Batchnumber:1,Casenumber:3,Preparedby:AllainAbella

PITCVs.ANGELES
GR No. 108461 - - 2017-07-13

FACTS:
PITCissuedAdministrativeOrderNo.SOCPEC89-08-01underwhichapplicationstothePITC
forimportationfromthePeoplesRepublicofChinamustbeaccompaniedbyaviableand
confirmedexportprogramofPhilippineproducts.PITCbarredRemingtonandFirestonefrom
importingproductsfromChinaonthegroundthattheywerenotabletocomplywiththe
requirementofthesaidadministrativeorder.Thereaftertheyfiledapetitionforprohibitionand
mandamusagainstthesaidorderofPITCinwhichthetrialcourtupheldanddeclaredtobenull
andvoidforbeingunconstitutional.Thecourtcontendsfurtherauthoritytoprocessandapprove
applicationsforimportsSOCPECandtoissuerulesandregulationspursuanttoLOI144has
alreadybeenrepealedbyEO133issuedonFebruary27,1987.Hence,thePITCfiledacertiorari
seekingthereversalofthesaiddecision.

ISSUE:
WhetherornotPITCsAdministrativeOrder89-08-01isconstitutional?Ifso,doesitrequire
publicationunderArt.2oftheNCC?

HELD:
TheSupremeCourtheldthatPITCisempoweredtoissuesuchorder;nevertheless,thesaidAOis
invalid within the context of Article 2 of the New Civil Code. The Court cited Taada vs Tuvera
whichstatesthat:
allstatuesincludingthoseoflocalapplicationandprivatelawsshallbepublishedasconditionfor
theireffectivity,whichshallbegin15daysafterpublicationintheOfficialGazetteoranewspaper
ofgeneralcirculationunlessadifferenteffectivitydateisfixedbythelegislature.
TheAOunderconsiderationisoneofthoseissuanceswhichshouldbepublishedforitseffectivity
sinceitspurposeistoenforceanexistinglawthroughdelegationofpowers.Thus,beingalaw,not
merelyadministrativecircularorinterpretation,publicationisarequirementforitseffectivity.