SC upholds constitutionality of Duterte-era TRAIN law
MANILA, Philippines — The Supreme Court has dismissed consolidated pleas from a consumer group and former lawmakers to strike down as unconstitutional the Duterte-era TRAIN law, which the petitioners said imposed “a heavy burden on Filipinos.”
According to a brief released Friday, the SC en banc upheld the constitutionality of Republic Act 10963, or the Tax Reform for Acceleration and Inclusion Act, during its session on January 24.
The SC acted on the consolidated petitions that argued, among others, that the TRAIN Act was unconstitutionally passed by the House of Representatives despite a purported lack of quorum.
The petitioners — Makabayan bloc lawmakers led by former Rep. Antonio Tinio (ACT Teachers partylist) and Laban Konsyumer, a consumer group — also claimed that the law’s provisions imposing excise taxes on diesel, coal, liquefied petroleum gas and kerosene were “prohibited regressive taxes”.
Thirteen justices voted to dismiss the petitions while Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa was the lone dissenter. Associate Justice Ricardo Rosario was on wellness leave and took no part in the decision.
Signed in December 2017 by former President Rodrigo Duterte, TRAIN cut the personal income taxes that workers in the lower-income segments pay, while shifting the burden toward the rich. But to offset the decline in state revenues, the law imposed higher excise levies on fuel and “sin” products, among others.
The law also imposed new taxes on certain commodities such as sweetened beverages to raise money for the Duterte administration's economic agenda, at the heart of which is the "Build, Build, Build" infrastructure program.
READ: Duterte Year 2: TRAIN threatens poor, president's popularity
The law was partly blamed for the multi-year high inflation in 2018, when a rice shortage and falling currency added fuel to soaring prices. At the time, legislators even considered suspending TRAIN despite the law’s tax-freeze provision that would automatically activate when global oil prices hit a certain threshold.
In junking the petitions against TRAIN, the SC held that the supposed absence of a quorum was “belied” by the official Journal of the House of Representatives, which the magistrates said has more weight than the livestream video and photographs presented by the petitioners.
“No less than the Constitution itself grants the Congressional Journal its imprimatur,” the court explained.
The high court also reiterated that the Constitution, in its present form, does not prohibit the imposition of regressive taxes, but merely directs Congress to evolve a progressive system of taxation.
Lastly, the justices ruled that the petitioners’ argument that TRAIN is “anti-poor” was not sufficiently proven and remained largely hypothetical. — Ian Nicolas Cigaral
- Latest
- Trending
