DOJ Opinion No. 084, s. 1984

DOJ OPINION NO. 084 , s. 1984 May 16, 1984 Mr. Antonio L. Fernandez Barangay Santa Lucia 222 Lion Road San Juan, Metro Manila Sir : This refers to your request for legal opinion on your queries relating to the power of the barangay captain and the members of the Pangkat ng Tagapagkasundo, the conciliation panel constituted under P.D. No. 1508, otherwise known as the "Katarungang Pambarangay Law" to administer oaths pursuant to Section 15 of said Decree. Particularly, you seek opinion on: (1) the legality or validity of the execution of a document and the administration of the oath of the parties thereto on August 29, 1981, a Saturday, and where the residence certificates of the three (3) of the parties which were noted in the document were issued on September 1, 1981; and (2) whether or not the members of the Pangkat are allowed to administer oaths without requiring the presentation of the residence certificates as provided for in Section 6, Commonwealth Act (C.A.) No. 465 and Section 251 of the Revised Administrative Code. We regret to inform you that the Minister of Justice would have to decline opinion on your queries with the exception of that concerning the applicability of Section 251 of the Revised Administrative Code to the administration of oaths by the members of the Pangkat under the provision of Section 15 of P.D. No. 1508. cdlex We note that the jurat affixed to the document referred to in your first query was signed by Circuit Judge Domingo R. de Guzman. Judges are under the administrative supervision of the Supreme Court (Section 6, Article X, Constitution) and the Minister of Justice has no revisory authority over judges. Considering the constitutional separation of powers between the executive and the judicial branches of the government and the independence of the judiciary, the Minister of Justice refrains from rendering opinion on queries which are judicial in character or where the opinion would constitute an encroachment upon a judicial function or prerogative. (MJ Memorandum Circular No. 1, dated January 12, 1982, par 14.2.3) Regarding your second query, it is worthwhile to mention that Section 6 of Commonwealth Act No. 465, "An Act to Impose A Residence Tax" which is cited in your query is now incorporated in Section 38(g) of the Local Tax Code which reads: "(g) Presentation of residence certificate upon certain occasions. When a person liable to the taxes prescribed in this Section acknowledges any document before a notary public, takes the oath of office upon election or appointment to any position in the government service; receives any license, certificate of permit from any public authority, pays any tax or fee, receives any money from any public fund, or transacts other official business, or receives any salary or wage from any person or corporation it shall be the duty of such persons or officer of such corporation with whom such transaction is had or business done or from whom any salary of wage is received to require the exhibition of the residence certificate showing the payment of the residence taxes by such person. The presentation of the residence certificate shall not be required in connection with the registration of a voter . . ." Under the said Code, the Minister of Finance is vested with the following authority: "Section 38 (j) Authority of the Secretary [Minister] of Finance to promulgate rules and regulations . The Secretary [Minister] of Finance shall promulgate all rules and regulations for the effective enforcement of the provisions of this Section." The Minister of Justice would also have to decline to render opinion on your query relating to the enforcement or implementation of Section 38(g) of the Local Government Code. As a matter of policy and by established precedents, the Minister of Justice refrains from rendering opinions on queries which involve matter falling within the competence of a coordinate and co-equal department of the government except upon request of its head of office. The query referred to above should, therefore, be raised before the Minister of Finance pursuant to his functions under the Local Tax Code. LexLib With respect to your query as to the applicability of Section 251 of the Revised Administrative Code to oaths administered by the members of the Pangkat, we are rendering the opinion that the provision of said Section which requires the notation of (cedula) residence tax does not apply to oaths administered by members of the Pangkat in the course of a settlement proceeding. The aforesaid provision of law is quoted as follows: "Sec. 251. Requirement as to notation of payment of residence tax . Every contract, deed or other document acknowledged before a notary public shall have certified thereon that the parties thereto have presented their proper residence certificates or are exempt from the residence tax and there shall be entered by the notary public as a part of such certification the number, the place of issue, and date of each residence certificate as aforesaid". (emphasis supplied) The provision of P.D. No. 1508 vesting upon the Barangay Captain and the members of the Pangkat the power to administer oaths reads: "SECTION 15. Power to administer oaths . The Barangay Captain and members of the Pangkat are hereby authorized to administer oaths in connection with any matter relating to all proceedings provided for in this Decree." Rule III of the Katarungang Pambarangay Rules which implements the aforequoted provision of Section 15 of P.D. No. 1508 reads as follows: "SECTION 1. Barangay Captain . The Barangay Captain as chairman of the Lupon shall have and perform the following powers and duties: "xxx xxx xxx "(2) Administer oaths in connection with any matter relating to all disputes brought for settlement in the barangay; "xxx xxx xxx "SECTION 4. Pangkat Chairman . The chairman of the Pangkat shall be chosen by the majority vote of its three (3) members and shall have the following powers and duties: "(a) Preside over all hearings conducted by the Pangkat and administer oaths in connection with any matter relating to all disputes brought for settlement before said body;" cdll Section 251 of the Revised Administrative Code speaks of a "contract, deed or other document acknowledged before a notary public". The barangay captain, the members of the Lupon and the Pangkat are not exercising functions of a notary public or of a notary public ex officio. The function of the said local officials to administer oaths is limited in its coverage, that is, to matters related to the conciliation, mediation or arbitration proceedings conducted pursuant to P.D. No. 1508. In view of the foregoing, we reiterate our opinion that Section 251 of the Revised Administrative Code does not apply to the administration of oaths of the barangay captain and members of the Pangkat under the provisions of P.D. No. 1508. For the Minister of Justice: (SGD.) JESUS N. BORROMEO Deputy Minister