Case Digest: Philippine International Trading Corporation v. Angeles

PHILIPPINE INTERNATIONAL TRADING CORPORATION, petitioner, vs.
ANGELES, respondent
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 carried out by the importer himself or through a tie-up with a legitimate importer from PROC in an amount equivalent to the value of importation from PRC being applied for, or simply at one-to one ratio.

Two domestic corporations, Remington and Firestone, both applied for authority to import from PROC, which were granted, but later on were withheld for failure to comply with the require one to one ratio of import and export.

They filed a complaint asserting that the administrative order is unconstitutional. The RTC ruled that the order was a restraint of trade in violation of Section 1 and 19 of Article XII of the 1987 Constitution. PITC elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

Issue:

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

Ruling:

The order was not valid.

The PITC is a line agency of the Department of Trade and Industry which was the primary coordinative, promotive, facilitative and regulatory arm of the government for the country’s trade. The PITC as an integral part of the DTI was given the task of the implementing the departments’ program. It has the authority to issue the questioned order and may legally exercise that authority under the supervision of the DTI. The grant t quasi-legislative powers in administrative bodies are not unconstitutional. It has become necessary to create more administrative bodies to help in the regulation of its activities. Because hey specializes in the field assigned to them, they can deal and dispatch problems with more expertise than the legislature or the courts of justice.

In sum, the PITC was legally empowered to issue the Administrative Orders as a valid exercise of a 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, the same is inconsistent with the declared policy of the government to then effect that it will develop and strengthen trade relations with the PROC. Since the order was a unnecessary barrier to trade, the same is not a valid exercise of its authority.