The Coconut Oil Refiners Association filed a petition seeking to prohibit tax and duty-free shops operating within special economic zones. They argued this violated equal protection by only allowing import tax exemptions for raw materials, not retail goods. The Supreme Court ruled there was no violation, as the law did not exclusively limit incentives to raw materials and capital imports, but merely provided them as examples. It found the classifications between businesses inside and outside the zones to be reasonable based on the intent to attract investors. Thus, it dismissed the petition and upheld the operations of the tax-free shops within the special economic zones.
Description originale:
G.R. No. 132527. July 29, 2005 COCONUT OIL REFINERS ASSOCIATION, INC vs TORRES
Titre original
28d g.r. No. 132527. July 29, 2005 Coconut Oil Refiners Association, Inc vs Torres
The Coconut Oil Refiners Association filed a petition seeking to prohibit tax and duty-free shops operating within special economic zones. They argued this violated equal protection by only allowing import tax exemptions for raw materials, not retail goods. The Supreme Court ruled there was no violation, as the law did not exclusively limit incentives to raw materials and capital imports, but merely provided them as examples. It found the classifications between businesses inside and outside the zones to be reasonable based on the intent to attract investors. Thus, it dismissed the petition and upheld the operations of the tax-free shops within the special economic zones.
The Coconut Oil Refiners Association filed a petition seeking to prohibit tax and duty-free shops operating within special economic zones. They argued this violated equal protection by only allowing import tax exemptions for raw materials, not retail goods. The Supreme Court ruled there was no violation, as the law did not exclusively limit incentives to raw materials and capital imports, but merely provided them as examples. It found the classifications between businesses inside and outside the zones to be reasonable based on the intent to attract investors. Thus, it dismissed the petition and upheld the operations of the tax-free shops within the special economic zones.
[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 flo) 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$s and Tariff "ode and other relevant tax la)s of thePhilippines /R% 0110, !ec 21 &b'3, Petitioners contend that the )ording of Republic %ct 4o, 0110 clearl li$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 5rder 4o, 60*% for being violative of their right to e-ual protection, The asserted that private respondents operating inside the !!E+ are not different 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 filing of the petition, Issues: 7hether 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 8one, 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 5rder 4o, 60*% 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 classification, % classification, to be valid, $ust &2' rest on substantial distinction, &1' be ger$ane to the purpose of the la), &9' not be li$ited to existing conditions onl, and &:' appl e-uall to all $e$bers of the sa$e class, %ppling the foregoing test to the present case, this "ourt finds no violation of the right to e-ual protection of the la)s, There is a substantial distinctions ling bet)een the establish$ents inside and outside the 8one, There are substantial differences 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 benefits and incentives accorded in R,%, 0110,
7.EREF5RE, the petition is P%RT<= >R%4TE#, !ection ? of Executive 5rder 4o, @A and !ection : of B"#% Board Resolution 4o, 69*A?* A9: are hereb declared 4B<< and C5I# and are accordingl declared of no legal force and effect, Respondents are hereb enjoined fro$ i$ple$enting the aforesaid void provisions, %ll portions of Executive 5rder 4o, 60*% are valid and effective, except the second sentences in paragraphs 2,1 and 2,9 of said Executive 5rder, )hich are hereb declared I4C%<I#,