0% found this document useful (0 votes)
48 views1 page

Judicial Taxation and Salary Rules

Judge David Nitafan and other judges sought to prohibit the Commissioner of Internal Revenue from deducting withholding taxes from their salaries, arguing it diminished their constitutionally guaranteed salary. However, the Supreme Court had previously directed withholding taxes from justices and judges. The Court nonetheless ruled on the issue to settle it. The Court held that members of the judiciary, like other branches of government, are subject to income taxation. Their salaries cannot be decreased during their term of office but are subject to general income taxes. Congress can increase judicial salaries immediately, and decrease them prospectively for future appointees. This case abandoned prior rulings.

Uploaded by

Alvin Hilario
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
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
48 views1 page

Judicial Taxation and Salary Rules

Judge David Nitafan and other judges sought to prohibit the Commissioner of Internal Revenue from deducting withholding taxes from their salaries, arguing it diminished their constitutionally guaranteed salary. However, the Supreme Court had previously directed withholding taxes from justices and judges. The Court nonetheless ruled on the issue to settle it. The Court held that members of the judiciary, like other branches of government, are subject to income taxation. Their salaries cannot be decreased during their term of office but are subject to general income taxes. Congress can increase judicial salaries immediately, and decrease them prospectively for future appointees. This case abandoned prior rulings.

Uploaded by

Alvin Hilario
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

Judge David Nitafan vs

Commissioner of Internal
Revenue
152 SCRA 284 Political Law Constitutional Law The Judicial Department Judicial Autonomy
Income Tax Payment By The Judiciary
Judge David Nitafan and several other judges of the Manila Regional Trial Court seek to prohibit the
Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) from making any deduction of withholding taxes from their
salaries or compensation for such would tantamount to a diminution of their salary, which is
unconstitutional. Earlier however, or on June 7, 1987, the Court en banc had already reaffirmed the
directive of the Chief Justice which directs the continued withholding of taxes of the justices and the
judges of the judiciary but the SC decided to rule on this case nonetheless to settle the issue once
and for all.
ISSUE: Whether or not the members of the judiciary are exempt from the payment of income tax.
HELD: No. The clear intent of the framers of the Constitution, based on their deliberations, was NOT
to exempt justices and judges from general taxation. Members of the judiciary, just like members of
the other branches of the government, are subject to income taxation. What is provided for by the
constitution is that salaries of judges may not be decreased during their continuance in office. They
have a fix salary which may not be subject to the whims and caprices of congress. But the salaries of
the judges shall be subject to the general income tax as well as other members of the judiciary.
But may the salaries of the members of the judiciary be increased?
Yes. The Congress may pass a law increasing the salary of the members of the judiciary and such
increase will immediately take effect thus the incumbent members of the judiciary (at the time of
the passing of the law increasing their salary) shall benefit immediately.
Congress can also pass a law decreasing the salary of the members of the judiciary but such will
only be applicable to members of the judiciary which were appointed AFTER the effectivity of such
law.
Note: This case abandoned the ruling in Perfecto vs Meer and in Endencia vs David.

You might also like