DOJ Opinion No. 061, s. 2000

DOJ OPINION NO. 061 , s. 2000 July 24, 2000 Secretary Benjamin L. Diokno Department of Budget and Management Malacaang, Manila Sir : This refers to your request for opinion on the queries stated therein relating to the alleged "cut" made by Congress in the Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA) share of Local Government Units (LGUs) in the General Appropriations Bill (GAB) for Fiscal Year 2000 (House Bill No. 8374). Specifically, the following issues are raised: cdll "(1) Is the reduction made by Congress on the IRA of LGUs valid? "(2) Can the President veto the entire item of appropriation on IRA and subsequently invoke Section 6, Article X of the Constitution and Section 284 of RA 7160 in authorizing the release of the just share of LGU in the internal revenue?" You state that pursuant to Section 284 of the Local Government Code of 1991 (R.A. No. 7160), LGUs have a forty percent (40%) share in the national internal revenue taxes based on the collection of the third fiscal year (1998) preceding the current FY (2000); that as proposed in the FY 2000 National Expenditure Program (NEP) submitted by the President to Congress, the IRR share of LGUs was, thus, determined to be P122 billion; that in the FY 2000 GAB, the LGUs IRA was, however, reduced by P10 billion, and which amount was instead transferred to the "Unprogrammed Fund"; that the "Unprogrammed Fund" contains a special provision to the effect that the P10-B IRA shall be "released only when the original revenue targets . . . are realized"; and that if "the revenue targets shall not be realized", the President shall make adjustment in the IRA of LGUs pursuant to Section 284 of R.A. No. 7160. You also state that under Section 6, Article X of the present Constitution, LGUs are entitled to a "just share, as determined by law, in the national taxes which shall be automatically released to them"; and that the said share is "already fixed and determined" in Section 284 of R.A. No. 7160 which, for FY 2000, was determined to be P122 Billion. With regret, we have decline to render the opinion requested for the following reasons: First . Pursuant to settled policy and precedents, the Secretary of Justice has consistently desisted from passing upon issues which would inevitably require a review of the official actions and/or actuations of a co-equal and coordinate branch, the Congress in this case, and over which this Department has neither supervisory nor revisory authority (Sec. of Justice Ops. No. 72, s. 1998; No. 66, s. 1972, citing opinions). Second . The issues are now moot and academic since the President has not, in fact, vetoed the subject provisions. For this reason, the Secretary of Justice must also decline to rule thereon ( id ., No. 101, s. 1988; No. 197, s. 1989). Very truly yours, (SGD.) ARTEMIO G. TUQUERO Secretary