|
THE
HONORABLE SECRETARY VINCENT S. PEREZ, in his capacity as the Secretary of the
Department of Energy, Petitioner, - versus - LPG
REFILLERS ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC., Respondent. |
G.R. No. 159149
Present: QUISUMBING, J., Chairperson, CARPIO, CARPIO
MORALES, TINGA, and VELASCO,
JR., JJ. Promulgated: August
28, 2007 |
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
RESOLUTION
QUISUMBING, J.:
In its Motion
for Reconsideration,[1]
respondent LPG Refillers Association of the Philippines, Inc. seeks the
reversal of this Court’s Decision[2]
dated June 26, 2006, which upheld the validity of the assailed Department of
Energy (DOE) Circular No. 2000-06-10.
In assailing
the validity of the Circular, respondent argues that:
I.
Circular No.
2000-06-010 (the “assailed Circular”) listed prohibited acts and punishable
offenses which are brand-new or which were not provided for by B.P. Blg. 33, as
amended; and that B.P. Blg. 33 enumerated and specifically defined the
prohibited/punishable acts under the law and that the punishable offenses in
the assailed Circular are not included in the law.
II.
The
petitioner-appellant admitted that the assailed Circular listed prohibited acts
and punishable offenses which are brand-new or which were not provided for by
B.P. Blg. 33, as amended.
III.
B.P. Blg. 33, as
amended, is in the form of a penal statute that should be construed strictly
against the State.
IV.
The assailed
Circular not only prescribed penalties for acts not prohibited/penalized under
B.P. Blg. 33, as amended, but also prescribed penalties exceeding the ceiling
prescribed by B.P. Blg. 33, as amended.
V.
The Honorable
Court failed to consider that the imposition by the assailed Circular of
penalty on per cylinder basis made the imposable penalty under the assailed
Circular exceed the limits prescribed by B.P. Blg. 33, as amended.
VI.
The Honorable
Court failed to rule on the position of the respondent-appellee that the amount
of imposable fine prescribed under the assailed Circular is excessive to the
extent of being confiscatory and thus offends the Bill of Rights of the 1987
Constitution.
VII.
The noble and
laudable aim of the Government to protect the general consuming public against
the nefarious practices of some [un]scrupulous individuals in the LPG industry
should be achieved through means in accord with existing law.[3]
The
assigned errors, being closely allied, will be discussed jointly.
On the first, second and third grounds,
respondent argues that the Circular prohibited new acts not specified in Batas Pambansa Bilang 33, as
amended. Respondent insists that since B.P.
Blg. 33, as amended is a penal statute, it already criminalizes the specific
acts involving petroleum products.
Respondent invokes the “void for vagueness” doctrine in assailing our
decision, quoted in this wise:
The Circular satisfies the first requirement. B.P. Blg.
33, as amended, criminalizes illegal trading, adulteration, underfilling,
hoarding, and overpricing of petroleum products. Under this general description of what
constitutes criminal acts involving petroleum products, the Circular merely
lists the various modes by which the said criminal acts may be perpetrated,
namely: no price display board, no weighing scale, no tare weight or incorrect
tare weight markings, no authorized LPG seal, no trade name, unbranded LPG
cylinders, no serial number, no distinguishing color, no embossed identifying
markings on cylinder, underfilling LPG cylinders, tampering LPG cylinders, and
unauthorized decanting of LPG cylinders…[4] (Emphasis supplied.)
Respondent
misconstrues our decision. A criminal statute
is not rendered uncertain and void because general terms are used therein. The lawmakers have no positive constitutional
or statutory duty to define each and every word in an enactment, as long as the
legislative will is clear, or at least, can be gathered from the whole act,
which is distinctly expressed in B.P. Blg. 33, as amended.[5] Thus, respondent’s reliance on the “void for
vagueness” doctrine is misplaced.
Demonstrably,
the specific acts and omissions cited in the Circular are within the
contemplation of the B.P. Blg. 33, as amended.
The DOE, in issuing the Circular, merely filled up the details and the
manner through which B.P. Blg. 33, as amended may be carried out. Nothing extraneous was provided in the
Circular that could result in its invalidity.
On the fourth, fifth and sixth grounds, respondent avers that the penalties imposed
in the Circular exceeded the ceiling prescribed by B.P. Blg. 33, as
amended. Respondent contends that the
Circular, in providing penalties on a per cylinder basis, is no longer regulatory,
but already confiscatory in nature.
Respondent’s
position is untenable. The Circular is
not confiscatory in providing penalties on a per cylinder basis. Those penalties do not exceed the ceiling
prescribed in Section 4 of B.P. Blg. 33, as amended, which penalizes “any
person who commits any act [t]herein prohibited.” Thus, violation on a per cylinder basis falls
within the phrase “any act” as mandated in Section 4. To
provide the same penalty for one who violates a prohibited act in B.P. Blg. 33,
as amended, regardless of the number of cylinders involved would result in an
indiscriminate, oppressive and impractical operation of B.P. Blg. 33, as
amended. The equal protection
clause demands that “all persons subject to such legislation shall be
treated alike, under like circumstances and conditions, both in the
privileges conferred and in the liabilities imposed.”
All other arguments
of respondent having been passed upon in our
WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration by respondent
is hereby DENIED with definite
finality. No further pleadings will be
entertained.
SO ORDERED.
|
|
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice |
WE CONCUR:
|
ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice |
|
|
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice |
DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice |
|
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice |
|
A T T E S T A T I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the
above Resolution had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned
to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
|
|
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice Chairperson |
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, I certify that
the conclusions in the above Resolution had been reached in consultation before
the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
|
|
REYNATO S. PUNO Chief Justice |