DOJ Decision on Bacolod City Ordinance No. 08-14-700 Regarding Schedule of Market Value of Real Properties

DOJ OPINION NO. 057, s. 2015 August 25, 2015 Councilor Carlos Jose V. Lopez Bacolod Government Center, Circumferential Road, Bacolod City Dear Councilor Lopez: This has reference to your 12 August 2015 letter regarding the following issues: 1. This Department's decision in Bacolod City Ordinance No. 08-14-700, entitled "An Ordinance Updating the Schedule of Market Value of Real Properties in the City of Bacolod and Other Provisions Relative to Real Property Tax Administration" and the legal opinion of the City Legal Officer of Bacolod City; 2. Bacolod City Legal Officer's legal opinion regarding the additional amounts that can be billed for the garbage and sanitary land fill contract; and 3. Whether the City Ordinance entitled "Ordinance Naming the Government Center as the People's House of Bacolod City (PHOB)" violates Section 13 (d) of the Local Government Code. Hereunder are our comments with regard to the aforementioned issues: 1) This Department's decision in City Ordinance No. 08-14-700 vis--vis the legal opinion of the City Legal Officer of Bacolod City Anent the first issue, we would like to state that you did not ask a specific question regarding the matter. Your letter merely states, among others, that the City Legal Officer issued an opinion that it is legal for the city treasurer and assessor to bill your residents with the 2015 rates since there are two pending cases in the Bacolod Regional Trial Court. However, it is not clear what specific query or legal issue is being raised to this Department. Although we received the copy of the 13 March 2015 legal opinion of the City Legal Officer, you should have clearly identified the legal issue that is being raised to this Department. Also, it is not clear what the correlation is of the City Legal Officer's opinion to the two (2) cases pending before the Regional Trial Court. For your reference, however, Section 187 of the Local Government Code provides: IAETDc SEC. 187. Procedure for Approval and Effectivity of Tax Ordinances and Revenue Measures; Mandatory Public Hearings . The procedure for approval of local tax ordinances and revenue measures shall be in accordance with the provisions of this Code: Provided, That public hearings shall be conducted for the purpose prior to the enactment thereof: Provided, further, That any question on the constitutionality or legality of tax ordinances or revenue measures may be raised on appeal within thirty (30) days from the effectivity thereof to the Secretary of Justice who shall render a decision within sixty (60) days from the date of receipt of the appeal: Provided, however, That such appeal shall not have the effect of suspending the effectivity of the ordinance and the accrual and payment of the tax, fee, or charge levied therein: Provided, finally, That within thirty (30) days after receipt of the decision or the lapse of the sixty-day period without the Secretary of Justice acting upon the appeal, the aggrieved party may file appropriate proceedings with a court of competent jurisdiction. 1 In this regard, we reiterate that the power of the Secretary of Justice is limited to the determination on whether or not the municipality, in enacting the ordinance, was performing its functions in accordance with law, that is, with the prescribed procedure in the enactment of tax ordinances and the grant of powers to the municipal government under the LGC. Thus, any issue regarding the actions of the local government unit regarding the implementation of the ordinance should be raised before a court of competent jurisdiction. 2) Legal opinion of the City Legal Officer of Bacolod City on the amounts that can be billed for the garbage and sanitary land fill contract With regard to the second issue, you state that City Legal Officer of Bacolod City issued an opinion which is allegedly contrary to the contract regarding the additional amounts that can be billed for the garbage and sanitary land fill. However, we were not furnished with a copy of garbage and sanitary land fill contract. As a general rule, the Secretary of Justice, as a matter of policy and practice, does not render opinion or give legal advice on issues involving the interpretation of contracts because contract review calls for the legal examination of the contract on a general basis, and not the resolution of specific legal issues. By law, the Secretary of Justice renders opinion only on specific legal questions arising in the performance of the powers and functions of the national government functionary requesting the opinion. 2 3) Whether City Ordinance entitled "Ordinance Naming the Government Center as the People's House of Bacolod City (PHOB)" violates Section 13 (d) of the Local Government Code On the third issue, you mentioned City Ordinance entitled "Ordinance Naming the Government Center as the People's House of Bacolod City (PHOB)".However, copy of the said ordinance was not forwarded to this Office. More importantly, the resolution of the third issue would inevitably require an interpretation and/or examination of the pertinent provisions of Republic Act No. 7160, or they Local Government Code of 1991, which function, however, properly falls within the jurisdiction of the Oversight Committee (Sec. 533, R.A. No. 7160), which is mandated by law to promulgate the rules and regulations necessary for the implementation of the said Code, and the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG), the lead agency designated by the President in the implementation of the Code (Adm. Or. No. 269, s. 1992; Sec. of Justice Op. No. 28, s. 1997). Pursuant to settled policy, the Secretary of Justice does not rule on issues which fall within the primary jurisdiction of another office in this case, the Oversight Committee and the DILG over which rulings or actuations this Department exercises no revisory authority, unless the request comes from such office or agency. 3 Aside from the foregoing discussions on the three (3) issues and based on the facts presented, we would like to add that we cannot act on your request since it does not present the complete factual situation from which this Department may draw its premises and conclusions. Thus, any opinion that the Secretary of Justice might render on the issue would be purely hypothetical and speculative, and, therefore, not determinative of the instant request. 4 Besides, based on our initial perusal of the facts of the instant issues, they involve factual issues. By established precedents, this Office has declined to resolve questions of fact or even mixed questions of fact and law, for the Secretary of Justice, as Attorney-General, is empowered by statute to rule only upon questions of law . 5 Please be guided accordingly. Very truly yours, (SGD.) LEILA M. DE LIMA Secretary Footnotes 1. Local Government Code. 2. Secretary of Justice Op. Nos. 78, 64 & 51, s. 2006, No. 22, s. 2008, and No. 56, 2007. 3. Ibid . Nos. 55, 46, s. 2010; No. 61, s. 2009; No. 16, s. 2006; No. 56, s. 2005. 4. Id . No. 56, s. 1996, and No. 16, s. 2003. 5. Id . No. 222, s. 1956; No. 128, s. 1977 and 192, s. 1982.