Republic Act No. 9335 (Attrition Act of 2005) and its Implementing Rules and Regulations are constitutional, do not constitute an undue delegation of legislative power, do not violate the rights to equal protection, security of tenure, or due process of covered employees, and do not constitute a bill of attainder.

Republic Act No. 9335, 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). It aimed to encourage BIR and BOC officials and employees to exceed their revenue targets by establishing a system of rewards and sanctions, including a Rewards and Incentives Fund and a Revenue Performance Evaluation Board. The law covered all officials and employees of the BIR and BOC with at least six months of service.

• On January 25, 2005, R.A. No. 9335 (Attrition Act of 2005) was signed into law, taking effect on February 11, 2005, aiming to improve revenue collection by BIR and BOC through rewards and sanctions.
• The Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 9335 were approved by the Joint Congressional Oversight Committee on May 22, 2006, published on May 30, 2006, and became effective 15 days later.
• In 2008, high-ranking BOC officials began disseminating Collection District Performance Contracts to lower-ranking officials and rank-and-file employees, requiring them to meet allocated revenue collection targets or voluntarily submit to sanctions under R.A. No. 9335 and its IRR.
• BOCEA, an association of rank-and-file BOC employees, contended that the revenue targets were impossible to meet due to government policies (e.g., reduced tariff rates) and other economic factors.
• BOCEA alleged that some BOC employees were coerced into signing the Performance Contracts, with threats of reassignment, reshuffling, or floating status if they refused.
• BOCEA President Romulo A. Pagulayan claimed he was harassed and threatened with lawsuits, and requests for dialogues and a certified true copy of the Performance Contract were largely unheeded.
• BOCEA filed a direct petition with the Supreme Court on March 3, 2008, asserting the unconstitutionality of R.A. No. 9335 and its IRR.
• BOCEA also alleged anomalous selection, distribution, and allocation of rewards under R.A. No. 9335, claiming top officials received huge sums while rank-and-file collectors received pittances.
• BOCEA further averred that five BOC officials from the Port of Manila were subjected to attrition despite substantial compliance with R.A. No. 9335, deeming their selection arbitrary.

• R.A. No. 9335 and its IRR violate the right to due process of BIR and BOC employees because termination for not meeting revenue targets is peremptory, without a hearing, and immediately executory, negating CSC remedies.
• R.A. No. 9335 and its IRR violate the right to equal protection by unduly discriminating against BIR and BOC employees compared to employees of other revenue-generating government agencies not subject to attrition.
• R.A. No. 9335 and its IRR violate the right to security of tenure by removing remedies under ordinary administrative procedure and creating a new, unpredictable, arbitrary, and unreasonable ground for dismissal (non-attainment of revenue targets).
• R.A. No. 9335 and its IRR constitute an undue delegation of legislative power to the Revenue Performance Evaluation Board, granting it unbridled discretion in formulating termination criteria, allocating targets, distributing rewards, and determining relevant factors affecting collection.
• R.A. No. 9335 is a bill of attainder because it inflicts punishment (removal from service) upon a particular group (BIR and BOC employees) without trial, with removal being immediately executory and disregarding the presumption of regularity.
• The law is unduly oppressive as it shifts the burden of collection to employees despite government policies making collection difficult (e.g., reduced tariffs, tax exemptions).
• The reward system under R.A. No. 9335 disproportionately benefited high-ranking officials not directly involved in revenue collection.

• R.A. No. 9335 and its IRR do not violate the right to due process and security of tenure, as the guarantee of security of tenure is not perpetual employment, and the law provides a reasonable and valid ground for dismissal germane to its purpose.
• Separation from service under R.A. No. 9335 and its IRR requires compliance with substantive and procedural due process, and the law enjoys a presumption of constitutionality.
• The classification of BIR and BOC employees under R.A. No. 9335 is based on a valid and substantial distinction, as these agencies' primary function is tax collection, the lifeblood of the State, making them sui generis.
• R.A. No. 9335 complies with the "completeness" and "sufficient standard" tests for permissible delegation of legislative power, with parameters set for identifying officials subject to attrition and procedures for removal.
• R.A. No. 9335 is not a bill of attainder as it merely defines an offense and provides a penalty, with separation from service subject to due consideration of relevant factors, Civil Service laws, and due process; there is no prevention from appealing dismissal.
• The Performance Contract serves as a notice of revenue targets and potential consequences, not a violation of due process.
• The constitutionality of R.A. No. 9335, except for Section 12, was already upheld in Abakada Guro Party List v. Purisima.

• Whether R.A. No. 9335 and its IRR constitute an undue delegation of legislative power to the Revenue Performance Evaluation Board.
• Whether R.A. No. 9335 and its IRR violate the rights of BOCEA's members to equal protection of the laws.
• Whether R.A. No. 9335 and its IRR violate the rights of BOCEA's members to security of tenure.
• Whether R.A. No. 9335 and its IRR violate the rights of BOCEA's members to due process.
• Whether R.A. No. 9335 is a bill of attainder.

• The petition is dismissed. R.A. No. 9335 does not involve an undue delegation of legislative power. The law satisfies the completeness test by setting forth the policy to be executed and the sufficient standard test by providing adequate guidelines and limitations for the delegate's authority, particularly in Sections 2, 4, and 7.
• R.A. No. 9335 does not violate the equal protection clause. The classification of BIR and BOC employees is valid as these agencies have the common distinct primary function of generating revenues for the national government through tax and customs duties collection, a distinction germane to the law's purpose.
• R.A. No. 9335 does not violate the right to security of tenure. The law provides a reasonable yardstick for removal (revenue collection falling short by at least 7.5%) analogous to inefficiency and incompetence, and removal is subject to civil service laws, rules, and due process.
• R.A. No. 9335 does not violate the right to due process. Section 7(b) and (c) ensure that concerned employees are not capriciously terminated, with due consideration of relevant factors affecting collection and exemptions. The right to be heard and to appeal is not denied.
• R.A. No. 9335 is not a bill of attainder. It does not inflict punishment without a judicial trial but merely lays down grounds for termination and its consequences, with democratic processes and constitutional rights of employees protected.
• The Court reiterated its findings in Abakada Guro Party List v. Purisima regarding the constitutionality of R.A. No. 9335 (except Section 12) and the presumed validity of its IRR.
• Allegations of defects and anomalies in the implementation of R.A. No. 9335, such as in the allocation of rewards, pertain to faithful implementation rather than constitutionality and are matters for the Executive branch to investigate.

• Locus Standi — A personal and substantial interest in the case such that the party has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of the governmental act that is being challenged. Applied here, BOCEA was found to have locus standi as its members (rank-and-file BOC employees) are directly affected by R.A. No. 9335 and its IRR.
• Separation of Powers — The doctrine that ordains that each of the three great branches of government has exclusive cognizance of and is supreme in matters falling within its own constitutionally allocated sphere. This doctrine was discussed in the context of legislative power delegation.
• Non-delegation of Legislative Power (Potestas Delegata Non Delegari Potest) — The principle that what has been delegated cannot be delegated further; a delegated power constitutes a duty to be performed by the delegate through their own judgment. The Court found that R.A. No. 9335 is a valid exception as it passes the completeness and sufficient standard tests for delegation to administrative agencies.
• Completeness Test — A test for valid delegation of legislative power requiring that the law sets forth the policy to be executed, carried out, or implemented by the delegate. The Court held R.A. No. 9335 met this test as Section 2 clearly states its policy.
• Sufficient Standard Test — A test for valid delegation of legislative power requiring that the law provides adequate guidelines or limitations to map out the boundaries of the delegate's authority and prevent it from running riot. The Court found Sections 4 and 7 of R.A. No. 9335 provided sufficient standards for the Revenue Performance Evaluation Board.
• Equal Protection Clause — A constitutional guarantee that all persons or things similarly situated should be treated in a similar manner, both as to rights conferred and responsibilities imposed, and that classifications must have a reasonable foundation and not be arbitrary. The Court held the classification of BIR and BOC employees under R.A. No. 9335 was valid due to their unique revenue-generating function.
• Security of Tenure — A constitutional guarantee that an employee cannot be dismissed from service for causes other than those provided by law and only after due process is accorded. The Court ruled that R.A. No. 9335 provides a reasonable ground for removal (akin to inefficiency) and is subject to due process.
• Due Process of Law (Administrative) — The essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard, or a fair and reasonable opportunity to explain one's side. The Court found that R.A. No. 9335 and its IRR provide for due consideration of factors and the right to appeal, thus satisfying due process.
• Bill of Attainder — A legislative act which inflicts punishment on individuals or members of a particular group without a judicial trial. The Court determined R.A. No. 9335 is not a bill of attainder as it does not inflict punishment without trial but lays down grounds for termination with due process.
• Presumption of Constitutionality — Laws are presumed to be constitutional, and to justify nullification, there must be a clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution. This presumption was applied in upholding R.A. No. 9335.

• "RA [No.] 9335 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)."
• "The equal protection clause recognizes a valid classification, that is, a classification that has a reasonable foundation or rational basis and not arbitrary."
• "The guarantee of security of tenure only means that an employee cannot be dismissed from the service for causes other than those provided by law and only after due process is accorded the employee."
• "A bill of attainder is a legislative act which inflicts punishment on individuals or members of a particular group without a judicial trial."
• "Just like any other law, R.A. No. 9335 has in its favor the presumption of constitutionality, and to justify its nullification, there must be a clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution and not one that is doubtful, speculative, or argumentative."

• Abakada Guro Party List v. Purisima (G.R. No. 166715, August 14, 2008, 562 SCRA 251) — Referenced extensively as the primary case that previously upheld the constitutionality of most provisions of R.A. No. 9335 and its IRR. The current ruling reiterated many of the holdings from Abakada.
• Gerochi v. Department of Energy (G.R. No. 159796, July 17, 2007, 527 SCRA 696) — Cited to explain the rationale for allowing delegation of legislative power to specialized administrative agencies, emphasizing the need for such delegation in the face of increasing complexity of modern life and the requirements of the completeness and sufficient standard tests.
• Funa v. Ermita (G.R. No. 184740, February 11, 2010, 612 SCRA 308) — Cited in relation to the discussion of locus standi.
• Angara v. Electoral Commission (63 Phil. 139 (1936)) — Cited in relation to the principle of separation of powers.
• Abakada Guro Party List v. Ermita (G.R. Nos. 168056, etc., September 1, 2005, 469 SCRA 1) — Cited for the definition of the non-delegation of powers principle and its exceptions, including delegation to administrative bodies.
• Biraogo v. Philippine Truth Commission of 2010 (G.R. Nos. 192935 & 193036, December 7, 2010, 637 SCRA 78) — Cited for the definition of the equal protection clause.
• Association of International Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Philippine Ports Authority (G.R. No. 158000, March 31, 2005, 454 SCRA 701) — Cited for the definition of administrative due process as an opportunity to be heard.
• Tuason v. Register of Deeds, Caloocan City (No. L-70484, January 29, 1988, 157 SCRA 613) — Justice Feliciano's concurring opinion in this case was cited for its historical tracing and definition of a bill of attainder.
• People v. Ferrer (48 SCRA 382 [1972]) — Cited as a key case defining a bill of attainder.
• Misolas v. Panga (G.R. No. 83341, January 30, 1990, 181 SCRA 648) — Cited in relation to the elements of a bill of attainder.
• Ortega v. People (G.R. No. 151085, August 20, 2008, 562 SCRA 450) — Cited for the principle that courts have no discretion to give statutes a meaning detached from their manifest intendment.
• Arceta v. Mangrobang (G.R. Nos. 152895 & 153151, June 15, 2004, 432 SCRA 136) — Cited for the principle that to nullify a law, there must be a clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution.

• Republic Act No. 9335 (Attrition Act of 2005) — The entire law was the subject of the constitutional challenge.
  • Sec. 2 (Declaration of Policy) — Cited to show the law's stated policy, satisfying part of the completeness test for delegation of power.
  • Sec. 4 (Rewards and Incentives Fund) — Cited as providing standards for the President and implementing agencies regarding revenue targets and fund sourcing, relevant to the sufficient standard test.
  • Sec. 5 (Incentives to District Collection Offices) — Mentioned in relation to the Board's role in prescribing rules for district rewards, linked to Section 7(a).
  • Sec. 7 (Powers and Functions of the Board) — Specifically Sec. 7(a), (b), and (c) were cited as providing limits on the Board's authority, setting criteria for removal, ensuring due process, and detailing exemptions, relevant to non-delegation, due process, and security of tenure.
  • Sec. 8 (Liability of Officials, Examiners and Employees of the BIR and the BOC) — Mentioned to show that the Act itself does not tolerate graft and corruption.
  • Sec. 9 (Right to Appeal) — Cited to demonstrate that employees are not deprived of the right to appeal termination decisions, supporting the due process argument.
  • Sec. 12 (Joint Congressional Oversight Committee) — Mentioned as having been declared unconstitutional in Abakada for violating separation of powers, but its invalidity did not affect the rest of the Act.
  • Sec. 13 (Separability Clause) — Relied upon in Abakada to uphold the remainder of R.A. No. 9335 after Sec. 12 was struck down.
• Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 9335 — Challenged alongside the main Act.
  • Sec. 19 (Relevant Factors Affecting Collection) — Cited to show that factors beyond an employee's control are considered, supporting due process.
  • Sec. 20 (Right to Appeal) — Cited to detail the appeal process for terminated employees, reinforcing due process.
  • Sec. 25(b) of the IRR — Referenced in the Performance Contract as providing for the setting of criteria for removal.
• 1987 Constitution, Article III, Section 22 — Prohibits the enactment of ex post facto laws or bills of attainder. This was the basis for petitioner's claim that R.A. No. 9335 is a bill of attainder.
• 1987 Constitution, Article IX (B), Section 2(3) — Guarantees security of tenure for civil service employees. Petitioner claimed this was violated.
• 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 65 — The procedural basis for the petition for certiorari and prohibition.

• Justice Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno — Concurred with the dismissal but highlighted the contradiction created by the government fostering low-tariff regimes (reducing the customs revenue base) while simultaneously increasing customs revenue collection targets under R.A. No. 9335. She argued that while the petitioner failed to sufficiently prove the unreasonableness of the statute due to this contradiction, it is an issue the government must address. She suggested that the State, as the obligee, may be preventing the fulfillment of the condition (meeting revenue targets) by its own actions (lowering tariffs), akin to Article 1186 of the Civil Code. She also urged Congress to revisit its constitutional duty to set tariffs, which seems to have been excessively defaulted to the President.