Back

Arturo M. Tolentino vs. Secretary of Finance, et al. [CONCURRING OPINION, J. PADILLA]

ARTURO M. TOLENTINO, petitioner, vs. THE SECRETARY OF FINANCE and THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, respondents. [CONCURRING OPINION, J. PADILLA]

G.R. No. 115455 | 1994-08-25

PADILLA, J., concurring:

I.

The original VAT law and the expanded VAT law

In Kapatiran v. Tan, 1 where the ponente was the writer of this Separate Opinion, a unanimous Supreme Court en banc upheld the validity of the original VAT law (Executive Order No. 273, approved on 25 July 1987). It will, in my view, be pointless at this time to re-open arguments advanced in said case as to why said VAT law was invalid, and it will be equally redundant to re-state the principles laid down by the Court in the same case affirming the validity of the VAT law as a tax measure. And yet, the same arguments are, in effect, marshalled against the merits...