gonzales vs. hechanova, 9 scra 230 (1963)

8/19/2019 Gonzales vs. Hechanova, 9 Scra 230 (1963)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gonzales-vs-hechanova-9-scra-230-1963 1/7

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-21897 October 22, 1963

RAMON A. GONZALES, petitioner,vs.RU!NO G. "EC"ANO#A, $% E&ec't()e Secret$r*, MACAR!O PERALTA, +R., $%Secret$r* o ee%e, PERO G!MENEZ, $% A'/(tor Geer$0, CORNEL!OALMACEA, $% Secret$r* o Coerce $/ !/'%tr*, $/ SAL#AORMAR!NO, Secret$r* o +'%t(ce, respondents.

Ramon A. Gonzales in his own behalf as petitioner.Office of the Solicitor General and Estanislao Fernandez for respondents.

CONCEPC!ON, J.:

This is an original action for prohibition with preliinar! in"unction.

#t is not disputed that on $epteber %%, &'(), respondent E*ecutive $ecretar!authori+ed the iportation of (,--- tons of foreign rice to be purchased fro privatesources, and created a rice procureent coittee coposed of the otherrespondents herein& for the ipleentation of said proposed iportation. Thereupon,or $epteber %, &'(), herein petitioner, Raon A. /on+ales 0 a rice planter, andpresident of the #loilo Pala! and Corn Planters Association, whose ebers are,li1ewise, engaged in the production of rice and corn 0 filed the petition herein,averring that, in a1ing or attepting to a1e said iportation of foreign rice, theaforeentioned respondents 2are acting without "urisdiction or in e*cess of "urisdiction2, because Republic Act No. )3% which allegedl! repeals or aendsRepublic Act No. %%- 0 e*plicitl! prohibits the iportation of rice and corn 2the Riceand Corn Adinistration or any other government agency 42 that petitioner has no

other plain, speed! and ade5uate reed! in the ordinar! course of law4 and that apreliinar! in"unction is necessar! for the preservation of the rights of the partiesduring the pendenc! this case and to prevent the "udgent therein fro coingineffectual. Petitioner pra!ed, therefore, that said petition be given due course4 that awrit of preliinar! in"unction be forthwith issued restraining respondent their agents or representatives fro ipleenting the decision of the E*ecutive $ecretar! to iportthe aforeentioned foreign rice4 and that, after due hearing, "udgent be rendereda1ing said in"unction peranent.

6orthwith, respondents were re5uired to file their answer to the petition which the!did, and petitioner7s pra! for a writ of preliinar! in"unction was set for hearing atwhich both parties appeared and argued orall!. Moreover, a eorandu was filed,shortl! thereafter, b! the respondents. Considering, later on, that the resolution said

incident a! re5uire soe pronounceents that would be ore appropriate in adecision on the erits of the case, the sae was set for hearing on the erits

thereafter. The parties, however, waived the right to argue orall!, although counsel forrespondents filed their eoranda.

#. Sufficiency of petitioners interest .

Respondents aintain that the status of petitioner as a rice planter does not give hisufficient interest to file the petition herein and secure the relief therein pra!ed for. 8efind no erit in this pretense. Apart fro prohibiting the iportation of rice and corn2b! the Rice and Corn Adinistration or an! other governent agenc!2. Republic ActNo. )3% declares, in $ection & thereof, that 2the polic! of the /overnent2 is to2engage in the purchase of these basic foods directly fro those tenants, farers,growers, producers and landowners in the !hilippines who wish to dispose of theirproducts at a price that will afford the a fair and "ust return for their labor and capitalinvestent. ... .2 Pursuant to this provision, petitioner, as a planter with a rice land ofsubstantial proportion,% is entitled to a chance to sell to the /overnent the rice itnow see1s to bu! abroad. Moreover, since the purchase of said coodit! will haveto be effected with public funds ainl! raised b! ta*ation, and as a rice producer andlandowner petitioner ust necessaril! be a ta*pa!er, it follows that he has sufficientpersonalit! and interest to see1 "udicial assistance with a view to restraining what hebelieves to be an attept to unlawfull! disburse said funds.

##. E"haustion of administrative remedies.

Respondents assail petitioner7s right to the reliefs pra!ed for because he 2has note*hausted all adinistrative reedies available to hi before coing to court2. 8ehave alread! held, however, that the principle re5uiring the previous e*haustion ofadinistrative reedies is not applicable where the 5uestion in dispute is purel! alegal one2,) or where the controverted act is 2patentl! illegal2 or was perforedwithout "urisdiction or in e*cess of "urisdiction,3 or where the respondent is adepartent secretar!, whose acts as an alter9ego of the President bear the iplied or assued approval of the latter, unless actuall! disapproved b! hi,( or where thereare circustances indicating the urgenc! of "udicial intervention. The case at bar failsunder each one of the foregoing e*ceptions to the general rule. Respondents7contention is, therefore, untenable.

###. #erits of petitioners cause of action.

Respondents 5uestion the sufficienc! of petitioner7s cause of action upon the theor!that the proposed iportation in 5uestion is not governed b! Republic Acts Nos. %%-and )3%, but was authori+ed b! the President as Coander9in9Chief 2for ilitar!stoc1 pile purposes2 in the e*ercise of his alleged authorit! under $ection % ofCoonwealth Act No. &4: that in cases of necessit!, the President 2or hissubordinates a! ta1e such preventive easure for the restoration of good order andaintenance of peace24 and that, as Coander9in9Chief of our ared forces, 2thePresident ... is dut!9bound to prepare for the challenge of threats of war or eergenc!without waiting for any special authority 2.

Regardless of whether Republic Act No. )3% repeals Republic Act No. %%-, ascontended b! petitioner herein 9 on which our view need not be e*pressed 0 we are

1



unaniousl! of the opinion 9 assuing that said Republic Act No. %%- is still in force0 that the two Acts are applicable to the proposed iportation in 5uestion becausethe language of said laws is such as to include within the purviewthereof all iportations of rice and corn into the Philippines2. Pursuant to Republic ActNo. %%-, 2it shall be unlawful for any person, association, corporation or governmentagency to iport rice and corn into an! point in the Philippines2, although, b! wa! ofe*ception, it adds, that $the !resident of the !hilippines a! authori+e the iportationof these coodities through an! governent agenc! that he a! designate2, is theconditions prescribed in $ection % of said Act are present. $iilarl!, Republic Act No.

)3% e*plicitl! en"oins 2the Rice and Corn Adinistration or any government agency 2fro iporting rice and corn.

Respondents allege, however, that said provisions of Republic Act Nos. %%- and)3%, prohibiting the iportation of rice and corn b! an! 2governent agenc!2, do notappl! to iportations 2ade b! the /overnent itself2, because the latter is not a2governent agenc!2. This theor! is devoid of erit. The ;epartent of National;efense and the Ared 6orces of the Philippines, as well as respondents herein, andeach and ever! officer and eplo!ee of our /overnent, our governent agenciesand<or agents. The applicabilit! of said laws even to iportations b! the /overnentas such, becoes ore apparent when we consider that=

&. The iportation peritted in Republic Act No. %%- is to be authori+ed b! the

$!resident of the !hilippines$ and, hence, b! or on behalf of the /overnent of thePhilippines4

%. #ediatel! after en"oining the Rice and Corn adinistration and an! othergovernent agenc! fro iporting rice and corn, $ection &- of Republic Act No.)3% adds 2that the importation of rice and corn is left to private parties upon pa!entof the corresponding ta*es2, thus indicating that only 2private parties2 a! iport riceunder its provisions4 and

). Aside fro prescribing a f ine not e*ceeding P&-,---.-- and iprisonent of notore than five >? !ears for those who shall violate an! provision of Republic Act No.)3% or an! rule and regulation proulgated pursuant thereto, $ection & of said Actprovides that 2if the offender is a public official and<or eplo!ees2, he shall be sub"ect

to the additional penalt! specified therein. A public official is an officer of theGovernment itself , as distinguished fro officers or eplo!ees of instruentalities ofthe /overnent. @ence, the duly authorized acts of the former are those of theGovernment , unli1e those of a governent instruentalit! which a! have apersonalit! of its own, distinct and separate fro that of the /overnent, as such.The provisions of Republic Act No. %%- are, in this respect, even ore e*plicit.$ection ) thereof provides a siilar additional penalt! for an! 2officer or eplo!ee ofthe Government 2 who 2violates, abets or tolerates the violation of an! provision2 ofsaid Act. @ence, the intent to appl! the sae to transactions ade by the verygovernment is patent.

#ndeed, the restrictions iposed in said Republic Acts are erel! additional to thoseprescribed in Coonwealth Act No. &):, entitled 2An Act to give native products and

doestic entities the preference in the purchase of articles for the Government .2Pursuant to $ection & thereof=

The Purchase and E5uipent ;ivision of the Government of the!hilippines and other officers and eplo!ees of the unicipal and provincialgovernents and the Government of the !hilippines and of chartered cities,boards, coissions, bureaus% departments% offices% agencies% branches,and bodies of an! description, including governent9owned copanies,authori+ed to re5uisition, purchase, or contract or a1e disburseents forarticles, aterials, and supplies for public use, public buildings, or publicwor1s shall give preference to materials ... produced ... in the !hilippines orin the nited $tates, and to domestic entities, sub"ect to the conditions

hereinbelow specified. >Ephasis supplied.?

nder this provision, in all purchases by the Government , including those ade b!and<or for the ared forces, preference shall be given to materials produced in the!hilippines. The iportation involved in the case at bar violates this general polic! ofour /overnent, aside fro the provisions of Republic Acts Nos. %%- and )3%.

The attept to "ustif! the proposed iportation b! invo1ing reasons of nationalsecurit! 0 predicated upon the 2worsening situation in aos and ietna2, and 2therecent tension created b! the Mala!sia proble2 9 and the alleged powers of thePresident as Coander9in9Chief of all ared forces in the Philippines, under$ection % of the National ;efense Act >Coonwealth Act No. &?, overloo1s the factthat the protection of local planters of rice and corn in a anner that would foster and

accelerate self9sufficienc! in the local production of said coodities constitutes afactor that is vital to our abilit! to eet possible national eergenc!. Even if the intentin iporting goods in anticipation of such eergenc! were to bolster up that abilit!,the latter would, instead, be ipaired if the iportation were so ade as todiscourage our farers fro engaging in the production of rice.

Besides, the stoc1piling of rice and corn for purpose of national securit! and<ornational eergenc! is within the purview of Republic Act No. )3%. $ection ) thereofe*pressl! authori+es the Rice and Corn Adinistration 2to accuulate stoc1s asa national reserve in such 5uantities as it a! dee proper and necessar! toeet any contingencies2. Moreover, it ordains that $the buffer stoc&s held as anational reserve ... be deposited by the administration throughout the country underthe proper dispersal plans ... and a! be released onl! upon the occurrence of

calaities or emergencies ...2. >Ephasis applied.?

Again, the provisions of $ection % of Coonwealth Act No. &, upon whichrespondents rel! so uch, are not self9e*ecutor!. The! erel! outline the generalob"ectives of said legislation. The eans for the attainent of those ob"ectives aresub"ect to congressional legislation. Thus, the conditions under which the services ofciti+ens, as indicated in said $ection %, a! be availed of, are provided for in $ections), 3 and & to :: of said Coonwealth Act No. &. $iilarl!, $ection thereofspecifies the anner in which resources necessar! for our national defense a! besecured b! the /overnent of the Philippines, but onl! 2during a nationalmobilization2,'which does not e*ist. #nferentiall!, therefore, in the absence of anational obili+ation, said resources shall be produced in such anner as Congressa! b! other laws provide fro tie to tie. #nsofar as rice and corn are concerned,

Republic Acts Nos. %%- and )3%, and Coonwealth Act No. &): are such laws.

2



Respondents cite Corwin in support of their pretense, but in vain. An e*aination ofthe wor1 cited&- shows that Corwin referred to the powers of the President during 2war tie2&& or when he has placed the countr! or a part thereof under 2artiallaw2.&% $ince neither condition obtains in the case at bar, said wor1 erel! proves thatrespondents7 theor!, if accepted, would, in effect, place the Philippines under artiallaw, without a declaration of the E*ecutive to that effect. 8hat is worse, it would 1eepus perpetually under artial law.

#t has been suggested that even if the proposed iportation violated Republic Acts

Nos. %%- and )3%, it should, nevertheless, be peritted because 2it redounds tothe benefit of the people2. Salus populi est suprema le" , it is said.

#f there were a local shortage of rice, the arguent might have soe value. But therespondents, as officials of this /overnent, have e*pressl! affired again and againthat there is no r ice shortage. And the iportation is avowedl! for stoc1pile of the Army 0 not the civilian population.

But let us follow the respondents7 trend of thought. #t has a ore serious iplicationthat appears on the surface. #t iplies that if an e*ecutive officer believes thatcopliance with a certain statute will not benefit the people, he is at libert! todisregard it. That idea ust be re"ected 9 we still live under a rule of law.

And then, 2the people2 are either producers or consuers. Now 0 as respondentse*plicitl! adit 0 Republic Acts Nos. %%- and )3% were approved b! theegislature for the benefit of producers and consuers, i.e., the people, it ust followthat the welfare of the people lies precisel! in the compliance with said Acts.

#t is not for respondent e*ecutive officers now to set their own opinions against that ofthe egislature, and adopt eans or wa!s to set those Acts at naught. An!wa!, thoselaws perit iportation 0 but under certain conditions, which have not been, andshould be coplied with.

#. 'he contracts with (ietnam and )urma 0

#t is lastl! contended that the /overnent of the Philippines has alread! entered intotwo >%? contracts for the Purchase of rice, one with the Republic of ietna, andanother with the /overnent of Bura4 that these contracts constitute valid e*ecutiveagreeents under international law4 that such agreeents becae binding effectiveupon the signing thereof b! representatives the parties thereto4 that in case of conflictbetween Republic Acts Nos. %%- and )3% on the one hand, and aforeentionedcontracts, on the other, the latter should prevail, because, if a treat! and a statute areinconsistent with each other, the conflict ust be resolved 0 under the Aerican "urisprudence 0 in favor of the one which is latest in point of tie4 that petitionerherein assails the validit! of acts of the E*ecutive relative to foreign relations in theconduct of which the $upree Court cannot interfere4 and the aforeentionedcontracts have alread! been consuated, the /overnent of the Philippines havingalread! paid the price of the rice involved therein through irrevocable letters of credit

in favor of the sell of the said coodit!. 8e find no erit in this pretense.

The Court is not satisfied that the status of said tracts as alleged e*ecutiveagreeents has been sufficientl! established. The parties to said contracts do notpear to have regarded the sae as e*ecutive agreeents. But, even assuing thatsaid contracts a! properl! considered as e*ecutive agreeents, the sae areunlawful, as well as null and void, fro a constitutional viewpoint, said agreeentsbeing inconsistent with the provisions of Republic Acts Nos. %%- and )3%. Althoughthe President a!, under the Aerican constitutional s!ste enter into e*ecutiveagreeents without previous legislative authorit!, he a! not , b! e*ecutiveagreeent, enter into a transaction which is prohibited b! statutes enacted prior

thereto. nder the Constitution, the ain function of the E*ecutive is to enforce lawsenacted b! Congress. The forer a! not interfere in the perforance of thelegislative powers of the latter, e*cept in the e*ercise of his veto power. @e a! notdefeat legislative enactents that have ac5uired the status of law, b! indirectlyrepealing the sae through an e*ecutive agreeent providing for the performance ofthe very act prohibited by said laws.

The Aerican theor! to the effect that, in the event of conflict between a treaty and astatute, the one which is latest in point of tie shall prevail, is not applicable to thecase at bar, for respondents not onl! adit, but, alsoinsist that the contracts advertedto are not treaties. $aid theor! a! be "ustified upon the ground that treaties to whichthe nited $tates is signator! re5uire the advice and consent of its $enate, and,hence, of a branch of the legislative departent. No such "ustification can be given asregards e*ecutive agreeents not authori+ed b! previous legislation, withoutcopletel! upsetting the principle of separation of powers and the s!ste of chec1sand balances which are fundaental in our constitutional set up and that of thenited $tates.

As regards the 5uestion whether an international agreeent a! be invalidated b!our courts, suffice it to sa! that the Constitution of the Philippines has clearl! settled itin the affirative, b! providing, in $ection % of Article ### thereof, that the $upreeCourt a! not be deprived 2of its "urisdiction to review, revise, reverse, odif!, oraffir on appeal, certiorari , or writ of error as the law or the rules of court a!provide, final "udgents and decrees of inferior courts in 0 >&? All cases in whichthe constitutionality or validity of an! treaty , law, ordinance, or e*ecutive order orregulation is in 5uestion2. #n other words, our Constitution authori+es the nullificationof a treat!, not onl! when it conflicts with the fundaental law, but% also% when it runscounter to an act of *ongress.

The alleged consuation of the aforeentioned contracts with ietna and Buradoes not render this case acadeic, Republic Act No. %%- en"oins our /overnentnot fro entering into contracts for the purchase of rice, but fro importing rice,e*cept under the conditions Prescribed in said Act. pon the other hand, Republic ActNo. )3% has two >%? ain features, nael!= >a? it re5uires the /overnent topurchase rice and corn directly fro our local planters, growers or landowners4 and >b?it prohibits importations of rice b! the /overnent, and leaves such iportations toprivate parties. The pivotal issue in this case is whether the proposed importation 0which has not been consuated as !et 0 is legall! feasible.

astl!, a "udicial declaration of illegalit! of the proposed iportation would not copelour /overnent to default in the perforance of such obligations as it a! have

3



contracted with the sellers of the rice in 5uestion, because, aside fro the fact thatsaid obligations a! be coplied with without importing the coodit! into thePhilippines, the proposed iportation a! still be legali+ed b! copl!ing with theprovisions of the aforeentioned laws.

. 'he writ of preliminary in+unction.

The ebers of the Court have divergent opinions on the 5uestion whether or notrespondents herein should be en"oined fro ipleenting the aforeentioned

proposed iportation. @owever, the a"orit! favors the negative view, for whichreason the in"unction pra!ed for cannot be granted.

8@ERE6DRE, "udgent is hereb! rendered declaring that respondent E*ecutive$ecretar! had and has no power to authori+e the iportation in 5uestion4 that hee*ceeded his "urisdiction in granting said authorit!4 said iportation is not sanctionedb! law and is contrar! to its provisions4 and that, for lac1 of the re5uisite a"orit!, thein"unction pra!ed for ust be and is, accordingl! denied. #t is so ordered.

)engzon% *,% !adilla% -abrador% Reyes% ,.).-.% izon and #a&alintal% ,,.% concur.!aredes and Regala% ,,.% concur in the result.

Se$r$te O((o%

AUT!STA ANGELO, J., concurring=

nder Republic Act No. %%-, which too1 effect on Ma! &, &'', it is unlawful for an!person, association, corporation or governent agenc! to iport rice and corn intoan! point in the Philippines. The e*ception is if there is an e*isting or iinentshortage of such coodit! of uch gravit! as to constitute national eergenc! inwhich case an iportation a! be authori+ed b! the President when so certified b!the National Econoic Council.

@owever, on une &3, &'(%, Republic Act )3% was enacted providing that theiportation of rice and corn canonly be ade b! private parties thereb! prohibitingfro doing so the Rice and Corn Adinistration or an! other governent agenc!.Republic Act )3% does not e*pressl! repeal Republic Act %%-, but onl! repeals orodified those parts thereof that are inconsistent with its provisions. The 5uestionthat now arises is= @as the enactent of Republic Act )3% the effect of prohibitingcopletel! the governent fro iporting rice and corn into the PhilippinesF

M! answer is in the negative. $ince this Act does not in an! anner provide for theiportation of rice and corn in case of national eergenc!, the provision of the forer law on that atter should stand, for that is not inconsistent with an! provisionebodied in Republic Act )3%. The Rice and Corn Adinistration, or an! othergovernent agenc!, a! therefore still iport rice and corn into the Philippines asprovided in Republic Act %%- if there is a declared national eergenc!.

The ne*t 5uestion that arises is= Can the governent authori+e the iportation of riceand corn regardless of Republic Act %%- if that is authori+ed b! the President asCoander9in9Chief of the Philippine Ar! as a ilitar! precautionar! easure forilitar! stoc1pileF

Respondents answer this 5uestion in the affirative. The! advance the arguent thatit is the President7s dut! to see to it that the Ared 6orces of the Philippines aregeared to the defenses of the countr! as well as to the fulfillent of our internationalcoitents in $outheast Asia in the event the peace and securit! of the area are in

danger. The stoc1piling of rice, the! aver, is an essential re5uireent of defensepreparation in view of the liited local suppl! and the probable disruption of trade andcoerce with outside countries in the event of ared hostilities, and this ilitar!precautionar! easure is necessar! because of the unsettled conditions in the$outheast Asia bordering on actual threats of ared conflicts as evaluated b! the#ntelligence $ervice of the Militar! ;epartent of our /overnent. This advocac!,the! contend, finds support in the national defense polic! ebodied in $ection % ofour National ;efense Act >Coonwealth Act No. &?, which provides=

>a? The preservation of the $tate is the obligation of ever! citi+en. Thesecurit! of the Philippines and the freedo, independence and perpetualneutralit! of the Philippine Republic shall be guaranteed b! the eplo!entof all citi+ens, without distinction of se* or age, and all resources.

>b? The eplo!ent of the nation7s citi+ens and resources for nationaldefense shall be effected b! a national obili+ation.

>c? The national obili+ation shall include the e*ecution of all easuresnecessar! to pass fro a peace to a war footing.

>d? The civil authorit! shall alwa!s be supree. The President of thePhilippines as the Coander9in9Chief of all ilitar! forces, shall beresponsible that obili+ation easures are prepared at all ties.>Ephasissupplied?

#ndeed, # find in that declaration of polic! that the securit! of the Philippines and itsfreedo constitutes the core of the preservation of our $tate which is the basic dut!of ever! citi+en and that to secure which it is en"oined that the President eplo! allthe resources at his coand. But over and above all that power and dut!,fundaental as the! a! see, there is the in"unction that the civil authorit! shallalwa!s be supree. This in"unction can onl! ean that while all precautions shouldbe ta1en to insure the securit! and preservation of the $tate and to this effect theeplo!ent of all resources a! be resorted to, the action ust alwa!s be ta1enwithin the fraewor1 of the civil authorit!. Militar! authorit! should be haroni+ed andcoordinated with civil authorit!, the onl! e*ception being when the law clearl! ordainsotherwise. Neither Republic Act %%-, nor Republic Act )3%, contains an! e*ceptionin favor of ilitar! action concerning iportation of rice and corn. An e*ception ustbe strictl! construed.

4



A distinction is ade between the governent and governent agenc! in an atteptto ta1e the forer out of the operation of Republic Act %%-. # disagree. The/overnent of the Republic of the Philippines under the Revised Adinistrative Coderefers to that entit! through which the functions of governent are e*ercised,including the various ars through which political authorit! is ade effective whetherthe! be provincial, unicipal or other for of local governent, whereas agovernent instruentalit! refers to corporations owned or controlled b! thegovernent to proote certain aspects of the econoic life of our people. Agovernent agenc!, therefore, ust necessaril! refer to the governent itself of the

Republic, as distinguished fro an! governent instruentalit! which has apersonalit! distinct and separate fro it >$ection %?.

The iportant point to deterine, however, is whether we should en"oin respondentsfro carr!ing out the iportation of the rice which according to the record has beenauthori+ed to be iported on government to government level , it appearing that thearrangeent to this effect has alread! been concluded, the onl! thing lac1ing beingits ipleentation. This is evident fro the anifestation subitted b! the $olicitor/eneral wherein it appears that the contract for the purchase of 3,--- tons of ricefro had been sign on Dctober , &'(), and for the purchase of %-,--- tons froBura on Dctober :, &'(), b! the authori+ed representatives of both our governentand the governents of ietna and Bura, respectivel!. #f it is true that, ourgovernent has alread! ade a foral coitent with the selling countries therearises the 5uestion as to whether the act can still be ipeded at this stage of thenegotiations. Though on this score there is a divergence of opinion, it is gratif!ing tonote that the a"orit! has e*pressed itself against it. This is a plausible attitude for,had the writ been issued, our governent would have been placed in a predicaentwhere, as a necessar! conse5uence, it would have to repudiate a dul! forali+edagreeent to its great ebarrassent and loss of face. This was avoided b! the "udicial statesanship evinced b! the Court.

ARRERA, J., concurring=

Because of possible coplications that ight be aggravated b! isrepresentation ofthe true nature and scope of the case before this Court, it is well to restate as clearl!

as possible, the real and onl! issue presented b! the respondents representing thegovernent.

6ro the answer filed b! the $olicitor /eneral, in behalf of respondents, we 5uote=

The iportation of the rice in 5uestion b! the Ared 6orces of thePhilippines is for military stoc&piling authori+ed b! the President pursuant tohis inherent power as coander9in9chief and as a military precautionarymeasure in view the worsening situation in aos and ietna and, it a!added, the recent, tension created b! the Mala!sia proble >Answer, p. %4ephasis supplied.?

;uring the oral arguent, $enator 6ernande+, appealing in behalf of the respondents,li1ewise reiterated the iported rice was for ilitar! stoc1piling, and which he

aditted that soe of it went to the Rice and Corn Adinistration, he ephasi+edagain and again that rice was not intended for the RCA for distribution to people, asthere was no shortage of rice for that purpose but it was onl! e*changed for pala!because this could better preserved.

6ro the eorandu filed thereafter b! the $olicits /eneral, again the clai wasade=

8e respectfull! reiterate the arguents in our answer dated Dctober 3, &'()

that the iportation of rice sought be en"oined in this petition is in thee*ercise of the authorit! vested in the President of the Philippines asCoander9in9Chief of the Ared 6orces, as a measure of military preparedness demanded by a real and actual threat of emergency in theSouth East Asian countries. >p. &, Ephasis supplied.?

*** *** ***

#t >the stressing of the unsettled conditions in $outheast Asia? is merely ourintention to show the necessit! for the stoc1piling of rice for army purposes%which is the very reason for the importation.

*** *** ***

As it is% the importation in /uestion is being made by the Republic of the!hilippines for its own use% and the rice is not supposed to be poured intothe open mar&et as to affect the price to be paid by the public . >p. 3,Ephasis supplied.?

*** *** ***

8hat we do contend is that the law, for want of e*press and clear provisionto that effect, does not include in its prohibition importation by theGovernment of rice for its own use and not for the consuming public%regardless of whether there is or there is no emergency . >p. , Ephasissupplied.?

6ro the above, it not onl! appears but is evident that the respondents were notconcerned with the present rice situation confronting the consuming public , but weresolel! and e*clusivel! after the stoc1piling of rice for thefuture use of the army . Theissue, therefore, in which the /overnent was interested is not whether rice isiported to give the people a bigger or greater suppl! to aintain the price at P.:-per ganta 0 for, to 5uote again their contention= 2the rice is not supposed to bepoured into the open ar1et to affect the price to be paid b! the public, as it is not forthe consuing public, regardless of whether there is or there is no eergenc!2, 0but whether rice can legall! be iported b! the Ared 6orces of the Philippinesavowedl! for its future use, notwithstanding the prohibitor! provisions of Republic ActsNos. %%- and )3%. The a"orit! opinion abl! sets forth the reasons wh! this Courtcan not accept the contention of the respondents that this iportation is be!ond andoutside the operation of these statutes. # can onl! ephasi+e that # see in the theor!

5



advanced b! the $olicitor /eneral a dangerous trend 0 that because the policiesenunciated in the cited laws are for the protection of the producers and theconsuers, the ar! is reoved fro their application. To adopt this theor! is toproclai the e*istence in the Philippines of three econoic groups or classes= theproducers, the consuers, and the Ared 6orces of the Philippines. 8hat is oreportentous is the effect to e5uate the ar! with the /overnent itself.

Then again, the iportation of this rice for ilitar! stoc1piling is sought to be "ustifiedb! the alleged threat of eergenc! in the $outheast Asian countries. But the

e*istence of this supposed threat was unilaterall! deterined b! the ;epartent ofNational ;efense alone. 8e recall that there e*ists a bod! called the National$ecurit! Council in which are represented the E*ecutive as well as the egislativedepartent. #n it sit not onl! ebers of the part! in power but of the opposition aswell. To our 1nowledge, this is the highest consultative bod! which deliberatesprecisel! in ties of eergenc! threatening to affect the securit! of the state. Thedeocratic coposition of this council is to guarantee that its deliberations would benon9partisan and onl! the best interests of the nation will be considered. Being adeliberative bod!, it insures against precipitate action. This is as it should be.Dtherwise, in these da!s of ever present cold war, an! change or developent in thepolitical cliate in an! region of the world is apt to be ta1en as an e*cuse for theilitar! to con"ure up a crisis or eergenc! and thereupon attept to override ourlaws and legal processes, and iperceptibl! institute soe 1ind of artial law on theprete*t of precautionar! obili+ation easure avowedl! in the interest of the securit!of the state. Dne need not, be too iaginative to perceive a hint of this in the presentcase.

The $upree Court, in arriving at the conclusion unaniousl! reached, is full! awareof the difficult and delicate tas1 it had to discharge. #ts position is liable to be e*ploitedb! soe for their own purposes b! claiing and a1ing it appear that the Court isunindful of the plight of our people during these da!s of hardship4 that it preferred togive substance to the 2niceties of the law than heed the needs of the people. Duranswer is that the Court was left no alternative. #t had, in copliance with its dut!, todecide the case upon the facts presented to it. The respondents, representing theadinistration, steadfastl! aintained and insisted that there is no rice shortage4 thatthe iported rice is not for the consuing public and is not supposed to be placed inthe open ar1et to affect the price to be paid b! the public4 that it is solel! forstoc1piling of the ar! for future use as a easure of obili+ation in the face of whatthe ;epartent of National ;efense unilaterall! deeed a threatened ared conflictin $outheast Asia. Confronted with these facts upon, which the /overnent has builtand rested its case, we have searched in vain for legal authorit! or cogent reasons to "ustif! this iportation ade adittedl! contrar! to the provisions of Republic ActsNos. %%- and )3%. # sa! adittedl!, because respondents never as uch aspretended that the iportation fulfills the conditions specified in these laws, but liitedtheselves to the contention, which is their sole defense that this iportation doesnot fall within the scope of said laws. #n our view, however, the laws are clear. Thelaws are coprehensive and their application does not adit of an! e*ception. Thelaws are ade5uate. Copliance therewith is not difficult, uch less ipossible. Theavowed eergenc!, if at all, is not urgentl! iediate.

#n this connection, it is pertinent to bear in ind that the $upree Court has a dut! toperfor under the Constitution. #t has to decide, when called upon to do so in an

appropriate proceeding, all cases in which the constitutionalit! or validit! of an! treat!,law, ordinance, e*ecutive order or regulation is in 5uestion. 8e can not elude thisdut!. To do so would be culpable dereliction on our part. 8hile we s!pathi+e withthe public that ight be adversel! affected as a result of this decision !et ours!path! does not authori+e us to sanction an act contrar! to applicable laws. Thefault lies with those who stubbornl! contended and represented before this Court thatthere is no rice shortage, that the iported rice is not intended for the consuingpublic, but for stoc1piling of the ar!. And, if as now claied before the public,contrar! to the /overnent7s stand in this case, that there is need for iported rice tostave off hunger, our legislature has provided for such a situation. As alread! stated,the laws are ade5uate. The iportation of rice under the conditions set forth in thelaws a! be authori+ed not onl! where there is an e"isting shortage, but also whenthe shortage is imminent . #n other words, lawful reed! to solve the situation isavailable, if onl! those who have the dut! to e*ecute the laws perfor their dut!. #fthere is reall! need for the iportation of rice, who adopt soe dubious eans whichnecessitates resort to doubtful e*ercise of the power of the President as Coander9in9Chief of the Ar!F 8h! not copl! with the andate of the lawF Durs is supposedto be a regie under the rule of law. Adoption as a governent polic! of the theor! ofthe end "ustifies the eans brushing aside constitutional and legal restraints, ust bere"ected, lest we end up with the end of freedo.

6or these reasons, # concur in the decision of the Court.

Se$r$te O((o%

ootote%

& The $ecretar! of National ;efense, the Auditor /eneral, the $ecretar! ofCoerce and #ndustr!, and the $ecretar! ustice.

% % hectares.

) Tapales vs. The President and the Board of Regents of the .P., 9&%),

March )-, &'().

3 Mangubat vs. DseGa, 9&%:), April )-, &''4 Baguio vs. @on. oseRodrigue+, 9&&-:, Ma! %, &''4 Pascual Provincial Board, 9&&'',Dctober )&, &''.

Marindu5ue #ron Mines Agents, #nc. vs. $ecretar! of Public 8or1s, 9&':%, Ma! )&, &'().

( #n the present case, respondents allege in their answer that 2theiportation ... in 5uestion ... is authorized by the !resident .

Al+ate vs. Aldaba, 9&33-, 6ebruar! %', &'(-4 ;eaisip vs. Court of Appeals, 9&)---, $epteber %, &''.

6



: 8hich provides that the national defense polic! of the Philippines shall befollows=

>a? The preservation of the state is the obligation of ever! citi+en.The securit! of the Philippines and the freedo, independence andperpetual neutralit! of the Philippine Republic shall be guaranteedb! the eplo!ent of all citi+ens, without distinction of se* orage, and all resources.

>b? The eplo!ent of the nation7s citi+ens and resources fornational defense shall be effected b! a national obili+ation.

>c? The national obili+ation shall include the e*ecution of alleasures necessar! to pass fro a peace to a war footing.

>d? The civil authorit! shall alwa!s be supree. The President ofthe Philippines as the Coander9in9Chief of all ilitar!forces, shall be responsible that mobilization measures are prepared at all times.

*** *** ***

' #n line with the provisions of paragraphs b?, c?, e?, and f? of section % of said Act.

&- The Constitution and 8hat #t Means Toda!, pp. '9'(.

&& The Power of the President as Coander9in9Chief is priaril! that ofilitar! coand in wartime, and as such includes, as against the personsand propert! of enemies of the nited $tates encountered within the theaterof military operations, all the powers allowed a ilitar! coander in suchcases b! the -aw of 0ations. President incoln7s faous Proclaation ofEancipation rested upon this ground. #t was effective within the theater ofmilitary operations while the war lasted% but no longer. >p. '), Ephasissupplied.?

&% 6ro an earl! date the Coander9in9Chief power cae to be ergedwith the President7s dut! to ta1e care that the laws be faithfull! e*ecuted. $o,while in using ilitar! force against unlawful cobinations too strong to bedealt with through the ordinar! processes of law the President acts b!authori+ation of statute, his powers are still those of Coander9in9Chief. ...

nder 2preventive artial law2, so9called because it authori+es 2preventive2arrests and detentions, the ilitar! acts as an ad"unct of the civil authoritiesbut not necessaril! sub"ect to their orders. #t a! be established wheneverthe e*ecutive organ, $tate or national, dees it to be necessar! for the

restoration of good order. The concept, being of +udicial origin, is of coursefor +udicial application, and ultiatel! for application by the Supreme *ourt ,

in enforceent of the due process clauses. >$ee, also, $ection ### of this Article, and Article #, $ection #.? >Pp. '9'(, Ephasis supplied.?

7

gonzales vs. hechanova, 9 scra 230 (1963)

Documents