Taxability of Allowances Granted to Uniformed BJMP Members Similar to Those Granted to PNP Members

November 20, 2000 BIR RULING NO. 062-00 291 000-00 Bureau of Jail and Management and Penology 103 Kalayaan Avenue Diliman, Quezon City Attention: Chief Supt . Arturo W . Alit , CESO IV Officer-in-Charge Gentlemen : This refers to your letter dated July 19, 2000 requesting for exemption from tax of the allowances granted to the uniformed members of the Bureau of Jail and Management and Penology (BJMP) similar to those granted to the members of the Philippine National Police (PNP). It is represented and alleged that pursuant to Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) Ruling No. 120-96 dated November 8, 1998 (sic), certain benefits enjoyed by the members of the PNP under Section 71 of R.A. No. 6975, which include longevity pay and allowances such as subsistence allowance, clothing allowance, cost of living allowance, hazard pay, and all other allowances as provided by existing laws, are exempt from tax pursuant to Section 77 of the same Act; that on June 5, 1998, BIR promulgated RMC No. 12-97 clarifying that the benefits received by the members of the PNP and Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) are exempt from tax because of the provision of Section 77 of R.A. No. 6975 exempting all the benefits granted under the Act from any tax of whatever nature; that Section 7 (sic), however, of R.A. No. 8424, in effect, repealed, amended or modified all other laws or regulations that are inconsistent therewith; and that the BJMP uniformed members are likewise enjoying such benefits granted to the members of the PNP which are explicitly provided for under Sections 71 and 77 of R.A. 6975, otherwise known as the "Department of the Interior and Local Government Act of 1990." In reply, please be informed that since R.A. No. 6975 is otherwise known as "the DILG Act of 1990" and that since DILG has the exclusive jurisdiction over your Bureau and the PNP, among others, as provided for under Section 6 of the said law, it follows that whatever benefits are being enjoyed by the PNP uniformed personnel under Chapter VII of R.A. No. 6975 shall likewise be granted to your uniformed personnel . For this purpose, active service of uniformed personnel shall refer to services rendered as an officer and non-officer cadet trainee or draftee in the PNP, Fire or Jail Force . . . or in the AFP, and services rendered as a civilian official or employee in the Philippine Government prior to the date of separation or retirement from the PNP, Fire or Jail Force . . . Furthermore, Section 71 of the said law provides that uniformed personnel of the DILG shall be entitled to all the benefits granted under the said section and all other allowances as provided by existing laws . Moreover, Section 77 thereof provides that all benefits granted under the said Act shall be exempt from any tax of whatever nature. ITScHa On the issue as to whether or not the tax exemptions granted to uniformed personnel under R.A. No. 6975 had been repealed by R.A. No. 8424, your query is answered in the negative. Republic Act No. 6975, more particularly Sections 71 and 77 thereof, exempting from income tax certain benefits accorded to the uniformed personnel as defined in the Act remains enforced despite the passage of R.A. No. 8424 because of the cardinal rule in statutory construction that a special statute applicable to a particular case is not repealed by a later statute which is general in its terms, provision or application even if the terms of the general act are broad enough to include the cases in the special law unless there is a manifest intent to repeal or alter the special law. Accordingly, certain benefits enjoyed by the uniformed members of the PNP and the BJMP, such as quarter allowance, clothing allowance, cost of living allowance, hazard pay and longevity pay are exempt from income tax pursuant to Sections 71 and 77 of R.A. No. 6975. This ruling is being issued on the basis of the foregoing facts as represented. However, if upon investigation, it will be disclosed that the facts are different, then this ruling shall be considered null and void. Very truly yours, (SGD.) DAKILA B. FONACIER Commissioner of Internal Revenue