Case Digest (G.R. No. 119775)
Facts:
John Hay Peoples Alternative Coalition v. Victor Lim, G.R. No. 119775, October 24, 2003, Supreme Court Third Division, Carpio Morales, J., writing for the Court. Petitioners (various residents, civic groups and elected councilors of Baguio City) sought prohibition, mandamus and declaratory relief with prayer for a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction, assailing the constitutionality of Presidential Proclamation No. 420, Series of 1994, which created the John Hay Special Economic Zone (SEZ), and challenging related agreements between the Bases Conversion and Development Authority (BCDA) and private respondents Tuntex (B.V.I.) Co., Ltd. and Asiaworld Internationale Group, Inc.The legislative backdrop is R.A. No. 7227 (Bases Conversion and Development Act of 1992), which created BCDA, authorized the President to delineate the Subic SEZ by proclamation, and provided certain incentives expressly for Subic. In 1993 BCDA entered into a Memorandum of Agreement and, later, a Joint Venture Agreement with Tuntex and AsiaWorld to form a joint-venture company for development of Poro Point and Camp John Hay. The Baguio Sangguniang Panlungsod passed several resolutions: first asking BCDA to exclude barangays from development plans, then requesting quitclaims for home lots, and later submitting a 15-point development concept. Eventually the sanggunian passed Resolution No. 255 (Series of 1994) concurring in the proclamation and submitted a draft proclamation to the President.
On July 5, 1994 President Ramos issued Proclamation No. 420, designating some 288.1 hectares of Camp John Hay as a SEZ, naming BCDA as governing body and providing in Section 3 that the John Hay SEZ shall have “all the applicable incentives of the Special Economic Zone under Section 12 of R.A. No. 7227” and incentives under other investment laws. Petitioners filed the present petition on April 25, 1995, contending, among others, that (a) the tax-exemption and incentive grant in Section 3 was unconstitutional because only Congress can grant tax exemptions (Art. VI, Sec. 28(4), Constitution); (b) the proclamation unduly interfered with Baguio City’s local autonomy; and (c) the BCDA–Tuntex/AsiaWorld agreements were illegally negotiated.
Respondents asserted that the MOA and Joint Venture Agreement had been abandoned and were later revoked by BCDA (letter dated November 21, 1995), rendering those claims moot; that the proclamation merely implemented R.A. No. 7227’s policy; and that petitioners lacked standing and failed to exhaust administrative remedies. Petitioners replied that Section 21 of R.A. No. 7227 vests exclusive jurisdiction in the Supreme Court to enjoin conversion projects, justifying direct filing, and that exceptions to exhaustion and taxpayer standing applied.
The Supreme Court assumed jurisdiction (citing the political and national importance of bases conversion and the exclusive injunctive power under Section 21 of R.A. No. 7227), found the contest over the BCDA–Tuntex/AsiaWorld agreements moot but retained and decided ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the petition satisfy the requisites for the Supreme Court to exercise judicial review over constitutional questions, permitting direct filing?
- Does Proclamation No. 420, insofar as Section 3 extends tax exemptions and investment incentives to the John Hay SEZ, violate the Constitution or R.A. No. 7227?
- Is Section 2 of Proclamation No. 420—designating BCDA as the governing body of the John Hay SEZ—unconstitutional for unduly interf...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)