DAVID G. NITAFAN v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

G.R. No. 78780 | July 23, 1987
Purpose, Objective: Why A Constitution? Why do we need to “intepret” it? | Ponente: MELENCIO-HERRERA

Doctrine: 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.

SuperSummary: Several judges from the RTC of Manila sought to perpetually enjoin the
Commissioner of Internal Revenue from making any deduction of withholding taxes from
their salaries contending, among others, that such deduction constitutes a decrease or
diminution of their salaries, contrary to Sec 10 Art 8 of the 1987 Constitution. The SC held
that the debates, interpellations, and opinions expressed during the deliberations on the
1987 Constitution clearly show the framers’s intent to make the salaries of members of the
Judiciary taxable

Facts
Several judges from the RTC of Manila sought to perpetually enjoin the Commissioner of
Internal Revenue and the Financial Officer of the SC from withholding taxes from their
salaries contending that:
1. Any tax withheld from their compensation constitutes a decrease or diminution of
their salaries and that such is contrary to Sec 10 Art 8 of the Constitution
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.
2. The fact that the 1987 Constitution does not contain a provision similar to Sec 6 Art
15 of the 1973 Constitution shows the intent of the framers to revert to the original
concept of "non-diminution" of salaries of judicial officers under the 1935
Constitution. (*under which the SC ruled in Perfecto v Meer that income tax constitute a diminution of salary)
No salary or any form of emolument of any public officer or employee, including
constitutional officers, shall be exempt from payment of income tax.
Issue
1. W/N withholding taxes from the salaries of Judges constitutes a diminution of the
same, contrary to Sec 10 Art 8 of the 1987 Constitution

Ruling
The debates, interpellations and opinions expressed by the framers during their deliberations
on the 1987 Constitution show their intent to make the salaries of members of the Judiciary
taxable:
1. Commissioner Rigos’s proposal that the term "diminished" be changed to
"decreased" and that the words "nor subjected to income tax" be deleted so as to
"give substance to equality among the three branches of Government" was accepted.
2. Commissioner Bernas’s contention that putting a period (.) after the word
“decreased” would signify the framers’s intent to disregard the doctrine in Perfecto v.
Meer and Dencia v. David (which granted income tax exemption to members of the
Judiciary) was accepted without objection.

The ascertainment of this intent is in accordance 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.

Therefore, the salaries of Justices and Judges are properly subject to a general income tax
law applicable to all income earners and that the payment of such income tax by Justices
and Judges does not fall within the constitutional protection against decrease of their
salaries during their continuance in office.

Disposition
The petition for prohibition was dismissed.

Additional notes:
Correct construction of Sec 10 Art 8 of the 1987 Constitution:
Congress is authorized 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.