G.R. No.

157584

April 2, 2009

CONGRESSMAN ENRIQUE T. GARCIA of t ! 2"# $i%tri&t of '(t((", Petitioner, vs. T)E E*ECUTI+E SECRETAR,, T)E SECRETAR, O- T)E $E.ARTMENT OENERG,, CA/TE* .)I/I..INES, INC., .ETRON COR.ORATION, ("# .I/I.INAS S)E// COR.ORATION Respondents. DECISION 'RION, J.: For the second time, petitioner Enrique T. Garcia, r. !petitioner Garcia" as#s this Court to e$amine the constitutiona%it& o' Section () o' Repu*%ic +ct No. ,-.) !R.+. No. ,-.)", other/ise #no/n as the Oi% Dere0u%ation 1a/ o' ())," throu0h this petition 'or certiorari. ( 2e raises once a0ain *e'ore us the propriet& o' imp%ementin0 'u%% dere0u%ation *& removin0 the s&stem o' price contro%s in the %oca% do/nstream oi% industr& 3 a matter that /e have ru%ed upon in the past. T2E F+CTS +'ter &ears o' imposin0 si0ni'icant contro%s over the do/nstream oi% industr& in the Phi%ippines, the 0overnment decided in 4arch ())5 to pursue a po%ic& o' dere0u%ation *& enactin0 Repu*%ic +ct No. ,(,6 !R.+. No. ,(,6" or the 7Do/nstream Oi% Industr& Dere0u%ation +ct o' ())5.7 R.+. No. ,(,6, ho/ever, met stron0 opposition, and ri0ht%& so, as this Court conc%uded in its Novem*er 8, ()). decision in Tatad v. Secretar& o' Department o' Ener0&. 9 :e struc# do/n the %a/ as inva%id *ecause the three #e& provisions intended to promote 'ree competition /ere sho/n to achieve the opposite resu%t; contrar& to its intent, R.+. No. ,(,6<s provisions on tari'' di''erentia%, inventor& requirements, and predator& pricin0 inhi*ited 'air competition, encoura0ed monopo%istic po/er, and inter'ered /ith the 'ree interaction o' mar#et 'orces. :e dec%ared= R.+. No. ,(,6 needs provisions to vouchsa'e 'ree and 'air competition. The need 'or these vouchsa'in0 provisions cannot *e overstated. '!for! #!r!01l(tio", PETRON, S2E11 and C+1TE> had no rea% competitors *ut did not have a 'ree run o' the mar#et *ecause 0overnment contro%s *oth the pricin0 and non?pricin0 aspects o' the oi% industr&. Aft!r #!r!01l(tio", PETRON, S2E11 and C+1TE> remain unthreatened *& rea% competition &et are no %on0er su*@ect to contro% *& 0overnment /ith respect to their pricin0 and non?pricin0 decisions. The a'termath o' R.+. No. ,(,6 is a dere0u%ated mar#et /here competition can *e corrupted and /here mar#et 'orces can *e manipu%ated *& o%i0opo%ies.A Not/ithstandin0 the e$istence o' a separa*i%it& c%ause amon0 its provisions, /e struc# do/n R.+. No. ,(,6 in its entiret& *ecause its o''ensive provisions permeated the /ho%e %a/ and /ere the principa% too%s to carr& dere0u%ation into e''ect. Con0ress responded to our Decision in Tatad *& enactin0 on Fe*ruar& (6, ()), a ne/ oi% dere0u%ation %a/, R.+. No. ,-.). This time, Con0ress e$c%uded the o''ensive provisions 'ound in the inva%idated %a/. Nonethe%ess, petitioner Garcia a0ain sou0ht to dec%are the ne/ oi% dere0u%ation %a/ unconstitutiona% on the 0round that it vio%ated +rtic%e >II, Section () o' the Constitution. - 2e speci'ica%%& o*@ected to Section () o' R.+. No. ,-.) /hich, in essence, prescri*ed the period 'or remova% o' price contro% on 0aso%ine and other 'inished petro%eum products and set the time 'or the 'u%% dere0u%ation o' the %oca% do/nstream oi% industr&. The assai%ed provision reads= SEC. 19. Start of Full Deregulation. 3 Fu%% dere0u%ation o' the Industr& sha%% start 'ive !8" months 'o%%o/in0 the e''ectivit& o' this +ct= Provided, however, That /hen the pu*%ic interest so requires, the President ma& acce%erate the start o' 'u%% dere0u%ation upon the recommendation o' the DOE and the Department o' Finance !DOF" /hen the prices o' crude oi% and petro%eum products in the /or%d mar#et are dec%inin0 and the va%ue o' the peso in re%ation to the BS do%%ar is sta*%e, ta#in0 into account re%evant trends and prospects; Provided, further, That the 'ore0oin0 provision

not/ithstandin0, the 'ive !8"?month Transition Phase sha%% continue to app%& to 1PG, re0u%ar 0aso%ine and #erosene as socia%%&?sensitive petro%eum products and said petro%eum products sha%% *e covered *& the automatic pricin0 mechanism durin0 the said period. Bpon the imp%ementation o' 'u%% dere0u%ation as provided herein, the Transition Phase is deemed terminated and the 'o%%o/in0 %a/s are repea%ed= a" Repu*%ic +ct No. 5(.A, as amended; *" Section 8 o' E$ecutive Order No. (.9, as amended; c" 1etter o' Instruction No. (-A(, dated Octo*er (8, (),-; d" 1etter o' Instruction No. (--(, dated Novem*er 96, (),-, as amended; e" 1etter o' Instruction No. (-56, dated 4a& ), (),8; '" Presidentia% Decree No. (,,); and 0" Presidentia% Decree No. ()85, as amended *& E$ecutive Order No. (A.= Provided, however, That in case 'u%% dere0u%ation is started *& the President in the e$ercise o' the authorit& provided in this Section, the 'ore0oin0 %a/s sha%% continue to *e in 'orce and e''ect /ith respect to 1PG, re0u%ar 0aso%ine and #erosene 'or the rest o' the 'ive !8"?month period. Petitioner Garcia contended that imp%ementin0 'u%% dere0u%ation and removin0 price contro% at a time /hen the mar#et is sti%% dominated and contro%%ed *& an o%i0opo%& 8 /ou%d *e contrar& to pu*%ic interest, as it /ou%d on%& provide an opportunit& 'or the Ci0 A to en0a0e in price?'i$in0 and overpricin0. 2e averred that Section () o' R.+. No. ,-.) is 70%arin0%& pro?o%i0opo%&, anti? competition, and anti?peop%e,7 and thus as#ed the Court to dec%are the provision unconstitutiona%. On Decem*er (., ())), in Garcia v. Corona !())) Garcia case", 5 /e denied petitioner Garcia<s p%ea 'or nu%%it&. :e dec%ined to ru%e on the constitutiona%it& o' Section () o' R.+. No. ,-.) as /e 'ound the question rep%ete /ith po%ic& considerations; in the /ords o' ustice Dnares?Santia0o, the ponente o' the ())) Garcia case= It *ears reiteratin0 at the outset that the dere0u%ation o' the oi% industr& is a po%ic& determination o' the hi0hest order. It is unquestiona*%& a priorit& pro0ram o' Government. The Department o' Ener0& +ct o' ())9 e$press%& mandates that the deve%opment and updatin0 o' the e$istin0 Phi%ippine ener0& pro0ram 7sha%% inc%ude a po%ic& direction to/ards dere0u%ation o' the po/er and ener0& industr&.7 Ce that as it ma&, /e are not concerned /ith /hether or not there shou%d *e dere0u%ation. This is outside our @urisdiction. The @ud0ment on the issue is a sett%ed matter and on%& Con0ress can reverse it. $$$ $$$ $$$ Reduced to its *asic ar0uments, it can *e seen that the cha%%en0e in this petition is not a0ainst the %e0a%it& o' dere0u%ation. Petitioner does not e$press%& cha%%en0e dere0u%ation. The issue, quite simp%&, is the time%iness or the /isdom o' the date /hen 'u%% dere0u%ation shou%d *e e''ective. In this re0ard, /hat constitutes reasona*%e time is not 'or @udicia% determination. Reasona*%e time invo%ves the appraisa% o' a 0reat variet& o' re%evant conditions, po%itica%, socia% and economic. The& are not /ithin the appropriate ran0e o' evidence in a court o' @ustice. It /ou%d *e an e$trava0ant e$tension o' @udicia% authorit& to assert @udicia% notice as the *asis 'or the determination. EEmphasis supp%ied.F Bndaunted, petitioner Garcia is a0ain *e'ore us in the present petition 'or certiorari see#in0 a cate0orica% dec%aration 'rom this Court o' the unconstitutiona%it& o' Section () o' R.+. No. ,-.). T2E PETITION

Petitioner Garcia does not den& that the present petition 'or certiorari raises the same issue o' the constitutiona%it& o' Section () o' R.+. No. ,-.), /hich /as a%read& the su*@ect o' the ())) Garcia case. 2e disa0rees, ho/ever, /ith the a%%e0ation that the prior ru%in0s o' the Court in the t/o oi% dere0u%ation cases. amount to res @udicata that /ou%d e''ective%& *ar the reso%ution o' the present petition. 2e reasons that res @udicata /i%% not app%&, as the ear%ier cases did not comp%ete%& reso%ve the controvers& and /ere not decided on the merits. 4oreover, he maintains that the present case invo%ves a matter o' overarchin0 and overridin0 importance to the nationa% econom& and to the pu*%ic and cannot *e sacri'iced 'or technica%ities %i#e res @udicata., To 'urther support the present petition, petitioner Garcia invo#es the 'o%%o/in0 additiona% 0rounds to nu%%i'& Section () o' R.+. No. ,-.)= (. Su*sequent events a'ter the %i'tin0 o' price contro% in ()). have con'irmed the continued e$istence o' the Ci0 A o%i0opo%& and its overpricin0 o' 'inished petro%eum products; 9. The una*ated overpricin0 o' 'inished petro%eum products *& the Ci0 A o%i0opo%& is 0rave%& and undenia*%& detrimenta% to the pu*%ic interest; A. No %on0er ma& the *are and *%atant constitutiona%it& o' the %i'tin0 o' price contro% *e 0%ossed over throu0h the e$pedienc& o' %e0is%ative /isdom or @ud0ment ca%% in the 'ace o' the Ci0 A o%i0opo%&<s characteristic, de'initive, and continued overpricin0; -. To avoid dec%arin0 the %i'tin0 o' price contro% on 'inished petro%eum products as unconstitutiona% is to consi0n to the dead %etter dust*in the so%emn and e$p%icit constitutiona% command 'or the re0u%ation o' monopo%iesGo%i0opo%ies.) T2E COBRT<S RB1ING :e reso%ve to dismiss the petition. In as#in0 the Court to dec%are Section () o' R.+. No. ,-.) as unconstitutiona% 'or contravenin0 Section (), +rtic%e >II o' the Constitution, petitioner Garcia invo#es the e$ercise *& this Court o' its po/er o' @udicia% revie/, /hich po/er is e$press%& reco0niHed under Section -!9", +rtic%e IIII o' the Constitution.(6 The po/er o' @udicia% revie/ is the po/er o' the courts to test the va%idit& o' e$ecutive and %e0is%ative acts 'or their con'ormit& /ith the Constitution. (( Throu0h such po/er, the @udiciar& en'orces and upho%ds the supremac& o' the Constitution. (9 For a court to e$ercise this po/er, certain requirements must 'irst *e met, name%&= !(" an actua% case or controvers& ca%%in0 'or the e$ercise o' @udicia% po/er; !9" the person cha%%en0in0 the act must have 7standin07 to cha%%en0e; he must have a persona% and su*stantia% interest in the case such that he has sustained, or /i%% sustain, direct in@ur& as a resu%t o' its en'orcement; !A" the question o' constitutiona%it& must *e raised at the ear%iest possi*%e opportunit&; and !-" the issue o' constitutiona%it& must *e the ver& lis mota o' the case.(A +ctua% Case Controvers& Suscepti*%e o' udicia% Determination The petition 'ai%s to satis'& the ver& 'irst o' these requirements 3 the e$istence o' an actua% case or controvers& ca%%in0 'or the e$ercise o' @udicia% po/er. +n actua% case or controvers& is one that invo%ves a con'%ict o' %e0a% ri0hts, an assertion o' opposite %e0a% c%aims suscepti*%e o' @udicia% reso%ution; the case must not *e moot or academic or *ased on e$tra?%e0a% or other simi%ar considerations not co0niHa*%e *& a court o' @ustice. Stated other/ise, it is not the mere e$istence o' a con'%ict or controvers& that /i%% authoriHe the e$ercise *& the courts o' its po/er o' revie/; more important%&, the issue invo%ved must *e suscepti*%e o' @udicia% determination. E$c%uded 'rom these are questions o' po%ic& or /isdom, other/ise re'erred to as po%itica% questions=

+s Taada v. Cuenco puts it, po%itica% questions re'er 7to those questions /hich, under the Constitution, are to *e decided *& the peop%e in their soverei0n capacit&, or in re0ard to /hich 'u%% discretionar& authorit& has *een de%e0ated to the %e0is%ative or e$ecutive *ranch o' 0overnment.7 Thus, i' an issue is c%ear%& identi'ied *& the te$t o' the Constitution as matters 'or discretionar& action *& a particu%ar *ranch o' 0overnment or to the peop%e themse%ves then it is he%d to *e a po%itica% question. In the c%assic 'ormu%ation o' ustice Crennan in Baker v. Carr, 7EpFrominent on the sur'ace o' an& case he%d to invo%ve a po%itica% question is 'ound a te$tua%%& demonstra*%e constitutiona% commitment o' the issue to a coordinate po%itica% department; or a %ac# o' @udicia%%& discovera*%e and mana0ea*%e standards 'or reso%vin0 it; or the impossi*i%it& o' decidin0 /ithout an initia% po%ic& determination o' a #ind c%ear%& 'or non?@udicia% discretion; or the impossi*i%it& o' a court<s underta#in0 independent reso%ution /ithout e$pressin0 %ac# o' the respect due coordinate *ranches o' 0overnment; or an unusua% need 'or unquestionin0 adherence to a po%itica% decision a%read& made; or the potentia%it& o' em*arrassment 'rom mu%ti'arious pronouncements *& various departments on the one question.7(- EEmphasis supp%ied.F Petitioner Garcia<s issues 'it snu0%& into the po%itica% question mo%d, as he insists that *& adoptin0 a po%ic& o' 'u%% dere0u%ation throu0h the remova% o' price contro%s at a time /hen an o%i0opo%& sti%% e$ists, Section () o' R.+. No. ,-.) contravenes the Constitutiona% directive to re0u%ate or prohi*it monopo%ies(8 under +rtic%e >II, Section () o' the Constitution. This Section states= The State sha%% re0u%ate or prohi*it monopo%ies /hen the pu*%ic interest so requires. No com*inations in restraint o' trade or un'air competition sha%% *e a%%o/ed. Read correct%&, this constitutiona% provision does not dec%are an outri0ht prohi*ition o' monopo%ies. It simp%& a%%o/s the State to act 7/hen pu*%ic interest so requires7; even then, no outri0ht prohi*ition is mandated, as the State ma& choose to re0u%ate rather than to prohi*it. T/o e%ements must concur *e'ore a monopo%& ma& *e re0u%ated or prohi*ited= (. There in 'act e$ists a monopo%& or an o%i0opo%&, and 9. Pu*%ic interest requires its re0u%ation or prohi*ition. :hether a monopo%& e$ists is a question o' 'act. On the other hand, the questions o' !(" /hat pu*%ic interest requires and !9" /hat the State reaction sha%% *e essentia%%& require the e$ercise o' discretion on the part o' the State. Stripped to its core, /hat petitioner Garcia raises as an issue is the propriet& o' immediate%& and 'u%%& dere0u%atin0 the oi% industr&. Such determination essentia%%& d/e%%s on the soundness or /isdom o' the timin0 and manner o' the dere0u%ation Con0ress /ants to imp%ement throu0h R.+. No. ,-).. Juite c%ear%&, the issue is not 'or us to reso%ve; /e cannot ru%e on /hen and to /hat e$tent dere0u%ation shou%d ta#e p%ace /ithout passin0 upon the /isdom o' the po%ic& o' dere0u%ation that Con0ress has decided upon. To use the /ords o' Ca#er v. Carr, (5 the ru%in0 that petitioner Garcia as#s requires "an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for non-judicial discretion" the *ranch o' 0overnment that /as 0iven *& the peop%e the 'u%% discretionar& authorit& to 'ormu%ate the po%ic& is the %e0is%ative department. Direct%& supportin0 our conc%usion that Garcia raises a po%itica% question is his proposa% to adopt instead a s&stem o' partia% dere0u%ation 3 a s&stem he presents as more consistent /ith the Constitutiona% 7dictate.7 2e avers that 'ree mar#et 'orces !in a 'u%%& dere0u%ated environment" cannot prevai% 'or as %on0 as the mar#et itse%' is dominated *& an entrenched o%i0opo%&. In such situation, he c%aims that prices are not determined *& the 'ree p%a& o' supp%& and demand, *ut instead *& the entrenched and dominant o%i0opo%& /here overpricin0 and price?'i$in0 are possi*%e.(. Thus, *e'ore 'u%% dere0u%ation can *e imp%emented, he ca%%s 'or an inde'inite period o' partia% dere0u%ation throu0h imposition o' price contro%s.(, Petitioner Garcia<s thesis readi%& revea%s the po%itica%, () hence, non?@usticia*%e, nature o' his

petition; the choice o' underta#in0 'u%% or partia% dere0u%ation is not 'or this Court to ma#e. C& enactin0 the assai%ed provision 3 Section () 3 o' R.+. No. ,-.), Con0ress a%read& determined that the pro*%ems con'rontin0 the %oca% do/nstream oi% industr& are *etter addressed *& removin0 a%% 'orms o' prior contro%s and adoptin0 a dere0u%ated s&stem. !awphi!.net This intent is e$pressed in Section 9 o' the %a/= Section 9. Dec%aration o' Po%ic&. 3 It sha%% *e the po%ic& o' the State to %i*era%iHe and dere0u%ate the do/nstream oi% industr& in order to ensure a tru%& competitive mar#et under a re0ime o' 'air prices, adequate and continuous supp%& o' environmenta%%&?c%ean and hi0h?qua%it& petro%eum products. To this end, the State sha%% promote and encoura0e the entr& o' ne/ participants in the do/nstream oi% industr&, and introduce adequate measures to ensure the attainment o' these 0oa%s. In Tatad, /e dec%ared that the 'undamenta% princip%e espoused *& Section (), +rtic%e >II o' the Constitution is competition.96 Con0ress, *& enactin0 R.+. No. ,-.), determined that this o*@ective is *etter rea%iHed *& %i*era%iHin0 the oi% mar#et, instead o' continuin0 /ith a hi0h%& re0u%ated s&stem en'orced *& means o' restrictive prior contro%s. This %e0is%ative determination /as a %a/'u% e$ercise o' Con0ress< prero0ative and one that this Court must respect and upho%d. Re0ard%ess o' the individua% opinions o' the 4em*ers o' this Court, /e cannot, actin0 as a *od&, question the /isdom o' a co?equa% department<s acts. The courts do not invo%ve themse%ves /ith or de%ve into the po%ic& or /isdom o' a statute;9( it sits, not to revie/ or revise %e0is%ative action, *ut to en'orce the %e0is%ative /i%%.99 For the Court to reso%ve a c%ear%& non?@usticia*%e matter /ou%d *e to de*ase the princip%e o' separation o' po/ers that has *een ti0ht%& /oven *& the Constitution into our repu*%ican s&stem o' 0overnment. This same %ine o' reasonin0 /as /hat /e used /hen /e dismissed the 'irst Garcia case. The petitioner correct%& noted that this is not a matter o' res @udicata !as the respondents invo#ed", as the app%ication o' the princip%e o' res @udicata presupposes that there is a 'ina% @ud0ment or decree on the merits rendered *& a court o' competent @urisdiction. To *e e$act, /e are simp%& dec%arin0 that then, as no/, and 'or the same reasons, /e 'ind that there is no @usticia*%e controvers& that /ou%d @usti'& the 0rant o' the petition. "rave #$use of %iscretion Recourse to the po%itica% question doctrine necessari%& raises the under%&in0 doctrine o' separation o' po/ers amon0 the three 0reat *ranches o' 0overnment that our Constitution has entrenched. Cut at the same time that the Constitution mandates this Court to respect acts per'ormed *& co?equa% departments done /ithin their sphere o' competence and authorit&, it has a%so a%%o/ed us to cross the %ine o' separation on a ver& %imited and speci'ic point 3 to determine /hether the acts o' the e$ecutive and the %e0is%ative departments are nu%% *ecause the& /ere underta#en /ith 0rave a*use o' discretion. &BP v. 'amora teaches us that ? :hen po%itica% questions are invo%ved, the Constitution %imits the determination as to /hether there has *een 0rave a*use o' discretion amountin0 to %ac# or e$cess o' @urisdiction on the part o' the o''icia% /hose action is *ein0 questioned. $$$ $$$ $$$ E:Fhi%e this Court has no po/er to su*stitute its @ud0ment 'or that o' Con0ress or o' the President, it ma& %oo# into the question o' /hether such e$ercise has *een made in 0rave a*use o' discretion. + sho/in0 that p%enar& po/er is 0ranted either department o' 0overnment, ma& not *e an o*stac%e to @udicia% inquir&, 'or the improvident e$ercise or a*use thereo' ma& 0ive rise to @usticia*%e controvers&. 9A EEmphasis supp%ied.F urisprudence has de'ined 0rave a*use o' discretion to mean the capricious or /himsica% e$ercise o' @ud0ment that is so patent and 0ross as to amount to an evasion o' positive dut& or a virtua% re'usa% to per'orm a dut& en@oined *& %a/, or to act at a%% in contemp%ation o' %a/, as /here the po/er is e$ercised in an ar*itrar& and despotic manner *& reason o' passion or hosti%it&.9-

Si0ni'icant%&, the p%eadin0s *e'ore us 'ai% to disc%ose an& act o' the %e0is%ature that ma& *e characteriHed as patent%& capricious or /himsica%. + readin0 o' the con0ressiona% de%i*erations made on R.+. No. ,-.) indicates that the measure /as thorou0h%& and care'u%%& considered. Indeed, petitioner Garcia /as amon0 the man& /ho interpe%%ated the %a/<s principa% author, then Con0ressman Dante O. Tin0a, no/ a 4em*er o' this Court. :e note, too, that petitioner Garcia has not adequate%& proven at this point that an o%i0opo%& does in 'act e$ist in the 'orm o' the Ci0 A, and that the Ci0 A have actua%%& en0a0ed in o%i0opo%istic practices. 2e mere%& cites !in his ar0ument a0ainst the app%ica*i%it& o' res @udicata" and re%ies on the 'acts and 'indin0s stated in the t/o prior cases on oi% dere0u%ation. This ca%%s to mind /hat 'ormer Chie' ustice Pan0ani*an said in his Separate Opinion in the ())) Garcia case= Petitioner mere%& resurrects and re%ies heavi%& on the ar0uments, the statistics and the proo's he su*mitted two &ears a0o in the 'irst oi% dere0u%ation case, Tatad v. (ecretary of the %epartment of )ner*y. Need%ess to state, those reasons /ere ta#en into consideration in said case, and the& indeed he%ped sho/ the unconstitutiona%it& o' R+ ,(,6. Cut e$act%& the same o%d 0rounds cannot continue to support petitioner<s present a%%e0ation that the ma@or oi% companies ?? Petron, She%% and Ca%te$ ?? persist to this date in their o%i0opo%istic practices, as a consequence o' the current Oi% Dere0u%ation 1a/ and in vio%ation o' the Constitution. In *rie', the %e0a% cause and e''ect re%ationship has not *een amp%& sho/n. EEmphasis supp%ied.F This o*servation is true in the present case as it /as true in the ())) Garcia case; the petitioner has simp%& omitted the citation o' 'acts, 'i0ures and statistics speci'ica%%& supportin0 his petition. To prove char0es o' continued overpricin0 or price?'i$in0, he re'ers to data sho/in0 price ad@ustments o' petro%eum products 'or the period coverin0 Fe*ruar& ,, ()). to +u0ust (, ()).. Inso'ar as R.+. No. ,-.) is concerned, ho/ever, these data are irre%evant, as the& cover a period /a& *e'ore R.+. No. ,-.) /as enacted.98!avvphi! Petitioner Garcia contends that the identit& in the pricin0 patterns o' the Ci0 A con'irms the e$istence o' an o%i0opo%& and sho/s that the& have co%%uded to en0a0e in un%a/'u% carte%?%i#e *ehaviour. 2is reasonin0 'ai%s to persuade us. That the oi% 'irms have the same prices and chan0e them at the same rate at the same time are not su''icient evidence to conc%ude that co%%usion e$ists. +n independent stud& on %oca% oi% prices e$p%ains= E:Fhen products are hi0h%& su*stituta*%e /ith each other !or /hat economists ca%% 7homo0eneous products7", then 'irms /i%% tend to set simi%ar prices, especia%%& /hen there are man& competin0 se%%ers. Other/ise, i' one 'irm tried to set a price si0ni'icant%& hi0her than the others, it /ou%d 'ind itse%' %osin0 customers to the others.95 Even assumin0 that the Ci0 A have indeed co%%uded in 'i$in0 oi% prices, this deve%opment /i%% not necessari%& @usti'& a dec%aration a0ainst the va%idit& and constitutiona%it& o' Section () o' R.+. No. ,-.). The remed& a0ainst the perceived 'ai%ure o' the Oi% Dere0u%ation 1a/ to com*at carte%iHation is not to dec%are it inva%id, *ut to set in motion its anti?trust sa'e0uards under Sections ((, 9. (9,9, and (A.9) 1is 4ota 1is 4ota 3 the 'ourth requirement to satis'& *e'ore this Court /i%% underta#e @udicia% revie/ 3 means that the Court /i%% not pass upon a question o' unconstitutiona%it&, a%thou0h proper%& presented, i' the case can *e disposed o' on some other 0round, such as the app%ication o' the statute or the 0enera% %a/. The petitioner must *e a*%e to sho/ that the case cannot *e %e0a%%& reso%ved un%ess the constitutiona% question raised is determined. A6 This requirement is *ased on the ru%e that ever& %a/ has in its 'avor the presumption o' constitutiona%it&; A( to @usti'& its nu%%i'ication, there must *e a c%ear and unequivoca% *reach o' the Constitution, and not one that is dou*t'u%, specu%ative, or ar0umentative.

Petitioner Garcia ar0ues a0ainst 'u%% dere0u%ation imp%emented throu0h the %i'tin0 o' price contro%, as it a%%o/s o%i0opo%&, overpricin0 and price?'i$in0. R.+. No. ,-.), ho/ever, does not condone these acts; indeed, Section (( !a" o' the %a/ e$press%& prohi*its and punishes carte%iHation, /hich is de'ined in the same section as 7an& a0reement, com*ination or concerted action *& re'iners, importers andGor dea%ers, or their representatives, to 'i$ prices, restrict outputs or divide mar#ets, either *& products or *& areas, or a%%ocate mar#ets, either *& products or *& areas, in restraint o' trade or 'ree competition, inc%udin0 an& contractua% stipu%ation /hich prescri*es pricin0 %eve%s and pro'it mar0ins.7 This de'inition is *road enou0h to inc%ude the a%%e0ed acts o' overpricin0 or price? 'i$in0 *& the Ci0 A. R.+. No. ,-.) has provided, aside 'rom prosecution 'or carte%iHation, severa% other anti?trust mechanisms, inc%udin0 the en%ar0ed scope o' the Department o' Ener0&<s monitorin0 po/er and the creation o' a oint Tas# Force to immediate%& act on comp%aints a0ainst unreasona*%e rise in the price o' petro%eum products.A9 Petitioner Garcia<s 'ai%ure is that he 'ai%ed to sho/ that he resorted to these measures *e'ore 'i%in0 the instant petition. 2is *e%ie' that these oversi0ht mechanisms are unrea%istic and insu''icient does not permit disre0ard o' these remedies.AA CONC1BSION To summariHe, /e dec%are that the issues petitioner Garcia presented to this Court are non? @usticia*%e matters that prec%ude the Court 'rom e$ercisin0 its po/er o' @udicia% revie/. The immediate imp%ementation o' 'u%% dere0u%ation o' the %oca% do/nstream oi% industr& is a po%ic& determination *& Con0ress /hich this Court cannot overturn /ithout o''endin0 the Constitution and the princip%e o' separation o' po/ers. That the %a/ 'ai%ed in its o*@ectives *ecause its adoption spa/ned the evi%s petitioner Garcia a%%udes to does not /arrant its nu%%i'ication. In the /ords o' 4r. ustice 1eonardo +. Juisum*in0 in the ())) Garcia case, 7EaF ca%cu%us o' 'ear and pessimism $$$ does not @usti'& the remed& petitioner see#s= that /e overturn a %a/ enacted *& Con0ress and approved *& the Chie' E$ecutive.7A2)ERE-ORE, /e here*& DIS4ISS the petition. No pronouncements as to costs. SO ORDERED.