Oilink

Oilink International Corporation will question the recent Resolution of the Department of Justice when the DOJ ordered the filing of charges for violation of the Tariff and Customs Code of the Philippines (TCCP) and falsification of public and commercial documents against several officers of Oilink as well as several Bureau of Customs officials and members of shipping and brokerage firms.

 

It should be known that the PASG charged Oilink with violation of the TCCP. But DOJ Prosecutor Stewart Allan Mariano junked these charges because of lack of probable cause and for insufficiency of evidence. These findings were affirmed and concurred by no less than Chief State Prosecutor Jovencito Zuño.

 

In dismissing the charges, Mariano correctly ruled that the PASG has no authority to directly file a case for violation of the TCCP without the express approval from the Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs. Under Section 2401 of the TCCP, civil or criminal action for violation of the Code shall be conducted by customs officers but no civil and criminal action under the Code shall be filed without the approval of the Commissioner of Customs who has the supervision and control over all criminal and civil cases emanating from the TCCP.

 

Informatively, the Resolution of Mariano was also based on a precedent. Earlier in a separate and similar case filed by the PASG against another entity, the DOJ likewise dismissed the said case docketed as IS # 2007-634 on the ground that the PASG has no authority to file charges for violation of the TCCP without the approval of the Customs Commissioner.

 

However, upon automatic review, DOJ Secretary Raul Gonzalez reversed the findings of Mariano and Zuño and ordered the filing of charges against Oilink and completely disregarding the DOJ’s earlier ruling in the IS 2007-947 case. Gonzalez ruled that PASG has authority to file the case under Executive Order 624 which remains valid until declared unconstitutional by the courts.

 

Oilink in a statement said that they will question the ruling of Gonzalez either in a Motion for Reconsideration to be filed before the DOJ or in a Motion to Determine Probable Cause to be filed before the Court of Tax Appeals. 

 

Oilink is confident that the recent ruling is erroneous considering that PASG has really no authority to file a case for violation of the TCCP without the approval and concurrence of the Commissioner of Customs. Besides, even if EO 624 authorized PASG to file a case, said EO 624 cannot prevail over Section 2401 of the TCCP. 

 

Although it has the force and effect of law, EO 624 is an executive issuance which cannot be considered as a law. It cannot supplant nor amend the express provisions of Section 2401 of the TCCP requiring customs approval of any charges for violation of the TCCP. Oilink hopes that justice will prevail and a simple examination of the law will naturally point out that the recent ruling is blatantly erroneous and that Oilink and its officers will eventually be cleared of these trumped up charges.