Coconut Oil Refiners vs Torres

GR 132527, 29 July 2005

Facts: Petitioners contend that the wording of Republic Act No. 7227 clearly limits the grant of
tax incentives to the importation of raw materials, capital and equipment only thereby violating
the equal protection clause of the Constitution. It reads as follows:
The Subic Special Economic Zone shall be operated and managed
as a separate customs territory ensuring free flow or movement of
goods and capital within, into and exported out of the Subic
Special Economic Zone, as well as provide incentives such as tax
and duty-free importations of raw materials, capital and
equipment. However, exportation or removal of goods from the
territory of the Subic Special Economic Zone to the other parts of
the Philippine territory shall be subject to customs duties and
taxes under the Customs and Tariff Code and other relevant tax
laws of the Philippines [RA 7227, Sec 12 (b)].

Issue: Whether or not the wording if RA 7227 limits the grant of tax incentives?
Held/Rule: No. expressio unius est exclusio alterius (when one or more things of a class are
expressly mentioned others of the same class are excluded). The phrase tax and duty-free
importations of raw materials, capital and equipment was merely cited as an example of
incentives that may be given to entities operating within the zone does not apply when words
are mentioned by way of example.
Del Mar [Moro] vs. PAGCOR
346 SCRA 485, 29 November 2000
Facts: The case at hand involves the authority of PAGCOR to run jai-alai or subcontract it. This
authority is challenged by the petitioners, in their petition, asserting that: (1) the word franchise
in PD 1602 (Anti-Gambling Law) does not include the operation of jai-alai since it is a prohibited
activity; and (2) acquiring a franchise is a special privilege that should be construed strictly
against the grantee.
Issue: Whether or not jai-alai can be considered a prohibited gambling activity under PD 1602,
and (2) statutes pertaining to the legalization of gambling through obtaining a franchise should
be construed against the grantee.
Held/Rule: Interpretatio Cessat in Claris (When the law is clear and unambiguous, there is no
need to interpretation) No. PD 1602 stressed that it did not outlaw the operations of jai alai. It
merely provided for stiffer penalties for illegal or unauthorized activities related to jai alai and
other forms of gambling. Section 2 of 1602 that ...bets offered, taken or arranged outside the
place, enclosure or court where the games are held, shall be offered, taken or arranged only in
places duly licensed by the corporation. Provided, however, That the same shall be subject to
the supervision of the Board.
A statute which legalizes a gambling activity or business should be strictly construed and every
reasonable doubt must be resolved to limit the powers and rights claimed under its authority.
There is no reason to resist the beguiling rule that acts of incorporation, and statutes granting
other franchises or special benefits or privileges to corporations, are to be construed strictly
against the corporations; and whatever is not given in unequivocal terms is understood to be
withheld.