GARCIA vs. CORONA G.R No.

132451, December 17, 1999 (321 SCRA 218)

FACTS:
On November 5, 1997, this Court in Tatad v. Secretary of the Department of Energy and
Lagman, et al., v. Hon.Ruben Torres, et al., declared Republic Act No. 8180, entitled "An Act Deregulating
the Downstream Oil Industry and For Other Purposes", unconstitutional, and its implementing Executive
Order No. 392 void.
As a result of the Tatad decision, Congress enacted Republic Act No. 8479, a new deregulation
law without the offending provisions of the earlier law. Petitioner Enrique T. Garcia, a member of
Congress, has now brought this petition seeking to declare Section 19 thereof, which sets the time of full
deregulation, unconstitutional. After failing in his attempts to have Congress incorporate in the law the
economic theory he espouses, petitioner now asks us, in the name of upholding the Constitution, to undo
a violation which he claims Congress has committed.
Petitioner contends that Section 19 of R.A. 8479, which prescribes the period for the removal of
price control on gasoline and other finished products and for the full deregulation of the local
downstream oil industry, is patently contrary to public interest and therefore unconstitutional because
within the short span of five months, the market is still dominated and controlled by an oligopoly of the
three (3) private respondents, namely, Shell, Caltex and Petron.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Section 19 of R.A No. 8479 is glaringly pro-oligopoly, anti-competition and anti-
people, being patently unconstitutional and violative of the laws

RULING:
A calculus of fear and pessimism, however, does not justify the remedy petitioner seeks: that we
now overturn a law enacted by Congress and approved by the Chief Executive. The Court must act on
valid legal reasons that will explain why we should interfere with vital legislation. To strike down a
provision of law we need a clear showing that what the Constitution prohibits, the statute has allowed to
be done. Since there is no clear showing that Section 19 of R.A. 8479 has violated the constitutional
prohibition against monopolies and combinations in restraint of trade, I vote that the present petition be
DISMISSED.