PAMPANGA vs. ROMULO & DENR - Consti 1 Case (Final)

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
Title Province of Pampanga vs. Executive Secretary Alberto Romulo and Department of Environment and
Natural Resources (DENR)
[ G.R. No. 195987, January 12, 2021 ]
Leonen, J.
Facts ● On March 2, 1992, about a year after Mt. Pinatubo in Zambales had erupted and spewed lahar
and other volcanic material, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Pampanga enacted Tax Ordinance
No. 1 or Pampanga's Provincial Tax Code of 1992. Its Section 6 provided a 10% tax on the fair
market value of quarry resources extracted from public lands and beds of water bodies in the
province, and imposed permit fees for quarry operators. Later, on December 14, 1992, the
Sangguniang Panlalawigan passed Tax Ordinance No. 3, setting the fair market value of quarry
resources at P40.00 per cubic meter with a corresponding fee of P4.00. This was repealed in
favor of Tax Ordinance No. 1 in 1998 which required a 10% fee and quarterly market value
determinations.
● On January 11, 1999, President Joseph Estrada issued Proclamation No. 66, putting lahar-affected
areas under DENR control and authorized the utilization of these resources via the Department’s
initiatives. Proclamation No. 66 was revoked by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s
Proclamation No. 183 on April 23, 2002.
● Subsequently, on July 4, 2003, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo issued Executive Order
No. 224, which rationalized the extraction and disposition of sand, gravel, and lahar deposits in
the provinces of Pampanga, Tarlac, and Zambales.
● On July 18, 2003, the Province of Pampanga filed before the Regional Trial Court a Petition for
Declaratory Relief seeking to declare Executive Order No. 224 unconstitutional. The case was
filed against Executive Secretary Alberto G. Romulo and the DENR. The Petition alleged that
Executive Order No. 224 violated the principle of local government autonomy under the Local
Government Code; was an invalid exercise of presidential control and not just general
supervision; was a violation of the equal protection clause; and was a form of executive
lawmaking.
● The trial court held Section 4 of Executive Order No. 224 to be unconstitutional. The trial court
eventually struck down Executive Order No. 224 in its entirety for being a form of executive
legislation, without a valid delegation of legislative authority.
● Executive Secretary Romulo and the DENR appealed. On August 24, 2010, the Court of
Appeals issued its Decision reversing the Regional Trial Court Decision. The Court of
Appeals ruled that the provisions of Executive Order No. 224 that carried out the mandate of the
Philippine Mining Act did not conflict with the provincial governor's authority to issue permits as
conferred by the Local Government Code.
● The Province of Pampanga filed this Petition for Review with the Supreme Court asserting the
EO’s unconstitutionality.
Issue/s 1. Whether or not Executive Order No. 224 is valid and constitutional.
2. Whether or not Executive Order No. 224 violates the constitutional mandate for local autonomy,
specifically in raising and collecting revenues and taxes.
3. Whether Executive Order No. 224 is an ultra vires act.
4. Whether or not Executive Order No. 224 violates the equal protection clause by unfairly applying
only to Pampanga, Tarlac, and Zambales.
Ruling Whether or not Executive Order No. 224 is valid and constitutional.
The supreme court ruled that there was no such palpable violation of the Constitution here.
WHEREFORE, the Petition of the Province of Pampanga is DENIED. The assailed August 24, 2010
Decision and February 22, 2011 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 83341 are
AFFIRMED.
● It is a basic precept in statutory construction that a law should be construed in harmony and not in
violation of the Constitution. Executive acts enjoy the presumption of constitutionality; thus, if
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
they are susceptible to two or more constructions, the one that would not be in conflict with what
is ordained in the Constitution is preferred.
● The presumption of constitutionality is rooted in "the doctrine of separation of powers
which enjoins upon each department a becoming respect for the acts of the other departments."
For the judiciary to justify the nullification of any legislative or executive act, it must be shown
that the statute or issuance clearly violates the Constitution. The principle of separation of
powers dictates that each of the three government branches has exclusive cognizance of
matters falling within its constitutionally allocated sphere.
Whether or not Executive Order No. 224 violates the constitutional mandate for local autonomy,
specifically in raising and collecting revenues and taxes.
The Court emphasized local governments’ constitutional right to fiscal autonomy, allowing them to levy
and collect taxes. However, EO 224 doesn’t revoke local tax collection powers but ensures proper
oversight and guarantees due compliance with national interests, particularly in critical environmental
areas.
Whether or not Executive Order No. 224 is an ultra vires act.

The Court held that EO 224, issued to implement provisions of the Philippine Mining Act and the Local
Government Code, is not ultra vires. It is within the President’s ordinance-making power under executive
control, ensuring compliance with environmental regulations without usurping legislative powers.
Whetheror not Executive Order No. 224 violates the equal protection clause by unfairly applying
only to Pampanga, Tarlac, and Zambales.
Executive Order No. 224 does not violate the equal protection clause because the provinces involved
contain vast lahar deposits, which pose a danger to both life and property, while the other provinces with
quarry operations do not have such hazards. The Court found EO 224’s focus on Pampanga, Tarlac, and
Zambales justified by their unique lahar deposits post-Mt. Pinatubo eruption, warranting special
regulatory measures. This classification was deemed reasonable and supported by environmental safety
and public welfare considerations.
Additional key points to take note of:

Executive orders pertain to the president's acts that provide rules to implement or execute existing laws.
Executive Secretary v. Southwing Heavy Industries, Inc. instructs that an administrative issuance, such as an
executive order, must comply with the following requisites to be held valid:
1. Its promulgation must be authorized by the legislature; — Executive Order No.224 was
issued to carry out the Philippine Mining Act's provisions, which grant the State full control
and supervision over mineral resources.
2. It must be promulgated in accordance with the prescribed procedure; — For the second
requisite, official acts by the government branches are presumed to be valid, absent strong
evidence showing otherwise. Thus, the presumption is that Executive Order No. 224 was
promulgated in accordance with the prescribed procedure.
3. It must be within the scope of the authority given by the legislature; — To hurdle the third
requisite, Executive Order No. 224 must not be ultra vires, or an act which goes beyond the
limits of its delegated legislative authority. Here, petitioner assails the issuance for allegedly
supplanting portions of the Local Government Code and the Philippine Mining Act, along
with its Implementing Rules and Regulations. THE PETITIONER IS MISTAKEN.
4. It must be reasonable. — the fourth requisite demands that the administrative issuance must be
reasonable wherein Executive Order No. 224 is a valid and reasonable exercise of the
president's inherent ordinance-making power. It provided the necessary rules for the
concerned agency to execute the Philippine Mining Act in relation to the quarry industry of
the provinces affected by Mt. Pinatubo's eruption, without going beyond the bounds of the law
it was meant to implement.

PAMPANGA vs. ROMULO & DENR - Consti 1 Case (Final)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PAMPANGA vs. ROMULO & DENR - Consti 1 Case (Final)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PAMPANGA vs. ROMULO & DENR - Consti 1 Case (Final)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1

Whether or not Executive Order No. 224 is an ultra vires act.

Additional key points to take note of:

You might also like