Asaali v. Commissioner of Customs
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns the seizure and forfeiture of five sailing vessels and their cargoes of cigarettes and rattan chairs by customs officials. The vessels, of Philippine registry and owned by Filipino residents, were intercepted on the high seas between British North Borneo and Sulu while heading towards Tawi-tawi, Sulu. They originated from Sandakan, British North Borneo, and lacked the required permits for importation into the Sulu Sea and the necessary import licenses under Republic Act No. 426. Procedural History: The Collector of Customs of Jolo ordered the forfeiture of the vessels and their cargoes for violating Section 1363(a) and Section 1363(f) of the Revised Administrative Code, in conjunction with Section 20 of Republic Act No. 426. This decision was affirmed by the Acting Commissioner of Customs. Subsequently, the petitioners appealed to the Court of Tax Appeals, which also upheld the forfeiture decision. This petition for review to the Supreme Court follows that affirmation. The Petition: The petitioners challenge the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Customs to seize and forfeit the vessels, arguing that the interception occurred on the high seas beyond Philippine territorial waters, thus importation had not yet commenced. They also raise issues of denial of due process and contend that the repeal of Republic Act No. 426 abated any liability. The petition seeks to overturn the Court of Tax Appeals' decision affirming the forfeiture.
Issue(s)
Whether the Commissioner of Customs has jurisdiction to seize and forfeit vessels of Philippine registry apprehended on the high seas beyond Philippine territorial waters. Whether the forfeiture and seizure of the vessels and their cargo constitute a denial of due process. Whether the repeal of Republic Act No. 426 abated the liability incurred under its provisions.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Tax Appeals, upholding the forfeiture of the vessels and their cargo. The Court ruled that the Bureau of Customs has jurisdiction over the seizure and forfeiture proceedings, that the seizure did not violate due process, and that the repeal of Republic Act No. 426 did not abate the liability.
Ratio Decidendi
On the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Customs: The Court held that the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Customs to seize and forfeit vessels is valid even when apprehended on the high seas beyond Philippine territorial waters. This is supported by the principle that Philippine law applies to offenses committed by those on Philippine ships, even outside its jurisdiction, as well as the international law doctrine allowing a state to protect its revenues beyond its territory. The fact that the vessels were of Philippine registry and were clearly heading towards a domestic port with foreign merchandise, lacking the required permits, established their intent to import, thus falling under the purview of customs laws. The Court emphasized that to deny jurisdiction would render the government's authority futile against smuggling. On the alleged denial of due process: The Court found no denial of due process. The petitioners were aware of the facts upon which the seizure was based, and the forfeiture action was taken in accordance with law. The Court reasoned that the constitutional guarantee of due process should not be used as a shield to escape liability for one's own illicit actions. The seizure and forfeiture proceedings respected the right to a hearing, and there was nothing arbitrary in the manner they were conducted. The liability of the vessels and merchandise under the statute was deemed undeniable based on the established facts. On the effect of the repeal of Republic Act No. 426: The Court reiterated the established doctrine that the expiration or repeal of a law, such as the Import Control Law (Republic Act No. 426), does not render legal importations that were illegal when made, nor does it nullify seizures and forfeitures ordered while the law was in effect. Once the Commissioner of Customs acquires jurisdiction over a case, the expiration of the law does not divest him of that jurisdiction. The Court cited previous rulings, including Golay-Buchel & Cie v. Commissioner of Customs and Roxas v. Sayoc, which established that such expiration does not affect pending forfeiture proceedings or the legality of prior seizures. The forfeiture proceedings are in rem, meaning they are directed against the property itself, and jurisdiction attaches upon seizure.
Main Doctrine
The authority of a state to protect its revenues extends beyond its territorial limits to the high seas, and vessels of Philippine registry, even when apprehended outside territorial waters, may be seized and forfeited for violation of customs and import laws if their intent to import into the Philippines is evident.