MANILA, Philippines ? The Bureau of Customs (BoC) can no longer compel airline companies to pay for the overtime pay and other allowances of customs personnel at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA), a practice done since 1992.

The Court of Appeals has declared unconstitutional an administrative order issued by the bureau that required airlines to shoulder the overtime pay and other allowances of customs personnel estimated to run into millions of pesos each month.

In a decision penned by Associate Justice Vicente Veloso, the appellate court?s sixth division ruled in favor of the Board of Airline Representatives (BAR).

Associate Justices Jose Sabio Jr. and Ricardo Rosario concurred.

The BAR had appealed the decision of the Office of the President upholding the legality of Customs Administrative Order (CAO) 1-2005 which amended CAO 7-92.

In its CAO 7-92 dated April 24, 1992, the customs bureau charged to the airlines the overtime pay, traveling allowance and meal allowance of customs personnel at the NAIA.

Customs officers and employees at NAIA were to receive P30 to P38 hourly overtime pay, P50 traveling allowance per way and P50 allowance per meal.

?Unenforceable?

In 2005, the customs bureau increased the rates of overtime and all the allowances by more than 100 percent through CAO 1-2005, which the Department of Finance approved on Feb. 9, 2005.

The new overtime pay of BOC officers and employees now ranged from P66 to P83, P110 flat rate for traveling allowance and P110 allowance per meal.

The Court of Appeals ruled that CAO 7-92 and 1-2005 were unconstitutional since the basis for these orders, Section 3506 of the Tariff and Customs Code of the Philippines (TCCP), was ?unenforceable? against airline companies.

Section 3506 states that ?custom officials may be assigned by a collector to do overtime work at rates fixed by the Commissioner of Customs when the service rendered is to be paid for by importers, shippers, or other persons served.?

According to the court, the customs bureau unfairly took advantage of the vague term ?other persons served? by including airline companies and aircraft owners and operators in the coverage of CAO 7-92 and CAO 1-2005 even though these are not mentioned in the tariff code.

The appellate court said the assailed customs administrative orders constitute an ?undue delegation of legislative power.?

It said that since Section 3506 of the tariff code did not contain ?adequate guidelines or limitations,? nothing prevented the BOC ?from running riot? in crafting CAO 7-92 and CAO 1-2005.

The CA stressed that Section 8 Article IX of the Constitution prohibits an appointive public officer or employee from receiving ?additional, double or indirect compensation, unless specifically authorized by law.?