Executive Secretary v. Southwing Industries (2006)

Doctrine: A declaratory relief may be availed of even after the right of petitioners have been breached or violated

Facts: Petitioners are all locators inside the Subic Bay Freeport, who are all exporters of used motor vehicles and spare parts, except used cars. Then President Arroyo issued EO 156 intended to promote the growth of he local vehicle manufacturing industries and thus prohibiting the importation of used cars.

The Subic Bay locator-companies filed a petition for Declaratory Relief with RTC Olongapo seeking the declaration of the unconstitutionality of Article 2, Section 3.1 of said EO. The RTC, affirmed by the CA, declared the EO unconstitutional for usurping legislative powers and being repugnant to the Bases Conversion Law.

The government’s defense was that the petition for Declaratory Relief was not proper as it may only be filed prior to any violation of rights. It further said that considering the there already a breach of respondents supposed right because the cases were filed more than a year after the issuance of EO 156. In fact, numerous warrants of seizure and detention were issued against imported used motor vehicles belonging to respondents.

WON: The locators properly availed of the remedy of Declaratory Relief? YES

HELD: The propriety of declaratory relief as a vehicle for assailing the executive issuance, suffice it to state that any breach of the rights of respondents will not affect the case. In Commission on Audit of the Province of Cebu v. Province of Cebu, the Court entertained a suit for declaratory relief to finally settle the doubt as to the proper interpretation of the conflicting laws involved, notwithstanding a violation of the right of the party affected. We find no reason to deviate from said ruling mindful of the significance of the present case to the national economy