DOJ Opinion No. 029, s. 1990

DOJ OPINION NO. 029 , s. 1990 February 8, 1990 Mr. Loreto P. Purisima Executive Director Industry Manpower Office National Manpower and Youth Council NMYC Complex, South Superhighway Taguig, Metro Manila Sir : This refers to your request for our opinion on whether the Training Incentive Scheme (TIS) which was conceptualized by the National Manpower and Youth Council pursuant Article 52 of the New Labor Code of the Philippines can still be implemented notwithstanding the provisions of P.D. No. 1955 [1984]. The said Article reads: prcd "Article 52. Incentive Scheme. An additional deductions from taxable income of one half (1/2) of the value of labor training expenses incurred for development programs shall be granted to the persons or enterprise concerned provided that such development programs, other than apprenticeship, are approved by the Council and the deduction does not exceed ten percent (10%) of direct labor wage. LLjur There shall be a review of the said scheme two years after its implementation." P.D. No. 1955 which took effect on October 15, 1984 withdrew all tax privileges granted to private business enterprises or persons engaged in any economic activity subject to certain exceptions, as follows: "Section 1. The provision of any special or general law to the contrary notwithstanding all exemptions from or any preferential treatment in the payment of duties, taxes, fees, imposts and other charges heretofore granted to private business enterprises and/or persons engaged in any economic activity are hereby withdrawn, except those enjoyed by the following: (a) Those registered by the Board of investments under Presidential Decree No. 1789, as amended, by Batas Pambansa Blg. 391, and those registered by the Export Processing Zone Authority under Presidential Decree No. 66, as amended by Presidential Decree Nos. 1449, 1776, 1776-A and 1786; (b) The copper mining industry in accordance with the provisions of LOI No. 1416; (c) Those covered by international agreements to which the Philippines is a signatory; (d) Those covered by the non-impairment clause of the Constitution; and (e) Those that will be approved by the President of the Philippines upon the recommendation of the Minister of Finance. It appears that the Department of Finance has rendered an opinion, in a letter dated June 16, 1985, that "Article 52 has been rendered inoperative with the withdrawal of all fiscal incentive privileges granted to private business enterprises by P.D. No. 1955." Accordingly, the said Department advised your Office to file an application with the Fiscal Incentives Review Board (FIRB), created by P.D. No. 776 [August 24, 1975], for the restoration of the privileges withdrawn by P.D. No. 1955. However, you contend that notwithstanding P.D. No. 1955, Article 52, providing for the Training Incentive Scheme, is still found in the latest edition of the New Labor Code. At the outset, we noted that the opinion subject matter of your request was rendered by the Chief of the Finance Revenue Service Chief of the Department of Finance on July 15, 1985. Sound administrative practice dictates that you elevate your queries relative to the said opinion to the head of the aforementioned Department, who is vested by P.D. No. 1955 with the authority to promulgate rules and regulations to implement said Decree. It is noteworthy that P.D. No. 1955 has been amended by Executive Order No. 93 issued on December 17, 1986 (copy attached). This Presidential issuance is likewise implemented by rules and regulations promulgated by the Secretary of Finance. Regarding your observation that the latest edition of the New Labor Code still bears the provisions of Article 52, it is relevant to note that the opinion of the Chief of the Finance Revenue Service, Department of Finance is premised on the implied repeal of Article 52 of the Labor Code by a subsequent legislation. prcd Without passing upon the validity of the said finance officer's opinion, which we reiterate is a responsibility falling within the competence of his head of department, it must be stressed that repeals by implications arises not from the express identification or designation of the provision of law that is repealed, but from the irreconcilable conflict or repugnancy between a prior law and a later law. (Villegas v. Subido, 41 SCRA 190, 198; Jalandoni v. Andaya, 55 SCRA 261 [1974] ). Thus, the main factor in implied repeals, is the existence of a conflict that would render inoperative a provision of law, notwithstanding the absence of an explicit declaration of a repeal in a subsequent legislation. We reiterate, however, our advise that you consult with the Department of Finance regarding the implementation of said E.O. No. 93. cdlex Very truly yours, (SGD.) FRANKLIN M. DRILON Secretary