Case Digest (G.R. No. 163745)
Facts:
In Francisco S. Tatad v. Secretary of the Department of Energy and Secretary of the Department of Finance (G.R. No. 124360) and the consolidated petition Lagman et al. v. Torres et al. (G.R. No. 127867), decided on December 3, 1997, petitioners challenged Executive Order No. 392 and key provisions of Republic Act No. 8180 (“Downstream Oil Industry Deregulation Act”). Under RA 8180, the downstream oil sector was scheduled for full deregulation by March 1997, subject to three contested measures: (1) a 4% tariff differential (Section 5[b]), (2) a minimum inventory requirement (Section 6), and (3) a prohibition of predatory pricing (Section 9[b]). Public respondents (the DOE and DOF Secretaries) argued that the Executive had not misapplied RA 8180 when it advanced deregulation and defended the three provisions as constitutional. Intervening new oil firms and petitioner Enrique G. Garcia separately filed motions for partial or total reconsideration, warning that striking RA 8180 in fCase Digest (G.R. No. 163745)
Facts:
- Consolidated petitions
- Francisco S. Tatad challenged Executive Order No. 392 and alleged misapplication of Republic Act No. 8180 (G.R. No. 124360).
- Edcel C. Lagman, Joker P. Arroyo, Enrique Garcia, et al. challenged RA 8180’s anti-competition provisions; new oil firms intervened (G.R. No. 127867).
- Motions for reconsideration
- Public respondents urged that EO 392 complied with RA 8180, Sections 5(b), 6 and 9(b) are constitutional, and the separability clause preserves the remainder.
- Intervenors and petitioner Garcia sought partial relief, striking only the 4% tariff differential, minimum inventory, and predatory-pricing rules.
Issues:
- Did EO 392 misapply RA 8180 by advancing the date of full deregulation?
- Do Sections 5(b) (4% tariff differential), 6 (minimum inventory), and 9(b) (predatory pricing) of RA 8180 violate Section 19, Article XII of the Constitution?
- Does invalidating these provisions vitiate the entire law despite its separability clause?
- Should only the anti-competition sections be struck down, preserving full deregulation’s other mechanisms?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)