Scribd
Upload
75 views1 page

Gregorio Perfecto vs. Bibiano L. Meer

1. Mr. Justice Gregorio Perfecto was required to pay income tax on his 1946 salary as a member of the Court, which he paid under protest arguing it was illegal as it would reduce his salary in violation of the Constitution. 2. The Court held that imposing an income tax on a judge's salary amounts to an unconstitutional diminution of that salary. 3. While judges pay other taxes, imposing an income tax directly on their judicial salary has the effect of diminishing their official stipend, infringing on the fundamental charter's prohibition against reducing judicial salaries.

Uploaded by

Johney Doe
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
75 views1 page

Gregorio Perfecto vs. Bibiano L. Meer

1. Mr. Justice Gregorio Perfecto was required to pay income tax on his 1946 salary as a member of the Court, which he paid under protest arguing it was illegal as it would reduce his salary in violation of the Constitution. 2. The Court held that imposing an income tax on a judge's salary amounts to an unconstitutional diminution of that salary. 3. While judges pay other taxes, imposing an income tax directly on their judicial salary has the effect of diminishing their official stipend, infringing on the fundamental charter's prohibition against reducing judicial salaries.

Uploaded by

Johney Doe
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 1

GREGORIO PERFECTO vs. BIBIANO L. MEER [G.R. No. L-2348. February 27, 1950.

] Facts: In April, 1947 the Collector of Internal Revenue required Mr. Justice Gregorio Perfecto to pay income tax upon his salary as member of this Court during the year 1946. After paying the amount (P802), he instituted this action in the Manila Court of First Instance contending that the assessment was illegal, his salary not being taxable for the reason that imposition of taxes thereon would reduce it in violation of the Constitution. Issue: Does the imposition of an income tax upon this salary amount to a diminution thereof? Held: Yes. As in the United States during the second period, we must hold that salaries of judges are not included in the word "income" taxed by the Income Tax Law. Two paramount circumstances may additionally be indicated, to wit: First, when the Income Tax Law was first applied to the Philippines 1913, taxable "income" did not include salaries of judicial officers when these are protected from diminution. That was the prevailing official belief in the United States, which must be deemed to have been transplanted here ; and second, when the Philippine Constitutional Convention approved (in 1935) the prohibition against diminution of the judges' compensation, the Federal principle was known that income tax on judicial salaries really impairs them. This is not proclaiming a general tax immunity for men on the bench. These pay taxes. Upon buying gasoline, or cars or other commodities, they pay the corresponding duties. Owning real property, they pay taxes thereon. And on incomes other than their judicial salary, assessments are levied. It is only when the tax is charged directly on their salary and the effect of the tax is to diminish their official stipend that the taxation must be resisted as an infringement of the fundamental charter. Judges would indeed be hapless guardians of the Constitution if they did not perceive and block encroachments upon their prerogatives in whatever form. The undiminishable character of judicial salaries is not a mere privilege of judges personal and therefore waivable but a basic limitation upon legislative or executive action imposed in the public interest (Evans vs. Gore).

You might also like