Case Summary (G.R. No. 108461)
Trial Court Proceedings and Injunction
Remington filed for prohibition and mandamus after PITC withheld further import approvals for failure to meet export undertakings. The RTC issued a TRO in January 1992, later treating the case on merits and declaring the administrative order null and void.
Lower Court’s Ruling on PITC Regulatory Authority
The RTC held that EO No. 133 (1987) repealed PITC’s special regulatory powers under LOI 444 and P.D. 1071, and that no subsequent trade protocols empowered PITC to promulgate such measures, making continued enforcement an undue legislative exercise.
Constitutional Infirmities Identified by the Trial Court
- Lack of Senate concurrence for the underlying international agreement (Article VII, Sec. 21).
- Restraint of trade in violation of Article XII, Sections 1 and 19.
- Failure to publish the administrative order, breaching Article 2 of the Civil Code.
Supervening Developments and Cessation of Trade Balancing
President Ramos’s April 1993 directive and a PITC memorandum immediately lifted all trade balancing requirements. EO No. 244 (1995) subsequently removed the PROC from LOI 444’s coverage, effectively rendering the order obsolete.
Arguments on Mootness and Outstanding Obligations
Remington moved to dismiss as moot, while PITC maintained that unresolved CEDS fees (0.5% charges) for unfulfilled export undertakings kept the controversy alive and preserved questions on the order’s constitutional validity.
Nature and Powers of the Philippine International Trading Corporation
Created under P.D. 252/1071 and empowered by LOI 444 to regulate and process SOCPEC trade, PITC was realigned by EO 133 (1987) under the DTI as a line agency, retaining quasi-legislative rule-making authority for trade with centrally planned economies.
Relationship Between LOI 444 and EO 133
EO 133 reorganized the DTI and attached PITC as a implementing arm but did not expressly repeal PITC’s power to issue trade-balancing regulations for SOCPEC trade. No irreconcilable conflict exists, and both issuances are harmonized under presidential executive authority.
Validity of PITC’s Quasi-Legislative Authority Post-EO 133
The Supreme Court affirmed that administrative agencies legitimately exercise delegated quasi-legislative powers. Trade Protocols merely identify commodities, and executive power to regulate international trade remains vested in the President and her delegates.
Publication Requirement and Effectivity of the Administrative Order
Administrative Order No. SOCPEC 89-08-01 was never published in the Official Gazette or a newspaper of general circulation as required by Article 2 of the Civil Code. Its amendments, though published in the National Administrative Register, could not cure t
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 108461)
Facts
- In 1989, PITC issued Administrative Order No. SOCPEC 89-08-01 requiring any application to import from the People’s Republic of China (PROC) to be matched on a one-to-one value basis by an export program of Philippine products to PROC, to be completed within six months.
- Export programs could be executed by the importer itself, through a tie-up with a legitimate exporter, or by paying a 0.5% Counter Export Development Service (CEDS) fee.
- Private respondents Remington Industrial Sales Corporation and Firestone Ceramic, Inc. initially satisfied the requirements and obtained authority to import tools, machinery, and calcined bauxite from PROC.
- Upon failure to fulfill their export undertakings, PITC withheld further import applications, effectively barring Remington and Firestone from importing additional goods from PROC.
Procedural History
- January 20, 1992: Remington filed a Petition for Prohibition and Mandamus with prayer for Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction in RTC Makati, Branch 58.
- January 21, 1992: RTC issued TRO enjoining PITC from processing any further import applications from PROC.
- July 2, 1992: Firestone was permitted to intervene and join Remington’s petition.
- January 4, 1993: RTC rendered judgment granting the petition, declaring PITC’s Administrative Order and related issuances null, void, and unconstitutional, and commanding PITC to approve pending and future import applications free of balancing requirements.
- PITC filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari with the Supreme Court, challenging the RTC’s declarations of invalidity.
RTC’s Findings and Disposition
- Held that EO No. 133 (February 27, 1987) repealed PITC’s regulatory powers under LOI 444 and P.D. No. 1071.
- Found no express or implied authority in subsequent Trade Protocols (1989–1991) to sustain the Administrative Order.
- Ruled that the Administrative Order was promulgated under a Memorandum of Agreement not concurred in by two-thirds of the Senate (Art. VII, Sec. 21, 1987 Constitution).
- Declared the Order to be a restraint of trade in violation of