GR 157584 Garcia V Exec. Sec

G.R. No.
157584 April 2, 2009
CONGRESSMAN ENRIQUE T. GARCIA of the 2nd District of Bataan, Petitioner,

vs.
THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY,
CALTEX PHILIPPINES, INC., PETRON CORPORATION, and PILIPINAS SHELL
CORPORATION Respondents
Facts:
Petitioner Garcia asks the court to examine the constitutionality of sec 19 of RA 8479 or the
Oil Deregulation Law of 1998. The petitioner raise that implementing full deregulation by
removing the system of price control in local downstream oil industry have ruled before. On
March 1996 the Philippine government pursue a policy of deregulation by enacting the RA
8180 or the Downstream Oil industry deregulation act of 1996, however, the court conclude
on the case of tatad vs secretary of Department of Energy, that the law was invalid because
the three key provision intended to promote free competition shows the opposite result
that it was contrary to its intent encourage monopolistic power and interfered with the free
interaction of market forces the court declared that the RA 8180 needs a provision to
vouchsafe free and fair competition. The big three companies shell, petron and Caltex had
no real competitors but did not have a free run on the market because the government
control the pricing and non-pricing of the oil industry. On February 10, 1998, the congress
respond to the court decision in tatad and enact a new oil deregulation law RA 8479. The
petitioner sought to declare that the new deregulation law was unconstitutional because it
violates the Art XII Sec 19 of the constitution. The petitioner objected that Sec 19 of RA 8479
in essence, prescribe period for removal of price control on gasoline and other finished
petroleum products and set the time for full deregulation of the local downstream oil
industry. According to Sec 19 of 8479 “Full deregulation of the Industry shall start five (5)
months following the effectivity of this Act: Provided, however, That when the public
interest so requires, the President may accelerate the start of full deregulation upon the
recommendation of the DOE and the Department of Finance (DOF) when the prices of crude
oil and petroleum products in the world market are declining and the value of the peso in
relation to the US dollar is stable, taking into account relevant trends and prospects;
Provided, further, That the foregoing provision notwithstanding, the five (5)-month
Transition Phase shall continue to apply to LPG, regular gasoline and kerosene as socially-
sensitive petroleum products and said petroleum products shall be covered by the
automatic pricing mechanism during the said period.
Upon the implementation of full deregulation as provided herein, the Transition Phase is
deemed terminated and the following laws are repealed:
a) Republic Act No. 6173, as amended;
b) Section 5 of Executive Order No. 172, as amended;
c) Letter of Instruction No. 1431, dated October 15, 1984;

d) Letter of Instruction No. 1441, dated November 20, 1984, as amended;
e) Letter of Instruction No. 1460, dated May 9, 1985;
f) Presidential Decree No. 1889; and
g) Presidential Decree No. 1956, as amended by Executive Order No. 137

Petitioner Garcia contended that implementing full deregulation and removing price control
the market is still dominated and controlled by oligopoly and wold contrary to public
interest and would provide an opportunity for the big 3 companies to engage in price fixing
and over pricing the petitioner also stated that the Sec 19 of RA 8479 is pro oligopoly, anti-
competition, and anti-people. And ask the court to declare that the provision is
unconstitutional. On December 17, 1999 the court denied the petitioners plea for nullity
and decline to rule on constitutionality of Sec 19 or RA 8479. The court is not concerned
whether or not there should be deregulation, it is outside the court’s jurisdiction only the
congress can reverse it.
Issue: Whether or not the court can exercise its power of judicial review
Held:
The petitioner invokes to exercise to the court its power of judicial review to declare the Sec
19 of RA 8479 as unconstitutional which expressly recognize under Sec 4 Art VIII of the
constitution, the power of judicial review is the power of the court to ask the validity of
executive and legislative acts for conformity with the constitution. The judiciary enforces
and upholds the supremacy of the constitution. For the court to exercise its judicial power
there are certain requirements must met:
(1) Actual case or controversy calling for the exercise of judicial power;
(2) Person challenging the act must have "standing" to challenge; he must have a personal
and substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will sustain, direct injury
as a result of its enforcement;
(3) Question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity; and
(4) The issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota of the case ( actual case
controversy)
The petitioners fails to satisfy these requirements the existence of an actual case or
controversy calling for the exercise of judicial power. An actual case or controversy is one
that involves a conflict of legal rights, an assertion of opposite legal claims susceptible of
judicial resolution; the case must not be moot or academic or based on extra-legal or other
similar considerations not cognizable by a court of justice. It is not the mere existence of a
conflict or controversy that will authorize the exercise by the courts of its power of review;
more importantly, the issue involved must be susceptible of judicial determination.
Excluded from these are questions of policy or wisdom, otherwise referred to as political
questions it is refer "to those questions which, under the Constitution, are to be decided by
the people in their sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full discretionary authority has
been delegated to the legislative or executive branch of government if an issue is clearly
identified by the text of the Constitution as matters for discretionary action by a particular
branch of government or to the people themselves then it is held to be a political question.
a political question is found a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the
issue to a coordinate political department; or a lack of judicially discoverable and
manageable standards for resolving it; or the impossibility of deciding without an initial
policy determination of a kind clearly for non-judicial discretion; or the impossibility of a
court’s undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of the respect due
coordinate branches of government; or an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a
political decision already made; or the potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious
pronouncements by various departments on the one question. The petitioner insist by
adopting a policy of full deregulation through removal of price control at the time that
oligopoly exists. The Sec 19of RA 8479 contravenes the constitutional directive to regulate
or prohibit monopolies under Art XII sec 19 of the constitution. The constitutional provision
does not declare an outright prohibition of monopolies and it allows the state to act when
public interest is so requires. There are no outright prohibition is mandated. The state may
choose to regulate rather than prohibit. There must be two elements before monopoly can
be regulated or prohibited: 1. there in fact exists a monopoly or an oligopoly, and 2. Public
interest requires its regulation or prohibition.
Whether a monopoly exists is a question of fact the questions of (1) what public interest
requires and (2) what the State reaction shall be essentially require the exercise of
discretion on the part of the State. Petitioner Garcia raises as an issue is the propriety of
immediately and fully deregulating the oil industry. The issue is not for the court to resolve.
The court cannot rule on when and to what extent deregulation should take place without
passing upon the wisdom of the policy of deregulation that Congress has decided upon.
Petitioner Garcia asks requires "an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for non-
judicial discretion"; the branch of government that was given by the people the full
discretionary authority to formulate the policy is the legislative department.in tatad the
court declares that the fundamental principle espoused by Section 19, Article XII of the
Constitution is competition. Congress, by enacting R.A. No. 8479, determined that this
objective is better realized by liberalizing the oil market, instead of continuing with a highly
regulated system enforced by means of restrictive prior controls. This legislative
determination was a lawful exercise of Congress’ prerogative and one that this Court must
respect and uphold. Regardless of the individual opinions of the Members of this Court, we
cannot, acting as a body, question the wisdom of a co-equal department’s acts. The courts
do not involve themselves with or delve into the policy or wisdom of a statute; it sits, not to
review or revise legislative action, but to enforce the legislative will. For the Court to resolve
a clearly non-justiciable matter would be to debase the principle of separation of powers
that has been tightly woven by the Constitution into our republican system of government.
Wherefore the court dismiss the petition.

GR 157584 Garcia V Exec. Sec

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GR 157584 Garcia V Exec. Sec

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

GR 157584 Garcia V Exec. Sec

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

157584 April 2, 2009

CONGRESSMAN ENRIQUE T. GARCIA of the 2nd District of Bataan, Petitioner,

a) Republic Act No. 6173, as amended;

b) Section 5 of Executive Order No. 172, as amended;

c) Letter of Instruction No. 1431, dated October 15, 1984;

e) Letter of Instruction No. 1460, dated May 9, 1985;

f) Presidential Decree No. 1889; and

g) Presidential Decree No. 1956, as amended by Executive Order No. 137

You might also like