DOJ Opinion No. 066, s. 1993

DOJ OPINION NO. 066 , s. 1993 May 26, 1993 Mr. Tagumpay R. Jardiniano Administrator Export Processing Zone authority 4th Floor, Legaspi Towers 300 Roxas Boulevard, Metro Manila Sir : This refers to your request for opinion on the following queries: "1). Whether or not a Municipal Government can ignore the provisions of Article 283 of the Rules and Regulations to Implement the Local Government Code of 1991 declaring that business and economic enterprises operating within export processing zones shall continue to enjoy the tax exemption privileges and incentives granted in P.D. 66 as amended." "2). In connection therewith, whether or not ...Ordinances that may be issued and implemented by the Municipality of Rosario, Cavite against the EPZA enterprises which will interfere, encroach upon and frustrate the exercise by the EPZA of its exclusive jurisdiction and sole police Authority, can be enforced against EPZA enterprises." It appears that in 1992 the Sangguniang Bayan of the Municipality of Rosario, Cavite passed Ordinance No. 03-92 requiring the owner or operator of any residential house, warehouse or bodega and business establishment to secure, prior to their construction, building and electrical permits and pay the corresponding fees, and Ordinance No. 06-92 requiring all private security and janitorial agencies and their personnel operating and working inside and outside the export processing zone to secure a Mayor's permit. You contend that the aforestated ordinances cannot and should not be made to apply to enterprises registered with EPZA and operate within an export zone for the reasons that (1) they are exempt from the payment of any and all local government imposts, fees, licenses or taxes under Sec. 18 of P.D. No. 66, now Article 78 of Executive Order No. 226, otherwise known as 'The Omnibus Investments Code of 1987', (2) R.A. No. 7160, otherwise known as "The Local Government Code of 1991", being a general law, cannot repeal P.D. No. 66, as amended, which is a special law, 93) the withdrawal of the aforesaid tax exemptions is violative of the constitutional prohibition against non-impairment of obligations of contracts: that Ordinance No. 03-92, in requiring the indorsement of the Department of Public Works and Highways for the issuance of permits, encroaches upon EPZA's power to enforce the provisions of P.D. No. 1096 (The National Building Code of the Philippines) and P.D. No. 1716 (amending P.D. No. 66, EPZA Charter); that the EPZA's exercise of exclusive jurisdiction and sole police authority over all areas owned or administered by it has been recognized by this Department in Opinion No. 104, series 1974; and that the Mayor's exercise of control and supervision over EPZA firms through Ordinance no. 06-92 is a duplication of the power of control of EPZA by virtue of P.D. No. 66, as amended. We regret we have to decline rendition of the opinion requested. In resolving your queries, we will inevitably be passing on the validity of duly-enacted ordinances of a local government unit, an issue which, by well-settled precedents, the Secretary of Justice invariably refrains from acting upon since its resolution properly belongs to the court (Secretary of Justice Opns. No. 20, s. 1961; No. 13, s. 1977, No. 181, s. 1964 and No. 123, s. 1985). An ordinance carries with it the presumption of validity although the question of its reasonableness is open to judicial inquiry ( Id ., No. 123, s. 1985, supra citing Victories Milling Co. vs. Mun. of Victorias, Negros Occidental, 25 SCRA 192). The only instance wherein the Secretary of Justice can review ordinances is when a question regarding the constitutionality or legality of local tax ordinances or revenue measures is raised on appeal pursuant to Section 187, Chapter 5 of the local Government Code of 1991. prcd Very truly yours, (SGD.) FRANKLIN M. DRILON Secretary