COCONUT OIL REFINERS ASSOCIATION, INC.

vs TORRES
[G.R. No. 132527. July 29, 2005
Facts:
This is a Petition for Prohibition and Injunction seeking to enjoin and prohibit
the Executive Branch, through the public respondents Ruben Torres in his capacit
as Executive !ecretar, the Bases "onversion #evelop$ent %uthorit &B"#%', the
"lark #evelop$ent "orporation &"#"' and the !ubic Ba (etropolitan %uthorit
&!B(%', fro$ allo)ing, and the private respondents fro$ continuing )ith, the
operation of tax and dut*free shops located at the !ubic !pecial Econo$ic +one
&!!E+' and the "lark !pecial Econo$ic +one &"!E+', and to declare the follo)ing
issuances as unconstitutional, illegal, and void,
The !ubic !pecial Econo$ic +one shall be operated and $anaged as a
separate custo$s territor ensuring free -o) or $ove$ent of goods and capital
)ithin, into and exported out of the !ubic !pecial Econo$ic +one, as )ell as
provide incentives such as tax and dut*free i$portations of ra) $aterials, capital
and e.uip$ent, /o)ever, exportation or re$oval of goods fro$ the territor of the
!ubic !pecial Econo$ic +one to the other parts of the Philippine territor shall be
subject to custo$s duties and taxes under the "usto$s and Tari0 "ode and other
relevant tax la)s of thePhilippines 1R% 2332, !ec 43 &b'5,
Petitioners contend that the )ording of Republic %ct 6o, 2332 clearl li$its
the grant of tax incentives to the i$portation of ra)
$aterials, capital and e.uip$ent onl thereb violating the e.ual protection clause
of the "onstitution, /e also assailed the constitutionalit of Executive 7rder 6o, 82*
% for being violative of their right to e.ual protection, The asserted that private
respondents operating inside the !!E+ are not di0erent fro$ the retail
establish$ents located outside,
The respondent $oves to dis$iss the petition on the ground of lack of legal
standing and unreasonable dela in 9ling of the petition,
Issues:
:hether or not there is a violation of e.ual protection clause,

/eld:
The !" ruled in the negative, The phrases tax and dut*free i$portations of
ra) $aterials, capital and e.uip$ent )as $erel cited as an exa$ple of incentives
that $a be given to entities operating )ithin the ;one, Public respondent !B(%
correctl argued that the $axi$ expressio unius est exclusio alterius, on )hich
petitioners i$pliedl rel to support their restrictive interpretation, does not appl
)hen )ords are $entioned b )a of exa$ple,
The petition )ith respect to declaration of unconstitutionalit of Executive
7rder 6o, 82*% cannot be, like)ise, sustained, The guarant of the e.ual protection
of the la)s is not violated b a legislation based )hich )as based on reasonable
classi9cation, % classi9cation, to be valid, $ust &4' rest on substantial distinction,
&3' be ger$ane to the purpose of the la), &<' not be li$ited to existing conditions
onl, and &=' appl e.uall to all $e$bers of the sa$e class, %ppling the foregoing
test to the present case, this "ourt 9nds no violation of the right to e.ual protection
of the la)s, There is a substantial distinctions ling bet)een the establish$ents
inside and outside the ;one, There are substantial di0erences in a sense that,
investors )ill be lured to establish and operate their industries in the so*called
>secured area and the present business operators outside the area, There is, then,
hardl an reasonable basis to extend to the$ the bene9ts and incentives accorded
in R,%, 2332,

:/EREF7RE, the petition is P%RT?@ AR%6TE#, !ection B of Executive 7rder
6o, CD and !ection = of B"#% Board Resolution 6o, 8<*DB*D<= are hereb declared
6E?? and F7I# and are accordingl declared of no legal force and e0ect,
Respondents are hereb enjoined fro$ i$ple$enting the aforesaid void provisions,
%ll portions of Executive 7rder 6o, 82*% are valid and e0ective, except the second
sentences in paragraphs 4,3 and 4,< of said Executive 7rder, )hich are hereb
declared I6F%?I#,