1

COCONUT OIL REFINERS ASSOCIATION, INC. vs TORRES

[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#,