No, we are not talking here about that complex and sometimes mysterious telenovela going on at the Senate. We are talking here about a rather well-founded argument made by a group of constitutional experts that the entire Supreme Court may now be impeached for culpable violation of the Constitution.
In 2004, a group of senior lawyers led by former COA commissioner Bartolome C. Fernandez and Ceferino Padua filed a petition before the Supreme Court assailing the constitutionality and legality of the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) outlay in the General Appropriations Act. The PDAF is better known as the “pork barrel” allocation for legislators.
The petition specifically seeks a judicial declaration of nullity on constitutional grounds of the PDAF outlay under the present terms of its implementation. The PDAF outlay blurs the separation of powers and responsibilities provided for by our constitutional arrangement.
The petition assailing the PDAF was filed as part of the general advocacy for better government of this group of retired lawyers. To the surprise of the petitioners themselves, the Supreme Court gave the petition due course, recognizing the strong arguments made.
In 2006, the petition was submitted for decision. Since then, however, the case remained pending. The decision seems to have disappeared into the dockets of the High Tribunal.
The six years that passed since the petition was submitted for decision, the band of lawyer-advocates now argue, is way beyond the reglementary period of 24 months provided for under Section 15.1, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution. The 24-month period given the Court to render a decision is mandatory in the Constitution.
Under Section 15.3 of Article VIII, the Constitution commands the Chief Justice to issue a certification upon the expiration of the 24-month period explaining the delay. That certification ought to be issued “forthwith” and shall become part of the records of the case.
The petitioners now argue that such a certification has not been issued, compounding the Court’s violation of the Constitution’s command. Forget about this really trivial squabbling about the SALNs. In this case, the culpable violation of a clear constitutional command is glaring.
Rendering a timely decision on a burning constitutional question is a basic duty of the Supreme Court. Petitioner Fernandez adds that the inexplicable delay in rendering a decision on the issue does violence to the constitutionally guaranteed right of the petitioners to the speedy disposition of their case.
This particular case questioning the constitutionality of the PDAF is not the only one left unattended even after the 24-month prescribed period for judicial action lapsed. Every other case suffering the same fate is a separate count for culpable violation of the Charter.
This particular petition clearly attacks the very core of our pork barrel politics. A judicial decision upholding the claims of the petitioners will have revolutionary implications on the way politics is done in this country.
Such a decision will require a large amount of judicial heroism to render. This might, precisely, be the right time to demonstrate such judicial heroism.
Iniquitous
Tax design is always tricky business.
Done well, tax policy can produce greater equity. Done badly, it can produce intolerably inequitable outcomes.
House Bill 5727 passed the Committee on Ways and Means last week with important revisions. Originally, the bill proposed a single-rate tax for alcohol and tobacco products. The excise tax on these so-called “sin products” was originally to be increased by a dramatic 1000% in one blow. The lower-priced products consumed by the poor would have borne the brunt of the price spike.
Manufacturers and farmers were happy the legislators agreed to review the basic design of the “sin tax” bill. This demonstrates a willingness to listen to stakeholders and to refine the tax design so that the ends of equity are served.
As it stands, the modified “sin tax” bill features a multi-tier rate, so that cheaper products are no longer to be taxed the same rate as more expensive ones. Legislators likewise agreed to a staggered schedule of rate increases stretched over a period of several years. The staggered schedule will prevent a price shock to the market that might have sharply reduced demand, encouraged smuggling or spurred counterfeit products.
Although our manufacturers are happy that the originally unworkable tax design was revised, they point to the need for further refinements in the bill. These refinements will enhance equitability between lower- and higher priced products as well as between locally manufactured and imported ones.
To begin with, there is an inexplicable difference in the staggered schedule of tax increases between alcohol and tobacco products. After the initial hike in 2013, cigarettes will be slapped another increase in 2014 while beer will not. Tobacco manufacturers want to know the rationale for this.
Also, the tax increases for fermented alcohol products will be gradual while lower-priced cigarette products will be slapped a hefty 700% increase in the first year of implementation of the new tax schedule. Higher priced fermented liquor will pay higher taxes only in 2017 while all tobacco products will pay higher from the first year of implementation.
Meanwhile, premium imported cigarettes are exempted from tax increases in 2013 and a measly addition of P2 in 2014. By contrast, locally manufactured cigarettes will absorb major tax increases in the first year.
The difference in tax treatment between alcohol and tobacco products as well as between cheaper local cigarette products and more expensive imported brands require more compelling explanation. Otherwise, this piece of tax legislation will become vulnerable to accusations of favoring some over the others.