Endencia V David

Endencia v. David G.R. Nos. L-6355-56 (1953)  upxateneo Uncategorized September 22, 20181 Minute

Topic. Characteristics of construction: Judicial function Case. Joint appeal from lower court decision declaring RA 590 Sec. 13 unconstitutional and ordering CIR to refund Facts. Prior to this case, SC ruled on Perfecto v. Meer regarding same issue. In Perfecto, SC found that judge is not liable to income tax because it is against Art. VIII Sec. 9 of the Constitution which provides that judges “shall receive compensation…which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.” After this decision, Congress passed RA 590 which deems no public officer salary exempt from income tax. Its rationale was that taxing salary is not a decrease in compensation. In present case, despite RA 590’s promulgation, the lower court that first received this case ruled in favor of the judges following the constitutional provision. Issue. Is RA 590 Constitutional even after SC decision? -No Ratio. No it is not because the SC, which has the power to interpret that laws, has already ruled on the issue. For the rationale, recall separation of powers. Legislature is tasked with creating laws; executive with executing laws; and judiciary with interpretation and application of laws. Congress’s insistence that taxing their salaries is not equivalent to a decrease of compensation is an act of interpreting the phrase “which shall not be diminished during their continuance.” In short, Congress acted outside of its capacities. Only the judiciary has the power to do what Congress just did: to interpret. With RA 590 being unconstitutional, the judiciary’s decision in Perfecto is retained. In so far as the present case has similarities with Perfecto, the instant case should also be in favor of the judges.

Doctrine: Judiciary has the power to interpret laws. If it has decided on a case regarding a constitutional provision, the Senate cannot pass a law that runs counter to same provision.