Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
TIU VS. CA
CONRADO L. TIU, JUAN T. MONTELIBANO JR. and ISAGANI M.
JUNGCO, petitioners,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, HON. TEOFISTO T. GUINGONA JR.,
BASES CONVERSION AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, SUBIC
BAY METROPOLITAN AUTHORITY, BUREAU OF INTERNAL
REVENUE, CITY TREASURER OF OLONGAPO and MUNICIPAL
TREASURER OF SUBIC, ZAMBALES, respondents.
G.R. No. 127410
January 20, 1999
Ponente: PANGANIBAN, J.
Nature of Case:
A petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
BRIEF
A petition for review to reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals
which upheld the constitutionality and validity of the E.O. 97-A.
FACTS
On March 13, 1992, Congress, with the approval of the President,
passed into law RA 7227. This was for the conversion of former
military bases into industrial and commercial uses. Subic was one
of these areas. It was made into a special economic zone.
In the zone, there were no exchange controls. Such were
liberalized. There was also tax incentives and duty free importation
policies under this law.
On June 10, 1993, then President Fidel V. Ramos issued Executive
Order No. 97 (EO 97), clarifying the application of the tax and duty
incentives. It said that:
On Import Taxes and Duties. Tax and duty-free
importations shall apply only to raw materials, capital
goods and
equipment
brought
in
by business
enterprises into the SSEZ
purpose of the law and must apply to all those belonging to the
same class.
Classification, to be valid, must (1) rest on substantial distinctions,
(2) be germane to the purpose of the law, (3) not be limited to
existing conditions only, and (4) apply equally to all members of
the same class.
RA 7227 aims primarily to accelerate the conversion of
military reservations into productive uses. This was really limited to
the military bases as the law's intent provides. Moreover, the law
tasked
the
BCDA
to
specifically
develop
the
areas
thebases occupied.
Among such enticements are: (1) a separate customs territory
within the zone, (2) tax-and-duty-free importations, (3) restructured
income tax rates on business enterprises within the zone, (4) no
foreign exchange control, (5) liberalized regulations on banking and
finance, and (6) the grant of resident status to certain investors and
of working visas to certain foreign executives and workers. The
target of the law was the big investor who can pour in capital.
Even more important, at this time the business activities outside
the "secured area" are not likely to have any impact in achieving
the purpose of the law, which is to turn the former military base to
productive use for the benefit of the Philippine economy. Hence,
there was no reasonable basis to extend the tax incentives in RA
7227.
It is well-settled that the equal-protection guarantee does
not require territorial uniformity of laws. As long as there
are actual and material differences between territories,
there is no violation of the constitutional clause.
Besides, the businessmen outside the zone can always channel
their capital into it.
RA 7227, the objective is to establish a "self-sustaining, industrial,
commercial, financial and investment center. There will really be
differences between it and the outside zone of Olongapo.
The classification of the law also applies equally to the residents
and businesses in the zone. They are similarly treated to contribute
to the end gaol of the law.
SUPREME COURT RULING:
RULING:
and
Luzon
FACTS:
On 19 February 1968, Secretary Antonio V. Raquiza of the
Department of Public Works and Communications issued AO 1,
which, among others, prohibited motorcycles on limited access
highways. Accordingly, petitioners filed an Amended Petition on
February 8, 2001 wherein petitioners sought the declaration of
nullity of the aforesaid administrative issuances. Moreover,
petitioners prayed for the issuance of a temporary restraining order
No. Petitioners are not being deprived of their right to use the
limited access facility. They are merely being required, just like the
rest of the public, to adhere to the rules on how to use the facility.
AO 1 does not infringe upon petitioners right to travel but merely
bars motorcycles, bicycles, tricycles, pedicabs, and any nonmotorized vehicles as the mode of traveling along limited
access
highways. There
exists
real
and
substantial
differences exist between a motorcycle and other forms of
transport sufficient to justify its classification among those
prohibited from plying the toll ways. A classification based on
practical
convenience
and
common
knowledge
is
not
unconstitutional simply because it may lack purely theoretical or
scientific uniformity.
We find that it is neither warranted nor reasonable for petitioners to
say that the only justifiable classification among modes of transport
On June 10, 1993, the President issued Executive Order No. 97,
Clarifying the Tax and Duty Free Incentive Within the Subic Special
Economic Zone Pursuant to R.A. No. 7227. Nine days after, on June
19, 1993, Executive Order No. 97-A was issued, Further Clarifying
the Tax and Duty-Free Privilege Within the Subic Special Economic
and Free Port Zone.
AZCUNA, J
Nature: Petition for Prohibition and Injunction for the Executive
Branch from allowing, and the private respondents from continuing
with, the operation of tax and duty-free shops located at the Subic
Special Economic Zone (SSEZ) and the Clark Special Economic
Zone (CSEZ) and to declare the following issuances as
unconstitutional, illegal, and void:
Issues:
1.WON the assailed issuances constitute executive legislation?
2.WON the assailed issuances violate equal protection clause?
3.WON the assailed issuances violate constitutional prohibition
against unfair competition and practices in restraint of trade?
Held:
1. No. Section 12 (b) of Republic Act No. 7227 mentions only
raw materials, capital and equipment, but this does not
necessarily mean that the tax and duty-free buying privilege
is limited to these types of articles to the exclusion of
consumer goods. The phrase tax and duty-free importations
of raw materials, capital and equipment was merely cited as
an example of incentives that may be given to entities
operating within the zone. To limit the tax-free importation
privilege of enterprises located inside the special economic
zone only to raw materials, capital and equipment clearly
runs counter to the intention of the Legislature to create a
free port where the free flow of goods or capital within, into,
and out of the zones is insured.
On the other hand, insofar as the CSEZ is concerned,
the case for an invalid exercise of executive legislation is
tenable. While Section 12 of Republic Act No. 7227 expressly
provides for the grant of incentives to the SSEZ, it fails to
make any similar grant in favor of other economic zones,
including the CSEZ. Tax and duty-free incentives being in the
nature of tax exemptions, the basis thereof should be
categorically and unmistakably expressed from the
language of the statute. Consequently, in the absence of
any express grant of tax and duty-free privileges to the
CSEZ in Republic Act No. 7227, there would be no legal basis
to uphold the questioned portions of two issuances: Section
5 of Executive Order No. 80 and Section 4 of BCDA Board
Resolution No. 93-05-034, which both pertain to the CSEZ.
2. No. Petitioner asserts that private respondents operating
inside the SSEZ are not different from the retail
establishments located outside, the products sold being
essentially the same.
It is an established principle of constitutional law that the
guaranty of the equal protection of the laws is not violated
by a legislation based on a reasonable classification.
Classification, to be valid, must (1) rest on substantial
distinction, (2) be germane to the purpose of the law, (3) not
be limited to existing conditions only, and (4) apply equally
to all members of the same class.
First, contrary
to
petitioners
claim,
substantial
distinctions lie between the establishments inside and
outside the zone, justifying the difference in their treatment.
As long as there are actual and material differences
between territories, there is no violation of the constitutional
clause. And of course, anyone, including the petitioners,
possessing the requisite investment capital can always avail
of the same benefits by channeling his or her resources or
business operations into the fenced-off free port zone.
Second, the classification is germane to the purpose of
Republic Act No. 7227. As held in Tiu, the real concern of
Republic Act No. 7227 is to convert the lands formerly
occupied by the US military bases into economic or
industrial areas. . In furtherance of such objective, Congress
deemed it necessary to extend economic incentives to the
establishments within the zone to attract and encourage
foreign and local investors.
Third, The classification, moreover, is not limited to the
existing conditions when the law was promulgated, but to
future conditions as well, inasmuch as the law envisioned
the former military reservation to ultimately develop into a
self-sustaining investment center.
And, lastly, the classification applies equally to all
retailers found within the secured area. As ruled in Tiu, the
individuals and businesses within the secured area, being in
like circumstances or contributing directly to the
achievement of the end purpose of the law, are not
categorized further. They are all similarly treated, both in
privileges granted and in obligations required.
3. No. Republic Act No. 7227, and consequently Executive
Order No. 97-A, cannot be said to be distinctively arbitrary
against the welfare of businesses outside the zones. The
portions of Executive Order No. 97-A are valid and effective, except
the second sentences in paragraphs 1.2 and 1.3 of said Executive
Order, which are hereby declared INVALID.