This resolves the issue whether or not RR 2-2012 that imposes VAT and excise tax on the importation of petroleum and petroleum products from abroad and into Freeport or Economic Zones have unilaterally revoked tax exemption granted by RA 7227 and RA 9400.
This resolves the issue whether or not RR 2-2012 that imposes VAT and excise tax on the importation of petroleum and petroleum products from abroad and into Freeport or Economic Zones have unilaterally revoked tax exemption granted by RA 7227 and RA 9400.
This resolves the issue whether or not RR 2-2012 that imposes VAT and excise tax on the importation of petroleum and petroleum products from abroad and into Freeport or Economic Zones have unilaterally revoked tax exemption granted by RA 7227 and RA 9400.
This resolves the issue whether or not RR 2-2012 that imposes VAT and excise tax on the importation of petroleum and petroleum products from abroad and into Freeport or Economic Zones have unilaterally revoked tax exemption granted by RA 7227 and RA 9400.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 2
G.R. No.
200670, July 06, 2015
CLARK INVESTORS AND LOCATORS ASSOCIATION, INC., Petitioner, v. SECRETARY OF FINANCE AND COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondents. FACTS: On March 13, 1992, Congress enacted RA No. 7227 which mandated the accelerated conversion of the Clark and Subic military reservations into special economic zones. Based on Section 12 (c) of the said law, in lieu of national and local taxes, all businesses and enterprises operating within the Subic Special Economic Zone shall pay a preferential gross income tax rate of five percent (5%). In addition, Section 12 (b) also provides that such businesses and enterprises shall be exempt from the payment of all taxes and duties on the importation of raw materials, capital, and equipment into the Subic Special Economic Zone. This tax and fiscal incentives under RA No. 7227was further extended to the Clark Freeport Zone upon enactment of RA No. 9400 on March 20, 2007. This made the businesses and enterprises within the Clark Freeport Zone exempt from the payment of all taxes and duties on the importation of raw materials, capital and equipment. On February 17, 2012, the Dept. of Finance, upon recommendation of the BIR, issued RR 2-2012 which imposed VAT and excise tax on the importation of petroleum and petroleum products from abroad and into the Freeport or Economic Zones. Herein petitioner, which represents the businesses and enterprises within the Clark Freeport Zone, filed the instant petition alleging that respondents acted with grave abuse of discretion in issuing RR 2-2012. It argues that by imposing the VAT and excise tax on the importation of petroleum and petroleum products from abroad and into the Freeport or Economic Zones, RR 2-2012 unilaterally revoked the tax exemption granted by RA No. 7227 and RA No. 9400 to the businesses and enterprises operating within the Subic Special Economic Zone and Clark Freeport Zone. This petition for certiorari prays for the issuance of a TRO and/or writ of preliminary injunction to annul and set aside RR 2-2012 issued by the Department of Finance upon recommendation of the BIR.
TAXREV CASE DIGEST
by: Nasam, Laarnie (4S) Clark Investors vs Sec of Finance & Comm of BIR ISSUE: Whether or not The Secretary of Finance acted with grave abuse of discretion in issuing RR 2-2012 that imposes VAT and excise tax on the importation of petroleum and petroleum products from abroad and into Freeport or Economic Zones, as it is claimed to have unilaterally revoked tax exemption granted by RA 7227 and RA 9400. HELD: The SC denied the petition for being an improper remedy. FIRSTLY, a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, is a special civil action that may be invoked ONLY against a tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions. Before a tribunal, board, or officer may exercise judicial or quasi-judicial acts, it is necessary that there be a law that gives rise to some specific rights of persons or property under which adverse claims to such rights are made, and the controversy ensuing therefrom is brought before a tribunal, board, or officer clothed with power and authority to determine the law and adjudicate the respective rights of the contending parties. In determining whether a Revenue Regulation is quasi-legislative in nature, the legal basis of the Secretary of Finance in the issuance thereof must be examined. RR 2-2012 was issued by the Secretary of Finance based on Section 244 of the NIRC. Section 244 is an express grant of authority to the Secretary of Finance to promulgate all needful rules and regulations for the effective enforcement of the provisions of the NIRC. And since RR 22012 was issued by the Secretary of Finance based on Section 244 of the NIRC, such administrative issuance is therefore quasilegislative in nature which is outside the scope of a petition for certiorari. SECONDLY, Supreme Court explained that it could not be denied that even if the petition is filed as a certiorari, in real essence, it seeks the declaration by the High Court of the unconstitutionality and illegality of the questioned rule, thus partaking the nature, in reality, of one for declaratory relief over which the SC has only appellate, not original, jurisdiction. LASTLY, although the SC, the CA and the RTC have concurrent jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus and injunction, such concurrence does not give the petitioner unrestricted freedom of choice of court forum, as hierarchy of courts must be respected. That hierarchy is determinative of the venue of appeals, and also serves as a general
determinant of the appropriate forum for petitions for the extraordinary
writs. A direct invocation of the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction to issue these writs should be allowed only when there are special
TAXREV CASE DIGEST
by: Nasam, Laarnie (4S) Clark Investors vs Sec of Finance & Comm of BIR and important reasons therefor, clearly and specifically set out in the petition. This is [an] established policy. It is a policy necessary to prevent inordinate demands upon the Court's time and attention which are better devoted to those matters within its exclusive jurisdiction, and to prevent further over-crowding of the Court's docket.