.. 
FOURTEENTH CONGRESS OF THE REPUBLIC) 
(’ 
~ ii ,I! -c; 
,, I 
, 
’ , 
OF THE PHILIPPINES 
1 
. ,
~
,
 
‘ 
First Regular Session 
) 
Introduced by Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago 
EXPLANATORY NOTE 
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, Znc. vs. Court of Appeals, 234 SCRA 116, 126 (1994), “entertain[s] serious doubts 
in regard to the constitutionality of P.D. 1818.” 


P.D. No. 181 8 should he amended because it violates the above doctrine. Citing Zwickler 
vs. Koota, 19 L ed 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 keedoms. 
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.* 
' This bill was originally filed during the Thirteenth Congress, First Regular Session, 
1 


1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
FOURTEENTH CONGRESS OF THE REPUBLIC) 
OF THE PHILIPPINES 
) 
7 JJ!- 
"-5 i>.j 
' ;; 
First Regular Session 
) 
Introduced by Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago 
AN ACT 
AMENDING PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 18 18, 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 I. 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 
1 


1 
2 
6 
7 
8 
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. Eflectivity Clause. - This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days affer its 
publication in at least two (2) newspapers of general circulations. 
Approved, 
2