BIR, Abuse and Human Rights

Revenue Regulation 15-012 issued on December 3, 2012 prescribed the regulation on the accreditation of printers of invoices/ official receipts and other commercial receipts.

I could merely guess that the purpose of this regulation is for convenience, and a means to indirectly pass some of the work that the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) is supposed to be doing themselves consequently to the printers. But what is disturbing and apparent is it collides with the constitutional guarantee of liberty. The freedom to make a choice may have been impeded by this regulation. Business owners may have been effectively coerced by this regulation by subjecting them to the limitations listed therein.

We have to remember that after compliance to certain requirements, business licenses were awarded to, and the corresponding fees were paid by these printers to participate in the commercial activity of printing. The possible exclusion of most of them from the accreditation would amount to canceling that privilege to do business without due process, a sole authority that appropriately inures to the issuing agency. On the other hand, if there is anyone who has the right to accredit these printers, it should be the business owners that seek for their services. The BIR may have no legal ascendancy to unilaterally select printers for the taxpayer to utilize plainly because it negates freedom of choice and enterprise, an act that could be "void ab initio", as being defiant of the present constitutional constraint especially if the subjects are natural persons.

Similarly, BIR Revenue Regulations 11-2006, 4-2010 and 14-2010 prescribes the guidelines for the accreditation of tax practitioners. This would in effect bar even CPA’s and Lawyers not accredited by the BIR from making representation for their clients unless they submit to the requirements for accreditation. Again the BIR may not only be selecting for the taxpayer which professional a taxpayer can utilize but it may also be illegally and unethically disenfranchising licensed accountants and lawyers, and consequently preventing them to freely practice their profession through regulatory biases and discrimination. An actuation that cannot be appreciated by the licensing entities like the Professional Regulation Commission or the the Supreme Court. 

Moreso, these regulations for accreditation indirectly turns the BIR into a participant in the pre-selection of taxpayers service contractors by unilaterally endorsing them through the regulation. Which by any measure is highly questionable, irregular, even so, suppressive and dictatorial. 

No matter how noble, the end does not justify the means.