DOJ Opinion No. 031, s. 1991

DOJ OPINION NO. 031 , s. 1991 March 4, 1991 Atty. Davidica E. Salaya Chief Executive Officer and General Manager Philippine Retirement Authority 2nd Floor, Producers Bank Building Sen. Gil J. Puyat Avenue Makati, Metro Manila Madam : This refers to your request for opinion on whether or not Republic Act No. 6809 lowering the age of majority from twenty-one (21) years to eighteen (18) years of age has "affected" Section 9[d] of Executive Order No. 1037 (the Charter of the Philippine Retirement Authority ["PRA"]) and Section 1[h], Rule III of its implementing Rules and Regulations. cdlex The above-cited provisions of law respectively read: "SECTION 1. Article 234 of Executive Order No. 209, the Family Code of the Philippines, is hereby amended to read as follows: ART. 234. Emancipation takes place by the attainment of majority. Unless, otherwise provided, majority commences at the age of eighteen years." (R.A. 6809) "Section 9. Incentives and Benefits . In order to Encourage foreign nationals and overseas Filipinos to participate in the development of retirement villages and other projects of the [PRA] in the country, the following set of incentives are hereby accorded as follows: xxx xxx xxx "d. Grant of permanent resident status to foreigners participating or taking up residency under the retirement programs or projects of the [PRA] through a minimum investment of 50,000 U.S. Dollars in the [PRA] via a Trust Fund, withdrawable only upon withdrawal from the retirement program of the [PRA] of the participant concerned. For purposes hereof the spouse and unmarried children under 21 years of age, of the applicant may also be given permanent resident status, if accompanying or if following to join him after his admission into the Philippines as a permanent resident. (Sec. 9[d], E.O. 1037; Italics supplied) "Section 1. Definition of Terms The following terms shall mean: xxx xxx xxx h. DEPENDENT A retiree's unmarried child who is under twenty-one (21) years of age, whether legitimate of legally adopted; (Rule III of the Rules and Regulations implementing E.O. No. 1037) The issue in this case may otherwise be stated thus: whether or not R.A. No 6809, in reducing the age of majority to 18 years, has modified or repealed the provisions of E.O. No. 1037 and its implementing rules defining a dependent child as one who is under 21 years of age. We do not believe so. E.O. No. 1037 was enacted for the "development and promotion of the Philippines as a retirement haven as a means of accelerating the social and economic development of the country, strengthening its foreign exchange position at the same time providing further best quality of life to the targetted retirees in a most attractive package" (Sec. 1). In line with this legislative policy, law offers a set of incentives to prospective participants, one of which is the grant of permanent resident status to such participants, as well as their respective spouses and unmarried children who are under 21 years of age, "if accompanying or following to join him after his admission into the Philippines as a permanent resident" (Sec. 9). Upon the other hand, the aim of R.A. No 6809 in making 18 years as the age of majority is to emancipate a person of such age from parental authority so that he shall have full capacity to act (see Record of the Senate, Vol. II, No. 7, dated August 3, 1988, pp. 213-214 and Record of the House of Representatives, Vol. III, dated October 19, 1987, pp. 159-160). During the Senate deliberation of said statute, it was explained that there was no intention to amend other legislation fixing the maximum age for the enjoyment of certain legal privileges, such as exemption from income taxes for children up to 21 years old (Record of the Senate, Id .). Considering then that the legislative purpose behind R.A. No. 6809 is entirely different form E.O. No. 1037, it would be incorrect to conclude that the former has repealed or modified certain provisions of the latter, It is noted that R.A. No. 6809 has effectively lowered the age limit for unmarried children of participants in the retirement program from 21 to 18 would result in restricting the scope of the said program and thereby lessen its attractiveness, a result which Congress could not have desired. cdll It is well-settled in statutory construction that implied repeals are not favored (Lechoco vs. Civil Aeronautics Board, 43 SCRA 670). There being no express or clear legislative intent to repeal or alter the provisions of Executive Order No. 1037, such repeal or alteration may not be implied from the mere enactment of Republic Act No. 6809. The presumption is that the lawmaker has intended both laws to operate simultaneously to carry out the purposes and objectives of their enactment (Secretary of Justice Op. No. 62, s. 1989). Please be guided accordingly. Very truly yours, (SGD.) FRANKLIN M. DRILON Secretary