Scribd
Upload
102 views3 pages

BOCEA vs. Hon. Margarito B. Teves G.R. No. 181704 December 6, 2011

R.A. No. 9335 aims to optimize revenue collection at the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) and Bureau of Customs (BOC) by providing rewards and sanctions linked to targets. The Bureau of Customs Employees Association (BOCEA) argued the law violates their rights and members cannot meet targets due to government policies. BOCEA filed a petition to declare R.A. No. 9335 unconstitutional. The court had to determine if R.A. No. 9335 constitutes an unconstitutional bill of attainder by punishing a group without trial for failing to meet revenue targets.

Uploaded by

Khristian Joshua G. Jurado
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
102 views3 pages

BOCEA vs. Hon. Margarito B. Teves G.R. No. 181704 December 6, 2011

R.A. No. 9335 aims to optimize revenue collection at the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) and Bureau of Customs (BOC) by providing rewards and sanctions linked to targets. The Bureau of Customs Employees Association (BOCEA) argued the law violates their rights and members cannot meet targets due to government policies. BOCEA filed a petition to declare R.A. No. 9335 unconstitutional. The court had to determine if R.A. No. 9335 constitutes an unconstitutional bill of attainder by punishing a group without trial for failing to meet revenue targets.

Uploaded by

Khristian Joshua G. Jurado
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

BOCEA vs. Hon. Margarito B.

Teves
G.R. No. 181704               December 6, 2011

On January 25, 2005, former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo


signed into law R.A. No. 9335 which took effect on February 11,
2005.
The said act was enacted to optimize the revenue- generation
capability and collection of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIC)
and the the Bureau of Customs (BOC). The law intends to
motivate the BIR and BOC officials and employess to exceed their
revenue target by providing a system of rewards and sanctions
through the creation of a Rewards and Incentives Fund (Fund)
and a Revenue Performance Evaluation Board (Board). It covers
all officials and employees of the BIR and the BOC with at least
six months of service, regardless of employment status.
According to the said law, each board has the duty to (1)
prescribe the rules and guidelines for the allocation, distribution
and release of the Fund; (2) set criteria and procedures for
removing from the service officials and employees whose revenue
collection falls short of the target; (3) terminate personnel in
accordance with the criteria adopted by the Board; (4) prescribe a
system for performance evaluation; (5) perform other functions,
including the issuance of rules and regulations and (6) submit an
annual report to Congress.
As said in the foregoing on one of the duties of a board was to
“set criteria and procedures for removing from the service officials
and employees whose revenue collection falls short of the target”,
The Bureau of Customs Employees Association (BOCEA)
contended that the enactment and implementation of R.A. No.
9335 are tainted with constitutional infirmities in violation of the
fundamental rights of its members. According to BOCEA it was
impossible to meet the revenue target due to the government’s
own policed on reduced tariff rates and tax breaks. BOCEA also
mentioned that only the high-ranking officials of the BOC
benefited largely from the reward system under R.A. No. 9335
despite the fact that they were not the ones directly toiling to
collect revenue.
BOCEA therefore filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with
prayer for injunctive relief/s under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of
Civil Procedure, as amended, to declare Republic Act (R.A.) No.
9335, otherwise known as the Attrition Act of 2005, and its
Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) unconstitutional, and
the implementation thereof be enjoined permanently.
Issue:

Whether or not R.A. No. 9335 is a bill of attainder and hence it is


unconstitutional because it inflicts punishment through legislative
fiat upon a particular group or class of officials and employees
without trial.

Ruling:
No.  for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for injunctive relief/s
under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended,
to declare Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9335,2 otherwise known as
the Attrition Act of 2005, and its Implementing Rules and
Regulations3 (IRR) unconstitutional, and the implementation
thereof be enjoined permanently.

You might also like