DAVID G. NITAFAN, WENCESLAO M. POLO, and MAXIMO A.

SAVELLANO, JR., petitioners,

vs.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE and THE FINANCIAL OFFICER,
SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
Facts:

Petitioners herein are duly appointed and qualified judges of the Regional
Trial Court of Manila. In this case, they are filling a petition for prohibition to
prohibit/enjoin the respondents, the C.I.R. and the Finance Officer of the SC. To
stop making any deduction of withholding taxes from their salary.

Their legal basis is as provided: It is provided in the 1987 Constitution (Art.
8 Sec. 10) that The salary of the Chief Justice and of the Associate Justices of
the SC, and of judges of lower courts shall be fixed by law. During their
continuance in office, their salary should not be decreased. Thus they are
claiming that; Any tax withheld from their compensation as judicial officers
constitute a decrease or diminution of their salaries.

Issue:

Whether or not the withholding of Income Tax constitute the violation of
the abovementioned Constitutional Provision.

Ruling:

The Court hereby reiterates that the salaries of Justices and Judges
are properly subject to general income tax law applicable to all income
earners and that the payment such income tax by Justices and Judges
does not fall within the constitutional protection against decrease of their
salaries during their continuance in office.

THEREFORE, the cases of Perfecto v. Meer and Endencia v. David are
overturned.

Firstly, even prior to the determination of this case, the Court en banc had
already reaffirmed the Chief Justices directive when it REAFFIRMED the
directive to the Fiscal Management and Budget Office of this Court to
CONTINUE with the deduction of the withholding taxes of the Justices and all
other members of the Judiciary. However, the court has deemed it best to settle
the legal issue raised with a judicial pronouncement. Thus, the SC looked into
the Constitutional Construction of the said provision to make such decision.

The court pointed out that based from the debates, interpellation and
opinions expressed towards the Constitutional provision in question, the true
intent of the framers of the 1987 Constitution was to make the Judiciary Taxable.

As manifested through discussions such as (These are merely quotations
from the actual report/transcript):
Ms Aquino: But the special privilege on taxation might, in effect, be a
violation of the principle of uniformity in taxation and the equal protection
clause.
Mr. Ople: Exception from income tax may: say that in trying to erect a
bastion of justice, we might end up with the fortress of privileges.
Fr. Bernas: There are many people who have accepted in the
government involving a reduction of income and yet still subject to income
tax.

The primary task of constitution construction is to ascertain and thereafter
assure the realization of the purpose of the framers and of the people in the
adoption of the Constitution.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition for Prohibition is hereby dismissed.