Gomez vs. Palomar

G.R. No.
L-23645
October 29, 1968
BENJAMIN
P.
GOMEZ, petitioner-appellee,
vs.
ENRICO PALOMAR, in his capacity as Postmaster
General, HON. BRIGIDO R. VALENCIA, in his
capacity as Secretary of Public Works and
Communications, and DOMINGO GOPEZ, in his
capacity as Acting Postmaster of San Fernando,
Pampanga, respondent-appellants. (Charm)
CASTRO, J.:
Facts:
R.A. 1635, as amended by R.A. 2631 was enacted to
help raise funds for the Philippine Tuberculosis Society.
It required all mail to bear the semi-postal stamps which
showed the face value showing the regular postage
charge plus the additional amount of five centavos for
the special fund to be raised during the period August 19
to September 30 each year starting in 1958 . Only
newspapers were exempted from the said requirement.
The Postmaster General, in implementation of the law,
thereafter issued 4 administrative orders:
A.O. 3- Mails entitled to franking privilege like those from
the office of the President, members of Congress, and
other offices to which such privilege has been granted,
shall each also bear one such semi-postal stamp if
posted during the said period.
A.O. 7- It amended A.O. 3. Government agencies,
officials, and other persons entitled to the franking
privilege under existing laws may pay in cash such extra
charge intended for said society, instead of affixing the
semi-postal stamps to their mails, provided that such
mails are presented at the post-office window, where the
five-centavo extra charge for said society shall be
collected on each piece of such mail matter.
A.O. 9- It amended A.O. 3 and 7 and exempts exempts
"Government and its Agencies and Instrumentalities
Performing Governmental Functions."
A.O. 10- It amended the previous A.O.s and exempts
"copies of periodical publications received for mailing
under any class of mail matter, including newspapers
and magazines admitted as second-class mail."
On September l5, 1963 the petitioner Benjamin P.
Gomez mailed a letter at the post office in San
Fernando, Pampanga. Because this letter did not bear
the special anti-TB stamp required by the statute, it was
returned to the petitioner.
In view of this development, the petitioner brought suit
for declaratory relief in CFI Pampanga, to test the
constitutionality of the statute, as well as the
implementing A.O.s issued, contending that it violates

the equal protection clause of the Constitution as well as
the rule of uniformity and equality of taxation. The lower
court declared the statute and the orders
unconstitutional; hence this appeal by the respondent
postal authorities.
Issues/Held:
1. WoN declaratory relief is the proper remedy-YES.
2. WoN the statute and the implementing A.O.s violates
the equal protection clause- NO.
3. WoN the tax levied was for a public purpose- YES.
4. WoN the statute and A.O.s violate the rule of
uniformity of taxation- NO.
Ratio:
1. Respondents contention: Declaratory relief is
unavailing because this suit was filed after the petitioner
had committed a breach of the statute.
SC: Petitioner's choice of remedy is correct because this
suit was filed not only with respect to the letter which he
mailed on September 15, 1963, but also with regard to
any other mail that he might send in the future.
2. Petitioners claim that the statue is violative of the
equal protection clause since it constitutes mail users
into a class for the purpose of the tax while leaving
untaxed the rest of the population and that even among
postal patrons the statute discriminatorily grants
exemption to newspapers while Administrative Order 9
of the respondent Postmaster General grants a similar
exemption to offices performing governmental functions.
To begin with, it is settled that the legislature has the
inherent power to select the subjects of taxation and
to grant exemptions. This power has aptly been
described as "of wide range and flexibility." Indeed, it is
said that in the field of taxation, more than in other
areas, the legislature possesses the greatest freedom in
classification. The reason for this is that traditionally,
classification has been a device for fitting tax
programs to local needs and usages in order to
achieve an equitable distribution of the tax burden.
That legislative classifications must be reasonable is of
course undenied. But what the petitioner asserts is that
statutory classification of mail users must bear some
reasonable relationship to the end sought to be
attained, and that absent such relationship the selection
of mail users is constitutionally impermissible. This is
altogether a different proposition. As explained
in Commonwealth v. Life Assurance Co.:8
While the principle that there must be a reasonable
relationship between classification made by the
legislation and its purpose is undoubtedly true in some
contexts, it has no application to a measure whose
sole purpose is to raise revenue ... So long as the

classification imposed is based upon some standard
capable of reasonable comprehension, be that standard
based upon ability to produce revenue or some other
legitimate distinction, equal protection of the law has
been afforded.
Now, the classification of mail users is not without any
reason. It is based on ability to pay, let alone the
enjoyment of a privilege, and on administrative
convenience. In the allocation of the tax burden,
Congress must have concluded that the contribution to
the anti-TB fund can be assured by those whose who
can afford the use of the mails.
The classification is likewise based on considerations of
administrative convenience. For it is now a settled
principle of law that "consideration of practical
administrative convenience and cost in the
administration of tax laws afford adequate ground
for imposing a tax on a well recognized and defined
class." In the case of the anti-TB stamps, undoubtedly,
the single most important and influential consideration
that led the legislature to select mail users as subjects of
the tax is the relative ease and convenience of
collecting the tax through the post offices. By placing
the duty of collection on postal authorities the tax was
made almost self-enforcing, with as little cost and as little
inconvenience as possible.
And then of course it is not accurate to say that the
statute constituted mail users into a class. Mail users
were already a class by themselves even before the
enactment of the statue and all that the legislature did
was merely to select their class. Legislation is essentially
empiric and Republic Act 1635, as amended, no more
than reflects a distinction that exists in fact. As Mr.
Justice Frankfurter said, "to recognize differences that
exist in fact is living law; to disregard [them] and
concentrate on some abstract identities is lifeless logic."
Granted the power to select the subject of taxation, the
State's power to grant exemption must likewise be
conceded as a necessary corollary. Tax exemptions are
too common in the law; they have never been thought of
as raising issues under the equal protection clause.
It is thus erroneous for the trial court to hold that
because certain mail users are exempted from the levy
the law and administrative officials have sanctioned an
invidious discrimination offensive to the Constitution.
The application of the lower courts theory would
require all mail users to be taxed, a conclusion that
is hardly tenable in the light of differences in status
of mail users. The Constitution does not require this
kind of equality.
As the United States Supreme Court has said, the
legislature may withhold the burden of the tax in order to
foster what it conceives to be a beneficent
enterprise. This is the case of newspapers which, under
the amendment introduced by Republic Act 2631, are

exempt from the payment of the additional stamp.
As for the Government and its instrumentalities, their
exemption rests on the State's sovereign immunity
from taxation. The State cannot be taxed without its
consent and such consent, being in derogation of its
sovereignty, is to be strictly construed. Administrative
Order 9 of the respondent Postmaster General, which
lists the various offices and instrumentalities of the
Government exempt from the payment of the anti-TB
stamp, is but a restatement of this well-known principle
of constitutional law.
The trial court likewise held the law invalid on the ground
that it singles out tuberculosis to the exclusion of other
diseases which, it is said, are equally a menace to public
health. But it is never a requirement of equal protection
that all evils of the same genus be eradicated or none at
all. As this Court has had occasion to say, "if the law
presumably hits the evil where it is most felt, it is not to
be overthrown because there are other instances to
which it might have been applied."
3.
The eradication of a dreaded disease is a public
purpose, but if by public purpose the petitioner means
benefit to a taxpayer as a return for what he pays, then it
is sufficient answer to say that the only benefit to
which the taxpayer is constitutionally entitled is that
derived from his enjoyment of the privileges of living
in an organized society, established and safeguarded
by the devotion of taxes to public purposes. Any other
view would preclude the levying of taxes except as they
are used to compensate for the burden on those who
pay them and would involve the abandonment of the
most fundamental principle of government that it
exists primarily to provide for the common good.
4.
Nor is the rule of uniformity and equality of taxation
infringed by the imposition of a flat rate rather than a
graduated tax. A tax need not be measured by the
weight of the mail or the extent of the service rendered.
We have said that considerations of administrative
convenience and cost afford an adequate ground for
classification. The same considerations may induce the
legislature to impose a flat tax which in effect is a charge
for the transaction, operating equally on all persons
within the class regardless of the amount involved.

Gomez vs. Palomar

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gomez vs. Palomar

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gomez vs. Palomar

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

October 29, 1968

implementing A.O.s issued, contending that it violates

sole purpose is to raise revenue ... So long as the

the amendment introduced by Republic Act 2631, are

You might also like