DOJ Opinion No. 046, s. 1996

DOJ OPINION NO. 046 , s. 1996 May 7, 1996 Secretary Robert Barbers Department of the Interior and Local Government EDSA corner Reliance Street Mandaluyong City Sir : This refers to the request of that Department for opinion on whether or not the Philippine National Police (PNP) is exempted from the payment of fees for filing, construction permit, license, inspection and permit to purchase/possess covering radio and telecommunications equipment owned and operated by it. The request, it appears, stemmed from the denial by the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) which is seeking to collect from the PNP the total amount of P18,316,170.00 representing filing fee, construction permit fee, initial license and inspection fees, and permit to purchase/possess fee, apart from the annual inspection fee of P9,571,400.00, for the radio telecommunications equipment owned and operated by the latter to accord the PNP the same exemption privilege granted to the radio communications equipment of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) under Memorandum Circular No. 76-7 issued by then Telecommunications Control Bureau on August 9, 1976. LLphil The attached documents reveal that in its letter (Annex "C") dated March 10, 1995, the NTC informed the PNP that it cannot exempt the latter from the aforesaid fees in view of NTC Memorandum Circular No. 09-10-83 and Ministry (now Department) of Justice Opinion No. 133, s. 1977, in relation to Section 23 of P.D. No. 1177, also known as the Budget Reform Decree of 1977. Although in its request for reconsideration (Annex "D"), the PNP questioned the aforesaid NTC decision saying that it continues to enjoy the exemption even as it is no longer part of the AFP in view of Section 88 of R.A. No. 6975 and that the DOJ Opinion cited is not in point since the PNP is not seeking tax exemption, which was the subject of the Opinion, but exemption from fees for regulation purposes, the NTC, in its letter dated July 17, 1995 (Annex "E"), also denied said request for reconsideration claiming that Section 17 of E.O. No. 546 (1979) only exempts members of the AFP and since PNP is no longer part of the AFP, NTC cannot thus exempt the PNP from the fees under R.A. No. 3846 even if it enjoys the privileges pursuant to Section 88 of R.A. No. 6975. Hence, the query. In asserting that the denial by the NTC of PNP's request for exemption "is arbitrary and without basis", your Department relies upon the provisions of Section 88 of the PNP Law (R.A. No. 6975), pertinent portions of which read: "SEC. 88. Transfer, Merger and Absorption of Offices and Personnel. All properties, equipment, and finances of the transferred and absorbed agencies, including their respective financial accountabilities, are hereby transferred to the Department. The transfer, merger and/or absorption of any government office/unit concerned shall include the functions, appropriations, funds, records, equipment, facilities , choses in action, rights, other assets and liabilities, if any, of the transferred Office/unit as well as personnel thereof, . . . . . ."(stress ours). Your Department states that the PNP was a merger of the Integrated National Police (INP) and the Philippine Constabulary (PC) which, previously, was part of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), hence, also enjoyed exemption from the aforesaid fees imposed by the NTC. With the transfer of the PC, that Department argues that such right/privilege of the PC was also transferred pursuant to said provision of law. Thus, that Department submits that while E.O. No. 546 says that only the AFP is exempted from the subject fees, Section 88, earlier quoted, provides the exception thereto. We agree. It is basic in interpretation of statutes that when the words and phrases of the statute are clear and unequivocal, their meaning must be determined from the language employed and the statute must be taken to mean exactly what it says (Baranda vs. Gustilo, 165 SCRA 757, 758). When the law is clear and categorical, it is not susceptible of interpretation only to application (Pascual vs. Pascual-Bautista, 207 SCRA 561, 567-568, citing cases; also, Marin vs. Nacianceno, 19 Phil. 238; Cebu Portland Cement vs. Mun. of Naga, Cebu, 24 SCRA 708). The clear and explicit language of Section 88, earlier quoted, leaves no room for doubt. The transfer/merger of the PC, a unit/component of the AFP, to the PNP (and DILG) carried with it the transfer of its "equipment" and "facilities", as well as the "rights" enjoyed by it while still a part of the AFP. Since, admittedly, the PC, as then a component unit of the AFP and pursuant to Section 17 of E.O. No. 546, enjoyed the right or privilege of being exempt from the payment of the fees imposed by the NTC, the only logical, just and reasonable conclusion is that said right/privilege is within the scope of the "rights", as used in Section 88 of R.A. No. 6975 (also Rule XIII, Sec. 103, Rules and Regulations Implementing R.A. No. 6975) which was simultaneously transferred with the transfer/merger of the PC with the INP to form the PNP. This conclusion finds support both in the provisions of Memorandum Circular No. 76-7 itself and the 1st and 2nd Whereas Clauses of the Memorandum of Agreement executed by and between the Department of National Defense (DND) and the DILG on May 13, 1991, which read: "The AFP and the NISA are exempted from the application of this Circular as regards their stations being used in carrying out their respective missions." (2nd to last paragraph, MC No. 76-7) xxx xxx xxx "WHEREAS, Section 12 of R.A. 6975, vests in the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) its present role of preserving internal and external security of the State for a period of twenty-four (24) months from the effectivity of the law which may be extended by the President, if he finds it justifiable, for another twenty-four (24) months; "WHEREAS, after the expiration of the second extension of twenty-four (24) months transition period, the DILG shall automatically take over from the AFP the primary role of preserving the internal security leaving to the AFP its primary role of preserving external security." (MOA dated May 31, 1991. Indubitably, the exemption granted the AFP (then including the PC) under MC No. 76-7 was grounded upon its role of preserving the internal and external security of the State. The said role having been split upon the passage of the PNP law the AFP retaining the duty of maintaining the external security and the DILG, which absorbed the PC, the mandate of preserving the internal security of the country, the legislative intent appears to be beyond dispute that in providing for the transfer of "rights" along with the equipment and facilities, among others, used by the PC in the performance of its functions and mandated missions when said AFP component was absorbed by the DILG, the legislature also intended that in the exercise of its new role, the said transferred unit should continuously be free from the NTC-imposed fees. A contrary view would also frustrate the purpose sought to be obtained by the PNP law. dctai Relative thereto, it bears stress that said privilege cannot be affected either by this Department's Opinion No. 133, s. 1977, or by NTC Memorandum Circular No. 09-10-85 which was issued based on the said opinion, for the reason that our subject opinion relates to exemption from taxes and fees imposed by revenue laws, hence, for revenue-raising purposes, and not to fees imposed for regulation purposes as that under MC No. 76-7 and No. 09-10-83. The foregoing considered, the query is answered in the affirmative. Very truly yours, (SGD.) TEOFISTO T. GUINGONA, JR. Secretary