Ambrosio R. Villorente
BIR Is Serious
BIR Is Serious
The Regional Trial Court, Branch 5, Kalibo, Aklan dismissed the “Petition for Declaratory Relief With Application for Temporary Restraining Order” on July 29, 2003. The RTC, Branch 5 also denied a “Motion to reconsider the decision” on August 29, 2003.
The case is Special Civil Action No. 6785, filed by the Stallholders at the Kalibo Public Market versus the Sangguniang Bayan of Kalibo, The Municipal Mayor and Municipal Treasurer, Kalibo, Aklan. The Stallholders opposed Ordinance No. 2002 – 016, the Municipal Market and Slaughterhouse Code of Kalibo. They questioned the validity of the said ordinance on the ground that “it was unjust, excessive, oppressive and confiscatory,” that the same “ordinance was enacted without prior public hearing conducted for the purpose” and that the ordinance in effect imposes an increase in rental of 180 percent and 175 percent to those permanently occupying the front stalls and back or inside stalls, respectively at the Kalibo Public Market along Roxas Avenue Extension and Toting Reyes Street.
On the other hand, the Kalibo SB, Municipal Mayor and Municipal Treasurer insist that the ordinance is not a tax ordinance but enacted to govern the administration and operation of the public market and slaughterhouse. Moreover, the plaintiffs were allowed to voice their objections and concerns when the stallholders headed by their president attended the January 8, 2002 deliberation of the said ordinance.
During the pre – trial of the case, the stallholders formulated the issues to be resolved which are: 1. is the Ordinance No. 2002 – 016 enacted without public hearing? and 2. is the said ordinance unjust, excessive, oppressive, confiscatory? On the part of the defendants, is the ordinance in question a tax ordinance? If not, then public hearing is not required.
Without going into trial on the merits, the RTC, Kalibo, Branch 5 decided on the case in the nature of summary judgment based on the memorandum submitted by both parties. The RTC, Kalibo, Aklan dismissed the case for lack of merit.
The Stallholders went to the Court of Appeals. According to them, 1. The court erred when it dismissed the petition without benefit of a hearing; 2. When it did not consider the questioned Ordinance No. 2002 – 016 as unjust, excessive, oppressive, confiscatory or contrary to declared national policy; and 3. When it ruled that public hearing is not required in the enactment of the questioned ordinance.
The Court of Appeals deemed it best to tackle the issue as to whether the ordinance in question is a tax ordinance. If it is, public hearings are mandatory. The Court of Appeals reviewed the purpose of the said ordinance, the holding of public hearing for said ordinance and the rule on summary judgment.
Having done so, the Court of Appeals concluded that “laws enjoy the presumption of constitutionality. To overthrow this presumption, there must be a clear and unequivocal breach of the constitution, not merely a doubtful or argumentative contradiction as determined through a searching judicial inquiry if only to arrive at a judicious and circumspect verdict on the alleged arbitrariness and unreasonable impositions as contained in the ordinance.”
On the basis of the facts presented of both parties and the conclusions, the Court of Appeals, 19th Division “hereby set aside the decision of trial court dated July 29, 2003 and this case is hereby remanded to the Regional Trial Court, Kalibo, Aklan, Branch 5 for trial on the merits.”
-o-
BIR Serious In Its Housekeeping Efforts
The Bureau of Internal Revenue is not only serious about running after tax cheats and grafters but also after grafters and undesirable employees in its ranks.
The Bureau of Internal Revenue Inspection Service reveals that the bureau has filed 363 cases against erring BIR personnel, both for graft and non – graft since 2001.
BIR Commissioner Guillermo Parayno said of the case filed, two hundred twenty two (222) cases have been decided, seventy six (76) employees dismissed, forty – six (46) suspended and others have either been reprimanded, fined or forced to resign. The rest involving dismissals are still awaiting confirmation and resolution by the Department of Finance.
In BIR Revenue Region 11, under Director Sonia Flores, from 2001 up to the present, it has filed a total of forty – two (42) cases against erring employees. Of this cases, twenty – one (21) have been suspended, eleven (11) have been dismissed and ten are still pending resolution.
It seems that the BIR campaign is bearing fruit as revealed by the results of a recent survey by the Social Weather Station which show that the BIR has improved its public acceptability rating. While surveys are mostly based on perception, Commissioner Parayno believes that still they serve as gauges of the success of the BIR’s anti – corruption efforts.
Parayno revealed that among the other plans which the BIR has to further improve its services is the further enhancement of its internal audit as well as the improvement of the investigation and prosecution of graft cases. Soon, BIR also intends to provide the public with a better means to lodge complaints against BIR officials and employees. /MP mailto:madyaas_pen@yahoo.com
The case is Special Civil Action No. 6785, filed by the Stallholders at the Kalibo Public Market versus the Sangguniang Bayan of Kalibo, The Municipal Mayor and Municipal Treasurer, Kalibo, Aklan. The Stallholders opposed Ordinance No. 2002 – 016, the Municipal Market and Slaughterhouse Code of Kalibo. They questioned the validity of the said ordinance on the ground that “it was unjust, excessive, oppressive and confiscatory,” that the same “ordinance was enacted without prior public hearing conducted for the purpose” and that the ordinance in effect imposes an increase in rental of 180 percent and 175 percent to those permanently occupying the front stalls and back or inside stalls, respectively at the Kalibo Public Market along Roxas Avenue Extension and Toting Reyes Street.
On the other hand, the Kalibo SB, Municipal Mayor and Municipal Treasurer insist that the ordinance is not a tax ordinance but enacted to govern the administration and operation of the public market and slaughterhouse. Moreover, the plaintiffs were allowed to voice their objections and concerns when the stallholders headed by their president attended the January 8, 2002 deliberation of the said ordinance.
During the pre – trial of the case, the stallholders formulated the issues to be resolved which are: 1. is the Ordinance No. 2002 – 016 enacted without public hearing? and 2. is the said ordinance unjust, excessive, oppressive, confiscatory? On the part of the defendants, is the ordinance in question a tax ordinance? If not, then public hearing is not required.
Without going into trial on the merits, the RTC, Kalibo, Branch 5 decided on the case in the nature of summary judgment based on the memorandum submitted by both parties. The RTC, Kalibo, Aklan dismissed the case for lack of merit.
The Stallholders went to the Court of Appeals. According to them, 1. The court erred when it dismissed the petition without benefit of a hearing; 2. When it did not consider the questioned Ordinance No. 2002 – 016 as unjust, excessive, oppressive, confiscatory or contrary to declared national policy; and 3. When it ruled that public hearing is not required in the enactment of the questioned ordinance.
The Court of Appeals deemed it best to tackle the issue as to whether the ordinance in question is a tax ordinance. If it is, public hearings are mandatory. The Court of Appeals reviewed the purpose of the said ordinance, the holding of public hearing for said ordinance and the rule on summary judgment.
Having done so, the Court of Appeals concluded that “laws enjoy the presumption of constitutionality. To overthrow this presumption, there must be a clear and unequivocal breach of the constitution, not merely a doubtful or argumentative contradiction as determined through a searching judicial inquiry if only to arrive at a judicious and circumspect verdict on the alleged arbitrariness and unreasonable impositions as contained in the ordinance.”
On the basis of the facts presented of both parties and the conclusions, the Court of Appeals, 19th Division “hereby set aside the decision of trial court dated July 29, 2003 and this case is hereby remanded to the Regional Trial Court, Kalibo, Aklan, Branch 5 for trial on the merits.”
-o-
BIR Serious In Its Housekeeping Efforts
The Bureau of Internal Revenue is not only serious about running after tax cheats and grafters but also after grafters and undesirable employees in its ranks.
The Bureau of Internal Revenue Inspection Service reveals that the bureau has filed 363 cases against erring BIR personnel, both for graft and non – graft since 2001.
BIR Commissioner Guillermo Parayno said of the case filed, two hundred twenty two (222) cases have been decided, seventy six (76) employees dismissed, forty – six (46) suspended and others have either been reprimanded, fined or forced to resign. The rest involving dismissals are still awaiting confirmation and resolution by the Department of Finance.
In BIR Revenue Region 11, under Director Sonia Flores, from 2001 up to the present, it has filed a total of forty – two (42) cases against erring employees. Of this cases, twenty – one (21) have been suspended, eleven (11) have been dismissed and ten are still pending resolution.
It seems that the BIR campaign is bearing fruit as revealed by the results of a recent survey by the Social Weather Station which show that the BIR has improved its public acceptability rating. While surveys are mostly based on perception, Commissioner Parayno believes that still they serve as gauges of the success of the BIR’s anti – corruption efforts.
Parayno revealed that among the other plans which the BIR has to further improve its services is the further enhancement of its internal audit as well as the improvement of the investigation and prosecution of graft cases. Soon, BIR also intends to provide the public with a better means to lodge complaints against BIR officials and employees. /MP mailto:madyaas_pen@yahoo.com
No comments:
Post a Comment