Case Summary (G.R. No. 256907)
Petitioner
Chamber of Customs Brokers, Inc., which seeks a declaration that Section 27 of Republic Act No. 9280 remains in full effect and that Section 106(d) of Republic Act No. 10863 is unconstitutional under the equal protection clause.
Respondent
Commissioner of Customs, arguing that RA 10863 amended or repealed Section 27 of RA 9280 by implication, and that RA 10863’s provisions do not violate equal protection.
Key Dates
• March 30, 2004 – Enactment of RA 9280 (Customs Brokers Act of 2004).
• December 15, 2009 – Enactment of RA 9853, amending Section 27 of RA 9280.
• May 30, 2016 – Enactment of RA 10863 (Customs Modernization and Tariff Act).
• April 5, 2019 – RTC Resolution dismissing CCBI’s petition.
• December 14, 2020 – CA Decision affirming the RTC.
• June 10, 2021 – CA Resolution denying reconsideration.
• August 27, 2021 – Filing of petition with the Supreme Court.
Applicable Law
• 1987 Philippine Constitution – Equal protection clause.
• RA 9280 Section 27 – Exclusive requirement that customs brokers sign import/export declarations.
• RA 9853 Section 1 – Amendment permitting exporters to sign or delegate export declarations.
• RA 10863 Sections 106(d), 107 and 1803 – Authorizing declarants or their agents to sign and lodge goods declarations; repealing inconsistent laws.
• International Obligations – Revised Kyoto Convention and Trade Facilitation Agreement.
Factual Background
RA 9280 established the exclusive right of licensed customs brokers to sign import and export declarations. RA 9853 later amended Section 27 to allow exporters the option to sign or delegate export declarations. RA 10863, enacted to modernize customs administration and fulfill international commitments, authorizes importers, exporters, agents, or customs brokers to lodge and sign goods declarations, and contains a general repealing clause for inconsistent laws.
Petitioner’s Contentions
CCBI asserts that RA 10863 did not expressly amend or repeal RA 9280, that both statutes can be harmonized, and that permitting non-brokers to sign declarations violates equal protection by creating unfair competition against licensed brokers.
Respondent’s Contentions
The Commissioner maintains that RA 10863’s language and its repeal clause demonstrate a legislative intent to modify or repeal Section 27 of RA 9280. It argues that RA 9853 had already relaxed brokers’ exclusivity and that RA 10863 furthers trade facilitation. There is no equal protection breach, as the law applies uniformly to all similarly situated persons.
RTC Ruling
The Regional Trial Court dismissed CCBI’s petition for lack of merit, finding that Section 106 of RA 10863 effectively modified RA 9280’s exclusive broker requirement, and that the provision applies equally to all persons, thus respecting equal protection.
CA Ruling
The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC in full. It noted that RA 9853 had already amended RA 9280, that RA 10863 continued this trend by allowing declarants and their agents to lodge declarations, and that its repealing clause impliedly repealed conflicting provisions of RA 9280. The attempt to reconcile via Section 407 (elaborating electronic lodgement) was unavailing. The CA also upheld the presumption of constitutionality against the equal protection challenge.
Issue Before the Supreme Court
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed the dismissal of CCBI’s petition for declaratory relief.
Procedural Timeliness
The petition was filed beyond the extended deadline. Suspension orders did not apply to the Supreme Court. This alone warranted dismissal, but the Court addressed the merits and denied the petition.
Repeal by Implica
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 256907)
Procedural Posture
- Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court filed by CCBI before the Supreme Court.
- Assails CA Decision dated December 14, 2020 and Resolution dated June 10, 2021 in CA-G.R. SP No. 164426.
- CA had affirmed the April 5, 2019 RTC Resolution in Civil Case No. R-MNL-18-04085 dismissing petitioner’s petition for declaratory relief.
- CCBI’s motion for extension of time was granted by this Court, but the petition was ultimately filed on August 27, 2021—beyond the extended deadline.
Statement of Facts
- On March 30, 2004, Congress enacted RA 9280 (Customs Brokers Act of 2004) to professionalize customs brokerage.
- Section 27 of RA 9280 required import and export declarations to be signed “only by customs broker under oath.”
- RA 9853 (2009) amended Section 27 to allow exporters (or their designated broker/authorized representative) to sign export declarations.
- On May 30, 2016, Congress enacted RA 10863 (Customs Modernization and Tariff Act) to modernize customs administration and trade facilitation.
- Section 106(d) of RA 10863 defines a “declarant” to include “a person duly empowered to act as agent or attorney-in-fact.”
- Section 107 of RA 10863 provides that the declarant shall sign the goods declaration, “even when assisted by a licensed customs broker.”
- RA 10863 contains a general repealing clause (Section 1803) repealing all inconsistent laws, acts, or regulations.
Petitioner’s Claims
- Section 106(d) of RA 10863 did not expressly repeal or amend Section 27 of RA 9280; the two statutes are not irreconcilably inconsistent and should be harmonized.
- Section 106(d) permits any person (agent or attorney-in-fact) to lodge goods declarations, thus intruding into the exclusive practice of licensed customs brokers.
- This paves the way for unfair competition and unequal treatment between licensed customs brokers and non-broker agents, violating the Equal Protection Clause.
Respondent’s Arguments
- RA 10863, being the later statute with an express repealing provision, impliedly repealed or amended Section 27 of RA 9280.
- RA 9853 had already amended RA 9280 before RA 10863; hence export declarations