Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 607 views

    Nitafan v. Cir DIGEST

    Uploaded by

    Jor Lonzaga
    The petitioners, who are RTC judges, sought to prohibit respondents from deducting withholding taxes from their salaries, arguing this constituted a decrease in their salaries contrary to the 1987 Constitution. However, the Supreme Court held that the deliberations of the 1986 Constitutional Commission showed their clear intent was to remove express tax exemptions for the judiciary and promote equality among the branches of government. Therefore, imposing income tax on judges' salaries does not diminish them in violation of the Constitution. The court dismissed the petition for prohibition.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Nitafan v. Cir DIGEST

    Uploaded by

    Jor Lonzaga
    607 views2 pages
    The petitioners, who are RTC judges, sought to prohibit respondents from deducting withholding taxes from their salaries, arguing this constituted a decrease in their salaries contrary to the 1987 Constitution. However, the Supreme Court held that the deliberations of the 1986 Constitutional Commission showed their clear intent was to remove express tax exemptions for the judiciary and promote equality among the branches of government. Therefore, imposing income tax on judges' salaries does not diminish them in violation of the Constitution. The court dismissed the petition for prohibition.

    Original Description:

    constitutional law

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioners, who are RTC judges, sought to prohibit respondents from deducting withholding taxes from their salaries, arguing this constituted a decrease in their salaries contrary to the 1987 Constitution. However, the Supreme Court held that the deliberations of the 1986 Constitutional Commission showed their clear intent was to remove express tax exemptions for the judiciary and promote equality among the branches of government. Therefore, imposing income tax on judges' salaries does not diminish them in violation of the Constitution. The court dismissed the petition for prohibition.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    607 views2 pages

    Nitafan v. Cir DIGEST

    Uploaded by

    Jor Lonzaga
    The petitioners, who are RTC judges, sought to prohibit respondents from deducting withholding taxes from their salaries, arguing this constituted a decrease in their salaries contrary to the 1987 Constitution. However, the Supreme Court held that the deliberations of the 1986 Constitutional Commission showed their clear intent was to remove express tax exemptions for the judiciary and promote equality among the branches of government. Therefore, imposing income tax on judges' salaries does not diminish them in violation of the Constitution. The court dismissed the petition for prohibition.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    1973 Constitution

    The salary of the Chief Justice and of the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, and of
    judges of inferior courts shall be fixed by law, which shall not be decreased during their
    continuance in office. …

    Section 6, Article XV, 1973 Constitution


    No salary or any form of emolument of any public officer or employee, including
    constitutional officers, shall be exempt from payment of income tax.

    Section 10, Article VI, 1987 Constitution


    Section 10. 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.

    G.R. No. 78780 July 23, 1987


    NITAFAN vs.CIR

    MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.:

    FACTS:

    Petitioners (RTC judges in NCR) seek to prohibit and/or perpetually enjoin


    respondents from making any deduction of withholding taxes from their salaries. They
    submit that any tax withheld from their emoluments or compensation as judicial officers
    constitutes a decrease or diminution of their salaries, contrary to the provision of Section
    10, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution.

    The 1987 Constitution does not contain a provision similar to Section 6, Article XV
    of the 1973 Constitution, for which reason, petitioners claim that the intent of the framers
    is to revert to the original concept of "non-diminution "of salaries of judicial officers.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not the contention of the petitioners is tenable.

    HELD:

    The deliberations of the 1986 Constitutional Commission relevant to Section 10,


    Article VIII, negate such contention.

    The clear intent of the Constitutional Commission was to delete the proposed
    express grant of exemption from payment of income tax to members of the Judiciary, so as
    to "give substance to equality among the three branches of Government.”
    It is plain that the Constitution authorizes Congress 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. It would be a strained construction to read into the provision
    an exemption from taxation in the light of the discussion in the Constitutional Commission.

    With the foregoing interpretation, and as stated heretofore, 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 declared
    discarded. The framers of the fundamental law, as the alter ego of the people, have
    expressed in clear and unmistakable terms the meaning and import of Section 10, Article
    VIII, of the 1987 Constitution that they have adopted

    WHEREFORE, the instant petition for Prohibition is hereby dismissed.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy