EPRES,
ax SOx

Republic of the Bhilippines Y x
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ; RECEIVED 2

Queson City

EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
Second Regular Session

House Bit No! 363

Introduced by HON. LUIS RAYMUND “LRAY” F. VILLAFUERTE, JR.

AN ACT
AMENDING PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1818, SECTION 1 ON JURISDICTION

The Constitution, Article VIII, Section 1 provides that:

The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as
may be established by law.

Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies
involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine
whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.

On the other hand, Presidential Decree No. 1818, Section 1, states:

No court of the Philippines shall have jurisdiction to issue any restraining order,
preliminary injunction or preliminary mandatory injunction in any case, dispute or
controversy involving in infrastructure project, or mining, fishery, forest or other natural
resource development project of the government, or any public utilities for the transport
of the goods or commodities, stevedoring and arrester contracts, to prohibit any persons,
entity or governmental official from preceding with, or continuing the execution or
implementation of any such project, or the operation of such public utility, or pursuing any
lawful activity necessary for such execution, implementation or operation.

The rationale for the issuance of P.D. 1818 was that it is in the public interest to adopt
such prohibition against the issuance of restraining orders or injunction in these areas of
activity which are critical to the economic development effort of the nation, in order not to
disrupt or the hamper the pursuit or essential government projects.

However, instead of achieving this desired result, P.D. No. 1818, since its issuance on 16


January 1981, has been used to mock the judicial system by serving as a protective
mantle to render inutile attempts to check possible government excesses, as we see in
City of Angels vs. Court of Appeals, 261 SCRA 107 (1996). Thus, the Supreme Court
itself, in Genaro R. Reyes Construction, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 234 SCRA 116, 126
(1994), “entertain[s] serious doubts in regard to the constitutionality of P.D. 1818.”

Avery recent application of this “overprotective” mantle was the overturning of the Court
of Appeals of the decision of a Makati Regional Trial Court Judge to the collection of toll
fees along the newly constructed Manila-Cavite expressway. The Court of Appeals said
that “while the collection of toll fees is not an infrastructure project, it falls within the
scope of P.D. 1818 as an activity necessary for the execution, implementation or
operation of an infrastructure project of the government.”

PD. No. 1818 should be amended because it violates the above doctrine. Citing
Zwickler vs. Kota, 19 Led 2d 444 (1976), in Adiong vs. Comelec, 207 SCRA 712, 719
(1992), the Supreme Court said that a statue is considered void if:

it offends the constitutional principle that a governmental purpose to control
or prevent activities constitutionally subject to state regulations may not be
achieved by means which sweep unnecessarily broadly and thereby
invade the area of protected freedoms.

In a series of decisions, this Court has held that even though the
governmental purpose be legitimate and substantial, that purpose cannot
be pursued by means that broadly stifle fundamental personal liberties
when the end can be more narrowly achieved...

The purpose that P.D. No. 1818 sought to achieve could be attained by reasonable

restrictions rather by an absolute prohibition. Such continued adherence to a contentious
law has no place in our democracy.

ia

LUIS Ri ID “LRAY’/F/VILLAFUERTE, JR.


Republic of the Philippines
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Quezon City

EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
Second Regular Session

8363
HOUSE BILL NO.

Introduced by HON. LUIS RAYMUND “LRAY” F. VILLAFUERTE, JR.

AMENDING PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1818, SECTION 1 ON JURISDICTION

Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the Philippines in
Congress assembled:

SECTION 1. Presidential Decree No. 1818, Section 1, is hereby amended to read as
follows:

“Section 1. No court of the Philippines shall have jurisdiction to issue any
restraining order, preliminary injunction or preliminary mandatory injunction in any case,
dispute, or controversy involving an infrastructure project, or a mining, fishery, forest or
other natural resource development project of the government, or any public utility
operated by the government, including among others public utilities for the transport of
the goods or commodities, stevedoring and arrastre contracts, to prohibit any person or
persons, entity or governmental official from preceding with, or continuing the execution
or implementation of any such project, or the operation of such public utility, or pursuing
any lawful activity necessary for such execution, implementation or operation. UNLESS
THE MATTER IS OF EXTREME URGENCY INVOLVING NATIONAL INTEREST, SUCH
THAT UNLESS A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION,
OR PRELIMINARY MANDATORY INJUNCTION IS ISSUED, GRAVE INJUSTICE AND
IRREPARABLE INJURY WILL ARISE, AND PROVIDED THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE
A BOND, IN AN AMOUNT FIXED BY THE COURT, TO THE EFFECT THAT SUCH
BOND SHALL ACCRUE IN FAVOR OF THE GOVERNMENT IF THE COURT SHOULD
FINALLY DECIDE THAT THE APPLICANT WAS NOT ENTITLED THERETO.”

SECTION 2. Repealing Clause. — Any law, presidential decree or issuance, executive
order, letter of instruction, administrative order, rule or regulation contrary to or
inconsistent with the provisions of this Act is hereby repealed, modified or amended
accordingly.


SECTION 3. Effectivity Clause. — This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its
publication in at least two (2) newspapers of general circulations.

Approved,