The Supreme Court, voting unanimously, upheld the constitutionality of RA 9335, the Attrition Act of 2005, enacted to optimize the revenue-generation capability and collection of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) and the Bureau of Customs (BOC).
RA 9335 also intends to encourage BIR and BOC officials and employees to exceed their revenue targets by providing a system of rewards and sanctions through the creation of a Rewards and Incentives Fund and a Revenue Performance Evaluation Board and covers all BIR and BOC officials with at least six months of service, regardless of employment status.
In a 24-page decision penned by Justice Martin S. Villarama, Jr., the Court dismissed for lack of merit the petition for certiorari and prohibition of the Bureau of Customs Employees Association (BOCEA).
“It must be noted that this is not the first time the constitutionality of R.A. No. 9335 and its IRR are being challenged. The Court already settled the majority of the same issued raised by BOCEA in our decision in Abakada, which attained finality on September 17, 2008. As such, our ruling therein is worthy of reiteration in this case,” the Court held.
The Court ruled that RA 9335 “read and appreciated in its entirety, is complete in all its essential terms and conditions, and that it contains sufficient standards as to negate BOCEA’s supposition of undue delegation of legislative power to the Board.”
On the argument that RA 9335 violates the equal protection clause, the Court reiterated its jurisprudence in Abakada where it held: “With respect to RA 9335, its expressed public policy is the optimization of the revenue-generation capability and collection of the BIR and the BOC. Since the subject of the law is the revenue-generation capability and collection of the BIR and the BOC, the incentives and/or sanctions provided in the law should logically pertain to the said agencies….Both the BIR and the BOC are bureaus under the [Department of Finance] DOF. They principally perform the special function of being the instrumentalities through which the State exercises one of its great inherent functions – taxation. Indubitably, such substantial distinction is germane and intimately related to the purpose of the law. Hence, the classification and treatment accorded to the BIR and the BOC under RA 9335 fully satisfy the demands of equal protection.”
Likewise, the Court reiterated that RA 9335 does not violate the security of tenure of officials and employees of the BIR and the BOC. The Court ruled that a BIR or BOC official or employee in this case cannot be arbitrarily removed from the service without according him his constitutional right to due process as no less than RA 9355 in accordance with the 1986 Constitution guarantees this.
Furthermore, the Court ruled that RA 9335 is not a bill of attainder. A bill of attainder, the Court explained, is a legislative act which inflicts punishment on individuals or members of a particular group without a judicial trial. The Court held that RA 9335 does not possess the elements of a bill of attainder nor seek to inflict punishment without a judicial trial but merely lays down the grounds for the termination of a BIR or BOC official or employee and provides for the consequences thereof. The democratic processes are followed and the constitutional rights of the concerned employee are amply protected.
Lastly, the Court held that BOCEA’s petition was “replete with allegations of defects and anomalies in allocation, distribution and receipt of rewards. While BOCEA intimates that it intends to curb graft and corruption in the BOC in particular and in the government in general which is nothing but noble, these intentions do not actually pertain to the constitutionality of R.A. No. 9335 and its IRR, but rather in the faithful implementation thereof. R.A. No. 9335 itself does not tolerate these pernicious acts of graft and corruption.” (GR No. 181704, Bureau of Customs Employees Association v. Sec. Teves, December 6, 2011)
Emphasis and links provided
by Broker Rem Ramirez 0922.883.9308 broker.ramirez@yahoo.com.ph
No comments:
Post a Comment