Scribd
Upload
159 views1 page

SCC Vs Va

This case involved a dispute over the Philippine Department of Trade and Industry's (DTI) imposition of a safeguard measure on imports of gray portland cement. The Philippine Cement Manufacturer Corporations had applied for the measure, claiming increased imports were hurting domestic production. However, the DTI imposed the measure despite the Tariff Commission rendering a negative determination, in violation of the Safeguard Measures Act. The Court ruled that while the President and DTI Secretary have delegated tariff powers from Congress, these powers are still subject to limitations as outlined in the Constitution and Safeguard Measures Act. Since the Tariff Commission's findings were negative, the imposed safeguard measure exceeded the DTI's authority and was declared null

Uploaded by

Anna Guevarra
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
159 views1 page

SCC Vs Va

This case involved a dispute over the Philippine Department of Trade and Industry's (DTI) imposition of a safeguard measure on imports of gray portland cement. The Philippine Cement Manufacturer Corporations had applied for the measure, claiming increased imports were hurting domestic production. However, the DTI imposed the measure despite the Tariff Commission rendering a negative determination, in violation of the Safeguard Measures Act. The Court ruled that while the President and DTI Secretary have delegated tariff powers from Congress, these powers are still subject to limitations as outlined in the Constitution and Safeguard Measures Act. Since the Tariff Commission's findings were negative, the imposed safeguard measure exceeded the DTI's authority and was declared null

Uploaded by

Anna Guevarra
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

SOUTHERN CROSS CEMENT CORPORATION V.

CEMENT MANUFACTURERS
ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES, 465 SCRA 532 (2005)

FACTS

The private respondent, Philippine Cement Manufacturer Corporations (PHILCEMCOR),


is an association of domestic cement manufacturers. The case started when the PHILCEMCOR
applied to the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) for a definitive safeguard measure on the
its contention that the importation of Gray Portland Cement in increased quantities has caused
declines in domestic production, capacity utilization, market share, sales and employment as well
as caused depressed local prices. With this, the DTI accepted its application despite its violation
of the Safeguard Measures Act (SMA). As a result, the South Cross Cement Corporation (South
Cross), being a corporation engaged in the business of cement manufacturing, production,
importation and exportation, opposed to such implementation of the said safety measure.

ISSUE

Whether the permissible delegated tariff powers to the President by the Congress is not
subject to limitation.

HELD

No. despite the permissible delegation of power still it is subject to limitations. This is
supported by Section 28 (2), Article VI of 1987 Constitution which states that “the Congress may,
by law, authorize the President to fix within specified limits, and subject to such limitations and
restrictions as it may impose, tariff rate, import and export quotas, tonnage and wharfage dues, and
other duties or imports within the framework of the national development program, of the
government.”

While it is true that through the Congress the legislative power could be delegated to the
President, and in this case it is the DTI secretary who under the SMA may impose such safeguard
measures, is still subject to the limitations imposed therein. Such limitations are found in Section
5 of the SMA; it emphasizes that only if the Tariff Commission renders a positive determination
could the DTI Secretary impose a safeguard measure. And in this case, the Tariff Commission’s
findings were negative. Thus, resulted to the ruling of the court to grant the petition of Southern
Cross, declare the decision of the Court of Appeals as null and void and set aside, and the decision
of the DTI Secretary dated June 25, 2003 as null and void and set aside.

You might also like