ROMEO P GEROCHI CASE

Case Digest

Ryan M Hernandez

ROMEO P GEROCHI CASE

FACTS:

Petitioners Romeo P. Gerochi, Katulong Ng Bayan (KB), and Environmentalist Consumers Network, Inc. (ECN) (petitioners), come before this Court in this original action praying that Section 34 of Republic Act (RA) 9136, otherwise known as the "Electric Power Industry Reform Act of 2001" (EPIRA), imposing the Universal Charge,¹ and Rule 18 of the Rules and Regulations (IRR)² which seeks to implement the said imposition, be declared unconstitutional. Petitioners also pray that the Universal Charge imposed upon the consumers be refunded and that a preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order (TRO) be issued directing the respondents to refrain from implementing, charging, and collecting the said charge.

ISSUES:

1) Whether or not, the Universal Charge imposed under Sec. 34 of the EPIRA is a tax; and

2) Whether or not Section 34 of Republic Act of 2001 is unconstitutional

RULING:

First Issue:

To resolve the first issue, it is necessary to distinguish the State’s power of taxation from the police power.

The power to tax is an incident of sovereignty and is unlimited in its range, acknowledging in its very nature no limits, so that security against its abuse is to be found only in the responsibility of the legislature which imposes the tax on the constituency that is to pay it.³⁰ It is based on the principle that taxes are the lifeblood of the government, and their prompt and certain availability is an imperious need.

On the other hand, police power is the power of the state to promote public welfare by restraining and regulating the use of liberty and property.³³ It is the most pervasive, the least limitable, and the most demanding of the three fundamental powers of the State.

Evidently, the establishment and maintenance of the Special Trust Fund, under the last paragraph of Section 34, R.A. No. 9136, is well within the pervasive and non-waivable power and responsibility of the government to secure the physical and economic survival and well-being of the community, that comprehensive sovereign authority we designate as the police power of the State.

Second Issue:

Finally, every law has in its favor the presumption of constitutionality, and to justify its nullification, there must be a clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution and not one that is doubtful, speculative, or argumentative.⁶⁸ Indubitably, petitioners failed to overcome this presumption in favor of the EPIRA. We find no clear violation of the Constitution which would warrant a pronouncement that Sec. 34 of the EPIRA and Rule 18 of its IRR are unconstitutional and void.