Conclusion
There is an irony in tax administration: the government spends enormous resources pursuing taxpayers who do not pay the correct taxes, but periodically offers these same taxpayers an opportunity to wipe their non-compliance slate clean.
Tax amnesties have been part of the Philippine tax system for decades. I have encountered many of them from different perspectives- as a tax administrator, tax adviser and consultant, and taxpayer. I have participated, in varying capacities, in the conceptualization and administration of some of these programs and in advising taxpayers considering their availment. This experience has convinced me that tax amnesty can be useful-but too much amnesty can be harmful.
Following the 1986 Edsa Revolution, Executive Order No. 41 (1986) granted a tax amnesty covering previously untaxed income and wealth, subject to payment of prescribed amnesty taxes. This was supplemented by other issuances, including EO 64 (1986), as the new government sought both additional revenues and a fresh start for taxpayers.
There were other specialized amnesties. Republic Act No. 7498 (1992) granted tax amnesty to persons repatriating foreign currencies and securities to the Philippines.
The most significant modern general amnesty was RA 9480, the Tax Amnesty Act of 2007. It covered unpaid national internal revenue taxes for taxable year 2005 and prior years, generally requiring the filing of a Tax Amnesty Return and Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth and payment of an amnesty tax.
Its collection results are instructive. The BIR reported that 20,629 taxpayers paid P5.902 billion under RA 9480-P989.1 million in 2007 and P4.913 billion in 2008.
More than a decade later, RA 11213, the Tax Amnesty Act of 2019, was proposed by Congress. This measure proposed for a broad general tax amnesty covering unpaid national internal revenue taxes for 2017 and prior years. President Rodrigo Duterte, however, vetoed the general amnesty provisions because of the absence of safeguards, including relaxation of bank secrecy and mechanisms for exchange of information.
Only the Estate Tax Amnesty and the Settlement of Delinquent Accounts measures were passed after the President vetoed the General Tax Amnesty provisions. These amnesty and tax settlement measures were contained in RA 11213 dated February 14, 2019.
The tax amnesty for unpaid Estate tax obligations provided for a 6 percent of the value of the estate at the time of death, without penalties for late payment. This provided relief to the heirs of the deceased who were prevented from settling the estate due to the high costs of taxes and other transfer costs prior to this amnesty.
On the other hand, Revenue Regulations No. 4-2019 for the settlement of delinquent accounts, qualified taxpayers generally were given the opportunity to pay only 40 percent of basic tax for final and executory assessments, 50 percent for cases with final court judgments, 60 percent for certain pending criminal cases, and 100 percent of basic tax for withholding taxes withheld but not remitted-with interest, surcharges and penalties being waived upon compliance.
The program produced meaningful collections. By June 2021, the BIR had collected P13.8 billion from 85,556 taxpayers from the delinquency and estate-tax amnesties. The Department of Finance subsequently reported P14.6 billion in additional collections from RA 11213 for 2019-2021.
The Estate Tax Amnesty was subsequently extended-first through RA 11569 in 2021 and again through RA 11956 in 2023, ultimately allowing availment until June 2025.
There have likewise been administrative programs that, while technically not legislative general amnesties, offered taxpayers opportunities to settle liabilities on preferential terms. Several of these administrative tax amnesties were offered by the BIR over the past decades of its existence. A number are discussed below:
The Compromise Settlement Program, based on Section 204 of the Tax Code, permits settlement where there is doubtful validity of an assessment or financial incapacity. In 2008 alone, compromise settlements generated about P3.62 billion.
During the pandemic, the BIR introduced the Voluntary Assessment and Payment Program (VAPP) under RR No. 21-2020, covering taxable year 2018 under prescribed conditions. Taxpayers voluntarily paid additional taxes in exchange for defined privileges, providing the government badly needed revenue while giving taxpayers an opportunity to regularize prior declarations.
Now another general tax amnesty is on the horizon.
In his July 27, 2026 State of the Nation Address, President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. asked Congress to enact tax relief measures, including an amnesty covering unpaid income tax, estate tax, donor’s tax, VAT and corresponding penalties. TI support giving deserving taxpayers a genuine opportunity for a fresh start. But Congress should carefully consider the lessons of our repeated amnesties.
Continuous tax amnesties can actually discourage voluntary compliance.
A taxpayer who consistently and honestly declares his correct income and pays the proper tax may understandably ask: Why should I faithfully comply every year when others habitually under declare their taxes, wait several years, and eventually settle through another amnesty at substantially reduced cost?
Worse, repeated amnesties can create an expectation among chronic non-compliers that another one will eventually arrive. Amnesty then ceases to be an extraordinary opportunity for reform and becomes part of a taxpayer’s tax-planning strategy.
That is unfair to the great majority of honest taxpayers.
The proposed general amnesty should therefore contain strong post-amnesty safeguards. Congress should consider requiring full disclosure of assets and liabilities where appropriate; effective information exchange among government agencies; appropriate access to financial information subject to legal safeguards; permanent digital records of availment; and intensified post-amnesty risk monitoring.
Most importantly, a taxpayer who avails of the amnesty but thereafter deliberately returns to substantial underdeclaration or fraudulent non-compliance should face enhanced penalties, priority audit and prosecution, and should not be allowed repeatedly to benefit from future general amnesties.
The government should make the bargain unmistakable:
We will give you a clean slate-but not an unlimited supply of erasers.
After 122 years, the BIR has increasingly powerful tools-TIN-linked databases, RELIEF, eFPS, eBIRForms, electronic invoicing, third-party information, data analytics and eventually artificial intelligence. Amnesty should therefore be accompanied by a credible message that the government now has greater capacity to detect the tax evasion of tomorrow.
A successful tax amnesty should not be measured merely by the billions collected during the amnesty period. Its real measure should be whether yesterday’s tax evader becomes tomorrow’s honest taxpayer.
Otherwise, another amnesty simply prepares the ground for the next one.