DOJ Opinion No. 027, s. 1984

DOJ OPINION NO. 027 , s. 1984 February 20, 1984 Engr. Bernardo M. Vergara General Manager Philippine Tourism Authority Manila Sir : This is in reply to your letter requesting for opinion on the query as to whether the Philippine Tourism Authority (PTA) is exempted from payment of fees for the registration of its twenty-four (24) buses with the Bureau of Land Transportation (BLT). dctai The PTA in support of its claim that it si exempted from payment of said registration fees, invokes Section 1 (a) of Presidential Decree No. 1400, which amended Presidential Decree No. 564, as Amended, Otherwise Known as the Revised Charter of the Philippine Tourism Authority, which section reads: "SECTION 1. Section 11 of P.D. 564 is hereby amended by adding a new Section to read as follows: "SECTION 11-A. Authority's Exemption From Taxes . In furtherance and effective implementation of the policy enumerated in Section 1 of the Decree, the Authority is hereby declared exempt: (a) From the payment of all taxes, duties, fees, charges, costs and service fees in any court or administrative proceedings in which it may be a party, to the Republic of the Philippines, its provinces, cities, municipalities and other government agencies and instrumentalities; xxx xxx xxx." Contrary to the PTA position, the BLT maintains that Section 1 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 43, entitled "An Act Providing for the Issuance of Permanent Number Plates to Owners of Motor Vehicles and Trailers, Amending for the Purpose Section Seventeen of Republic Act Numbered Forty-One Hundred and Thirty-Six" (November 14, 1979), specifically provides that "no motor vehicles shall be exempted from payment of registration fees." It is argued by the PTA that P.D. No. 1400 is a special law whereas B.P. Blg. 43 is a general law, and that "a special law is not regarded as having been amended or repealed by a general law unless the intent to repeal or alter is manifest," citing Villegas vs. Subido , No. L-31711, September 30, 1971, 41 SCRA 190 [1971]. Subject to the extended discussion herein under, it is believed that the PTA is not exempted from payment of BLT registration fees. LexLib At the outset, it is to be pointed out that motor vehicle registration fees are taxes (Calalang vs. Lorenzo and Villar, 97 Phil. 212 [1955]; Ops. No. 246, s. 1956, No. 271, s. 1955; No. 303, s. 1956; No. 307, s. 1956) and are deemed included in an exemption from taxes under Section 1 (b) of P.D. No. 1400 (1978) which grants the PTA exemption, among others: "(b) From all income taxes, franchise taxes, realty taxes and all other kinds of taxes and licenses imposed by the National Government, or its political subdivisions, instrumentalities, or agencies;" A general law is defined as one which embraces a class of subjects or places and does not omit any subject or place naturally belonging to such class, while a special act is one which relates to particular persons or things of a class ( Villegas vs. Subido , supra .) P.D. No. 1400 grants a general tax exemption in favor of the PTA, whereas B.P. Blg. 43 specifically applies to the payment of registration fees by all owners of motor vehicles and trailers. It is clear that insofar as the payment of registration fees for PTA vehicles is concerned, B.P. Blg. 43 is a special law and P.D. No. 1400 is a general law. The rule in statutory construction is that "In case of conflict between two laws, one of which is special in application and the other general, the special statute will prevail over the general statute, unless the general statute impliedly repeals the special one. Nonetheless, implied repeals are not favored and unless the intent to repeal is clearly shown, as when the provisions of the two statutes are irreconcilably inconsistent with or absolutely repugnant to each other , such a repeal will not be deemed to have taken place." (Crawford, Statutory Construction, p. 265; Op. No. 152, s. 1982; Emphasis ours.) Applying this rule in the instant case, there appears to be an irreconcilable inconsistency or absolute divergence between P.D. No. 1400 (1978) and B.P. Blg. 43 (1979) from which an implied repeal of the former by the latter is inferred. Although Section 1 of (b) of P.D. No. 1400 (1978) exempts the PTA from all kinds of taxes imposed by agencies of the National Government, which include motor vehicle registration fees, Section 1 of B.P. Blg. 43 (1979) specifically provides, among others, that no motor vehicles shall be exempted from payment of registration fees. Insofar as motor vehicles registration fees are concerned, P.D. No. 1400 (1978) has been repealed by B.P. Blg. 43 (1979). Significantly, B.P. Blg. 43 (1979) which unequivocally subjects all motor vehicles to payment of registration fees is a later statute and should be deemed to be the supervening enactment. LLjur Please be guided accordingly. Very truly yours, (SGD.) RICARDO C. PUNO Minister of Justice