Bureau of Local Government Finance Opinion

January 14, 2010 BUREAU OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE OPINION Mr. Leo B. Dicdiquin General Manager ONE Logistics, Inc. 496 Block 17, Kabisig Floodway San Andres, Cainta, Rizal Sir : This refers to your letter dated December 7, 2009, inquiring on the validity of City Ordinance No. 2009-354 of Antipolo City, enacted and approved on September 17 2009, entitled "AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF (sic) THE PROPERTIES OF ASIA GENERAL CORPORATION (AGC) SITUATED AT DON ENRIQUE HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION, BARANGAY SAN ROQUE, ANTIPOLO CITY, DESCRIBED UNDER VARIOUS TRANSFER CERTIFICATE OF TITLES (TCTs), CONTAINING AN AGGREGATE AREA OF 300,026 SQUARE METERS, MORE OR LESS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES." At the outset and keeping away from discussing further the details of your letter more particularly on the question of jurisdictional authority, this Bureau, for the immediate resolution of the issue, stresses that as far as the question of the legality or constitutionality of the aforecited City Ordinance No. 2009-354 ("Ordinance" for brevity) is concerned, we regret that the matter is beyond the authority of this Bureau or of the Department of Finance to resolve. Considering however that the thirty (30)-day period within which to file an appeal questioning the constitutionality or legality of a tax ordinance or revenue measure pursuant to Section 187 of the Local Government Code (LGC) of 1991 had lapsed, it is suggested that the matter be submitted to a court of competent jurisdiction, pursuant to same Section 187 as implemented under Article 275 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR), quoted hereunder: " ART. 275. Procedure for Approval and Effectivity of Tax Ordinance and Revenue Measures. . . . . 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 upon the appeal, aggrieved party may file appropriate proceedings with a court of competent jurisdiction . (Underlining supplied) Further, it is informed that upon the effectivity of the Local Government Code (R.A. No. 7160) on January 1, 1992, local tax ordinances or revenue measures are no longer submitted to the Department of Finance or this Bureau for review. In the case of a tax ordinance or revenue measure enacted by the local sanggunian of a component city or municipality, the review power is vested upon the Sangguniang Panlalawigan . Pursuant to the provisions of Article 287 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of the Code, this Department may however issue such guidelines as may be necessary for the proper implementation of the provisions of the Code on Local Government Taxation. aTcHIC Such being the case, this Bureau hereby reiterates and regrets that it is not in a position to declare the nullity or illegality of said "Ordinance". It is worth mentioning however, that in the absence of any declaration of illegality or unconstitutionality of the "Ordinance" by a competent authority, the City Treasurer thereat has no other recourse but to implement the same. We hope this will help clarify matters. Very truly yours, (SGD.) MA. PRESENTACION R. MONTESA Executive Director