Saint Wealth Ltd. v. Bureau of Internal

EN BANC
[G.R. No. 252965. December 7, 2021.]
SAINT WEALTH LTD., as represented by DAVID

BUENAVENTURA & ANG LAW OFFICES, petitioner, vs. BUREAU
OF INTERNAL REVENUE, herein represented by HON.
CAESAR R. DULAY, in his capacity as COMMISSIONER OF
THE BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE, and JOHN DOES and
JANE DOES, as persons acting for, in behalf, or under the
authority of respondents, respondents.
[G.R. No. 254102. December 7, 2021.]
MARCO POLO ENTERPRISES LIMITED, MG UNIVERSAL LINK

LIMITED, OG GLOBAL ACCESS LIMITED, PRIDE FORTUNE
LIMITED, VIP GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LIMITED, AG
INTERPACIFIC RESOURCES LIMITED, WANFANG
TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT LTD., IMPERIAL CHOICE
LIMITED, BESTBETINNET LIMITED, RIESLING CAPITAL
LIMITED, GOLDEN DRAGON EMPIRE LTD., ORIENTAL GAME
LIMITED, MOST SUCCESS INTERNATIONAL GROUP LIMITED,
and HIGH ZONE CAPITAL INVESTMENT GROUP LIMITED,
petitioners, vs. THE SECRETARY OF FINANCE, in the person
of CARLOS G. DOMINGUEZ III and THE COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE, in the person of CAESAR R. DULAY ,
respondents.
DECISION
GAERLAN, J : p
These are consolidated petitions for certiorari and prohibition with

urgent prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) and/or
preliminary injunction (Consolidated Petitions), 1 seeking to annul and set
aside: (1) Section 11 (f) and (g) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 11494 (Bayanihan
2 Law); (2) Revenue Regulations (RR) No. 30-2020 (RR No. 30-2020) of the
Department of Finance (DOF) and the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR); (3)
Revenue Memorandum Circular (RMC) No. 64-2020 (RMC No. 64-2020) of
the BIR; (4) RMC No. 102-2017 of the BIR; and (5) RMC No. 78-2018 of
the BIR (the Assailed Tax Issuances).
The Antecedents
In 1983, Presidential Decree No. 1869 (PAGCOR Charter) was enacted,
consolidating all laws relative to the franchise and powers of the Philippine
Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR). 2 Under Section 10 of the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
PAGCOR Charter, PAGCOR is granted rights, privileges, and authority to
operate and license gambling casinos, gaming clubs, and other similar
recreation or amusement places within the territorial jurisdiction of the
Philippines. 3
From 2016, the Philippines began regulating online gaming hubs,
specifically the Philippine Offshore Gaming Operators (POGOs). Thus, on
September 1, 2016, the PAGCOR issued the Rules and Regulations for
Philippine Offshore Gaming Operations (POGO Rules and Regulations). 4
The POGO Rules and Regulations defines offshore gaming as "the
offering by a licensee of PAGCOR authorized online games of chance via the
internet using a network and software or program, exclusively to offshore
authorized players excluding Filipinos abroad, who have registered and
established an online gaming account with the licensee." 5 Moreover, the
POGO Rules and Regulations explains that offshore gaming has three
components:
b.1. prize consisting of money or something else of value which
can be won under the rules of the game.
b.2. a player who:
b.2.a being located outside of the Philippines and not a
Filipino citizen, enters the game remotely or takes any
step in the game by means of a communication device
capable of accessing an electronic communication
network such as the internet.
b.2.b gives or undertakes to give, a monetary payment or
other valuable consideration to enter in the course of,
or for, the game; and
b.3. the winning of a prize is decided by chance. 6
The POGO Rules and Regulations further provides that POGOs must
register with PAGCOR. Upon registration, the POGO is given an Offshore
Gaming License (OGL). Entities who may be given an OGL are either: (1)
Philippine-based operators; or (2) offshore-based operators.
Philippine-based operators are corporations organized in the Philippines
which will either conduct offshore gaming operations themselves or engage
the services of PAGCOR-accredited service providers. Meanwhile, offshore-
based operators are corporations organized in any foreign country which will
engage the services of PAGCOR-accredited local gaming agents and/or
service providers for its offshore gaming operations. 7
POGO licensees are likewise required to pay several monthly regulatory
fees. Thus, from these regulatory fees alone, PAGCOR is able to generate
billions of pesos in revenues.
On December 27, 2017, the BIR issued RMC No. 102-2017, entitled
"Taxation of Taxpayers Engaged in Philippine Offshore Gamin g Operations,"
which recognized that online activity is sufficient to constitute doing
business in the Philippines, and clarified the taxability of POGOs. Under RMC
No. 102-2017, POGOs may either be classified as Licensees (Philippine-based
or offshore-based) or Other Entities (such as local gaming agents and other
service providers).
Further, RMC No. 102-2017 outlines the tax treatments for Licensees
and Other Entities, to wit:
a) The entire gross gaming receipts/earnings or the agreed or pre-
determined minimum monthly revenues/income from Gaming
Operations under existing rules, whichever is higher, shall be
subject to a franchise tax of five percent (5%), in lieu of all kinds
of taxes, levies, fees or assessments of any kind, nature or
description. This income is therefore exempt from any kind of
tax, income or otherwise, as well as fees, charges or levies of
whatever nature, whether national or local.
b) Income from Other Related Services income from non-gaming
operations shall be subject to normal income tax, value-added
tax and other applicable taxes, as may be deemed appropriate.
The 5% franchise tax in lieu of all taxes shall not apply.
c) A Licensee deriving income from both gaming operations and
from other related services shall be subject to 5% franchise tax
on its gaming revenues and normal income tax, value-added tax
and other applicable taxes on its non-gaming revenues.
d) An Other Entity, specifically including the gaming agent, Service
Provider and Gaming Support Provider, who is also a POGO
Licensee shall be taxed 5% Franchise tax on its gaming activities
and subject to the normal tax rate and other appropriate taxes
on its non-gaming operations. An Other Entity, who is not a POGO
Licensee, deriving or earning only Income from Other Related
Services or from non-gaming operations shall be subject to
normal income tax, value-added tax and other applicable taxes
on its entire revenues.
e) Income payments made by POGO Licensees or any other
business entity licensed or authorized by PAGCOR for all their
purchases of goods and services shall [be] subject to withholding
taxes as may be appropriate and applicable.
f) Compensation, fees, commissions or any other form of
renumeration as a result of services rendered to POGO licensees
or any other business entity licensed by PAGCOR shall be subject
to applicable withholding taxes under existing revenue laws and
regulations.
g) Purchases (local or imported) and sale (local or international) of
goods (tangible or intangible) or services shall be subject to
existing tax laws and revenue issuances, as may be applicable.
Thus, under RMC No. 102-2017, Licensees must pay a five percent
(5%) franchise tax, in lieu of all other taxes, for their income arising from
their gaming operations. Such franchise tax is based on their entire
gross gaming revenues. Meanwhile, for income arising from non-gaming
operations, Licensees must pay normal income tax, value-added tax (VAT),
and other applicable taxes. 8
On the other hand, Other Entities, who must also be registered with
PAGCOR, are subject to five percent (5%) franchise tax for income arising
from gaming operations, and normal income tax, VAT, and other applicable
taxes for income arising from non-gaming operations. Other Entities deriving
income solely from non-gaming operations shall be liable to pay normal
income tax, VAT, and other applicable taxes. 9
Thereafter, to implement RMC No. 102-2017, the BIR issued RMC No.
78-2018 dated September 7, 2018, entitled "Registration Requirements of
Philippine Offshore Gaming Operators and Its Accredited Service Providers ,"
which reiterated that online activity is sufficient to do business in the
Philippines and considered POGOs as "Resident Foreign Corporation Engaged
in Business in the Philippines." As such, RMC No. 78-2018, requires all
offshore-based and Philippine-based POGO licensees to register with the BIR.
10
The COVID-19 Pandemic

At the start of 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic hit the Philippines, which
brought about the closure of several business establishments and industries.
Sometime in mid-2020, the Philippines began relaxing community
quarantine restrictions, and the government started allowing some
industries to operate, including POGOs. Thus, on May 7, 2020, the BIR issued
RMC No. 46-2020, entitled "Guidelines & Requirements for POGO Licensees
and Service Providers in the Application of a BIR Clearance for the
Resumption of Operations ." Under RMC No. 46-2020, POGOs must comply
with the following conditions and submit the following documents before
they can resume their operations:
A. Conditions
1. Registered with the concerned Revenue District
Office (RDO) having jurisdiction over the place of
business;
2. Submit copies of 2019 & First Quarter of 2020
Franchise Tax Quarterly returns and proof of payments;
3. Remitted and paid the withholding taxes due from
the months of January to April, 2020;
4. Submission of a notarized undertaking to pay all
tax arrears for prior years;
5. Failure to comply with any of the above will result in
the denial of the issuance of a BIR Clearance for
resumption of operations.
B. Documentary Requirements
1. Copy of Application for Registration of Corporations,
et al., duly received by the concerned RDO (BIR Form No.
1903) or BIR Certificate of Registration (COR), if already
registered;
2. Copies of Franchise Tax Returns (BIR Form No.
2553) for the taxable quarters of 2019 and 1st quarter of
2020 together with proof of payments;
3. Copies of Monthly Remittance Form for Income
Taxes Withheld (BIR Form Nos. 1601-C and 0619-E and F),
Quarterly Remittance Return of Income Taxes Withheld
(BIR Form 1601-EQ and FQ) or Payment Form (BIR Form
No. 0605) for January to April, 2020; and
4. Notarized Undertaking to pay all tax arrears for
prior years.
On June 24, 2020, the BIR issued RMC No. 64-2020, revising RMC 46-
2020, as follows:
A. Conditions
1. Registered with the concerned Revenue District
Office (RDO) having jurisdiction over the place of
business;
2. Payment of Franchise Tax and submit proof of
payments;
3. Remitted and paid the withholding taxes, if
applicable;
4. Submission of a notarized undertaking to pay tax
arrears; and
5. Failure to comply with any of the above will result in
the denial of the issuance of a BIR Clearance for
resumption of operations.
B. Documentary Requirements
1. Copy of Application for Registration of Corporations,
et al., duly received by the concerned RDO (BIR Form No.
1903) or BIR Certificate of Registration (COR), if already
registered;
2. Copies of Franchise Tax Returns (BIR Form No.
2553) together with proof of payments;
3. Copies of Monthly Remittance Form for Income
Taxes Withheld (BIR Form Nos. 1601-C and 0619-E and F),
Quarterly Remittance Return of Income Taxes Withheld
(BIR Form 1601-EQ and FQ) or Payment Form (BIR Form
No. 0605) for January to April, 2020; and
4. Notarized Undertaking to pay tax arrears.
On September 11, 2020, the Bayanihan 2 Law, entitled "An Act
Providing for COVID-19 Response and Recovery Interventions and Providing
Mechanisms to Accelerate the Recovery and Bolster the Resiliency of the
Philippine Economy, Providing Funds Therefor, and for Other Purposes ," was
enacted as an emergency response law to address the COVID-19 pandemic.
Section 11 of the Bayanihan 2 Law outlines the sources of funding for the
COVID-19 measures to be undertaken by the government. 11 Among others,
Section 11 mentions a five percent (5%) franchise tax based on the
gross bets or turnovers earned by POGOs:
SECTION 11. Sources of Funding. — The enumerated
subsidy and stimulus measures, as well as all other measures to
address the COVID-19 pandemic shall be funded from the following:
xxx xxx xxx
(f) Amounts derived from the five percent (5%)
franchise tax on the gross bets or turnovers or the
agreed pre-determined minimum monthly revenues
from gaming operations, whichever is higher,
earned by offshore gaming licensees, including gaming
operators, gaming agents, services-providers and gaming
support providers;
(g) Income tax, VAT, and other applicable taxes on
income from non-gaming operations earned by offshore
gaming licensees, operators, agents, service providers
and support providers.
The tax shall be computed on the peso equivalent of the foreign
currency used, based on the prevailing official exchange rate at the
time of payment, otherwise the same shall be considered as a
fraudulent act constituting under declaration of taxable receipts or
income, and shall be subject to interests, fines and penalties under
Sections 248 (B), 249 (B), 253, and 255 of the National Internal
Revenue Code of the Philippines.
After two (2) years or upon a determination that the threat of
COVID-19 has been successfully contained or abated, whichever
comes first, the revenues derived from franchise taxes on
gross bets or turnovers under paragraph (f) and income from
non-gaming operations under paragraph (g) shall continue to
be collected and shall accrue to the General Fund of the
Government. The BIR shall implement closure orders against
offshore gaming licensees, operators, agents, service providers and
support providers who fail to pay the taxes due, and such entities
shall cease to operate. 12 (Emphasis supplied)
To implement Section 11 (f) and (g) of the Bayanihan 2 Law, the BIR
and the DOF issued RR No. 30-2020 dated September 30, 2020, which
provides:
Section 3. Sources of Funding for the Subsidy, Stimulus
Measures, and Other Measures to address the COVID-19 Pandemic. —
a. Franchise Tax at the rate of five percent (5%)
imposed on the gross bets or turnovers, or the agreed
pre-determined minimum monthly revenues from gaming
operations, whichever is higher, earned by offshore
gaming licensees, including gaming operators, gaming
agent, service providers and gaming support providers.
b. Income Tax, Value-Added Tax, and other
applicable taxes imposed on income from Non-
Gaming Operations earned by offshore gaming
licensees, including gaming operators, gaming agent,
service providers and gaming support providers.
The above taxes shall be computed on the peso equivalent of
the foreign currency used and based on the prevailing official
exchange rate at the time of payment.
The Saint Wealth Petition
On August 24, 2020, Saint Wealth Ltd. (Saint Wealth), an offshore-
based POGO licensee, filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition [With
Application for a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary
Injunction] (the Saint Wealth Petition ), assailing the constitutionality of RMC
No. 64-2020, and praying for the issuance of a TRO and/or writ of
preliminary injunction to enjoin the enforcement of the same.
According to Saint Wealth, RMC No. 64-2020 should be invalidated
based on the following arguments:
First, RMC No. 64-2020 violates Saint Wealth's constitutional right to
due process because when the BIR issued RMC No. 64-2020, in relation to
RMC No. 102-2017, the BIR arrogated upon itself the power to determine the
classification and taxability of POGOs, notwithstanding the absence of any
tax law passed by Congress. 13 Therefore, the issuance of RMC No. 64-2020
and RMC No. 102-2017, with respect to the imposition of franchise tax on
off-shore based POGO licensees, is an invalid exercise of quasi-legislative
powers on the part of the BIR, and consequently, is a violation of POGO
licensees' constitutional right to due process. 14
Second , RMC No. 64-2020 violates the equal protection clause. Under
RMC No. 64-2020, Saint Wealth, an offshore-based POGO licensee, is treated
as if it is similarly situated with Philippine-based casino providers. 15
However, there exists a reasonable classification between offshore-based
POGO licensees and Philippine-based entities that justifies a difference in
treatment:
1. There is a substantial distinction between Philippine-based
entities and offshore-based POGO licensees because the
former performs services within the Philippines, while the
latter performs services outside of the Philippines. Hence, the
former is subject to tax for income from services rendered
within the Philippines, while the latter is not subject to tax for
its income derived from services performed abroad.
2. The classification is germane to the purpose of RMC 64-2020,
because its purpose is to regulate POGO licensees and
operators which are within the taxing authority of the BIR.
Thus, only those entities which are within the taxing
authority of the BIR may be subjected to the BIR's
regulations.
3. The distinction is not limited to existing conditions only
because the distinction is based on established principles in
taxation with regard to classifying taxable entities.
4. The distinction applies equally to all members of the same
class. The distinction between Philippine-based entities and
offshore-based POGO licensees is equally applicable to the
members of each class. 16
Considering that a reasonable classification exists between Saint
Wealth, an offshore-based POGO licensee, and Philippine-based operators,
the BIR should treat them differently and should not impose similar tax
liabilities on these different classes of entities. 17
Third, RMC No. 64-2020 violates the fundamental principle of situs of
taxation. Saint Wealth is a non-resident foreign corporation. Under Philippine
tax laws, specifically the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC), non-
resident foreign corporations are only liable to pay taxes on income received
from sources within the Philippines. However, Saint Wealth's income is
derived from sources outside the Philippines since all of its operations are
located abroad. Therefore, it should not be subjected to any Philippine tax.
18
Fourth, RMC No. 64-2020 violates the rule on uniformity of taxation.

Since offshore-based POGO licensees are differently situated from Philippine-
based casino providers, offshore-based POGO licensees, including Saint
Wealth, should be taxed differently. Moreover, RMC No. 64-2020 likewise
violates the rule on uniformity of taxation because it treats differently
offshore-based POGO licensees from other foreign corporations which are
not engaged in trade or business in the Philippines. RMC No. 64-2020
imposes several tax liabilities, including taxes on income derived from
sources abroad, upon offshore-based POGO licensees, while other foreign
corporations are not being imposed with such taxes. 19
Meanwhile, as regards Saint Wealth's prayer for the issuance of
injunctive relief, Saint Wealth alleged that all the requisites for the issuance
of such relief are present because: (1) the issuance of RMC No. 64-2020
violates its right to due process and equal protection, and RMC No. 64-2020
likewise violates the principles of situs and uniformity of taxation; (2) there is
an urgent need for injunctive relief to prevent the BIR from unduly collecting
taxes from Saint Wealth; and (3) there is no other ordinary, speedy, or
adequate remedy to prevent the infliction of irreparable injury, except for
the issuance of a TRO and/or a writ of preliminary injunction. 20
The Marco Polo Petition
On November 19, 2020, offshore-based POGO licensees, namely: (1)
Marco Polo Enterprises Limited; (2) MG Universal Link Limited; (3) OG Global
Access Limited; (4) Pride Fortune Limited; (5) VIP Global Solutions Limited;
(6) AG Interpacific Resources Limited; (7) Wanfang Technology Management
Ltd.; (8) Imperial Choice Limited; (9) Bestbetinnet Limited; (10) Riesling
Capital Limited; (11) Golden Dragon Empire Ltd.; (12) Oriental Game Limited;
(13) Most Success International Group Limited; and (14) High Zone Capital
Investment Group Limited (collectively referred to as Marco Polo petitioners)
filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition (With Application for Temporary
Restraining Order/Writ of Preliminary Injunction) (the Marco Polo Petition ),
assailing the constitutionality of Section 11 (f) and (g) of the Bayanihan 2
Law, RR No. 30-2020, RMC No. 102-2017, and RMC No. 78-2018.
The Marco Polo Petition argued the following:
First, Section 11 (f) and (g) of the Bayanihan 2 Law are unconstitutional
for being riders. They are violative of Article VI, Section 26 (1) of the 1987
Constitution because they go beyond and are not germane to the subject
matter of the Bayanihan 2 Law: 21
The subject matter of the Bayanihan 2 Law is the
implementation of COVID-19 relief measures. It is not a tax measure.
However, Section 11 (f) and (g) of the said law impose new taxes
upon POGOs, which cannot be found in any other legislation.
Moreover, the Bayanihan 2 Law is a temporary relief measure.
However, under the said law, the collections under Section 11 (f) and
(g) shall subsist beyond the effectivity of the Bayanihan 2 Law, and
even after the COVID-19 pandemic is successfully contained. Clearly,
therefore, Section 11 (f) and (g) of the Bayanihan 2 Law go beyond
the subject matter of the law. 22
Furthermore, Section 11 (f) and (g) of the Bayanihan 2 Law are
not germane to the purpose of the law. Again, the Bayanihan 2 Law is
a temporary pandemic relief measure. Thus, there is no logical
connection between the perpetual tax imposition under Section 11 (f)
and (g) to the purpose of the law which is to provide a temporary
pandemic relief measure. 23
Second , Section 11 (f) of the Bayanihan 2 Law violates substantive due
process, and is arbitrary and confiscatory: 24
The concept of a tax based on gross bets or turnover of POGO
licensees was introduced for the first time in the Bayanihan 2 Law,
pursuant to a last minute change during the Bicameral Conference
Committee meeting. As a result of such change, POGO licensees are
now being subjected to tax, not only on their earnings, receipts, or
income, but even on the winnings that they pay out to patrons. 25
Clearly, it is arbitrary and confiscatory to tax POGO licensees on
the basis of gross bets or turnover because these do not equate to
earnings, income, or wealth flowing to the POGO licensees. Such rule
likewise violates the Constitutional mandate that the rule of taxation
shall be uniform, and equitable, and that Congress shall evolve a
progressive system of taxation. 26
Third, Section 11 (f) of the Bayanihan 2 Law is repugnant to
substantive due process because it whimsically disregards the principle of
territoriality in taxation: 27
Section 11 (f) of the Bayanihan 2 Law is unconstitutional
because it taxes an activity that does not take place in the
Philippines. Under the POGO Rules and Regulations, the activity which
generates gaming revenue or income for offshore-based POGO
licensees is the game of chance or offshore gaming. This is because
income is generated only when patrons access the gaming website,
place bets, and then lose their bets. Therefore, the situs of income
derived from offshore gaming is the place where such game is
played. Notably, the PAGCOR expressly prohibits POGO licensees
from the following activities: (1) allowing their gaming websites to be
accessed within Philippine territory; (2) allowing the placing of bets
within Philippine territory; (3) allowing the paying of winnings within
the Philippine territory; and (4) allowing Filipino citizens, wherever
located, and foreign nationals while in the Philippines, from accessing
their games through their websites. From the foregoing, it is clear
that the income from offshore gaming operations are from sources
outside the Philippine jurisdiction because the activity that produces
the income occurs abroad — the online gaming websites are operated
and accessed abroad, the bets are placed abroad, and the winnings
are paid abroad. 28
Fourth, Section 11 (f) of the Bayanihan 2 Law violates the equal
protection clause: 29
The Bayanihan 2 Law violates the equal protection clause for
the following reasons: (1) it is the only statute that taxes a business
entity even for its losses (taxing turnover); and (2) it is the only
statute that taxes foreign corporations for income earned abroad.
Thus, only offshore-based POGO licensees are subjected to the type
of tax treatment imposed under Section 11(f) of the Bayanihan 2 Law.
30
Moreover, the requirements for a valid classification under the

equal protection clause are not met. There is no substantial
distinction between offshore-based POGO licensees and other gaming
businesses to justify taxing POGO licensees based on gross bets or
turnover when other similar gaming business (such as casinos
operating in the Philippines and licensed by PAGCOR) are only
subjected to a five percent (5%) franchise tax based on gross
gaming revenues. Gross gaming revenue is the total sum received
less the total of all sums paid out as winnings to casino players.
There is likewise no substantial distinction between offshore-based
POGO licensees and other foreign corporations to justify the tax
treatment of taxing POGO licensees even for income derived abroad.
Finally, the discrimination against POGO licensees is not germane to
the purpose of the law because such discrimination has no logical
connection to the purpose of the Bayanihan 2 Law, which, again, is
only a temporary pandemic relief measure. 31
Fifth, Section 11 (g) of the Bayanihan 2 Law is also unconstitutional
because it whimsically disregards the principle of territoriality in taxation.
Similar to Section 11 (f) of the Bayanihan 2 Law, Section 11 (g) also violates
the principle of territoriality in taxation because it taxes "non-gaming"
income of offshore-based POGO licensees derived from sources abroad.
Section 11 (g) likewise disregards the destination principle because it
imposes VAT on goods and services which are consumed outside the
territory of the Philippines. 32
Sixth, Section 11 (g) of the Bayanihan 2 Law likewise violates the equal
protection clause. There is no substantial distinction or justification to treat
offshore-based POGO licensees differently and to tax them on income from
sources abroad when other foreign corporations are only taxed on income
derived from sources within the Philippines. There is likewise no substantial
distinction or justification to charge offshore-based POGO licensees with VAT
for their sale of goods and services destined for abroad. Further, the
discrimination against offshore-based POGO licensees is not germane to the
purpose of the Bayanihan 2 Law because such discrimination has no relation
to the law's purpose as a COVID-19 temporary relief measure. 33
Seventh, since Section 11 (f) and (g) of the Bayanihan 2 Law are
unconstitutional, RMC No. 30-2020 is also unconstitutional because it has no
statutory basis and/or mandate of any existing law. 34
Eighth, RMC No. 102-2017 is likewise void for having no statutory
basis: 35
RMC No. 102-2017 was issued purportedly to clarify the
taxability of POGOs. It then imposed a franchise tax of five percent
(5%) on the gross gaming revenues of POGOs, including offshore-
based POGO licensees. However, prior to the Bayanihan 2 Law, there
was no statute which imposed taxes on the gaming revenue of
offshore-based POGOs. 36
Apparently, in issuing RMC No. 102-2017, the BIR based the
imposition of the five percent (5%) franchise tax on gross gaming
revenues on the PAGCOR Charter. However, the PAGCOR Charter
grants PAGCOR and its contractees (licensees) operating within the
territorial jurisdiction of the Philippines an exemption from all national
and local fees and taxes in exchange for the payment of the five
percent (5%) franchise tax. The PAGCOR Charter does not authorize
the collection of any new tax whatsoever. It cannot be a source of a
new tax on offshore gaming done online, and outside the jurisdiction
of the Philippines. Considering that there is no law which allows for
the taxation of foreign-sourced income of foreign corporations,
including offshore-based POGO licensees, RMC No. 102-2017 has no
legal basis, and therefore, must be struck down and declared void. 37
Ninth, RMC No. 102-2017 is confiscatory and violates the equal
protection clause. Similar to the provisions of the Bayanihan 2 Law, RMC No.
102-2017 discriminates against offshore-based POGO licensees, making
them the only foreign corporations subject to taxes for income abroad,
therefore, violating the principle of territoriality. There is also no substantial
distinction or justification to treat offshore-based POGO licensees differently
and tax them on income from sources abroad when other foreign
corporations are not subjected to the same. 38
Tenth, RMC No. 78-2018, which imposed registration requirements
pursuant to the taxes imposed under RMC No. 102-2017, is void for having
been issued without statutory basis and/or for being unconstitutional. Since
RMC No. 102-2017 is unconstitutional and void, it follows that RMC No. 78-
2018, which imposes registration requirements to enforce RMC No. 102-
2017, is likewise unconstitutional and void. 39
T h e Marco Polo Petition likewise prayed for the issuance of a TRO
and/or writ of preliminary injunction. 40 In support of its application for the
issuance of a TRO and/or writ of preliminary injunction, the Marco Polo
Petition made the following arguments:
1. The Marco Polo petitioners have a clear and unmistakable
right against deprivation of property without due process of
law. 41
2. Section 11 (f) and (g) of the Bayanihan 2 Law and the
Assailed Tax Issuances directly and specifically target
offshore-based POGO licensees such as the Marco Polo
petitioners. The imposition of the taxes in question would
amount to a deprivation of their property without due process
of law, and is a material and substantial invasion of their
constitutional rights. 42
3. There is an extreme urgency for the issuance of injunctive
relief because if the same is not issued, the Marco Polo
petitioners would bleed financially because of illegal and
oppressive taxes. 43
4. T h e Marco Polo petitioners will suffer irreparable injury if
injunctive relief is not granted. If they are forced to cease
operations, either because of closure orders or because they
cannot afford to pay the illegal and oppressive taxes, their
business reputations will be tarnished, and they will lose their
clientele who may decide to patronize other operators
permanently. 44
Issuance of the TRO
On January 5, 2021, a TRO 45 was issued in favor of the Marco Polo
petitioners. The TRO enjoined the implementation of: (1) Section 11 (f) and
(g) of the Bayanihan 2 Law; (2) RR No. 30-2020; (3) RMC No. 102-2017; and
(4) RMC No. 78-2018.
Respondents' Consolidated Comment
On January 15, 2021, the DOF Secretary and the BIR Commissioner
(respondents), through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), filed their
Consolidated Comment 46 to the Consolidated Petitions.
In the Consolidated Comment, the respondents raised several
procedural and substantive issues.
With regard to the procedural issues, the respondents argued that the
Consolidated Petitions did not present an actual justiciable controversy.
Moreover, the respondents contended that resort to a petition for certiorari
and prohibition was improper, and a facial challenge is not permitted to
assail the provisions of the Bayanihan 2 Law and the BIR issuances. Finally,
the respondents alleged that the Consolidated Petitions violated the doctrine
of hierarchy of courts, and exhaustion of administrative remedies. 47
Meanwhile, for the substantive issues, the respondents argued the
following:
First, Section 11 (f) and (g) of the Bayanihan 2 Law does not violate the
"one subject, one title rule" under Article VI of the Constitution:
Section 26 (1), Article VI of the Constitution requires that "
[e]very bill passed by the Congress shall embrace only one subject
which shall be expressed in the title thereof." Such requirement is
satisfied if all the parts of the statute are related, and are germane to
the subject matter expressed in the title, or as long as they are not
inconsistent with the general subject and title of the law. 48
The full title of the Bayanihan 2 Law provides: "An Act Providing
for COVID-19 Response and Recovery Interventions and Providing
Mechanisms to Accelerate the Recovery and Bolster the Resiliency of
the Philippine Economy, Providing Funds Therefor , and for Other
Purposes." The phrase "Providing Funds Therefor " shows that
Section 11 of the said law, which enumerates the existing sources
of funding for COVID-19 relief measures, is germane to the purpose
of the law. Furthermore, Section 11 (f) and (g) of the Bayanihan 2 Law
do not impose new taxes because as early as 2017 and pursuant to
RMC 102-2017, revenues derived by POGO operators have been
subject to a five percent (5%) franchise tax. 49
Clearly, Section 11 (f) and (g) of the Bayanihan 2 Law are not
riders but are valid sources of funds, the identification of which is
germane to the subject and purpose of the law. As such, the
Bayanihan 2 Law did not impose any new tax, but merely allowed the
realignment of collections from already existing taxes. 50
Second , Section 11 (f) and (g) of the Bayanihan 2 Law, as well as the
Assailed Tax Issuances, do not violate the petitioners' right to due process:51
Section 11 (f) and (g) of the Bayanihan 2 Law are valid and
constitutional. The collection of franchise tax under the said law does
not violate the principle of territoriality in taxation because what is
being collected is a tax not based on income, but rather, on the
exercise of a privilege. Since such franchise tax partakes of the
nature of an excise tax, the situs of taxation is the place where the
privilege is exercised, regardless of the place where the services are
performed, or where the products are delivered. 52
RR No. 30-2020, which implements Section 11 (f) and (g) of the
Bayanihan 2 Law, is valid, and enjoys the presumption that the
legislature intended to enact a valid, sensible, and just law.
Furthermore, it bears emphasis that the NIRC empowers the DOF
Secretary to promulgate revenue regulations to ensure effective
enforcement of tax laws. Considering that RR No. 30-2020 was issued
by the proper authority (the DOF Secretary and the BIR), and in
accordance with a valid statute enacted by Congress, the same
enjoys the presumption of validity. 53
RMC No. 102-2017 has statutory basis. It was issued by the BIR
in accordance with the PAGCOR Charter, which imposes a five
percent (5%) franchise tax on the gross gaming revenues of
businesses engaged in gambling operations under the mantle of
PAGCOR. Clearly, the tax mentioned in RMC No. 102-2017 is not a
new tax. 54
RMC No. 78-2018 and RMC No. 64-2020, which impose
requirements for POGO registration and BIR clearance, are valid.
Again, these issuances did not impose new taxes on POGO licensees.
They merely provide for guidelines for registration and application for
a BIR Clearance in connection with their resumption of operations.
Notably, the act of providing guidelines is within the powers of the BIR
as the administrative body tasked to enforce tax laws, and
administrative issuances. Hence, RMC No. 78-2018 and RMC No. 64-
2020 have in their favor the presumption of legality. 55
Third, Section 11 (f) and (g) of the Bayanihan 2 Law, as well as the
Assailed Tax Issuances , do not violate the equal protection clause. 56 There
exists a reasonable classification between offshore-based POGO licensees
and other foreign corporations that justifies the difference in treatment
under the Bayanihan 2 Law:
1. Not all foreign corporations are engaged in offshore gaming,
and not all foreign corporations are required to obtain a
license from PAGCOR before they could operate. Moreover,
with the recognition that online activity is sufficient to
constitute doing business in the Philippines, foreign
corporations engaged in offshore gaming are regarded as
resident foreign corporations engaged in business in the
Philippines. Clearly, substantial distinctions exist between
foreign corporations engaged in offshore gaming, and foreign
corporations. 57
2. The classification is germane to the purpose of the law since
Section 11 (f) and (g) of the Bayanihan 2 Law are
mechanisms to accelerate the recovery of the Philippine
economy. 58
3. The classification applies equally to all members of the same
class — all foreign corporations granted with an OGL. 59
4. The classification is not limited to existing conditions since
the Bayanihan 2 Law itself provides for the collection of taxes
under Section 11 (f) and (g) even after the COVID-19
pandemic is successfully contained. 60
For the same reasons, RMC No. 102-2017, RMC No. 78-2018 and RMC
No. 64-2020 do not violate the equal protection clause because there are
valid classifications and distinctions to justify the difference in treatment
between POGO licensees and other corporations.
Fourth, the tax impositions on POGO licensees do not violate the
principles of situs and uniformity of taxation: 61
The principle of situs of taxation only applies to income
taxation. Clearly, such principle does not apply in the imposition of
franchise tax — the tax imposed upon POGO licensees. Hence, in
imposing franchise tax on POGO licensees, the location or the situs of
their income is immaterial, because what is being taxed is the
exercise of their rights and privileges granted to them by the
government. 62
Nevertheless, assuming arguendo that the principle of situs of
taxation applies, the revenues of POGOs are still subject to tax as
they are considered income within the Philippines. The income-
producing activity of POGOs is its entire gaming operations, which
consist of operating the software, taking bets, provision of gaming,
provision of services, and streaming of the games. Such gaming
operations, or parts of it, are done in the Philippines. Thus, the
revenues derived from these activities are taxable in the Philippine
jurisdiction. 63

Moreover, offshore-based POGO licensees are considered
resident foreign corporations, and as such, they are taxable in the
Philippines. Based on the Opinion of the Office of the General Counsel
of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the setting up of
game servers in the Philippines by a foreign corporation is considered
as "doing business" in the Philippines. According to the SEC, since
these game servers will be in continued operations while being
physically present in the Philippines, the foreign corporation which set
up these servers are considered to be engaged in activities which
imply a continuity of commercial dealings in the Philippines. 64
Meanwhile, as regards the income tax and VAT imposed upon
revenues from non-gaming operations, these non-gaming operations
are services performed in the Philippines. Thus, these are subject to
normal income tax, VAT, and other applicable taxes under the NIRC.
65
With respect to the principle of uniformity of taxation, the taxes

imposed upon POGO licensees are uniform because they are imposed
on all POGOs wherever they operate. Uniformity of taxation simply
requires that all subjects or objects of taxation, similarly situated, are
to be treated alike. 66
In the Consolidated Comment, the respondents likewise moved for the
reconsideration of the issuance of the TRO. The respondents argued that the
requisites for the issuance of a TRO were not met because:
1. The petitioners failed to show that they have a clear legal
right as there is no violation of the "one subject, one title,"
due process, and equal protection clauses of the
Constitution. 67
2. The petitioners failed to prove the element of grave and
irreparable injury. The injury or damage sought to be
prevented is not irreparable and is actually capable of
pecuniary estimation. Moreover, the petitioners have other
remedies such as tax refund or tax credit under the NIRC. 68
3. The petitioners failed to show extreme necessity for the
issuance of injunctive relief. 69
Legislative Developments during the
Pendency of the Case
On September 22, 2021, President Rodrigo Duterte signed R.A. No.
11590, entitled "An Act Taxing Philippine Offshore Gaming Operations,
Amending for the Purpose Sections 22, 25, 27, 28, 106, 108, and Adding New
Sections 125-A and 288-G of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997, as
Amended, and for Other Purposes."
R.A. No. 11590 categorically classifies POGO licensees, whether
Philippine-based or offshore-based as corporations "engaged in doing
business in the Philippines." 70 R.A. No. 11590 likewise imposes a five
percent (5%) gaming tax on the income of POGOs derived from their
gaming operations. 71 Such gaming tax is based on the entire gross gaming
revenue or receipts or the agreed predetermined minimum monthly
revenue, whichever is higher:
Section 125-A. Gaming Tax on Services Rendered by
Offshore Gaming Licensees. — Any provision of existing laws, rules or
regulations to the contrary notwithstanding, the entire gross gaming
revenue or receipts from gaming, whichever is higher, shall be levied,
assessed, and collected a gaming tax equivalent to five percent
(5%), in lieu of all other direct and indirect internal revenue
taxes and local taxes, with respect to gaming income x x x.
(Emphasis supplied)
As regards income derived from non-gaming operations, R.A. No.
11590 imposes a 25% income tax on Philippine-based POGOs for their
income derived from sources within and without the Philippines. 72 On the
other hand, for offshore-based POGO licensees, they are subject to 25%
income tax for their income only from sources within the Philippines: 73
Sec. 28. Rates of Income Tax on Foreign Corporations. —
xxx xxx xxx
(7) Offshore Gaming Licensees. — The provisions of existing
special or general laws to the contrary notwithstanding, the non-
gaming revenues derived within the Philippines of foreign-
based offshore gaming licensees as defined and duly licensed by
the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation or any special
economic zone authority or tourism zone authority or freeport
authority shall be subject to an income tax equivalent to twenty-five
percent (25%) of the taxable income derived during each taxable
year. (Emphasis supplied)
Finally, with respect to the imposition of VAT, R.A. No. 11590 provides
that sales of goods and properties to POGOs, as well as services rendered to
POGOs by service providers, shall be subject to zero percent (0%) rate. 74
The Issues
This Court is tasked to tackle the following pivotal issues: (1) whether
offshore-based POGO licensees are liable to pay a five percent (5%)
franchise tax for income derived from their gaming operations; and (2)
whether offshore-based POGO licensees are liable to pay income tax, VAT,
and other applicable taxes for income derived from their non-gaming
operations.
Our Ruling
The Consolidated Petitions are meritorious.
Prefatorily, it is worthy to note that the Consolidated Petitions appear
to have been rendered moot by the enactment of R.A. No. 11590, which
categorically imposes the following taxes on offshore-based POGO licensees,
such as the petitioners:
1. Five percent (5%) gaming tax on all income derived from
gaming operations; and
2. Twenty-Five percent (25%) income tax on income derived
from non-gaming operations from sources within the
Philippines.
R.A. No. 11590 similarly states that all laws, rules and regulations,
including the Bayanihan 2 Law, which are contrary to or inconsistent with
any provision of the same are repealed and modified accordingly. 75
In Jacinto-Henares v. St. Paul College of Makati, 76 this Court explained
the principle of mootness in this wise:
A moot and academic case is one that ceases to present a
justiciable controversy by virtue of supervening events, so that an
adjudication of the case or a declaration on the issue would be of no
practical value or use. Courts generally decline jurisdiction over such
case or dismiss it on the ground of mootness. 77 (Citations omitted)
With the enactment of R.A. No. 11590, a supervening event has
transpired which directly addressed the pivotal issues raised in the
Consolidated Petitions because a valid law has been passed clarifying the
taxability of POGOs, including offshore-based POGO licensees, and imposing
the applicable taxes thereon.
Nevertheless, this Court finds it imperative to resolve the instant case
vis-à-vis the petitioners' tax liabilities prior to the passage of R.A. No. 11590,
and to discuss the substantive issues raised by the petitioners. As succinctly
held in David v. Macapagal-Arroyo, 78 this Court may still decide a case,
which is otherwise moot and academic, when constitutional issues raised
require the formulation of controlling principles to guide the bench, the bar,
and the public:
The "moot and academic" principle is not a magical formula
that can automatically dissuade the courts in resolving a case. Courts
will decide cases, otherwise moot and academic, if: first, there is a
grave violation of the Constitution; second, the exceptional
character of the situation and the paramount public interest is
involved; third , when constitutional issue raised requires
formulation of controlling principles to guide the bench, the
bar, and the public ; and fourth , the case is capable of repetition
yet evading review. 79 (Emphasis supplied; citations omitted)
Here, the petitioners raise, among others, genuine issues on the
constitutionality of Section 11 (f) and (g) of the Bayanihan 2 Law. Thus, this
Court is impelled to consider and resolve the Consolidated Petitions to
provide guidance as to the tax liabilities of offshore-based POGO licensees,
including the petitioners, prior to the passage of R.A. No. 11590.
The PAGCOR Charter Imposes a
Franchise Tax upon its Licensees on
Revenues Derived from Gaming
Operations, and Income Tax, VAT, and
Other Applicable Taxes on Revenues
Derived from Non-Gaming Operations.
Under Section 13 (2) (a) of the PAGCOR Charter, PAGCOR is exempt
from the payment of any and all taxes on its income derived from gaming
operations, except for a five percent (5%) franchise tax on its gross
revenues or earning:
SECTION 13. Exemptions. —
xxx xxx xxx
(2) Income and other taxes. — (a) Franchise Holder: No tax
of any kind or form, income or otherwise, as well as fees,
charges or levies of whatever nature, whether National or
Local, shall be assessed and collected under this Franchise
from the Corporation; nor shall any form of tax or charge
attach in any way to the earnings of the Corporation, except a
Franchise Tax of five (5%) percent of the gross revenue or
earnings derived by the Corporation from its operation under
this Franchise. Such tax shall be due and payable quarterly to the
National Government and shall be in lieu of all kinds of taxes, levies,
fees or assessments of any kind, nature or description, levied,
established or collected by any municipal, provincial, or national
government authority. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Such exemption extends to PAGCOR's licensees pursuant to Section 13
(2) (b) of the PAGCOR Charter, which provides:
(b) Others: The exemptions herein granted for
earnings derived from the operations conducted under the
franchise specifically from the payment of any tax, income or
otherwise, as well as any form of charges, fees or levies, shall
inure to the benefit of and extend to corporation(s),
association(s), agency(ies), or individual(s) with whom the
Corporation or operator has any contractual relationship in
connection with the operations of the casino(s) authorized to
be conducted under this Franchise and to those receiving
compensation or other remuneration from the Corporation or
operator as a result of essential facilities furnished and/or technical
services rendered to the Corporation or operator. (Emphasis and
underscoring supplied)
Considering the above-cited provisions, this Court clarified in
Bloomberry Resorts and Hotels, Inc. v. Bureau of Internal Revenue
(Bloomberry), 80 that PAGCOR's tax privilege of paying only a five percent
(5%) franchise tax for income generated from its gaming operations, in lieu
of all other taxes, inures to the benefit of PAGCOR's licensees :
As the PAGCOR Charter states in unequivocal terms that
exemptions granted for earnings derived from the operations
conducted under the franchise specifically from the payment of any
tax, income or otherwise, as well as any form of charges, tees or
levies, shall inure to the benefit of and extend to corporation(s),
association(s), agency(ies), or individual(s) with whom the PAGCOR or
operator has any contractual relationship in connection with the
operations of the casino(s) authorized to be conducted under this
Franchise, so it must be that all contractees and licensees of
PAGCOR, upon payment of the 5% franchise tax, shall
likewise be exempted from all other taxes, including
corporate income tax realized from the operation of casinos.
xxx xxx xxx
Plainly, too, upon payment of the 5% franchise tax ,
petitioner's income from its gaming operations of gambling
casinos, gaming clubs and other similar recreation or
amusement places, and gaming pools, defined within the
purview of the aforesaid section, is not subject to corporate
income tax. 81 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Clearly, both law and jurisprudence mandate that PAGCOR's licensees
are only liable to pay a five percent (5%) franchise tax for income derived
from its gaming operations. However, a plain reading of the PAGCOR Charter
and the ruling in Bloomberry shows that the liability of paying the five
percent (5%) franchise tax only applies to PAGCOR's licensees which are
connected to the operations of casinos and other related amusement
places.
Stated differently, the payment of this five percent (5%)
franchise tax only applies to PAGCOR licensees which operate
casinos and other related amusement places, and excludes those
licensees who derive profit from other means, such as POGOs. Thus,
POGOs, including offshore-based POGO licensees, are not taxed under the
PAGCOR Charter.
Prior to the Bayanihan 2 Law, there is
No Law which Imposes a Five Percent
(5%) Franchise Tax on POGO
Licensees.
To recall, in 2017, the BIR issued RMC No. 102-2017, which is the first
issuance which dealt with the taxability of POGOs. RMC No. 102-2017
imposed, among others, a five percent (5%) franchise tax upon the gross
gaming revenues derived from gaming operations of POGOs. Supposedly,
such franchise tax is based on the PAGCOR Charter and settled
jurisprudence.
However, as stated above, the franchise tax liability of PAGCOR
licensees only applies to those which operate casinos and other
related amusement places. It is undeniable that POGOs do not fall within
the contemplation of licensees who operate casinos and other related
amusement places. The PAGCOR Charter is clear, and when a law is clear,
there is no room for any interpretation.
Moreover, as aptly observed by Senior Associate Justice Estela Perlas-
Bernabe (Justice Perlas-Bernabe), when the PAGCOR Charter was enacted,
offshore gaming was not yet in existence. Thus, the PAGCOR Charter could
not have contemplated virtual gaming websites as "casinos and other
related amusement places" mentioned under Section 13 (2) (b) thereof.
Consequently, the PAGCOR Charter cannot be said to have been the basis
for imposing tax on POGO Licensees. 82
Simply then, when RMC No. 102-2017 was issued, there was no law
imposing any franchise tax on POGOs. Thus, RMC No. 102-2017 is
invalid, insofar as it imposed franchise taxes on POGOS, because it was
passed without any statutory basis.
Likewise, as pointed out by Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa
(Justice Caguioa), 83 RMC No. 102-2017 is likewise invalid and
unconstitutional because it effectively amended the PAGCOR Charter when it
imposed taxes on entities not taxed under the law. It must be emphasized
that the State's inherent power to tax is exclusively vested in Congress. 84
Without such imprimatur from Congress, the BIR cannot arrogate upon itself
the authority to impose taxes, especially because "[t]he rule is that a tax is
never presumed and there must be clear language in the law imposing the
tax. Any doubt whether a person, article or activity is taxable is resolved
against taxation." 85
Moreover, the BIR cannot enlarge or go beyond the provisions of the
law it administers. As held in Purisima v. Lazatin (Purisima): 86
RR 2-2012 is unconstitutional.
According to the respondents, the power to enact, amend, or
repeal laws belong exclusively to Congress. In passing RR 2-2012,
petitioners illegally amended the law — a power solely vested on the
Legislature.
We agree with the respondents.
The power of the petitioners to interpret tax laws is not
absolute. The rule is that regulations may not enlarge, alter,
restrict, or otherwise go beyond the provisions of the law
they administer; administrators and implementors cannot
engraft additional requirements not contemplated by the
legislature.
It is worthy to note that RR 2-2012 does not even refer to a
specific Tax Code provision it wishes to implement . While it
purportedly establishes mere administration measures for the
collection of VAT and excise tax on the importation of petroleum and
petroleum products, not once did it mention the pertinent chapters of
the Tax Code on VAT and excise tax. (Emphasis supplied; citations
omitted)
Indeed, the ruling in Purisima applies squarely in this case. The BIR
encroached upon the authority reserved exclusively for Congress when it
issued RMC No. 102-2017 and imposed a five percent (5%) franchise tax
upon POGOs when the PAGCOR Charter itself does not tax POGOs. RMC No.
102-2017 likewise failed to indicate which provisions of the PAGCOR Charter
it was implementing when it imposed the franchise tax. Accordingly, RMC
No. 102-2017, and consequently, RMC No. 78-2018, insofar as they
imposed franchise taxes on POGOS, are invalid and unconstitutional
for being issued without any statutory basis and for encroaching
upon legislative power to enact tax laws.
The BIR can only Impose Income Tax
upon Income Derived from the
Philippines; VAT can only be Imposed for
Services and Goods Consumed in the
Philippines.
Apart from franchise tax, RMC No. 102-2017 likewise imposed income
tax, VAT, and other applicable taxes on offshore-based POGO licensees upon
their income derived from non-gaming operations or other related services.
"Income from Other Related Services" is defined by RMC No. 102-2017
as "income or earning realized or derived not from gaming operations but
from such other necessary and related services, shows, and entertainment."
87
At this juncture, it is vital to recall that the principle of taxation is an

inherent attribute of sovereignty. As stated by Justice Perlas-Bernabe,
taxation emanates from necessity, 88 and is grounded on a mutually
advantageous relationship between the State and those it governs;
every person surrenders a portion of their income for the running of the
government, and the government in turn, provides tangible and intangible
benefits to serve and protect those within its jurisdiction. 89 Similarly,
Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao (Justice Dimaampao) cited the
principle of equality in taxation, which states that the subjects of every
state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly
as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion
to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection
of the state. 90
Thus, it is within the context of whether or not POGOs, particularly
offshore-based POGO licensees, enjoy the protection of the State that this
Court must determine whether the Philippines may impose taxes upon them.
To resolve this query, it is vital to understand the services performed
by offshore-based POGO licensees to determine how they operate and how
they derive revenues.
Under the POGO Rules and Regulations, POGOs are entities which
provide and participate in offshore gaming services. As stated above,
offshore gaming refers to "the offering by a licensee of PAGCOR authorized
online games of chance via the Internet using a network and software or
program, exclusively to offshore authorized players excluding Filipinos
abroad, who have registered and established an online gaming account with
the licensee." 91 Offshore gaming has three components:
b.1.) prize consisting of money or something else of value
which can be won under the rules of the game;
b.2.) a player who:
b.2.a.) being located outside of the Philippines and not a
network such as the internet.
b.2.b.) gives or undertakes to give, a monetary payment
or other valuable consideration to enter in the course
of, or for, the game; and
b.3.) the winning of a prize is decided by chance. 92
All these three components do not involve and are not performed
within the Philippine territory. None of these components likewise deals with
Filipino citizens. To reiterate, the placing of bets occurs outside the
Philippines; the players must not be Filipino citizens, or within the
Philippines; and the payment of the prize also occurs outside of the
Philippines.
Given the above, the only point of contact of an offshore-based POGO
licensee to the Philippines is that it is required, pursuant to its OGL, to
engage the services of PAGCOR-accredited local gaming agents and service
providers for its offshore gaming operations. 93 These service providers
are separate and distinct entities from the offshore-based POGO
licensees. Simply put, the only transaction entered into by these offshore-
based POGO licensees are the service contracts with these service providers
located in the Philippines.
Because of the supposed continuing presence (through transacting
with service providers) of offshore-based POGO licensees in the Philippines,
the BIR has categorized offshore-based POGO licensees as resident foreign
corporations. Notably, R.A. No. 11590 likewise classifies all POGO
licensees, including offshore-based POGO licensees as corporations
"engaged in doing business in the Philippines." Nevertheless, the NIRC
provides that foreign corporations are only taxed for income derived in the
Philippines:
SEC. 23. General Principles of Income Taxation in the
Philippines. — Except when otherwise provided in this Code:
xxx xxx xxx
(f) A foreign corporation, whether engaged or not in trade or
business in the Philippines, is taxable only on income derived from
sources within the Philippines. (Emphasis supplied)
In fact, R.A. No. 11590 likewise categorically provides that
offshore-based POGO licensees are only liable to pay income tax for
income derived within the Philippines.
As mentioned by Justice Perlas-Bernabe, Section 42 (A) 94 of the NIRC
provides the guidelines in determining what income is derived from sources
within the Philippines, while Section 42 (C) 95 thereof identifies what income
is sourced without. In explaining the concept of "source" vis-à-vis taxation,
this Court stated in Manila Gas Corporation v. Collector of Internal Revenue:
96 "[t]he word 'source' conveys only one idea, that of origin, and the origin of
the income was the Philippines." Thus, the test is to determine if the income
originated from the Philippines. 97
A reading of Section 42 (A) and (C) of the NIRC makes it clear that for
income derived from the sale of services, the focal point is where the actual
performance of the service occurs. In this regard, the seminal case of
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. British Overseas Airways Corporation
(BOAC) 98 is instructive to understand the precise aspect of the activity
which triggers the taxable event, viz.:
The source of an income is the property, activity or service that
produced the income. For the source of income to be considered
as coming from the Philippines, it is sufficient that the income
is derived from activity within the Philippines. In BOAC's case,
the sale of tickets in the Philippines is the activity that
produces the income. The tickets exchanged hands here and
payments for fares were also made here in Philippine
currency. The situs of the source of payments is the
Philippines. The flow of wealth proceeded from, and occurred
within, Philippine territory, enjoying the protection accorded
by the Philippine government. In consideration of such
protection, the flow of wealth should share the burden of
supporting the government.
xxx xxx xxx
BOAC, however, would impress upon this Court that income
derived from transportation is income for services, with the result
that the place where the services are rendered determines the
source; and since BOAC's service of transportation is performed
outside the Philippines, the income derived is from sources without
the Philippines and, therefore, not taxable under our income tax laws.
The Tax Court upholds that stand in the joint Decision under review.
The absence of flight operations to and from the Philippines is
not determinative of the source of income or the situs of income
taxation. Admittedly, BOAC was an off-line international airline at the
time pertinent to this case. The test of taxability is the "source";
and the source of an income is that activity x x x which
produced the income. Unquestionably, the passage
documentations in these cases were sold in the Philippines and the
revenue therefrom was derived from a business activity regularly
pursued within the Philippines. And even if the BOAC tickets sold
covered the "transport of passengers and cargo to and from foreign
cities," it cannot alter the fact that income from the sale of
tickets was derived from the Philippines. The word "source"
conveys one essential idea, that of origin, and the origin of
the income herein is the Philippines. 99 (Emphasis supplied;
citations omitted)
Thus, as observed by Justice Perlas-Bernabe, in BOAC , the Court held
that, while the actual transportation would occur outside the Philippines, the
sale of tickets in the Philippines already constituted a taxable activity. 100 In
this regard, in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Baier-Nickel (Baier-
Nickel), 101 this Court expounded on its ruling in BOAC , and clarified that the
"source" of income is not determined by where income is disbursed or
physically received, but rather, where the business activity that produced
such income is actually conducted:
Both the petitioner and respondent cited the case of
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. British Overseas Airways
Corporation in support of their arguments, but the correct
interpretation of the said case favors the theory of respondent that it
is the situs of the activity that determines whether such
income is taxable in the Philippines. The conflict between the
majority and the dissenting opinion in the said case has nothing to do
with the underlying principle of the law on sourcing of income. In fact,
both applied the case of Alexander Howden & Co., Ltd. v. Collector of
Internal Revenue. The divergence in opinion centered on whether the
sale of tickets in the Philippines is to be construed as the "activity"
that produced the income, as viewed by the majority, or merely the
physical source of the income, as ratiocinated by Justice Florentino P.
Feliciano in his dissent. The majority, through Justice Ameurfina
Melencio-Herrera, as ponente, interpreted the sale of tickets as a
business activity that gave rise to the income of BOAC. Petitioner
cannot therefore invoke said case to support its view that
source of income is the physical source of the money earned.
If such was the interpretation of the majority, the Court
would have simply stated that source of income is not the
business activity of BOAC but the place where the person or
entity disbursing the income is located or where BOAC
physically received the same. But such was not the import of
the ruling of the Court. It even explained in detail the business
activity undertaken by BOAC in the Philippines to pinpoint the taxable
activity and to justify its conclusion that BOAC is subject to Philippine
income taxation. x x x.
xxx xxx xxx
The Court reiterates the rule that "source of income"
relates to the property, activity or service that produced the
income. With respect to rendition of labor or personal service, as in
the instant case, it is the place where the labor or service was
performed that determines the source of the income. There is
therefore no merit in petitioner's interpretation which equates source
of income in labor or personal service with the residence of the payor
or the place of payment of the income. 102 (Emphasis supplied)
Applying the rulings of BOAC and Baier-Nickel to the instant case, it
appears that offshore-based POGO licensees derive no income from the
sources within the Philippines because the "activity" which produces
income occurs and is located outside the territory of the Philippines. Indeed,
the flow of wealth or the income-generating activity — the placing of bets
less the amount of payout — transpires outside the Philippines.
Pertinently, apart from the disquisitions found in BOAC and Baier-
Nickel, Justice Dimaampao also observed the necessity to discuss the other
jurisprudential tests to ascertain whether a resident foreign corporation is
"doing" or "engaging in" or "transacting" business in the Philippines, to
determine the taxability of POGOs, particularly offshore-based POGO
licensees, within the jurisdiction of the Philippines. 103 These jurisprudential
tests are as follows:
1. Substance Test; 104
2. Contract Test; 105
3. Intention Test; 106 and
4. Actual Performance Test. 107
Substance Test — the true test in determining whether a foreign

corporation is transacting business "seems to be whether [it] is continuing
the body or substance of the business or enterprise for which it was
organized or whether it has substantially retired from it and turned it over to
another." 108 As noted by Justice Dimaampao, the Substance Test implies a
continuity of commercial dealings and arrangements, and
contemplates, to the extent, the performance of acts or works or the
exercise of some of the functions normally incident to, and in progressive
prosecution of, the purpose of its organization. 109
Contract Test — transactions entered into by a foreign corporation
which constitute an isolated transaction and are not a series of
commercial dealings which signify an intent on the part of such corporation
to do business in the Philippines, does not fall under the category of "doing
business." Thus, as stressed by Justice Dimaampao, isolated transactions
by a foreign corporation do not constitute engaging in business in the
Philippines. 110
Intention Test — what is determinative of "doing business" is not
really the number or the quantity of the transactions, but the intention of the
entity to continue the body of its business in the country. The number and
quantity are merely evidence of such intention. The phrase "isolated
transaction" has a definite and fixed meaning, i.e., a transaction or series of
transactions set apart from the common business of a foreign enterprise in
the sense that no intention to engage in a progressive pursuit of the purpose
and object of the business organization. As such, Justice Dimaampao noted
in his Reflections that under the Intention Test , the question of whether a
foreign corporation is "doing business" does not necessarily depend upon the
frequency of its transactions, but more upon the nature and character of
the transactions.
Actual Performance Test — an essential condition to be considered
as "doing business" in the Philippines is the actual performance of
specific commercial acts within the territory of the Philippines,
because, as aptly pointed out by Justice Dimaampao in his Reflections, the
Philippines has no jurisdiction over commercial acts performed in foreign
territories.
Applying these jurisprudential tests, as well as the discussion of what
constitutes doing business under Section 3 (d) of the Foreign Investments
Act of 1991 (FIA), 111 it is abundantly clear that the POGOs, particularly
offshore-based POGO licensees, are not doing, engaging in, nor
transacting business in the Philippines. As emphasized by Justice
Dimaampao: first, the activities of offshore-based POGO licensees do not fall
under Section 3 (d) of the FIA; second, offshore-based POGO licensees only
have a limited presence in the Philippines; and third, the transactions of
offshore-based POGO licensees not performed in the Philippines are beyond
our jurisdiction. 112
In view of all the foregoing, and to answer the query above, it is
apparent that POGOs, particularly offshore-based POGO licensees, do not
enjoy any protection from the State. To be clear, the very nature of their
operations and the limited presence of offshore-based POGO licensees in the
Philippines negate the concept of "doing business" in the Philippines; and
therefore, POGOs, particularly offshore-based POGO licensees cannot be
taxed here.
Relevantly, while the application of the aforementioned jurisprudential
tests, including the rulings in BOAC and Baier-Nickel, and the provisions of
the FIA, lead to the inescapable conclusion that POGOs, particularly offshore-
based POGO licensees, cannot be subjected to tax in the Philippine
jurisdiction, it must be borne in mind that the foregoing were promulgated
and enacted during a time when businesses require physical presence
within a State to provide certain services. As observed by both Justice Perlas-
Bernabe and Justice Dimaampao, with the proliferation of digital and online
commerce, it becomes more complicated and less straightforward to
determine where the activity which produces income occurs, as when the
transaction is conducted over the internet. 113
Thus, this Court finds it crucial to add a discussion with respect to the
challenges of taxing the "digital economy" as suggested by Justice Perlas-
Bernabe. 114
Justice Perlas-Bernabe explained that according to the Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the digital economy
brought about the emergence of new business models which may "quickly
cause existing businesses to become obsolete." 115 From a tax perspective,
the digital economy likewise poses several challenges because of the
following key features:
• Mobility, with respect to (i) the intangibles on which the digital
economy relies heavily, (ii) users, and (iii) business functions as a
consequence of the decreased need for local personnel to
perform certain functions as well as the flexibility in many cases
to choose the location of servers and other resources.
• Reliance on data, including in particular the use of so-called "big
data."
• Network effects, understood with reference to user participation,
integration and synergies.
• Use of multi-sided business models in which the two sides of the
market may be in different jurisdictions.
• Tendency toward monopoly or oligopoly in certain business
models relying heavily on network effects.
• Volatility due to low barriers to entry and rapidly evolving
technology. 116
To illustrate, the mobility of users in the digital economy allows them
to: (1) carry on commercial activities remotely across borders; and (2) use of
virtual private networks (VPNs) or proxy servers that could mask the location
of where the digital transaction actually occurs. 117 Meanwhile, with respect
to the mobility of business functions, the digital economy allows entities to
coordinate activities across several territories in one central point while
being geographically removed from both the location where the business
operations are carried out and where the suppliers or customers are
serviced. 118
Thus, as observed by Justice Perlas-Bernabe, the complexity of the
digital economy could allow businesses to avoid a taxable presence or
escape taxation anywhere by simply working around local laws and outdated
conceptions of permanent establishments. As stated by the OECD:
5.2.1.1 Avoiding a taxable presence
In many digital economy business models, a non-resident
company may interact with customers in a country remotely through
a website or other digital means (e.g., an application on a mobile
device) without maintaining a physical presence in the country.
Increasing reliance on automated processes may further decrease
reliance on local physical presence. The domestic laws of most
countries require some degree of physical presence before business
profits are subject to taxation. In addition, under Articles 5 and 7 of
the OECD Model Tax Convention, a company is subject to tax on its
business profits in a country of which it is a non-resident only if it has
a permanent establishment (PE) in that country. Accordingly, such
non-resident company may not be subject to tax in the country in
which it has customers.
Companies in many industries have customers in a country
without a PE in that country, communicating with those customers via
phone, mail, and fax and through independent agents. That ability to
maintain some level of business connection within a country without
being subject to tax on business profits earned from sources within
that country is the result of particular policy choices reflected in
domestic laws and relevant double tax treaties, and is not in and of
itself a BEPS issue. However, while the ability of a company to earn
revenue from customers in a country without having a PE in that
country is not unique to digital businesses, it is available at a greater
scale in the digital economy than was previously the case. Where this
ability, coupled with strategies that eliminate taxation in the State of
residence, results in such revenue not being taxed anywhere, BEPS
concerns are raised. In addition, under some circumstances, tax in a
market jurisdiction can be artificially avoided by fragmenting
operations among multiple group entities in order to qualify for the
exceptions to PE status for preparatory and auxiliary activities, or by
otherwise ensuring that each location through which business is
conducted falls below the PE threshold. Structures of this type raise
BEPS concerns. 119
To combat this, the OECD offers several proposals, such as revising
treaty terms on Permanent Establishments, and implementing better
domestic foreign corporation rules among countries. 120
However, as mentioned by Justice Perlas-Bernabe, to which this Court
concurs, until such time as existing tax treaties and tax laws are revised and
revisited to account for the digital economy, this Court must apply the laws
as they currently are. Since, as explained above, no income is derived
from sources within the Philippines, offshore-based POGO licensees
cannot be subjected to income tax.
All things considered, RMC No. 102-2017, and consequently, RMC No.
78-2018, should be struck down, insofar as they imposed income tax and
other applicable taxes upon offshore-based POGO licensees, notwithstanding
the fact that offshore-based POGO licensees do not derive any income from
sources within the Philippines.
Section 11 (f) and (g) of the Bayanihan 2
Law are Unconstitutional for Being
Riders.
The title of the Bayanihan 2 Law reads: "An Act Providing for COVID-19
Response and Recovery Interventions and Providing Mechanisms to
Accelerate the Recovery and Bolster the Resiliency of the Philippine
Economy, Providing Funds Therefor , and for Other Purposes." Meanwhile,
Section 11 thereof lists the sources of funding to address the COVID-19
pandemic, which includes, among others, the following:
SECTION 11. Sources of Funding . — The enumerated
xxx xxx xxx
(f) Amounts derived from the five percent (5%) franchise
tax on the gross bets or turnovers or the agreed pre-
determined minimum monthly revenues from gaming
operations, whichever is higher, earned by offshore gaming
licensees, including gaming operators, gaming agents, services-
providers and gaming support providers;
(g) Income tax, VAT, and other applicable taxes on income
from non-gaming operations earned by offshore gaming
licensees, operators, agents, service providers and support
providers.
The tax shall be computed on the peso equivalent of the foreign
currency used, based on the prevailing official exchange rate at the
time of payment, otherwise the same shall be considered as a
fraudulent act constituting underdeclaration of taxable receipts or
income, and shall be subject to interests, fines and penalties under
Sections 248(B), 249(B), 253, and 255 of the National Internal
Revenue Code of the Philippines.
comes first, the revenues derived from franchise taxes on
gross bets or turnovers under paragraph (f) and income from
non-gaming operations under paragraph (g) shall continue to
be collected and shall accrue to the General Fund of the
Government. The BIR shall implement closure orders against
offshore gaming licensees, operators, agents, service providers and
support providers who fail to pay the taxes due, and such entities
shall cease to operate. 121 (Emphasis supplied)
To determine whether certain provisions are riders, it is vital to
understand the rationale behind its prohibition. Such proscription against
riders was explained by this Court in Fariñas v. Executive Secretary, 122 thus:

Section 26(1), Article VI of the Constitution provides:
SEC. 26. (1) Every bill passed by the Congress shall
embrace only one subject which shall be expressed in the title
thereof.
The proscription is aimed against the evils of the so-called
omnibus bills and log-rolling legislation as well as surreptitious and/or
unconsidered encroaches. The provision merely calls for all parts of
an act relating to its subject finding expression in its title.
To determine whether there has been compliance with the
constitutional requirement that the subject of an act shall be
expressed in its title, the Court laid clown the rule that —
Constitutional provisions relating to the subject matter and
titles of statutes should not be so narrowly construed as to cripple or
impede the power of legislation. The requirement that the subject of
an act shall be expressed in its title should receive a reasonable and
not a technical construction. It is sufficient if the title be
comprehensive enough reasonably to include the general
object which a statute seeks to effect, without expressing
each and every end and means necessary or convenient for
the accomplishing of that object. Mere details need not be set
forth. The title need not be an abstract or index of the Act. 123
(Emphasis supplied; citations omitted)
Similarly, and as observed by Justice Perlas-Bernabe, 124 in Atitiw v.
Zamora, 125 this Court elucidated that the rationale for the prohibition
against riders is to prevent hodge-podge or log-rolling legislation, and to
ensure that all provisions of a statute have some reasonable relation to the
subject matter as expressed in the title thereof:
The rationale against inserting a rider in an appropriations bill
under the specific appropriation clause embodied in Section 25(2),
Article VI of the Constitution is similar to that of the "one subject in
the title clause provided in Section 26(1) also of Article VI, which
directs that every provision in a bill must be germane or has
some reasonable relation to the subject matter as expressed
in the title thereof. The unity of the subject matter of a bill is
mandatory in order to prevent hodge-podge or log-rolling
legislation, to avoid surprise or fraud upon the legislature,
and to fairly appraise the people of the subjects of legislation
that are being considered. 126 (Emphasis supplied; citation
omitted)
Following such jurisprudential guides, it is evident that all provisions of
a law must be germane to the purpose of the law, and contemplated by the
title thereof.
Here, the respondents admit that the Bayanihan 2 Law is not a tax
measure. Simply stated, the Bayanihan 2 Law was not enacted to impose
new taxes in order to address the COVID-19 pandemic. In fact, and as
pointed out by Justice Perlas-Bernabe, 127 the proponents of House Bill No.
6953 and Senate Bill No. 1564, the precursors of the Bayanihan 2 Law, all
characterized the same as "socioeconomic relief efforts," 128 a "stopgap
measure," 129 or a "stimulus bill." 130
While the title of the law contains the phrase "providing funds
therefor," it must be emphasized that all other provisions relating to sources
of funding under Section 11, except for Section 11 (f) and (g), are already
existing taxes. The Bayanihan 2 Law merely realigns these already existing
sources of funding and funnels it to be used for COVID-19 relief measures.
However, as expounded above, before the passage of the Bayanihan 2
Law, there was no law in effect which imposes franchise taxes upon
offshore-based POGO licensees. Similarly, there was also no statutory basis
to impose income tax and VAT upon offshore-based POGO licensees before
the enactment of the Bayanihan 2 Law. This means that the Bayanihan 2
Law, specifically Section 11 (f) and (g), appear to introduce new tax
impositions.
Such conclusion is likewise supported by the fact that, unlike the other
provisions under Section 11 of the Bayanihan 2 Law that are temporary in
nature, Section 11 (f) and (g) thereof were intended to outlive the December
19, 2020 expiration date of the Bayanihan 2 Law, viz.:
comes first, the revenues derived from franchise taxes on gross bets
or turnovers under paragraph (f) and income from non-gaming
operations under paragraph (g) shall continue to be collected and
shall accrue to the General Fund of the Government. The BIR
shall implement closure orders against offshore gaming licensees,
operators, agents, service providers and support providers who fail to
pay the taxes due, and such entities shall cease to operate.
(Emphasis supplied)
Indeed, and as emphasized by Justice Perlas-Bernabe, 131 if all sources
of funding under Section 11 of the Bayanihan 2 Law are already existing
taxes, there would be no need to specify that the collections thereof after
the COVID-19 pandemic has been thwarted would accrue to the General
Fund of the Government. The logical implication of this statement, therefore,
is that prior to the Bayanihan 2 Law, there was no statute which imposed the
same taxes as found in Section 11 (f) and (g) of the Bayanihan 2 Law; and
consequently, the foregoing provisions are new tax measures.
Thus, this Court is convinced that Section 11 (f) and (g) of the
Bayanihan 2 Law are not germane to the purpose of the law, and
therefore, violates the "one subject, one title rule" of the
Constitution. The imposition of new taxes, camouflaged as part of a long
list of existing taxes, cannot be contemplated as an integral part of a
temporary COVID-19 relief measure. Invariably, Section 11 (f) and (g) of the
Bayanihan 2 Law are unconstitutional, in so far as it imposes new taxes on
POGO licensees.
On this score alone, the Consolidated Petitions must be
granted. Section 11 (f) and (g) of the Bayanihan 2 Law are unconstitutional.
Consequently, the Assailed Tax Issuances , specifically RR No. 30-2020 and
RMC No. 64-2020, which merely implement Section 11 (f) and (g) of the
Bayanihan 2 Law, are likewise invalid for having no legal basis.
All in all, before the enactment of R.A. No. 11590, there is no valid law
which imposes taxes upon POGOs, including offshore-based POGO licensees.
However, this Court deems it proper to emphasize that R.A. No. 11590
cannot be applied retroactively. 132 Thus, POGOs, including offshore-
based POGO licensees such as the petitioners, cannot be made liable for
taxes prior to the enactment and effectivity of R.A. No. 11590.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition for Certiorari and
Prohibition [With Application for a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ
of Preliminary Injunction] dated August 20, 2020 in G.R. No. 252965 and the
Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition (With Application for Temporary
Restraining Order/Writ of Preliminary Injunction) dated November 17, 2020
in G.R. No. 254102 are GRANTED. Section 11 (f) and (g) of Republic Act No.
11494, Revenue Regulations No. 30-2020; Revenue Memorandum Circular
No. 64-2020; Revenue Memorandum Circular No. 102-2017; and Revenue
Memorandum Circular No. 78-2018, in so far as they impose franchise tax,
income tax, and other applicable taxes upon offshore-based POGO licensees
are declared NULL and VOID for being contrary to the Constitution and
other relevant laws.
SO ORDERED.
Gesmundo, C.J., Caguioa, Hernando, Carandang, Inting, Zalameda, M.V.
Lopez, Rosario, J.Y. Lopez and Marquez, JJ., concur.
Perlas-Bernabe, J., please see the concurring & dissenting opinion.
Leonen, J., I dissent. See separate opinion.
Lazaro-Javier, J., pls. see dissenting opinion.
Dimaampao, * J., is on official leave.
Separate Opinions
PERLAS-BERNABE, J., concurring and dissenting:
I concur in striking down Section 11 (f) and (g) of Republic Act No. (RA)
1 1 4 9 4 1 (Bayanihan 2 Law) for being unconstitutional, and Revenue
Regulations No. (RR) 30-2020, Revenue Memorandum Circular No. (RMC) 64-
2020, as well as parts of RMC 102-2017 and RMC 78-2018 (collectively, the
Assailed Tax Issuances), for having been issued contrary to relevant tax laws
and RA 9487, or the "PAGCOR Charter." 2 However, I respectfully dissent
insofar as the ponencia purports that the instant case has already been
rendered moot and academic by the enactment of RA 11590, entitled " An
Act Taxing Philippine Offshore Gaming Operations, Amending for the Purpose
Sections 22, 25, 27, 28, 106, 108, and Adding New Sections 125-A and 288-G
of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997, as amended, and for Other
Purposes." 3
I.
As pointed out by Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa
(Justice Caguioa) during the Court's deliberations, the issue in the instant
petition has not been rendered moot and academic by RA 11590. 4 The
general rule is that laws do not have retroactive effect, unless the contrary is
provided. 5 This principle of prospectivity applies whether the statute is
original or amendatory, 6 such as RA 11590. It bears stressing that nowhere
in RA 11590 does it provide for the retroactive application of any of its
provisions, including its repealing clause which expressly mentions the
PAGCOR Charter and the Bayanihan 2 Law, as well as their corresponding
rules and regulations, e.g., the Assailed Tax Issuances. In fact, the aforesaid
principle finds particular significance in tax statutes and tax rules and
regulations for it has been settled that the taxing authority's right to receive
tax collections accrues the moment the said tax is deemed payable under
the provisions of the relevant tax law, and must be paid without delay once
it is due. 7 Thus, prior to the Court passing upon the legality or
constitutionality of tax laws or revenue measures, the same must enjoy the
presumption of validity and must be said to produce legal effects, unless
otherwise enjoined.
Here, the Court issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) on January
5, 2021 which prevented the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) from
enforcing the provisions of the Bayanihan 2 Law and the Assailed Tax
Issuances. However, while the BIR was prevented from implementing the
foregoing, it does not necessarily follow that the taxes that could have been
exacted therefrom did not accrue in favor of the State. Rather, the issuance
of a TRO in this case simply means that the State, through the BIR, could not
yet demand the payment of said taxes . Consequently, had the Court
deemed it proper to uphold the Assailed Tax Issuances and the Bayanihan 2
Law, petitioners, and any other similarly situated taxpayers, would have
been liable for all the accrued taxes up until the effectivity date of RA 11590
which repealed them. On the other hand, if the Court had struck down the
Assailed Tax Issuances and Section 11 (f) and (g) of the Bayanihan 2 Law, as
it eventually did, 8 then no taxes would have accrued since a void act cannot
give rise to any right or obligation. 9
Therefore, what the Court had to resolve in this case was not whether
petitioners, and other similarly situated taxpayers, were liable for any taxes
after the passage of RA 11590, but rather if they were liable for the payment
of taxes from the issuance of RMC 102-2017 up until the effectivity of RA
11590. Hence, the issues presented in the instant petition have not been
rendered moot and academic and are, in fact, ripe for judicial review.
II.
On the validity of Section 11 (f) and (g) of the Bayanihan 2 Law, I
concur with the ponencia that the same are unconstitutional for being riders.
10 A "rider" is any provision "which is alien to or not germane to the subject
or purpose of the bill in which it is incorporated," 11 and is specifically

proscribed by Sections 25 (2) and Section 26 (1), Article VI of the 1987
Constitution, to wit:
ARTICLE VI
The Legislative Department
xxx xxx xxx
Sec. 25. x x x. —
(2) No provision or enactment shall be embraced in the
general appropriations bill unless it relates specifically to some
particular appropriation therein. Any such provision or enactment
shall be limited in its operation to the appropriation to which it
relates.
xxx xxx xxx
Sec. 26. (1) Every bill passed by the Congress shall
embrace only one subject which shall be expressed in the title
thereof.
The rationale for the prohibition against riders is to "to prevent hodge-
podge or log-rolling legislation, to avoid surprise or fraud upon the
legislature, and to fairly appraise the people of the subjects of legislation
that are being considered." 12 Jurisprudence has laid down a "germaneness"
standard to test whether a provision is a rider, i.e., that the provision must
have some reasonable relation to the subject matter as expressed in the title
thereof. 13
As the ponencia aptly pointed out, Bayanihan 2 Law was not intended
to be a tax measure. Its full title reads: "An Act Providing for COVID-19
Response and Recovery Interventions and Providing Mechanisms to
Accelerate the Recovery and Bolster the Resiliency of the Philippine
Economy, Providing Funds Therefor, and for Other Purposes ." The
proponents of House Bill No. 6953 and Senate Bill No. 1564, the pre-cursors
of the Bayanihan 2 Law, all characterized the Act as "socioeconomic relief
efforts," 14 a "stopgap measure," 15 or a "stimulus bill." 16 At its core, the law
intends to empower the government to further address the COVID-19
pandemic while providing some measure of financial assistance to the public
for a limited time. 17
A close reading of the provisions of the Bayanihan 2 Law would show
that there are two (2) main pillars to this relief measure: (1) empowering the
President to exercise the necessary powers under Section 23 (2), Article VI
of the Constitution to address a national emergency; 18 and (2) providing for
the appropriations of the funds necessary to enable the response and
recovery interventions under the law. 19
The assailed provisions of the Bayanihan 2 Law are found under
Section 11 thereof, captioned "Sources of Funding." A perusal of paragraphs
(a) to (e), however, would show that these identify already-existing funds
that are to be realigned or funds previously identified under the FY 2020
Budget of Expenditures and Sources of Financing (BESF). 20 Paragraphs (f)
and (g), on the other hand, if read on their own, appear to introduce new tax
impositions, to wit:
SECTION 11. Sources of Funding . — The enumerated
xxx xxx xxx
(f) Amounts derived from the five percent (5%)
franchise tax on the gross bets or turnovers or the agreed
pre-determined minimum monthly revenues from gaming
operations, whichever is higher, earned by offshore
gaming licensees, including gaming operators, gaming
agents, service providers and gaming support providers;
(g) Income tax, VAT, and other applicable taxes on
income from non-gaming operations earned by offshore
gaming licensees, operators, agents, service providers
and support providers.
xxx xxx xxx
Neither provision identifies any pre-existing tax laws from which such
tax liabilities would arise. Undeniably, it appears to be a new revenue
measure altogether. Moreover, unlike the other provisions of this temporary
relief statute, Section 11 (f) and (g) were intended to outlive the December
19, 2020 expiration date of RA 11494, viz.:
comes first, the revenues derived from franchise taxes on gross bets
or turnovers under paragraph (f) and income from non-gaming
operations under paragraph (g) shall continue to be collected and
shall accrue to the General Fund of the Government. The BIR
shall implement closure orders against offshore gaming licensees,
operators, agents, service providers and support providers who fail to
pay the taxes due, and such entities shall cease to operate.
(emphasis supplied)
Had Section 11 (f) and (g) merely directed the collection of funds from
existing tax exactions to the COVID-19 intervention measures of the
Bayanihan 2 Law, there would be no need to specify that the collections
thereof after the pandemic has abated would accrue to the General Fund.
The logical implication of including this paragraph is that prior to the
Bayanihan 2 Law, there was no statute which imposed the same taxes as
found in Section 11 (f) and (g); necessarily, the foregoing provisions should
be considered as new tax measures.
The question now devolves as to whether introducing new tax
measures is germane to the subject matter of the Bayanihan 2 Law. It is my
considered view that it is not. As above-mentioned, the two (2) pillars which
characterize the law are its emergency power provisions and the special
appropriations to fund the same. Moreover, the law was never intended to
remain effective for an extended period of time; hence, it provides for its
own expiration date in Section 18 thereof. It was simply a necessary
"stopgap" to further bolster the government's efforts to address the COVID-
19 pandemic. Undoubtedly, the Executive can neither exercise emergency
powers nor re-allocate funding without a statute passed by Congress. These
exigencies are what impelled the passage of the Bayanihan 2 Law. Surely,
tax measures intended to remain effective for an indefinite amount of time
are anathema to the admitted limited lifespan of an act passed to provide
only temporary relief, and cannot be said to be germane to the subject
matter of the said law.
Given the foregoing, I concur with the ponencia that Section 11 (f) and
(g) should be struck down for being riders to the Bayanihan 2 Law in
contravention of Section 26 (1) of the Constitution. 21 Necessarily, RR 30-
2020 and RMC 64-2020, which merely implement Section 11 (f) and (g) of
RA 11494, should similarly be struck down since it is a basic legal principle
that the spring cannot rise higher than its source. 22
III.
In determining the validity of RMC 102-2017 and RMC 78-2018, it
becomes imperative to identify the statutory basis of the BIR in circulating
these issuances and the obligations they impose on taxpayers, such as
herein petitioners.
The subject of RMC 102-2017 reads: "Taxation of Taxpayers Engaged
in Philippine Offshore Gaming Operations." The prelude of the circular is
clear that the BIR's aim was to "adapt existing taxes" to Philippine Offshore
Gaming Operations (POGOs) to lessen the tax leak from their activities:
The Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR), not a newcomer to the
workings and tax issues presented by online business transactions
through the internet, feels that the challenge in gaming operations is
how to implement a fair and equitable taxation of online gaming
businesses, how to monitor the revenues and revenue-generating
activities of POGO and how to adapt existing taxes to POGO so as to
lessen the so-called "lost potential tax revenues." This is the
perspective from which the current issue of taxing taxpayers engaged
in POGO should be viewed. 23
The BIR further states that "online activity is sufficient to constitute
doing business in the Philippines x x x." Hence, it imposed regulatory and
administrative requirements to POGOs, which was further outlined in RMC
78-2018. 24 It likewise clarified that the following taxes apply to POGOs:
1. Income from gaming operations are subject to the five
percent (5%) franchise tax which are in lieu of all other taxes,
whether national or local;
2. Income from their other related services or non-gaming
operations will be subject to normal income tax, value-added
tax (VAT), and other applicable taxes;
3. Other entities, such as gaming agents, service providers, and
gaming support providers, who provide specific components
to a POGO Licensee's own offshore gaming services, and who
are themselves registered as a POGO Licensees, shall also be
subject to the five percent (5%) franchise tax for their
gaming activities, and normal income tax, value-added tax
(VAT), and other applicable taxes for their non-gaming
operations;
4. Income payments of any Licensee for the purchase of goods
and services shall be subject to withholding taxes;
5. Compensation, fees, commission or any other form of
remuneration as a result of services rendered to POGO
Licensees or the other entities shall be subject to withholding
taxes; and
6. Purchases and sale of goods or services shall be subject to
existing tax laws and revenue issuances.
Petitioners in G.R. No. 254102 argue that RMC 102-2017 is void for lack
of statutory basis since there is no law imposing any kind of taxes on the
offshore gaming revenue of foreign-based POGO Licensees. 25 They posit
that income of foreign-based POGO Licensees are necessarily income
derived from sources outside of the Philippines since the generating
"activity," i.e., the games of chance, occur abroad. Even the National Internal
Revenue Code (Tax Code) limits the taxation of foreign corporations to
income derived from within the Philippines. Moreover, they argue that the
PAGCOR Charter could likewise not be the basis for the taxation of POGOs
considering that when it was enacted in 1983, offshore gaming through the
internet did not yet exist. Considering that no tax law allows the taxation of
foreign-source income of foreign corporations, RMC 102-2017 has no legal
basis. 26 Aside from the lack of statutory basis, petitioners also attack RMC
102-2017 on the grounds of violation of the rule on territoriality of taxation.
They argue that imposing taxes on foreign-sourced income violates the
basic principle that the taxing power of a State does not extend beyond its
territorial limits. 27 With respect to RMC 78-2018, petitioners advance that
since this issuance merely enforces RMC 102-2017, the latter's infirmity
likewise extends to the former. 28
For their part, respondents, in their consolidated comment, counter
that RMC 102-2017 did not impose a tax but merely interpreted the
provisions of the PAGCOR Charter. They argue that the mere fact that POGOs
are Licensees of PAGCOR already subjects them to the five percent (5%)
franchise tax. Respondents maintain that the POGOs' gaming and income
generating activities are rendered in the Philippines through their service
providers, and that the placement of online bets are "just a small portion of a
POGO [L]icensee's gaming activity." In any case, respondents insist that
even if petitioners' income is derived from sources outside the Philippines, it
still would not exempt them from the five percent (5%) franchise tax since a
franchise tax is imposed on the exercise of enjoying a franchise. Hence, the
mere fact that petitioners operate within the Philippines would make them
liable for the same. 29 With respect to RMC 78-2018, respondents argue that
this merely provides guidelines on the registration of POGOs and it enjoys
the presumption of legality. 30
As earlier stated, while I concur with the majority in striking down RMC
102-2017 and RMC 78-2018 for want of statutory basis, I would like to offer
my own views regarding the matter as it presents an opportunity to
propound on principles in an emerging area of tax law, i.e ., the taxation of
the digital economy.
In the above-enumeration of the alleged applicable taxes, RMC 102-
2017 draws from both the PAGCOR Charter and the Tax Code. Specifically,
items 1 to 3 on the treatment of income from gaming and non-gaming
operations of POGOs and other entities, are derived from the language of
Section 13 of the PAGCOR Charter, 31 whereas items 4 to 6 are applications
of Section 57 32 of the Tax Code on withholding taxes. Hence, the issue to
resolve is whether RMC 102-2017 went beyond the ambit of these statutes
so as to constitute an invalid exercise of quasi-legislative power; particularly,
with regard to the application of the taxes therein to the income of offshore
or foreign-based POGO Licensees. However, even before delving into the
import of the above-mentioned statutes for the applicable taxes, it must first
be determined if offshore or foreign-based POGO Licensees are even taxable
in the Philippines.
The power of taxation is an inherent attribute of sovereignty which
every independent government may exercise even without express
conferment by the people. 33 Taxation emanates from necessity, 34 and is
grounded on a mutually advantageous relationship between the State
and those it governs; every person surrenders a portion of their income for
the running of the government, and the government in turn, provides
tangible and intangible benefits to serve and protect those within its
jurisdiction. 35 Indeed, it seems only logical to exact a tax from those who
stand to benefit, whether directly or indirectly, from the expenditure of
public funds derived from the same. 36 Necessarily, implied within the power
to tax is the power to choose what or whom to tax. 37 Undoubtedly, the State
may tax any persons, property, income, or business within its territorial
limits. 38 In this regard, it should be clarified that even non-resident aliens or
foreign corporations may likewise be subjected to the State's power to tax if
they have availed of the State's resources or protection in some manner in
the conduct of an income-generating activity. 39 However, the State's choice
of who specifically to tax is not unbridled, and is, in fact, restrained by the
fundamental rights enshrined in our Constitution, specifically, the due
process clause. 40
As a rule, the State's power to tax does not extend beyond its
territorial limits. 41 Case law holds that "[i]f an interest in property is taxed,
the situs of either the property or interest must be found within the State. If
an income is taxed, the recipient thereof must have a domicile within the
State or the property or business out of which the income issues must be
situated within the State so that the income may be said to have a situs
therein. Personal property may be separated from its owner and he may be
taxed on its account at the place where the property is although it is not a
citizen or resident of the State which imposes the tax." 42 This territorial
limitation of taxation is what necessitates the taxation of only income
derived from sources "within" the Philippines for non-resident aliens and
foreign corporations. If the income was derived or sourced within the
Philippines, then naturally, the non-resident alien or foreign corporation
should give a portion of the said income to the government as a reasonable
payment for its protection and for allowing the facility of the transaction
which made the generation of income possible in the first place. 43 Hence,
keeping in mind this limitation, it is apt to determine whether income was
derived or sourced within the Philippines relative to the sale of services
which POGOs are engaged in.
Section 42 (A) 44 of the Tax Code provides the guidelines in
determining what income is sourced within the Philippines, whereas Section
42 (C) 45 identifies what are income sourced without. The word "source"
connotes "origin"; 46 the test is to determine if the income originated from
the Philippines. A reading of the foregoing provisions makes it clear that
for income derived from the sale of services, the focal point is where the
actual performance of the service occurs. On this score, it is instructive
to refer to the seminal case of Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. British
Overseas Airways Corp. (BOAC) 47 to understand the precise aspect of the
activity which triggers the taxable event, viz.:
The source of an income is the property, activity or service that
produced the income. For the source of income to be considered as
coming from the Philippines, it is sufficient that the income is derived
from activity within the Philippines. In BOAC's case, the sale of
tickets in the Philippines is the activity that produces the
income. The tickets exchanged hands here and payments for
fares were also made here in Philippine currency. The situs of
the source of payments is the Philippines. The flow of wealth
proceeded from, and occurred within, Philippine territory, enjoying
the protection accorded by the Philippine government. In
consideration of such protection, the flow of wealth should share the
burden of supporting the government.
xxx xxx xxx
The absence of flight operations to and from the
Philippines is not determinative of the source of income or
the situs of income taxation. Admittedly, BOAC was an off-line
international airline at the time pertinent to this case. The test of
taxability is the "source"; and the source of an income is that activity
. . . which produced the income. Unquestionably, the passage
documentations in these cases were sold in the Philippines
and the revenue therefrom was derived from a business
activity regularly pursued within the Philippines. And even if
the BOAC tickets sold covered the "transport of passengers and cargo
to and from foreign cities," it cannot alter the fact that income
from the sale of tickets was derived from the Philippines. The
word "source" conveys one essential idea, that of origin, and the
origin of the income herein is the Philippines.
xxx xxx xxx 48 (emphases supplied; citations omitted)
I n BOAC , the transaction involved the sale of air transport to
passengers. Even though the actual transportation would occur outside of
the Philippines, the Court held that the sale of tickets here already
constituted a taxable activity. However, the Court had occasion to expound
on this doctrine in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Baier-Nickel (Baier-
Nickel). 49 In Baier-Nickel, the Court clarified that the "source" was not
determined by where the income is disbursed or physically received, but
rather where the business activity that produced the income was actually
conducted, viz.:
Both the petitioner and respondent cited the case of
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. British Overseas Airways
Corporation in support of their arguments, but the correct
interpretation of the said case favors the theory of respondent that it
is the situs of the activity that determines whether such income is
taxable in the Philippines. The conflict between the majority and the
dissenting opinion in the said case has nothing to do with the
underlying principle of the law on sourcing of income. In fact, both
applied the case of Alexander Howden & Co., Ltd. v. Collector of
Internal Revenue. The divergence in opinion centered on whether the
sale of tickets in the Philippines is to be construed as the "activity"
that produced the income, as viewed by the majority, or merely the
physical source of the income, as ratiocinated by Justice Florentino P.
Feliciano in his dissent. The majority, through Justice Ameurfina
Melencio-Herrera, as ponente, interpreted the sale of tickets as a
business activity that gave rise to the income of BOAC. Petitioner
cannot therefore invoke said case to support its view that
source of income is the physical source of the money earned.
If such was the interpretation of the majority, the Court
would have simply stated that source of income is not the
business activity of BOAC but the place where the person or
entity disbursing the income is located or where BOAC
physically received the same. But such was not the import of
the ruling of the Court. It even explained in detail the business
activity undertaken by BOAC in the Philippines to pinpoint the taxable
activity and to justify its conclusion that BOAC is subject to Philippine
income taxation. x x x.
xxx xxx xxx
The Court reiterates the rule that "source of income" relates
to the property, activity or service that produced the income.
With respect to rendition of labor or personal service, as in the instant
case, it is the place where the labor or service was performed
that determines the source of the income. There is therefore no
merit in petitioner's interpretation which equates source of income in
labor or personal service with the residence of the payor or the place
of payment of the income.
xxx xxx xxx 50 (emphases and underscoring supplied; citations omitted)
However, this reading of the law flows from the dated notion that a
business requires physical presence within the State to provide its services,
or a more analog form of conducting business. With the proliferation of
digital commerce, there is now the added complication of specifically
pinpointing where the "activity that produced the income" occurs when the
transaction is conducted over the internet, as in the case of offshore gaming.
This is essentially the same complication when resolving the situs of
taxation rules under current tax conventions that bind the Philippines. It
bears noting that "[t]he purpose of these international agreements is to
reconcile the national fiscal legislations of the contracting parties in order to
help the taxpayer avoid simultaneous taxation in two different jurisdictions.
More precisely, the tax conventions are drafted with a view towards the
elimination of international juridical double taxation, which is defined as the
imposition of comparable taxes in two or more states on the same taxpayer
in respect of the same subject matter and for identical periods." 51 Aside
from the rules on situs of taxation under Section 42 of the Tax Code, the
provisions on Permanent Establishments, as found in tax treaties, can also
serve as basis for determining whether an entity or activity is taxable in one
Contracting State or the Other, since treaties also form part of the law of the
land under our Constitution. 52
For example, the Permanent Establishment provision in the Republic of
the Philippines (RP)-United States of America (US) Tax Treaty defines a
"permanent establishment" as a "fixed place of business through which a
resident of one of the Contracting States engages in a trade or business," 53
and includes a "seat of management," "branch," "office," "store or other
sales outlet," "factory," "workshop," "warehouse," "mine, quarry, or other
place of extraction of natural resources," or "building site or construction or
assembly project or supervisory activities." 54 Interestingly, an almost exact
same definition is found in the RP-China Tax Treaty, 55 as well as other tax
treaties. 56
However, since the traditional meaning of Permanent Establishment is
a "fixed place" of business, it stands to reason that it requires the occupation
of a physical premises or some manner of installation or spaces used for the
carrying on of business within the Contracting State. 57 It bears emphasizing
that treaties should be interpreted "in accordance with the ordinary meaning
to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context." 58 The fact that
offshore gaming and other digital transactions were not yet existing at the
time these treaties were ratified lends credence to the view that virtual
spaces, such as gaming websites or portals, could not constitute "fixed
places" amounting to Permanent Establishments. If anything, it would be the
server which hosts the website or portal which could constitute a "place of
business" for purposes of constituting a Permanent Establishment.
This is the challenge of taxing the "digital economy" as observed by
the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) —
specifically: (1) the mobility of users that allow them to carry on commercial
activities remotely across borders, compounded by the use of virtual private
networks (VPNs) or proxy servers that could mask the location of where the
digital transaction actually occurs; (2) the mobility of business functions that
allow entities to coordinate activities across several territories in one central
point while being geographically removed from both the location where the
business operations are carried out and where the suppliers or customers
are serviced; and (3) the volatility due to further rapidly evolving technology.
59
As the OECD observed, the complexity of the digital economy could

allow businesses to avoid a taxable presence or escape taxation anywhere
by working around local laws and outdated conceptions of Permanent
Establishments, viz.:
5.2.1.1 Avoiding a taxable presence
In many digital economy business models, a non-resident
company may interact with customers in a country remotely through
a website or other digital means (e.g., an application on a mobile
device) without maintaining a physical presence in the country.
Increasing reliance on automated processes may further decrease
reliance on local physical presence. The domestic laws of most
countries require some degree of physical presence before business
profits are subject to taxation. In addition, under Articles 5 and 7 of
the OECD Model Tax Convention, a company is subject to tax on its
business profits in a country of which it is a non-resident only if it has
a permanent establishment (PE) in that country. Accordingly, such
non-resident company may not be subject to tax in the country in
which it has customers.
Companies in many industries have customers in a country
without a PE in that country, communicating with those customers via
phone, mail, and fax and through independent agents. That ability to
maintain some level of business connection within a country without
being subject to tax on business profits earned from sources within
that country is the result of particular policy choices reflected in
domestic laws and relevant double tax treaties, and is not in and of
itself a [base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS)] issue. However, while
the ability of a company to earn revenue from customers in a country
without having a PE in that country is not unique to digital
businesses, it is available at a greater scale in the digital economy
than was previously the case. Where this ability, coupled with
strategies that eliminate taxation in the State of residence, results in
such revenue not being taxed anywhere, BEPS concerns are raised. In
addition, under some circumstances, tax in a market jurisdiction can
he artificially avoided by fragmenting operations among multiple
group entities in order to qualify for the exceptions to PE status for
preparatory and auxiliary activities, or by otherwise ensuring that
each location through which business is conducted falls below the PE
threshold. Structures of this type raise BEPS concerns. 60
The OECD itself proposes several ways to combat the potential "double
non-taxation" of the digital economy, including the revision of treaty terms
on Permanent Establishments, and implementing better domestic foreign
corporation rules among countries. 61 Nevertheless, until such time as the
existing tax treaties are revisited, or the rules on situs under Section 42 of
the Tax Code are amended to account for the digital economy, of which
offshore gaming conducted by POGOs are naturally part of, the Court must
apply the laws as they currently are and not go beyond their auspices.
Therefore, it is my view that if the foregoing prevalent principles are
applied in the present case, the Philippines cannot tax the offshore revenues
of foreign-based POGO Licensees.
IV.
At this juncture, it must be clarified that foreign-based POGO Licensees
do not conduct their business in the same manner as Philippine-based POGO
Licensees. The former are required to engage the services of PAGCOR-
accredited Service/Support Providers for the conduct of their online gaming
activities, 62 while the latter conduct the activities themselves. However, as
pointed out by the ponencia, the Service Providers and Support Providers are
separate entities from the foreign-based POGO Licensees. While the
Licensee is the one that offers the gaming activities to bettors, the actual
conduct of the online gaming activities is conducted by the Service Providers
and Support Providers. Applying the above-discussed principles in BOAC and
Baier-Nickel, the activity that generates the income for the foreign-based
POGO Licensee is the placing of bets and paying out of winnings to the
bettors found outside of the Philippines, whereas the gaming activity is the
non-revenue generating component of the whole service. Hence, none of the
revenues generated by the foreign-based POGO Licensees can be said to be
sourced within the Philippines. On the other hand, the fees paid by the POGO
Licensees for the services rendered by the Service Providers and Support
Providers can be said to be sourced within the Philippines.
Furthermore, nothing in the version of the Tax Code prior to the
amendments under RA 11590 provides for the taxation of the income
derived from sources without the Philippines for foreign corporations. Neither
was there any tax law that could be said to govern foreign-based Licensees
specifically. This was similarly the observation of the proponents of House
Bill No. 5777 and Senate Bill No. 2232, the precursor bills of RA 11590:
Interpellation of Representative Zarate on House Bill No.
5777 63
REP. ZARATE.
Yes, thank you for that. But there was one hearing that I
attended which in fact said that out of the 60, only 10 were
actually paying, and in fact, President Duterte . . .
REP. SALCEDA.
Dalawa iyan, sa BIR oo, pero sa PAGCOR, oo, lahat.
REP. ZARATE.
So, ang . . .
REP. SALCEDA.
So, pasensya ka na kasi ang tanong mo ay sino ang nagbabayad.
Kung ang nagbabayad sa BIR, sampu, oo; ang nagbabayad sa
PAGCOR, lahat.
REP. ZARATE.
Lahat sila, nagbabayad ng 2 percent.
REP. SALCEDA.
Sa PAGCOR.
REP. ZARATE.
Yes. Now that was . . .
REP. SALCEDA.
And kaya naman, kaya naman ganoon po ay dahil wala naming
tax regime e.
REP. ZARATE.
Yes, yes, oo. So, that . . .
REP. SALCEDA.
Kaya nga inilalagay natin ito.
REP. ZARATE.
So, iyon iyong POGO BC or before COVID?
REP. SALCEDA.
Yes. (emphases supplied)
Sponsorship Speech of Senator Cayetano on Senate Bill No.
2232 64
The reason for this is because, at present, nowhere under the
National Internal Revenue Code, otherwise known as the
NIRC, as amended, can we find explicit tax provisions
pertaining to the offshore gaming licensees including gaming
operators, gaming agents, and service providers.
xxx xxx xxx
Hence, the long-standing question about the tax obligations of
POGOs conducting business in our country remain unanswered and
unaddressed, which means billions worth of revenue losses for our
government.
Having, said these, it is high time that we clarify and
establish the taxation regime of offshore gaming licensees,
including gaming operators, gaming agents, service providers, and
gaming support providers, and incorporate these entities in the
Philippine taxation system.
As your Chair of the Senate Ways and Means Committee, we
have reviewed the various bills, listened to government agencies,
industry and other stakeholders. I believe that legislating the tax
regime of the POGOs and incorporating the same in the NIRC is a step
towards the right direction.
It will not only plug the loopholes in our country's tax code
that led to issues of confusion surrounding the operation of
POGOs, but it will also prevent similar issues in the future,
which could gravely undermine our government's power to impose
and collect the right taxes.
By addressing these gaps in our tax system, we can maximize
the POGO industry's potential as a revenue source. In turn, we will
have more resources in our country's coffers to fund programs that
will improve people's lives and help us build back hotter following this
global health and economic crisis. (emphases supplied)
It is a basic principle that laws shall not be construed as imposing a tax
unless they do so clearly and expressly, and any doubt must be strictly
construed against the government. 65 Consequently, RMC 102-2017 could
not have drawn validity from the provisions of the Tax Code, or any other tax
law, to cover offshore revenues of foreign-based POGO Licensees during the
period prior to the effectivity of RA 11590.
There is also no merit to respondents' contention that even if their
income is deemed sourced without the Philippines, they would still be liable
for the five percent (5%) franchise tax under the PAGCOR Charter since a
franchise tax is imposed on the exercise of enjoying a franchise. In the first
place, it should be emphasized that franchise tax, like any other tax, is still
subject to the territoriality principle since, as above-discussed, to hold
otherwise would amount to a violation of the due process clause. In this
regard, while the five percent (5%) franchise tax is an exaction, it is
simultaneously an exemption granted to exempt PAGCOR and its Licensees
from regular taxes. 66 This is the clear import from the wording of Section 13
of the PAGCOR Charter itself:
SECTION 13. Exemptions. —
xxx xxx xxx
(2) Income and Other Taxes. — (a) Franchise Holder: No tax
of any kind or form, income or otherwise, as well as fees, charges or
levies of whatever nature, whether National or Local, shall be
assessed and collected under this Franchise from the Corporation; nor
shall any form of tax or charge attach in any way to the earnings of
the Corporation, except a Franchise Tax of five (5%) percent of the
gross revenue or earnings derived by the Corporation from its
operation under this Franchise. Such tax shall he due and payable
quarterly to the National Government and shall be in lieu of all
kinds of taxes, levies, fees or assessments of any kind, nature or
description, levied, established or collected by any municipal,
provincial, or national government authority.
(b) Others: The exemption herein granted for earnings derived
from the operations conducted under the franchise specifically from
the payment of any tax, income or otherwise, as well as any form of
charges, fees or levies, shall inure to the benefit of and extend to
corporation(s), association(s), agency(ies), or individual(s) with whom
the Corporation or operator has any contractual relationship in
connection with the operations of the casino(s) authorized to be
conducted under this Franchise and to those receiving compensation
or other remuneration from the Corporation or operator as a result of
essential facilities furnished and/or technical services rendered to the
Corporation or operator.
xxx xxx xxx (emphases supplied)
As a form of tax exemption, it necessarily implies that the PAGCOR
Licensees are subject to tax in the first place. Moreover, any form of tax
exemption must be strictly construed to benefit only those clearly covered
thereby. 67 The ponencia aptly observed that Section 13 (2) (b) which forms
the basis for the extension of the tax exemption to Licensees clearly apply
only to those engaged in "the operations of the casino(s) authorized to
be conducted under this Franchise and to those receiving compensation
or other remuneration from the Corporation or operator as a result of
essential facilities furnished and/or technical services rendered to the
Corporation or operator." 68
Given that the PAGCOR Charter and its amendment through RA
9487 69 were promulgated at the time offshore gaming was not yet
in existence, it could not have contemplated virtual gambling
websites as the "casinos" mentioned under Section 13 (2) (b)
thereof. Consequently, the PAGCOR Charter cannot be said to have been
the basis for imposing a tax on the offshore revenues of foreign-based POGO
Licensees. Hence, RMC 102-2017 could likewise not draw its validity from the
PAGCOR Charter.
As a result, RMC 102-2017 must be struck down but only insofar as the
foregoing points are concerned. As above-mentioned, RMC 102-2017
itemizes several taxes and the others are not necessarily void or subject to
the Court's review at present. Petitioners themselves limit their attack based
on the taxation of the offshore revenue of foreign-based POGO Licensees.
Hence, the circular should only be invalidated to the extent that it went
beyond both the Tax Code and the PAGCOR Charter in imposing a tax on the
said foreign-based Licensees. Corollary thereto, RMC 78-2018 is similarly
void only as it applies to the same foreign-based POGO Licensees since it
was merely in further implementation of RMC 102-2017.
As a final note, it should be borne in mind that RA 11590 sought to
impose the five percent (5%) franchise tax on POGO Licensees, without any
distinction as to whether such gaming revenues were realized within or
without the Philippines. 70 Whether this constitutes a valid exercise of the
power of taxation, however, is a matter that should be resolved separately
should a case be brought before the Court specifically challenging RA 11590.
I wish to reiterate that my views are confined to the particular period from
the issuance of RMC 102-2017 up until the effectivity of RA 11590.
LAZARO-JAVIER, J., dissenting:
With the digital age comes the proliferation of online gaming and
gambling. Games of chance are now within the fingertips of every Filipino in
the comfort of their respective homes. The entry of these online gaming and
gambling entities was so swift even government was at a quandary on their
proper tax treatment. It took time before the conundrum got definitively
resolved upon the enactment of Republic Act 11590 (RA 11590), 1 An Act
Taxing Philippine Offshore Gaming Operations (POGOs).
The law introduced Section 125-A of the National Internal Revenue
Code (NIRC), thus:
SEC. 125-A. Gaming Tax on Services Rendered by
Offshore Gaming Licensees. — Any provision of existing laws, rules or
regulations to the contrary notwithstanding, the entire gross gaming
revenue or receipts from gaming, whichever is higher, shall be levied,
assessed, and collected a gaming tax equivalent to five percent (5%),
in lieu of all other direct and indirect internal revenue taxes and local
taxes, with respect to gaming income: Provided, That the gaming tax
shall be directly remitted to the Bureau of Internal Revenue not later
than the 20th day following the end of each month: Provided, further,
That the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation or any
special economic zone authority or tourism zone authority or freeport
authority may impose regulatory fees on offshore gaming licensees
which shall not cumulatively exceed two percent (2%) of the gross
gaming revenue or receipts derived from gaming operations and
similar related activities of all offshore gaming licensees or a
predetermined minimum guaranteed fee, whichever is higher:
Provided, furthermore, That for purposes of this Section, gross
gaming revenue or receipts shall mean gross wagers less payouts:
Provided, finally, That the taking of wagers made in the Philippines
and the grave failure to cooperate with the third-party auditor sell
result in the revocation of the license of the offshore gaming licensee.
The Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation or any
special economic zone authority or tourism zone authority or freeport
authority shall engage the services of a third-party audit platform that
would determine the gross gaming revenues or receipts of offshore
gaming licensees. To ensure that the proper taxes and regulatory
fees are levied, periodic reports about the results of the operation
showing, among others, the gross gaming revenue or receipts of each
offshore gaming licensee shall be submitted to the Bureau of Internal
Revenue by the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation or
any special economic zone authority or tourism zone authority or
freeport authority as certified by their third-party auditor: Provided,
That the third-party auditor shall be independent, reputable,
internationally-known, and duly accredited as such by an accrediting
or similar agency recognized by industry experts: Provided, finally,
That nothing herein shall prevent the Bureau of Internal Revenue and
the Commission on Audit from undertaking a post-audit or
independent verification of the gross gaming revenues determined by
the third-party auditor. 2
Verily, the taxability of POGOs is now beyond question. Section 125-A,
NIRC imposes a five percent (5%) gaming tax on all income derived from
gaming operations and twenty-five percent (25%) income tax on income
derived from non-gaming operations from sources within the Philippines on
offshore-based POGO licensees such as petitioners here.
I nevertheless agree with the ponencia that the passage of RA 11590
should not deter the Court from ruling on the validity of the assailed tax
issuances and petitioners' consequent tax liabilities, if any, prior to the
enactment of RA 11590.
With all due respect, however, I disagree with the finding of the
ponencia that offshore-based POGO licensees derive no income from sources
within the Philippines, hence, cannot be subjected to income tax. As will be
discussed: (1) petitioners are foreign corporations "doing business" in the
Philippines under the twin characterization test; (2) the Philippines has
jurisdiction over petitioners under the sliding scale test; and (3) they are
taxable as resident foreign corporations under the NIRC on sources from
within the Philippines.
Offshore-based POGO licensees are
deemed "doing business" in the
Philippines
Under the twin characterization test laid out by this Court in the
landmark case of Mentholatum Co., Inc. v. Mangiliman , 3 a foreign
corporation is considered "doing business" in the Philippines when:
a. The foreign corporation is continuing the body or substance
of the business or enterprise for which it was organized or
whether it has substantially retired from it and turned it over
to another; and
b. The foreign corporation is engaged in activities which implies
a continuity of commercial dealings and arrangements, and
contemplates, to that extent, the performance of acts or
works or the exercise of some of the functions normally
incident to, and in progressive prosecution of, the purpose
and object of its organization. 4
xxx xxx xxx
This definition has since been adopted with qualification in various
pieces of legislation. 5 For instance, Republic Act No. 7042, 6 the Foreign
Investment Act of 1991, defines "doing business" thus:
"d) The phrase 'doing business' shall include soliciting
orders, service contracts, opening offices, whether called 'liaison'
offices or branches; appointing representatives or distributors
domiciled in the Philippines or who in any calendar year stay in the
country for a period or periods totalling one hundred eight(y) (180)
days or more; participating in the management, supervision or
control of any domestic business, firm, entity, or corporation in the
Philippines; and any other act or acts that imply a continuity of
commercial dealings or arrangements, and contemplate to
that extent the performance of acts or works; or the exercise
of some of the functions normally incident to, and in
progressive prosecution of, commercial gain or of the
purpose and object of the business organization; Provided,
however, That the phrase 'doing business' shall not be deemed to
include mere investment as a shareholder by a foreign entity in
domestic corporations duly registered to do business, and/or the
exercise of rights as such investor, nor having a nominee director or
officer to represent its interests in such corporation, nor appointing a
representative or distributor domiciled in the Philippines which
transacts business in its own name and for its own account." 7
(Emphasis supplied)
More, Section 1, Republic Act No. 5455 8 decrees:
"SECTION 1. Definition and scope of this Act. — (1) x x x the
phrase "doing business" shall include soliciting orders, purchases,
service contracts, opening offices, whether called "liaison" offices or
branches; appointing representatives or distributors who are
domiciled in the Philippines or who in any calendar year stay in the
Philippines for a period or periods totaling one hundred eighty days
[180] or more; participating in the management, supervision or
control of any domestic business firm, entity or corporation in the
Philippines; and any other act or acts that imply a continuity of
commercial dealings or arrangements, and contemplate to
that extent the performance of acts or works, or the exercise
purpose and object of the business organization." (Emphasis
supplied)
In Section 65, Presidential Decree No. 1789, 9 the Omnibus Investment
Code of 1981, a similar definition has been provided.
ARTICLE n 65. Definition of Terms. — As used in this Book, the
term "investment" shall mean equity participation in any enterprise
formed, organized[,] or existing under the laws of the Philippines; and
the phrase "doing business" shall include soliciting orders,
purchases, service contracts, opening offices, whether called "liaison"
offices or branches; appointing representatives or distributors who
are domiciled in the Philippines or who in any calendar year stay in
the Philippines for a period or periods totalling one hundred eighty
[180] days or more; participating in the management, supervision or
control of any domestic business firm, entity or corporation in the
Philippines, and any other act or acts that imply a continuity of
commercial dealings or arrangements and contemplate to
that extent the performance of acts or works, or the exercise
purpose and object of the business organization. (Emphases
supplied)
There are other statutes defining the term "doing business" in the
same wise, and as may be observed, one common denominator among then
all is the concept of "continuity." 10
Indeed, the twin-characterization test (i.e., transactions must be for
the pursuit of the main business, and with intent to continue the same
for some time) has become the hallmark of what constitutes "doing business
in the Philippines." 11 What is determinative of "doing business" is not just
the number or the quantity of the transactions, but also the intention of
an entity to continue the body of its business in the country. The fact
that it derives income from its activities should also be considered. 12
Here, it is admitted that in pursuit of their main business (i.e., offshore
gaming), petitioners applied for a Philippine Amusement and Gaming
Corporation (PAGCOR) license for offshore gaming operations with the intent
to continue their main line of business here. In fact, they conducted their
offshore gaming operations through the services of PAGCOR-accredited local
gaming agents and service providers for its gaming operations.
T h e ponencia focuses on the so called three (3) components of
offshore gaming:
1. Prize consisting of money or something else of value which
can be won under the rules of the game;
2. A player who:
a. Being located outside of the Philippines and not a
network such as the internet;
b. Gives or undertakes to give, a monetary payment or
other valuable consideration to enter in the course of,
or for, the game; and
3. The winning of a prize is decided by chance.
to support the conclusion that offshore-based POGO licensees such as
petitioners are not doing business in the Philippines.
But offshore gaming activities are said to be not supposedly performed
within the Philippine territory only because they are done on the virtual
plane.
Hence, the question is, may offshore-based POGO licensees be deemed
doing business in the Philippines though their transactions are done online?
I believe so.
I n SEC-OGC Opinion No. 17-03 dated April 4, 2017, 13 the
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) was faced with the same
dilemma relative to the inquiry of Sony Computer Entertainment Hong Kong
(SCEH) on the license requirement for foreign corporations doing business in
the Philippines:
By way of a background, you stated that SCEH is a company
organized and existing under the laws of Hong Kong and operates
Sony Entertainment Network (SEN) in Singapore, Indonesia, Taiwan,
Malaysia, Thailand, and Hong Kong. SEN is an online platform that
offers various content and services such as an online community and
an online gaming system, which requires a SEN account in order to
participate. Since SEN is an internet-based system, persons in the
Philippines can create a SEN account to participate in the online
community and to purchase content from and/or use SEN's services
even if the SCEH does not have a physical presence in the Philippines.
A SEN account holder can buy content and services from SEN only by
using funds from an associated SEN online wallet, which can be
funded by using a credit or debit card or a prepaid card where
available.
Finally, SEN employees are located in Hong Kong while SEN's
servers are based in the United States.
SCEH is seeking confirmation that it is not engaged in doing
business in the Philippines and will not be required to obtain a license
for the following activities:
1) Offer and sale of SEN services on the internet without
restricting persons located in the Philippines from availing
of these services (Maintenance);
2) Assuming that Maintenance, by itself, is not considered
doing business in the Philippines, accepting online
payments for using SEN in any currency, including
Philippine currency;
3) Marketing or advertising the SEN in the Philippines through
(a) online and printed publications, and (b) television and
radio commercials, which is based on the enumerated acts
constituting not "doing business" provided in Section 1(f) of
the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of the
Foreign Investment Act of 1991 (FIA); and
4) Further, as a form of expansion, hiring Independent
Contractors for marketing or advertising of its products and
the selling of prepaid cards in relation to its online gaming
services.
xxx xxx xxx
Using the twin-characterization test, the SEC found SCEH to be
"doing business" in the Philippines, viz.:
You stated that there is no reason to consider that SCEH
will be doing business in the Philippines since the activities of
SCEH are carried outside of the Philippines, considering that its
employees are in Hong Kong, that its property is outside the
Philippines, and that the SEN servers are in the United States.
However, we opine that the activities SCEH proposes to
undertake shall be considered as "doing business" in the
Philippines since the twin characterization test is satisfied in
this case. First, the following activities indicate that SCEH will
be continuing the body or substance of the business of SCEH
for which it was organized in the Philippines, to wit: (i) funding
of the SEN online wallet; (ii) offering and selling SEN services; (iii)
accepting online payments for using SEN in any currency, including
Philippine currency; (iv) marketing or advertising; and (v) hiring
Independent Contractors for marketing or advertising of its products
and the selling of prepaid in relation to its online gaming services.
Second, the above-mentioned enumerated activities are
transactions consummated within the Philippines although
they are done in virtual plane. The following salient points of the
online commercial transactions, or e-commerce, will find themselves
in the Philippines:
(i) The creation of a new SEN account will take place in the
Philippines in order to participate in SEN;
(ii) The offering for sale and sale of online content and
services of SEN will be made to the SEN account holder
who is located in the Philippines;
(iii) The funding of the SEN online wallet will take place in the
Philippines as will be further discussed below;
(iv) The payment of the sale of online content and services of
SEN will be made from the Philippines by the SEN account
holder; and
(v) The delivery of the online content and services of SEN will
be made in the Philippines.
The salient points above-mentioned are evidenced by the use of
an IP address through a device (e.g., PlayStation 4, computer, HDTV
or mobile device) used by the SEN account holder. IP address is short
for Internet Protocol (IP) address. The IP is the method or protocol by
which data is sent from one computer to another on the Internet.
Each computer (known as a host) on the Internet has at least one IP
address that uniquely identifies it from all other computers on the
Internet, An IP address consists of four numbers, each of which
contains one to three digits, with a single dot (.) separating each
number or set of digits (e.g., 78.125.0.209). Moreover, an IP address
may reveal such information as the continent, country, region, and
city in which a computer is located; the ISP (Internet Service Provider)
that services that particular computer; and such technical information
as the precise latitude and longitude of the country, as well as the
locale, of the computer. The location of an IP address can be traced
through the use of an IP geolocation service.
Here, once the SEN account holder enters the SEN online store
through his device, he may view the content or service which is
offered to him for sale that is sent to his device in the Philippines.
Thereafter, the SEN account holder may accept the offer of the
content or service from the Philippines by clicking "Confirm
Purchase." Once it is purchased, the acceptance of the offer is
transmitted from his IP Address through his device in the Philippines
to the virtual plane, and the content or service is delivered through
said virtual plane to the account of the SEN account holder who is in
the Philippines. The SEN account holder will then download the
content or service through his device through his IP address located
in the Philippines. Clearly, such transaction(s) will be consummated in
the Philippines.
Furthermore, it must be remembered that the offering for
sale and the sale of content and services, and the funding of
the SEN online wallet, are intricately connected since the sale
of the SEN content and services cannot be consummated
without the funding of said SEN online wallet. Since the SEN
online wallet funded by credit cards and debit cards, it, thus, logically
and reasonably means that may be SCEH will likewise have
arrangements with the credit card/debit card issuers here in the
Philippines.
The permission to use and buy from the SEN online store
through the funding of the SEN online wallet also clearly indicates
that there is intent to continue the main business for a period of time.
Once the SEN account holder puts funds in the SEN online wallet, he
can resume transactions on the SEN while his account is still active
(subject of course, to the SEN's rules on membership in the network),
thereby maintaining a business relationship with the SCEH even if the
transactions are intermittent and infrequent and even if the SEN user
only purchases credit and uses them up at one time.
xxx xxx xxx
SCEH averred that it was not doing business in the Philippines since
the activities of SCEH were carried outside of the Philippines, its employees
were in Hong Kong, its property was outside the Philippines, and that the
SEN servers were located in the United States (U.S.). Offshore-based POGO
licensees raised the same arguments save for the tact that they conducted
their offshore gaming operations through the services of PAGCOR-accredited
local gaming agents and service providers for its gaming operations.
Despite the averments of SCEH, the SEC still opined that the activities
SCEH proposed to undertake would deem it as "doing business" in the
Philippines since the twin characterization test was satisfied. First, the
enumerated activities to be undertaken by SCEH indicated that it would be
continuing in the Philippines the substance of the business for which it was
organized. Second, the SCEH enumerated activities which were considered
consummated within the Philippines, albeit done in a virtual plane. I see no
reason not to apply the same ruling to offshore-based POGO licensees whose
footprints are all over the Philippines; they entered into contracts with
PAGCOR-accredited local gaming agents and service providers in furtherance
of their main line of business, i.e., gaming operations.
Verily, the gaming operations conducted by offshore-based POGO
licensees within the Philippines through the services of PAGCOR-accredited
local gaming agents and service providers for its offshore gaming operations
implies the continuity of commercial dealings and arrangements, and
contemplates the performance of acts incident to, and in the progressive
prosecution of their business. These services will not be provided
intermittently but for a long period of time in the Philippines. Accordingly,
petitioners are considered resident foreign corporations doing business here
in the Philippines.
Petitioners' activities are deemed
consummated in the Philippines, hence,
they are proper subjects of government
regulations and taxes
In the U.S., there is currently no statute or case law which addresses
the question of whether owning or operating a website or online platform
constitutes "doing business." 14 Numerous court opinions, however, have
addressed a similar issue: whether a corporation's internet activities in a
foreign State is sufficient to justify the court of that State in exercising
personal jurisdiction over the corporation.
Exploring the issue of "jurisdiction" with regard to websites is useful in
determining where the online activities of a corporation are deemed
consummated and, corollarily, whether it need to "qualify [or obtain a
license] to do business" based on its website or online activities. One
requisite for courts to obtain personal jurisdiction is that the corporation has
"minimum contacts" with the foreign state, such that its ability to be sued
there "does not offend the traditional notions of fair play and substance."
In Zippo Mfg. Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc. , 15 the U.S. District Court
for Western District of Pennsylvania elucidated on the State's jurisdiction
over non-resident defendants in cases involving the latter's internet
activities:
xxx xxx xxx
The Constitutional limitations on the exercise of personal
jurisdiction differ depending upon whether a court seeks to
exercise general or specific jurisdiction over a non-resident
defendant. 16 General jurisdiction permits a court to exercise
personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant for non-forum
related activities when the defendant has engaged in "systematic and
continuous" activities in the forum state. 17 In the absence of
general jurisdiction, specific jurisdiction permits a court to
exercise personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant
for forum-related activities where the "relationship between
the defendant and the forum falls within the 'minimum
contacts' framework" of International Shoe Co. v. Washington
18 and its progeny. 19 Manufacturing does not contend that we
should exercise general personal jurisdiction over Dot Com.
Manufacturing concedes that if personal jurisdiction exists in this
case, it must be specific.
A three-pronged test has emerged for determining whether
the exercise of specific personal jurisdiction over a non-
resident defendant is appropriate: (1) the defendant must
have sufficient "minimum contacts" with the forum state, (2)
the claim asserted *1123 against the defendant must arise
out of those contacts, and (3) the exercise of jurisdiction
must be reasonable. 20 The "Constitutional touchstone" of the
minimum contacts analysis is embodied in the first prong, "whether
the defendant purposefully established" contacts with the forum
state. 21 Defendants who "'reach out beyond one state' and create
continuing relationships and obligations with the citizens of another
state are subject to regulation and sanctions in the other State for
consequences of their actions." 22 "[T]he foreseeability that is critical
to the due process analysis is x x x that the defendant's conduct and
connection with the forum State are such that he should reasonably
expect to be haled into court there." 23 This protects defendants from
being forced to answer for their actions in a foreign jurisdiction based
on "random, fortuitous or attenuated" contacts. 24 "Jurisdiction is
proper, however, where contacts proximately result from actions by
the defendant himself that create a 'substantial connection' with the
forum State." 25
The "reasonableness" prong exists to protect defendants
against unfairly inconvenient litigation. 26 Under this prong,
the exercise of jurisdiction will be reasonable if it does not
offend "traditional notions of fair play and substantial
justice." 27 When determining the reasonableness of a particular
forum, the court must consider the burden on the defendant in light
of other factors including: "the forum state's interest in adjudicating
the dispute; the plaintiff's interest in obtaining convenient and
effective relief, at least when that interest is not adequately
protected by the plaintiff's right to choose the forum; the interstate
judicial system's interest in obtaining the most efficient resolution of
controversies; and the shared interest of the several states in
furthering fundamental substantive social policies." 28
2. The Internet and Jurisdiction
I n Hanson v. Denckla , the Supreme Court noted that "[a]s
technological progress has increased the flow of commerce
between States, the need for jurisdiction has undergone a
similar increase." 29 Twenty seven years later, the Court
observed that jurisdiction could not be avoided "merely
because the defendant did not physically enter the forum
state." 30 The Court observed that:
[I]t is an inescapable fact of modern commercial life that
a substantial amount of commercial business is
transacted solely by mail and wire communications
across state lines, thus obviating the need for physical
presence within a State in which business is conducted.
Enter the Internet, a global "'super-network' of over 15,000 computer
networks used by over 30 million individuals, corporations,
organizations, and educational institutions worldwide." 31 "In recent
years, businesses have begun to use the Internet to provide
information and products to consumers and other businesses." 32 The
Internet makes it possible to conduct business throughout the world
entirely from a desktop. With this global revolution looming on the
horizon, the development of the law concerning the permissible scope
of personal jurisdiction based on Internet use is in its infant stages.
The *1124 cases are scant. Nevertheless, our review of the
available cases and materials reveals that the likelihood that
personal jurisdiction can be constitutionally exercised is
directly proportionate to the nature and quality of
commercial activity that an entity conducts over the Internet.
This sliding scale is consistent with well developed personal
jurisdiction principles. At one end of the spectrum are situations
where a defendant clearly does business over the Internet. If
the defendant enters into contracts with residents of a
foreign jurisdiction that involve the knowing and repeated
transmission of computer files over the Internet, personal
jurisdiction is proper. E.g.[,] CompuServe, Inc. v. Patterson, 89
F.3d 1257 (6th Cir. 1996) . At the opposite end are situations where
a defendant has simply posted information on an Internet
Web site which is accessible to users in foreign jurisdictions.
A passive Web site that does little more than make information
available to those who are interested in it is not grounds for the
exercise personal jurisdiction. E.g.[,] Bensusan Restaurant Corp.
v. King, 937 F. Supp. 295 (S.D.N.Y.1996). The middle ground is
occupied by interactive Websites where a user can exchange
information with the host computer. In these cases, the
exercise of jurisdiction is determined by examining the level
of interactivity and commercial nature of the exchange of
information that occurs on the Web site. E.g.[,] Maritz, Inc. v.
Cybergold, Inc., 947 F. Supp. 1328 (E.D.Mo.1996).
Traditionally, when an entity intentionally reaches beyond its
boundaries to conduct business with foreign residents, the
exercise of specific jurisdiction is proper. 33 Different results
should not be reached simply because business is conducted
over the Internet. x x x
xxx xxx xxx
Thus, the Sliding Scale Test or Zippo Test was born. This test was
based on the premise that "the likelihood that 'personal jurisdiction' can be
constitutionally exercised is directly proportionate to the nature and quantity
of commercial activity that an entity conducts over the internet." At one end
of the scale are "passive" websites, which alone generally do not generate
sufficient contacts with a foreign state to establish personal jurisdiction since
they are only used to post information therein. At the other end of the scale
are "active" websites, which generate sufficient business over the internet to
establish personal jurisdiction. "Interactive" websites Pall in the center of the
scale since they are hybrid sites that contain elements of both passive and
active websites, and courts determine whether to exercise personal
jurisdiction over the interactive website owner on a case-by-case basis.
Verily, the Sliding Scale Test was specifically tailored to aid courts in
determining whether the nature and level of a non-resident defendant's
internet activity constitute "minimum contacts" for jurisdictional purposes. I
submit that the same test is applicable here in determining whether the
Philippines may regulate and tax offshore-based POGOs in view of the nature
and extent of their operations here.
Here, the Court can take judicial notice of the fact that offshore-based
POGO licensees have conducted gaming operations through PAGCOR-
accredited local gaming agents and service providers for its gaming
operations. The enormity of the transactions has been noticeable not only
from the end of the BIR and PAGCOR but by the Legislature itself through
congressional hearing by both Houses in aid of legislation, ranging from
taxability, immigration issues, rise of criminal activities, etc. Billions of
foreign currency transactions go through these entities day by day aided by
the internet. It is not merely a passive website as money has been changing
hands here in the Philippines.
Offshore-based POGO licensees are
taxable as resident foreign corporations
Since offshore-based POGO licensees are deemed to be doing business
here, they squarely fall under the definition of "resident foreign corporations"
in Section 22 (H) of the NIRC, thus:
SEC. 22. Definitions. — When used in this Title:
(H) The term 'resident foreign corporation ' applies to a foreign
corporation engaged in trade or business within the Philippines. 34
Consequently, they are subject to income tax in accordance with
Section 23 of the NIRC:
SEC. 23. General Principles of Income Taxation in the Philippines .
— Except when otherwise provided in this Code:
(A) A citizen of the Philippines residing therein is taxable on all
income derived from sources within and without the Philippines;
(B) A nonresident citizen is taxable only on income derived from
sources within the Philippines;
(C) An individual citizen of the Philippines who is working and
deriving income from abroad as an overseas contract worker is
taxable only on income derived from sources within the Philippines:
Provided, That a seaman who is a citizen of the Philippines and who
receives compensation for services rendered abroad as a member of
the complement of a vessel engaged exclusively in international
trade shall be treated as an overseas contract worker;
(D) An alien individual, whether a resident or not of the
Philippines, is taxable only on income derived from sources within the
Philippines;
(E) A domestic corporation is taxable on all income derived from
sources within and without the Philippines; and
(F) A foreign corporation, whether engaged or not in trade
or business in the Philippines, is taxable only on income
derived from sources within the Philippines. 35 (Emphases
supplied)
As the provision plainly states, a foreign corporation, whether engaged
or not in trade or business in the Philippines, is subject to Philippine income
taxation on income received from all sources within the Philippines. This rule
is based on the source concept defined as:
Source concept. The jurisdiction to impose income tax is based
either on the relationship of the income (tax object) to the taxing
state (commonly known as the source or situs principle) or the
relationship of the taxpayer (tax subject) to the taxing state based on
residence or nationality. Under the source principle, a State's claim to
tax income is based on the State's relationship to that income. 36
I n CIR v. Baier-Nickel , 37 the Court provided a background on
sourcing of income under the Internal Revenue Code of the U.S. from
whence our Tax Code originated:
The following discussions on sourcing of income under the Internal
Revenue Code of the U.S., are instructive:
The Supreme Court has said, in a definition much quoted but often
debated, that income may be derived from three possible sources
only: (1) capital and/or (2) labor; and/or (3) the sale of capital assets.
While the three elements of this attempt at definition need not be
accepted as all-inclusive, they serve as useful guides in any inquiry
into whether a particular item is from "sources within the
United States" and suggest an investigation into the nature
and location of the activities or property which produce the
income.
If the income is from labor the place where the labor is done
should be decisive; if it is done in this country, the income
should be from "sources within the United States." If the
income is from capital, the place where the capital is
employed should be decisive; if it is employed in this country,
the income should be from "sources within the United
States." If the income is from the sale of capital assets, the
place where the sale is made should be likewise decisive.
Much confusion will be avoided by regarding the term "source" in this
fundamental light. It is not a place, it is an activity or property. As
such, it has a situs or location, and if that situs or location is within
the United States the resulting income is taxable to nonresident
aliens and foreign corporations.
The intention of Congress in the 1916 and subsequent
statutes was to discard the 1909 and 1915 basis of taxing
nonresident aliens and foreign corporations and to make the test
of taxability the "source," or situs of the activities or property
which produce the income. The result is that, on the one hand,
nonresident aliens and nonresident foreign corporations are
prevented from deriving income from the United States free from tax,
and, on the other hand, there is no undue imposition of a tax when
the activities do not take place in, and the property producing income
is not employed in, this country. Thus, if income is to be taxed,
the recipient thereof must be resident within the jurisdiction,
or the property or activities out of which the income issues or
is derived must be situated within the jurisdiction so that the
source of the income may be said to have a situs in this
country.
The underlying theory is that the consideration for taxation is
protection of life and property and that the income rightly to
be levied upon to defray the burdens of the United States
Government is that income which is created by activities and
property protected by this Government or obtained by
persons enjoying that protection. 38 (Emphases supplied)
The important factor which determines the source of income of
personal services, therefore, is not the residence of the payor, or the
place where the contract for service is entered into, or the place of
payment, but the place where the services were actually rendered. 39
For the source of income to be considered as coming from the
Philippines, it is sufficient that the income is derived from activity within the
Philippines, e.g., sale of tickets in the Philippines is the activity that produces
the income as the tickets exchanged hands here and payments for fares
were also made here in Philippine Currency. The situs of the source of
payments is the Philippines. The flow of wealth proceeded from, and
occurred within, Philippine territory, enjoying the protection accorded by the
Philippine government. In consideration of such protection, the flow of
wealth should share the burden of supporting the government. 40
Here, I respectfully submit that the services of offshore-based
POGO licensees — "offering by a licensee of PAGCOR authorized online
games of chance via the Internet using a network and software or program,
exclusively to offshore authorized players excluding Filipinos abroad, who
have registered and established an online gaming account with the licensee"
— are being rendered here. These enumerated activities are
transactions deemed to have been consummated within the
Philippines, albeit done on the virtual plane. From placing the bet to
winning a bet, the commercial transaction, e-commerce or any sort of virtual
transactions find themselves within the Philippines through the services of
PAGCOR-accredited local gaming agents and service providers for its
offshore gaming operations.
In an emerging digital economy, no clear boundaries has been set nor
a scope of authority or imposition has been taken up by the Legislature.
Even then, if the Philippines that has substantial connection with the assets
or services which are subject to tax, e.g., enrolled under the Philippine
Payment System, or the delivery of goods and services are in the Philippines,
then the government can assert that the Philippines is the tax situs for the
digital transaction.
At any rate, offshore-based POGO
licensees should be subject to tax in
exchange for the privileges they enjoy
While PAGCOR insists that none of the components of offshore gaming
are being performed within Philippine territory, I cannot take its submission
hook, line and sinker. At the back of my mind, so many questions linger as to
their operations:
a. Why is there a proliferation of foreigners in the Philippines
engaged in such operations?
b. Why are there numerous offices, residential condominiums
rented specifically for POGO operations and other array of
services for them?
c. If the only transaction entered into by these offshore-based
POGO licensees are the service contracts with these service
providers located in the Philippines, what interest do they
have here in the Philippines?
It is an open secret that PAGCOR and other institutions have provided
aide and protection to these entities to the point that even the government
could not explain their proliferation. Since their inception, they enjoyed
protection here in the Philippines, it is high time they contribute to the
expenditures of the government.
I n Lorenzo v. Posadas, Jr. , 41 this benefit-based taxation was
mentioned by the Court, but it nevertheless emphasized that the obligation
to pay taxes rests on governmental existence and necessity, to wit:
Taxes are essential to the very existence of government. 42 The
obligation to pay taxes rests not upon the privileges enjoyed by, or
the protection afforded to, a citizen by the government, but upon the
necessity of money for the support of the state. 43 For this reason, no
one is allowed to object to or resist the payment of taxes solely
because no personal benefit to him can be pointed out. 44
xxx xxx xxx
This basis of taxation was subsequently articulated in CIR v. Algue,
Inc., where the Court pronounced:
45
It is said that taxes are what we pay for civilization society. Without
taxes, the government would be paralyzed for lack of the motive
power to activate and operate it. Hence, despite the natural
reluctance to surrender part of one's hard earned income to
the taxing authorities, every person who is able to must
contribute his share in the running of the government. The
government for its part, is expected to respond in the form of
tangible and intangible benefits intended to improve the lives
of the people and enhance their moral and material values.
This symbiotic relationship is the rationale of taxation and
should dispel the erroneous notion that it is an arbitrary method of
exaction by those in the seat of power. 46 (Emphasis and italics
supplied)
xxx xxx xxx
Thus, the basis of taxation is the existence of a social contract,
characterized as a symbiotic relationship between the State and its citizens
— offshore gaming licensees in this case, which compel reciprocal duties of
protection and support between the parties. In Abakada Guro Party List v.
Ermita, 47 the Supreme Court restated the basis of taxation — "The
expenses of government, having for their object the interest of all, should be
borne by everyone, and the more man enjoys the advantages of society, the
more he ought to hold himself honored in contributing to those expenses."
As a result, I register my dissent and vote to dismiss the Petition.
LEONEN, J., dissenting:
The consolidated cases must be dismissed, as the issues they raise
were rendered moot by the passage of Republic Act No. 11590 which
amended the National Internal Revenue Code, codified the 5% franchise tax
on gaming operations of Philippine Offshore Gaming Operators (POGOs), and
considered the operations of offshore gaming licensees as doing business in
the Philippines, among others.
In any case, the assailed issuances are not unconstitutional.
The assailed statute, Republic Act No. 11494, or the "Bayanihan to
Recover as One Act" (Bayanihan 2), is an emergency measure enacted by
the legislature which the President deemed necessary and urgent to address
the pandemic. It enjoys a presumption of constitutionality which petitioners
did not overcome.
The Bayanihan 2 does not violate the "one subject, one title" rule in
Article VI, Section 26 (1) of the Constitution. 1
The title of the law is clear, "An Act Providing for COVID-19 Response
and Recovery Interventions and Providing Mechanisms to Accelerate the
Recovery and Bolster the Resiliency of the Philippine Economy, Providing
Funds Therefor , and for Other Purposes." It sought to "[e]nhance the
financial stability of the country to support government programs in
combatting the COVID-19 pandemic." 2
Section 11 (f) and (g) which outlined the taxes imposed on POGOs
cannot be deemed riders when they are undoubtedly germane to the subject
matter of the Bayanihan 2. Dismissing the provisions as tax measures
irrelevant to the statute's purpose — to provide the sources of funds for the
various government projects to meet the pandemic — is grasping at straws.
Further, the imposition of a 5% franchise tax, in lieu of other taxes, on
the gaming operations of offshore gaming licensees, whether they be
Philippine- or foreign-based, was not introduced by Bayanihan 2. It is not a
new tax measure.
Presidential Decree No. 1869 created the Philippine Amusement and
Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR) to "centralize and integrate the right and
authority to operate and conduct games of chance" 3 and conferred it with
broad powers. 4 PAGCOR was granted "the rights, privileges and authority to
operate and license gambling casinos, gaming clubs and other similar
recreation or amusement places, gaming pools, i.e., basketball, football,
bingo, etc. except jai-alai, whether on land or sea, within the territorial
jurisdiction of the Republic of the Philippines: Provided, That the corporation
shall obtain the consent of the local government unit that has territorial
jurisdiction over the area chosen as the site for any of its operations." 5
Under Presidential Decree No. 1869, PAGCOR franchise holders are
assessed and held liable for a franchise tax of 5% of the gross revenue or
earnings derived from operations under the franchise, in lieu of all taxes. 6
In line with its aim to "[e]nsure that online games are properly
regulated and monitored," 7 PAGCOR issued the Rules and Regulations for
Philippine Offshore Gaming Operations on September 1, 2016. It provided
the requirements for an offshore gaming license and the grounds for its
suspension and cancellation.
On February 2, 2017, Executive Order No. 13, series of 2017 was
issued, titled "Strengthening the Fight against Illegal Gambling and Clarifying
the Jurisdiction and Authority of Concerned Agencies in the Regulation and
Licensing of Gambling and Online Gaming Facilities, and for Other Purposes."
It reiterated the jurisdiction of concerned agencies, among which is PAGCOR,
in regulating online gaming operations. It stated that "nothing shall prohibit
the duly licensed online gambling operator from allowing the participation of
persons physically located outside Philippine territory."
On December 27, 2017, the Bureau of Internal Revenue issued
Revenue Memorandum Circular No. 102-17 on the " Taxation of Taxpayers
Engaged in Philippine Offshore Gaming Operations." This was later followed
by Revenue Memorandum Circular No. 78-2018 which outlined the
registration process for offshore gaming operations.
The Commissioner of Internal Revenue who has the exclusive and
original jurisdiction "to interpret provisions of the Tax Code and other tax
laws," 8 was well within its rights when it issued the revenue circulars. The
5% franchise tax, in lieu of other taxes on PAGCOR licensees, was not newly
imposed by the agency, but was provided for in Presidential Decree No.
1869. Thus, in its interpretation of existing tax laws on PAGCOR licensees
and its issuance of Revenue Memorandum Circular Nos. 102-17 and 78-
2018, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue did not encroach upon the
legislative power to impose taxes. It merely issued guidelines to clarify
existing tax measures.
The ponencia harps on territoriality issues. However, there is merit in
respondents' argument that "what is being collected is a tax not based on
income, but rather, on the exercise of a privilege." 9 We have allowed POGOs
to operate under licenses that the PAGCOR issued. We cannot, on one hand,
issue offshore gaming licenses to POGOs, and on the same breath, reject
their taxability. When we let licensees operate in the Philippines, pass
through our borders, and set up game servers in the country, 10 it is not
unreasonable nor unconstitutional to impose the same 5% franchise tax
which is collected from other PAGCOR franchise holders.
It was error for petitioners to argue that Philippine-based and offshore
POGO licensees must be treated differently , considering that PAGCOR, the
agency that regulates their operations, issues the same gaming license to
both. The 5% franchise tax was imposed by virtue of their license to operate.
Petitioner Saint Wealth's argument that it should not be subjected to any
Philippine tax since all of its operations are located abroad 11 and offshore-
based POGO licensees must be similarly treated with foreign corporations
not engaged in trade or business in the Philippines12 is untenable. Precisely,
its game servers are here because they could not operate in their home
country. Thus, offshore-based POGO licensees granted franchises by
PAGCOR are naturally engaged in business in the Philippines.
I join Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier in concluding that offshore-based
POGO licensees are doing business in the Philippines, and adopt the findings
in a Security and Exchange Commission Opinion with similar facts:
SCEH averred that it was not doing business in the Philippines
since the activities of SCEH were carried outside of the Philippines, its
employees were in Hong Kong, its property was outside the
Philippines, and that the SEN servers were located in the United
States (U.S.). Offshore-based POGO licensees raised the same
arguments save for the fact that they conducted their offshore
gaming operations through the services of PAGCOR-accredited local
gaming agents and service providers for its gaming operations.
Despite the averments of SCEH, the SEC still opined that the
activities SCEH proposed to undertake would deem it as "doing
business" in the Philippines since the twin characterization test was
satisfied. First, the enumerated activities to be undertaken by SCEH
indicated that it would be continuing in the Philippines the substance
of the business for which it was organized. Second, the SCEH
enumerated activities which were considered consummated within
the Philippines, albeit done in a virtual plane. I see no reason not to
apply the same ruling to offshore-based POGO licensees whose
footprints are all over the Philippines; they entered into contracts
with PAGCOR-accredited local gaming agents and service providers in
furtherance of their main line of business, i.e., gaming operations.
Verily, the gaming operations conducted by offshore-based
POGO licensees within the Philippines through the services of
PAGCOR-accredited local gaming agents and service providers for its
offshore gaming operations implies the continuity of commercial
dealings and arrangements, and contemplates the performance of
acts incident to, and in the progressive prosecution of their business.
These services will not be provided intermittently but for a long
period of time in the Philippines. Accordingly, petitioners are
considered resident foreign corporations doing business in the
Philippines. 13 (Emphasis in the original)
I likewise agree that petitioners' activities are consummated here
which subject them to government regulations — among which is taxation:
For the source of income to be considered as coming from the
Philippines, it is sufficient that the income is derived from activity
within the Philippines, e.g., sale of tickets in the Philippines is the
activity that produces the income as the tickets exchanged hands
here and payments for fares were also made here in Philippine
currency. The situs of the source of payments is the Philippines. The
flow of wealth proceeded from, and occurred within, Philippine
territory, enjoying the protection accorded by the Philippine
government. In consideration of such protection, the flow of wealth
should share the burden of supporting the government.
Here, I respectfully submit that the services of offshore-
based POGO [licensees] "offering by a licensee of PAGCOR
authorized online games of chance via the Internet using a network
and software or program, exclusively to offshore authorized players
excluding Filipinos abroad, who have registered and established on
online gaming account with the licensee" — are being rendered
here. These enumerated activities are transactions deemed to
have been consummated within the Philippines, albeit done
on the virtual plane. From placing the bet to winning a bet, the
commercial transaction, e-commerce or any sort of virtual
transactions find themselves within the Philippines through the
services of PAGCOR-accredited local gaming agents and service
providers for its offshore gaming operations. 14 (Emphasis in the
original)
The transnational nature of POGOs blur borderlines and facilitate the
possibility of non-taxation in any of the jurisdiction where they operate. The
revenue from gambling operations may not be worth the kind of values they
instill, the politics they infect, the health they risk, and the lives they destroy.
Thus, allowing gambling operations and issuing licenses for them entail the
corresponding duty to strictly regulate them, and efficiently collect their
enforced contributions.
Bayanihan 2 was an urgent piece of legislation passed by Congress
and signed by the President. 15 The statute and the revenue regulations
were acts of the legislature and the concerned administrative agency that
has expertise over the matter. These bodies are presumed to have acted
meticulously, aware of their constitutional and statutory bounds. Absent any
showing of grave abuse of discretion, judicial restraint must be exercised in
reviewing the technical details of their issuances.
ACCORDINGLY, I vote to DENY the consolidated Petitions.
Footnotes
* On official leave.
1. Rollo (G.R. No. 252965), pp. 3-54; Rollo (G.R. No. 254102), pp. 3-119.

2. Rollo (G.R. No. 252965), p. 16.
3. Rollo (G.R. No. 254102), p. 22.
4. Id.
5. POGO RULES AND REGULATIONS, Section 4 (b).

6. Id.
7. Id., Section 6; Rollo (G.R. No. 254102), p. 23.
8. REVENUE MEMORANDUM CIRCULAR NO. 102-2017, paragraph IV (2).
9. Id.
10. REVENUE MEMORANDUM CIRCULAR NO. 78-2018, paragraph B.
11. Rollo (G.R. No. 254102), p. 28.

12. BAYANIHAN 2 LAW, Section 11.
13. Rollo (G.R. No. 252965), pp. 26-27.
14. Id. at 32.
15. Id. at 33-36.
16. Id. at 35.
17. Id. at 36.
18. Id. at 36-38.

19. Id. at 38-40.
20. Id. at 45.
21. Rollo (G.R. No. 254102), pp. 31-39.
22. Id. at 32-33.
23. Id. at 33.
24. Id. at 39-41.
25. Id. at 39-40.

26. Id. at 40-41.
27. Id. at 41-46.
28. Id. at 41-44.
29. Id. at 46-50.
30. Id. at 46.
31. Id. at 46-49.

32. Id. at 50-51.
33. Id. at 51.
34. Id. at 51-52.
35. Id. at 52-55.
36. Id. at 54.
37. Id. at 54-55.
38. Id. at 55.
39. Id. at 56.
40. Id. at 60.

41. Id. at 57-58.
42. Id. at 58.
43. Id.
44. Id. at 57-58.
45. Id. at 211-215.
46. Rollo (G.R. No. 252965), pp. 101-176.

47. Id. at 117-129.
48. Id. at 130.
49. Id. at 132-134.
50. Id. at 129-134.
51. Id. at 135-143.
52. Id. at 136-137.
53. Id. at 138-139.

54. Id. at 140.
55. Id. at 142-143.
56. Id. at 143-155.
57. Id. at 146-147.
58. Id. at 147.
59. Id. at 147-148.

60. Id. at 148.
61. Id. at 155-165.
62. Id. at 155-159.
63. Id. at 159.
64. Id. at 159-160.
65. Id. at 160.
66. Id. at 163.
67. Id. at 168.
68. Id. at 170.

69. Id.
70. See REPUBLIC ACT NO. 11590, Section 2.
71. Id., Section 8.
72. Id., Section 4.
73. Id., Section 5.
74. Id., Sections 6 and 7.

75. Id., Section 13.
76. 807 Phil. 133 (2017).
77. Id. at 140-141.
78. 522 Phil. 705 (2006).
79. Id. at 754.
80. 792 Phil. 751 (2016).
81. Id. at 767-768.

82. Concurring and Dissenting Opinion, Senior Associate Justice Perlas-Bernabe, p.
18.
83. Justice Caguioa's Comments, p. 2.
84. Film Development Council of the Philippines v. Colon Heritage Realty

Corporation, 760 Phil. 519, 535 (2015); Purisima v. Lazatin , 801 Phil. 395,
426 (2016).
85. Light Rail Transit Authority v. Quezon City, G.R. No. 221626, October 9, 2019.
86. Supra note 84 at 425-426.
87. RMC No. 102-2017, paragraph IV (1) (b).
9. Phil. Guaranty Co., Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 121 Phil.
755, 760 (1965).
89. Id.; Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Algue, Inc., 241 Phil. 829, 836 (1988).
90. Justice Dimaampao's Reflections, p. 1; Smith, Adam, "The Wealth of Nations,"
Bantam Classic (2003).
91. POGO RULES AND REGULATIONS, Section 4 (b).
92. Id.
93. See PAGCOR Manual, p. 2.

94. Section 42 (A) of the NIRC provides:
Section 42. Income from Sources within the Philippines. —
(A) Gross Income from Sources within the Philippines. — The following items
of gross income shall be treated as gross income from sources within the
Philippines:
xxx xxx xxx
(3) Services. — Compensation for labor or personal services performed in
Philippines[.] (Emphasis supplied)
95. Section 42 (C) of the NIRC provides:
Section 42. Income from Sources within the Philippines. —
xxx xxx xxx
(C) Gross Income from Sources without the Philippines. — The following
items of gross income shall be treated as income from sources without the
Philippines:
xxx xxx xxx

(3) Compensation for labor or personal services performed without the
Philippines[.] (Emphasis supplied)
96. 62 Phil. 895, 901 (1936).

10.
98. 233 Phil. 406 (1987).
99. Id. at 422-424.
100. Concurring and Dissenting Opinion, Senior Associate Justice Perlas-Bernabe,
pp. 10-11.
101. 531 Phil. 480 (2006).
102. Id. at 491-493.
103. Justice Dimaampao's Reflections, p. 3.
104. Id.; The Mentholatum Co., Inc. v. Mangaliman, 72 Phil. 524, 528 (1941).
105. Id.; Pacific Vegetable Oil Corporation v. Singzon, 96 Phil. 986 (1955).
106. Id.; Eriks Pte. Ltd. v. Court of Appeals, 335 Phil. 229, 239 (1997).
107. Id.; B. Van Zuiden Bros., Ltd. v. GTVL Manufacturing Industries, Inc., 551 Phil.
231, 237 (2007).
108. The Mentholatum Co., Inc. v. Mangaliman, supra note 104 at 528.
109. Justice Dimaampao's Reflections, pp. 3-4.
110. Id. at 4.
111. Section 3 (d) of the FIA provides:
Section 3. Definitions. — As used in this Act:
xxx xxx xxx
d) The phrase "doing business" shall include soliciting orders, service
contracts, opening offices, whether called "liaison" offices or branches;
appointing representatives or distributors domiciled in the Philippines or who
in any calendar year stay in the country for a period or periods totalling one
hundred eighty (180) days or more; participating in the management,
supervision or control of any domestic business, firm, entity or corporation in
the Philippines; and any other act or acts that imply a continuity of
commercial dealings or arrangements, and contemplate to that extent the
performance of acts or works, or the exercise of some of the functions
normally incident to, and in progressive prosecution of, commercial gain or of
the purpose and object of the business organization: Provided, however,
That the phrase "doing business" shall not be deemed to include
mere investment as a shareholder by a foreign entity in domestic
corporations duly registered to do business, and/or the exercise of
rights as such investor; nor having a nominee director or officer to
represent its interests in such corporation; nor appointing a
representative or distributor domiciled in the Philippines which
transacts business in its own name and for its own account[.]
(Emphasis supplied)
112. Justice Dimaampao's Reflections, p. 5.

12; Justice Dimaampao's Reflections, p. 5.
114. Id. at 13.
115. See OECD (2014), Addressing the Tax Challenges of the Digital Economy,
OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project, OECD Publishing, Paris, p.
73; available at https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264218789-en.
118. Id.
DECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project, OECD Publishing, Paris, p.
OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project, OECD Publishing, Paris,
pp. 112-121; available at https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264218789-en.
121. BAYANIHAN 2 LAW, Section 11.
122. 463 Phil. 179 (2003).
123. Id. at 198.
124. Concurring and Dissenting Opinion, Senior Associate Justice Perlas-Bernabe,
pp. 2-3.
125. 508 Phil. 321 (2005).
126. Id. at 335.
3.
128. See Sponsorship Remarks of Deputy Speaker Villafuerte, House of
Representatives Journal No. 59, June 1-5, 2020, p. 101.
129. See Interpellation of Representative Abante, House of Representatives
Records, August 5, 2020, p. 45.
130. Id. at 46; see also Interpellations of Senator Recto, Senate Journal No. 67, June
1, 2020, p. 614.

5.
132. CIVIL CODE, Article 4.
PERLAS-BERNABE, J., concurring and dissenting:
1. Entitled "AN ACT PROVIDING FOR COVID-19 RESPONSE AND RECOVERY
INTERVENTIONS AND PROVIDING MECHANISMS TO ACCELERATE THE
RECOVERY AND BOLSTER THE RESILIENCY OF THE PHILIPPINE ECONOMY,
PROVIDING FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES," approved on
September 11, 2020.
2. See ponencia, p. 40.
3. See id . at 22-23.
4. See Letter of Justice Caguioa to J. Gaerlan dated October 4, 2021.
5. See Article 4 of the CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES.
6. See Co v. Court of Appeals, 298 Phil. 221, 226 (1993).
7. See Film Development Council of the Philippines v. Colon Heritage Realty Corp.,
G.R. Nos. 203754 & 204418 (Resolution), October 15, 2019.
9. See Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. San Roque Power Corp., 719 Phil. 137,
157 (2013).
10. See ponencia, pp. 36-40.

11. Atitiw v. Zamora, 508 Phil. 321, 334 (2005).
12. Id. at 335.
13. Id.
14. See Sponsorship Remarks of Deputy Speaker Villafuerte, House of
Representatives Journal No. 59, June 1 to 5, 2020, p. 101.
15. See Interpellation of Representative Abante, House of Representatives Records,
August 5, 2020, p. 45.
16. See Interpellation of Representative Abante, House of Representatives Records,
August 5, 2020, p. 46; and Interpellation of Senator Recto, Senate Journal No.
67, June 1, 2020, p. 614.
17. The effectivity of the law is only until the next adjournment of the Eighteenth
Congress on December 19, 2020, viz.:
SECTION 18. Effectivity. — Except as otherwise specifically provided herein,
this Act shall be in full force and effect until the next adjournment of the
Eighteenth Congress on December 19, 2020. This Act shall take effect
immediately upon its publication in a newspaper of general circulation or in
the Official Gazette: Provided, That Section 4 (cc) of this Act shall be deemed
to be in effect since Republic Act No. 11469 expired.
18. Section 4 of RA 11494 reads:

SECTION 4. COVID-19 Response and Recovery Interventions. — Pursuant to
Article VI, Section 23 (2) of the Constitution, the President is hereby
authorized to exercise powers that are necessary and proper to undertake
and implement the following COVID-19 response and recovery interventions:
xxx xxx xxx
19. Section 10 of RA 11494 reads:
SECTION 10. Appropriations and Standby Fund. — The amounts that will be
raised under Section 4, paragraphs (pp), (qq), (rr), (ss), (sss) and (ttt) of this
Act shall be used for the response and recovery interventions for the COVID-
19 pandemic authorized in this Act. x x x
20. Section 11, paragraphs (a) to (e) of RA 11494 reads:
SECTION 11. Sources of Funding. — The enumerated subsidy and stimulus
measures, as well as all other measures to address the COVID-19 pandemic
shall be funded from the following:
(a) 2020 GAA: Provided, That funds for the herein authorized programs and
projects shall be sourced primarily from the unprogrammed funds and
savings realized from modified, realigned or reprogrammed allocations for
operational expense of any government agency or instrumentality under the
Executive Department, including, but not limited to, travelling expenses,
supplies and materials expenses, professional services, general services,
advertising expenses, printing and publication expenses, and other
maintenance and operating expenses in the 2020 GAA;
(b) Savings pooled pursuant to Republic Act No. 11469 and Section 4,
paragraphs (pp), (qq), (rr), (ss), (sss) and (ttt) of this Act;
(c) Excess revenue collections in anyone of the identified tax or non-tax
revenue sources from its corresponding revenue collection target, as
provided in the FY 2020 Budget of Expenditures and Sources of Financing
(BESF);
(d) New revenue collections or those arising from new tax or non-tax sources
which are not part of nor included in the original sources included in the FY
2020 BESF;
(e) All amounts derived from the cash, funds, and investments held by any
GOCC or any national government agency;
22. See Republic v. Bajao , 601 Phil. 53, 59 (2009).
23. See RMC 102-2017.
24. The subject of RMC 78-2018 reads "Registration Requirements of Philippine

Offshore Gaming Operators and its Accredited Service Providers."
25. Rollo (G.R. No. 254102), p. 54.
26. Id. at 54-55.
27. Id. at 55.
28. Id. at 55-56.

29. Rollo (G.R. No. 252965), pp. 140-142
30. Id. at 142-143.
31. SECTION 13. Exemptions. —
xxx xxx xxx
(2) Income and other taxes. — (a) Franchise Holder: No tax of any kind or
form, income or otherwise, as well as fees, charges or levies of whatever
nature, whether National or Local, shall be assessed and collected under this
Franchise from the Corporation; nor shall any form of tax or charge attach in
any way to the earnings of the Corporation, except a Franchise Tax of five
(5%) percent of the gross revenue or earnings derived by the Corporation
from its operation under this Franchise. Such tax shall be due and payable
quarterly to the National Government and shall be in lieu of all kinds of taxes,
levies, fees or assessments of any kind, nature or description, levied,
established or collected by any municipal, provincial, or national government
authority.
(b) Others: The exemptions herein granted for earnings derived from the
operations conducted under the franchise specifically from the payment of
any tax, income or otherwise, as well as any form of charges, fees or levies,
shall inure to the benefit of and extend to corporation(s), association(s),
agency(ies), or individual(s) with whom the Corporation or operator has any
contractual relationship in connection with the operations of the casino(s)
authorized to be conducted under this Franchise and to those receiving
compensation or other remuneration from the Corporation or operator as a
result of essential facilities furnished and/or technical services rendered to
the Corporation or operator.
32. Section 57 of the Tax Code, as amended by RA Nos. 10963 and 11534 reads:
Sec. 57. Withholding of Tax at Source. —
(A) Withholding of Final Tax on Certain Incomes. — Subject to rules and
regulations the Secretary of Finance may promulgate, upon the
recommendation of the Commissioner, requiring the filing of income tax
return by certain income payees, the tax imposed or prescribed by Sections
24 (B) (1), 24 (B) (2), 24 (C), 24 (D) (1); 25 (A) (2), 25 (A) (3), 25 (B), 25 (C),
25 (D), 25 (E), 27 (D) (1), 27 (D) (2), 27 (D) (3), 27 (D) (5); 28 (A) (4), 28 (A)
(5), 28 (A) (7) (a), 28 (A) (7) (b), 28 (A) (7) (c), 28 (B) (1), 28 (B) (2), 28 (B)
(3), 28 (B) (4), 28 (B) (5) (a), 28 (B) (5) (b), 28 (B) (5) (c); 33; and 282 of this
Code on specified items of income shall be withheld by payor-corporation
and/or person and paid in the same manner and subject to the same
conditions as provided in Section 58 of this Code.
(B) Withholding of Creditable Tax at Source. — The Secretary of Finance may,
upon the recommendation of the Commissioner, require the withholding of a
tax on the items of income payable to natural or juridical persons, residing in
the Philippines, by payor-corporation/persons as provided for by law, at the
rate of not less than one percent (1%) but not more than thirty-two percent
(32%) thereof, which shall be credited against the income tax liability of the
taxpayer for the taxable year.
(C) Tax-free Covenant Bonds. — In any case where bonds, mortgages, deeds
of trust or other similar obligations of domestic or resident foreign
corporations, contain a contract or provisions by which the obligor agrees to
pay any portion of the tax imposed in this Title upon the obligee or to
reimburse the obligee for any portion of the tax or to pay the interest without
deduction for any tax which the obligor may be required or permitted to pay
thereon or to retain therefrom under any law of the Philippines, or any state
or county, the obligor shall deduct bonds, mortgages, deeds of trust or other
obligations, whether the interest or other payments are payable annually or
at shorter or longer periods, and whether the bonds, securities or obligations
had been or will be issued or marketed, and the interest or other payment
thereon paid, within or without the Philippines, if the interest or other
payment is payable to a nonresident alien or to a citizen or resident of the
Philippines.
(Note: Section 57 [B] was amended by RA 10963, which took effect on
January 1, 2018. A new paragraph was also introduced by RA 11534, which
took effect in April 2021. However, RMC 102-2017 was promulgated prior to
these amendments, hence, the original wording is footnoted.)
33. See Film Development Council of the Phils. v. Colon Heritage Realty Corp., 760
Phil. 519, 537 (2015).
34. Phil. Guaranty Co., Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 121 Phil. 755, 760
(1965).
35. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Algue, Inc., 241 Phil. 829, 836 (1988).
36. See Lutz v. Araneta, 98 Phil. 148, 153 (1955).
37. See id.
38. See Cargill Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No.
203346, September 9, 2020.
39. Alexander Howden & Co., Ltd. v. Collector of Internal Revenue, 121 Phil. 579,
582 (1965).
40. Article III, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution reads:
SECTION 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without
due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of
the laws.
41. Manila Gas Corp. v. Collector of Internal Revenue, 62 Phil. 895, 900 (1936).
42. Id.
43. See Phil. Guaranty Co., Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, supra note
32.
44. Section 42. Income from Sources within the Philippines . —

(A) Gross Income from Sources within the Philippines. — The following items
of gross income shall be treated as gross income from sources within the
Philippines:
xxx xxx xxx
(3) Services. — Compensation for labor or personal services performed in the
Philippines:
xxx xxx xxx

45. Section 42. Income from Sources within the Philippines . —
xxx xxx xxx
(C) Gross Income from Sources without the Philippines. — The following
items of gross income shall be treated as income from sources without the
Philippines:
xxx xxx xxx
(3) Compensation for labor or personal services performed without the
Philippines;
xxx xxx xxx
46. Manila Gas Corp. v. Collector of Internal Revenue, supra note at 901.
47. 233 Phil. 406 (1987).
48. Id. at 422-424.
49. 531 Phil. 480 (2006).
50. Id. at 491-493.

51. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. S.C. Johnson and Son, Inc., 368 Phil. 388,
404 (1999).
52. See Pharmaceutical and Health Care Association v. Duque III, 561 Phil. 386,
398 (2007).
53. See Article 5 (1) of the RP-US Tax Treaty.
54. See Article 5 (2) of the RP-US Tax Treaty.
55. See Article 5 of the RP-China Tax Treaty.

56. See Article 5, RP-Singapore Tax Treaty; Article 5, RP-Japan Tax Treaty; and
Article V, RP-Canada Tax Treaty, as examples.
57. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD),
Commentaries on the Articles of the Model Tax Convention, p. 93 (2010).
58. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Section 3, Article 31.1 (1969).
59. OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project, Addressing the Tax
Challenges of the Digital Economy, pp. 84-95 (2014).
Challenges of the Digital Economy, p. 102 (2014).
Challenges of the Digital Economy, pp. 112-121 (2014).
62. See Section 6, PAGCOR Offshore Rules and Regulations.
63. Congressional Record Vol. 5, February 1, 2021, p. 46.

64. Senate Journal Session No. 63, May 25, 2021, p. 791.
65. See Bureau of Internal Revenue v. First E-Bank Tower Condominium Corp., G.R.
Nos. 215801 & 218924, January 15, 2020.
66. See Phil. Amusement and Gaming Corp. v. Bureau of Internal Revenue, 749
Phil. 1010 (2014).
67. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Philippine Airlines, Inc., 535 Phil. 95, 109
(2006).
69. Entitled "AN ACT FURTHER AMENDING PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1869,
OTHERWISE KNOWN AS PAGCOR CHARTER," approved on June 20, 2007.
70. See Section 125-A, in relation to Section 22 (II), of the Tax Code, as amended
by RA 11590.
LAZARO-JAVIER, J., dissenting:
1. An Act Taxing Philippine Offshore Gaming Operations, Amending for the Purpose
Sections 22, 25, 27, 28, 106, 108, and Adding New Sections 125-A and 288
(G) of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997, as Amended and for
Other Purposes. (Republic Act No. 11590, Approved on September 22, 2021).
2. Id.
3. 72 Phil. 524-531 (1941).
4. Id. at 528.
5. MR Holdings, Ltd. v. Bajar, et al., 430 Phil. 443, 462 (2002).
6. An Act to Promote Foreign Investments, Prescribes the Procedures for
Registering Enterprises Doing Business in the Philippines, and for Other
Purposes.
7. Section 3 (d) of Republic Act No. 7042, Approved on June 13, 1991 (as
amended).
8. An Act to Require that the Making of Investments and the Doing of Business
within the Philippines by Foreigners or Business Organizations Owned in
Whole or in Part by Foreigners Should Contribute to the Sound and Balanced
Development of the National Economy on a Self-Sustaining Basis, and for
Other Purposes, Enacted without Executive Approval, September 30, 1968
(65 O.G. No. 29, p. 7410).
9. A Decree to Revise, Amend and Codify the Investment, Agricultural, and Export
Incentives Acts to be known as the Omnibus Investment Code (Presidential
Decree No. 1789, Signed on January 16, 1981).
10. Supra note 5 at 464.
11. C. Villanueva, Philippine Corporate Law (2010 ed.), p. 986.

12. See Cargill, Inc. v. Intra Strata Assurance Corporation, Inc. , 629 Phil. 320, 333
(2010).
13. SEC-OGC Opinion No. 17-03 Re: Foreign Corporation; Doing Business; Online
Gaming, issued by Hon. Camilo S. Correa, General Counsel of Securities and
Exchange Commission.
14. Id.
15. Zippo Mfg. Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc., 952 F. Supp. 1119 (W.D. Pa. 1997),
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-
courts/TSupp/952/1119/1432344/. (Accessed on December 27, 2021, 9:19
PM), citing Mellon, 960 F.2d at 1221 .
16. Id., Mellon, 960 F.2d at 1221.
17. Id., Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia S.A. v. Hail, 466 U.S. 408, 414-16, 104
S. Ct. 1868, 1872-73, 80 L. Ed. 2d 404 (1984).
18. Id., International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 66 S. Ct. 154, 90 L. Ed.
95 (1945).
19. Id., Mellon, 960 F.2d at 1221.

20. Id.
21. Id., Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 162, 475, 105 S. Ct. 2174, 2183-
84, 85 L. Ed. 2d 528 (1985) (citing International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326
U.S. 310, 319, 66 S. Ct. 154, 159-60, 90 L. Ed. 95 (1945)).
22. Id., citing Travelers Health Assn. v. Virginia , 339 U.S. 643, 647, 70 S. Ct. 927,
929, 94 L. Ed. 1154 (1950).
23. Id., World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson , 444 U.S. 286, 297, 100 S. Ct.
559, 567, 62 L. Ed. 2d 490 (1980).
24. Id., Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 456 U.S. 770, 774, 104 S. Ct. 1473, 1478,
79 L. Ed. 2d 790 (1984).
25. Id., Burger King, 471 U.S. at 475, 105 S. Ct. at 2183-84 (citing McGee v.
International Life Insurance Co., 355 U.S. 220, 223, 78 S. Ct. 199, 201, L. Ed.
2d 223 (1957)).
26. Id., World-Wide Volkswagen, 444 U.S. at 292, 100 S. Ct. at 564-65.
27. Id., International Shoe, 326 U.S. at 316, 66 S. Ct. at 158.
28. Id., World-Wide Volkswagen, 444 U. S. at 292, 100 S. Ct. at 564.

29. Id., Hanson v. Denckla , 357 U.S. 235, 250, 78 S. Ct. 1228, 1237-39, 2 L. Ed. 2d
1283 (1958).
30. Id., Burger King, 471 U.S. at 476, 105 S. Ct. at 2184.
31. Id., Panavision Intern., L.P. v. Toeppen , 938 F. Supp. 616 (C.D.Cal. 1996) (citing
American Civil Liberties Union v. Reno, 929 F. Supp. 824, 830-48 (E.D.Pa.
1996)).
32. Id.
33. Id., Burger King, 471 U.S. at 475, 105 S. Ct. at 2183-84.
34. AN ACT AMENDING THE NATIONAL INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, AS AMENDED,
AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, Republic Act No. 8424, December 11, 1997.
35. Id.
36. Concepts and Issues, 1. International Doubie Taxation, UN Committee of
Experts on International Cooperation in Tax Matters Seventh session, Geneva
24-28 October 2011, Item 5 (h) of the provisional agenda, Revision of the
Manual for the Negotiation of Bilateral Tax Treaties.
37. CIR v. Juliane Baier-Nickel , 531 Phil. 480-490 (2006).
38. Id. at 488-489.
39. Id. at 489.

40. See CIR v. British Overseas Airways Corporation, 223 Phil. 406, 422 (1987).
41. Pablo Lorenzo v. Juan Posadas, Jr., 64 Phil. 363, 370 (1937).
42. Id., citing Dobbins v. Erie County, 16 Pet., 435; 10 Law. ed., 1022; Kirkland v.
Hotchkiss, 100 U.S., 491; 25 Law. ed., 558; Lane County v. Oregon , 7 Wall,
71, 19 Law. ed., 101; Union Refrigerator Transit Co. v. Kentucky, 199 U.S.,
194; 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 26, 50 Law. ed., 150; Charles River Bridge v. Warren
Bridge, 11 Pet., 420; 9 Law. ed., 773.
43. Id., citing Dobbins v. Erie County.
44. Id., citing Thomas v. Gay, 169 U.S. 264; 42 Sup. Ct. Rep. 340; 43 Law. ed., 740.
45. CIR v. Algue , 241 Phil. 829-836 (1988).
46. Id at 836.
47. 506 Phil. 1, 74 (2005).

LEONEN, J., dissenting:
1. Every bill passed by the Congress shall embrace only one subject which shall be
expressed in the title thereof.
2. Republic Act No. 11494 (2020), Sec. 3 (l).

3. Presidential Decree No. 1869 (1983), Sec. 1 (a).
4. Presidential Decree No. 1869 (1983), Sec. 3 (1) provides:
SECTION 3. Corporate Powers. — The Corporation shall have the following
powers and functions, among others:
xxx xxx xxx
1) to do anything and everything necessary, proper, desirable, convenient or
suitable for the accomplishment of any of the purpose or the attainment of
any of the objects or the furtherance of any of the powers herein stated,
either alone or in association with other corporations, firms or individuals,
and to do every other act or thing incidental, pertaining to, growing out of, or
connected with, the aforesaid purposes, objects or powers, or any part
thereof.
5. Presidential Decree No. 1869 (1983), Sec. 10, as amended by Republic Act No.
9487 (2007), Sec. 1.
6. Presidential Decree No. 1869 (1983), Sec. 13 (2).

7. Rules and Regulations for Philippine Offshore Gaming Operations (2016), Sec. 2
(b).
8. TAX CODE, Title I, Sec. 4, as amended by Rep. Act No. 8424 (1997), Tax Reform
Act of 1997.
9. Ponencia , p. 17.
10. Id. at 19.
11. Id. at 8.
12. Id. at 9.
13. J. Lazaro-Javier, Dissenting Opinion, p. 8.

14. J. Lazaro-Javier, Dissenting Opinion, p. 14.
15. Genalyn Kabiling, President signs into law Bayanihan 2, MANILA BULLETIN,
September 11, 2020, <https://mb.com.ph/2020/09/11/president-signs-into-
law-bayanilian-2/> (last accessed January 6, 2021).
nNote from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from the official document.

Saint Wealth Ltd. v. Bureau of Internal

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Saint Wealth Ltd. v. Bureau of Internal

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Saint Wealth Ltd. v. Bureau of Internal

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 252965. December 7, 2021.]

SAINT WEALTH LTD., as represented by DAVID

[G.R. No. 254102. December 7, 2021.]

MARCO POLO ENTERPRISES LIMITED, MG UNIVERSAL LINK

These are consolidated petitions for certiorari and prohibition with

The COVID-19 Pandemic

Fourth, RMC No. 64-2020 violates the rule on uniformity of taxation.

Moreover, the requirements for a valid classiﬁcation under the

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com

With respect to the principle of uniformity of taxation, the taxes

At this juncture, it is vital to recall that the principle of taxation is an

Substance Test — the true test in determining whether a foreign

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com

or purpose of the bill in which it is incorporated," 11 and is speciﬁcally

As the OECD observed, the complexity of the digital economy could

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com

5. POGO RULES AND REGULATIONS, Section 4 (b).

11. Rollo (G.R. No. 254102), p. 28.

18. Id. at 36-38.

25. Id. at 39-40.

31. Id. at 46-49.

40. Id. at 60.

46. Rollo (G.R. No. 252965), pp. 101-176.

53. Id. at 138-139.

59. Id. at 147-148.

68. Id. at 170.

74. Id., Sections 6 and 7.

81. Id. at 767-768.

84. Film Development Council of the Philippines v. Colon Heritage Realty

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com

xxx xxx xxx

97. Concurring and Dissenting Opinion, Senior Associate Justice Perlas-Bernabe, p.

113. Concurring and Dissenting Opinion, Senior Associate Justice Perlas-Bernabe, p.

131. Concurring and Dissenting Opinion, Senior Associate Justice Perlas-Bernabe, p.

10. See ponencia, pp. 36-40.

18. Section 4 of RA 11494 reads:

24. The subject of RMC 78-2018 reads "Registration Requirements of Philippine

28. Id. at 55-56.

44. Section 42. Income from Sources within the Philippines . —

xxx xxx xxx

50. Id. at 491-493.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com

63. Congressional Record Vol. 5, February 1, 2021, p. 46.

11. C. Villanueva, Philippine Corporate Law (2010 ed.), p. 986.

19. Id., Mellon, 960 F.2d at 1221.

28. Id., World-Wide Volkswagen, 444 U. S. at 292, 100 S. Ct. at 564.

39. Id. at 489.

47. 506 Phil. 1, 74 (2005).

2. Republic Act No. 11494 (2020), Sec. 3 (l).

6. Presidential Decree No. 1869 (1983), Sec. 13 (2).

13. J. Lazaro-Javier, Dissenting Opinion, p. 8.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com

You might also like

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