DOJ Opinion No. 050, s. 1997

DOJ OPINION NO. 050 , s. 1997 July 7, 1997 Mr. Alfred A. X. Burgos, Sr. Executive Director Corregidor Foundation, Inc. Tourism Building, T.M. Kalaw Street Ermita, Manila Sir : This refers to your request for opinion on "whether or not the claim of the City Government of Cavite of its share in the Internal Revenue allotment pursuant to the Local Government Code of 1991 extends to the imposition of taxes and fees upon concessionaires, tour operators, franchise holders and temporary stay-in personnel in Corregidor Island". The request, it appears, was precipitated by the act of the city government of Cavite in requiring the above-mentioned personnel, who are employed temporarily in Corregidor Island by the Corregidor Foundation, Inc. (CFI) for the development and rehabilitation of the place as an international and local tourist destination, to secure mayor's permit on the strength of ordinances passed by the Cavite City Sangguniang Panlungsod. It is your view that the ordinance relied upon in imposing taxes and fees upon your personnel contravene the spirit and purpose of Executive Order No. 58 (1954), as amended by Executive Order No. 123 (1968), which declared Corregidor Island, among others, as a National Shrine, authorized not only its conversion into a tourist spot but also its leasing to qualified parties and, on the strength of which authority Corregidor Foundation, Inc. was able to obtain, by Memorandum of Agreement, the management and operation thereof, including all its existing facilities. It bears stress, at the outset, that the query herein raised presents a justiciable issues which should, therefore, be left to the courts for resolution ( id ., No. 168, s. 1983). In whatever way we resolve the instant query, our opinion thereon which is merely advisory ( id ., No. 144, s. 1973), will not be binding upon the parties whose substantive rights may be affected thereby and who may, in all probability, contest our opinion before appropriate court if the said opinion happens to their interest ( id ., No. 128, s. 1977; No. 73. s. 1983). Furthermore, the determination of the issue presented would require an examination of the pertinent provisions of the Local Government Code (R.A. No. 7160), specifically those relating to the taxing power of the local governments (Secs. 128, et al., R.A. No. 7160). However, the interpretation and application of the provisions of the Local Government Code properly fall within the jurisdiction of the Oversight Committee (Sec. 533, R.A. No. 7160) and the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) as the lead agencies designated by the President in the implementation of the said Code (Adm. Order No. 269, s. 1992). By settled policy and precedents, the Secretary of Justice does not rule on issues which, as in the instant case, fall within the primary jurisdiction of another office or agency over which rulings or actions this Department is without revisory authority, unless the request comes from the said office or agency ( id . 5, s. 1997; 57 s. 1996). Finally, whether or not the assailed ordinances contravene the mentioned executive orders is an issue the resolution of which cannot be made without taking a closer look at the cited presidential issuances. Unfortunately, however, the Secretary of Justice, as a matter of settled policy, does not pass upon a presidential issuance, directive, proclamation or executive order, unless so requested by the Office of the President itself (id., No. 16, s. 1994, citing opinions; No. 2, s. 1997). We suggest that the query be addressed to the Oversight Committee and/or the DILG. In the alternative, clarification may also be sought from the Office of the President. Very truly yours, (SGD.) TEOFISTO T. GUINGONA, JR. Secretary