Alleged Conflict betwee Sec. 3513 of the Tariff and Customs Code and Sec. 282 of the Tax Reform Act of 1997 (RA 8424)

DOJ OPINION NO. 018, s. 2005 April 19, 2005 Hon. Cesar V. Purisima Acting Secretary Department of Finance Roxas Boulevard Corner Pablo Ocampo Sr. Street Manila 1004 Sir : This has reference to your request for opinion on the alleged conflicting provisions found in Section 3513 of the Tariff and Customs Code (TCC) and of Section 282 of the Tax Reform Act of 1997 (Republic Act No. 8424), which took effect on January 1, 1998, revising the National Internal Revenue Code of 1993. The pertinent provisions of which read as follows: cCHETI Sec. 282. Informer's Reward to Persons Instrumental in the Discovery of Violations of the National Internal Revenue Code and in the Discovery and Seizure of Smuggled Goods. (A) For Violations of the National Internal Revenue Code. Any person, except an internal revenue official or employee, or other public official or employee, or his relative within the sixth degree of consanguinity, who voluntarily gives definite and sworn information, not yet in the possession of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, leading to the discovery of frauds upon the internal revenue laws or violations of any of the provisions thereof, thereby resulting in the recovery of revenues, surcharges and fees and/or the conviction of the guilty party and/or the imposition of fine or penalty, shall be rewarded in a sum equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the revenues, surcharges or fees recovered and/or fine or penalty imposed and collected or One Million pesos (P1,000,000.00) per case, whichever is lower. . . (B) For Discovery and Seizure of Smuggled Goods. To encourage the public to extend full cooperation in eradicating smuggling, a cash reward equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the fair market value of the smuggled and confiscated goods or One Million pesos (P1,000,000.00) per case, whichever is lower, shall be given to persons instrumental in the discovery and seizure of such smuggled goods. The cash rewards of informers shall be subject to income tax, collected as a final withholding tax, at the rate of ten percent (10%). cd1updoj05 The provisions of the foregoing Subsections notwithstanding, all public officials, whether incumbent or retired, who acquired the information in the course of the performance of their duties during their incumbency, are prohibited from claiming informer's reward. You state that the above-quoted provisions allegedly conflict with the provisions of Section 3513 of the Tariff and Customs Code, which provides: SEC. 3513. Reward to Persons Instrumental in the Discovery and Seizure of Smuggled Goods . The provisions of general and special laws to the contrary notwithstanding , a cash reward equivalent to twenty per centum (20%) of the fair market value of the smuggled and confiscated goods shall be given to the officers and men and informers who are instrumental in the discovery and seizure of such goods in accordance with the rules and regulations to be issued by the Secretary of Finance. xxx xxx xxx. Hence, this request for opinion on whether or not public officials who are instrumental in the discovery and seizure of smuggled goods are entitled to claim rewards; and if so, how much is to be given them? It is a canon of statutory construction that a special law prevails over a general law regardless of their dates of passage and the special is to be considered as remaining an exception to the general. So also, every effort must be exerted to avoid a conflict between statutes. If reasonable construction is possible, the laws must be reconciled in that manner. It is worthy to note that the repealing provisions of the NIRC provides in general that "all laws, decrees, executive orders, rules and regulations or parts thereof which are contrary to or inconsistent with this Code are hereby repealed, amended or modified accordingly." Settled is the rule, that repeals of laws by implication are not favored, and the mere repugnancy between two statutes should be very clear to warrant the court in holding that the later in time repeals the other. 1 For the assumption is that whenever the legislature enacts a law, it has in mind the previous statutes relating to the same subject matter, and in the absence of any express repeal or amendment, the new statute is deemed enacted in accordance with the legislative policy embodied in those prior statutes. 2 After a careful examination of the foregoing, we are of the view that there exists no conflict between the provisions of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1998 and the provisions of the Tariff and Customs Code, the former being a general law and the latter, a special law. Where there are two statutes, the earlier special and the later general the terms of the general broad enough to include the matter provided for in the special the fact that one is special and the other is general creates a presumption that the special is to be considered as remaining an exception to the general, one as a general law of the land, the other as the law of a particular case. It may be said that the provisions of the TCC covers specifically tariff and customs duties, rewarding persons instrumental in the discovery and seizure of smuggled and confiscated goods related to tariff and customs duties, whereas, the provisions of the NIRC governs all internal revenue taxes in general, rewarding persons instrumental in the discovery of violations of the internal revenue code. Hence, we would like to reiterate, that every effort must be exerted to avoid a conflict between statutes. If reasonable construction is possible, the laws must be reconciled in that manner. Moreover, it bears stress that the above-quoted provision of the TCC expressly states, " the provisions of general and special laws to the contrary notwithstanding ". It may be assumed that notwithstanding the provisions of the NIRC, that provision of the TCC still stands, a cash reward equivalent to twenty per centum (20%) of the fair market value of the smuggled and confiscated goods shall be given to the officers and men and informers who are instrumental in the discovery and seizure of goods relative to the implementation of the tariff and customs duties. (SGD.) RAUL M. GONZALEZ Secretary Footnotes 1. Lopez, Jr. v. CSC , April 16, 1991. 2. Sardea v. COMELEC , August 17, 1993.