Whether RA No. 10055 Repealed Sec. 1 of RA No. 7798 Which Disqualifies Higher Education Institutions Established as Stock Corporations from Receiving Government Subsidy, Incentive or Assistance

DOJ OPINION NO. 010, s. 2019 February 6, 2019 Atty. Cinderella Filipina Benitez-Jaro Director, Legal and Legislative Service Commission on Higher Education Higher Education Development Center Building C.P. Garcia Ave., UP Campus, Diliman Quezon City Madam : This refers to your request for legal opinion on whether Republic Act (RA) No. 10055, otherwise known as the "Philippine Technology Transfer Act of 2009," repealed Section 1 of RA No. 7798, entitled "An Act Amending Section 25 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 232, otherwise known as the 'Education Act of 1982,'" which disqualifies higher education institutions (HEIs) established as stock corporations to receive any form of government subsidy, incentive, or assistance. Specifically, you made mention of the relevant portions of RA No. 10055 and RA No. 7798, and the possible repeal of the later law, viz. : RA No. 10055, Section 4(i): Section 4. Definition of Terms. For purposes of this Act: xxx xxx xxx (i) "Research and Development Institute or Institution (RDI)" refers to a public or private organization, association, partnership, joint venture, higher education institution or corporation that performs R&D activities and is duly registered and/or licensed to do business in the Philippines, or otherwise with legal personality in the Philippines. In the case of private RDIs, they shall be owned solely by the citizens of the Philippines or corporations or associations at least sixty per centum (60%) of the capital of which is owned by such citizens. This does not include RDIs covered by international bilateral or multilateral agreements. cEaSHC RA No. 7798: Section 1. Section 25, Chapter 3 of the Education Act of 1982 is hereby amended to read as follows: "Section 25. Establishment of Schools. x x x "Any school that is established or organized as a stock corporation shall be ineligible for any form of government subsidy, incentive or assistance, x x x." With regret, we have to decline to render the opinion requested. The Secretary of Justice, as Attorney General, pursuant to settled precedents, renders opinion and gives legal advice only for and upon the request of national government functionaries, such as heads of departments and chiefs of bureaus of equivalent ranks, and then only on specific legal questions/issues arising in the performance of their respective powers and functions. Accordingly, he has, in practice, consistently declined to render opinion or give legal advice to other government officials and to individuals and entities (DOJ Opinion No. 06, s. 2010). Nonetheless, for your information and guidance only, we invite your attention to the ruling of the Supreme Court in People v. Benipayo, 604 Phil. 317, 330 (2009) , which may be pertinent to your query: [F]or an implied repeal, a pre-condition must be found, that is, a substantial conflict should exist between the new and prior laws. Absent an express repeal, a subsequent law cannot be construed as repealing a prior one unless an irreconcilable inconsistency or repugnancy exists in the terms of the new and old laws. The two laws, in brief, must be absolutely incompatible. IAETDc Please be advised accordingly. Very truly yours, (SGD.) MENARDO I. GUEVARRA Secretary