Bureau of Local Government Finance Opinion

August 24, 2012 BUREAU OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE OPINION Ms. Gondelina B. Lumanglas City Treasurer Calapan City, Oriental Mindoro Madam : This refers to your letter dated April 19, 2012, seeking opinion from this Bureau as to what your stand should be on the request of a certain Mr. Carlito Go, owner of Citimart Mall, for reconsideration of the denial made by your Office on his protest dated March 15, 2012. As submitted, Mr. Go is questioning the validity of your implementation on the increased rate of Real Property Tax (RPT) and collection thereof. Apparently, the said protest was denied by your Office considering that the same "did not fall within the purview of Art. 343, IRR of RA 7160, which should be filled within 30 days reglementary period from payment of tax." Said Article 343 of RA No. 7160 is quoted below: " Art. 343. Payment under Protest. (a) No protest shall be entertained unless the taxpayer first pay the tax. There shall be annotated on the tax receipts the words paid under protest. The protest in writing must be filed within thirty (30) days from payment of the tax to the provincial or city treasurer, or municipal treasurer, in the case of municipality with in MMA, who shall decide the protest within sixty (60) days from receipt. (Underlining supplied) "xxx xxx xxx" Likewise informed, the City Government of Calapan adjusted its RPT rate from 1.2% to 1.6% for the basic tax, whereby it followed the procedures on the enactment of a tax ordinance. Upon careful perusal of the letter dated March 15, 2012 of Mr. Go, it could be inferred that the main issue or concern embodied in his protest is the question on the validity or legality of the tax ordinance imposing the said increase. Thus, Section 187 of the Local Government Code should be applied in the resolution of his reconsideration. The said provision provides that: ECAaTS " SEC. 187. Procedure for Approval and Effectivity of Tax Ordinances and Revenue Measures; Mandatory Public Hearings. The procedure for approval of local tax ordinances and revenue measures shall be in accordance with the provisions of this Code: Provided, That public hearings shall be conducted for the purpose prior to the enactment thereof: Provided, further, That any question on the constitutionality or legality of tax ordinances or revenue measures may be raised on appeal within thirty (30) days from the effectivity thereof to the Secretary of Justice who shall render a decision within sixty (60) days from the date of receipt of the appeal : Provided, however, That such appeal shall not have the effect of suspending the effectivity of the ordinance and the accrual and payment of the tax, fee, or charge levied therein: Provided, finally, That within thirty (30) days after receipt of the decision or the lapse of the sixty-day period without the Secretary of Justice acting upon the appeal, the aggrieved party may file appropriate proceedings with a court of competent jurisdiction." (underscoring ours) Based on the aforequoted provision, the question on the constitutionality or legality of tax ordinance or revenue measures may be raised on appeal as follows: a) The appeal must be raised on appeal within 30 days from the effectivity of the tax ordinance; b) Such appeal must be directed to the Secretary of Justice, who is required to render a decision thereon within 60 days from receipt of the appeal; c) Within 30 days from receipt of the adverse decision, or after the lapse of 60 days without the Secretary of Justice acting on the appeal, the aggrieved taxpayer may proceed to file appropriate proceedings with the competent court. ASCTac Premises considered, the request for reconsideration filed by Mr. Go may be denied on the following grounds: a) The venue was improperly laid; and b) The appeal was filed out of time. Be guided accordingly. Very truly yours, (SGD.) SALVADOR M. DEL CASTILLO OIC-Executive Director