Presented to

ATTY. SALEX E. ALIBOGHA

In Partial Fulfillment

For the Course: Statutory Construction

Elizares Anniedale

Enojas, Jan

Gaco, Jhea Mae

Gianan, Meryshel

Gomez, Diannemaurice

Gomez, Sheila Mae

Grabato, Christopher

Hablado, Adrian

Juderiasen, Angela

JD-1A

SEPTEMBER 2019
 PASTOR M. ENDENCIA and FERNANDO JUGO, Plaintiffs-Appellees,

-versus-

SATURNINO DAVID, as Collector of Internal Revenue, Defendant-Appellant.

G.R. No. L-6355-56, August 31, 1953

Facts:

In the case of Perfecto v. Meer, it was held that the collection of income taxes was a diminution
of magistrates’ compensation. This allegedly violated Sec. 9, Article VIII of the 1935
Constitution, which states that “members of the Supreme Court and all judges of inferior courts
shall receive compensation which will not be diminished during their continuance in the office.”
Xxx

The decision in the case of Perfecto v. Meer was not received favorably by Congress.
Immediately after its promulgation, Congress enacted Republic Act No. 590, which contained a
provision that removed all income tax exemptions of public officers, including that of judges.

Section 13 of Republic Act No. 590 states:

SEC 13. No salary wherever received by any public officer of the Republic of the Philippines
shall be considered as exempt from the income tax, payment of which is hereby declared not to
be dimunition of his compensation fixed by the Constitution or by law.

Justices Endencia and Jugo of the Court of Appeals filed a case to declare it unconstitutional
before the CFI of Manila. The CFI of Manila ruled in their favor and declared the said provision
unconstitutional. It also ordered the Collector of Internal Revenue, Saturno David, to refund the
income tax collected from the magistrates.

Issues:

1. Whether or not Sec. 13 of R.A. No. 590 is constitutional?

Ruling:

1. SECTION 13 OF R.A. NO. 590 IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Congress enacted Sec. 13 of

The congressional act explicitly counters the heart of the ruling. Because the constitution
is above every enactment of Congress, it follows that Sec. 13 of RA No. 590 should also
be considered null and void. Moreover, Congress’ enactment of the R.A. 590 clearly
manifests that it has a different interpretation of the constitutional provision.

This act, however, violates the doctrine of the separation of powers among the branches
of the government and invades the well-defined and established province and
jurisdiction of the judiciary, which is that of interpreting and applying the laws and the
Constitution.
2. No.

The Legislature has no power to overrule the interpretation or construction of a statute or

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.

(Bandy vs. Mickelson et al., 44N. W., 2nd 341, 342.)

When it is clear that a statute transgresses the authority vested in the legislature by the
Constitution, it is the duty of the courts to declare the act unconstitutional because they
cannot shrink from it without violating their oaths of office.

Application of Rules on Statutory Construction

Presumption of Constitutionality

We further hold that the interpretation and application of the Constitution and of statutes
is within the exclusive province and jurisdiction of the Judicial department, and that in
enacting a law, the Legislature may not legally provide therein that it be interpreted in
such a way that it may not violate a Constitutional prohibition, thereby tying the hands of
the courts in their task of later interpreting said statute, especially when the interpretation
sought and provided in said statute runs counter to a previous interpretation already
given in a case by the highest court of the land.

Before the courts can determine whether a law is constitutional or not, it will have to
interpret and ascertain the meaning not only of the said law, but also of the Constitution
in order to decide whether there is a conflict between the two, because if there is, then
the law will have to give and has to be declared invalid and unconstitutional.

As Chief Justice Marshall said, whenever a statute is in violation of the fundamental law,
the courts must so adjudge and thereby give effect to the Constitution.

The rule is recognized elsewhere that the legislature cannot pass any declaratory act, or
act declaratory of what the law was before its passage, so as to give it any binding
weight with the courts. A legislative definition of a word as used in a statute is not
conclusive of its meaning as used elsewhere; otherwise, the legislature would be
usurping a judicial function in defining a term. (11 Am. Jur., 914, emphasis supplied)

Separation of Powers

The Legislature has no power to overrule the interpretation or construction of a statute or

Stare Decisis

In conclusion we reiterate the doctrine laid down in the case of Perfecto vs. Meer, supra,
to the effect that the collection of income tax on the salary of a judicial officer is a
diminution thereof and so violates the Constitution.