DOJ Opinion No. 024, s. 1999

DOJ OPINION NO. 024 , s. 1999 March 5, 1999 Chief Roberto T. Lastimoso Philippine National Police Camp Crame, Quezon City Sir : Subject herein is a request for opinion on whether or not the Lakas-Tulungan Multi-Purpose Cooperative formerly the Philippine Constabulary Credit Cooperative Inc., a registered Cooperative with its 24,000 more or less members coming from the Philippine National Police (PNP) may be exempted from "Department of Budget and Management (DBM)/Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR)/Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) Manual" in taking a lease of lot within the PNP compound in Camp Crame, Quezon City. It is advanced that Republic Act No. 6938, otherwise known as the Cooperative Code of the Philippines, entitles the cooperative to be accommodated in any available space owned by the Government, particularly, by the Philippine National Police, as provided in Article 63(2) of the said Code, to wit: prcd "ARTICLE 63. Privileges of Cooperatives . Cooperatives registered under this Code shall, notwithstanding the provisions of any law to the contrary, be accorded the following privileges: xxx xxx xxx (2) Cooperatives organized among government employees, notwithstanding any law or regulation to the contrary, shall enjoy the free use of any available space in the agency, whether owned or rented by the government;" xxx xxx xxx It appears that a 500 square meter lot was already selected by the PNP Engineering Services and concurred by the Camp Commander as the site of the Cooperative and that the lease of the lot was favorably endorsed by the PNP Command for study by the PNP Legal Service whereby the lease is for a period of 25 years at reasonable rental levels and conditions. cdll It is stated that the Chief, PNP has advised the Headquarters Support Services and the Legal Service to assist the Cooperative and prepare the appropriate Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) but the Legal Service raised the question on the procedure of acquiring the lot based on a "DBM/DENR/DPWH Manual" which set certain guidelines for the lease of Government space to the private sector. Hence, the instant query. With regret, this Department is constrained to decline rendition of the opinion on the subject of the query. The issue involves the use of government property which will be dealt with ultimately by the Commission on Audit (COA), the agency which has the power, authority and duty "to examine audit and settle all accounts pertaining to the revenue and receipts of, and expenditures or uses of funds and properties , owned or held in trust by , or pertaining to the Government . . ." and the exclusive authority to promulgate accounting and auditing rules and regulations, including those for the prevention and disallowance of irregular, unnecessary, excessive, extravagant or unconscionable expenditures, or uses of government funds and properties (Article IX-D, Section 2, 1987 Constitution). Pursuant to established practice and precedents, the Secretary of Justice has desisted from expressing his views on matters which, by provision of law, fall within the authority of another office (in this case, the COA), particularly where this Department possesses no revisory authority over said office, unless such opinion is requested by said office or agency (Sec. of Justice Ops. No. 194, s. 1976; No. 97, s. 1982; No. 146, s. 1994 and No. 19, s. 1996). This rule arises not only from practical considerations, but also out of due respect and deference for the competence and expertise of the office having primary jurisdiction to resolve the matter and for its familiarity with the policy repercussions of the question as well as from a logical recognition of the lawful exercise of an authority conferred by law ( Ibid ., No. 1, s. 1983 and No. 7, s. 1996). Moreover, the resolution of the query requires the interpretation of an administrative issuance of the DBM, DENR and DPWH, the DBM/DENR/DPWH Manual, on the lease of Government space to the private sector. The Secretary of Justice does not render opinion or express any comment on questions involving the interpretation or application of administrative issuances, rules and regulations, unless requested by the promulgating agency, since such matters are best left to the determination of the promulgating agency by reason of its knowledge of the intent and purposes of the issuance and the extent of the application thereof (Ibid., No. 74, s. 1989 and No. 97, s. 1982). It is suggested that the matter be taken up with COA and DBM, DENR and DPWH (with respect to their Manual), the offices which are in the best position to render opinion on the query. Please be guided accordingly. Very truly yours, (SGD.) JUSTICE SERAFIN R. CUEVAS Secretary