DOJ Opinion No. 084, s. 1996

DOJ OPINION NO. 084 , s. 1996 August 30, 1996 Director General Lilia B. De Lima Philippine Economic Zone Authority 4/F Legaspi Towers 300 Roxas Boulevard Metro Manila M a d a m : This has reference to your request for legal opinion as to which government agency the Philippine Economic Zone Authority (PEZA) or the Philippine Coast Guard (PCG) has a better right to possess, occupy and utilize a parcel of land, identified as Lot 4699 in Ibo, Lapu-Lapu City, where the PCG's lighthouse station is located. LLjur You state that the disputed lot falls within the proclaimed boundaries of the Mactan Export Processing Zone (now Mactan Ecozone) pursuant to Presidential Proclamation No. 1811 (January 15, 1979). Subject lot is currently leased by the Mactan Power Corporation for the installation and operation of an electric generating facility. Upon the other hand, the PCG is insisting on its right to occupy the said lot on the strength of Executive Order No. 60 (July 28, 1903) which reserved for lighthouse purposes and withdrew from sale or settlement the subject lot. Meanwhile, a certain Leoncio Cuison has declared the lot in his name for tax purposes. The PCG, while not contesting the cited proclamation, nonetheless seeks an official ruling on the matter prior to any discussion on the relocation of its lighthouse. With deep regret, this Office is constrained to decline rendition of the requested opinion. The instant request would inevitably require a review of the Presidential issuances, namely, Proclamation No. 1811 and Executive Order No. 60. Established precedents however forbid this Office from passing upon questions which involve the interpretation/clarification of the official issuances of the President for the reasons that unless the President declares otherwise, it is his office which is competent to undertake such interpretation/clarification (Sec. of Justice Opn. No. 35, s. 1996; No. 148, s. 1990). Moreover, the resolution of the issue would also involve an inquiry into the facts, that is whether the territorial boundaries of PEZA cover the subject lot. By well-settled practice and precedents, the Secretary of Justice has consistently refrained from passing upon factual issues or legal questions mixed with factual matters, since by law, this Office is mandated to resolve purely legal issues (Sec. of Justice Op. Nos. 1 and 54, s. 1996). Besides, the subject matter of your request involves the substantive right of a private party, in this case Leoncio Cuison who has declared the property in his name for taxation purposes. Since the opinion of the Secretary of Justice is merely advisory in nature, such opinion would not be binding upon said private party who, if adversely affected by such opinion, may take issue therewith and contest it before the courts. Pursuant to established policy, the Secretary of Justice has consistently refrained from rendering opinion on questions which are justiciable in nature or which may be the subject of a judicial controversy (Sec. of Justice Op. No. 3, s. 1994; No. 1, s. 1996). Very truly yours, (SGD.) TEOFISTO T. GUINGONA, JR. Secretary