D E C I S I O N
(En Banc)
PUNO, J.:
I.
THE FACTS
Petitioners assailed §5(b) and §15 of R.A. No. 8180, the Downstream Oil
Industry Deregulation Act of 1996.
§5(b) of the law provided that “tariff duty shall be imposed . . . on
imported crude oil at the rate of three percent (3%) and imported refined
petroleum products at the rate of seven percent (7%) . . .” On the other
hand, §15 provided that “[t]he DOE shall, upon
approval of the President, implement the full deregulation of the downstream
oil industry not later than March 1997. As far as practicable, the DOE shall time the full deregulation
when the prices of crude oil and petroleum products in the world market
are declining and
when the exchange rate of the peso in relation to the US dollar is stable . . .”
Petitioners argued that §5(b) on tariff differential
violates the provision of the Constitution requiring
every law to have only one subject which should be expressed in its title.
They also
contended that the phrases “as far as practicable,” “decline of crude oil
prices in the world market” and “stability of the peso exchange rate to the US
dollar” are ambivalent, unclear and inconcrete since they do not provide determinate
or determinable standards that can guide the President in his decision to fully
deregulate the downstream oil industry.
Petitioners also
assailed the President’s E.O. No. 392, which proclaimed the full deregulation
of the downstream oil industry in February 1997.
They argued that the Executive
misapplied R.A. No. 8180 when it considered the depletion of the OPSF fund as a
factor in the implementation of full deregulation.
Finally, they asserted
that the law violated §19, Article XII of the Constitution prohibiting
monopolies, combinations in restraint of trade and unfair competition
