RAMON A. GONZALES, PETITIONER, VS. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, AS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, AND RAFAEL M. SALAS, AS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, RESPONDENTS.

Gonzales versus Enrile

The Case

This is Gonzales versus Enrile, an original petition brought in the Supreme Court by Ramon A. Gonzales, a resident of Molo, Iloilo City, against Juan Ponce Enrile, as Commissioner of Customs, and Rafael M. Salas, as Executive Secretary. The petitioner asks the Court to restrain the respondents from enforcing a presidential directive to burn confiscated blue seal cigarettes, and to declare that directive null and void. He sues as a taxpayer, claiming that the burning wastes public property or public funds to his damage and prejudice. The case matters because it fixes the limits of judicial inquiry into executive policy, and because it shows how the Tariff and Customs Code governs the destruction of seized goods that are unfit for use or a menace to public health.

Procedural History

The action was instituted as an original petition in the Supreme Court, not as an appeal from any lower court. The petitioner sought to restrain the respondents from enforcing the directive and prayed for a declaration of its nullity. The respondents answered, admitting the issuance of the Malacañang press release but asserting that the actual presidential instruction was to stop the auction sale and to cause the burning only where destruction is allowable by law. The case therefore came to the Supreme Court at first instance, on the pleadings and the certifications submitted by the customs authorities.

Facts

Newspapers carried the report of the burning at the North Harbor in Manila, on April 2, 1964, of confiscated blue seal cigarettes. The petitioner claims that under Section 2601 of the Tariff and Customs law these cigarettes are subject to confiscation and sale, with the proceeds applied to the duties, taxes, storage and arrastre charges due the government. On that premise he argues that burning the goods is not sanctioned by law and is a waste of public property or public funds. He also alleges that the act complained of was done pursuant to instructions of former President Macapagal to stop the auction sale and instead cause the burning of the confiscated cigarettes.

The respondents admit the issuance by the Malacañang Press Office of Press Release Number 3 dated March 31, 1964, which announced that the anti-smuggling committee headed by the President had adopted policies calling for the burning of confiscated blue seal cigarettes, and that the President had instructed that the auction sale be stopped and all confiscated cigarettes be publicly burned, with an inventory of all burned stocks to be made. The release noted that cigarette smuggling had caused tremendous loss of government revenue, thrown thousands of workers out of jobs, constituted a health hazard, and caused corruption among officials and agents of the law.

The respondents nevertheless assert that the actual presidential instruction was to stop the auction sale and to cause burning only in those cases where destruction is allowable by law. They add that the burning, on April 2 and 7, 1964, of 576 cases of confiscated cigarettes, certified as unfit for sale or use by the Condemnation Committee of the Bureau of Customs, was authorized under Section 2608 of the Tariff Code. The customs authorities certified that the cigarettes were unfit for human consumption, that destruction was recommended by the Condemnation Committee, one member of which was a physician, and that the procedure in Section 2608 was duly observed.

Issues

• Whether or not the disposal by burning of the confiscated cigarettes by the respondent Commissioner of Customs was authorized by law.
• Whether or not the courts may inquire into the motives behind the issuance of the presidential directive, as insinuated by the petitioner.

Applicable Provisions

Section 2608 of the Tariff and Customs Code provides:

Section 2608. Disposition of Articles Unfit for Use or Sale or Injurious to Public Health. When any article, which in the opinion of the Collector, is a menace to public health, is seized or otherwise comes into the custody of the Bureau of Customs, the Collector of the port shall, if the matter is not disposable under the provisions relating to food and drugs, appoint a board of three members to examine the article. Whenever possible, one member shall be a representative of the Bureau of Health or the local health officer, and the two others shall be responsible officials of the Bureau of Customs, at least one of whom shall be an appraiser. Such board shall examine said article, and if the same is found to be unfit or a menace to the public health, the board shall be so reported in writing to the Collector, who shall forthwith order its destruction in such manner as the case may require.

This is the provision the Court treats as the legal basis for destroying the confiscated cigarettes, and the respondents' compliance with it is the decisive point in the case.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the burning was authorized by law. The respondents presented certifications by the customs authorities that the confiscated cigarettes were unfit for human consumption, that their destruction was recommended by the Condemnation Committee of the Bureau of Customs, one member of which was a physician, and that the procedure prescribed in Section 2608 of the Tariff Code was duly observed. The Court stressed that this contention remained unrefuted. The Malacañang press release relied upon by the petitioner, containing an account of the issuance of the disputed instructions, is incompetent evidence that cannot override the respondents' allegation that the directive was for the burning of the confiscated goods only in those instances where such manner of disposition is allowed under the law.

On the second issue, the Court refused to consider the petitioner's insinuation that there was a hidden motivation for the directive, different from its announced intendment, and that the instructions could be utilized to cover up for missing confiscated goods. The Court called such alleged motivations conjecture pure and simple. It then laid down the governing principle: under our system of government, the role of the judiciary is also circumscribed by law and legal principles, one of which is the absence of jurisdiction of the courts to inquire into the motives that lie behind the formulation of government policies by the executive.

Doctrine

First, confiscated articles that are unfit for use or sale, or injurious to public health, may lawfully be destroyed under Section 2608 of the Tariff and Customs Code, provided the Collector appoints a board of three members to examine the article, the board reports in writing that the article is unfit or a menace to the public health, and the Collector forthwith orders its destruction in such manner as the case may require. Where the records show that this procedure was observed and the finding of unfitness stands unrefuted, the destruction is authorized by law and is not a waste of public funds.

Second, the courts have no jurisdiction to inquire into the motives that lie behind the formulation of government policies by the executive. Allegations of hidden motivation, unsupported by evidence, are conjecture pure and simple and cannot defeat an act shown to be within the law. A newspaper press release is incompetent evidence to overturn the official account of a directive.

Disposition

The petition was dismissed, with costs against the petitioner, there being no evidence that the burning of the confiscated cigarettes was not made in accordance with law.

Remember This

Memorize the line that the courts have no jurisdiction to inquire into the motives behind the formulation of government policies by the executive. Examiners use this case on the validity of destroying confiscated goods under Section 2608 of the Tariff and Customs Code, and on the separation of powers limit against probing executive motive.