Title
Clark Investors and Locators Association, Inc. vs. Secretary of Fice
Case
G.R. No. 200670
Decision Date
Jul 6, 2015
Clark Investors challenged RR 2-2012, imposing VAT on Freeport imports, arguing it revoked tax exemptions. SC dismissed due to improper remedy and lack of jurisdiction.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 200670)

Background of the Case

The petitioner, Clark Investors and Locators Association, Inc., filed a petition for certiorari with a request for a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction, challenging Revenue Regulations No. 2-2012 (RR 2-2012). This regulation, issued by the Department of Finance, imposed Value Added Tax (VAT) and excise tax on the importation of petroleum products into Freeport or Economic Zones, which the petitioner contended violated the provisions of Republic Act (RA) No. 7227 and its amendment, RA No. 9400.

Relevant Legislation

RA No. 7227, enacted on March 13, 1992, aimed to facilitate the conversion of the Clark and Subic military reservations into special economic zones. It outlined tax incentives and established that no local and national taxes would be imposed within the Subic Special Economic Zone, allowing for the establishment of a self-sustaining and investment-attractive economic area. The same tax exemptions were extended to the Clark Freeport Zone under RA No. 9400, instituted on March 20, 2007.

Development of Revenue Regulations No. 2-2012

On February 17, 2012, the Department of Finance issued RR 2-2012, which mandated the payment of VAT and excise taxes on petroleum products imported from abroad to various Philippine locations, including Freeport Zones. This regulation included provisions allowing for tax refunds to businesses that utilized imported petroleum products for registered operations within designated economic zones.

Claim of the Petitioner

The petitioner argued that RR 2-2012 effectively revoked the tax exemptions provided under RA No. 7227 and RA No. 9400, thereby infringing upon the rights of businesses operating within the economic zones. They alleged that this was a case of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the respondents in issuing RR 2-2012 without sufficient justification.

Position of the Respondents

In response, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), representing the respondents, maintained that the petition should be dismissed as the issuance of RR 2-2012 was a quasi-legislative act and therefore not a subject for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. The OSG contended that the regulatory framework established by RR 2-2012 did not contradict the provisions of RA No. 7227 and RA No. 9400 because it allowed for tax refunds to businesses fulfilling certain conditions.

Court's Ruling on Jurisdiction

The Supreme Court ruled that the petition for certiorari was improperly filed, as the respondents were not exercising judicial or quasi-judicial powers when they issued RR 2-2012. Instead, the issuance of such revenue regulations was deemed to be an exerci

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.