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 governments 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