G.R. No. 101273 July 3, 1992 2.
He contends that since the Constitution vests the authority to enact
CONG. ENRIQUE T. GARCIA, vs. ES, COM. OF CUSTOMS, NEDA , TARIFF
COM, SEC. OF FINANCE, and erb
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
percent (9%) ad valorem by the promulgation of EO 443, dated 3 January
1991.
July 1991, the Dept. of Finance requested the Tariff Commission to initiate
the process required by the Tariff and Customs Code for the imposition of
a specific levy on crude oil and other petroleum products and scheduled
public hearing;
August 1991 - EO 475 was issued by the President, reducing the rate of
additional duty on all imported articles from nine percent (9%) to five
percent (5%) ad valorem, except in the cases of crude oil and other oil
products which continued to be subject to the additional duty of nine
percent (9%) ad valorem.
August 1991 - the President issued EO 478, which levied (in addition to the
aforementioned additional duty of nine percent (9%) ad valorem and all
other existing ad valorem duties) a special duty of P0.95 per liter or P151.05
per barrel of imported crude oil and P1.00 per liter of imported oil products.
Petitioner assails the validity of EO 475 and 478 (Petition
for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus)
1. He argues that Executive Orders Nos. 475 and 478 are violative of
Section 24, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution which provides as
follows:
Sec. 24: All appropriation, revenue or tariff bills, bills
authorizing increase of the public debt, bills of local
application, and private bills shall originate exclusively in
the House of Representatives, but the Senate may
propose or concur with amendments.
revenue bills in Congress, the President may not assume such power
by issuing Executive Orders Nos. 475 and 478 which are in the
nature of revenue-generating measures.
Issue: Whether or not EO 475 and 478 are constitutional
Held :
Under Section 24, Article VI of the Constitution, the enactment of
appropriation, revenue and tariff bills, like all other bills is, of course, within
the province of the Legislative rather than the Executive Department. It does
not follow, however, that therefore EO 475 and 478, assuming they may be
characterized as revenue measures, are prohibited to the President, that
they must be enacted instead by the Congress of the Philippines. Section
28(2) of Article VI of the Constitution provides as follows:
(2) The Congress may, by law, authorize the President to fix within
specified limits, and subject to such limitations and restrictions as
it may impose, tariff rates, import and export quotas, tonnage and
wharfage dues, and other duties or imposts within the framework
of the national development program of the Government.
There is thus explicit constitutional permission to Congress to authorize
the President subject to such limitations and restrictions is [Congress]
may impose to fix within specific limits tariff rates . . . and other duties
or imposts . . .
It seems also important to note that tariff rates are commonly established
and the corresponding customs duties levied and collected upon articles and
goods which are not found at all and not produced in the Philippines.
Accordingly, the Court believe and so hold that EO 475 and 478 which may
be approved to be substantially moved by the desire to generate additional
public revenues, are not, for that reason alone, either constitutionally
flawed, or legally infirm under Section 401 of the Tariff and Customs Code.
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.