DOJ Opinion No. 093, s. 1982

DOJ OPINION NO. 093 , s. 1982 June 16, 1982 Mr. Patrocinio B. Murallon Kalihim, Sangguniang Bayan of Mandaon Mandaon, Masbate Sir : This is with reference to Resolution No. 16 dated April 5, 1982, of the Sangguniang Bayan of Mandaon, Masbate, appealing, pursuant to Section 47 of the Local Tax Code, from the opinion of the provincial fiscal of Masbate ruling that Tax Ordinances No. 11, s. 1980 and No. 13-A, s. 1981 of the said Sangguniang Bayan are illegal. The fiscal opined that the provision of section 1 of Ordinance No. 11 requiring "every fish vendor, selling fish and other sea product to capitalist buyer/buyers" "to pay 0.25 per kilo of fish and other sea products sold in a form of cash tickets" is contrary to section 5(k) of the Local Tax Code which provides that local governments may not impose "taxes or fees on agricultural products when sold by the farmer, fisherman, poultry or animal raiser himself." The fiscal further opined that Ordinance No. 13-A constitutes "unjust taxation" when it makes a "double imposition of taxes on the articles bagged, crated and packed, one for the certification of the contents per kilo and the other for service fee per container." Under Section 47 of the Local Tax Code, the Minister of Justice may review on appeal the opinion of a provincial or city fiscal on "any question or issue raised against the legality of any tax ordinance, or portion thereof, on ground other than those mentioned in Section 44 of this [the Local Tax] Code." Upon the other hand, Section 44 refers to the review of a tax ordinance by the Minister of Finance . The grounds mentioned in Section 44, are that the "tax or fee therein levied or imposed is unjust , excessive, oppressive or confiscatory, or not among those that the particular local government may impose in the exercise of its power in accordance with this Code ", or when the 'tax ordinance is, in whole or in part, contrary to declared national economic policy, or when the ordinance is discriminatory in nature on the conduct of business or calling or in restraint of trade". It is readily seen that the grounds upon which the provincial fiscal premised his ruling that the subject tax ordinances are invalid are among those mentioned in Section 44 of the Local Tax Code. Thus, he assails the validity of Ordinance No. 11 on the ground that the fee imposed therein is not among those that the municipality may impose in the exercise of its taxing powers under Section 5(k) of the said Code, and that of Ordinance No. 13-A, on the ground that it constitutes "unjust taxation". Consequently, the question of the validity of the tax ordinance in the instant case falls within the purview of the revisory authority of the Minister of Finance, and not the Minister of Justice. LexLib Wherefore, the undersigned finds that the present petition for review does not raise an issue which would appropriately place the same within the revisory authority of the Minister of Justice as defined in Section 47, supra , and is thus constrained to forbear taking cognizance of the same for lack of authority. Very truly yours, (SGD.) RICARDO C. PUNO Minister of Justice