G.R. No. L-58289 July 24, 1982
VALENTINO L. LEGASPI, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE MINISTER OF FINANCE and THE HONORABLE COMMISSIONER and/or THE BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Valentino L. Legaspi, a member of the interim Batasang Pambansa, sought a declaration of unconstitutionality against Presidential Decree No. 1840, which granted a tax amnesty. The decree was issued by the President invoking legislative powers under Amendment No. 6 of the 1973 Constitution, as ratified in the 1976 plebiscite. This amendment authorized the President to issue necessary decrees in times of grave emergency or when the legislature failed to act adequately on matters requiring immediate action. Petitioner contended that the issuance of the decree violated the constitutional scheme as the 1973 Constitution, subsequently amended in the April 7, 1981 plebiscite, vested legislative power solely in the Batasang Pambansa. He argued that Amendment No. 6 was effectively repealed by the 1981 amendments, which established separate offices of the President and Prime Minister and removed the transitory provisions referencing the “incumbent President.”
Petitioner asserted that the subject of the tax amnesty did not constitute an exigency requiring immediate presidential action, as the original amnesty decree had long been in effect while the Batasang Pambansa was in session. He claimed that PD 1840, being the first decree issued after the lifting of martial law and the 1981 amendments, tested the validity of the standby emergency powers. As a taxpayer and legislator, he alleged being in a quandary over whether to avail of the decree’s benefits due to its doubtful constitutionality, leaving him without its promised protections and potentially subject to prosecution.

ISSUE

Whether Amendment No. 6 of the 1973 Constitution, ratified in 1976, which granted the President legislative powers under specified conditions, remained operative after the Constitution was amended in the plebiscite held on April 7, 1981.

RULING

The Supreme Court, through Justice Barredo, upheld the constitutionality of Presidential Decree No. 1840 and ruled that Amendment No. 6 remained in full force and effect after the 1981 amendments. The Court rejected the petitioner’s theory of repeal by omission. The legal logic centered on constitutional interpretation, focusing on the intent behind the amendments. The Court found that the 1981 amendments did not manifest a clear intent to withdraw the emergency legislative power granted to the President under Amendment No. 6. Rather, the amendments primarily reorganized the executive branch by separating the offices of President and Prime Minister, transferring the powers originally intended for the Prime Minister in the parliamentary system to the President.
The Court emphasized that repeal by implication is not favored, especially concerning constitutional provisions. The power under Amendment No. 6 was deemed a “wise and transcendentally desirable concept” intended to address national emergencies, and its retention was consistent with the people’s understanding when they ratified the 1981 amendments. There was no indication that the electorate consciously voted to eliminate this standby power. Consequently, the President retained the authority to issue decrees like PD 1840 when, in his judgment, an exigency required immediate action. The decree was thus a valid exercise of constitutional power, and its implementation by the respondents was lawful.