Scribd
Upload
23 views2 pages

GARCIA V. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY 210 SCRA 256 Case Digest

Executive Orders Nos. 475 and 478 imposed additional duties of 5% and 9% respectively on imported crude oil and oil products into the Philippines. Congressman Enrique Garcia filed a petition challenging the validity of these executive orders, arguing they exceeded the President's authority under the Tariff and Customs Code. However, the Supreme Court rejected the petition. It found that while the Tariff and Customs Code aimed to protect local industries, it also sought to promote the national economy, general welfare, and security. Therefore, the executive orders served constitutional regulatory and revenue-raising purposes, and the additional import duties were upheld.

Uploaded by

lumina
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
23 views2 pages

GARCIA V. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY 210 SCRA 256 Case Digest

Executive Orders Nos. 475 and 478 imposed additional duties of 5% and 9% respectively on imported crude oil and oil products into the Philippines. Congressman Enrique Garcia filed a petition challenging the validity of these executive orders, arguing they exceeded the President's authority under the Tariff and Customs Code. However, the Supreme Court rejected the petition. It found that while the Tariff and Customs Code aimed to protect local industries, it also sought to promote the national economy, general welfare, and security. Therefore, the executive orders served constitutional regulatory and revenue-raising purposes, and the additional import duties were upheld.

Uploaded by

lumina
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

G.R. No.

101273 July 3, 1992

CONGRESSMAN ENRIQUE T. GARCIA (Second District of Bataan), petitioner,


vs.
THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, THE
NATIONAL ECONOMIC AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, THE TARIFF
COMMISSION, THE SECRETARY OF FINANCE, and THE ENERGY REGULATORY
BOARD, respondents.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

On November 27, 1990, Executive Order No. 438 was issued by the President of
the Philippines, imposing an additional 5% ad valorem duty on all imported articles,
including crude oil and other oil products. This duty was later increased to 9% ad valorem
by Executive Order No. 443 on January 3, 1991. In July 1991, the Department of Finance
requested the Tariff Commission to initiate the process for imposing a specific levy on
crude oil and petroleum products. While Executive Order No. 475 reduced the additional
duty rate on most imported articles to 5% ad valorem in August 1991, crude oil and oil
products continued to be subject to the 9% ad valorem duty.

Following public hearings, the Tariff Commission submitted a report to the


President on August 16, 1991, recommending a special duty of P0.95 per liter or P151.05
per barrel on imported crude oil and P1.00 per liter on imported oil products.
Subsequently, on August 23, 1991, the President issued Executive Order No. 478,
imposing the recommended special duty in addition to the existing 9% ad valorem duty
and other ad valorem duties on crude oil and oil products imported into the Philippines.
The Petitioner filed the Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition
and Mandamus, petitioner assails the validity of Executive Orders Nos. 475 and 478. He
argued that Executive Orders Nos. 475 and 478 are violative of Section 24, Article VI of
the 1987 Constitution.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the executive orders No. 475 and 476 is unconstitutional
COURT DECISION:
In this case, the court rejected the petitioner's argument challenging the legality of
Executive Orders Nos. 475 and 478, which imposed additional duties on imported crude
oil and oil products in the Philippines.

The petitioner claimed that these orders were unconstitutional because they
exceeded the president's authority outlined in the Tariff and Customs Code. The court
disagreed, stating that the petitioner's interpretation was too narrow. They argued that the
protection of local industries was not the sole objective of the code; rather, it also aimed
to promote the national economy, general welfare, and national security.

The court highlighted that customs duties, including those on items not locally
produced, serve both revenue-raising and regulatory purposes. Therefore, the executive
orders, driven by the need to generate revenue, were deemed constitutional and legal.
The court dismissed the petitioner's claims, and the additional duties on imported
petroleum products were upheld.

You might also like