With Due Respect

Apply new rules prospectively


Applauding the economy’s giant 7.8-percent leap for the first quarter of the year, the World Bank and the Management Association of the Philippines (MAP), the organization of top business executives of the country, called for the conversion of this naked growth to inclusive growth, one that alleviates poverty and creates jobs for our masses.

FDIs and hot money. To do that, MAP joined the Joint Foreign Chambers  (JFC) in urging our government to honor its commitments to regain its credibility and trustworthiness. In this space two weeks ago, I opined that trustworthiness is the reason foreign direct investments (FDIs) have come in trickles to the Philippines but have been poured massively on Malaysia, Thailand, Singapore, Indonesia and other neighbors.

FDIs are desired everywhere because, unlike “hot money,” they are rooted in and stay for many decades in basic industries that spur inclusive growth. Yes, inclusive growth, not just naked economic growth, is the goal of all countries because it promotes the prosperity of both the rich and the poor, both capital and labor, both the entrepreneurs and the masses.

Hot money is invested short term, like in the stock market, bonds or bank deposits that can flee as fast as they come in. FDIs are long-term commitments. Once invested, they cannot be withdrawn instantly. Hot money is not necessarily bad; it helps in the expansion of existing businesses and normally precedes the more desirable FDIs.

To attract FDIs, the JFC’s solution is simple and has been successfully used by other countries: Honor commitments. Don’t change rules midstream. MAP added that if rules are changed, the new ones should be applied prospectively so as not to prejudice existing investments.

San Roque Power. To help solve the electric power outages in the 1990s, Japanese investors led by Marubeni formed San Roque Power Corp. They invested a huge amount of capital in the company, which imported machinery to generate about 400 megawatts of electricity, on the government’s promise of exemption from the payment of value-added taxes (VAT). At that time, it took $1 million to generate one megawatt. Now the cost has doubled to $2 million per megawatt.

The benefits of VAT exemption are enjoyed not just by the investors but also by the power consumers. Without the exemption, the VAT paid to the government would be passed on to the consumers who would thus have to pay higher power rates.

Procedurally, San Roque was first required by the government to pay the VAT and then to apply for refund in the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR). The devil, as the saying goes, is in the details. And here’s where JFC’s lament starts.

Under the law (RA 8424), an application for VAT refund is required to be filed in the BIR. If the BIR rejects the application, or fails to act on it within 120 days, the applicant has 30 days to appeal to the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA). Otherwise, the VAT refund would be forfeited.

San Roque filed its refund application with the BIR on March 28, 2003. But even before the lapse of the 120 days, it filed a judicial claim in the CTA on April 10, 2003. This was the accepted practice at that time—to undergo both the administrative refund process in the BIR and the judicial process in the CTA simultaneously, instead of successively.

The simultaneous filing was justified because at that time, the law also required judicial claims for refund to be filed within two years from the submission of the VAT returns.

This time-saving practice of simultaneous processing was allowed by both the BIR and the CTA in at least 20 previous refund cases. But once simultaneous recourse to the CTA was availed of, the BIR suspended its own processing.

After appropriate hearings, the CTA granted San Roque the VAT refund. But unlike in the previous cases in which the BIR simply accepted the CTA decisions, the BIR appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that San Roque filed its judicial claim prematurely because it did not wait for the 120 days to lapse before going to the CTA.

On Jan. 12, 2011, the First Division of the high court unanimously dismissed the appeal and ordered the BIR to refund the VAT, holding that simultaneous processing was legally justified.

Reconsideration. However, the BIR moved for reconsideration. This time the court en banc, in a split decision last Feb. 12, reversed the First Division and held that San Roque was not entitled to the VAT refund because it should have first waited for the lapse of the 120 days in the BIR before filing its judicial claim in the CTA. To this decision, San Roque filed its own motion for reconsideration that is still pending.

I think JFC and MAP are not contesting the wisdom of the new decision; they are merely asking that it be applied prospectively to new refund applications, but not to San Roque and other similarly situated companies, which followed the old practice of simultaneous processing of refund applications sanctioned earlier by the BIR and the CTA.

I believe this stance is reasonable, fair and equitable. New rules in processing applications for VAT exemptions should be applied prospectively. Art. 4 of the Civil Code states: “[L]aws shall have no retroactive effect, unless the contrary is provided” in the law itself.

To show good faith, earn the confidence of investors and ultimately spread the fruits of our stunning economic growth with the poor, the government should heed the call of the World Bank, MAP and JFC.

* * *

Comments to

Get Inquirer updates while on the go, add us on these apps:

Inquirer Viber

Disclaimer: The comments uploaded on this site do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of management and owner of We reserve the right to exclude comments that we deem to be inconsistent with our editorial standards.


    Applying new rules…prospectively…because of the 7.8 economy? The yellow reasoning of Panganiban.
    The BIR has to keep up…not just by pleasing the 5-yr old lazy & clueless president…and not just to make a “tax saint” to his sister overnight….

  • apollo agcaoili

    Sino ba pinagsasabihan ni former CJ Panganiban? It’s BIR’s job to legally maximize revenue, while it’s the SC’s job to ensure justice and constancy. If the BIR is overreaching, then slap it down. If everybody automatically appeals after every ruling, then change the rules. If people still appeal after getting supposedly final SC rulings, then blame it on previous SC decisions that redefined the word “final”. Flip-flopping policies are somewhat expected in the executive and legislative branches, with new elections every 3 years. On the other hand, we depend on the judicial branch for constancy, so please provide it.

  • Guest

    No new rules here. It’s the same old sec. 112 of the NIRC that is involved. What changed was the old erroneous interpretation by the BIR of a clear provision of law to one that is a correct interpretation of the same clear legal provision.

  • conway

    Where’s my message? Why was it removed? I’ll say it again and add some more…

    No change of rules here. It’s the same sec. 112 of the NIRC that is involved. What changed was the old erroneous interpretation by the BIR of a clear legal provision to one that is a correct interpretation of the same clear legal provision.

    The answer to the taxpayers’ problem is not the prospective application of rules. There are other rules which can justify the continued processing (and not necessarily the approval) of their administrative claims which they prematurely filed before the CTA. One of the justifications is even hinted in the ponencia of Justice Carpio.

    Justice Leonen said in his separate opinion that “it is the duty of the lawyers of private parties to best discern the acceptable interpretation of legal text based upon methodologies familiar to lawyers.” Unfortunately for the affected taxpayers, their lawyers still do not know how to discern the law. I remember in one case, JFC/ECCP submitted to the government a position paper regarding the legality of TCC cross utilization. I saw the position paper and knew that it was copied verbatim from the work of a non-lawyer. I wonder how much their lawyers got paid for plagiarized work?!

To subscribe to the Philippine Daily Inquirer newspaper in the Philippines, call +63 2 896-6000 for Metro Manila and Metro Cebu or email your subscription request here.

Factual errors? Contact the Philippine Daily Inquirer's day desk. Believe this article violates journalistic ethics? Contact the Inquirer's Reader's Advocate. Or write The Readers' Advocate:

c/o Philippine Daily Inquirer Chino Roces Avenue corner Yague and Mascardo Streets, Makati City,Metro Manila, Philippines Or fax nos. +63 2 8974793 to 94


editors' picks

May 24, 2015

Feeling good