DOJ Opinion No. 070, s. 1989

DOJ OPINION NO. 070 , s. 1989 March 30, 1989 The Chairman Task Force Anti-Gambling Rm. 114, Administrative Bldg. Malacaang, Manila Sir : This refers to your letter of the 14th instant requesting reconsideration of this Department's Opinion No. 51, series 1988 holding (1) that family home computers do not fall within the purview of LOI No. 1176, and (2) that your Office is without authority to destroy gambling devices after their seizure/confiscation. You state that your Office has been receiving complaints of parents against operators of family home computers and other video machines, which have preoccupied schoolchildren during their off-hours, and even during school hours. Thus, you now request for the reexamination of the abovesaid opinion so that Office can "fully implement [LOI No. 1176] as to [the] destruction of video machines and even family home computers operated for profit." Regarding the issue of the coverage of LOI No. 1176, you appear to make a distinction between family home computers for personal use and those operated for business purposes. We find no legal basis for such differentiation. Indeed, there is actually nothing to distinguish in the instant case since family home computers, as the subject opinion ruled, do not fall within the law's contemplation. As explained in said opinion. "True, the phrase "video machine" is broad and sweeping enough to include family home computers. But a literal interpretation of this phrase would lead to an absurd conclusion since it would include such innocuous devices as video cassette recorders (popularly known as "betamax") and television receiving sets. The rule is that statutory provisions should not be construed in a manner that would lead to unreasonable and absurd results (Crawford, Statutory Construction, pp. 288-289). Besides, family home computers were not yet in use in the country at the time of the promulgation of the abovesaid issuances and therefore, they could not have been contemplated by the lawmaking authority." Anent the question of your agency's authority to destroy seized video machines, we likewise can not reconsider our view thereon. It is noted that LOI No. 1176 was issued only in implementation of P.D. No. 519, and we find nothing in said P.D. empowering any public official to destroy gambling devices. It bars emphasis that the LOI was issued by then President Marcos as an interpretative regulation of P.D. No. 519; hence, it cannot amend the latter. Moreover, the arbitrary character of the directive in the LOI "to forthwith take over or cause the taking over the possession of [gambling] devices wherever they may be found and to completely destroy" them does violence to the due process requirements of the Constitution. It is pertinent to note that under the Tariff and Customs Code, while the Bureau of Customs may cause the destruction of contraband goods after their seizure/confiscation (Sec. 2609 [d]), this authority may be exercise only after the observance of administrative proceedings prescribed therein which afford the owner or claimant of the goods an opportunity to be heard and to appeal any adverse ruling therein (see Title VI). prcd We recognize the detrimental consequences of the proliferation of business establishments engaged in the operation of video machines, including family home computers, upon schoolchildren. We believe, however, that the remedy does not lie in the executive interpretation of LOI No. 1176, but in the adoption of appropriate legislation on this perceived social problem. Besides, we believe that the immediate objective behind the LOI to have video machines destroyed right after their seizure, namely, to stop their use by the public, may be attained by complying with existing procedures prescribed by law. We regret therefore our inability grant your present request. Very truly yours, (SGD.) SEDFREY A. ORDOEZ Secretary of Justice