Attrition Act declared valid
THE Supreme Court in Bureau of Customs Employee Association vs. Hon. Teves, G.R. No. 181704, December 6, 2011, upheld the legality of the Attrition Act of 2005.
Republic Act (RA) No. 9335 also known as the Attrition Act of 2005 was enacted to optimize the revenue-generation capability and collection of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) and the Bureau of Customs (BOC).
The law intends to encourage BIR and BOC officials and employees to exceed their revenue targets by providing a system of rewards and sanctions through the creation of a Rewards and Incentives Fund (Fund) and a Revenue Performance Evaluation Board (Board).
It covers all officials and employees of the BIR and the BOC with at least six months of service, regardless of employment status.
Two tests determine the validity of delegation of legislative power: (1) the completeness test and (2) the sufficient standard test. A law is complete when it sets forth therein the policy to be executed, carried out or implemented by the delegate.
It lays down a sufficient standard when it provides adequate guidelines or limitations in the law to map out the boundaries of the delegate’s authority and prevent the delegation from running riot.
To be sufficient, the standard must specify the limits of the delegate’s authority, announce the legislative policy and identify the conditions under which it is to be implemented.
RA No. 9335 adequately states the policy and standards to guide the President in fixing revenue targets and the implementing agencies in carrying out the provisions of the law. Section 2 spells out the policy of the law.
Section 4 “canalized within banks that keep it from overflowing” the delegated power to the President to fix revenue targets.
Revenue targets are based on the original estimated revenue collection expected respectively of the BIR and the BOC for a given fiscal year as approved by the Development Budget and Coordinating Committee (DBCC) and stated in the Budget of Expenditures and Sources of Financing submitted by the President to Congress.
Thus, the determination of revenue targets does not rest solely on the President as it also undergoes the scrutiny of the DBCC.
On the other hand, Section 7 specifies the limits of the Board’s authority and identifies the conditions under which officials and employees whose revenue collection falls short of the target by at least 7.5% may be removed from the service.
At any rate, the Supreme Court has recognized the following as sufficient standards: “public interest”, “justice and equity”, “public convenience and welfare” and “simplicity, economy and welfare”.
In this case, the declared policy of optimization of the revenue-generation capability and collection of the BIR and the BOC is infused with public interest.
* **
You may contact the author at [email protected].
