Some relevant and important facts about the TRAIN law: Title of the law: This Act shall be known as the “Tax Reform for Acceleration and Inclusion” [1] Known as: “TRAIN LAW” Date the law was signed: 19 December 2017 Date of Effectivity: January 1, 2018   “This Act shall take effect on January 1, 2018 following its complete publication in the Official Gazette or in at least one (1) newspaper of general circulation. [2] What's new in this law? It introduces Significant and MAJOR Amendments to the NIRC of 1997 [3], are now in place, particularly: Personal Income tax rates Passive incomes Estate tax Donor’s tax VAT by expanding the tax base Removal of VAT exemptions Adjustments on Excise tax of Fuel. Automobiles, coal, Documentary Stamps tax New tax impose on sweetened beverages New tax impose on cosmetic procedure (non-essential services) Salient Features (distinguishing features): Has 87 Sections. It REPEALED Sections 35, [4] 62 [5] and 89 [6] of Tax code

In the case of People vs Siton, GR no. 169364, September 18, 2009 the constitutionality of Art. 202 of Revised Penal Code was challenged by in here respondents. They contention are thus: "On the other hand, respondents argue against the limited application of the overbreadth and vagueness doctrines. They insist that Article 202 (2) on its face violates the constitutionally-guaranteed rights to due process and the equal protection of the laws; that the due process vagueness standard, as distinguished from the free speech vagueness doctrine, is adequate to declare Article 202 (2) unconstitutional and void on its face; and that the presumption of constitutionality was adequately overthrown." The petitioner also contends that: etitioner argues that every statute is presumed valid and all reasonable doubts should be resolved in favor of its constitutionality; that, citing Romualdez v. Sandiganbayan, the overbreadth and vagueness doctrines have special application to free-

G.R. No. 187587| June 5, 2013  697 SCRA 359 Nagkakaisang Maralita ng Sitio Masigasig, Inc. vs. Military Shrine Services-Philippine Veterans Affairs Office, Department of National Defense; NMSI , Petitioner, vs. MSS - PVAO, DND,  Respondent; ---and--- G.R. No. 187654| June 5, 2013 WBLOA, INC. , represented by its Board of Directors, Petitioner, vs.    MSS - PVAO, DND , Respondent. Ponente :  SERENO, CJ.:  Doctrines :  (1) Petitioners suggest that there should be no distinction between laws of general applicability and those which are not; that publication means complete publication; and that the publication must be made forthwith in the Official Gazette. (2) The requirement of publication is indispensable to give effect to the law, unless the law itself has otherwise provided.  (3) The Supreme Court cannot rely on a handwritten note that was not part of Proclamation No. 2476 as published. Without publication, the note never had any legal force and effect.  (4) It is well-se

G.R. No. L-63915| December 29, 1986 LORENZO M. TAÑADA, ABRAHAM F. SARMIENTO, and MOVEMENT OF ATTORNEYS FOR BROTHERHOOD, INTEGRITY AND NATIONALISM, INC. (MABINI),  petitioners, vs. HON. JUAN C. TUVERA, in his capacity as Executive Assistant to the President, HON. JOAQUIN VENUS, in his capacity as Deputy Executive Assistant to the President, MELQUIADES P. DE LA CRUZ, ETC., ET AL.,  respondents. Topics : Statutes, Constitutional Law, Local Governments, Publication Ponente: Cruz, J; Doctrines: (1) The clause "unless it is otherwise provided" in Art 2 of the NCC refers to the effectivity of laws and not to the requirement of publication. (2) The prior publication of laws before they become effective cannot be dispensed with. (3) For purposes of the prior publication requirement for effectivity, the term "laws" refer not only to those of general application, but also to laws of local application, private laws; administrative rules enforcing a statute; city chart

G.R. No. 107968| October 30, 1996 ELIAS S. CIPRIANO and/or E.S. CIPRIANO ENTERPRISES , petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS and MACLIN ELECTRONICS, INC .,  respondents. Rationale: A VIOLATION OF A STATUTORY DUTY IS NEGLIGENCE PER SE. - We have already held that violation of a statutory duty is negligence per se. In F.F. Cruz and Co., Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, we held the owner of a furniture shop liable for the destruction of the plaintiff's house in a fire which started in his establishment in view of his failure to comply with an ordinance which required the construction of a firewall. In Teaque vs. Fernandez, we stated that where the very injury which was intended to be prevented by the ordinance has happened, none compliance with the ordinance was not only an act of negligence, but also the proximate cause of the death. Indeed, the existence of a contract between petitioner and private respondent does not bar a finding of negligence under the principles of quasi-delict,