Scribd
Upload
66 views1 page

Perfecto V Meer

1) Justice Gregorio Perfecto was required to pay income tax on his 1946 salary as a member of the Court. He argued this was illegal as the Constitution prohibits diminishing a judge's salary during their term. 2) The key issue is whether imposing an income tax amounts to a diminution of salary. 3) The court held that imposing an income tax on Justice Perfecto's salary did amount to a diminution as the Constitution's prohibition contains no exceptions and was intended to prohibit reductions through taxation or otherwise to protect judicial independence over revenue collection. The judgment was affirmed.

Uploaded by

Nathalie Jean Yap
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
66 views1 page

Perfecto V Meer

1) Justice Gregorio Perfecto was required to pay income tax on his 1946 salary as a member of the Court. He argued this was illegal as the Constitution prohibits diminishing a judge's salary during their term. 2) The key issue is whether imposing an income tax amounts to a diminution of salary. 3) The court held that imposing an income tax on Justice Perfecto's salary did amount to a diminution as the Constitution's prohibition contains no exceptions and was intended to prohibit reductions through taxation or otherwise to protect judicial independence over revenue collection. The judgment was affirmed.

Uploaded by

Nathalie Jean Yap
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/ 1

PERFECTO VS. MEER G.R. No. L-2348             February 27, 1950 BENGZON, J.

FACT
In April 1947 the Collector of Internal Revenue required Mr. Justice Gregorio Perfecto to pay
income tax upon his salary as member of the Court during the year 1946. After paying the
amount, he instituted an action in 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. It provides in its Article VIII, Section 9 that the
members of the Supreme Court and all judges of inferior courts “shall receive such
compensation as may be fixed by law, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in
office.

ISSUE
Whether or not the imposition of an income tax upon this salary  in 1946 amount to a
diminution.

HELD
Yes, the imposition of the income tax upon the salary of Justice Perfecto amount to a
diminution thereof. The prohibition is general, contains no excepting words, and appears to be
directed against all diminution, whether for one purpose or another. The fathers of the
Constitution intended to prohibit diminution by taxation as well as otherwise, that they
regarded the independence of the judges as of far greater importance than any revenue that
could come from taxing their salaries. Thus, taxing the salary of a judge as a part of his income
is a violation of the Constitution.
Judgment is affirmed.

You might also like