! 
THIRTEENTH CONGRESS OF THE REPUBLIC) 
OF THE PHILIPPINES 
1 
‘04 JUL -1 
AlO:19 
First Regular Session 
1 
lntroduced by Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago 
EXPLANATORY NOTE 
The Constitution, Article 8, 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 DecreeNo. 1818, Section 1, states: 
No court in the Philippines shall have jurisdiction to issue any restraining 
order, preliminary injunction or preliminary mandatory injunction in any cas.e, 
dispute, or controversy involving in 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 arrester 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. 
The rati.onale for the issuance of P.D. 1818 was that it is in the public interest to adopt 
such a prohibition against the issuance of retraining 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 
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 Angeles vs. 
Court of Appeals, 261 SCRA 107 (1996). Thus, the Supreme Court itself, in Genaro R. Reyes 
Consfruetion h e .  vs. Court ofAppeak, 234 SCRA 116, 126 (1994), “entertain[sJ serious doubts in 
regard to the constitutionally 0fP.D. No. 1818.” 
A very 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. No. 1818 as an 
activity necessary for the execution, implementation or operation of an infrastructure project of the 
government.” 
P.D. No. 1818 should be amended because it violates the overbread doctrine. Citing 
Zwickler lis. Koota, 19 L ed 2d 444 (1967), in Adiong vs. Conielec, 207 SCRA 712, 719 (1992), the 
Supreme Court said that a statute 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 
governinental 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 purposes 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. 


THIRTEENTH CONGRESS OF THE REPUBLIC) 
OF THE PHILIPPINES 
1 
First Regular Session 
1 
’04 
JUL -1 
A10 :19 
Introduced by Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago 
AN ACT 
AMENDING PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 605 
Be it enacted by the Senate and the House qf Representatives of the Philippines in 
Cimg~ess assembled: 
SECTION 1. Presidential Decree No. 18 18, Section 1, is hereby amended to read as 
follows: 
“Section 1. 
No court in the Philippines shall have jurisdiction to issue any restraining 
order, preliminq injunction, or preliminaq 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 lawhl activity necessary for 
such execution, implementation or operation, UNLESS THE MATTER IS OF EXTREME 
URGENCY INVOLVTNG NATIONAL INTEREST, SUCH THAT W E S S  A TEMPORARY 
RESTRAINING 
ORDER, 
PRELIMINARY 
INJUNCTION, 
OR 
PRELIh’iNARY 
MANDATORY INJUNCTION IS ISSUED, GRAVE INKJUSTICE AND IRREPARABLE 
INJURY WILL ARISE, AND PROVIDED THE APPLICANT SHALL F E E  A BOND, lN 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. Eflecfiviy Clause - This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its 
publication in at least two (2) newspapers of general circulations. 
Approved 
FN: 1162