THE Supreme Court has affirmed the constitutionality of Republic Act 10963, or the Tax Reform for Acceleration and Inclusion Act (TRAIN Act), which amended R.A. No. 8424, or the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997.
In a decision penned by Associate Justice Japar Dimaampao, the Court en banc did not give weight to the contention of the petitioners that the provisions of the TRAIN Act are “anti-poor.”
The SC said this claim “was not sufficiently proven and remained largely hypothetical.”
The decision was reached during the magistrates’ regular en banc session held last Tuesday.
Thirteen Justices voted to dismiss the petitions, one dissented, while the other took no part.
Among the petitioners in the case are Alliance of Concerned Teachers Representative Antonio Tinio, et al. and Laban Konsyumer, Inc., et al.,
Named respondents were former President Rodrigo R. Duterte, then Executive Secretary Salvador Medialdea, former Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez and several other lawmakers.
The petitioners said the respondents committed grave abuse of discretion when they ratified the final bicameral conference committee (BCC) report on the night of December 13, 2017 despite lack of quorum necessary to vote on its passage.
The petitioners noted that Section 16 (2), Article 6 of the 1987 Constitution and Section 75 of Rule XI of the House Rules mandate the House to comply with the quorum requirement of majority of the House membership before they can do any legislative business.
The petitioners, however, claimed that around 280 out of the total 295 members of the House were absent during the ratification stage.
The petitioners also argued that these same excise taxes were confiscatory and discriminatory against the poor and violated the Filipino people’s right to due process and equal protection of laws.
However, the SC ruled that supposed absence of a quorum was belied by the official Journal of the House of Representatives, both on the day that the TRAIN’s Bicameral Conference Report was ratified and the immediately subsequent session on January 15, 2018.
“As between the livestream video and photographs presented by the petitioners, and the Congressional Journal, the latter must prevail as to the events on the Congressional floor on that fateful day given that no less than the Constitution itself grants the Congressional Journal its imprimatur,” the SC said.
The Court also reiterated that the Constitution, in its present form,
does not prohibit the imposition of regressive taxes, but merely directs Congress to evolve a progressive system of taxation.
Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa dissented in the decision while Justice Ricardo R. Rosario was on wellness leave.
The SC has yet to release a copy of the decision.