Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1K views

    Nitafan V CIR

    Uploaded by

    Chil Belgira
    This document discusses a case where judges petitioned to be exempt from paying income tax on their salaries. The judges argued that deducting income tax constituted a decrease in their salaries, which is prohibited by the Constitution. The court ultimately dismissed the petition, finding no evidence the framers of the Constitution intended to exempt judges from income tax. The court reviewed the intent of the framers and constitutional provisions over time, determining the salaries of judges are subject to general income tax like other taxpayers.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Nitafan V CIR

    Uploaded by

    Chil Belgira
    1K views2 pages
    This document discusses a case where judges petitioned to be exempt from paying income tax on their salaries. The judges argued that deducting income tax constituted a decrease in their salaries, which is prohibited by the Constitution. The court ultimately dismissed the petition, finding no evidence the framers of the Constitution intended to exempt judges from income tax. The court reviewed the intent of the framers and constitutional provisions over time, determining the salaries of judges are subject to general income tax like other taxpayers.

    Original Title

    Nitafan v CIR

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document discusses a case where judges petitioned to be exempt from paying income tax on their salaries. The judges argued that deducting income tax constituted a decrease in their salaries, which is prohibited by the Constitution. The court ultimately dismissed the petition, finding no evidence the framers of the Constitution intended to exempt judges from income tax. The court reviewed the intent of the framers and constitutional provisions over time, determining the salaries of judges are subject to general income tax like other taxpayers.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    1K views2 pages

    Nitafan V CIR

    Uploaded by

    Chil Belgira
    This document discusses a case where judges petitioned to be exempt from paying income tax on their salaries. The judges argued that deducting income tax constituted a decrease in their salaries, which is prohibited by the Constitution. The court ultimately dismissed the petition, finding no evidence the framers of the Constitution intended to exempt judges from income tax. The court reviewed the intent of the framers and constitutional provisions over time, determining the salaries of judges are subject to general income tax like other taxpayers.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    DAVID G. NITAFAN, WENCESLAO M. POLO, and MAXIMO A.

    SAVELLANO,
    JR., petitioners,
    vs.
    COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE and THE FINANCIAL OFFICER,
    SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

    The statute and the constitution

    FACTS:
    The petitioners seek to enjoin CIR from making deduction of withholding taxes
    from their salaries.

    Petitioners contend 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 during their continuance in office, their salary shall
    not be decreased,'

    ISSUE:
    WON appointed and qualified judges (the petitioners) may be exempt from
    payment of income tax

    HELD:
    No. This petition of the judges is then dismissed.

    RATIO:
    To resolve the legal issue raised in this petition the court looked into the
    intent of the framers of the Constitution who drafted the provision in
    question. 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.

    The intent of the 1987 Constitutional Commission was to delete the proposed
    express grant of exemption from payment of income tax to members of the
    Judiciary, so as to "give substance to equality among the three branches of
    Government" (in the words of Commissioner Rigos). Commissioner Joaquin Bernas
    also said that the salaries of members of the Judiciary would be subject to the
    general income tax applied to all taxpayers.

    This intent became unclear in the final text of the 1987 Constitution. Having seen
    the failure of not including a prohibition on the exemption of any public officer or
    employee from payment of income tax, the court has authorized the continuation
    of the deduction of the withholding tax from the salaries of the members of the
    Supreme Court, as well as from the salaries of all other members of the Judiciary.

    ADDITIONAL INFO (Might be asked):


    *In relation to the legal issue raised in this case, it was stated here that they have
    discarded the ruling in Perfecto vs. Meer and Endencia vs. David that declared the
    salaries of members of the Judiciary exempt from payment of the income tax and
    considered such payment as a diminution of their salaries during their continuance
    in office.

    *Here is a comparison of the constitutional provision involved


    1935 1973 1987
    ". . . (The members of the "The salary of the Chief "The salary of the Chief
    Supreme Court and all Justice and of the Justice and of the
    judges of inferior courts) Associate Justices of the Associate Justices of the
    shall receive such Supreme Court, and of Supreme Court, and of
    compensation as may be judges of inferior courts judges of lower courts
    fixed by law, which shall shall be fixed by law, shall be fixed by law.
    not which shall During their continuance
    be diminished during their not be decreased during in office, their salary shall
    continuance in office . . ." their continuance in office not be decreased."
    . . ."

    "No salary or any form of


    emolument of any public
    officer or employee,
    including constitutional
    officers, shall be exempt
    from payment of income
    tax."

    You might also like