The government has asked the Supreme Court to dismiss the petition seeking to declare as unconstitutional the controversial Republic Act 10963 or the Tax Reform for Acceleration and Inclusion Act (TRAIN Law).
In a 74-page comment filed last April 19, the Office of the Solicitor General defended the legality of the TRAIN law, saying the petition filed last January by militant lawmakers led by Bayan Muna party-list Rep. Carlos Zarate and consumer group Laban Konsyumer Inc. seeking to stop the implementation of the tax measure lack merits.
Solicitor General Jose Calida downplayed the main argument of petitioners that President Rodrigo Duterte signed R.A. 10963 into law with grave abuse of discretion simply because the House of Representatives did not have a quorum when it earlier passed the tax measure.
The petitioners alleged that only around 10 lawmakers—including them—were present during the ratification of the law in the House, supposedly in violation of Section 16 (2), Article 6 of the 1987 Constitution and Section 75 of Rule XI of the House Rules that require a quorum of the representatives before they can do any legislative business.
However, Calida said that the claim is not true, citing official journals of the House during deliberations on the TRAIN Law on Dec. 13 last year where 232 out of a total of 295 members were present.
He said that the journals are “conclusive evidence of what transpired during the session.”
The chief state lawyer pointed out that the tribunal cannot inquire into or review such existence of a quorum in the House for the approval of the TRAIN Bill without violating the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers.
“Under the separation of powers, ‘courts may not intervene in the internal affairs of the legislature; it is not within the province of courts to direct Congress how to do its work,” he emphasized.
Calida said the petitioners erred in filing the petition for review before the Court since such special civil action cannot be invoked against exercise of legislative power of Congress.
He said they also violated the principle of hierarchy of courts and committed a fatal mistake in not impleading Congress in the case.
With these arguments, Calida said the President correctly relied on the enrolled TRAIN Bill when he signed it into law, adding that Duterte cannot be impleaded in the case due to his immunity from suit while in office.
As to LKI’s arguments, Calida belied the group’s allegations that the TRAIN Law violated the equal protection clause and right to due process in the Constitution.
Petitioners said the new excise taxes on petroleum products and sugar-sweetened beverages, and its broader value added tax will hit poor and low-income earners.
But Calida insisted that RA 10963 does not specifically discriminate against the poor and unduly favor the rich in terms of increased taxes on goods and commodities.
“Congress’ enactment of the TRAIN Law is laden with policy considerations for the general welfare of the people. This law was meticulously studied, giving utmost consideration to the effects of its implementation to the poorest of the poor,” the solicitor general stressed in the comment.
“In fact, the core purpose of the TRAIN Law is to eradicate extreme poverty and reduce inequality by formulating a tax reform that will utilize the government’s budget to protect the most vulnerable sectors in the society instead of merely giving tax exemptions,” Calida said.
The Solicitor General also asked the Court to consider the possible repercussions of the reliefs sought by petitioners in deciding on the case.
“The government and the public in general will greatly suffer if the TRAIN Law is declared invalid. The government stands to lose an estimated P146.6 billion in 2018 from the lowering and restructuring of personal income tax. This loss will only be offset by the revenue generating features of the TRAIN Law, which is expected to provide P89.9 billion in incremental revenues for 2018 and P786 billion within the first five years,” he said.