G.R. No. L-5701 – 93 Phil. 376 – Political Law – Law on Public Officers – Limitations on The Power to Create a Public Office – President Can’t Create Courts
In 1950, the University of Santo Tomas was assessed a deficiency tax on its income from tuition fees. UST opposed such assessment but it paid it under protest. UST then submitted to the Secretary of Finance a memorandum regarding the matter. UST avers that the tax was illegally collected. The Secretary of Finance then advised UST to file a petition for review with the Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) regarding their protest. UST complied but after filing the petition, UST filed a motion questioning the jurisdiction of the BTA. UST assailed EO 401-A which gave BTA the jurisdiction to hear cases involving illegally collected taxes. UST avers that this effectively deprives the regular courts of law their jurisdiction to take cognizance of recovery of illegally collected taxes.
ISSUE: Whether or not UST is correct.
HELD: Yes. EO 401-A gave the BTA exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide all appeals and petitions of decisions rendered by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. Indeed, such provision effectively divests the regular courts of law of their jurisdiction. It is true that through RA 442, the president was given the authority to organize the different departments, bureaus, and offices under the executive department, but such is only limited in scope. It is also admitted that the BTA is under the Department of Finance but the grant to it of such power and jurisdiction by the questioned EO is an encroachment by the executive of the legislature’s power. Under the Constitution, Congress alone has the power to define, prescribe, and apportion the jurisdiction of the various courts. Needless to say, Congress cannot even delegate this power.
