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

Ponente: J. TORRES JR.

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.