Strongest limited power

It is quite hard to erase the impression in the minds of many that more taxes will be imposed upon the already impoverished majority just to raise revenues to defray the pork barrel allocations of our Congressmen and Senators. The prevailing notion is that new and additional taxes would not have been as urgent and imperative even with the "fiscal crisis" in our government but for the stubborn resistance of our legislators to abolish their pork barrel. This is the undeniable reality that subliminally creeps into the consciousness of those who will bear the brunt of the new impositions. The clear picture they are staring at shows them enduring more hardships because they are forced to pay additional taxes so that members of Congress could continue to enjoy their "pork". With such imagery at the back of his mind, Juan de la Cruz may not be just about ready to accept any move to impose additional taxes without a whimper.

Admittedly, the power to tax is an attribute of sovereignty and is inherent in the State. It is the power by which the sovereign raises revenue that constitutes the very "lifeblood" of the government (Commissioner v. Algue Inc. L-28896, Feb. 17, 1988). Thus it is the strongest of all the powers of government (Sison, Jr. v. Ancheta 130 SCRA 655) since these "enforced proportional contributions from persons and properties levied by the State by virtue of its sovereignty are for the support of the government and its public needs" (1 Cooley 62-63).

Admittedly also, this taxing power is exercised by the legislative body since it is peculiarly and exclusively legislative in character (51 Am Jur 71). But the exercise of this power should be limited only to supply the "lifeblood" of the government, not the extra fat that clogs the arteries, which is what the pork barrel is all about. It could not be denied that by its very nature, the pork in our budget is not entirely for the general welfare and for a public purpose. To a great extent, it is used for political advantage or even builds up "private fortunes". Maybe apropos to this observation are the words of the U.S. Supreme Court in case of Loan Association v. Topeka, 20 Wall 655: "To lay, with one hand the power of the government on the property of the citizen, and with the other to bestow it upon private individuals to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes, is none the less a robbery because it is done under the forms of law and is called taxation".

The power to tax is therefore not unlimited even if it is the strongest of all governmental powers. The threat of some of our Congressmen for example to tax the Church in reaction to the comments of some of its prelates favoring the abolition of the pork barrel is beyond the limits of this power. Just as the taxing power is inherent in the State through its legislature, so is its power to grant tax exemption. Thus, it is explicitly provided in the Constitution itself (Section 28[3] exemption. Thus, it is explicitly provided in the Constitution itself (Section 28[3] Art. VI) that" "Charitable institutions, Churches and Parsonages or Convents appurtenant thereto, Mosques, non-profit cemeteries, and all lands, buildings and improvements actually, directly and exclusively used for religious, charitable or educational purposes shall be exempt from taxation". The exemption in favor of property used exclusively for charitable or educational purposes is not limited to property actually indispensable but extends to facilities which are incidental to and reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of said purposes like the use of the second floor of a school for residence of the school director (Abra Valley College v. Borgonia et. al. 162 SCRA 106). Furthermore, "the making of profit does not destroy the tax exemption of a charitable benevolent or educational institution" (San Juan de Dios v. Pasay City 16, SCRA 230). The laws and jurisprudence are quite clear enough. Our legislators should consider them first before going into a taxing rampage in reaction to the move to take away their "pork".

The grant of this tax exemption is not arbitrary or unreasonable. Churches, charitable and educational Institutions contribute to the improvement of the people’s lives and the enhancement of their moral and material values which ordinarily are the government’s "symbolic" duty to citizens who pay their taxes. The citizens pay from their property the portion exacted by the State so that they may be secured in the enjoyment of the benefits of organized society. Undoubtedly, Churches and these benevolent institutions play a vital role that enables citizens to enjoy these benefits. Yet under the "non establishment clause" of our Constitution (Section 29[2] Art. VI), the government cannot appropriate public money or property to support these institutions as this is in violation of the principle of Church-State separation. So the least the State can do is to grant them tax exemptions. In effect these tax exemptions are exceptions to the said "non-establishment clause" in our charter.

Before our attention is diverted to those tantalizing "voluntary donations" to the national coffers through "friendly persuasions", and before our government go on a "taxing" binge, let us therefore first resolve the more important issue of abolishing the pork barrel in the legislative and executive branches, be they in the form of CDF, PDAF or intelligence funds.

* * *

E-mail: [email protected]