Case Summary (G.R. No. 209216)
RTC Proceedings and TRO
Pilipinas Shell filed for prohibition, mandamus, and injunction in Makati RTC, challenging EO 839 and § 14(e) as unconstitutional delegations of power. The RTC granted a Temporary Restraining Order on Nov 13, 2009, enjoining implementation of EO 839. Two days later, EO 845 lifted the freeze.
Amended Petition and RTC Decision
Although EO 839 was lifted, Shell amended its petition to seek a declaration that § 14(e) is void. The RTC initially dismissed as moot but, on reconsideration (May 7, 2010), reinstated the petition and, on Aug 23, 2010, declared § 14(e) unconstitutional for lacking legislative policy and standards.
Court of Appeals Ruling
On appeal, the CA (June 25, 2013) found the ordinary appeal improper—requiring a Rule 45 certiorari—but nonetheless affirmed the § 14(e) invalidation, holding it an unreasonable delegation to the DOE without clear standards or policy declaration.
Procedural Issues on Appeal Route and Amendment
The SC ruled:
– Questions of law (constitutionality, mootness, res judicata, declaratory relief requisites) require Rule 45 certiorari, justifying CA’s dismissal of the appeal as wrong mode.
– Shell properly amended its petition as of right under Rule 10, Sec 2, since respondents filed no responsive pleading.
Justiciability and Declaratory Relief
The Court affirmed that mere contrariety of legal rights suffices for justiciability. An action for declaratory relief may challenge a statute “before breach,” provided an actual controversy exists. Shell’s petition met this test despite EO 839’s repeal.
Res Judicata and Mootness
Rulings in Garcia v. Corona on different provisions of R.A. 8479 do not bar this challenge for lack of identity of issues. The lifting of EO 839 rendered no effect on § 14(e)’s constitutionality, which remains ripe for review given its potential recurrence.
Delegation of Emergency Powers and Qualified Political Agency
Art XII § 17 empowers Congress to authorize temporary takeover of “any…business affected with public interest.” Art VI § 23 permits Congress, by law, to delegate emergency powers to the President “for a limited period and subject to such restrictions.” Under the doctrine of qualified political agency, the heads of executive
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 209216)
Facts
- In September and October 2009, Typhoons Ondoy and Pepeng devastated Luzon, affecting over 9 million people, causing nearly 1,000 deaths, 700 injuries, and leaving 84 missing.
- On October 2, 2009, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo declared a state of calamity (Proclamation No. 1898).
- Pursuant to Section 14(e) of Republic Act No. 8479 (Downstream Oil Industry Deregulation Act of 1998), the President issued Executive Order No. 839, directing oil industry players to freeze retail petroleum prices during the emergency.
- Section 14(e) of RA 8479 authorizes the Department of Energy (DOE) “in times of national emergency…under reasonable terms…temporarily [to] take over or direct the operation of any person or entity engaged in the industry.”
- Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) a Petition for Prohibition, Mandamus, and Injunction (with Prayer for TRO/Preliminary Injunction) challenging the validity of EO 839 and Section 14(e) as an unconstitutional delegation of emergency powers.
Procedural History
- November 6, 2009: RTC issued summons against Executive Secretary Ermita, the DOE-DOJ Task Force, and Energy Secretary Reyes.
- November 13, 2009: Respondents opposed Shell’s TRO application; Shell obtained a TRO restraining implementation of EO 839.
- November 15, 2009: Executive Order No. 845 lifted EO 839, ending the oil-price freeze.
- January 5, 2010: RTC dismissed Shell’s petition as moot due to lifting of EO 839.
- April 23, 2010: Shell filed an Amended Petition for Declaratory Relief seeking to declare Section 14(e) void and unconstitutional.
- August 23, 2010: RTC granted the Amended Petition, declaring Section 14(e) void for invalid delegation of emergency power.
- Petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA); on June 25, 2013, the CA denied the appeal, affirmed the RTC, and declared Section 14(e) unconstitutional.
- Petitioners filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari (Rule 45) before the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 209216).
Issue
- Whether Section 14(e) of RA 8479 is an unconstitutional delegation of emergency takeover power to the DOE instead of to the President personally.
- Whether petitioners used the correct mode of appeal.
- Whether the Amended Petition for Declaratory Relief was properly admitted.
- Whether res judicata or mootness principles bar the action.
- Whether an actual case or controversy exists for declaratory relief.
Applicable Constitutional and Legal Provisions
- Constitution, Article VI, Section 23(2): Congress may authorize the President, for a limited period and subject to restrictions, to exercise emergency powers.
- Constitution, Article XII, Section 17