that endeavored to evolve a
progressive system of taxation. Contrary to petitioners’
unfounded claims, those who consume more petroleum
products will pay more tax compared to those who consume
less. And those who consume more petroleum products are
the rich, not the poor.
85. Using the 2015 Family Income and Expenditure

Survey (2015 FIES) of the Philippine Statistical Authority
(PSA), the richest 2 million households (or the top 10% of
households) consume around 50% of petroleum products.
The top 1% (or the richest 200,000 households) consume
around 13% of petroleum products. This is the same share
that the bottom 50% consume. In other words, the richest
10% of Filipino families consume as much as the poorest
90
Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance, G.R. No. 115455, 25 August 1994.
91
G.R. No. 159796, 17 July 2007.
92
Emphasis supplied. Chamber of Real Estate and Builders Associations, Inc. v. Romulo, G.R. No. 160756,
09 March 2010.
39
ACT v. Duterte
G.R. Nos. 236118 & 236295
80% combined. To illustrate, the DOF has used the following

infographics:
86. Furthermore, the imposition of excise tax on diesel

will affect the rich more since, as already discussed,
consumers had shifted to diesel SUVs over time. Notably, a
full tank of diesel per week is estimated to cost around Php
2,000.00. Since only one or two persons generally ride an
SUV, while a jeepney is usually shared with twenty people,
jeepney passengers who pay Php 40.00 per day or Php
280.00 per week only pay Php 84.00 for oil since it is
estimated that around 30% of the total fare is due to the oil
price.93
87. Petitioners also allege that “[w]ith the TRAIN Law

expected to push fuel prices higher, corresponding increases
93
Based on the study of the National Tax Research Center’s study on the daily average costs of jeepney
and bus operations in Metro Manila.
40
ACT v. Duterte
G.R. Nos. 236118 & 236295
in transport fares, food and electricity rates will definitely

result therefrom.”94
88. This claim is erroneous.
89. The increase in oil excise taxes will have minimal

effect on the price of commodities. For 2018, the increase in
oil excise taxes is projected to have a maximum effect of
0.1% increase in inflation rate on food, 0.1% increase on
transportation, 0.0% effect on electricity, and 0.2% increase
on other items this year. For 2019, the maximum effect of
the increase in oil excise taxes on the inflation rate are
merely 0.1% on food, 0.1% on transportation, 0.0% on
electricity, 0.1% on other items. For 2020, the maximum
effect of the increase of oil excise taxes on the inflation rate
are as follows: 0.1% on food, 0.0% on transportation, 0.0%
on electricity, 0.1% on other items. Below are the estimated
maximum price effects of oil excise on inflation for the years
2018, 2019, and 2020:
Estimated price effect of oil excise on inflation (maximum effect)
Inflation rate
Year
(%)
2018 0.4
2019 0.4
2010 0.2
Source: DOF estimates
90. While overall inflation may increase by 0.7

percentage points in the short-term, and by 0.3 percentage
points in the long-term,95 the increase in the households’
take-home pay will more than compensate for the price
increase. As in previous tax reforms, e.g., the expansion of
VAT in 2005 under R.A. No. 9337, and the implementation
of the Sin Tax Law or R.A. No. 10351 in 2013, price
pressures were merely temporary and did not require a
policy response from the BSP.96
94
95
Ibid.
96
See Highlights of the Meeting of the Monetary Board on the Monetary Policy Stance Held on 8 February
2018, at http://www.bsp.gov.ph/downloads/MB/2018/mb02082018.pdf; last accessed on 19 April 2018.
41
ACT v. Duterte
G.R. Nos. 236118 & 236295
91. The inflation in January 2018 was 3.4%97 while

the inflation in February and March 2018 were 3.8% and
4.3%, respectively, using the revised schedule of Consumer
Price Index (CPI).98 Despite March inflation breaching the
target of the BSP, year-to-date inflation, at 3.8 percent, is
still well within the 2 to 4% inflation rate target of the BSP
and cannot be solely attributed to the implementation of the
TRAIN Law.99 Notably, for the year 2018, the Monetary
Board has decided to maintain the current policy, as they
expect inflation to be moderate and settle within the target
in the coming months. Furthermore, a moderate increase in
the inflation rate is not alarming, especially in a fast-growing
economy.100
92. Respondents also emphasize that contrary to

petitioners’ assertion that oil excise taxes will drive the price
of commodities, increase in diesel prices have no significant
direct relation to inflation rate on food, transportation,
electricity, gas, housing, and water.
93. An examination of past inflation rates from

January 2016 to January 2017 shows that inflation remained
low and stable despite significant increase in diesel prices in
2016. Overall inflation remained low at 2.7%, with inflation
rate on food at 3.4%, transportation at 2.4%, and
electricity, gas, housing and water at 1.8%, despite the
notable increase of diesel price by around Php 14.00 or
75%. In fact, from January 2016 to January 2017, prices of
most essential food like pork, rice and corn even fell, while
prices of most items such as laundry bar and sardines did
not increase. Of the items that increased, such as fish
(bangus) and noodles, price change was merely minimal. To
illustrate, the DOF uses the following infographics:
97
See DOF’s January 2018 TRAIN Law Report, at https://www.dof.gov.ph/index.php/economists-trace-
january-inflation-spike-to-higher-global-oil-prices-weather-related-food-price-hikes/; last accessed on 19
April 2018.
98
See DOF’s February 2018 TRAIN Law Report, at http://www.dof.gov.ph/taxreform/?wpdmdl=2656; last
99
Ibid.
100
Ibid., See Highlights of the Meeting of the Monetary Board.
42
ACT v. Duterte
G.R. Nos. 236118 & 236295
43
ACT v. Duterte
G.R. Nos. 236118 & 236295
94. As shown in studies by the DOF illustrated below,

increase in oil excise tax rates is projected to have only a
small impact on food prices while moderate on
transportation and freight.
44
ACT v. Duterte
G.R. Nos. 236118 & 236295
95. Respondents likewise invite this Honorable Court’s

attention to the following price estimates of an 11 kg LPG,
diesel, and kerosene from December 2017 to January 2020:
Projected price of an 11 kg LPG
Indicative pump prices

Dec Jan 2018 Jan 2019 Jan 2020
2017
11 kg LPG (PHP per 663.50 675.82 688.14 700.46
kg)
Note: Dec 2017 price is based on early December average price from DOE.101
Projected price of diesel

Dec 2017 Jan 2018 Jan 2019 Jan 2020
Diesel (PHP per L) 36.35 39.15 41.39 43.07
Note: Dec 2017 price is based on mid-December common price from DOE.102
Projected price of kerosene

Dec 2017 Jan 2018 Jan 2019 Jan 2020
Kerosene (PHP per L) 41.09 44.45 45.57 46.69
103
Note: Dec 2017 price is based on mid-December common price from DOE.
101
The December 2017 price is available at
https://www.doe.gov.ph/sites/default/files/pdf/price_watch/lpg_mm_2017_december_04.pdf; last accessed
on 19 April 2018.
102
https://www.doe.gov.ph/sites/default/files/pdf/price_watch/petro_mm_2017_december_19.pdf; last
103
https://www.doe.gov.ph/sites/default/files/pdf/price_watch/petro_mm_2017_december_19.pdf; last
45
ACT v. Duterte
G.R. Nos. 236118 & 236295
96. It is likewise projected that there will be minimal

increase in electricity rates due to the increase in excise tax
on coal. Higher excise tax on oil and coal is estimated to add
only Php5 (Php1 due to coal and Php4 due to oil excise) to a
household that consumes 100-kilowatt hour per month and
pays Php780 per month, as illustrated by the DOF in the
infographics below:
Below is the breakdown of the potential increase in

cost:
46
ACT v. Duterte
G.R. Nos. 236118 & 236295
97. For further guidance of this Honorable Court,

respondents attach hereto various tables on inflation studies
and price projections, which show the minimal effect on the
price of commodities as a consequence of the increase in oil
excise taxes, the DOF illustrate viz:
47
ACT v. Duterte
G.R. Nos. 236118 & 236295
48
ACT v. Duterte
G.R. Nos. 236118 & 236295
98. To reiterate, the TRAIN Law has been carefully

designed as not to trigger extreme price shocks, especially
in prime commodities. During the first three years of
implementation, the DOF expects a temporary and muted
inflation impact. Specifically, the DOF expects an additional
inflation maximum of 0.4% for 2018, 0.4% for 2019, and
0.2% for 2020.104 This is in line with the NEDA’s estimates,
and well within the BSP’s target range. The impact is
expected to taper off eventually in the medium-term, as
experienced in 2005 when RVAT was introduced.
99. Assuming, however, that Dubai crude oil will

drastically increase from 2018 to 2020, which is currently
priced at around USD 60 per barrel, the TRAIN Law has
prepared for this situation by providing an automatic
suspension of excise tax. Under Section 43 of this law, the
scheduled increase in the excise tax on fuel shall be
suspended when the average Dubai crude oil price based on
Mean of Platts Singapore for three (3) months prior to the
scheduled increase of the month reaches or exceeds USD 80
per barrel, thus:
SECTION 43. Section 148 of the NIRC, as amended, is

hereby further amended to read as follows:
104
Ibid., see DOF study on 2018, 2019, 2020 Price effect of oil excise on inflation.
49
ACT v. Duterte
G.R. Nos. 236118 & 236295
“SEC. 148. Manufactured Oils and Other Fuels.—

There shall be collected on refined and
manufactured mineral oils and motor fuels, the
following excise taxes which shall attach to the
goods hereunder enumerated as soon as they are in
existence as such:
xxx
“For the period covering 2018 to 2020, the

scheduled increase in the excise tax on fuel as
imposed in this Section shall be suspended
when the average Dubai crude oil price based
on Mean of Platts Singapore (MOPS)for three
(3) months prior to the scheduled increase of
the month reaches or exceeds Eighty dollars
(USD 80) per barrel.
“Provided, That the Department of Finance shall

perform an annual review of the implementation of
the excise tax on fuel and shall, based on projections
provided and recommendations of the Development
Budget Coordination Committee, as reconciled from
the conditions as provided above, recommend the
implementation or suspension of the excise tax on
fuel: Provided, further, That the recommendation
shall be given on a yearly basis: Provided, finally,
That any suspension of the increase in excise tax
shall not result in any reduction of the excise tax
being imposed at the time of the suspension.”105
C. The TRAIN Law does

not violate the due
process clause.
100. According to petitioners, “[t]he imposition of

excise taxes on diesel, LPG, kerosene and the increase in the
excise tax on coal will operate to offset whatever savings
ordinary wage earners, if not bring these families into debt,
would derive from lower income tax.”106 Citing the case of
Sison v. Ancheta (Sison),107 petitioners argue that the
constitutional right to due process may be invoked in
instances when a statute amounts to an outright confiscation
of property.108
105
Emphasis supplied.
106
107
G.R. No. L-59431, 25 July 1984.
108
50
ACT v. Duterte
G.R. Nos. 236118 & 236295
101. While this Honorable Court indeed stated in Sison

that the due process clause may properly be invoked to
invalidate a revenue measure when it amounts to a
confiscation of property, petitioners omitted to state that
this Honorable Court dismissed the petition to invalidate
Section 1 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 135, a tax legislation.
102. In dismissing the petition in Sison, this Honorable

Court qualified the invocation of due process clause in
assailing tax enactments. According to this Honorable Court,
it will not strike down a revenue measure as unconstitutional
for being violative of the due process clause on the mere
allegation of arbitrariness by the taxpayer. Furthermore, due
process may only be invoked where the assailed tax
measure is beyond the jurisdiction of the state, or is not for
a public purpose, or, in case of a retroactive statute, is so
harsh and unreasonable, to wit:
4. The difficulty confronting petitioner is thus

apparent. He alleges arbitrariness. A mere
allegation, as here. does not suffice. There must be a
factual foundation of such unconstitutional taint.
Considering that petitioner here would condemn such a
provision as void or its face, he has not made out a case.
This is merely to adhere to the authoritative doctrine that
were the due process and equal protection clauses are
invoked, considering that they are not fixed rules but
rather broad standards, there is a need for of such
persuasive character as would lead to such a conclusion.
Absent such a showing, the presumption of validity
must prevail.
5. It is undoubted that the due process clause may

be invoked where a taxing statute is so arbitrary that it
finds no support in the Constitution. An obvious example is
where it can be shown to amount to the confiscation of
property. That would be a clear abuse of power. It then
becomes the duty of this Court to say that such an
arbitrary act amounted to the exercise of an authority not
conferred. That properly calls for the application of the
Holmes dictum. It has also been held that where the
assailed tax measure is beyond the jurisdiction of
the state, or is not for a public purpose, or, in case of
51
ACT v. Duterte
G.R. Nos. 236118 & 236295
a retroactive statute is so harsh and unreasonable, it

is subject to attack on due process grounds.109
103. As discussed above, the increase in oil excise

taxes have policy considerations anchored on the general
welfare of the people. Moreover, petitioners’ opinion that the
TRAIN Law will unduly burden the poor is inaccurate. The
unconditional cash transfer program for the poorest of the
poor and the increase in take home pay for wage earners
will more than compensate them for the price increase that
may be brought about by the TRAIN Law.
(i) For the poorest of the poor who are also non-
wage earners, the unconditional cash
transfer program will more than assist them
for the price increase of commodities.
104. In order to mitigate the impact of oil excise on the

poor and vulnerable families, a three-year unconditional
cash transfer is implemented under the TRAIN Law, on top
of the current 4Ps110 programs of the Department of Social
Welfare and Development (DSWD). For five (5) years from
the effectivity of the TRAIN Law, the yearly incremental
revenues generated shall be automatically appropriated for
unconditional cash transfers to households in the first to
seventh income deciles. There shall likewise be automatic
appropriation for social welfare and benefits program where
qualified beneficiaries shall be provided with a social benefits
card to avail of the following social benefits. Section 81 of
the TRAIN Law provides:

“SEC. 269. Violations Committed by Government

Enforcement Officers. — x x x
xxx
“(F) Incremental Revenues from the Tax Reform for

Acceleration and Inclusion (TRAIN).— For five (5)
years from the effectivity of this Act, the yearly
incremental revenues generated shall be
automatically appropriated as follows:
xxx
109
Emphasis supplied.
110
This means “Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program.”
52
ACT v. Duterte
G.R. Nos. 236118 & 236295
“(c) A social welfare and benefits program where

qualified beneficiaries shall be provided with a social
benefits card to avail of the following social benefits:
“(i) Unconditional cash transfer to households in the

first to seventh income deciles of the National
Household Targeting System for Poverty Reduction
(NHTS-PR), Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program,
and the social pension program for a period of three
(3) years from the effectivity of this Act: Provided,
That the unconditional cash transfer shall be Two
hundred pesos (₱200.00) per month for the first year
and Three hundred pesos (₱300.00) per month for
the second year and third-year, to be implemented
by the Department of Social Welfare and
Development (DSWD);
105. Thus, for the poorest 50% of households with little

income or are already tax exempt, the cash transfers of Php
2,400.00 for the first year of the implementation of the
TRAIN Law, and Php 3,600.00 for the subsequent two years
ensure that additional expenses of the poorest households
as a consequence of the enactment of the TRAIN Law will be
more than offset.
106. Below is the DOF micro impact analysis of TRAIN

for 2018, which shows that once cash transfer (12th column)
is provided to the poorest families, they will see a positive
increase in their income (13th column) even after factoring
moderate increase in prices of goods and services (5th to 9th
columns). The poorest 5 deciles will see positive increase in
their income, even after factoring moderate increase in food
prices due to higher oil excise:
53
ACT v. Duterte
G.R. Nos. 236118 & 236295
107. For the years 2019 and 2020, the targeted

transfers to the poorest families is projected to result in a
positive increase in their income (13th column), even after
factoring moderate increase in prices of goods and services,
as shown below:
54
ACT v. Duterte
G.R. Nos. 236118 & 236295
(ii) For wage earners, the increase in take home

pay will more than compensate for the price
increase of commodities.
108. With respect to wage earners, this Honorable

Court should take cognizance that beginning the effectivity
of R.A. No. 9504111 in 2008, minimum wage earners112 had
already been exempt by Congress from personal income tax.
Minimum wage earners—which refer to workers in the
private sector paid the statutory minimum wage, or to
employees in the public sector with compensation income of
not more than the statutory minimum wage in the non-
agricultural sector where they are assigned113—had not been
paying income taxes for already ten (10) years.
109. Congress, however, recognized that personal

income taxation could still be improved for the people’s
welfare. Under R.A. No. 9504, if a person’s income exceeded
the minimum wage by just Php 1.00, his entire income
becomes taxable. This created the situation wherein
minimum wage earners and their employers merely agreed
to employ the workers at minimum wage to avoid income
taxation. Under Section 24 (A) (2) of the NIRC, as amended
111
Also known as “An Act Amending Section 22, 24, 34, 35, 51, and 79 of Republic Act No. 8424, as
amended otherwise known as the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997.”
112
See Sec. 24 (A) (2) of the NIRC, as amended by R.A. No. 9504.
113
NIRC, as amended by R.A. No. 9504, Sec. 22 (GG).
55
ACT v. Duterte
G.R. Nos. 236118 & 236295
by R.A. No. 9504, even taxable income not over Php

10,000.00 earned by non-minimum wage earners is subject
to 5% income tax rate, as shown below:
“Not over P10,000 5%

“Over P10,000 but not over P500 + 10% of the excess over
P30,000 P10,000
“Over P30,000 but not over P2,500 + 15% of the excess over
P70,000 P30,000
“Over P70,000 but not over P8,500 + 20% of the excess over
P140,000 P70,000
“Over P140,000 but not over P22,500 +25% of the excess over
P250,000 P140,000
“Over 250,000 but not over P50,000 + 30% of the excess over
P500,000 P250,000
“Over P500,000 P125,000 + 32% of the excess over
P500,000.
110. To make personal income taxation more equitable

and progressive, Congress has deemed it fit to exempt from
income tax the first Php 250,000.00 of the annual taxable
income. This means that employers and minimum wage
earners have now the liberty to increase wages, without
being concerned of a reduced net pay of the employee as a
result of such increase. Shown below is the tax schedule
effective 01 January 2018 until 31 December 2022:
“Not over ₱250,000 0%
“Over ₱250,000 but not over 20% of the excess over ₱250,000
₱400,000
“Over ₱400,000 but not over ₱30,000 + 25% of the excess over
₱800,000 ₱400,000
₱2,000,000 ₱800,000
“Over ₱2,000,000 but not over ₱490,000 + 32% of the excess over
₱5,000,000 ₱2,000,000
“Over ₱8,000,000 ₱2,410,000 + 35% of the excess

over ₱8,000,000
56
ACT v. Duterte
G.R. Nos. 236118 & 236295
111. Beginning 01 January 2023 and onwards, the

TRAIN Law will further reduce the income tax rate for
taxable income over Php 250,000.00, as shown in the
following schedule:
“Not over ₱250,000 0%
“Over ₱250,000 but not over 15% of the excess over ₱250,000
₱400,000
₱800,000 ₱400,000
₱2,000,000 ₱800,000
“Over ₱2,000,000 but not over ₱402,500 + 30% of the excess over
₱8,000,000 ₱2,000,000
“Over ₱8,000,000 ₱2,202,500 + 35% of the excess

over ₱8,000,000
112. For the guidance of this Honorable Court, below

are infographics of the different scenarios showing the
overall impact of the TRAIN Law as a consequence of
adjustments in personal income tax system. Everyone, from
construction workers, to call center agents, to public school
teachers and medical specialists working in the government
are projected to benefit:
57
ACT v. Duterte
G.R. Nos. 236118 & 236295
58
ACT v. Duterte
G.R. Nos. 236118 & 236295
59
ACT v. Duterte
G.R. Nos. 236118 & 236295
113. 83% of current taxpayers or 4.7 million taxpayers

will thus benefit from the current personal income tax
regime under the TRAIN Law.114 Poor families will also
benefit from the immediate multiplier effect of Php150 billion
to given back to the people as a result of income tax rates
adjustment, which is projected to create more demand,
investments and jobs.
114. Moreover, they will benefit from better social

services to be funded by generated revenues under the
TRAIN Law. Under Section 82 of this law, incremental
revenues generated from the implementation of the TRAIN
Law for five (5) years beginning 01 January 2018 shall be
automatically appropriated to fund infrastructure programs,
livelihood programs, social mitigating measures and
investments, social welfare and benefits program, and other
social benefits programs:

“SEC. 288. Disposition of Incremental Revenue.—
“(A) x x x
“(B) x x x
“(C) x x x
114
Based on DOF computation.
60
ACT v. Duterte
G.R. Nos. 236118 & 236295
“(D) x x x
“(E) x x x
“(F) Incremental Revenues from the Tax Reform for
Acceleration and Inclusion (TRAIN).— For five (5)
years from the effectivity of this Act, the
yearly incremental revenues generated shall
be automatically appropriated as follows:
“(1) Not more than-seventy percent (70%) to

fund infrastructure projects such as, but not
limited to, the Build, Build, Build Program and
provide infrastructure programs to address
congestion through mass transport and new
road networks military infrastructure, sports
facilities for public schools, and potable
drinking water supply in all public places; and
“(2) Not more than thirty percent (30%) to

fund:
“(a) Programs under Republic Act No. 10659

otherwise known as ‘Sugarcane Industry
Development Act of 2015’, to advance the self-
reliance of sugar farmers that will increase
productivity, provide livelihood opportunities,
develop alternative farming systems and
ultimately enhance farmers’ income;
“(b) Social mitigating measures and

investments in: (i) education, (ii) health,
targeted nutrition, and anti-hunger programs
for mother’s infants, and young children, (iii)
social protection, (iv) employment, and (v)
housing that prioritize and directly benefit
both the poor and near-poor households;
“(c) A social welfare and benefits program

where qualified beneficiaries shall be provided
with a social benefits card to avail of the
following social benefits:
“(i) Unconditional cash transfer to households

in the first to seventh income deciles of the
National Household Targeting System for
Poverty Reduction (NHTS-PR), Pantawid
Pamilyang Pilipino Program, and the social
pension program for a period of three (3)
years from the effectivity of this Act: Provided,
That the unconditional cash transfer shall be
Two hundred pesos (₱200.00) per month for
the first year and Three hundred pesos
(₱300.00) per month for the second year and
third-year, to be implemented by the
61
ACT v. Duterte
G.R. Nos. 236118 & 236295
Department of Social Welfare and

Development (DSWD);
“(ii) Fuel vouchers to qualified franchise

holders of Public Utility Jeepneys (PUJs);
“(iii)For minimum wage earners, unemployed,
and the poorest fifty percent (50%) of the
population:
“(1) Fare discount from all public utility

vehicles (except trucks for hire and school
transport service) in the amount equivalent to
ten percent (10%) of the authorized fare;
“(2) Discounted purchase of National Food

Authority (NFA) rice from accredited retail
stores in the amount equivalent to ten percent
(10%) of the net retail prices, up to a
maximum of twenty (20) kilos per month; and
“(3) Free skills training under a program

implemented by the Technical Skills and
Development Authority (TESDA).
“Provided, That benefits or grants contained in

this Subsection shall not be availed in addition
to any other discounts.
“(iv) Other social benefits programs to be

developed and implemented by the
government.
“Notwithstanding any provisions herein to the

contrary, the incremental revenues from the
tobacco taxes under this Act shall be subject to
Section 3 of Republic Act No. 7171, otherwise
known as ‘An Act to Promote the Development of
the Farmer in the Virginia Tobacco Producing
Provinces’, and Section 8 of Republic Act No. 8240,
otherwise known as ‘An Act Amending Sections 138,
139, 140 and 142 of the National Internal Revenue
Code, as Amended, and for Other Purposes’.
“An interagency committee, chaired by the

Department of Budget and Management (DBM) and
co-chaired by DOF and DSWD, and comprised of the
National Economic and Development Authority
(NEDA), Department of Transportation (DOTr),
Department of Education (DepEd), Department of
Health (DOH), Department of Labor and
Employment (DOLE), National Housing Authority
(NHA), Sugar Regulatory Administration (SRA),
Department of the Interior and Local Government
62
ACT v. Duterte
G.R. Nos. 236118 & 236295
(DILG), Department of Energy (DOE), NFA, and

TESDA, is hereby created to oversee the
identification of qualified beneficiaries and the
implementation of these projects and
programs: Provided, That qualified beneficiaries
under Subsection (c) hereof shall be identified using
the National ID System which may be enacted by
Congress.
“Within sixty (60) days from the end of the three

(3)-year period from the effectivity of this Act, the
interagency committee and respective implementing
agencies for the above programs shall submit
corresponding program assessments to the
COCCTRP. The National Expenditure Program from
2019 onwards shall provide line items that
correspond to the allocations mandated in the
provisions above.
“At the end of five (5) years from the effectivity of

this Act, all earmarking provisions under Subsection
(F), shall cease to exist and all incremental
revenues derived under this Act shall accrue to the
General Fund of the government.”115
115. It is thus very misleading for petitioners to claim

that the TRAIN Law will amount to confiscation of property.
Considering that social safety nets are provided to poor and
vulnerable households, the distribution of income will shield
the poor from economic shocks.
D. The TRAIN Law does

not violate the equal
protection clause.
116. According to petitioners, the TRAIN Law violates

the equal protection because it “imposes a heavy financial
burden to low-income and poor families,”116 while it “will
have no effect to high-income families.”117 Petitioners add
that “[i]n imposing high excise taxes on diesel, LPG,
kerosene and coal, the Congress failed to take into account
that taxes on these goods are substantially different from
those of cars and cigarettes.”118 Petitioners argue that
115
Emphasis supplied.
116
117
Ibid.
118
Id.
63
ACT v. Duterte
G.R. Nos. 236118 & 236295
“unlike cars and cigarettes, the increase in the excise tax on

diesel, LPG, kerosene and coal, greatly affects the basic
commodities, essential to the day to day living of every
Filipino.”119
117. As already discussed, there is no violation of equal

protection clause because petitioners’ claim that low-income
families will be burdened more than high-income families is
false. Petitioners likewise failed to cite any provision of the
TRAIN Law that specifically and expressly discriminates
the poor and unduly favors the rich when it comes to the
imposition and payment of internal revenues. What
petitioners thus complain before this Honorable Court is their
opinion of the possible future effects of the TRAIN Law,
which petitioners failed to substantiate.
118. In any case, even assuming for argument’s sake

that there was indeed inequality in the taxation of the
subjects, this alone is an insufficient ground to declare the
TRAIN Law as unconstitutional. It is settled that the rule of
uniformity in taxation does not call for perfect uniformity or
perfect equality, because this is hardly attainable. In British
American Tobacco v. Camacho,120 citing Sison, this
Honorable Court explained:
Petitioner likewise invoked the kindred concept of

uniformity. According to the Constitution: “The rule of
taxation shall be uniform and equitable”" This requirement
is met according to Justice Laurel in Philippine Trust
Company v. Yatco, decided in 1940, when the tax
“operates with the same force and effect in every place
where the subject may be found.” He likewise added: “The
rule of uniformity does not call for perfect uniformity
or perfect equality, because this is hardly
attainable.” The problem of classification did not present
itself in that case. It did not arise until nine years later,
when the Supreme Court held: “Equality and uniformity in
taxation means that all taxable articles or kinds of property
of the same class shall be taxed at the same rate. The
taxing power has the authority to make reasonable
and natural classifications for purposes of taxation, .
. . As clarified by Justice Tuason, where ‘the
differentiation’ complained of “conforms to the
practical dictates of justice and equity” it ‘is not
119
Id.
120
G.R. No. 163583, 20 August 2008.
64
ACT v. Duterte
G.R. Nos. 236118 & 236295
discriminatory within the meaning of this clause and

is therefore uniform.’ There is quite a similarity then
to the standard of equal protection for all that is
required is that the tax “applies equally to all
persons, firms and corporations placed in similar
situation.”121
119. Petitioners’ comparison of excise taxes on cars

and cigarettes and excise taxes on diesel, LPG, kerosene and
coal is also non-sequitur. To begin with, petitioners are
working on the normative assumption that Congress’ sole
consideration in increasing taxes on cars, cigarettes, diesel,
LPG, kerosene and coal should be whether these products
fall under the basic commodities of the Filipinos. On the
contrary, however, Congress was driven by multifarious
factors in increasing taxes on these products, with due
regard on the effects of such increase to ordinary Filipinos.
Moreover, the wisdom of Congress or what is the best
solution to remedy social ills through taxation is beyond
petitioners to supplant and rectify.
IV.
THE PROVISION ON THE INCREASE OF
EXCISE TAX ON COAL IS NOT A RIDER
BECAUSE IT IS CONSISTENT WITH SECTION
24, ARTICLE VI OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION
AND SECTION 83, RULE XXIX OF THE RULES
OF THE SENATE.
120. Petitioners Laban Konsyumer Inc. and Atty.

Dimagiba assert that the Senate’s introduction of the
provision on the increase in excise tax on coal violates
Section 24, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution and Section
83, Rule XXIX of the Rules of the Senate, as the provision
did not originate from the House of Representatives.122
121. Petitioners’ argument is without merit.
122. Section 24, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution

provides that “[a]ll appropriation, revenue or tariff bills, bills
authorizing increase of the public debt, bills of local
121
Emphasis supplied.
122
65
ACT v. Duterte
G.R. Nos. 236118 & 236295
application, and private bills shall originate exclusively in the

House of Representatives, but the Senate may propose or
concur with amendments.” In Tolentino vs. Secretary of
Finance, 123 this Honorable Court explained thus:
xxx [I]t is not the law — but the revenue bill —

which is required by the Constitution to "originate
exclusively" in the House of Representatives. It is
important to emphasize this, because a bill originating in
the House may undergo such extensive changes in the
Senate that the result may be a rewriting of the whole.
The possibility of a third version by the conference
committee will be discussed later. At this point, what is
important to note is that, as a result of the Senate
action, a distinct bill may be produced. To insist that
a revenue statute — and not only the bill which
initiated the legislative process culminating in the
enactment of the law — must substantially be the
same as the House bill would be to deny the
Senate's power not only to "concur with
amendments" but also to "propose amendments." It
would be to violate the coequality of legislative power of
the two houses of Congress and in fact make the House
superior to the Senate.
xxx xxx xxx
Indeed, what the Constitution simply means is that

the initiative for filing revenue, tariff, or tax bills, bills
authorizing an increase of the public debt, private bills and
bills of local application must come from the House of
Representatives on the theory that, elected as they are
from the districts, the members of the House can be
expected to be more sensitive to the local needs and
problems. On the other hand, the senators, who are
elected at large, are expected to approach the same
problems from the national perspective. Both views are
thereby made to bear on the enactment of such laws.
123. In Abakada Guro Party List vs. Ermita,124 this

Honorable Court affirmed its ruling in Tolentino and added
that “the Constitution does not contain any prohibition or
limitation on the extent of the amendments that may be
introduced by the Senate to the House revenue bill.”
123
Tolentino vs. Secretary of Finance, 249 SCRA 635 (1994); emphasis supplied.
124
469 SCRA 1 (2005).
66
ACT v. Duterte
G.R. Nos. 236118 & 236295
124. Thus, in accordance with jurisprudence, no law

was violated when the Senate deemed it necessary to
increase the excise tax on coal as it is well within its
legislative mandate to do so. In fact, petitioners
acknowledged that the Senate has the power to “propose
or concur with amendments” to revenue bills that originated
from the House of Representatives.125
125. Petitioners Laban Konsyumer Inc. and Atty.

Dimagiba also argue that the very same provision is a rider
as it is not germane to the purpose of the TRAIN House
Bill.126 Again, petitioners are mistaken.
126. Section 26(1), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution

provides that “[e]very bill passed by the Congress shall
embrace only one subject which shall be expressed in the
title thereof.” Any provision that is not germane to the
subject matter of the bill is considered a rider that must be
proscribed.127 It is important to note, however, that the rule
on riders is construed liberally.128 There is sufficient
compliance with the law if the title expresses the general
subject and all the provisions of the statutes are germane to
that general subject.129
127. Here, the provision on the increase in excise tax

on coal is clearly germane to the purpose of the TRAIN
measure to create a tax system that is fair and equitable for
all.
V.
OPPOSITION TO THE APPLICATION FOR
ISSUANCE OF A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING
ORDER, WRIT OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
AND/OR STATUS QUO ANTE ORDER.
128. In opposition to petitioners’ application for

ancillary reliefs, respondents respectfully replead the
foregoing arguments and further state that:
125
Laban Petition, p. 30; emphasis supplied.
126
Id., at pp. 30-31, 35.
127
Alalayan vs. National Power Corporation, 24 SCRA 172 (1968).
128
Tobias vs. Abalos, 239 SCRA 106 (1994).
129
Sumulong vs. Comelec, 73 Phil. 288 (1941).
67
ACT v. Duterte
G.R. Nos. 236118 & 236295
A. Injunction does not lie

to enjoin the
implementation of the
TRAIN Law.
129. The power to tax emanates from necessity.

Without taxes, the government cannot fulfill its mandate of
promoting the general welfare and well-being of the
people.130 In line with this principle, Section 218 of the NIRC
expressly provides that “[n]o court shall have authority to
grant an injunction to restrain the collection of any national
internal revenue tax, fee, or charge imposed [therein].” This
covers a situation where enjoining the implementation of a
law would result in the suppression of collection of taxes, as
held in Republic v. Hon. Caguioa.131
130. In Caguioa,132 the trial court, in enjoining the

implementation of a tax statute, justified its circumvention
of Section 218 of the NIRC, as amended, by holding that
“what [was] sought to be enjoined [was] not per se the
collection of taxes, but the implementation of a statute that
has been found preliminarily to be unconstitutional.”133 This
Honorable Court found no merit in this justification.

131. In invalidating the trial court’s position, this
Honorable Court ruled that “any injunction that restrains the
collection of taxes, which is the inevitable result of the
suspension of the implementation of the assailed Section 6
of R.A. No. 9334, is a limitation upon the right of the
government to its lifeline and wherewithal.”134 As such, this
Honorable Court nullified the trial court’s writ of preliminary
injunction and reminded both the bar and the bench that
“every precaution must be taken not to unduly suppress [the
collection of taxes].”135
130
Republic v. Hon. Caguioa, G.R. No. 168584, 15 October 2007; Angeles City v. Angeles City Electric
Corporation, G.R. No. 166134, 29 June 2010.
131
G.R. No. 168584, 15 October 2007.
132
Id.
133
Id.
134
Id.
135
Republic of the Philippines v. Caguioa, G.R. No. 168584, 15 October 2007.
68
ACT v. Duterte
G.R. Nos. 236118 & 236295
132. In the case at bar, a grant of petitioners’ prayer

for the suspension of the TRAIN Law, would undoubtedly
result in the restriction of the collection of national internal
revenue taxes. This is an undue limitation on the right of the
government to its lifeline and wherewithal,136 which this
Honorable Court should not countenance.
B. Even assuming that

injunction lies to
restrain the
implementation of the
TRAIN Law,
petitioners failed to
show sufficient cause
to overcome the
presumption of
validity of the TRAIN
Law.
133. This Honorable Court has consistently adhered to

the rule that every presumption must be indulged in favor of
the constitutionality of a statute.137
134. This Honorable Court has also firmly adhered to

the rule that an enrolled copy of a bill is conclusive not only
of its provisions but also of its due enactment as a
statute.138
135. Given these rulings, the issuance of injunctive

relief, especially that which enjoins the implementation of a
statute, calls, for the exercise of utmost caution.139
136. First, it is settled that that there is no power, the

exercise of which is more delicate, which requires greater
caution, deliberation and sound discretion, or more
dangerous in a doubtful case, than the issuance of an
injunction. It is the strong arm of equity that should never
be extended unless to cases of great injury, where courts of
136
Id.
137
Id.
138
Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance, G.R. No. 115455, 25 August 1994.
139
Ermita v. Hon. Delorino, G.R. No. 177130, 7 June 2001.
69
ACT v. Duterte
G.R. Nos. 236118 & 236295
law cannot afford an adequate remedy in damages. An

injunction should be granted only when the court is fully
satisfied that the law permits it and the emergency demands
it.140
137. Second, the suspension of the operation of a law

is a matter of extreme delicacy because it is an interference
with the official acts of the duly elected representatives of
the people.141
138. In Caguioa,142 this Honorable Court set the

standard required for a court to enjoin the operation of a
statute: “[a] court may issue a writ of preliminary injunction
only when the petitioner assailing a statute has made out a
case of unconstitutionality or invalidity strong enough, in the
mind of the judge, to overcome the presumption of validity x
x.”143
139. In this case, however, petitioners dismally failed

to make out a case of unconstitutionality or invalidity strong
enough to overcome the presumption of validity of the
TRAIN Law.144 To reiterate, the TRAIN Law is not arbitrary,
oppressive, and confiscatory, and does not result in the
deprivation of life, liberty or property without due process of
law. It does not violate the equal protection clause since it
impacts mostly middle to higher-income Filipinos. Low-
income Filipinos, on the other hand, are shielded of the
effects of the TRAIN Law under the government’s
unconditional cash transfer program and other mitigating
measures. Thus, the TRAIN Law is progressive and
equitable.
140. There is, therefore, no cogent reason to enjoin the

implementation of the TRAIN Law.
C. The issuance of
injunctive relief will
140
Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Hon. Hontanosas, G.R. No. 157163, 25 June 2014; Olalia v. Hizon,
G.R. No. 87913, 6 May 1991.
141
Ermita v. Hon. Delorino, G.R. No. 177130, 7 June 2001.
142
G.R. No. 168584, 15 October 2007.
143
Emphasis supplied.
144
Republic v. Hon. Caguioa, G.R. No. 168584, 15 October 2007.
70
ACT v. Duterte
G.R. Nos. 236118 & 236295
be a prejudgment of
the main case.
141. It is well-settled that any injunctive relief will not

be issued if it will result in a premature disposition or a
prejudgment of the case on its merits.145 A writ of
preliminary injunction that grants the main prayer in the
complaint or responsive pleading, so much so that there is
nothing left for the court to pass upon except merely
incidental matters is considered a prejudgment of a case.146
This should be avoided because an injunction is not a cause
of action itself but merely a provisional remedy, an adjunct
to a main suit.147
142. If this Honorable Court enjoins the implementation

of the TRAIN Law, it will, in effect, rule against the TRAIN
Law’s prima facie validity.
143. Otherwise stated, what petitioners are essentially

asking, in the guise of asking for injunctive relief, is a
prejudgment of the merits of the case. This should not be
countenanced by this Honorable Court.
D. The issuance of
injunctive relief will
reverse the status quo
ante in contravention
of the sole object of a
preliminary injunction.
144. In Heirs of Gacutan v. Sucaldito,148 this Honorable

Court explained that it is precisely the province of a
preliminary injunction, mandatory or prohibitory, to preserve
145
See Rivas v. Securities and Exchange Commission, G.R. No. 53772, 4 October 1990, 190 SCRA 295;
Government Service Insurance System v. Florendo, G.R. No. 48603, 29 September 1989, 178 SCRA
76; Ortigas and Co. Ltd. Partnership v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 79128, 16 June 1988, 162 SCRA
165; and Searth Commodities Cor. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 64220, 31 March 1992, 207 SCRA
622.
146
Levi Strauss (Phils.) Inc. v. Vogue Traders Clothing Company, G.R. No. 132993, 29 June 2005, 462
SCRA 52; and Ortigas & Co. Limited Partnership v. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 79128, 16 June
1988, 162 SCRA 165.
147
Lopez v. Court of Appeals, G.R.No.110929, 20 January 2000, 322 SCRA 686, 691.
148
G.R. No. L-40069, 11 August 1988, 164 SCRA 255.
71
ACT v. Duterte
G.R. Nos. 236118 & 236295
the status quo between litigants to prevent possible violation

of a party's rights.149
145. “Status quo ante”, on other hand, has been

defined as the last actual peaceable and uncontested status
which preceded the controversy.150 This is usually the status
and/or condition at or immediately before the
commencement of the present action.
146. In this case, the Tinio Petition was filed on 11

January 2018 while the Laban Petition was filed on 22
January 2018, when the TRAIN Law was already effective.
Thus, petitioners’ prayer for injunctive relief, if granted, will
not actually preserve the status quo ante but, on the
contrary, disturb, if not reverse, the same.
147. At present, the TRAIN Law is already effective and

income wage earners are already experiencing the benefits
of an increase in take home pay while the poorest of the
poor who are also non-wage earners already received the
unconditional cash transfer which will assist them in the
price increase of commodities.
148. At this point, to issue a TRO or writ of injunction

would reverse the status quo to the detriment of the Filipino
people and hence, it should not be issued.
149. It should be borne in mind that this Honorable

Court held that the very nature of a writ of injunction
requires that the allegations in support of the application
must be strictly construed against the applicant.151 In this
case, petitioners miserably failed to discharge the burden of
their entitlement to the ancillary relief prayed for, hence,
petitioners’ application for the issuance of a TRO, writ of
preliminary injunction and/or status quo ante order should
be denied by this Honorable Court.
CLOSING STATEMENT
149
Ibid., at 259.
150
See Republic Telecommunications, Inc., et al. v. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 135074, 29 January
1999, 302 SCRA 403.
151
Buayan Cattle Company, Inc. v. Quintillan, et al., G.R. No. L-26970, 19 March 1984, 128 SCRA 276,
286.
72
ACT v. Duterte
G.R. Nos. 236118 & 236295
150. In resolving the present case, respondents ask

this Honorable Court to consider the dire repercussions of
declaring the TRAIN Law as unconstitutional.
151. The government and the public in general will

greatly suffer if the TRAIN Law is declared invalid. The
government stands to lose an estimated 146.6 billion pesos
in 2018 from the lowering and restructuring of personal
income tax. This loss will only be offset by the revenue
generating features of the TRAIN Law, which is expected to
provide 89.9 billion pesos in incremental revenues for 2018
and 786 billion pesos within the first five years. The five-
year summary of the revenue impact of the TRAIN Law is
shown below:
152. Moreover, an exclusion of petroleum products

from the imposition of excise tax or if its imposition is
declared unconstitutional will result in lower budget and
fewer investments on the government’s priority programs on
infrastructure, health, education and other social services.
The government will be faced with two choices: first, this
would force the government to cut spending on programmed
priority projects of the government to maintain the 3%
programmed deficit,152 which will lead to fewer government
152
The DOF has adopted an expansionary fiscal policy, which entailed raising the budget deficit from the
past administration’s two percent of gross domestic product to three percent. The purpose is to give leeway
to the present administration’s “Build, Build, Build” Program while maintaining its investor-grade credit
rating of “Baa2” and “BBB”. See DOF website: https://www.dof.gov.ph/index.php/build-build-build-to-
roll-out-75-projects-worth-35-5-b/.
73
ACT v. Duterte
G.R. Nos. 236118 & 236295
investment; and second, the government will breach the 3%

programmed deficit that will lead to credit downgrade, which
will force the government to borrow at a higher interest
rate, thereby forcing the government to allot ample budget
to pay off the debt, at the expense of fewer investments on
public services.
153. Both choices ultimately lead to the same outcome:

poverty and malnutrition.
154. In view of the foregoing, it is incumbent upon this

Honorable Court to uphold the constitutionality of the TRAIN
Law.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that this

Honorable Court:
1. DISMISS the Petitions for Certiorari dated 10

January 2017 and 19 January 2018 for procedural
defects and/or utter lack of merit; and
2. DENY the application for issuance of a temporary

restraining order, writ of preliminary injunction
and/or status quo ante order; and
Other just and equitable relief are also prayed for.
Makati City for Manila, 19 April 2018
74

OSG Consolidated Comment On TRAIN

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

OSG Consolidated Comment On TRAIN

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

-versus- G.R. No. 236118

PRESIDENT RODRIGO ROA

-versus- G.R. No. 236295

DOMINGUEZ III, BUREAU

Respondents, through the Office of the Solicitor General

1. On 15 May 2017, the Committee on Ways and

2. On 23 May 2017, the House of Representatives

3. On 29 May 2017, President Rodrigo Roa Duterte,4

4. After the approval of H.B. No. 5636 on its third

5. On 20 September 2017, the Senate Committee on

6. On 28 November 2017, the Senate approved the

7. On 13 December 2017, the Bicameral Conference

No. 1592. On the same date, the House of Representatives12

8. On 18 December 2017, the Office of the President

9. On 19 December 2017, President Duterte

10. The TRAIN Law took effect on 1 January 2018,17

11. On 11 January 2018, Representatives Antonio

Tinio Petition), docketed as G.R. No. 236118, asking this

12. Thereafter, Laban Konsyumer Inc. and Atty.

13. In both Petitions, petitioners claim that grave

14. In G.R. No. 236118, this Honorable Court issued a

15. In G.R. No. 236295, this Honorable Court issued a

16. This Honorable Court likewise ordered the

17. Since the OSG received both Resolutions on 31

18. On 9 February 2018, the OSG, as counsel for

19. In a Resolution dated 6 March 2018, this

20. On 11 April 2018, the OSG filed another Motion for

21. Hence, this Consolidated Comment is being timely

A. Petitioners improperly availed of a

B. Petitioners violated the principle of

C. Petitioners failed to show an actual

D. Petitioners raised political questions

E. Petitioners failed to implead

F. Petitioners violated the doctrine of

A. The TRAIN Bicameral Conference

B. The doctrine of separation of

C. The President correctly relied on the

A. The increase in oil excise taxes is

B. The TRAIN Law is progressive.

C. The TRAIN Law does not violate the

D. The TRAIN Law does not violate the

A. Injunction does not lie to enjoin the

B. Even assuming that injunction lies

C. The issuance of injunctive relief in

D. The issuance of injunctive relief will

THE PETITIONS SHOULD BE DISMISSED

22. Petitioners availed of a special civil action for

23. Absent a prima facie violation of the 1987

SECTION 1. Petition for certiorari. — When any tribunal,

24. In CREBA Inc. v. Energy Regulatory Commission

The petitioner’s choice of remedy – a petition for

Judicial functions are exercised by a body or officer

25. If a Petition for Certiorari cannot be invoked to

This rule requires, for a petition for certiorari to be

26. Moreover, in Galicto v. Aquino,25 this Honorable

because the respondents therein did not exercise a judicial

Under the Rules of Court, petitions for

Likewise, in Southern Hemisphere Engagement

27. Even if petitioners invoke the expanded certiorari

28. In Association of Medical Clinics for Overseas

29. As will be further elaborated in the subsequent