G.R. No.

184450

JAIME N. SORIANO, MICHAEL VERNON M. GUERRERO, MARY ANN L. REYES, MARAH SHARYN M.
DE CASTRO and CRIS P. TENORIO, Petitioners,
vs.
SECRETARY OF FINANCE and the COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondents.

FACTS:

On 19 May 2008, the Senate filed its Senate Committee Report No. 53 on Senate Bill No. (S.B.) 2293. On 21
May 2008, former President Gloria M. Arroyo certified the passage of the bill as urgent through a letter
addressed to then Senate President Manuel Villar. On the same day, the bill was passed on second reading
IN the Senate and, on 27 May 2008, on third reading. The following day, 28 May 2008, the Senate sent S.B.
2293 to the House of Representatives for the latter's concurrence.

On 04 June 2008, S.B. 2293 was adopted by the House of Representatives as an amendment to House Bill
No. (H.B.) 3971.

On 17 June 2008, R.A. 9504 entitled "An Act Amending Sections 22, 24, 34, 35, 51, and 79 of Republic Act
No. 8424, as Amended, Otherwise Known as the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997," was approved and
signed into law by President Arroyo. The following are the salient features of the new law:

1. It increased the basic personal exemption from 20,000 for a single individual, 25,000
for the head of the family, and 32,000 for a married individual to P50,000 for each
individual.

2. It increased the additional exemption for each dependent not exceeding four from 8,000
to 25,000.

3. It raised the Optional Standard Deduction (OSD) for individual taxpayers from 10% of
gross income to 40% of the gross receipts or gross sales.

4. It introduced the OSD to corporate taxpayers at no more than 40% of their gross income.

5. It granted MWEs exemption from payment of income tax on their minimum wage, holiday
pay, overtime pay, night shift differential pay and hazard pay.

Section 9 of the law provides that it shall take effect 15 days following its publication in the Official Gazette or
in at least two newspapers of general circulation. Accordingly, R.A. 9504 was published in the Manila Bulletin
and Malaya on 21 June 2008. On 6 July 2008, the end of the 15-day period, the law took effect.

RR 10-2008

On 24 September 2008, the BIR issued RR 10-2008, dated 08 July 2008, implementing the provisions of R.A.
9504. The relevant portions of the said RR read as follows:

SECTION 1. Section 2.78.1 of RR 2-98, as amended, is hereby further amended to read as follows:

Sec. 2.78.1. Withholding of Income Tax on Compensation Income.

xxxx

The amount of 'de minimis' benefits conforming to the ceiling herein prescribed shall not be considered in
determining the 30,000.00 ceiling of 'other benefits' excluded from gross income under Section 32 (b) (7) (e)
of the Code. Provided that, the excess of the 'de minimis' benefits over their respective ceilings prescribed by
these regulations shall be considered as part of 'other benefits' and the employee receiving it will be subject to
tax only on the excess over the 30,000.00 ceiling. Provided, further, that MWEs receiving 'other benefits'
exceeding the 30,000.00 limit shall be taxable on the excess benefits, as well as on his salaries, wages and
allowances, just like an employee receiving compensation income beyond the SMW.

(B) Exemptions from Withholding Tax on Compensation. - The following income payments are exempted from
the requirements of withholding tax on compensation:

xxxx

(13) Compensation income of MWEs who work in the private sector and being paid the Statutory Minimum
Wage (SMW), as fixed by Regional Tripartite Wage and Productivity Board (RTWPB)/National Wages and
Productivity Commission (NWPC), applicable to the place where he/she is assigned.

Comment of the OSG

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed a Consolidated Comment and took the position that the
application of R.A. 9504 was intended to be prospective, and not retroactive. This was supposedly the general
rule under the rules of statutory construction: law will only be applied retroactively if it clearly provides for
retroactivity, which is not provided in this instance.

Petitioners Jaime N. Soriano et al. primarily assail Section 3 of RR 10-2008 providing for the prorated
application of the personal and additional exemptions for taxable year 2008 to begin only effective 6 July 2008
for being contrary to Section 4 of Republic Act No. 9504.2

Petitioners argue that the prorated application of the personal and additional exemptions under RR 10-2008 is
not "the legislative intendment in this jurisdiction."3 They stress that Congress has always maintained a policy
of "full taxable year treatment"4 as regards the application of tax exemption laws. They allege further that R.A.
9504 did not provide for a prorated application of the new set of personal and additional exemptions.

ISSUES:

Assailing the validity of RR 10-2008, all four Petitions raise common issues, which may be distilled into three
major ones:

First, whether the increased personal and additional exemptions provided by R.A. 9504 should be applied to
the entire taxable year 2008 or prorated, considering that R.A. 9504 took effect only on 6 July 2008.

Second, whether an MWE is exempt for the entire taxable year 2008 or from 6 July 2008 only.

Third, whether Sections 1 and 3 of RR 10-2008 are consistent with the law in providing that an MWE who
receives other benefits in excess of the statutory limit of 30,000 19 is no longer entitled to the exemption
provided by R.A. 9504.

HELD:

I.
Whether the increased personal and additional exemptions provided by R.A. 9504 should be applied to
the entire taxable year 2008 or prorated, considering that the law took effect only on 6 July 2008

The personal and additional exemptions established by R.A. 9504 should be applied to the entire taxable year
2008.

Umali is applicable.

Umali v. Estanislao supports this Comi's stance that R.A. 9504 should be applied on a full-year basis for the
entire taxable year 2008. In Umali, Congress enacted R.A. 7167 amending the 1977 National Internal
Revenue Code (NIRC). The amounts of basic personal and additional exemptions given to individual income
taxpayers were adjusted to the poverty threshold level. R.A. 7167 came into law on 30 January 1992.
Controversy arose when the Commission of Internal Revenue (CIR) promulgated RR 1-92 stating that the
regulation shall take effect on compensation income earned beginning 1 January 1992. The issue posed was
whether the increased personal and additional exemptions could be applied to compensation income earned
or received during calendar year 1991, given that R.A. 7167 came into law only on 30 January 1992, when
taxable year 1991 had already closed.

This Court ruled in the affirmative, considering that the increased exemptions were already available on or
before 15 April 1992, the date for the filing of individual income tax returns. Further, the law itself provided that
the new set of personal and additional exemptions would be immediately available upon its effectivity. While
R.A. 7167 had not yet become effective during calendar year 1991, the Court found that it was a piece of
social legislation that was in part intended to alleviate the economic plight of the lower-income taxpayers. For
that purpose, the new law provided for adjustments "to the poverty threshold level" prevailing at the time of the
enactment of the law.

We now arrive at this important point: the policy of full taxable year treatment is established, not by the
amendments introduced by R.A. 9504, but by the provisions of the 1997 Tax Code, which adopted the policy
from as early as 1969.

There is, of course, nothing to prevent Congress from again adopting a policy that prorates the effectivity of
basic personal and additional exemptions. This policy, however, must be explicitly provided for by law - to
amend the prevailing law, which provides for full-year treatment. As already pointed out, R.A. 9504 is totally
silent on the matter. This silence cannot be presumed by the BIR as providing for a half-year application of the
new exemption levels. Such presumption is unjust, as incomes do not remain the same from month to month,
especially for the MWEs.

Therefore, there is no legal basis for the BIR to reintroduce the prorating of the new personal and additional
exemptions. In so doing, respondents overstepped the bounds of their rule-making power. It is an established
rule that administrative regulations are valid only when these are consistent with the law. Respondents cannot
amend, by mere regulation, the laws they administer. To do so would violate the principle of non-delegability of
legislative powers.

The prorated application of the new set of personal and additional exemptions for the year 2008, which was
introduced by respondents, cannot even be justified under the exception to the canon of non-delegability; that
is, when Congress makes a delegation to the executive branch. The delegation would fail the two accepted
tests for a valid delegation of legislative power; the completeness test and the sufficient standard test. The first
test requires the law to be complete in all its terms and conditions, such that the only thing the delegate will
have to do is to enforce it. The sufficient standard test requires adequate guidelines or limitations in the law
that map out the boundaries of the delegate's authority and canalize the delegation.

In this case, respondents went beyond enforcement of the law, given the absence of a provision in R.A. 9504
mandating the prorated application of the new amounts of personal and additional exemptions for 2008.
Further, even assuming that the law intended a prorated application, there are no parameters set forth in R.A.
9504 that would delimit the legislative power surrendered by Congress to the delegate. In contrast, Section
23(d) of the 1939 Tax Code authorized not only the prorating of the exemptions in case of change of status of
the taxpayer, but also authorized the Secretary of Finance to prescribe the corresponding rules and
regulations.

II.

Whether an MWE is exempt for the entire taxable

The MWE is exempt for the entire taxable year 2008.

As in the case of the adjusted personal and additional exemptions, the MWE exemption should apply to the
entire taxable year 2008, and not only from 6 July 2008 onwards. We see no reason why Umali cannot be
made applicable to the MWE exemption, which is undoubtedly a piece of social legislation. It was intended to
alleviate the plight of the working class, especially the low-income earners. In concrete terms, the exemption
translates to a 34 per day benefit, as pointed out by Senator Escudero in his sponsorship speech.50
As it stands, the calendar year 2008 remained as one taxable year for an individual taxpayer. Therefore, RR
10-2008 cannot declare the income earned by a minimum wage earner from 1 January 2008 to 5 July 2008 to
be taxable and those earned by him for the rest of that year to be tax-exempt. To do so would be to contradict
the NIRC and jurisprudence, as taxable income would then cease to be determined on a yearly basis.

III.

Whether Sections 1 and 3 of RR 10-2008 are consistent with the law in

Sections 1 and 3 of RR 10-2008 add a requirement not found in the law by effectively declaring that an MWE
who receives other benefits in excess of the statutory limit of 30,000 is no longer entitled to the exemption
provided by R.A. 9504.

Nowhere in the above provisions of R.A. 9504 would one find the qualifications prescribed by the assailed
provisions of RR 10-2008. The provisions of the law are clear and precise; they leave no room for
interpretation - they do not provide or require any other qualification as to who are MWEs.

To be exempt, one must be an MWE, a term that is clearly defined. Section 22(HH) says he/she must be one
who is paid the statutory minimum wage if he/she works in the private sector, or not more than the statutory
minimum wage in the non-agricultural sector where he/she is assigned, if he/she is a government employee.
Thus, one is either an MWE or he/she is not. Simply put, MWE is the status acquired upon passing the litmus
test - whether one receives wages not exceeding the prescribed minimum wage.

CONCLUSION

The foregoing considered, we find that respondents committed grave abuse of discretion in promulgating
Sections 1 and 3 of RR 10-2008, insofar as they provide for (a) the prorated application of the personal and
additional exemptions for taxable year 2008 and for the period of applicability of the MWE exemption for
taxable year 2008 to begin only on 6 July 2008; and (b) the disqualification of MWEs who earn purely
compensation income, whether in the private or public sector, from the privilege of availing themselves of the
MWE exemption in case they receive compensation-related benefits exceeding the statutory ceiling of
30,000.

WHEREFORE, the Court resolves to

(a) GRANT the Petitions for Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus; and

(b) DECLARE NULL and VOID the following provisions of Revenue Regulations No. 10-2008:

(i) Sections 1 and 3, insofar as they disqualify MWEs who earn purely compensation income from the privilege
of the MWE exemption in case they receive bonuses and other compensation-related benefits exceeding the
statutory ceiling of 30,000;

(ii) Section 3 insofar as it provides for the prorated application of the personal and additional exemptions under
R.A. 9504 for taxable year 2008, and for the period of applicability of the MWE exemption to begin only on 6
July 2008.

(c) DIRECT respondents Secretary of Finance and Commissioner of Internal Revenue to grant a refund, or
allow the application of the refund by way of withholding tax adjustments, or allow a claim for tax credits by (i)
all individual taxpayers whose incomes for taxable year 2008 were the subject of the prorated increase in
personal and additional tax exemption; and (ii) all MWEs whose minimum wage incomes were subjected to tax
for their receipt of the 13th month pay and other bonuses and benefits exceeding the threshold amount under
Section 32(B)(7)(e) of the 1997 Tax Code.