DOJ Opinion No. 069, s. 1994

DOJ OPINION NO. 069 , s. 1994 May 6, 1994 Ms. Leonora Vasquez-De Jesus Head, Presidential Management Staff and Secretary to the Cabinet Malacaang, Manila M a d a m : This refers to your request for opinion on whether or not the Film Development Foundation of the Philippines (FDFP), a government foundation created by virtue of Executive Order No. 1051 dated August 8, 1985, has authority "to collect 30% of the Amusement Tax for quality films it has rated and 20% of the P0.25 Cultural Development Tax from the local Government units." You state that the FDFP has absorbed the power and functions, among others, of the Film Ratings board (FRB) and Experimental Cinema of the Philippines (ECP), which were previous recipients of the aforesaid taxes. You further state that the President has recently reactivated the FDFP by reconstituting its Board following the Securities and Exchange Commission Rules and Regulations, and that you are now looking into the provisions of the institutional funding support for the Foundation to allow it to grant incentives to quality films that it has rated. LLphil We take it that the above query was prompted by: (a) the Memorandum of Mr. Mauro G. Calaguio, MMC Commissioner for Finance, dated March 26, 1986 addressed to all City/Municipal Treasurers of Metropolitan Manila re: Suspension of Remittance of Amusement Taxes of Films/Pictures Rated by the Film Ratings Board to the ECP foundation; and (b) the letter of MMA General Manager Mr. Robert C. Nacianceno dated August 20, 1992 addressed to the FDFP stating that it is the MMA's view that FDFP cannot simply claim as the successor of the EDP with respect to the Cultural Development Tax since this is not provided under Executive Order No. 1051, considering further that both entities have different juridical personalities" (Emphasis supplied). This Office deeply regrets that it cannot with propriety render the opinion requested herein considering that the query involves the actuations/rulings of the Commissioner for Finance of the then Metropolitan Manila Commission (now Metropolitan Manila Authority), and the General Manager himself of the said Authority, This is in consonance with settled policy and precedents which dictate that the Secretary of Justice refrain from passing upon the actions and/or actuations of officials/officers of an office or agency over whom the Secretary of Justice exercises no revisory authority , unless requested by the head of the such office or agency (Secretary of Justice Op. No. 91, s. 1982; No. 9, s. 1980; No, 99, s.1978). Nonetheless, for your information and guidance we invite attention to following provision of Section 9 of E.O. No. 392, which you may find enlightening: "Sec. 9. The Authority, the Council, the Chairman of the Council, and Metropolitan Manager shall be under the direct supervision of the President of the Philippines. The President shall have the power to revoke, amend or modify any rule, resolution or act of the Authority, the Council and the Metropolitan Manager . (emphasis supplied) Very truly yours, (SGD.) FRANKLIN M. DRILON Secretary