Facts:
On January 25, 2005, Republic Act (RA) No. 9335, known as the “Attrition Act of 2005,” was signed into law by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and became effective on February 11, 2005. RA No. 9335 aimed to enhance the revenue-collection capabilities of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) and the Bureau of Customs (BOC) by establishing a system of rewards and sanctions. To implement the Act, the Department of Finance (DOF) and other agencies issued Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR), which were approved on May 22, 2006, and became effective on June 14, 2006.
Petitioner Bureau of Customs Employees Association (BOCEA), comprising rank-and-file employees of the BOC, challenged the constitutionality of RA No. 9335 and its IRR, alleging that the Act violated various constitutional protections. BOCEA objected to the dissemination and signing of Collection District Performance Contracts, which required employees to meet specified revenue targets under threat of dismissal. They claimed the targets were unattainable due to policies like reduced tariff rates and natural calamities.
The petition was initially filed with the Supreme Court on March 3, 2008. BOCEA emphasized that several BOC employees were coerced into signing these contracts and that the law was discriminatory and punitive without providing adequate procedural protections.
Respondents, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), argued that RA No. 9335 and its IRR provided reasonable grounds for dismissal, complied with due process requirements, and upheld their constitutionality. They cited the presumption of constitutionality and argued that the law was designed to optimize revenue collection.
Procedural Posture:
1. **Petition Filed:** On March 3, 2008, BOCEA filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Supreme Court.
2. **Motions and Replies:** BOCEA filed various letters and sought consultations with BOC officials to ease tensions. Respondents countered the constitutional challenges with comments that emphasized procedural and substantive due process in the law’s application.
3. **Memoranda Submitted:** Both parties complied with the Supreme Court’s resolution to submit their respective memoranda, raising multiple constitutional issues.
4. **Supreme Court Decision:** The Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of RA No. 9335 and its IRR in light of similar challenges previously decided in the case of Abakada Guro Party List v. Purisima.
Issues:
1. Whether RA No. 9335 and its IRR violate the right to due process of BIR and BOC officials and employees.
2. Whether RA No. 9335 and its IRR violate the right to equal protection of the laws.
3. Whether RA No. 9335 and its IRR violate the right to security of tenure.
4. Whether RA No. 9335 involves undue delegation of legislative powers.
5. Whether RA No. 9335 constitutes a bill of attainder by punishing a specific group without judicial trial.
Court’s Decision:
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of RA No. 9335 and its IRR, addressing each issue comprehensively:
1. **Due Process:** The Court reiterated that the law provided for procedural due process, including the setting of criteria for performance evaluation and the right to appeal adverse decisions.
2. **Equal Protection:** The classification of BIR and BOC employees was found to have a reasonable basis, given their unique role in revenue generation for the state. The Court noted that such a classification met the demands of equal protection.
3. **Security of Tenure:** The Court held that the law provided a reasonable standard for removal based on inefficiency, subject to civil service laws. Procedural safeguards ensured that dismissals were not arbitrary.
4. **Delegation of Legislative Powers:** The Court found that RA No. 9335 passed the “completeness” and “sufficient standard” tests necessary for valid delegation to administrative bodies.
5. **Bill of Attainder:** RA No. 9335 was not considered a bill of attainder. It did not impose punishment without judicial trial but rather established criteria for performance-based retention and dismissal.
Doctrine:
RA No. 9335 and its IRR were validated under the framework of the separation of powers doctrine, ensuring that sufficient standards and complete statutory guidelines supported delegation to administrative bodies. The principles of equal protection, due process, security of tenure, and non-delegation of legislative power were upheld and reiterated.
Class Notes:
– **Non-Delegation Doctrine:** Legislative power cannot be delegated without providing clear standards and sufficient guidelines.
– **Equal Protection Clause:** Reasonable classification is allowed if it is based on substantial distinctions relevant to the law’s purpose.
– **Due Process:** Procedural protections and the right to appeal are essential components.
– **Security of Tenure:** Reasonable grounds for removal must be outlined by law and supported by procedural due process.
– **Bill of Attainder:** Legislation that punishes specific individuals or groups without a trial is unconstitutional.
Historical Background:
The case reflects broader administrative reforms and anti-corruption measures pursued by the Philippine state to enhance public revenue collection critical for national development. It involves balancing employee rights with governmental efficiency in a historically evolving regulatory landscape.
Leave a Reply