Title
Tiu vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 127410
Decision Date
Jan 20, 1999
Petitioners challenged the constitutionality of EO 97-A restricting tax incentives to the Subic Naval Base area. The Supreme Court upheld EO 97-A, stating that differing standards for tax grants do not violate the equal protection clause.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 154130)

Key Dates and Procedural Posture

RA 7227 enacted March 13, 1992. EO 97 issued June 10, 1993; EO 97-A issued June 19, 1993. Proclamation No. 532 (metes and bounds) issued February 1, 1995. Petition to the Supreme Court filed October 26, 1994; matter referred to the Court of Appeals by the Supreme Court on June 27, 1995. Court of Appeals decision upholding EO 97-A promulgated August 29, 1996; its resolution denying reconsideration dated November 13, 1996. Supreme Court decision denying petition and affirming the Court of Appeals issued January 20, 1999.

Applicable Law

Primary statutory source: Republic Act No. 7227 (An Act Accelerating the Conversion of Military Reservations Into Other Productive Uses, creating the Bases Conversion and Development Authority). Executive issuances at issue: Executive Order No. 97 and Executive Order No. 97-A. Constitutional framework: Equal protection clause of the 1987 Constitution.

Statutory Framework (RA 7227) and Policy Objectives

Section 12 of RA 7227 created the Subic Special Economic Zone (SSEZ), subject to delineation by Presidential proclamation, and declared policies to convert former military reservations into productive uses, develop a self-sustaining industrial/commercial/financial/investment center, ensure a separate customs territory, provide tax and duty incentives, and generally attract productive foreign investment. The statute authorized tax incentives, a 3% gross income remittance scheme in lieu of taxes, establishment of a development fund, and various liberalizations in banking, immigration, and other areas to promote investment.

Executive Orders and the Secured Area

EO 97 (June 10, 1993) clarified that tax-and-duty-free importations applied to raw materials, capital goods, and equipment brought in by business enterprises into the SSEZ, with other imports subject to applicable taxes and duties. EO 97-A (June 19, 1993) further specified that the “Secured Area,” defined as the presently fenced-in former Subic Naval Base, would be the only completely tax- and duty-free area in the SSEFPZ. EO 97-A limited tax-and-duty-free importations and certain consumption privileges to business enterprises and residents within that fenced-in Secured Area.

Factual and Practical Considerations

RA 7227’s clear policy is conversion of lands covered by the 1947 Military Bases Agreement into productive economic use. The fenced former naval base constituted the locus for concentrated, large-scale investment capable of producing national-level economic impact—substantial capital inflows and significant employment—whereas business activities in adjacent municipal or city areas were not expected to have the same transformative effect at that stage. The secured, fenced nature of the former base also facilitated administration and monitoring (e.g., to prevent fraudulent importation and smuggling).

Court of Appeals Ruling

The Court of Appeals upheld EO 97-A, finding no substantial difference between EO 97-A’s Secured Area concept and Section 12 of RA 7227. It interpreted legislative intent as confining SSEZ coverage effectively to the secured areas where actual free-port operations would take place, supported by legislative debates indicating that only “portions” or “certain areas” of Olongapo City and nearby municipalities were to be designated and that the President would delineate those portions.

Issue Presented

Whether EO 97-A’s confinement of RA 7227’s tax-and-duty incentives to the fenced Secured Area of the Subic Naval Base, thereby excluding residents and enterprises in the broader zone outside the fenced area, violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution by creating an unreasonable or discriminatory classification.

Supreme Court’s Holding

The petition was denied for lack of merit. The Supreme Court affirmed the constitutionality and validity of EO 97-A, holding that it did not violate the equal protection clause and that the classification embodied in EO 97-A was valid, reasonable, germane to legislative purpose, applied equally to all members of the defined class, and not limited solely to existing conditions.

Equal Protection Standard and Tests Applied

The Court applied settled equal protection principles: (1) equal protection does not require absolute equality but permits reasonable classification; (2) a valid classification must rest on substantial distinctions, be germane to the statutory purpose, not be limited to existing conditions only, and apply equally to all members of the class. The Court relied on prior jurisprudence recognizing that legislation may be limited by object or territory and that distinguishing territories with actual material differences is permissible.

Reasoning: Germane Purpose and Substantial Distinctions

The Court analyzed RA 7227’s purpose—accelerating conversion of military reservations—and concluded that the fenced former Subic Naval Base was the primary object for transformation into a self-sustaining investment center. EO 97-A’s delimitation to the secured area was reasonable because: (a) the government intended to attract larg

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.