TIU vs CA G.R. No. 127410

[G.R. No. 127410. January 20, 1999]

CONRADO L. TIU, JUAN T. MONTELIBANO JR. and ISAGANI M. JUNGCO, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. TEOFISTO T. GUINGONA JR., BASES CONVERSION AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, SUBIC BAY METROPOLITAN AUTHORITY, BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE, CITY TTREASURER OF OLONGAPO and MUNICIPAL TREASURER OF SUBIC, ZAMBALES, respondents.

Facts:
Congress, with the approval of the President, passed into law RA 7227 entitled An Act Accelerating the Conversion of Military Reservations Into Other Productive Uses, Creating the Bases Conversion and Development Authority for this Purpose, Providing Funds Therefor and for Other Purposes. Section 12 thereof created the Subic Special Economic Zone and granted thereto special privileges. President Fidel V. Ramos issued Executive Order No. 97 (EO 97), clarifying the application of the tax and duty incentives. The EO grants tax and duty incentives only to businesses and residents within the secured area of the Subic Special Economic Zone and denying them to those who live within the Zone but outside such fenced-in territory. 

Issue:
Whether or not Executive Order No. 97-A violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution.

Ruling:
NO. The classification set forth by the executive issuance does not apply merely to existing conditions. As laid down in RA 7227, the objective is to establish a self-sustaining, industrial, commercial, financial and investment center in the area. There will, therefore, be a long-term difference between such investment center and the areas outside it.

The classification applies equally to all the resident individuals and businesses within the secured area. The residents, being in like circumstances or contributing directly to the achievement of the end purpose of the law, are not categorized further. Instead, they are all similarly treated, both in privileges granted and in obligations required.

The Court holds that no undue favor or privilege was extended. It was based, rather, on fair and substantive considerations that were germane to the legislative purpose.


FULL CASE:
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/jan99/127410.htm

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Lacson VS. The Executive Secretary G.R. No. 128096

[ G.R. No. 128096. January 20, 1999] PANFILO M. LACSON,  petitioner  vs. THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, THE SANDIGANBAYAN, OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, MYRNA ABALORA, NENITA ALAP-AP, IMELDA PANCHO MONTERO, and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,  respondents . FACTS: Eleven (11) persons believed to be members of the  Kuratong Baleleng  gang, which had been involve in a spate of bank robberies in Metro Manila, were slain along Commonwealth Avenue in Quezon City by elements of the Anti-Bank Robbery and Intelligence Task Group (ABRITG). SPO2 Eduardo delos Reyes exposed that what actually transpired was a summary execution (or a rub out) and not a shoot-out between the  Kuratong Baleleng  gang members and the ABRITG. The Ombudsman formed a panel of and this panel later absolve from any criminal liability all the PNP officers and personnel allegedly involved in the incident, with a finding that the said incident...
Read more

RUFINA VDA. DE TANGUB v. CA UDK No. 9864 : December 3, 1990

[UDK No. 9864 :  December 3, 1990.] RUFINA VDA. DE TANGUB , Petitioner, vs.  COURT OF APPEALS, PRESIDING JUDGE of the [CAR] RTC, Branch 4, Iligan City, and SPOUSES DOMINGO and EUGENIA MARTIL , Respondents. Facts: Rufina Tangub and her husband, Andres, now deceased, filed with the Regional Trial Court of Lanao del Norte "an agrarian case for damages by reason of unlawful dispossession . . .was tenants from the landholding" owned by the Spouses Domingo and Eugenia Martil. Several persons were also impleaded as defendants, including the Philippine National Bank, it being alleged by the plaintiff spouses that said bank, holder of a mortgage on the land involved, had caused foreclosure thereof, resulting in the acquisition of the property by the bank as the highest bidder at the foreclosure sale, and in the sale by the latter, some time later, of portions of the land to the other persons named as its co-defendants (all employees of the National Steel Corporation...
Read more