Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 2

G.R. No. 101273 July 3, 1992 2.

He contends that since the Constitution vests the authority to enact


revenue bills in Congress, the President may not assume such power
CONG. ENRIQUE T. GARCIA, vs. ES, COM. OF CUSTOMS, NEDA , TARIFF by issuing Executive Orders Nos. 475 and 478 which are in the
COM, SEC. OF FINANCE, and erb nature of revenue-generating measures.
November 1990 - the President issued EO 438 which imposed, in addition to
any other duties, taxes and charges imposed by law on all articles imported
into the Philippines including crude oil and other oil products, an additional
duty of five percent (5%) ad valorem was subsequently increased to nine Issue: Whether or not EO 475 and 478 are constitutional
percent (9%) ad valorem by the promulgation of EO 443, dated 3 January
Held :
1991.
Under Section 24, Article VI of the Constitution, the enactment of
July 1991, the Dept. of Finance requested the Tariff Commission to initiate
appropriation, revenue and tariff bills, like all other bills is, of course, within
the process required by the Tariff and Customs Code for the imposition of
the province of the Legislative rather than the Executive Department. It does
a specific levy on crude oil and other petroleum products and scheduled
not follow, however, that therefore EO 475 and 478, assuming they may be
public hearing;
characterized as revenue measures, are prohibited to the President, that
August 1991 - EO 475 was issued by the President, reducing the rate of they must be enacted instead by the Congress of the Philippines. Section
additional duty on all imported articles from nine percent (9%) to five 28(2) of Article VI of the Constitution provides as follows:
percent (5%) ad valorem, except in the cases of crude oil and other oil
(2) The Congress may, by law, authorize the President to fix within
products which continued to be subject to the additional duty of nine
specified limits, and subject to such limitations and restrictions as
percent (9%) ad valorem.
it may impose, tariff rates, import and export quotas, tonnage and
August 1991 - the President issued EO 478, which levied (in addition to the wharfage dues, and other duties or imposts within the framework
aforementioned additional duty of nine percent (9%) ad valorem and all of the national development program of the Government.
other existing ad valorem duties) a special duty of P0.95 per liter or P151.05
There is thus explicit constitutional permission to Congress to authorize
per barrel of imported crude oil and P1.00 per liter of imported oil products.
the President subject to such limitations and restrictions is [Congress]
Petitioner assails the validity of EO 475 and 478 (Petition may impose to fix within specific limits tariff rates . . . and other duties
for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus) or imposts . . .
1. He argues that Executive Orders Nos. 475 and 478 are violative of It seems also important to note that tariff rates are commonly established
Section 24, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution which provides as and the corresponding customs duties levied and collected upon articles and
follows: goods which are not found at all and not produced in the Philippines.
Sec. 24: All appropriation, revenue or tariff bills, bills Accordingly, the Court believe and so hold that EO 475 and 478 which may
authorizing increase of the public debt, bills of local be approved to be substantially moved by the desire to generate additional
application, and private bills shall originate exclusively in public revenues, are not, for that reason alone, either constitutionally
the House of Representatives, but the Senate may flawed, or legally infirm under Section 401 of the Tariff and Customs Code.
propose or concur with amendments. Petitioner has not successfully overcome the presumptions of
constitutionality and legality to which those Executive Orders are entitled.
There is nothing in the law that suggests that the authority may only be
exercised to protect local industries. Custom duties may be designated to
achieve more than one policy objective the protection of local industries
and to raise revenue for the government.

The conclusion we have reached above WHEREFORE, premises considered,


the Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus is
hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. Costs against petitioner.