Scribd
Upload
86 views1 page

Gomez V Palomar

This case involves the constitutionality of a law requiring additional postage stamps be purchased from August to September each year to raise funds for the Philippine Tuberculosis Society. The petitioner mailed a letter without these stamps and it was returned. He argued the tax violated equal protection and was invalid because it did not provide special benefits to mail users. The court ruled that eradicating disease is a valid public purpose, and taxpayers are not entitled to direct benefits from each tax, but rather benefit from living in a society where taxes support public goods that protect and serve citizens.

Uploaded by

artburce30
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
86 views1 page

Gomez V Palomar

This case involves the constitutionality of a law requiring additional postage stamps be purchased from August to September each year to raise funds for the Philippine Tuberculosis Society. The petitioner mailed a letter without these stamps and it was returned. He argued the tax violated equal protection and was invalid because it did not provide special benefits to mail users. The court ruled that eradicating disease is a valid public purpose, and taxpayers are not entitled to direct benefits from each tax, but rather benefit from living in a society where taxes support public goods that protect and serve citizens.

Uploaded by

artburce30
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

Gomez v.

Palomar

Facts:

This appeal puts in issue the constitutionality of Republic Act 1635, as amended by Republic Act
2631, which provides as follows:

To help raise funds for the Philippine Tuberculosis Society, the Director of Postsshall order for
the period from August nineteen to September thirty every year the printing and issue of semi-
postal stamps of different denominations with face value showing the regular postage charge plus
the additional amount of five centavos for the said purpose, and during the said period, no mail matter
shall be accepted in the mails unless it bears such semi-postal stamps: Provided, That no such additional
charge of five centavos shall be imposed on newspapers. The additional proceeds realized from the
sale of the semi-postal stamps shall constitute a special fund and be deposited with the National
Treasury to be expended by the Philippine Tuberculosis Society in carrying out its noble work to
prevent and eradicate tuberculosis.

The respondent Postmaster General, in implementation of the law, thereafter issued four (4)
administrative orders numbered 3 (June 20, 1958), 7 (August 9, 1958), 9 (August 28, 1958), and
10 (July 15, 1960). All these administrative orders were issued with the approval of the respondent
Secretary of Public Works and Communications.

On September 15, 1963 the petitioner Benjamin P. Gomez mailed a letter at the post office in
San Fernando, Pampanga. Because this letter, addressed to a certain Agustin Aquino of 1014 Dagohoy
Street, Singalong, Manila did not bear the special anti-TB stamp required by the statute, it was returned
to the petitioner. In view of this development, the petitioner brought suit for declaratory relief in
the Court of First Instance of Pampanga, to test the constitutionality of the statute, as well as
the implementing administrative orders issued, contending that it violates the equal protection
clause of the Constitution as well as the rule of uniformity and equality of taxation. Petitioner
argues that the tax in question in invalid because it is not levied for public purpose as no special benefits
accrue to mail users as a tax payer. The lower court declared the statute and the orders
unconstitutional; hence this appeal by the respondent postal authorities

Issue:

Whether or not the tax in question is invalid because it is not levied for a public purpose as no
special benefits accrue to mail users as taxpayers.

Ruling

NO. The eradication of a dreaded disease is a public purpose, but if by public purpose
the petitioner means benefit to a taxpayer as a return for what he pays, then it is sufficient answer to
say that the only benefit to which the taxpayer is constitutionally entitled is that derived from his
enjoyment of the privileges of living in an organized society, established and safeguarded by the
devotion of taxes to public purposes. Any other view would preclude the levying of taxes except as
they are used to compensate for the burden on those who pay them and would involve the
abandonment of the most fundamental principle of government —that it exists primarily to
provide for the common good.

You might also like