SC rule on safeguard measures may be questioned — Roxas

The government may have legal ground to question the Supreme Court’s two recent decisions on the Safeguards Measures Law, Sen. Manuel A. Roxas III said yesterday.

In an interview with The STAR, Roxas disclosed that there were two significant and varying interpretations by the SC with regard to the Safeguards Measures Law.

Likewise, the sequence of the two separate SC decision on the Safeguard Measures affecting cement and steel, Roxas pointed out, also has significant legal implication which government should question.

First, Roxas explained, news was released that the SC, in an en banc decision, had ruled against the use of the Safeguards Measures in the case of cement imports.

The SC’s decision was based on the interpretation that the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) head could not overturn the independent recommendation of the Tariff Commission.

However, the SC en banc ruling on the Safeguard Measures with regard to cement did not question or even address the constitutionality of the Safeguard measures, thus in fact, accepting the Safeguards Measures Law, Roxas said.

In the second release of the news on another SC ruling on the Safeguard Measures with regard to steel imports, Roxas pointed out, the decision was made by a mere division of the SC and was not an en banc decision.

The SC ruling on Safeguard Measures with regard to steel, Roxas further cited, was the one that raised the constitutionality of the law.

The important legal point, though, Roxas stressed, is the fact that although the SC decision on the cement safeguards was announced first, the decision was actually made by the SC en banc in August, a month later than the SC decision on steel safeguards which was made in July by only a division of the SC.

According to some legal experts, Roxas argued, an SC en banc decision takes precedence over an SC division ruling.

Thus, Roxas said, while the SC First Division had raised and questioned the constitutionality of the Safeguards Measures in its July decision on steel imports, the SC en banc ruling in August did not even raise, address or question the constitutionality of the Safeguards measures.

The August SC en banc ruling, Roxas believes, thus virtually overturns the July SC First Division decision.

Although it was Roxas who was then the Trade and Industry Secretary that used the Safeguard Measures to impose a safeguard tariff on cement imports, he clarified that it must be the government through the DTI, Department of Agriculture and the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) which should seek a reconsideration of the SC rulings on the Safeguars Measures Law.