DOJ Opinion No. 019, s. 1991

DOJ OPINION NO. 019 , s. 1991 February 8, 1991 Secretary Senen C. Bacani Department of Agriculture Diliman, Quezon City Sir : This has reference to your request for opinion on the legal controversy between the National Meat Inspection Commission ("NMIC") and the City Veterinary Office of Quezon City regarding the collection of various fees on the slaughter of livestocks. prcd From the papers furnished this Department, the dispute appears to focus on ante-mortem and post-mortem inspection fees. On the one hand, the Quezon City Veterinarian contends that long before the creation of the NMIC, the city government already had a meat inspection service conducting ante-mortem and post-mortem inspection of livestock and animal products and collecting fees in the process; that P.D. No. 7 and L.O.I. No. 16 have confirmed the authority of local government units ("LGUs") to continue imposing the said fees; that under the Local Tax Code (P.D. No 231, as amended), LGUs are empowered to impose fees on the slaughter of animals and, in fact, the NMIC has issued a directive that only ante-mortem inspection fees should be remitted to the NMIC; that the Local Government Code (B.P. Blg. 337) mandates the City Veterinary Office in urbanized cities "to have power over all matters and affairs pertaining to the inspection of animals and slaughter intended for human consumption as well as regulation of slaughter houses". On the other hand, the NMIC claims that while P.D. No. 7 and L.O.I No. 16 allow LGUs to collect fees for the inspection of livestocks for slaughter, it can do so only by authority of the Secretary of Agriculture or the NMIC; that the fees in question are collected by the NMIC in connection with the inspection work conducted under P.D. No. 7 and that veterinarians of LGUs may conduct inspection of livestocks and charge fees therefor only when so deputized by the NMIC; and that the explicit authority of LGUs to exact fees for the slaughter of animals is not incompatible with the NMIC's power to impose inspection fees on such animals. We take it that you are now requesting this Office to rule on the jurisdictional issue involved in this case. P.D. No. 7 directs the termination of the collection of all fees and charges relative to the production, transport and marketing of livestocks and animal products, "with the exception of ante-mortem and post-mortem inspection fees, as well as delivery, stockyard, and slaughterhouse fees as may be authorized by the Secretary of Agriculture (and Natural Resources)" (1st para.); moreover, it also provides that the "[a]nte-mortem and post-mortem inspection of animals and their carcasses" by national government veterinarians "shall be valid" and any necessary additional inspection should be made only be veterinarians duly accredited by the NMIC (2nd para.); finally, it authorizes the establishment of the NMIC which shall adopt "specific policies and procedures governing the flow of livestock and livestock products through the various stages of marketing and the proper preservation and inspection of such products" (3rd para.) As a companion measure, L.O.I No. 16 was issued ordering the immediate and strict implementation of said P.D. and directing local government executives to "cease and desist from imposing and collecting any and all fees and charges on the production, slaughter, transport and marketing of livestock and animal products within their respective jurisdiction, except ante-mortem and post-mortem fees authorized by the Secretary of Agriculture (and Natural Resources) or by the National Meat Inspection System". prcd It is reasonably clear from the foregoing provisions of law that primary responsibility for the inspection of livestock and animal products has been conferred upon the NMIC. While L.O.I. No. 16 implicitly allows governors and mayors to impose ante-mortem and post-mortem inspection fees, they may only do so by authority of the appropriate national government functionaries. It is believed that this is the prevailing law on the matter since, as far as this Department is aware, no legislation was enacted subsequent to P.D. No. 7 or L.O.I No. 16 modifying or repealing the abovequoted legal provisions; on the contrary, the new Administration Code of 1987 (E.O. No. 292) provides, insofar as pertinent, to wit: "(4) The National Meat Inspection Commission shall conduct actual ante-mortem inspection on all animals presented for slaughter and post-mortem inspection on all carcasses intended for human consumption in all abattoirs in the country ; render technical assistance in the construction of meat establishments (abattoirs, dressing plants, processing plants and meat markets) particularly on the selection of sites, and plant design preparation, equipment design and test runs; exercise overall supervision and control of management and operations of all abattoirs and dressing plants, meat processing plants and meat markets". (sec. 48, Chap. 6, Title IV; Emphasis supplied) Perusal of the codes on local government (B.P. Blg. 337) and on local taxation (P.D. No. 231, as amended) fails to disclose any legislative intention to divest the NMIC of its primary authority over the inspection of livestocks and their products. The pertinent provision of B.P. Blg. 337 merely states that the city veterinarian shall "[a]dvise the city mayor on all matters and affairs pertaining to the inspection of animals to be slaughtered for human consumption, and regulation of slaughterhouses" (Sec. 191 [4][a]); while that of P.D. No. 231 only authorizes LGUs to "collect fees for the slaughter of animals and the use of corrals: (Sec. 31). It is noted that there is no inconsistency between the aforestated provisions of the said codes and the abovequoted provisions of P.D. No. 7 and L.O.I. No. 16; indeed, they can be read together in that while the imposition of inspection fees is the responsibility of the NMIC, the exaction of slaughter permit fees is the prerogative of the various LGUs. Pertinent is the rule that amendments or repeals by implication are not favored and legislations must be construed as to harmonize all apparent conflicts and give effect to all provisions (Lechoco vs. Civil Aeronautics Board, 43 SCRA 670). Premises considered, it is this Department's view that the inspection of livestocks for slaughter and their products and the collection of fees in connection with such inspection falls within the primary jurisdiction of the NMIC. prcd Very truly yours, (SGD.) FRANKLIN M. DRILON Secretary