Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Office at The Time of Such Declaration Because Such Taxation Would Diminish Their Salaries, Violating The
Office at The Time of Such Declaration Because Such Taxation Would Diminish Their Salaries, Violating The
FACTS
1. In April 1947, MR. Bibiano Meer, Collector of Internal Revenue required Mr. Justice Gregorio
Perfecto to pay income tax upon his salary as a member of this Court during the year 1946 in
which the latter paid the amount of 802 pesos.
2. Mr. Perfecto instituted this action in the Manila Court of First Instance contending that the
assessment was unconstitutional, his salary not being taxable for the reason that imposition of
taxes under Article VIII, section 9 of the Constitution which prohibits diminution of salary of all
judges of inferior courts during their continuance in office.
3. The Manila judge upheld the petitioner’s contention and required a refund of the amount
collected. The defendant appealed.
RULING
1. YES, the Court voting 7-2 adopted Evans v. Gore; Miles v. Graham doctrine, that “the fathers
of the Constitution intended to prohibit diminution by taxation and that they regarded the
independence of the judges as of far greater importance than any revenue that could come
from taxing their salaries.” The court held that it may not tax the salaries of those
judges already in office at the time of such declaration because such taxation would diminish
their salaries which violates the Constitution.
DISPOSITIVE
The judgment will be affirmed. So ordered
OTHER NOTES
The Court disregarded the doctrine conferred in O'Malley vs. Woodrough - To subject them to a
general tax is merely to recognize that judges also are citizens, and that their particular function in
government does not generate an immunity from sharing with their fellow citizens the material burden of
the government whose Constitution and laws they are charged with administering. Thus, Congress may
validly declare by law that salaries of judges appointed thereafter shall be taxed as income.