This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2014-03-12 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| While tax amnesty, similar to a tax exemption, must be construed strictly against the taxpayer and liberally in favor of the taxing authority,[30] it is also a well-settled doctrine[31] that the rule-making power of administrative agencies cannot be extended to amend or expand statutory requirements or to embrace matters not originally encompassed by the law. Administrative regulations should always be in accord with the provisions of the statute they seek to carry into effect, and any resulting inconsistency shall be resolved in favor of the basic law. We thus definitively declare that the exception "[i]ssues and cases which were ruled by any court (even without finality) in favor of the BIR prior to amnesty availment of the taxpayer" under BIR RMC 19-2008 is invalid, as the exception goes beyond the scope of the provisions of the 2007 Tax Amnesty Law.[32] | |||||
|
2008-08-14 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| Administrative regulations enacted by administrative agencies to implement and interpret the law which they are entrusted to enforce have the force of law and are entitled to respect.[49] Such rules and regulations partake of the nature of a statute[50] and are just as binding as if they have been written in the statute itself. As such, they have the force and effect of law and enjoy the presumption of constitutionality and legality until they are set aside with finality in an appropriate case by a competent court.[51] Congress, in the guise of assuming the role of an overseer, may not pass upon their legality by subjecting them to its stamp of approval without disturbing the calculated balance of powers established by the Constitution. In exercising discretion to approve or disapprove the IRR based on a determination of whether or not they conformed with the provisions of RA 9335, Congress arrogated judicial power unto itself, a power exclusively vested in this Court by the Constitution. | |||||
|
2004-06-15 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| It is settled that an administrative agency possesses the power to issue rules and regulations to implement the statute which it is tasked to enforce, unless another agency is the one so authorized by the law as in the case of the EPIRA. This is so because it is impracticable, if not impossible, for the legislature to anticipate and provide for the multifarious and complex situations that may be encountered in enforcing the law. So long as the rules and regulations are germane to the objects and purposes of the law and conforms to the standards prescribed thereby, they are deemed to have the force and effect of law.[94] | |||||