D1-endencia-v-david.docx

ENDENCIA v. DAVID FACTS Justice Pastor M. Endencia and Justice Fernando Jugo’s salaries were both deducted due to the income tax. According to Section 9, Article 8 of our Constitution, however, the members of the SC and all judges of inferior courts shall receive compensation as may be fixed by law, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office. Jurisprudence (Perfecto v. Meer, O ‘Malley v. Woodrought) laid down doctrines expressing that the collection of income taxes from the salaries of the justices was a diminution of their compensation and therefore a violation of the Constitution of the Philippines. R.A. 590 was created to authorize and legalize the collection of income tax on the salaries of judicial officers. The legislature argues that the members of the Supreme Court are also citizens who must express their patriotism and love of country through such payment, and therefore, should not be exempt. Section 13 of said act thus states that no salary received by any public officer shall be exempt from the income tax, declaring that such tax is not a diminution of compensation fixed by law. ISSUE Whether or not the legislative can lawfully declare that the payment of income tax by justices as a tax that is not a diminution on their salaries even though the SC has already declared otherwise. HELD: NO. The legislative branch cannot do such, because by enacting such law, the legislature interprets Sec. 9, Art. 8 of the Constitution and as such it invades the well-defined and established province of the Judiciary stating that the collection of income tax on the salary of a judicial officer is a diminution thereof and so violates the Constitution. RATIO DECIDENDI:  ON SEPARATION OF POWERS. The legislative department is assigned the power to make and enact laws. Defining and interpreting the law is a judicial function and the legislative branch may not limit or restrict the power granted to the courts by the constitution. Whenever a statute is in violation of the fundamental law, the courts must so adjudge and thereby give effect to the Constitution. The legislature cannot pass a law to validate income tax.  ON THE DANGERS OF INTERPRETATION BY THE LEGISLATURE. If the legislature may declare what a law means after the courts have ascertained its meaning by interpretation and application in a decision, there would be confusion and instability in judicial processes and court decisions. What happens is that a final court determination of a case based on judicial interpretation of law becomes undermined or annulled by a subsequent and different interpretation of the law or the Constitution by the legislative department.  ON THE REASON BEHIND THE EXEMPTION. To attract good and competent men to the bench and to promote that independence of action and judgment in order to necessarily maintain the guarantees, limitations, and principles of the constitution. Furthermore, there is nothing unusual or abhorrent in it, as long as it is based on public policy or interest. For this reason and for other higher considerations, the framers of the Constitution deemed it wise to exempt judicial officers from paying taxes on their salaries so as not to decrease their compensation, thus insuring the independence of the Judiciary.