The Supreme Court ruled that the Bureau of Customs (BOC) cannot require customs brokers to undergo separate accreditation processes beyond their professional licensure. The Court found that Customs Administrative Order No. 3-2006 (CAO 3-2006), which mandated BOC accreditation, contravened the Customs Brokers Act of 2004 (RA 9280) by imposing an additional and unnecessary licensing requirement. This decision protects licensed customs brokers from redundant regulations, ensuring they can practice their profession nationwide without needing extra permits from the BOC.

Navigating Regulatory Overreach: Can the BOC Impose Additional Hurdles for Customs Brokers?

This case revolves around the validity of Customs Administrative Order No. 3-2006 (CAO 3-2006), which required customs brokers to be accredited by the Bureau of Customs (BOC) to practice before it. Airlift Asia Customs Brokerage, Inc. and Allan G. Benedicto challenged this order, arguing that it exceeded the BOC’s authority and violated the Customs Brokers Act of 2004 (RA 9280). The petitioners asserted that RA 9280 already established a system for licensing and regulating customs brokers through the Professional Regulatory Board for Customs Brokers (PRBCB), making the BOC accreditation redundant and illegal.

Before the enactment of RA 9280, the Tariff and Customs Code of the Philippines (TCCP) governed the customs broker profession. Under Sections 3401 to 3409 of the TCCP, the Board of Examiners for Customs Brokers, supervised by the Civil Service Commission (CSC), managed the entry, regulation, and supervision of customs brokers. The Commissioner of the BOC acted as the ex-officio chairman of this board, wielding significant control over the profession. However, RA 9280 brought sweeping changes by expressly repealing these TCCP provisions. Section 39 of RA 9280 explicitly states that “all laws…and parts thereof which are inconsistent with [RA 9280] are [deemed] modified, suspended, or repealed accordingly.”

RA 9280 established the PRBCB, under the supervision and administrative control of the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC). This new board took over the responsibilities previously held by the Board of Examiners. Crucially, the BOC Commissioner was excluded from the PRBCB. This exclusion highlighted a clear legislative intent to remove the BOC’s direct control over customs brokers and transfer regulatory powers to the PRBCB. The powers granted to the PRBCB under Section 7 of RA 9280 further solidified this shift:

Section 7. Powers and Functions of the Board. – x x x

(b) Supervise and regulate the licensure, registration, and practice of customs brokers profession;

x x x x

(e) Register successful examinees in the licensure examination and issue the corresponding Certificate of Registration and Professional Identification Card;

x x x x

(g) Look into the conditions affecting the practice of customs brokerage, adopt measures for the enhancement of the profession and the maintenance of high professional, technical, and ethical standards, and conduct ocular inspection of places where customs brokers practice their profession; [emphasis supplied]

The Court of Appeals (CA) argued that the BOC Commissioner retained the authority to regulate licensed customs brokers to enforce tariff laws and prevent smuggling. The Supreme Court disagreed. While acknowledging the BOC’s mandate to enforce tariff laws, the Court clarified that these powers did not inherently include the power to regulate and supervise the customs broker profession through CAO 3-2006. The BOC Commissioner’s general rule-making power under Section 608 of the TCCP yielded to the specific grant of power to the CSC Commissioner (and subsequently the PRBCB) to regulate the customs broker profession.

The Supreme Court further emphasized that CAO 3-2006 essentially imposed a licensing requirement that restricted the practice of customs brokers, a clear violation of RA 9280. The Court reasoned that customs brokers already certified by the PRC would be compelled to comply with the accreditation requirement to practice their profession, which is contrary to Section 19 of RA 9280:

a customs broker “shall be allowed to practice the profession in any collection district without the need of securing another license from the [BOC].”

The accreditation requirement was deemed an additional burden on PRC-certified customs brokers, curtailing their right to practice their profession. The Court also rejected the argument that CAO 3-2006 regulated only practice before the BOC. The Court highlighted that a substantial part of a customs broker’s work inherently involves dealing with the BOC. Therefore, compelling all customs brokers to comply with the accreditation requirement to practice their profession effectively contravened Section 19 of RA 9280. The Supreme Court drew a parallel with the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR), noting that while both agencies play critical roles in revenue collection, the BIR Commissioner was given express and specific powers to accredit and register tax agents under Section 6(G) of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC), unlike the BOC Commissioner whose power over customs brokers was only implied.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The central issue was whether the Bureau of Customs (BOC) could require customs brokers to obtain separate accreditation, in addition to their professional license, to practice before the BOC. This raised questions about regulatory overreach and compliance with the Customs Brokers Act of 2004.
What is Customs Administrative Order No. 3-2006 (CAO 3-2006)?	CAO 3-2006 was an order issued by the BOC Commissioner requiring customs brokers to be accredited by the BOC to practice their profession before the agency. This accreditation process involved registration and listing of customs brokers.
What is the Customs Brokers Act of 2004 (RA 9280)?	RA 9280, also known as the Customs Brokers Act of 2004, is a law that regulates the customs broker profession in the Philippines. It established the Professional Regulatory Board for Customs Brokers (PRBCB) to supervise and regulate the licensure, registration, and practice of customs brokers.
What did the Regional Trial Court (RTC) rule?	The RTC ruled in favor of the petitioners, Airlift Asia Customs Brokerage, Inc. and Allan G. Benedicto, and nullified CAO 3-2006. The court found that the BOC Commissioner lacked the authority to issue rules governing the practice of the customs brokerage profession.
How did the Court of Appeals (CA) rule?	The CA reversed the RTC ruling and declared CAO 3-2006 valid. The CA held that the accreditation requirement was reasonably connected to the BOC’s aim to ensure accountability and integrity in customs transactions.
What was the Supreme Court’s decision?	The Supreme Court reversed the CA’s decision and reinstated the RTC’s ruling, effectively nullifying CAO 3-2006. The Court held that the BOC’s accreditation requirement was an unauthorized additional licensing requirement that violated RA 9280.
Why did the Supreme Court rule against the BOC?	The Supreme Court reasoned that RA 9280 transferred the power to regulate and supervise customs brokers to the PRBCB. Requiring a separate accreditation from the BOC would impose an additional burden and restrict the practice of customs brokers who are already licensed by the PRBCB.
What is the practical implication of this ruling for customs brokers?	Customs brokers who are licensed by the PRBCB can practice their profession in any collection district without needing to secure additional licenses or accreditation from the BOC. This simplifies regulatory compliance and reduces unnecessary burdens.

The Supreme Court’s decision clarifies the regulatory framework for customs brokers, reinforcing the authority of the PRBCB and preventing the BOC from imposing redundant requirements. This ruling ensures that licensed customs brokers can practice their profession without facing unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles, thereby promoting efficiency and fairness in customs administration.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: AIRLIFT ASIA CUSTOMS BROKERAGE, INC. VS. COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. No. 183664, July 28, 2014