Case Digest (G.R. No. 147062-64) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Chamber of Customs Brokers, Inc. v. Commissioner of Customs (G.R. No. 256907, February 20, 2023), the petitioner, Chamber of Customs Brokers, Inc. (CCBI), a national organization accredited by the Professional Regulation Commission, filed a petition for declaratory relief before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 16 (Civil Case No. R-MNL-18-04085). CCBI sought a declaration that Section 27 of Republic Act No. 9280 (“Customs Brokers Act of 2004”) remained in full force despite the enactment of Section 106(d) and Section 107 of Republic Act No. 10863 (“Customs Modernization and Tariff Act of 2016”), or that these latter provisions be struck down for violating the equal protection clause of the 1987 Constitution. CCBI contended that RA 10863 did not amend or repeal RA 9280 and that any apparent conflict could be harmonized. It argued that permitting any person designated by an importer or exporter to lodge a goods declaration unfairly favored non-brokers and underm Case Digest (G.R. No. 147062-64) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Legislative and statutory framework
- Republic Act No. 9280 (Customs Brokers Act of 2004)
- Enacted March 30, 2004 to professionalize customs brokers.
- Section 27: import and export entry declarations “shall be signed only by customs broker under oath based on the covering documents submitted by the importers.”
- Republic Act No. 10863 (Customs Modernization and Tariff Act of 2016)
- Enacted May 30, 2016 to modernize customs administration and facilitate trade.
- Section 106(d): declarant may be consignee or person with right to dispose of goods, or “person duly empowered to act as agent or attorney-in-fact.”
- Section 107: both declarant and licensed customs broker shall sign goods declaration, but declarant may lodge without broker participation.
- Parties’ contentions
- Petitioner (Chamber of Customs Brokers, Inc.)
- RA 10863 did not expressly repeal or amend RA 9280; both laws should be harmonized.
- Section 106(d) allows non-brokers to perform broker-only acts, violating equal protection by creating undue favor and inequality.
- Respondent (Commissioner of Customs)
- Section 106(d) of RA 10863 modified Section 27 of RA 9280 by removing exclusivity of brokers.
- RA 10863 contains a broad repealing clause (Section 1803).
- Even earlier, RA 9853 (2009) amended Section 27 of RA 9280 to allow exporters or their authorized representatives to sign export declarations.
- No equal protection violation; law applies equally to all similarly situated.
- Procedural history
- Regional Trial Court of Manila, Br. 16
- Petition for declaratory relief dismissed (April 5, 2019) for lack of merit; found implied repeal and no equal protection breach.
- Motion for reconsideration denied (October 30, 2019).
- Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 164426)
- Decision (December 14, 2020) affirming RTC: noted RA 9853’s amendment, irreconcilable inconsistency, and express repealing clause in RA 10863.
- Resolution (June 10, 2021) denying motion for reconsideration.
- Supreme Court
- Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 filed August 27, 2021.
- Timeliness issue raised: petition filed beyond extended deadline.
Issues:
- Whether the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed the dismissal of the petition for declaratory relief.
- Whether Section 27 of RA 9280 was impliedly or expressly repealed or amended by RA 10863 (and RA 9853).
- Whether Section 106(d) of RA 10863 violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)