There is no doubt to the time-honored principle in our jurisdiction that the welfare of the people is the

supreme law, and that the right to life should not be bargained away to any whimsical and capricious
acts and ideas. But we should also always bear in mind that without a government, the welfare of the
people will not be guaranteed protected. Tax is the lifeblood of our government; without it, no
government will function for the protection of the welfare of the people and their right to life. Taxation,
as defined, is the process whereby charges are imposed on individuals or property by the legislative
branch of the government to raise funds for public purposes. Through BIR revenue regulations and
rulings, the government able to obtain funds to defray its necessary expenses. The challenged
regulation however, no matter how noble the intention is, should be declared unconstitutional, for it
does not only violates the principle of confidentiality and that it intrudes privacy rights, but also
encroaches upon the exclusive prerogative of the Supreme Court, violating the principle of separation of
powers.
The constitution provides and the code of professional conducts and ethical standards mandates that
outmost confidentiality between a practicing professional and his clients/patients shall always be
observed. It is a solemn duty of every professional in the exercise of their chosen vocation and in the
practice of their profession; a duty which all professionals should accord with strict compliance, with the
consequence of reprimand, tainted reputation or even cancellation of their legal right to practice, in
case of failure to comply.
The challenged Revenue Regulation provides that all self-employed professionals, including those in the
legal profession and medical profession, to submit an affidavit indicating the rates, manner of billings,
and the factors they consider in determining their service fees. Contrary to the claim that this is
tantamount to advertisement which is being prohibited in the practice of profession, I stand otherwise.
Filing an affidavit indicating the rates, manner of billings and the factors they consider in determining
their service fees will not make it automatically open to public, but rather open only to the regulating
government authorities for their verification, whether or not it complies with the mandates of the law.
Even assuming that the same will now be open for public access and review, it does not necessarily
mean that it is tantamount to advertisement. Advertising, as defined, is a manner of giving notice or
announcement in a public medium, promoting a product, service, or event.
However, this new BIR ruling also requires professionals to register their books of accounts and official
appointment books containing the names of clients and the date and time of meetings. This now
violates the confidentiality principle and the privileged communication between a professional and his
client. As in the case of medical practitioners, they will now tend or even force to disclose information
with regard to the personal circumstances of their patients, or the nature of their transactions or what
between them has been transpired. The relationship between a professional and his client, which is
based on trust and confidence, should always be accorded with strict confidentiality and fiduciary.
The 1987 Constitution explicitly provides that it is the Supreme Court which has the sole power to
promulgate rules for the protection and regulation of legal profession. As such, no other body of the
government may provide rulings for regulating the same. Any issuance from any agency of the executive
branch with regard to that matter is unconstitutional. It is an encroachment of Supreme Courts

prerogative and a blatant violation of the principle of separation of powers between government
agencies.
Thus, BIR Revenue Regulation 4-2014 should be declared unconstitutional. The governments inherent
power to tax, as in this case, must bend to the supreme law of the land.