The text at hand is a Concurring Opinion in G.R. No. 280898, which addressed a petition seeking to nullify Republic Act No. 12079, the law creating a VAT refund mechanism for non-resident tourists. In this Concurring Opinion, Associate Justice Sinko-Singh voted to dismiss the petition, stating: "Thus, I CONCUR to dismiss the Petition."
The Case
This was a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition assailing the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 12079 or "An Act Creating a VAT Refund Mechanism for Non-Resident Tourists, Adding a New Section 112-A to the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997, as amended, for the Purpose," for allegedly violating Article VI, Section 28(1) of the Constitution.
On March 6, 2023, House Bill No. 7292 was approved on third reading by the House of Representatives. On March 7, 2023, it was sent to the Senate and referred to the Senate Committee on Ways and Means. On September 23, 2024, the Senate approved on third reading its own version, Senate Bill No. 2415. On September 26, 2024, the House of Representatives adopted Senate Bill No. 2415 as an amendment to House Bill No. 7292, so the creation of a Bicameral Conference Committee was deemed no longer necessary.
On December 9, 2024, Republic Act No. 12079 was signed into law, inserting a new Section 112-A under Title IV, Chapter I of the National Internal Revenue Code. It grants a VAT refund for foreign tourists under certain conditions. On March 24, 2025, the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) were signed by former Department of Finance Secretary Ralph G. Recto, Bureau of Customs Commissioner Bienvenido Y. Rubio, and Bureau of Internal Revenue Deputy Commissioner Marissa O. Cabreros.
Petitioner John Barry T. Tayam sought to nullify Republic Act No. 12079 on the ground that the VAT refund for non-resident foreign tourists allegedly violated the constitutional right to equal protection of the law because the measure excluded Filipino citizens.
The Issue
The petition questioned whether Republic Act No. 12079 is constitutional, particularly whether granting a VAT refund only to non-resident foreign tourists violates the equal protection clause and the constitutional rule on taxation.
The Ruling
The document available here is a Concurring Opinion, not the majority opinion. In it, Associate Justice Sinko-Singh expressed agreement with dismissing the petition, closing with the line: "Thus, I CONCUR to dismiss the Petition."
By the Numbers
- G.R. No. 280898
- March 6, 2023 — House Bill No. 7292 approved on third reading by the House of Representatives
- September 23, 2024 — Senate approved Senate Bill No. 2415 on third reading
- September 26, 2024 — House adopted Senate Bill No. 2415
- December 9, 2024 — Republic Act No. 12079 signed into law
- March 24, 2025 — IRR signed
- 60 days — period within which goods must be taken out of the Philippines
- PHP 3,000.00 — minimum value of goods purchased per transaction
- Projected net benefit of PHP 3.3 billion to PHP 5.7 billion per annum from 2024 to 2028
- Additional employment of 4,400 to 7,100 per annum from 2024 to 2028
The Concurring Opinion's Reasoning
In this Concurring Opinion, Associate Justice Sinko-Singh noted that Section 112-A(a)(2) of the Tax Code, inserted by Republic Act No. 12079, provides a temporal limitation requiring that goods purchased by a tourist be brought out of the country within 60 days from the date of purchase; otherwise, no VAT refund will be granted.
The concurrence addressed the petitioner's concern that foreigners holding long-term visas, such as work or retirement visas, would be at a disadvantage compared to short-stay tourists. It stated that such foreigners may still avail of the VAT refund for as long as they have no residence in the Philippines and they take the goods out of the country within 60 days and consume them elsewhere.
On Filipinos living or working abroad who visit the Philippines using their Philippine passports, the concurrence explained that they remain citizens of the Philippines by the mere fact that they hold Philippine passports and cannot be considered "foreign tourists" in their own country. Because their Philippine citizenship allows them to stay for as long as they like, they would be able to fully or partially consume the eligible goods here.
On the argument that the mechanism would result in substantial revenue loss, the concurrence stated that the Court cannot review the wisdom or propriety of governmental policies unless there is patent unconstitutionality or grave abuse of discretion, and those two grounds are not present. It added that the supposed revenue loss is an investment to make the country a viable destination for tourists, and that any loss may be offset by expansion of the tax base as more tourists generate more economic activity and more tax revenues.
The concurrence cited the sponsorship speech of Senator Sherwin Gatchalian, which presented projections from the National Economic and Development Authority of a net benefit of PHP 3.3 billion to PHP 5.7 billion per annum and additional employment of 4,400 to 7,100 per annum from 2024 to 2028.
Source: Concurring Opinion of Associate Justice Sinko-Singh in G.R. No. 280898.
This report summarizes a public Supreme Court decision and is not legal advice.