Nitafan Vs Cir

Macalinao, Romielyn P.
Subject: Constitutional Law 1

Topic: Salary
Title: NITAFAN vs CIR
Reference: 152 SCRA 284
FACTS
Petitioners, the duly appointed and qualified Judges presiding
over Branches 52, 19 and 53, respectively, of the Regional Trial
Court, National Capital Judicial Region, all with stations in Manila,
seek
to
prohibit
and/or
perpetually
enjoin
respondents,
the
Commissioner of Internal Revenue and the Financial Officer of the

Supreme Court, from making any deduction of withholding taxes
from their salaries.
In a nutshell, they submit that "any tax withheld from their
emoluments or compensation as judicial officers constitutes a
decrease or diminution of their salaries, contrary to the provision of
Section 10, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution mandating that
"(d)uring their continuance in office, their salary shall not be
decreased," even as it is anathema to the Ideal of an independent
judiciary envisioned in and by said Constitution."
It may be pointed out that, early on, the Court had dealt with
the matter administratively in response to representations that the
Court direct its Finance Officer to discontinue the withholding of
taxes from salaries of members of the Bench. Thus, on June 4,
1987, the Court en banc had reaffirmed the Chief Justice's directive
as follows:
The Court REAFFIRMED the Chief Justice's previous and
standing directive to the Fiscal Management and Budget Office of
this Court to continue with the deduction of the withholding taxes

from the salaries of the Justices of the Supreme Court as well as
from the salaries of all other members of the judiciary.
ISSUES
Whether or not members of the Judiciary are exempt from
income taxes?
RULINGS
No, they should not be exempted. Section 10, Articles VIII, of
the 1987 Constitution, states:
The salary of the Chief Justice and of the Associate Justices of
the Supreme Court, and of judges of lower courts shall be fixed by
law. During their continuance in office, their salary shall not be
decreased.
The
debates,
interpellations
and
opinions
expressed
regarding the constitutional provision in question until it was finally

approved by the Commission disclosed that the true intent of the
framers of the 1987 Constitution, in adopting it, was to make the
salaries of members of the Judiciary taxable. The ascertainment of
that intent is but in keeping with the fundamental principle of
constitutional construction that the intent of the framers of the
organic law and of the people adopting it should be given effect.
The primary task in constitutional construction is to ascertain and
thereafter assure the realization of the purpose of the framers and
of the people in the adoption of the Constitution. it may also be
safely assumed that the people in ratifying the Constitution were
guided mainly by the explanation offered by the framers.
It is plain that the Constitution authorizes Congress to pass a

law fixing another rate of compensation of Justices and Judges but
such rate must be higher than that which they are receiving at the
time of enactment, or if lower, it would be applicable only to those
appointed after its approval. It would be a strained construction to
read into the provision an exemption from taxation in the light of
the discussion in the Constitutional Commission.
With the foregoing interpretation, and as stated heretofore,
the ruling that "the imposition of income tax upon the salary of
judges is a dimunition thereof, and so violates the Constitution" in
Perfecto vs. Meer, as affirmed in
Endencia vs. David
must be
declared discarded. The framers of the fundamental law, as the

alter ego of the people, have expressed in clear and unmistakable
terms the meaning and import of Section 10, Article VIII, of the
1987 Constitution that they have adopted Stated otherwise, we
accord due respect to the intent of the people, through the
discussions and deliberations of their representatives, in the spirit
that all citizens should bear their aliquot part of the cost of
maintaining the government and should share the burden of general
income taxation equitably.

Nitafan Vs Cir

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nitafan Vs Cir

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nitafan Vs Cir

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Macalinao, Romielyn P.

Subject: Constitutional Law 1

Commissioner of Internal Revenue and the Financial Officer of the

this Court to continue with the deduction of the withholding taxes

regarding the constitutional provision in question until it was finally

It is plain that the Constitution authorizes Congress to pass a

Endencia vs. David

declared discarded. The framers of the fundamental law, as the

You might also like