The schools and hospitals that are seeking the nullification of the city’s tax ordinance believed that the city government might as well concede that the ordinance it enacted is invalid and unconstitutional.
In a recent pleading, the schools and hospitals told the court that the city’s answer to the complaint showed itself that the enactment of City Tax Ordinance CXIII may no longer be necessary.
It said that even if the ordinance would eventually be declared unconstitutional, the city can still impose taxes through the existing general tax ordinance.
The controversial CTO CXIII is now pending at the Department of Justice after the city filed a motion for reconsideration on the DOJ’s resolution, which declared the ordinance null and void owing to technical infirmities.
Among the infirmities allegedly include alleged deficiency in the aspect of public hearing. But the petitioning schools and hospitals attacked the city’s position that the existing general tax ordinances are “sufficient to impose and assess taxes on the petitioners.”
The petitioners countered that “Following that line of reasoning and for consistency, respondents should then withdraw their plea that the validity of the assailed ordinances ‘be sustained,’ and instead concede that they are invalid and unconstitutional.”
Last May 30, Cebu Doctors’ University, Cebu Institute of Technology, Southwestern University, Sacred Heart Hospital, Cebu Doctors’ Hospital, Cebu North General Hospital, and the Cebu (Velez) General Hospital filed the civil case against the city, which questioned the provisions of the tax ordinance, particularly that on penalties and surcharges.
They also alleged “illegal exactions” on the part of the city treasurer, that the latter, allegedly to coerce payment, did not issue business permits to them.
Petitioners had contended that unless restrained or destroyed, the enforcement of CTO CXIII and its amendments will work injustice and cause grave and irreparable harm to them.
The city council also allegedly committed illegal acts when it allowed the city treasurer’s alleged illegal actions, when they enacted the ordinance that was different from what was heard, and when it introduced qualifying ordinances when the objective was an amendment of the principal ordinance.
What was drawn in August 2006 and eventually enacted CTO CXIII allegedly did not bear the same provisions as those in the ordinance proposed and heard in December 2005.
The petitioners said the city government does not have the power and authority to override the restrictions and exemptions on taxes provided under the constitution and that in treating them as “businesses,” respondents summarily discarded petitioners’ distinction as service-oriented establishment, thus, respondents have violated the equal protection guarantee. — Joeberth M. Ocao/RAE