SIXTEENTH CONGRESS OF THE REPUBLIC 
0[< THE PHILIPPINES 
Second Regular Session 
) 
) 
) 
:4 
DEC 22 P4 :i4 
SENATE 
S. B. No. _2538 
Introduced by Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago 
AN ACT 
AMENDING PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1818, SECTION I ON COURT 
JURISDICTION 
EXPLANATORY NOTE 
The Constitution, Article VIII, Section I 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 (0 render inutile attempts to check possible government excesses, as we see in 
City of Angels vs. Court of Appealsf, Thus, the Supreme Court itselt~ in Genaro R. Reyes 
Construction, Inc. 1IS. Court of Appeazi, "entertain[sJ serious doubts in regard to the 
constitutionality ofP.D. 1818." 
This "overprotective" mantle was applied by the Court of Appeals to overturn 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 ofP.D. 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 above doctrine. Citing 
Zwickler vs. Koota3 in Adiong vs. Come/ec4, 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 attaincd by reasonable 
restrictions rather by an absolute prohibition. Such continued adherence to a contentious 
law has no place in our democracy.5 
1 261 seRA 107 (1996). 
2234 seRA 116, 126 (1994). 
3 19 L ed 2d 444 (1976). 
4 207 seRA 712, 719 (1992). 
5 This bill was originally filed during the Thirteenth Congress, First Regular Session. 
2 


SIXTEENTH CONGRESS OF THE REPUBLIC 
) 
OF THE PHILIPPINES 
) 
Second Regular Session 
) 
SENATE 
S. B. No. 
2538 
"'~ 
I 
'\4 
llEC 22 
----------------------------------------
Introduced by Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago 
Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the Philippines in 
Congress assembled: 
AN ACT 
AMENDING PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1818, SECTION 1 ON COURT 
JURISDICTION 
1 
SECTION 1. Presidential Decree No. 1818, also known as Prohibiting Courts 
2 
from Issuing Restraining Orders or Preliminary Injunctions in cases involving 
3 
Infrastructure and Natural Resource Development Projects of, and Public Utilities 
4 
operated by, the Government, Section 1, is hereby amended to read as follows: 
5 
"Section 1. 
No court of the Philippines shall have jurisdiction to issue any 
6 
restraining order, preliminary injunction or preliminary mandatory injunction in any casc, 
7 
dispute, or controversy involving an infrastructure project, or a mining, fishery, forest or 
8 
other natural resource development project of the government, or any public utility 
9 
operated by the government, including among others public utilities for the transport of 
10 
the goods or commodities, stevedoring and arrastre contracts, to prohibit any person or 
11 
persons, entity or governmental oftlcial from preceding with, or continuing the execution 
12 
or implementation of any such project, or the operation of such public utility, or pursuing 
13 
any lawful activity neccssary for such execution, implementation or operation. UNLESS 
14 
THE MATTER IS OF EXTREME URGENCY INVOLVING NATIONAL INTEREST, 
15 
SUCH THAT UNLESS A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, PRELlMINARY 
16 
INJUNCTION, OR PRELIMINARY MANDATORY INJUNCTION IS ISSUED, 
3 


, , 
1 
GRAVE INJUSTICE AND IRREPARABLE INJURY WILL ARISE, AND PROVIDED 
2 
THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE A BOND, IN AN AMOUNT FIXED BY THE 
3 
COURT, TO THE EFFECT THAT SUCH BOND SHALL ACCRUE IN FAVOR OF 
4 
THE GOVERNMENT IF THE COURT SHOULD FINALLY DECIDE THAT THE 
5 
APPLICANT WAS NOT ENTITLED THERETO." 
6 
SECTION 2. Repealing Clause, -- Any law, presidential decree or issuance, 
7 
executive order, letter of instruction, administrative order, rule or regulation contrary to 
8 
or inconsistent with the provisions of this Act is hereby repealed, modified or amended 
9 
accordingly. 
10 
SECTION 3. Effectivity Clause. - This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after 
11 
its publication in at least two (2) newspapers of general circulations. 
12 
Approved 
IdpmNov2014 
4