PHILIPPINE INTERNATIONAL TRADING CORPORATION,

petitioner,

vs.

HON. PRESIDING JUDGE ZOSIMO Z. ANGELES, BRANCH 58,

RTC, MAKATI; REMINGTON INDUSTRIAL SALES CORPORATION;
AND FIRESTONE CERAMIC, INC., respondents.

G.R. No. 108461 October 21, 1996

FACTS:

The Philippine International Trading Corporation, a government

owned and controlled corporation issued Administrative Order No.
SOCPEC 89-08-01, under which application to the PITC for importation
from the People’s Republic of China (PROC) must be accompanied by a
viable and confirmed Export Program of the Philippine Products to
China. This was to be carried out by the importer himself, or through a
tie-up with a legitimate importer, in an amount equivalent to the value
of the importation from PROC being applied for, or in a one-is-to-one
ratio.

Remington Industrial Sales Corporation and Firestone Ceramics,

Inc., both applied for authority to import from PROC with PITC, both of
which were granted, but were later on withheld for failure to comply
with the required one-is-to-one ratio of import and export.

Remington and Firestone filed a complaint asserting that the

Administrative Order No. SOCPEC 89-08-01 is unconstitutional. The
RTC Makati Branch 58 ruled that the order was a restraint of trade in
violation of Sections 1 and 19 of Art. 12 of the 1987 Constitution. The
court declared the A.O. to be null and void, since it was not published,
contrary to Art. 2 of NCC.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Administrative Order No. SOCPEC 89-08-01 is valid.

RULING:

The Administrative Order was not valid. The PITC, as an integral

part of the DTI, was given the task of implementing the department’s
trading program. It has the authority to issue the questioned order
and may legally exercise that authority under DTI’s supervision.

The grant of quasi-legislative powers in administrative bodies is not

unconstitutional. It has become necessary to create more
administrative bodies to help in the regulation of its activities.

In summary, the PITC was legally empowered to issue the

Administrative Order as a valid exercise of power ancillary to
legislation; however, it does not imply that the order was valid. First,
it was never published, thus it is not effective. Second, it is
inconsistent with the declared policy of the government to the effect
that it will develop and strengthen trade relations with the PROC.
Since the order was an unnecessary barrier to trade, the same is not a
valid exercise of its authority.