Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 52 views

    Sec 28 - 3A - Garcia V Executive Secretary

    Uploaded by

    Maria Venus Negros
    Executive Order Nos. 475 and 478 reduced import duties and levied special duties on crude oil and oil products. A congressman challenged the orders, arguing the president lacked authority to enact revenue measures. The Supreme Court ruled the orders were constitutional. Section 28 of the Constitution authorizes the president to set tariff rates within limits set by Congress. While revenue bills normally require Congress, the orders were valid objectives to generate revenue and protect local industries according to Section 401 of the Tariff and Customs Code. The orders were presumed constitutional and valid unless successfully challenged.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Sec 28 - 3A - Garcia V Executive Secretary

    Uploaded by

    Maria Venus Negros
    52 views1 page
    Executive Order Nos. 475 and 478 reduced import duties and levied special duties on crude oil and oil products. A congressman challenged the orders, arguing the president lacked authority to enact revenue measures. The Supreme Court ruled the orders were constitutional. Section 28 of the Constitution authorizes the president to set tariff rates within limits set by Congress. While revenue bills normally require Congress, the orders were valid objectives to generate revenue and protect local industries according to Section 401 of the Tariff and Customs Code. The orders were presumed constitutional and valid unless successfully challenged.

    Original Title

    Sec 28_3A_Garcia v Executive Secretary.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Executive Order Nos. 475 and 478 reduced import duties and levied special duties on crude oil and oil products. A congressman challenged the orders, arguing the president lacked authority to enact revenue measures. The Supreme Court ruled the orders were constitutional. Section 28 of the Constitution authorizes the president to set tariff rates within limits set by Congress. While revenue bills normally require Congress, the orders were valid objectives to generate revenue and protect local industries according to Section 401 of the Tariff and Customs Code. The orders were presumed constitutional and valid unless successfully challenged.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    52 views1 page

    Sec 28 - 3A - Garcia V Executive Secretary

    Uploaded by

    Maria Venus Negros
    Executive Order Nos. 475 and 478 reduced import duties and levied special duties on crude oil and oil products. A congressman challenged the orders, arguing the president lacked authority to enact revenue measures. The Supreme Court ruled the orders were constitutional. Section 28 of the Constitution authorizes the president to set tariff rates within limits set by Congress. While revenue bills normally require Congress, the orders were valid objectives to generate revenue and protect local industries according to Section 401 of the Tariff and Customs Code. The orders were presumed constitutional and valid unless successfully challenged.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    CONGRESSMAN ENRIQUE T.

    GARCIA (Second District of Bataan), petitioner,


    vs.
    THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, THE NATIONAL
    ECONOMIC AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, THE TARIFF COMMISSION, THE
    SECRETARY OF FINANCE, and THE ENERGY REGULATORY BOARD, respondents.

    G.R. No. 101273 | July 3, 1992

    FACTS:

    Executive Order No. 475 was issued by the President, on 15 August 1991, 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. Seven (7) days later, the
    President issued Executive Order No. 478, which levied 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. In the
    present Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus, petitioner assails the validity of
    Executive Orders No. 475 and 478 contending that since Section 24, Article VI of the 1987
    Constitution vests the authority to enact revenue bills in Congress, the President may not
    assume such power by issuing said Executive Orders which are in the nature of revenue-
    generating measures. Petitioner further argues that Executive Orders No. 475 and 478
    contravene Section 401 of the Tariff and Customs Code which authorized the President to
    increase, reduce or remove tariff duties only when necessary to protect local industries or
    products but not for the purpose of raising additional revenue for the government.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not Executive Orders No. 475 and 478 are constitutional.

    RULING:

    Yes, the assailed Executive Orders are constitutional.

    Section 28, Article VI of the Constitution provides that “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, tonage and wharfage dues, and other
    duties or imposts within the framework of the national development program of the
    Government.”

    In the present case, 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 under Section 24, Article VI of the Constitution. It does not follow, however,
    that Executive Orders No. 475 and 478, assuming they may be characterized as revenue
    measures, are prohibited to the President. Furthermore, customs duties like internal
    revenue taxes are designed to achieve more than one policy objective and 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. Thus,
    promulgating Executive Orders No. 475 and 478 is constitutionally permissible. Petitioner
    has not successfully overcome the presumptions of constitutionality and legality to which
    those Executive Orders are entitled

    You might also like