DOJ Opinion No. 028, s. 1980

DOJ OPINION NO. 028 , s. 1980 3rd Indorsement February 14, 1980 Respectfully returned to the Acting Minister of Finance, Manila, the within request of the municipal mayor of Virac, Catanduanes "for final resolution on the legal interpretation" of the term "health officer" as used in Section 31(a) of P.D. No. 231 (the Local Tax Code), as amended, requiring that before any animal is slaughtered for public consumption, "a permit therefor shall be secured from the health officer concerned or his duly authorized representative." You state that according to the primer on the Local Tax Code prepared by the Ministry of Finance it is the Municipal Health Officer or the Rural Health Officer in case of municipalities, and the City Health Officer in case of cities, who has the authority to issue slaughter permits pursuant to Section 31(a) of the Local Tax Code, that upon the query of the PC Provincial Commander and Police Superintendent of Catanduanes, the Provincial Fiscal of the same province has expressed the view that it is the provincial veterinarian, livestock inspector and/or their duly authorized representative who should issue such permit. Faced with this conflict of views, you request that the issue "be resolved pursuant to section 47" of the same Code, which, you state, provides that the Fiscal's opinion shall be appealable to the Minister of Justice . . . "who shall render an opinion on the matter." In this connection, please be advised that under section 47 of the Local Tax Code, the appellate authority of the Minister of Justice refers to the authority to review on appeal the opinion of any provincial or city fiscal on "any question or issue raised against the legality of any tax ordinance or portion thereof, on the grounds other than those mentioned in section 44 of . . . [the] Code". In the present case, no question or issued is raised against the legality of any tax ordinance; it involves the interpretation of a provision of the Local Tax Code. Considering, however, that as head of the Ministry of Finance, you request the opinion of the Minister of Justice on a question of law arising in the performance of your official functions, we find this request sufficiently embraced within the purview of section 83 of the Revised Administrative Code. We are therefore pleased to render the opinion you seek. Subject to the extended discussion hereunder contained, we are of the opinion that the term "health officer' as used in the above-cited Section of the Local Tax code refers to the officer of the government charged with the supervision and control of meat inspection in this case the livestock inspector assigned in the municipality, or, in his absence, the provincial veterinarian or his duly authorized representative. cdlex It is emphatically noted that Section 31(a) uses the term "health officer concerned ", clearly indicating the legislative intent to vest the authority to issue slaughter permits on the officer whose functions are relevant to the purpose of the requirement. It is settled that where the language of a statute admits of more than one interpretation, that which tends to give effect to the manifest object of the law should be adopted. The evident purpose of requiring subject permit is to protect the health of the consuming public against animal diseases. This purpose could be achieved by an ante mortem determination that the animals to be slaughtered are fit for human consumption a function which pertains to the livestock inspector assigned to each municipality or in his absence, the provincial veterinarian or his duly authorized representative, pursuant to Section 1763 of the Revised Administrative Code, which authorizes the Director of Animal Industry to cooperate with municipal and provincial governments in the suppression of dangerous communicable animal diseases and to supervise and control the municipal meat and milk inspection system. (See also Ch. I, Part VIII, Art. IV, Integrated Reorganization Plan) It may be relevant to mention that the query as to "whether or not [the meat] inspection service in cities provided for by their charters are subject to the supervision and control of the Bureau of Animal Industry in accordance with Section 1765, supra, was answered by this Ministry in the affirmative with the statement that the Director of Animal Industry may exercise the supervisory authority vested in him by the provision in question unless there is an express provision or provisions in the city charter clearly indicating a contrary intent (Op., Sec. of Justice, dated August 24, 1964). Wherefore, we reiterate our conclusion hereinabove expressed. (SGD.) RICARDO C. PUNO Minister of Justice