G.R. No. 157584 April 2, 2009
CONGRESSMAN ENRIQUE T. GARCIA of the 2nd District of Bataan, Petitioner, vs. THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, CALTEX PHILIPPINES, INC., PETRON CORPORATION, and PILIPINAS SHELL CORPORATION, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Congressman Enrique T. Garcia seeks a declaration of unconstitutionality of Section 19 of Republic Act No. 8479 (the Oil Deregulation Law of 1998). This provision sets the start of full deregulation of the downstream oil industry, removing price controls. The petitioner previously challenged this same provision in Garcia v. Corona (1999), where the Court declined to rule on its constitutionality, finding the issue involved policy considerations and the timeliness of deregulation not suitable for judicial determination. The petitioner now files a new petition, arguing that subsequent events have confirmed the continued dominance of an oligopoly (Petron, Shell, and Caltex, referred to as the “Big 3”) and their overpricing, making the lifting of price control contrary to the constitutional command to regulate monopolies and oligopolies under Article XII, Section 19 of the Constitution . He contends that res judicata does not bar the present petition as the prior case was not decided on the merits.

ISSUE

Whether the petition presents a justiciable controversy that warrants the exercise of judicial review to declare Section 19 of R.A. No. 8479 unconstitutional for allegedly violating the constitutional policy on regulating oligopolies.

RULING

The petition is dismissed. The Court ruled that the petition fails to satisfy the requirement for the exercise of judicial review, specifically the existence of an actual case or controversy susceptible of judicial determination. The core issue raised—the wisdom and timeliness of implementing full deregulation by lifting price controls in an allegedly oligopolistic market—involves political, social, and economic considerations that are policy questions. These are matters textually committed by the Constitution to the judgment of the executive and legislative branches. The Court reiterated its ruling in the 1999 Garcia case that what constitutes a reasonable time for implementing deregulation is not for judicial determination, as it involves the appraisal of conditions outside the appropriate range of evidence for a court. The petition, therefore, raises a political question over which the Court cannot rule. The Court emphasized that its role is not to pass judgment on the wisdom of a law but only to determine its conformity with the Constitution, and no such constitutional infirmity was demonstrated in this case.