Scribd
Upload
1K views1 page

206 Legaspi Vs Minister of Finance

Legaspi challenged the validity of Presidential Decree 1840 granting tax amnesty without the concurrence of the Batasang Pambansa. The Supreme Court ruled the decree was valid as President Marcos was acting as legislator pursuant to Amendment No. 6, which granted him concurrent legislative authority during times of crisis. The court noted Amendment No. 6 was not limited just to the current situation but also anticipated future emergencies, allowing Marcos to bypass the Batasang Pambansa's concurrence. The Presidential decree granting tax amnesty without legislative concurrence was upheld.

Uploaded by

Brent Torres
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
1K views1 page

206 Legaspi Vs Minister of Finance

Legaspi challenged the validity of Presidential Decree 1840 granting tax amnesty without the concurrence of the Batasang Pambansa. The Supreme Court ruled the decree was valid as President Marcos was acting as legislator pursuant to Amendment No. 6, which granted him concurrent legislative authority during times of crisis. The court noted Amendment No. 6 was not limited just to the current situation but also anticipated future emergencies, allowing Marcos to bypass the Batasang Pambansa's concurrence. The Presidential decree granting tax amnesty without legislative concurrence was upheld.

Uploaded by

Brent Torres
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
You are on page 1/ 1

LEGASPI VS MINISTER OF FINANCE

115 SCRA 418


G.R. No. L-58289 July 24, 1982

FACTS:
In 1982, after the lifting of Martial Law, Legaspi, then incumbent member of the interim
Batasang Pambansa, petitioned to declare Presidential Decree 1840 granting tax amnesty and
filing of statement of assets and liabilities and some other purposes unconstitutional. He argued
that said decree was promulgated despite the fact that under the Constitution (T)he Legislative
power shall be vested in a Batasang Pambansa (Sec. 1, Article VIII) and the President may grant
amnesty only with concurrence of the Batasang Pambansa. In this case, there was no concurrence
given by the IBP. Legaspi averred that since Martial Law is already lifted, the president can no
longer arbitrarily enact laws. At the same time, Legaspi averred that Amendment No. 6, which
provides legislative powers to Marcos, is invalid because that is no longer allowed after the lifting
of the ML.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Marcos can validly grant tax amnesties w/o the concurrence of the Batasan
Pambansa.

HELD:
SC ruled PD 1840 to be valid. Legaspi argued that PD 1840 is invalid for it did not enjoy
the concurrence of the Batasan. He relies on Article 7, Sec 11 of the Constitution which provides
that The President may, except in cases of impeachment, grant reprieves, commutations and
pardons, remit fines and forfeitures and with the concurrence of the Batasang Pambansa, grant
amnesty.

The SC noted that Article 7, sec. 11, applies only when the President is exercising his
power of executive clemency. In the case at bar, PD 1840 was issued pursuant to his power to
legislate under Amendment No. 6. It ought to be indubitable that when the President acts as
legislator as in the case at bar, he does not need the concurrence of the Batasan. Rather, he exercises
concurrent authority vested by the Constitution.

The amendment No. 6 is not only limited to the present situation but also to the seen future
situation to avoid the four built-in measures to cope with crises and emergencies:
(a) emergency powers expressly delegated by the Batasan;
(b) call of the armed forces, who otherwise are supposed to be in the barracks;
(c) suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus; and
(d) martial law [being the last]

You might also like