GR 158540; (July, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. 158540 ; July 8, 2004
SOUTHERN CROSS CEMENT CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. THE PHILIPPINE CEMENT MANUFACTURERS CORP., THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF TRADE & INDUSTRY, THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, and THE COMMISSIONER OF THE BUREAU OF CUSTOMS, respondents.
FACTS
The Philippine Cement Manufacturers Corporation (Philcemcor), an association of domestic cement manufacturers, filed an application with the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) for the imposition of safeguard measures on imported gray Portland cement under Republic Act No. 8800, the Safeguard Measures Act (SMA). Philcemcor alleged that increased import volumes caused serious injury to the domestic industry. The DTI imposed a provisional safeguard measure. Pursuant to the SMA, the DTI then referred the matter to the Tariff Commission for a formal investigation to determine whether a definitive safeguard measure was warranted.
After its investigation, the Tariff Commission issued a Report concluding that the domestic cement industry was not suffering serious injury nor was there an imminent threat thereof from the imports. Consequently, it recommended that no definitive safeguard measure be imposed. Despite this negative finding, the DTI Secretary issued an Order imposing a definitive safeguard duty, disagreeing with the Tariff Commission’s findings. Petitioner Southern Cross Cement Corporation, an importer, challenged this DTI Order.
ISSUE
Whether the Secretary of the Department of Trade and Industry acted with grave abuse of discretion in imposing a definitive safeguard measure contrary to the negative recommendation of the Tariff Commission.
RULING
No, the DTI Secretary did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court ruled that under the statutory framework of R.A. No. 8800, the Tariff Commission’s function is investigatory and recommendatory. The law vests the authority to make the final determination on the imposition of a definitive safeguard measure in the Secretary of the DTI. Section 13 of the SMA explicitly states that the Secretary “shall make a final determination” within a specified period after receiving the Tariff Commission’s report. The use of the word “shall” indicates a mandatory duty to decide, which inherently includes the power to either adopt or reject the Commission’s recommendation.
The Court emphasized that the DTI Secretary’s decision-making power is not merely ministerial but involves the exercise of judgment and discretion. While the Secretary must consider the Commission’s detailed report, the law does not compel the Secretary to automatically adhere to its findings. The Secretary is tasked with evaluating the entire record, including the Commission’s report and other relevant factors, to arrive at an independent final determination. This interpretation aligns with the executive nature of safeguard measures, which are trade policy instruments, and the Secretary’s role as the primary implementor of the country’s trade laws. Therefore, the act of disagreeing with the Tariff Commission and imposing the measure, by itself, was within the Secretary’s statutory authority.