Can't share this digest on Facebook? Here's why.
G.R. No. 108461 – 263 SCRA 421 – Civil Law – General Principles – Publication of Laws; Administrative Orders
Philippine International Trading Corporation issued Administrative Order No. SOCPEC 89-08-01 under which applications to the PITC for importation from China must be accompanied by a viable and confirmed export program of Philippine products. PITC barred Remington Industrial Sales Corporation and Firestone Ceramics, Inc. from importing products from China on the ground that they were not able to comply with the requirement of the said administrative order. Thereafter the two corporations filed a petition for prohibition and mandamus against the said order of PITC in which the trial court, presided by Judge Zosimo Angeles, ruled the said administrative order to be void and unconstitutional. The court contends further authority to process and approve applications for imports SOCPEC and to issue rules and regulations pursuant to LOI 144 has already been repealed by EO 133 issued on February 27, 1987. AS a result, the PITC filed a certiorari petition seeking the reversal of the said decision.
ISSUE: Whether or not PITC’s Administrative Order 89-08-01 is valid.
HELD: The Supreme Court held that PITC is empowered to issue such order; nevertheless, the said AO is invalid within the context of Article 2 of the New Civil Code. The Court cited Tañada vs Tuvera which states that all statues including those of local application and private laws shall be published as condition for their effectivity, which shall begin 15 days after publication in the Official Gazette or a newspaper of general circulation unless a different effectivity date is fixed by the legislature. The AO under consideration is one of those issuances which should be published for its effectivity since it is punitive in character.