You are on page 1of 2

Javellana vs.

executive secretary 50 scra 33


In 1973, Marcos ordered the immediate implementation of the new 1973 Constitution. Javellana,
a Filipino and a registered voter sought to enjoin the Exec Sec and other cabinet secretaries from
implementing the said constitution. Javellana averred that the said constitution is void because the same
was initiated by the president.He argued that the President is w/o power to proclaim the ratification by the
Filipino people of the proposed constitution. Further, the election held to ratify such constitution is not a
free election there being intimidation and fraud.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the SC must give due course to the petition.
HELD:
The SC ruled that they cannot rule upon the case at bar. Majority of the SC justices expressed the view
that they were concluded by the ascertainment made by the president of the Philippines, in the exercise of
his political prerogatives. Further, there being no competent evidence to show such fraud and intimidation
during the election,it is to be assumed that the people had acquiesced in or accepted the
1973 Constitution. The question of the validity of the 1973 Constitution is a political question which was
left to the people in their sovereign capacity to answer. Their ratification of the same had shown such
acquiescence.
Perfecto v Meer 85 Phil 552
GREGORIO PERFECTO vs. BIBIANO L. MEER[G.R. No. L-2348. February 27, 1950.]Facts:In April,
1947 the Collector of Internal Revenue required Mr. Justice Gregorio Perfecto to pay income tax upon
hissalary as member of this Court during the year 1946. After paying the amount (P802), he instituted this
action inthe Manila Court of First Instance contending that the assessment was illegal, his salary not being
taxable for thereason that imposition of taxes thereon would reduce it in violation of the
Constitution.Issue:Does the imposition of an income tax upon this salary amount to a diminution thereof?
Held:Yes. As in the United States during the second period, we must hold that salaries of judges are not
included in theword "income" taxed by the Income Tax Law. Two paramount circumstances may
additionally be indicated, to wit:First, when the Income Tax Law was first applied to the Philippines
1913, taxable "income" did not include salariesof judicial officers when these are protected from
diminution. That was the prevailing official belief in the UnitedStates, which must be deemed to
have been transplanted here ; and second, when the Philippine ConstitutionalConvention approved (in
1935) the prohibition against diminution of the judges' compensation, the Federalprinciple was known
that income tax on judicial salaries really impairs them.This is not proclaiming a general tax immunity for
men on the bench. These pay taxes. Upon buying gasoline, orcars or other commodities, they pay the
corresponding duties. Owning real property, they pay taxes thereon. Andon incomes other than their
judicial salary, assessments are levied. It is only when the tax is charged directly ontheir salary and the
effect of the tax is to diminish their official stipend

that the taxation must be resisted as aninfringement of the fundamental charter.Judges would indeed be
hapless guardians of the Constitution if they did not perceive and block encroachmentsupon their
prerogatives in whatever form. The undiminishable character of judicial salaries is not a mere privilegeof
judges

personal and therefore waivable

but a basic limitation upon legislative or executive action imposedin the public interest (Evans vs. Gore).
Nitafan v CIR 152 SCRA 284
Nitafan v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue [GR L-78780, 23 July 1987]FACTS:1. Petitioners David
Nitafan, Wenceslao Polo and Maximo Savellano Jr., were duly appointed and qualified Judgesof the RTC
National Capital Judicial Region.2. Petitioners seeks to prohibit and/or perpetually enjoin respondents,

(CIR and the Financial Officer of theSupreme Court) from making any deduction of withholding taxes
from their salaries.
3. Petitioners submit that any tax withheld from their emoluments or compensation as judicial officers
constitutes
a decreased or diminution of their salaries, contrary to Section 1
0, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution.
ISSUE:Is a deduction of withholding tax a diminuition of the salaries of Judges/Justices?HELD:The SC
hereby makes of record that it had then discarded the ruling in PERFECTO VS. MEER (88 Phil 552)
andENDENCIA VS. DAVID (93 Phil 696), that declared the salaries of members of the Judiciary exempt
from payment of the income tax and considered such payment as a diminution of their salaries during
their continuance in office.The Court hereby reiterates that the salaries of Justices and Judges are property
subject to general income taxapplicable to all income earners and that the payment of such income tax by
Justices and Judges does not fallwithin the constitution protection against decrease of their salaries
during their continuance in office.The debates, interpellations and opinions expressed regarding the
constitutional provision in question until it wasfinally approved by the Commission disclosed that the true
intent of the framers of the 1987 Constitution, inadopting it, was to make the salaries of members of the
Judiciary taxable. The ascertainment of that intent is but inkeeping with the fundamental principle of
constitutional construction that the intent of the framers of the organiclaw and of the people adopting it
should be given effect.
The ruling that the imposition of income tax upon the salary of judges is a diminution thereof, and so
violates the
Constitution in Perfecto vs. Meer, as affirmed in Endencia vs. David must be deemed discarded.
People vs PerfectoG.R. No. L-18463FACTS:In the case of People vs. Perfecto ([1922], 43 Phil., 887) the
accused was charged with having published anarticle reflecting on the Philippine Senate and its members
in violation of Article 256 of the Penal Code. Inthis Court, Mr. Perfecto was acquitted by unanimous vote,
with three members of the court holding thatArticle 256 was abrogated completely by the change
from Spanish to American sovereignty over thePhilippines and with six members holding that the
Libel Law had the effect of repealing so much of Article256 as relates to written defamation, abuse,
or insult, and that under the information and the facts, the defendant was neither guilty of a violation
of Article 256 of the Penal Code nor of the Libel Law. In thecourse of the main opinion in the Perfecto
case is found this significant sentence: Act No. 292 of thePhilippine Commission, the Treason and
Sedition Law, may also have affected Article 256, but as to this point, it is not necessary to make a
pronouncement.ISSUES:Whether or not Mr. Perfecto violated Article 256 of the Penal Code.On the
subject of whether or not Article 256 of the Penal Code, under which the information was presented,is in
force.HELD:
The view of the Chief Justice is that the accused should be acquitted for the reason that the facts
alleged in theinformation do not constitute a violation of article 256 of the Penal Code. Three
members of the court believe thatarticle 256 was abrogated completely by the change from Spanish to
American sovereignty over the Philippines and isinconsistent with democratic principles of government.