Practice question
A revenue measure imposes a compulsory levy whose sole established use is paying a named private owner's personal liabilities. Officials admit that there is no public program or genuine public benefit, but argue that the Constitution's taxing clauses omit an express sentence banning this precise scheme. Is the levy valid on that reasoning?
- Yes, every limitation must list the exact scheme
- Yes, private debt payment is always a public purpose
- No; public purpose is an inherent limitation and the stipulated purely private use fails it
- Yes, public collection transforms every private use
- No, because government may never engage with private entities
Legal references
- 1987 Constitution, Article III Sections 1 and 20, Article VI Sections 24 and 28, Article X Section 5: https://lawphil.net/consti/cons1987.html
- Planters Products v. Fertiphil, GR166006, March14 2008, main decision: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_166006_2008.html
- CIR v. Algue, GR L-28896, February 17 1988, main decision: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1988/feb1988/gr_l-28896_1988.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.