ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 128502.July 13, 1999]

FEDERATION OF FREE FARMERS, et al. vs. HON. CESAR BAUTISTA, et al.

EN BANC

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUL 13, 1999 .

G.R. No. 128502(Federation of Free Farmers (FFF), Partnership for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development Services (PARDS), Philippine Peasant Institute (PPI), Kalipunan ng mga Samahan ng Mamamayan (KASAMA), Demokratikong Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas (DKMP), Federation of Land Reform Farmers (FLRF), Kalipunan ng Maliliit na Magniniyog sa Pilipinas (KAMMPIL), Philippine Rural Reconstruction Movement (PRRM), Jeremias U. Montemayor, Oscar D. Francisco, Romeo Royandoyan, Feliciano R. Matienzo, Jaime S.L. Tadeo, Alfredo T. Nalda, Ramil M. Danga, Romulo C. Tapayan and Horacio Morales, petitioners vs. Honorable Cesar T. Bautista, in his capacity as Secretary of the Department of Trade and Industry, Honorable Salvador H. Escudero III, in his capacity as Secretary of the Department of Agriculture, Honorable Domingo L. Siazon, Jr., in his capacity as Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs, Honorable Cielito Habito, in his capacity as Director-General of the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA), and Honorable Roberto F. De Ocampo, in his capacity as Secretary of the Department of Finance, respondents .)

This special civil action for Certiorari and Prohibition with prayer for the issuance of a Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order was filed by eight (8) farmer groups and their respective officers against the respondents who were official delegates of the Philippines to the 28th Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Economic Ministers Meeting held September 12 to 14, 1996 in Jakarta, Indonesia, for the purpose of confirming the country's intention of including rice in the Common Effective Preferential Tariff (CEPT) Scheme of the ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA).

As envisioned in the CEPT Scheme, which is a cooperative arrangement among ASEAN member countries, ASEAN states would reduce intra-regional tariffs and remove non-tariff barriers over a fifteen-year period commencing on January 1, 1993. The CEPT Scheme aims to be the main instrument for making ASEAN a free trade area which would mean that ASEAN member countries in due time would have common effective tariffs among themselves in AFTA. However, the level of tariffs with non-ASEAN countries would continue to be determined individually by member countries.

Petitioners allege that in the said Jakarta meeting respondent Secretary Cesar T. Bautista, for and in behalf of the Philippine government, made a formal commitment to include rice in the CEPT Scheme of AFTA and to complete said inclusion by January 1, 2010. They now urge the Court to declare the commitment to include rice in the CEPT Scheme void for having been made with grave abuse of discretion, and to issue the corresponding writs of prohibition and injunction and/or restraining order to enjoin the respondents from pursuing the above-mentioned commitment. ¹ Rollo , p. 28.

Petitioners insist that the CEPT Scheme of AFTA contravenes Sections 1 and 13 of Article XII and Section 16, Article XIII of the Constitution, as well as the pertinent provisions of Republic Act No. 8178, "The Agricultural Tarrification Act"; and Republic Act No. 7607, the "Magna Carta for Farmers".

Respondents interpose a vigorous objection thereto. They argue that the intention to include rice in the CEPT Scheme did not violate Sections 1 and 13 of Article XII and Section 16, Article XIII of the Constitution. It is also their considered view that said intent did not violate the provisions of Republic Act No. 8178 and Republic Act No. 7607. They further maintain the present petition is not ripe for judicial determination because of the absence of an actual case or controversy required for judicial inquiry. ² Id . at 137-160.

It is true that this Court may promptly take cognizance of cases imbued with public interest in the exercise of its power of judicial review. ³ Kilosbayan, Inc. vs. Guingona, Jr. 232 SCRA 630.However, under the circumstances, we find that the instant petition has failed to present an actual case or controversy to warrant the exercise of judicial review by this court. It is worth noting that what the public respondents did was to register the intent of the Philippines to include rice in the CEPT Scheme by the year 2010. There is no final commitment to include rice in the CEPT Scheme. ⁴ Supra , note 2 at 140.The mere statement of intent made by the public respondents would still be subject to confirmation after public consultations to be conducted by the concerned agencies and after the government would have complied with due process and other requirements mandated by law. Furthermore, as manifested by the public respondents ASEAN is still awaiting the final confirmation from the Philippines on the decision taken at the 28th AEM Meeting on the matter. ⁵ Ibid .

Worth stressing, the issue of whether or not the Philippine Government made a commitment to include rice in the CEPT Scheme is a factual matter. The Supreme Court cannot inquire into factual matters for settled is the rule that this court is not a trier of facts. ⁶ San Miguel Foods, Inc-Cebu B-Meg Feed Plant vs. Laguesma, 263 SCRA 68.While petitioners claim that such commitment has been made, public respondents vigorously deny making any final commitment. Petitioners have not demonstrated to our satisfaction the existence of the factual predicate upon which they base their arguments in support of the petition. As matters stand, the claims of petitioners are mere speculations without sufficient factual foundation.

WHEREFORE , the instant petition is DISMISSED for prematurity and lack of merit. No grave abuse of discretion on respondents' part have been sufficiently shown by petitioners; nor have petitioners amply demonstrated imminent actions by respondents that could be deemed an appropriate subject to the prerogative writs of certiorari, prohibition and injunction.

Very truly yours,

LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO
Clerk of Court

(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA

Asst. Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE