G.R. No. 124360, November 5, 1997.
FRANCISCO S. TATAD, petitioner, vs. THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AND THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, respondents.

G.R. No. 127867 November 5, 1997.
EDCEL C. LAGMAN, JOKER P. ARROYO, ENRIQUE GARCIA, WIGBERTO TAÑADA, FLAG HUMAN RIGHTS FOUNDATION, INC., FREEDOM FROM DEBT COALITION (FDC), SANLAKAS, petitioners, vs. HON. RUBEN TORRES in his capacity as the Executive Secretary, HON. FRANCISCO VIRAY, in his capacity as the Secretary of Energy, CALTEX Philippines, Inc., PETRON Corporation and PILIPINAS SHELL Corporation, respondents.

FACTS

The consolidated cases involve constitutional challenges to Republic Act No. 8180, the law providing for the deregulation of the downstream oil industry. The Court issued a status quo order on October 7, 1997, requiring the three respondent oil companies (Petron, Shell, and Caltex) to cease and desist from increasing the prices of gasoline and other petroleum fuel products for thirty (30) days. This order led to accusations that the Court was interfering in purely economic policy matters or arrogating price-regulatory powers unto itself.

ISSUE

The primary issue addressed in the concurring opinion is whether the Supreme Court may interfere in economic questions by fixing retail prices of petroleum products, or whether the real issue is the constitutional validity of RA 8180, which allows oil companies to unilaterally set, increase, or decrease their prices.

RULING

The Supreme Court, through the concurring opinion of Justice Panganiban, ruled that the issue is not whether the Court may fix prices or interfere in economic policy. The Court has no power to intervene in, change, or repeal the laws of economics. The core issue is the constitutionality of RA 8180. Under the Constitution, the Court has the duty to determine whether a law offends the Constitution and to annul it if so. The status quo order was issued to prevent the continued enforcement of a law prima facie found constitutionally infirm. The Court’s role is to uphold the Constitution and strike down a law that contravenes it, not to make policy statements against deregulation. By annulling RA 8180, the Court invalidated a “pseudo deregulation law” that restrains free trade and perpetuates a cartel or oligopoly, thereby upholding constitutional adherence to a truly competitive economy. The crafting of a genuine oil deregulation law is left to Congress. Furthermore, the opinion stresses that in times of economic dislocation, everyone, rich or poor, must share in the burdens, and appeals for conscience among businesses given the suffering of the disadvantaged.