Request for reconsideration of the BLGF-DOF Opinion upholding the validity of Sec. 19 (L-5) of the Quezon City Revenue Code

April 7, 2011 DOF OPINION Ms. Thelma N. Clemente, M.D. President & Board Chairman Capitol Medical Center Colleges CMC College of Nursing No. 4 Sto. Domingo Avenue Quezon City Dear Dr. Clemente : This relates to your request for reconsideration of the BLGF-DOF Opinion upholding the validity of Sec. 19 (L-5) of the Quezon City Revenue Code. We would like to invite your attention to Section 187 of the Local Government Code of 1991, which provides in part: "Section 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. . ." (Emphasis supplied) From the above-cited provision, it is apparent that the issue of the legality of Sec. 19 (L-5) of Ordinance No. SP-91, S-1993, as amended, should have been brought before the attention of the Secretary of Justice within thirty days from the effectivity thereof. Within thirty (30) days after receipt of the decision or 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. Having failed to avail of this remedy, your institution should have, without further delay, filed the necessary proceedings with the trial court having jurisdiction over the case especially since the Supreme Court, in a number of cases, 1 has affirmed the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court to resolve questions of constitutionality and validity of laws (deemed to include local ordinances) in the first instance, without deciding questions which pertain to legislative policy. This is consistent with paragraph 2 (a) of Section 5, Article VIII of the Constitution which impliedly recognizes the original jurisdiction of lower courts over cases involving the constitutionality or validity of an ordinance. cIECaS In light of the foregoing, we regret to inform you that we cannot act on your request for reconsideration. Please be guided accordingly. Very truly yours, (SGD.) CARLO A. CARAG Undersecretary Revenue Operations and Legal Affairs Group Footnotes 1. J.M. Tuason and Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals , 113 Phil. 673 (1961); Ynot v. Intermediate Appellate Court , 232 Phil. 615 (1987); Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Santos , 343 Phil. 411 (1997); Ongsuco, et al. v. Malones , G.R. No. 182065, October 27, 2009.