Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 715 Pantinople, Art. 8, Sec. 5

    Uploaded by

    KathleneGabrielAzasHao
    8 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that it did not have jurisdiction over the case challenging the date set for full deregulation of the local downstream oil industry under RA 8479. The Court found that the petitioner did not expressly challenge deregulation itself, but rather the wisdom of the specific date set for full deregulation. As the challenge was over the timing and not the constitutionality of the law, and no constitutional violation was shown, the Court held that it was not its role to intervene, and the matter was properly left to Congress and the President to determine.

    Original Description:

    DIGEST

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The Supreme Court ruled that it did not have jurisdiction over the case challenging the date set for full deregulation of the local downstream oil industry under RA 8479. The Court found that the petitioner did not expressly challenge deregulation itself, but rather the wisdom of the specific date set for full deregulation. As the challenge was over the timing and not the constitutionality of the law, and no constitutional violation was shown, the Court held that it was not its role to intervene, and the matter was properly left to Congress and the President to determine.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    8 views2 pages

    715 Pantinople, Art. 8, Sec. 5

    Uploaded by

    KathleneGabrielAzasHao
    The Supreme Court ruled that it did not have jurisdiction over the case challenging the date set for full deregulation of the local downstream oil industry under RA 8479. The Court found that the petitioner did not expressly challenge deregulation itself, but rather the wisdom of the specific date set for full deregulation. As the challenge was over the timing and not the constitutionality of the law, and no constitutional violation was shown, the Court held that it was not its role to intervene, and the matter was properly left to Congress and the President to determine.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    ARTICLE 8, SECTION 5 JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

    GARCIA vs CORONA

    G.R. No. 132451 December 17, 1999

    YNARES-SANTIAGO, J

    POINT OF THE CASE


    The Court is only an umpire of last resort whenever the Constitution or a law appears to have
    been violated. It will not exercise its judicial power of review if there is no showing of a
    constitutional violation
    FACTS:

    Petitioner Enrique T. Garcia, a member of Congress, has now brought this petition seeking to
    declare Section 19 of RA 8479, which sets the time of full deregulation, unconstitutional. After
    failing in his attempts to have Congress incorporate in the law the economic theory he
    espouses, petitioner now asks us, in the name of upholding the Constitution, to undo a violation
    which he claims Congress has committed.

    Petitioner contends that Section 19 of R.A. 8479, which prescribes the period for the removal of
    price control on gasoline and other finished products and for the full deregulation of the local
    downstream oil industry, is patently contrary to public interest and therefore unconstitutional
    because within the short span of five months, the market is still dominated and controlled by an
    oligopoly of the three (3) private respondents, namely, Shell, Caltex and Petron.

    Reduced to its basic arguments, it can be seen that the challenge in this petition is not against
    the legality of deregulation. Petitioner does not expressly challenge deregulation. The issue,
    quite simply, is the timeliness or the wisdom of the date when full deregulation should be
    effective.

    ISSUE:
    Whether or not, the instant case of deregulation is within the jurisdiction of the Court.
    RULING:

    No, the Court saw that the challenge in the petition is not against the legality of deregulation.
    The issue, quite simply, is the timeliness or the wisdom of the date when full deregulation
    should be effective.

    Having decided that deregulation is the policy to follow, Congress and the President have the
    duty to set up the proper and effective machinery to ensure that it works. This is something
    which cannot be adjudicated into existence. This Court is only an umpire of last resort whenever
    the Constitution or a law appears to have been violated. There is no showing of a constitutional
    violation in this case.

    You might also like