G.R. No. 256907 . February 20, 2023.
Chamber of Customs Brokers, Inc. (CCBI), Petitioner, vs. Commissioner of Customs, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Chamber of Customs Brokers, Inc. (CCBI), a national organization of customs brokers, filed a petition for declaratory relief before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The petition sought a declaration that Section 27 of Republic Act (RA) No. 9280 (the Customs Brokers Act of 2004), which states that “[i]mport and export entry declarations shall be signed only by customs broker,” should remain in full effect despite the passage of RA No. 10863 (the Customs Modernization and Tariff Act). Alternatively, CCBI prayed that Section 106(d) of RA 10863 be struck down as unconstitutional for violating the equal protection clause. Section 106(d) of RA 10863 allows a “person duly empowered to act as agent or attorney-in-fact for each holder” to be a declarant who may lodge a goods declaration with the Bureau of Customs. Furthermore, Section 107 of RA 10863 states that the declarant shall sign the goods declaration, “even when assisted by a licensed customs broker.” The respondent Commissioner of Customs argued that these provisions of the later law (RA 10863) modified or impliedly repealed the exclusive signing requirement under RA 9280, and that RA 9280 had already been amended by RA 9853, which allowed exporters to sign export declarations themselves or through a representative. The RTC dismissed the petition, a ruling affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA held that there were irreconcilable inconsistencies between the laws, leading to an implied repeal, and that CCBI failed to substantiate its claim of a constitutional violation.

ISSUE

Whether or not the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed the dismissal of the petition for declaratory relief, thereby upholding that Section 106(d) of RA 10863 (Customs Modernization and Tariff Act) effectively modified or impliedly repealed Section 27 of RA 9280 (Customs Brokers Act of 2004) regarding the exclusive right of customs brokers to sign import and export declarations.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA’s decision. The Court held that RA 10863 impliedly repealed the pertinent provision of RA 9280 due to irreconcilable inconsistency. Section 27 of RA 9280, as amended by RA 9853, mandated that an import entry be signed by a customs broker and the consignee, and an export declaration be signed by the exporter or their delegate. In contrast, Sections 106 and 107 of RA 10863 permit the declarant—who may be the consignee, a person with the right to dispose of the goods, or a duly empowered agent or attorney-in-fact—to lodge and sign the goods declaration, even when assisted by a licensed customs broker. This created a clear inconsistency, as the later law removed the exclusivity previously granted to customs brokers. The Court applied the doctrine of implied repeal, noting that a later statute that is repugnant to an earlier one on the same subject matter abrogates the earlier law. The presence of a general repealing clause in RA 10863 (Section 1803) further indicated legislative intent to repeal inconsistent laws. The Court also found no violation of the equal protection clause, as the law applies equally to all persons similarly situated (all declarants and their agents), and CCBI failed to overcome the presumption of the law’s constitutionality. The discretionary use of a customs broker under RA 10863 was also in line with the country’s international obligations under trade facilitation agreements.