MANILA, Philippines – The Supreme Court has ordered the Department of Finance, the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) and the Bureau of Customs (BOC) to file their respective comments on the petition lodged by the Bureau of Customs Employees Association (Bocea) asking the Court to declare as unconstitutional Republic Act 9335 or the “Attrition Act of 2005.”
In a one-page resolution, the Court gave Finance Secretary Margarito Teves, BOC Commissioner Napoleon Morales, and BIR Commissioner Lilian Hefti ten days upon receipt of notice to file their respective comments on the petition filed by Bocea.
At the same time, the Court also ordered Bocea to complete within five days the requirements needed in filing a petition. According to the Court, Bocea has not completed these requirements.
“The Court resolved, without giving due course to the petition, to direct the petitioner (Bocea) to comply within five days from notice hereof, with the required competent evidence of identity in the Verification and the Affidavit of Service pursuant to Section 12 (a), Rule II of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, as amended, considering that the respective affiants of the Verification and the Affidavit of Service presented only their Community Tax Certificate before the Notary Public,” the Court said.
Last March 3, Bocea filed its petition and asked the Court to declare as unconstitutional RA 9335 and issue a temporary restraining order that would keep the BOC and the DOF from enforcing it.
In its 52-page petition for certiorari and prohibition, Bocea, represented by its national president Romulo Pagulayan, argued that RA 9335 is an invalid law as it presumes the corruption of the officers and employees within the BIR and the BOC as the root cause of the dearth in collection for the national coffers.
“It turns a blind eye to the fact that the very policies of the government itself that reduced tariff rates to virtually nil and the giving of tax breaks to big businesses are the insuperable barriers that hinder these two agencies from attaining their revenue targets,” Bocea said in its petition.
Named respondents in the petition were Teves, who is also the chairman of the Revenue Performance Evaluation Board that issued the implementing rules and regulations of the Attrition Law; Morales, and Hefti.
RA 9335 institutionalizes a system of rewards and incentives for BIR and BOC officers and employees tasked with the collection of revenue. This system provides for the distribution of rewards, which may take the form of non-monetary benefits, unto the employees and officers in the event that they exceed their targets for a given year.
Conversely, RA 9335 metes out the penalty of immediate separation from government service in the event the officers and employees of the revenue collecting agencies failed to accomplish their collection targets or quotas.
The law also created a reward and incentives fund from the excess revenue collections of the BIR and the BOC for the year. The rewards and incentives for the BIR and the BOC are sourced from this fund and given in proportion to the their contribution in excess of the targeted amount of revenue.
RA 9335 also establishes the Revenue Performance and Evaluation Board. The board is tasked with the duty to fix the criteria and procedure for the removal of officers and employees of the BIR and BOC who do not meet their quotas as well as the system for the distribution of the rewards and incentives.
The law also directs certain government agencies to promulgate the Rules and Regulations that will serve as the guidelines for the implementation, including the setting of collection targets.
According to the petitioners, RA 9335 violates the constitutionally guaranteed right to security of tenure of BIR and BOC officials and employees. The petitioners also argue that RA 9335 creates another ground for dismissal of officers and employees of the BIR and the BOC, which is the inability to attain the imposed revenue collection.
“The Civil Service Law and the Administrative Code provide for the cause for the disciplinary action of a career service employee and the non-attainment of the revenue collection target is not among these grounds.
“Moreover, a careful reading of the causes for disciplinary action provided in the said laws shows that such grounds are at least imputable to the employees’ fault or defect of character,” said the petitioners.