Abakada Guro Party List v. Ermita
In the consolidated civil cases of Abakada Guro Party List et al. v. Ermita et al., Association of Pilipinas Shell Dealers, Inc. et al. v. Purisima et al., Escudero et al. v. Purisima et al., and Bataan Governor Enrique T. Garcia Jr. v. Ermita et al., the Supreme Court dismissed the petitions seeking to declare unconstitutional certain provisions of Republic Act No. 9337, which amended the law on the Value Added Tax (VAT). The Court upheld the constitutionality of the law in its entirety, but some justices dissented and voted to declare specific provisions unconstitutional. The legal issue in this case is the constitutionality of the amendments to the VAT law. The controversy started when the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) issued a press release stating that the new law would result in higher prices of goods and services, which the Supreme Court saw as an attempt to discredit the Court. The Court held that the BIR Commissioner, Purisima, should have immediately rectified the misconstrued information, and his denials were made as a result of the Court's show-cause order and not by any voluntary act on his part. The Court also took note of the damage that the press release has caused to its reputation and the public's confidence.
ADVERTISEMENT
EN BANC
[G.R. No. 168056. September 1, 2005.]
ABAKADA GURO PARTY LIST, etc. et al.,vs. HON. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY EDUARDO R. ERMITA, et al.
[G.R. No. 168207. September 1, 2005.]
AQUILINO Q. PIMENTEL JR., et al.,vs. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY EDUARDO R. ERMITA, et al.
[G.R. No. 168461. September 1, 2005.]
ASSOCIATION OF PILIPINAS SHELL DEALERS, INC., etc. et al.,vs. CESAR V. PURISIMA, etc. et al.
[G.R. No. 168463. September 1, 2005.]
FRANCIS JOSEPH G. ESCUDERO et al.,vs. CESAR V. PURISIMA, etc., et al.
[G.R. No. 168730. September 1, 2005.]
BATAAN GOVERNOR ENRIQUE T. GARCIA JR.,vs. HON. EDUARDO R. ERMITA, etc. et al.
SYLLABUS
REMEDIAL LAW; SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS; INDIRECT CONTEMPT; PRESS RELEASES PLACED THE COURT INTO DISHONOR, DISRESPECT, AND PUBLIC CONTEMPT. — If it were true that Purisima felt that the media misconstrued his actions, then he should have immediately rectified it. He should not have waited until the Court required him to explain before he denied having made such statements. And even then, his denials were made as a result of the Court's show-cause order and not by any voluntary act on his part that will show utter regret for having been "misquoted." Purisima should know that these press releases placed the Court into dishonor, disrespect, and public contempt, diminished public confidence, promoted distrust in the Court, and assailed the integrity of its members. The Court already took a beating before Purisima made any disclaimer. The damage has been done, so to speak.
R E S O L U T I O N
The Court, by a majority vote and per the Decision written by Justice Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez, DISMISSED all the Petitions and upheld the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 9337 in its entirety. However, the following Justices dissented and voted to declare specific provisions of the law unconstitutional per their Separate Opinions, as follows.
1. Sections 1, 2 and 3 — Chief Justice Davide, Jr. and Justices Panganiban, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Corona, and Azcuna;
2. Sections 4, 5, 6 and 7 — Justices Sandoval-Gutierrez and Corona;
In this connection, Justices Puno, Ynares-Santiago, and Callejo, Sr. voted to dismiss the Petitions in regard to Sections 4, 5 and 6 on the ground of prematurity.
3. Section 8 — Justices Tinga and Carpio Morales;
4. Section 10 and 11 — Justices Sandoval-Gutierrez and Corona;
5. Section 12 — Justices Sandoval-Gutierrez, Corona, and Tinga;
6. Section 13 — Justices Sandoval-Gutierrez and Corona;
7. Sections 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 — Chief Justice Davide, Jr. and Justices Sandoval-Gutierrez and Corona;
8. Sections 19 and 20 — Justices Sandoval-Gutierrez and Corona; and
9. Section 21 — Justices Puno, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Corona, Callejo, Sr., Tinga, and Garcia. IHCESD
In addition, Justices Puno, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Corona, Callejo, Sr., and Garcia voted to declare unconstitutional the deletion by the Bicameral Conference Committee of the "no pass on provision."
RECOMMENDED FOR YOU