Scribd
Upload
27 views1 page

Constitutional Limitations 1. Due Process of Law

The document discusses constitutional limitations on taxation based on due process and equal protection. It summarizes that [1] tax measures cannot be so arbitrary as to amount to confiscation of property or lack support in the constitution, [2] no person can be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection under the law, and [3] in the Sison v. Ancheta case the Supreme Court held that Batas Pambansa 135 imposing higher tax rates on some professionals did not violate due process or equal protection because the petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate the law was arbitrary or discriminatory.

Uploaded by

Meg Bobadilla
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
27 views1 page

Constitutional Limitations 1. Due Process of Law

The document discusses constitutional limitations on taxation based on due process and equal protection. It summarizes that [1] tax measures cannot be so arbitrary as to amount to confiscation of property or lack support in the constitution, [2] no person can be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection under the law, and [3] in the Sison v. Ancheta case the Supreme Court held that Batas Pambansa 135 imposing higher tax rates on some professionals did not violate due process or equal protection because the petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate the law was arbitrary or discriminatory.

Uploaded by

Meg Bobadilla
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

CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS

1. DUE PROCESS OF LAW


 There must be a valid law
 Tax measure should not be unconscionable and unjust as to amount to confiscation of
property.
 Tax statute must not be arbitrary as to find no support in the Constitution.

Sec. 1 Art. III 1987 - No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of
law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.

Sison v. Ancheta, supra – BP 135

FACTS: Batas Pambansa 135 was enacted. Sison, as taxpayer, alleged that its provision (Section 1)
unduly discriminated against him by the imposition of higher rates upon his income as a professional,
that it amounts to class legislation, and that it transgresses against the equal protection and due
process clauses of the Constitution as well as the rule requiring uniformity in taxation.

Issue: Whether BP 135 violates the due process and equal protection clauses, and the rule on
uniformity in taxation.

HELD:  No, there was no violation of the due process and equal protection clause, since petitioner
did not made a case, only allegations.

 The Congress has the power to determine the rates of taxation; thus,  the due process clause
may be invoked where a taxing statute is so arbitrary that it finds no support in the
Constitution. An obvious example is where it can be shown to amount to the confiscation of
property. That would be a clear abuse of power. It then becomes the duty of this Court to say
that such an arbitrary act amounted to the exercise of an authority not conferred. That
properly calls for the application of the Holmes dictum.

 It has also been held that where the assailed tax measure is beyond the jurisdiction of the
state, or is not for a public purpose, or, in case of a retroactive statute is so harsh and
unreasonable, it is subject to attack on due process grounds.

You might also like