Chamber of Customs Brokers, Inc. v. Commissioner of Customs
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The core of this dispute lies in the interpretation and application of two significant pieces of legislation concerning the practice of customs brokers: Republic Act No. (RA) 9280, the "Customs Brokers Act of 2004," and RA 10863, the "Customs Modernization and Tariff Act." RA 9280, specifically Section 27, stipulated that import and export entry declarations must be signed exclusively by a licensed customs broker. This provision aimed to professionalize the customs brokerage profession. However, the subsequent enactment of RA 10863, in line with international trade facilitation obligations, introduced changes to the process of lodging goods declarations. Procedural History: The Chamber of Customs Brokers, Inc. (CCBI), a professional organization of customs brokers, initiated a petition for declaratory relief before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila. CCBI sought to uphold the exclusivity of customs brokers in signing declarations as provided by RA 9280, or to have Section 106(d) of RA 10863 declared unconstitutional. The RTC dismissed the petition, finding that RA 10863 modified or amended RA 9280 and did not violate the equal protection clause. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC's decision, further noting that RA 9853 had already amended RA 9280 prior to RA 10863, and that RA 10863 impliedly repealed inconsistent provisions of RA 9280. CCBI then filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court. The Petition: Before the Supreme Court, CCBI filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the CA's decision. CCBI argued that RA 10863 did not expressly repeal RA 9280 and that efforts should have been made to harmonize the two laws. Furthermore, CCBI contended that Section 106(d) of RA 10863, by allowing agents or attorneys-in-fact to lodge goods declarations, effectively permits unlicensed individuals to practice customs brokerage, thereby violating the equal protection clause by creating unfair competition. The respondent Commissioner of Customs, however, maintained that RA 10863 impliedly repealed the exclusive role of customs brokers in signing declarations due to irreconcilable inconsistencies, aligning with international obligations to facilitate trade. The respondent also asserted the constitutionality of RA 10863.
Issue(s)
Whether the petition for review on certiorari was filed on time. Whether Section 27 of Republic Act No. 9280 was repealed by Republic Act No. 10863. Whether Section 106(d) of Republic Act No. 10863 violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Decision dated December 14, 2020 and the Resolution dated June 10, 2021 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 164426 are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the timeliness of the petition: The Court found that the petition was filed out of time. Petitioner received the CA Resolution denying its motion for reconsideration on June 28, 2021. Petitioner filed a motion for extension of time on July 12, 2021, which was granted, giving them until August 12, 2021, to file the petition. However, the instant petition was filed only on August 27, 2021. The circulars cited by the petitioner to justify the late filing did not apply to the Supreme Court. Therefore, on this ground alone, the petition is dismissible. On the repeal of Section 27 of RA 9280: The Court held that Section 27 of RA 9280 had already been repealed. RA 9853, enacted in 2009, expressly amended Section 27 of RA 9280, allowing exporters to sign export declarations themselves or delegate it to their customs broker or authorized representative. Furthermore, even without RA 9853, RA 10863 impliedly repealed Section 27 of RA 9280 due to irreconcilable inconsistencies. Section 27 of RA 9280 mandated that import and export declarations be signed only by a customs broker, while Section 106(d) of RA 10863 allowed the declarant or their agent or attorney-in-fact to sign the goods declaration. This indicated a legislative intent to divest customs brokers of their sole authority in signing goods declarations. On the violation of the equal protection clause: The Court ruled that RA 10863 does not violate the equal protection clause. The equal protection guarantee means that all persons similarly situated should be treated alike. Classification is allowed if it is based on substantial distinctions, germane to the purpose of the law, not limited to existing conditions, and applies equally to all members of the class. RA 10863 was enacted to balance customs functions and trade facilitation, aligning with international obligations under the Revised Kyoto Convention. Allowing declarants or their agents to sign goods declarations, in addition to licensed customs brokers, is a reasonable means to achieve this legitimate government interest and has a rational connection to the law's purpose. The Court reiterated that statutes are presumed constitutional, and the petitioner failed to present concrete evidence to overcome this presumption.
Main Doctrine
The Court affirmed the dismissal of the petition for declaratory relief, holding that Section 27 of Republic Act No. 9280 was impliedly repealed by Republic Act No. 10863, and that the latter does not violate the equal protection clause.