In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court of the Philippines sided with investor privacy, declaring Revenue Regulations No. 1-2014, Revenue Memorandum Circular No. 5-2014, and Securities and Exchange Commission Memorandum Circular No. 10-2014 unconstitutional. The Court found that requiring listed companies and broker dealers to disclose the personal information of dividend payees violated the right to privacy and lacked due process, setting a precedent for safeguarding financial data against overly broad government intrusion.

The Alphalist Under Scrutiny: Can Tax Regulations Trump Investor Privacy?

This case, The Philippine Stock Exchange, Inc. vs. Secretary of Finance, revolves around the constitutionality of regulations mandating the disclosure of dividend payees’ personal information. These regulations sought to amend existing practices where listed companies could report the Philippine Depository and Trust Corporation (PDTC) Nominee as the payee for dividends, thus maintaining investor anonymity. The new rules aimed to capture detailed data on income payments for tax administration purposes, but petitioners argued that this violated due process, privacy rights, and the principle of non-impairment of contracts.

The petitioners, including the Philippine Stock Exchange (PSE) and various financial associations, argued that the new regulations infringed upon the due process rights of investors by requiring disclosure without proper notice or hearing. Moreover, they claimed that the mandatory disclosure violated the right to privacy, compelling the sharing of sensitive personal information with third parties. Citing the Data Privacy Act, the petitioners asserted that the regulations lacked adequate safeguards to protect investor data from misuse. Furthermore, they contended that the SEC Chairperson acted beyond her jurisdiction in issuing a memorandum circular to supplement tax regulations, and that the regulations improperly amended the Securities Regulation Code (SRC) by restricting the use of “PCD Nominee”.

In response, the respondents—the Secretary of Finance, Commissioner of Internal Revenue, and Chairperson of the Securities and Exchange Commission—maintained that the regulations were necessary for effective tax collection and fell within the scope of their regulatory authority. They argued that the Data Privacy Act did not apply, as the information was required to carry out the functions of public authority. Additionally, they posited that the regulations did not violate the Bank Secrecy Law or unduly expand the Commissioner’s power to inquire into bank accounts.

The Supreme Court, in its analysis, first addressed the procedural issue of legal standing, affirming that the petitioners had third-party standing to represent the interests of their investors. The Court then delved into the substantive issues, examining the importance of the stock market, the withholding tax system, and the purpose of the challenged regulations.

The Court emphasized that while the state has the power to regulate stock market transactions, such regulations must align with constitutional principles, recognizing the role of the private sector and encouraging private enterprise. The decision highlighted the shift from the previous practice of non-disclosure to mandatory disclosure of investor identities. The court noted the ultimate objectives of the regulations—establishing a simulation model and formulating an analytical framework for policy analysis—were vague and subjective.

Central to the Court’s decision was the finding that the issuance of the questioned regulations violated due process. The Court distinguished between legislative and interpretative rules, holding that the regulations were legislative in nature because they imposed new obligations and substantially increased the burden on those governed. Since the regulations did not undergo prior notice and hearing, they were deemed invalid. Further, the Court found that the regulations violated the right to privacy, as they were not narrowly drawn to prevent abuses and lacked sufficient safeguards to protect investor information. The Court applied the strict scrutiny test, noting the regulations’ failure to ensure that the collected data would not be used for purposes outside of tax collection.

“In no uncertain terms, we also underscore that the right to privacy does not bar all incursions into individual privacy. The right is not intended to stifle scientific and technological advancements that enhance public service and the common good. It merely requires that the law be narrowly focused and a compelling interest justify such intrusions. Intrusions into the right must be accompanied by proper safeguards and well-defined standards to prevent unconstitutional invasions. We reiterate that any law or order that invades individual privacy will be subjected by this Court to strict scrutiny.” – Ople v. Torres, 354 Phil. 948 (1998)

The Court also determined that the SEC Chairperson exceeded her authority in issuing SEC MC 10-2014, as the SEC’s power to issue rules should be in accordance with its duty to implement the SRC and related corporate laws, not tax laws. The Court also concluded that in prohibiting the use of “PCD Nominee,” the Secretary of Finance and the CIR acted outside their scope of authority by delving into matters outside taxation and regulated by the SEC.

Moreover, the Supreme Court clarified that the regulations did not violate the Bank Secrecy Law, as investments in securities are not considered deposits. The court noted, “Investments in securities covered by scripless trading are not covered by the confidentiality rule under the Bank Secrecy Law.” Also, it ruled that the requirement for disclosure of payees of dividend payments was clear and unequivocal.

“It is said that taxes are what we pay for civilized society. Without taxes, the government would be paralyzed for lack of the motive power to activate and operate it. Hence, despite the natural reluctance to surrender part of one’s hard-earned income to the taxing authorities, every person who is able to must contribute [their] share in the running of the government.” – Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Algue, 241 Phil. 829 (1988)

This decision underscores the importance of balancing the state’s power to tax with the constitutional rights of individuals. While the Court acknowledged the emerging trend towards disclosure of beneficial ownership information, it emphasized that administrative agencies must comply with the Constitution, laws, and jurisprudence. This ruling reaffirms the judiciary’s role in safeguarding individual liberties against potentially overreaching government actions.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the government regulations requiring the disclosure of dividend payees’ personal information violated the constitutional rights to due process and privacy. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of protecting these rights.
What did the Revenue Regulations 1-2014, Revenue Memorandum Circular 5-2014, and Securities and Exchange Commission Memorandum Circular 10-14 aim to do?	These regulations aimed to establish a comprehensive taxpayer database by requiring listed companies and broker dealers to disclose the personal information of dividend payees, replacing the practice of using “PCD Nominee.” The goal was to enhance tax collection and policy analysis.
Why did the Supreme Court declare these regulations unconstitutional?	The Court found that the regulations violated due process by not undergoing proper notice and hearing, and infringed upon the right to privacy by lacking sufficient safeguards for investor data. The SEC Chairperson also acted beyond her authority.
What is third-party standing, and why was it important in this case?	Third-party standing allows a party to bring a lawsuit on behalf of others who may be affected by a law or regulation. In this case, the petitioners had third-party standing to represent the interests of their investors.
How did the Data Privacy Act factor into the Court’s decision?	The Court held that the regulations did not comply with the Data Privacy Act because they failed to provide adequate guarantees for protecting sensitive personal information. The State did not demonstrate that the data collection was narrowly tailored.
What is the significance of the “strict scrutiny” test in this case?	The “strict scrutiny” test requires the government to demonstrate a compelling state interest and that the means chosen are narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. The Court found that the regulations failed to meet this test.
Did the Court find any violations of the Bank Secrecy Law in this case?	No, the Court clarified that investments in securities covered by scripless trading are not subject to the confidentiality rule under the Bank Secrecy Law. This is because such investments are not considered deposits.
What does this ruling mean for the future of tax regulations in the Philippines?	This ruling sets a precedent for balancing the state’s power to tax with the protection of individual constitutional rights. It emphasizes the need for due process, privacy safeguards, and clear legal authority when implementing tax regulations.
What was the main issue in the GESMUNDO, CJ CONCURRING OPINION	The GESMUNDO, CJ CONCURRING OPINION agreed to grant the petition citing concerns on due process. RR 1-2014 must do so capriciously, based on some arbitrary purpose to the detriment of stockholders, as it will not anymore be within the confines of the Tax Code
What was the main issue in the LEONEN, J SEPARATE CONCURRING OPINION	The LEONEN, J SEPARATE CONCURRING OPINION also agreed to grant the petition noting that issuances that creates responsibilities where none existed before and did not procure the permission of the individual investors for the transfer of their personal information from their broker dealers to the listed companies and failed to provide a mechanism to safeguard the personal information of the individual investors. The Court held that public respondents never accused the listed companies of withholding and remitting the wrong amount.
What was the main issue in the LAZARO-JAVIER, J CONCURRENCE and DISSENT	The LAZARO-JAVIER, J CONCURRENCE and DISSENT concurred that the assailed issuances are void due to non-compliance with the foregoing statutory requirements. The data privacy objection would have been easily obviated even without resorting to Section 4(e) of the Data Privacy Act and would have also been able to make the necessary adjustments, especially the individual investors most impacted by this new requirement

The Supreme Court’s decision in The Philippine Stock Exchange, Inc. vs. Secretary of Finance reinforces the importance of safeguarding individual rights while pursuing legitimate government objectives. This ruling serves as a reminder that administrative regulations must adhere to constitutional principles and respect the privacy expectations of individuals.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: THE PHILIPPINE STOCK EXCHANGE, INC., VS. SECRETARY OF FINANCE, 68497, July 05, 2022