RTC issues injunction vs Safeguard Measures Act

The NCR Regional Trial Court has issued a preliminary injunction effectively suspending the implementation of the Safeguard Measures Act until the courts have resolved the constitutionality of the controversial law.

In an eight-page ruling penned by RTC Judge Floro P. Alejo, the court ruled in favor of cement, steel and ceramic backed by the Consumer Union of the Philippines which asked for the suspension of the law on grounds of constitutionality.

The injunction also effectively suspends all on-going cases under the Safeguard Measures Act that asked for the government to impose punitive measures against import surges that affect domestic industries.

Pending before the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) are petitions filed by the cement industry and the ceramic industry which had alleged that they were suffering heavy losses due to the surge in the importation of competing products.

According to Branch 172 of the RTC, however, Republic Act 8800 known as the Safeguard Measures Act, the law constituted undue delegation of legislative power and the court would have to make an ultimate determination on whether the law was unconstitutional.

Under RA 8800, the law allowed the secretaries of the DTI and the Department of Agriculture to impose provisional punitive tariff duties against imports while the safeguard petition is being resolved by the Tariff Commission.

The injunction order said that under the constitution, Congress delegated to the President the power to fix tariff rates, import and export quotas, tonnage and wharfage dues and other duties within the framework of national development.

"The power of taxation is given by the Constitution to Congress and it cannot further delegate that power," Alejo said in the order. "If and when Congress decides to delegate such power, it must delegate it properly to no one but the President."

The Philippine Cement Manufacturers Corp. and the Ceramic Tile Manufacturers Association argued that members of the Cabinet were considered after egos of the President.

However, the court ruled that the doctrine of qualified political agency did not apply when the Constitution or the law required that the President act in person or that the exigency of the situation demanded that he acts personally.

"The court sees the absurdity that will result if the alter ego doctrine is expanded in application despite a clear mandate from the Constitution or law to the contrary," the court said.

The court also upheld the position of the petitioners, saying that they stood to be injured by the enforcement of RA 8800 since they would be liable to pay higher import duty on their import subject to quantitative restriction which the court said would ultimately be passed on to the public and consumers.

"The petitioners have the right not to be subjected to punitive monetary sanctions and other forms of restraint of trade by the implementation of RA 8800 while the issue of constitutionality is pending resolution," the order declared. – Des Ferriols