By Atty. Julius Gregory B. Delgado
CHAMBER OF CUSTOMS BROKERS, INC. (CCBI) VS. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, G.R. NO. 256907
(FEBRUARY 20, 2023): SIGNING OF GOODS DECLARATION NO LONGER EXCLUSIVE TO CUSTOMS
BROKERS
Section 27 of Republic Act No. 9280 (Customs Brokers Act of 2004) provides that “import and
export entry declarations shall be signed only by customs broker under oath based on the covering
documents submitted by the importers.” Later, Congress – in response to the country’s obligations to the
Revised Kyoto Convention (RKC) which was intended to, among others, respond to the needs of
providing a balance between customs functions of control and revenue collection and trade facilitation –
enacted Republic Act No. 10863 (Customs Modernization and Tariff Act). Section 106 (d) of RA 10683
provides that “a declarant may be a consignee or a person who has the right to dispose of the goods.”
The provision further states that a declarant shall lodge a goods declaration with the Bureau of Customs
and may be “(d) A person duly empowered to act as agent or attorney-in-fact for each holder.” Section
107 of RA 10683 further states that the “declarant shall sign the goods declaration, even when assisted
by a licensed customs broker, who shall likewise sign the goods declaration.”
Affected by the amendments, petitioner Chamber of Customs Brokers, Inc. (CCBI) filed a Petition
for Declaratory Relief before the Regional Trial Court of Manila arguing that Section 106 (d) of RA 10863
did not repeal or amend RA 9280 and there were no irreconcilable inconsistencies between them,
hence, latter law should be harmonized and read in conjunction with the provisions of the former law.
Petitioner CCBI also avers that “allowing any person designated as an agent or attorney-in-fact of the
importer or exporter to perform acts that would otherwise be limited only for licensed customs brokers
created undue favor and inequality.”
For its part, respondent Commissioner of Customs, represented by the Office of the Solicitor
General, retorted that Section 27 of RA 9280 has been modified by Section 106 in relation to Section 107
of RA 10863. As such, the new law authorized the importer, exporter, as well as their appointed agent or
attorney-in-fact, to lodge a goods declaration independently and without the participation of a customs
broker. Finally, respondent Commissioner of Customs argued that even before the passage of RA 10863,
Section 27 of RA 9280 has already been amended by RA 9853 wherein it is now worded as, “Import
entry shall be signed by a customs broker and the consignee/owner/importer under oath based on the
covering documents submitted by the importers; Provided, That export declaration shall be signed by the
exporter or, at his option, delegate the signing and processing of the document to his designated
customs broker or authorized representative.”
The Regional Trial Court of Manila dismissed the Petition for Declaratory Relief for lack of merit.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of petitioner CCBI’s Petition for Declaratory Relief, hence,
the filing of a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court before the Supreme
Court. The two (2) substantive issues decided by the Supreme Court are as follows: (1) whether Section
27 of RA 9280 had already been repealed; and (2) whether RA 10863 violates the Equal Protection
Clause of the 1987 Philippine Constitution.
On the first issue, the Supreme Court upheld the rulings of the Court of Appeals and the trial
court and held that RA 9280 was amended by RA 9853 with the latter law explicitly stating that the
export declaration shall be signed by the exporter or, at their option, delegate the signing and
processing of the document to their designated customs broker or authorized representative. Hence,
the Court agreed that even before the enactment of RA 10863, the law in question, the exporter on
their own can already sign the goods declaration even without the assistance of a customs broker. The
Court also held that RA 9853 would reveal that it is an express repeal considering that it identified or
designated the act or acts that are intended to be repealed as the title of the law itself is “An Act
Amending Republic Act No. 9280, otherwise known as the Customs Brokers Act of 2004”, and Section 1
of RA 9853 expressly states that “Section 27 of Republic Act No. 9280 is hereby amended.” Finally, the
Supreme Court held that even assuming arguendo that RA 9853 was not enacted, RA 10863 should be
considered to have impliedly repealed Section 27 of RA 9280. Thus, “As aptly ruled by the CA, the
pertinent provisions of the two statutes, RA 9280 and RA 10863, have apparent irreconcilable
inconsistencies. As adverted to above, Section 27 of RA 9280 provides that import and export
declarations shall only be signed by a customs broker. On the other hand, Section 106 (d) of RA 19863
(and even RA 9853 which was enacted before RA 10863) provides that the declarant themself is allowed
to sign the goods declaration or delegate such act to their agent or attorney-in-fact. Clearly, it is the
intention of the later statute to divest the customs broker the sole authority of signing the goods
declaration and give the option to the declarant themself to sign the same document or assign such task
it to their agent or attorney-in-fact.”
On the second issue of whether RA 10863 violates the Equal Protection Clause, the Supreme
Court held that since RA 10863 is an economic legislation the established test is the so-called “Rational
Basis Test” which basically allows classification to serve a legitimate government interest behind such
enactment and there is a reasonable connection between it and the means employed to achieve the
same. Applying this test, the Court held that RA 10863 was enacted in response to the country’s
obligations to RKC which was intended to, among others, respond to the needs of providing a balance
between customs functions of control and revenue collection and trade facilitation, to which the Court
held to be the legitimate government interest behind such enactment. The Court further held, “Further,
the means employed to achieve said legitimate government interest – particularly, the introduction of
the provision which states that the signing of goods declarations is no longer exclusive to customs
brokers in that such act of signing may already be performed by the declarant themselves or their agent
or attorney-in-fact – has a reasonable connection with the latter. Relevantly, RA 10863 is germane to the
purpose of the law, which aims to make Philippine Laws consistent with international standards and
customs best practices.”